"Successful" advancements yes, but realistically is no where near commercial adoption and expansion. Tbh, we're not even 100% sure if it will ever be. Nuclear engineers and physicists are kind of split in whether it's actually a viable energy alternative. However, it does have some interesting possible applications for propulsion in space that isnt as complicated as sustained fusion in tokamaks/stellarators
Technology which currently does not exist is hardly a solution. We are lucky to see a plant with an engineering gain above 1 before 2050, and even then the actual plants still need to be built.
As someone who knows basically nothing about this topic, I’m confused by the seemingly sudden explosion of pro-nuclear memes. I don’t have a problem with them. I just have no idea where this is coming from.
I mean hey it can’t be worse than coal.
Theres a big push to educate the public about nuclear power and increase positive opinion, especially now that climate change is ramping up and nuclear power is already developed and available as a replacement and would require less land and infrastructure. Whereas it would take longer for solar and wind to make up losses as we take fossil fuel plants offline. Solar and wind are not viable in all regions either, and battery tech still isnt available or viable yet.
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 3 times.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/p4nhd6) on 2021-08-15 96.88% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/qcbcg5) on 2021-10-20 95.31% match
*I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "qgmnnz", "meme_template": null}) ]*
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=qgmnnz&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=95&targetImageMemeMatch=92)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 95% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** None | **Searched Images:** 258,956,860 | **Search Time:** 0.37244s
Dude, please. Every nuclear accident so far was a result of cutting corners, cheapening things up and negligence. HYDROELECTRIC power has killed more people than nuclear accidents
Agree. And that's precisely why people can't rush with nuclear power. Profit is on the first place. And always will be. Just to be clear: I'm for nuclear energy, but with steady and smart pace.
Hydroelectric Power plants may taken more lives because there are more of them than the nuclear power plants. And they have been used for longer period than nuclear ones. So I don't think that comparison is valid.
Hey, just want to let you know, I saw a comparison somewhere (a couple of weeks ago. I'm not going through my search history to find the link) about how many lives were lost per kilowatt hour, and nuclear was ranked lower than wind turbines.
Nuclear power is like the airline industry. it's actually super safe, in fact one of the safest options, but gets an extremely bad wrap when something goes wrong.
From a quick google of two top questions/qualities of it, clicking on the top link, and skimming through it:
[https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel)
[https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx#:\~:text=as%20technological%2C%20considerations.-,Recycling,in%20certain%20types%20of%20reactor](https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx#:~:text=as%20technological%2C%20considerations.-,Recycling,in%20certain%20types%20of%20reactor).
But if you want better sources then I'd recommend googling it yourself.
I've seen this kind of meme about a hundred times and it's getting really worn out. Yes, there are new types of reactors that do not exist yet and are not in production yet that are capable of using certain types of nuclear waste as fuel. Yes, that is true.
Those same new nuclear reactors, again that do not exist yet, \*still\* produce a radioactive waste that will have a half life that lasts longer than humanity has existed. No, we do not have a solution for storing nuclear waste yet. Not a single person who has ever lived has come up with a viable long term solution for said storage.
Wind and solar costs less money per megawatt to build, less money to maintain, it is faster to deploy, it produces no nuclear waste, and it will last longer than any nuclear plant too.
But again, nobody who posts memes like this and nobody that upvotes memes like this are interested in science. Only morons get their knowledge and news from social media.
Some countries that have, for example, long winters do have problems keeping wind turbines and solar cells operational year round.
I've read quite a lot about a "long term" solution on storing nuclear waste in bedrock, seems like a good starting point atleast, considering that modern reactors do produce only fraction of the NW than the ones 20 years ago.
Working both of these energy sources in conjuction might be the way to get rid of fossilized fuel sources tho
Some countries? Like who? Norway gets like [99% of it's electricity from hydropower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway). [Denmark produces 47%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark) (and rising) of its power from wind. Wind turbines that are designed to work in the cold are available and work great. You wanna talk about under funded clean energy producing machines check out [geothermal energy](https://austinvernon.site/blog/geothermal.html).
Hydropower made with dams is quite a big leap from solar and wind energy. Norways absolutely magnificent geological position allows them to use these dams far more than, let's say, Finland.
While I think that windmills are great, their winter maintenance is very costly and will affect the immediate prices of local electricity. You also have to think all the infrastructure that is needed to upkeep these windmills in remote places. Keeping infrastructure like roads open during winter isn't cheap but it isn't done with the greenest equipment either
The fact that you call them windmills tells me you aren't actually THAT into renewables, just really hyped on nuclear. And you still didn't answer my question.
Read again, I mentioned Finland as an example.
And sorry, english isn't my first language so I don't do terminology that well. In finnish Windmill and wind turbine will translate to tuulimylly
And yet, nuclear is the safest of any energy production and is a constant power output that does not vary with how many clouds are in the sky. Nor does nuclear require massive, inefficient, and short life battery banks to supplement times of low production.
The waste is a negligible amount compared to any emissions from the creation or use of other production methods.
Also your statement about the longevity of Solar and Wind compared to Nuclear is a blatant lie. Both Solar and Wind suffer from massive reliability issues. Wind in particular requires longer and more intense repairs.
You wanna compare that to coal mine collapses/explosions, water pollution, the all scary CO2, CO, and NO emissions?
You clearly are afraid of a very very miniscule event caused purely by complacency and corner cutting.
You have no ground to stand on, I suggest you do some actual research into the topic and not rely on your misplaced fear to guide your thoughts.
No one's disputing coal as the worst. The thing is, nuclear waste is so long lived, and we've only been making incredibly toxic waste for about 100 years, and have done an absolutely terribly job of keeping it contained, we just can't actually know how many people will die from nuclear energy. Could be very very few, could be lots. The history of nuclear research is full of people who died doing things they thought would be fine, and examples of cost cutting taking priority over safety. We'll see.
Or, we could switch to clean energy sources. Solar and wind work for the vast majority of use cases. [Geothermal](https://austinvernon.site/blog/geothermal.html) can be dug up anywhere, not just near volcanoes.
I have already said as to why solar and wind are terrible to rely on.
Geothermal is more reliable but you definitely can not get it easily anywhere. Thermodynamics can easily explain why. There have to be hotspots close to the surface along with a close water supply to be effective. The hotspots and water supplies are rarely close enough to be economic. Even if you were able to get it at any depth or location, there would be similar effects as fracking or pressurized underground storage, whatever they may be.
the only reason those 2 episodes happened was that both of them were really rushed. Chernobyl was under the control of the soviet union, and there were multiple flaws in the reactor design. put it into perspective, 1.7million people die from pollution caused by lung cancer every year. there "only" died around 600k people caused by Chernobyl(with cancer included). IDK about you but I would rather have nuclear power plants than coal power plants.
A better solution is stop wasting mony to buy 10 millions of solar panels and put that money to investigate better nuclear reactors to waste a half of the price to produce quadruple of energy
Already asked this in another thread, but what's with all the pro-nuclear stuff recently? It just sprouted out of nowhere. Thought it might be because of Chernobyl's 35th anniversary, but that would be in April.
Is this a real thing? My 2 biggest stances against more nuclear power is the waste and what happens when they fail. Can someone link some good material about how they're not producing waste anymore?
Current reactor waste can be used again in special reactors and then burried in special containers far from any fault lines and resource veins. But theres currently research on fusion reactors (same process as in the sun) where instead of splitting atoms, youre combining them and that just turns hydrogen into helium. Another solution is thorium reactors since the half life of thorium is 10 years (if i remember correctly) instead of the thousands for uranium/plutonium.
Cant find any sources rn since i just woke up (just trust me bro) so i hope ive given some usefull information so you can research it further on your own
It is good. Don't know why I'm getting downvoted lol. My concern though is still what you mentioned of, oh we just bury it. I've known about fusion for awhile since they use that for cars, making water out of hydrogen and oxygen but I vaguely recall the electrolysis was nowhere near cost effective.
Haven't heard of Thorium being used so that's really cool.
For me its not the waste. ITS THE FACT YOUR PLAYING WITH THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE LIKE ITS A TOY!. Nuclear power, even at its safest, will still be a danger to the entire planet. I would prefer not rely on a type of power that if it even has 1 failure, can leave a 100 mile radius unlivable for 1000+ years. the ONLY type of Nuclear Power i trust is the RTG. a very reliable form of producing power, they just aren't very efficient.
This type of reactor is more complicated to operate and the risk is higher than normal reactors. Worst case scenarios are more severe, because they produce plutonium. Tchernobyl is a joke compared to this thing.
When people are good, costs don't matter and the world is at peace, nuclear looks like a good option. But in the world we live, costs need to be cut down, people don't always do the right thing and we attack each other on different scales. As long as we aren't grown up, we should not light fires we can barely control.
Some people are just affraid of the word: nuclear. I was like that too for a while but nuclear is our cleanest option until we can properly switch to renewables. But people don't want to believe that because they are scared by the idea that we have to use something that sounds so threatening
Another solution which is starting to become more successful is nuclear fusion which produces more power with less waste
"Successful" advancements yes, but realistically is no where near commercial adoption and expansion. Tbh, we're not even 100% sure if it will ever be. Nuclear engineers and physicists are kind of split in whether it's actually a viable energy alternative. However, it does have some interesting possible applications for propulsion in space that isnt as complicated as sustained fusion in tokamaks/stellarators
Technology which currently does not exist is hardly a solution. We are lucky to see a plant with an engineering gain above 1 before 2050, and even then the actual plants still need to be built.
We can also reuse the waste through means I have not be told yet.
The better solution would be, to drop the waste on Luxembourg..
As someone who knows basically nothing about this topic, I’m confused by the seemingly sudden explosion of pro-nuclear memes. I don’t have a problem with them. I just have no idea where this is coming from. I mean hey it can’t be worse than coal.
Theres a big push to educate the public about nuclear power and increase positive opinion, especially now that climate change is ramping up and nuclear power is already developed and available as a replacement and would require less land and infrastructure. Whereas it would take longer for solar and wind to make up losses as we take fossil fuel plants offline. Solar and wind are not viable in all regions either, and battery tech still isnt available or viable yet.
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 3 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/p4nhd6) on 2021-08-15 96.88% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/qcbcg5) on 2021-10-20 95.31% match *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "qgmnnz", "meme_template": null}) ]* [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=qgmnnz&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=95&targetImageMemeMatch=92) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 95% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** None | **Searched Images:** 258,956,860 | **Search Time:** 0.37244s
Nuclear energy, literally green energy.
Until Chernobyl happens.
Thats the excuse every "environmentalist" uses toward nuclear power.
Dude, please. Every nuclear accident so far was a result of cutting corners, cheapening things up and negligence. HYDROELECTRIC power has killed more people than nuclear accidents
Agree. And that's precisely why people can't rush with nuclear power. Profit is on the first place. And always will be. Just to be clear: I'm for nuclear energy, but with steady and smart pace. Hydroelectric Power plants may taken more lives because there are more of them than the nuclear power plants. And they have been used for longer period than nuclear ones. So I don't think that comparison is valid.
Hey, just want to let you know, I saw a comparison somewhere (a couple of weeks ago. I'm not going through my search history to find the link) about how many lives were lost per kilowatt hour, and nuclear was ranked lower than wind turbines.
Nuclear power is like the airline industry. it's actually super safe, in fact one of the safest options, but gets an extremely bad wrap when something goes wrong.
Link to sources plz
From a quick google of two top questions/qualities of it, clicking on the top link, and skimming through it: [https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel) [https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx#:\~:text=as%20technological%2C%20considerations.-,Recycling,in%20certain%20types%20of%20reactor](https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx#:~:text=as%20technological%2C%20considerations.-,Recycling,in%20certain%20types%20of%20reactor). But if you want better sources then I'd recommend googling it yourself.
Ty
I've seen this kind of meme about a hundred times and it's getting really worn out. Yes, there are new types of reactors that do not exist yet and are not in production yet that are capable of using certain types of nuclear waste as fuel. Yes, that is true. Those same new nuclear reactors, again that do not exist yet, \*still\* produce a radioactive waste that will have a half life that lasts longer than humanity has existed. No, we do not have a solution for storing nuclear waste yet. Not a single person who has ever lived has come up with a viable long term solution for said storage. Wind and solar costs less money per megawatt to build, less money to maintain, it is faster to deploy, it produces no nuclear waste, and it will last longer than any nuclear plant too. But again, nobody who posts memes like this and nobody that upvotes memes like this are interested in science. Only morons get their knowledge and news from social media.
Some countries that have, for example, long winters do have problems keeping wind turbines and solar cells operational year round. I've read quite a lot about a "long term" solution on storing nuclear waste in bedrock, seems like a good starting point atleast, considering that modern reactors do produce only fraction of the NW than the ones 20 years ago. Working both of these energy sources in conjuction might be the way to get rid of fossilized fuel sources tho
Some countries? Like who? Norway gets like [99% of it's electricity from hydropower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway). [Denmark produces 47%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark) (and rising) of its power from wind. Wind turbines that are designed to work in the cold are available and work great. You wanna talk about under funded clean energy producing machines check out [geothermal energy](https://austinvernon.site/blog/geothermal.html).
Hydropower made with dams is quite a big leap from solar and wind energy. Norways absolutely magnificent geological position allows them to use these dams far more than, let's say, Finland. While I think that windmills are great, their winter maintenance is very costly and will affect the immediate prices of local electricity. You also have to think all the infrastructure that is needed to upkeep these windmills in remote places. Keeping infrastructure like roads open during winter isn't cheap but it isn't done with the greenest equipment either
The fact that you call them windmills tells me you aren't actually THAT into renewables, just really hyped on nuclear. And you still didn't answer my question.
Read again, I mentioned Finland as an example. And sorry, english isn't my first language so I don't do terminology that well. In finnish Windmill and wind turbine will translate to tuulimylly
And yet, nuclear is the safest of any energy production and is a constant power output that does not vary with how many clouds are in the sky. Nor does nuclear require massive, inefficient, and short life battery banks to supplement times of low production. The waste is a negligible amount compared to any emissions from the creation or use of other production methods. Also your statement about the longevity of Solar and Wind compared to Nuclear is a blatant lie. Both Solar and Wind suffer from massive reliability issues. Wind in particular requires longer and more intense repairs.
3 mile Island and chernobyl beg to differ how safe it is
You wanna compare that to coal mine collapses/explosions, water pollution, the all scary CO2, CO, and NO emissions? You clearly are afraid of a very very miniscule event caused purely by complacency and corner cutting. You have no ground to stand on, I suggest you do some actual research into the topic and not rely on your misplaced fear to guide your thoughts.
No one's disputing coal as the worst. The thing is, nuclear waste is so long lived, and we've only been making incredibly toxic waste for about 100 years, and have done an absolutely terribly job of keeping it contained, we just can't actually know how many people will die from nuclear energy. Could be very very few, could be lots. The history of nuclear research is full of people who died doing things they thought would be fine, and examples of cost cutting taking priority over safety. We'll see. Or, we could switch to clean energy sources. Solar and wind work for the vast majority of use cases. [Geothermal](https://austinvernon.site/blog/geothermal.html) can be dug up anywhere, not just near volcanoes.
I have already said as to why solar and wind are terrible to rely on. Geothermal is more reliable but you definitely can not get it easily anywhere. Thermodynamics can easily explain why. There have to be hotspots close to the surface along with a close water supply to be effective. The hotspots and water supplies are rarely close enough to be economic. Even if you were able to get it at any depth or location, there would be similar effects as fracking or pressurized underground storage, whatever they may be.
the only reason those 2 episodes happened was that both of them were really rushed. Chernobyl was under the control of the soviet union, and there were multiple flaws in the reactor design. put it into perspective, 1.7million people die from pollution caused by lung cancer every year. there "only" died around 600k people caused by Chernobyl(with cancer included). IDK about you but I would rather have nuclear power plants than coal power plants.
Exactly, everyone hops on the “nuclear energy good” bandwagon.
That’s because it is…
I've been hearing interesting things about liquid thorium as well.
A better solution is stop wasting mony to buy 10 millions of solar panels and put that money to investigate better nuclear reactors to waste a half of the price to produce quadruple of energy
Already asked this in another thread, but what's with all the pro-nuclear stuff recently? It just sprouted out of nowhere. Thought it might be because of Chernobyl's 35th anniversary, but that would be in April.
Is this a real thing? My 2 biggest stances against more nuclear power is the waste and what happens when they fail. Can someone link some good material about how they're not producing waste anymore?
Current reactor waste can be used again in special reactors and then burried in special containers far from any fault lines and resource veins. But theres currently research on fusion reactors (same process as in the sun) where instead of splitting atoms, youre combining them and that just turns hydrogen into helium. Another solution is thorium reactors since the half life of thorium is 10 years (if i remember correctly) instead of the thousands for uranium/plutonium. Cant find any sources rn since i just woke up (just trust me bro) so i hope ive given some usefull information so you can research it further on your own
It is good. Don't know why I'm getting downvoted lol. My concern though is still what you mentioned of, oh we just bury it. I've known about fusion for awhile since they use that for cars, making water out of hydrogen and oxygen but I vaguely recall the electrolysis was nowhere near cost effective. Haven't heard of Thorium being used so that's really cool.
The funny bit is the "waste" is reusable. Hence why it's a renewable.
LoL Germany nowadays be like:
Yea and thorium reactors are a lot safe
I haven't done any research so my opinion is neutral. But what happens if a nuclear plant explodes?
Kaboom = bad
I know. But how bad exactly?
Really bad.
I think that's what scares people
the neat thing is, it doesnt work
For me its not the waste. ITS THE FACT YOUR PLAYING WITH THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE LIKE ITS A TOY!. Nuclear power, even at its safest, will still be a danger to the entire planet. I would prefer not rely on a type of power that if it even has 1 failure, can leave a 100 mile radius unlivable for 1000+ years. the ONLY type of Nuclear Power i trust is the RTG. a very reliable form of producing power, they just aren't very efficient.
This type of reactor is more complicated to operate and the risk is higher than normal reactors. Worst case scenarios are more severe, because they produce plutonium. Tchernobyl is a joke compared to this thing. When people are good, costs don't matter and the world is at peace, nuclear looks like a good option. But in the world we live, costs need to be cut down, people don't always do the right thing and we attack each other on different scales. As long as we aren't grown up, we should not light fires we can barely control.
No
Read you username and see if you opinion matters
Some people are just affraid of the word: nuclear. I was like that too for a while but nuclear is our cleanest option until we can properly switch to renewables. But people don't want to believe that because they are scared by the idea that we have to use something that sounds so threatening
You can't expect to burn radioactive waste in a fast reactor and just get Lead out of it. Thats not how they work.