Redpill me about nuclear energy. It is really the future? How would be possible to make a nuclear-fueled economy reliable long-term? Does it is being pushed off by oil industry? Im not sure that the video is true, so I want your opinion about it.
hooktube link of video (Its sad that hooktube links dont give thumbnail, so I had to use youtube embed):
hooktube.com
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
theguardian.com
archive.is
web.archive.org
twitter.com
Oil is the "future" because of automobile kikes. Nuclear is the best energy, hands down. Chernobyl was an inside job.
Kike free first post
SAGE AND REPORT FOR ZERO EFFORT.
EE here, nuclear is perfect for the base load of a power grid because it's very good at delivering constant power, but it is absolute shit for peak loads. A peak load is when people quickly drive up the power consumption on a grid like turning on the AC at the same time or the Bongs all turning on their tea kettles during a commercial break. Stuff like natural gas is good because all you have to do is burn more stuff or even hydro works better for peak loads because you can just open the valves and let more water through to turn the turbine. Nuclear is viable in the long term, but the costs in the short term and ignorance of the laity thanks to the (((media))) make it a hard sell nowadays. You can even recycle nuclear waste into new nuclear fuel and nuclear reactors have the added benefit of producing plutonium and I don't need to educate you on its uses.
Storing nuclear waste is still an issue, and I wouldn't trust (((them))) with finding a waste ground that is actually safe and won't turn more of our enivroment into a poisend wasteland. Ideally we get fusion reactors viable within the next two or three decades and find storage capacities to deliver mostly clean and safe energy. I personally dream of fusion technology paving the way for small scale reactors that would allow communities or even individuals to gain a certain independence from the national power grid.
Nuclear Energy is the future. But not nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion is the future.
And it is actively being researched. Nuclear fusion will provide more energy per kg than fission and there are no dangerous by-products.
So far, a nuclear fusion reactor has yet to net energy, since the initial investment of energy is needed to kick the process off… As well as lots of electricity to keep it actually running.
Nuclear is amazing but my physbros really need to come up with a better solution for dealing with the long lasting waste products. If we manage to crack usable fusion then SAUDIS, COMMUNISTS and SHITSKINS of all stripes are completely fucked.
shut it down
I'm currently reading about DARPA…
nuclear ems to be a dying energy source, but it's like once there is already an architecture to use the energy, people tend to continue to use it.
when the darpa ppl talk about ATOMIC energy, they seem to also want to stop advancing the technology because it leads to more deaths.
Eventually we will all have huge solar grids, i predict by 2030 and we will get paid. by then we will have probably accepted bitcoin as a way to pay peopl (if we even use currency at all)
but yea, nuclear is all about smashing electrons and protons together and people dont like it because its unsafe.
The kikes would probably blow up the first fusion reactor to protect their oil interests
We can't store waste in that large storage facility in America, nor can we reprocess it because the liberals would need an argument against nuclear. They need to claim that we can't adopt nuclear energy because of the waste.
They have already worked hard to kill of the physicists and engineers capable of developing the technology. It's not just the Iranians who have been targeted by these fucking rats. Startpage nuclear physicist died.
The best solution to nuclear waste is the obvious solution:
DUMP IN ISRAEL SO KIKES, CHRISTCUCKS AND mohomo'd the pedo goatfuckerANS GIVE UP THE FUCKING GHOST STOP GIVING ARYANS GRIEF OVER THEIR POINTLESS FUCKING PATCH OF DESERT
Do you really want to risk giving the jews super powers?
Superpowers like acute radiation poisoning, leukemia and thyroid cancer?
I THINK THEY'VE WORKED HARD ENOUGH, G-D'S CHOSEN HAVE EARNED IT
...
i think we're going to see a lot more windturbines, solarpanels, and batteries rather than nuclear at least in the short term of the next fifteen years
because windturbines, solarpanels, and batteries are cheaper per unit to install and don't make nuclear waste, so inherently safer really
and no fuel costs
sage for shit op
????
Checked, let em turn into a literal cancer, since they're already technically one on humankind.
Yup. All the manufacturing runs on fairy farts.
WIND TURBINES ARE FUCKING USELESS, INEFFICIENT AND ARE TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON GIBS
NICE DOWNTIME
NICE NIGHT-HEAVY ENERGY PROFILE
NICE INABILITY TO SUPPLY BASE LOAD
NICE MURDERING BAT AND BIRD POPULATIONS TO THE EXTENT THEY NEED FAST-TRACK HUNTING PERMITS
NICE BLIGHT ON LARGE STRETCHES OF BEAUTIFUL PREVIOUSLY UNSPOILED LANDSCAPES
FUCK YOU FAUX ENVIRONMENTALISTNIGGERS
DON'T YOU DARE FISK THIS RAGE POST YOU FILTHY KIKE
Imagine living every day being this fucking retarded
Sage for shit thread, slightly counter balanced by dropping some shit in here for you to research.
Not in the mood for reddit user.
The liberals have killed the coal and nuclear industry.
theguardian.com
The main issue in the US is how partially spent reactor fuel is refined. France maintains refinery capabilities on site with each of their reactors, so they can keep their reactors running efficiently fairly simply.
The model in the US requires spent reactor fuel to be shipped to central refineries, which sorta makes sense on its face, but like every other goddamn thing the left gets involved with, it's complicated by anti-nuke and environmental activists.
The shipment of partially spent reactor fuel has to be permitted, the route has to be defended, and someone has to pay the costs. All of this takes a long time- years in some cases- so the plants need a place to store the partially spent fuel. The cooling pools on site is where the cores sit while they're awaiting shipment. When the cooling pools fill up with partially spent cores and the core in the reactor degrades, the plant has to shut it down.
Coincidentally, the cooling pools are presenting the exact threat that the environmentalists and anti-nuke people are worried about, and they're the people that are causing the risk in the first place.
Go figure.
Reference for issues of spend fuel pools…