I am in favor of it and I think it is the best solution to fight against global warming.
Although nuclear power can pose several problems, particularly due to waste, I think it is the best solution for the moment. Renewable energies are intermittent and can pose sovereignty problems.
Again I'm not saying nuclear power is perfect but I think for now it's the best solution we have
I like nuclear energy for large ships as it has the potential to save millions of gallons of gasoline and oil. Ships can have significant protection measures when properly used. Used Nuclear fuel be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts. I am opposed to using it in countries that do not have the expertise, have a good safety track record or follow the measures to simplify keeping it safe. Negligence to any form of Flammable or high energy matter can have major impacts. In Israel there are a few days of the year when Muslims and Jews don’t drive cars and cut back on the energy use. Just doing this for one day allows the earth to clean itself and the results are significant in how clean the air is. What goes into the air can be quickly cleaned through the earths natural process, however when batteries are discarded and the acid seeps into the soil, it takes a very long time for the contaminates and toxins to break down unless you have a large quantity of enzymes and natural matter that has the proper properties to convert it into an inactive state, filter it or dry out the liquid state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident The Three Mile Island accident was a partial meltdown of reactor number 2 of Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station (TMI-2) in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, near Harrisburg, and subsequent radiation leak that occurred on March 28, 1979. It is the most significant accident in U. S. commercial nuclear power plant history. On the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale, the incident was rated a five as an "accident with wider consequences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Syndrome The China Syndrome is a 1979 American disaster thriller film film directed by James Bridges and written by Bridges, Mike Gray, and T. S. Cook. The film stars Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon, Michael Douglas (who also produced), Scott Brady, James Hampton, Peter Donat, Richard Herd, and Wilford Brimley. It follows a television reporter and her cameraman who discover safety coverups at a nuclear power plant. "China syndrome" is a fanciful term that describes a fictional result of a nuclear meltdown, where reactor components melt through their containment structures and into the underlying earth, "all the way to China".
Just two examples: Japan = massive earthquake/destruction and leak CA one was accidentally installed backwards and the entire programming had to be adjusted.. (I mean WTF?) Humans are too damn careless. We have one world. Nowhere to escape when we screw this one up. There are better ways.
@vald9inches No. Never said that at all. Just saying there are better and safer ways. Main point.. one planet. Nowhere else to go. We need to be smart.
I swear i am not trying to be bait you lmfao so it sounds like you are saying you are against fossil fuels and if that is the case then solar and wind and geothermal and hydro and tidal is left unless i am forgetting something
Renewables are absolutely a top priority, but in the very long term they pose a problem: even if we covered every surface of the entire earth with 100% efficient solar panels (which is the best renewable energy source), we woukd have a shit ton of energy by today's standards but we still wouldn't have all that much if our society was multi-planetary level.
Nuclear energy holds a lot of promise in that regard. If we can solve the waste issue and especially if we can switch to better alternatives than uranium and plutonium like thorium (which is leagues better than anything we have, but developing new nuclear infrastructure is insanely expensive and no private investor or government wants to pay the price to develop it and then everyone else copies them for almost-free) and ESPECIALLY if we can achieve fusion, that would be way more viable.
It also seems that the only viable far-future energy source that we know of now is anti-matter annihilation reactions since they basically create no waste or anything and are the most powerful known reactions, since you're converting mass to pure energy with nearly 100% efficiency. For perspective, nuclear energy kinda does the same thing with like 0-2% efficiency. It's just prohibitively expensive to produce and nearly impossible to store today. If memory serves, a single anti-hydrogen atom reacting with a regular hydrogen is said to have the power of a hand grenade.
No such thing as global warming, sweetheart. Oil is abiotic. Doesn’t come from dinosaurs. It’s made naturally in the earth. Sinclair started the Dinosaur angle. All this is is reinventing the wheel. It’s a long con. Who benefits? Who doesn’t? This is good documentary.
He lays it out simple. Silicon Metal used in those batteries are made from 2 parts Coal to one part Silica. Go green! How can there be an abundance of methane not of biologic origin be found on Saturn’s Giant Moon, Titan? How is it being replenished when their is no nature? Could it be from geologic processes?
Which makes more sense too. That God made earth that naturally makes oil and natural gas to supply all our power and make thousands of petroleum products? Or God made Earth and humans to breathe out a pollutant called CO2 that will end up heating the planet so much it will become inhospitable?
Rationalization is the second strongest human drive, so I don’t expect you to believe me right away. Watch that video though. Read. Read more. Look at things from a criminal’s perspective. Use critical thinking skills. No bias. No feelings.
You can't have a serious conversation about overhauling the US energy grid to be eco-friendly without acknowledging the need to switch to nuclear especially for the major cities. Anyone who thinks wind and solar can meet those needs, and do it reliably is a fool, or outright lying to you.
There are better ways to do it than having huge hulking reactors that could help reduce the risks, but even when taking into account the various disasters involving nuclear power over the last 70 years into account, the negative impact on both humans and the environment pales in comparison to coal alone, let alone oil.
Very much so. It's not without its risks, but then, nothing is. Nuclear technology's been almost stagnant since the 60's, and the only countries working to change that are Russia and China (and, to a lesser extent, France). Like you say, at this point, we either keep pushing the fossil fuel envelope until we run out, or we start diversifying with an energy source that's actually a viable alternative. It may end up being a transitional one, if we can make enough progress with solar and wind, but for now it's our safest option.
Definitely for it. But I'd rather develop the far safer and much cleaner molten salt reactors. Using Thorium as a fuel source.
Further I'd like work to continue on making waste annihilating molten salt reactors a reality. As there's already a huge stockpile of fissile material in our nuclear waste stocks. Really even anti nuclear people should be for this. As it would reduce our stock of nuclear waste to a tiny fraction of what's currently stored. The resultant waste will also have a shorter half life. So, we'd not only reduce nuclear waste but the remaining waste would go inert much sooner.
What's really necessary though. Is educating the public as to why these reactors are so much safer. They are walkaway safe. Meaning in the worst case scenario. With no control of the reaction. The reaction cannot go out of control and create a meltdown.
It's not a silver bullet when it comes to energy generation, but it's damn close. It's a hell of a lot better than burning carbon.
Fun fact, burning coal emits more radioactive isotopes in the atmosphere than fission plants. Fission plants obviously generate more radioactive isotopes, Cessium-137 and Strontium-90 if I remember correctly, but they remain as discrete metal pellets on the ground that can be encased in concrete coffins. Burning coal still has trace elements of the natural Uranium-235 in the ground that get emitted in the atmosphere.
Funny that a lot of people on the left think that every nuclear power plant is going to be the next Chernobyl run by Homer Simpsons. The real reason Chernobyl happened was because of the gross incompetence of communist Soviet Union.
Truth is nuclear energy is very low carbon when it’s done right. I see no problem strategically building plants in remote areas far away from people. All Southern California could be powered by nuclear energy if more plants were built in the desolate Mojave desert. But the woke left is too stupid to think of this. They rather invest money in so called renewable energy initiatives that actually have worse carbon foot prints. You will never get the energy out of solar panel that it took to create it.
I think as well it can be a solution, but i alwase question what will hapen whit the waste of the radioactive elements, moust of the time ther is no space to put them and izolate them and nothing can calm thous element down then cold wather and the eart itself. I olso question why don't we use the deserts of the world and build solar sistems ther, is hot, ther is a lot of sun, a lot of space, why we don't use the nordic hemisfer like Russia, Canada, Himalaia mountens in order to use the wind.
Is you give me a place where to put the plutonuium and uranium, i will be even more intereste in nuclear energy.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(18-24)
+1 y
I wish you would have created a poll for this one, because I think it would show that 99% of the people are for nuclear. So that begs the question, who is representing us?
The government no longer represents us, so they just go with the highest bidder---big oil.
In my state, in 13 years, the sale of gasoline driven cars will be illegal. There's just no way in hell that solar and wind are going to be enough to keep us going. Coal is where we get most of our electricity, and that's not going to be used much longer, either.
The problem with nuclear energy is that you create a “monster “ of waste that hangs around for thousands of years. If it can be made into something useful and not something to lock away and be forgotten. Then it would be perfect in my book. On the other hand. Clean hydro power prevents little fishes from swimming up stream. So we can’t have that! Windmills might destroy a toads habitat when built. Afterwards little birdies might get injured when they fly into the blades! Lastly, solar panels are probably all made in China. Lithium mining destroys the earth and then you have the problem of the old batteries on what to do with them. I wish that there were. Not really a good replacement yet for carbon based fuels.
11.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
I'm definitely in favor of nuclear energy but there are problems with it. First of all, there is the problem of figuring out what to do with spent fuel rods that can no longer be used in the reactor but are still highly radioactive. They're very difficult to dispose of safely. Second, there is the problem of the actual construction of nuclear power plants. In many countries including the US contractors build these plants and take shortcuts in order to make more money and the result is that the plant has structural problems that sometimes lead to horrible accidents. There apparently is no mechanism to assure quality Construction even in nuclear power plants.
For now no. Other countries have different ways to conserve and reuse energy. I find North America tends to go for the quick, big and impressive fixes instead of the sustainable ones. I believe we have to start again and completely change the way we think about things.
To be honest clean energy’s not even a concern of mine.
Look around. Without blind faith we cannot even trust we won’t be a part of a war, killed off by a virus, or having our government topple. I’m in the states and frankly. Fuck my president and my government. Fuck the selfish people here. Fuck the society we are promoting. Fuck our allies we choose not to help. Fuck the women who step out and cheat. Fuck the men that hurt the women… just fuck it all.
If we want to phase out fossil fuels, there is currently no fully functional baseload alternative to nuclear. It is literally the only option we can rely on, that isn't a giant pile of wishful thinking. Plus it is the safest form of energy generation by far. So yeah, for the foreseeable future, we do need nuclear whether we like it or not. And I do like it.
Im in favor with anything that is cheaper and more efficient. The fact that these dummy's who are in favor of the green new deal would literally cripple the United States in all aspects of life. Meanwhile allowing giving our adversaries a major boost over us. Completely ridding ourselves of fossil fuels is probably the stupidest idea that has been taken seriously. Remember Global warming? Why you think these fuckin retards change the name? hmmm maybe because the knew they were wrong hence the new name Climate change, that covers everything. The Shoveling horseshit continues and if you agree with these donkeys you should have you head examined, SERIOUSLY, go have yourself check out
I´m not in favor of it because of the waste it produces and the risk one can take with it. But there are pros, too because not every country can totally rely on wind and solar energy. It´s less polluting than coal and other fossile energies, the pro of nuclear energy that one doesn´t rely on nature.
I am in favor. I think it's the obvious source of fossile-free power untill such times as when we have enough other means and security to convert away from it.
There are risks, yes. But what's worse, assured global destruction or potentially local. Harsh way to look at it, I know.
I prefer a field of solar panels than one of radioactive waste.
Humans only care about their own belly. If they have electricity at home for watching TV, and if a ton of metal can carry their overweight asses to work.
They don't give a fuck if the planet is permanently fucked up as result.
In theory yes. In current practical applications no. Tesla has far exceeded any company as far as renewable energy sources to date from Solar panels, solar roofs, solar battery stations, electric car.
The reviews speak for themselves honestly. Some places may not get as much benefit, but it's something we have now that is a better option to focus on. Maybe another Elon Musk type will come and change that for Nuclear but yea.
12.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
You're deluded.
Thorium nuclear energy is far superior and cleaner than old fashioned nuclear energy. It's only because Western governments don't want to give China money for the technology, that they have doggedly refused to do away with nuclear power.
Conventional nuclear energy is pure poison, and far worse than carbon based energy.
No. You have to find somewhere to store it and the half life is 100,000 years, which is as long as humans have existed. Watch the documentary "In to eternity" about the Finnish insane project to store their nuclear waste for 1/4 million years.
as a society we are very wasteful, when we are done with something we just want to get rid of it magically. Well things just don’t disappear. Nuclear waste is a bit of a concern, especially when most of the energy is still in the rods, which would still give radiation. But I’m guessing they can’t extract the full energy or it’s not worth it for cost wise..
In favour, especially if PRISM reactors are used it is a high energy neutron (fast) reactor which uses a series of proven, safe and mature technologies to create an innovative solution to dispose of used nuclear fuel and surplus plutonium. they can be built on factories as modules while the containment/generator buildings are constructed to house as many modules as needed for the application.
@vald9inches They are good in that they function, and are better than coal. They are bad in that they take up vastly more land compared to that of a nuclear facility. Now add in extra batteries, or water storage, or whatever method used to offset the no production time, and nuclear is still the better solution in my opinion.
From what i heard the land a nuclear power plant takes including the buffer zone outside of the nuclear plant if you were to fill all of it with solar panels it would produce more power in the day than the nuclear plant itself. I remember thinking damn i underestimated solar panels lol
Another advantage solar and wind has is that they produce no type of waste... But yes at the moment nuclear fission is definitely the best option until we get fusion working
You are 100% correct. It is not a perfect solution but it is the only solution which is available at the moment to fight global warming. The renewable sources are just not efficient enough. Developed countries should come together to accelerate building new nuclear power plants immediately.
We can store the nuclear material safely but there is a big “not in my backyard” syndrome. In all the years we’ve had nuclear the amount of accidents has been so small and we have learned a lot in each one. They are extremely safe and in fact they release LESS radiation than coal fired plants. Coal is so nasty it is the reason we have fish high in mercury the smog and CO2 is a big problem. The only atmospheric discharge of nuclear energy is water vapor from the cooling towers.
Yes, definitely. It's one of, if not the cleanest sources of energy on top of being the most productive. The only concerns are safety of the plants and disposal of waste. However, if we manage to create fusion reactors, we will have even more energy and there shouldn't be any dangerous waste.
It's not whether we like it or not soon we will have to coz other way are either too slow or the material require are running out so we have to be depended on that one their is no favoring it or denying it
Most definitely and recycling nuclear waste is effective to a certain degree, I'm sure over the next 50 years we'll have something figured out. That said, nuclear energy is not infinite either and still depends on resources. We should really start looking ahead to things like a dyson sphere.
No not really. Where do we leave the nuclear waste? We can't just leave it laying around. What about future generations? They'll have to deal with our mess. It might be a good solution in the moment but in the long run it'd be a disaster
"Nuclear energy" is not one specific thing, we've got nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. The latter is clean and perfect in every way, just severely underfunded and thus underdeveloped. The former is the controversial one.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
I'm a fan of a robust energy mix, and nuclear should absolutely be a part of that. I'm not exactly a climate alarmist, but I'm SHOCKED at people who are and are anti-nuclear. In fact, I think it's reasonable to say that anyone who isn't pro nukes doesn't really take the whole climate change thing seriously.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
I think human energy is best. The amount of energy locked up in the body is amazing. We could kill all criminals and use them for energy. Lmao I'm joking people. Although this would work.
Yes, I am in favour of nuclear energy, but I am also concerned by the imbecilic level of stupidity that has led to catastrophic failures. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima were 100 per cent stupidity.
I believe there are no limits for energy I think limitless energy is hard to find but still people should not be depend on nuclear energy because it causes pollution and stuff I’m not saying we should throw it all away everything has a purpose like recycling
Yes I am. Compared to wind or solar energy, nuclear sources are highly efficient. You would need to have miles and miles of solar panels to produce the same amount of energy a nuclear reactor can produce.
Bolivia for example has more than 5 times hydropower capacity than it's consumption, so I'm quite sure the world could run on hydro electricity, but if not than we nuclear would be the second best option.
No, nuclear waste has to be stored in some special places for millions of years, to prevent contamination.
Renewable energy is the only viable longterm solution.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
I think that it certainly has its place in the fight against greenhouse gases. It doesn't have to be the complete solution but it can certainly be a big part of it.
I find it hilarious that the same leftist activists who were predicted mankind's doom from nuclear power are now claiming that global warming will kill us all and that nuclear power is a viable solution.
Is it any wonder why we don't take the leftists seriously?
If and only if it is combined with a very large effort for sustainable energy in the short-term with large investments there. There needs to be large change in the energy mix as soon as possible. Waiting 25 years on nuclear power is useless.
Coal and gas would act be a thousand times more expensive if the true cost of all the externalities of the environment and negative health effects were factored into the equation but for some reason people conveniently forget about that part... 🤦
I was just correcting you when you said that nuclear is dangerous and expensive because they are actually not dangerous or expensive at all when compared to all of our other energy options until we get fusion working that is 😊
Like I said I wasn't making comparisons but if you want to go there sure nuclear isn't as dangerous as coal but it's more dangerous than solar and wind so 👍
So cars are expensive as well but if you want to have the ability to drive around you need a car? If you want to power a society you need cheap electricity and nuclear power plants provide that? Just because you throw numbers around and say it cost billions doesn't make it more expensive?
everything you said is wrong. statiscly speaking its the safest in terms of deaths. exspansive, but in terms of cost/energy is is exsreamly efficent end thus economicly viable. You only need a few wrokers compared too all the the ones you would need in comperad to wind to produce the same amout of energy
If you’re serious about the environment this is the only viable alternative right now. Most of the meltdowns that have happened have been easily avoidable.
Only if the waste can be safely rocketed into the Sun for disposal, not buried in the desert, caves, mountains, salt mines or dumped in the oceans, burn it up in the Sun.
Are you dumb? Rocket it into the sun? Lmfao thats just a bullshit excuse to be against nuclear energy please educate yourself and learn a little bit of science 🤦🤦🤦
You said you will only support nuclear energy "only if the waste can be safely rocketed into the sun for disposal" which will never be economical or safe EVER! You are either against nuclear energy or extremely uneducated good day sir!
@vald9inches , why wouldn’t it be safe? We send rovers to the far reaches of the solar system, probes to the outer limits of the galaxy which costs billions, it wouldn’t be much to build rockets to take nuclear waste to incinerate in the Sun.
Think about it for a moment please... You will be launching hundreds of complicated rockets that uses extremely volatile rocket fuel and loading it with tons of radioactive waste and lunching it into space above everyone's heads... Geee i wonder WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
You would have to be mentally retarded not to be in favor of nuclear energy. Out of all the other types of on demand energy production it is the least destructive and least polluting and has killed the least amount of people by a huge margin
Of course. Right now it's the cleanest energy we could have. Wind and solar are even close in terms of energy produced. Unless you consider that ravaging thousands of kms of nature is acceptable to produce as much energy as a nuclear plant does.
Well I don't realy believe in man-made global warming but that said nuclear is bar none the most efficient way to produce electricity. Also the most reliable. So I personally think it should be heavily invented into especially thorium based reactors
Yes. In terms of safety, eco-friendliness and efficiency, it's the best option until we find something better. But we definitely need to continue to invest in new technologies and further research.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
