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..
@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.
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.
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
(18-24)
+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.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
112Opinion
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.
Oh, shut up, fucking Pakistani incel. It's amazing how everything you say is stupid and out if touch with reality.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayLxB9fV2y4as 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..
I'd rather see a few of these built with modern standards than to see miles and miles and miles of solar or windmills.
Solar and wind are actually pretty good the only problem is our battery technology is not good enough to store all the energy they produce
@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.
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.
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.
Not to mention we need a reliable base power source to be a buffer for sporadic renewables.
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.
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.
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.
Matrix style let's do it!
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
This is our former Mitchell Power Plant was similar but I believe we have a Nuclear one now but Mitchells Power Plant shut down in 2014
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.