Should Nuclear power be globally Banned?

[robocop666]

We had Chernobyl, then Fukiskima now we will lose half of Europe

Updates

10 mo

free energy is from magnetic energy; nobody makes them though even though you can find them on youtube

[abc3643]

Apparently, @NamerOfStars has issues since he had to ban me instead of letting me finish.

======
I do not disagree with you over the release of greenhouse gases.
And I didn't say I didn't like nuclear power.
The primary problems with it are:
1. Storage of radioactive waste.
2. Accidental radioactive release.
3. Nuclear fuel is a limited resource like fossil fuels.

[CaptainSmartass]

Yep. If it all goes tits up at a nuclear power station, we're all fucked. The world will be fucked for thousands of years. That's not an exaggeration, either.

Simples...

[chicken_nugget24]

Ah goof old Sky News lol. But everything that is not green energy should be banned. It will take a long time but I definitely think by 2050 most of the world will run on green energy ❤️

[chicken_nugget24]

My boyfriend was talking about this yesterday funny enough lol. He said think how the world would be different. Games like Fallout and Atomic Heart

[robocop666]

Green energy does not and never will work. We will be on fossil fuels forever. Green energy sometimes needs to be subsidised as it can cost more than it makes.

[Pterodon]

It’ll never work

[chicken_nugget24]

You gotta realise when the fossil files run out, what the f are we going to do? 🤣

[Pterodon]

They’re not gonna run out. That’s a fallacy

[robocop666]

oil is infinite. it is not a fossil fuel it comes form magma. It will never run out

[chicken_nugget24]

The world oil clock says we have 47 years left

[chicken_nugget24]

www.worldometers.info/.../

[chicken_nugget24]

It will run out. The faster we convert to green energy the better

[Pterodon]

Bullshit

[chicken_nugget24]

I'm tired and don't have the energy for this anymore. When the oil runs out don't act surprised. Have a good day.

[robocop666]

did you read what I said? they are lying

[Anonymous]

Nuclear power is the most efficient cleanest source of energy.

[robocop666]

No it's the worst. Nothing as dangerous as a nuclear accident from fossil fuels.

[NamerOfStars]

Ban the safest, cleanest, most energy-dense form of power we have? No. If anything, it should be mandated.

We had Chernobyl because Party officials tried to maximize output by disabling multiple safety requirements (one of which had to be physically whacked off with a hammer), we had Fukushima because the Japanese built a nuclear power plant on a fault line.

Modern nuclear power tech, largely stagnant since the 60's (thank heaven for France!) is not only safer (with molten salt reactors, a Chernobyl-type disaster literally CAN'T happen), but if new enrichment ideas pan out, is fully renewable, to a degree that even SOLAR couldn't match.

[robocop666]

no its dangerous I want more fossil fuels

[NamerOfStars]

Which aren't dangerous? You see the problem of storing nuclear waste in limited, inaccessible sites, but not with storing thousands of tons of carcinogenic smog in your lungs?

[abc3643]

This:
"Ban the safest, cleanest, most energy-dense form of power we have?"
is false.

And what do you mean by "energy-dense"?
I warn you: I have a physics degree and have taken classes in nuclear engineering and worked in the power generation industry.

[robocop666]

@abc3643 I want it banned NOW

[abc3643]

I don't want nuclear banned per se, but I don't believe we should build any more reactors.
I think the trend of shutting down nuclear sites is good, but it takes time because we still need replacement sources of energy.

[NamerOfStars]

@abc3643 Here, folks, is the value of a college degree: it lets you pretend to be intimidating even when you're suggesting that a QUESTION can be false. Unfortunately for you, I, too, went to college, and also to grade school, which is why I can tell you that not only is the question not false, but neither is the statement underlying it.

Fossil fuels release greenhouse gasses, as does the manufacture of solar cells; those pollute more. Ditto for burning wood. Wind turbines themselves are not only unrecyclable, but require huge quantities of rare earth magnets, which are produced in the single most environmentally damaging form of mining short of acid leeching. Hydroelectric power plays merry hell with the life of the rivers it draws power from, geothermal power disrupts the stability of the surface we LIVE on, and zero point energy doesn't exist. That just leaves draft power, which faces GHG dangers from methane and- oh. I see. I said "power" instead of "electricity" and failed to specify "on an industrial level and mass scale". So yes, technically I WAS incorrect, because the power generated by human slavery IS cheaper and cleaner and even- theoretically- safer. You get a golf clap, sir. What a perfect solution you have found.

However, claiming knowledge of physics and then not having basic understanding of energy density, that even junior high kids could tell you about, shows that you REALLY don't know your stuff. You don't like nuclear power? That's okay. It DOES have dangers; there's no such thing as a free lunch, after all. But humility is what's called for when facing something you don't understand.

[call_me_scar]

As much as I do like green energy nuclear power is pretty safe these days and makes enough energy to make up for what it costs this is because we no longer use the same fuel as what we used back in the Chernobyl days ( plus that was Russia the country known for skipping on safety ) the fuel now these days creates much more power, won't go nuts if the plant shuts down and produces less nuclear waist

[exitseven]

No, it should be promoted. It is a clean technology that actually works to generate electricity. The technology exists to do it safely, there is a management gap however.

[CaptainSmartass]

Promoted? Really? In this day and age, with everything that's going on?

[exitseven]

@CaptainSmartass It is a clean energy source and the technology exists to use it safely. It needs to be regulated and overseen by experts that have no financial interest in it but it is definitely possible.

[CaptainSmartass]

It doesn't sound clean or safe. All the stuff that's gone wrong with nuclear power has lead to massive radiation leaks.

[robocop666]

@CaptainSmartass it needs to be globally banned. We want energy from fossil fuels and nothing else.

[exitseven]

@CaptainSmartass there are plenty of these plants that have been operating safely for decades. It is when corporate greed causes the operators to cut corners that you have issues. Hiring the right people and implement responsible management is absolutely necessary.

[Bricealan]

How long ago was Chernobyl? The idiots here in CA forced the closure of San Anofre

[goaded]

How long will the effects of Chernobyl be felt? Thousands of years.

[Bricealan]

@goaded Chernobyl was the only accident in history of Nuclear Power resulting in radiation- related deaths

[Bricealan]

Not habitable for at least 20,000 years, guess we need not worry about that.

[Dargil]

The opposite is true.

[Anonymous]

Nuclear is the best form of energy, needs to be micro reactors and many of them at that

[robocop666]

micro reactors are safer than huge things but globally this needs to be banned as it in dangerous. I want more fossil fuels.

[WalnutButter]

No! Just find a way to make it safer.

[Pterodon]

What will you replace it with?

[robocop666]

Fossil fuels as normal.

[Pterodon]

I think the environmentalists would have a cow

[robocop666]

so they prefer nuclear accidents?

[Pterodon]

To them yes.