Do you think nuclear power needs to comeback in a big way?

[Ben487]

Yes, we should build a lot more nuclear power stations they're amazing

No, I'm too scared of the nuclear waste

Undecided

[crossdressingrihno]

Nuclear energy and hydroelectric dams are the future.
Someday, maybe will use the hydroelectric dams to clean the rivers as well.
It makes it a bit difficult for fish to navigate, but we could probably fix that easily.


Obviously, hydroelectric dams need a form of generator because all of their systems require electricity to run so they need electricity to make electricity but if you had in a a nuclear reactor a few miles away you could run the hydroelectric dam and power a ton of cities.




We actually have a way of dealing with nuclear waste from nuclear reactors, and it’s super crazy and super simple. All we Gotta do is get a barrel put all of that nuclear waste into the barrel fill it with cement, then put that barrel in another barrel and fill that one with cement and then you continue this like a Russian nesting doll for a bit then you dig a really deep hole and you just stick it in that hole. The radiation will dissipate in the runoff long before it can actually cause a problem to anything above ground if you make the hole deep enough and far enough away from the ocean.


Though you do have to decide to not be an idiot.
You can’t be like the Russians and Chernobyl, and have all of your parts shoddily put together and mass manufactured with poorly educated workers in your reactor. That bureaucracy, and all that garbage is what caused Chernobyl in the first place.
Of course, there was also the nuclear reactor incident in Japan, but Japan’s an island nation known for tsunami’s, and they put the nuclear reactor on the coast into place. It’s known for being a tsunami hotspot, so it shouldn’t have surprised anyone that that happened because the nuclear reactor was struck with the tsunami that was obviously gonna come at some point.




I can’t stress this enough don’t put a nuclear reactor next to the ocean and especially don’t put one in a tsunami hotspot or in a place where there’s likely to be like a tornado or some other crazy natural disaster.
Actually, now that I think about it, how about we build all of our nuclear reactors right in the middle of tornado alley? This is a crazy idea here, right but what if we put all of our nuclear reactors underground? Dude even if a tornado comes what’s it gonna do to the reactor when it’s underground? Obviously we need ventilation another stuff like that but we can do that without it being compromised and still have it be below ground.
Let’s do it let’s build Oliver nuclear reactors in tornado alley.

[NamerOfStars]

Yes. Waste disposal IS a danger; I'm not going to pretend otherwise, but there's no such thing as a free lunch. Likewise, the possibility of a very targeted terrorist strike is a concern, and plans need to be made for that. But these aren't impossible problems, and are a helluva lot safer than the "we put out thousands of tons of pollution each year, but store them safely inside your lungs" approach of fossil fuels, or the "sulfur hexaflouride is 235,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas then CO2, and recyclability is basically nonexistent, but this is TOTALLY safe, guys!" of solar.

Interestingly, certain breakthroughs in enrichment technologies may mean that nuclear fission is even renewable (assuming it all pans out as planned), which is another big plus in its favor.

Ultimately, we need oil to keep the trucks and planes moving, since electric vehicles, while a nice idea, are a long way from being ready for prime time. Ditto solar and wind power; they're a few decades of serious research away from being viable options. The smart thing to do, of course, would be to have several forms of energy production running concurrently, so a disruption in one form doesn't bring down the whole country, but no one's willing to be practical.

[FreyaRed]

Self-regulating Thorium reactors with salt as moderator, heat exchanging and encapsulation medium need further development.
High pressure reactors are relics of cold war because they can bread Tritium, Plutonium and are small so they fit into submarines. However those reactors are less secure due their reactivity that raises with temperature.

Tritium and Plutonium are necessary to built and maintain thermonuclear warheads.

[provokeesmokee]

We need another look at nuclear, like we need to look at every other non-fossil fuel energy source.

It's much safer than oil and gas, but much riskier than other sustainable methods.

It warrants more research and support than fossil fuels, but less than other less risky methods.

[WindAtMyBack]

What we need are less people. Less people mean less energy and less of all the other resources. We are way over the natural carrying capacity of the planet.

Having said that, I think nuclear has potential for clean energy. But bad designs, bad locations, and human errors make it dangerous. I think it's something that should be pursued, but very carefully.

[Adam1978]

Not the current version but the cleaner kind that has the side affect that it produces weapon grade materials but barely any waste. It's been around since the 1960 but people was afraid of allowing the world to have so much weapongrade ammo for nukes or similar. Should be easier to store and keep that safe then nuclear waste.

[exitseven]

The technology exists to make safe , clen energy from nuclear fission. The trick is to keep the plant owners from cutting corners and operating plants in an unsafe manner.

D-OH

[genericname85]

well it has to if they want any of this green global warming bullshit movement fear mongering to make any sense whatsoever. cause we can't paint co2 as the devil and at the same time shut down THE least co2 producing means of energy production.

[Inbox]

@genericname85 Why do you think the green global warming movement is BS? If you're referring to Greta Thunberg or those little girls that glued themselves to famous paintings then no need to go further LOL

[genericname85]

@Inbox global temperature fluctuation exist obviously. and rather large ones across time. sudden temperature drops and spikes as the one we're observing currently historically did exist and the time frame choosen to fear monger is intentionally held short (last 2000 or so years), cause in that time frame, there actually is no other observable spike like the current one, tho there are multiple if you extend the time frame to millions of years. and in these times, humans did not have any impact on climate.

human activity does have "some" influence in global climate, estimated to be under a fraction of a percent. tho not as large that we could have big sweeping impacts on the climate of the entire planet.

there is an argument to be made about lacking sustainability of human lifestyle. tho the fear mongering about climate change is not the right one, cause that's not scientifically based in reality.

and even IF humans had that impact, nature is not a human. nature has no desire. nature doesn't give a shit about anything. so Anthropomorphizing "nature" is bullshit with the only purpose to politically impose otherwise unacceptable dogma and coersion on people.

[MysticDevice]

Yes. We know enough about nuclear energy now to use it safely. The energy density of nuclear power is insane. It will quite literally solve the energy crisis. And surprisingly enough, to most people, nuclear plants don't pollute. It's water vapor that comes out of there. And the waste can actually be recycled and used again elswhere.

If the world governments are gonna ban gas cars and mandate EVs, that's our only way forward.

[abc3643]

Absolutely not.

Regardless of the previous 2 major accidents which were before you were born, nuclear reactors are targets for war and terrorism because they can release substantial radiation over a large area.

[crossdressingrihno]

Yeah, maybe the old antique ones.

We’ve come a long way since then

[abc3643]

@crossdressingrihno No, we haven't. And, do you know why?
Because, after the accidents, nuclear power plant development went to near zero.
Plants that were ordered were stopped.
Plants have been shut down.
Nuclear engineering is a good field to study but not a good career to be in because the future is limited.

[crossdressingrihno]

@abc3643
I will have to disagree with you on that one.

[abc3643]

@crossdressingrihno Well the Bureau of Labor Statistics agrees with me...
www.bls.gov/.../nuclear-engineers.htm
www.bls.gov/.../nuclear-engineers.htm#tab-6

Job Outlook (*)
Employment of nuclear engineers is projected to decline 11 percent from 2021 to 2031.

Despite declining employment, about 700 openings for nuclear engineers are projected each year, on average, over the decade. All of those openings are expected to result from the need to replace workers who transfer to other occupations or exit the labor force, such as to retire.

Employment
Traditionally, utilities that own or build nuclear power plants have employed the greatest number of nuclear engineers. However, the increasing viability of renewable energy and limited construction of new nuclear power plants puts economic pressure on traditional nuclear power generation and reduces demand for these engineers.

=======
(*) Job Outlook, 2021-31
The projected percent change in employment from 2021 to 2031. The average growth rate for all occupations is 5 percent.

[richardcory]

Absolutely yes. The risk of nuclear waste is far less than the risks caused by fossil fuel emissions. The biggest problem with nuclear is that its expensive - but I think more development can fix that

[AviatorTom]

Yes, but nuclear power of the future will not involve huge reactors and power plants. Instead, small "personal" reactors that provide energy to a neighborhood will be the wave of the future.

[Siri137]

God yes. Nuclear power is safe, efficient and cheap, especially when one compares it to those dreadful wind and solar alternatives.

[loveslongnails]

Yes, we need to look at nuclear energy as a source, especially as safety improvements advance. Underground needs to be looked at. Also, offshore wind farms are a great idea. There are only a few in operation around the world.

[RavVid]

If you want to reduce green house gasses it is the only option. Small modular nr is the way to go.

[alice55]

It's already happening in France, it was declared as a clean energy and we have many who are supposed to get in construction.

[WanderingLoveWizard]

Look at all these pseudo-intellectual nuclear engineers in these comments. Fascinating!

[Dargil]

Absolutely. The technology has improved greatly in 50 years. I have 3 within 30 miles of my home.

[goaded]

Voted B, but as @freyared mentioned, Thorium reactors are a safer option. Fusion, potentially, too.

[Inbox]

@goaded Your fear is understandable, but I don't think we'll be able to achieve a green economy without it most likely.

[asphaltrhymes]

I voted undecided, but I'd say prefer hydrogen over nuclear. 🥶🤪

[richardcory]

"Hydrogen" can mean two different things. Hydrogen fuel cells are a way to store and move energy - similar to batteries but they don't generate energy

Hydrogen fusion is a possible energy source (its what powers the sun) but so far no one has gotten anywhere close to a working fusion reactor - and 10s of billions of dollars have been spend over half a century. Its an exceptionally difficult problem. Its great if it works, but its likely decades away if ever

[LiamJHayden]

It does, but the elitists want the rest of use living life serfs while they live in their gated cities.

[worldscolide]

It's far safer and far more environmentally friendly than literally everything else we have.

[gorydetails]

Of course. Nuclear is the cheapest, safest source of energy we have.

[najekim]

Yes, but invest more into developing reasonable nuclear fusion power generation also.

[KetoJames]

It's the only choice we have as of now.

[Anonymous]

No, I wish it would go away forever.

[Anonymous]

Dams, Oil, and Coal... Drill baby DRILL!!