What were the causes of the anti-nuclear movement?
Probably the same thing that causes every big movement, big oil.
>>16767295Women, unironically.
>>16767295Oil companies exploiting irrational fears after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
>>16767295Semi related question but how close are we actually to solving the energy storing problem renewable ls got?
>>16767473we already solved it since at least 90s. Its just that selling oil is not only more profitable than solving these problems. It grants oil companies and countries owning them immense influence. Refusing or raising prices of oil to certain countries can collapse economies of such countries and instigate wars between them. At least we can rest easy that once oil runs out the fuckers responsible for oil will start creating infrastructure for other sources of energy (unless some retards finds a way to harvest oil from Antarctica, then we are all fucked).
>>16767473No closer than we were 20 years ago. At this rate we'll have fusion before large scale storage.
>>16767295In germany russians funded the marxist greens to abolish nuclear and have germany dependent on russian gas instead
>>16767295/pol/ talking about topic too
>>16767704>government tear down village dated back 1763They are turn to carbon emission (brown hydrogen, distracting natural coal) instead creating purple/red hydrogen from nuclear reactors.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZsAGhvJm6Ehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fefes6_gOvk
>>16767444Source?
>>16767295Climate alarmists want to weaken the West, they're mostly just useful idiots..
>>16767488Actually gold hydrogen the future
>>16767295https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNkO2hzXluU
>>16767902Which is funny considering nuclear power plants produce virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions during operation
>>16768036Look at the Swedish & Finn digging underground
>>16767295jew media like The Simpsons that shows nuclear power as glowing green goo. Literal disinformation
>>16767719Hydrogen is colorless.
>>16768147Depending on making one and natural>>16767973
>>16768028Hydro-power is basically the same thing as Nuclear though as environmentalists actually advocated for destroying existing damns because they say they are bad for fish.
>>16768201>environmentalists actually advocated for destroying existing damns because they say they are bad for fishThose protesters not doing factual research.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN9UPDqRLxo
>>16767295Notice how this happens right after the petrodollar agreement falls apart.
>>16768418Yeah that's my thought. We have oil reserves on American soil, but the petrodollar agreement with Saudi Arabia allowed us to preserve our resources and, more importantly, keep oil cheap for Americans. Without it, oil prices will only skyrocket, increasing the urgency to find alternatives. My guess is the government has had this plan behind a "in case of petrodollar collapse, break glass" container.
>>16767295Nuclear energy is Jewish physics.Fuck it.
>>16768201Not the case, Chinese dams project put native paddlefish in extinction list
>>16767444Thats ironic considering that the majority of the right supports nuclear power while the left doesn't but the right is pro oil while the left is anti oil
>>16768517Oldschool Conservationists were pro-nuclear. The shift came from a faction of Conservation that believed that nuclear technology would pose a threat to the environment due unchecked population growth made possible by cheap nuclear energy. Then they went in bed with the oil lobbies, which were all to happy to provide money to those willing to sabotage their only realistic competitor. This is still going on today.
>>16767295Because nuclear is a potential civilization-ending catastrophe. The only reason anyone is pro nuclear is that we already got a potential civilization-ending catastrophe in fossil fuels.
>>16767719>>16768028fpbp
>>16767295>What were the causes of the anti-nuclear movement?There's a slightly different answer for that depending on where it comes from. -Japan has the most straightforward anti-nuclear movement: they got nuked. -Germany was mortified not only by the Chernobyl incident, but a lot of them rationalized that "one nuclear incident" could effectively make their entire district/country/municipality completely uninhabitable.-America was traumatized by the Three Mile Island accident, osmotic guilt from bombing Japan, and paranoia concerning nuclear weapon proliferation from the cold war. Granted, with all that in mind: the cheapness, availability, and economic influence, of OIL has always been a major deciding factor for nations on what they think about nuclear energy. Without getting into lobbying, conspiracy, etc.. In most instances it is simply infinitely cheaper, easier, and requires significantly less discipline, to continue using fossil fuels as your major source of energy. In Germany's specific case they also (mistakenly) felt that purchasing oil from Russia would somehow ?liberalize the country and soften their relationship to Europe? which is of course fucking retarded and not grounded in any kind of historical reality.With that in mind, nuclear energy is getting a little bit of a resurgence at the moment for a couple reasons:-The pandemic, Russian's invasion of Ukraine, has soured a lot of countries on globalization and in turn made them more interested in securing energy independence. Nuclear, and certain green energies (geography permitting) are a part of that. -Education and awareness has increased: most of the old anti-nuclear hippies have died and been replaced with cosmopolitan liberals and progressives who're significantly more interested in civic development and understand nuclear energy isn't anything to be afraid of.
>>16768714Japan can reopen nuclear powered hydrogen liquid.Hope not repeat 1953 Nagoya disaster. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIcFoA2Wf2c
>>16768446sounds too late, nuke plants take time to set up
>>>/pol/471712084
>>16768968Another terrible take from the brown board.
>>16767295Too much fear hysteria and green goo
>>16769013Correct. It’s Romanian/Roman board.
>>16767295>Green energy doesn't wo-ACK
The "greens" are communists. They don't want energy companies that get their electrical output from oil to build nuclear power plants. That's it. They will literally close nuclear power plants and expand oil and gas profits in order to prevent expansion into the nuclear energy, because expansion means the oil and gas companies make more money. They want oil and gas to die, not morph into something else. That's why they're massively subsidizing Chinese manufacturers to make failed wind turbines and electric batteries, because they control it. They don't control oil and gas and thus, they wouldn't control nuclear energy. Thus they'd rather kill nuclear before it possibly takes off because they wouldn't be the ones in control of it
>>16769092Misleading because nuclear energy is green energy. Big Oil is just trying to psyop you into thinking it's not.
>>16769133>(((Big Oil))) is at fault for me being a virgin at 35!
>>16769092>ACK reverseBuilding a nuclear site take up less ache space than renewable sources construction.German population (non foreigner) need rethink about red/pink hydrogen solution
>>16769171Let's see how that goes...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station>Building time?2017-2031Oh shit nigga what are you doing???>Price?35 billion poundsOh shit nigga what are you doing???>Price per kilowatt?15 cents per kw/hOh shit nigga what are you doing???In short: Oh shit nigga what are you doing??? Like seriously?Btw, rejection of nuclear power in Austria goes across all party lines and predates the Green party.
It's kind of messed up that we lost so much potential advancement in nuclear energy because of all the negativity surrounding it
>>16767295Risk of nuclear war, 3 Mile Island, waste management issues still an issue, esp with the competency crisis).
>>16768460Chinese are willing to build hydro project for the same reason they build coal power plants. Both are cheap effective methods of getting the power you need. By contrast in North America if anyone ever wanted to build a hydro-power plant they would have to deal with all the same native bullshit you have to deal with if you want to build an oil pipeline.As I said this even goes so far that they are destroying existing dams despite the fact that nobodies shithole wildness is going to get destroyed but by keeping an existing dam in place.
>>16769195Year span for Itaipu Dam built on 1971 to 1984.New update.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorside_clean_energy_hub
>>16767295Countries with nuclear weapons made nuclear power plants largely because they were useful to create nuclear weapons. Now there are nuclear power plants designs which don't produce material useful for nuclear weapons, but a lot of the earlier nuclear power plants were deliberately designed to be useful for the creation of nuclear weapons so the beginning stages of the anti-nuclear power movement was an outgrowth of the anti-nuclear weapons movement. However the problem is that the fear mongering ran away from itself and the original good argument certain nuclear power plants designs being used to produce material for nuclear weapons ended up becoming a whole load of nonsense once alternative designs started to become popular because it was difficult to explain to people why only particular nuclear power plants were bad.
>>16768460>>16769372>>16768201Different Anon with some context:It's somewhat disingenuous to blame the construction of a dam (in this cause the Three Gorges Dam) for the extinction or threatening extinction of animals when the responsibility is on the Chinese themselves to make some basic effort to try and conserve those animals. Nobody was holding a gun to their head, or stopping the Chinese, from simply capturing several dozen of the beasts (in this case the paddlefish and the river dolphin) and simply introducing them to a new river system connected to the ocean (though, knowing the Chinese all the other rivers are probably too polluted). Pic related is a fish ladder - it's a smaller/narrow canal that allows that allow aquatic animals to migrate back and forth around dams without compromising energy production. Americans install them to allow salmonid migrations and the Japanese do so for the same reason, but also for their population of large salamanders (which can grow to the size of an American Alligator). You can literally have everything you want so long as you're willing to put in the work, money, time, and design.
>>16767295>>16768968Same energy >>>/sci/16243547
>>16767973Great lake in NA, France itself and Albania all place, have these natural resource.
>>16767295Unironically, the Simpsons was a big one.Made an entire generation think of glowing green goo, three eyed fish, and incompetent employees as synonynous with nuclear power.
>>16768133>>16769016>>16769665(Spooky night)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDElmHEtoxg
>>16769013>>16769042Are you satisfy>>>/pol/471733497
>>16769720>schizo leaf saying nuclear power doesn't exist it's all just coal plantsAn even worse take from the brown board.
>>16769195>no turning backAnd? At what cost?
Bump
>>16769195Nuclear is actually pretty cheap its once up and running.
>>16768517Nah nowadays both parties support nuclear. Doesn't mean the US will build more nuclear, we lack the ability to build new plants, they cost tens of billions, take decades to build, and our existing workforce is already understaffed and elderly. Anyone who supports nuclear in the US is out of touch.
>>16771132The french nuclear power builder had to be nationalized recently because it's famously expensive. And the French are desperate trying to get the EU to foot the 200 billion € bill for their plants because they're all way past their lifetime and suffering massive material fatigue by now. In the USA Westinghouse too had to be sold to some wallstreet investment firm at a firesale. You people are delusional.
>>16771138>and our existing workforce is already understaffed and elderlyNonsense. There is an under reported amount of unemployed (since you need to officially be on some form of unemployment insurance to be stated on stats as unemployed, so tons that live with their parents are not said to be unemployed even though they obviously are). If they made the application process easier and offered enough pay the labor markets would provide the labor easy.>>16768517Real opposition is interest groups funding both parties. This bill came after pressure from the public. Biden may sign to try to save his poll numbers.
>The french nuclear power builder had to be nationalized recently because it's famously expensiveNonsense post.>You people are delusional.
>>16771192I meant the nuclear workforce specifically. Some work groups the average age is 60 and the youngest person is in his mid 40s. Also even if the nuclear industry actively advertised jobs (applying is easier than most jobs and pay is retardedly high) between needing security clearance, meeting physical fitness requirements (need to be able to wear a respirator for most jobs and climb ladders and a lot of stairs) there is also legally mandated drug testing which means no stoners.Overall though it’s not worth the effort to build nuclear. Nobody wants to spend $60 billion and spend 30 years to see any benefits from constructing just two or three new nuke plants.
>>16771225In the US at least plants in the Northeast threaten to close every time they don't get massive subsidies. The operating costs are absurd, it's manpower intensive compared to most forms of power generation and has massive expenses during outages when its refueling (every 18-24 months per unit) which lasts for 2-4 weeks normally.
>>16771138mayhaps the private profit motive for essential utilities and infrastructure is just a shit idea in the first place mister can't-do attitude?
>>16771234How many physasists work as school teachers. If you needed degrees you could easily recruit by offering better benefits to underpaid teachers.>Nobody wants to spend $60 billion and spend 30 years to see any benefits from constructing just two or three new nuke plants.60 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to many of these spending bills, besides the trillions it would earn back in electric would be worth it. The French have some of the cheaper electricity in Europe for its powerful nuclear energy. Why not outdo the French and make ours the cheapest in the world?
>>16771225>https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/france-keeps-edf-buyout-offer-12-euros-per-share-filing-2022-10-04/>When you're bankrupt you win
>>16771288>EDF is rushing to get its fleet of nuclear power stations ready for the winter after it was forced to shut down more than half of its reactors due to corrosion issues and safety checks. The outages have taken France's nuclear output to a 30-year low.>Russian-Belarusian winter olympic is comingFrogbros…
>>16771273>How many physasists work as school teachers.I don't see how physicists are relevant. Most of the staff of nuclear plants are reactor operators, radiation protection techs, and various crafts (electricians, pipe fitters, ironworkers). The former two have no direct transfer outside of the nuclear industry, the former requiring training specifically in plant design and the latter requiring training specifically in radiation detection and national or site procedures on mitigation measures. While specific college programs exist for those jobs they are scattered and few in number.>60 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to many of these spending bills, besides the trillions it would earn back in electric would be worth it. The French have some of the cheaper electricity in Europe for its powerful nuclear energy. Why not outdo the French and make ours the cheapest in the world?Because as was stated it is expensive ant time consuming. The suggested cost and time would be for two or three nuclear plants, doubling the US nuclear capacity would likely require about 56 EPR gen three pressurized water reactors. Comparing that to the cost and time of the recent Vogtle unit 3 and 4 constructions it would take around $15 billion and 10 years per reactor, in reality more and longer because adding a unit to an existing plant is cheaper than building a new plant.All told this would at best cost around $840 billion and take probably half a century to complete by which time most of our old plants would have aged out and require decommissioning meaning instead of doubling our nuclear output over those 50 years you would mostly have just replaced the aging reactors.
>>16771266Nuclear in particular is a shit industry for future investment. Fucking solar and wind are superior by this point, and I work in the industry. Don't want it to die, but anyone outside of the industry should want to let it die a slow death.
>>16771330Green left reactionary>>16768028
>>16771349>Lets just carry out massive construction projects for the next half centuryJust set up some solar panels bro. You don't have to dot the country with the equivalent of the Hoover dam only situated in bumfuck nowhere.
>>16771288>https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/france-should-re-open-renegotiation-long-term-power-contracts-le-maire-tells-2024-06-20/>When you’re uranium lover your loss
>>16769150>frogistan is the greenest with all their nukeshmm...
>>16767295germany
>>16769440Nice analysis.
>>16767295Schizoid, misinformed people and activisthttps://environment.umn.edu/education/susteducation/nuclear-lies-and-those-who-tell-them/
>>16767473there are solutions like hydrogen or hydro gravity storage, but buffering an entire country's energy supply for half a year so you can use solar excess power from summer during winter is pretty fucking difficultsmoothbrains don't seem to realise that a power source you can't control in any way that ranges from 0 to 300% of the demand is not a good way to power a country. and then panel owners are surprised when they dump their power on the net it doesn't have any value because everyone is doing itthe ironic part from the green's obsession with closing nuclear is that carbon emissions only increase because you need fossil fuel plants to back up the unreliable as fuck renewables like wind and solar. just compare france to germany
>>16767295Cockiness regarding the initial projected timeframe of peak oil being wrong. Many wised up and realized that it's even worse NOT to know when we'll run out of viable supply of petrol. That means we don't have a set date to organize around. We could run out of the stuff in 10 years and not know it and then we'll all be fucked.This is just a band aid solution though. We are quickly running out of other rare materials needed in our increasingly advancing gizmos.
>>16771383>Just set up some solar panels browhat if it's night or cloudy. or it's winter and the sun barely goes above the horizon. this is what i mean with green retardation that can't seem to grasp the idea of energy supply and demand or baseloadif someone tried to sell you a car that doesn't need any fuel, except it doesn't work half the time, doesn't have breaks, and you have absolutely no control over the speed, so tough luck on the highway, would you buy it?cheap wind and solar electricity is deeply dishonest and not something to be taken at face value
>>16771825Than you have wind, hydro, and geothermal to supplement them. Not like nucler is reliable since nuclear reactors are designed to be down 5% of the time even under ideal conditions for refueling.
>>16768714Constellation is considering Restarting Three Mile Island Unit 2.Awesome site for this kind of news.https://world-nuclear-news.org/
>>16771919>nuclear reactors are designed to be down 5% of the time even under ideal conditions for refuelingyes and you can plan beforehand with the downtime, instead of relying on the weather. where i live they have been extended for almost 2 decades because you don't want to go full germany. never go full germany>geothermalbruh. why don't you put hamsters in wheels and connect them to a generator while you're at it
>>16768133It’s a cartoon
>>16771919>just put up a solar panel bro>just put up the hecking windmill bro>just build the fucking dam bro>you will buy the fucking geothermal and you will like it ok??exxon ain't sending their best
>>16767295Russian shekels, paid to women, to destroy the White Mans power.
>>16767295People incorrectly assuming that Americans are as incompetent as Russians (and Japs for that matter) when designing and running nuclear power plants. Despite, you know, practical nuclear energy being something we literally invented.Also >>16767444
Vietnam numbers one at H2 nuclear program.https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Vietnam-and-Russia-develop-next-steps-in-nuclear-chttps://www.nbr.org/publication/lessons-from-hydrogen-strategy-in-vietnam-and-the-united-states/
>>16772022I'm not saying shut down what we have I'm saying don't waste time and energy building new plants. Simply sustaining nuclear output is untenable, you'd need to construct about a dozen plants every 20 years or so, the US lack the ability to carry out large scale construction projects on that large a scale for that long a timeframe.
>>16772112Yes lets look at all the successful nuclear constructions like Vogtle and... Vogtle. Wow we really can't build shit, but sure lets dump billions into continuing to not build shit.
>>16767295Todd Howard>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H37Go1wJHHk
>>16772341our reactors are literally half a century old. yes it's expensive as fuck to build them because they need to be safe and it's highly specialised but once they're there you have clean and reliable power for generationsit is said uranium the size of a tennis ball is enough to provide a person's energy demand his entire life. i don't think people seem to grasp the insane energy density we're dealing withas for geothermal, if you can then go for it sure but it's highly geo dependant. not everyone lives in icelandthis area is flat as fuck as well, to the point the country is named flatasfuckistan, are we supposed to build dams and use hydro instead?quite a lot of fearmongering, hysteria, propaganda, cynical opportunism, going on around the subject. i've spend hunderds of hours studying the subject only to get told "just get solar panels bro that will solve all the problems. sunlight is free">mfwone of the few topics i'm competent in
>>16772471I work in nuclear, I'm a radtech. Also yes the plants as old, but they are aging out of use and what we have been able to build has taken massive amounts of time with effort directed in a very direct manner. If it takes ten years to build two reactors it won't take ten years to build 56 reactors (enough to theoretically double nuclear output or more realistically allow us to maintain nuclear energy production) it would probably take closer to 50 years to build that many. The reason much of the nuclear industry is looking towards SMRs (which I think are bad for a host of other reasons) is because we can't actually build nuclear plants fast enough to keep up with growing energy demands.
>>16767295"Israel"
>>16769092It doesn't. Energy is fucking expensive in Denmark.
>>167672953 Mile Island and Chernobyl initially. Then as time went on, it became clear that nuclear didn't really make sense economically.
>>16767488Lmao no it is not solved. It is a huge problem because it is a bottle-neck for economic growth. When everything runs on electricity, you cannot add more demand on the grid without also building more battery infrastructure in order to avoid blackouts, and blackouts are serious business on an all-electric economy.This is also not to mention that the battery farms have to totally replace their batteries every 20 years which means they have to somehow coordinate with the battery plants so that there's not too much demand for batteries all at once.There are other problems but these two are the main ones.
>>16767295The USSR funding anti nuclear groups in the West.
>>16773122It makes sense economically. Plants built today will last upwards of 100 years.
>>16772311I want her…
>>16769411yes this is pretty much it. now its just prohibitively expensive. well it will be until oil prices go silly but as someone pointed out it can take 14 years to build one and governments typically dont last that long...
I'm actually shocked that Republicans in this current Congress have been able to get anything done
>>16773285What alternative power independent party have in mind?
The downsides to NP you are mentioning are mostly a result of decades of neglect - like you are comparing a Cold War era shit with newest solar panels.China is launching 6 different kinds of 4 gen nuclear plants:>These are: the gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR), the lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR), the molten salt reactor (MSR), the sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR), the supercritical-water-cooled reactor (SCWR), and the very high-temperature reactor (VHTR).They will be able to extensively test them and focus on the best/safest ones in the future.https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wShNPV-Yjbs
>>16773499merica get lagging behind.1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgMZ4rbpH_k2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7pMT3MLDs83. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KGPAi6zxL4
>>16773568That's nice Sinoschizo
>>16773195>Last only ten times as long as they take to buildImagine if the Hoover dam only lasted 50 years and couldn't be maintained past the mid 1980s.
>>16773571Thank burger culo
>>16772471>cynical opportunismthe french green admitted they rubbed their hands when Fukushima happened. because France is well known for its earthquake and tsunamis
>>16771919>Than you have wind, hydro, and geothermal to supplement themyou mean coal
Climate activists don't want to save nature, they want to go live back under nature's decree. A clean alternative that can sustain modern society and technology would threaten the tree hugging faggots. Read up on german philosophy if you want to know why, otherwise the kablooey mail-man has some choice words on the matter.
>>16774240Fukushima water also safe to use
>>16774279Sure, whatever still better than nuclear. Fuck just burning wood and having the updraft spin a turbine is better than nuclear because it doesn’t cost $15 billion to set up.
>>16774580The cost of nuclear energy is artificial due regulations designed to choke the nuclear industry.
>>16774587Nah even China takes over a decade to build plants, unless you want to use slave labour it's going to be expensive. Also if you remove the regulations you make way for another Chernobyl or TMI.
>>16774794Nope:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EsBiC9HjyQ
Why are oil execs so whiny and self-righteous compared to virtually every other energy industry? Saw a video with some oil guy screaming at Congress about how much everyone needs oil for muh plastics, it sounded more desperate than anything. Coal execs are way more chill, even nuclear, solar and wind guys can maintain their cool for longer. With oil execs they all act indignant and self-righteous whenever you see them on TV.
>>16774798Lets look at the most recent nuke plantshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant8 yearshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astravets_Nuclear_Power_Planthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shidao_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Planthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiyang_Nuclear_Power_Planthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Stationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishan_Nuclear_Power_Plant9 yearsSo shitholes with no labour regulations and a history of massive construction process takes 8-9 years (I will admit I was off) the west however hasn't built new plants (not simply reactors) in over a decade, and the only one under construction in the west is expected to take a decade from the start of construction to its completion.
>>16773115Read about Denmark building 34BN euro green renewal island…
>>16774848The average is 7 years. Japan, South Korea, and China are the fastest, taking about just 3 years.
>>16774857The fuck are you talking about? China's last four plants took 9 years to build.
>>16774848Notice construction date after Fukushima’s "hysteria controversial" debate
>>16774847the oil industry is run by Texans and Arabs, ie. the most tempermental and self-aggrandizing retards on earth
>>16772042Subversive cartoon
>>16774862The fuck are you talking about? Do you mean how Fukushima, a boiler (simpler and dirtier than a pressurized reactor) from half a century ago taking 4 years to build when Japan was in a boom of nuclear construction? Yeah that's irrelevant to the current situation.
>>16774875I talked about western new on anti nuclear movement>>16768409
>>16774886I'm not watching your video of a woman who sounds like she has a mouth full of marbles. Give me links to statistics if you want.As I said China takes 9 years, the US, France, and Britain all averaged over a decade. As for Japan I wouldn't take construction advice from a country that constructed 17 nuke plants and all but five have had to be decommissioned or suspend operations indefinitely.
>>16774901>I'm not watching your video …cope?
>>16774901>but five have had to be decommissioned or suspend operations indefinitelyThey within range from ring of fire. No choice I guess
>>16774935Diablo Canyon is in SoCal and is just fine despite being right neat a fault line.
>>16774909Well she was also arguing disingenuously up until I stopped listening to her awful accent "the US built nuclear plants in 2-5 years in the 1970s so they could do that today" as though the US doesn't already have a shortage of construction workers let alone construction workers experienced in building nuclear plants.Tell me who is going to construct all of these nuclear plants? Where are you going to find 40,000 workers to simultaneously construct a dozen nuclear plants? Do you think that a starbucks barista will suddenly become not just a construction worker, but an experienced construction worker overnight if you offer him $30-40 an hour?
>>16774942California expand operation by 2030? Upgraded to hydrogen vehicle maybe.
>>16774942Are protest fine?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88Tza3zLw3A
>>16774961It's still running so yes. If your plant isn't producing power it failed in its only goal, if it is producing power it's succeeding in its goal (how much depending on cost and environmental impact).
>>16774901The average is 7 years. That's it with significant legal roadblocks. End of the story.
According to the World Nuclear Association, the average construction time for nuclear reactors is around 7.5 years, with a median construction time of 89 months (around 7.4 years) for reactors connected to the grid in 2022.
>>16774972Time period matters, complexity increases, automation can increase, and skilled personnel can be developed or lost. Your logic is as reasonable as saying it takes a week to make a shirt on average because people in the pre-modern era had to use a hand loom and stitch them by hand and before that they had to weave the fabric by hand.
>>16774984The average nuclear plant is 40 years old
This thread was moved to >>>/pol/471870783
