>kills you
Oh, evil steam, you escape again.But you'll condensate soon enough.And that day will be boiling day for you.
>>16821623Damn nukular reactors releasing off radioactive gasses into my atmosphere
>>16821631You don't like breathing in some radon that decays into lead in your lungs?
Totally rad!
>>16821642>wind causes almost zero deaths!Lmao tell that to the eagles
Pipes that are actually bad for you health are narrow. They are placed on the reactor, emit radioactive gases. May be linked to cancer.
There's a park really close to a nuclear power plant. I was walking my dog through the park and felt this sharp needle like sensation in my back I've never felt in my life. Never going to that park again.
>>16821675That's just your sciatica acting up.
>>16821675glow niggers love to shoot americans in the lower back
They literally emit five hundred megatons of radiation per day.
>>1682202720 times less and they don't emit it, most fission products are burned inside the reactor and they decay without being released, including gases like xenon
>>16822037500 megatons is 10 Tsar bombas. They're killing us dude!
>>16822049>the sun bombards Earth with +3000 MT of sunlight each dayThe ball is killing us man!
>>16822072Pipes or Balls?
>>16821675Of course you won't go back, then you'll be reminded you're retarded when you notice your back doesn't hurt.
>>16821644Entire world absolutely mogged by eastern euro shitholes lmaoWhats the scientific reason behind superpowers being incapable of achieving this power?
>>16821623>Never born as parents froze to death/starved from high energy costs.For African, boiling a kettle costs an hours walk to gather sticks from a depleted forest.
Solar follows moores law on cost and the panels last decades. Even w the tarrifs and removal of subsidies, solar will make oil and gas gradually obsolete for everything but industrial feedstock and aerospace fuels. Purely on a cost per energy basis, solar will beat drilling oil. Even if storage is based on solar -> methane capture, it will beat drilling in a decade at most.
>>16821623You think hot water vapor is bad? Wait until we tell you what we put into the hot water vapor.
>>16821642Perfectly Safe Solar, FTW!
>>16821662Oh now you care about nature?
>>16822247Those eastern euro shitholes probably only need one or two reactors to provide power for their entire population. Meanwhile the superpowers have populations that would necessitate multiple dozens of reactors to provide total nuclear power.
>>16821642>>16821662>Lmao tell that to the eaglesYeah, about that...
Reminder nuclear shills never want to answer how the world would keep up with the ore supply demand of a heavy turnover to nuclear energy, and the consequences of mining it.
>>16822566why are you even on this website
>>16822545>>16821642And yet, retarded Americans still believe Trump when he talks about “clean” coal.
>>16821675Yes, yellow jackets are evil but what does that have to do with nuclear power?
>>16821623It has happened, but you're far more likely to be killed by other forms of energy production. Good starting point: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy>>16821635Oh god you actually believe that's what's in the steam don't you. You don't actually know the basic design of a nuclear reactor.>>16822566Nuclear supplies about 10% of the worlds energy, and the amount of waste ever produced fits on a single football field. Scaling that up by 10x is so much more feasible than scaling up other forms of energy by the same.
>>16822941Does he? Not saying you're wrong but "clean coal" was a big part of the Bush administration. If Trump is carrying that over beyond anything other than a stopgap measure, that's kind of stupid.Trump and Biden both have given loan guarantees for the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan that's inching closer to being restarted. It will be the first time that a decommissioned nuclear plant in the US is restarted. Reading over some of the issues with restarting the plant makes it sound like much of the difficulty with nuclear plants aren't the reactors themselves but the endless layers of industrial management that has to surround it. Obviously safety is a top concern but that doesn't mean the way safety is being handled is anywhere near the best way to cover those issues. There are many greenfield reactor designs but perhaps we also need some greenfield thinking when it comes to the safety layers too.
>>16823172>Does he? Not saying you're wrong but "clean coal" was a big part of the Bush administration. If Trump is carrying that over beyond anything other than a stopgap measure, that's kind of stupid.Not like Bush was easy to confuse with someone smart. Trump added that “they” go in, take regular coal, “clean it up” and then you have “clean coal”, so he added a whole other layer of stupid to it. See here: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dHiDz5Q1q6oAs for reopening a nuclear plant: That might be the only cost-effective way of doing nuclear – using an already-built plant.
>>16823816At the time, natural gas was somewhat scarce and it was not yet clear that carbon capture would be so expensive. The only real options at the time were Gas, Coal, or nuclear, and gas and nuclear were somewhat crippled in the 2000's and wind/solar basically didn't exist so coal it was.
>>16823816Anyways cut the midwit shit about the cost of energy, nuclear below like 12000 dollars a kilowatt is able to hold its own against renewable energy in a lot of locations since intermittency is a bitch and gas often needs to be imported.
>>16823833>Anyways cut the midwit shit about the cost of energy, nuclear below like 12000 dollars a kilowatt is able to hold its own against renewable energy in a lot of locations since intermittency is a bitch and gas often needs to be imported.No it isn’t. Without billions of subsidies, nuclear would be prohibitively expensive, especially if you price in every effect on the environment. The people who tell you that it is cost-effective are lying to you to further their neoliberal propaganda. They are lining their own pockets at your risk.
>>16823835>wuba wuba wuba subsidize NEVERDude if you actually model this stuff nuclear is sort of competitive sometimes but not always, sort of like every other energy source. The main deliminer in its competitiveness is carbon price actually, when you don't value CO2 emissions its lunch is most often eaten by coal since that is what is usually cheapest if gas and renewables suck for a given location.
>>16823865>>16823835Anyways I think its funny you consider my work "neoliberal propaganda", fucking dipshit.
>>16821642I agree with full nuclearization but it's clearly just>what's the deadliest thing? we include not only accidents, but also cleverly insert a stat that makes our point for us
>>16823873The potential of nuclear is amazing. Even if it cannot consistently get near the bottom of the cost curves seen in the past, its quite often a better option than wind and solar. I used to be sold on a wind and solar future, but honestly a ton of the places people care about live in locations where the weather just isn't that good for them, not everywhere is the Southwestern U.S or Australia. If it does somehow get near the bottom of its observed costs consistently, it will be able to pull off the kind of dominance coal pulled off. The only thing that can pull off similar dominance is solar/batteries if battery costs pull off a miracle over the next few decades, but that's only for sunny places, nuclear would work everywhere!
>>16823880its just a shame how hard it is to scale
>>16823880 imo the only real concern re nuclear plants is war. they become a serious sabotage liablity/target unless power stations are small, underground, and distributed enough such that a detonation of the entire plant would cause minimal environmental harm and power grid damage.
>>16823897Eh, hydroelectric dams are the same and ramming planes into the twin towers had a similar death toll as chernobyl. The solution to nuclear safety is to just see it in context and realize "yeah ok, industrial shit is scary when it breaks" and treat it with respect as we must treat other hazardous processes with respect.
>>16823903>>16823903It's less about direct deaths but moreso about very long term pollution of wildlife, farm animals, cancer rates/health effects, economic damage, the effort for cleanup, etc. I don't agree with the hysteria around nuclear plants at all, it's just that to me there's something militarily unsound about having tactical nukes sitting near population centres that a hypothetical enemy force could take advantage of. Maybe you can correct me on this, but as of right now, I don't think the nuclear facilities we have are designed against such issues, especially given the major upfront cost. Even if these things never take place, the threat of that is exploitable
>>16823947It's a concern, nuclear facilities are somewhat hardened but a proper military that wanted to destroy one could do so.I am as pro nuclear as they come, but yes this is an unfortunate possibility.
>>16823954I think the best defense is just to consider this type of bullshit release nuclear war. This is why Russia won't harm the reactors in Ukraine, they disabled the plants but they are afraid of the escalation that would come with weaponizing the reactors themselves.
>>16823169>You don't actually know the basic design of a nuclear reactor.Leftists are all liberal arts and don't know much of anything technical. They're strength is rhetorical, so they can *sound* like they know anything.
>>16822566Why not develop thorium ractors? there are basicaly inexastable supplies.
>>16823816>Not like Bush was easy to confuse with someone smart.bush was highly intelligent.
How is that fusion experiment going in France?
>>16823980Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.. you ain't gonna fool me again!
>>16823865>If I randomly discount environmental costs, it is kinda cost-effectiveYeah, no. This is what I mean by propaganda. i hope you don’t actually think that shit like that makes sense.
>>16823980>bush was highly intelligent.To you, sure. To anyone with a triple digit IQ, not so much.
