/sci/ - Science & Math

>serious development by the USG was stopped in the 50s and 60s once it was realized that it couldn't contribute more to weapons development
>design of new reactors stagnated without federal investment, leading to 60s designs with tiny improvements STILL being the only things built today
>greentards and politics halt construction of new reactors in the 80s, 90s, and 00s in a wholly successful shill-op funded by big oil and big gas
>"current tech (60s tech)" reactors are now too expensive to compete with even renewable shit like wind and solar
>new reactor designs that COULD compete are 15-20 years way from real deployment, thanks to lack of federal funding worldwide
>those reactors won't be competitive either by the time they are built, so they will never be built
It's time to shut it down, /sci/.
We lost. Nuclear power is dead. Prove me wrong.

Imagine where we'd be today if liberals/environmentalists hadn't been unscientific about nuclear power for the past 40 years.

>>8903498
>https://atomicinsights.com/clean-doable-liquid-fission-lf-energy-roadmap-%E2%80%A8powering-world/
Damn, this is some neat stuff.
What do you think are the the chances of this type of nuclear power taking off and supplying a significant portion of our future energy needs?

The good thing about current deplorable nuclear practices is, that once we finally get our heads out of our asses, we'll have ready stockpiles of nuclear fuel for quite some time from reprocessing current nuclear "waste".

Personally I think that it's quite probable we'll only turn to nuclear when we've totally fucked up with regards to environment and have no choice.

There still isn't afaik conclusive proof of the non -linear radiation exposure model being true.