/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11097502
look at this cute otter, op. why do you want to kill them off with your ebil nucwear power pants?

>>11097502
>Give me reasons why all the world shouldn't switch 100% of its power source to nuclear energy.

if you mean immediately:

>economic collapse
>extreme poverty for third word countries
>really really easy pretext for war
>loss of hundreds of millions of jobs
>mass starvation
>general decline of civilization

transitioning slowly like we are now is the best option right now. The only answer is in fact nuclear energy unless some miraculous technology is discovered, and every genuine scientist and professional knows this. Dont worry about the shitty liberals who bitch about nuclear, they will get run over unless they end up obtaining alot more political power and stoking paranoia. also watch out for people that want to change to alternative energy in only a few years like socialists. Most of them are too retarded to understand how society is functioning

A nuclear and radiation accident is defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as "an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility". Examples include lethal effects to individuals, radioactive isotope to the environment, or reactor core melt."[6] The prime example of a "major nuclear accident" is one in which a reactor core is damaged and significant amounts of radioactive isotopes are released, such as in the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.[7]

The impact of nuclear accidents has been a topic of debate since the first nuclear reactors were constructed in 1954, and has been a key factor in public concern about nuclear facilities.[8] Technical measures to reduce the risk of accidents or to minimize the amount of radioactivity released to the environment have been adopted, however human error remains, and "there have been many accidents with varying impacts as well near misses and incidents".[8][9] As of 2014, there have been more than 100 serious nuclear accidents and incidents from the use of nuclear power. Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and about 60% of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.[10] Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), the Chernobyl disaster (1986), the Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).[11] Nuclear power accidents can involve loss of life and large monetary costs for remediation work.[12]
Why don't you post a list of alternative energy accidents and we can compare.

>>11097502
Because very few countries can be trusted to run a nuclear power plant.

>>11097544
whats the alternative? wind power? If youre forcing the entire world to convert you might as well get together some sort of international army to enforce and regulate energy production anyways.

>Western world can barely get single nuclear stations up and running over multi-decade long time scales
>but if we start building thousands tomorrow somehow it'll all work out
I'm sick of seeing this leddit meme.

Also let s say we have another 9/11, what if this time they fly a couple of planes into a few nuclear power plants....
You guys are basically asking for it.
It's going to happen eventually.

>>11097548
Solar and wind are both good.

>>11097548
Solar power output globally has doubled every two years since the 1980s, with solar cost decreasing exponentially,
It's only 12 years until we have enough panels to power planet earth.

Just chill. Nuclear was awesome, so was fire, so was steam, and coal, but solar and wind and geothermal and tidal and hydroelectricity are free when you get them set up, you only have to maintain them.

Its essential for the future we all dream of.

>>11097502
I can tell you why nuclear power isn't the primary energy source and likely won't ever be till certain civilization-saving legislative changes are made: women.

>>11097562
along with nuclear and fossil fuels, yes. But thats beside the point because if some baddie country is bad enough to do something like make nuclear weapons, then they are waaay more likley to just use oil to make their country function

>>11097572
That's because woman think about the future their children have to inhabit, it's called maternal instinct.

>>11097574
So they're just deluded.

>>11097574
If they actually thought about their children's future critically they wouldn't make the choices they do.

>>11097573
So fucking what? If the united states gets off oil and switches to 100% renewables Russia goes back to the dark ages.

>>11097572
>Women are easily fear mongered and swayed by sensationalist media
>In other news, water is wet

Nuclear power on a scale you're describing would probably require some degree of privatization and that'd be an extremely bad idea. There's also the issue of having enough qualified professionals to run that many nuclear power plants as well as uranium supplies to power that many, we'd probably run out of it fairly quickly if we're powering the entire world on it.

>>11097572
>implying women have equal access to the levers of power
Anon... I...

>>11097584
and there are men who unironically think that this class of person should be given the vote.

>>11097590
They actually have the most say. This society is designed to cater to their whims.

>>11097571
kek, you arent going to power planet Earth with wind and Solar. Let me be clear so you dont bitch: Solar and wind are great but need to be supplemented with Nuclear and Fossil fuels. Thats just how it is.

Back to the first post though, you are completely missing the issue at hand. Dosent matter if you want every country to use hamsters running around on wheels, if a country will abuse nuclear, its even more likley they are going to cheat. In fact its vastly more likely a country will just do Fossil fuels behind the scenes. So my point still stands: If you are going to force via armed troops and international regulation to do wind and electric, you might aswell make them do safe nuclear a bit too

>>11097583
so does half of america. Are you serious? Do liberals really hate Russia that much now?

>>11097592
It must be weird to live so detached from reality.

>>11097502
>Economic reasons (large initial investments)
>Staffing reasons (not everyone has enough competent personal)
>Security reasons (fissile material is a powerful weapon)
>"Grid fragility" (one or two plants go down, you got big problem)
>Peak uranium, but that's probly meme

>>11097599
>Do liberals really hate Russia that much now?
Do conservatives not?

>>11097596
Supplemented complementary power sources are fine with me :)

We need nuclear reactors for research and medicine so we will always have nuclear, also radiothermal generators are incredible and SciFi futuristic,
I'm saying don't go 100% nuclear.

>>11097613
Conservatives have always been suspicious of Russia. Im just saying Liberals usually dont take account of other people in their society and usually just do things that satisfy their moral ego. Converting the world to green energy at the expense of the dirt stupid poor trump supporters sounds exactly like something they would do.

>>11097512
>nuclear power pants

Protip everybody.
You know how everyone here is always complaining about there relationships with the opposite sex.
Having a nuclear debate very quickly turn into a woman hating thread definitely has alot to do with it lol.
Jesus Christ.

>>11097502
>third world
>nuclear power

>>11097622
>expense of the dirt poor stupid trump supporters
This argument makes no sense. Trump couldn't even prop up the dying industries of the people supporting him. Absolutely nothing will keep reality from crashing in on these people, because the market is killing them, not 'muh liberals'.

The ideal society would be nuclear power powering large facilities, like schools and stores, while houses, street lights, traffic lights, and even public charging stations are solar powered, with battery-stored energy from nuclear power as a backup.

>>11097632
Sure, but how do you tell solar and nuclear electrons apart?

>>11097630
>prop up the dying industries
you mean literally every industry. We aren't talking about cigarettes. We are talking about the actual thing thats making society function. This is a "I literally dont have enough energy to get to my job everyday" issue. You dont understand that

>>11097574
then they should think about it more rationally.

>>11097502
>Give me reasons why all the world shouldn't switch 100% of its power source to nuclear energy.
We have finite supplies. I don't want chinks and afrolets sucking MY uranium.

>>11097787
Based

>>11097502
Not 100% but we should be relying on it heavily
it is actually clean energy and we can make tons of it

>>11097572
Women feel and men reason Women are swayed by emotional rhetoric.
But, Big Oil is why Nuclear was Crushed!