Why aren't we using nuclear power more?

[Anonymous No.10327372]

Other countries like France heavily use nuclear power. Here in the US, we're paranoid of a nuclear disaster happening that hasn't happened in decades and considering that the technology has been perfected for safety. Why?

[Anonymous No.10327377]

>>10327372
because the smear campaign by the oil industry convinced all normies "hurr durr nuclear so dangerous"

[Anonymous No.10327381]

>>10327372
NIMBYs.
Even if you're not against nuclear in theory most people don't want it anywhere near them.
Theres also so much red tape involved in the process that there are endless opportunities to shitcan the thing, or postpone it indefinitely.

[Anonymous No.10327393]

>>10327372
A very aggressive vetting program makes it slow to get permission to build a nuclear plant, they must be extremely safe, institute multiple layers of safety system both human and mechanical, and of course anti-nuke propaganda has turned pretty much everyone who isn't moderately well educated about nuke technology into a NIMBY. The working parts are also very expensive to build, fuel is highly controlled and thus expensive to get, expensive to store, and expensive to store once spent.

[Anonymous No.10327398]

Dangerous polluting unhealthy and destructive of the environment.

We need to use traditional well proven coal and slowly but steadily develop renewable technology.

[Anonymous No.10327407]

>>10327372
hippies

[Anonymous No.10327529]

>>10327372
German autistic retards. (Merkel's ban in germany and green activists in Austria.)
t. Czech

[Anonymous No.10327539]

>>10327398
i hope to god you're not serious. coal is more "Dangerous polluting unhealthy and destructive of the environment" than nuclear

[Anonymous No.10327602]

3 mile island and Jimmy Carter.

The moratorium combined with Nimbys and coal barons, halted US nuclear development for 40 years. Every administration since, even ones with nuclear scientists at the DOE, have made nuclear even harder to do. As they favored ideological pure pet power like solar or coal.

The new Votgle reactoes have cost more than projected, taken longer than projected, and caused Westinghouse to go bankrupt.

The Trump DOE run by that retard from Texas, has closed spent nuclear fuel processing centers in Idaho. Saying it wasn't economical and Idaho lobbying because they didnt want everyone else's fuel staying in Idaho forever.

Former senator harry reid(d) kept Yucca mountain from ever opening.

California suffers from brown outs. Yet they let a nuclear plant sit idle. As no one wants to spend the money to fix it.

The only way to get nuclear in the USA back on track and to French levels. Is to have massive federal government investment over decades. Which isnt going to happen. Instead we will get carbon taxes, solar panels, batteries, and 40 cents per kwh electricity.
.

[Anonymous No.10327642]

>>10327602
Jimmy Carter had to clean up a nuclear accident in Canada resulting in him pissing radioactive urine for a month. This probably is why Amy Carter is so ugly. He served on nuclear submarines. Any hostility he had towards nuclear power was from personal experience rather than hippy misinformation.

[Anonymous No.10327645]

>>10327398
Your average coal plant even with the numerous filtration systems in place releases significantly more radioactive material into the environment than the average nuclear plant.

[Anonymous No.10327662]

>>10327372
France will go away from nuclear in the future and use more wind and solar.
Nuclear power plants are a pain to operate.

[Anonymous No.10328007]

>>10327372
on jpg is cooling tower from electrical power and heating plant

from chimney files out stream

[Anonymous No.10328033]

>>10327372
Because it objectively sucks and its supporters are children who desperately want to look smarter.

[Anonymous No.10329288]

>>10327372
>Why aren't we using nuclear power more?
...bcoz Yucca Mountain was the worst possible non-scientific (read: political) choice for hazmat storage.

[Anonymous No.10329301]

>>10327372
The frenchies don't have problems in waste disposal, they usually call the italian mafia to shove it down the mediterranean using old ships and simulating a sinking. Nuclear power plants produce a shitload of radioactive wastes which are incredibly expensive to great and dispose using the current regulations, also nuclear plants need fissile superheavy elements bar like uranium 235 which is also expensive and very rare to fine these days. In short nucleare energy is too much costly and risky compared to others

[Anonymous No.10329461]

>>10328033
>objectively sucks
go on then mate

[Anonymous No.10329505]

>>10327372
Cause people are afraid of ''muh radiation.''

Nuclear energy could actually be a great transition phase between fossil fuels and green energy.

Compared to coal burning, which just spews it's toxic shit into the air for people to breathe in, nuclear waste is pretty well behaved. Why? Because it's mostly solid. And solids are waayyyy easier to handle than gasses. Yes, sticking a bunch of radioactive gunk deep in the earth is probably a bad idea (although radio active waste is quite easy to store), but spewing your waste into the atmosphere is a worse idea.

What opponents of nuclear energy will often tell you is that the waste ''remains radioactive for thousands of years!!!11!!1.'' Thing is though, the longer the half life of an isotope, the less radio active it is per unit of time. As an example, uranium 235 (the fissionable isotope of uranium) has a half life of 700.000.000 years, but because its half life is so ridiculously long, it's a very weak emitter and can be safely handled with just a pair of gloves. (Although the gloves are more a formality than strictly necessary.) The isotopes you should be afraid of are Cs 137 and Sr 99, which have half lives of roughly 30 years. Those are the real bastards.

Also, yes, uranium mining is more intensive than coal mining. But even taking all that into account, one kg of uranium mining generates more electricity than a kg of coal, and does so at a lower pollutant output. (1)

In addition, nuclear energy is THE safest form of energy, if you look at deaths per unit of energy generated. (2)

Honestly, I do not think that the average (read: average, not every single one) opponent of nuclear energy can actually explain how a nuclear energy works, other than ''uranium in energy out lmao.''

References:
(1)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx
(2) https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/01/nuclear-power-has-saved-3-4-million-lives.html

[Anonymous No.10329565]

>>10329301

>shitload of radioactive wastes

A common enough meme, though this is only because Americans don't do it properly.

https://whatisnuclear.com/factoids.html

>the average American annually produces 10 metric tons of carbon
>the average nuclear waste of an American would, under a national grid powered by breeder-cycle reactors, be merely 40g of waste, which can eventually be recycled

https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html

If recycled to full efficiency with the appropriate technology, the known Uranium reserves inc. processable 'waste' could power civilisation for tens of thousands of years, whereas hydrocarbon reserves are projected to be depleted in less than half of a thousand years.

>>10328033

t. Hasn't studied nuclear power

[Anonymous No.10329721]

>>10327377
>because the smear campaign by the oil industry

And by Big Greenism. There are folks making a shit-ton of money either selling "green" technologies or soliciting contributions to act as green crusaders. Not that they don't provide some good products or support some good causes. But you make more money from fear than you make from disinterested altruism, and there are skeezy folks that will glom on to any movement if there is money to be made.

>>10327381
This is correct, but WHY the fear to have one near you? You'd face more radiation exposure from having a coal plant at the same location. The fear is stoked by the folks referred to above.

[Anonymous No.10329724]

>>10327393
Is the fuel expensive in terms of kilowatt hour produced, or is it just that it is a large upfront cost since you are fueling the thing up to run for a long time?

[Anonymous No.10329727]

>>10327398
>Dangerous polluting unhealthy and destructive of the environment.

>Nuclear electrical generation.

Choose one.

[Anonymous No.10329728]

>>10329724
Both, however it's largely due to extreme regulation caused by fear mongering

[Anonymous No.10329733]

>>10327642
Source for first claim please.

I know about his service with the submarine fleet, and from that he would have been knowledgeable enough about how nuclear reactors work not to be afraid of them, personally.

But he was a canny politician, and as you can raise more money from fear, you can also motivate more voters with fear.

[Anonymous No.10329736]

>>10329288
That doesn't matter since they never opened it. The worst possible choice is what we have instead -- store it all the fuck over the place where it is generated.

[Anonymous No.10329762]

>>10329505
>I do not think that the average (read: average, not every single one) opponent of nuclear energy can actually explain how a nuclear energy works

A wonderful example of this was a conversation between to activist-minded women overheard in a restaurant in Wilmington, NC, by your humble corespondent. They were discussing environmental this and that, and the topic turned to the nearby Brunswick Nuclear Power Station -- the name of which had apparently slipped the mind of the lady who brought it up. But she explained to her friend, "You know, that fire-cracker factory where they make electricity out of neutron bombs."

And, based on their obvious deep understanding of how such a plant operates, the proceeded to run through their litany of why it was dangerous and evil.

[Anonymous No.10329780]

1. It's expensive once you include the full lifetime costs, mostly because getting rid of the spent fuel and dismantling the plant is super expensive.
2. Lack of expertise because all the experts are now old and all the young people have not actually built any plants.
3. Procuring fuel is not easy for all countries.
4. Risky investment compared to other energy plants.
5. Huge upfront cost means most investors don't have enough capital to invest in this sector, anyway.

[Anonymous No.10330073]

>>10329780
All of these reasons, plus the fact that wind and solar are scaling up and becoming more profitable every year.

[Anonymous No.10330090]

>>10330073
solar is worthless outside of the american southwest and digerydooland

[Anonymous No.10330098]

>>10330090
It's not m80. Plenty of people in the EU use it including in the cloudy northerly places and significantly reduce their electric bills. Americans consume too much.

[Anonymous No.10330125]

>>10329762
Neither New Hanover nor Brunswick counties are known for their intelligent populaces. But I laughed anyway

[Anonymous No.10330134]

>>10329565
>If recycled to full efficiency with the appropriate technology
Protip: that technology doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.10330156]

>>10327372
Because almost everything else is cheaper. Also everything else is safer and more popular. Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.10330172]

>>10327372
(((Capitalism))) and the (((green energy))) hoax. Can’t do something for the good of the people and provide them with cheap, efficient energy. No, we have to charge them (((carbon taxes))) and make them pay for stupid fans and solar panels that don’t even work at the expense of the common tax payer.

[Anonymous No.10330204]

>>10327372
Will nuclear power be finally viable once nuclear fusion is fully realised?

[Anonymous No.10330269]

>>10329721
>but WHY the fear to have one near you
I'm not against nuclear power but this should be fairly obvious.

[Anonymous No.10330345]

>>10330172
yeah, better just do nothing instead and let everything go to shit

at least we won't give the wrong people money, we'll give it to the people that deserve it like we do now

[Anonymous No.10330404]

>>10329762
>fire-cracker neutron bomb energy plant.

Sounds like something a 5 year old would come up with for a sci-fi project. Fucking lol.

Also, small correction for >>10329505
Sr 99 is supposed to be Sr 90

[Anonymous No.10330745]

>>10327602
America has 50% more nuclear capacity than France.

[Anonymous No.10330898]

>>10330745
Wow, 1.5 times the nuclear capacity and only 5 times the population, surely the US is amazing.

[Anonymous No.10330918]

>we're paranoid of a nuclear disaster happening that hasn't happened in decades
Frequency of accidents is not the issue, magnitude is. The problem is that we cannot afford even a single worst-case scenario (Chernobyl wasn't even close). You don't play 100 rounds of Russian Roulette for $10 each and expect to win $833.

[AdrenalineBro No.10330993]

Because we can't even handle
Having laundry soap in pods yet bro

[Anonymous No.10331015]

>>10330204
Yes, but big coal and big green will work real hard to supress it to save their shekels

[Anonymous No.10331018]

>>10330918
the plants inside nuclear submarines never leak. but those are classified smdhfam

[Anonymous No.10331122]

>>10327372
Nuclear is outdated.

[Anonymous No.10331253]

>>10330156
Strange how nobody has responded to this post

[Anonymous No.10331269]

>>10327372
Because we don't have any place where we could safely store contaminated shit for literally millions of years

[Anonymous No.10331281]

>>10329505
>>10329762
>everyone who disagrees with me is dumb
Nice /pol/tard mentality

[Anonymous No.10331332]

>>10331018
>the plants inside nuclear submarines never leak

bull shit

When a nuclear sub leaks or gets destroyed/destroyed they leave it on the bottom of the ocean. They say they monitor the situation but really for the most part they just keep their distance and ignore it. The ocean is a barren wasteland. It's the perfect place to dispose of nuclear waste quietly and discreetly.

[Anonymous No.10331503]

>>10327372
Building nuclear plants is expensive and slow
Natural gas is cheap

[Anonymous No.10331514]

>>10331281
Everyone who disagrees with me that doesnt have a coherent argument supported by good quality data is dumb.

[Anonymous No.10332110]

>>10330156
>>10331253
>>10331503
you can see the result

[Anonymous No.10332154]

We need to wait for viable Stellerator designs first

[Anonymous No.10332222]

>>10330156
>...such observation does not take into account... reliability or intermittency-related considerations.
Sure, solar and wind are the best if you ignore their biggest faults. They are, and have always been completely useless for baseload generation.

>>10331253
>>10332110
>Excessive regulations and heavy lobbying against literally anything make that thing less useful/popular
Nobody's denying that.

[Anonymous No.10332384]

>>10332222
solarthermic with molten salt storage can do 24/7
But atomic power was killed by natural gas because gas is better in every way.
It's cheaper, it's safer, plants can be build faster, it's more popular, even nimbys don't complain, it can generate peak load and provide emergency power which is way more profitable then baseload.

[Anonymous No.10332417]

>>10332384
>solarthermic with molten salt storage can do 24/7
I admit I've never heard of this before, and it seems promising, but it's been around for a decade, and the fact it's not at all widespread means there must be something wrong with it. I'm guessing efficiency, but all the wikipedia articles are written like ads, so I don't know.

>But atomic power was killed by natural gas
Last I checked, there were quite a few nuclear plants still around.

>It's cheaper...plants can be build faster, it's more popular,
Sure, these are all related, and excessive regulations and lobbying are really bad for nuclear, but those aren't inherent problems with it. Still, obviously, nuclear plants would still be more expensive, but maintenance and fuel costs are lower.

>it's safer
No, it is not. Nuclear has THE lowest death/kWh, or damages/kWh of all the production methods.

>it can generate peak load and provide emergency power which is way more profitable then baseload.
Kek. Yeah, but we NEED baseload. Also, gas is only slightly less polluting than coal.

[Anonymous No.10332447]

>>10332417
>Nuclear has THE lowest death/kWh, or damages/kWh of all the production methods.
It takes a lot of effort to keep it like that.

[Anonymous No.10332506]

>>10331281
The point that I was trying to convey is that most people who are against nuclear energy are motivated by fear rather than actual understanding of the process. Unfortunately, posts can only be 2000 characters long, so that was conveyed poorly.

Also, nice to see that you supplied exactly zero arguments.

[Anonymous No.10332605]

>>10327372
>La Hague has nearly half of the world's light water reactor spent nuclear fuel reprocessing capacity. It has been in operation since 1976, and has a capacity of about 1700 tonnes per year. It extracts plutonium which is then recycled into MOX fuel at the Marcoule site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site
I live 10km away from this site, what do I risk exactly?

[Anonymous No.10332641]

>>10327372
because burgers are tinfoilhat type

[Anonymous No.10332660]

>>10332384
>solarthermic with molten salt storage can do 24/7
Not good enough, needs to do at least 25/8.

[Anonymous No.10332682]

LFTRs pls...

[Anonymous No.10332863]

>>10331281
Poltards think anyone disagreeing with them is a sneaky high-iq turbojew and/or illuminati, i dont think they call them dumb. Been a while since i were there last though, things might have changed

[Anonymous No.10332866]

>>10332417
>Last I checked, there were quite a few nuclear plants still around.
many will be shut down within the next decade

>>10332417
>but maintenance and fuel costs are lower.
maintenance is more expensive because you need high paying specialists and most nuclear plants are now very old and need more repairs then new plants. Fuel costs had been low because there was lot of uranium from nuclear disarmament. This is no longer the case.

[Anonymous No.10332874]

>>10327372
The technology obviously hasn't been perfected for safety if it can be merely stuxnet'd and bombed into a critical meltdown.

Also, any system that requires the BULK of its space and material be devoted to active failsafes dealing with high pressure systems, it's a bad system. I would support LFTR, but apparently that's just going to be a Chinese thing while we settle for garbage.

[Anonymous No.10332896]

>>10327372
Much less to do with fear and much more to do with expensiveness. The startup costs of nuclear power are ludicrous, and fuckups can destroy the entire process. A nuclear power plant shut down near me permanently because some retard pushed the cooling rods in too far.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zion_Nuclear_Power_Station

[Anonymous No.10332951]

>>10332866
We're, again, back to the beginning. These are not the inherent characteristics of nuclear, but the results of popular ignorance mixed with lobbying.

>>10332447
If you think the current state of the energy sector can be fixed/improved upon without "a lot of effort", I've got several beautiful bridges for sale you might be interested in.

[Anonymous No.10332983]

>>10332874
>>10332896
Well, hydroelectric, gas and coal power stations can cause (and have caused) literal hundreds of thousands of deaths, even when there's only natural causes.

Why don't those count? If a nuclear power station having to close (with no deaths) because of a serious malpractice is a good argument against all nuclear stations, then why isn't LITERALLY 171,000 dead bodies following a natural flood enough against power dams?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

Not only did Fukushima have both an earthquake and a tsunami, the leadership were also proven to have been negligent prior to the "catastrophe". Now tell me, how many people died because of radiation there?

[Anonymous No.10333041]

>>10332605
>>10332605
Nothing, real life isn't the Simpsons.

[Anonymous No.10333138]

>>10332951
>If you think the current state of the energy sector can be fixed/improved upon without "a lot of effort", I've got several beautiful bridges for sale you might be interested in.
Look, nuclear power plants are like shitty old buildings and systems that we have to spend stupid amounts to maintain. You're probs American, so think of it like New York's masonry problem. They've always got to have some work done on them over centuries or everything falls apart and lands on someone's head and kills them. Nuclear power is like this because storing nuclear waste is not straightforward at all.

[Anonymous No.10333142]

>>10333041
In the real world, nuclear waste can and does escape (less so now, but there have been previous issues with it being transported) and meltdowns have potential to happen (though extremely remote). La Hague is probably very well run though, so more likely to have had a higher dose because of Chernobyl.

[Anonymous No.10333148]

>>10333138
I've had enough of this. I can only repeat the same answer so many times. Good on you, you wore me down.

[Anonymous No.10333149]

>>10332983
>Fukushima
Fukushima was infected with the stuxnet virus, there's also evidence of explosions from within unrelated to the reactor.

I believe it was geopolitical sabotage. JApan was being punished for something and I plan to go back over what pressures and events were going on at that time.

[Anonymous No.10333154]

>>10327372
Because all things considered nuclear power plants are really quite expensive and now we don't need nuclear arms anymore so governments are not pushing them anymore.

[Anonymous No.10333158]

>>10329721
Nuclear energy is the one that has less CO2 emitted per Kw of energy produced, you can't be greener than that.

[Anonymous No.10333159]

>>10332983
Nuclear is dangerous. Radiation doesn't smell. Enough is enough.

[Anonymous No.10333166]

>>10333148
>REEE WHY IS NUCLEAR WASTE A THING

[Anonymous No.10333167]

>>10333158
>implying greens give a shit

[Anonymous No.10333215]

>>10333142
There's always a non-zero chance of a meltdown happening yes, but considering both the gravity of a meltdown and the frequency of them happening, nuclear is by far the safest energy source.

>>10333159
CO2 and fine dust don't smell either.

[Anonymous No.10333398]

>>10332983
I'm this guy
>>10332896

I never said it was unsafe, I said it was ludicrously expensive, and there's hundreds of nuclear disasters that you've never heard of because no one died, yet the economic impact was terrible.

[Anonymous No.10333468]

>>10333398
Would love to see a list of those hundreds of "disasters".

[Anonymous No.10333470]

>>10333468
Not him. But I'm sure it wouldn't change your mind.

[Anonymous No.10333491]

>>10333398
>>10333470
Also, don't forget that you're comparing nuclear to other sources of power, which have more than their fair share of disasters. I mean real disasters, where people die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Selected_energy_accidents
^Do the terrible economic impacts not count in these cases for some reason?

[Anonymous No.10333508]

>>10327372
The US nuclear industry essentially faces a two-front war with political interest groups. Left-wing hippies hate it because they associate it with weaponry and environmental disasters. Right-wing neocons hate it because it's more expensive than oil and natural gas, and they see no reason to curb those energy sources when climate change apparently doesn't exist.

In reality, it's our best source for centralized power and we're doomed to underutilize it until China makes huge advances in their energy industry and makes us look bad.

[Anonymous No.10333517]

>>10333468
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

Not hundreds, but any time a nuclear reactor is rendered inoperable the entire plant pretty much closes down because it's not cost effective to replace it.

[Anonymous No.10333521]

>>10333149
Sure thing, Alex. Gay frogs all the way down

[Anonymous No.10333524]

>>10333491
Why do you keep bringing up death? I'm not saying nuclear power is unsafe.

The cost of building an oil burning plant compared to the cost of building a nuclear power plant isn't even comparable.

[Anonymous No.10333633]

>>10333524
And compared to oil uranium is basically free.

[Anonymous No.10335068]

>>10333159
>Enough is enough

Great argument

[Anonymous No.10335434]

>>10333517
Most of those were planned.

>>10333524
Because I want to make the arguments/positions clear.
You're saying that:
-Avoiding large capital investment and
-Avoiding having to store spent fuel rods
is more important than:
-Avoiding death
-Avoiding destruction of property
-Avoiding pollution of the atmosphere
-Avoiding higher long-term costs

[Anonymous No.10335534]

>>10335434
Shekels are more important than life itself, goy

[Anonymous No.10335557]

>>10335534
Blindly being against nuclear power is more important than life itself, apparently.

[Anonymous No.10335582]

>>10327372
Because muh nukolar is bad >:c
More seriously, we don’t even have that much fissile material.
If we mined more uranium, perhaps, more efficient reactor designs too but there just isn’t that much fissile material.

[Anonymous No.10335618]

There's a lotta anti-nukes in New Mexico and the new go-to argument is the unsafe practices of uranium mining. What should I say to them about that?

[Anonymous No.10335646]

>>10327372
France is willing to spend tax money on nuclear energy, so they can pull it off. The US is allergic to taxes, so they can't.

[Anonymous No.10335668]

>>10329721
>The fear is stoked by the folks referred to above.
I think the ~50 years of cold war and impending nuclear annihilation did plenty to spook people from nuclear power.
I agree there are lobies who lean into it and play up that fear, but I don't think people need that much of a push.
Fears don't need to be rational to be effective.

[Anonymous No.10335670]

>>10327372
>Why aren't we using nuclear power more?
Cause we need fusion power

[Anonymous No.10335698]

>>10335646
France is basically in the same situation as the US. Old nuclear plants became old and high maintenance. Many will retire in the next decade. Wind and solar are much cheaper so new capacity will be mostly renewable.