Unfortunately, nuclear's gotten a bad rap due to three or so famous incidents (Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island), though they're misunderstood. Chernobyl was a result of haste, deliberately turning off the safety systems to complete a test for the Communist USSR.
GBAtemp.net - The Independent Video Game Community
RichardTheKing
RichardTheKing
Fukushima was the result of a tsunami, and thus not the fault of the power plant itself, and Three Mile Island did not irradiate the region; it was a controlled vent, though the process was incredibly poorly communicated to the public.
RichardTheKing
Nuclear power plants are not bombs waiting to blow up; they use radioactive material that is not even close to the highly-refined stuff put in bombs, and there's countless safety measures in place to prevent disaster, especially nowadays.
We need more nuclear power plants, and fewer coal and gas plants.
We need more nuclear power plants, and fewer coal and gas plants.
KleinesSinchen
Did you also solve the problem with nuclear waste?
Natural amount of available U-235 is very limited. Complex breeder reactors didn't really work. Some of them used liquid sodium (!) as coolant.
Also using highly enriched uranium isn't save either (though still not going nuclear explosion).
Our insatiable need for energy is a problem. An unsolved problem.
Natural amount of available U-235 is very limited. Complex breeder reactors didn't really work. Some of them used liquid sodium (!) as coolant.
Also using highly enriched uranium isn't save either (though still not going nuclear explosion).
Our insatiable need for energy is a problem. An unsolved problem.
x65943
It's very safe until it's not and it kills a ton of people and makes the area uninhabitable for years, on top of its plume contaminating all the soil downwind even into other countries
x65943
It's true coal kills more people, but you can't help human psyche. It's like how airplanes are safer than cars, yet we are all fine with driving but many are afraid of flying. There is something about giant catastrophe that scares people
KleinesSinchen
@AkiraKurusu
Not gonna watch a long video. Why don't you say what you want to say? From the cover picture it is one of the ideas of the type "use a reactor to convert waste into other isotopes/elements or even new nuclear fuel".
Reality is different. There is not only high radioactive burned out fuel. There are tons of contaminated materials that are unsuitable for such theoretical ideas.
Not gonna watch a long video. Why don't you say what you want to say? From the cover picture it is one of the ideas of the type "use a reactor to convert waste into other isotopes/elements or even new nuclear fuel".
Reality is different. There is not only high radioactive burned out fuel. There are tons of contaminated materials that are unsuitable for such theoretical ideas.
AkiraKurusu
@KleinesSinchen Snapshot, then, if you can't watch a highly-informative 20-min video.
- Annual US coal plant pollution: 130,000,000,000 kg. Lifetime nuclear waste globally: 450,000,000kg; much less.
- 8,700,000 premature deaths in 2018 due to fossil fuels, not to mention the numerous oil spills and gas leaks for massive environmental damage.
- Annual US coal plant pollution: 130,000,000,000 kg. Lifetime nuclear waste globally: 450,000,000kg; much less.
- 8,700,000 premature deaths in 2018 due to fossil fuels, not to mention the numerous oil spills and gas leaks for massive environmental damage.
AkiraKurusu
- Where does coal pollution go? Everywhere; trees, land, in our lungs, etc. Nuclear waste? Huge, highly secure boxes that can survive runaway train impacts.
- One coal plant puts into the air, through spewing ash, over 100x more radiation than a nuclear plant would (the radiation comes from how coal is processed, as it naturally contains some amount of radiation).
- One coal plant puts into the air, through spewing ash, over 100x more radiation than a nuclear plant would (the radiation comes from how coal is processed, as it naturally contains some amount of radiation).