Nuclear energy is categorically uneconomical. Fossil fuel oligarchy and establishment support it because it is uneconomical and a complete non threat to energy oligarchy. It’s military use justifies the fraud and bribery of pretending it is economical.
deleted by creator
Do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and Savior, Wind and Solar Power?!?
Nuclear is actually promoted by old guard mining and energy oligarchs because it provides a centralised means of control.
The peoples needs can be met with 100% renewables and battery storage. The oligarchies needs can never be met, because they are a malignant cancerous parasite.
This is conspiracy level misinformation. You can’t do 100% wind+solar with batteries, many countries have tried and failed. Germany and Denmark are great examples of highly industrialized nations with high population density that has tried to do what you’re suggesting, and they’ve proven that it’s a fantasy.
Germany has tried no such thing lol. Actually there are appliances for gigantic amounts of battery storage because it’s a simple buy low sell high business case that everybody wants to get into.
Base load is a myth.
Bullshit. Germany and Denmark’s irresponsible energy policies are carried hard by their neighbors.
Yeah but don’t forget some accidents happened some times… And like some people died.
Oh, that? That’s just the giant death pit of coal miners, oil riggers, refinery workers and the good old poisoned to death general public. Ignore that.
We should be pouring money into fusion instead of datacenters
If we had nuclear fusion, we could produce so much power with so little fuel that it would be economical to literally scrub the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and chemically refine it back into gasoline. You could keep your vroom vrooms and we wouldn’t be facing a dying planet.
But no, everyone thinks it’ll be like The Jetsons when is going to be like every Black Mirror episode combined.
Thanks for the future, assholes
The big issue is that fusion causes nuclear waste just like fission does due to neutron radiation.
Ask the French and Romanians how well Nuclear Fission Power Plants are going for them rn lol
For anyone who didn’t see the reports, I believe this is what is being referenced.
Also French plants the last 2 years have had to shut down in summer, not due to low river levels, but too high water temperatures of the rivers
They’re going fine, relatively.
oh boy, not that again
no dirty emissions
Uhhhh…
The NPP itself only emits water vapor
They emit clean water vapor, that’s it
Are you perhaps forgetting the extremely toxic spent fuel rods?
That’s not called emission, that’s waste
Potato, potato
It all comes down to money. Those currently in power and the wealthy are funded by the institutional oil and coal companies.
There is no nuclear Power plant in the whole world, that’s entirely run by a private corporation. They are all heavily subsidized by the states. And all of those states either have nuclear warheads or want to build some. Nuclear is just too expensive.
Yeah, also you have to keep mining and enriching uranium or thorium to keep them running. At least with renewables most of the materials are recyclable so you only have to mine once. Nuclear would have made a great stop gap between fossil fuels and renewables though.
Yeah unfortunately nuclear doesn’t make any sense anymore today. It’s way too expensive and its not nearly as renewable as you’d think. 20-50 years ago? It should have been something huge.
At this point solar is so cheap and easy almost everything else looks silly in comparison.
Completely false. Many countries have nuclear power with no nuclear weapons. Most of Europe, much of Asia. Africa is about to build many nuclear power plants too.
Global nuclear power growth is a hoax. Doesn’t change the rest of my Statement that nuclear is always subsidized by the state and super expensive
Irrelevant.
Sweden’s first commercial nuclear power plant was literally an underground bunker for manufacturing nuclear bombs.
There are plenty of countries that have nuclear power plants but no nuclear warheads or intention to get them. Like Japan and many European nations.
Nuclear is costly, but its the only green form of electricity production that is both feasible everywhere and can provide baseload power. As of yet, an energy transition towards renewables does not seem feasible without it. On top of that, SMR and MSR technologies will greatly reduce costs.
I concede the nuclear warheads part. Still true fir a lot of countries tho.
The fun thing about smr is that investors are fleeing and the start ups are going bancrupt. Additionally when the nuclear power plants were initially developed they had to upscale the to high size because the big overhead of maintenance, safety measures and poor yield from heat power coupling only gives a small net power output. So to make it work they had to make it big. Now they try to make it small again. Apart from some niche use they won’t make a big difference.
You’re comparing technology of the 1980s to today’s technology. Nuclear power research has come a long way since then.
Part of the reason NPPs (as in, conventional PWRs, as we use in the west) had to be so big is the giant containment structure to keep pressurised water inside the reactor. Molten salt does not need to be pressurised and is much more efficient because it runs at much higher temperatures than water does. So these two technologies combined definitely have the ability to reduce the size of NPPs.
