I've never heard a good reason to not try and move the entire US grid over to nuclear.
@Reach4God, in the past it was a great idea. The reason to not do it now is it takes forever to get a nuclear plant up and running, and it’s quicker to just deploy more solar and wind now
@waymo , quicker, sure, but the amount of energy, and the overal clean green energy from nuclear is unmatched. If you want to talk real, the reason we haven’t switched is because there is no money in nuclear. Why give us free sustainable energy, when they can make money off us.
@waymo , that may be true at the moment but there is a company making emergency response generators that are small enough to power outposts from a semi.
@Reach4God, it may seem pretty simple but there are many reasons the US isn’t building more nuclear plants. For one, it’s already been mentioned how long it takes to build one but also the costs are actually astronomical due to insurance required for these plants, therefore making other power sources cheaper.
@Zorb, so... no fallout-esque technology? Damn it.
@Reach4God, Nuclear Energy is literally the most energy efficient and greenest method of power! Out of all the energy generation methods, it is the one that will help stop global warming the best! It’s ridiculous, because Germany and other countries are now DISMANTLING their nuclear power plants in favor of fossil fuel power plants. It’s like the nations of the world are trying to flood their coastal cities with melted ice-cap glaciers!! oh sorry, preaching to the choir again.
@Reach4God, because oil and gas companies have all the money and power and the rich get to call the shots while we are left to suffer the consequences of their ignorance and greed.
@waymo , you don’t understand the limitations of solar and wind.
@Hot Coffee, vitrification.
@Reach4God, one of the main reasons why we haven't moved to nuclear is waste disposal. Yes, it does provide more energy per unit of fuel, but who is going to accept the waste? There is currently only one currently accepting high nuclear waste is Yucca mountain, USA, and that in itself is nearing it's limits. You cannot just dump nuclear waste at a surface level not ocean level, and you need to have an area that is both deep enough and away from civilization, so it won't make an effect on any surrounding area. No state wants to be a dumping ground for nuclear waste. And even then if you could find an area, you are then localized by the nuclear plants to be near the dumping grounds because not many people want to handle moving around nuclear waste. So yes, it's efficient. But practical is where we run into trouble, because no one wants the waste.
@Rathalos, all these states so concerned about fossil fuel impact on climate change seem like they should be high up on the list. Lord knows California has plenty of empty space perfectly suited for disposal.
@Reach4God, a version of what I’m about to say has been hinted at but basically it’s “nimby”. Not in my back yard.
“It’s fine, it’s safe. You should have it in YOUR town and it can power the state! Then, since it’s so safe, they can build a big hole in Their backyard and dump the fuel. Totally safe. I don’t want it in my town. What if something goes wrong? But you have NO reason to not have it in your town. It helps everyone and it’s perfectly safe.”
I agree that it needs to happen and my last paragraph is mocking those people but I was JUST looking for a house and I’ll be honest… I didn’t look in the town with the plant. I want nuclear but I’m not sure I’m any better than the people I’m making fun of.
@Canis Arktos, I personally couldn't care less. If it lowers property value, then all the better. I get more house/land for less.
@Reach4God, single point of failure for power grid is also vulnerable to attack
@Reach4God, oil and coal companies would lose money
@Canis Arktos, I think you expanded on my point above. No state wants to be on the giving end of nuclear power plants. They all want the efficient energy without having to deal with being in the vicinity, dealing with the waste disposal, transportation of waste, etc. Like I said, it's good on paper, but the practically of setting one up comes with so many moving parts that I don't think any one state wants to deal with it.
@Rathalos, what does the waste consist of? Is there a way it could be utilised? If not can it be made inert then perhaps used for building materials or something?
@choogles, I got fascinated by this in HS. If I remember right its also simply not viable in landlocked areas. Those thermonuclear plants needs tons of water to cool off, water that becomes irradiated. I don’t fully remember, but there are some situations where wind and solar were more viable
@Albatraous, unlikely. Nuclear power plants rely on uranium 235 and uranium 238. Uranium 238 has a half life of 4.4 ×10^9 years and uranium 235 has a half life of 7.04 × 10^8 years. These won't become inert anytime soon after being used.
Use thorium not uranium. (The government won’t do that because spent thorium can’t be used to make weapons)
@Tazbrum, keepin’ it real, nice.
@Tazbrum, really does seem like a perfect material
Its because of the nuclear waste that is produced and which no one really wants to store cause its quite dangerous and takes thousands of years to go rotten
@Repost Police, thats really not part of the problem though, its just something that scared people who dont understand nuclearenergy preach
@Repost Police, it’s not hard to do, but even if it was we can use thorium reactors whose nuclear waste is still useable as nuclear fuel.
@Repost Police, to be clear that was a problem 10+ years ago and we’ve since been able to develop reusable nuclear fuel rods
@Repost Police, give em to Elon and he'll just launch em into space
@Repost Police, vitrification. Nuclear waste problems were solved decades ago by the French.
Money. Almost all of these questions are answered by.... money.
Here in the US the Three Mile Island Incident in the late 70s was what turned off Americans to nuclear energy. Although Chernobyl certainly solidified that aversion too.
@Sexy Homunculus, three mile island is the poster child for why we shouldn’t be afraid of nuclear power.
Why not use 3 Mile Island or the movie that came out about a meltdown like a week before 3MI happened as a reason instead?
I thought Patrick responded with “made with mematic”
This might be a controversial statement, but please use a drop shadow when you're using white text.
But... The US has nuclear power plants
@Nik295, it’s less than 20 percent of our power. We’d drop emissions significantly if we went nuclear but even green energy people are against nuclear.
@BigJohnson86, well of course. That would actually mean working to better the world for mankind as a whole
@Guy Fawkes, yeah fvck that, that's some gay sh!t! Outdated methods rule!