Does your country support building new nuclear reactors and 100% electric cars, trucks and busses?
All the cars and trucks in the world could switch to 100% electric and the world would be a better place.
All these wars for oil would be over as well.
At least I think so.
I don't think electric is the way to go. My brother owns a Tesla and I've driven it and I gotta say it's not a pleasent driving experience. There is nearly no sensation of motion in that vehicle. I got one to the highway and floored it with the intention of getting up to 120km/h to test the acceleration and before I even realized it I was going 160km/h
Isn't nuclear that stuff they make bombs out of?
No thanks, I don't want a nuke anywhere near my city. Think of all the children you'd be poisoning by having a reactor near densely populated areas.
>mfw a lot of people genuinely believe this
Why the heck haven't we started building Thorium reactors yet?
Problem is, no one wants to build new reactors and we really need it
It was also designed by americants, that's the real problem
>let's put the standby generators not on the roof, that's a great idea
>let's design it so there is no way to remove the moderator from the core, that's a great idea
>let's make the emergency coolant systems too wimpy to actually cool the reactor for long periods
>let's design the control rods to have really fine tolerances, metal never changes size
Burger, nevar 5get
It's cheaper than coal if coal-burning plants don't get to externalize the cost of pollution on to the tax-payers.
It's been viable for decades. Countries like France and Sweden are 50+% nuclear.
wont happen. too many NIMBYs.
in my state, it definitely wont happen, when the nuclear corporation shut down their plant, they left the nuclear sarcophaguses on the tarmack and expected the taxpayers to head the bill. and they did.
The fukushima reactor was fucking obsolete though, it was supposed to be decomissionned in 90s already but wasn't because no one wants to build new plants to replace the old ones.
Most of our electricity comes from nuclear power, it wasn't welcome at first but it greatly benefited the country later on.
Nuclear waste is a problem and is expensive to bury, but the CO2 emissions it prevents shouldn't even make it debatable when it comes to the environment.
We're actually making too much electricity so we're selling it to the germans.
Finally France is fairly free of natural disasters, the worst we get is a heatwave or a flood or two.
As the decades roll on and nuclear-fearing cold war kids die out, I think the world will turn to it in its hour of need.
I dont understand what was hard for you to see from my post. The Tesla driver complained that there was "no sense of speed", which is an idiots way of saying that the car wasnt "loud enough", it was too smooth of a drive, it was "too easy", etc.
I commented that a high quality suspension coupled with a decent CVT on an electric vehicle removes these things, and that he is sufficiently idiotic enough that he cant tell how fast hes going with such a level of comfort.
>I think the world will turn to it in its hour of need.
It will be too late at that point. Hell, the main reason it's so damn expensive to bury the shit is because governments are so picky about where to dump it. Hell, bury the shit beneath Everest for all it's worth.
And yeah, nuclear stronk. The only reason there aren't more fission reactors everywhere is because of non-bait versions of this guy >>43040952 (i.e., ignorant retards)
It's one of the cleanest and most efficient methods out there. Chernobyl happened because they were using really old, shitty tech nd the place was falling apart from lack of maintenance.
Once we get proper working fusion, though, everything's gonna change. You'll be able to sell your own shit for more than what 10kwh will cost you, and that's when full electric everything is gonna kick into overdrive.
I don't think gas cars will ever go away entirely. We still use fax machines, for fuck's sake.
In terms of utility, though, electric will be way ahead of gas or even diesel soon enough. The only tech that's lagging behind is batteries.
This, right here, is the main problem.
In my country, the anti nuclear people fought so no more nuclear plants where built. Now they will not manage to get the old ones closed, and since we need them, we have to extend their life time, and this is one of the worst problems.
Nuclear accidents happen because of negligence, and most of the people who fight against nuclear power is pushing for negligence trough ignorance.
>I DONT FEEL THE VROOM VROOM AND RATTLE
I live in a European city where all postal vehicles have been replaced by EVs.
Seeing a fleet drive by early in the morning is glorious. It truly is the future. Near total silence in our city centres.
>Nuclear accidents happen because of negligence
And also because of a fuck huge tsunami that literally no one else was prepared for. Yet no one is clamoring for Japan to stop building chemical plants or anything else that blew up and burned.
Nuclear plants emit steam if I'm not mistaken. It's a glorified mill really but I assume you mean if there was a catastrophic leak/meltdown.
Nuclear power plants are interesting because wind and water powered mills were among the first man made energy infrastructure. It's kind of like full circle really.
Maybe one day we can get away from dirty and dangerous energy. It's just usually what is dirtier and more dangerous, is extremely profitable and has powerful output.
I mean electric cars don't sound cool, they just buzz and scoot around like RC cars. lol
>It's a glorified mill really
Welcome to how the majority of our current power generation works.
Uses the air to turn a turbine directly
Uses water to turn a turbine directly
Uses coal to make heat to turn water into steam to turn a turbine
Uses nuclear reactions to make heat to turn water into steam to do I really have to say it?
Natural gas and oil can vary a bit but they usually involve the whole steam-turbine-mill concept at some point to recover lost heat energy if nothing else.
I guess I never thought about it. Yeah, you're right. All of them use steam at one stage or another. Hydroelectric and wind (my first examples) don't use steam but it all destroys my full circle idea. hurr
Yeah, you're right.
Makes me think, if it's such a simple concept we could find a way to jump through less hoops to get our juice. Really strip down the process to its bare essentials.
I did not. That's interesting.
60 minutes ran a story on the Tesla and added engine noise to the clips. lol
>Chernobyl happened because they were using really old, shitty tech nd the place was falling apart from lack of maintenance.
this is simply not true. also, Chernobyl is/was in Ukraine. the reason the accident happened was human greed. the same reason accidents in the future will continue to happen. they were pushing the plant way beyond limit for a test, in order to save shekels.
then problem with Chernobyl today, is that its still a huge risk area. the rushed encasing they built in late 80s is rusting apart. if the roof would suddenly cave in, a huge cloud of radioactive particles would get spread into the air. this is so bad it can fuck up all of Europe.
they are working on a new sarcophagus, but the work is extremely hard and time consuming cause of the lethal levels of radiation. not to mention expensive, but nobody wants to pay.
>if the roof would suddenly cave in, a huge cloud of radioactive particles would get spread into the air
Maybe it did already
>this is so bad it can fuck up all of Europe.
No, it wouldn't fuck up Europe. It'd be a two week scare and then the radiation levels are within normal tolerance again. Just because of rain cleaning up radioactive particles and the most dangerous ones half-lifing away.
>but nobody wants to pay.
Who wants to invest in bumfuck nowhere, Ukraine?
>the same reason accidents in the future will continue to happen.
That's why we should keep building new nuclear plants with better profitability *and* inherent security, retiring the old plants.
Greed should be working for us, not against us.
>in order to save shekels.
No, saving shekels had nothing to do with it. It was not a commercial reactor, it was a military reactor used to make weapons grade plutonium. Nor did the problem have to do with being pushed beyond its limits, which is not very practical with nuclear reactors or any power plants for that matter. The problem was human error and the fact that it was literally built with no safety in mind, e.g. it had no containment vessel.
more like darwin award level stupidity. all safety concortions were disengaged in the first place.
> accidents in the future will continue to happen
not with modern type of reactors which works just under critical point. in short, if anything it will just halt instead going wild.
>nobody wants to pay.
especially former ussr countries, lel.
I thought three mile island happened in the same manor. I've only studied Chernobyl so I don't know. The problem is nuclear plants are run by companies. Who's one goal is to make money, not safety. As long as this is the case, nuclear plants will never be safe.
Trust me, we would notice a huge radioactive cloud spreading over Europe. Mainly by all the sudden outbreaks of skin falling off.
It seems like there are some really good ideas about nuclear energy that havent really been adopted or thoroughly tested because the moratorium on nuclear development. Heavy water reactors like they use in canada use a much lower uranium enrichment than reactors in the US use. As such they cannot sustain a reaction on their own without deuterium which also doubles as coolant. If the reactor gets damaged such as in fukushima and all of the water evaporates away, the reaction simply stops.
Im also curious about thorium molten salt breeder reactors.
I remember hearing about them in a documentary somewhere. Apperently they were some of the first reactors that people did research with at the beginning of the nuclear age, but were widely abandoned. You cant make a fission bomb out of thorium, so there was little interest in thorium nuclear research from the 40's to the 80's. But just as heavy water reactors, thorium reactors can be built to self-regulate.
and then there is the potential in fusion reactors, apparently its always been 20 years away, but it sounds like there is serious progress.
I think there is a lot of potential in nuclear energy, but it is currently still more expensive than fossil fuels, that's the real hurdle.
>As long as this is the case, nuclear plants will never be safe.
Yeah and building are built by companies and cars are built by companies, so are bridges and boats and air planes.
this is a terrible argument. look at the east, poorly built houses collapse all the time.
and cars? still being sold with faults that kill people, only being recalled if it happens to too many people.
same thing with planes, crashes happen due to negligence.
First off, both Chernobyl and Three Mile were much older tech than what we have now. It may have been dangerous back then, but modern nukes are as safe as you can get. Much better than keeping a ton of corrosive or highly flammable/inflammable substances in one place, anyways.
Secondly, a company makes a whole lot more shekels from a plant that doesn't blow sky high and kill half of their customers. If you seriously think somebody is gonna risk a nuclear meltdown to save a few thousand bucks you should get your head examined.
>this is a terrible argument, look, all human technology has a risk of exploding in your face if you fuck up
no Chernobyl was a result of a tediously "cheap" and unstable reactor design. Soviet secrecy, and unwillingness to question authority. A dubious shift change. Lack of containment. etc..
The only similarity is that they both happened durring a test / experiment with the reactor.
I used to listen to this podcast, regardless of the fact that I truly dislike them and disagree with almost every opinion they have. I respect them and they do some pretty good breakdowns of scientific papers. They did a great breakdown of the Chernobyl disaster last year.
Are fuel cell cars a good idea? I'm not sure I like the idea of driving around with all that highly flammable hydrogen.
Not much worse than driving around with a bunch of highly flammable gasoline.
Diesel is probably the safest conventional fuel source we have right now, it's pretty difficult to ignite under the wrong conditions.
Shame it's not more commonly used.
Hydrogen is a great idea IMO, I think it's just not quite mature enough at this point. Same with full electric, although Tesla is doing a good job of changing my mind on that. Both are still niche products, even if they're gaining traction, no pun intended.
"According to the test parameters, the thermal output of the reactor should have been no lower than 700 MW at the start of the experiment. If test conditions had been as planned, the procedure would almost certainly have been carried out safely; the eventual disaster resulted from attempts to boost the reactor output once the experiment had been started, which was inconsistent with approved procedure."
Source: IAEA report of the accident.
That's the worst reason for us not to go electric. I've only heard that sentiment once before, when a redneck was denouncing
electric vehicles because they don't roar like his diesel.
hydrogen is less energy dense than gasoline, it can boom, but it sill wouldn't be as much energy as a gas explosion.
The problem with fuel cell cars is that fuel cells require a platinum based catalyst. There isnt enough platinum available to us even if we dedicated ALL of it to fuel cells to change over the entire fleet of cars to fuel cells.
Nope. For some reason everyone in the U.S.A. is deathly afraid of nuclear power. Tried explaining to my friends that it is more efficient, costs the least amount of lives in production, and does not take up that much land. They looked at me like I was crazy and just starting babbling about Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Does stuff like hydrogen steam turbines exist? It's the most common element in the universe, and it burns about as cleanly as you can get, I'm just not sure how economical that would be.
being afraid of nuclear power is just one of the ideologies in the package for liberals. I'm a hard leftist myself but I fully support nuclear because I'm not an idiot. It's a fuckload better than oil/gas is for the environment and is much more feasible than other alternative energy sources. They can be used to supplement but they don't have the output to be a prime source
Hydrojews are strong in my province, selling electricity to statesfor half the price and fucking us over big time with their old infrastructures. Oy vey don't forget much energy efficient electronics goy
I dont know if you would even need a turbine (they dont make much sense for most driving conditions), you could burn it in a regular piston engine if you wanted. But there is still an infrustructure problem a regulatory problem, a distrobution problem and the two ways to make it generate carbon.
way 1 ) hydrolosis with energy off the grid
way 2 ) crack it off natural gas and release the carbon part of the hydrocarbons as CO2
both are also obviously more or expensive than gasoline too.
Only problem with electrics is the range, as has already been said a few times in this thread
For city driving in a small country it's fine, but if you live in a more spread-out place like the US it becomes more of a problem
Even in smaller states like MA, it's a pain in the ass to drive from Boston to Falmouth and back. I can do that in a bit more than a third of a tank in my gas-guzzling Volvo, but something like a Leaf would barely make it one way. Unless they have Tesla-level range now, they're just not good enough around here. Once battery technology gets there, though, I'm all for it.
Tesla has been very effective in pushing public opinion in favor of electric vehicles. Before Tesla
I noticed companies marketing their electric vehicles as niche products to the Prius crowd. They
made they look funky so they would stand out, and everyone would know you're eco friendly. For
example; Cadillac's electric vehicle had rims that looked like turbines, it's just silly.
Tesla just made classy looking ride and dropped an electric motor inside along with one of the coolest
interiors I've ever seen. I would really consider getting one when they make a cheaper model.
>not even noticing that shit
motherfucker, that's future as fuck
this is true
but the whole aftermath was just a comedy of errors
don't some modern steering wheels already provide force feedback because they aren't directly linked to the wheels?
For anyone interested in the Chernobyl accident, this documentery is worth a watch.
It shows footage from inside the reactor, as well as the human robots used to dump lead into the burning reactor.
Even that isn't an issue if you recycle the stuff. The actual waste that needs to be removed from "spent" fuel is the hot stuff with short half lives that decays away to background levels of radioactivity in about 300 years and this only makes up 1-3% of what is pulled out of a reactor (depends on the design and enrichment) when it gets refueled. The rest can be processed into new fuel rods with only a tiny bit of new material needed in the process.
The issue is that currently recycling is more expensive than using a once through fuel cycle so everyone just stores the "spent" fuel rods and makes new ones from scratch.
This could be changed if we used an IFR style pyroprocessing to recycle the fuel instead of our current chemical processes but that kind of fuel will not work in existing lightwater reactors so we need to start building fast breeder reactors.
We have hundreds of years worth of power already sitting in storage and ready to use but between politicians who love their petro money kickbacks and "muh Chernobyl" and "muh Fukushima" constantly being shouted by so called environmentalists progress is being impeded.
Nuclear is the future, the world depends on it. Eventually it will be common knowledge, but until then we gotta deal with retards and bullshit.
No other energy source even comes close.
>gubment almost completed all needed permits to build a nuclear power plant
>mass panic, whole plan rejected
>gubment seriously thinking about finally building that nuclear plant
>mass panic, whole plan rejected
I've posted this before in electro car threads. the issue isn't "muh petrol" its more "muh world economy based on petrol". we can't switch the electric cars and nuclear plants tomorrow, the country would financially collapse from the loss of taxes from gasoline.
We could also use fast breeder reactors so we can use the spent fuel with minimal recycling
We used to have a powerful FBR here, but the fucking greens had it shut down right when it started being usable
all oil in the world is traded in dollars.
this gives the dollar a lot of its value.
what do you think happens if oil disappear?
idk about the US, but in Europe taxes are like 70% of the cost of gas. And they use quite a lot of it.
and how do you think the rest of the world economy would do without the US?
It's true, though. Not only that, but suddenly you have TONS of expensive, specialized factories and facilities that don't move money anymore. Millions of jobs go poof, the dollar would crash, and billions of dollars would need to be spent building new stuff just so we can function as a society.
The transition needs to be slow and controlled.
Yes, we won't be able to use fuel consumption as a proxy for road wear in the future with gas taxes but that can be worked around with registration taxes and budgeting for road projects differently.
Proper fast charging infrastructure will take time to deploy but electric cars have the benefit of being able to be charged at home and possibly even work.
And that has NOTHING to do with switching to nuclear power generation as that would mostly offset coal and gas and not oil products.
Its not like that can happen over night anyways, even a fast transition will take decades because the production infrastructure is not there and lots of people don't go out and buy a new car every couple of years.
Your argument for not having electric cars is that if suddenly every car was now electric it would be a disaster. This is not a reasonable argument in the slightest.
I'm not >>43044553
I'm the guy he replied to. Anyways, of course that's not my argument. I like electric cars, they're great. Its just a lot of people don't understand why we can't just switch over to electrics.
Getting rid of oil would be amazing for the world, I just don't see it happening in my lifetime.
they own most all of the research that has gone into solar (shit) and wind (even more shit). They simply want you to use it so they can hose you for more with a false moral high ground.
Let other countries deplete their oil reserves, and then develop ours, then, when alternatives become more cost efficient, switch to those and sell them to other countries for extreme profit. Backgammon.
The only problem with nuclear reactors is lazy politicians and shit that skimp on the maintenance of the facility after 10 years for no reason introducing serious security risks.
Done right, nuclear reactors are golden.
Yes, my country supports building new nuclear reactors (we're building another one next year), and we make reactor parts for other countries too, but electric cars are a nono, too expensive for our third world hole.
Interesting video relating both the large conflict of interest, an economic dependency and a potential gateway to new types of nuclear energy. Check out the rest of this guys videos on his channel if you're interested in thorium breeder reactors, he does a great job of taping people explaining technical concepts.
Electrical battery's are way to poor to power a large truck hauling tons and tons of goods up a hill keeping a speed at 100km/h
Same goes for anything save a normal car and down to electric bikes, maybe in 50 years with same crazy breakthrough in how to keep electrical power with out massive weight and loss on every charge.
Building Nuclear Reactors > When we can keep them them running 100% for infinity with out any maintainable nor impossible for a nuclear melt down, factoring in every cataclysm nature can throw at it, then I'm all for it, its going to take us another 1000 years to master that, same with the battery's.
Enjoy our cave man plus one technological level, getting power from dead animals and have a nuclear meltdown every 30 years.
We are not leaving this planet any time soon, we'll prob be wiped out like the Dinosaurs in a few thousand years, 99% of everything that lived on Earth is extinct We cavemen or semi smart monkeys got time > 1% to get of this planet before we get wiped the fuck out.