What are the benefits of nuclear power /g/? I don't know much about the subject but i always though it produced more energy or something like that.
Pic not related
Pretty clean energy and cheap.
Cons are Plants are expensive to build and you risk a nuclear meltdown very unlikely though
>>52022522
cleaner more efficient plants that can produce a meaningful amount of energy.
lots of power, pollution free, can build reactors that run on waste.
>>52022522
>clean as fuck save a few drums of waste a year but we're dealing with that
>safe as fuck if handled correctly (ie, not built on the fucking shore with frequent tsunamis or left under the charge of medal seeking militaries)
>newer forms are even cheaper, even safer and produce ten times the power for 1/100 the cost and don't require massive facilities
>they also produce a tiny fraction of the waste, almost all of which is stable within 15 years
Nuclear is the way of the future. Solar, wind, they're all retarded. Water like the Hoover Dam is good, but there's just not enough places to build them.
>>52022660
>Solar, wind, they're all retarded.
>free energy without waste is retarded
Found the retard.
>>52022660
what about ROR?
>>52022522
Benefits:
You get stuff to build nuclear missiles
It required very little material to produce lots of energy, so it's cheap.
It's clean energy with little exhaust.
It's stable. Unlike wind and solar energy you can keep it running at all times.
The downside is you're stuck with a bit of waste. But the amount of waste that's produced is very little, so you can basically dig a hole and put a barrel in it and done. So you've got facilities with miles deep holes below it filled with salt and barrels. But on the good sides, you don't need gigantic fields with windmills and solar panels.
>>52022660
>Nuclear is the way of the future
Nuclear fusion is the future. Fission is shit.
>>52022750
>>free energy without waste is retarded
>without waste
No anon, you are the retard. Besides, both of those require MASSIVE amounts of land to produce any reasonable amount of power.
>>52022768
Hydro electric in general is good because it's constant and makes lots of energy. Like I said, there's just not a lot of suitable places since you can't just go damming every river on the planet.
>>52022750
Holy shit, pick up a fucking book.
>>52022825
>No anon, you are the retard. Besides, both of those require MASSIVE amounts of land to produce any reasonable amount of power.
The future is in finding ways to harness it in more efficient ways.
>>52022865
What are you sperging about?
>defending nuclear fission
You're retarded
>>52022788
To add. I have some solar panels for some energy independence. If on a hot day the cooling of the reactors shut down, which happens here every few years, I still have power.
But if you need to power a nation 24/7 in a cost-effective manner it might not be the solution you're looking for.
>>52022922
>The future is in finding ways to harness it in more efficient ways.
Well unless they find a way to make it literally 2-3 times as space efficient, nuclear will win. If thorium reactors ever take off, that number gets jumped to 20-30 times.
>>52022750
They both require huge amounts of area to generate the same production as a single Nuclear plant.
For wind those areas need to be somewhere that could be used as farmland, or forest, or out at sea, all of which have people bitching about them.
For solar the locations are similar, but can also be installed on home/building rooftops to supplement the grid, but that takes longer and is less reliable to implement.
