Why are you Kekasians still lubing up your assholes with petrol for the Sandnigger fillings?
When the real master race of a planet uses his autonomous Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor energy to power his Gauss Canon and fight back the shitskins
>>56670758
I wish we would
will answer any questions you have about nuclear energy
>>56671173
How do we convince people that it should be our primary source of energy?
Who lobbies for it?
Dank memes?
>>56671234
well the first main hurtle is disposing the disgusting monopoly that uranium has in the nuclear energy industry. It is both dangerous and expensive.
>>56671234
You need to get past the two main hurdles: the cost of the facility itself (4-5x the cost of a similar GW natural gas plant) and the fuel disposal issue. Right now, only southern states that have vertically integrated utility structures can really afford nuclear, since they guarantee a rate of return by passing the cost to customers directly.
Solve either of those two problems and you're good to go
>>56671234
>>56671402
Meant that the uranium is bad, second of all there's no need to lobby for it, we just people to learn about the inherit superiority of the Thorium reactors to any other energy means that can be harvest on a single planet. Once people know it is better they will demand it.
I should also add, since apparently it isn't obvious to OP, that oil and nuclear aren't substitutes. The US doesn't source electricity from oil (except in Hawaii but who gives a fuck), and it doesn't move vehicles with nuclear power.
If you want to change that, you need a colossal change in both the consumer/fleet vehicle economy, and the grid infrastructure, which is an unimaginable cost currently
>>56671478
LFTR have a fractional amount of fuel to dispose
The payoff to having a facility would far outweigh the initial costs
>>56671817
A current 2GW nuclear plant costs in the region of $8-10 billion. Even with a near-zero LCOE (which isn't the case, nuclear maintenance still adds a fair bit and I think combined-cycle gas beats it), that's a massive up-front investment for a non-guaranteed return (except in the cases I already described).
I'm aware you're talking new tech, but with new tech also comes higher costs, even if it does solve the waste issue
>>56671604
If electricity was cheaper than petrol I can guarantee you electric cars on the market within the first week of producing energy from the power plant
>>56671817
Why haven't any been built if they really are possible? Vaporware until one is running.
>>56672012
There are electric cars on the market now. The issues are many. Overall supply and distribution, cost of the car, range of the car, infrastructure for recharging, general public perception, etc.
Changing the massive number of gasoline/LNG vehicles in the US is not a short affair. Petroleum won't go away anytime soon - and that's just for cars/trucks. Petroleum is refined into a variety of other products.
>>56671993
>>56672230
So i understand it you've never heard of LFTR, look it up they're pretty amazing
I'll give you the jist of it
>LFTR was technology was created in the 60's
>After nixon stopped the funding the design was buried by the government so that uranium designs would be unopposed
>Uses abundantly common thorium as main fuel source, where as the enriched uranium used in reactors today is rarer than gold
>China and a Europe/North America coalition are racing to build one as we speak
>China saw the potential of this first though and is further ahead than we are to make it commercial
>China is beating us
>>56672472
I've heard of it, but I'm interested in reality, not theory.
>>56672382
Obviously the country wouldn't switch instantaneously. The energy produced would be very inexpensive and I think any logical person would switch over once they've realized how cheap electric is.
oy vey da goyum know about the power of the atom! SHUT IT DOWN
>>56672550
This isn't theory like cold fusion
This was an actual reactor BUILT TWICE we just haven't commercialized it yet, that is all.
>>56672681
>The energy produced would be very inexpensive
Current nuclear has an extremely low cost of fuel (resulting in a low LCOE) and is still prohibitively expensive due to setup costs. The cost of the electricity is irrelevant if there are no strong economic incentives to make a huge investment, as returns on electricity sales are not guaranteed (again, barring very specific areas of integrated utilities).
You have not convinced me that a plant could be built at a competitive setup cost even if it maintained a competitive LCOE.
>>56672812
>we just haven't commercialized it yet
Building a reactor and making a marketable product for utilities are two very different things. The first is theory, the latter is practice.
>>56672984
The plants are the size of cargo crates
They are very easy to build, they require no outside cooling and only need chemical engineers to run them as opposed to specialized nuclear engineers.
>>56670758
>Why no nuclear energy?
You can lay the majority of the blame on Reid and Kerry. They actively block it any time it's considered, including one based on the naval designs that cannot unintentionally melt down and are damned difficult to get to theoretically melt down on paper.
>>56673439
but surely they are only two men
