Why should we allow it to keep being a thing, and why should we not?
>>75044189
Beside the ecological problem, wastes makes nuclear power too expensive in the long term.
>>75045097
not if you're using breeder reactors or thorium
>>75044189
They are good because they can quickly increase or reduce energy production which most clean energy scores can't. Otherwise they are bad because they are as expensive as all heck.
Because there's a massive difference between cold war nuclear and modern nuclear power. It's also the only long-term sustainable and reliable energy source. It might not be economically attractive at present, but most good choices aren't as long as coal is cheap. Personally I consider nuclear inevitable at some point, in locations where weird alternatives like geothermal aren't viable.
>>75044189
Still the cleanest source of energy for what it produces
>>75044189
They're safe, efficient and better for the environment than most other legit sources of energy.
>>75044189
Cleanest for the output, has the fewest deaths per kilowatt hour, is actually capable of providing electricity for the entire planet (wind/solar are not)
why would we not keep it a thing?
Eventually, this planet will run out of natural resources. And renewable energy will simply not be able to provide enough of the needed power.
Therefore nuclear energy will be needed.
It eventually will come down to this, like it or not. There is no other option.
Nuclear is the most efficient, cleanest source of energy humans have. Also killed less people than any other form of power. Third world countries like Japan need to stop building 75 year old soviet deigns below sea level, of course.
Is that Finnish breeder reactor done yet
It might be a good change
>75045097
Waste is one of the least expensive things about it.
The only reason coal/oil/etc. seem so cheap in comparison is entirely due to the fact the waste is literally just dumped into the environment.
>>75045166
Breeders reactors don't work at that moment, and probably will after we get to make nuclear fusion work, making these obsolete for energy producing.
As for the thorium, there is not a single practical reactor working in the world.
>>75045244
>tfw no nuclear fusion
Siphon the oceans when
>>75045446
No it was a meme
>>75046027
Fuck
Nuclear energy in this country is going to have another nosedive soon with the Belgians being incapable of managing their plants
This could have been a relief
>>75045603
>As for the thorium, there is not a single practical reactor working in the world.
Not yet. China started back in March 2011 though so literally any day now they might come forward and go "hey guys rook what we got haha Midder East fucked now."
The reactor in op's pic, Temelin in Czech Republic, is the type of reactor that can be converted to Thorium. That's the plan for the similar Canadian CANDU's anyway.
America is not embracing guys like Kirk Sorensen for some stupid reason (can't weaponise Thorium, big oil/gas breathing down their necks, etc) and they're going to be left behind - far behind. You think Obama refused the Keystone project because it wasn't environmentally friendly or whatever? Think again. Part of the green budget ($24 billion) was going to go towards building a LFTR to provide energy to the plants. Once everyone saw the LFTR in action over the years, they would realise there was no need to keep mining. The LFTR would have shut down Keystone not to mention the oil/gas industries. THAT'S why Obama said no.
Imagine how much more powerful the BRIC nations and the Commonwealth nations will be with limitless, affordable, green energy.
We could have used America's help, but oh well.
Oh and here's Sorensen's TED Talk in case you haven't seen it...
https://youtu.be/N2vzotsvvkw
And his company's site...
http://flibe-energy.com/
>>75044189
>Why should we allow it to keep being a thing, and why should we not?+ 0 post omitted.
Let's rephrase.
>should we allow a total of 4 companies to control our energy supply as they choose?
No.
A vote for nuclear power is a vote for corporate centralisation and inherently anti-national and anti-democratic.
Unless your country can mine, refine and use Uranium locally you're voting against your country's interests.
It's the same with fossil fuel.
Only renewable energy can assure long-term national independence in energy matters.
I for one, welcome our return to a country without electricity.
