Other than "insane lobbying by arabs and oil magnate juden", what's stopping us from just using modern nuclear power to move into a post-energy scarcity utopia?
How can we make this a reality?

>>16690105 (OP)
solar is 10 times cheaper than nuclear

>>16690105 (OP)
Uranium is a limited resource and is close to running out.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

>>16690105 (OP)
If you generate your electricity by boiling water then you are not a chad, not even close.

>>16690105 (OP)
The public would need to:
1. Lose the irrational fear of nuclear
2. Be capable of investing in long term projects that don’t produce immediate returns AKA delayed gratification.
3. Vote for politicians in favor of nuclear and reducing over regulation of the industry.

>>16690119
i wonder who could be behind this post

>>16690119
>Leftist media out says 'nuclear bad!'
Wow, what a shock.

>>16690105 (OP)
I'm all for nuclear, but they all must be built right near your house, and thousands of miles away from mine

>>16690243
>miles
s0iboy

>>16690105 (OP)
Linear No Threshold

>>16690129
The public doesnt matter. The public doesnt decide anything

>>16690105 (OP)
glow niggers hate nuclear for some reason

>>16690230
>Right media outlet says 'nuclear bad'
>Left media outlet says 'nuclear bad'
crazy coincidence! what a natural, organic, free-range turn of events!

>>16690396
If that were true there wouldn't be nearly as much effort put into propaganda.

>>16690449
nta, good one anon, good one

>>16690396
>The public doesn’t matter
maybe not in your banana republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Italian_referendums

At current achievable prices nuclear is useful but would play a supporting role (as it does today). If people were less pussy about radiation and the plants could be built and operated in a fashion actually consistent with its risk profile, it would be the cheapest alternative to fossil fuels and wind and solar would be the ones relegated to supporting roles.

>>16690478
>supporting role
>as it does today
Don’t look up the main energy source in France…

>>16690479
I think its fair to say that most places use a much more modest quantity of nuclear power. Economically even "live free or die" nuclear wouldn't be that much better than coal, so there actually hasn't been a huge driver for most of the world to go nuclear until global warming became an issue, but unfortunately by then we had an irrational fear of it too.

Even if people don't get over their fear of nuclear, wind and solar are good enough for most emission reduction which would keep us from cooking.

>>16690105 (OP)
>what's stopping us from just using modern nuclear power to move into a post-energy scarcity utopia?

Our current competence crisis is a cause for pause.

Step 1: Fascism
Step 2: Nuclear power
It's simple, really.

>>16690486
Don't kid yourself though, we are going to spend a large amount of money on completely overhauling the worlds grids to use intermittent wind and solar and still get stuck with natural gas peaking plants with only a pussy slathering of nuclear.

The alternative is just the traditional baseload + peaking power model utilizing unpussified nuclear, but we won't do that because apparently Fukushima possibly killing people is worse than all the industrial accidents that actually do kill people.

>>16690119
Aren't there nuclear reactors whose purpose is to make more fuel

>>16690526
Yeah, plus there is always seawater extraction if conventional deposits run dry. Fuel availability has never been the issue with nuclear.

>>16690105 (OP)
The r selecting locusts would just multiply more to offset all of the gains.

The Earth has roughly 200 years of nuke fuel at our current consumption rates.

>>16690119
>oil is a finite resource!
>>pfft lmao no u!

>>16690119
>>16690578
We have enough uranium and thorium to power the entire planet for a couple of 1000 years which should be more than enough time to crack fusion or something else.

>>16690105 (OP)
>what's stopping us
It currently takes >10 years and >$100m to get a reactor design approved. So basically if you want to work on building reactors you have to suck some billionaires cock so he'll fund it OR accept that you'll only ever work on a concept reactor design that will likley never be able to operate in real conditions.

>>16690107
>>16690119
>>16690121

>>16690578
we can extract uranium from sea water. it is effectively a renewable resource. try again, shill.

>>16690638
this post is antimsemitic

>>16690243
Considering I work in a nuclear plant that sounds convenient.

>>16690105 (OP)
The price of the power, nuclear only works as a government subsidized project and they only do that as a national security thing mostly to get nukes but sometimes to get rid of oil dependency from an unreliable ally (but also secretly to get nukes).

>>16690468
Where's the referendum against coal? People dislike coal way more than they do nuclear. How comes there's not one country on earth where nuclear is viable despite there being areas where you can bribe a government for cheaper than you can buy a house in other places? How comes profitable businesses like coal are viable everywhere where it is still profitable despite quite literally choking out the people working with or living near them.

>>16690638
No we cannot.

>>16690865
for around 200 dollars per kg it is a known process, just not done because mining is cheaper so it is pointless at the moment.

>>16690832
Then explain all the times it costed less than it "just costs"

Nuclear is LUDICROUSLY capital-intensive. Ever wonder why the Internet is PACKED with pro-nuclear propaganda and advocacy and literally no pro-conventional power advocacy? Because throwing up a combined-cycle gas plant in a fraction of the cost and time isn’t going to pay for the careers of an army of university departments, community managers, consultants, inspectors, etc. Fossil fuel power is simply much more economically efficient today, so private industry can put it up without needing to get a gigantic bag from the government. The reason why OP and all the other midwits think they like nuclear is because the internet propaganda pipeline told them to like it. In reality combined-cycle gas is the hot thing now that fracking has basically solved the supply issue.

>>16690874
this is the correct take, but maybe we shouldn't be burning so much gas?

>>16690629
>imgflip dot com

>>16690877
If you do not believe you should use gas, purchase power that was not generated with gas, perhaps buy a solar panel yourself or start a non gas power utility. Despite what nuclear shills let you believe, nuclear power is legal, you can in fact just build a nuclear power plant. Of course you won't but you could if you were willing to subsidize the rest of us a lot. Or if you don't believe in free markets then start up a petition to get gas banned or made otherwise more expensive like the shills above claim you can do "just vote" as they say and see how far that gets you.

>>16690874
>boiling water, combustion :O
>boiling water, fission :/

>>16690119
They said that about oil too, 50 years ago. Also,
>what's sea water extraction
>what's thorium

>>16690874
>In reality combined-cycle gas is the hot thing now that fracking has basically solved the supply issue.

works until you run out of oxygen/fuel or the atmosphere fills up with so much CO2 that you choke to death

we have about 50 years before 1000ppm, at which point the default state breathing fresh air outside will be to have a headache, billions of iq points will be lost, picrel

is that what you want? you shortsighted little mongrel?

>>16691116
oh sorry I meant 275 years not 50 years, point still stands though

>>16691116
lmao. nice bait.

>>16691118
our shareholders are currently laser-focused on improving our quarterly KPIs. let's defer this for a subsequent timeframe and touch base at a later date

>>16690949
my biggest dream is that AIshit turns out to be more than a waste of energy and we reach AGI that lets us just ask "how do i make a cheap, safe, homemade mini nuclear reactor" and BTFO the oiljews

>>16691241
You don’t need computer faeries to tell you how to do that. Just the political will to have reasonably-coated nuclear power. Of course I may as well just tell you to climb Mt. Everest because the low-IQ peasants will always drag down civilization and make sure it’s politically impossible to create a system able to produce an affordable nuclear industry. The best you can do is wipe out all but the basic essential regulations — ie, make whatever the fuck you want, but you just have to do an environmental impact study (to make sure you’re not going to irradiate public resources) and do the same for all upstream industries to eliminate all bottle necks to getting the best prices. Basically, nuclear MUST stop being a grab-bag for a million careers if it ever wants to be a serious alternative to fossil fuel.

>>16690129
It isn't an irrational fear.
I would support nuclear if we lived in a homogenous white society with responsible and competent governance.
Since we don't have that, it's better to have as little nuclear power as possible.

Supporting nuclear in the multicultural utopia is like trying to unlock a level 9 node on the tech tree while simultaneously attacking and destroying your level 1 nodes.

>>16691333
>it's better to slowly but surely lead our race into extinction, nuclear scary!!
good boy

>>16690243

>>16690396
The black pill is that democracy works as advertized and public attitudes matter a lot

>>16690396
>The public doesnt matter. The public doesnt decide anything
literally retarded
>It isn't an irrational fear.
it is
lets have millions die from coal and gas instead xddddd

>>16690105 (OP)
>other than juden
Nothing, anon.

>>16690496
its fine, homer simpson in perfectly qualified to run a nuclear power plant

>something like fukushima happens
>umm, this is expensive, we'll need some gibs from the .gov
>don't worry, nobody died
>no, you cant move back to your house, thats an exclusion zone now, dont worry theres some .gov gibs for you too

>war happens
>um, could you guys NOT target our reactors, pretty please?

>>16691116
UOOOOOH! CARBON'S DIOXIDE! ASPHYXIATING!

>>16690449
>there wouldn't be nearly as much effort put into propaganda.
Only proves that money decides everything, if the public opinion can be bought off, its not really an opinion
>>16690468
Referendums are organized by elites when they want to legitimize what they already chosen. If the referendum goes bad, its ignored
>>16691591
>The black pill is that democracy works as advertized and public attitudes matter a lot
Pure fiction unsuported by any evidence

>>16690874
>Nuclear is LUDICROUSLY capital-intensive.
Mega-project nuclear is capital intensive just like mega-project solar, wind and hydro.
SMR designs solve this problem which is why the majority of next gen nuclear tech companies are going down that path.
The problem is the current regulatory system is based on mega-project nuclear, which as >>16690595 stated means a time and money cost that makes it very, very, very hard to build.
If a country developes a regulatory system that allows SMR nuclear to get approved and deployed within say 1-2 years for a cost of a few million nuclear 2.0 would completely BTFO all renewables.

plebe words

>>16691771
not so fast bro

>>16691771
"Small" reactors aren’t a thing. Even the most compact useful reactor requires shielding that makes it equivalent to a building in size. You aren’t going to have these little blocks connecting up like legos as you imagine.

>>16691815
>requires shielding that makes it equivalent to a building in size
Depends on the type of reactor and it's core design.

>You aren’t going to have these little blocks connecting up like legos as you imagine.
You mean like this? People already working on it, the reason why they don't exist yet is what I said above, regulatory cost and normies hating nuclear because of that's what pop culture told them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cc1j-MbVVA

You know its a retarded debate when people talk about oil and arabs when talking about electric generation

>>16692651
yes goyim you are right

>>16690105 (OP)
It takes time to build them and western societies cant build anything, especially America who cannot even maintain that it has. Also you need lot of nuclear engineers to run those plants and they are decreasing in numbers while also being all lured into fusion research scam.

>>16690105 (OP)
>>16692651
This thread:
>support nuclear if you're against (((them)))
>thousands of retards parrot this
>narrative hits the mainstream
>>nuclear is antisemtic? wtf I love oil now?
10/10 absolutely subversive 4d chess, oil shills definitely know what they're doing.

Solar is cheaper
No proliferation risk
Concerns over previous accidents and contamination make it difficult to get nuclear approved
Theres newer very safe nuclear plants but producing the fuel is very expensive

>>16693723
Triso based plants are safe enough you can handle the pebbles by hand
A plant could get rekt or smashed and it would not produce a contamination risk
But making triso is very expensive

>>16693723
Solar is a scam. It was always a scam for insider-connected green energy contractors but now it’s also obvious that it’s not a serious alternative regardless of the interests behind it.

>>16693723
>Solar is cheaper
:joy:

>>16691333
Google the closest military base to you.
Done? Good.
Your closest nuke plant is the SECOND most hard to get into place near you.

>>16690949
when you price carbon high enough, usually it just ends up as a mix of wind/solar and gas. When you price it as well as assume gas prices seen outside the U.S or an even higher carbon price, nuclear power becomes viable. Since global warming is a thing and gas isn't cheap everywhere, nuclear power has a niche for itself.

>>16690105 (OP)
Solar and wind are cheaper and quicker to deploy. There is extensive evidence that oil, gas, and coal lobbyists have been pushing for nuclear in some countries (most notably Australia) as a strategy to delay effective energy action towards clean sources.

>short lifespan of facilities
Turbines last roughly 30 years under normal conditions. That's pretty decent considering they'll likely be replaced by more modern, efficient and maybe even more lasting turbines by then.
>requires natural gas as backup
>requires batteries to store power
Interconnected grids, energy trade, hydrogen, the flexibility offered by hydro plants, there are multiple ways to handle fluctuations in supply and demand. Nuclear power is also not the best when it comes to adjusting outputs. Ideally, nuclear plants should run on a steady rate of energy production over time, failure to do so can lead to increased maintenance needs and reduction of equipment lifetime.
>kills birds
True.
>occupies vast plots of land
Offshore wind is a reality and there are solutions like agrivoltaics that are popping up around the world. Not to mention the already established residential solar panels.
>requires enormous amounts of materials for its construction
Blatant lie.
>dependent on the weather
Putting it like that almost makes it sound like engineering doesn't account for very reliable and well-collected climate metadata and they just hope it's sunny and windy.
>mining rare earth minerals needed for its construction is harmful for the environment
So is iron mining. And copper mining. And aluminium mining. And uranium mining.

>>16694066
Both things you said about nuclear are true, but keep your shitty aussie politics out of an engineering discussion, it is just a tool

>>16694066
Oh, and nice work waving away "dependant on weather" like its not the defining fucking feature of wind and solar compared to other sources, god I hate you word salad idiots.

>>16694079
Well that was a little mean, but don't spread a bunch of crap. Wind and Solar are probably going to do the heavy lifting if we move away from fossil fired electricity, but shitting on nuclear and boosting wind and solar or the other way around is stupid tribalism because there are a lot of good situations to use both in.

>>16693966
I literally have a diplomatic passport and it's still annoying to visit nuclear plants.
People have extremely incorrect ideas about how hard it really is to access a nuclear plant.