it works - you have to put in a reason - like "typo"
test
this is an edit
this is another edit - now click the funny icon to the right of your up/down votes... you'll see the edits
spez: one of my edits borked - it's glitchy for sure
Not in their book. Nevermind the fact that it produces no CO2 and it literally is the safest per terawatt. Nuclear IS the answer, but they will never acknowledge it, because the whole CO2 emissions is all about control.
It all goes back to the 70s and the anti-war protesters and when we were importing oil. The Bill Clinton crowd has always been a problem. Three Mile Island.
The original protest was against FOREIGN oil, that evolved to be against ALL oil. They were afraid it was going to run out. Now we have tons of it and were exporting it. But can’t have that. Greenies have always been a problem. The original head guy was growing weed in his forests and hence didnt want the trees harvested for personal reasons. This was all in the news several yrs ago.
Technically not, but on the other hand you'd get massive amounts of energy for a very low amount of fuel. The fuel still needs to be mined tho and that mining plus the concrete structures is the only environmentally harmful aspect with nuclear power.
The exception would be to have socialists operate it, like we saw with Chernobyl. Or using nuclear power in areas prone to have regular earthquakes, like the Japanese do.
Europe is a very stable continent with a low amount of natural disasters or extreme weather which makes it perfect for nuclear power. But ironically the politicians want to "go green" and replace it all with wind energy, which is a total shame because Europe still has enough stored uranium to power the whole continent with nuclear power for at least 200 years ahead.
There are newer reactor designs that are much safer - they passively cool themselves so they don't have melt downs like Chernobyl or Fukushima if the active control systems fail. The just slowly cool off.
I won't go so far as to say the newer reactor designs are "foolproof" because fools are damned ingenious. But they are much, much safer. And nuclear power plants are not dependent on the weather to operate.
To be fair, Chernobyl was in fact worst case scenario, not only did the situation escalate but because of Soviet socialism they didn't bother to do much about it until plants over in western Europe reported high doses of radiation in the air and it was obvious what was going on.
Passive cooling as safety measure seems like a great way to avoid meltdowns, Europe also doesn't have flood waves or earthquakes so it shouldn't be possible to repeat the Fukushima incident either.
There's no reason to not build more nuclear power in Europe.
90% renewable. 90% of nuclear waste is reusable. The rest is below the threshold for fission but is comprised of a bunch of highly ionized heavy elements after about 30 years you can use these elements.
Is nuclear renewable?
used rods can be used as fuel in new gen reactors iirc
Yup, molten salt reactors can literally use up current nuclear waste. For years they'd be a net negative in terms of nuclear waste LOL.
Consider nuclear nuclear?
it works - you have to put in a reason - like "typo" test this is an edit this is another edit - now click the funny icon to the right of your up/down votes... you'll see the edits spez: one of my edits borked - it's glitchy for sure
another edit for good measure
this.
we have nuclear, the most abundant stable zero-emissions power source available powering all our subs and super carriers just fine.
but no, dont put any money in there, lets go with the most fickle and inefficient solutions instead.
Honk HOnk !!
Not in their book. Nevermind the fact that it produces no CO2 and it literally is the safest per terawatt. Nuclear IS the answer, but they will never acknowledge it, because the whole CO2 emissions is all about control.
It all goes back to the 70s and the anti-war protesters and when we were importing oil. The Bill Clinton crowd has always been a problem. Three Mile Island.
The original protest was against FOREIGN oil, that evolved to be against ALL oil. They were afraid it was going to run out. Now we have tons of it and were exporting it. But can’t have that. Greenies have always been a problem. The original head guy was growing weed in his forests and hence didnt want the trees harvested for personal reasons. This was all in the news several yrs ago.
Technically not, but on the other hand you'd get massive amounts of energy for a very low amount of fuel. The fuel still needs to be mined tho and that mining plus the concrete structures is the only environmentally harmful aspect with nuclear power.
The exception would be to have socialists operate it, like we saw with Chernobyl. Or using nuclear power in areas prone to have regular earthquakes, like the Japanese do.
Europe is a very stable continent with a low amount of natural disasters or extreme weather which makes it perfect for nuclear power. But ironically the politicians want to "go green" and replace it all with wind energy, which is a total shame because Europe still has enough stored uranium to power the whole continent with nuclear power for at least 200 years ahead.
There are newer reactor designs that are much safer - they passively cool themselves so they don't have melt downs like Chernobyl or Fukushima if the active control systems fail. The just slowly cool off.
I won't go so far as to say the newer reactor designs are "foolproof" because fools are damned ingenious. But they are much, much safer. And nuclear power plants are not dependent on the weather to operate.
To be fair, Chernobyl was in fact worst case scenario, not only did the situation escalate but because of Soviet socialism they didn't bother to do much about it until plants over in western Europe reported high doses of radiation in the air and it was obvious what was going on.
Passive cooling as safety measure seems like a great way to avoid meltdowns, Europe also doesn't have flood waves or earthquakes so it shouldn't be possible to repeat the Fukushima incident either.
There's no reason to not build more nuclear power in Europe.
Or in most of the US.
this. technology has advanced a lot since chernobyl.
and there are advances in nuclear fusion as well, not just fission.
the only problem with nuclear is you cant virtue signal and get elected and get your buddies rich with it.
No but it's cleaner than fossil fuels
90% renewable. 90% of nuclear waste is reusable. The rest is below the threshold for fission but is comprised of a bunch of highly ionized heavy elements after about 30 years you can use these elements.