Fusion Energy

[Ooloo]

Nuclear energy is insanely cleaner than any other proposed energy source, and by far provides more kwh per human death associated with it's production, for a fraction of the land footprint of both fossil fuels and hippy windmills.

Still no good argument from dems like AOC against nuclear. They either pretend it doesn't exist, or pretend nuclear = scary atomic bombs cause they are 7th graders in politician's clothing.

[Botten]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nuclear energy is insanely cleaner than any other proposed energy source, and by far provides more kwh per human death associated with it's production, for a fraction of the land footprint of both fossil fuels and hippy windmills.

Still no good argument from dems like AOC against nuclear. They either pretend it doesn't exist, or pretend nuclear = scary atomic bombs cause they are 7th graders in politician's clothing.

Man you keep pumping out the examples of how ignorant you really are.

Around 12.1 trillion yen ($82 billion) has already been spent to deal with the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to sources at the Board of Audit of Japan.

The utility now aims to start that work in the second half of fiscal 2023. It is still on going....

Scientifically speaking contamination with radioactive caesium, with a half-life of up to around 30 years, remains in the environment for a long time.

And lets talk about Chernobyl

Experts have said it will be at least 3,000 years for the area to become safe, while others believe this is too optimistic. It is thought that the reactor site will not become habitable again for at least 20,000 years, according to a 2016 report.

roughly US $68 billion in 2019, adjusted for inflation.


How about the worse body of water most contaminated with radioactive pollution: Lake Karachay (aka "Reservoir 9"), a small lake formerly located near the Mayak Production Association, a nuclear facility in Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia.

standing near the shore you'd be exposed to a dose of 5.6 Sievert per hour. That's enough radiation to kill you in about 50 minutes.


But sure have a cow about ... what did you call them.. hippy wind mills. What if we coupled it with solar energy... still too hippy for you?

Wind and solar produce more electricity than nuclear for the first time in the US and much safer

Keep sticking that foot in your mouth Baler.

Got to love your Ben Shapiro on the spot made up statistics and opinions!!!

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Man you keep pumping out the examples of how ignorant you really are.

Around 12.1 trillion yen ($82 billion) has already been spent to deal with the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to sources at the Board of Audit of Japan.

The utility now aims to start that work in the second half of fiscal 2023. It is still on going....

Scientifically speaking contamination with radioactive caesium, with a half-life of up to around 30 years, remains in the environment for a long time.

And lets talk about Chernobyl

Experts have said it will be at least 3,000 years for the area to become safe, while others believe this is too optimistic. It is thought that the reactor site will not become habitable again for at least 20,000 years, according to a 2016 report.

roughly US $68 billion in 2019, adjusted for inflation.


How about the worse body of water most contaminated with radioactive pollution: Lake Karachay (aka "Reservoir 9"), a small lake formerly located near the Mayak Production Association, a nuclear facility in Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia.

standing near the shore you'd be exposed to a dose of 5.6 Sievert per hour. That's enough radiation to kill you in about 50 minutes.


But sure have a cow about ... what did you call them.. hippy wind mills. What if we coupled it with solar energy... still too hippy for you?

Wind and solar produce more electricity than nuclear for the first time in the US and much safer

Keep sticking that foot in your mouth Baler.

Got to love your Ben Shapiro on the spot made up statistics and opinions!!!

I forget if it's kwh/cost or mhw/cost for the words but do those for the nuke-u-lar and the wind and the solar.

Deuterium can be mined from the sea.

[Encroaching Death]

Here's why Dems don't like Nuclear:

1. They would have to agree with Republicans on something.
   
2. It would solve the energy issue, and therefore take away one of their talking points.

[Botten]

R2topic fun

https://youtu.be/Z3oA4tK_dsY

[magnetaress]

Originally Posted by Encroaching Death [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here's why Dems don't like Nuclear:

1. They would have to agree with Republicans on something.
   
2. It would solve the energy issue, and therefore take away one of their talking points.

I agree lol. Plus less money for rich ppl. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Botten]

Right?!11?!

Why the U.S. government plans to spend billions to keep money-losing nuclear plants open

[magnetaress]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Right?!11?!

Why the U.S. government plans to spend billions to keep money-losing nuclear plants open

They lose money for political reasons. Thanks bureaucrats and lobbies. Also when u do stuff like force ppl to use a government CONTRACTED lab for radiometer screening. It's pretty yikes.

It would be the cheapest. Cleanest. And safest. Without democrats or Republicans in charge.

[Encroaching Death]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Right?!11?!

Why the U.S. government plans to spend billions to keep money-losing nuclear plants open

Yeah, Nuclear is having a tough time competing with the low prices of natural gas.

But it's the best option for clean, renewable energy.

It's MUCH worse for Wind and Solar.

From your article:

"More problematically, wind and solar are intermittent sources of energy — the sun isn’t always shining, and the wind isn’t always blowing. They can’t replace nuclear (or gas or coal) as baseload sources until utility-scale battery technology is developed and built out. That’s still years away."

Aren't you types all for banning oil?

If so, Nuclear is your only legit option.