Nuclear power

Why do they not consider it a renewable energy? And why is the popularity of Nuclear downplayed so much?
Is it really just because of other energy sector lobbyists?

Attached: 0EC553B2-61BD-4DA0-AF8B-C7A69FA2C620.jpg (1200x1200, 439.56K)

molten salt reactors are the future

There are also combination power and desal plants, in addition to portable small-scale nuclear reactors. These things could solve water *and* energy demands all over the country in a variety of settings. But Leftists are pieces of fucking shit.

>other energy sector lobbyists
Yes I think that's the reason

fuck off rightoid.
nuclear is the dirtiest of all energies, the sites have to be quarantined, nuclear waste and meltdowns.
wind and solar are far better

Petrodollars dipshit

Nuclear is fine for electricity production, but that's still only about 20% of total energy expenditures. Waste storage remains a lingering concern. For nuclear to usurp coal/oil power plants would necessitate building another ~10000 reactors worldwide. The resources that would go into scaling fissile material to that degree (provided there's even enough available) would take the lifespan of the reactors to balance out. There's no answer but to pray for fusion.

Politicians want problems that can get them elected forever. Not solutions that will get them elected once

fuel too expensive
really inefficient

It is the reason. Nuclear is incredibly safe, especially in the US.
You essentially have other renewable industries lobbying against its usage.
It is cheap and effective, so of course they don't want it.
They want to have people pay shit tons of money for a bunch of fans in the sky that will never make their money back, only work when there is consistent wind, and are regionally segregated.
Or they want to invest in solar, which a lot of solar cells are created outside of the country in China, and then sold through shell companies in SEA that CCP and US government officials are heavily invested in.
Our energy crisis is completely manufactured by greed, and intentional bad government policy.

Attached: XHboM166.gif (345x237, 1.87M)

They got FLURORIDATED. Every tear that goes by that you don't fight fluoridation with iodine, you risk becoming a zombie.

this

If you weren't alive/aware when it happened, it's hard to get across to you how much chernobyl scared the utter living shit out of the world

Because its the only one which gives cancer.

It would shift the power paradigm in the world too much.
Look up uranium reserves by country.

Bad bait.

Coal causes far more cancer than nucular
Burning coal is one of the worst things you can do

>Because its the only one which gives cancer.
Lmao. Lol. Hahaha.
All forms of energy(that are stable) can give you cancer, either through exposure or pollutants.
Nuclear exposure is extremely low or non-existent compared to all others.

>Burning coal is one of the worst things you can do
I know

Coal has even gotten significantly safer due to modern scrubbing technology, but it is still more dangerous than nuclear.

Nobody calls coal green energy also. If you want to be called green you have to not harm humans.

>instead of bombing the Middle East, America would be bombing Canada and Australia
seems like a win

Honestly there is nothing wrong with coal. Pollution like all things is blown out of proportion. And they are much safer. The Earth changes environmentally naturally. Climate change by man is a lie.

>BAN NUKES NOW!!!!

There are a lot of acid baked hippies who thing nuclear wastes are Equivalent to detonating nuclear bombs I’m the sky like in the Cold War

Radioactive contamination is comparable to refusal ole toxic “pollution” ... but Marvel never made a comic called The Adventures of Arsenic man ... so normies think nuclear is some boogie man

>Why do they not consider it a renewable energy?
If it uses any form of fuel you have to dig out of the ground, it's not renewable. The sun, the wind, and the tides will be around until the end of the earth, but not necessarily uranium (though it is highly efficient).

>And why is the popularity of Nuclear downplayed so much?
Normies don't know a lot about it, and half of them think the risk of a meltdown is too great to consider nuclear power plants.

>Is it really just because of other energy sector lobbyists?
Well they certainly seem to be controlling the narrative...

Radiation is very harmful to humans, waste from reactors is usually improperly disposed and poisons ground somewhere for millenias.

for the same reason no one's going back to the moon. it's fake

nuclear power looks good on paper
but even when the US was majority white they had accidents
the west isn't competent enough anymore for nuclear power

Go live in a coal ash mountain.

See how many eye and fingers your children have, and if their IQ is over 65

in georgia they were installing a big solar field so the trailer park people came out and protested that the solar field was going to "suck up the sunlight" and destroy all the crops in the area

It solves the problem to effeciently to grift off of
Also the time of return is too long. Over 25 years it the most efficient fuel, but it takes 5-10 years to pay off

>Radiation is very harmful to humans
That is true, good thing precautions are taken to limit exposure.

>waste from reactors is usually improperly disposed and poisons ground somewhere for millenias
In third world or second world countries, yes, that is also true. Most nuclear reactors maintain their profitability by selling the waste to arms manufacturers. Which is a grey area, since it is possible to make a Nuclear reactor with negligible nuclear waste, but then the plant can't sustain itself.

>Fusion

Way to discredit your entire rambling post :/

>I’m sure Tony Stark will use the stones of power any day now to make a fusion reactor

Radiation is cancerous not because its energy, but of the neutron emision... They act as bullets which shred your cells. Humans dont have recrptors for that, because its not found in nature usually. Temperature ebergy is easy for humans to avoid.

>If you want to be called green you have to not harm humans
men burning to death on top of wind turbine.jpg
dam failures killing hundreds of thousands in China.gif

>Why do they not consider it a renewable energy?
Because democrats are too cheap to have nuclear power plants built that can use old fuel rods (AKA nuclear waste)

Attached: joebiden scares me.jpg (792x849, 556.35K)

>1pbtid
>16min ago
Bait

LOL wat

>Laughs at your American “spent” fuel

Maple Bacon reactors can burn that shit all day

Well, that settles that debate
Good evidence given all around

Fuck nuclear. Look at all that radiation smoke coming out of that nuclear reactor

Hard cringe bro

You can't hand off the nuclear legacy to niggers

Wtf is a man doing on top of turbine lol. Dumb dead chinks and dam breaking which ruins ecology is a good thing. Its engineering failures, but the poisonous nature of fuel per ce.

>al-Nuke mosque
praise Allah infidels

Because it still consumes enriched uranium.

Besides, nuclear disasters can quite easily be a nightmare that has happened many times over.

All that uranium, thorium, lead, etc in the coal

Better put that coal plant far from cities .... like oh I don’t know ... maybe out in Farm Country

Yum Yum

Good planning

>radiation smoke

Attached: A8A9346B-FD19-498E-B4F0-7B14E95378A8.jpg (820x713, 63.49K)

>Waste storage remains a lingering concern.
No it isn't. Reprocess and there is almost no high level waste. Low level waste just goes into the landfill. This is an entirely made up argument by environmentalist because leftists only ever ruin things, they never offer positive solutions to anything. High level waste still has value, the idea of throwing it away is Jimmy Carter tiers of retarded.

Then why is germany absolutely shitting itself trying to fire up its old coal power plants? Now with nuclear and petroleum out of the picture, the majority of their energy production is renewables.

As an other user stated, modern scrubbing and carbon capture systems are pretty good. But, most the coal in north America is being used for metallurgical purposes nowadays. The largest veins of coal on the east coast are sub-bituminous or bituminous coal which is ideal for coke used in steel production.


Off the top of my head, coal only represents 30% of power generation nowadays.

Problem with wind and solar is they aren't very useful for standby reserve.
Power plants have to be ready to go on demand to maintain electrical frequency which these two types of plants aren't great at.

No it isn't.
Don't be a drama queen.

Nuclear Energy is the future once we get rid of these climate retards.

Yes. I live near a nuclear plant and breath that shit in all the time. My lungs are so fucked from it. I’ve tried bringing awareness to it, saying they are literally killing us who live near the plant. They keep blowing me off. They have high power lobbyists (no pun intended)