Is nuclear the future? And why is it so vehemently opposed?

Is nuclear the future? And why is it so vehemently opposed?

Attached: nuclear.png (554x89, 8.6K)

It puts economic power in uranium producers, which are firmly under Russian/French/CCP/US control
I'd create a new paradigm

I read "nuclear war" instead of "nuclear" kek

Attached: nuke.png (1097x820, 860.63K)

>Is nuclear the future?
Yes, at least until we can set up helium-3 mining on the moon.
>And why is it so vehemently opposed?
Cause anti-nuclear retard still think we're in the 80s

The west no longer has a labor base competent enough to maintain a nuclear energy grid

>tfw the elite are afraid of another Napoleon after all these years

Attached: 1595411682939.png (1024x1024, 90.99K)

because theyre gay.
yes nuclear is the future, especially forgetting climate change and all that its a more efficient and powerful source of energy. anyone opposing nuclear is a shill

no it is because nuclear power would emancipate the people
and that will not happen
the great reset will happen, and enslavement will be set in place via digital methods
and only then will nuclear come

It is opposed because they wouldn't have an excuse to limit our population and lower our standard of living if we had a clean energy source that works as good as fossil fuels. They are enemies of humankind.

Its expensive to build, and scares people. The few accidents have been enormously expensive and harmful. The fuel is extreme rare to the point that only a few places in the Earth have it. Refining the material is toxic. Disposing of the waste is extremely difficult. Decommissioning old plants is labor intensive.

OR

You could just build a gas plant and it pays for itself in two years.

100%
Its only a matter of time before we make intrinsically safe reactors. Thorium reactors down the line. Anyone that hates nuclear is an uneducated ludite that willingly stands in the way of progress.

This

That's mostly false, especially about the fuel being rare. With Thorium we could have power for 10,000 years, and waste can be burned in fast reactors.

We don't use Thorium nigger. We use the rare shit.

Not an argument, we could build Thorium reactors easily.

Speak to them and you will understand. Most of their knowledge of nuclear power and fossil fuel alternatives comes from pop-culture. They have been programed to think the only sustainable alternatives are just windmills and solar panels. They even break out the whole "too expensive" argument they hate whenever nuclear is brought up.

Attached: Marcy in pain 1653581633944.gif (570x718, 924.44K)

Been thinking of trying to become a nuclear technician, good job or not?

Uranium isn't rare. Its fairly common actually. Its found in conjunction with copper and gold, so any area with tectonic activity should have deposits.

Opponents of nuclear really like to bring up Fukushima.

Attached: fksm.png (487x94, 8.29K)

It's " too expensive" because of all the Jewish red tape surrounding it. Not talking about safety regulations on the actual plant, but political wrangling and NIMBYism to get the thing built in the first place.

Extremely good job. If you can make it. You will easily pull 6 figures.

>Isn't rare
>Names rare materials its found with

Yep. Work your way up, eventually become a supe and what not. Go for it.

They were warned about the flaws in the design of the plant, TEPCO didn't give a shit and kept running it.
Moot point, because modern reactors can remove decay heat for days with no intervention.

Well, nuclear war IS the future.

From what I've seen it's mostly from apprenticeships, I did look at nuclear engineering but technician sounds more interesting.

It's not rare. Uranium is sprinkled everywhere. Uranium is responsible for radon gas which is a common problem in homes in America. Any area with volcanism or tectonic activity will invariably have sufficient deposits of uranium. Additional fun fact, Australia has the largest amount of uranium on the planet.

Have we tried 'not building the plant within striking distance of a fault line'? Because I think that'd help

Dude go shill on Fagbook no one will be swayed here.

Maybe because it represents the flaw in nuclear plants. They can never be safe because they are made by humans.

I agree. The sad part is the fear makes people unable to see that the risk of catastrophic failure can be solved, like in this comment

>The issue isn't when it's working as intended. The issue is when it fails, like Fukushima or Chernobyl. No one is arguing that working AT a nuclear power plant is dangerous. Again, the issue is when they FAIL. It's worth considering if the potential risk is worth the benefit. Honestly, we'd need less nuclear plants if solar, home batteries, AND nuclear all worked together.

And various others talking about how a failed nuclear plant will make hundreds of miles of land around it uninhabitable for hundreds of years or how the fallout will spread globally.

>power plant gets fucked up by a natural disaster
>THIS IS NUCLEAR POWERS FAULT

Not minable.

You may have a point. But I'm optimistic that better designs can be made to negate potential human errors.

>what are failsafe reactors
nice trips, retard

Do you have any facts to back up your claims or are you just going to continue to be an ignorant retard.

In a sane world yes, but we live in clown world.

It would also help if it was a more modern reactor that wasn't due to be decommissioned.
Also it says something about reactor safety when it took both an earthquake and a tsunami to make it melt down.