Don't underestimate the power of propaganda. Once a lie has been lodged into the mind of a person, it is very difficult, maybe even impossible to remove that lie as their personality depends on not being wrong.
Science We need a new nuclear age
- Thread starter KilroywasNOTHere
- Start date
Nuclear is most definitely not the best way.
As off now, we have no way to deal with the tonnes and tonnes of nuclear waste produced by those reactors.
They can stay radioactive for potentially millions of years, while the best concrete only lasts about 100.
Canada (and the world) should stop using nuclear energy, the nuke waste is filling up and we have nowhere good to put it.
Chaos Marine
Well-known member
Oh no, sticking a few hundred tonnes into a secure location equals the volume of waste, ecological damage of strip mining of toxic materials that have a near infinite half life in countries with near no safety regulations is totally comparable. Like totes comparable.
But yes, you do have a point that the storage isn't yet perfect. Good point. Why bother doing anything because the current means aren't perfect. I'm sure that down the road better means of containment won't be developed. Why bother? Lets just completely fuck over the present because a long term problem can't be solved straight away. Hell, it's not like in another couple of decades space flight will be at the stage where launching a few hundred tonnes into orbit in near complete safety will exist so we can just send those containers into the sun or store them on an asteroid or some desolate moon that we won't be able to use till the technology to take advantage of exists alongside technologies to render it safe will probably have been developed as well.
Last edited:
Big oil outright bankrolls the anti-nuclear green movement because they are extremely useful idiots.
Navarro
Well-known member
I mean, this big worry about how to warn people ten thousand years in the future or w/e about nuclear waste is just inane. The future can take care of that particular problem on its own one way or another. Either records survive or the future archaeologists will learn to stay away after one of them gets radiation sickness.
Buba
A total creep
As to Fukushima - I've seen the argument that it should be used as a flagship example of how safe nuclear power actually is, as the plant survived having more thrown against it than it was designed to withstand.
But instead we have hysterical morons frothing at the mouth against it - naturally, funded by producers/merchants of other energy types ...
But instead we have hysterical morons frothing at the mouth against it - naturally, funded by producers/merchants of other energy types ...
Fukushima would have been fine if the damn Yakuza contracting company that built it didn't put the back-up diesels in the basement, in a tsunami zone.
That was just stupid and poor engineering.
Arlos
Sad Monarchist
I am 100% behind nuclear energy, anything else as of right now is band aid and also a shackle on the advancement of civilization, new method to produce more energy are behind every technological revolution of the past 2 centuries, and nuclear energy is the next step fo our civilization in that regard, we know it scale up to the sun at least.
The more energy we reliably have, the more we can do with sciences.
The more energy we reliably have, the more we can do with sciences.
Your country was the fore front of it as well. Then the greens got leverage.
Who ever is for Nuclear in your next election vote for them
Arlos
Sad Monarchist
We’re still fine, we got a new, last generation reactor coming online this year and 6 more on the way, we are also spending a lot on nuclear fusion.
Though we did close one of the old one that could have kept going of refurbished.
We are better off than Germany at least.
I heard you were trying to go from 75 to 50 % nuclear by 2025. An article from 2015 showed that at least.
Everyone is better off the Germany. I don't thinkanything you have is worse then Germany right now. From power to immigration
Because it scares the greens who don't understand it, because Jimmy Carter outlawed reprocessing waste in the US, and that hasn't been repealed or amended, and because it makes nuclear even more attractive then green energy or oil.
It is more attractive then Green energy or Oil.
Hell, I would rather live next to a Reactor then a solar or wind farm, or an oil refinery
Yup: the scare-mongering has left a long-lasting impression in culture.
People's excuse for Fukushima? "If an act of nature can cause a nuclear plant to have a failure, it's best not to have one in the first place due to the potential consequences!"
...Yeah, that logic could be applied to building your homes in Tornado Valley, or building dams, or even flood-defences: "nature could cause them to catastrophically fail"? Give me a break.
Navarro
Well-known member
Some have explicitly said they're against fusion research because it would mean large amounts of clean energy with no need to worry about waste products.
Last edited:
...Fucking why?
Okay, I get that several industries would be destroyed, and that'd affect a fraction of the population's jobs and income, but are those the only real reasons?
Because if the problem is handled, you cannot make money off being an activist for it, or teaching people to be an activist for it, or make money off short-term non-solutions that sound good to greenies.