What If? Nuclear Energy/Powerplants were embraced as being “eco-friendly” and “better”?

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Basically, what if, whatever scares regarding Nuclear Power(aside from bombs)never really worked and nations decided these were more eco friendly and useful than things like some solar road in a relatively rainy or cloudy area?

What would the world economy be like with an increase in nuclear power? Outside of areas where it’s not exactly safe due to things like earthquakes
 

Spartan303

In Captain America we Trust!
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Osaul
Basically, what if, whatever scares regarding Nuclear Power(aside from bombs)never really worked and nations decided these were more eco friendly and useful than things like some solar road in a relatively rainy or cloudy area?

What would the world economy be like with an increase in nuclear power? Outside of areas where it’s not exactly safe due to things like earthquakes


Certainly a lot of impediments for Nuclear energy would be gone. We'd likely be almost entirely nuclear in terms of energy for our cities, towns and states. Far less reliance on Fossil fuels.
 
Energy boom for one potintally a tech boom as well. While I don't think it'd be some kind of free energy utopia I think we'd be in a better spot both financially and eviormentally. But the thing is politicians benefit from the environmental and energy debates so it's not likely to happen.
 
Last edited:

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
That humanity deserves its darwin award.

0e224e6829e4f6974db6702d6f5dd05c.jpg


Energy boom for one potintally a tech boom as well. While I don't think it'd be some kind of free energy utopia I think we'd be in a better spot both financially and echnomically. But the thing is politicians benefit from the environmental and energy debates so it's not likely to happen.

Black Market, HO!!!

 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
That ain't nothin' compared to some of the dumber stuff out there. Moldy bread actually makes sense.

George Washington died because his doctors wouldn't quit draining his blood thinking bleeding him would help. Some bloodletting treatments actually called for removing more blood from the patient than a human body contains.

Trepanation is the medical practice of drilling holes in a person's head for various reasons.

Traditional Chinese Medicine created an elixir of immortality by mixing mercury and lead together*.

Ancient Egyptians rubbed poop in wounds and shoved a big wad of crocodile dung into the vagina as their favored form of birth control.

*May not grant immortality, but instead a horrifying death of heavy metal poisoning.

More on topic, I think Nuclear power would be mostly a good thing, but increasing the number of power plants would inevitably increase the number of accidents, especially if we built lots of plants early on before the dangers were understood. There'd also be an increase in nuclear byproducts such that the odds of some idiot getting a nuke would be greatly increased.

Overall good but it would be best if the nuclear boom happened somewhat later than when we can first build plants, so that the dangerous parts are better understood before idiots get ahold of them.
 

Chaos Marine

Well-known member
Of all of the available power sources, nuclear is actually the safest and greenest power available to us. Nuclear reactors provide the most power for the least carbon footprint and that includes green power sources such as hydro, turbine and solar.

Solar power is horribly inconsistent, it requires rare and toxic materials to manufacture (which has it's own completely separate carbon footprint). Look at Germany's power costs compared to France. Somewhere around 50% of France's power is provided by nuclear and Germany's is heading towards renewables and scrapping their nuclear power. They also have a really short life span of effectiveness and most commercial solar cells are woefully inefficient with the more efficient models being expensive as fuck. They can also cause potential ecological issues and general hazards (particularly to aircraft) through light reflection and unnatural heat build up.

Wind turbines are ridiculously expensive to construct, produce toxic waste, are unsightly and are at the vague mercies of the wind and local topography. The best locations for them are at sea which is going to mean high maintenance costs as anyone who's had to deal with salt water conditions will let you know how absolutely shitty it can be.


Nuclear power, while you're going to have a larger upfront investment, after you've completed the power station, you're going to be producing a lot more profit/power compared to fossil fuels.



The following video goes into a lot of details and comparison between nuclear vs solar renewables in general.

 
Last edited:

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Of all of the available power sources, nuclear is actually the safest and greenest power available to us. Nuclear reactors provide the most power for the least carbon footprint and that includes green power sources such as hydro, turbine and solar.

Solar power is horribly inconsistent, it requires rare and toxic materials to manufacture (which has it's own completely separate carbon footprint). Look at Germany's power costs compared to France. Somewhere around 50% of France's power is provided by nuclear and Germany's is heading towards renewables and scrapping their nuclear power.


Nuclear power, while you're going to have a larger upfront investment, after you've completed the power station, you're going to be producing a lot more profit/power compared to fossil fuels.



The following video goes into a lot of details and comparison between nuclear vs solar renewables in general.



The day Mr Burns turns out to be the smart and good guy, is the day I shake his hand

That said, I think you may as well make use of all that waste, go and get all the trash and sewer toxins and use it for something else while you’re at it

I think Nuclear Power Plants make use of sewage for cooling
 

Chaos Marine

Well-known member
The day Mr Burns turns out to be the smart and good guy, is the day I shake his hand

That said, I think you may as well make use of all that waste, go and get all the trash and sewer toxins and use it for something else while you’re at it

I think Nuclear Power Plants make use of sewage for cooling


As noted by this video (set at the specific time the creator goes into it), it goes into details on how nuclear reactors operate and there's a design for a reactor that potentially would be melt-down proof but it's only in the concept stage. We wouldn't know if it'd actually unless it was tested but he mechanics of it seem pretty sound.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag


As noted by this video (set at the specific time the creator goes into it), it goes into details on how nuclear reactors operate and there's a design for a reactor that potentially would be melt-down proof but it's only in the concept stage. We wouldn't know if it'd actually unless it was tested but he mechanics of it seem pretty sound.


I hope Trump endorses these things en masse as an alternative to fossil fuels and oil and hopefully that has a domino effect as others adopt them too

That said, some countries even knowing how good they are, wouldn’t be able to use them due to geography and natural disasters
 

Chaos Marine

Well-known member
Nuclear is seen as dangerous from not even a handful of incidents and the fear of nuclear weapons. The number of meltdowns compared to safely running nuclear power plants is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, if they do melt down there is a very real chance of some very bad shit happening but modern reactor designs compared to old reactors are like comparing a windmill to a hydroelectric dam.
 
Nuclear is seen as dangerous from not even a handful of incidents and the fear of nuclear weapons. The number of meltdowns compared to safely running nuclear power plants is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, if they do melt down there is a very real chance of some very bad shit happening but modern reactor designs compared to old reactors are like comparing a windmill to a hydroelectric dam.


People remember Chernobyl , but tend to not realize that it shouldn't have happened. In short it occurred because Russia thought it was a good idea to take shortcuts and cut corners. Edit: it was essentially the equivalent of taking off your seat belt on a roller coaster and standing up while the ride is still going....funny enough that happened once at one of the local theme parks in my area was I was growing up, never happened before and hasn't happened since. Mr booze kids, not even once.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top