fucking goddamn asshole “environementalists” we could have full energy or atleast like 20-60% EASILY with Nuclear power but because like a few thousand( AT MOST) have been affected from accidents over decades of safe use we focus on bullshit “green” energy that never seems to have any significant improvement. The only truly big disaster was from a ridiculous state that was on its last legs that was honestly pretty fluky to begin with. The Japanese disaster was honestly barely anything

drethelin:

nuclearspaceheater:

severnayazemlya:

theinternetcrab:

serkentsi-deactivated20180207:

19% of the US’s energy comes from nuclear already. 11% comes from renewables, and most of that is hydroelectric and wind. 

In 2014, 17% of Germany’s energy came from nuclear. But German progressives hate nuclear. It was a big issue there – “ATOMKRAFT? NEIN DANKE!” stickers all over Bremen and so on. So they’re phasing out nuclear power. A lot of that will probably be replaced with coal.

Apparently Der Spiegel doesn’t like the Energiewende. Is there anything they do like? Other than whining, of course. Good lord. All their stories are either “nuclear power is bad” or “there are eight neo-Nazis in Saxony”. But if it’s true that the Energiewende doesn’t involve storage facilities for surplus solar and wind power… 

The ideal is obviously for as much residential power as possible to be generated by means that aren’t necessarily centralized – meaning solar and geothermal energy. (About 40% of residential energy usage goes to heating, and geothermal heat pumps are the least expensive heating method. The problem, of course, is that you use heating in the winter.)

(By the way, @nihilsupernum, ‘heating’ here is either a deverbal noun or a gerund, not a participle – you don’t have any easy way to tell the difference, but I can tell it’s not a participle because -ing ( < Old English -ing) can’t be reduced here to -in (which isn’t actually a reduction: it’s from Old English -ende, and the two were confused in Standard English but not in the dialects). If it can take an object directly, as in ‘heating the house’, it’s a gerund; if not, as in ‘house-heating’ or ‘heating of the house’, it’s a deverbal noun.)

Anyway. I won’t pretend to know enough to be able to tell how much power could be generated by renewable sources. And, at least in the US, Canada, China, and Russia, nuclear power is viable without any worries, because there’s a lot of land in those countries that no one gives a fuck about. We have closed cities in Nevada, for instance. (Back when I wanted to be an animator, I had an outline for a funny-animal series set in Mercury, where all the characters were mutants. But I never got around to doing anything with it.)

It’ll be interesting to see what happens in Germany.

The problem about nuclear energy in Europe is that we lack empty land nobody cares about – and in Germany, the possibility of nuclear accidents is much less of a problem than the problem of where to put nuclear waste products with half-lives of myriads of years. Another problem you don’t have to worry about as much if you can just bury it in Siberia and forget about it.

This is related to the fact that the first and second generation of nuclear power plants are no longer maintainable and need to be replaced, and their deconstruction produces a bunch of debris that nobody wants to be near even if it’s long since free of radiating materials, because gamma rays are solidly in the category of Bad Voodoo rather than anything real.

Then again, wild mushrooms in many western European forests are hazardous to this day because of residual contamination from the Chernobyl accident, so,

Yeah, that’s what I was getting at there – nuclear power makes sense for countries with large swaths of effectively uninhabitable land like Nevada, Xinjiang, Nunavut (which is about six times the size of Germany and has a population of 31,906), or Siberia, but it makes a lot less sense in most of Europe.

That, or countries that are just determined enough to make it work anyway.

image

No magic dirt, etc.

All the nuclear waste in america takes up around ONE football field of space. You do NOT need a ton of empty wastelands to store nuclear waste!

There’s a huge toxic no-mans-land between Germany and France already, could maybe use that for something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s