-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Elon Musk Wisdom: "Bring back Nuclear Power you Fools!" (the abridged version)
I collect VHS tapes
Member
Nuclear power is the way. Idk why people get so weird about it.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Mathematically, nuclear is still the safest currently feasible energy tech available per kwh, and one of the least carbon emitting.
This is where we end up when luddites who can't math acquire too much influence.
This is where we end up when luddites who can't math acquire too much influence.
Futaleufu
Member
Gotta love his "Give me your radiation! I eat radiation for breakfast!" vibes there.
He is not wrong. Isn't there a location in Russia that's famous for its "radioactive" caviar?
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Because they think every nuclear plant in the world will blow up like Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Dream-Knife
Banned
I've not heard of that. Kazakhstan has many issues from the soviet era largely due to their environmental disregard. Radioactive dust is an issue, as is the now land connected bio weapons lab in the Aral sea.
CGiRanger
Banned
It sucks that in both cases, and certainly the former, it was mainly thanks to serious flaws in thinking that led to those things. Chernobyl of course being a extreme example of a flawed design, insufficient safety protocols and not entirely qualified personnel being stretched to the limit. Granted it's mainly Chernobyl that led to the biggest rise in anti-nuclear outcries since I recall those campaigns from the late 80's and 90's.
Not compared to the alternative sources wastes.
(And also, it is technicaly still fuel)
Edit: Elon has been too optimistic on renewables for a long time now as a replacement to fossils. Hopefully now he promotes nuclear more. Storage for renewable off-hours is just not feasible.
Last edited:
Nikodemos
Member
90% of radioactive contamination is due to weapons production. The militaries of the world didn't give a shit about environmental issues in their drive to acquire them, back in the 1960s and 70s.
Ironically, Chernobyl is also, indirectly, a result of weapons production, since that design was derived from a military arms-making one.
TheInfamousKira
Reseterror Resettler
I'm watching my TV, Muskateer, eat your food at a table like a Human Being.
SJRB
Gold Member
Because people are idiots and have been brainwashed into thinking that anything involving "nuclear" is bad.
Elon is right of course, but let's all dunk on the guy making electric cars for saying we need other power sources.
Lukaku's First Touch
Member
He's right. Sadly retards like my government's green party (Belgium) that have less than 10% percent of the votes can make decisions to stop nuclear power and push a gigantic bunch of people in to poverty with the rising gas prices.
Over here they're even saying the want to ban gas usage in new homes BUT they want to build new gas power plants instead of using our nuclear plants. Can't make this shit up.
Over here they're even saying the want to ban gas usage in new homes BUT they want to build new gas power plants instead of using our nuclear plants. Can't make this shit up.
Last edited:
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
Build some thorium reactors
SidViscous
Member
Doesn’t all metal have a trace of radiation since Chernobyl? I remember reading they have to use metals dug out of the earth prior to then for medical equipment that measures radiation due to the trace amount
Last edited by a moderator:
Wildebeest
Member
Renewables are cheaper, but they simply cannot respond to surges in peak demand. If you still want to think that fossil fuels don't have waste issues or massive hidden costs, then I don't know what to say.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Nuclear waste is an issue, but the reality is that its a containable one. Emissions from fossil fuels, not so much.
Renewable sources have their place for sure, but they are very susceptible to climate and weather. Ironically this makes them a far better complement to nuclear plants.
The larger truth I fear is like everything to do with climate change and power, the political will always seems to push alternate directions as opposed to fixing existing issues.
Renewable sources have their place for sure, but they are very susceptible to climate and weather. Ironically this makes them a far better complement to nuclear plants.
The larger truth I fear is like everything to do with climate change and power, the political will always seems to push alternate directions as opposed to fixing existing issues.
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.1
Nuclear 
power is widely reported as powerful by all accounts.
power is widely reported as powerful by all accounts.
Trogdor1123
Gold Member
In 20 more years, like always, and probably again 20 years from now
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
Because i simply do not trust humans on a scale of thousands of years to not fuck it up with the waste management. I don't even trust them for 50 years of fucking service. We've seen <1% of the timeline required for storing these wastes and we tap ourselves on the back for it? SAFE?
I'm sure on paper, some MIT engineer built the best goddamn reactor imaginable, on paper. I simply don't trust the long term management of it all. In these uncertain times especially, with god knows what the future holds when a huge portion of the equatorial line is unhabitable, food and water scarcity lead to wars. These are easy peasy targets to fuck shit up. Stop external electric supply of to these plants for 1 month? You have meltdowns all over the country. Seems too feeble to me.
Last edited:
Wheeljack539
Member
Aren't those still experimental? I've heard about them time to time and last I really looked at it years ago China was supposed to go into testing them.
Shadowplay1979
Member
Just change the name to gamma photon energy, suddenly no one will care and will hail it
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Banned
Didn't he also claim that solar power could very easily power the whole planet with current tech? If that's true, why would anyone ever want nuclear?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
A friend of my father growing up that used to go fishing with us, worked at one of the local nuclear plants in the state I used to live in. We used to fish near the plant too, because the stripers was plenty and massive due to the warmer water temperature.
They would wear cards on their chest, like a nametag, that would measure the levels of radiation output and the like. He said the plants are completely save and shielded when properly upkept and safety is followed.
I mentioned the card, because he noted to me, "that when he would go home from work and sit in front of his television (CRTs at the time) the meter on the card would read far higher than when he was working in the power plant which had very little to no reading."
They would wear cards on their chest, like a nametag, that would measure the levels of radiation output and the like. He said the plants are completely save and shielded when properly upkept and safety is followed.
I mentioned the card, because he noted to me, "that when he would go home from work and sit in front of his television (CRTs at the time) the meter on the card would read far higher than when he was working in the power plant which had very little to no reading."
Last edited:
Wildebeest
Member
I don't know if that claim in particular holds water. But at scale, it is easier to turn on a nuclear power plant than store all that energy from the day in batteries to use at night.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Oh neat Elon you ate food once in a place after a radiation issue occurred there, SO ITS NOT A RISK!
Not necessarily disagreeing with the overall message, but that is some dumb anti-scientific shit lol You can also go get a single x-ray w/o issue, but try getting an x-ray every single day and see what happens.
Not necessarily disagreeing with the overall message, but that is some dumb anti-scientific shit lol You can also go get a single x-ray w/o issue, but try getting an x-ray every single day and see what happens.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I certainly wouldn't eat the fish where the leak is dumping into, which is still leaking by the way.
Pick your poison. Fossil fuels are less reflexively scary but thousands of times more deadly to humans and harmful to the planet. I'd love to see residential solar on every roof, but there needs to be a consistent baseline output powering the grid to account for time of day and cloud cover variability. Nuclear is the best option for that.
GeorgioCostanzaX
Gold Member
Don’t the French have a method of converting the waste into a harmless ceramic? Then isn’t the issue just where do you store it due to NIMBYism? Is Yucca mountain still a thing in the US?
West Texas CEO
GAF's Nicest Lunch Thief and Nosiest Dildo Archeologist
Nuclear = free energy for all. I rather like that.
Let's build mass drivers and shoot all that waste straight into the Sun.
NickFire
Member
IMO, until society expands nuclear energy output we are just dividing ourselves over little more than talking points. I completely understand the fear of it, and like everyone else would prefer the plant gets put a few hundred miles downwind from my locale. But it is the only feasible solution short of massive population reductions and return to horse and buggy. It is not just the current grid that needs sufficient energy. It is the current grid, with massive demand increases (even if population stays stagnant) for everyone who will convert to electric autos, and for everyone who heats their home with fossil fuels.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
If German figures are to be believed, then they have more than replaced the energy they were getting from nuclear with renewable sources. So this isn't a case of them just replacing nuclear energy with fossil fuels, or having an increased energy shortfall due to getting rid of nuclear.
Isn't one Exxon Valdez or deep water horizon worse for the environment than all nuclear accidents combined? Maybe I'm wrong I just heard the impact oil spills have on our environment is like, magnitudes worse than anything we've done with nuclear power. Do we let that shit slide just because it's in such demand?! And please let me know if I'm wrong.
FunkMiller
Member
Nuclear a far better interim alternative to fossil fuels while the world moves to environmentally friendly ways of energy production properly…. At Least ten years later than it should have.
Artoris
Gold Member
I was thinking of solar on every car if they are electric, but they don't provide that much energy, and it would be an extra weight for a car also solar energy on land takes space from food production, roof is probably the best idea, but it's only practical in some places
and you would have to clean leaves, bird shit, dust and other stuff off them regularly
Maintenance isn't that bad, you generally only need to clean your panels once per year to keep efficiency up.
MastaKiiLA
Member
I'm not an Elon evangelist, but he is right. Nuclear power is clean and efficient. We shouldn't be using the Soviet-era negligence of Chernobyl (and who knows how many smaller leaks the USSR successfully hid from the public), or the biblical flood of Fukushima as typical examples of nuclear power.
The USSR was a shitshow. No point discussing the massive amount of negligence that lead to Chernobyl. We can learn from Fukushima, however, like keeping your backup generators NOT in a basement of a powerplant located right next to the ocean, in one of the most seismically active regions in the world. Instead of abandoning nuclear energy, because commies and mother nature were dicks, we should just make the necessary improvements, based on the lessons learned.
On top of that, thorium reactors should be the future. I think India is investing heavily into the tech, and it really looks to have all the upside of nuclear energy, with little downside of the uranium/plutonium based reactors, as thorium reactors should be self-stalling in the case of a runaway reaction. Coal and gas need to due, but solar, wind, thermal, and hydro aren't going to be enough to fill that gap. Only nuclear can generate the quantity required in a steady and reliable form. Too bad we spent so much time scaring citizens about the dangers of nukes, instead of educating.
The USSR was a shitshow. No point discussing the massive amount of negligence that lead to Chernobyl. We can learn from Fukushima, however, like keeping your backup generators NOT in a basement of a powerplant located right next to the ocean, in one of the most seismically active regions in the world. Instead of abandoning nuclear energy, because commies and mother nature were dicks, we should just make the necessary improvements, based on the lessons learned.
On top of that, thorium reactors should be the future. I think India is investing heavily into the tech, and it really looks to have all the upside of nuclear energy, with little downside of the uranium/plutonium based reactors, as thorium reactors should be self-stalling in the case of a runaway reaction. Coal and gas need to due, but solar, wind, thermal, and hydro aren't going to be enough to fill that gap. Only nuclear can generate the quantity required in a steady and reliable form. Too bad we spent so much time scaring citizens about the dangers of nukes, instead of educating.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Torrent of Pork
Banned
If you claim to care about CO2 emissions, yet are against nuclear power, then you don't actually give a damn about CO2 emissions.