Even the disaster of Fukushima amounted to a group of people eating one or two more bananas than they normally would.
To put things in perspective in nuclear energy, the worst disaster imaginable happened at Chernobyl. Aside from a few people who were exposed to the core and handled radioactive material that was very hot (both in terms of radiation and temperature), no one was hurt. There was no increase in cancer. There was no decrease in lifespan.
We knew that low levels of radiation were harmless. Indeed, some studies suggested low levels of radiation were actually beneficial to you. We knew that very high levels of radiation would kill you, and we had a stack of dead bodies to demonstrate that. What we didn't know was what medium levels of radiation would do, and there was no way to ethically test it. Chernobyl was that test, and nuclear energy is, by far, the safest energy source in the universe, BAR NONE, even when it is completely mismanaged and an unimaginable disaster happens.
I mean, Chernobyl had ZERO SHIELDING of the core. When it blew, chunks of the core landed far away. You could see the Cerenkov Radiation -- the blue glow of particles travelling faster than the speed of light in a material. It was absolutely the worst possible disaster you could create short of a nuclear bomb.
Fukushima is a nothing burger, and the only reason people are scared of it is because they were told to be scared of it. It is harmless and will end up doing exactly ZERO harm to anyone.
What "environmental impacts"? A properly designed reactor is clean, and the byproducts can be used in other reactors. The waste can be collected in a small area until we decide a final disposal plan. The easiest one is to load it on a rocket to the sun. The best overall plan is, when we have nanotechnology perfected, we can take all waste apart atom by atom and make new power plants, cars, or whatever.
Chernobyl was the worst possible case for a badly engineered nuclear plant, and it didn't hurt that many people. Plants and animals still grow in the area that was cordoned off.
If you want power, there are trade offs. Even "free" energy costs a lot of money and environmental damage to create the extraction devices, such as solar panels or windmills. Just look at everything it cost to build Hoover Dam to collect "free" hydroelectric power. Men died in constructing that thing. A river was redirected. Fish died.
For the amount of power generated compared to all of the costs, I think nuclear is the way to go for now. Fusion energy will be better, but that's in the future.
There isn't many people on this forum who ACTUALLY get super butthurt over a meme. This is a place of discussion and you'll find there are people on here that have researched so many different topics, you're bound to learn something from them. If not, it may drive you to research something you otherwise wouldn't have -- OR someone randomly reading the comments, like myself, to learn and research new topics.
Once we accumulate enough nuclear "waste", we can create another reactor to take advantage of the energy, and get even more free power. And we can keep doing that until there are only inert materials left.
Nuclear is the only energy source that has ZERO pollution and can be almost infinitely scaled up. It produces way more energy than it consumes in construction and operation and cleanup.
The next source of energy after nuclear are things like Dyson spheres. And we have plenty of radioactive materials here on planet earth to power us to that phase of human existence!
I think the point of this picture is fake but people really should research the battery production.
In some cases electric cars are just coal powered cars with extra steps.
The problem with electric vehicles is the following.
With gasoline, this is how we get power from start to finish:
Extract oil
Transport oil to refinery
Refine oil into gasoline
Transport gasoline
Transfer gasoline into car
Store gasoline in car
Burn gasoline into heat energy
Use heat energy in combustion energy to create mechanical energy
Each step involves some degree of waste.
Everyone always starts the electric vehicle energy process at electricity, but really, it looks like this:
Extract oil / coal / natural gas
Transport to generators
Burn oil / coal / natural gas into heat
Convert heat to mechanical energy
Convert mechanical energy into electrical energy
Transport electricity over power lines
Transform to household voltage
Transfer energy into car
Store energy in car (batteries are very inefficient.)
Convert electrical energy into mechanical energy with electric motors (more loss.)
In addition to the fact that there are MORE STEPS to converting resources into electrical energy than converting resources to mechanical energy -- meaning more LOSS of energy to get electrical vs. mechanical -- there are 2 major roadblocks to making electricity work:
It is PHYSICALY IMPOSSIBLE to transport electrical energy over long distances at the scale needed. And at the scale we need, you do not want anyone anywhere near it for fear of death.
Batteries suck, will always suck, and will forever always suck. There is NO viable battery technology, and even when we are allowed to push the safety envelope (molten sodium?) we still can't get very good efficiency.
The way to make electric vehicles "work" is to find an energy source that is easy and safe to transport, with little loss. We HAVE that form of energy right now, and it is gasoline or diesel or kerosene or any of the refined petroleum products. We can pump this form of energy through pipelines that leave little to no impact on the environment, can be scaled up sufficiently to meet the needs of the people, and have practically ZERO danger. It is much cheaper and easier to do things like transporting crude oil over the ocean and setting up refineries in the bays and harbors than it is to try and send electrical energy halfway across the planet.
One other thing to consider is the infrastructure necessary to provide the power. In the case of gasoline, you need pipelines, refineries, gas stations, and gas tanks. With electric power, you need the same but also generators, power lines, transformers, and power hookups, as well as batteries. One method of transporting and utilizing energy is WAY MORE EFFICIENT in terms of infrastructure, meaning you can break even quicker. The other requires a huge investment and from what I can tell, the lifetime of the infrastructure doesn't justify the investment.
Fake news in this instance, as those are cooling towers for a nuclear plant. That is steam. Nuclear is clean energy.
This, the second I saw that image, I was about to write the same.
Actually it is squeaky clean, compared to all other sources.
Unless you let Fukushima politicians overrule the engineers.
Even the disaster of Fukushima amounted to a group of people eating one or two more bananas than they normally would.
To put things in perspective in nuclear energy, the worst disaster imaginable happened at Chernobyl. Aside from a few people who were exposed to the core and handled radioactive material that was very hot (both in terms of radiation and temperature), no one was hurt. There was no increase in cancer. There was no decrease in lifespan.
We knew that low levels of radiation were harmless. Indeed, some studies suggested low levels of radiation were actually beneficial to you. We knew that very high levels of radiation would kill you, and we had a stack of dead bodies to demonstrate that. What we didn't know was what medium levels of radiation would do, and there was no way to ethically test it. Chernobyl was that test, and nuclear energy is, by far, the safest energy source in the universe, BAR NONE, even when it is completely mismanaged and an unimaginable disaster happens.
I mean, Chernobyl had ZERO SHIELDING of the core. When it blew, chunks of the core landed far away. You could see the Cerenkov Radiation -- the blue glow of particles travelling faster than the speed of light in a material. It was absolutely the worst possible disaster you could create short of a nuclear bomb.
Fukushima is a nothing burger, and the only reason people are scared of it is because they were told to be scared of it. It is harmless and will end up doing exactly ZERO harm to anyone.
What "environmental impacts"? A properly designed reactor is clean, and the byproducts can be used in other reactors. The waste can be collected in a small area until we decide a final disposal plan. The easiest one is to load it on a rocket to the sun. The best overall plan is, when we have nanotechnology perfected, we can take all waste apart atom by atom and make new power plants, cars, or whatever.
Chernobyl was the worst possible case for a badly engineered nuclear plant, and it didn't hurt that many people. Plants and animals still grow in the area that was cordoned off.
If you want power, there are trade offs. Even "free" energy costs a lot of money and environmental damage to create the extraction devices, such as solar panels or windmills. Just look at everything it cost to build Hoover Dam to collect "free" hydroelectric power. Men died in constructing that thing. A river was redirected. Fish died.
For the amount of power generated compared to all of the costs, I think nuclear is the way to go for now. Fusion energy will be better, but that's in the future.
Keep the post!
There isn't many people on this forum who ACTUALLY get super butthurt over a meme. This is a place of discussion and you'll find there are people on here that have researched so many different topics, you're bound to learn something from them. If not, it may drive you to research something you otherwise wouldn't have -- OR someone randomly reading the comments, like myself, to learn and research new topics.
Compared to fossil fuel, it is, and if these climate fanatics want to remove the fossil fuels, nuclear is the only sustainable solution.
Once we accumulate enough nuclear "waste", we can create another reactor to take advantage of the energy, and get even more free power. And we can keep doing that until there are only inert materials left.
Nuclear is the only energy source that has ZERO pollution and can be almost infinitely scaled up. It produces way more energy than it consumes in construction and operation and cleanup.
The next source of energy after nuclear are things like Dyson spheres. And we have plenty of radioactive materials here on planet earth to power us to that phase of human existence!
I think the point of this picture is fake but people really should research the battery production. In some cases electric cars are just coal powered cars with extra steps.
In Ontario the cost of hydro results in a similar cost per mile to curren gas prices.
the libs will close all coal and gas plants next, this is not about your mobility.
The problem with electric vehicles is the following.
With gasoline, this is how we get power from start to finish:
Each step involves some degree of waste.
Everyone always starts the electric vehicle energy process at electricity, but really, it looks like this:
In addition to the fact that there are MORE STEPS to converting resources into electrical energy than converting resources to mechanical energy -- meaning more LOSS of energy to get electrical vs. mechanical -- there are 2 major roadblocks to making electricity work:
The way to make electric vehicles "work" is to find an energy source that is easy and safe to transport, with little loss. We HAVE that form of energy right now, and it is gasoline or diesel or kerosene or any of the refined petroleum products. We can pump this form of energy through pipelines that leave little to no impact on the environment, can be scaled up sufficiently to meet the needs of the people, and have practically ZERO danger. It is much cheaper and easier to do things like transporting crude oil over the ocean and setting up refineries in the bays and harbors than it is to try and send electrical energy halfway across the planet.
One other thing to consider is the infrastructure necessary to provide the power. In the case of gasoline, you need pipelines, refineries, gas stations, and gas tanks. With electric power, you need the same but also generators, power lines, transformers, and power hookups, as well as batteries. One method of transporting and utilizing energy is WAY MORE EFFICIENT in terms of infrastructure, meaning you can break even quicker. The other requires a huge investment and from what I can tell, the lifetime of the infrastructure doesn't justify the investment.