The great nuclear hoax.

It’s pretty simple, build it correctly and it is safe, cheap energy and relatively clean(a modern plant produces less than a beer can of waste that will power a full size house for a year. The only problems were with early designs and the Russian design which was flawed, modern plants nothing to worry about. It is very true, power is control in so many ways, control the power and you can control a entire economy and everything it touches including people.
 
1756409573782.jpeg
 
Nobody wants Chernobyl or 3 mile island in their town. Two extremely high profile melt downs in less than a decade made nuclear power plants literally and figuratively radioactive.


Because of the thousands of people who died and developed cancer as a direct result of the Three Mile Island disaster. :cautious:
 
Yes because we are still using Cold War tech to design power plants still, zero safety measures and upgrades have been made 🙄

Boomers gonna boomer. A few well publicized events made a bunch of know nothing clutch their purses it’s safer than it’s ever been. Old friend designed nuke plants and he had me convinced it’s safe, because he actually knows the subject.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lash
Lobbyist were the worst thing to happen to the USA. Nuclear is and always has been the answer but the lobbyist will do anything in their power to convince the weak mind that nuclear is a horrible form of energy. I guess tell that to the Navy? They didn’t get the memo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tomcatmv
Last edited:
Nuclear energy is extremely safe and by FAR the most efficient method of generating electricity.

For various reasons, including much higher safety standards than Soviet-era Russia, Chernobyl event cannot be repeated.

All the nuclear waste generated from all power plants (stored in large extremely durable casks) can fit on a football field.

You get more dose from a coal power plant than a nuclear plant.

Nuke plants are not being built today for several reasons (not comprehensive) .
1. Cost. They cost billions to build.
2. Changing political environment creates investment risk.
3. They take a long time to build. ~8‐12 years. Investors want a faster return on their investment.
4. Competition from other types of generating. Natural gas is relatively cheap in comparison. Renewables have been subsidized to the point where they make sense.
5. Complex regulatory environment. Getting an opereating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is rigorous and expensive. Costs 100's of millions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BLEE and 375fan
How safe are they in a long term SHTF scenario?
The newer designs, enhancements, and preparation have made them much more resilient to long term shtf issues I worked in the nuclear industry almost the last 20 years. Chernobyl and TMI were human error and design faults. Were well past the design flaws. TMI was contained, that issue and what led up o the accident still gets beat into everyone's head every year.
Fukushima was a combination of mother nature reminding humans how insignificant they are, and a very small crew doing everything they could with nearly nothing. The learning from that accident has been spread all over the industry to prepare for beyond design basis accidents.

I would be ok living close to a plant.

My fear is the nuclear plants feeding all the AI and we wind up in a Skynet scenario.

1000002031.png
 
Americans used to just do stuff.
View attachment 8756184
As a Savannahian, I've always been proud of the Savannahs.

As for nuke plants, I believe Georgia just finished building a brand new one. Sounds like a good idea to me. There's been one in Seneca SC for some fifty-odd years with no issues as far as I know. I've spent a lot of time up there for most of my life and wasn't once concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XP1K and doubloon