We should not use nuclear energy at all?

For most of human history, our species has been trying to solve the problem of energy. How do we cook our food, heat our homes, and later how do we power our world? Then 70 years ago, we found a solution that changed everything. - We found out how to throw a tiny neutron so hard at a special kind of atom that it would split apart, releasing a huge amount of energy. We learned to control it, creating heat to boil water and spin a turbine. And we had electricity, a lot of electricity. This was the utopian promise of clean energy for all. But recent events like Europe, turning to Qatar for energy, after Russia cut off their supply begs the question, what really happened to the nuclear energy miracle that promised to change the world? Why are we still struggling with the need for energy? Due to the fear instilled by atom bombs and nuclear meltdowns 50% of people in a poll in the USA said that we should not use nuclear energy at all.

Video Credits: @johnnyharris ​

[ZeOceanid]

well, nuclear energy used to be dangerous, but with modern methods it has become relatively safe and even the problem of nuclear waste was solved a decade ago.

[DisplayLine..]

It's very expensive to build, very expensive to decommission. And it generates more headaches than watts. Just use something more efficient rather than holding onto nuclear fairy tales.

[vondantalingting]

Yeah right, what are we supposed to do? use dark matter?

Electricity needs to be generated by other forms of energy including Nuclear energy.

Solar energy is still too primitive and too bulky to work. At worst even in desserts it instead turned into death wave generator that once fried a flock of migrating birds.

Hydropower requires greater greater currents and can cause massive disruptions in water supply and politics when made in land locked countries.

Biofuel is still primitive and gathering methods are still in the toddler phase.

Oil still causes the majority of casualties and pollution and most development is still at a snails pace and most of the efficient designs are being milk for repair rules.

Wind power is still inefficient and needs too much space to even produce a fraction of what coal, Gas, and Nuclear power generates per square meter.

Coal.... Does this even need a mention? Germany?

Geothermal requires you to have a fucking volcano where you stand. And in most places where volcanic activity occurs(like my homeland) requires less margin of error in terms of administration and construction unless you want your Power plants to collapse next month.

So...what are we supposed to use??? As far as I'm concerned, why not use the obvious option while developing the others until they mature? Nuclear energy has matured at a phase where we know more of it compared to perhaps the rest due to the amount of scaremongering it receives. So why not use the obvious choice while encouraging development on other options?

Why the nuclear hate when more people perish in coal plants, Oil refineries and powerplants powered by Oil and gas?


(Up to 200-300 people confirmed if the Wikipedia article about nuclear and radiation death toll since the 50's. And increased to 9000's if we believe the worst estimate for the Kyshtym disaster Vs. up to 21 dead every year from oil and gas sources according to ourworldindata.org)

God I hate soviet censorship.

[brianw]

Were not throwing a neutron hard to split an atom, we must slow it down tremendously using a moderator so a uranium atom will absorb it and split. The key to nuclear fission is slowing down the free neutrons. (btw, all elements are defined by how many protons they contain in their nucleus). Uranium has 94, split that and it is no longer Uranium but two or more different elements.

[aaronelvey]

Lmao this has to be satire right? Please delete this immediately