I really think the reason nuclear energy is so unpopular is people don’t learn a crazy simplified version about it in public education.
It’s literally just making already hot rocks a little bit hotter. And it’s pretty easy to make sure they don’t get too hot.
Fucking coal plants put off more radiation just when they burn coal than future storage leaks, and nuclear contamination from coal isn’t even one of its top problems.
And it’s pretty easy to make sure they don’t get too hot.
I mean, this part is very complex, but yes.
There’s also a question of economics and future development. When one says “nuclear,” are we talking oldschool reactors with absolutely massive capital costs and build times? Newer generation reactors? Those more experimental “portable” reactor companies intending to mass produce? And don’t even start with fusion…
And they all have different tradeoffs and economics.
Not that I am trying to advocate for coal. That’s just straight lobbying/propaganda.
Nah, a negative power coefficient reactor wants to be just a little above room temp.
Back in the day the Russians used positive, where it wanted to go critical and had to constantly be held back. Those are crazy dangerous.
I couldn’t find good numbers, but there’s about 0.0018 curies per ton of coal, American produces 512 million a year, which works out to just shy of a million curies a year.
3 mile island was 2.5 million curies total. But because it was a localized event it’s hard to compare directly, it shows how the problems with nuclear isn’t logical. We get radiation from coal working as intended
I really think the reason nuclear energy is so unpopular is people don’t learn a crazy simplified version about it in public education.
It’s literally just making already hot rocks a little bit hotter. And it’s pretty easy to make sure they don’t get too hot.
Fucking coal plants put off more radiation just when they burn coal than future storage leaks, and nuclear contamination from coal isn’t even one of its top problems.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
I mean, this part is very complex, but yes.
There’s also a question of economics and future development. When one says “nuclear,” are we talking oldschool reactors with absolutely massive capital costs and build times? Newer generation reactors? Those more experimental “portable” reactor companies intending to mass produce? And don’t even start with fusion…
And they all have different tradeoffs and economics.
Not that I am trying to advocate for coal. That’s just straight lobbying/propaganda.
Nah, a negative power coefficient reactor wants to be just a little above room temp.
Back in the day the Russians used positive, where it wanted to go critical and had to constantly be held back. Those are crazy dangerous.
I couldn’t find good numbers, but there’s about 0.0018 curies per ton of coal, American produces 512 million a year, which works out to just shy of a million curies a year.
3 mile island was 2.5 million curies total. But because it was a localized event it’s hard to compare directly, it shows how the problems with nuclear isn’t logical. We get radiation from coal working as intended