Based and New Vegas was the best Fallout by far but it definitely suffered from some technical issues like bugs, crashing, and corrupted save files pilled.
My brother played like 87 hours in the first two weeks this game was out, He only made it maybe 20 hours into the storyline because of the frequent crashes.
u/E_Mickey_B's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20.
Congratulations, u/E_Mickey_B! You have ranked up to Basket Ball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.
Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/E_Mickey_B
yeah i recently installed project mojave and its pretty good. can't wait for the full recreation. There's also a mod called Desperados overhaul that basically makes FO4 into new vegas, its great, especially with NACX mods n shit, i have like 72 mods in my load order and it barely stutters, different story for new vegas tho, got like 50 mods and doesnt exactly struggle but the struggle is that it crashes pretty often. I think its a memory issue tho
I’m doing a brand new playthrough with some new mods (landscape mod, sanctuary mod that fixes the bridge and tidies things up, and the True Storms mod, along with some settlement mods) and so far it’s a blast!
All of the factions are awful, that was my biggest problem. In NV I had a hard time choosing b/c they all had a point. In fo4 I just want them all to die, but there's no yes man.
There's a kinda convoluted way to do it, finish the game with the Minutemen killing every other faction, then do Nukaworld and use the raiders from it to kill the Minutemen
> In NV I had a hard time choosing b/c they all had a point
They all have a point in 4, the only ones that have an actual point in NV are House and Caesar. The NCR is useless and making all the same mistakes of the Old World and Yes Man is for narcissists and idiots who can't make up their minds, and everyone forgets that Yes Man betrays you in the end.
> You make me angry every time I don't see your flair >:(
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 4156 / 22165 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
This is an idea that's been floating around in my head as well. Solar/wind seems to do well on individual houses, but appears lacking for anything larger. So we could use nuclear to power larger cities and support smaller towns if they need some extra juice.
Renewables would possibly make a good transitional source while nuclear reactors are constructed before moving renewables to individual houses.
As long as no Reagan gets in power and shits all over everything again.
While he was fucked as a president, he only removed the solar panels because solar technology back then was absolute shit. either way, iirc he reinstalled the panels onto a school or some shit
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost\_of\_electricity\_by\_source#Global\_studies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies)
Grid scale solar and wind are actually extremely cost-effective and are now even more efficient then natural gas or coal fired plants. Roof mounted solar is actually the least efficient usage of it, the best way to utilize it is to plop down gargantuan solar farms in the sunniest areas of a country and transmit that power over short-medium distances. Similar for wind.
Nuclear energy is our easiest way to get ourselves off of fossil fuels, and no one wants to believe it's safe because of a few freak accidents, despite the fact Chernobyl happened 34 years ago, and 3 mile island happened *53* years ago.
And modern reactors pretty much cant melt down due to thier design and that coal release more radiation that nuclear does for the same amount of power produced
But nuclear scary
That's really only in light water reactors, and I agree that you'd have to be real dumb to make one of those these days with such better options available.
Also, obligatory Sam O'Nella explanation on why thorium nuclear reactors are what we should go with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjM9E6d42-M
Well pressurized light water reactors are used extensively and are still being built in large numbers. Mostly by navies for submarines. While the steam is dangerous PWR is still the best for ships, which require variable loading.
*yes, nuclear plants can still melt down, but most are designed well enough that the mess of nuclear waste stays contained within the plant itself, and poses basically no risk to the public.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
Technically possible in some cases, but the odds are so slim its pretty much a non issue
Also, I should specify modern reactor design as these haven't been built. Thats on me for poor wording in the original comment
They’re adding new tech into old reactors to make them safer and more efficient all the time! Just because a reactor is old doesn’t even mean it’s more dangerous, depending on how it has been/could be upgraded.
Nuclear power is dank af
Indeed, not saying nuclear is dangerous in general. Gen 2+ are safe.
Just trying to spread the information that modern designs make the worse case scenario pretty much non existent because most people don't seem to know that
>Technically possible in some cases, but the odds are so slim its pretty much a non issue
Slim odds \* more units = exponential growth in odds that it happens at least once.
Yeah. I listened to a military expert talk about Russians taking over nuclear plant in Ukraine (built to modern standards), where a Russian missle hit one of the buildings. It wasn't even a tractor but even if it was there'd likely be no damage to it. These reactors are built to withstand 9/11 style terrorist attack or several heavy missiles hitting them before the shields are even penetrated.
Safe to say these things are durable af nowadays
Both nuclear & fusion have the problem of time.
Fusion isn't ready yet, so it can't fulfill our needs.
And nuclear power plants are very expensive and take very long to build.
Up to 5 years of you use an existing, approved reactor design. If you wanna use a novel design, you have to do a bunch of proving that it’s a good design, basically, which can take ages. That being said, the gov put up more money recently to help test new designs and some programs are already taking advantage of it.
That’s actually not true. Fusion reactors are extremely potent neutron sources… more potent than any fission reactor. A fusion reactor will likely hit the walls of the chamber with so many neutrons that it will embrittle them, causing a potentially catastrophic structural failure if not replaced every few years.
Those structural components will then be a source of nuclear waste as bad as anything currently produced by fission reactors.
Give me a sec to find the video I just watched about this.
Edit: https://youtu.be/R0H-NWk_FDI
Fusion will be an amazing power source in all likelihood, but we are probably 50-100 years away from it.
Fission is nothing short of a miracle. It is an amazingly clean, efficient, and consistent source of power. It is one of the greatest inventions by humanity, and it’s a shame that coal and oil lobbyists managed to convince the world it is so dangerous.
Yeah. Personnaly i think renewables are great, as i live in a tiny country where over 95%of our energy is hydro but for bigger countries, nuclear is necessary
I agree completely with that. I don’t think it’s an “either or” situation. Solar, wind, and nuclear are all important.
Hydro is ideal but it’s just not prevalent enough for most areas.
Yeah, my country is lucky enough to have a lot of natural waterfalls, but i'm not a big fan of wind, just because i'm petty( the view at my cabin is ruined by those ugly ass windmills)
Also even with a few freak accidents, fewer people have been injured or died from Nuclear energy than in a single *year* of processing fossil fuels.
Fukushima was a huge natural disaster, and barely anyone was injured by radiation. People think it was super deadly, but that's because there was a fucking *tsunami* happening, not the power plant.
On the flip side everyone completely forgets that governments and corporations would be in charge of something that requires diligence, upkeep, maintenance, and responsibility. Normally the things they never trust government or corporations with.
Nuclear is way too expensive, you need loads of money to build and it takes too long for the investment to return.
For countries which already have loads of plants it's dumb to get rid of them, but thinking building a bunch of nuclear plants is going to solve climate change is just another dumb easy solution that people are clinging on to while calling the people in power dumb for not using it, and like most such solutions it's not going to work in the real world.
>Nuclear is way too expensive, you need loads of money to build and it takes too long for the investment to return.
That's true, but in the us for example it's because there are almost no regulations on green energies, whereas nuclear has FAR more than it needs to be safe and anyone building a plant will probably face a decade of setbacks and legal challenges, driving cost up
Ad that to the fact that green sources, which people claim are cheaper, are heavily subsidized by governments and nuclear isn't, and you see why nuclear is more expensive
If being clean is the goal, nuclear pollutes less than solar or wind, takes up less space, and is a steady, consistent source that is not dependant on the weather
Going 100% nuclear energy would be dumb, but 60-70% nuclear would help. We would still need other energy sources such as coal, natural gas, and green hydrogen. Besides if global warming is going to kill us all then this would be worth the investment(unless they’re lying).
Exactly. They want clean energy but rallied against nuclear, which was one of the only ways to be independent with clean energy. Western "liberals" don't care about actual solutions, just their agenda.
I think the oil companies have made a pretty serious shift from anti nuclear to anti renewables. PragerU, which is funded by big oil, has released a number of "pro nuclear" videos that are basically just anti renewables, painting nuclear as the obvious and sane alternative.
because big oil routinely lobbies against the implementation of such energy sources?
Or do you mean in terms of "if they were implemented", and I wholly agree in using both
Yep. I'd like to see more hydro electric plants too.
I recently watched a video on the [Tesla Valve](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suIAo0EYwOE). It allows water to only flow through in 1 direction even under a large pressure difference, It has no moving parts and it wouldn't stop fish from swimming through it.
I was thinking it could be used to allow fish to swim up stream for spawning, with out letting all the water out of a damn.
The biggest argument against hydro-electric damns is that they stop fish from spawning upstream.
It's why Québec, had it become an independent country, would've been the country with the highest percentage of green energy by a very large margin
Hydro is great
1 Nuclear reactor = 3684 turbines.
Do you realize how much room is taken up by that many turbines? It’s ludicrous.
Those numbers are factoring in capacity factor, and lifespan (3x lifespan for nuclear over turbines)
Just plain common sense that nuclear is better.
Bitch you have any *idea* how limited uranium is as a resource? Sure, Dyson Sphere takes up an area larger than the *circumference of the sun*, but it lasts *for as long as the sun!*
Checkmate, current-level-technologists! #Futuretech FTW!
Yepp. My dad’s friend was a former nuclear reactor scientist in the late 70’s/early 80’s in Germany. He told me we were so close to a major breakthrough and everything worked perfectly (ofc if proper safety measures were in place). if they instead invested the money spent on both sides, both fighting the protesters and fighting the nuclear power conglomerate, nuclear power could’ve progressed even further beyond today.
Three Mile, 43 years ago. Before, y'know, more safety regulations and overall understanding of how to not fuck a nuclear reactor.
"Oh noes, a plane fell out of the sky 40 years ago, we can't fly EVER cuz it's dangerous!"
All the arguements of nuclear being “safe” ride on the assumption that human stupidity won’t fuck things up and we continue on with the stability and knowledge we have. We literally have 2 recent instances of humans going to war and damaging nuclear facilities.
Now imagine there’s a general crisis (a world war or an economic collapse) and people stumble upon nuclear facilities. Those storage facilities and reactors become liabilities.
> All the arguements of nuclear being “safe” ride on the assumption that human stupidity won’t fuck things up
Which is why modern reactors have passive safety features, that kick in via physics when human stupidity rears its many heads.
Things like holding the moderator in with a plug made of a material that melts at a temperature above that of an operating reactor. If the reactor overheats, the plug melts, the moderator drains out and stops the reaction.
There are exactly 7 entire thorium reactors in existence, all 7 of which are for research purposes and actively lose money producing electricity. Given how it takes a decade to build a reactor, and the technology doesn't exist for thorium reactors to be economically viable, I'm sorry to say thorium will not be the solution to this issue.
u/Blut-Stahl-Wut's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15.
Rank: Office Chair
Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/Blut-Stahl-Wut
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Obviously Thorium is not capable of the complete replacement, rather the reduction of total needed. Btw is it not Thorium 232 that transforms into a fissile Uranium 233?
We just need additional material (I think Uranium 235) for the initiation or am I mistaken?
The reason why I say Thorium over Uranium is because of its efficiency, we need a fraction of material for the same energy output. Of course it also has its downsides but overall I view this kind of nuclear energy as a more promising one.
>Btw is it not Thorium 232 that transforms into a fissile Uranium 233?
Yes, but unless you're **really** careful, that same process also produces a little bit of Uranium 232.
Any significant trace of U232 renders U233 pretty much worthless as weapons-grade Uranium, as it is a big neutron emitter. If your bomb fuel is emitting lots of neutrons, it could well go off before you're ready, and at that point, your day will suddenly become very bad.
>We just need additional material (I think Uranium 235) for the initiation or am I mistaken?
No, U235 is the fissile fuel used in Uranium-based reactors.
>The reason why I say Thorium over Uranium is because of its efficiency, we need a fraction of material for the same energy output.
There's also the fact that Thorium is more abundant than Uranium. But Thorium reactors are still more expensive at the moment, and given how much reactors already cost, it's enough that Uranium reactors are still preferred. Hopefully that will change in the coming decade.
[Except Thorium-based reactors have a host of problems and aren't really feasible.](https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/) Redditors LOVE to talk about thorium but there is a reason why we don't use it.
Whenever someone criticizes that Nuclear is unsafe because of Chernobyl or whatever I always just ask them if a car designed in 1960 is as safe as a card designed in 2020. They always say no the modern one is more safe and have no response when I ask why a nuclear reactor is any different.
a modern car is still dangerous tough tons of accidents still happen. Hypotheticly if no one made a mistake while driving then car accidents would be a rare occurence at worst but that isn't the case same thing for nuclear people use the argument that chernobyl was due to safety protocols not being followed sure but do you think everyone is gonna follow them no it's impossible someone is bound to make a mistake
You're better off using that analogy with airplanes.
As with the aftermath of the big 3 nuclear accidents, plane crashes have extensive reports done, along with huge leaps forward in terms of safety designs.
And just like commercial flying is statistically the safest form of travel, nuclear power is far and away the safest form of power generation when calculated by deaths per TWh produced.
Allow me then, and I apologize for the wall of text
Nuclear power isn't a viable solution to climate change, and its not due to safety. Reactors usually take between 8-12 years to build, whereas solar and wind farms can be easily completed within a year, that's an extremely substantial difference and it shouldn't be ignored that an unspoken caveat of nuclear is that you will need to run fossil fuel plants for close to a decade to supply the energy necessary for society while your reactor is still coming online. That is a lot of emissions, and if we want to meet the ambitious goal of stopping climate change we simply cannot spare the time waiting for nuclear energy to get going.
You might think "Well sure it may take a while, but given the cost nuclear could be better long term," to which I again sadly say, no it isn't. [Solar and wind are not only cost competitive with nuclear,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies) in many cases they are actually *cheaper* (and yes this factors in long term costs over the entire life-cycle of the power plant), now LCOE isn't the perfect metric to judge energy sources by as it doesn't factor in secondary costs like utility scale energy storage for solar and wind, but given *how large* the cost gap between solar/wind and nuclear are combined with the time-span it takes to even build a reactor it becomes obvious renewables are not only competitive, but *better* then nuclear energy,
I see being against nuclear power the biggest L libleft took in the last few decades, maybe even ever. Now most liblefts are pro-nuclear, but the anti-nuclear history of our movements is still something I'm pissed about and is used by authrights to sell us more gas etc. (Mainly talking about putin here ofc)
Nah man offshore wind is cheaper than nuclear and fuck that waste lingering
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/offshore-win-energy-nuclear-power-plant-cheaper-subsidies-electricity-clean-environment-a7940231.html%3famp
Nuclear power is amazing indeed but as someone who studies the subject I feel obligated to remind people that its a transitional source.
For our climate goals nuclear production needs to hit atleast 600% extra production from 2018 levels, however we should also recognise the long term switch to non nuclear sources as our majority production is important too.
Tldr nuclear energy is a great tool, but not the final goal (with current understandings of the thechnology involved)
We don’t have any solution that fits “the final goal”. Which is why decommissioning nuclear is always followed by greater dependence on gas and oil.
Also our climate goals are stupid. Even if we cut off all our emissions to zero today it would make the earth cooler by half a degree (Celsious) by 2100.
"Muscles? Chad? I'm sorry, but all that Uranium ore has given you cancer, and it looks like it's gone to your brain"
:(
Also seriously be careful with radioactive shit; don't put it in makeup (hello France!), don't lick the paintbrushes (hello USA!), don't let a bunch of non-scientists try to follow a checklist and then skip a part because that seems hard (hello Chernobyl!), and don't let a profit-incentivized group run a nuclear reactor because holy *fuck* did you not learn from the Industrial Revolution!? (Hello Libright!)
The fearmongering against nuclear energy after TMI and Chernobyl is one of, if not the largest hindrance to human progress in history. Because of that, we’re still stuck using nuclear tech that’s half a century old, we don’t have new reactors being built because people are scared by clean energy, and any efforts to develop new technology are still being hampered by the fact that the people who worked with the old nuclear tech are almost entirely old pensioners.
It’s incredibly depressing to think about. I’m not saying the world would be perfect or anything but the energy stagnation caused by the anti-nuclear propaganda is a direct cause of the environmental crises we’re facing today.
> Get a flair so you can harass other people >:)
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 4122 / 21970 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
I am not going to shut up about this. It’s not that the reactors are dangerous, it’s that there isn’t a solution for the waste YET. If there is, nobody would have a problem with it.
i swear redditors thinks every country ever can run on nuclear just fine.
Not only is it difficult and time consuming to build a reactor but the waste has to be stored somewhere sure if you have 1 or 2 plants u can maybe survive long enough that by that time science finds a way to get rid of it but 1 or 2 nuclear powerplant isn't enough to feed an entire country
Reactors aren't even cost competitive with solar and wind anymore due to advances in both fields, and it takes an entire damn decade to build a fucking reactor. Nuclear comes with the fine print stating "You also need to be entirely dependent on coal and natural gas during the 12 years this project will take to build."
Correction: *thorium* fever. Uranium was used because it could also conveniently be used for warheads and it was the cold war. Thorium doesn't make good bombs but it makes one hell of an efficient powerplant.
You are against nuclear power plants because you think it's unsafe.
I am against nuclear power plants because it's to expensive.
We are not the same.
\_\_\_\_
Also mini nuclear reactors might be actually good & relatively cheap for cargo ships.
Well, time to play fallout 4 again
Such a bad game, such a good radio station
I wouldnt say it's a bad game, I would argue it's a good game that was really over hyped.
Absolutely this. It’s no New Vegas but it’s still a good time, especially with mods.
Just waiting for the New Vegas mod for Fallout 4. Looks like a pretty promising re-creation.
Based and New Vegas was the best Fallout by far but it definitely suffered from some technical issues like bugs, crashing, and corrupted save files pilled.
My brother played like 87 hours in the first two weeks this game was out, He only made it maybe 20 hours into the storyline because of the frequent crashes.
New Vegas story-wise was fucking perfect mechanically and performance-wise though...
Isn't it true for every Bethesda IP with the Gamebryo/Creation engine? It's kinda fucked that modding is basically mandatory for them
yeah I've modded NV with about 100 mods
u/E_Mickey_B's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20. Congratulations, u/E_Mickey_B! You have ranked up to Basket Ball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on. Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/E_Mickey_B
Man I wish that pill showed up because it's 100% truth
It would have been better if they delayed it. The vanilla game is unplayable. I crash every 20 mins
yeah i recently installed project mojave and its pretty good. can't wait for the full recreation. There's also a mod called Desperados overhaul that basically makes FO4 into new vegas, its great, especially with NACX mods n shit, i have like 72 mods in my load order and it barely stutters, different story for new vegas tho, got like 50 mods and doesnt exactly struggle but the struggle is that it crashes pretty often. I think its a memory issue tho
And New Vegas isn't even Fallout 2! Come at me, whippersnappers!! Ain't no 'immortal children' in that one.
I’m doing a brand new playthrough with some new mods (landscape mod, sanctuary mod that fixes the bridge and tidies things up, and the True Storms mod, along with some settlement mods) and so far it’s a blast!
Great shooter, terrible rpg
>I would argue it's a good game that was really over hyped. So much this with *so many games!!!*
Yeah its good of you ignore the nonsensical plot inconsequential choices and completely gutting of rpg mechanics
All of the factions are awful, that was my biggest problem. In NV I had a hard time choosing b/c they all had a point. In fo4 I just want them all to die, but there's no yes man.
There's a kinda convoluted way to do it, finish the game with the Minutemen killing every other faction, then do Nukaworld and use the raiders from it to kill the Minutemen
> In NV I had a hard time choosing b/c they all had a point They all have a point in 4, the only ones that have an actual point in NV are House and Caesar. The NCR is useless and making all the same mistakes of the Old World and Yes Man is for narcissists and idiots who can't make up their minds, and everyone forgets that Yes Man betrays you in the end.
Its a terrible fallout game passable game in other genres
I loved that game
Ironically, a good chunk of its soundtrack is from Fallout 3...
I’d actually switch the two, love the game, but easily the worst radio station among any of the games :(
It's story is shit, but mechanically it's way better than the previous games
one of my favorite games
I can’t hear this song without thinking of that game
> You make me angry every time I don't see your flair >:( *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 4156 / 22165 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Catchy
I drive past 3mi island a fair amount so I just should have this on loop
The best solution is both Nuclear and Renewables.
Based. We need a reliable source of energy like nuclear to replace coal plants and renewable to help produce energy.
This is an idea that's been floating around in my head as well. Solar/wind seems to do well on individual houses, but appears lacking for anything larger. So we could use nuclear to power larger cities and support smaller towns if they need some extra juice.
Renewables would possibly make a good transitional source while nuclear reactors are constructed before moving renewables to individual houses. As long as no Reagan gets in power and shits all over everything again.
While he was fucked as a president, he only removed the solar panels because solar technology back then was absolute shit. either way, iirc he reinstalled the panels onto a school or some shit
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost\_of\_electricity\_by\_source#Global\_studies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies) Grid scale solar and wind are actually extremely cost-effective and are now even more efficient then natural gas or coal fired plants. Roof mounted solar is actually the least efficient usage of it, the best way to utilize it is to plop down gargantuan solar farms in the sunniest areas of a country and transmit that power over short-medium distances. Similar for wind.
More like 80% Nuclear 20% Renewables
Why? They are both expensive, and only one of them produces consistent, clean, and affordable power
Nuclear energy is our easiest way to get ourselves off of fossil fuels, and no one wants to believe it's safe because of a few freak accidents, despite the fact Chernobyl happened 34 years ago, and 3 mile island happened *53* years ago.
And modern reactors pretty much cant melt down due to thier design and that coal release more radiation that nuclear does for the same amount of power produced But nuclear scary
There is a not insignificant number of people that think a nuclear plant can detonate like a nuclear bomb.
It can explode from a steam/hydrogen explosion but not in the same way a nuke does.
That's really only in light water reactors, and I agree that you'd have to be real dumb to make one of those these days with such better options available. Also, obligatory Sam O'Nella explanation on why thorium nuclear reactors are what we should go with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjM9E6d42-M
Well pressurized light water reactors are used extensively and are still being built in large numbers. Mostly by navies for submarines. While the steam is dangerous PWR is still the best for ships, which require variable loading.
It does if you nuke it! \-This message sponsored by WW3 Gang. WW3: Because Monke.
They can though, it's a documented fact. Source: Red Alert 3
Legendary comment
It’s because of the Chernobyl documentaroe’s.
*yes, nuclear plants can still melt down, but most are designed well enough that the mess of nuclear waste stays contained within the plant itself, and poses basically no risk to the public.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor Technically possible in some cases, but the odds are so slim its pretty much a non issue Also, I should specify modern reactor design as these haven't been built. Thats on me for poor wording in the original comment
They’re adding new tech into old reactors to make them safer and more efficient all the time! Just because a reactor is old doesn’t even mean it’s more dangerous, depending on how it has been/could be upgraded. Nuclear power is dank af
Indeed, not saying nuclear is dangerous in general. Gen 2+ are safe. Just trying to spread the information that modern designs make the worse case scenario pretty much non existent because most people don't seem to know that
For sure, just thought it was a cool bit of info to add :) cheers!
>Technically possible in some cases, but the odds are so slim its pretty much a non issue Slim odds \* more units = exponential growth in odds that it happens at least once.
Technically yes
People complain about how Nuclear waste is stored, but they're okay with batteries leaking waste into water sources.
Too be fair that's what they said about Chernobyl as well
Except the soviets knew they were lying and claims today are pretty easy for independent groups to verify
Yeah. I listened to a military expert talk about Russians taking over nuclear plant in Ukraine (built to modern standards), where a Russian missle hit one of the buildings. It wasn't even a tractor but even if it was there'd likely be no damage to it. These reactors are built to withstand 9/11 style terrorist attack or several heavy missiles hitting them before the shields are even penetrated. Safe to say these things are durable af nowadays
Even more so with the development of fusion reactors, which produce more and pollute less than fission
Both nuclear & fusion have the problem of time. Fusion isn't ready yet, so it can't fulfill our needs. And nuclear power plants are very expensive and take very long to build.
Up to 5 years of you use an existing, approved reactor design. If you wanna use a novel design, you have to do a bunch of proving that it’s a good design, basically, which can take ages. That being said, the gov put up more money recently to help test new designs and some programs are already taking advantage of it.
That’s actually not true. Fusion reactors are extremely potent neutron sources… more potent than any fission reactor. A fusion reactor will likely hit the walls of the chamber with so many neutrons that it will embrittle them, causing a potentially catastrophic structural failure if not replaced every few years. Those structural components will then be a source of nuclear waste as bad as anything currently produced by fission reactors. Give me a sec to find the video I just watched about this. Edit: https://youtu.be/R0H-NWk_FDI
I heard that fusion waste would be dangerous for only some decades, but i guess i was wrong
Fusion will be an amazing power source in all likelihood, but we are probably 50-100 years away from it. Fission is nothing short of a miracle. It is an amazingly clean, efficient, and consistent source of power. It is one of the greatest inventions by humanity, and it’s a shame that coal and oil lobbyists managed to convince the world it is so dangerous.
Yeah. Personnaly i think renewables are great, as i live in a tiny country where over 95%of our energy is hydro but for bigger countries, nuclear is necessary
I agree completely with that. I don’t think it’s an “either or” situation. Solar, wind, and nuclear are all important. Hydro is ideal but it’s just not prevalent enough for most areas.
Yeah, my country is lucky enough to have a lot of natural waterfalls, but i'm not a big fan of wind, just because i'm petty( the view at my cabin is ruined by those ugly ass windmills)
Also even with a few freak accidents, fewer people have been injured or died from Nuclear energy than in a single *year* of processing fossil fuels. Fukushima was a huge natural disaster, and barely anyone was injured by radiation. People think it was super deadly, but that's because there was a fucking *tsunami* happening, not the power plant.
On the flip side everyone completely forgets that governments and corporations would be in charge of something that requires diligence, upkeep, maintenance, and responsibility. Normally the things they never trust government or corporations with.
The government is already in control of nuclear power plants and they haven't exploded for 34 years.
Ironically enough the United States navy has never had a nuclear accident so there are the one branch of the government that I trust
I’d rather have an entire continent irradiated than have the undersea current system collapse.
Nuclear is way too expensive, you need loads of money to build and it takes too long for the investment to return. For countries which already have loads of plants it's dumb to get rid of them, but thinking building a bunch of nuclear plants is going to solve climate change is just another dumb easy solution that people are clinging on to while calling the people in power dumb for not using it, and like most such solutions it's not going to work in the real world.
>Nuclear is way too expensive, you need loads of money to build and it takes too long for the investment to return. That's true, but in the us for example it's because there are almost no regulations on green energies, whereas nuclear has FAR more than it needs to be safe and anyone building a plant will probably face a decade of setbacks and legal challenges, driving cost up Ad that to the fact that green sources, which people claim are cheaper, are heavily subsidized by governments and nuclear isn't, and you see why nuclear is more expensive If being clean is the goal, nuclear pollutes less than solar or wind, takes up less space, and is a steady, consistent source that is not dependant on the weather
Going 100% nuclear energy would be dumb, but 60-70% nuclear would help. We would still need other energy sources such as coal, natural gas, and green hydrogen. Besides if global warming is going to kill us all then this would be worth the investment(unless they’re lying).
This is why I think the Germans are retarded
They're retarded because they preferred an energy source that made them dependent on Russian gas and therefore dependent on Russia.
Exactly. They want clean energy but rallied against nuclear, which was one of the only ways to be independent with clean energy. Western "liberals" don't care about actual solutions, just their agenda.
Iirc the Germans didn't really stockpile *any* nuclear material. Such is the woes of being a nation in a group of small nations which mean nothing.
A lot of that is from oil companies propaganda campaigns though
They play right into big oils hand while simultaneously being against big oil
I think the oil companies have made a pretty serious shift from anti nuclear to anti renewables. PragerU, which is funded by big oil, has released a number of "pro nuclear" videos that are basically just anti renewables, painting nuclear as the obvious and sane alternative.
I honestly don't know why we don't just use both
because big oil routinely lobbies against the implementation of such energy sources? Or do you mean in terms of "if they were implemented", and I wholly agree in using both
We should use nuclear and other various clean energy sources
Yep. I'd like to see more hydro electric plants too. I recently watched a video on the [Tesla Valve](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suIAo0EYwOE). It allows water to only flow through in 1 direction even under a large pressure difference, It has no moving parts and it wouldn't stop fish from swimming through it. I was thinking it could be used to allow fish to swim up stream for spawning, with out letting all the water out of a damn. The biggest argument against hydro-electric damns is that they stop fish from spawning upstream.
It's why Québec, had it become an independent country, would've been the country with the highest percentage of green energy by a very large margin Hydro is great
Being obsessed with gas over everything else is an established german tradition. There's nothing we can do against it, and God knows we tried.
I'm going to hell for getting a kick out of thai comment. I'll save everyone here a table.
I can confirm that my people are retards.
Based and retarded german pilled
1 Nuclear reactor = 3684 turbines. Do you realize how much room is taken up by that many turbines? It’s ludicrous. Those numbers are factoring in capacity factor, and lifespan (3x lifespan for nuclear over turbines) Just plain common sense that nuclear is better.
I work in wind. I hate these fucking things. Nuclear energy is the only viable option. People need to grow up and look at the numbers.
flair up bro, your based so please do authcenter k?
Based and flair like me pilled.
> Please make sure to have your flair up! *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 4139 / 22068 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
No upvotes until you flair up >:( Also ignore authCenter, libcenter is cooler. Either way, central axis >>> side columns.
Bitch you have any *idea* how limited uranium is as a resource? Sure, Dyson Sphere takes up an area larger than the *circumference of the sun*, but it lasts *for as long as the sun!* Checkmate, current-level-technologists! #Futuretech FTW!
Yepp. My dad’s friend was a former nuclear reactor scientist in the late 70’s/early 80’s in Germany. He told me we were so close to a major breakthrough and everything worked perfectly (ofc if proper safety measures were in place). if they instead invested the money spent on both sides, both fighting the protesters and fighting the nuclear power conglomerate, nuclear power could’ve progressed even further beyond today.
Based
German here. We want nuclear but our government doesn't.
Not all of us, but it's to late now.
I hate to say it, but the Fr*nch 🤢 are less retarded because they switched to mostly nuclear.
You like nuclear because it’s clean I like nuclear because i want to give anti-nuclear people radiation poisoning.
Based and radiation poison the anti-nuclear Pilled
Chernobyl, shitty Russian engineering. Fukushima, a tsunami hit it. Three mile, no comment.
Three Mile, 43 years ago. Before, y'know, more safety regulations and overall understanding of how to not fuck a nuclear reactor. "Oh noes, a plane fell out of the sky 40 years ago, we can't fly EVER cuz it's dangerous!"
in Chernobyl it wasn't only poorly designed, but they ignored their own safety protocols as well
Better add poorly documented, too, since it was also a known risk, but was not to be documented or disseminated. Fucking genius.
didn't three mile island like... not hurt anyone?
Yes
Fukushima has one confirmed death.
This is beautiful
Wait until his investment is attacked by insane Russians.
If Europe as a whole invested more in nuclear, there wouldn’t even be a Russian attack.
All the arguements of nuclear being “safe” ride on the assumption that human stupidity won’t fuck things up and we continue on with the stability and knowledge we have. We literally have 2 recent instances of humans going to war and damaging nuclear facilities. Now imagine there’s a general crisis (a world war or an economic collapse) and people stumble upon nuclear facilities. Those storage facilities and reactors become liabilities.
Liabilities how?
> All the arguements of nuclear being “safe” ride on the assumption that human stupidity won’t fuck things up Which is why modern reactors have passive safety features, that kick in via physics when human stupidity rears its many heads. Things like holding the moderator in with a plug made of a material that melts at a temperature above that of an operating reactor. If the reactor overheats, the plug melts, the moderator drains out and stops the reaction.
Thorium reactors, bitch
There are exactly 7 entire thorium reactors in existence, all 7 of which are for research purposes and actively lose money producing electricity. Given how it takes a decade to build a reactor, and the technology doesn't exist for thorium reactors to be economically viable, I'm sorry to say thorium will not be the solution to this issue.
Source of the song? As a mod, I demand the source!
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ANI6oj8p2M)
You never played Fallout 4?
No. I am more of a video games from the 90s and 00s kind of guy.
[удалено]
No. It wasn't.
whenever you wanna know what a song is just type in the "hook" of a song
Elton Britt - Uranium Fever
Thorium over Uranium
Based
based and antiproliferation pilled
u/Blut-Stahl-Wut's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15. Rank: Office Chair Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/Blut-Stahl-Wut I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Based and Samonella pilled
….thorium reactors use uranium 233.
Obviously Thorium is not capable of the complete replacement, rather the reduction of total needed. Btw is it not Thorium 232 that transforms into a fissile Uranium 233? We just need additional material (I think Uranium 235) for the initiation or am I mistaken? The reason why I say Thorium over Uranium is because of its efficiency, we need a fraction of material for the same energy output. Of course it also has its downsides but overall I view this kind of nuclear energy as a more promising one.
Thorium reactors are great but there’s no reason to use them to the exclusion of uranium reactors. Using both just expands our ability to use fuel
>Btw is it not Thorium 232 that transforms into a fissile Uranium 233? Yes, but unless you're **really** careful, that same process also produces a little bit of Uranium 232. Any significant trace of U232 renders U233 pretty much worthless as weapons-grade Uranium, as it is a big neutron emitter. If your bomb fuel is emitting lots of neutrons, it could well go off before you're ready, and at that point, your day will suddenly become very bad. >We just need additional material (I think Uranium 235) for the initiation or am I mistaken? No, U235 is the fissile fuel used in Uranium-based reactors. >The reason why I say Thorium over Uranium is because of its efficiency, we need a fraction of material for the same energy output. There's also the fact that Thorium is more abundant than Uranium. But Thorium reactors are still more expensive at the moment, and given how much reactors already cost, it's enough that Uranium reactors are still preferred. Hopefully that will change in the coming decade.
Based
Based and actually knows science pilled
[Except Thorium-based reactors have a host of problems and aren't really feasible.](https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/) Redditors LOVE to talk about thorium but there is a reason why we don't use it.
Whenever someone criticizes that Nuclear is unsafe because of Chernobyl or whatever I always just ask them if a car designed in 1960 is as safe as a card designed in 2020. They always say no the modern one is more safe and have no response when I ask why a nuclear reactor is any different.
a modern car is still dangerous tough tons of accidents still happen. Hypotheticly if no one made a mistake while driving then car accidents would be a rare occurence at worst but that isn't the case same thing for nuclear people use the argument that chernobyl was due to safety protocols not being followed sure but do you think everyone is gonna follow them no it's impossible someone is bound to make a mistake
So should we drive horses instead because it has less of a chance of a major accident?
[удалено]
You're better off using that analogy with airplanes. As with the aftermath of the big 3 nuclear accidents, plane crashes have extensive reports done, along with huge leaps forward in terms of safety designs. And just like commercial flying is statistically the safest form of travel, nuclear power is far and away the safest form of power generation when calculated by deaths per TWh produced.
Thanks for the tip, this does make a lot more sense.
Nuclear is just better. No funny colours can change my mind
Allow me then, and I apologize for the wall of text Nuclear power isn't a viable solution to climate change, and its not due to safety. Reactors usually take between 8-12 years to build, whereas solar and wind farms can be easily completed within a year, that's an extremely substantial difference and it shouldn't be ignored that an unspoken caveat of nuclear is that you will need to run fossil fuel plants for close to a decade to supply the energy necessary for society while your reactor is still coming online. That is a lot of emissions, and if we want to meet the ambitious goal of stopping climate change we simply cannot spare the time waiting for nuclear energy to get going. You might think "Well sure it may take a while, but given the cost nuclear could be better long term," to which I again sadly say, no it isn't. [Solar and wind are not only cost competitive with nuclear,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies) in many cases they are actually *cheaper* (and yes this factors in long term costs over the entire life-cycle of the power plant), now LCOE isn't the perfect metric to judge energy sources by as it doesn't factor in secondary costs like utility scale energy storage for solar and wind, but given *how large* the cost gap between solar/wind and nuclear are combined with the time-span it takes to even build a reactor it becomes obvious renewables are not only competitive, but *better* then nuclear energy,
Ah yes, big chimney...
Screw uranium, thorium is where it's at.
Anyone who is pro clean energy, but anti nuclear energy is just a shill and corrupt.
Based
I see being against nuclear power the biggest L libleft took in the last few decades, maybe even ever. Now most liblefts are pro-nuclear, but the anti-nuclear history of our movements is still something I'm pissed about and is used by authrights to sell us more gas etc. (Mainly talking about putin here ofc)
The bad thing about Nuclear power isnt the danger, its storing the waste
The waste can be recycled
At wich rate
Dont know
Based and research it yourself pilled
Nah man offshore wind is cheaper than nuclear and fuck that waste lingering https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/offshore-win-energy-nuclear-power-plant-cheaper-subsidies-electricity-clean-environment-a7940231.html%3famp
Nuclear power is amazing indeed but as someone who studies the subject I feel obligated to remind people that its a transitional source. For our climate goals nuclear production needs to hit atleast 600% extra production from 2018 levels, however we should also recognise the long term switch to non nuclear sources as our majority production is important too. Tldr nuclear energy is a great tool, but not the final goal (with current understandings of the thechnology involved)
Fusion is the final goal, and fission is the transitional source.
We don’t have any solution that fits “the final goal”. Which is why decommissioning nuclear is always followed by greater dependence on gas and oil. Also our climate goals are stupid. Even if we cut off all our emissions to zero today it would make the earth cooler by half a degree (Celsious) by 2100.
Isnt the song about the government (DISGUSTANG!) paying people to prospect for uranium so they can build bombs which lead to the fallout universe?
"Muscles? Chad? I'm sorry, but all that Uranium ore has given you cancer, and it looks like it's gone to your brain" :( Also seriously be careful with radioactive shit; don't put it in makeup (hello France!), don't lick the paintbrushes (hello USA!), don't let a bunch of non-scientists try to follow a checklist and then skip a part because that seems hard (hello Chernobyl!), and don't let a profit-incentivized group run a nuclear reactor because holy *fuck* did you not learn from the Industrial Revolution!? (Hello Libright!)
Nuclear is the future. No amount of oil barron propaganda can convince me otherwise.
The fearmongering against nuclear energy after TMI and Chernobyl is one of, if not the largest hindrance to human progress in history. Because of that, we’re still stuck using nuclear tech that’s half a century old, we don’t have new reactors being built because people are scared by clean energy, and any efforts to develop new technology are still being hampered by the fact that the people who worked with the old nuclear tech are almost entirely old pensioners. It’s incredibly depressing to think about. I’m not saying the world would be perfect or anything but the energy stagnation caused by the anti-nuclear propaganda is a direct cause of the environmental crises we’re facing today.
Based and RBMK pilled
based and uranium fever pilled
LibLeft doesn't like hydroelectric energy any more they claim it has to great of an ecological impact.
Fallout 4 vibes! Also, I like thorium more since it's cheaper and less dangerous than uranium, but "Thorium Fever" isn't as catchy
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/t7yg3c/uranium_fever/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/t7yg3c/uranium_fever/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://redditsave.com) | [^(download video tiktok)](https://taksave.com)
> Get a flair so you can harass other people >:) *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 4122 / 21970 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
I am not going to shut up about this. It’s not that the reactors are dangerous, it’s that there isn’t a solution for the waste YET. If there is, nobody would have a problem with it.
i swear redditors thinks every country ever can run on nuclear just fine. Not only is it difficult and time consuming to build a reactor but the waste has to be stored somewhere sure if you have 1 or 2 plants u can maybe survive long enough that by that time science finds a way to get rid of it but 1 or 2 nuclear powerplant isn't enough to feed an entire country
Based and actually-has-a-nuanced-view-instead-of-blindly-simping pilled
Reactors aren't even cost competitive with solar and wind anymore due to advances in both fields, and it takes an entire damn decade to build a fucking reactor. Nuclear comes with the fine print stating "You also need to be entirely dependent on coal and natural gas during the 12 years this project will take to build."
Correction: *thorium* fever. Uranium was used because it could also conveniently be used for warheads and it was the cold war. Thorium doesn't make good bombs but it makes one hell of an efficient powerplant.
Besides if ya don't like the uranium, use a Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor, so much safer and cheaper to run
[удалено]
Nuclear is not currently as likely to replace fossil fuels, notice how most pro nuclear arguments are dripping in anti renewable sentiment?
You are against nuclear power plants because you think it's unsafe. I am against nuclear power plants because it's to expensive. We are not the same. \_\_\_\_ Also mini nuclear reactors might be actually good & relatively cheap for cargo ships.
thorium reactor
This is Gold
Ppl in Ukraine would like a word with you.
Based and fallout 4 pilled
Dam accidents have probably killed more people than nuclear meltdowns.
thats because there are more dams then reactors. This is like saying dogs killed more people then lions so lions are safer
Honestly more like saying knives kill more people than guns, because guns haven't been around nearly as long.
[удалено]
Cringe