Uranium seawater extraction makes nuclear power completely renewable - Sensationalist Headlines

I love nuclear. It's an incredible technology and everything we do and use, and even news like this, points that we should be using it. We've even got ways to deal with used fuel now. But, for some reason people get all up in arms about they very few accidents that nuclear has had. All of which, we're caused by human incompetence. And they completely forget about the thousands of people that die from coal mining, the nasty shit burning coal releases, and oh yeah, the entire fucking city that's been abandoned because the ground has been on fire for decades and will last another hundred years Meanwhile, Chernobyl is already habitable. Fukushima has been cleaned up. 3-mile island was caught before anything even happened. It's all fucking fear-mongering because coal companies don't want to adapt to even more lucrative businesses for some reason?

The fact we haven't been running off majority nuclear since the 60s is a shame. Think of all the emissions that could've been avoided. All the pollution related deaths.

Wow if that was put into full scale production it would be so much more convenient and would drop all the health risks associated with digging up uranium.

i'd rather see a nuclear accident than an oil spill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGdOSioAKcg

Any chance of a source on this? Would love to use this in arguments for nuclear power. Also, to everybody asking why Nuclear power hasn't completely phased out fossil fuels, there's a large factor to consider; load distribution. Nuclear power kicks out so much power at a consistent rate which is amazing, but it also means that when electricity demand is low, for example at night, power stations are producing more power than is being consumed which is an issue. One of the unfortunate benefits of fossil fuels is how easy they can be ramped up/down almost instantaneously, whereas nuclear power takes time to do so. However, there is good news here because with the recent developments and implementation of battery technology, it provides an outlet for the excess power; charge batteries for use at peak electricity demand as they can be discharged instantaneously then recharged overnight at low demand. Also with the rise in electric cars, which are charged overnight, power demand at night is increasing. This is part of a reason (though fear mongering is still the main cause of course) as to why Nuclear power on a huge scale isn't as simple as just replacing fossil fuel power stations. A good example of proof of this is how France exports lots of its nuclear power to neighbors at night for this exact reason.

Do it! The Power of Atom is amazing and harnessing it to run our electrical grids is a surefire way to reverse our course on carbon without inconveniencing the average joe!

I trust the technology of nuclear power. I do not trust people to run it, however.

France actually has a mix of base load and load shifting nuclear power plants. You're right that petrol-based power plants can ramp up and decrease production much faster, but nuclear power plants can do the same thing, albeit admittedly slower. So some NPP do actually increase or decrease production depending on demand, mostly for mid/low frequency changes, while fossil fuel plants handle high frequency shifts. This is a lot less polluting than if you were to handle any change in energy demand through fossil fuel power plants.

An explanation: Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste Basically coal contains trace amounts of Uranium and Thorium. These are released in the ash emitted from the coal plant and can settle in surrounding areas. As for battery tech, nothing is new there. It should have always been massive molten salt batteries. Sodium Sulfur (NaS) batteries have been around since at least the 1960's and have good energy density and a long cycle life. They are corrosive and, you know, molten, but those are not major concerns for stationary energy facilities. Several locations already use them for grid storage and have had a great deal of success with them. Most of all though, they are cheap and are made out of two materials that the USGS describes as being functionally unlimited at a global scale. None of this lithium bullshit. Lithium is a waste in anything that isn't portable.

Coal Ash is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste | Clean Energy A.. Coal ash, the waste produced by coal plants, is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the coal ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. At issue is coal’s content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or “whole,” coal that they aren’t a problem. But when coal is burned into coal ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels. Trace uranium and thorium is burnt straight into the air in coal, but such by products are captured and stored in nuclear in the united state, and in europe and asia, these byproducts are recycled into more fuel (which is illegal in the United States)

Oh I'm not denying that at all, I'm just highlighting that its not as simple as more power production = good, and there are more factors to energy distribution than just production. Apologies if there were any misconceptions.

There is no reason not to use nuclear, it's order of magnitude the best option by every conceivable metric. It's nice to see development again, Nuclear's become a four letter word and i don't understand why