Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories & Facts
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

5
Finland's Olkiluoto 3 nuclear plant was created to produce nuclear weapon material? (media.scored.co)
posted 3 years ago by Chukna 3 years ago by Chukna +6 / -1
27 comments share
27 comments share save hide report block hide replies
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (27)
sorted by:
▲ 2 ▼
– Dualkalibur 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0

The fuel source could be mass produced like many other things and be made user serviceable if need be. Having multiple reactors in a neighborhood creates redundancy. If everyone has a car you can bum a ride to work when yours breaks. If everyone has to take the bus, no one’s getting to work if the bus breaks. I don’t like being on a shared resource with others if I can have a dedicated system for my family that I can maintain. Sometimes the cost is worth it.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Ep0ch 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

I understand your point. However there's a huge cost, converting and enriching it, and no, it's not cheap to refine or mass produce. But it's the amount of parts needed on each system utilized, and the further resources water, salts, and the waste on top. The output is huge, you're talking a town of people powered, 10s of thousand, even on a smaller reactor. But there is that offset, costs, parts, resources, waste. There is also the lifetime where these mini reactors are supposedly only serviceable for around a decade. The first nuclear reactors are faster being replaced not even in a person's lifetime, what around 30 years, generously 50, but that's asking for lies. These newer reactors are using enriched fuels to generate their output. A much greater process.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Dualkalibur 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

Indeed there’s a huge cost now but there’s been no incentive for competition to bring the costs down. Wide scale adoption and multiple companies producing equipment would bring the cost down to end consumers. Cars were once a toy for the rich, now it’s a normal everyday item. We CAN produce small neighbourhood power generators and farm sized ones, right now it’s expensive but we could change that. You can’t put a hydro electric dam just anywhere. You can’t stick a windmill just anywhere for it to be cost effective or even to make it work most of the time. You can’t put a massive solar array and battery system just anywhere if you don’t have the room for it. But a power reactor scaled down to the size of a garden shed is possible. Less material so a critical fuck up doesn’t nuke the area just fucks over YOUR generator is possible. The powers that be don’t want us to be independent and self sustaining, they want all the control. Even if you and I sat down and made a profitable business plan to make and sell garden shed nuke generators we’d face unbelievable opposition so they keep all the control. It’s sad but it’s the world we’re used to.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Ep0ch 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

Here you wanted this. https://www.wired.com/2007/12/toshibas-home-n/

No, you didn't. What's the lifetime. Maintenance. Cost.

They have them already. They aren't particularly viable.

When the fuel runs out? How quick? What price? 10-15 year shelf life?

A little bit of research about costs. https://thebulletin.org/2015/05/introducing-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-cost-calculator/

The price of nuclear energy more than coal or gas, but significantly less than solar

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– Dualkalibur 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0

Gas takes extraction and logistics to move around, and after having a gas furnace and thinking I’d be warm when the power went out, no dice. Without power to drive the fan, the pilot light sits on and does fuck all. While it was nice and warm when it worked it’s coupled to electricity and just an added bill and something else to maintain in the end.

And 10-15 year lifespan is no different than early solar panel adopters. And at least my nuclear material from the reactor would be recycled unlike most of the solar arrays and windmill blades.

permalink parent save report block reply
... continue reading thread?

GIFs

Conspiracies Wiki & Links

Conspiracies Book List

External Digital Book Libraries

Mod Logs

Honor Roll

Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Community Rules: <click this link for a detailed explanation of the rules

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.

To prevent SPAM, posts from accounts younger than 4 days old, and/or with <50 points, wont appear in the feed until approved by a mod.

Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

Moderators

  • Doggos
  • axolotl_peyotl
  • trinadin
  • PutinLovesCats
  • clemaneuverers
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2025.03.01 - lf7fw (status)

Copyright © 2024.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy