>>468543>what are their reserves of fracking gas?Apparently enough for 20 to 40 years of heavy use.
>Nuclear energy is dangerous as proven by Chernobyl, Fukushima, and smaller other excesses.Oh no not this again.
Chernobyl and Fukushima proved that nuclear power is still comparably safe. Those were the worst nuclear-power failures, and very few people died. The death-toll of Chernobyl was less than 50 people. Fukushima might have been zero deaths, it's unclear because for the Japanese this was primarily an earth quake and a flood. The only method of power-production that is as safe as nuclear is Hydro-power (dams with water turbines) every other method of power-production kills more people, sometimes a lot more. Look up cancer statistics for proximity to coal-power. The worst environmental release of radioactive material, has been through the use of depleted Uranium sabot tank ammunition.
All the nuclear incidents that had containment breaches, were the result of hydrogen explosions. That hydrogen was created by super-heated cooling water. The new reactors don't use water-cooling anymore and hence can't have that problem.
Nuclear power went through it's trial and error phase like every other tech. Now these reactors had all their problems worked out and would probably power human civilization for centuries without any incidents. And that's the point where you want to throw it away. It's maddening, we payed the cost for the development and now you are denying us the reward. Nuclear power would grant us a lot of time to figure out a fix for climate change and how to harmonize industry with ecology. We'd have tonnes of cheap energy that would allow for every human being on the planet to have a really high quality of live. And by opposing nuclear you choose green austerity, poverty and misery for the masses and more intense resource wars, with more dead soldiers and civilians.
Even the nuclear waste problems has been solve very elegantly by repurposing oil-drills to make 5km holes to permanently deposit radioactive waste so deep in the earths crust that it's never going to come out. This hole can be drilled in the power-plant which avoids transporting the radioactive waste.
The new nuclear reactors also have been miniaturized so that you can use an array of small reactors that benefit from economies of scale in production, which reduces their capital cost and allows for fast deployment. Gen 4 reactors can go 20+ years between refueling, which means you get loads of time to source new supply.
It's really exelent technology now.
>No, I mean dedicated ideological eco-terrorists. Their groups already have a history of industrial sabotage and assault.I guess that exists too, but why would you bow down to that.
>>468544>To cover all the energy requirements Eurup would need a massive number of reactors.And what's wrong with that? Besides it doesn't have to be 100% nuclear, all the other stuff like wind and solar can also be used for a big chunk of the power generation.
>Just buy the fucking gas goddamit, Norway and US is enough.It's too expensive to ship gas over the ocean. Nuclear generated electricity is 10x cheaper.
And there's also a loss of trust, after-all the US did blow up a part of the European energy infrastructure.