Nuclear is technology
In this thread we btfo of hippies
Looks like you made that pie chart in gimp faggot
>>53516522
>hating on free software
>>53516522
That's Excel, an older one, you retard.
>>53516541
Kek faggot
>>53516526
>defending free software as if it paid
Fuck off dirt demon
>>53516512
"hippies" would also oppose coal and oil. If you like reducing energy-source-related deaths, then you are on the same side as "hippies", OP.
>>53516512
that's bad data. Coal is used way more than Nuclear, so the results don't really mean anything.
>>53516564
Free as in freedom you retard
>tfw you realize wind energy is actually one of the most efficient types of energy and an even better energy source than nuclear in countries that don't have the geography to take care of the waste.
>>53516605
>per terawatt-hour
it's scaled for comparison just fine
>>53516605
>what is per twh
Holy shit you're a literal retard
>>53516614
Fuck off with that hippie shit faggot we need R&D and innovation other side we'd all be stuck with linux
>>53516512
Go into the amount of disasters we've had with nuclear power compared to coal. Go into the amount of people negatively affected by the waste of coal compared to nuclear. The lasting effect of each.
If we had a Chernobyl level nuclear disaster every 20 years, in 100k years when the first area is inhabitable again, we would be better off in every way than burning coal.
Nuclear waste? Just toss it in the desert somewhere. Sure it'll radiate all over the place. We'll still be better off than coal.
>>53516512
>hydro(europe)
?? So that's death's caused by hydro in europe? Or has the technology just never reached murka?
>>53516512
What always gets me is when they talk about the "dangers" of nuclear power and they use a fucking picture of a cooling tower. And they paint the damn steam as radioactive waste
Just goes to show you how uneducated the general population is and how quickly they can jump on to statements that don't have hard facts backing them up
Sorry but Bernie says Nuclear is bad and I trust a professional such as him over some guy on 4chan.
>>53516646
The actually clean energy sources are getting really really good, why even compromise? Especially with the huge progress in batteries to store energy.
>>53516571
They really, really despise nuclear, though.
>>53516649
When dams fail it can get pretty catastrophic. It hasn't happened in a really long time thanks to modern engineering practices, though.
>>53516653
Don't forget the nuclear reaction glows green bullshit.
>>53516620
you don't need geography to take care of the waste, just a plant to re-enrich the waste into useable fuel again. keep doing that until you are left with a much smaller piece of waste you can't use.
also wind is too inconsistent in many locations to consider, and offshore turbines are frowned upon by environmentalists because "muh ocean view"
>>53516512
Nuclear is the most heavily subsidised and the most expensive energy, over the long term.
Just sayin'.
>>53516674
>It hasn't happened in a really long time thanks to modern engineering practices, though.
tell that to the ruskies
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayano%E2%80%93Shushenskaya_power_station_accident
>>53516666
They still pale in comparison to nuclear. I talk worst case scenario where we just dump waste in the desert anywhere and let Chernobyl level disasters happen every 20 years. We're not doing either and are working out ways to either reuse or store the waste in bunkers that should last the test of 100 millennia. Nuclear power is safe and clean as fuck.
>>53516671
Chernobyl is still there in the collective memories of this generation. Add the more recent Fukushima, and you get fuel for fear. There has never been a "major disaster" involving photovoltaics, so people find them to be safer.
OP is still on the same side as hippies when it comes to death reduction.
>>53516666
Solar is a joke
>>53516674
No, I know people die from it, my point is, why the "(europe)" ? Is it because it's based on european data purely, there's only data of one huge european disaster, etc. What does it mean?
Cause if it's just european data there's probably a lot more death if you include, say, china.
>>53516691
Environmentalists feelings is not an argument.
And as I said, consistency is becoming less of an issue with better batteries.
I live in denmark, wind turbines are by far the cheapest energy, with the best investment returns. It has totally passed fossil fuels even if ignoring environment advantages.
>>53516666
Because we're still decades from them being a viable alternative, battery tech isn't advancing nearly as quickly as you think it is, and their fluctuations still need to be covered with fossil fuels.
>>53516620
Wind is pretty puss poor, it is an inconsistent supply that offer requires extensive changes to the local grid to support.
I mean come on, no power when there is little wind and then they have to be turned off when there is too much or they are near a road with rush hour traffic.
>>53516722
Wind is much much better than solar.
Dams aren't bad either.
>>53516722
No, solar will be the principle form of energy generation until fusion comes online.
We've been using a form of solar since the industrial revolution. Coal and oil are both forms of solar power.
>>53516739
Dams pretty much destroy the ecosystems of rivers they're built on.
>>53516749
Fuck'em
>>53516746
>semantics
>>53516769
I've watched soalr energy develop since the 1980s; critics are using the same tired arguments that are no longer relevent.
IBM's solar collectors have achieved over 80% efficiency. Super conducting transmission cables are now in use, and are cheaper than our current (excuse the pun) high energy cables.
The debts is over. Technology has ended it.
>>53516676
Well at least that one's somewhat based off fact, since cherenkov radiation gives off an eerie blue glow. But yeah, it's pretty much just misconception on top of misconception
>>53516739
>dams
lol ok
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
>>53516512
I wonder what /g/ thinks about that thorium nuclear power ideas some guys were talking about a few years ago
>>53516791
>I don't have the faintest clue what I'm talking about
It's quite literally impossible to reach 80% efficiency with solar power. Lrn2thermodynamics.
>>53516746
If you want to go into semantics, everything is solar. And fusion is as solar as you can get.
>>53516738
>when there is no wind.
Never? I mean, the results just speak for themselves, they're cheap and efficient compared to coal and oil, there's no getting around that. They're active the vast majority of the time in flat geography.
Most nuclear disasters occured because of stupidity anyway.
Chernobyl went to shit because it used to be a weapons plutonium plant which was converted into a power plant, they ran it at 130%, it was run by the B-team that day and they were changing most of the control rods at the same time. All of which is retarded.
The disaster in Japan a couple years back happened because they didn't anticipate a tsunami after an earthquake which often happens close to the edges of tectonic plates, which Japan is right next to.
I studied to become a nuclear engineer for a while and I really like most of nuclear power.
>>53516977
As someone with in-depth knowledge on the area, what are the aspects of modern nuclear tech that you don't like?
>>53516870
>It's quite literally impossible to reach 80% efficiency with solar power
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point:
http://www.gizmag.com/ibm-sunflower-hcpvt-pv-thermal-solar-concentrator/33989/
Apologies for the link to the popular science rag, but it outlines the solar tech involved.
>>53516719
What would be a major disaster in photovoltaics? Even if a solar panel fell on someone and killed them, it'd be more the fault of the installation than the actual technology.
>>53517033
>What would be a major disaster in photovoltaics?
It stopped working.
Imagine the terrible chaos that would cause...
>>53516701
Both of those statements are false..
>>53517033
the real disaster is how fucking ineffective it is and how hard to set up constant supplies of energy using such unreliable ways of making energy.
The downside of nuclear energy based on that bar chart in the OP:
When a coal mine collapses or whatever, you get a dozen or two people killed usually and that's where it typically ends.
If a nuclear reactor plant has a major catastrophe, you could be looking at a) a shitload of dead people, b) a shitload of people that will die sooner than their expected lifespans would normally be due to health issues related to radiation exposure, and c) potential future generations suffering from similar or even worse calamities because of radiation-related environmental issues as well as organic aka human problems and increased medical events again related to the radiation.
So yes, while nuclear over time has proven itself to be safer statistically than most other major forms of energy creation and production, if something goes wrong just one time it can cause more death, destruction, chaos, and societal problems in that one event than all the other forms of energy production combined over a vast span of time.
Personally I think we really should be doing more research and development of Thorium reactors, a fairly proven technology that is much safer than even nuclear if it could just be brought into action.
>>53517058
It's actually true.
Fossile fuels are the second most heavily subsidised energy, followed by reneables.
>>53517062
Are you from the 1990s?
>>53517032
You know the sun doesn't shine on them directly most of the day and that's not even counting other weather conditions. Solar is terrible in terms of efficiency.
>>53517066
>sure the statistics say less people die
>but more people die when something goes wrong
European teenagers, everyone.
>>53517076
Nope I'm from 2016 Europe and my father just got told he's going to be layed off his job because the same retards that invited over 2 million Muslims also decided all of Germany will have to be 100% green energy by 2025.
It's called 'the Energiewende' and is a total disaster, read up on it.
On top of that, I'd like you to read up on means of storing large quantities of energy, because that is what we need if we want green energy to work.
>>53517084
Well, tens of thousands died in the years after Chernobol. That's the problem with radioactive contamination, it lingers.
>>53517068
I don't know which country you are talking about but 'clean energy' is the most subsidized energy production in the US now and nuclear is cheap as fuck in the long run compared to every other source simply because of its stability and how little fuel it takes.
>>53517084
I did say "major" there, meaning not just a small event, but something major which has happened in the past.
Chernobyl, anyone?
>>53517066
Coal doesn't need anything to go wrong to cause lots of deaths. The particle, sulphur and other emissions cause more health problems every year than Fugushima will over the next ten millenia.
>>53517108
Maybe he should get a job in photovoltaics
This is like working in whaling and complaining that the government has stopped whaling and so you lose your job
>>53517108
>my father just got told he's going to be layed off his job because the same retards that invited over 2 million Muslims also decided all of Germany
Dude, you live in a single market. Tell your pops to get a job in France. Also, not sure what refugees have to do with your dad's job?
>It's called 'the Energiewende' and is a total disaster
Er... as someone who has a background in engineering, I can assure you Germany's policies have been a boon to the fossil fuel industry. A company I contract for has been building the new clean coal plants to replace the old dirty burners in East Germany.
I'm actually greatful to the German taxpayer. Their investment in wind power has made it affordable across the whole of Europe.
>>53517066
Newsflash: Thorium is nuclear.
>>53517112
>'clean energy' is the most subsidized energy production in the US
You will be VERY surprised to learn the truth. Your nuclear industry was (and probably still is) the most heavily subsidised energy industry.
It's the same across the World.
>>53516512
WGHAT'S NAT GAS?
IS THAT LIKE A NAT (FLY) FART?
>>53517153
>what have the refugees to do
I'm just pointing out the same person that thought opening the floodgates of immigration was also responsible for closing down nuclear energy and fasing out traditional means of producing energy at the same time.
To point out how fucking insane these people are you know.
>Tell your pops to get a job in France
But he doesn't even wok in Germany, we live in the Netherlands and he started working with RWE about 1 year ago. RWE is the largest or second largest energy producer in Germany.
He just had a meeting in which they told that because of the retarded government policies they will split the company into a 'classic' and 'renewals' section and just let the classic one die because the law requires them to do so.
>>53517141
Oh he'll be alright. I'm just pointing out that decisions made by some deluded idiots somewhere in Berlin means that thousands of people lose their jobs, and for what?
>>53517168
There hasn't been a nuclear power plant built in the states in decades. The isn't really any subsidies for it.
>>53517153
>>53517168
Oh and look at the first effects of phasing out nuclear energy to make Germany greener:--DDDD
Yes, that's right. For every nuclear power plant closed multiple coal plants were opened again.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-14/coal-rises-vampire-like-as-german-utilities-seek-survival
>>53517180
The world has been attempting to move to renewables and clean energy for over a decade now. Your father is an idiot for not seeing this coming.
>>53517202
Do you suffer from autism?
He works at a plant that was opened just a few years ago. How great is the chance a company is going to close a plant they opened just 5 years ago?
The normal life span of those plants if somewhere around 50 years.
>>53516605
>>53516623
>>53516632
>>53517202
Clean energy is a joke tho. The economic just don't work. The money being sank into it will never yeild anything.
>>53517180
> fasing out traditional means of producing energy at the same time.
Er... Germany has been building coal pants for base load. These are clean(er) coal burning plants.
Germany exists in a integrated European energy grid, it still can use French nuclear energy if demand exceeds supply.
>retarded government policies they will split the company into a 'classic' and 'renewals' section and just let the classic one die because the law requires them to do so.
That's unfortunate for your father.
>>53517021
The waste pretty much. But aren't they developing/building new reactors specialized using older/used rods? It literally halves waste.
Did they go through with Thorium reactors btw? Read about them a couple years ago and it seemed promising.
>>53517197
>Yes, that's right. For every nuclear power plant closed multiple coal plants were opened again.
The new coal burning plants actually use clean coal technology.
Germany wanted to move away from nuclear energy productionn, they have achieved this. They are also pioneering more efficient use of fossil fuels.
Solar thermal ftw
Lets live in holy-wood-land, and Sahara, simultaneously.
>>53517206
"Huh, the world is pushing towards renewable/clean energy, but hey a new coal plant just opened! Job security for the next 50 years because these last that long. What could possibly go wrong?"
>>53517218
Would you consider nuclear clean energy? Because I would. Despite our opinions on this matter, this is the direction the world is heading. Climate change is a very real concern, and if it's not up to the task of serving our current needs for energy, then we're gonna need to figure out how to live with it.
>>53517252
>clean coal technology.
Wut
>>53517287
they wash the coal before burning it, so it's not dirty
>>53517287
There are people in this thread who believe this isn't a joke.
>>53517252
that "clean coal" is still shit compared to the nuclear plants they're shutting down
>>53517281
>Would you consider nuclear clean energy? Because I would
Depends how you define "polution". If nuclear waste gets somewhere you don't want it to be, you're gonna have problems.
Uranium-235 has a half-life of over 700,000 years. You'll have a long time to wait until it's "safe".
Nucular
>>53516806
>Banqiao dam
LOL Chinks
>Mosul dam soon
LOL Arabs
>>53517300
>>53517293
>>53517287
You do know it's possible to capture CO2 before it enters the atmosphere?
I guess you guys are American...
>>53517325
that's why you dump that shit in africa and let those niggers deal with it
>>53517311
Germany's carbon foot print hasn't grown significantly.
For every new coal plant being opened, a less efficient dirty one is being closed.
>>53516653
Those towers also output radioactive Iodine.
>>53517339
It's also possible to pick energy technology that doesn't suck
>>53517339
you should capture all the CO2 your car emits and pipe it into the cabin
>>53517339
>You do know it's possible to capture CO2 before it enters the atmosphere?
Too bad doing that isn't actually economically viable :^)
>>53516977
>The disaster in Japan a couple years back happened because they didn't anticipate a tsunami after an earthquake which often happens close to the edges of tectonic plates, which Japan is right next to.
They did. They just didn't anticipate a 10m tsunami. The tsunami walls at the Fukushima power plant were sufficient for a 7m tsunami if I recall correctly.
There were also other faults in the power station design that contributed to the meltdown which are only really apparent in hindsight.
>>53517349
Coal has a proven track record, it's also plentiful. The new coal burning plant technology can be used to lower carbon emissions.
>>53517339
That just takes more energy to do the filtration so you'd have to burn more coal. Also you'd end up with waste that can't be easily disposed of just like nuclear.
>>53517355
Germany is proving otherwise...
Germany is a rich country (World's number 4), the German consumer can easily afford it.
>>53517368
That and it was an old generation reactor that should have been decommissioned for a newer, safer one that would have taken worst case scenario into account five years prior.
HOW DO I OVERLOAD THE REACTOR!?
>>53517384
Are you suggesting captured carbon is as dangerous as nuclear waste.?
hahahahaha
Let me guess, you support Trump?
>>53517395
Such is life. Nothing is every upgraded when it should be.
>>53517401
Yes
He's the best choice for America right now
>>53517411
heh
>>53516512
Any hippie that knows their shit is supportive of nuclear energy since it's not even close how much cleaner it is than fossil fuels and it's a more feasible large-scale energy solution than renewable energy. The reason that nuclear energy isn't as common is because of uneducated yokels who think a nuclear power plant is a bomb waiting to go off.
>they are people in this world who unironically hate nuclear energy
It's like you guys can't understand ART
>>53516620
>wind is effecient
>the entire life of a wind turbine cannot produce the same amount of energy used to melt the parts needed
>>53517430
>hippie
>knows their shit
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>53517347
>>53517311
It might be clean, Denmark has been doing that for decades, but it doesn't reduce CO2 footprint. The whole point of Energiwende is to reduce CO2 footprint, which it's failing at because as they are closing nuclear power plants, they are replacing them with coal ones (as you said).
>>53517350
KEK
>>53517350
>>53517430
>Any hippie that knows their shit is supportive of nuclear energy
No, they support renewables, followed by carbon capture fossil sources.
Nuclear is the most expensive form of energy production; but, it offers a stopgap until renewables become viable for base load.
Just sayin'.
>>53516512
>nuclear powered phone batteries when?
>>53517476
>Denmark has been doing that for decades, but it doesn't reduce CO2 footprint
Yes it does.
>The whole point of Energiwende is to reduce CO2 footprint,
No.
It was first about ending reliance on nuclear energy. This meant switching from nuclear to coal and natural gas. There was no secret in the plan.
While fossil fuels were used to replace nuclear Germany began investiing in renewables.
Please take note, for every new coal plant opened, an old inefficient pant was closed. This is why Germany's carbon footprint hasn't grown significantly.
>>53517526
>it offers a stopgap until fusion becomes viable for base load.
FTFY. Renewables will only become viable for base load after several major breakthroughs. Fusion just needs one.
>>53517447
[citation needed]
It's true for microturbines you see on hippy buildings and shit but the proper 2-5MW industrial sized units usually hit energy payback in well under a year.
>>53517562
Reneables only need a reliable form of storage. Super conducting transmission tech is already in place.
>>53517558
>Yes it does.
Do tell how your furnace emits less CO2, unless you are implying a higher power plant efficiency is achieved via using the waste heat for heating before dumping the rest.
>>53517596
>Do tell how your furnace emits less CO2
Carbon capture.
>>53517573
No, a quick calculation on price per kWh versus unit cost + setup would tell you how wrong you are. Without subsidies, you are looking at at least 5 years, but last I checked it was over a decade.
>>53517600
>CC
Last I checked, no one has rolled out CC on a large scale.
A quick Google has confirmed I'm right.
Feel free to cite any GW-scale power plant using said technology, as I feel otherwise I am very ignorant.
>>53517624
>Last I checked, no one has rolled out CC on a large scale.
Canada has comercial plants up and running.
>>53516522
Where is the pie anon? You said there was pie and i don't see any pie.
>>53517640
>110 MW
Not large scale.
Why does hydroelectric only kill Europeans?
>>53517705
If they included the whole world the other bars would just be flat lines in comparison.
>>53517693
You don't roll out new technology overnight.
Germnay had the first scaled experimental plants in 2008, that's just eight years ago. This is brand new tech.
Fusion is predicted to be another 30 years away and Thorium is slow to take off.
The immediate future of energy production remains a combination of clean fossil, renewable and nuclear.
>>53517753
I'm not against CC and you're right, but an anon made it sound like all new German power plants use CC, which is simply not true.
They are clean, yes, but they still emit CO2.
>tfw german geoscientist
>entire population of my country believes nuclear energy is evil
>protesters try to stop transport of radioactive waste causing millions in dmg for taxpayers every fucking time
>all nuclear power plants get shut down
>sit in a meeting for the discussion of permanent repository for nuclear waste
>there'll be a committee formed
>30 members
>only 4 of them scientists/engineers
>4 people from the church
>THE FUCKING CHURCH
>rest politicians
>they'll probably go for what seems most popular with the retarded, uninformed population instead of listening to scientists
welp, I'm out.
>>53516666
Gigasatan I thought you would like nuclear
Mark IV reactors are much safe than the Mark II reactors that we use, but we can't use them because of lawsuits wherever you builds them
>>53517526
Fission is only the most expensive form of energy due to all the requirements and bureaucracy, and all the reactors in the US are basically kitbashed from multiple designs. No one wants to make an inexpensive reactor kit because they wouldn't make any money back from the R&D, because it's too expensive to start one up in the first place.
>>53517582
Fusion won't need magic superconducting transmission tech to make it profitable. The technology may exist, but the cost to install it across the entire US grid would be egregious. Fusion is far more plug and play, since it can just change its output and run 24/7.
Certified hippie here.
Nuclear is great if it's safe. But it probably won't be safe. Figure out how to make shit safe and how to contain it first before you do it. Come on.
>first world countries go green energy
>second world countries will have the nuclear reactors and will gain money selling energy to the first world
I'm okay with that fampai-tachi-sama
>>53517350
fucking savage
>>53519318
There have only been 2 major disasters, one involved retarded Russian engineering and the other an earthquake.
I don't see why a country without retarded engineers and earthquakes (Germany) thinks this is a good reason to shut down all nuclear power and go back to 1930
>>53519318
>How to make it safe
It's safer than coal.
It's safer than wind.
It's safer than hydro.
Solar's a joke if you don't live near the equator.
The only reason Chernobyl happened was because the night crew was told to do an extensive test of the systems, and the reactor design itself was flawed. We don't do that here.
The only reason Fukushima happened was because they ignored the inspectors that told them they should build up their seawall, move their backup generator out of their basements to a less retarded place that won't flood as much, and to isolate the cooling loops from one another. In the US, you can get fined 1 million dollars per infraction per day that the reactor contains fuel until you can prove that you no longer have the infractions.
Nuclear is safe as long as you actually listen to the engineers who suggest maybe moving the backup diesel generators further up the hill so they don't flood, just like it's safer to to listen to the traffic engineers who suggest you drive on the correct side of the road.
>>53519478
I've heard people liken the nuclear engineers in the Chernobyl disaster to pilots tinkering with their engines while in flight
>>53519504
I've never heard that, but it's very apt.
>oh yes, let us disable the emergency cooling system
>and the emergency power reduction system
>while you are at it Sergei, can you disable the automatic control? the test will go faster
>oh, what was that sound
>oh no
>>53519537
The reaction of the Soviet Union was even more hilarious.
>if we don't tell anyone they'll never notice it
Apparently we have only 200 years of uranium at current consumption rates, much less if we expand nuclear technology. Thorium could be a great replacement, but people are so averse towards nuclear energy I doubt we will put in the money to actually create a safe thorium reactor.
Does anyone know about thorium waste? Is it as bad as the waste from uranium?
Still, I'll take anything over emitting greenhouse gases, but wind turbines seem like a better option overall.
>>53517393
What does Germany do with the captured CO2? I was under the impression most of it just gets put into the ocean which has a lot of issues in itself.
>>53519633
Breeder reactors are massively more efficient than what we have now, the only reason we aren't using them is because there's so much uranium still that they're less profitable and people are short sighted
>>53516512
Why is biomass so dangerous?
>>53516709
>built in 1968
ok kid
>>53519408
>I don't see why a country without retarded engineers and earthquakes (Germany) thinks this is a good reason to shut down all nuclear power
it's not so much that we don't trust our engineers. the two main concerns about nuclear are "how to get rid of the waste?" and "how do we protect against full emergency?" (all systems shut down, someone snackbars a plane into the plant, that kind of stuff) - and we don't have a good answer to neither. thorium/lftr style reactors look promising in theory, but we don't have the materials to make that happen yet (liquid salt and thorium/uranium at 1500°C are kinda aggressive).
>and go back to 1930
tidal power (not sure if that's what the hydro bar in OPs chart is) is extremely reliable (for base load) and whatever we need to fill the gaps left by wind/solar would ideally come from gas plants (coal takes too long to start/shutdown).
>>53519633
>Does anyone know about thorium waste? Is it as bad as the waste from uranium?
at least some of it, yes. the thorium fission process creates uranium (a different isotope, but still) but the amount of waste per Wh is a lot smaller, around 2-3%.
>>53519773
>Full shutdown
Modern reactor designs can go without power for up to a week without so much as a Honda camping generator. They also can SCRAM (full stop of the reactor) in under a minute.
>Snackbars a plane into the reactor
Jack shit'll happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X697yZBCN8w
Reactor cases are meant to keep pressure bombs from breaking out, what prayer does a flying beercan have?
>Something else
The local atom-splitter, Fermi II, has crazy levels of security. As far as I know, from what I've heard from people who work there, they've basically go their own armory and a bomb-proof fort. Greenpeace has gotten into nuclear reactors in France, but then again, it's France.
>>53519854
>Modern reactor designs can go without power for up to a week without so much as a Honda camping generator.
it's not full shutdown if you still have a generator running. not claiming modern reactors are as bad as chernobyl, but a "safe" plant should go into a safe state even if everything suddenly stops working. like i said, the liquid salt stuff looks good in that aspect.
>Jack shit'll happen.
in that case - yes. but the containment case isn't the only place where you can hit a power plant. and a plane hitting that thing is far from the worst that can happen. just look at stuxnet, what it was meant to do (kill iranian equipment) and what it actually did after israel "improved" it.
but the biggest problem is the waste. we don't even have a good medium-term storage yet. the us have an advantage here, you guys can just dump it into some desert - we don't even have that option.
>>53520322
>it's not full shutdown if you still have a generator running
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?
>Containment case isn't the only place where you can hit a power plant
It's the only place worth it. If you hit the cooling tower, they Scram and figure out what happened. Same goes for anywhere else.
>muh Stuxnet
What did it do? Where is the sauce for this 'improvement'? Stuxnet went after really specific configurations of PLCs connected to uranium enrichment equipment, not reactors.
As for the waste, we'll sell you space to put your waste.
>>53516796
Probably has to do withdrew radium clock faces and such being widely visible to the public for a while as well.
>>53517033
Nothing catastrophic, but rare earth metal mining is pretty destructive, and solar panels use a fuck ton.
>>53517066
That sure was a long winded way of saying I don't understand statistics.
>>53517382
No matter what you do, a coal plant is never going to have lower emissions than a nuclear plant. And you need a shit load of coal burning facilities just to replace one reactor.
>>53517153
""refugees"
>>53517325
Yucca mountain was pretty much fool proof, using waste vitrified into glass logs, with individual and perimeter containment.
Harry Reid should be hanged for stirring up nimbyism against it.
>>53517401
You think the scrubbers just go to filter heaven when they are exhausted? They get burnt into an even more expensive filter, best case scenario.
>>53516620
>no 24/7 reliability
into the trash it goes
>>53516512
I'mm 100% sure that graph does not take into account the deaths caused by uranium mining.
>>53521071
>deaths caused by uranium mining
Black deaths don't count.
>>53517116
Coal kills 4 Chernobyls every year, screw off
N U C U L A R power boys!!
>>53516646
>Go into the amount of people negatively affected by the waste of coal compared to nuclear.
You mean all the people negatively affected by global warming, pollution, coal mining, contamination of rivers, etc.?
Yeah sure, let's get into that - I'm sure it will be very favorable for your 1800's energy source.
>>53521620
nvm I'm retarded
>>53516620
If we developed micro wind power that might be at least partially true but horizontal wind turbines are god awful.
>>53516796
>Eerie
You mean SWEET MINTY BLUE GLOW OF SCIENCE
Nuclear power cost too much because educating retards is impossible.
Grad student in nuclear here. Technology wise nuclear is pretty great. Most issues with the industry are political and most accidents (either criticality events or reactor) are causes by stupid people doing stupid things.
SMRs
M
R
S
>>53522311
Micro wind power is a meme
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/04/small-windmills-test-results.html
>>53517281
>"Huh, the world is pushing towards renewable/clean energy, but hey a new coal plant just opened! Job security for the next 50 years because these last that long. What could possibly go wrong?"
Green energies are ameme.
>>53522841
Coal power is meme
>>53519478
>Solar's a joke if you don't live near the equator
Cloud cover becomes a significant detriment to solar efficiency for locations near the equator
>>53523240
So then solar's a joke in general? I know in Mittenstate it's not really worth the environmental impact at least.
nuclear has been proven to be more economical than coal; melt-down costs included
>>53521071
Considering how little uranium is needed and how much coal is needed for the same amount of power, I'm fairly sure it takes mining both of them into account
>>53517656
why is geothermal never pushed?
>>53523647
>"hey guys there's heat in the ground we can get energy from there"
>dig a very deep hole
>put pipes and shit in there
>works for 2 years
>then and earthquake or some bullshit underground geological event happen
>"well i guess we'll just have to rebuild everything :^)"
small generation are worth it for heating but large scale electrical generators are going to be very hard to implement.
>>53523647
Expensive and locked to certain places geographically.
>>53522841
>>53522862
X is a meme is not a valid argument.
>>53523892
arguments are a meme
>>53523947
YOU'RE a meme.
>>53524188
memes are a meme
>>53516522
>pie chart
you mean line grafffff.
>>53519318
>Nuclear is great if it's safe. But it probably won't be safe.
you should not be aloud to vote
>>53524439
>aloud
>>53524439
>aloud
>>53524439
>aloud
>>53524430
>>pie chart
>you mean line grafffff.
Long thin pies.
Mmmmm.
Actually, bar graph.
