I live in Ohio. I'm 30 years old.
Why are American people so fucking stupid? Nuclear energy is a good thing. Daily reminder:
>Chernobyl has only had 19 proven related deaths
>Fukushima had a 20 foot wall of water
>solar power releases direct radiation off and has killed more people than nuclear
>windmills kill animals, need backup power and have killed people
>hydroelectric is fucking stupid
>coal.....explains itself with millions of deaths
Explain to me what is bad about gen 5 reactors again, I'm drawing a complete blank....
Don't abuse ellipsis
>>54290515
radioactive waste ?
>>54290537
You missed the gen 5 part didn't you?
Produces MUCH less waste than any other power source next to wind
>>54290561
that would be just great if gen 5 reactors existed in the real world, or were currently being built.
>200 replies
I agree OP l. The sensationalism around nuclear may never be overcome.
Because its easy to fear monger.
People dying prematurely from smog ?
>doesn't affect me
Nuclear power ?
>OMG 3 mile island !!!
Wayy too much NIMBY as well.
People fall back on gut reactions/fears rather than science.
>>54290515
It's the Enviromentalists fault, really. It's the same mushy thinking that leads to bans on GMO crops.
Even gen 3+ reactors are fine
Because you autists go on about the theoretical safety of some nuclear reactor designs but completely ignore that the people, who end up running it, will fuck it up as hard as they can.
For a recent example, look at Belgium where they let terrorists work in nuclear plants and just a yesterday had to hand out iodine tablets in a 60 mile radius of their poorly maintained plants run by morons.
Current implementations aren't great. The possible returns are amazing, but we have to put up with all this bullshit to get enough funding to get somewhere sane and safe.
>>54290515
>solar power releases direct radiation
U FUKING WOT M8?
>hydroelectric is fucking stupid
You are stupid
>>54290697
If they lived within 60 miles of a coal plant, they'd be a lot worse off.
>>54290934
They'd be very safe 60 miles away from a windfarm though
What happened to thorium
>>54290957
But who powers them when the wind stops blowing?
Batteries can't handle it.
Wind is not a useful source of power on it's own, it can only supplement.
>>54290974
It sucked, like hulkium.
>>54290974
Jews happened
>>54290957
They only do it as a precaution I know in ontario we have nuclear plants and nearby residents are given iodine tablets as well.
Not because they know there will be some nuclear disaster but as a precaution.
Sort of like why you wear a seat belt when you're in a car.
![[HorribleSubs] Shimoneta - 03 [720p].mkv_snapshot_18.52_[2015.09.11_08.38.27].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GsSZyX0.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Shimoneta - 03 [720p].mkv_snapshot_18.52_[2015.09.11_08.38.27].jpg")
>>54290515
>hydroelectric is fucking stupid
Nice argument against it.
It just needs to be on a bigger scale and it will blow everything else out of the water.
>>54290515
>Ohio
>>54290989
Pumped-storage hydroelectricity
>>54290989
>Batteries can't handle it.
There are several designs for large-scale energy storage, for example pumped-storage
>>54290920
The real solution is to have all domestic user virtually offgrid with solar.
And nuclear is fine, only if it is in west Africa connected to Europe with a huge HVDC link and heavily military protected and with a large noflyzone over it.
The rest of the energy can be made with relatively cheap and clean Natural Gas from our OLD friend Putin or our new friends in Africa
>>54291042
>>54291047
>The main disadvantage of PHS is the specialist nature of the site required, needing both geographical height and water availability. Suitable sites
Second paragraph of wikipedia, same flaw as hydro.
Great where it can be done.
>>54291047
>>54291042
Which is both extremely expensive and geographically limited.
Though I will grant that it's a very, very efficient way to store energy (in terms of power loss).
>>54291071
While you're on wikipedia, why not check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage before posting?
>>54291014
>blow everything else out of the water.
>>54291071
There won't be a single solution for every area.
Some places can have many hydroelectric plants, others will be better for solar, nuclear for some etc.
>>54290577
Gen 4 is and they are pretty damn good
>>54291082
I don't see anything that can power a large city that isn't very geo specific.
If you find one, feel free to let me know.
>>54291099
I never said otherwise.
Although solar is the same as wind, only good as a supplemental source.
But for the very large amount of places that can't do hydro/geothermal, it's pretty much just nuclear, or fossil fuels.
>>54290515
Because people don't understand radioactivity, or nuclear science, and associate nuclear power with nuclear bombs and mutations. Than they think that the steam emmited is some radioactive cloud that's going to cause godzilla to be born or some shit. People just fear the unknown really
>>54291124
it will be a multi pronged solution.
You could have more and more homes being built with solar on the roof tops supplementing their own power usage and then somewhere you can have nuclear or solar farms + large batteries
One of the advantages I see of solar is that power generation is no longer limited to some huge plant 100 miles from the city, but now it can be generated right at the source where it is needed.
>>54291124
As you mentioned, solar and wind are "only good as a supplemental source", but the size of an supplemental source is not strictly low. You can have a lot of solar/wind and supply the fluctuation with a very responsive traditional energy like Natural gas and keeping a good mix of the others.
>>54290920
You clearly know nothing of either. Please continue to post
Nothing is wrong. It's just the public. Remember how they called Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging just MRI. Anything with nuclear is apparently scary.
>>54290515
It's not just Americans
Fucking Angela Merkel is terrified of nuclear energy as well
I agree OP nuclear energy is safe, clean, and efficient.
>hurr sure no it's not
How many people die each year mining coal, or fighting over oil?
How many people have died when dams burst due to hydroelectric power. I know it's a rare occurrence, but it's still more common than nuclear reactors going critical.
>inb4 solar and wind
Yes those are nice, but they can only be used in certain areas.
Once bernie is elected nuclear plants will be shut down and we can shift to fully solar and wind energy.
I generally agree with most people here. One thing that I do think needs to be considered if nuclear power plants ever start being built again is their water consumption. Maybe it's not as much of an issue with newer reactors, but afaik the current crop of dinosaurs we have is pretty damn thirsty. All the more reason to modernize though. Cost and public attitudes need to change, but I am optimistic that we will start seeing some of these small modular reactors being used in the next 20-30 years
>>54291203
>You clearly know nothing of either. Please continue to post
very mature way to confront ideas
>>54291228
Its not just Merkel but its germans in general.
And you know what, germans already pay some of the highest rates of electricity on the planet and don't seem to mind.
So if you're going to pay almost 30c per kilowatt it might as well come from Solar.
I remember a story about a small isotope plant in Toronto that made isotopes for medicinal machines.
It was there for 30 years and people never knew/cared about it and lived their lives as usual.
As soon as some news paper ran a story about it was all these NIMBY fears, terrorist attack fears etc and so on..
People are so misinformed about this shit.
https://nowtoronto.com/news/environment/ges-west-end-secret/
You can think Greenpeace for nuclear going down the drain. These fucktards systematically financed fearmongering around nuclear centrals and nuclear energy.
If I was the supreme leader of a country I would definitely ban Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Femen, Scientology and Jewvahs Witnesses from my country. All these "organisations" are kikery of the worst kind.
>>54291232
Good, killyourself sooner, America
renewable > nuclear.
maybe a century into the future we can give nuclear another try.
http://terrapower.com/
>>54291168
Batteries aren't going to be that useful unless technology improves a lot.
The waste they make being produced to the energy they store is fairly bad, and they are expensive at that.
Solar is also extremely expensive, and wasteful.
It's actually one of the least green of the non fossil fuel energy sources.
It's really quite bad.
It also causes a lot more deaths.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#154be0b949d2
Wind is good though, as a supplemental.
They make small sealed nuclear reactors that'd probably be better than solar panels for delivering power for small communities.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
Solar is still expensive, and in poorer areas, a lot easier to steal/damage the panels.
Also, even when you deliver power where it's needed, distributed, you still have the issue of needing a back up, just now you also need a distributed back up.
If everyone got Teslas home battery, maybe you'd have power most of the time.
If you're supplemental source is the grid, then what's the point of having personal panels?
Solar is great for road signs, and very small things far off the grid however.
>>54291198
But you need the supplemental energy source to be able to scale and handle the full load in the worst case.
So then, either
A) The supplemental is fully green, so why not use it? What was even the point of spending all that money on solar/other supplementary supply.
B) It's a non green source, so you're spewing emissions anyway.
It's a short sighted half measure to cut pollution, not eliminate.
>>54291228
there are very big problems with nuclear that can't be addressed
1.waste
try to find a place to put your waste for thousand of years without leaking, blown to pieces by terrorist etc...
>hurr durr muh 5gen that exist in my sweet sweet dreams
2.nuclear weapons proliferation
I have a lot of plutonium and is useless... unless i can sell it to that fine gentlemen with that rag on the head
3.Quality/Manteniance
have you ever worked/seen an industrial site, nothing go to plan. Problems happens, a lot, and a problem in a nuclear reactor can be very nasty
>>54291014
Yeah dude damming up natural river ways has no consequences for the environment.
There aren't already millions of communities deprived of water due to damming of rivers upstream
I wanna know more about nuclear power.
Are those always feared classic white fumes coming out of them >>54290515 toxic or something?
Or are they just water vapors?
>>54291293
The real jews are the nuclear plant operators who reap in massive profits while tax payers pay billions for r&d, construction, waste disposal, security, and safety.
>>54291348
Just water.
Nuclear is greener than solar.
>>54291348
No, they're just evaporating water from cooling.
>>54290515
>Chernobyl has only had 19 proven related deaths
As a Ukrainian I think I can say that you are very wrong
>>54290515
>>54291228
german geoscientist reporting in.
people are retarded as fuck when it comes to these things. they want 100% guarantees that the nuclear waste won't cause any harm for the next 5000 years but it's impossible to say that.
seems like nobody has an understanding of riskmanagment.
>>54291366
except for the waste produced which is dangerous for ~1000 years
>>54291334
I directly cited Natural Gas as the bulk of the energy production, and it's some sort greenish.
And solar will make huge jump forward in efficiency to produce 20%-30% for poorly insolated countries (iceland baltic states) and 50% or more for very insolated one (Mediterran North Africa)
geez Germany produced nearly 20% with solar/wind in 2014 and it's not Libya
>>54291340
Nuclear waste isn't as bad as people make it out to be.
Plus they could still be recycled to produce additional energy.
The biggest issue is #3.
On a related note
WHY DON'T WE USE THE FORCES OF TIDES. IT'S NEAR FUCKING UNLIMITED AND RENEWABLE AND THERE IS SO MUCH OCEAN WE CAN PUT THEM EVERYWHERE FOR WHATEVER POWER NEEDS WE HAVE.
>>54291408
Very hard to maintain?
>>54291334
>It also causes a lot more deaths.
I can't find a good source for those claims.
Sure Forbes regurgitates those figures, but what is the source ??
Seems to have come from a blog called the next big future
>http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Which takes it from...
>Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe's estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TWh,
Efficiency of solar has gone, way, way up since 2000.
I am just questioning the numbers here.
What about based
THORIUM
Building reactors using this will bring Thor's blessing upon the land, reducing the likely hood of any mishaps
No matter how you look at it, solar simply will never be efficient. It requires vast amounts of land surface and producing panels is not environmentally friendly (they require rare earth minerals).
Instead geothermal and hydropower should be used wherever they can, they have few drawbacks other than the cost of construction.
These should be complemented by off shore and land wind turbines.
>>54291408
I think that the Tidal power is a very low lucrative investment.
It's not very easy to build and maintain underwater turbines or gigantic dams in the see
>>54291402
Solar waste is worse.
We are pretty good at sealing away nuclear waste, without harming the environment.
http://www.thingsworsethannuclearpower.com/2012/09/the-real-waste-problem-solar-edition.html
>>54291406
>It's sorta greenish
Half measure, still polluting and using fossil fuels, still sorta sighted.
>But solar will be totally better in 10 years!
And people have the same fantasy claims about future Nuclear technologies, doesn't matter until someone actually makes it work.
See >>54291447 for an example of the Nuclear version.
>X country gets Y% from solar
Again, still need to be able to handle the worst case with a reliable back up.
So then, either
A) The supplemental is fully green, so why not use it? What was even the point of spending all that money on solar/other supplementary supply.
B) It's a non green source, so you're spewing emissions anyway.
>>54291340
>try to find a place to put your waste for thousand of years without leaking, blown to pieces by terrorist etc...
Easy, it's called Yucca Mountain, except the good man Harry Reid blocked that because it would win him votes back home. Gotta protect all that nothing that lives out there. An average reactor produces so little waste over 40 years that it would fit in a 20 by 40 foot pool.
>I have a lot of plutonium and is useless... unless i can sell it to that fine gentlemen with that rag on the head
You obviously know nothing about nuclear power if you think that plutonium is useless.
>have you ever worked/seen an industrial site, nothing go to plan. Problems happens, a lot, and a problem in a nuclear reactor can be very nasty
Nuclear sites have the one of the highest safety records of all industrial processes.
So stupid I can't buy a Japanese micro reactor and install it on my property. It's my land, I can do I want with it as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's business. I can build solar panels and wind turbines but not a nuclear reactor.
>>54291447
If we wanna be futurist to the max, why not orbiting photovoltaic
>>54291471
Space isn't real, faggot.
>>54291384
Not OP.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/
>As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.
>He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents.
It was a disaster sure, but the lose of life and increased cancer risk isn't nearly as bad as people think it is.
>>54291436
If you can find a better source, feel free to post it.
Efficiency of solar is getting better, but no matter how efficient it gets, it still will have black outs.
It's not reliable.
Efficiency might at least make it more green though.
>>54291340
The type of isotopes they use in nuclear plants isn't the same type they use for nuclear misels. They have to be refined a different way.
>waste
Yes it is an issue, but I'd rather have waste that can be quarantined to a single location, rather than smog that goes in the air and ruins everyone's lives.
>quality
True for anything
>>54291460
>>54291471
>fantasy claims
>developed reactor plans in 1940s
Uranium was picked over thorium since you can't make nukes with thorium's waste
>>54291357
Any more so than the oil and gas lobby?
Any more so than solar and wind who have taken billions in research grants but provide less than 1% of US energy? Not to say we shouldn't fund them, but they do take far more $ per energy output than nuclear
>>54291512
Soon as we have a working plant, it'll be great.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't research it.
But acting like we can count on, and expect any technological advance we don't have is silly.
>>54291496
Well putting the death numbers aside, we both agree that renewables are the way to go , and that it will be a solution of multiple technologies, not solely solar. so what are we arguing about ?
>>54291471
But what about Krugis?
>>54291537
Mostly how big a role nuclear should have, and if it is worth compromising and still keeping dirty sources around, but try to limit their use and reduce, but not eliminate emissions with solar/wind/similar.
>>54291498
>>quality
>True for anything
yes but, if a Natural gas/coal/oil plant fail, even catastrophically, it's a big problem, and if a nuclear plants fail catastrophically it's a disaster
>>54291537
renewables are the future, gas co-generator are the present (still to slowly phase out of the main energy source)
Meanwhile Germany, China and USA burn coal like it's 1800
![[Commie] Yahari Ore no Seishun Love Comedy wa Machigatteiru. Zoku - My Teenage RomCom SNAFU TOO! - 01 [E3B1108A].mkv_snapshot_18.27_[2015.04.10_09.22.51].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/EyZngSN.jpg "[Commie] Yahari Ore no Seishun Love Comedy wa Machigatteiru. Zoku - My Teenage RomCom SNAFU TOO! - 01 [E3B1108A].mkv_snapshot_18.27_[2015.04.10_09.22.51].jpg")
we need to cover the dark side of the moon with solar panels senpaitachi
>>54291566
im pro-nuclear.
We should have as much nuclear as we need.
Solar (+ batteries) + nuclear + whatever else you want.
One of the advantages of fossil fuel plants is that its instant on power.
Dealing with a peak is easy with coal or gas plant.
Nuclear needs time to ramp up.
And solar has no where to go unless it utilizes some batteries somewhere.
>>54291575
Modern plants don't melt down like the original designs did, it wouldn't be a massive disaster.
>>54291447
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages
>>54290515
>Chernobyl has only 19 proven related deaths
Bullshit OP. Thyroid and other cancer massively increased in effected area unlike ever seen before after the meldown. Thousands of people died from cancer and many more had many health issues. Thyroid cancer is provent to because in many cases by radiation exporsure because they radiation will build up in the thyroid after exposure. Chernobyl is not what you should be referencing for defending nuclear power because it was a fucking disaster. 10 or 100s of thousands of people had to leave everything they owned behind and be displaced from their homes. No other source of energy has ever had such a traggiv event happen.
BTW nobody is posting the coolest of them all
>lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
>>54291656
Not even the cutest lockheed.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/photo/alternative-energy/wave%20and%20tidal/TidalTurbine-06-3800x2719.jpg
>>54291583
>solar panels
>not prisms so we can get all Pink Floydy and shit
ffs, sempai
>>54291585
Batteries are expensive, and both them and solar cells need stuff from mines, which are bad for the environment.
Fossil Fuel plants need to be nearly completed eliminated.
Nuclear is cheap enough that we can afford to have it making excess, other sources can ramp up faster.
We can get better at load balancing too, which is also being done for wind/solar the opposite reasons.
Wind/Solar always need a backup source that can handle the full load in a worst case.
That back up source is pretty much always a fossil fuel or some polluter, because otherwise why even bother with the solar/wind.
Thus, solar/wind doesn't actually solve the problem, and isn't at all useful in the long term.
At best it's a temporary, expensive bandaid.
But then people get into sunken cost, feel like they've done enough because they've spent all this money on solar/wind/etc plant, and get complacent, and pollution continues.
It's a mouthful, but that's why I dislike solar/wind.
>>54291014
Dam is a good idea if the reasoning behind it is solid (as water catchment for irrigation and flood control with electric generation as a nice byproduct). Some of the stream need embankment and that's what old civilization did with little ecological loss
Doing mega dams with sole purposes of energy generation (like 3 gorges dam or Itaipu dam)though, is fucking stupid. Not only that it fucked up the entire ecosystem, it also affects neighboring biosphere, in a bad way
>>54291651
yet animals live in Chernobyl without giving a shit
>>54290515
People and animals getting killed by windmills are statistics.
People getting killed when Nuclear Reactor melts down is a Tragedy.
>>54291694
Wild animals don't live long anyway.
>>54291052
Problem is the energy loss carrying power over line that distance would be astronomical. We need the power production close to the power production.
>>54291694
Have you seen all the pictures of dead trees? Do you think most humans would have survived more than a decade had they not evacuated?
>>54291729
>>54291751
We too dont live as much as solar panel waste anyways
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>54291744
HVDC it's expensive but very efficient
loss in the order of about 3.5% per 1,000 km
(from Italy to Ethiopa ruffly 10%)
Nuclear waste is the only real problem. That shit is D I R T Y and because it's expensive to store, you can count on our politicians to try and save money on that. So it will probably be stored in a cave too shallow, with poor insulation and the software to control nuclear waste deposits will be written by indians.
That waste will totally poison the water reserves and we'll all die.
I'm all in for nuclear power as long as the waste is taken care of responsibly.
>>54290779
Is ths a quote drom the 80s?
>>54291670
Most engineering porn one
>iter.org/construction/tkmcomplex
>>54291838
Just put it deep enough underground. Same thing with other highly toxic waste.
>>54291838
Also these old nuclear reactiors are leaking and it is going unreported. Nothing gets done until entire neighborhoods start dying from cancer
>>54291838
Just fucking launch it into space. Let black holes and terrorist aliens suck on it
>>54291869
Litterally impossible. It weights too much and if a lauch fails and explodes or crashes it will blast nuckear was in all directions causing a massive problem...
>>54291869
Imagine a rocket failing explosion full of nuclear waste.
Maybe in the far far future with a space elevator
>>54291885
>>54291906
its a better liability than oil waste, solar waste and carbon smoke fucking everything now. Right now in 2 0 1 6
>>54291852
>tokamak
Is this gonna be like Wendelstein 7-x, but bigger?
There's no one single silver bullet in solving today's energy crisis. Each types of energy generation has its advantages and disadvantages.
Solar cell isn't really efficient, with your average solar panels have about 20% efficiency (dust and dirts would affect output as much as 50 percent). To generate 1MW, you need an area size of about 1 hectare, and sometimes conflict would arise on either said land should be used for solar farm, or farming food. (some countries use non arable land such as desert or former landfill, but not every countries have desert or landfill big enough to build meaningful solar farm on it)
Currently the biggest solar farm could generate up to 600MW of electricity on about 1300 hectare of land. An ultracritical coal-fired powerplant could generate 3 times the electrical output while using less than half the real estate
I'm not saying which one is the best, but like I said previously, there's no single solution to energy problem. It all depends on the geography, socio-economy, geopolitics as wel as basic demands for it.
>>54290515
>solar
tfw the manufacture of solar panels involves so many toxic processes and byproducts that it's almost impossible to get permission from the EPA to manufacture them in the USA. This results in them being made in places like China and India where they care fuckall about the environment and just dump the waste out back.
>>54291930
Litterally you
>>54290617
The only thing that bothers me are the pesticides and stuff used in farming. Shit isnt healthy.
>>54291930
No it's not. You are fucking stupid and you know that. Though it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't.
Is there any downside to taking iodine pills?
>>54291930
you know that nuclear can't be used alone right.
Nuclear production can't be acelerated/breaken fast enough (see france exporting electricity during the night "for free" and buying "very costly" from italy during the day)
>>54291941
A LOT bigger
>>54291906
Current nuclear waste containers can survive falling out of a plane, I wonder if we could make one strong enough to mitigate that risk.
Alternatively, if we build nuclear reactors in space, and then use microwave power transmission to send the power back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power#Microwave_power_transmission
This, but with nuclear.
>>54290537
Not a problem with modern reactors.
Even less with future reactors.
>>54291827
If we could migrate from AC to DC that would be dope.
AC is a bit safer tho.
>>54291984
Problem is if a Nuclear Reactor is space melts down it basically becomes an EMP and will kill all the satellites in orbit.
>>54291977
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_iodide#Adverse_reactions
>>54291984
With the efficiency of solar, why buil nuclear in space?
And imagine that satellite deorbiting or hitting another satellite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision
Have you ever played SimCity 2000?
One of the future disaster was the misalignment of the microwave transmitter
>>54292000
HVDC link are very common for long distance electrical transport
>>54291346
Go away, tripfag.
>>54292029
got a source to back up that statement ?
Besides its not like the satellites fly elbow to elbow beside each other
>>54292029
No, it doesnt. It wouldnt do shit to any satellites.
>>54290515
Why aren't Thorium reactors a thing yet?
>>54292041
that was quite educational
thanks
>>54291969
Who let a child around that thing?
Fucking Sanders voter
>>54292061
>>54292058
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion
It's about nuclear explosions but the premise is the same. A massive amount of EM waves produced could knock out satellites in range.
>>54292152
>nuclear explosions
>reactors
Confirmed retard.
The major argument against nuclear power seems to be that the general public dislikes it. Solar power, wind power and hydroelectric are great, but they're not financially viable without government subsidies (which you could argue is alright if you're a leftist). Also, solar power and wind power can't supply you with on-demand power. Since you can't ever be sure you'll always have wind, sunlight or even waves, you always need to have on-demand power plants that can produce all your energy needs when the "renewable" sources fail.
Now, for on-demand power we have the alternatives oil, coal and nuclear (and hydroelectric to some extent, but this is highly dependent on geography and the on-demand capabilities aren't as reliable). Nuclear is by far the safest and most efficient. I know people who work with development and production of windmills, and they see it as an obvious fact that nuclear power is the best choice for on-demand power. It's not a contradiction to promote "renewable" sources and also support the continued existence of nuclear power for on-demand needs. In fact, this is pretty much a consensus among those who actually know anything about it. For some reason though, the general public prefers oil/coal to nuclear power, probably because it's easier to understand how it works, and they may even burn oil to heat their home which they don't see as a big deal.
>>54290515
>>Chernobyl has only had 19 proven related deaths
10% people involved in Sarcophagus construction ded
25% disabled and crippled
There were 600 000 people working to build the box atop the burst open reactor and clean the fallout outta the city and evacute remaining retards who were like "AMMA GONNA STAY I NEVER HEARD OF THAT RADIATION THING"
>>54292143
This is now a liberal hate thead
>>54292130
I mean in homes. With everything running off DC it might be more efficient to just have converters for AC motors.
Problem is if you grab a 110V AC line you can let go because of the changing phase. If you grab a DC your muscles will lock.
>>54291840
Well, it might as well be.
>>54291651
>No other source of energy has ever had such a traggiv event happen.
Really? How about you do your research, faggot.
>>54290515
>Nuclear energy is a good thing.
You ask a car nut what they think about cars, they will ask you what type.
You ask a physicists what they think about nuclear energy, they will ask you what type.
Water reactors are shit.
Liquid salt reactors are the future.
Stop generalizing "Nuclear energy".
>>54292164
>Doesn't realize that Nuclear Reactors are just contained prolonged Nuclear explosions
>To stupid to comprehend
>Compensates by calling people on /g/ retarded
>>54291651
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Get educated retard.
Also coal constantly kills people every day.
![proxy[1].jpg&hash=04a8c243186fc04ac7d06072e4325004.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/dl61Yxf.jpg "proxy[1].jpg&hash=04a8c243186fc04ac7d06072e4325004.jpg")
>>54291052
>HVDC
Yeah fucking right... DC NO, AC YES
>>54292226
Lol you know I meant in white countries
>>54292249
>fat more energy than coal
I think I have an idea amerilards
>>54292249
>fat has energy density similar to gasoline
Landwhale-burning power plants when
Why the fuck would you use nuclear energy when you can use solar, wind, hydro? Like goddamn I wish you knew how retarded you were.
>>54292197
Sanders 2016!! He can still turn it around in California bro, I swear!
>>54290515
Chernobyl had more than 19 deaths. Its far from as bad as the media displays it, but it ways also far more than 19.
But Fukushima was what started the whole anti nuclear power thing in germany. Weird because in Fukushima no one died because of radiation. The only deaths that occured because of fukushima were caused by the evacuation.
>>54292302
Webb 2016.
In your heart you know he's the man.
>>54292278
>moving the goalposts
ok faggot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure
Here, you can add up dam-related fatalities in "white" countries.
>>54292309
Show any reliable source stating more than 19 deaths that aren't purely scare tactic speculation
>>54292278
Slavs ain't white son
>>54292205
It's not that simple, modern switching power supply are very efficient and going dc has the problem of low voltage distribution network (old reliable eficent transformer vs "modern" and costly DC-DC converter).
basically you can have a lot of small "inexpensive" switching power supply in house and inexpensive transformer in AC distribution, and big switching power converter distribution and small switching power supply in house for DC
so DC is better with high voltage, long distance and less station,
AC is better for smaller distribution.
In the more the frequency the more the loss for long lines (becoming "signal transmission lines") but the more efficient voltage manipulation (smaller cheaper transformer).
For this reason in planes they use 400Hz current to have the smallest transformer core possible
>>54292276
If you don't know, don't speak pls
>>54290974
Usable thorium in the earths crust is relatively rare, viable thorium reactors are very complicated and lack of interest in making fossil fuels obsolete is what happened.
>>54292286
Lol actually read a thread before you shitpost all over it you autist
>>54292338
>add up
Doesnt count, now you are moving the goal post.
>>54292356
Enjoy your radioactive octopus arms when your nuclear power plant has a meltdown.
>>54292286
Because solar and wind plants have relatively low and wildly variable power output, and hydroelectric dams aren't any safer than nuclear power.
>>54292352
My english is shit but i hope someone could understand
>>54292367
Well, if you want, there's a dam failure in the same Ukraine with 1500 fatalities.
>>54292103
>>54290515
/thread
>>54292377
Enjoy your black lung disease from living within 50 miles of a coal plant.
>>54292352
If this were true, it would be the standard in power transmission. Simply saying "...don't speak..." only shows that you're a dumb shit.
>>54292341
you stupid fuck.
I'm not even trying to demonize nuclear stuff but you really are fucking dumb.
19 people died directly from the blast and destruction
Another 60 000 workers and volunteers oficially died while fixing that shit
and 200 000 more got seriopusly irradiated and are fucking sick of your shit.
source russian wikipedia and a fucking memorial to heroes of chernobyl in like every city
>>54292341
50 died because of radiation poisioning.
Cant really estimate the amount of people dying because of cancer. Probably about 1000.
>>54292341
>implying people from neighbouring didn't willingly abort their children because they feared radiation would cause them to mutate
There's about 3000 deaths.
>>54291118
Only reactor said to be Gen4 is the one China is still building. Unfortunatly I can't seem to find an article. However I remember it being mentioned that it shouldn't be called a 4th Gen but instead a 3.5 since it isn't nearly as effective.
>>54292318
I really did like him
>>54292437
>and a fucking memorial to heroes of chernobyl in like every city
Look, this brave man is trying to fix the cracking atom with his bare hands while neutrons and alecrons are flying everywhere/
>>54292425
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
pls read
>>54292417
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam
>ruffly 2000 death
btw the dam is still standing and is still one of the highest dam in the world
>>54292483
Also this one.
>>54292236
>#NOTALLNUCLEARENERGY
>>54292236
Water reactors are still one of the safest and cleanest energy sources we have.
>>54292504
There's a fucking lot of them.
Soviets oficially reported 10% ded from 600 000 involved and rumor is there were more.
>live hundreds of thousands of years just fine with fire and muscle energy
>suddenly muh energy crisis
We have fossil fuels to thank for overpopulation and pollution, quite literally the two biggest issues facing mankind and creating this existential crisis.
Going forward we need to phase out fossil fuels completely. The future will be in total energy efficiency in all aspects of life. Our current way of life, our transportation, our industry, our tools are wasting ressources and need to be overhauled and automated away.
Nuclear fission is very nice but it's not coming back, you can stop dreaming. It's either fusion now or bust but even then we shouldn't need that much energy outside of big industry or space travel.
We produce too much noise and waste, we need to go quieter or the ayyliens will find us.
Nice bait fgt,
>only 12 confirmed.deaths from chernobyl
>kill yourself
>tfw rods can't.be cooled.and nuclear power plant is a waiting disaster
>>54292103
Because they were never pursued by the government. They don't produce weapons material, hence they were not useful in the 50's and 60's when the government was focused on the arms buildup.
>>54292521
>Soviets oficially reported
it's always the start of a lie
Actual data:
WHO -> 4000
Union of Concerned Scientists -> 27000
Greenpeace -> 10000-200000
>i'm not implying that Greenpeace is more super partes than the soviets
>>54292552
>We produce too much noise and waste, we need to go quieter or the ayyliens will find us.
Let's build a Dyson sphere, so they can't even sense our sun anymore.
>>54292417
Okay u win
>>54292567
>Greenpeace
kek
>>54292567
Why the fuck would the Sovjets inflate the death numbers?
>>54292620
what the fuck happned to that guy?
>>54292587
>lets build things that are impossible for [current year] humans
Okay.
>>54292567
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators
>According to Vyacheslav Grishin of the Chernobyl Union, the main organization of liquidators, "25,000 of the Russian liquidators are dead and 70,000 disabled, about the same in Ukraine, and 10,000 dead in Belarus and 25,000 disabled", which makes a total of 60,000 dead (10% of the 600 000, liquidators) and 165,000 disabled.[6]
>>54292636
Mind your own business smooth skin
>>54292636
addicted to pot cigarettes
>>54292636
he got the succ
>>54292650
Ivanov et al. (2001) [8] studied nearly 66,000 liquidators from Russia, and found no increase in overall mortality from cancer or non-cancer causes. However, a statistically significant dose-related excess mortality risk was found for both cancer and heart disease.
Rahu et al. (2006) [9] studied some 10,000 liquidators from Latvia and Estonia and found no significant increase in overall cancer rate. Among specific cancer types, statistically significant increases in both thyroid and brain cancer were found, although the authors believe these may have been the result of better cancer screening among liquidators (for thyroid cancer) or a random result (for brain cancer) because of the very low overall incidence.
How does it feel to cherrypick?
>>54290515
I blame feminists. if women didn't have the right to vote we could legalize nuclear
>>54292636
He was exposed to a short, extremely lethal dose of radiation which literally killed all of his skin, and it fell off.
>>54292740
>it fell off.
over the course of 3 months
>>54292636
ate some delicious imported dried mangoes
>>54290537
Reprocessing solves most of this
guys you probably have radon in your homes
ventilate more
> be terrorist in Belgium
> rent helicopter or buy a couple DJI drones
> build some explosives with ultra magic goat fucking tricks
> dump them in the cooling tower
> nobody can stop you
> cooling shut down
> BOOM!
> radioactive dust fucks entire europe
Muh nuclear power is safe.
>>54293096
It's easier to bomb a dam then to do your batshit theory which wouldn't even work
>>54293096
>> rent helicopter
lol
>>54293096
>start with this plan
>on helicopter with my jihad bro's
>almost there
>here_we_go.jpg
>Abu Hajaar forgot to bring the explosives
>>54293096
>implying nuclear reactors don't shutdown when they detect cooling system failure
>>54293236
It would.
Some organization already went over the plants with a parachute so why wouldn't they be able to drop a bomb.
>>54293329
Nuclear reactions can't be stopted instantly.
>>54292643
Not impossible, just highly impractical.
>>54293350
Read up about control rods, nigga.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rod
>In most reactor designs, as a safety measure, control rods are attached to the lifting machinery by electromagnets, rather than direct mechanical linkage. This means that in the event of power failure, or if manually invoked due to failure of the lifting machinery, the control rods fall automatically, under gravity, all the way into the pile to stop the reaction.
>>54291346
fuck the environment.
seriously/
>>54293423
Rekt
>Lmao u plebs can't into cold fusion reactors
Patrician tier.
>>54293096
there are so many failsafes and backup features in place that it wouldn't do shit, also control rods exist
not to mention the reactor itself can generally take a direct hit from an airliner and leave unharmed
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3cd_1383772851
Where was the international outcry against wind farms when this happened?
>>54290515
Fine, we'll build a Nuclear power plant right next to your home first.
>>54293489
gross
>>54290989
You pleb you have a giant fan that blows onto the wind farm turbines and then it power the big fan. You never run out
>>54293506
>>54293315
>Brings bomb for people instead of nuclear reactor
what is wrong with you abu hajaar
>>54290989
>Batteries can't handle it.
They can.
>>54293506
this is all types of wrong that it might just work
>>54290515
>hydroelectric is fucking stupid
keked so hard
>>54293506
Jesus Christ
>>54290515
>not LFTR
get out
>>54292691
I just hate that greens are anti nuclear. As a partial environmentalist, nuclear seems like the cleanest and safest way to generate power.
Actually, I read somewhere that a problem with nuclear plants is that they generate too much power for the grid at low usage times. Is this true?Have I been bamboozled?
>>54292181
>more people died building the container and BTFOing the tards than from radiation
so sad.
>>54293577
It's stupid if it sacrificed an entire biosphere in the name of energy.
3 gorges dam and Itaipu dam are 2 of the biggest modern engineering marvel, but at the cost of losing millions of acres of forest and other wildlife. It's stupid and politically motivated
>>54292421
alll the flavors of nuclear energy
>and you chose to be salty
>>54292442
>10 minutes of exposure during the Chernobyl meltdown is the equivalent of eating 500 million bananas
>if you eat 80 million bananas you will get a lethal dose of radiation
neat
>>54290920
>>54291014
>>54293577
I'll just leave this here
>>54292552
overpopulation is a myth mate.
pop will likely stabilize arounf 10 bil. without catastrophe
its like you cant into malthus or economics
>>54293730
Itaipu at least tries to look beautiful.
Tree Gorges looks bland, and like a fucking wall.
>>54293774
The problem is that we need to save our petrochemicals for food production. Burning them for cars is pretty wasteful.
>>54293743
lol. did NaK reactors get anywhere Flouride cant get us?
>>54293713
That example is awful
Men get fucked on child support all the time
>>54292740
Except he doesn't, he was burnt alive
>>54291448
It only requires vast amounts because the optimum efficiency of solar panels is about 20% at best right now. If we could bump them up to about 80% we could reduce the sizes of solar farms to about 1/4 of what we need now.
