What does /pol/ think about nuclear energy?
>>74712226
The energy of the future that is already here.
>>74712226
It's perfectly fine. Especially the current generation ones.
Just don't put them on a fault line. Or, if you have to, spend the money and secure it real fucking well.
>>74712289
Nothing more to add here. Only retards don't support nuclear energy
>>74712289
FPBP
>>74712289
>already here
Once we figure out fusion, maybe. Until then, fission is pretty shit
i hate my country
we're fucking retards brainwashed by the coal industry into thinking nuclear power is the boogeyman and that the waste will melt your skin off somehow
Very dangerous and dirty. The smoke that shoots out pollutes the atmosphere (which in no way minimizes the impact of fossil fuels that burning oil releases).
Humans should move on from that and focus on solar and wind energy - both of which are 100% clean and safe, which is why Big Oil and Big Uranium doesn't like them.
Look at 3 mile island, look at Chernobyl, look at Japan. Millions of deaths and areas rendered unusable for millions of years. Also people who live in near nuke plants get tons of cancer and their kids are mutated.
>>74712226
It's awesome, and it's a pity we aren't powered by it because of a non-accident decades ago.
Yep. Any day now. That evil Fukushima radiation will start killing people.
Any week now, we'll be dropping like flies.
Yep. Give it another five years or so.
Aaaany century now.
>>74712226
its all good if the power plant is up to date.
>>74712226
>>74712289
>>74712318
No one is paid to shill for Hillary. It is a lie perpetrated by Republican think tanks to sway people
>>74712226
We will need the boundless energy at the heart of the atom if we ever wish to free our civilization from its present hyper-cucked state.
>>74712478
Radioactive bait
>>74712478
Good joke
Nuclear energy is best energy, only the misinformed and unintelligent appose it.
>>74712651
More people were killed due to the stress of evacuating towns around Fukushima than would have died of cancer if they'd stayed. Old people in particular have had something like 10x mortality rate due to being evacuated from their homes.
Everything in our civilization revolves around Nuclear energy. Those who do not have access to it or the means to acquire it are dead end civilizations and cultures. Your only hope is that your best people end up moving to where it's at so continue your culture so you might be remembered. It's shameful that there are elements in our society who seek to remove or cripple one of the pillars of our progress and way of life. They need to purged.
>>74712226
god gave us a free nuclear energy source that will be around for 2 billion years.
People who say "m-muh waste, m-muh toxis waste!" are retards. There are currently several disposal methods which are currently being developed using tungsten alloys that will drive the radioactive material deep into the mantle where it can dessicate properly. Until then all we have to do is store that shit in a lead vault somewhere remote in New Mexico.
That being said, thorium reactors>>>>>jewclear reactors
>>74712478
>both of which are 100% clean and safe
Producing the panels, turbines, and the lithium batteries neccesary for this has a rediculously high CO2 profile and produces a fuckton of other waste. You have no clue what you're talking about.
>>74712226
Wish my country wasn't so fucking small and irrelevant that a nuclear plant would be feasible
>>74713331
>Producing the panels, turbines, and the lithium batteries neccesary for this has a rediculously high CO2 profile and produces a fuckton of other waste. You have no clue what you're talking about.
That's a point people seem to miss in this whole "Green" energy muh government climate change fad.
>>74713331
>fuckton of other waste
None of it is as dangerous as spent radioactive waste they have to bury miles underneath the ground - destroying water beds and crops and just irradiating the earth in general.
Shit we breathe CO2 what's a tiny bit more for 100% free solar power? I'd rather have CO2 than the shit the KGB uses to poison people to death under my house
>>74712226
Good. I would like to see a new nuclear power plant built here, lefty econutjobs would explode in anger.
>>74712289
>>74712318
>>74712342
>>74712382
>>74712436
>>74712586
Several severe problems are with nuclear energy
Mining uranium is dirty as fuck
Building plants to process the uranium is expensive
Building the plants to utilize the uranium is expensive
Nuclear waste from everything before this requires huge amounts of shielded storage space
Coal is cheaper
>>74713485
>Wish my country wasn't so fucking small and irrelevant that a nuclear plant would be feasible
Hyper-federalist states or small independent city states is the optimal political arrangement. Singapore is an imprecise example with little political voice, but massive economic freedom and high levels of prosperity. City-states would be in constant competition for minds and business and risk losing economically valuable citizens and businesses if poorly run since they can easily relocate. This creates an incentive to remain economically and socially free.
Singapore is fine.
>>74712478
kys
>>74712382
I'm pretty sure we will need a gravity well for that.
>>74712226
ITS PRONOUNCED "NUCLEAR" BITCH NIGGA
>>74712478
>areas rendered unusable for millions of years
you mean like Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
>>74713681
>implying you need uranium for fusion
>implying fusion waste stays radioactive for an appreciable amount of time
>>74713577
yep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17xh_VRrnMU
>>74713584
>>74713681
What are breeder reactors?
>>74713879
Those were nuclear bombs, but if Chernobyl proved anything it was that nuclear plants are just nuclear bombs with a slower release over time until they explode
>>74713584
>irradiating the earth in general.
Kek what do you think keeps the core and mantle molten? Radioactivity is everywhere
>>74714000
>Radioactivity is everywhere
There's water everywhere too. Does that mean I can drown you because it's raining outside?
>>74713681
it is indeed the most expensive by a large margin but money does not matter in a case where the only question is can it be done
no other technology can satisfy the energy demands of the modern world. Doing the same with coal oil or gas will turn this planet into an abomination + the pollution is irresponsible already
nuclear is not really good, and if we were just 1 or 2 billion on this planet we could do with fossil fuels
however I believe I heard, that nuclear energy will not last too long since uranium is rare and there will not be enough for centuries of nuclear energy
anyone confirm/deny?
>>74712226
Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukishima.
>>74713992
actually what Chernobyl and Fukushima proved is that nuclear plants just like any other energy production facility in the world are only as safe as the monkeys operating them. both would have been non-events had the stupid fucks used the built-in protection/shutdown systems
>>74713752
are you saying that we need an extreme amount of pressure like in the sun in order to produce similar results, and that a gravity well is the only thing that can do that?
>>74714189
thorium and breeder reactors bitch
>>74714189
Just use thorium
>>74714278
>three mile island
Wow so many people died from that, right?
>>74714189
>however I believe I heard, that nuclear energy will not last too long since uranium is rare and there will not be enough for centuries of nuclear energy
>anyone confirm/deny?
If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.
>>74714122
Most of these heavy elements decay in a fashion where the particles can't penetrate your skin.
>>74714365
Dunno. He only asked what I thought, not if I knew anything about them.
>>74712226
Only practical power source for grid base loads. modern designs cannot melt down, and until we have either Nuclear Fusion or an Orbital Power Plant of some sort, humanity doesn't have a ton of options
>>74714382
>economically accessible
Note that part specifically. Keep in mind fracking and other methods that opened a whole new boom in fossil fuels.
>>74714398
So? Most people don't care about particles because the particles you can see and just walk around them. Most people are worried about the invisible death rays that constantly and randomly shoot out of nuclear plants and radioactive materials.
>>74714278
>chernobyl
Was pushed way beyond its capabilities, pretty sure the automated shutdown system was disabled
>fukishima
Built in a retarded spot, flood walls weren't even regulation height etc.
Forget about the last one
>>74714341
Otherwise, we're spending too much energy just to get the reaction started. Use a gravity well to gather that energy for us, then set off the reaction which we know how to harness.
>>74714278
Kill yourself luddite. Every technology in existence has the potential to harm people or the environment, why don't you go compare the millions poisoned by fossil fuels to the 4,000 deaths that can even be directly attributed to radiation from a nuclear meltdown.
>>74714583
Maybe someday we'll abe able to harness gravitational energy by itself, and cut out the middleman.
Nuclear power is great when managed properly
when handled by slavs and other third-worlders you get chernobyl
>>74714421
>Within hours of the accident, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began daily sampling of the environment at the three stations closest to the plant. Continuous monitoring at 11 stations was not established until April 1, and was not expanded to 31 stations until April 3. An inter-agency analysis concluded that the accident did not raise radioactivity far enough above background levels to cause even one additional cancer death among the people in the area, but measures of beta radiation were not included. The EPA found no contamination in water, soil, sediment or plant samples.[40]
>>74714382
looks like just barely enough time
consider that this is a significant portion of mineable uranium of a whole damn planet. Hundreds of millions of years, gone in a few hundred.
pretty questionable
>>74714278
This is always curious, labeling atomic power as dangerous.
If the metric we're using is how many people die because of said energy, you may want to look up how many people die each year from fossil fuels.
I work in the industry, and several plants are closing up shop because they can't compete with cheap natural gas energy these days. It's kind of sad, but maybe the next generation will not be so prohibitively expensive. I think that it will end up being the main source of power like 200 years from now.
>>74712226
nuclear energy ain't gonna build that wall, pedro.
we need 100% taco power!
>>74714868
Note it says economically accessible. It's quite possible or likely we'll have something akin to fracking or something else. Fracking created a literal boom in fossil fuels and the whole peak oil myth was blown out of the water.
>>74713681
>Mining uranium is dirty as fuck
No more than mining other heavy metals
>Building plants to process the uranium is expensive
>Building the plants to utilize the uranium is expensive
Legitimate points, but these problems will go away if we can get proper funding for developing fourth generation reactors and remove some of the government red tape associated with building new reactors. Capital costs could be reduced tenfold with proper investment and policy changes, and then all you have left to deal with are retarded soccer mom NIMBYS.
>Nuclear waste from everything before this requires huge amounts of shielded storage space
The technology to economically reprocess nuclear waste is already here. China and India are constructing facilities that can do just that, it is the West that refuses to invest in waste reprocessing and stores highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel in vulnerable on-site storage facilities.
>>74715026
>Note it says economically accessible
I said mineable, I noticed. It still doesnt feel right to burn what was created in epic timespans, in a few hundred years. Tells me that modern technology and its demands are irresponsible to sustain.
>>74713681
>Mining coal is much better
It's actually associated with more deaths, and more material is needed to be mined.
>Building plants to process the uranium is expensive
>Building the plants to utilize the uranium is expensive
Yes but maintenance is fairly stable in terms of price and we know when nuclear power plants are able to break
>Coal is cheaper
I'm not shitting on coal outright, but we coal is less environmentally sound and causes a greater number of negative externalities.
>>74715208
>It still doesnt feel right to burn what was created in epic timespans, in a few hundred years.
There are underground coal deposits that light themselves on fire and the burn (see: smolder) for thousands of years at a time.
>>74715208
>I said mineable, I noticed. It still doesnt feel right to burn what was created in epic timespans, in a few hundred years. Tells me that modern technology and its demands are irresponsible to sustain.
Nature already does it on it's own.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/181620-2-billion-year-old-african-nuclear-reactor-proves-that-mother-nature-still-has-a-few-tricks-up-her-sleeve
>>74714189
Uranium won't last long, but there is more than enough thorium on the planet to last us for millenia
You're using outdated technology to run these nuclear plants, I'm sure that if the gov pushed it, we could see more efficient designs and methods to harvest the energy.
>>74714868
>pretty questionable
That's because we don't use the uranium efficiently.
A standard light water reactor is about 0.03% effective in using it's fuel. 99.97% of the fuel is removed unused and stored as waste.
A breeder reactor has a usage rate of 99%+
That's using our current spent uranium as fuel, without the need to mine another gram of uranium.
But that's not even the best solution. Thorium which is a byproduct of our electronics industries can also be used in breeder reactors. For which the total energy use of the world can be met from the waste of a single rare earth mine. It's common enough in standard dirt and rocks that you could pull a usable amount of thorium from any random cubic meter of earth.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a8914/why-dont-we-have-fusion-power-15480435/
the record we have today in terms of fusion power output is 65%, and that was in 1997.
>>74712226
My grandfather worked for the Colorado atomic commission. or whatever the Colorado electric atomic people were. he was trying to convince them about some Helium cooled reactor. And they asked what happens if the helium doesn't float in the case of having to release it? he couldn't believe people could question helium floating.
Nuclear fission in the US sucks for two reasons
1) Jimmy Carter
2) environmental whackos
Coal literally kills more people every year than have died in all nuclear accidents combined.
You get more radiation from taking a high altitude commercial airplane flight than you do from a lifetime of living next door to a fission plant.
Most people are just fantastically stupid about radiation. Most news reporting about it is sensationalized garbage.
"OMG WE COULD DETECT FUKUSHIMA RADIATION IN CALIFORNIA!!"
(yes, because detection equipment is amazing)
The US has tremendous untapped uranium available. Uranium mines in New Mexico shut down because they were uneconomical to run. The demand for Uranium dried up because that was during peak anti-nuclear hysteria, and the government regulations on mining made mining way more expensive.
The Chernobyl RBMK reactor was literally Nigger Tier bullshit. However, one clever thing they did - they could run off relatively unenriched u238 rods. US stuff is all about hyper enriched U235...
but as others have said, Thorium and other elements with appropriate decay series are also viable choices.
Nothing can compete with nuclear. There is a reason almost all US naval carriers and subs use nuclear. More power, refuel only once per few years, etc. The machines now outlast the humans.
The old version was better. The new artstyle is lame and most of the changes made the map worse
>>74712478
>smoke that pours out
lol'd hard, not sure if bait or product of american educational system
>>74712289
/thread
>>74712289
>>74712342
Depending on the grade of ore, the total life cycle carbon emissions are higher than fossil fuels. And fissile Uranium is a quickly dwindling resource if you talk about economically viable discoveries.
>>74718154
source on uranium scarcity possibility? That is pretty scary
If we can find a way to make batteries out of nuclear waste we would solve the main problem. The amount of energy it could store would be perfect for space travel.
Only reliable baseload source that can supplement renewables. Reprocess spent fuel for the win
>>74712289
>>74712318
>>74712342
>>74712377
>YES GOYIM, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE WASTE PROBLEM OR THE CONSTANT LEAKS OF TRITIUM AND OTHER DANGEROUS ISOTOPES
>OY VEY! DON'T LOOK AT A MAP OF FAULT LINES!
>>74712226
Pays the bills
>>74712226
>>74718304
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
You don't need to know much about nuclear energy to know that we need renewable fuels or we're all going to die. So, efficiency may be an issue and it's massively expensive, but it could be the pathway to a future energy source that is efficient, cheaper, and moreover effective for the ongoing energy crisis.
>opinionfag
>>74712226
Disappointed that it's 2016 and we still don't have Molten Salt LTRs yet.
>>74712226
Too expensive.
Better alternatives.
Takes, like, ten years to build and check and regulate.
Needs a stable ~50 year economic return or no investment.
Needs to be manned its whole lifetime.
Nuclear waste must be managed for THOUSANDS OF YEARS - bad investment.
"Too toxic to use".
