Why don't leftists like nuclear energy? It's the best combination of efficiency, affordability, and cleanliness.
>>76198785
They are too retarded to understand nuclear waste management and unironically believe in those memes where a radioactive waste unit immediately destroys half the planet.
>>76198785
Propaganda from the oil barons and the war profiteers. This is not a particularly leftist thing I'd say, but they always have been the most influenceable.
>>76198785
Chernobyl. That shit's still in our moss.
>>76198785
People on the left are more pro-nuclear
Chernobyl.
I'm not a libtard, but...
3 Mile Island
Chernobyl
2011 Japanese earthquake.
This shit isn't like some oil spill, that can be cleaned up fairly quickly, to minimize environmental impact.
It's taken Russia 30 years to start capping the exposed core.
>>76198785
They don't understand how it works and think that it's super sensitive and will fail at the drop of a hat.
And that even if it doesn't, that the waste will POISON EVERYONE 5 EVER.
I've met people who think that depleted uranium rounds should be a war crime because of the radioactivity. Of DEPLETED uranium. (which is jacketed anyway)
>>76199239
3/444 safest power source.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-solar-plant-fire-20160520-snap-story.html
lel
>>76198785
explain fukushima pls
>>76198785
I actually studied nuclear power. I went on a TYT video on Donald trumps energy policies, tried to educate libtards, but to no avail. They're brain dead and think uranium kills you instantly or radioactive waste is worse than Hitler.
>>76198785
Leftists are not very smart
>>76199239
>3 Mile Island
People did their job, and the tertiary safety mechanisms kicked in. No leak occurred.
>Chernobyl
An ancient facility that should have already been decommissioned. The meltdown was caused by outright negligence when reactor workers failed to maintain the emergency diesel generators.
>Fukishima
That shit was hit by a large earthquake AND a tsunami, and only resulted in a minor leak that has caused 0 deaths to date. If anything it should be a poster-child for how safe modern nuclear reactor design is.
>>76199533
It is unsafe, but the failure rate is very, very low. In addition, new technologies to prevent these meltdowns are being continually developed. Chernobyl was old as fuck, run by tards, and 2011 was A FUCKING EARTHQUAKE, not exactly preventable. And whoever built that reactor so close to shore is a retard. In short, nuclear power is he most clean, more or less viable source of energy. If we put more funding into it rather than let libertards fund shit like Chevron we'd probably not have these meltdowns.
>>76199098
>Propaganda from the oil barons and the war profiteers
this and "green tech" types as well
I'm what you guys would consider a leftie and I fully support nuclear energy. I happened to have majored in physics and currently doing my phd in engineering. You're confusion "lefties" with liberals.
>>76199161
>>76199196
>>76199239
>>76199730
So far it still is the safest power source IIUC.
But the thing is, development of next generation nuclear plants was halted. If we were to have a lot more of them, they should be safer than what we have now because accidents become more likely. But never plants would be A LOT safer and there should be ways to reprocess the wastes as well.
China is probably going to do it soon enough though. The US could have had it a long time ago (if it didn't chose to fuck up the middle east for its oil instead), and yet China is going to beat you to it.
>>76199161
>chernobyl
that wasn't nuclear power for civilian use. it was an engineered nuclear meltdown
>>76198785
>affordability
Yeah it's actually not. Building new Nuclear plants is really expensive.
Personally I wish we would, but it has a bad ROI so no one really wants to do it. This is the biggest reason we aren't seeing more of them.
>>76199730
had to get hit with multiple natural disasters and STILL shit was alright
>>76200355
>So far it still is the safest power source IIUC.
what about hydroelectric or passive solar
>>76200309
>imblying they're not the same people
>>76199730
That was a gas explosion.
That occurred during an tsunami.
Another nuclear power station was closer, but untouched because it had better levees surrounding it.
>>76199730
New generation nuclear plants are immune to meltdowns. If you can get those kind of plants running, the risks associated with it, especially if it is in a location where earthquakes and other natural disaster are seldom, can be a very clean and efficient way to generate electricity.
Because if something goes wrong, shit hits the fan.
And things always go wrong eventually.
>>76200444
Hello extra flag man with nice trips to go along.
>>76200444
Building it is expensive, the power is not. The amount of money saved overall by the reactor dwarfs the constructions costs, even in the first years of operation. You save money on environmental protection, get cheaper power, etc.
>Not accepting nuclear fusion energy as your true lord and savior.
>>76200446
If there is one thing tht is better than nuclear power is hydroelectricity. But don't believe for a second that hydroelectricity is good for the environment. It has an impact on marine wildlife and floods the regions surrounding it.
>>76200444
>Building new Nuclear plants is really expensive.
building regulatory-compliant reactors is expensive. breeder reactors when?
>>76200446
unit energy/deaths, nuclear is still safer than hydro
dat delta P tho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEtbFm_CjE0
Because if it has the word nuclear in it sjws think it is bad
>nuclear weapons
>nuclear deterrence
>nuclear energy
>nuclear family
Etc
>>76199239
Russia being retarded is not an argument against nuclear
The only good argument is that it is often expensive
Maybe micro nuclear reactor will help in this regard
>>76200656
I don't disagree, I'm just saying that is the argument on why nobody want's to do it. Most don't think they could recoup costs so quickly.
>>76200762
Libertards don't allow enough funding for it. Otherwise we would have had it decades ago.
>>76200778
true, I only took offense to the safety bit
but fuck fish and geese anyway
>>76200351
Oh, please, those are almost meaningless terms at this point. They mean the same thing to most people on this board anyway.
I'm solidly liberal, and OF COURSE I'm in favor of nuclear power. Plenty of my liberal-leaning peers are as well. We should've fully hopped on this train decades ago instead of half-assedly waffling about it.
Nuclear power sure isn't perfect but it's about a billion times better than what we're doing now.
>>76200631
Hello Scotland.
>>76200656
>You save money on environmental protection, get cheaper power, etc.
i didn't even think of that.
no loss of habitat that you get with hydro (flooding) and solar (dirty production)
no burning, noisy wind turbines
no carcinogen-releasing coal
you just have to burn the nuke fuel and bury it in a secure place underground.
it's actually the smallest environmental impact, saving the most in terms of environmental protection/cleaning up byproducts
Not a leftist and still hate nuclear energy.
>>76201040
It's always surprising to see a leftist on this board.
I'm glad to hear it and we might even need some government incentives for new plants to be built. I'd like for that to be a bi-partisan issue, would fully support it.
Navyfag here, nuclear reactor operator on a carrier.
Nuclear power is objectively better than anything else. Big Oil spends billions on anti-nuclear propoganda to scare people into hating it, which is easy because 95% of the population only knows what they've seen in some movies.
3 mile island and Japan were examples of safe and controllable it is and haven't resulted in any deaths.
Chernobyl was caused by old shitty equipment and Russians retarted reactor design. They used liquid sodium as their primary coolant, which has a reactivity quotient greater than one. They were asking for thermal runaway.
The fact is, the US already has a huge number of reactor plants, they're so safe people don't know they're there because they've never even come close to an incident.
>terrorists/refugees
>muh chernobyl fukushima/nuclear power plant
Not all nuke plant
Because at their core leftists are greedy fucks than even conservatives. They use an appeal to morality as if it justifies being inefficient hedonistic twats. The right usually plays a short game with long term goals, while the left usually plays a long game with short term goals.
This makes the left much easier to corrupt and slip Jews into. While the right has its handful of Jews too, they don't get away with as much and have to work as a team with left-Jews to get anywhere.
Nuclear energy would destroy the energy market, even if it only replaced coal plants and nothing else.
>>76200778
Problem with hydro is that you need a large water source.
>>76201324
>Big Oil
When is oil used for generating Power?
You dumb fuck
>>76200424
Source?
>>76201324
>The fact is, the US already has a huge number of reactor plants
other than three mile island, no incidents to report at all.
many of the reactors in the US are first generation designs.
>no incidents with old designs
>improved designs have been developed since
but nuclear is still seen as dangerous
>>76200002
>chernobyl
>An ancient facility that should have already been decommissioned. The meltdown was caused by outright negligence when reactor workers failed to maintain the emergency diesel generators.
I've heard some rumors within the field that the issue was caused by...for lack of a better term...overclocking their reactor.
It failed.
As for the emergency diesel generators, don't for a second think the diesel generators in the US get any more attention.
I'm working at a nuke plant in the US right now, 86 fucking hours this week.
The unions are crippling profit.
The incompetency is unreal, and I've worked with nationalized oil in Mexico and Chad.
>>76198785
Jews want to be able to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons to prevent any threats to greater Israel. They first have to disarm the rest of the world.
It's easy to go from nuclear energy to nuclear weapons ... and that's why jews don't like nuclear energy.
>>76198785
They do, especially in this country.
>>76198785
I hear fantastic things about the advanced CANDU reactors and LFTRs.
Last I heard, the former isn't widely available because the features that make it safe also make it a proliferation risk and the later was never adopted because it isn't useful for making nuclear weapons in the first place.
I'm sure I'm a few years behind on both technologies so I might be completely wrong now.
>>76201568
no source that says specifically that, just my opinion based on the research I've done.
start with wiki, there's plenty of info there.
>>76200989
No we wouldn't, we don't have the scientific knowledge to sustain the reaction without wasting massive amounts of energy to keep it going. In its current state its inefficient.
It IS the best though if we can get it to work. Far higher power output than nuclear fission, hyperactivity and thermal runaway are both impossible, only byproduct is water and helium, etc...
>>76201711
Boondoggles.
>>76198785
Misconceptions about how much radioactive waste it generates. They imagine massive facilities filled to the brim with leaky drums of the stuff.
Another, more troubling theory I have is that it offers energy that's emission free as well as beneficial to our economy. They don't want this, they want western economies to fail completely because they want to be the ones to push "reset". I know it sounds paranoid, but every social "science" student I've talked to has done nothing but prattle on about how western society needs to be torn down and totally rebuilt from the ground up (I wish I had proof like a recording or something, it would basically be"/pol/ was right again: the conversation").
>>76201769
>>76200989
we're making progress on the tokamak and stellarator designs. they're slowly figuring out the issues and i think we'll be at parity within a decade for energy in vs. energy out.
>>76201533
Electric cars (or affordable electric energy storage) are just around the corner, if you can power cars nuclear this would be a huge loss for the oil industry.
>>76198785
A mixture of Green populism [even if it's irrational] and semi-rational "don't touch the hot stove again"-ism.
The problem with Nuclear is that we got ahead of ourselves early on, leading to over promising and under-delivering with stupid and dangerous reactor designs*. Now that we're beyond that the moment has passed because such decisions handed greenpeace types arguments on a plate, and even if they're mostly inaccurate ones accuracy comes second in politics.
*Yes, they've done better than coal. No, that doesn't excuse how insanely stupid some of the decisions made were. "Oh, we can't prove the safety system will work... but we can't prove it WON'T work, so it's fine!"
Large segments of the right also tend to keep relatively quiet about nuclear even when they're in favour of it because they know the public tend to be very NIMBY about it even when apathetic to it on a national level.
>>76201608
The fuck you going on about. Jews are the ones behind nuclear energy and are trying to get more nuke plants built everywhere.
>>76201533
It's not just power, nuclear power directly competes with oil in almost every field and application, the one they're most afraid of is cars. The day we perfect micro reactors and stick one under the hood of a car is the day every oil baron goes bankrupt.
>>76202347
Or at least when the majority of cars start using electricity, thus larger quantities of it are required.
>>76201165
Fusion reactors are even better, but the libtards wrecked the funding for its development. Fusion produces no nuclear waste, only alpha particles at the worst (basically weird helium).
>>76202645
Shit, made this reply without looking at the rest of the thread.
>>76198785
> It's the best combination of efficiency, affordability, and cleanliness.
That's why
>>76198785
Because leftists caused chernobyl and needed to blame it on someone else
>>76199098
>>76200480
This.
Oil/Gas/Coal companies have funded anti-nuclear and pro-wind/solar campaigns, they tricked all the hippies into being scared of nuclear in the 70's and 80's.
They know nuclear would put them out of business, but wind/solar will always have to rely on fossil fuel plants for backup when it's cloudy or not windy.
Don't worry, we have plenty of scientists working on this issue right now. I'm talking about molten salt reactors.
If 'merica doesn't get around to making LFTR first, then china will end up with a working MSR. The chinese government is spending hundreds of millions on RnD for MSR and LFTR related technologies. It's exciting.
I predict that renewables will be too slow to implement in a sustainable manner and will force the hand of nuclear to give our energy production a big boost.
As for the reason why so many people are afraid of nuclear, just look at history, people have been indoctrinated since primary school to be disinterested and scared of nuclear power.
The negative connotations that nuclear brings caused by america dropping two bombs and also the mass media hysteria about all things radioactive and nuclear.
There's also the entertainment industry. The Simpsons are a good example, all you see is homer simpson working at a nuke plant that is depicted as a very dirty form of energy (green slime for "radioactive waste" etc etc)
Then there are video games like half life, where they use the same meme of green scary and fatal slime for radioactive waste. And plenty of other HUGE hitters like fallout series and metro games that leave a lasting impression on young minds. Since most lefties are young people, you can see where the correlation is from.
I wonder how much are "The Simpsons" are to blame for the disdain of nuclear power? People think that nuclear wastes is green goo and that everything nuclear just glows green because of this show. Surely it affected their opinions. Are the jews behind the Simpsons?
>>76201292
It's doubly surprising to get a polite response when I admit to being a leftist on this board! Yeah, I'd really like to see more democrats get behind nuclear power -- there's really no reason for it to be a partisan issue.
>>76198785
Leftists and rightists alike don't like nuclear energy because they don't understand it.
It's much safer than most other forms of power, even hydroelectric generation.
>muh nuclear meltdowns
A single dam failure in China once killed over 170,000 people.
Can someone explain to me what cold fusion is and why it's so controversial?
>>76198785
because of the fallout meme.
the Fallout game series don't help that stance either.
>>76203577
That's just generic nuclear fusion but it's not inside a star. Right now we use fission reactors because fusion reactors aren't feasible with our current technology.
Fission breaks apart atoms to create energy, fusion fuses them together to create energy.
>>76198785
>leftists
>women's studies vs STEM
>>76203325
Holyshit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Brooks
>Jewish
I live in a shithole that tries to be all about green energy, we should just be nuked instead of getting nuclear energy.
>>76202253
Only for Pakistan, all part of the plan.
When Jordan tried to acquire nuclear power Israel moved to put a stop to it, in the end Jordan had to go with Russia because of that. They would have preferred a western partner.
Every problem with nuclear energy is fixed by switching the fuel to thorium.
>>76203577
It's fusion at room temperature. It's controversial because it's all hypothesis and a lot of experts think it's a waste of time and RnD bux. We should be focusing on making normal fusion efficient.
>>76203577
It's meme fusion that occurs at room temperature.
Because the actual motive of the "green movement" is to shit on western society and make it harder for us to be economically prosperous. It's a form of self-flagellation. Same reason why none of these greenfags give a shit about other non-western countries doing things 1000x worse than what we do. Kinda like how feminists only care about sexual assault when its white males, but no muslims.
Nuclear would actually *solve* the problem they purport while still allowing us to be economically viable. Can't have that.
>>76203577
Cold fusion is a hypothetical fusion event that occures when a specific material that accepts hydrogen isotopes within it's crystal structure changes in crystal structure and forces the hydrogen to fuse each other to form helium.
Think of it like putting hydrogen isotopes into a vice and then squeasing the vice tighter except you use the chemical electromagnetic force to squease these nuclie together to cause fusion and thus heat and radiation.
It's hypothetical because it has never been reproduced by other scientists and it is controversial because the setup is so easy to make and cheap to build so it sounded like a dream energy solution come true. You didn't need millions of degrees you just needed electrical current.
>>76203577
>>76203767
To expand, it's controversial because 'cold fusion' (i.e. nuclear fusion at relatively low temperatures, such that it could take place in reactors here on Earth) simply doesn't seem to be possible. Not "we don't know how to do it yet," but "with what we know now, it's just not a thing." So most research into cold fusion is pretty pseudoscientific.
>>76198785
Because it works. They want the third world: islands of high tech luxury surrounded by stone age favelas.
>>76199239
Total deaths from those accidents, less than 75.
There are other forms of fusion; 1 in particular is muon catalyzed fusion.
A muon is basically an electron but 250 times the electrons mass in electron volts. This makes the muon orbit far closer to the nucleus than a normal electron which means fusion is easier to achieve at far lower temperatures. It is a legit way to achieve net energy at low temperatures.
But of course, like everything, there's a catch, it is that whenever two hydrogen isotopes fuse, they form helium and this poisons the reaction because the muons then orbit around the helium instead. Halting the reaction.
There are two solutions: Invent a cheap way to make a shit ton of muons or solve the "alpha particle sticking" problem.
Alpha particles are just helium atoms without their electron shells.
>>76203183
>As for the reason why so many people are afraid of nuclear, just look at history, people have been indoctrinated since primary school to be disinterested and scared of nuclear power.
Yeah. It worked on me. I hated the idea of nuclear just because of the memes. I didn't really know anything about it but it didn't matter; the nuclear people were the bad guys to me.
We're using coal and bombing the brown people in the middle east instead. It's way worse. My understanding is that they voluntarily killed nuclear in the US with regulation to justify the interventionism in the world to secure access to the oil. But the primary purpose is to spread US influence and push for globalism.
>>76203783
kek.
ALWAYS!
>>76199196
>>76199161
who the fuck cares
>waaah cancer
grow up. people die.
>>76204228
This is a pretty gross & unfair simplification. There are a number of prominent climate scientists, for instance, who have publicly come out in favor of nuclear power (risking substantial damage to their reputations & careers -- since most scientists working in controversial fields prefer to deal in hard fact, i.e. 'anthropogenic climate change exists and we can prove it,' not 'anthropogenic climate change exists AND HERE'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO ABOUT IT.')
Nuclear is a dead-end tech from the 70's and early 80's. No one who is informed is considering nuclear anymore when more modern system exist.
>>76200002
>An ancient facility that should have already been decommissioned. The meltdown was caused by outright negligence when reactor workers failed to maintain the emergency diesel generators.
Chernobyl was a brand new facility at the time of it's accident. The diesel generators were fine. The accident was caused by a test to see if the generators could carry the plant operational load on inertia until the diesels were up to full power able to run the main coolant pumps.
The operators locked out the automated safety system and went forward with their test.
>>76205001
>solar
>modern
NUCULAR POWER IS POISONOUS
JUST LOOK AT ALL THE CHEMTRAILS COMING OUT OF THE CHEMTOWERS pic related
>>76205001
>more modern systems
Like?
>>76204988
Of course it's a simplification. I'm not talking about scientists and people who know what they're talking about. I'm talking about the general zeitgeist among the left.
Your typical Carl Cucks, granola girls, and other SJWs who stand on their environmental soapbox typically also shun nuclear.
>>76199239
expected reply
>3 mile island
late 70s, didn't result in any damage really. caused by human negligence, people are trained far better now.
>chernobyl
80s and soviet technology, they weren't exactly big on redundant safety systems, or safety in general. chernobyl was a horrible piece of engineering, like most soviet designs.
>fukushima
3 events coincided that individually would not have caused an accident - earthquake, flooding and operator negligence. if any one of those had not happened, it would not have led to an accident. and even then, the actual damage caused was not significant regardless of what the media would like you to believe. fukushima was also older than chernobyl and was about to be decommissioned.
the sad response to these concerns is that you need to have some knowledge of reactor design and safety procedures to understand just how much the industry has changed since the 80s - it has changed enormously, the accident that occured then could simply not occur today. of course, the average person has never been and never will be involved in the nuclear industry so they have no way of knowing this, all they have to go on is what the media tells them, which is usually a lot of cherrypicked "facts" and stories designed to spread fear, as that earns money for the media.
>>76201602
Contractor scum pieces of shit like you are what fucks up the plants.
>>76201324
which carrier?
There's an alternate method using irradiated salt or something that doesn't produce nuclear waste and is overall cheaper and less prone to the rare meltdown. Can't remember what it's called though. Why we arn't using that shit I don't know.
>>76205477
the number of nuclear plant built per year is shining to nothing. nuclear energy generated, in watt-hours, year over year is shrinking. that alone tells you its a dying industry. economically and industrially, nuclear is a disaster.
>like what
if you kept your ears to the ground, you wouldnt need to ask this question
>>76198785
its useful.
>>76205508
Fair enough, and thank you for the clarification, but I still take issue with this:
>Because the actual motive of the "green movement" is to shit on western society and make it harder for us to be economically prosperous.
"Your typical Carl Cucks, granola girls, and other SJWs" are usually motivated by genuine concern and a sense of responsibility, not malice. They shun nuclear power because they're ignorant, and ignore the environmental failings of third-world and developing countries because they're moral cowards, which are serious failings, but they're not intentionally or subconsciously trying to perform acts of cultural self-sabotage.
Actually, I'm not sure about that in re: SJWs, who can be a pretty nasty bunch, but in the main that's true.
>>76206010
jesus christ
only a spic would think heliostats work
pic related. it's your twitter
>>76205001
yes, let's concentrate all our energy supply in a select few areas where the sun shines brightest. that won't lead to a geopolitical nightmare at all.
idiot
>>76206264
Well, SOMEBODY'S doing the generating. and that person is certainly not nuclear.
>>76205777
>contractor scum
top kek.
>My company only built the steam turbines, >95% of the switchgear of all electrical components (non-instrumentational).
>oh, and provides 1500 gallons per minute of ultrapure water, 24 hours a day/7 days a week
Go back to your union faggot and keep telling yourself that they do anything other than keep you being fired for being retarded.
>>76198785
It has its place but unfortunately natural gas is crushing it and coal with renewables picking up the scraps.
>>76200916
>nuclear family
kek
>>76206499
>solar
>0.6%
>>76206470
Here is your answer
>>76206010
Learn common sense.
Capacity factor of nuclear=95%
Capacity factor of solar=30%
That means that while the day turns to night, a nuclear power plant will still be able to power industry and civilisation.
>Inb4 muh batteries
Ok sir, so now your solar PV and your batteris will cost you MORE energy than your solar PV cell will return on investment on the rated lifetime of 15 years.
>tfw spent 15k dollars on solar and batteries...still run out sometimes when it rains too much.
Let me make it clear, renewables rely on US to concentrate that difuse energy into a dense source of energy.
Nuclear on the other hand.. is already DENSE. A supernova somewhere in the galaxy already did the work for us.
Lastly, china is currently building 20 nuclear plants so i dunno why you're falling for the nuclear is dead meme.
Even so, it doesn't justify to NOT innovate in nuclear.
>>76207063
don't bother, he probably hasn't even heard of base load power before
>>76199860
stop posting fucking machines on /int/ we're on the same cellular carrier and you keep getting us banned. fucking degenerate kike from haifa
>>76198785
If you gave the left everything they wanted tomorrow, they'd return to hysteria within a week because of an entirely new list of perceived tragedies and inequities.
>>76207063
If we were living in the 90's you might be right. But energy storage costs have been going down for years and years.
When you add in the real economic costs of "not in my backyard" syndrome, nuclear is not viable. People simply dont want to live next to a nuclear plant. Even in France, who's government might be the most pro-nuclear in the world, less than 50% of people support new nuclear plants.
I was pro-nuclear back when I first formed my opinion on energy policy, in the 80's. Times have changed and other industries have, simply put, left nuclear behind.
>>76198785
If you like nuclear energy so much you should move to Fukushima.
>>76208179
Should people who like solar energy move to the sun?
>>76208313
No, they can just put solar panel up on their roof.
>>76208379
But there's even more solar energy on the sun.
>>76199239
>2011 Japanese earthquake.
Japan nuclear plant got hit by earthquake then tsunami... something that i've never witnessed in my own country and i should be afraid of this ???
>>76208491
Actually, there's more nuclear energy in the sun.
>>76208491
They would need subsidies to get there though.
>>76200002
>and only resulted in a minor leak
Bullshit. The radiation could be detected from fucking California!
>>76207063
by the way, AU is a perfect location for nuclear because of all the deserts. You can build plants that are in literally no one's backyard if you go central enough. I think AU is one of the few nations that can successfully navigate around not in my backyard.
Coincidentally, AU is also a fantastic location for solar power.
>>76198785
Shows that they're just as jewish controlled as the right.
>those retarded conservatives think that global warming doesn't exist. How ignorant!
>we should ban nulcear power because it's scary! Let's replace it with more coal and gas, it's better for the environment
