Why is nuclear energy so taboo nowadays? There has never been a major nuclear accident with modern nuclear reactors, yet so many people seem opposed to building new ones. Chernoble, Fukushima, chalk river, 3 mile Island were all reactors with early designs, and often were decades old. The new reactor designs such as CANDU all have great energency safety systems in place that make them nearly 100% meltdown proof. The local reactor in my town is of CANDU design and it has had 2 seperate cases of burst coolant pipes in the 80s and 90s, yet both times the emergency coolant system worked flawlessly to prevent a meltdown situation from occuring. So many people bitch about global warming, yet they do not support the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels that we currently possess. Solar and wind are still decades away from being realistic sources of energy, and fusion reactors probably won't be viable for another 30-50 years. Why is the public so against it?
>>69579252
Bump
>>69579252
Public opinion has been against it for decades and all new reactors have to be approved by governments, opinions shifting though. Also a a bunch of new Nuke reactors would drive the drive of electricity and oil down, the big Energy companies dont want that.
The fear angle is kinda valid, they're low risk in statistical terms, but the price of a fuckup can get very high very fast, the Japan mess basically fucked an entire urban area. SO far a majority of people would rather pay more than take the risk. An then there's the whole terrorist angle, If Allah is Snackbar just once inside a reactor complex shit could get very ugly, Something liek happen you can kiss nuke reactors goodbye for another 50 years.
Stable Fusion when?
>>69581040
>Stable Fusion when?
Most stable timeline ever: in 20 years.
Rollan 4 nam
>>69579252
"Nuclear"=scary.
I work in the nuclear industry and everything is so proceduralized in modern plants you can't sneeze without getting approved paperwork first.
They're always scared of Big Atom, and hold out for solar nd wind to save the world. It's the biggest glaring whole in environmentalist energy future logic and one I have to fight everyday with my conservationist colleagues. It is fear and ignorance, as always
>>69579252
Because people associate nuke plants with nuke bombs. They think that if one fails there will be a nuclear explosion, killing everyone around it, whereas in reality Chernobyl is pretty much the worst-case scenario. People don't know just how safe they are; because progtards have been pushing the uncertainty principle so hard any danger is too much, and people think all radiation is super-dangerous always. Thus, hippies have made is so there has to be pretty much no danger whatsoever - not just to people, but to the environment as well - and proving that is quite expensive and time-consuming.
>>69579252
It's on the rise here. We are gonna to build pants in Turkey, Finland, Vietnam, Jordan, modernize one in Hungary and also we are building like half pf dozen new ones in Russia itself.
>>69579252
>Austin Gray
Seen flag, read that as Autism Gay
>>69579252
>fukushima
>still shooting radioactive waste into the ocean and atmosphere
You know, you nuclear faggots resonate, funnily enough weedfaggots
>it's statistically safe guys
>all those negative effects don't matter cause of reasons guys
>pls stop referring to fuck-ups, not all of us are breakdowns like that, most of us are stable and functional
>totally wont cause cancer if used correctly
And for how long have I kept hearing that solar and wind arent viable jet? For a couple of decades? And if wind isn't viable, why the fuck do I see a windmill across the bay every time I walk the doge? Our local friendly energy company built it there cause they just love wasting money?
Get fucked cancer shill.
People I work with are scared of "blowing themselves up" while running natural gas lines.
Can you really see people like that being okay with nuclear energy?
Also, check my name.
>>69582515
You guys pay like 10 times for for electricity than we do. That's the price of wind energy. Modern reactors are 100% safe and you will have a brand new russian one soon :^)
>>69582515
>Our local friendly energy company built it there cause they just love wasting money?
It's almost certainly subsidized, so the company isn't wasting money :^)
>>69579252
radiation is just scary
>>69582746
Upper are nuclear prices, below are wind. You sure told me faggot
>>69582746
Also im pretty sure they claimed Chernobyl as 100% safe at the time. Yes, it was a worst case scenario, hilariously caused by quality soviet engineering and vodka. You know what is worst case scenario with windmills? A loud crash.
>>69579252
Because there isn't an economically viable solution for decommissioning all the old reactors
>>69579252
Because I care about the environment AND more importantly, renewability. We may rely on a country for the nuclear material as much as we rely on the saudis for oil now.
>>69582515
Yeah I love paying shit tons for electricity you flipping cunt
>>69581795
Consider that being expose will get you cancer or end like Auchi
>>69579252
both oil people (right and left) and green energy people (the left) are against nuclear energy.
even tho it is the answer
>>69583549
Do you have separate power neteorks or what?
>>69584068
>You know what is worst case scenario with windmills? A loud crash.
And a bankrupt economy. They literally run on subsidies. Might as well burn banknotes for energy.
With ya OP, nuclear power is the only way we are even gonna enter a future era. They are way less dangerous than peope think and arr just misunderstood
Well let me ask you this
The city proposes a nuclear plant be built 20 miles from your house, would you like it?
>>69584068
The reason of Chernobyl events is well known and it is impossible with new reactors. And one nuclear plant produces energy like 1000 and more windmills.
Why is my name downs damnit
>>69584844
Yes. That's what we have with Petersburg btw.
>>69581795
What would you say the possibility of an armed squad of terrorists breaking into a reactor and causing enough damage to cause a nuclear disaster is?
There aren't typically any armed guards at reactors, are there?
>>69584754
One windmill out of 300 crashes
>welp there goes our economy
>1 old nuclear plant blows up countries away
>BUT IT'S STATISTICALLY SAFE GUISE
>>69584541
Who the fuck spells "Jonathan" like that?
>>69585103
>1 old nuclear plant blows up countries away
That's simply bullshit.
>>69584729
Separate power transfer companies. Kinda jewish tricks if you ask me since they all share the same power grid anyways.
>>69584879
Again, cancerous nukeslpaining. With that logic
>the events leading to this rape are well known in retrospect so surely this will never happen again rite? It was merely an isolated one time incident.
Just stop it. Nuclear fuck ups have happened, and given enough time, will happen again.
Then there's the whole strategic viewpoint on the fact that uranium is mostly imported and that isn't too reliable source say during wartime, my eastern friend.
>>69579252
Uranium isn't renewable dipshit
What happens when we invest in all these reactors and run out?
>>69581040
>We shouldn't have something because Terrorists might destroy it
Why build anything?
If all we had was three bricks stacked on top of each other, mudshit jihadis would want to blow it up because even that makes the accomplishments of their society look like a bowl full of diarrhea.
>>69585223
Oh for fucks sake, cut the SJW "IF I FEEL LIKE IT IT'S TRUE!!111" logic. Plenty of examples listed just in OP. Want me to link you a list of soviet nuclear fuck ups?
Hilariously nuclear cancer faggots use exactly same denial logic as SJW's with refugees welcome.
>#notallnuclearplants
>isolated incident
>you cant label the majority for acts of a minority
And once again, Chernobyl was assured to be 100% safe. It wasn't.
>>69586179
>If all we had was three bricks stacked on top of each other, mudshit jihadis would want to blow it up because even that makes the accomplishments of their society look like a bowl full of diarrhea.
I mean, I am not saying that most Islamic states have had memorable architecture by Western Standards, but that's some amazing hyperbole son.
>>69586604
>India
>islamic
>>69586722
I'll bite
What style of architecture is that building, and what are the traditional religious functions of the Taj Mahal?
>>69582515
Finland subsidizes wind energy quite a bit, which fucks with electricity prices and drives utilities to shut down fossil fuels capacity.
Despite wind and solar being so unreliable that we need those extra fossil burning plants to ensure power availability.
Besides the fact that Finland is so uninhabited we could have like fifty nuclear catastrophes and nobody would notice.
>>69585056
>There aren't typically any armed guards at reactors, are there?
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/08/nuclear_security_911_firstener.html
>>69587971
You know, it may sound like I advocate wind as the best there is. It is not, this I understand. There's a thermal energy plant in my par of the city, takes same amount of space as one small home. Produces energy 24/7 using nothing but water evaporating to steam. Is not subsidized like wind and cost is on par with other renewables.
No, one single renewable source of energy is neither smart nor reliable. I just don't get why people cling to proven cancerous non-renewable methods of providing energy, when other, non toxic waste producing options are available. Same logic in immigration. We could be taking in non-toxic asians whom benefit society in general, but instead we take in people who constantly rape and pillage, repeating the same old mantra that this will never happen again if we just keep denying facts and take in even more of these toxic people.
Nuclear energy being 100% safe simply has no basis in reality. Also you severely overestimate our size while underestimating nuclear catastrophes. We did fucking notice Chernobyl countries away, only with total SJW denial can you claim that nuclear accidents in our own country would go unnoticed. Please debate with logic, not feels. It makes 0 sense to insist we keep engaging in provenly cancerous behaviour, no?
>>69588260
>guards train regularly with high powered laser weapons
WHAT
>>69589734
>Modern journalism describes laser tag
>>69582432
Fukushima was a 40 year old reactor built in an earthquake zone. New reactors are nearly 100% safe. Plus this doesn't give any reason to fear building reactors in areas that don't experience large natural disasters, which is the vast majority of the world.
>>69584442
>mfw Canada has massive uranium deposits still untapped
>mfw amerifats have to buy all their uranium from us
>mfw my family owns a decent chunk of land over a uranium deposit and will be able to sell it for mad fucking dosh
>>69584844
Yes, they are building a new reactor pretty close to my town. It's 100% safe. I'm not a fear mongering retard.
>>69585865
Nuclear fuckups have only happen on reactors that were designed before the 70s. There is literally no reason to not build new reactors.
>>69586360
The only economically viable and reliable sources of energy currently are nuclear plants and fossil fuels. Windmills and solar are notoriously unreliablen, and are only able to make energy companies money through government subsidies. Look at Ontario or California, they both have subsidized green energy and both are massively in debt with astronomical energy prices.
