How do you feel about Nuclear Energy?
an instrument of the jews
>>69849686
i think its dangerous.
>>69849686
Very supportive.
The real question, OP, is how does nuclear energy feel about you?
Nah, that doesn't really make any sense I guess.
>>69849686
its so good I chose to go into nuke eng
its the only way to make reliable carbon free electricity cheaply (besides hydo)
Easily the most practical and efficient clean energy source until science gives us some scifi alternative
Too much fear of it based on shit that happened decades ago with far less advanced tech and the Simpsons
Leftest are afraid of it. As a result I support it 100%.
>>69849966
Is that your picture or did you get it off the interweb?
>>69849998
Exactly this.
>>69849686
it can literally solve the energy crisis overnight
but that would hurt the oil industry and the people behind it so we can't have nice things
>>69849966
What do you actually do?
If I had done enough work at school that's where I was going to go.
It's bad, countless people die every day from that chemical they pump into the air through the big stacks.
>>69850198
It would also allow us to keep lakes, rivers, and such natural.
>>69850212
>Nuclear Energy Debate
Welcome to 1970 /pol/
>>69850212
I agree Mr.Green, remove all uranium from this planet. Stop all mining in Australia it just isn't ethical.
>>69849686
It's the future. Very supportive of it.
>>69849744
It's super safe desu. It's also clean as fuck. Coal ash is radioactive, wind turbines massacre birds and solar panels are a fucking joke without government subsidies.
>>69850212
Pictured: deadly gas
Yah I know you being silly
>>69849686
THORIUM REACTORS WHEN ???
>>69849744
You fucking retard.
Nuclear energy is clean energy and it is not dangerous if controlled accurately.
>but muh Chernobyl
Chernobyl nuclear plant was shit and bad built. Plus, retards operated it.
>but muh Japan
Lets not build them in places where the risk of earthquake is high then.
Inform youself before spitting bullshits.
Fuck you.
>>69850048
internet, there was a pool reactor at my Alma mater but I didn't get any pictures of it
>>69850199
I work on the control systems and reactor operator interfaces
>>69849686
People are too scared to actually give a notion of nucular energy
>>69850212
>>69850375
>>69850393
RARE
A
R
E
I support it, but first my country should get a long term waste repository going.
>>69850409
TFW Trump battled the country of Scotland over disgusting wind turbines being built in proximity to his pristine golf course
>>69850309
Are you saying this because less pollution or are there other benefits to nuclear power?
>>69850573
>Itsa safe as-a longa as-a noting happens, well IF something happens it might destroy everything BUT its impossible now so ITS SAFE yo fucking comesta mio la faggotini
nuclear is a cool guy, eh doesn't emit carbon dioxide and doesn't afraid of anything
>>69849716
>>69849744
Emotional appeals.
Nuclear energy is the safest form per kw /hr and is in its infancy . We can nuclearise the US in a decade.
>>69849998
>>69850019
If you think fear and the hippy left are what's keeping nuclear power behind you are most mistaken.
The coal and oil industry are the ones lobbying against it.
>>69849686
I like how everytime their was an aerial shot of the powerplant you always heard a crow caw
>>69849686
A lot of our energy supply is nuclear.
As long as I can put on my heating and have hot water, then it's alright.
>>69849686
It's the future of energy without a doubt
https://youtu.be/e7gL2iBMAeY
Gates is doing some pretty good stuff with this
>>69851285
>a fucking candy cane
>>69849686
Pretty fuckin great mate, You get immense energy for the amount of work you have to put in, coal requires heaps more work to get the coal out of the ground and to the power station.
Problems with going nuclear would be killing the mining and transport industries based on coal and you need to make sure you put the effort in managing the waste properly.
>>69851285
>>Itsa safe as-a longa as-a noting happens, well IF something happens it l might destroy everything BUT its impossible now so ITS SAFE yo fucking comesta mio la faggotini
You could say the same thing- the same verbatim bloc of text- about commercial aviation.
>mile per mile, per 100,00 people or per 100,000 passengers- whichever metric you use- , airplanes are the safest form of travel
Haha! But if the engine fails in my car I don't fall 10,000 ft checkmate aerial Jew!
>No you idiot, the stats are already controlled for such incidents
>>69849686
Nuclear Energy is the end goal. The only reason we arent a 100% nuclear is because of lib media and the U.N. trying to stop nations from being to prosperous, so that they can better control the masses and institute world government. (Not citing this cause in on my phone while I shit but this can all be pulled up easily) France is over 3 quarters nuclear powered and about 15% of that is recycled nuclear waste. They have the cheapest electricity and make round 8 billion euro from the energy they export to other countries. They also have the lowest CO2 emmissons per peraon per capita in all Europe, more so even than Germany and Sweden who try and use solar and wind more and more. Also all of their nuclear waste is in one compound amd can be recycled by the time 4th generation reactors are made, (all of the U.S. nuclear waste is kept in canisters in a special parking lot outside the plants, if you gathered them altogether they would cover only one football field (not sure whats in yucca mountain though)) anyways despite France's clear upperhand in energy production (both in efficiency amd enviromentally) the U.N is still pressuring them to swithc to solar and wind which is eons less efficent and actually less clean if you take in account embodied energy. Self regulating reactors (no chance of meltdown) were designed and had a prototype that was put under the same situations of Chernobyl and Fukushima and became stable with no human interaction but they never got a chance to male a real plant because John Kerry shut them down for "enviromental reasons".
>>69851285
Hi Dr. Nick!
>>69851907
hvascgernpgvahvgnavrgvpnepgrp
>>69852112
German is quite a unique language
>>69849686
at the very least it's a good cover to pull a nuke out of your ass if you ever need onehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program#De_facto_nuclear_state www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fukushima-anniversary/japan-has-nuclear-bomb-basement-china-isnt-happy-n48976
>>69851179
Less pollution and because of the nature of hydro power. You can look at any hydro plant and you need a huge reservoir of water to power it.
Nuclear power is great, but really, lets address the fact that we wouldn't need so much energy consumption if Pajeet, Abdual, Jamal, and Jose would learn use a fucking condom and stop the population explosion. If Bernie wasn't a cuck, he'd realize stopping immigration is the best policy to reduce a country's carbon footprint.
>>69849686
*caw*
>>69849686
Put all the nuclear plants next to places where blacks live.
>Chernobyl
>Building a reactor with a positive void coefficent
>Fukushima
>Building a reactor where there's tsunamis
Granted Japan doesn't really have a choice. Wouldn't have hurt to put the electrical generators somewhere they wouldn't get flooded though
Nucear's the best option we have, even if you don't believe the thorium meme. Splitting the atom was the dawn of a new age, binding energy is the basic energy of the entire material universe and we learned to harness it. But fucking hippies and incompetent russkies had to ruin it.
I think the UK should really invest more in hydroelectric/tidal power as well as nuclear since we're fucking surrounded by ocean and inlets, but more landlocked countries should all be going for more nuclear power too.
>>69849686
>suddenly realize that nuclear power plant from The Simpsons is a fortress
>barbed wire, sniper towers, redundant power supply, small structures everywhere
>notice and understand all this 25~30ish years later
Redpilled as fuck.
>>69851456
I'd argue that Hydro power is better, when the gates are closed the reservoir acts as a gigantic battery and the turbines can be spun up or down depending on demand. Hydro power facilities are also built modular so worst case scenario, you simply open the backup valves while you fly in replacement parts stored in a warehouse nearby.
>>69851672
They put some 'windfarms' near my home. They ruin the landscape and are inefficient. They also put some windfarms in the sea.
These monstrosities kill endangered sea birds. And destroy the scenery. Look at this pic.
>>69852744
I agree that hydro is the best source of energy on earth for safety, efficiency and capacity, but it requires conditions only found in select places (ie northern quebec).
>>69849686
It's objectively the most efficient method of generating power, and I wish retarded people weren't so scared of it. The computer I'm using to type this is being powered by a nuclear plant and I wouldn't have it any other way.
its pronounced nucular
Cucks will oppose it for no other reason than ignorance and fear of that same ignorance. The deaths per kilowatt hour as a result of nuclear are less than those of solar or any other alternative source.
>>69852827
Socialists have a strange habit of taking ideas with merit and applying them in the worst ways imaginable. Put solar on the road from California to Arizona, where every single part of everything is horrible in every way other than steady sunshine. Not in Sweden where sunlight is so scarce that Africans shrivel up and die from reverse vampire syndrome.
I fucking love that stupid ass libcucks push so hard for us not to have nuclear and instead push faggot ass solar and wind power. Some of the arguments I've heard are "oh anon, if we don't develop the tech and subsidize x-y it will never be a viable option!"
If we stopped being gigantic faggots and pushed out gen 3 and then gen 4 nuke plants here in the US we would have the cheapest energy on this side of the world and would export it just like France does to all of the other shit ass countries in europe. I can't even understand how those faggots have the gall to tell france to cull their nuke power when they are single handedly the reason why cuck countries like germany can even consider doing their faggot ass renewable garbage.
The other thing is, it's quite frustrating how little investment fusion has received.
>>69850393
What flag is this?
>>69849998
The Simpsons actually reflects how old and inefficient still are today because of retarded fear that perpetuated from Three Mile Island and Chernobyle and only got worse with liberals whining about "muh planet".
I'm don't blindly support nuclear power though, the plants are very expensive to create and maintain and they're not viable everywhere. As much as people whine about coal, it's still cheap and for now, plentiful.
We should really be ignoring this autism about Wind and Solar and researching fusion though.
>>69853051
>Get rid of non-renewable energy sources in Germany
>Only use wind and solar
>Can't sustain country's needs
>Everyone buys coal as a result
wew ladz
NUCLEAR IS EVIL
WIND AND SOLAR ONLY
>>69849686
It's safe, reliable, efficient, and surprisingly low maintenance compared to something like coal or even solar/wind. Apart from the high initial investment cost, it's only other disadvantage is it's public image problem.
Despite the fact that nuclear power is only directly responsible for about ~50 deaths (and indirectly responsible for ~5000) in the last 60 years, the media, Greenpeace faggots, and the coal industry have done a fucking marvelous job of painting nuclear power as the Great Satan of energy technologies.
>>69851456
Ionosphere>Geothermal>Fusion>Fission>Everything else
What the fuck are you supposed to do with the waste? This stuff is piling up around the country with nowhere for it to go, and there is so little political capital for creating a solution. Better to switch to fossil fuels until fusion and orbital solar technology becomes feasible in the next 50-100 years.
>>69853478
>What the fuck are you supposed to do with the waste?
Export to Australia.
Bury in the middle of their useless desert.
What's the worst that will happen? Abos become retarded? k lel
>>69853478
Im containers? It's much less than the space we we need for garbage.
>>69850528
When someone manages to design a viable industrial scale reactor... which could be tomorrow or 40 years from now.
Thorium fission doesn't have as many engineering obstacles as, say, sustainable fusion... but it still has it's share.
>>69852744
Hydro power is good, but most of the dams in the US are in desperate need of upgrading, and that would cost as much, if not more, than just replacing the dams with nuclear plants.
>>69849686
It's the best form of energy we have right now. No one even talks about how damaging solar is the the environment. In terms of deaths, coal is more dangerous. No one cares though.
>>69852929
Hydro power ironically does more to harm regional ecosystems and climate, and displaces endangers more people than most power sources.
If a reactor melts down, a few hundred may die in a worse case scenario.
An ordinary dam could displace thousands by flooding areas upstream, and draining water sources downstream. And if a dam bursts, casualties number the thousands and damages in the millions at least.
>>69853555
>shipping thousands of tonnes of radioactive material by sea
Surely nothing will go wrong
>>69853608
You need a site that will be secure for thousands of years. A warehouse doesn't cut it
coal is much better
we must keep using coal
>>69853555
You literally burry it in cat litter
There was a problem at a storage facility last year due to someone using the wrong litter
America
>>69853735
>thousands of years
Why thousands? Maybe we'll build a space elevator or figure out some way to shoot it into the sun before then.
>>69853735
Read about yucca mountain or any storage place you moron.
It's so depressing listening to nuclear engineering professors talk about the current state of nuclear power and the industry. It's like they are in a constant state of being pissed off.
I was talking to one - he said that their 1950s reactor on campus cost about 500,000 bucks to build back then. If they were to build one today, it would be at least $300,000,000 with all of the regulations.
And you could see him get internally furious when someone brought up the waste problem.
He explained how we have wonderful solutions to waste and cost, but the government truely fucks it up for us.
He said that the Chinese will be 50 years ahead of us in a few years, what with all of their cheap plants they are building.
The nice part of having a single party country like China, he said, is that you can do these long term projects. Here in the US, it is impossible to do a 30 year nuclear power plant building plan because there is a different fuckhead in office every 4 years so stuff gets canceled or gutted
>>69853735
they used to dispose of entire fueled reactors in the ocean when the scuttled test nuke subs
the ocean is really really really big, once its at the bottom of the ocean its not hurting anyone
>>69853555
I've talked to nuclear power plant personnel. The waste problem is almosr non-existent. They even store it on site because it's so little. Almost, a lot of can possibly be reused, there's just no need for that right now.
>>69853719
You realize Chernobyl displaced like 40k people right?
I'm a nuclear supporter but dann
The key is multiple small plants
Toshiba has these shed sized plants designed for auto manufacturers that literally cannot meltdown, but costs would raise exponentially designing a scalable system with them.
Coal kills more daily
But since they don't really blow up they're seen as "safe"
Really dangerous
>>69853478
The pilling up of "waste" is only due to liberal faggot retards such as yourself.
The idea was to take Gen 1 waste and refine it for plutonium for fast fission reactors.
Because of
>muh proliferation liberal hippy faggot retards
American wasted billion on research on fast fission reactors which never came into existence in the United States.
Because of the atmosphere of the liberal hippy faggots who should be shot on sight .. No business wants to go into the refinery business.
That isn't waste you stupid faggot. That is literally money laying on the fucking ground.
>>69853051
I honestly want clean cheap energy. It's cold here all year and I need heating. It's not a luxury. I have to keep my kids warm. We live in a cold country, so I don't mind paying gas and electricity bills.
Heating and hot water is essential.
It's always cold. Perhaps not Alaska nor northern Canada tier. Summer is sunny and dry.
Nuclear power is important. I fully support it.
>>69854077
You realize Chernobyl only happened because it was a Soviet-designed piece of shit literally held together with tape, bits of string, and the prayers of little Soviet children, right?
>>69853965
>yucca mountain
Yes buddy it got closed down because both Republicans and Democrats are in the pockets if the coal industry. There is literally no political capital for something like that.
i wrote a paper on this a long while back for high school. basically the conclusion i came to was that it can work, but it it isn't properly regulated. the plants aren't properly maintained- i.e. part replacements, building integrity, and thee like.we also could do a much better job of disposing of nuclear waste. in general, it outperforms any form of green energy, and whether global warming is a hoax or not, it has no emissions whatsoever. i say if we fire the retards in charge of regulating this stuff and fix all of their crap, we could solve the energy crisis. It's the media and the uneducated public trying to shut it down.
>>69854077
>You realize Chernobyl displaced like 40k people right?
Chernobyl happened because a bunch of dumb drunken slavs tested their shit by shutting down their failsafes, and cranking their janky Soviet-tier shitheaps up to eleven. When they did try to turn their failsafes back on, the water pipes were completely blocked up because lelcommunistworkethics.
>>69854295
This. My nuclear professor even showed us exactly what went wrong. They were running experiments with the fucking safety systems on.
>>69849966
Do you go to UOIT my melanin enriched friend?
>>69854077
Chernobyl. That was science experiment, at night, with inexperience operators, on a commercial reactor.
Shut up and go away.
>>69854357
They're regulated as fuck. It's literally overegulated.
>>69854384
>with
Without obviously.
People don't realize just how nonexistent pollution, storage, safety, and environmental damage problems are with nuclear.
Speaking of safety, you do not want to mess with nuclear plant security guys. They sweep the security force Olympics every year. It's true
>>69854227
Why are you assuming I'm a liberal? Not a single state is willing to take the waste. I'm for more nuclear but it's pretty much a fantasy at this point.
>>69854351
The really sad thing is... it's basically fucking done. It's just sitting unused because of political bullshit.
>>69854559
They already store all of their waste on-site. They got around the issue.
>>69853719
New rivers are dug and the fauna is recreated away from the hydro work site, it's all taken into consideration when planning a new mega project.
>>69854377
>>69854422
Fuckers I have books, memrobilia, and a trip planned to Kiev/cherny/pyripat
I know all about what went down and why.
That's not what were discussing.
Were discussing, what ifs.
Nuclear has been "dead" in America so long, if we open some new badass plant I feel another cherry "might" happen due to someone being too highstrung and wanting to prove themselves. (Not saying it would just saying its plausable)
>>69849686
>How do you feel about Nuclear Energy?
Safe and comfy.
>>69855005
I believe people are far too quick to forget that TMI was sold as "having backups for backups and could never suffer a meltdown"
The tragic tale of an old big boat comes to mind too that serves as caution but it doesn't come to mind right now.
>>69855005
Literally not possible. There is a specific culture that belongs to the nuclear operator types.
Also, before you call nuclear "dead" in America, you might want to look at the Naval Ships. CVN.. SSBN.. SSN.. SSGN.. I wonder what the N means.
>>69855005
*Why* it happened has everything to do with what you're saying though.
No non-Soviet engineer would be retarded enough to shut off their failsafes, and run experiments in the middle of a metropolitan area. Chernobyl is literally impossible to recreate so long as no retard decides to intentionally do so.
You could argue Fukushima is a good example why we should be leery about nuclear energy, but at the same time I have no idea why they would build a nuclear reactor on the shore of a country renowned for its earthquakes and tsunamis.
>>69854953
I don't think somebody told that to whoever designed Three Gorges.
>>69849686
We need to build lots of new plants with modern reactor designs and phase out the current reactors that are all 30+ years old.
>>69855297
I doubt the designers gave a shit about the environment when they made it. This is China after all.
>>69855273
>I have no idea why they would build a nuclear reactor on the shore of a country renowned for its earthquakes and tsunamis.
Japan is virtually nothing but shore, earthquakes and tsunamis. So...
>>69855273
Nope, Japs were told multiple times to fix their shit, but they refused to do so.
The shit the American's told them to fix ended up failing. Japs were just being lazy and got their shit kicked in.
>>69855411
Wouldn't it make more sense to build it on the Western shore at least? You know, the one that's not famous for being pummeled every couple weeks?
>>69855440
I really wouldn't doubt that.
>>69855297
It's fucking China, they clearly don't give a shit about anything.
>>69855495
>Wouldn't it make more sense to build it on the Western shore at least? You know, the one that's not famous for being pummeled every couple weeks?
Fair enough. I'm not really an expert in Japan's geography.
>>69855386
They already screwed over the environment. And cutting off the already clogged and overpolluted Yellow River is already killing the chinks off by the thousands.
The problem is when that thing inevitably collapses, the result is going to make Chernobyl look like a minor incident.
>>69854422
Actually, the staff were all perfectly qualified, many of them were from a background nuclear testing for submarines. What ultimately lead to the disaster was the secrecy relating to the control rods being tipped with graphite. None of them were told this, which meant when they reinserted the control rods, the power surged.
>>69855495
>Build the Power plants where the Japs don't live
>And Giant Mountains separating them
>>69850199
That guy just looks at readouts to see if they are within acceptable ranges, and sits around all day.
I like it. relatively safe and clean compared to most power generation methods on the same scale.
Only times it really blows up in your face is due to allowing a plant to run into severe old age/disrepair, large scale natural disasters, or employee incompetence.
>>69852724
You think you can just walk into a nuke plant irl?
Every country should be like France, and have majority nuclear power for electricity.
Every country also has the right to develop and maintain nuclear weapons.
>>69855155
I forgot about that
4 failsafes failed
Dead was in quotes for plants, I'm aware our military loves them (NASA is usaf)
>>69855273
I guess that's true, plus with the tests being run after the 4th reactor was open.
>>69856402
right. think is, The odds for nuclear shit to go badly isn't high but when it does go bad it goes Very bad. The reason Chernobyl is often cited so often is because it shows just what is at risk in one of the worst case scenarios. Funny enough, it could have been worse still and we're fortunate it's as contained as it worse where only the local city of 40k had to be evacuated.
Somewhat related fun - for anyone reading google Nuclear accidents and just go read up on them all throughout history. There's tons of them. Russia unsurprisingly seems to love doing them almost as if on purpose.
>>69856657
>could have been worse
>the 3 firefighters
;_;7
Do you think it would have melted through the earth like lots at the time believed? The elephants foot is fucking melted cement IIRC (mostly heh), which is just kind of surreal.
>>69849686
Despite its massive energy benefits, its not worth it as is
Man is fallible, and the failure of a singular plant results in hundreds of square miles that man can never live safely around for a millennium.
If you don't think Ahmed isn't going to blow up one of these fuckers one of these days, you're blue pilled as fuck
>>69857191
If this is true, Florida's crystals river plant would have popped by now, rediciously easy to get too on boat or car.
>>69857037
>my grammar
wow it show i'm drunk tonight.
anyway, sort of yes. The risk and concern of course was that it would make it's way down into the local river system by breaching into water below the plant's reactor. fortunately both the Liquidators managed to pour concrete beneath the melted core and it solidifed before doing so as well. There was also the risk of a second uncontrolled nuclear reaction if it came in contact with the water.
What's also very important to remember is it's not as if this stuff can simply be washed away or there's simply one deadly or poisonous component to nuclear energy. While it is theoretically the cleanest fuel source we can't forget the additionally processes that must be undertaken in order for energy efficient fuel to be created.
btw here's a fun wiki page. i love reading about radiation and this sort of stuff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
Jewish technology, all companies with patents are Jewish-owned. All in all, a bad deal.
>>69857436
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You want to bring up the goddamn Crystal River plant? Why don't you also mention the fact that it's the US's single greatest man-made costly non-nuclear, nuclear accident?
For those who dont know here's a TLDR:
>Plant wanted to upgrade reactors
>To do this they decide to cut out the siding in the reactors to pull out the old and put in the new.
>decide to do it on the cheap and go with company with little experience to do it
>Their assurance was it was being advised by people who worked for another company that did have experience.
>royally fuck up the process cracking the reactor housing
>said reactor is now so expensive to repair it's permanently shut down
>>69849686
Positively radiant
>>69850573
>Lets not build them in places where the risk of earthquake is high then.
it wasn't the earthquake, it was a tsunami
and they ignored the safety regulations which required higher walls to protect the reactors in case of such an event
>>69857191
You are referencing old plants. The new unbuild ones are almost impossible to have a meltdown and blowing up a properly contained and secured facility is a pipe dream. The reason we haven't built the new designs is because of the fear the outdated designs from the 70s we still have failing like at Fukushima. The new designs shut down automatically if there are failures and their fuel is far less dangerous and far more plentiful.
Thorium reactors are the key to safe nuclear power, that is until the dream of net positive fusion reactors is achieved.
>>69851285
>Driving cars is safe IF you don't get in a wreck! That's why I don't!
>Leaving your house is safe IF you don't get mugged by a nigger! That's why I don't!
>>69857610
Don't do this, this sends an air bubble into your brain!
>>69857950
Absorbent and yellow and porous is he!
>>69857462
Neat thanks
Never heard about the river thing, that's crazy
I was told they were afraid it was going to melt to the core not leaked into a river
>tfw people kept on fishing while the plant was on fire
You da tru mvps
And its cool bro
Dude weed lmao
If you've never seen zero hour watch it
First episode is a cherny episode SHOT IN REACTOR 3 FOR MAXIMUM REALS
And an interview from a control room survivor
Banned here, and unless someone makes New Zealand an actually significant country with actual things to be proud of then it'll stay banned because we're proud of having banned nuclear power even though it's a retarded idea.
>>69857865
Thorium is promising, at least until a major jump in tech like you're talking about is reached. At this stage I'd consider it optimistic to call any nuke plant model "safe", but as technology improves we should match with the production of plants.
Then it becomes more of a question of when, whether that's a decade from now or five I don't know
>>69849686
Hitler would have loved it
>>69857610
Next you should show us how to make beautiful pink crystals with pennies and ammonia.
Or that cool spoon trick.
>>69858309
I'd like to see you naked.
>>69849686
>How do you feel about Nuclear Energy?
Bretty good we hold most of Europe by the balls because of energy exports.
Wish those greenpeace cucks would stay away from them though.
>>69857739
Holy shit how did I never hear about it
I used to fish in viewing distance of the thing(like 5 miles out in the gulf)
For a second I was thinking of the 3mile island joke "accident"
>>69858486
Continue.
>>69849686
Support.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk
>>69858532
yeah i live not too far from the area too. i remember reading about this in the papers. the story is just so full of incompetency it's a gigantic joke.
>>69858177
Only real issue with thorium is the coolant salt pipes wearing out like crazy. Luckily material sciences is booming with new stuff monthly. All it takes is a Teflon for thorium salts and it will be golden.
>>69858013
well, not a river but ground water but same thing really. Go to this page and search Tunnel and it'll take you to the relevant information.
http://chernobylfoundation.org/chernobyl/
and yeah i've seen that. every now and then i go on a binge watching everything nuclear related
>>69849744
t. former Soviet Union
>>69849686
The fear over nuclear energy is greatly over exaggerated. Chernobyl happened due to poorly trained staff and a faulty reactor design - status quo in the USSR and this would never happen in the west.
And regarding the Japanese, when you put a reactor right next to the Pacific ocean not far from a fault line - a huge tsunami could destroy the best reactors.
Hatred of nuclear power is honestly environmentalist fear mongering despite it being the best source of energy we have aside from hydroelectric power.
>>69850528
We are one of the few countries working on it, my abo friend
which means probably never
>>69849686
I think it's awesome. It powers the universe, and enables life on earth for Christs sakes. Yea sure nuclear fission can be dangerous if you put in the hands of morons or hit it with a massive natural disaster.
>>69857610
>>69857950
Wait, such a simple manuevor can cause an aneurysm?
How doesn't this kill people everyday?
we already rely on nuclear power. it's that big thing up in the sky. nuclear or bust.
>>69858952
>this would never happen in the west.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
>>69853289
Three Mild Island is 99% public hysteria, 1% nuclear incident. Plus the American education system caused people to be scared of a retarded fictional movie like China Syndrome and ignore facts.
>>69858945
>everything nuclear related
All I have is books and zero hour
Spill the good
>>69853478
Bury it where the sun don't shine
>>69849686
Nuclear energy can't melt steel beams
>>69859220
The containment building prevented any significant contamination. Talk to me when a western reactor blows up on its own and destroys its containment building in the blast.
>>69859306
and what if it leak's
>>69859189
Good point. That's fusion though. On Earth we create fission reactions,but we're working towards developing fusion technology.
>>69859465
Leaks where, these things are buried deeeeeep underground...
>>69849686
Totally 100% safe. Radiation is a social construction.
>>69859276
oh i just get comfy and comb youtube usually. google sources after that, start with wiki and begin hunting/tracking sources from there.
there's tons of material. lol there's an insane amount of nuclear accidents the general public has no idea about but they're not "nuclear plant explode "big so it's hardly ever in the news". rarely in western countries, mostly in asian.
Tons of waste has been dumped off the coast of England with no fucks given. a current day facility pumps waste directly into the ocean. the soviet union especially had been a real hotspot of "LOL OOPS" especially with nuclear powered light houses all over the country which had been broken into and robbed for scrap metal.
Here's a funplace to start, Google Windscale nuclear accident and then check out this doc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUYJFlObhtA
Have no fear for atomic energy, cause none a dem' can stop da time
>>69859619
This is bait.
Nuclear energy is the most cost-effective, safest and most environmentally friendly energy source that currently exists, and its underutilization is attributable to a combination of paranoia and anti-nuclear propaganda.
We need more of it.
>>69859684
>cost effective
what propaganda are you rattling off? There's literally no plant that can be built without government subsidies nowadays because they're so fucking expensive. You sound like the sort of tard that believed the "too cheap to meter" rhetoric back during the 1960s nuclear infatuation people had as sold by the power companies.
>>69859670
>And you took it
>>69849686
I am pro, but can't say it loud because ex-Nazi Germany is all eco now and everyone around me drives with bumper stickers "Atomkraft? Nein, danke." (Nuclear power? No thanks.) Fuck them, where they think the power for their fucking coffee grinders and Aplle electronics comes from?
Atomkraft? Ja, bitte!
>>69850528
>THORIUM REACTORS WHEN ???
China is going critical in 2020.
>>69857865
>Thorium reactors are the key to safe nuclear power, that is until the dream of net positive fusion reactors is achieved.
Net positive isn't nearly enough. You need net positive + about a billion because your 50 billion dollar plant needs to make cheap power to pay for it's construction costs.
>>69859622
>nuclear lighthouse
That's the best idea I've ever heard
>broken into for scrap metal
this is why we can't have nice things
We could have nuclear cars god damnit
Ill do some digging
>>69859220
they fixed it before anything real happened, it would have been like actually listening to the warnings at cherny.
It farted a little nasty gas but whatevs
But did you die?
No, no one did.
#america
>>69860466
In all fairness cancer rates in the area went up.
>>69860466
lol oh let me see.... in the US we lost an atomic bomb. loaded with fuel and all! i can't remember the name of the plane it was dropped from or anything but shouldn't be hard to google.
Then in another fond russian memory they at the time had a no "no fly nuclear fuel/reactors" and then someone decided to do this anyway. dropped a reactor out on some siberian tundra where it broke open and they gtfo.
there's a particularly crappy story out there that ended badly for a dude who walked into an irradiation chamber for medical products while it was active without realizing it was stilll on.
>>69853478
Send it to Australia
The problem with nuclear power is safety.
I know they're the safest statistically. Less people are killed by nuclear power per kwh than literally any other power source. These things I know.
The problem is that when you have a serious nuclear accident, you permanently lose the land it's on and a wide area around it. Other power types might cause more accidents, but they don't render large chunks of countries unusable.
Four accidents above level 5 severity have occurred since 1954, the first nuclear power plant. There's 438 reactors in the world.
Let's be generous and say those 438 reactors have all existed since 1954. 62 years, 4 accidents over 438 reactors. The chance of any single reactor having an accident is 1:6789, or 0.06% per year for any of them.
To put it another way, there's a 1:16 chance that in any one year, someone is going to lose a few square miles of land and suffer billions of dollars in damage and healthcare costs.
Nuclear power would be good in Australia where we can just throw a reactor out somewhere in the desert. Having it on land you actually need is an enormous risk.
>>69849686
literally the best option we have IF we can do it under strict perfectionist standards
i dont trust people enough to believe that corners wouldnt be cut and risks wouldnt be taken
i think that investing in developing nuclear energy to a point where we can safely run nuclear power plants is a very very worthy investment
0 pollution, renewable and scalable to produce as much energy as we could possibly need in the foreseeable forture
it also seems to be the only energy source that could potentially produce enough power for our imaginary future technology, such as high speed space travel
>>69859811
>There's literally no plant that can be built without government subsidies nowadays because they're so fucking expensive.
Which has nothing to do with the cost of operation.
Nuclear is the cheapest source of power even beating coal in many cases.
The large capital construction cost makes them a turn off for private investors that lack capital. But that doesn't make their operational costs high even when they pay back their construction costs in the first 20 years of operation.
Construction costs are about 80% of the cost of a nuclear power plant. With a 20 year bond of 7% yield they will make power for between 3 and 6 cents per kilowatt hour based on factors such as local labor costs, materials costs, insurance rates and fuel costs.
>>69860862
are you just making up numbers? it seems like you are.
>>69860862
>The problem is that when you have a serious nuclear accident, you permanently lose the land it's on and a wide area around it. Other power types might cause more accidents, but they don't render large chunks of countries unusable.
So use a different better kind of nuclear power. The Gen II plants are almost all rather ugly adapted submarines engines.
>Four accidents above level 5 severity have occurred since 1954, the first nuclear power plant.
Which have killed less than 100 people and have created exclusion zones of less than 500km^2, which is even then more legislation than science in terms of actual health risks.
>>69861080
1954: in Russia, first commercial nuclear reactor, APS-1
Four incidents that caused damage outside of the reactor itself: Fukushima, Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Windscale
The rest is derived from that.
>>69861223
>>69861080
Oh, and 438 reactors worldwide
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics
>>69860451
And maintance.
>>69861279
>And maintance.
Abstracted by cost of labor and cost of materials.
>>69860643
You should see what we did at the NTS
>>69861218
>exclusion zones of less than 500km^2
Berlin is only 890 square km. You'd lose most of the city if a reactor near Berlin went. 500km^2 isn't a small amount.
>>69861261
>Oh, and 438 reactors worldwide
Not going to count the 500+ reactors put into and out of service by the US navy?
>>69861017
>operating costs
fair enough, i wouldn't actually know anything about this area of operations so i concede here.
>>69861517
I'm already giving those 438 reactors the benefit of having all magically popped into existence in 1954. The actual rate would be higher since they were built over time.
>>69860862
This. People say "oh, there's only been one or two accidents," but they fail to realize that accidents will happen ten times as often if nuclear is scaled up. An ecological disaster every few years is unacceptable.
>>69861460
>You'd lose most of the city if a reactor near Berlin went.
Depends on the type of reactor.
For example Edmonton has a nuclear reactor inside the city, but no one gives a shit because it's a SLOWPOKE-II.
>>69860551
Can you fucking find me graphs or something?
I keeping wanting to search that but apparently is vague or hidden by jews I guess.
I mean I believe that I'm sure but I can't prove that with cherny to people who doubt.
>>69860643
Sometimes I wish this was Reddit
You sound like someone I could bullshit for hours with
Nuclear generals are now a thing someone make it be
>>69861393
NTS? Please do tell!
As someone who has worked at Hitachi replacing components for reactor systems, the problem with reactors today is not their age making them unsafe, its their inefficiency. We have newer reactor designs today that could easily blow older designs out of the water when it comes to efficiency, but nobody wants to invest the billions in new reactors. There has been plans to strip out smaller PWRs from their buildings and replace everything inside with newer systems, but again, nobody wants to invest that amount of money. In a decade, we will see a larger push towards smaller and better reactors that produce less waste, require less maintenance and can cool down the fuel without needing any powered systems.
However, anything thorium related that isn't breeder reactors are a dead end. Trust me, they would have more downtime than stable operation.
>>69861715
would certainly be fun. at least we have tonight anon
>>69861637
>An ecological disaster every few years is unacceptable.
So use a better reactor design.
Put the 30-50 year out reactors out of service and build either new reactors, or build different types of reactors that don't have the risks of light water reactors.
>>69861669
>>69861813
Accidents happen.
If your city has a GDP of, say, $200 billion, and it has a 1:16 yearly chance of being irradiated and rendered unusable every year, it's going to cost you a bare minimum of $12.5 billion dollars a year if you wanted to insure it.
Is nuclear power going to save you that much? No? Then it's not worth doing.
>>69853478
Recycle it.
Its called nuclear reprocessing.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx
>>69861809
I have to go to bed after this cigarette
I work an 8-4 like a wage slave doing software development
Have fun in the nuclear wasteland
Also I have signed photobooks from Elena filatova or whatever that chicks name is
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed
Of anyone's never seen this its literal days of reading
>>69853555
>>69859306
>>69860789
>>69853555
Yes, yes, yes, send it to Australia to be "buried."
Mate, nuclear waste is gold. We can reprocess that "waste" in our own reactors.
Free fuel for Australia. Thanks, burger!
>>69860862
How many people died in Fukushima?
>>69862064
Ps: OH NO A NEW BOOK
FUCK OFF FAGGOTS DONT BUY THEM ALL
>>69861919
good thing they don't build reactors next to cities then
modern reactors are safe bruh, insane amounts of energy for a very low cost
>>69862108
Also:
How many people have die from nuclear energy that aren't slavs?
<100
How many people have died from wind power?
>100
>>69862108
573 people died so far
32 million people affected by radiation poisoning
20 square km rendered unusable
>>69861919
>Accidents happen.
Sure.
>If your city has a GDP of, say, $200 billion, and it has a 1:16 yearly chance of being irradiated and rendered unusable every year, it's going to cost you a bare minimum of $12.5 billion dollars a year if you wanted to insure it.
The 1 in 16 year risk of irradiation is not supported by evidence. The US navy has 5,400 reactor years of experience and not a single reactor accident.
>>69862108
1,600 people died as a result of the evacuation and displacement of the cities neighboring the plant. That's more than were killed as a result in the earthquake in the same region.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/fukushima-evacuation-has-killed-more-earthquake-tsunami-survey-says-f8C11120007
>>69862420
>The 1 in 16 year risk of irradiation is not supported by evidence.
see my original post. 62 years, 4 serious incidents, 1:15.5 risk
oh dog
>>69862076
>Free fuel for Australia. Thanks, burger!
Your government has banned all new nuclear licenses. The LFTR will make fuel costs zero, as it's fuel is an unwanted byproduct of the electronics industry.
>>69862420
also
>US navy
>a fucking leaf
Submarine/CV reactors are completely irrelevant to this discussion
>>69862108
>How many people died in Fukushima?
1 worker had a heart attack in the summer heat. Another suffered a broken leg.
>>69862064
godspeed buddy. so do i.
Also nice, i'll check it out.
>>69849686
Why are Europeans so scared of Nuclear power?
>tfw live near three mile island and see the neat o cooling towers
>>69862471
>see my original post. 62 years, 4 serious incidents, 1:15.5 risk
The claim that each of those 4 incidents would render a city useless is wrong.
And your calculation is also wrong because it doesn't properly factor the reactor hours of operation.
>>69862482
>the rupture was caused by a small pie-pan-shaped object left in the steam generator
HOOMMEEERRRR
>>69860862
>Allow slavs and non-whites to build nuclear reactors
>Act surprised when they cut corners and fuck it all up
The reactors in Canada and Europe are top tier and will never fuck up.
>>69862765
>The claim that each of those 4 incidents would render a city useless is wrong.
No it's not.
They're all 5 or above on the nuclear incident severity scale. There's dozens more at 4 or below, I didn't include them.
>>69862534
>Submarine/CV reactors are completely irrelevant to this discussion
Their are almost identical to commercial reactors. You could pull the reactors out of a CV and run them to make power on land, same for the subs.
>>69862899
Yeah but the risks of failure and the environment they operate in are completely different.
>>69850573
The Fukushima plant was so old it was scheduled for decommission 10 years ago.
Earthquake or not it was going to go
>>69862893
>They're all 5 or above on the nuclear incident severity scale.
So what? Level 5 doesn't mean that even a single person is harmed or that a square meter of land is unusable.
Further you just assume all reactors are identical and all operators are the same.
>>69862945
>Yeah but the risks of failure and the environment they operate in are completely different.
Yeah it's wildly more difficult.
>>69855104
>cuk2song
Nice ID
>>69863085
>Level 5 doesn't mean that even a single person is harmed or that a square meter of land is unusable.
>>69862969
>The Fukushima plant was so old it was scheduled for decommission 10 years ago.
>Earthquake or not it was going to go
It was actually a few months away from decommissioning. The reaction to the accident is now a textbook case of how not to respond to a mass disaster and allocate resources. Simply put they could have avoided all their problems with about 50 flight hours of military choppers flying in generators and fuel.
>>69863194
Yeah. Learn to read: Accident with off site risk.
Risk, not actually done any harm.
The left fucking killed nuclear in USA and now they do nothing but complain about fossil fuels.
We lost out position as world leader in nuclear technology because of this.
We still have the most reactors in absolute terms but most of them are old and nearing the end of their life cycle.
Meanwhle China is building dozens.
If our nuclear industry hadn't been sabotaged by clueless people motivated by ideology instead of reason, we could be generating 75% of our electricity from nuclear like France and have a far smaller carbon footprint that they now bitch about constantly.
Its fucking unbelievable how the environmental movement shot themselves in the foot on this one and only suceeded in fucking the planet over.
>>69863401
I realize you've never had a non-menial job so I'll go easy on you. "Risk" in a managerial sense is the confluence of both "likelihood" and "severity of consequences."
The fact it's only been used a couple of times, when there were actual off-site consequences, probably should've clued you into that.
>>69850212
>>69849686
Best thing alongside geothermal before fusion and solar can be perfected
>>69849686
Can you study and improve that stuff without other countries throwing a fit
>>69863401
>>69863615
some educational resources for you, sir
>>69863731
>tfw using small garden Geothermal heating system
I almost died from the fucking thing in the summer when it decided to turn itself back on again.
But in the winter, I uses less power than anything else on the market.
>>69863731
Don't even put geothermal in the same sentence as nuclear. That shit is nowhere near on the same level of energy output.
>>69863888
>small garden Geothermal heating system
>small
>geothermal
Do you live on a fucking volcano?
>>69863980
It's just a network of pipes a few feet underground.
It works way too fucking well in my opinion.
>>69863731
Too bad we can't risk a chernobyl knowing we're surrounded by 3 nations filled with brownskin terrorists.
>>69851403
damn thats pretty old
>>69864065
There's enough geothermal energy 3 feet underground to heat your house?
brb buying a geothermal generator
>>69863615
Nuclear power is 10% of the global electrical production and in it's history has killed fewer people than are stung to death by bees in a year, are struck by lightning in a summer, or drowned in buckets.
Your incorrect assessment of the risk and exaggeration of the classification of accidents is a reflect of your own sloppy thinking and ignorance of the topic.
The 2 level 7 accidents have killed fewer than 75 people and the level 5 accidents have killed only 4 people due to criminal activity of thieves reselling stolen material from a hospital; not actually related to a power reactor.
>>69864237
to be fair familia, i think half this board would probably die if they found themselves in a room of buckets filled with water.
>>69864237
>have killed fewer than 75 people
Thousands died from Fukushima alone you idiot, not to mention millions more poisoned. I posted my sources, I'd really like to see yours.
My risk assessment is being very, very generous, not exaggerated. Seeing as these incidents have taken place in more recent times when many more reactors existed, the real risk is spread over a lesser number of years and less active reactors than I calculated.
Nuclear power is great but you have to consider the risk of damage. Especially in European cities where countries are small and everything is in close quarters. And that's not even starting on the terrorist risk that Belgium just dealt with.
It has its place. Places like the USA, Russia, China, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Iran, anyone with lots of spare land. The risk is just too high to have them prolific in small European/Asian countries.
>>69864527
>>69864237
Seems my sources were lacking also, there's been significantly more than 4 incidents at level 5 or above.
>>69849686
I feel that it's a waste of finite resources like plutonium and uranium that could be better saved as emergency rocket fuel in case humanity never gets to figure how to harness the power of fusion and anti-matter.
>>69864527
>Thousands died from Fukushima alone you idiot, not to mention millions more poisoned. I posted my sources, I'd really like to see yours.
How about the World Health Organization?
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."
"This was a very serious accident with major health consequences, especially for thousands of workers exposed in the early days who received very high radiation doses, and for the thousands more stricken with thyroid cancer. By and large, however, we have not found profound negative health impacts to the rest of the population in surrounding areas, nor have we found widespread contamination that would continue to pose a substantial threat to human health, within a few exceptional, restricted areas."
>>69858486
>>69858572
>tfw he never continued
>>69864776
>waste of finite resources
Nuclear power isn't the endgame familia, it's meant to sustain us long enough while we find the magic energy source. Fossil fuels will be the death of us before we find this energy.
>>69864803
>directly attributed to radiation from the disaster
Now who's cherry picking and being ignorant?
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2012/2/4/japanese-authorities-recognize-573-deaths-related-to-fukushi.html
"A total of 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/fukushima-evacuation-has-killed-more-earthquake-tsunami-survey-says-f8C11120007
A survey by popular Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun said Monday that deaths relating to this displacement – around 1,600 – have surpassed the number killed in the region in the original disaster.
>>69864527
>Thousands died from Fukushima alone you idiot
Couldnt be more wrong.
1600 people died indirectly due to evacuation fuckups.
15000 people died from the earthquake and tsunami, maybe you're just mixing them up.
>I posted my sources
>>69861261
You posted that, nothing more.
>>69864924
There was a tsunami too, remember?
>>69864985
So where is the ''thousands'' of people you just pulled out of your ass?
>>69864776
>emergency rocket fuel
kek, we're surely going to need 7 million tonnes of uranium and 1800 tonnes of plutonium for our emergency escape rockets.
>>69865073
Right here
>>69864985
573 + 1600 = 2173
checkmate atheist
>>69865073
you're retarded. read the article again.
>>69864924
Causes of death in the aftermath have included “fatigue” due to conditions in evacuation centers, exhaustion from relocating, and illness resulting from hospital closures. The survey also said a number of suicides had been attributed to the ordeal.
If only the 3rd most powerful earthquake in recorded history hadn't damaged their power grid, hospitals and their ability to care for displaced people.
How many people died from other locations, relocating, exhaustion and illnesses?
This sort of catch all accounting doesn't give a good indication of what actual harm was done and by what.
From the WHO report on Chernobyl;
Poverty, “lifestyle” diseases now rampant in the former Soviet Union and mental health problems pose a far greater threat to local communities than does radiation exposure.
Do we blame that on the reactor too?
Could we one day create energy through an exploitation of the law of conservation by creating negative energy and sending it out into space?
A pair of orbiting microscopic black holes might be able to radiate negative energy, because I suspect that an accelerating black hole may not respond to Hawking Radiation in the same way a stationary one does.
What I'd really like to see is energy generated from quantum vacuum fluctuations.
Literally free energy that violates causality. Pity it only occurs in such tiny energy:volume ratios though.
>>69865216
>Do we blame that on the reactor too?
Yes, we do. Wouldnt've happened if it wasn't a nuclear reactor. A coal plant destroying itself wouldn't cause the kind of chaos a nuclear meltdown does.
>>69851285
>comesta mio la faggotini
I fucking love you, Austria
My thoughts:
>It's safe
>It's clean
>It's able to produce a lot of energy
>Containing the leftover waste is not hard to do
>They are very profitable in places with a lot of water
Really, just one nuclear power plant every 5 miles around the Great Lakes would be able to give power to every household in the Americas, from Barrow, Alaska, to Ushuaia, Argentina. There's no reason why we aren't using it besides a certain Semitic ilk and oil barons.
