Nuclear waste cannot be properly by any government around the world.
Solar can be owned by yourself and on the roof of your house (or your mothers house, I don't judge basement dwellers), and doesn't contribute to the rising autism epidemic.
In the end, solar is the future.
Shoot waste into space masta race
>>71102731
humans shouldn't be allowed into space until all the damage done down here is fixed.
>>71102838
We aren't going into space fuqboi, the trash is, one fatty rocket with nuclear waste and your mum
Solar panel kills birds and blinds airplane pilots
Look at Australia trying to divert the attention away from the best nuclear waste disposal island ever.
But we dont have enough sun >:(
>>71102838
>yeah man, put those drums in a circle
>>71102682
Solar doesn't work properly in the north
>>71102682
Both are expensive but nuclear generates more power currently relative to the number of installations, and unlike solar nuclear can generate power in places where it's dark and cloudy most of the year.
>>71102682
>Nuclear waste cannot be properly by any government around the world.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/06/03/deaths-per-unit-of-electricity/
Solar kills 11 times more people than nuclear per unit of energy generated because technicians sometimes fall from ladders. No kidding.
>>71103175
sorry bit drunk atm had to cut out my own toenail
Solar is too inefficient. Will also be the death of us if a natural disaster, such as a major asteroid collision or major volcanic eruption, results in global cloud coverage.
Nuclear or bust.
>>71102682
Why not put it back in the holes it came out of?
Nuclear reactors are literally 1800s technology with a different fuel.
Why any of you faggots think this is acceptable, is beyond me.
>>71103481
>Asteroid collides
>Causes earthquakes and tsunamis around the globe (because thats what happens)
>Nuclear plants get damaged and spill nuclear waste everywhere
>Have no power, sun, and now toxic waste is destroying whats little left of our health.
Solution: We need better fucking batteries and ways to store energy.
>>71103625
Because it produces an incomparable amount of energy.
>>71103775
(i have literally no idea how nuclear power plants work)
>>71103775
>not keeping your fusion plants deep underground
JUST
>Only argumets against nuclear power basically summarise as this one point: B-BUT WHAT IF SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS
Nigga, it's called fucking OH & S, or WHS. We've got much more deadly fucking chemicals floating around on the sea which could an explode at any minute, you know why we haven't banned them? Because if you're not a fucking idiot you make even the most dangerous thing ridiciulously fucking bubble-wrapped.
>>71103840
Says the fucking idiot who has no idea how they work.
It just happened five years ago faggot.
http://fukushimaupdate.com/
Read up dyke.
>>71102682
Actually nuclear waste can be turned into more energy with different types of reactors but since there isn't enough waste it isn't cost effective
>>71104181
Don't build a goddamned nuclear power plant on a fault-line, or just develop good infrastructure.
>>71103257
I just linked to a random google result, but I guess this is the original source:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
>>71102682
Nuclear waste is not a significant problem. Encasing spent fuel in concrete and sticking it out back behind the power plant, as most American reactors currently do, is fine. Maybe we bury it eventually if we decide that we want to use that land for something else, or maybe not. Who cares? It's not hurting anyone.
>>71103625
There is absolutely nothing wrong with steam turbines. By your logic, automotive technology is thousands of years old because cars use wheels. A technology isn't outdated because it relies on a component that's not based on a new idea.
>>71104181
Zero casualties. Solar panels are statistically a much greater threat to your health if you occasionally climb onto your roof to clean them.
>>71102682
If were talking about the future then nuclear is the way to go since nuclear fusion is 100x better than solar
>>71102838
Faggot opinion
>>71102682
Solar panels do not have infinite lifespan and also cause pollution when they are made and discarded.
>>71102682
Nuclear Fusion when?
>>71104385
~35 years.
>>71102682
Aussie, the badlands. The land of the venomous.
We should dump the nuclear waste there. Nobody goes there anyways. Haha
>>71102682
We should obviously use as much renewable power as we can. But as of right now (and for the near future), renewable energy cannot supply 100% of our power needs. Nuclear is the second-best option, and is certainly better than fossil fuels.
>>71102682
>Nuclear waste cannot be properly by any government around the world.
>an Australian saying this
you should be ashamed of yourself
>>71103625
jesus christ i hope this is bait or are you actually this much of a mong
>>71104363
I'd say this is much more of a problem. The funny thing is that environmentalists are so goddamned idealistic that they completely forgot what they're protecting. Dams can cause damage to the environment surrounding if it starves a river of water, reducing quality of farms. Good example of this would be the three gorges dam. Much like a lot of electric products, they actually run on more containiment materials. Wind Turbines are a meme, and they're often ridiculed for being an hassle to repair and maintain and they're just plain not good. Does nuclear power even create "Waste" anymore? It seems like people are just basing their shit off the 1950s, let me just remind you it's been seventy fucking years, and we've developed micro-computers, I'm sure making nuclear power safer has already been done, hence why france utilizes it.
>>71104462
Hey mate if we're dumping it anywhere we'll dump it in pakistan or canada.
We have an infinite source of heat under our feet. Just dig a fucking hole and put a boiler.
More seriously stirling engines work with any source of heat.
The japs successfully made platforms that use the difference in temperature between the deep and the surface of the ocean.
Stirling engines work with the heat of the palm of your hand.
>>71104385
The first reactors are being built by the frogs and the chinese right now, efficient use (10% energy input, 90% energy output) could be there at about 2050
>>71104687
Are they productive, are they cost effective?
>>71104687
But they're fucking inefficient and have little to no energie output
>source: i built one in 10th grade science class
>>71104181
I'd also like to point out that the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami killed nearly 16000 people (plus more than 2500 who are "missing") and injured more than 6000. That lifetime cancer risk for a few hundred people increased by about 1% is an insignificant footnote to the damage caused by that disaster.
>>71104645
Nuclear power creates a lot of waste every year, which is costly as fuck to treat . France has the only factory in the world that can do it (La Hague), which pollutes the entire area.
Nuclear isn't safe, it works as controlled huge bomb. One power plant that explodes, and you can leave your state without turning back. Hence the risk is much greater than solar or wind.
>>71104991
>Although official figures are to the contrary.[6] Greenpeace have also protested by creating roadblocks and chaining themselves to vehicles transporting materials to and from the site.[7][8] However the leader of Greenpeace France, Yannick Rousselet, has since stated that they have ceased attempting to criticize the reprocessing plant on technical grounds, having succeeded at performing the process without serious spills that have been frequent at other such facilities around the world. In the past, the antinuclear movement argued that COGEMA would not succeed with reprocessing.
Nice self-defeating cite dumbass.
>Nuclear isn't safe, it works as controlled huge bomb. One power plant that explodes, and you can leave your state without turning back. Hence the risk is much greater than solar or wind.
>What is the containment of pripyat
>>71104921
>>71104798
Little motors aren't effective off course it's fun science. But they successfully made cars and electricity engine with this. One example is the big drought in ireland they used small engines that were fueled with anything you wanted from gasoline to alcohol to wood.
You have solar parabola that concentrate the heat to a stirling engine enough to charge batteries for your home.
But honestly, nuclear fusion is the future. You find your fuel in the ocean (a isotope of hydrogen, first extracted in big masses in the 1940s), there are only minor amounts of radiation being produced (half life a few hundered years on the shielding plates, wich can be reused again and again) and in case of a failure the plasma just expands and cools off, probably not even breaching the reactors exterior... this is imo the future
>>71104937
Yeah they had to evacuate 10% of their country bit is it OK since no one died? Nuclear is very costly once you take into account the risk of major damage.
>>71105211
Sure, bigger ones are a little more efficient but still extremely inefficient compared to other types of motors. Sure, theyre much more efficient but they still waste a ton more than, lets say a combustion motor
>>71104991
>Nuclear isn't safe, it works as controlled huge bomb.
You have no idea how a nuclear plant works.
>>71104289
Ummm....automotive technology...auto....AUTO.....
I don't think you understand. Automobiles are not thousand year old technology because of wheels...they have to work automatically, which something requiring an external being to pull or push it is not.
Automobiles however are old and outdated because the combustion engine is also 1800s technology with better fuel.
We should not still be using turbines and combustion engines.
Progress in these fields is being purposefully halted by those in power struggling to keep their power.
Notice how we advanced a gigantic amount in 200 years, then just fucking stopped about 20 years ago? What's our latest advancement? Graphene? Please. We shouldn't even be fucking around with new personal entertainment devices for another 50 years, because we have to solve the energy crisis and infrastructure issues first. Do you see us fixing our energy and infrastructure problems instead of designing the latest and greatest way to disconnect yourself from reality? Cuz I sure dont.
>>71104991
>Mfw when people think that nuclear reactors work just like a nuclear bomb
Kill me, please
>>71105446
>what is nuclear fusion, being developed atm
>>71105513
They scaremonger so much but don't fucking realize pripyat is the exact argument against that, it practically exploded but all it did was act like an average power plant, it did have an effect but beyond pripyat it's literally gone. Dismissable.
>>71102838
>shooting radioactive material into space
>pissing in an ocean of piss
Pretty much the same thing, senpai.
>>71105139
Yeah, well I have a relative whose parents worked at this plant. They are now taking thyroidal medecine for the rest of their life.
>Pripyat
You realise that the Chernobyl catastrophy brought USSR on the brink of collapse? While for an Australian having a wide area that is lost to the country is no big deal, in Europe land is rare and thus this kind of event is a real catastrophy. Moreover, the radioactive elements can't be contained : a nuclear cloud passed on Europe this year. The same goes with fukushima where the pollution went to the ocean.
>>71104991
>Nuclear isn't safe, it works as controlled huge bomb.
>>71102682
>Nuclear waste cannot be properly by any government around the world.
cannot be properly what, OP?
>>71104991
Nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs are completely different types of things. A nuclear reactor is in no sense a controlled bomb or explosion. At Fukushima there were some hydrogen explosions that resulted from the reactor meltdown, and one of them even injured some people, but nobody was killed and fires and explosions as a result of earthquakes are common in all types of buildings.
>>71105317
>10% of their country
They evacuated 370000 people, which is about 0.003% of their population. The cost of that compared to the cost of the event that caused it was insignificant.
>>71105579
The point is we should have already had nuclear fusion up and running pretty well by now, instead of 7 new smart phones and bundled television shows being released every month.
Clearly, priorities have shifted from social efficiency, to financial efficiency and this is a long term issue.
>>71104462
B-but what it mutates are venomous critters into GIANT KAIJU
>>71105703
>My feelings, weep weep
>Chernobyl catastrophe brought the USSR on the brink of collaspe
You're either politically illterate or dumb fuck, I'm guessing the latter.
The USSR collasped as a result of outside intereference, to say it bluntly globalist capitalism was winning, and now has won. Much like Nazi Germany and the Imperial Japanese, if they didn't expand they'd be heavily bankrupted. The interefence afghanistan, combined with space race as well as a populist much like trump appearing in the soviet union despite the soviets disagreeing with it themselves, killed the USSR.
>>71105628
And honestly, of we put human failure out of the equation, there wouldnt have been any bigger failures
Tchernobyl
>not testing something new without anticipating anything bad could happen
Fokushima (i bodged that name)
>letting a nuclear reactor being built in earthquake region
Demon core
>pulling out too fast
And the list goes on and on
>>71105803
Yeah, a negative side effect of capitalism
>>71105372
Fission of fertile uranium atoms that creates heat, which is then cooled down by water whose evaporation creates energy. In case the chain reaction goes out of control, a moderator (graphite) is due to fall in the core of the reactor.
Hence a nuclear bomb (uncontrolled fission) that is moderated. Fukushima and Cherno happenned when we failed to do it.
But tell me where I'm wrong, I'd like to learn more.
>>71105950
Practically, yeah. Most of the disasters are just at fault of human exerror. Pretty sure that famous one in england, at least one of the first was another great example of this. I'd say the inclusion of nuclear power not really generating profit was anothe reason.
>>71106094
Mate, you cited a fucking self-defeating argument earlier, and now you're asking us to prove ourselves? Get of your sissy stand.
>>71105874
Since you like wikipedia quotes :
>According toMikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union spent 18 billion rubles (the equivalent of US$18 billion at that time) on containment and decontamination, virtually bankrupting itself.[3]In Belarus the total cost over 30 years is estimated at US$235billion (in 2005 dollars).[144]On-going costs are well known; in their 2003–2005 report,The Chernobyl Forumstated that between 5% and 7% of government spending in Ukraine is still related to Chernobyl, while in Belarus over $13billion is thought to have been spent between 1991 and 2003, with 22% of national budget having been Chernobyl-related in 1991, falling to 6% by 2002.[144]
>>71106094
>implying theres any chance for a nuclear reactor to explode like a nuclear bomb
>thats your fault desu
>>71106094
It doesn't work like that.
A nuclear meltdown is something completely different than a nuclear detonation.
>>71102682
we can burn most of the waste now with newer reactors and use it as a poor man's fuel
Distributive solar is the future though, once the grid gets smart enough and we have enough buffer batteries it's perfect.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/mitsubishi-to-launch-vehicle-to-grid-power-box-in-japan.html
Consider Japan right now. If everybody had an EV and that little box they'd still have power even in the earthquake affected areas.
>>71106094
But nuclear power plants would not "blow up" like if they were nuclear bombs, right? There would be some kind of meltdown of the nuclear fuel plus the material around, right? I'm ignorant so i am asking.
>>71106389
Correct.
Nuclear power plants don't go off like nukes, they melt.
The explosion that occurs is pressure-related, not nuclear-reaction related.
>>71106279
What you've just cited refers back to a book made by a woman documenting catastrophes, while your link to la hague actually has a real world basis.
>>71106094
>I am pulling this out of my ass.txt
this is bait, I am sure of it
>>71106389
Yes because the design is not the same as a nuclear bomb where all the energy is concentrated in one point. However my point was that current nuclear power plants have to be permanently cooled down, which creates a risk when we fail to do so.
A Thorium reactor is much more safer : no highly nuclear waste, allows you to recycle uranium and you have to pump new fuel into the core circuit in order to keep chain reaction going. If you stop, the reactor cools down automatically.
>>71106675
So you're essentially arguing that the only error is human error.
Which we've literally been arguing this whole time against you.
Are you fucking retarded?
>>71106675
>we fail to do so.
But we don't.
Nuclear reactors are perfectly safe, automatized, clean and absolutely safe in every single aspect.
The two biggest nuclear disasters from two reactors among thousands who are currently operating in the world, one was handled by a bunch of commie idiots, and the second one got hit by a tsunami.
>le thorium reactor meme
>>>/out/
>>71106547
I cited wikipedia :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
The numbers are from Gorbatchev himself and the Belarus government.
>>71102682
Ah the antinuclear AUSTRALIAN SHILL is back again.
I told you last time, both are viable, but we need nuclear to bridge the gap between fossil and solar.
Nuclear is high yeild and low waste, and ultimately a very clean energy source and has nothing to do with autism dipshit.
>>71106804
Congratioulations, your first succesful cite.
But it doesn't defunct what I said, there were breadlines and bankrupcy before the event, and there was already a negative political climate existant. The failure of the afghans, the space race and just in general losing your union states has that effect.
>>71102731
>>71102731
>>71102731
>>71102731
we can't launch our garbage into space because you'd be throwing away earth's organic materials as well as its minerals. once they leave, they won't come back. organic matter can be replenished, but over a couple million years. processed, useful minerals will not come back, period
>>71107093
Of all the reasons you could have pulled out of your ass, like how exactly launching shit in space is so fucking expensive we can barely launch our own niggas on the ISS, and even a small cargo of stuff costs billions in terms of rocket science, you chose the retarded "hurr durr muh minerals n shiiet" one?
Come the fuck on, dude.
>>71106769
>Perfectly safe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
>>71107206
>I'll just ignore everyone else and pretend I'm right
You know, I've went from fascist to an mutualist anarchist. It's quite ironic liberal progressives say they're tolerant when they can never admit that they're wrong.
>>71102682
>I have no idea what Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor is
ok
>>71107206
Yes, and?
Out of thousands upon thousands of nuclear reactors, some failed because a bunch of idiots couldn't do their job straight.
Big deal.
>>71107315
>le thorium meme again
People like you are the reason we haven't colonized Mars yet.
>>71107315
> solar fucking thorium roadways
>>71107302
I don't care about your narcissic rants. What about having a civilized discussion where you try to convince me of your point of view?
>>71107370
>implying italy could colonize anything
>>71105446
Ummm.....nuclear fission....nuclear......NUCLEAR.......
I don't think you understand. Nuclear reactors produce nuclear reactions. If internal combustion is how you judge the technical sophistication of a car, and not the bearings, shafts, and wheels that transfer the power to the ground, then nuclear fission is how you judge the technical sophistication of a nuclear reactor, and not the turbines.
Progress towards a viable replacement for light water reactors is being slowed by anti-science retards, not a conspiracy. Nobody wants public funding for science, especially not conservatives, because "we shouldn't be dicking around in space when we owe money to China" or some retarded bullshit like that. No private energy company is going to invest in fundamental, low level research that may or may not be useful in thirty years, but Americans think that the free market solves all problems.
>What's our latest advancement?
You mean besides an atmospheric retrorocket landing on a fucking boat? Mapping the human genome? Producing stem cells from adult cells? Producing new, functioning organs from those stem cells? Bacteria with synthetic genomes? Confirming the existence of dark matter and the Higgs boson? Detecting gravitational waves? Controlling paralyzed limbs with microchips? Discovering thousands of planets? CRISPR interference? If you're older than about 20, the "personal entertainment device" you carry in your pocket is probably more powerful than the most powerful computer that existed when you were born.
Graphene is a really silly suggestion.
>Notice how we advanced a gigantic amount in 200 years, then just fucking stopped about 20 years ago?
That you don't understand it anymore doesn't mean it's not still happening.
>>71107370
you're cute
>>71107327
I agree with you, but the problem is that you'll always need men to operate them. So the risk will always exist.
>>71107445
Where the fuck do you get your hiearchy from mate? You used La Hague as an exmaple, and ultimately it backfired, you've also been arguing the nuclear power is unsafe, because of human error. Ironically meaning, humans are the problem here, not nuclear power. That's literally every argument against you in this thread.
And you're just sitting here with your fingers in your ears going lalala when more then just myself have proved you wrong, just admit that you've made a fucking mistake and learn something once mate, because if you leave it for to long once you're older you'll be over-ridden with guilt for being such a fucking idiot.
>>71107431
Solar is just not as efficient for various reasons. While its a nice idea the energy output vs input us not that high.
>>71107535
Not necessarily.
Since these idiots are all hopping on the retarded "thorium" bandwagon, i'll hop on one too and say that i dream of a future where machines will manage nuclear reactors with the supreme perfection and accuracy only an AI can pull off.
>>71107483
We colonized our shitty country back in the 40's.
Not as dope as Mars, indeed, but at least we haven't faked the moon landing.
>>71107656
Uuuh... Could i ask you what's the problem with the LFTRs? Are they inefficient?
>>71107180
sorry faggot. there's only so much that exists on this rock, and if you lose it, it's gone for good. water would also be lost in these trips, btw, and we are already running out.
>>71107709
>moon landing is fake meme
calm down Sicily venting your rage here on 4chan because the mafia is fucking you right in the ass does nothing.
>>71107656
I see, but I hardly think it will be practically possible one day. Nuclear is very complicated, look at the problems France currently has with its EPR, do you think we'll be able one day to build what you dream of?
>>71107842
If you think we're going to miss all of our uranium 235 one day, what problem do you have with just sticking it in a hole in the ground for someone else to deal with later?
>>71107495
No private energy company is going to invest in nuclear power station research because they can't count on ever being allowed to build one here because half the country still thinks Jane Fonda in The China Syndrome was a documentary about Three Mile Island.
After the Shoreham Nuclear Plant was killed in New York, I'm surprised any more were ever built in the US by 'private' energy companies.
>>71107828
Retards praise LFTRs like the second coming of Jesus, while infact they're nothing but a retarded gimped version of a nuclear reactor running on uranium.
>hurr durr it's better and it has no disadvantages!111
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages
These hypothetical reactors need a lot of experimentation and funding, it will take years to improve their wholeness in something even remotely acceptable, especially given the quality of nuclear reactors already existing as we speak.
Thorium reactors are a "cool" alternative to Uranium\Plutonium ones, but that doesn't necessarily means they will suddenly sate the immense hunger for power that our civilization keeps pushing each and every year.
>>71102838
You are literally what's wrong with the human race.
>>71107895
>look at the problems France currently has with its EPR, do you think we'll be able one day to build what you dream of?
I do, i do, we had a nuclear referendum here in italy years ago that got nuked hard because of mass hysteria and also because if the referendum was to pass, we were supposed to start building gen3 french reactors with a couple of your buddies as consultants.
It didn't end well.
The point is, we don't have alternatives, unless we suddenly unify the whole world under one government and all start drilling the fucking ocean for geothermal power production.
>>71107607
As I said, reactors have to be built and operated by humans, hence there is a risk factor. I agree that in essence it is not dangerous, but the fact that a it allows room for human error makes it risky. And while the risk is low, the damage is huge in case of an accident : we should thus take into account the cost expectancy rather than the probability.
I didn't answer about the collapse of USSR because you were trying to ignor the facts : Chernobyl put the USSR to its knees and questioned the legitimacy of the communist party. Afghanistan was only a side conflict that was lost : costly but not decisive. The star war wanted by Nixon had its effect, too. The collapse of the USSR sure doesn't had one cause, but Cherno was an important part of it.
>>71108281
>As I said, reactors have to be built and operated by humans, hence there is a risk factor. I agree that in essence it is not dangerous, but the fact that a it allows room for human error makes it risky. And while the risk is low, the damage is huge in case of an accident : we should thus take into account the cost expectancy rather than the probability.
>What are cars?
>What is anything running on electric?
>What are gas stoves?
>What is ANYTHING which has the possibiltiy to be dangerous if human error is existance
I'll be completely fucking genuine here mate, you have a fucking ridiculously poor argument. We've got chemicals hips sailing seas which causally sink freighters in storms, there is a legitimate element of danger in EVERYTHING. So you can't use danger in argument about power.
>The damage is huge
As seen from pripyat, fuki, three mile island. It does have it effects, but in comparison to tons of other deathly occasions, it's fucking pathetically minor. Nuclear power has developed to the point that it isn't a problem as much as it was to the already aging equipment of most power plants.
>>71108281
>Ignore facts
...Ironically, that isn't me. I was making a statement that the dissolution of the USSR was a result of a massive contribution of problems, rather then just pripyat. You made the claim that it was just that. Not me.
Never ever has someone gotten autism from solar radiation, it's nuclear radiation that is the silent killer.
>>71108506
You do not read. I said that the potential damage was so great that you have to take the cost expectancy (probability x cost) rather than just the probability.
A car is dangerous but you don't have to evacuate the area when there's an accident.
>>71108042
The companies that build nuclear reactors put them up all over the world, and there is a reasonable amount of demand for them. Incremental advancements do get made, but you don't hear about them because nobody gives a shit. Modern reactors are a completely different animal than the one that melted down at Chernobyl 30 years ago. They've become like the internal combustion engine in that it's so much easier just to improve on the designs that exist that nobody even thinks about trying to come up with anything better. Before you mention Tesla, electric cars have been around forever. It's the mass produced lithium ion battery that's new, and that wasn't developed by a car company. Toyota's hydrogen fuel cell is closer to a ground-up redesign, even though it happens to be a pretty dumb one. The fact that it's going to flop hard is why you don't see that kind of innovation from private companies more often.
>>71102682
>solar meme
if there's a more sustainable form of renewable energy, that would be hydroelectric.
just put on some big ass turbines near the coast and as the waves hit those spinning niggers out there they will produce great power 4ever.
>>71108852
You do not read either, it's like talking to a brick wall. You keep making the statement of potential damage. I keep explaining to you that there is more dangerous elements out there. The reason why we have occupational health and safety, or workplace health and safety, or MSDS, or understanding of risks and risk control procedures in the west is to avoid such problems.
You've got to realize that the third world doesn't have such procedures, in most cases they're handling extremely dangerous material will ill knowledge. Yet planet earth isn't a surging fireball. You know why? Because humans also have instincts of self preservation.
