Hey /pol/, I'm just a guy from some other boards stopping in and asking you people for your thoughts on nuclear energy and reactors.
There's a ton of benefits, but human error is inherent in everything we build. Is it worth the risks?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/30-years-chernobyl-disaster-live-shadow-suffer-consequences/story?id=38678417
>>72129334
Statistically it's safer than hydroelectric energy.
>>72129334
Two bad examples being Fukushima and Chernobyl and people are generally scared of nuclear power even though we already have some plants in the USA and Canada.
It really is the future and people need to stop being pussies and fear mongering over safe energy.
>>72129706
What about Three Mile Island? Which almost failed the exact same way as Fukushima and Chernobyl? A large portion of Pennsylvania was a coin toss away of being uninhabitable.
It seems every 25-30 years there's a major incident. Why can't we invest in other forms of energy that may be more costly, but have less explosive risks?
>>72129706
This. Fukushima is on very unstable fault line and in Chernobyl they tried to do some crazy experiment.
>>72129395
This is out of my area of expertise, but when hydroelectric energy goes wrong, how bad does it typically get? I mean I doubt there's birth defects.
>>72129334
There are no risks with modern nuclear power plants. Only old designs had risks. Fukushima and Chernobyl required human error to become disasters, but not even human error could cause a disaster with new designs.
>>72129965
That was way back in the 70s. Modern nuclear power plants have dozens of safety systems to prevent core meltdowns.
>>72130042
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
>>72129965
New designs have zero explosive risks. The plants which suffered disasters were all built in the mid-1900s with very old designs.
>>72129991
OP here.
This is my point though. Reactors all work great in a controlled environment. But Earth itself is not a controlled environment. One Earthquake and Fukushima happened. Even AFTER they stopped fission in the core, it still was melting down. All because they built it at a bad spot.
3 mile island was a computer mistake, they had mismatched information.
Chernobyl was humans attempting a test.
In all three cases humans fucked up. That's my point. Humans fuck up all the time.
>>72129965
Like the other Anon said, we've come a long way technologically in the past couple decades. Our processes can only become more efficient and safe if we actually had the effort put into it.
>>72129334
I don't want to make a claim, but hasn't there been not one single casualty because of Chernobyl yet?
>unironically supporting the use of nuclear energy
no wonder all the other boards say you guys are retards.
>>72130042
Worst case scenario is a dam failure, which is usually prevented by the sluice gates. For example, if the Mosul dam breaches and fails, millions could die.
What more commonly happens is some dickhead is too close to the water when the spill gates open, and they get washed away and drown.
>>72130327
Thousands have died. Several instantly, some painfully over the course of weeks, months, and years. Then all the birth defects, poisoned food and water, mutated animals, etc.
>>72130319
So help me out here, how is it any safer then it was before? I mean America hasn't built a plant since late 70s and I don't believe Russia has since 86.
How are these new plants designed to not fuck up? How are we any more confident than all those men in those two plans 3 Mile and Chernobyl? Those guys were certain too.
What if we build it at a bad spot? A tornado hits it? A hurricane floods it?
>>72130276
Most power plants in general are controlled by computers and algorithms now. I'm not saying human error can't happen, it's just much less likely in the modern age.
Again, the safety systems now generally prevent core meltdowns, even in catastrophic situations.
![Ford_Pinto_1971_30[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Ui7uP4P.jpg "Ford_Pinto_1971_30[1].jpg")
>>72129334
This car was state of the last american nuclear power plant was designed.
Now compare this Pinto to a Tesla, compare your Xbox One to Pong. That will give you an idea of how far technology has come in nuclear power and safety. Even though the last american nuclear powerplant came online in the late 70's we have had only one close call (3 mile island) with a commercial plant in the USA. And that's with a 40 year old design.
>>72130348
Good argument. You really showed us up with those facts of yours.
>>72130182
Fucking wow.
>>72130488
According to a list, about 40 died directly because of the incident while about 6000 died in the years after that. I'm sure you have a different viewpoint when you're affected, but this number is nothing. More people die in accidents than because of this.
>>72130660
I like your argument, I really do. I am always an awe at how far we came.
But even modern cars require a lot of HUMAN maintenance. And that's where my fear comes in. 3 Mile Island was designed pretty great. When the pressure valve didn't close and water rushed out, the plant actually was fixing itself.
Then humans mettled.
Reminder that people moved back to the area pretty much immediately afterwards and still live there.
Its far from the "uninhabitable for thousands of years" shit
>>72130182
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
estimated 171,000 people dead
11 million people lost their homes
not many deaths considering
>>72129703
3 mile island happened because of an old reactor design and control room design where a conformation light gave a false readings which confused the workers.
Chernobyl was an old reactor that was based on a bad design, the reason it went to shit was a cluster fuck of bad management due to pressure of the government , primitive reactor design, and a badly executed expirement that removed the control rods completely while shutting off the coolant.
Fukashima was really a mix of bad luck along with a huge natural disaster, they honestly should not have bult it so close to a fault line and the ocean. Even then had they been able to restore power sooner the disaster could have been avoided.
My point is that any new technology is risky, many of the old reactors were produced and put into service way to wuickly due to the hype of nuclear power. If nuclear energy had more r&d we could see muchs safer and much more efficient reactor design like salf reactors or thorium based reacors. But when people hear the world nuclear they think of the mushroom cloud and get scard away from any possibilities also other corporations will lobby the fuck and fear monger to keep nuclear power from beingn a threat to their profits. Honestly i believe nuclear energy is the best bet with the given technology at the moment, until fussion becomes attainable if ever.
>>72130768
Those numbers are infamously false. The USSR covered up thousands of reports and flat out didn't even look into much. The reports come from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, but also other former Soviet republics
There are several towns around the Ukraine and Russia's immediate area around Chernobyl that come up positive for radioactivity even today, with children living there with horrible defects.
We'll never know the true damage.
>>72130988
>>72130994
>>72130687
you guys who think that nuclear energy is safe..
The EU is about to fund a new nuclear plant in ukraine.. in a failed state
havent they learned from the past?
>>72130921
Somewhat off topic, but to be fair, a Tesla requires very little maintenance. I mean you pretty much have to change the tires and that's about it. Hell even the brake pad last nearly forever because of the regen braking.
>>72131173
But what about nuclear proliferation? If we allow further study into nuclear science, can't more people make the bomb?
>>72130768
the accident could have resulted in 10,000–200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004
Yeah no biggie
>>72130660
...meanwhile, because of a shock piece on a certain TV news program, a large number of leftist treefuckers have prevented the manufacturing of new cars, or at least made it so hard to build cars that drivers have been refurbishing their Pintos for four decades.
Since then, there have been more exploding fuel tanks, to which the treefuckers say "See, we told you so, cars are dangerous!"
>>72131259
I guess I would just have to have several stipulations to have a nuclear power plant by my town.
The biggest be I would want a part in the contract that says every 20 years we see if there's any models of better energy than the plant, if there is, we scrap the plant. Pay the workers off.
What's happening at Fukushima? Is it fixed now? Or is it still melting down?
>>72131570
It takes nearly 10 years to build a nuke plant.
>>72130768
From Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of your favorite table top spice.
"According to the WHO, 240,000 recovery workers were called upon in 1986 and 1987 alone. Altogether, special certificates were issued for 600,000 people recognising them as liquidators.[4]
According to Vyacheslav Grishin of the Chernobyl Union, the main organization of liquidators, "25,000 of the Russian liquidators are dead and 70,000 disabled, about the same in Ukraine, and 10,000 dead in Belarus and 25,000 disabled", which makes a total of 60,000 dead (10% of the 600 000, liquidators) and 165,000 disabled.[6]"
Get out of here, stalker.
>>72129334
Nuclear energy best energy. Everyone who says otherwise is either a corporate/special interests shill or plain dumb/ignorant of the topic.
>>72129334
Were you in my history class about an hour and a half ago?
>>72131352
You need really pure isotopes to make a proper A-bomb (and you need an A-bomb to make an H-bomb), unless you're just trying to make a dirty bomb. That's why the centrifuges were so important to Iran's nuclear program, and why someone went to the trouble of creating a very targeted computer virus to attack them.
And since Jimmaah Caahtaah was so convinced that breeder reactors would cause proliferation (hint: it can't, you first need to sort out the isotopes that go boom), tons of nuclear "waste" are just waiting to be stolen to make dirty bombs.
>>72130629
Existing plants with old designs are only as safe as their staff is competent. Better stated, it requires extreme incompetence for a disaster to occur with old designs, but it is possible. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima became disasters due to incompetence. New designs are possible and should not only be encouraged for future nuclear plants, but should be aggressively pursued to replace existing electricity sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_modular_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
>>72131645
I know that Chernobyl is actually still a threat. They have to keep maintaining it every few years.
Fukushima failed in a similar way sort of, the coolant stopped. So it probably could cause issues still.
>>72131182
>>72131366
I'd say the actual number doesn't really matter. As inhuman as this might sound - it is neglible in the grand scheme. Because what is the alternative? Taken to the logical conclusion, the alternative is to use up next to no energy and to stagnate as a whole. Yes, it is unfortunate that this many people died, but stopping everything would do them no good, either. You can't halt all aviation when 200 people die in a plane crash. You can't step back 100 years with energy because a thousand people died. My problem is the mindset behind such arguments: they are deeply anti-human. Nuclear energy is the best we can do at this point. We can't plaster the entire surface of earth with solar collectors and neither do we live in star trek.
>>72131841
The whole world took a step back at the same time in the 80s.
>>72131866
Nah, I just watched a few documentaries in the past week about nuclear power, some accidents, and pros and cons to nuclear energy overall.
>>72131907
Huh, that was a big fear of mine. That the middle east could more easily obtain a bomb if we allowed unfettered nuclear research.
I would also be concerned that they don't make old reactor designs from our past. I would almost rather give them a modern design, even though we hate them, just to assure everyone that it will be safer and the middle east wont have glow in the dark sand.
>>72131914
Thorium seems like a fascinating concept. I can't wait to look into this more.
>>72132145
There is an alternative, but its expensive I suppose.
>>72131250
Soviet =/= ukraine
>>72132145
I would argue people willingly agree to go on air planes, try new medicines, try new cars, etc. Should be ban condoms because one or two broke? No. Because the people knew the risks when they used them and for the most part, they really are safe.
But nuclear power plants are just built next to you, and now you're told to deal with it.
>>72132555
>zero carbon emissions
>need superconductors we don't know how to make
>still need a way to store the energy
Yeah, "zero emissions"
>>72132145
>neither do we live in star trek.
Thank god we dont. Those antimater reactors are volatile as all hell. Even one of those going of would release thousand times more energy than humanitys entire nuclear arsenal.
If you think storage of nuclear waste is difficult, try to store antiprotons, if you dont keep those away from all matter they will anihilate themselves and release energy at the rate of E=mc2. 1 kg of antimatter is equivalent of 43 megaton nuclear bomb.
>>72132750
>Molten salt technology
Look it up.
>>72133127
You mean a big fucking disappointment?
Thorium is good
>>72129334
Build reactors on places that's not on a fault line and near the ocean.
Nuclear power.
>Safe
One over-hyped mishap (3mi Island), one because Japs live in a hotspot of tectonic activity, and one because Russians are fucking idiots/wanted to kill more Ukrainians. Things don't often go wrong, and if they do there is often a variety of fail-safes in place to stop them.
>Efficiency
Stupid efficient. Fucks your coal, fuck your diesel, fucks your natural gas, fucks your solar, fucks your wind, and fucks your geothermal too. Nuclear powered warships are limited by maintainance and how much food they can carry, and they can carry more than conventionally powered counterparts because of the smaller size of the power plant.
>Cost
High costs for construction, but feeding it fissile material is much cheaper per kW/h than coal. Also, unlike solar or wind, governments don't have to subsidize it for it to be profitable.
>Bonus points
>Fucking nukes, yo!
>Thorium reactors prevent the proliferation of fissile materials suitable for use in nukes, appeasing the left
>Byproducts include gold, and bitches love gold.
>>72133735
>radioactive waste
>>72133652
What if it rains? A tornado? A hurricane? A solar flare? What if a worker comes in with a gun and wants to cause problems? What if a worker sees something wrong and keeps it to himself for fear of getting in trouble? What if someone bombed the plant?
Aren't these all still huge giant risks that aren't outside the realm of possibility?
>>72133127
This.
Molten salt is the future if they can get it working large-scale.
>>72133735
>Thorium reactors prevent the proliferation of fissile materials suitable for use in nukes, appeasing the left
Which is neat...but what about all that old nuclear waste left over?
>Byproducts include gold, and bitches love gold
Stupid question...but would it be radioactive gold?
>>72129965
>What about Three Mile Island? Which almost failed the exact same way as Fukushima and Chernobyl?
...what
>>72134102
5th Gen nuclear reactors like the thorium ones can use old waste as fuel
>>72132555
As this guy said: >>72132750
It's a nice idea in theory, but insanely hard to realize. The biggest problem is that you would have to construct an insanely complex net of superconducting wires with millions of smaller transformers and capacitors. It would be astronomically expensive and a huge risk. How would you defend this net? Can you imagine defending the global energy net that's dependant upon 7 points? One bomb and a fourth of the planet goes dark.
>>72132677
This is true, can't argue with that. But I guess this opens up another problem and shifts away from the initial problem of nuclear energy in itself.
>>72134020
Fusion is the future if we can get it working large-scale. Solar is the future if we can get photovoltaic efficiency past 80% large scale. There's a lot of what ifs, fission works right here and now.
>>72134274
I said it would probably be expensive. But it will eventually work.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/06/research-continues-on-solar-with-molten-salt-storage.html
Someone get France in here please, they know what they're talking about
>>72133981
Woah. All the problems you said which involved humans are pretty stupid. Nuclear reactors are heavily secured for those types of situations.
For tornados, unless one forms in the reactor's veneral vicinity, the workers can safely shut it down. The same can be said for hurricanes. Solar flares occur all the time, so that's not the problem. The problem is the big ones.
>>72134505
People generally don't want expensive. You might be able to sell to some hipsters but most people prefer not paying through their every orifice to light their homes.
>>72134442
Fuck it lets just start building a dyson sphere
>>72134163
All three were water reactors, and all three had an issue with the coolant that resulted in fucked up shit.
In 3 Mile the coolant left, in Chernobyl the coolant built pressure, and in Fukushima the reactor was turned off but the water still boiled anyway and popped.
That's what I meant. Not exactly that they were the same, all three had unique problems that caused them each to fail.
>>72134595
My only real fear is human error or intentional sabotage. In an age of ISIS and mass shootings sabotage is more likely.
As for human error, we've mentioned the big 3 incidents already.
>>72134603
We could nuke Venus and hope the debris rearranges itself into one.
>>72134505
Yeah, this molten salt stuff is fine and good, but listen, the problem is not the production. The problem is the delivery. And unless we imagine that sci-fi stuff like tesla coils and shooting current through the atmosphere will work, this technology will never be feasible on global scale.
>>72133936
>see post
>think to myself:"What a fucking retard."
>see flag
>well,that explains it
mfw retards like you think that radioactive waste from nuclear facilities is the real danger.
Also,nuclear energy is the shit.There is not a single physicist/engy I have met that had a limp dick while talking about it(physics grad here btw.). I am sick and tired hearing about how nuclear energy is bad and how we should turn to other sources (this applies to fossil fuels too). IT IS NOT FUCKING EFFICIENT. YOU FUCKING CRETINS.
I am mad as fuck at Greenpeace/weedsmoking fags who have,with their constant fear mongering/shilling in the last 50 years demonized nuclear energy to the general public. If those "green" self righteous fags really cared about our planet and the well being of our species they would not be the main blockade to modernizing nuclear facilities. Fukushima,Chernobyl and every single other fuck up in nuclear powerhouses was ,indirectly, caused by the "green" degenerates. They have blocked modernization and sanitation of old facilities making them a hazard. Yes,you read it right. Le weedsmoking maymay fags are the reason we are pretty much stuck in that field (aside from fusion prototypes). If those fags just listened for 20 fucking minutes and closed their mouths we would live in a world where nuclear energy was looked as the source of the solution,not the source of all evils. Fuck them and fuck you if you are against it.
Chernobyl was literally the epitome of shitty Soviet design. Never trust communists to build anything properly.
>>72129334
i dont understand how everybody says that this shit was devastating and there are alot of old ladys living there
>>72130276
3 Mile Island afaik amounted to nothing happening, no deaths, no leaked radiation or anything.
Chernobyl was Soviets doing what Soviets did best, fucking up and then covering up the fuckup, rather damning the world than losing glorious comrade Soviet face.
>>72135606
there was a bit that leaked from 3 mile island but the isotopes weren't very dangerous
>>72135601
They're too poor to move. They get no help from the government.
There's also workers who still go to the plant to clean things up. They get 20 to 30 times the normal dosage of radiation, and nobody knows what the effects are to these people because such a low dose might not even effect them until years later.
One thing is for certain, the men who originally were the clean up crew look like they're in their late 60s or 70s with terrible health issues despite being in their late teens or early twenties when working.
>>72135601
"Despite living outside the exclusion zone, these workers are still exposed to radiation levels 30 to 40 times higher than the typical background radiation. No studies have ever been conducted into the effects of long term radiation exposure, so nobody knows quite what this is doing to them. Higher instances of cancer and other diseases have been reported, but the villagers themselves get by on hearsay, rumour, and speculation.
While the exclusion zone itself is largely deserted, there are thought to be around 400 mostly elderly farmers who resettled in their old homes following the disaster, reluctant to leave after so many years spent in familiar surroundings. They scrape out desperate lives, subsisting off of the meagre pensions the government provides for being Chernobyl survivors.
Cancer rates are high, and alcoholism is rife. Viktor Gaidak, who worked at the Chernobyl plant for 28 years, was forced to sell virtually everything he owned in order to pay for treatment for colon cancer. Now his wife Lydia has also developed a tumour, but the couple have nothing left to sell to pay for her treatment."
Source: Daily Mail.
>>72135606
The reactor melted down, it could have easily have melted the last barrier holding up the molten radiation and reached the water beneath causing the Earth to crack and spray nuclear steam over the atmosphere.
>>72136708
>Source: Daily Mail.
The 80s were the best times for the Soviet Union and it's people. High birth rate, strongest military in the world, many technological achievements, industry was growing fast. New apartment buildings were given to the people in exchange for their 8 hour a day work shifts. Chernobyl disaster(planned atack by the west, the Jews to be precise) was the first step to destroy monolithic socialist society. It really started to go downhill from there. I understand that Russia doesn't have a perfect government but sure hope they will restore at least a part of what was destroyed by a liberal puppet Reagan and his followers like Yeltsin Khodorkovsky.
Make Russia great again
>>72130660
3 mile isnt the only close call.
Michigan's Fermi almost melted down in 1966, and the Palisades plant had a leak a few years ago.
The Santa Susana literally melted down in the 50's in California and nearly everyone who lives near it to the day are getting cancer.
But the common thing between those is that they are all very old.
>>72129334
that place should be nuked just to be sure desu senpai
>>72137425
>technological incident changes social cohesion
>jews are behind this
>make russia great again
>flag
The risk is miniscule. Modern reactors are quite failsafe, designs have improved a ton in the last 30 years. It also helps not to build on fault lines, or let a bunch of tards run them like in chernobyl.
So, yeah, the risk is damn well worth it. If nothing else, just to shut down all the coal ruining our air.
>>72132555
Solar freaking roadways man
>>72129334
radioactive waste is dangerous for future generations if not stored properly and nobody can assure that with countries like china, india, brazil etc.
>>72129334
>Is it worth the risks?
Fuck yes
Doesn't matter though, it's technically obsolete now anyway(only within the last two years)
Had we started building nuclear to replace everything 20 years ago it would be fine but leftists hate the idea of the people not having to pay astronomical amounts for energy.
If we did it now it would be far too out of date efficiency wise to have done it in the first place and cost most nations money they couldn't replace
>>72137425
>strongest military
Oh m8 I am laffin
>>72138530
He's posting from inside the Pentagon, don't waste your breath
>>72129334
Seems safe to me, as long as they're not built in areas where earthquakes, tsunamis and slavs can get at them.
There are almost 450 nuclear plants across the world, yet we've only had a small amount of meltdowns. As the technology improves, I can only assume they would get safer.
>>72130042
Even if it doesn't go wrong it ruins landscape and wildlife e.g. fills up valleys with water and prevents fishes from moving upstream.
>>72138530
Events that happened in the next decade:
>rise of food prices, many agricultural sectors were damaged
>perestroika
>the West funding "freedom fighting" Ben Ladin causing Russia to wrap up it's campaign there
>collapse of the eastern block
>Jewish immigration wave to the west
>war in Karabah
>more criminal elements
>the 90s
>maybe I'm missing something else
All of that had an effect on public opinion.
>>72129334
doesn't it produce nuclear waste that has to be buried underground?
I don't think this is a good idea. It's worse than global warming. Life on earth can adapt to that at least
>>72132514
Afaik there are actually thorium reactors (molten salt IIRC) in service in India. I don't know if they have been supported by local socialist poo-in-loos because "fuck your uranium business" or because they are actually being smart. I would see thorium being definitely something worth investing in, but investments are huge and payback times long. Hopefully they will become more popular and an industry standard replacing the old reactors when their planned life expectancy runs out. In the meantime we will try to make business out of nuclear waste with our granite.
>>72135488
Also shitty Soviet management. A fucking PHB told them to turn off the coolant, just to see what would happen.
>>72134515
Fuck them and their Areva all together.
>>72129334
>2016
>believing in the nuclear disaster jew.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMPbpZ34T2c
>>72141898
Found the faggot who doesn't read threads.
>>72129334
Until such time as either someone develops either
a) an affordable, working, industrial-scale Thorium-based fission reactor (which we haven't yet) or
b) an affordable, working, industrial-scale fusion reactor (which we also haven't yet)
then Uranium fission will continue to, as it has for many years, remain the single most efficient and environmentally friendly form of electrical power generation available to us.
>>72130687
Ok, mr "fact" man, show me one working reactor that was built without public funds, and that has operated for one week without subsidy.
Any country, any time. Let's see some cold hard facts.
>>72129706
In a world of natural disasters, terrorism and war people still think nuclear energy is safe. lol
>>72129334
I always wanted to visit Chernobyl. It looks like a slice of the future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf6ON6pbDDA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvH7BRubFIg
