Why is the left so against nuclear, when it's clean and reliable?
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473379564/unable-to-compete-on-price-nuclear-power-on-the-decline-in-the-u-s
They mention how costly nuclear is and how its being priced out by "clean" natural gas, as well as solar and wind which are both so heavily subsidized that if those subsidizes were removed their price would more than double.
I am an ultra-leftist and I think we should build a fuckload of nuclear powerplants to provide socialized electricity and fight global warming
![Nuclear-protest-Nuclear-Power-Is-Not-The-Answer-To-the-Climate-Crisis[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/j6NHe3H.jpg "Nuclear-protest-Nuclear-Power-Is-Not-The-Answer-To-the-Climate-Crisis[1].jpg")
>>7988207
You're not. You're a disgrace to the liberals.
>>7988156
Bed-wetting liberals who got their panties in a twist over 3 Mile Island
>>7988156
Because when it goes wrong it fucks shit up big time. Not only that, it produces toxic waste (which is fucked in itself), radiation has no cure or /real/ treatment and it is a shitty as fuck way to die (you basically melt or you get cancer and wither away)
I mean the reactors run for a long-ass time. It's completely arrogant to think that the world's political and societal background isn't going to change. I mean, 200 years ago, we didn't even have electricity. What is the world going to look like in 200 years? Will there be another world war? Will there be a fuckhuge earthquake? A terrorist attack?
I certainly don't like 90% of the alternatives, but I just find nuclear to weigh too heavy on the risk side of the scale because literally the best thing about it is it will increase mutation occurences and increase genetic diversity
I don't consider myself as a leftist, more of a corroboration of left and right.
>>7988156
inb4 we get that guy who always shits up these threads with anti-nuclear propaganda and denies climate change.
Oh wait. Too late.
>>7988256
How many degrees of warming is it worth to exclude nuclear power?
Oh yeah, and keep in mind that a large portion of CO2 emitted today will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years
>>7988156
That you believe 'the left' exists is your answer.
By painting a large array of political opinions with not even broad strokes but just a single one, you inaccurately interpret reality in such a way as to become confused by it.
I, for example, believe in socialist policies and also firmly support nuclear power as a reliable, non-carbon emitting power source. Nuclear waste is a problem to deal with, but it's less of a problem than the centuries of warming ahead, and everything would be sorted anyway if we switched to Thorium (no, it's not a meme).
>>7988156
>greencucks
what did you expect senpai
>>7988156
>implying it's just the left
>>7988294
hippies are lefists. like all of them. illiterate, braindead idiots who support everything wrong and unscientific.
>>7988300
Dude, in my country (Austria) literally everyone is against nuclear energy, the far-right even more than the left. After we had a referendum in 1978, it's even part of our national identity.
>>7988300
You really think that conservative biblethumpers arent exactly analagous to hippies? Both the left and the right can be retarded, people just assume that their side of the political spectrum is somehow superior.
>>7988156
"the left" doesnt have an agreed upon position on nuclear power like it does with welfare and military policy. Lots of leftists support nuclear power.
>>7988314
You can't really slip away from the fact that all the anti-nuclear protestors are dumb uneducated libtards who have zero knowledge about how nuclear plants work and only there to be a contrarian and support anti-science. I haven't seen any right-wingers doing something so retarded.
>>7988314
the left (at least in main stream media) have increasingly grown anti-science
https://youtu.be/yy7GOO7Y96Y
>>7988345
I feel for this jew. Why does he have to suffer the childish faggotry of those clowns sitting infront of him ?
>>7988156
Fuck off nuke shill
solar is more labour intensive and decentralized, so if money isn't an issue for you and you want to through money around and subsidize stuff it would be better to subsidized what creates more jobs for plebs
>>7988156
STANDING
Reminder that Chernobyl isn't a dead zone.
Reminder that it kept running until 2000 and then got replaced by a coal plant because muh chernobyl
>>7988256
It doesn't actually go *that* wrong.
And Chernobyl used a retarded design that nobody uses any more.
The most modern designs are way way more reliable.
And it's mostly women that are against it.
Which is easily verifiable with a quick google.
>>7988382
>And it's mostly women that are against it.
Before somebody doesn't do the google himself but goes SAAUAUCEEEE?!?!?!?!
https://morningconsult.com/2015/05/men-and-women-divided-on-nuclear-power/
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2578866?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>>7988256
>Because when it goes wrong it fucks shit up big time.
Hydroelectric dam failures have literally killed magnitudes more people than nuclear accidents, yet they're still counted as those happy lucky renewable world saving techs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure#List_of_major_dam_failures
>>7988212
>climate chaos
>mfw
>>7988405
>Banqiao and Shimantan Dams
That single day alone is already worse than every nuclear disaster to date.
But muh save dams.
>>7988256
>radiation has no cure or /real/ treatment and it is a shitty as fuck way to die
So is burning to death in a coal fire or having your head split by a falling solar panel, or freezing to death with the rest of your family because a blizzard ruined your nations solar and wind production in the middle of an extreme winter.
You are extremely ignorant about nuclear radiation and instead of getting educated you piss your pants and complain about it.
Nuclear safety in unparallelled. Radiation sources are also easy to monitor, in the case of a leak you can keep track of areas, in real time, with geiger counters. No need to lab tests or reagents.
Nuclear fuel is also extremely energy dense. And I do really mean extreme. It's WAAAAY off the charts compared to coal.(see attached image)
This very same energy density means that the waste volumes are actually really fucking small. We can gather all of the worlds nuclear waste and store it a few warehouses, not that there's any need to do that as they're solid state waste and can be stored and monitored on-site at the reactors due to their small amounts.
>>7988429
Waste can also be recycled.
>>7988382
>Reminder that Chernobyl isn't a dead zone.
>On 26 April 1986, Reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant near the town of Pripyat, Ukraine, exploded. The explosion took place at 1:23am. Two workers were killed instantly. 40 hours later, the residents of Pripyat were ordered to evacuate, and most never returned; by that time, many of the residents had suffered varying degrees of radiation poisoning.
So safe! So reminder! So doge...
>>7988256
>but I just find nuclear to weigh too heavy on the risk side of the scale
It's actually pretty good in terms of deaths/J of energy generated (see http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html)
>>7988442
It's not a dead-zone you fucking moron.
That was 30 years ago.
It's a tourist attraction and a de facto wildlife reserve
>>7988442
renewables so safe!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
>171,000
>WoW such death
>such clean
>build more damns cuz safe and clean
>>7988407
>Nuclear power isn't the answer to Climate chaos
No argument here
Whats your problem?
>>7988447
>It's a tourist attraction and a de facto wildlife reserve
Oh please, are you serious?
"de facto", riiiight. And bay of Fukushima is like, Ocean wildlife preserve.
Fukushima is like Disneyland, in 50 years. Buy shares today!
>>7988442
>>7988447
Also how can it be a dead-zone if 3 of the 4 reactors kept running because Ukraine needed the electricity?
You think nuclear reactors need no men to operate?
Reactor 3 was in service until 2000. It kept delivering energy until 14 years after the disaster.
>>7988459
You're a moron.
It's not a dead zone.
>>7988455
>Greenies hate dams too.
We do but its more nuanced than you think.
But yes, we fucking hate dams.
>>7988460
>It's not a dead zone.
Ah, okay. Its a swinging company town of about 700 people with abnormally high background radiation in a nearly 3rd world country where people are so desperate for cash they'll work anywhere.
So not a dead zone. Plan your trip today. Bring your binoculars to locate the wildlife. Bring your kids and your unmodified gametes. Bring an umbrella 'cuz its raining fun in Chernobyl!
>>7988461
the best part about nuclear plants here in south carolina, is we get awesome lakes from the dams used to cool the plants.Which means no ugly ass cooling towers
>>7988474
It's safe for tourism
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3047031/Chernobyl-thriving-holiday-destination-following-rise-dark-tourism-phenomenon.html
>>7988474
>cuz its raining fun in Chernobyl!
Is this some green zealotry proverb or do you seriously think there's radioactive rain in the region?
>>7988256
>Not only that, it produces toxic waste (which is fucked in itself)
What are new reactor designs. Even if muh thorium doesn't take off there are other reactor designs that either use nuclear waste or create much less quantities of it. The fear of nuclear energy is partly to blame for the continued use of old plants that still produce a lot of waste and why very few new ones are being built.
>>7988451
>>>7988451
Nothing I buy that says "Made in China" I would trust, and neither should anyone.
Especially a Dam, especially if I was a Chinese person downstream.
And besides, I don't care how many TV sets were powered for the nightly broadcast of the People's Most Glorious Leader Hour of Total Worship, it wasn't worth the lives of every living thing downstream.
So in summary, nice shitty example, retard, try again.
>>7988452
What makes you think that the climate is in a chaotic state?
>>7988475
>Was a hype and ignorance circus. The panicked calls for evacuation killed people. The radiation did not.
So, after partitioning reactor and reactant can we exonerate the reactants. Had nothing to do with them, eh? As for panicked calls, I'm sure. If it were me I'd be DYING to call for an evacuation.
>You hate everything. Because nothing except for trees and rocks are more stupid than you.
Thats not hate, its jealousy genius.
>>7988481
>the best part about nuclear plants here in south carolina, is we get awesome lakes from the dams used to cool the plants.Which means no ugly ass cooling towers
Interesting, perhaps with nuclear, S. Carolina can create more lake shoreline to replace the erosion of ocean shoreline brought on by climate chaos sea level rise.
>>7988490
>It's safe for tourism
I'm sure its super safe (not), but lets get real, no one wants to go there and the only reason someone does is because there is a spectacle of destruction upon which to gaze
Is that supposed to comprise the win-win argument? "Hey, if it melts down, at least in 50 years you might be able to sell tickets to poke around the ruins!"
>>7988492
>Is this some green zealotry proverb or do you seriously think there's radioactive rain in the region?
You need an umbrella ITT because its raining radioactive assholes. Seriously. Do you have an umbrella?
>>7988481
Noice. Where you at brah? Columbia reporting in.
>>7988540
You're a fucking moron.
Nobody even uses the design Chernobyl used any more.
Nuclear power is safe, the modern designs are magnitudes safer than the shit USSR used.
Have fun with your lung cancer from coal fumes.
>>7988461
I wish we could take every insane anti-human extreme regressive luddite green cultist and put them all on Madagascar or something
cut off all communication, send them no industrial products they refuse to make themselves, send them no resources we extracted from mother gaia, and generally let them be go back to being cave people like they want us all to be
they can go back to scraping out a short brutal existence around the dirt and animals while the rest of us reach farther and higher, seizing reality and remaking it in our image, as man ascendant to god from beast
>>7988521
>What makes you think that the climate is in a chaotic state?
Its getting too warm where I live and it is making me want to move. Also, the sea level is rising, threatening my beach-side abode, its up to my knees in fact. And the water is acidifying bleaching and destroying the coral ecosystem.
>>7988459
>Fukushima
Threadly reminder that the anti-nuclear lobby hijacked the Japanese earthquake and the following tsunami that killed in excess of 10,000 people, all in order to attack the nuclear plant that killed 0.
Remember this when you argue with an anti-nuclear moron, they have no morals and are practically psychopathic in their crusade.
>>7988552
> Anonymous 04/08/16(Fri)13:19:51 No.7988552 â–¶
>>7988540 (You)
You
're a fucking moron.
Nobody even uses the design Chernobyl used any more.
>Nuclear power is safe, the modern designs are magnitudes safer than the shit USSR used.
Fukushima is still a disaster, lets be clear about the threat to existing ocean-water cooled reactors of that type which exist all over the world, in much less advanced nations than Japan, that are just waiting to catch that rogue wave from a seismic event and melt all the way down to the core.
>Have fun with your lung cancer from coal fumes.
Its the greenies you hate that campaign to stop coal
>>7988548
Pickens, it an awesome place to go kayaking
>>7988554
>I wish we could take every insane anti-human extreme regressive luddite green cultist and put them all on Madagascar or something
It would be a good idea except Madagascar was colonized by Earth-Raping motherfuckers from the Cheese-eating nations way back that totally fucked the island over and overpopulated it.
For a paltry amount of Vanilla no less.
>>7988256
I'm not sure if this is bait because you so perfectly captured the ideology of the misinformed public when it comes to nuclear energy.
Nuclear was doomed from the start. People don't understand nuclear energy; namely how it works and what the true risks are relative to other power generation methods. Most will even tell you that nuclear is poor for the environment right off the bat, not understanding the byproducts or even that the "toxic waste" can be recycled very easily and used in a series of reactions through nuclear transformation. The general populace would rather continue to burn fossil fuels, or some evolution thereof, than advance to a far cleaner, safe, and more efficient alternative.
The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
>>7988527
>Clueless: The post.
Look. There's something called a Sievert. It's a unity of accumulated radiation exposure.
For a civilian it's set at 2mSv per year. For a pregnant person it's 1mSv per year.
For a Radiation worker it's 20mSv per year.
Even at 20mSv per year there's however NO DETECTABLE increase in cancer for the radiation workers.
For most people not pregnant in the region the radiation levels were nowhere near high enough to warrant a rapid evacuation. It could've been delayed by months, years or not required at all.
>>7988542
>because its raining radioactive
No it's not you
F U C K I N G
M O R O N
If you don't even know something this basic you're beyond hope and your posts are pure fiction.
>>7988560
>Threadly reminder that the anti-nuclear lobby hijacked the Japanese earthquake and the following tsunami that killed in excess of 10,000 people, all in order to attack the nuclear plant that killed 0.
Nice rhetoric but clearly, the greenies were against nuclear before and after. Fukushima remains emblematic of a faith in systems thinking and rationality which failed to compensate for a catastrophe that engineers failed to anticipate, which in hindsight, should have been obvious. The lobby can't be blamed for advocating a policy position when some event confirms its suspicions, to wit, that reactor failures are dangerous. They imply that anyway Einstein.
More to the point, the next time your sea-side reactor gets damaged and goes critical can you claim that there wasn't sufficient warning? It will happen.
>>7988556
Not trying to be anal but that doesn't mean the climate is chaotic. I think your point is the climate is having chaotic EFFECTS on the planet. Chaotic climate would suggest that the climate is unpredictable which simply isn't the fact.
>>7988564
>Fukushima is still a disaster
Fukushima was OLDER THAN CHERNOBYL.
Guess why outdated piece of shit designs are still running?
Yes that's right, because shit-for-brains crusaders like yourself do your best to stop every single attempt to modernize the nuclear fleet. So the old reactors get extensions year after year after year.
>>7988256
chernobyl, according to the world health organization, the UN and the us gov., killed 46 people and exposed 4000 to life-shortening radiation. Even if a chernobyl happened literally every month, nuclear would still be safer than coal in terms of raw death count.
And consider that there have been two nuclear accidents that killed people or did significant damage, TWO ACCIDENTS IN ONE OF THE BIGGEST SOURCES OF POWER OF THE COURSE OF 50+ YEARS. None of the accidents happened to normal power plants either; they were all unsafe ones not conforming to safety protocol
>>7988573
I think the whole nuclear aspect is just missing the overall point.
I don't think you can argue that the mass global economy, in effect, isn't critically harming or threatening instability, if not outright total destruction, of much of the natural world.
Whether it is fossil fuels or nuclear power, that power is most certainly going to be used to cause more damage. Even a hypothetical replacement of all fossil fuels with carbon-free nuclear (Which is a total joke) you still have a fundamental behavioral problem arising from a system which metastasizes large-scale destruction wherever it has been and wherever it goes.
Regardless of what happens from now on, the effects of this destructive trend have already tipped the equilibrium against a future where we expect life to continue as we inherited it. We are like any other ancient civilization, which there is ample archaeological evidence, where an economic system drove its resource base into a catastrophic failure mode. Only this time it is global.
So keep dreaming. Nothing is going to make this system work- not fission, or even fusion.
>>7988156
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeQENheol1A
WTF, I hate nuclear power now!
>>7988592
>next time your sea-side reactor gets damaged and goes critical can you claim that there wasn't sufficient warning? It will happen.
It will happen where? Please find me a reactor older than chernobyl close enough to the ocean shore in a region where a fault line is likely to produce a once-per-half-century earthquake induced megatsunami.
Maybe you mean the fukushima twin reactor. The fukushima Dai NI that was a few kilometers away from Dai Ichi?
It was a few years younger and had an additional antiquated safety feature and that's why you've never heard of it. It also lost its diesel backup. But because it had a steam powered backup pump that could keep circulate water while the reactor was hot even with no power.
Modern AP1000 have gravity reserviours and can flush the reactor as long as gravity keeps pointing downwards. Probabilistic risk analysis gives them risk values that are several magnitudes lower than chernobyl. It's expected that you get a single core damage accident per 5 000 000 year of operation.
You live in a fantasy world where your imagination and ideology are considered more real than reality.
>>7988564
Fukushima is literally half a decade older than Chernobyl.
You're a fucking moron.
The only reason you're against nuclear power is because your head is too far up your own ass to look up even 1 credible source.
>>7988592
>that reactor failures are dangerous
It didn't kill anyone and it's barely caused an increase in the lifetime risk of developing cancer (0.7% to 1.25%). No, the anti-nuclear lobby loved this happening, it knew that if it could sublimate the disaster that was (the tsunami) with the disaster that never happened (the reactor) it would have another to attack an industry it hates out of shear ignorance.
>It will happen.
Maybe, but as this anon points out >>7988599 Fukushima was commissioned in 1971, it was an old as reactor. If it had been shut down (hmmm I wonder why that didn't happen) and a new one with better safety features built in its place then there would have been no disaster. For example modern reactors can power themselves, not requiring the generators that Fukushima required, the generators that failed and lead to the accident.
>>7988577
As recently as 10 years ago there were dangerous levels of radiation as recorded by geiger counters by visitors. It gets hotter the closer you get to ground. As radioactive soils evaporate and erode, the dust becomes airborne. You get it in your lungs. Small exposures accumulate. Long term, damage may or may not produce a cancer.
Lets say its a 1% increase in probability in a cancer which strikes 1 in 100 people. So 2 people get cancer now.
I find it fatuous that you'd attempt to convince anyone that its in their best interest to arbitrarily increase their chance of cancer just because it is a small risk. It happens all the time, but is no less foolish. We can individually assess our odds and behave accordingly, but it is a trick of perception to believe that the difference isn't significant, especially when people DO get cancers. In which case the magical thinking continues, and they tell themselves it was just luck.....
>>7988156
We are very concerned about the long term potential consequences of nuclear power in the face of Fukushima and Chernobyl, and we are concerned about nuclear waste.
We also recognize that the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy industries have developed in tandem, that they rely on similar technology and line the pockets of the same companies that produce weapons material.
>>7988593
Not trying to be anal but that doesn't mean the climate is chaotic. I think your point is the climate is having chaotic EFFECTS on the planet. Chaotic climate would suggest that the climate is unpredictable which simply isn't the fact.
Terms are only accurate when they more closely convey the implication of their subject.
"Climate change" is banal.
"Global Warming" is only slightly less, and certainly too narrow a term to describe the scope and intensity of effects.
"Climate Chaos" actually comes pretty close to describing the effects predicted and level of uncertainty as to the scope and type of effects.
So I think it is a better, more accurate term. Not just to be scary, but really just more comprehensive.
>>7988599
>Yes that's right, because shit-for-brains crusaders like yourself do your best to stop every single attempt to modernize the nuclear fleet. So the old reactors get extensions year after year after year.
I don't do shit for activism or anything in general. I've taken classes though that examine these things- "Greenies" have a lot less to do with it that simple economics and political economy.
You just want scapegoat for your perceived problems. Said problems don't go away. Its kind of like the Hippies from the 60s- they were less than 2% of the population of the US at best had had little political capital. So of course, they blamed the war in vietnam and drugs and crime and whatever else they could on them.
>>7988606
> nuclear would still be safer than coal in terms of raw death count.
No argument there
>>7988624
I'm not even a proponent of nuclear to tell you the truth. The research lab I work in is designing proteins to convert commonly derived fatty acids into hydrocarbon fuel. I may be biased, but it seems like the most realistic "alternative energy" at least within the reaches of time. It's not economically feasible right now for large scale nuclear. Building reactors in the U.S. which are up to code and are generally stable and safe is too much money -- which is what the link in the OP talks about.
I don't agree with your completely pessimistic view point of humanity, however. You can't compare the world today to crumbled, individualistic societies of the past.
>>7988703
Nuclear has big up front costs.
But moderate maintenance cists and the fact that they're able to run for very long times with relatively cheap fuel makes them cheap in the long run.
>>7988661
So it suddenly stopped being in the rain and now is in the dust?
>dangerous levels[quantify]
>by visitors[who]
>It gets hotter the closer you get to ground
because inverse square law
>radioactive soils evaporate
Any event that causes soil to evaporate will sterilize the surroudning area of all life
>Lets say its a 1%
Lets not asspull numbers and instead and provide citations that quantify it.
>that its in their best interest to arbitrarily increase their chance of cancer just because it is a small risk.
Compared to everything else that we're exposed to nuclear is a pissdrop in the sea. The anti-nuclear movement increases reliance of coals which causes more deaths than nuclear ever had through regular vanilla pollution.
Also did you know that the risk of breast cancer in young women who uses oral contraceptive is increased by 20% to 125%? No of course you didn't because you're more concerned with chasing decimal values related to your ideological pet issues.
>>7988730
Perhaps, but the U.S. would never sink the money up front no matter how much sense it makes. Which is why no matter how many global warming summits, climate committees, carbon taxes, etc. they implement, they still never make a genuine effort to create energy infrastructure that's not hydrocarbon based.
>>7988661
>Lets say its a 1% increase in probability in a cancer which strikes 1 in 100 people. So 2 people get cancer now
Wait, you think that a 1% increase in a cancer that affects 1% of the population leads to 2% of the population getting that particular cancer?
>This is the intellect of the anti-nuclear lobby.
Leftism is 100% a top down ideology
noone on the left is allowed to think for themselves
The top tier marxists have some irrational anti-nuclear beliefs, and they believe cheap energy is not a good thing for their agendas
>>7988645
>You live in a fantasy world where your imagination and ideology are considered more real than reality.
Incorrect, I respect scientific modelling. But the argument that nuclear is "Better" is a qualitative assessment. As such, I respect logic.
In isolation, nuclear is "cleaner" and even "better" alternative to coal. But practically, I don't see the actual (not fantasy) political economy being comprised of interests that practically replace one with the other outside of advanced nations with a sincere commitment... (like who? India, China: no. The US, could change in 1 election.)
Alternatives have momentarily stopped exploitation of coal. Once those alternatives are exhausted, I don't see nuclear being a viable alternative. Unless there is the establishment of something like an international coalition that controls nuclear materials, establishes extremely robust international economic and political incentives that compel all the actors to basically voluntarily walking away from the black gold they so desperately want to exploit.
Such a freakishly large-scale endeavor involving the coordinated movements globally, frankly, is something the world political economy has never shown itself able to accomplish with anything approaching competency. It would really, literally be unprecedented. And realistically, the only time when shit like this gets done is after total disaster and the requisite need is so acute there is already massive pain inflicted.
Humans suck and human politics is super-primitive, I'm sorry to say. We are a dumb species lurching from crisis to crisis and wrecking as much as possible. Lets all remember we are dealing with an overwhelming mass of very dumb primates, most of whom believe in apocalyptic cult religions.
In the near term, practically speaking, there is the question: is it wise to put the power of the atom into the hands of these kinds of people? Because that is what we have done and is being proposed.
>>7988830
>I respect scientific modelling.
No
> I respect logic.
No again. I stopped reading here because the rest appears to be an editorial opinion piece.
>>7988783
>>Lets say its a 1% increase in probability in a cancer which strikes 1 in 100 people. So 2 people get cancer now
Wait, you think that a 1% increase in a cancer that affects 1% of the population leads to 2% of the population getting that particular cancer?
>This is the intellect of the anti-nuclear lobby.
Lets ignore the simple statistical mistake.
The fact is a marginal increase in frequency of getting cancer matters very little when you happen to be that extra person who gets cancer.
The point was to poke holes in a moral justifications based on abstract statistics.
You can say coal would kill more by replacement, and might be right, but my side of the argument isn't going to be tricked by such clumsy attempts to get me to assume that nuclear power is benign in any relative way. We aren't arguing about whether nuclear is a good alternative to coal, but that nuclear should be developed at all irrespective of any total increase in energy distribution by any other method.
Eg., Advocating against nuclear doesn't equate to advocating for Dam construction, coal mining, or other general faggotry, even though it may be likely in practice. I'm against all those other things too- and in which case I'd argue its a bald lie that building more nuclear will necessarily decrease any other primary energy generation on the whole.
>>7988819
And rights ever think for themselves? They absolutely REFUSE to even consider any opposing viewpoints, that's literally the basis of conservatism; keep shit how it is regardless of how shit it is.
>>7988515
You say as you cite chernobyl...made and managed by ussr retards.
>>7988846
>editorial opinion piece.
That is not a counterargument. Its just bullshit. You have no perspective on the topic other than a conviction about minutiae in regard to the issue at hand. You have no ammo for your gun in the gunfight, bro.
Any way, nuclear is a done deal all over the world. What you are advocating for is already established technology. Its widespread. Don't get to butt hurt for losing an argument a freshman year philosophy student would have won.
>>7988740
>Increased by 20 to 125%
Uhh wut? Those number do not make sense the way you are using them.
>>7988880
>The fact is a marginal increase in frequency of getting run over matters very little when you happen to be that extra person who gets run over.
>Therefore we should build our entire world on just one side of the street.
Everything in life has risk, the point to reduce the risk associated with living. If I'm totally honest I don't know where to go with this argument, you've literally just admitted that you don't care if nuclear is better and safer, you just don't like it. Which is fair enough, but unless you're planning imminent suicide it's a retarded stance to take.
>>7988156
Because liberals have downs.
But the real answer is that nuclear does not scale right now.
We don't have enough competent people to run more plants and make sure we don't get a new Fukushima or Chernobyl.
>>7988927
>We don't have enough competent people to run more plants and make sure we don't get a new Fukushima or Chernobyl.
Fuck off idiot.
Modern reactors are magnitudes safer.
Fukushima is a 50 year old design
>>7988935
Now answer the first part of my statement.
We don't have the competent people to run it.
Also source on the new design.
>>7988954
>We don't have the competent people to run it.
Baseless statement.
>Also source on the new design.
If you've done even 10 minutes of research you'd have known that nuclear technology has improves massively over the last 5 decades.
Look up generation 1 nuclear plants
Gen 2
Gen 3/3+
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
>An OECD/NEA report in 2010 pointed out that the theoretically-calculated frequency for a large release of radioactivity from a severe nuclear power plant accident has reduced by a factor of 1600 between the early Generation I reactors as originally built and the Generation III/III+ plants being built today. Earlier designs however have been progressively upgraded through their operating lives.
You're a literal fucking idiot who hasn't even done 1 minute of research
>>7988972
A mandated safety indicator is the calculated probable frequency of degraded core or core melt accidents. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies that reactor designs must meet a 1 in 10,000 year core damage frequency, but modern designs exceed this. US utility requirements are 1 in 100,000 years, the best currently operating plants are about 1 in 1 million and those likely to be built in the next decade are almost 1 in 10 million. While this calculated core damage frequency has been one of the main metrics to assess reactor safety, European safety authorities prefer a deterministic approach, focusing on actual provision of back-up hardware, though they also undertake probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) for core damage frequency.
>>7988913
>Uhh wut? Those number do not make sense the way you are using them.
There's multiple forms of oral contraceptives. Age when you starts is a modifier and having children is also a modifier. In case you missed the memo a "young woman" is a pretty ill defined creature.
So where's the not sensemaking part?
>>7988515
So you're saying that a dam made with questionable standards by people who cut corners is inherently unsafe and a bad example? Does that mean that I can say the same about a certain nuclear plant built in Ukraine?
>>7989008
>Doctors in medival times used to do bloodletting as a cure for anemia so therefor modern oncologists are also witch doctors
Idiot arguments from idiot people. No surprise here.
>>7988407
I read it as "Climate Chads" first and was quite puzzled.
>>7989014
>Climate Chads
sounds like what you'd get if /r9k/ started protesting about the environment
>gREEEEEEEnpeace
>>7988888
?
You're an idiot
>>7989013
You claim that nuclear power is dangerous a la Chernobyl and Fukushima.
You got countered by people who cited the fact that hydroelectric dams actually cause more deaths than nuclear power.
You then said that it's made in China blah blah blah it doesn't count hydroelectric dams are inherently safer!
I countered by saying that if you claim that the Chinese dam is a statistical outlier, I can say the same about Chernobyl.
You go on about bloodletting.
You were right on one thing though. Idiot arguments from idiot people.
Its just because it costs a lot to safely dispose of the radioactive isotope used and can do a lot of damage if not disposed of correctly
>>7989086
Much less of an issue with Gen 3 onwards reactors and waste can be recycled.
>>7988156
liebereals think with their feelings rather than logic
they buy into all teh government and media propaganda
they want to ban fossil fuels, and nuclear, leaving only hydro(a fairly good technology, but they probably hate it for infringing on newts or something), solar(doesn't work at night, or when overcast, needs gas powered generator to back it up, which uses more CO2 through stop and start than if it was running all the time) and wind(rare earth magnets cause horrific pollution, maintenance is high, need replacing every 10 years, kill birds and also need gas back up)
in conclusion, they feel rather than thinking, in general
>>7989014
And a fresh new maymay was born. Witnessed.
>tfw climate chads shilling left and right
>>7988830
>we are a dumb species
well maybe you are
>>7988156
>it's clean and reliable
>nuclear
lol
We shouldn't even be focusing on how to get more power. we need to focus on how to use LESS power. And, for segregated power, having power generation in everyone's backyards instead or relying on grid-tie easily disrupted systems.
Besides, there's only been a very few nuclear power plant fuckups and they all ended up affecting the entire world either through the economy or directly to people and the environment.
>>7988429
good graph
>>7988256
>more of a corroboration of left and right
heh, some kind of wishy washy centrist with no understanding of the issues, imo
did you know that burning coal releases more radioactive material into the air than Uranium reactors? properly run ones of course
you should look into Thorium, it has many advantages, including very little waste, and that waste is exceedingly valuable for use in nuclear batteries for space craft, and we're running out of it. It also runs at 1 atmosphere of pressure, so cannot explode. Fails safe, with no need for active cooling(or backup cooling).
It can even burn traditional nuclear waste
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sG9_OplUK8
>>7988461
the only thing that will satisfy you loonies is to go back to caveman days, except with no fires, and no animal skin, or meat, a vegan caveman diet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
>>7988624
you're advocating a complete destruction of the human species?
wow
>>7989182
>we need to focus on how to use LESS power
Crash the economy and revert to third world status.
Then enjoy the purge as the rioters do a coup detat and exterminates your entire bloodline.
No? Then supply proper energy. GDP benefits from a sound energy policy.
> having power generation in everyone's backyards
Residential areas only use 12% of electricity on average. You covering for your home means jack shit to utilities and industry requires a power quality that renewables cannot reliably provide. A power drop or surge that does nothing to residential areas can cause tens of thousands of dollars in damage to industry.
>they all ended up affecting the entire world either through the economy or directly to people and the environment.
>entire world
nope.
>>7988997
125% rate of breast cancer
>>7988783
top fucking kek
>>7989182
>we need to focus on how to use less power
please kill yourself
Because muh Churnobyl and muh Fukushima.
Good thread btw :^). Original and interesting.
>>7989251
It means that all the women get breast cancer and then 25% of them get it twice
2 boobs bro do the math dumass
>>7989251
Changes in cancer rate is expressed by modifiers not absolute values.
125% increase in rate of cancer doesn't mean you have a 125% chance to develop cancer.
If the initial chance to develop breast cancer is 0.2% and it increases by 125% then it's 0.45% chance to develop cancer afterwards. (0.2*2.25=0.45)
This is extremely basic statistics and if you don't know it you should probably just lurk until you pick up enough to form a decent opinion.
>>7989314
The utility cock is what allows me to call you a retard and the utility cock is what allows you to pretend you aren't one.
>>7989314
advocating for using less power is the same as advocating for more people to be poor
so yes please kill yourself
>>7988156
>clean and reliable
Depends where you build it, surely not on my soil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_'Ndrangheta
I'm still holding out hope that someone like Lockheed Martin will actually crack the fusion nut.
>>7988256
This and the subsequent posts by this anon are true trolling artistry.
>>7989026
>gREEEEEEEnpeace
kekked
>>7989153
Chads will save us all
>>7989275
Retard here (first thread reply). I think a 125 % increase from 0.2 % would be calculated as 0.2 * 1.25 = 0.25, and that you just calculated a 225 % increase. Am I wrong?
>>7988156
The problem with nuclear is that it is a "low probability high impact" risk. Yes technology is very good and risk is low. But Chernobyl and Fukushima have show us the impact of that low risk.
>>7988819
Lucky for Noone that the Supreme Leader affords him such luxuries.
>>7989452
Yeah, you're wrong. A 125% increase also needs to include the original 100% to find to new total.
>>7988156
because the ocean is a giant carbon sink, and if you combine solar and power to gas you can create a nearly closed carbon loop.
nuclear just isn't worth it anymore.
>>7989460
A low risk that has since been fixed.
Try again.
>>7989314
I hope you get cancer and all hospitals refuse to let you use the MRI machine.
>>7989460
you do realize that the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters were totally avoidable right?
In the case of Chernobyl, they were using reactor designs that they knew were incredibly unsafe and yet continued to push them to their breaking point.
In fukushima, they built the plants in a highly tectonically active zone without properly accounting for events like tsunamis and whatnot.
Also, to say that they are high impact risks is completely disingenuous, a quick google search can tell you that.
>>7989497
>Let's turn the oceans into a giant acid bath
ebin
>>7988281
> Oh yeah, and keep in mind that a large portion of CO2 emitted today will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years
We could fix that with lots of nuclear and the lime + basalt method.
>>7988379
https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
>>7988577
>For most people not pregnant in the region the radiation levels were nowhere near high enough to warrant a rapid evacuation. It could've been delayed by months, years or not required at all.
True, but we didn't know that at the time. The initial evacuation was probably prudent at the time, given the information at hand.
>>7988624
Malthus was wrong. Rich nations like the United States can afford to have the endangered species act, the clean water act, public parks, etc. It's the poor countries that cannot afford to take care of the environment.
Further, it's rich countries where population growths are negative. It's poor countries where populations are growing.
>>7988830
>Alternatives have momentarily stopped exploitation of coal.
No they haven't. Increased used of so-called renewables have arguably led to an increase in fossil fuel use. For example, Germany, one of the so-called leaders in renewable energy is at the top of the charts for CO2 per capita, and they burn the most coal in Europe, approx. Whereas, France is much lower CO2 per capita, precisely because they have nuclear.
Wind and solar are intermittent, and solar does not work in Germany winters, which means it needs massive backing by reliable sources such as coal and nat gas.
>>7988927
For example, check out ThorCon. It can totally scale, and safely too.
>>7989497
>because the ocean is a giant carbon sink, and if you combine solar and power to gas you can create a nearly closed carbon loop.
No, you cannot. Whatever analysis you've seen is probably supremely cherry-picked, using optimistic numbers, and assuming the rest of the third world is not going to industrialize, which is not going to happen. The rest of the poor world are going to get their electricity and industry, and they're going to do it with coal if we do not get them something cheaper or cost competitive.
>>7989497
Also, please see the following for a rarely mentioned but supremely important reason why solar and wind cannot work.
https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
>>7988156
cause everyone remembers chernobyl. only thing is, chernobyl had a retard design the safety systems apparently
>>7990438
More technically, the reactor design itself was such that as it got hotter, the reaction became faster, which made it get hotter still. The technical term is a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity. For every reactor in the west, as it gets hotter, the reaction slows down, due to the physical differences of the different fuels, coolants, and reactor materials and configuration. That's a massive, massive difference in safety and consequences in case of an accident. The problem with Chernobyl is that fission continued well past the initial accident, which is part of what made it such a gigantic clusterfuck. Whereas, for Fukushima, fission stopped less than 10 seconds after the detection of the earthquake. The problem with Fukushima is the decay products are going to decay and produce heat, and that heat needs to be moved, or the reactor melts. But modern designs are better at that too.
>>7990441
Fukushima also happens to be older than Chernobyl
>>7988281
Global warming can suck my cock.
>>7988405
>>7988429
>>7988445
>>7988497
>>7988573
>>7988606
>>7989197
>>7988382
You're all forgetting a few things:
1: Nuclear Power is being held back. If we embraced it the chance of another fuck up increases
2: Radiation doesn't go away for a long ass time, it merely becomes dispersed. As time progresses the levels will continue to rise
3: Cancer from radiation exposure can sometimes take over 10 years to occur
4: You all expect the Geopolitical landscape to remain as peaceful and happy as we have been experiencing
5: If The West fully embraces Nuclear, then so will shit-tier nations
6: Murphy's Law, or if you will: As time progresses, the chance that something will occur increases
7: It is not healthy adults who are truly at risk. It's the fetus' and reproductive system which has the lowest resistance. We could literally sterilize a large number of the population after a few hundred years
I admit that if it's done right, there shouldn't be any problems, but the whole 'doesn't go away' gives it very heavy risk.
>>7990465
>I admit that if it's done right, there shouldn't be any problems, but the whole 'doesn't go away' gives it very heavy risk.
Neither does the coal ash produced by coal plants, nor the airborne particulate pollution that kills millions every year. Dittos for the toxic sludge left over from solar panel manufacture. What? Do you think producing large amounts of effectively semiconductor is going to be clean? Please.
>>7990465
>1: Nuclear Power is being held back. If we embraced it the chance of another fuck up increases
Nuclear power being held back is the reason why 50 year old powerplants that are still in use.
Modern ones 100-1000 times as safe, literally.
>2: Radiation
Non-issue with modern designs.
>4 and 5
India and Pakistan who have been practically at war with each other for a long time haven't nuked each other.
And those are the definition of shitstain nations.
Besides, nuclear reactors don't use the same fuel as nuclear bombs.
>then so will shit-tier nations
That's like saying you don't want South Americans and Africans to have access to cheap energy.
It's saying that the place where you're born determines wether or not you're worth the technology.
>6: Murphy's Law
A mandated safety indicator is the calculated probable frequency of degraded core or core melt accidents. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies that reactor designs must meet a 1 in 10,000 year core damage frequency, but modern designs exceed this. US utility requirements are 1 in 100,000 years, the best currently operating plants are about 1 in 1 million and those likely to be built in the next decade are almost 1 in 10 million.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
And damage =/= catastrophe
And modern plants are made to be able to take on terrorist attack.
>>7990441
Should read:
>... fission products are going to decay ...
>>7990465
>Radiation doesn't go away for a long ass time
Sounds like you don't even know what radioactivity is.
>>7990465
Furthermore, thorium reactors literally can't melt down because they need a neutron beam to sustain the reaction.
Something goes wrong > beam off > no meltdown
>tfw we use shitty uranium and plutonium reactors because the US wanted to make nukes for the cold war
>tfw we could be in a golden age of plentiful, clean thorium energy
>tfw instead nuclear power has a terrible image and all the uneducated normies are afraid of it
Hold me /sci/
>>7988156
>worrying about money
I'd gladly pay $10 per kilowatt hour if it meant no more non-renewable energy plants in the world.
>>7988156
1) Nuclear power plants cost insane amounts of money and years to build
2) You have a high chance during that time that management will avoid important safety regulations just to save costs
3) Chernobyl
4) Japan
5) Possibly France is next
>>7990755
Nuclear power is also the future. We won't settle the solar system on cuck shit like Solar and Wind power.
>>7990779
>the future
>implying governments even have any money left for investment in nuclear when they spent it all bailing out the banks
>>7990465
you are almost as bad as those anti-microwave oven or anti-vaccine morons.
>solar panel fails (not often)
>might fall and crush someone below
>might have a repair man fall to his death repairing it (very common) most deaths of any power generation source
>solar power plant fails (not often)
>people may or may not go without power since it is part of a redundant system
>repair personnel may be subjected to steam burns or steam explosion, may or may not die
>wind turbine fails (often)
>kills some birds or falls on someone or some ship below
>might have a repair man fall to his death repairing it (not too common)
>dam-based hydroelectric plant fails (semi-rare)
>if only a failure with the turbines, people are without power for x amount of time (might have a diver repair man succumb to Delta P and die while trying to repairing it; not very common)
>if structural failure of dam itself then it washes out and could kill whoever is down stream. if anyone
>river-based hydroelectric plant fails (rare)
>people are without power for x amount of time (might have a diver repair man succumb to Delta P and die while trying to repairing it; not very common)
>fly-wheel energy storage plant fails (rare)
>no one goes without power since it is merely there for peak hours usage if needed
>no one is injured since the flywheels are in the ground
>coal power plant fails (rather rare) [negative health affects are world wide for normal operation]
>many people go without power
>many people can die due to tower collapsing on them, steam explosions, and natural gas explosions/leaks (they use natural gas to make up for peak hours)
>nuclear power plant fails (very rare)
>many people go without power
>many people may need to be relocated
>many people may or may not get radiation sickness in short term exposure-short distance around the plant
>entire world is affected by the problem (economically, health, and environmentally), depending on a number of factors (affects more people than any other accident type)
>>7990755
>3) Chernobyl
>4) Japan
why don't you actually do some research as to why these incidents occurred?
>>7990806
>as to why these incidents occurred?
The reasons why they happened does not prevent them from happening. Someone is always a tard about design or their job. They happened. Their method of happening is no prevention against it happening again. Deal with it.
How bad was Fukushima and Chernobyl anyway?
I know that people took various pills or iodine to counteract radiation, but how necessary was it anyway? Fukushima happened during a large natural disaster and somehow I doubt it has done harm more that what caused it. There was also some talk about radioactive dust circling the world but I failed to notice any consequences of it in the media.
>>7990810
>Their method of happening is no prevention against it happening again. Deal with it
actually it is, current reactor designs and safety measures are vastly different (i.e. better) tham those used at chernobyl and fukushima
>>7990820
I'm talking about human errors in all stages from design to maintenance.
You can't prevent human error. It just isn't possible, no matter what you do.
>>7990829
>You can't prevent human error. It just isn't possible, no matter what you do.
true, however current reactor designs/fuel sources/safety measures are such that even if human error does occur, the consequences are totally different and significantly less severe than what happened at chernobyl or fukushima.
>>7990845
We really won't know that until something happens.
There's also concern for the spent waste storage facilities (cooling pools). Not as much concern, but it is there.
My biggest concern isn't just the actual plant failures or deaths involved with any of the energy generation types. My concern is with the methods use to acquire the fuels and minerals for running and manufacturing all this stuff, in every energy generation type. Everything from ore extraction to shipping it to refining it to manufacturing to post-use waste. Every single area of these things is fraught with pollution and problems. So, which energy generation type produces less waste/pollution with their entire life cycle from making to fueling to post-waste?
I mean look at all the stuff used to make a solar panel. It needs to be mined and/or recycled. Coal and nuclear still need a fuel source. And nuclear fuel sources have included hydro fracking wells as part of their method to get the fuel.
Every step in everyone of these causes pollution.
The best thing I'm doing is reducing my need for energy in the first place.
>>7990785
>When it spent bailing out the banks
Daily reminder that they all payed their money back plus interest
>>7990871
the thorium-uranium breeder reactor designs are probably the best bet in terms of energy gained for energy and pollution put in. They're also stupid safe in the event of a failure
>>7990956
>thorium-uranium breeder reactor
Are there any up and running right now?
>>7990349
>he doesn't know about the carbonate buffer
>>7990941
Kek, no
>>7988156
>They mention how costly nuclear is and how its being priced out by "clean" natural gas, as well as solar and wind which are both so heavily subsidized that if those subsidizes were removed their price would more than double.
>There are a handful of new nuclear reactors under construction in the South, where energy markets are still highly regulated. Big power authorities there don't face the kind of head-to-head competition that has revolutionized energy markets in other parts of the country.
The market has spoken.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21578690-thanks-cheap-natural-gas-americas-nuclear-renaissance-hold-fracked
>>7988256
> Terrorist attack against nuclear plants
I live a few kilometers away from a nuclear plant that was invaded by a bunch of ecologists. They went straight to the reactor (sure, the fortified part, but still) without any kind of training or weapons.
There are reports saying they just snuck in.
>>7991073
That's the way it is in most places around the world. Thankfully, nuclear power plants are not actually targets of any strategic value to the real kooks who would blow them up if they were actually of any strategic value to them.
If they were, we'd have many of them blown up by now, a real problem on our hands, and security would be like a hardened military installation.
WHEN THE FUCK IS ECONOMICALLY VIABLE FUSION ENERGY?
>>7991073
it would be pretty difficult to do any damage to a reactor
most people don't have access to those kinds of explosives
>>7991196
Forgot source
http://nei.org/Issues-Policy/Protecting-the-Environment/Life-Cycle-Emissions-Analyses
>>7988212
>it is impossible to conceive of someone having a different opinion from someone else
>>7990465
thorium reactors only produce one kind of waste, that is super valuable for space batteries, in addition it can burn other types of nuclear waste
>>7990476
I'm more worried about shit-tier countries improperly making the plant
>>7990475
True
>>7990520
It takes a long ass time
>>7990492
>>7991211
I stand corrected, my opinion in general is unchanged however
>>7990798
You're almost as bad as the people who decided coal engines were a good idea just because they're new and "hurr durr, the current method is dirty too"
>You're almost as bad as the people who decided coal engines were a good idea just because they're new and "hurr durr, the current method is dirty too"
>>7991732
Coal was a good idea it got us to where we are today, it allowed for the creation of technology that allows you to shitpost against nuclear
>>7991196
>Please kill yourself
>for not using as much energy
Keep sucking utility cock.
>>7990985
China is planning on building a LFTR Reactor
>Keep sucking utility cock.
>>7992225
I'll do that, while also using my arc welder, my ac, computer and TV
Fuck the notion that instead of creating more power we need to live like 3rd worlders so that we can scrape by using only renewables
>>7992390
>arc welder
>owning a wall plugin arc welder
kek
>my ac, computer and TV
I have all this stuff & more and I use it regularly. My electric bill is only $30-$35 a month. Compare that to everyone else around me and my family/friends who all have crazy $100-$200 electric bills.
You need to start using your head, not your pretty mouth.
>>7988156
>left against nuclear
What? I'm center left and I love nuclear. One of my friends is a literal Leninist communist and he's pro-nuclear. If you had asked me I would have said most of the left was pro-nuclear.
>>7988256
Modern reactor designs are extremely safe. No modern reactor has ever failed in a dangerous way. Fukushima would have been forgotten in a week if they hadn't been using reactors that were designed in the 60s, and illegal in the US due to being obsolete. By deaths per power generated, nuclear is far safer than any fossil fuel.
>>7988330
>never seen any right-wingers doing something dumb like being anti-science
If anything, you can tell the dumb part of the left that "it's super new science approved(tm)!" and they'll be all over it
>>7988461
Environmental scientist here. Don't waste your time giving a shit about dams because we've already dammed pretty much every single river worth damming in the western world. Extremely few new ones are being built.
>>7992458
>like a couple dozen people who control what is published in the mainstream media have a spooky agenda and push anti-science
>therefore all 170 million liberals are anti science
I swear for a board that claims to have an interest in science and math 99% of you have no knowledge of the absolute most basic statistics
>Muh churnobil
>Muh feels
>>7988345
This is the first time I actually see MSM shit and holy fug. Although I don;t even like Bill Nye...I feel sorry that he had to deal with with /sci/ irl...
>>7990737
Dude, no. Those particle beam assisted fission reactors are a bunch of particle beam enthusiasts in search of a problem where the solution is a particle beam. It's stupid on every level.
Again, for emphasis, fission at Fukushima stopped about 10 seconds after sensors detected the earthquake. The problem is the heat from the fission products which spontaneously decay. A particle beam doesn't do jack to help that.
Please do some more research so you know what you're talking about. It makes people like me look stupid.
>>7990829
Why do you require absolutely 0% risk for nuclear, but not for alternative technologies? You're being unreasonable and using double standards. Nuclear accidents are not magic; they're not infinitely more dangerous than coal waste, solar panel manufacture waste, etc.
>>7990871
>Every single area of these things is fraught with pollution and problems. So, which energy generation type produces less waste/pollution with their entire life cycle from making to fueling to post-waste?
And you think solar and wind are better on this metric? Lols.
>>7992436
>I would have said
you don't see a great deal of ecoactivism in the left? I'm surprised
>>7992567
wait, isn't that antisemitic?
>>7992717
>Please try to keep it to facts, not fantasy.
hey now, have you done your research science bro?
don't get me wrong, I'm open to my claims being disproved, but it takes more to disprove a claim than claimeing "HURRRR IS FANTASY"
what do you make of this? and yes, I do really want your honest scientific opinion, and I will change my mind if you can give proof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sG9_OplUK8
>>7992444
Just make more damns up stream and down stream. lol
>>7992704
>Why do you require absolutely 0% risk for nuclear, but not for alternative technologies?
Probably because fuck ups are colossally big with nuclear reactors. You're also forgetting all the technology put into storing nuclear waste.
>>7992743
Seriously? I suggest taking 5 minutes to actually look into this. Hell - you can find videos on youtube by the same guy, Kirk Sorensen, talking about running simulations to obtain detailed breakdowns of the kinds of nuclear waste produced in a LFTR, including fission products, actinides, radiactive graphite waste (assuming graphite is used), tritium, etc.
>>7992792
Seriously?
>>7992801
>You're also forgetting all the technology put into storing nuclear waste.
There is no waste problem.
http://thorconpower.com/docs/ct_yankee.pdf
Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot or a liar.
>>7992802
>Seriously? I suggest taking 5 minutes to actually look into this. Hell - you can find videos on youtube by the same guy, Kirk Sorensen, talking about running simulations to obtain detailed breakdowns of the kinds of nuclear waste produced in a LFTR, including fission products, actinides, radiactive graphite waste (assuming graphite is used), tritium, etc.
SERIOUSLY??? LIEK, OMG, LIEK, I CAN'T EVEN, ARE YUOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
none of that is a response to what I asked. I'm an open book, teach me senpai
>>7992801
>fuck ups are colossally big with nuclear reactors
ummm, except they aren't...
>>7988156
the left is incompetent and everything they've ever done in their life ends up blowing up in their faces
so they cant possibly comprehend a system of safeguards required to run a accident free facility like a nuclear power plant
>>7992807
>http://thorconpower.com/
I'm sure this is a totally unbiased article without any agenda whatsoever.
About their solution.
>1. Keep the spent fuel [...] for say 100 year
You can't reliably plan ahead a hundred years, let alone make sure that it will be safe in dry casks for this long. Everybody who believes so is delusional.
>2. Transfer old fuel to fewer, larger dry cask.
>3. Repeat for 2 or 3 cycles
Oh, yeah, let's plan ahead hundreds of years, what could go wrong?
>4. Separate the non-radioactive uranium from the rest
of the fuel
>5. [... ] could then be put in a Low Level Waste
(Class C) land ll
>6. This cube could be dumped down a borehole. [...]
And just dump the remaining dangerous stuff somewhere beneath the earth, where it will surely be safe for thousands of years.
There is no good solution for storing radioactive waste. It is still a huge problem which many nuclear energy supporters just disregard.
>>7993486
It's not a huge problem. Consider the worst case scenario? What is it? It's nothing. Radioactivity is not magic.
>>7993486
Did you even read the first part?
It says an equivalent coal power plant would have produced 6 million tons of hazardous ash compared to easily manageable 1000 tons of nuclear waste
> All these faggots not understanding nuclear power, arguing about nuclear power
>>7993186
History tells us they are.
>>7993495
The biggest problem is that it isn't being buried. Instead it is being stored in temporary above ground sites all over the world. Many of which are cooling pools that need constant refrigeration and water because it is too hot to put in dry casks and bury. Their worst case scenario is for them to boil dry, melt down, and release everything into the atmosphere. Why would they do that? Any number of human, geological, or meteorological reasons.
It isn't like this stuff has a good track record.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_waste_disposal_incidents
>>7993691
>but it was outdated!!!
I'm sure humanity is perfect now and can design nuclear power plants that are also perfect and without any flaw of any kind and disposal of nuclear waste is also now perfect and without any flow of any kind. Since all possible disasters are foreseen, these plants and waste disposal sites are all fully protected for all time.
There's a word for that. It is, "hubris".
>>7993704
>I'm sure humanity is perfect now and can design nuclear power plants that are also perfect and without any flaw
What is learning?
> disposal of nuclear waste is also now perfect and without any flow of any kind
Nuclear waste is reusable, you twat.
>>7993704
>but it was outdated!!
that's like looking at crash test ratings of cars made in the 50's and 70's, while ignoring all designs after that, then saying that we should stop driving because of how dangerous it is.
>>7993692
>History tells us they are.
of the two incidents that have happened in history, they really aren't that bad. The media totally freaked out about them and of course people reacted and went off the deep end.
the actual damage and ecological cost of the incidents really isn't as colossal as you seem to think it is.
>>7993665
>easily manageable [...] nuclear waste
It is not easily manageable. The technology is not even 100 years old and we already have problems with stored nuclear waste (e.g. barrels leaking). What makes you think it won't be a problem to store it for hundreds of years, and after that still thousands of years?
Coal power does not have the problem of long-term storage.
Claiming that there is no waste problem is just being ignorant.
>>7993495
>Consider the worst case scenario
Highly toxic radioactive waste leaking and polluting ground water.
The storage being forgotten and people finding it again in hundreds or thousands of years; and not knowing what it is exposing themselves to dangerous levels of radioactivity.
>>7993969
>Coal power does not have the problem of long-term storage.
Tell that to Beijing
Because dumping CO2 and hazardous ash into the atmosphere isn't a problem
>The storage being forgotten and people finding it again in hundreds or thousands of years; and not knowing what it is exposing themselves to dangerous levels of radioactivity.
See
>>7992807
You'd have to be literally putting your dick on the waste to suffer any longer effects from it after a thousand years
>>7994012
>Tell that to Beijing
Most toxic emissions can (more or less) easily be filtered and most modern countries have regulations for that.
Carbon dioxide is indeed an issue. But it's not either coal power or nuclear.
>You'd have to be literally putting your dick on the waste to suffer any longer effects from it after a thousand years
So? What if they do? It won't affect a large percentage of the population, but people randomly digging around could easily just handle it with bare hands and without precautions due to not knowing what it is and that it is dangerous.
>>7994056
>but people randomly digging around
You're really out of arguments.
>>7994099
I'm not, that's the whole point. Do you know what the world is going to be like in thousands of years? You cannot protect people form the dangers that far in the future.
>>7994114
I know that people will have a pit boy app that can detect radiation
>>7994056
Randomly digging around in huge underground caverns specifically dug to hold nuclear waste caskets.
Okay.
>>7994143
>>7994056
>people randomly digging around
You do realize that they would have to dig through 2 feet of concrete
And the concrete used by the romans two thousand years ago is doing just fine
>>7994056
>Most toxic emissions can (more or less) easily be filtered
So you expect every one to wear a gas mask while they are outside?
Rather than having manageable waste in an area away from the populous?
>leaks
Not really that much of a concern
Please read that PDF
>>7994159
Honestly the material properties of those caskets actually blows my mind. When they demonstrate that they can hold up to fires much hotter for much longer than they designed them for, it's pretty neat.
>>7994159
>So you expect every one to wear a gas mask while they are outside?
No, I expect the power plants to filter the stuff. As already happens in modern countries where safety regulations are high.
>Not really that much of a concern
Actually is, right now. I did read the PDF.
>You do realize that they would have to dig through 2 feet of concrete
Alright, then let some people want to build there and use machines to dig through; thinking it's just some old storage tank or bunker or whatever. Use your imagination. There can be lots of other scenarios. You can't say for sure that it will never happen.
Also you're comparing the worse of the coal plants with some better hypothetical nuclear plant. In the real world, there are already issues with leakage of nuclear waste.
>>7994419
>Alright, then let some people want to build there and use machines to dig through; thinking it's just some old storage tank or bunker or whatever. Use your imagination. There can be lots of other scenarios. You can't say for sure that it will never happen.
So let's say after a thousand years someone somehow will dig out radioactive waste. Of course nobody knows that we buried it there or anything. Anyway he digs inside, digs through concrete without noting anyone that he has found some fucking bunker, somehow breaches the container which should be marked as dangerous anyway.
Now the worst case happened and some 2-3 retards die from radiation maybe a few more have increased cancer risk.
Meanwhile in those thousand years 1094 people fell off rooftops to their death during solar panel maintenance.
>>7994442
>1094 people fall to their death
Wouldn't that number be much higher than that since we wouldn't nuclear and would insane amounts of solar to even supplement the now even more abundant coal and gas plants
>>7994462
Maybe we will get better technology to catch retards falling off rooftops.
>>7994442
>should be marked as dangerous anyway
Maybe it is, but in a few thousands years the people won't recognize those symbols.
>2-3 retards
Yes, because how could you assume that anything you find is not highly toxic and will kill you. It should probably be expected that you can't even go outside anymore without full-body protection. And of course the concrete and everything will stay intact without any signs of withering. After all the earth is completely inert and nothing ever reacts there.
And solar power isn't a solution right now. The panels barely make more energy than it took to produce them.
>>7994481
>Maybe it is, but in a few thousands years the people won't recognize those symbols.
That's retarded.
You are assuming the worst case of everybody being either dumb or extremely coincidentally unlucky and the best you end up with is a bunch of people dying not even immediately. Go boycott cars or something really.
All it seems is that you treat death coming from radiation as the worst possible fate for a human. 1 death from radiation is a natural disaster in itself but getting shot, falling, drowning, crashing, being tortured by some psychopath aren't as noteworthy as being irradiated.
>>7994491
Please read the reply chain.
>You are assuming the worst case
That was kind of the point. And is it really the worst case to assume that we can't keep anything safe and protect people from it if we are talking about such a long time scale (relative to humans)?
Also, you're acting like there is only one waste storage. There will be many. Hundreds, probably. And leaking and polluting the environment does not only affect a few humans, but a big area.
>>7994506
>>7994506
do you call before you dig?
we have signs for phone lines and you think there arent gonna be signs for nuclear waste? and where do you think they are burying these things? in your back yard? and shallow enough you can just get to it with a shovel? and you think they only pick the waste sites that are good for a couple of years?
how can you make so many assumptions that are so wrong? familiarize yourself with actual practical methodologies before you comment. you know what they say about assholes and opinions
Airplane travel is more dangerous than nuclear energy, pepe the pilot can decide to ram the alps and everyone aboard dies.
As long as we keep flying people will keep dying.
The only responsible course of action is to ban it immediately. The aviation industry have repeatedly proven themself to be unable to provide safe flying, probably because it's impossible, so the only thing left is to stop this transportation hubris that keeps killing our children and loved ones.
>>7994419
>No, I expect the power plants to filter the stuff. As already happens in modern countries where safety regulations are high.
That's a double standard right there
Coal plants are allowed to operate with dumping toxic waste into the environment because of high safety regulations
But nuclear plants, which are held to way higher standards with little to no effect on the environment, are not allowed to operate
>>7994533
I don't think you seem to understand the actual problem.
Think about for how long all of these standards you're talking about exist. Now think about how long nuclear waste will remain dangerous. I've said it multiple times, but I will repeat it just for you: you can't safely plan ahead for this long.
>>7994542
>Coal plants are allowed to operate with dumping toxic waste into the environment
For one, the toxic waste is being filtered, made harmless and/or not just being dumped into the environment.
For two, I did not start with that, >>7994012 started comparing unregulated coal plants with some designs for modern waste disposal.
And nowhere did I even say that I prefer coal power over nuclear. I am just telling you that nuclear waste is still a problem.
>>7988156
https://www.cns-snc.ca/media/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html
Ontario, Canada is pretty left ( we have a gay woman as Premier) and nuclear supplies about 60% of electricy
I consider my views kinda left and I think nuclear is a good bridge from fossil fuels to renewable energy. But there are some downfalls to nuclear energy such as the heating to the already heated sea water and also human error or natural occurrences can damage the environment more than fossil fuels.
>>7994568
these things are buried deep into mountains in the middle of techtonic plates, they are safe from natural disasters and they are safe from human tampering because nobody is gonna go dig a fucking mountain with a fucking shovel
even if god forbid theres some god damn reason that someone wants to crack open an mountain, they are gonna scan the rocks first to see that the rocks wont fall or blow up in their faces
you wanna know how i know all this? BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE DO RIGHT NOW
these sites are designed to fill decades of wastes, thats decades of fucking paperword and expertise, MULTIPLE GENERATIONS OF PEOPLE AND RECORDS
and not just official records, the fucking records are on google's servers, they are in the digital servers of your local library, your fucking university professors of the right profession will fucking know too.
i wasnt explicit enough in my last post so i'll be more explicit for your sake
you are a fucking retard, you dont know anything about anything, you know even less about what you are trying to talk about
>>7994601
How much heating of the sea water do you believe is caused by nuclear power plants?
>>7994601
in every single nuclear disaster procedure was not followed,
the problem is purely an administrative one, the engineers are more than qualified to run a problem free power plant
also when we have more plants, shutting one down wont be such a huge problem for the entire grid that we can freely stop any plant that might run into trouble unlike now where a single plant shutting down puts enormous strain on the whole grid
>>7994604
There is more than just the USA, you know. But keep being delusional if you want, I see that you won't change your mind and believe that everything will be exactly as it is today for thousands of years to come.
People posting against nuclear have no voice in China or India, because these people are the fringe. They are the people who do not understand governance, poverty alleviation or safety. Green peace NGOs are banned both in China and India.
Take a look at China.
>>7994631
Take a look at India.
>>7994622
good, now that we've settled things are fine in the USA we can move on to the next leg
you dont fucking run that line at me you uneducated piece of shit, you dont get to take the high road you retarded sheep
where do you t
hink the fucking expertise comes from?
you think these american contractors and engineers arent gonna spread out over the world and bring their expertise everywhere? do you think high tech industries of every country and continent are isolated? that there isn't only a handful of people with the required knowledge? that these poeple arent gonna move around depending on where they are needed and bring that knowledge with them? you think an european plant is gonna pay the huge research cost of finding how to dispose waste proper over just paying some out of country contractor to do it? you think the same european plant is gonna build new trucks new containers new roads just to dispose their waste as opposed to just hiring some firm to do it?
how the fuck are you so fucking removed from the real world? stop living in your fucking bubble, this isnt fucking macdonalds, and we arent flipping burgers. we've been doing cutting edge industry for over a decade now, how the fuck are you so fucking far behind?
one last thing, argue the point, or shut the fuck up you human waste, here are the point of my last post since you cant fucking read, we are gonna do last post first, then we'll do this one
>mountain sites
>digital records
>you are a fucking retared
>>7994635
>good, now that we've settled things are fine in the USA
We haven't. You have settled for yourself that everything will be fine.
>>7994660
take your own advice you piece of human landfill
>keep being delusional if you want
in this thread we are trying to talk about multiplication and you havent even done your homework on addition
you are out of your league, I'll explain again since reading isnt your strong suit
when i call you a retard, i dont mean you are stupid, i mean that you are an uneducated piece of shit using your mouth when you should be shutting the fuck up
once again, argue the point, or shut the fuck up
>>7994660
Pot calling the kettle black...
>>7993969
>It is not easily manageable. The technology is not even 100 years old and we already have problems with stored nuclear waste (e.g. barrels leaking).
Protip: Don't confuse the shitty waste at Hanford from plutonium weapons manufacture with the nuclear waste from power plants. Totally different things.
>>7994056
>Most toxic emissions can (more or less) easily be filtered and most modern countries have regulations for that.
lol
>>7994099
And so then a few people die. It's still better than coal. Again, you're using ridiculous double standards, and pretending that any amount of nuclear waste is infinitely dangerous, rather than putting it into perspective.
>>7994481
>Yes, because how could you assume that anything you find is not highly toxic and will kill you. It should probably be expected that you can't even go outside anymore without full-body protection. And of course the concrete and everything will stay intact without any signs of withering. After all the earth is completely inert and nothing ever reacts there.
Again, please join the real world, where nuclear waste is nowhere near that dangerous. It's not magic.
>>7994568
>For one, the toxic waste is being filtered, made harmless and/or not just being dumped into the environment.
Coal waste is being dumped into the environment, in precisely the same way that nuclear waste is being dumped into the environment, except that the nuclear waste is much better contained.
And you're a fool if you think that coal in the west is harm-free. Coal still kills about 250,000 thousand people every year in Europe from airborne particulate pollution. It is not easy and cheap to filter that shit. It is hard and expensive.
>>7994601
>such as the heating to the already heated sea water
Negligable. The primary factor controlling temperature is CO2 which controls the ratio of inbound and outbound radiation of the Earth. The additional heating from nuclear, coal, etc., is many magnitudes smaller than the CO2 effect.
>>7988156
>Why is the left so against nuclear, when it's clean and reliable?
Because no political philosophy comes without its own fair share of bullshit. The right has the drug war and restrictions on reproductive rights, and the left has anti-nuclear activists, new age-y folks, and other kinds of annoying hippies.
>>7988556
>Its getting too warm where I live and it is making me want to move. Also, the sea level is rising, threatening my beach-side abode, its up to my knees in fact.
I liked the part where you listed things that are more than likely the result of ENSO and not global climate change.
Climate change does exist, but you're making the antithetical equivalent of Republicans 'debunking' climate change with pictures of ice in their front yards.
>>7988156
I've heard that coal plants actually leak out more radiation when compared to nuclear power plants.
>>7993873
This. Especially when you consider how many plants there are around the world and how much energy they produce, it really isn't a big deal.
>>7995041
>restrictions on reproductive rights
fuck off
Drugs cause all sorts of problems and are rightfully banned.
>>7995240
Except prohibitions are generally counterproductive to human welfare.
Also, banning recreational drugs of all kinds is patronizing. It's contrary to freedom. No one has the right to tell me how to live my life, assuming I'm not hurting anyone else, and assuming that I'm doing my civic duties to society.
>>7990434
>The rest of the poor world are going to get their electricity and industry, and they're going to do it with coal if we do not get them something cheaper or cost competitive.
lol, no. they wont. it will be natural gas. natural gas is the cheapest per kW right now, has super low ramp up time so it can respond to dropping output from renewables, and is relatively clean burning.
look at any city with "duck curve" problems. they are installing gas turbines.
