Say one of these was hypothetically being built 5 miles down the road from you.
The government had already laid out the plans and there was nothing you could do about it.
How would you feel about this?
depends on location. prone to earthquakes, safe inland? safe of.. snoskred? ;)
It would be depending on what ctry also. Nuclear is safe, hyped dangerous by mms and idiots putting these in tsunami prone & earth quake areas...
I'd had no prob, but the property price would. We have water turbines here enough, and more to take off. But given the load coming from all the electric cars etc.
also we got the uranium, undercover we gave iran 60 tonnes of regular uranium while everyone was busy xmassing.
Right now I own, not rent so that's absolutely perfect. Property values will drop because liberals don't understand how nuclear energy works and I can get a cheap house in a nice area.
and now I watched the flag... Sellafield ...
i live in washington east side, where we built the nukes in ww2, shit is STILL polluted as fuck, the columbia STILL has high amounts of radioactive material in it.
basically i can sum up nuclear energy really quick
>nuclear energy, its the cleanest energy ever! Until something bad happens, and when it does, fucking watch out
5 miles? Fine with me. No natural weather or tectonic disasters occur where I own my home, and it's the safest most efficient way to produce electricity. Would create jobs and booty fluster libcucks, what's not to love?
My area would probably be good for one. No risk of earth quakes or other natural disasters, but we do sit on top of a huge aquifer so if it might pollute that I'd strongly oppose it.
Other than that, pretty much this >>59976739
Fuckin wind turbines have been responsible for more deaths than nuclear power plants. Your radiation issues are irrelevant, manufacturing nuclear weapons isn't the same as what's going on in a facility of this kind.
>How would you feel about this?
I'd wonder in what kind of surreal, alternate dimension I was transported where our cuckvernment would actually do something like this.
Then I would probably celebrate.
I live about 5 miles from one (if you make a straight line from my house to the power plant) about 15 miles by roads because it goes over a body of water to Hutchinson island off the Florida coast. No complains. Lived here my entire life. Energy bills are cheaper than most areas
Wonder why the fuck Hydro Quebec has decided to build a Nuclear Power Plant when they just closed the last one they had because they are money pits compared to the money prints that are dams here.
It's the safest way to produce electricity, by several orders of magnitude
>inb4 muh radiation
Coal power plants have released more radiation.
>inb4 muh chernobyl
Horribly designed first gen reactor built, maintained, and operated by the soviets. It was not a failure of nuclear power, it was a failure of training.
>inb4 muh Fukushima
Fun Fact: the plant would have been torn down and rebuilt as a more modern, safer design years before the accident, but the project was constantly blocked by retarded anti-nuke nutters.
If the new design had been in place, no failures would have occurred after the earthquake and subsequent tsunami.
The failure of the Fukushima plant was caused by the same people who were saying nuclear power was dangerous. It's actually pretty hilarious, in a really dark way.
Of course, the MSM quietly swept that part of the story under the rug, because it doesn't fit the narrative.
no shit, nuclear energy is really really safe i swear! Its not a quick attempt at quick cheap energy with the cost of destroying our earth. nothing EVER bad happens,
nuclear waste is SOOO easy and SOOO cheap to clean up man
>sweet, I'll apply for a job there
kek, cause donuts?
nah we only got two research reactors here burgerbro, no donuts there. anon lived by both actually.. If rumors are true, we were first to get this tech from you. So we could ie make the whole Fukushima HMI and homersystem control room+++ ouch... sorry Japan..
not to mention spreading nuclear tech to non allies such as Brazil.. "civilian nuclear uboat"
Both from the same department, other guys are pissed off(hillbillies are responsible)
this ctry has gone severely to shit, you guys have no idea.. in a snap it's so much corruption
>talks about narratives
>fails to mention that not one reactor in the history of the planet has ever or can operate for one month without subsidy
Or go ahead and prove me wrong, show us the operating reactor that has paid for it's own construction and operation.
Are you talking about the Hanford nuclear reservation? That wasn't a nuclear power plant.
Otherwise, yes, you're right. Nuclear power plants built before we even put man on the moon are generally dated and if they're seriously still in service, need to be decommissioned. As long as you can account for natural disasters as a factor, there's no reason to not build a modern design.
>If the new design had been in place,
It even didn't need new design. All they needed to do was waterproof back-up generator room. But things are always done by lowest bidder you know.
I would be very mad. I'd try to sell my house before the land value crashes too much. No way I'm living near one of them. Judging by this thread, there are plenty of gullible cucks ready to move in, so I might still get a good deal.
>implying I don't live near a NPP already
I only feeld sad because it will be inactive within 10 years and there aren't any new ones planned because of leftists and ignorants.
And ONLY steam. We have cooling towers on our coal fired plants, and the chemical plants / refineries have cooling towers on their reactors.
>I like to talk about things I have 0 (zero) knowledge of beyond what the mass media told me
>I also like to post ebin meme faces because they validate my shitposting
You mean just like 99% of all power stations. Electricity plants are always subsidised by tax money.
I'd be like whatever, who gives a fuck
There's so much uranium and irradiated stuff here from when USA bombed us, a nuclear power plant wouldn't change anything
Besides, we live next to a nuclear state, Croatia.
They bought their AKs from Ukraine from Chernobyl, they just need to put them in Sava and let it float towards us, poor mans nuke.
it's freaking water vapor dude. That's kinda the whole point, no pollution. I don't get why we don't make more. Thorium is gonna be a fart. fuck coal and shit and go radioactive.
this hysteria pisses me off as an engineer
>They bought their AKs from Ukraine from Chernobyl, they just need to put them in Sava and let it float towards us, poor mans nuke.
Pretty fucking good.
We can finally start to compete with France. When's the last time someone heard of a french reactor going haywire? Fucking never.
And they've essentially owned European power off the back of nuclear for ten years.
>takes millions of years to become non-active
safe and clean friends :)
I believe nuclear power is hugely important and would vote for anyone interested in expanding it. It is a shame people are such cowardly, short sighted cucks that assume nuclear plant = guaranteed Chernobyl.
Ontario here. I would probably assume it is going to be another multi-Billion dollar boondoggle by our corrupt as shit Liberal government.
Safety-wise I'm not too worried less radiation released than from coal power plants, it would probably be safer since it means they're replacing our aging nuclear plants. Geographically it's a pretty perfect place: far inland away from tsunamis, and at the dead center of the North American craton - the ground hasn't moved here for 600 Million years
>we should stop producing glass because it takes a million years for one glass bottle to decay
There's a moving garbage pile the size of Texas in the ocean that will take centuries to decay, and your complaint is about the easily managed high-level waste?
Following this month's intense rainfall in the north of England an Environment Agency alert has highlighted the flood risk to the crumbling nuclear waste dump adjoining Sellafield in Cumbria, writes Marianne Birkby - a dump which remains in use despite its condemnation by the EA in 2005 due to its likely destruction by rising seas
finally fulfill my dream of become homer simpson
but seriously I'd move. my house is like right on a fucking fault line and there's decent earthquakes every month or so
also speaking of earthquakes, when I was a kid I always trusted the ground, you know like walking by caves or cliffs, or not being afriad of buildings falling on you because you always think of the ground as like this solid unmovable thing
anyway there was this fucking massive earthquake where my house went 0.5 meters up and down up and down the whole fucking earth just shaking it's so powerful I was thrown into my window and smashed the glass with my face and burnt myself (boiling noodles), and what happens right is there will be an earthqake, and then suddenly the grond will start erupting with like this sand shit it pushed up the living room, cut the street ruined everything it just squirts out the ground like this wet sand
anyway if that happened near a nuclear plant we'd all be fucked. nobody knew there was a faultline there either
a building collapsed onto a bus my sister was on, killing around 20 people onboard but she just broke her leg
>When's the last time someone heard of a japanese reactor going haywire?
The initial investment cost is approximately equal to ten years of operation. Many businessmen don't want to see that kind of a return, plus, it could be closed at any time because hippies complain, so it's a fairly slow return, and fairly high risk. Not because of the dangers of nuclear energy, but because of the dangers of politicians.
Political regulations also are part of the high cost. So there could be more, if the government would make it cheaper for there to be more, and offer some investor protections.
It's no secret that Cumbria in northern England has been repeatedly hit by torrential rain and wind this month.
But there has been little media focus on what this means for nuclear waste buried at Drigg, the UKs 'Low Level Waste Repository', located near the Sellafield nuclear site on the Cumbrian coast.
w8 til everyone is driving electric cars. well you guys are prolly not gonna suffer from that... But in this tax nightmare, where moving electrons are usually really cheap, and gas prices always through the roof.. we're gonna get so cucked.. soon you power bill will be like 2000$ I swear
its literally off
you fucking dumb nigger cunt, its a PRO nuclear website
god you idiots are so fucking dumb, and will literally parrot anything as long as you can be contrarian about it
approximately half of the containers at the tops of stacks ... Corrosion, sometimes fully penetrating, is present in some container lids at the tops of stacks.
"Discharges to the air of radioactive gases are ongoing. According to the British Geological Society the Drigg site is above a regional aquifer. It is also likely to be destroyed by coastal erosion in 500 to 5,000 years (computer modelling can be wrong either way). Much of the waste is long lived and high risk."
Drigg must stay open, says nuclear industry
Keeping the Drigg site open for continued dumping and extending the capacity of the site is something the nuclear industry are keen to do, seemingly at any cost to the environment. This plan is titled: 'Low Level Waste Repository Site Optimisation and Closure Works'.
Even the title of the application is hugely misleading. The date for 'closure' is set at 2079. So Drigg would continue to accept nuclear waste for more than six decades to come.
The site would be 'capped'. Again this is misleading: to 'cap' a nuclear dump is akin to putting a cap on a fizzy lemonade bottle which has holes in the bottom.
High level waste from reactors amounts to less than 1% of all present in the US you gorilla. If your country stopped spending billions on defense per year, 99% of your radiation woes would disappear.
Not only that, there are strategies in place to recycle and maintain what can't be recycled indefinitely.
>>takes millions of years to become non-active
>safe and clean friends :)
yeah but you just dig it down deep in the mountain, it's not like this isn't going on down below.. reaches us in of radon gas.
I wouldn't be very worried about radiation but I'd be unhappy that such a large industrial site was coming to my area. During construction there would be a large amount of heavy vehicles coming and going for years, fucking up the roads (road damage isn't linear by weight), making noise, etc. Once it was completed, there would be traffic generated by the large number of employees and ongoing maintenance. And since utility rates are usually set over a large area, I wouldn't even get a discount for living nearby. If there's a shoe factory down the street from you, usually they'll have a factory outlet (a true one, not one of those Alabama shopping center deals) where you can get shoes at a deep discount. That doesn't happen with electricity. Guess if I was opening an electric smelting plant, there would be some benefit.
That a 40 year old reactor can be hit by an earthquake and a tsunami, 'melt down' and still produce less radiation exposure than a trans Atlantic flight is a testament to the safety of the technology.
Radionuclides with highest activities in the inventory include 3H, 241Pu, 137Cs, 234U and 90Sr, 238U and 232Th."
This represents a cocktail of relatively short-lived, intensely radioactive species such as the tritium, caesium, strontium and plutonium with half lives measured in years and decades, with daughters such as americium 241 that's dangerous for centuries, mixed in with uranium and thorium isotopes with half lives as long as 14 billion years.
Serious degradation already under way
But the waste has been dumped at the site with little or no regard to either short or long term hazards. From 1940 to 1988 chemical and radioactive wastes was simply 'tumble tipped' into trenches.
Is that supposed to be your rebuttal, that the scale was from a pro-nuke source? Doesn't make it any less shit. You may continue to spew your worthless opinion on a matter you know nothing about though.
>Little to no environmental impact
>No dead birds of prey like with wind and solar farms
Well, looks like a logical green choice.
Why would an earthquake be a problem? It wasn't even a problem in Japan until the tsunami took out the backup power generators. So unless you're also at risk of getting hit by a tsunami, a reactor would survive just fine.
>graph from a PRO nuclear energy website showing that degredation of nuclear material takes upwards of 1000-1,000,000 years
>calls it worthless information
:^) enjoy thoes 12 million immigrants hanz, better sell your sister to the sex trade now
Did you know that the radioactive material that hasn't been mined also takes that long to decay? Did you also know those radioactive materials are why we have an atmosphere?
>Because it's equipt with a TRIGGER BUTTON
Stupid statements like this reminds me of all those idiots live near nuke plants walking around with geiger counters worrying while never checking their house for radon radiation.
Its not corruption, its just plain incompetence.
Governments are really bad at project management so they just throw money at something and try and steamroll through every retarded problem that they caused by not carefully planning.
Also to be fair, the power stations in Ontario were revolutionary experimental reactors when they were built, if you just pulled a design off the shelf and flew in people who knew what the were doing it would be a different story
t. nuclear industry guy
Happy, my energy bill would be next to nil
>mfw a good friend of mine was vacationing in Chernobyl during the disaster and has a nasty scar due to a rash he got from the whole event
Nuclear power is good in literally every capacity and it's only con is the waste disposal which will eventually be found to be another power source all it's own within the next 30 years and then it will be a power creator who's only negative is making a secondary power source
We're still cleaning up three mile island. US reactors tend to operate by minimal safety standards in order to cut overheard cost. Most of our reactors are also stupidly outdated.
My dream is to be energy minister of Ontario in a conservative government
>trash every windmill
>trash every solar panel
>Nuke + gas + hydro
>electricity bills plummet
>Greenpeace on suicide watch
>Most of our reactors are also stupidly outdated.
Because faggot anti-nukes won't let anyone build new ones, so the IAEA has to go in and declare old reactors as safe since people also bitch about coal plants.
Decisions need to be made and soon, because solar and wind just won't cut it. The capacity simply isn't there.
relatively ok, there is one within an hour of me, if it had a serious meltdown or other catastrophe my town would probably be in the dead zone anyway. They've been doing a good job of not fucking up.
I live in southern california and there is literally one less than 15 miles from me. It doesn't scare me, although I do worry more about earthquakes because of it. I think it's being shut down though
i used to live near this magical pair of tits
I'd love for my government to start putting money into researching things like Thorium Reactors or even just building Uraniam Reactors considering how much of the shit we have out here. It'd be a much better use of it than selling it for two cents to China then getting the nuclear waste back.
>your argument failed to include my fantasies
I actually clicked back to this to see if somebody had even tried to make a coherent argument. I can only blame myself.
If we got the accompanying drop in electricity costs, replacing all the extremely expensive green taxes and subsidies then I'd be happy for it. They're extremely safe outside of natural disasters, you're more likely to die to about a billion other things.
The problems with nuclear aren't local, like coal, they're global.
>potential bombs everywhere
The only issue with having nuclear right next door is if it fucks up, but that's only going to happen if they build it wrong (unlikely, most bad npp were built in the 60s to 80s), if there's a disaster (which means only build them in the middle of plates) or if they hire idiots (plausible, gotta get them minorities in STEM).
With that in mind, Japan and other places on fault lines should be looking into geothermal, not nuclear. Australia is the perfect candidate for nuclear, the fuel is local, plenty of places to dump waste and major earthquakes are almost nonexistent. But Australia has only one reactor which makes medical isotopes instead of energy.
>Try to quickly sell house
>Wait until all the slower people get into the selling panic
>Buy a better house ultra-cheap
>Enjoy life next to one of the safest power plants in the world
I was actually making reference the the $2 Billion the Libs spent to cancel the gas plants so they could save 2 seats in the election.
I have no doubt that if there is ever enough political will to replace one of our nuclear stations it wouldn't be too overpriced. Even if it goes 200% over budget it would probably still be cheaper than all the solar power being built with contracts promising them $0.80/kWh and much more reliable.
If I lived in a more rural area I would be glad
I would just change my engineering course from computer to nuclear or mechatronic, I assume most engineering courses would be useful there
Cooling towers. They are just giant heat exchangers to get rid of excess heat. They cloud they emit is just steam.
Nothing dangerous happens in the towers, the reactors are inside those big concrete domes you see near the main building.
Nuclear reactors themselves are very complex, but ultimately all they do is generate heat, which is then used to convert water into steam in order to spin turbines and generate electricity.
why is it we abandoned lmfrs (liquid metal fast reactors)? I know there are a few out there, but by now it should be a much more viable option, and if i'm not mistaken they can even run on fuel that would be considered "spent" in a water cooled reactor, you could literally run them off the waste of other reactors and the resulting waste would be much less radioactive. Of course there are dangers to using liquid sodium but the dangers don't seem to outweigh the dangers of using inefficient water reactors that produce tons of highly radioactive waste. Of course this is just my impression I'm not a nuclear engineer by any stretch of the imagination. just seems to be a technology that was either prematurely abandoned or deliberately suppressed imo.