Is nuclear power safe yet?

>>7788284
Not unless they pump money into Thorium research

>>7788284
Yes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power).
In fact, it has been shown that background levels of radiation are lower around nuclear power plants than elsewhere.
/thread

>>7788284
yes

>>7788288
>Thoriumposting

>>7788284
Yes, it's pretty safe.

>>7788295
>Less radioactive material produced
>Less need for coolants
>Can pull the switch safely when shit gets overheated
You tell me why thorium isn't the answer for everything
It's all you fucking muh defense assholes that are preventing this, but...but muh plutonium supply, muh nuclear arsenal.

Everyone is all obsessed with thorium. But the truth is we dont know if thorium can do for us what we think it can.

>>7788334
No conclusive answer, have promise, find conclusive answer, isn't this research? Aren't we fucking finding answers for our problems with research not fucking sitting there and say there's no answer.

>>7788322
>You tell me why thorium isn't the answer for everything
because its a meme and fusion is superior in every way

>>7788358
Fusion is a meme that is intended for a fucking superweapon, fission centre using heat generated to cause fusion, the fucking radius is so larger that it can potentially swallow Tokyo and many surrounding cities around it.

File: image.jpg (49KB, 340x494px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 340x494px

>>7788364
This guy's a fuckin madman

File: Are_you_serious.jpg (63KB, 350x379px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 350x379px

>>7788364
Everyone point and laugh at the faggot.

>>7788339

fuck off mordin

File: Playing with radiation.jpg (39KB, 468x457px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 468x457px

>>7788364
Well fission is still a weapon, the waste just comes out the barrels of guns now, making electricity with it is just a by product of weapons research really. Monkeys shouldn't even be playing with any of it until religion and the occult grip on it is exterminated from the face of earth.

>>7788379
Hello, what planet are you from?

File: chart_nuclear_map.top.jpg (34KB, 475x360px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 475x360px

Modern nuclear power is pretty safe.

Power coming out of plants that have been operating for nearly half a century isn't as safe, but as people are against building that many new ones we don't have much choice but to run them as far into the ground as we dare.

Muh next Chernobyl

yes
gen 4+ reactors are damn hard to fuck with
it's just that most of our nuclear infrastructure is like gen 2 with retrofits.

and making any new reactors is financially troublesome due to cost overruns and legally impossible to due lawsuit after lawsuit, no matter where you build the damn things

>>7788438
Muh next batch of poorly trained Russians doing a pants on head shutdown tests without proper notification

>>7788627
Without muh containment vessel

>>7788438
using "muh" in an online post you've made doesn't magically make the dangers of another potential chernobyl disaster dissapear

File: chinese quick build reactors.jpg (771KB, 2060x1236px) Image search: [Google]

771KB, 2060x1236px

>those new french-designed chinese-built quick-built reactors that have a giant water tower above the reactor that will gravity-feed coolant into the core for 36 hours after a SCRAM
what a clever and seemingly foolproof idea. how will china fuck it up?

It's pretty safe for converting to weapons of mass destruction.

>>7788753
im glad nuclear power is expanding worldwide, but im a bit worried about china leading the way. the US has 4 AP1000 reactors currently under construction as well, so hopefully their operations go on without happenstance

Safer than having more coal and oil plants indefinitely, as long as the government prioritizes safety over profits (or forces the power company to), which is why I'm worried about China having them.

Yurop and North America will be fine.

Its been safe for years. JUst look a Fukashima. A ricter 9 earthquake and tsunami hi it and it only caused a very small quantity of oil to be leaked. If that was an oil plant, much greater damage would have been done.

>>7788762
wonder how many lawsuits are out attempting to block those

As long as we carefully overlook
- chemical hazards in mining and making fuel
- chemical and radiological hazards in recycling waste
- problems in finding safe storage for waste that will be safe for thousands of years
... that will be very obviously terrorist baits
- cost of decomissioning a reactor
... where the core will be highly radioactive for a long, long time
......... and far too big to bury somewhere

>>7788712
You're right. The collapse of the Soviet Union did that.

>>7788961
>chemical and radiological hazards in recycling waste
we dont recycle waste in the US
>problems in finding safe storage for waste that will be safe for thousands of years
those problems are only of a political nature

>>7788961
France gets 77% of their electricity from nuclear.

If the frogs can figure it out, it can't be that hard.

>>7788284
It's been safe.

>>7788796
The funny part is that loss of electricity to the plant caused the disaster, not the earthquake itself. Plants are pretty much designed for many disasters, especially those in the pacific

>>7788753
By having an accident lasting 36 1/2 hours. 36 hours is actually pretty shitty for a modern design. Modern GE and Westinghouse designs would be able to go 72 hours with no operator input.

Of course my personally I advocate for molten salt fuel reactors. Reactor overheats? Fuel leaves the core and is no longer critical. Still too hot? Freeze Plug melts and drains the fuel into emergency containment tanks.

>>7788364

I see that mommy let you watch Spider-Man.

>>7788322
While thorium is nice from a breeder point of view, that can also be applied to uranium

>>7788961
>chemical hazards in mining and making fuel
Exists in plenty of other industries and is easily controlled.
>chemical and radiological hazards in recycling waste
see above
>problems in finding safe storage for waste that will be safe for thousands of years
The waste "problem" was solved decades ago, despite what Greenpeace claims.
>that will be very obviously terrorist baits
See above
>cost of decomissioning a reactor
Several dozen civilian reactors in the US have already been decommissioned plus hundreds of military reactors.
>where the core will be highly radioactive for a long, long time and far too big to bury somewhere
The fuel rods are the core, retard

Thanks for demonstrating you have no clue what you're talking about.

>>7789942
my mom is dead...

>Is nuclear power safe yet?

A better question would be "Is there any kind of power that is safe?" If there isn't, which is the "safest?"

No. It's still radioactivity.

>>7790224
I know, I have to use a spade for a conjugal visit.

Would be a very interesting meathod if we could recycle the radioactive waste back into the system until the remaining waste was no longer radioactive

It is a lot safer than coal.

You know how much radiation is in coal exhaust and ash?

>>7788753

idk, earthquake knocks over the tower? Seems like there's plenty that can go wrong with a big water vessel.

>>7790452
You're still an idiot.

File: why.png (670KB, 1200x1152px) Image search: [Google]

670KB, 1200x1152px

>>7788289
>/thread-ing own post

>>7788753
seems a little uneeded. gen4 reactors supposed to be safe for days with out any water circulation.

>>7791411
>with out any water circulation
i think you mean without active systems. they maintain heat transfer by natural circulation

>>7788284
Yes, France is proof.

>>7791389
...said the 3 eyed 1 armed mutant

In geological stable areas yes, honestly I wish my Country even considered nuclear power

>>7788284
>Is nuclear power safe yet?

Yes

>Do people make said nuclear power plants inherently unsafe?

Yes

>Are Generation IV reactors such as Thorium Reactors meme power plants?

Yes

>Is Fusion Power the future of power plants?

Yes

>Is Fusion Power also a meme?

Duh.....of course it is.