Nuclear

Public option regarding the safety of nuclear power plants. Pretty sure after fukushima, Japan shut all their plants down and haven't brought them back up yet.

greenies started to whine in the 70's and destroyed the only chance mankind had of preempting the co2 crisis

>>2277329
Most people are uneasy about it because they hear Chernobyl and Fukushima and shit their little baby pants

images like this get spread around in which there are these looming death stacks spewing god knows what into our clean air

File: Nuclear-Stacks-Smoke-Radiation1[1].jpg (25KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 640x360px

>>2277365
whoops

File: Smoke-rises-from-power-station[1].jpg (19KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 615x409px

>>2277367
instead of what you see actually living near a nuclear plant, which is just steam from the cooling process dissipating. Since they shifted from a miracle energy source to a radioactive zombie creator nobody wants to hear that people want to install a plant anywhere near their homes

>literally a miracle technology in your hands
>don't use it

>>2277374

"War on cohl" faggots are also contributing to this.

SOLAR

>>2277329
Read "Nuclear 2.0". It should give you some insight on the topic. It makes a convincing environmentalist argument for nuclear energy, whilst simultaneously explaining how it came to be a folk devil

>>2277380

Meh. Hydro electric and nuclear is where it's at.

>>2277380
FREAKING

>>2277382
Thanks I'll check it out

File: pict21.jpg (246KB, 1350x895px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1350x895px

>there are people who unironically oppose nuclear power and believe in their hearts that they are doing good by protesting it

Reminder that nuclear meltdown is a fucking meme and that after the meltdown, the other reactors were still operating in Chernobyl until 2000.

Mudslimes in Yurope

File: 1421459093840.jpg (139KB, 1024x942px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1024x942px

>tfw we'll never have nuclear fusion reactors generating energy because of anti-nuclear stigma even though the fallbacks of fission don't even apply to fusion
>nuclear fission isn't even as bad as people make it out to be
w-well at least we got that research reactor right?

>>2277329

It's one of those things leftists are anti-science about.
Like GMOs or genetic-anything in general.

Al gore and chernobyl happened

I am kinda a retard. Is Thorium better then normal Nuclear Plants?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

>muh nuclear power is perfect
>it was dem greenies who scared people away from it
It's because nuclear is too expensive to be commercially viable without government money.

>>2278478
Yes, they are better, but even more expensive.

>>2278488
Nuclear energy is literally the cheapest one. You just need a fuckhuge investment at the begining, but it pays of at the end of the day.

>>2278250
Fusion would be even less economically viable than fission and would output considerably less than the near-infinite amounts of energy promised by delusional techno-believers.
>>2278478
No one knows because they haven't been built but nuclear fags will tell you it's the solution to all our problems.
>>2278506
>Nuclear energy is literally the cheapest one. You just need a fuckhuge investment at the begining, but it pays of at the end of the day.
Source?

>>2278533

>Fusion would be even less economically viable than fission

No.

>considerably less than the near-infinite amounts of energy promised

No

nuclear is a scary word, common people don't understand statistics and would rather let oil and coal magnates have their way than use an efficient energy method that has the world nuclear on it

>>2277329
At its core, the problem is nuclear powers association with nuclear weapons in the mind of the public. Of course this is irrational, it's difficult enough to make a nuclear weapon, a nuclear power plant cannot become a nuclear bomb no matter how badly managed or constructed.

Imagine for one moment if we had a different word for nuclear power versus nuclear weapons. Call it Thermometal power, it would probably get a better reception.

>>2279739
well the spent uranium is an actual environmental problem so...

>>2279748
It's a lesser problem than most common energy sources.

>>2277329
>>2277359
>>2278250
> nuclear accidents liberate tons of invisible radioactive material into the atmosphere poisoning large areas that kill bystanders, give cancer and primary DNA damage to their immediate and faraway victims and future generations with unforeseen consequences for the human gene pool
> Poison the ground for millennia
>Accidents already happened on the world largest economies and nations so no excuse apply at least 3 times
>Governments LIE on ALL accidents getting MILLIONS irradiated
>Generate tons of radioactive waste that nobody knows what the fuck to do with but to bury and hide
>There are options like geothermal or hydroelectric energy available

Nuclear apologists must due in nuclear fire

File: luk.jpg (33KB, 600x380px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x380px

>>2277329
>>2277359
>>2278250
> nuclear accidents liberate tons of invisible radioactive material into the atmosphere poisoning large areas that give cancer and primary DNA damage to their immediate and faraway victims and fucks up future generations with unforeseen consequences for the human gene pool
> Poison the ground for millennia
>Accidents already happened on the world largest economies and nations so no excuse apply at least 3 times
>Governments LIE on ALL accidents getting MILLIONS irradiated
>Generate tons of radioactive waste that nobody knows what the fuck to do with but to bury and hide
>There are options like geothermal or hydroelectric energy available

Nuclear apologists must die by nuclear fire

File: 1485263129487.gif (2MB, 400x291px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x291px

>>2279459
>Statistics
Oh boy! Let's build an energy plant that can power a whole city!
But it has a tiny small minimal chance that by negligence, sabotage, or natural disasters it can explode or meltdown spewing unfathomable and eldritch levels of horror, suffering and death to half the country for generations and millennia to come; sure it's a win win!, right goy?

>>2279845
>>2279887
non arguments

>MUH CONSPIRACY

go back to /pol/

>>2279907
>Give real founded arguments
>Not an argument

>>2277329
It's pretty popular and it's being built up all over the world, just not in meme countries like Germany.

>>2278488
>It's because nuclear is too expensive to be commercially viable without government money.
The major cost is in the construction of it, after that the fuel is far cheaper.

>>2279845
>Geothermal
>Viable
The number of countries that can use geothermal is limited

>>2279836
>nuclear accidents
>"Accidents"

You mean Russians overclocking their wonderful Peaктop Бoльшoй Moщнocти Кaнaльный for the lulz and literally ignoring all the warnings since "its always high"?

>>2278533
>Source?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.asp

It's obvious, why did you through it would be otherwise?

>>2278488
>It's because nuclear is too expensive to be commercially viable without government money.
Nuclear has been commercially viable since the tech existed.

Muh Chernobyl. British people are terrified of nuclear despite the fact France has tons of nuclear reactors that will blow us up anyway.

>>2279836
You make a claim about some unspecified, unforeseen, unknown consequences, then scream that it cannot be unproven so therefore it is true. Do you even realize how retarded you sound?

File: energy.jpg (39KB, 643x397px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 643x397px

>>2279845
>>2279887
>>2279836
Get real. It's easy to point to Fukishima or Chernobyl and just spread alarmist bullshit. Actually look up the statistics about nuclear energy.

>>2280110
Shouldn't have expected any less from China

Solar should be used for the everyday person and their needs.

Nuclear should be used for large programs like space flight and such.

Wind energy is a meme and makes everything look retarded.

>>2280211
>Solar should be used for the everyday person and their needs.
Except everyday person needs consistent, predictable baseload and solar can't provide that.
Also the everyday person would, I imagine, prefer cheaper energy to one that is magnitudes more expensive.

>>2277329
Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima turned people off; nuclear can be safe with the proper safeguards but it can also go off spectacularly.

We have a few ships that run off near power. The aircraft carriers need refueling once in their 50 year lifespan.

>>2277341
CO2 crisis was inevitable either way.

>>2277365
>>2277367
Typical greenie retard.

>>2279845
>with unforeseen consequences for the human gene pool
It's called accelerated evolution.

>>2280110
>wind
>solar
wat

>>2280211
>Solar should be used for the everyday person and their needs.
Yes let's ignore the pollution from producing that many panels.

>Nuclear should be used for large programs
Migrant housing lol

>Wind energy is a meme and makes everything look retarded.
Nah. It looks pretty cool.

>>2280413
I want to suck your cock.

>>2277329
The oil cartels love their gibs too much.

>>2280211
Because electrons from Solar plants are totally different to the electrons from nuclear plants, right?

>>2277329
>something goes wrong
>entire area uninhabitable for 20,000 years
>all for clean energy

File: IMG_0276.jpg (96KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 320x480px

My name is Legion: for we are many.

>>2280446
Most of the world is uninhabitable peroid. I don't see you complaining about that.

File: kj.jpg (9KB, 305x165px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 305x165px

>>2280446
Making it sure shit will go wrong is better?

>>2277393
Protesting nuclear power is actually perfectly rational...if you work in the fossil fuel industry, that is.

>>2278198
>>>/pol/

>>2278488
Part of the reason it's so expensive is because of all the regulations and safety audits that have to be done, though it's quite possible that without those it wouldn't have as great a safety record. Government subsidies are basically a way of ensuring safety without financially penalizing those who operate safe reactors.

>>2278533
Uranium is going to run out eventually (I think in a few hundred years, though that's only because we refuse to use reprocessing) so if we don't have fusion by then, we're screwed. And when fusion is fully developed, it will likely outperform fission anyway - though that's still very far away.

>>2279836
>>2279845
>>2279887
Haven't researched the Japanese accident enough to say much about it, but Chernobyl was entirely preventable. It totally lacked a proper containment structure that would have prevented (or at least SEVERELY reduced) the release of radioactive material to the atmosphere. And even with the accidents that have occurred so far, the total radiation release per gigawatt is less than you get from burning coal.

>>2280458
>>>/b/

>>2280478
>It totally lacked a proper containment structure that would have prevented (or at least SEVERELY reduced) the release of radioactive material to the atmosphere.
Except it DIDN'T and the countermeasure was USED.
It cost lives but it was successful.

>>2280430
Nuclear gets way more government money than oil does relative to the amount of energy generated.

>>2280512
>Do you count wars?
>Sauce?

>>2280518
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41953.pdf
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/energy-subsidies-study/

File: 1_Yucca_0[1].jpg (142KB, 350x444px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 350x444px

>>2277329
Basically it's super expensive, takes a long time, is "scary", and no one, I mean NO ONE wants to clean it up.

People keep saying it's a great idea and we should get right on it but Chernobyl is still a forbidden zone, right? I hear a few people actually live there although I don't think they're supposed to, and that it's not /that/ bad, so I don't know if it's uninhabitable but it's still off-limits.
If an accident can make the surrounding area a total no go zone for God knows how long, the opposition doesn't seem totally unfounded.

>>2280791
Chernobyl and the surrounding areas have become a paradise for wild life. Even wolves have returned.

>>2280478
>so if we don't have fusion by then, we're screwed.
You can get uranium from sea water.

>>2280446
Areas that were literally nuked were inhabitable pretty much immediately afterwards. Why do people continue to believe in 1950s myths?

>>2280446
>implying
The other reactors were still fully operational until 2000.

>>2280791
Nobody gives a shit about toxic tailing ponds ruining water tables though.

>>2280984
Those same wolves have been found to have a significant number of tumors.

>>2280413
>Typical greenie retard.
Read his posts again, carefully.

>>2280110
>chinese coal + usa coal / 2 = 57.5
>world coal = 60
Do China and the US burn almost all the worlds coal? Jesus.

>>2277367
thats steam you mong

>>2279836
>geothermal
In Iceland, Yellowstone, and fuck all else.

>>2280791
The other reactors in the power plant were operational until 2000.
Nuclear meltdown is meme tier.

>>2281220
That's his point. People are being turned off nuclear power by photos carefully chosen to look bad.

>>2280619
Thats why you recycle your fuel and re-enrich it or re-purpose it.

>>2280984
>>2281125
And brain damage.

>>2280413
Some poor bastard has his safety line break while repairing a wind turbine? Dumbass walks into the "all reflectors aimed here" part of one of those liquid salt solar things?

All you guys missing the point.
Let's take in count that:
>Ok no accidents
>Ok not that much pollution
>Ok cheap
>Ok a lot of energy

Then all the waste?
That's the true problem, the waste.
Where you put that shit?

>>2280413
>>wind
>>solar
>wat
>>2281505


Or someone installing solar panels on a residential ceiling falls and hits his head.
I think technically is someone dies of a heart attack on the job they have to count that.

>>2281233
So everyone could just move back in and be at least relatively safe and healthy and it's just fearmongering and misinformation that keeps them away, or what?
Cause if not I can see why people aren't too eager to build more plants, even if other ways of producing energy have more problems overall.

>>2281230
I know japan, mexico and new zealand are candidates too.

>>2281521
In the ground where it was dug up in the first place.

File: Public-Image-Ltd-with-Kei-001.jpg (44KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 460x276px

>>2281536

>>2279748
You take radioactive material out of the ground and make it less radioactive.

>>2281536
Yeah let's put nuclear waste in the ground. Are you that fucking clueless?

>>2281527
No, it's correct that you don't want to live at Chernobyl for another few decades, but it's also true that Chernobyl/Three Mile Island type disasters are physically impossible with modern plant design. Fukushima is livable and will only cause a maximum of about 600 deaths (compare to the deaths of coal power).

>>2281558
About as clueless as the people who insist nuclear reactors can explode in this thread.

>>2281570
Everything can explode if you try anon.

>>2281577
Then why are there not attacks on uranium mines?

>>2281577
So how come in the last 60 half century of viable commercial nuclear energy there have been a total of three (3) major nuclear accidents, and zero (0) incidents of sabotage, or terrorist attack?

>>2277329

It's still not as cheap as fossil fuel based power and the only cost of electricity people care about is the one that appears on their power bill at the end of the month.

>>2281766
That would have been a good argument if you hadn't pulled it off your asshole.

>>2281766
I live in SoCal, people here are very concerned about environmental racism (basically, air is worse in the shitty places, I don't agree that it's any kind of prejudice but it's useful to push for cleaner energy).

>>2280478
>Haven't researched the Japanese accident enough to say much about it
an earthquake cracked the coolant tanks which caused a partial meltdown, they were prepared for this possibility and so there were large tanks of extra coolant stored nearby, however the flooding from a tsunami had washed them away.

This caused many to argue that nuclear power is unsafe because you can never prepare for every one in a million eventuality, as Fukushima was the one.

>>2281790
>This caused many to argue that nuclear power is unsafe because you can never prepare for every one in a million eventuality

Or you y'know, don't build nuclear power plants inside the fucking pacific ring of fire.

>>2281790
Wasn't the construction company responsible for building and maintaining the plant found to be grossly incompetent and corrupt, cutting corners everywhere?

>>2281822
No, but the board of directors didn't fix a couple obvious flaws with the cooling system because the accompanying announcement would make a shamefur dispray.

If nuclear power is so good, what are we supposed to do with the tons of nuclear waste?

People being stupidly afraid of it mainly.
That said, we really don't have a plan for what to do with the waste.
Thorium reactors would be better than current ones waste wise, but they're quite expensive.

>>2277367
>>2277371
Evaporated water causes a 16 times higher greenhouse effect than CO2.

>>2281868
And its exit from the atmosphere isn't bottlenecked by the total volume of specific biomass.

>>2281883
>water and other greenhouse substances enter the atmosphere
>greenhouse effect heats up atmosphere
>temperature rises
>more stuff evaporates
It's a vicious cycle.

>>2281907
lmao get real kid

>>2281913
>I have no scientific knowledge so I must argue with opinions

>>2280478
>>>2278533
>Uranium is going to run out eventually (I think in a few hundred years, though that's only because we refuse to use reprocessing) so if we don't have fusion by then, we're screwed.

Factually incorrect.

There are roughly 4 billion tons of U in the oceans, which can be economically recovered at a price only slightly less dirt cheap than current U.

However, that's AMAZINGLY stupid.

You know what else has ridiculous amounts of Uranium?

Oil shale.

You know what we're doing to oil shale right now?

Fracking the fuck out of it.

You know what we can leach out of all those fracking wells after we get done with the oil?

FUCKTONS of uranium.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0356a/report.pdf

We've know about this for over sixty years, anon. Yet, the anti-nukers have been so successful in spreading their propaganda, you didn't know about it.

There is so much U in the ground, we will never run out of it.

No fusion required, under even the most wild-eyed pie-in-the-sky growth estimates.

>And when fusion is fully developed, it will likely outperform fission anyway - though that's still very far away.

Lawson Ignition Criteria. For any given amount of engineering effort, fission will give you far more energy than fusion will. Plus, unless you manage to make an aneutronic fuel cycle work, fucion is just as dirty and nasty as closed-fuel-cycle fission is.

So why bother?

>>2281521
>Where you put that shit?

Back into a reactor and burn it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

There's only seven long-lived fission products to worry about, and frankly, we know how to deal with all of them.

All this crap about how the waste is impossible to deal with is a total myth.

Cazzomene della crisi faccio solo la 6 litri

>>2281855
Why don't we just launch it into space?

>>2282121
because it's not as useful as
>>2282076

>>2281790
They could have prevented it still. The problem was actually, as you said, that the reactor wasn't cooled anymore.

They couldn't use extra coolant because of the Tsunami but could perfectly have used seawater.

Except that if they did that the reactor would have been unusable anymore so they tried to save it. This hesitation instead of immediately colling and destroying it is what finally caused the incident.

>>2281938
Source your claims at least.

>>2282104
Shitpost made in italy pagantello del cazzo

>>2277329
>implying it isn't popular
*laughs in french*

>>2281521
Only laymen call it waste nowadays. The shit still contains ton of usable elements and produces a lot of heat.

It's just not economical to use it yet.

>>2281125
This is not true but go ahead and spread more myths about radioactive monsters and giant bugs or something.

>>2282306
Furthermore even despite the "disaster" the damage to human life and health from Fukushima reactors was minimal, practically nonexistent. The real damage was losing a nuclear reactor, which sucks since it's a really valuable property, and from people being forced to evacuate for no reason and being put in stressful conditions.

>>2282907
Well I mean a Tsunami is a perfectly valid reason to evacuate a city but I get what you're saying.

Jesus Christ. I come back to my thread and there's a bunch of shit flinging baka.

>>2279887
Coal power plants spew lead constantly. I believe on average nuclear power is safer.

File: IMG_0279.jpg (309KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1600x1000px

Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

File: IMG_0280.png (2MB, 1127x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1127x1600px

Technology is nothing. What's important is that you have a faith in people, that they're basically good and smart, and if you give them tools, they'll do wonderful things with them.

Steve Jobs

File: 20130601_USC718.png (44KB, 290x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 290x480px

>>2281777

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21578690-thanks-cheap-natural-gas-americas-nuclear-renaissance-hold-fracked

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25652

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf

>>2282968
Tsunami was long past when the evacuations were ordered for no reason other than paranoia. If you don't know anything about the subject, maybe you should stick to lurking.

>>2281868
Lmao, evaporated water doesn't stay in the atmosphere. It comes back to earth, that's what we call rain.

>>2281790
>large tanks of extra coolant stored nearby, however the flooding from a tsunami had washed them away.
I thought what had happened was that the tsunami was much larger than expected so it went over the sea walls. The damage caused power loss and the back up generators were flooded, making the coolant pump useless so sea water had to be pumped in for emergency and even then it was too late.

>>2284504
>I thought what had happened was that the tsunami was much larger than expected so it went over the sea walls.


Fukushima happened after a FUCKING GIANT EARTHQUAKE. Like, seriously, it was like the third most powerful earthquake that's EVER BEEN SEEN. The odds are very good you will live your entire life and there will never be one that big again.

Even when the plant got nailed pretty much with a direct hit by this gigantic earthquake, far nastier than it was designed to survive, it survived it anyway. Good design, that.

However, then, less than an hour after surviving this giant earthquake, a FUCKHUEG TSUNAMI clobbers the plant...AGAIN.

Even after that savage double hit, the plant was fine. Holy shit! They build those things to take a real beating.

However, the diesels used to keep the pumps running flooded, and the fuel tanks for them all washed away.

Fuuuuuck.

Even then, the Japs could have turned this shit around, except they (maybe understandably) panicked and ran around in circles.

To be fair, this cataclysm had just scrambled their entire infrastructure and killed fifteen thousand people in various awful ways.

So, they ran in circles and dithered until the cores overheated and blew out. EVEN THEN, the plants still held their ground, and kept the huge majority of the bad shit inside the containment, just like they were supposed to. Daaamn.

The whole point here is, the ancient plants at Fukushima should have been upgraded to an inherently safe design already, but the anti-nukers won't let us do anything sensible like that.

As for calling it a 'disaster', ask yourself: How many people died at Fukushima, despite the plant being bulls-eyed by three gigantic cataclysms in a single day?

The answer is one.

More people were killed by the idiotic and completely overblown evacuation than would have been killed by the worst case scenarios.

This should be a testament to the fact that the BEST place to be in a disaster is in a nuke plant.

>>2285280
Nice, greenie retards BTFO.

>>2277365
>>2277367
>looming death stacks spewing god knows what into our clean air

You mean steam?

>>2285586
>expecting greenies to know how a turbine works

>>2285280
>The answer is one.
That person died because of the tsunami, not due to anything to do with radioactivity.

>>2277329
people have always been scared of radiation but the real reson is that its realy expencive to build and maintain nuclear power plants

otherwise they would just get spammed in deserts and piled up on offshore platforms

>>2277329
I started writing a long response but then 4chan fucked me and it got lost. So short version of my long answer:

-politically, lack of funding in non-European Western nation as a response to fossil fuel lobbying and public fear over Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima.
-financially, nuclear power plants are fucking expensive (around $5 billion per plant) and so are a huge investment that doesn't seem tenable to companies in the short term. Also, it's simply cheaper to extract fossil fuels than uranium or thorium.
-publicly, the fear from previous disasters plus general dissemination of lies regarding the safety of plants or the radiation they put out has put the public firmly against nuclear plants. Nuclear plants are opposed by both hippies and teabaggers, so you know it's actually a good idea.

>>2285599
>>2285586
Read his posts more carefully. He's making a point that photos taken at inopportune times are being used to turn normies off nuclear power.

>>2285280
/thread

>>2277329
>Tell me /his/, why isn't nuclear energy popular nowadays? What went wrong along the line?

Communist subversion creating scientifically illiterate hippie movement.

>>2287360
>Communist subversion creating scientifically illiterate hippie movement.

There is actually a lot of truth to this statement.

The whole 'Green' movement, with it's toxic 'Dieoff' and 'Degrowth' offshoots, have lots of background links, in the early days, to Communist subversion efforts initiated in the Cold War.

Hell, this sort of subversion can be seen even today, just turn on your TV and hunt around until you find the 'RT' channel, which is full-throated Pravda-style propaganda.

Like all good propaganda, RT is thickly layered with slanted facts and carefully chosen phrases, but if you watch it with skeptical eyes, you can see the gist of it.

The Green movement, with it's ill Dieoff and Degrowth memes and its insane fixation on 'renewable energy' has morphed and grown, however, to the point where it is now a genuine religion.

Green has dogma and scripture, and is blindly supported out of pure faith. To put it mildly, the fact that this religious movement has wormed its way into government policy worldwide is a Bad Thing, because EVERY time a religion gets involved in governance, it's a bad thing.

>>2287506
But thats not really "communist subverion" as much as it is "Russian subversion". Since energy export is a huge portion of Russian economy.

btw I would somehow doubt they'll go against nuclear, since Russian nuclear fuel and a lot of related technology is the best in the world

>>2287506
>Hell, this sort of subversion can be seen even today, just turn on your TV and hunt around until you find the 'RT' channel, which is full-throated Pravda-style propaganda.

I thought we liked RT now, what with the fake news and all.

>>2288088
>we
>>>out

As some have said there's pr issues but there's more to it than that. High up-front capital costs for one, so high in fact that private investment for new power plants has not been forthcoming in the west for many years, with very few exceptions. The mining is somewhat problematic like mining in general as well. Which can make alternatives like solar or wind slightly more attractive.

>>2288512
>High up-front capital costs for one, so high in fact that private investment for new power plants has not been forthcoming in the west for many years, with very few exceptions.
Upfront capital cost for equivalent "green" power would be magnitudes higher.

Hippies, morons, and moronic hippies

>>2285280
based anon

>>2285280
>but the anti-nukers won't let us do anything sensible like that.
Can you explain more? As far as I know, it's because of the regulatory bodies were known to collude with nuclear companies, so they prevented the costs (for upgrades) with excuses like "if we upgrade it, we'll scare the sensitive Japanese people, etc."

We'll never run out of oil and gas, so why bother with that God-pretending abomination?

>>2281198
>>2280110
Bullshit chart

It says 90% of world coal deaths are accounted for by US+China.
What about the other 70% of the world population?

>>2281790
>>2282306
>>2282907
>>2283420
>>2284504
>>2285280
All factually inaccurate

At least read the wiki before spewing shit

File: 2ad3e2b872448d2b70fc93462a783a14164e0d5e.png (281KB, 600x950px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 600x950px

>>2288836
>the two biggest producers of energy and also the biggest polluters have the most amounts of deaths pertaining to the production of energy
>who would have fucking guessed
Did you think that though there Nimrod?

>>2288857
What do you expect from an obvious shill? And idiots who hate greenies just because there are idiot hippies on the other side? And somehow, a sensible person who isn't supportive of nuclear energy nor a greenie faggot is impossible to exist on the Internet.

>>2288816
t. Exxon Mobil

>>2288836
>>2288862
>per terrawatt-hour
You're fucking dense, it's a ratio of deaths for each unit of energy. Chinese coal based power kills more people PER TERRAWATT, not necessarily in total.

>>2287506
>, just turn on your TV and hunt around until you find the 'RT' channel,
I don't get that channel and I don't know why anyone would.

>>2277329
Disposal of waste materials, threat of meltdown and resulting environmental/health damage, and its role in the proliferation of nuclear arm are, i believe, the main reasons why it never became a mainstream energy source.

>>2288957
It's been a mainstream energy source for decades.

>>2288857
>>2288867
go eat some hemp granola you gays

File: 1475303948165.gif (400KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 493x342px

>>2288957
>it never became a mainstream energy source.

>>2281525
Material used in solar panels are highly toxic and that alone has killed more people than nuclear has.

File: george-w-bush.jpg (26KB, 243x307px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 243x307px

>>2277329
Bush told me that 3rd worlders can use the byproducts of the plants to make atomic bombs ,

>>2277329
STANDING

>>2289259
HERE

>>2281790
Wasn't it mainly that the reactors were shut down (as is standard procedure for natural distasters) but the diesel generators couldn't keep the coolant flowing because they were placed too low and the room flooded?

>>2281822
That was the official finding, but they may have had public pressure to find some big flaw, so the government could say something would be done to prevent this from ever happening again.

>>2282062
Are you talking about total uranium reserves? Problem is that only rare isotopes can be used in reactors.

>>2289623
>>>2282062 (You)
>Are you talking about total uranium reserves?

Total uranium resource, not reserves. The two are similar, but resources are everything out there, while reserves are the amount that some government bureaucrat has decided actually exists.

To put it mildly, resources are MUCH larger than reserves. This is why the reserves of oil today are bigger than they were thirty years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

Think about that: Reserves are such a bullshit stat, that even after we've burnt shit tons of this stuff for thirty years, we now have MORE reserves today than we did then.

I only talk about resources now. Reserves are utter bullshit.

>Problem is that only rare isotopes can be used in reactors.

Incorrect! U235 is not rare, even though it is less than one percent of all uranium. However, even that is misleading, because we can burn the U238 which makes up the other 99.3 percent of uranium, not to mention ALL the thorium, if we simply built the right kind of reactors, namely, fast-neutron breeder reactors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

We know exactly how to build such breeders, we just don't because the anti-nuke Green Religion has poisoned everybody's mind (such as yours, not knowing how common uranium is).

Well, and fracking means we have so much fossil fuel we really don't need nuclear power. What a terrible situation, we have so much energy resource laying around we seriously can't use it all! :D

Still, it's a good idea to have a strong, viable backup plan working, just in case.

>>2288867
>>>2288857
>What do you expect from an obvious shill? And idiots who hate greenies just because there are idiot hippies on the other side? And somehow, a sensible person who isn't supportive of nuclear energy nor a greenie faggot is impossible to exist on the Internet.


Oh, and look, here we have a faithful follower of the Green Religion hissing and booing as we mock his faith.

We're sorry man, but we don't believe in your 'Gaia' earth-god.

>>2277385
R O A D W A Y S