Do you support nuclear energy, /int/?

prefer not to say

Certainly better than coal or oil plants (yes arabs burn raw oil for electricity)

>>77066044
Ehh it's nice.

Yes, apparently we are building one and it will be the most expensive object on Earth (?????? retarded fr*nch engineering)

>>77066044
Yes

>>77066658
Kek i heard the total project will cost 19 billion dollar. Yall got jewd by the french

>>77066044
>>77066110
>>77066133
>>77066174
>>77066252
>>77066379
>>77066404
>>77066442
>>77066658
>>77066918
>>77067656
Good answer lads
/int/ - smart people pretending to be dumb

File: the-last-days-stalker-zona[1].jpg (62KB, 596x380px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 596x380px

Yes

>>77066044
prefer not to say if im honest

File: 1487868925753.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>77066658
did we learn nothing

Nuclear energy creates too dangerous wastes, so no. In the near future, we will rely on renewable energies. Think about it, why waste our time on nuclear energy when we could harness the sun itself? It is also an incredibly dangerous energy source, which can lead to entire cities or areas to become no-go zones with high to deadly doses of radiation. How anyone can support nuclear energy after disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima is beyond me.

>>77068213
And of course the only stupid answer in the entire thread has to be posted by a left-wing German.
becasue renewable energy is a meme, it's unstable and expensive as fuck. Germany now has the most expensive energy prices in the world and is buying nuclear energy from neighbouring countries. This country is determined to destroy itself with its neo-socialist Merkel know-it-all policies, Argentina 2.0.

File: 00000051236.jpg (54KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x400px

>>77068213
Renewable might work as supplement for low energy household use or rural areas but a solar farm is not gonna work the industry's high powered machinery.
The only renewable with decent power output is hydro but its also expensive to set up and requires really long rivers. This huge dam only provides 2400MW ,a gas turbine plant can get you 1800MW and the Bong's new plant 3.2GW.

>>77068213
the sun never shines in germany you dumb kraut. don't you have some leftover energy from the holocaust?

>>77066044
yes

nop

only the mass would say yes

File: Thefedora.jpg (190KB, 1067x800px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1067x800px

>>77066110
>>77066133
>>77066174
>>77066252
>>77066379
>>77066404
>>77066442
>>77066658
>>77066918
>>77067656
>>77067779
>>77067792
>>77067803
>>77069014

>>77066044
Sure until we find an efficient way to have some power. I wish we had more of them insted of fucking our rivers up. We can dispose Uranium to NK, they need money.

Yes.
It's clean and you can refine the byproducts for later use.
The most severe potential danger can be cybersecurity attacks on nuclear infrastructure. They are largely safe otherwise.

>>77066044
Yes.
If it's regulated well

>>77069053
t. jelly cause his entire cunt is earthquake-prone

the im clueless about engineering and """study""" economics starter pack >>77069164

Sure, only PETA tier leftists are against it

I think the basic premise of it should be updated for this century but yes. Many designs are still based off the 60s and 70s but ive been reading about some really cool new types if reactors.

Good thread

Yes but the free market is killing it

File: IMG_1006.jpg (342KB, 640x904px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 640x904px

>>77069780
Moon is correct, but only for SK. Another Fukushima would literally irradiate half your tiny nation.

Japan even has its own daily radiation map.

>>77066044
I don't really like the idea of concentrating so much production in a single point of the grid. I don't like the massive initial investment and how long it has to run to pay itself versus other alternatives. I think it's too cumbersome and akin to putting most of your eggs in one basket.

File: IMG_1167.jpg (93KB, 904x828px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 904x828px

>>77069850
>japan gets nuked twice
>best era ever for Japan begins
>japan gets nukes again
>another great era for Japan begins

>>77069912
It works for China/Russia/USA/India. Big industrial countries with a lot of land, energy demand, and cooling water.

Not so much for small nations dependent on tourism and services.

>>77069957
I also don't like large public contracts which are inevitable with these things. These contracts breed corruption and are a staple of corrupt socialist governments, transferring money from the people to cronies.

>>77066044
No.

Argentina has a plant near our border, they're going to kill us along with Buenos Aires some day because they're incompetent fucks

>>77066044
Yes

>>77070143
The USA is about as non-socialist as it gets and we have 200 nuclear reactors

Portugal doesn't neve

>>77071053
need them*

>>77070733
Racist =^]

>>77066044
yes. The nuclear plants everyone is afraid because of the meltdowns in history is from technology that's 60 years old. Modern nuclear plants are far more efficient and do minimal damage to the environment.

File: shoot-me-immediately-5895e80e69729.jpg (176KB, 729x960px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 729x960px

>mfw everyone drags their feet with nuclear power due to lack of understanding
>development moves at a snail's pace due to legislation
>we figured out how to reuse the waste 40 years ago, but Jimmy Carter shut the program down
>instead of a safe, reliable, clean, and efficient energy source, everyone listens to "le IRL Tony Stark man :DDD" and thinks an entirely solar/battery grid is a good idea
It's especially infuriating when someone voices concerns about global warming and turns to discard nuclear power entirely.

>>77067779
>>77069053

I didn't say we should do it willy-nilly.

>>77072129
>development moves at a snail's pace due to legislation

We have regulation fora reason.

Yes, even though there's only two nuclear plants so far.
Also, energy here is cheap due to hydroeletric.

Yes, of course

Yes, nothing can compare to it's potential for the future. Maybe geothermal

>>77072129
>It's especially infuriating when someone voices concerns about global warming and turns to discard nuclear power entirely.
Fucking this

>>77066044
Yes, it's the best.

France is one of the largest economies of the world and has most of its electricity generated by nuclear. Nuclear energy has caused the fewest deaths out of any major source of electricity and produces a negligible amount of carbon.

Unlike with renewables it's actually viable as well. Solar and wind are still memes and will be for the foreseeable future. They have lower capacity, are less reliable, are often more resource-intensive per unit of electricity generated, and their levelized cost of electricity is often higher than nuclear. It's really sad to see ridiculous amounts of money spent on bullshit renewables when we could be powering the entire world with current technology while hugely cutting carbon generation.

>>77072129
Why though? I have concerns about global warming and discard nuclear power because with less carbon in the atmosphere, humanity won't die out fast enough.

No
Instead, harvest the energy from volcanoes or vibration of quakes.

Kek what happened to the miraculous Thorium that was going to kill nuclear power?

>>77075366
It was all used to make Thorium Freakin Roadways.

>>77075366
How would thorium, a nuclear fuel, kill nuclear power?

Yes.

And in case of disaster, WE WILL TAKE OUR NEIGHBORS WITH US

Yes
And I already visited a nuclear station, that's so great

>>77075577
Yes.

>>77066044
Yep.
Some Japs who left their brain at the uterus don't support it because of Fukushima.

>>77068213
After complete nuclear fuel cycle implemention all the problema with wastes will be gone

>>77068213
You realize you're able to write that because your country is buying that electricity you use from the baguettes right?

>>77071068
>Racist =^]
You can't be racist against whites :o}

>>77075137
Lots of nations actually do well with Solar and wind energy though.

>>77076119

https://energytransition.org/2015/06/is-germany-reliant-on-foreign-nuclear-power/

>>77069053
>>77069273
Dumb cunt

File: energy_costs.jpg (41KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 720x540px

>>77066044

Yes

Nuclear > Hydro > Coal / Oil / Natural gas > Wind > Other renewables >> Solar

If you disagree with this you either have brain damage or don't know a thing about energy production.

>>77079273
image search doesn't work on this image

>>77068213
the main source of your electricity is burning coal, mr hans green

>>77079386
Have a wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Solar is far more expensive, even with the tons of friendly legislation towards it

>>77079273
Sweden gets almost all its energy from hydro, wind and "Others".
We have some of the cheapest electricity in Europe and we create so much we export it to other countries. We are also one of the cleanest countries in the world.
Works just fine.

>>77069920
They are harnessing the power of nuclear radiation like their patron deity Gojira.

>>77068213
t. brainwashed Greenpeace activist

>>77079472
Give me the Wikipedia citations anon.

Yes
t. non-idiot

File: 1499708932854.jpg (62KB, 465x399px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 465x399px

>>77066658
>>77068213
>>77068998
Aloha.

>>77079538
...they are on the bottom of the page ?

>>77079496
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Sweden

Actually only half of your energy comes from renewables, and most of the renewable energy comes from Hydro, which is 2nd in my ranking above coal.

Solar and Wind are scams.

>>77066044
Yeah, if safely done.

File: 800px-MolenVanafDijk.jpg (161KB, 800x1067px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 800x1067px

>>77066044
Yes.
The the alternative is burning coal. Or pay more taxes for the wind turbine meme.

>>77079496
there he is again, the retarded inferiority complex ridden sven needing to prove how ossom he is

guess what faggot, not every country can sustain its energy by hydro

>works for me lel

>>77066658
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_buildings

DO NOT TRUST THE FRENCH

>>77066044
I find it kinda meh.

It is too hated by the greens, but it's too uncritically overhyped by nukefreaks.

It's nice that it doesn't rely on caprices of weather but
>fucking nuclear waste that needs to be secured for millenia
>helps with nuclear proliferation
>is fucking huge investment that is literally not realisable without state subsidising it
>its stable output can also be a liability when demand changes
>fission material is rare
>fusion is an unrealistic pipe dream

The future remains in solar power, even if it meant orbital plants manufacturing power cells.

>>77075595
Thanks

>>77072129
So much this.

Over here we got this Thorium reserve just lying around, because both the tree huggers and the petroleum industry is too afraid of nuclear power due to heavy propaganda of the "dangers" of nuclear power.

>>77083004
No problem <3

I'd support it if our retarded goverment would pay a proper fucking company to build the plants
they pay the cheapest french ones and then somehow manage to make the end price so much higher than even the most wild estimate
fucking morons god CHRIST
STOP DUMPING THE WASTE IN SCOTLAND TOO CUNTS

>>77085939
>then somehow manage to make the end price so much higher than even the most wild estimate
that happens everywhere, nuclear is scam

>>77066044
Yes

>>77066044
Yes.

File: Child of Atom.jpg (10KB, 296x170px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 296x170px

As a child of atom I worship nuculear energy

may we all join the division in all it's glory soon.

>>77079273
Hydro actually beats others on energy-spent-to-energy-gained ratio, it's just less applicable on a greater scale, because it can only be built in few places and it relies on water reserves that may vary in volume over time.

>>77082668
Somewhat my thoughts

People are completely unrational when it comes to nuclear power.
I hate the green dumbs who scream Chernobyl all the time.
But on other hand I hate all the edgy kids who are behind it because it pisses the lefties. Which represent most people on this board.

Current genIII relies on a finite supply of material so it's not viable for long term future.
But, as it is very low in carbon emission during the whole cycle, I believe that it should be more widespread around the globe in order to phase out fossil fuel asap.

Fossil.fuel is not only generating greenhouse gases and contamination, they also are one of the rarest ressource IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
There are.metals and gases all over the solar system. Organic residues are the product of life decomposition and life is unique to earth.
So stop fucking burning it already.

Then, nuclear energy can slowly be phased out and being replaced with renewable or genIV and eventually fusion.
Because the biggest nuclear power plant on Earth is the sun itself.

File: Autism.png (182KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 500x500px

>have 30% of the world's uranium
>have huge amounts of uninhabited, non-arable land
>my state is having a power crisis and literally ran out of power a few months ago
>no nuclear power or even any discussion of nuclear power

>>77076127
No they don't. Germany throws away an incredible amount of money after wind and solar and the two provide about 15% of it's electricity. Solar and wind will always be at best supplementary to more viable ways of generating electricity.

>>77091406
Not necessarily.
With a capacity vastly exeding needs you can always support the base need.
Any extra production when conditions are good should be used to store energy, pumping water back in the hydro lakes, fabricating H2 for cars etc.
With spot prices dropping near zero or going negative in periods of high production I am sure some flexible industries will find what to do with the free power

>>77091581
>With a capacity vastly exceeding needs

That will never happen in any major economy with solar and wind

>>77091797
Never is a big word
Especially considering improvements in yields and efficiency and the current political will.

>>77091848
political will to support sustainable development will erode under the demagogue wave, either by the demagogues scrapping projects to get more funds to burn on retaining popularity, or by mainstream politicians preempting them as their preferences plummet.

Shit's gonna get worse before it starts improving again, judging by how political climate is going. And the saddest part is that if by some miracle the industry manages to transition towards a less reserve burning model without shit getting much worse, you'll get a lot of people saying that "lol there was never reason for concern"

>>77091848
I don't believe there is enough material in the world to make it feasible.

>>77092180
>muh demagogues
I hate how you retards have appropriated that word.

Solar and wind are nowhere near as effective as fossil fuels. This is an established fact. Yet you retards keep believing that going for more sustainable and cheaper energy sources is somehow evil.

You keep falling for generic feelgood propaganda by leftie politicians and ignore any truth and scientific facts.

Look around you. Even with the heavy regulations on fossil fuels, carbon taxes, social stigma, and the tons of subsidies solar and wind are getting, they are still incapable of being as cheap as fossil fuels.

>>77066044
Si

>Have one accident at cyka blyat rush b landia
>Have another at earthquake/tsunami/uguu zone
>We should not build one in finland because its dangerous T: leftist man from finland :)
Literally what the fuck? Why are people this stupid?

File: 1445399218118.jpg (18KB, 231x244px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 231x244px

>>77069053
>>77069273
Dare I say, never before have I witnessed an argument as compelling as yours grace upon this unworthiest of subs, m'sire. Truly, the debate over nuclear energy has been made thoroughly obsolete by the sheer magnitude of your expertise and wisdom. Alas, the feeble-minded sheep will ignore this and keep on living their lives having learned nothing, how sad indeed...

Guilded and upvoted, have a good day sir.