Why do leftists oppose nuclear?

I agree with you on nuclear but fracking is terrible for the environment.

well i'm not a leftist but i oppose nuclear energy. it's unnatural to brake atoms (fission). i think there are much better solutions being kept from us. check out what tesla said and also check what he said about theory of relativility

>>129782859
>it's unnatural to break atoms

They break on their own you fucking retard

>>129782859
>unnatural
suck my cock

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

>>129781610
Aside from mini-earthquakes, not really.

>>129783111

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8

>>129781314
The left hates every aspect of modern civilization because they are failures in it. Anything that works they are against.

>>129783508
That is video is from a NATURALLY OCCURRING methane deposit.

>>129783698

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/
http://www.apmreports.org/story/2016/12/13/epa-fracking-contamination-drinking-water
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/07/wyoming-fracking-water-contamination-dangerous-chemicals

>"I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU WANT TO USE AN ENERGY SOURCE LIKE NUCLEAR ENERGY! HAVEN'T YOU HEARD OF NUCLEAR BOMBS? IT'S THE SAME WORD, SO IT MUST BE SOMETHING EVIL AND SCARY!"
In short, liberals are fucking children.

>>129781314
Its a real tragedy that america isnt covered with beautiful plants like OP's picture

>>129781314
Look at all that smog coming out of the towers, how is that better for the envoirment dipshit

>>129781314
I've actually been shilling nuclear quite a bit lately, I haven't really heard much solid argument against it.

>>129781314
Nuclear power would strengthen western civilization, they want guilt and instability.

File: 1459621432754.jpg (52KB, 376x419px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 376x419px

>>129784328
Is this bait?

>>129784328
Is this bait? That's steam.

>>129784328
It's steam, retard.

>>129781314

Because the word nuclear just naturally scares them and they're cowards and run shrieking from anything associated with scary things.

>>129784396
They're pretty hard to get rid of after being built.

>>129781314
https://youtu.be/PpoPnrAc9qw

Because dividing atoms is unnatural and dangerous. One fuck up and thousands will die thanks to huge explosion and radioactive material

>>129784328
This too. Thats water gas but still radioactive.

>>129783966

Thi
Liberals, like with anything else, don't know what they are talking about. They eat up anything the (((msm))) feeds them

And checked

File: deaths per twh nbf.jpg (167KB, 1584x1144px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1584x1144px

>>129785007
Is this even harder bait?

>>129781314
Nuclear and fracking aren't the same, and cannot be judged the same way. Also, I don't think it's true that opposition to nuclear energy is a leftist or liberal idea. I think you're just looking for an argumant

If nuclear energy is so much better, how come they don't make nuclear engines for cars are airplanes?

>>129781314
Well there are some issues with fracking, chiefly that if done wrong or done in the wrong area the chemicals used in the process can end up permanently tainting drinking water supplies. The fracking chemicals are difficult to filter completely out and so it would be extremely difficult to purify a water supply damaged by fracking.

As to nuclear, it's because libtards love emotional propaganda and that's essentially the entirety of the anti-nuclear platform. Nuclear suffers from less accidents, accidents are less severe, modern nuclear reactors are extremely hard to melt down and are built to withstand both military attack and natural disaster, they only generate moderate thermal pollution and no greenhouse gas during operation, produce dramatically more energy than coal or oil fueled powerplants, and have more readily available fuel.

>>129784882
Eh I still think they're worth it when you consider this:
>>129785291

>>129785291
And god bless that low number. It would be in thousands if we didnt take action, chart proves it worked

>>129781314
It's evil

>>129782859
> it's unnatural to brake atoms (fission)
Agreed, the existence of heavy elements that undergo radioactive decay by simply being there is an example of big business raping nature. This is why, as an enlightened being, I also oppose the massive amounts of nuclear fusion that goes on in the sun every day and showers the poor planet with deadly gamma radiation that has been PROVED to cause cancer.

The universe being anything other than an empty space of hydrogen atoms at a temperature of absolute zero is a perversion of nature caused by the 1%, just to they can make money.

Thanks for fucking the universe up, rethuglikkkans.

>>129785661
Because they're too heavy for cars and too scary for planes.

>>129783111
Fracking is only good when done EXTREMELY responsibly, and energy companies have constantly proven that they are willing to cut corners and save pennies every time.

Libtards don't understand how safe nuclear is provided responsible safety measures during construction. Fukushima was a fluke because it wasn't thought that tsunamis of that size could be produced by that fault. They fucked up on their due diligence and the entire community is safer for it now.

>>129783932
Quick question: are you against oil & gas wells as a general rule, or just ones where fracing has occurred?

>>129781314
Leftists are mere tools of the fossil fuel industry.

Dig a little deeper and you'll find that it's the coal and oil companies that push to slander nuclear power

>>129781314
Because it is increasingly rendering parts of the Earth uninhabitable, and its environmental benefits and safety have been proven to be lies.

>>129781314
We had a school project back in the day and we had to pick an energy source and argue it's pros and cons. I chose nuclear and did a shit ton of research and found out that not only is it clean and absolutely safe, but it's also far better than ANYTHING we've got. I even found out that there were very few casualties (deaths and injuries) because of accidents and the long term effects were negligible. Despite having the best argument of em all cause i was the only one that bothered doing research and im pretty good at public speaking desu and having everyone in class saying that i won, gook-o-teach awarded the nigg team as winners because "muh accidents" caused by shitty soviet infrastructure, incompetent personnel, inadequate maintenance and most of all OLD LOW TECH FACILITIES. fml

>>129786809
Sauce to any of your claims, particularly the lies about it being environmentally friendly?

>>129781314
They don't understand it, therefore they fear it and they vote with their feelings instead of facts and reason.

>>129786721
They probably helped, but the biggest problem is that the first and only thing mouthbreathing normies associate with nuclear energy is a mushroom cloud. It really is no surprise that the rabidly anti-nuclear people are also rabidly pro-gun control.

>>129782859
Fucking retard, what is spontaneous fission?

>>129782859
Shut the fuck up, pineapple Netherlands

>>129787154
Radioactivity is a government conspiracy.
t. Tesla

>>129781314

>muh environment

>>129781314
Leftists don't want any new form of energy to replace fossil fuels, they'd rather we return to the stone age. They believe human civilization is a disease of the planet.

Leftists get their identity and gratification from being in opposition to the big baddie in charge. They enjoy the struggle of pushing some bullshit tech that doesn't work so thy can constantly virtue signal and have moral indignation. If there was a functional, efficient means of energy generation in place that would be just one less cause to give their lives meaning

It's actually incredibly safe. Pressurized water reactors are inherently stable by design.

>>129786809
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-children.html

http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/

>>129787628
What if we archive that

>https://nytimes com/2017/04/21/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-children.html
https://archive.is/KZWv1

>>129785661
Some Americans tried to in the 50s when nuclear energy was new and inspiring, and large, powerful fuel- intensive cars were in vogue.making a compact and safe rector prved to bee a prblrm, thouh Look up V. P. Romadin and the Ford Seatttle-ite XXI. the French also tried to make one.

>>129781314
It create jobs for for actually highly educated people.
A left world can't have this, they need to live in a place where a 14 year old drop out can pretend to get EVERY job available, from politic to cooking.

File: fukushima.jpg (634KB, 730x508px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 730x508px

>>129786963
>chernobyl
>fukushima
>three mile island

There was a tunnel collapse in a nuclear power plant in Connecticut last month although thankfully nothing disastrous happened.

Fukushima happened three years ago and yet even now radiation levels are the highest they've ever been.[1] TEPCO has lied repeatedly about the scale of the disaster. Pic related.

This also says nothing about the nuclear waste issue, and the fact that this stuff needs to be stored safely for thousands of years--let alone that we seem to have the inability to engineer for even half a century of safety.

[1]https://www.rt.com/news/376107-fukushima-record-radiation-level/

>>129785007
Reactors do not explode either when they meltdown.

>>129781314
It is subsidized AS FUCK and there is a slight problem with the radioactive wastes or other problems as earthquakes. Who wants a 200km radious of inhabitable land...

>>129782859
ur mom's pussy is made of atoms and I break that shit every nite

File: nytwaveheight.jpg (72KB, 625x367px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 625x367px

>>129787780
>RT
credibly torn to shreds

nice wave height map

nuclear waste is fine sitting in casks

once the gamma emmiters decay (300 years) it is harmless unless ingested (like lead, arsenic, or mercury)

also we can store it underground or burn it up further in fast reactors

File: Screenshot_182.jpg (39KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x600px

Civilization yuo are of advanced now and needing of energy.
Will yuo be picking of beautiful and safe nuclear energy, or filthy and inefficient solar?

File: IMG_1206.jpg (85KB, 634x421px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 634x421px

One word: decommissioning.

As a pagan environmentalist i find it abhorrent that a species that has only just transitioned from hunter gathering believes itself capable of looking after and geologically projecting its habit forward enough to look after and manage vast quantities of radioactive substances with a half-life of 200,000 years. Within the past 50 years we have had two huge and far reaching nuclear melt downs already and countless close calls, not to mention the coming disaster China is about to have with its unmanageable fleet of nuclear reactors.

This isn't a simple case of heating water to drive a transformer, this has the potential to genetically mutate all mammals and yet we see this infant technology spreading to countries that can't even shit in a toilet.

There are other, easier ways of charging your fookin phone.

>>129781314
There is no way fracking is better for the environment. I don't care what shit-brained, InfoWars knock-off you got that from. And people oppose the presence of nuclear anything because of the destruction it can cause, whether it be Hiroshima-styled or Fukushima-styled.

>>129787780
>Three mile island
ZERO casualties and no adverse effects from radiation.
>How many people died and how many people are likely to develop cancer as a result of the accident at Three Mile Island?

>No one died as a result of the TMI-2 accident. The accident caused concerns about the possibility of radiation-induced health effects, principally cancer, in the area surrounding the plant. Because of those concerns, the Pennsylvania Department of Health maintained for 18 years a registry of more than 30,000 people who lived within five miles of Three Mile Island at the time of the accident. The state's registry was discontinued in June 1997 without any evidence of unusual health trends.
http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/sptopics/tmi/faq.php

>>129787845
They can. Just not like a nuclear bomb.

>>129788185
>nuclear waste is fine sitting in casks
it's hubris like this that will be the death of the species. also, RT is a fine source honestly particularly for non-US stuff.

>>129788317
yeah just a meltdown, nbd, right?

>>129788253
Britain truly is a 3rd world shithole now

>>129788390
You think it's going to grow legs and come after you?

>>129788117
>subsidized as fuck
literally no

even the price-Anderson act hasn't been used
>>129788253
what the fuck are you on about?
>>129788390
it quite literally is not

File: 1479885942506.jpg (36KB, 400x399px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x399px

>>129781314
fracking is not better you moron,

why dont we just build reactors in Israel then import the power?

this way if they blow up nothing of value is lost.

>>129787780
97% of nuclear waste is low level waste and doesn't have a half life beyond a few years and the other 3% isn't anymore toxic than uranium in its unmined state. Even then, that long lived waste is pretty easily stored and secured.

>>129788357
They don't. They melt. Maybe you're thinking of chemical explosions or a steam explosion?

>>129782859
my friends call me a lefty but im for nuclear energy

the only actual reason not to go nuclear is because of humans themselves but then again, humans are also the reason why governments are failing and we arent in a utopia right now

>>129788646
>97% of nuclear waste is low level waste and doesn't have a half life beyond a few years
Mutually exclusive. Short halflife = very radioactive, but doesn't last long. Long halflife = not particularly radioactive, but lasts a long time.

>>129788736
Where's the number 4 reactor at Chernobyl? Oh yeah, spread all over the countryside.

>>129781314
STFU, Jason. Nuclear kills.

>>129788605
Eat my dick

I got your solution to the energy problem right here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKmYqUSDch8

>>129788736
I think that's what he meant, "not like a nuclear bomb": a steam explosion.

>>129788646
>Store and secured

Generally underground and as we know there are no issues with rising and falling water tables, nor once-in-thousand-year flood events happening. Nor poorly managed reactors that are leaking radioactive materials in the Pacific or making a huge track of Asia uninhabitable.

Renewables > Nuclear > Gas > Oil > Coal

>>129789228
You have to be a frothing retard to believe in free energy
>>129789277
Show me these huge uninhabitable tracks of asia

No alt-news

>>129788317
>Chernobyl
28 Casualties (dead) a few thousand got above safe levels of radiation because of the soviet unions zerg rush to not look weak most of which were first responders and personnel.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx
Basically a shit show that could have been prevented if not for the Soviet Union being the perfect little utopia it was.
>>129788451
Check the link and also keep in mind this were really old plants with safety not as a main priority.

>>129789441
"free energy" is a meaningless catchall term

>>129789277
>making a huge track of Asia uninhabitable.
Source for this load of shit.

>>129789013
>Short halflife = very radioactive
Don't be stupid, primary coolant is only radioactive for about 30 minutes and there are industrial divers who swim in that.
>Where's the number 4 reactor at Chernobyl
As I said, steam/chemical explosion caused by the coolant systems. Reactors can't go prompt supercritical.

Misinformation. Or like many things in American politics. Not many people take the time to learn all the fact. They just hear one half the story and make up there mind.
Nuclear engineer here, I actually work in mechatronics in mechanical nuclear engineering. But I can shed light on the subject of you want to AMA

>>129781314
Nuclear is the best around. Once we get fusion figured out, then the solar system is ours.

>>129789476
I'll be willing to accept nuclear power plants as safe when law dictates that every engineer and all their direct and indirect kin be forced to walk into the plant if it ever suffers a meltdown. The principal/agent problem is too large.

>>129781314
Lack of education. A lot of advanced physics, even for the best physicists, is hard to explain in terms that are easy enough for lay people to understand (without also sounding like you're deliberately talking down to a lay person), and the inner workings of fission power are no exception.

If something is difficult to explain, and people can visibly see that it is difficult for even experts to explain, people will tend to believe simpler explanations, even when they're wrong. It's easier for them to believe that nuclear plants spew radioactive vapor, than to understand the need for a cooling tower that emits water vapor. It's easier for them to believe that a reactor goes up like a mushroom cloud when it suffers a meltdown than to understand why a big lump of molten metal is dangerous. And all the while you've got anti-nuclear groups like Greenpeace or Enenews running around spreading deliberately false propaganda.

>>129789406
>Renewables
Eh, renewables are nice but they don't really beat a bunch of really hot rocks in a pot of water.

>>129789199
the rabbi already did that

Do any of you nuclear advicates know how much it costs to decommission a couple of nuclear reactors? £117 billion ($158 billion).

Not to mention that gas and coal are far cheaper to start with.

>>129788550
>literally no
You are an ignorant or someone with bad intentions.
Read about Lemóniz. Spanish people are still paying for that mistake.
When things don't go along with the utterly optimistic plan, then you go to the fine print. And the fine print in most cases says that the state takes care of 100% of the inversion losses or other costs.
Also, did you just ignore the post-disaster cost? What is Fukushima, you dumb fuck?

>>129781314
Because of three mile island.

File: image_433.jpg (525KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

525KB, 1920x1080px

>>129789909
>I'll be willing to accept nuclear power plants as safe when law dictates that every engineer and all their direct and indirect kin be forced to walk into the plant if it ever suffers a meltdown
Well the American nuclear industry is made up mainly of ex-Navy nuclear operators thanks to Rickover, and what you suggested is almost as bad as the consequences of UCMJ.

>>129781314
Um, sweetie, radiation much? Duhhhh!! It's like, dangerous or something! I should know, I voted for Hillary so that makes me educated and upper class on the twitter!

>>129781314
wait, since when are leftys against nuclear?
i thought it was just that people dislike nuclear when it's near them, despite the overall radiation output being lower than a comparable coal plant.
i was unaware of this new position.

>>129783698
Then why is it a relatively new phenomena?

>>129790007
Now im not some tree hugging hippie, but i don't see the problem in spending a little more to get cleaner air and preserve natural beauty. Also that's peanuts for the U.S

>>129785079
>>129785079
The argument had merit with old reactors, newer ones are much safer.

>>129790007
We're also going to run out of gas and coal before we run out of various nuclear fuels, nuclear produces more energy than gas and coal, and is safer than gas and coal.

I'd wager that the lower casualty count, higher energy return, smaller environmental footprint, and capacity to recycle fuels probably outweighs the increased cost of decommission.

>>129789765
>Don't be stupid, primary coolant is only radioactive for about 30 minutes and there are industrial divers who swim in that.

Do you understand what half life is describing? Atoms randomly spit off prodicing radation and a new element (depleting the old element). A substance doing this quickly depletes faster, putting out proportionally more radiation, shortening the time it takes for half of a given amount of it to become depleted...

If you only have a small amount of a substance by concentration, then you will have less radioactivity overall, but that's down to concentration rather than anything to do with halflife to radioactivity.

>As I said, steam/chemical explosion caused by the coolant systems. Reactors can't go prompt supercritical.

You said *reactors* don't explode. They demonstrably can. I already said that they don't go off like a nuke.

>>129781314
You seriously think leftist would try to prevent nuclear? Sure a lot of them are scared of it, but just get some scientists to give it the ok and they'll fall in line. The real issues is that oil and coal companies won't allow nuclear to grow. They fight in the shadows to keep the regulations in place and scapegoat hippies.

>>129781314
I thought nuclear power was bad because wtf do we do with the used up cores except bury them forever

>>129789909
funnily enough, my authoritarian fantasies have a sort of the same punishment system. When someone commits a crime, rather than punish the criminal, the system goes after his entire family tree. That way, he'd get a chance to learn his lesson and there wont be any brooding relatives who plans for revenge later.

Anyway, you're putting too much blame on the people. The last one literally was caused by an earthquake. Even standard powerstations or wind turbines would collapse when they get hit by something like that

File: IMG_1253.jpg (41KB, 417x368px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 417x368px

>>129789917
Meanwhile Fukushima is still leaking into the pacific and Chernobyl is uninhabitable. I know lets, listen to this, lets build more expensive toys to spin a transformer in China, they're safe! They'll make sure nuclear matter is dispersed across the whole northern hemisphere yasss!

>>129785007
that's got a nice ring to it

radioactive water gas

>>129788117
Moreover, to my knowledge, insurance companies won't insure nuclear plants due to down-side risks. It is the government that backs them.

>>129790255
>the American nuclear industry is made up mainly of ex-Navy nuclear operators
That's what my step father does. Ex navy, retired.

>>129790551
>But, my hiroshima and nagasaki mang?
>But my very old unsafe plants that killed less than your typical coal mine does in half an hour senpai.
No one says that there's no dangers at all, what we're saying is that technology is advanced that it's extremely unlikely to have an accident. Dams and coal mines are far more dangerous, the only difference is that we've had em since forever so i guess that makes it okay

>>129790616
Yeah, and what do you think primary is? It's just water with some fission fragments and gammas in it. That's the only real emissions a plant gives off directly into the environment, and that's filtered through the ionizer system. The fuel itself never leaves the reactor core.

>>129791018
Hm it's almost like we shouldn't be building nuclear power plants near earthquake prone areas.

As a homosexual mullato male tranny I can assure you that its gotten 17% harder to breathe the naturally occurring air in our atmosphere since 1992

>>129790369
It's not a left position, though Greens are probably the ones that most often voice opposition, since energy policy is something they are focused on.

Anti-nuclear feeling is a leftover from babyboomer times.

>>129791163
Solve the fukushima problem for me. How do you fix it when rods go rogue?

>>129789765
>short halflife = very radioactive
this is true though

the reason why the water is only radioactive for a short amount of time is because the radionitrogen decays all its energy very quickly; it's very radioactive
>>129790007
Detailed estimates for Bohunice V1 (two unit 500 MW) are 1.4 billion, your estimate has something wrong behind it.

>>129781314
>Is it because they don't require subsidizing to be effective
Exactly, they don't give a shit about the environment, they just want gibs

>>129791065
Chernobyl had serious deign flaws that allowed a runaway reaction to occur.
Fukishima was designed to conserve fuel, back when we thought we would run out of radioactive fuel. Today's reactors are designed for safety.
Also, keep in mind the earthquake Fukushima was hit with. Even a regular natural gas plant would have been FUBARd by that.

>>129791379
>rods go rogue
Well the fuel rods have to be continually be thermalized from to continue their reaction, and only if they are retracted. A fuel assembly in the open won't really do much.

>>129791163
Dams and coals don't cause mass birth defects.

>Belarus, whose border with Ukraine is just four miles from the Chernobyl power plant, absorbed an estimated 70% of the nuclear fallout.

A study by UNICEF suggested that more than 20% of adolescent children in Belarus suffer from disabilities caused by birth defects.

File: 1479168029510.jpg (14KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 320x320px

>>129785007
>water gas

>>129781314
I oppose nuclear in the USA because we will be a third world shitskin country within 50 years, and the brown subhumans who take over will just allow all the reactors to degrade and fall apart. We need to deactivate all of our reactors quickly before we reach the point where it is no longer possible.

File: NoNukesAlbum.jpg (13KB, 170x170px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 170x170px

>>129791354
>leftover from babyboomer times.
no nukes!

>>129781314
>fracking
>better for the environment
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH FUCKING WOW

>>129791065
Don't blame an entire industry on the Soviet Unions retardnes. I give you fukushima. Heres a list of all seven accidents that have happened since we started using them. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-accidents/history-nuclear-accidents#.WUB5CmjytEY
Now heres a list of the 500 operational worldwide in 2017 alone https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics
>Not safe.jpeg
Now heres a list of ONLY the coal fatalities in the U.S alone. https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp

File: focus.gif (2MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x250px

>>129781314
Fucking kys op
>youtube.com/watch?v=-j3Mu3Lcqpc
>We are so fucked

>>129781314
It creates a lot of radioactive waste and we don't know how to deal with it. We're basically burying it, which it's fucking stupid. If the containers get damaged or exposed it's not just a simple "wooopsy"; the entire area goes to shit and becomes uninhabitable.
Probably the best solution is to invest massively in research and find a way to turn the waste in something usable or unharmful.

Also, it's not easy to keep nuclear power under control. In 60 years we already had 3 major accidents and ~10 minor ones. If a powerful earthquake comes everything will go to shit.

>>129791709
hyu hyu hyu

>>129788253
Chernobly was a genuine fuck up, faulty reactor design and operator error, so you can have that one.

However, when people go to Fukushima for MUH DANGEROUS NUCLEAR it shows they are retarded. There was a fucking 9.0 magnitude earthquake, immediately followed up by a tsunami

>>129791163
I think you've got the wrong Anon my dude. I agree with you on all of that.
>>129791379
>1
Don't build reactors in places where they're prone to being hit by multiple simultaneous natural disasters.
>2
Modern reactors have multiple completely mechanical failsafe systems with redundancy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx_XoqXNtRM

>>129791802
This.

>>129781314

Fracking causes local environmental issues like contamination of groundwater. The reason why they oppose nuclear power is simply superstition and they cannot deal with the issue logically.

File: kikreatures.jpg (145KB, 825x540px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 825x540px

>>129792074
Entire Pacific already fucked from ONE nuclear "accident" in Japan.
Let's build more! Just use more "safe"-measures goy! Two heads are better than one!

>>129791707
Again, don't blame an authoritarian government that tried to save face and delayed evacuation and had build nuclear plants with laughable safety with modern nuclear plants.
>>129792074
My bad.
All in all top thread tho

>>129791224
>Yeah, and what do you think primary is? It's just water with some fission fragments and gammas in it. That's the only real emissions a plant gives off directly into the environment, and that's filtered through the ionizer system.

True and I'm not saying that nuclear plants are really any more dangerous than any other type of large scale industrial plant (except when things go REALLY wrong). However like I say, that type of radioactive output is only "low level" due to concentration. They're diluted in water and water evapourates, unlike the (no longer diluted) highly radioactive substances in it. This can become a possible concern in areas where rainwater regularly collects. Though I will say that that's just something to watch for (and usually is), rather then go out screaming through the streets.

>The fuel itself never leaves the reactor core.
Not entirely accurate. True, the *fuel* doesn't (because it gets used), but the rest does come decommissioning/refueling time. But again, that's something that's dealt with.

>>129791065
>chinese reactors are all RBMKs
you have the intelligence of a nail

Chinese reactors are Gen III, capable of both enduring a tsunami and melting down without contaminating the outside

>b-but muh chinese cheap shit
These reactors are overengineered so much that even if the Chinese used subpar materials/worksmanship the safety wouldn't be affected much

>>129792392
Eh, we'll fucking build em in the desert then how bout dah?

>>129792068
Exactly. Natural disasters occur. How do you guard against them?

The problem with nuclear to date, is murphy's law.

>>129782859
>it's unnatural to brake atoms
nigger do you know what the sun is

>>129792392
Fuck off kike, no one believes your shitty video

Stop shilling for views
>>129792702
>how do you guard against them
with more advanced design??

like proposed liquid fueled reactors, which cannot melt down by design

>>129792559
>radioactive output is only "low level" due to concentration
Yeah, and a coal plant gives off more anyways so what's your point.

>>129781314
Nuclear's great until there's a meltdown and it the reactors spew their guts into the atmosphere (Chernobyl) or the sea for thousands of years to come (Fukushima)
People never mention these when sucking nuclear dick, oddly enough.

>>129792392
>Entire pacific
The tainted water is still less radioactive than the blood pumping through your body at this very second. You are more radioactive than the post-Fukushima ocean.

>>129792408
No. Security firm responsible had fake cameras it used to detonate a local nuclear device disguised as "surveillance" module and shaped/sized exactly like a modern mini-nuke.
>Explosion not well-explained by "hydrogen blow-back" mechanism.
>No accountability
If TEPCO "fucked up" that bad they would be crucified in open court. However the world banks etc. helped expose deep state ONCE AGAIN via their shoddy Fukushima work.
They fund such disasters to create disorder and bloodthirsty competition among the masses.

>>129791680
A gas plant isn't going leak radioactive material into a habit. Listen ive worked in the nuclear industry, the amount of close calls is a joke. They found thousands of gallons of highly radioactive water had leaked into a sealed room and got lucky when i was there, they also nearly had a huge radioactive steam escape when the filteration system near a pond shut down. There's nothing safe nor economical about it.

>>129792754
yeah, it's me, dumbass

>>129781314
Im natsoc and have goncerns about nuclear energy

>>129792834
If it can be 100% safe, I am all for it.

>>129793151
So you're against it?

>>129793018
>Listen ive worked in the nuclear industry
And I have a PHD in physics.
>the amount of close calls is a joke.
Why do we never hear about them.
>There's nothing safe nor economical about it.
If it's not economical then why would power companies operate them.

>>129781314
the cost of it doesnt correctly account for the massive infrastructure, planning, & lifelong waste disposal storage expenditures.

>>129792834
Not my video, leaf, go search up Fukushima videos. This is all news from this February. You are the kike for shilling for the energy corporations which will kill us before admitting their responsibility and paying up to fix what they have irrevocably ruined.
>>129792955
Wrong. There are mass fish die offs all over the planet. The "radioactivity" is not measurable in the way you believe. If the US government indeed has the ability to monitor Fukushima fallout, they have not shared this technology with the people.

>>129793151
There is literally nothing in life that is 100% safe and other major sources of power kill dramatically more people, more regularly, suffer more accidents, and accidents from other power sources are more severe in terms of death toll, pollution, and environmental damage.

It is safer than fossil fuel burning power solutions.

>>129792934
My point is that even though there is hysteria regarding nuclear plants, don't go full retard in the other direction and pretend there isn't anything at all to watch for, same as any large scale industrial operation.

>>129788185
Or we could fire that shit into space.

>>129792937
>few tons of material into trillions of tons of already radioactive sea
you've demonstrated that you know how dilution works

>>129793151
Nothing is 100% safe

You're more likely to be blown away by a car, beheaded by a terrorist, or even die from punching yourself than be killed by cancer from the fallout of a modern nuclear power plant

>>129793453
>mass fish die offs
From acidifying ocean and warming seas caused by increased CO2 and global warming?

The sea is already filled with natural uranium
>>129793503
That's an awful idea, rockets explode all the time

Recycling it in fast reactors is a better idea by a long shot

>>129793239
Partially. Murphy's law gives me doubts.

>>129792937
what are plants built in the 1960s

>>129793287
And I've got a 12 inch cock and a Nobel prize. Go pull your cock back on reddit

>>129789875
My main opposition is to the storage of the waste products.

How well can we safely store the waste?
Are we required to build plants by water?
Can we build the plants cheaply

>>129785961
Underrated

>>129791558
117 billion the cost to decommission 17 nuclear reactors in the UK, if you include the cost to build them, the materials and the cost of the energy for the customer i'd say it'd be more economically viable to attached fat catchers on all cows and run the country on methane.

It's fuelled by a general distrust of corporations, I think. Curious if they would still oppose it if it were nationalized.

If they fail, the disaster itself, which will be great, tends to be dwarfed by economic repercussions. A single failure is catastrophic, but there have only ever been two cases of INES 7 in history.

File: 1410292037027.jpg (39KB, 500x644px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x644px

>>129781314
Nuclear power and fracking are absolutely better for the environment, as long as everything goes according to plan.

There is, however, the potential for a black swan event with both technologies.

The value judgement is that those black swans (nuclear meltdown and contamination of ground water or tectonic concerns) are so bad that they justify foregoing the benefits of the technologies.

File: RADIATION_IN_YOUR_FOOD.png (657KB, 986x749px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 986x749px

>>129793491
>It is safer than fossil fuel burning power solutions.
Well considering we need fusion for star travel, and hydro/solar/wind technologies have provided "energy" since the beginning of human history, maybe they are better than trying to melt unstable nuclear fuel... especially in this geopolitical climate.
I will not stand for "modern" nuclear energy in my vicinity until people stop looking for the next oil. We need to reduce energy consumption and pollution; not find extreme ways to produce more of it like parasites.

>>129781314
I used to be pro nuclear energy until that earthquake fucked up Japans nuclear power plant.

I understood why Russia fucked out with it because Russians are shit but japs run a tight ship,

If it can happen their it can happen anywhere

>>129785661
because allah akbar.

File: IMG_0683.png (356KB, 1334x750px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1334x750px

>>129793287
>why do power companies
Because of >muh global warming carbon tariffs.

nuclear power is fine but it's even more expensive than (((green))) energy so what's the fucking point

>>129794595
>henrymakow.com/theargumentfukushimasabotage.html
Probably, because Russia knows what Israel and other N_O are capable of

>>129794477
How are you going to do this? I haven't looked at the numbers but I'd imagine that most energy is used by industry. If you limit the energy your industry can use, you're gonna strangle your nation and get fucked even harder by India and china

File: korean historical construction costs.jpg (28KB, 386x304px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 386x304px

>>129794011
1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal
http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/27032/GE-nuclear-reactor-waste
2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_tower
3)
Yes, see graph
>>129794477
Food is naturally radioactive

File: FireShot Capture 1 - - https___www.iea.org_Textbase_npsum_ElecCost2015SUM.pdf.png (43KB, 660x339px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 660x339px

>>129794735
Nice go at not answering his question

>>129794737
bullshit. the nuclear plan might be big initial investment, but the actual cost per killowat hour is a fraction of cost for panels and wind turbines. Solar plants couldnt survive without huge subsidies from governments. Thanks to them, however, cost of energy will grow hugely

>>129781314
I only want it as a stopgap until safer solutions are found

>>129795050
>there is already some trace levels of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in our environment, so it won't matter if we spews shittonne of them over our cities.

>>129794477
Hydro is dramatically more expensive and fucks everything downstream of the dam, and has limited space for construction.
Solar is shit in terms of efficiency, still requires the mining of rare earth metals like gold and platinum, requires toxic chemicals to be used in the treatment of special glass to protect the solar cells, and puts out power depending on weather conditions which cannot be controlled.
Wind is a landscape blight that kills birds, can only be placed in areas with consistent regular wind, and also doesn't produce anywhere near as much power as fossil fuels or nuclear, as well as being dependent on weather conditions which cannot be controlled.

Fission, Fusion, and Fuel provide things none of these others can, they can be built in more places, they produce large quantities of consistent power, every aspect of them can be controlled so you don't have severe lack of or surplus of energy, and both Fission and Fusion produce essentially no air pollution.

Of the two, Fission is the only power supply which is currently usable, Fusion is preferable but not tenable because it's still a relatively young technology which hasn't been refined.

File: radiation scale.jpg (181KB, 878x635px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 878x635px

>>129795452
Nice strawman

>>129781314
Al Gore said some untrue bullshit. Also MUH CHERNOBYL and MUH THREE MILE ISLAND.

>>129782859
personally I think we should just get rid of energy. electricity is just a thing we make to oppose natural inclinings of great mother nature

its why we've stopped evolving, man. No need to select strong individuals when we can cook our food over a fire or resist disease by wearing clothes. we just needa return to the great mother's arms

>people are actually trying to use cheronobyl and fukushima as an excuse not to use nuclear energy
because those were the only nuclear reactors ever built, amirite?

>>129795050
>Food is naturally radioactive
So are uncovered mines all around the planet... That doesn't mean you can't be poisoned by upturned dust carrying radioactive isotopes of Cesium, Strontium, and Iodine which cause far worse physical degeneration than through any number of other issues.

>>129795877
What are you trying to prove with this? That having X-rays are worse than living near a power station?

>>129781314
Because their real goal is to halt human progress.

>>129781314

The new generation of reactor designs are perfectly safe. "Nuclear" is just a dirty word for politicians because of how irrationally fearful of nuclear power the general public is. That's why Bill Clinton shut down research into nuclear power.

>>129796173
>Cesium, Strontium, and Iodine
Nigga you're several thousands times more likely to die from poisons in car exhaust and cigarette smoke

>>129796172
It's proof that they're not immune to failure and that the environment impact from such a failure is catastrophic

>>129790396
It isn't, dumbass. There's a ghost town in Montana that blew itself up when it drilled a well into a pocket of natural gas back in the 1800s.

File: radiation dose chart.png (87KB, 1134x1333px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1134x1333px

>>129796269
It literally is "worse"

>>129795452
>we spews shittonne of them over our cities.
The primary steam is less radioactive than the sunlight illuminating it and thermalizes pretty fast.

>>129796509
They are only safe is you have white people to maintain them. The USA will not be white in the very near future. Would you trust Brazil, a country that could not even clean a pool for the Olympics, with nuclear reactors? If not, then you should not trust the USA either, because Brazil is just a better version of what the USA will be in half a century from now.

>>129790511

Not really. Reactors didn't randomly blow up.

It took a huge natural disaster in Asia to cause theirs, and Chernobyl is due to communists being fucking retarded and fucking up a test, followed by fucking up absolutely every step leading up to their meltdown.

>>129796751
Cool, you go and have a swim around fukashima and I'll have a chest X-ray

>>129796914
What are you gonna do when an Ahmed decides to fly a plane into one?

File: fukushima_2_heads_are_better.jpg (25KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x333px

>>129796550
>>129796751
Yeah the 90%+ coral reef die offs and MASSIVE fish and seal pup die offs occurring along the entire west coast, called "classified" when the politicians there are asked, are no clue at all. You people make me so angry with how retarded you are. No better than a stupid commie.

>>129781314
Because they are so stupid they will shill for scams and coal rather than actually look into and research a topic. They repeat the same points fed to them by shitty websites and I have yet to meet one that could list atomic accidents in the US.

>>129797009
this picture is now renamed OP's children

>>129781314

Not true.

Cleanest still id coal, then oil.

Nuclear still is creepy, unconzrolleable shit.

Id complelely divver on my opinion with thorium tho.
It's controlleable, not tocic and fully controlleable.
I wish theyd just use that, ffs.
Would be great

>>129796173
>physical degneration
Not even the atomic bomb survivor's children have higher than average defects even though according to you this would be blatantly obvious to see

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800280
>"However, to date no evidence exists of genetic effects in the children of A-bomb survivors."

>>129797005
The reaction stops and a bunch of water gets everywhere? The fuel assembly can't really do anything unless thermalized in a specific way.

>>129797005

Ahmed couldn't even hit the pentagon prior to the age where fighter planes are now dutied with shooting down these planes.

Flying a plane isn't easy, figuring out where you are and descending into one specific location would be nearly impossible.

>>129797225
Why didn't this happen in fukashima

>>129797005
It would be fucking cool to watch Ahmed turn into a spray of powder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM

>>129797207
>Implying atomic bombs are worse
Again you know absolutely SHIT about Fukushima. Go fucking shoot yourself you stupid Snowperson fuck

>>129781314
because it's scary think of the children and muh chernobyl

>>129797009
Proof? I want to see how minute amounts of waste can completely fuck up an ocean's worth of moderator

>>129797296
Weird that they managed to hit the wtc.

maybe because nuclear technology is outdated and the most used type of nuclear reactors produce radioactive waste wich we cant get rid of safely?

>>129783932
https://www.epa.gov/hfstudy

EPA study says your wrong kiddo

>>129782859
Top quality troll
have a (You)

>>129797497

>flying around and able to hit the tallest pair of buildings
>opposed to flying around and aiming for something on the ground

>>129797696
Do you think that there are no Arab professional pilots?

>>129782859
>1 post by this ID
fucking hell /pol/ is shit now

File: laughing cdi link.jpg (46KB, 227x337px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 227x337px

>>129797005
Nothing because the plane crumples like an aluminum can as it hits the 3 foot thick concrete containment dome
>>129797009
Nice image of a conjoined turtle

>>129797411
You seem upset because your narrative is falling apart

The bomb survivors faced far more radiation dose than the people in the area surrounding Fukushima ever will from the fallout

>>129797696
That's discounting the fact that they're made out of solid concrete and even if this terrorist was able to hit one, nothing would happen to the internals

>>129797005
This too.

Before we can have nuclear, we need to genocide all non-whites. Otherwise it is just a question of time when they will fuck everything up. You can either have brown people, or you can have advance technological civilization, but you can't have both. Baby boomers chose brown people.

>>129797805

flying is haram, arabs aren't allowed to touch technology

flying is what pigs do

>implying you wouldn't get shot down if you started going remotely near a reactor

Nuke is shit, we are to irrisponsible and lazy to keep up with the tech required to keep it safe.

>if faggot jews and lazy nips would keep their nuke plants off fault lines and keep the cooling systems up to spec, then yeah thatd be sweet
>but they dont so fack em

>>129781314

They're afraid of it.

No joke, that's why.

>>129781314
You do realize that the oil industry gets hundreds of billions in oil subsidies right? Or are you literally a retard?

File: 1444629789759.jpg (10KB, 464x430px)

10KB, 464x430px

>>129782859
>a natural organism splits atoms by utilizing natural resources
>this is somehow unnatural

>>129797346
Japanese engineering lmao

>>129781610
only the residues are, if you don't know how to hide them properly

File: IMG_1254.jpg (20KB, 236x344px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 236x344px

>>129792579
The Chinese have the safe as shit reactors an shiiite. O U T S T A N D I N G. Round of applause for the Gooks. Okay, back to the point: Decommissioning.

It takes, a projection because nobody has actually done it yet. 112 years to completely decommission the GEN1 reactors. I'm sure they'll nail it i mean what is their to worry about? They were only killing each other for wearing glasses and wiping out their bird population leading to a insect explosion that helped half the population starve.

A mean that was a couple of decades ago though, they've got a century for absolutely nothing to happen cause nuclear is safer than X-rays man. And why stop at China, lets start building these nuclear reactors in Africa! Nothing can possibly go wrong.

>>129783111
Cracking is done by pouring hundreds of tons of chemicals underground and breaking geological strata with high pressure. The chemicals eventually contaminate underground water reserves.

>>129798634
most places in central africa would be pretty decent for building nuclear plants desu

>>129797346
Combination of >>129798594
and a simultaneous earthquake followed by the plant being hit by a tsunami. Honestly though, dilution via seawater is one of the better scenarios.

>>129791082
Because they are getting money from conventional energy companies. Also Jews.

>>129798634
>tfw to intelligent for nuclear power

>>129785007
the steam isn't radioactive you dolt

what are closed loop heat exchangers?

>>129798634
What the fuck are you talking about?

112 years in total? What's wrong with this?

If the decommissioning all starts at the same time it will take 5 years, following best practice.

You're literally putting up strawmen like a screaming spastic.

>>129799382
also don't forget that tepco tried to sweep it all under the rug for almost a month sending homeless people to die into the reactor

File: 1454209833540.jpg (18KB, 374x417px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 374x417px

>>129781314
>Why do leftists oppose nuclear?
1) You need a disposal site that people won't bitch about. People will fuss even if you're just carting nuclear shit around in a massive stone sarcophagus.

2) In order to really make it commercially viable, you need to engage in fuel re-enrichment. Since enriching radioactive ores is considered an act of war and most first world nations hamstrung themselves by signing legal documents not to do it, it puts a noticeable drag on profits.

3) The ignorant still thing another Chernobyl will happen. That plant was obsolete before it went online. Modern reactors will seize rather than blow up in a cataclysmic failure.

That said, I'm all for nuclear.

>>129794477
Who made that fucking retarded image?
Nuclear Reactors cool on SECONDARY LOOPS. At no point is there EVER any radioactive material that feeds into its cooling system. The 'Core' is cooled via inductive cooling and not ever once exposed to the steam which goes out of a smokestack.

Whoever wrote that, and you by extension, is a fucking retard.

>>129791163
Dams are Horrible for the environment. Ever heard of hetch Hechy? https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/hh.htm

There are mountains destroyed. Mountains that hold back lots of water. That water floods cities. After that soil can no longer retain water. Hence California is in a perpetual state of drought.

The desert where Arizona and new Mexico are was nowhere near as big before we damned shit up.

>>129799820
probably the french minister of ecology or Angela "muh fukushima" Merkel

>>129781314
You're both wrong. Green energy is a meme. Nuclear is dangerous. Fossil fuels are dirty. The energy source of the future is electricity. We already use it in our homes, why can't we just use it to replace everything we use fossil fuels for?

>>129800232
How do you think electricity is produced ?

>>129800232
how did you manage to solve the recapaca?

Leftists are retards who think with their feelings and words more than they think with facts and logic. When they hear "wind power" and "hydro power", they think of magical energy produced by being nice to nature and giving birds and fish blowjobs. What they don't understand is how fucking devastating hydro and wind power can be to the local environment. When they hear "solar power", they basically think "FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN" and don't realise how fucking inefficient solar power actually is, and just how many resources it takes to make solar panels and maintain them.

They just hear Captain Planet style "WIND, WATER, SUN" announcements in their heads and assume """natural""" sounding things are better. They're retarded.

>>129781314
>fracking are better for the environment

3/10 troll harder newfag

>>129800614
that's for the average joe, the actors, celebrities, politicians who promote that shit are cynical bastards who embezzle billions with that shit

>>129799497
What if i told that i am a spastic, because of a nuclear birth defect?

>muh it'll only take China 5 years to decommission 58 nuclear reactors goy
>whats that? asbestos
>can i put it on my chips?

File: nuclear reactor start up.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>129785961
It is natural for Uranium atoms to brake it is called decay, also discribed as half life.

>>129799561
>tepco

They all sweep it under the rug. I'd estimate this type of thing has happened hundreds, if not thousands of times.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-19/catastrophic-thousands-gallons-radioactive-waste-leak-washington-nuclear-storage-sit

File: ed0.jpg (31KB, 304x593px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 304x593px

>>129801015

I'm not opposed to nuclear at all. I fact I'm 100% pro-nuclear. In some ways renewable energy is better but for now with renewable technologies being very young nuclear is a great replacement for oil and such. And once we master nuclear fusion even green energies will be obsolete.

>fracking is better for the environment
o i am laffin

>>129781314
I think nuclear is fine as long as its well maintained and the waste is disposed of/stored properly and doesnt become a health or enviromental problem.
Fracking on the otherhand has been proven time and time again to be effective but yet have some very ill side effects such as drinking water contamination ect.
Solar power/hydroelectric/wind turbine could and should be the dominant form of power but it needs to be reasearched a hell of alot more to make it more efficient, accesible and more cost effective to implement into the the national grid.
>but what do i know im a pirate

>>129798725
No they don't. Unless the well cracks WAY above the target there is no contamination.

>>129801452
dunno man I'm French and we have like 75% nuclear contribution to our electric grid and the only problem we ever had was when far-left terrorists and muslims ganged up on the Superphenix.

>>129781314
The only two "clean" energy sources that make economic sense currently are hydro and nuclear. Since modern day environmentalist hate capitalism they hate them . They love wind and solar though. Even though practically no one would invest in them if wanted to run a sound organization.

So you get the whole watermelon cliche of red on the outside green on the outside.

>>129801790
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/

>>129781314
Short answer, because jews are wanting to sell solar panels.

>>129784396
Because there are none

Especially when we could build thorium reactors fucking everywhere that don't need enrich fissile material and produce no long term waste. Only reason why we haven't been using them since the 50's is that uranium nuke plants produce weapons grade plutonium.

Liberals are just reactionary anti science luddites.

File: feel4.png (252KB, 511x428px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 511x428px

>>129801015
It's just like one of my japanese animes.
>tfw not a nuclear engineer

>>129801963
Kek.

>green on the outside red on the inside.

These are just commies pretending to care about the environment.

>>129781314
Question:
Why do leftists.... <insert any stupid fucking thing they do>.
Answer:
Because they are dumb fucking leftists.

>>129782859
>Unnatural
>What is the weak and strong nuclear forces

I suppose you're the type of guy that says to stop using coal too. That it would "unnatural" to burn large quantities of pure hydrocarbons. Damn useless baiter.

>>129801918
From one plant.
Tricastin, France
>Dozens of litres of wastewater contaminated with uranium are accidentally poured on the ground and runoff into a nearby river

>Tricastin fast breeder reactor leaks coolant, sodium and uranium hexachloride, injuring seven workers and contaminating water supplies

>An unexpectedly strong storm floods the Nuclear Power Plant, forcing an emergency shutdown after injection pumps and containment safety systems fail from water damage

>>129803028
that was bound to happen desu considering the Hollande government has been trying to kill it all and EDF is dying, thanks for the info though.

>>129802525
t. literal Nazi

Nuclear is opposed on both sides.

The left hates it because its not their ecocrap windmills and solar panels they have invested in.
The right hates it because its not oil or coal.

Look at where the money comes from for the opposition.

>>129785007
Dangerous radioactively activated airborne dihydrogen monoxide!!

>>129801015
I came to that Cherenkov radiation

File: consider.jpg (118KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1024x1024px

>>129782859
>it's unnatural
all the things the modern human does are unnatural. that's called evolution you faggot.

Here's a red pill for you.

Solar Power = Nuclear Power

Sun is a one giant nuclear reactor.

>>129790396
It's not. People exploit these incidents which have been occurring for years to sue gas extraction firms.

>>129781314
idiot nuclear is the most inefficient, expensive and dirty form of energy.

File: IMG_7069.jpg (14KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x220px

>>129782859
>Explain this then

File: IMG_1211.png (117KB, 411x420px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 411x420px

>>129805281

I live in Sacramento and we are the only place in the entire world that has ever decommissioned a working nuclear reactor when dumb fucks voted to close Rancho Seco.

I sometimes think about that during the summer when the area can have a rolling brown out like a thirdworld shit hole due to a heat spike and so many people running the AC at the same time.

All summer they run ads saying to not do laundry during prime peek hours. don't run your AC don't blah blah blah. Geeeeee I sure am glad we closed down that fucking power station!! sigh.

File: 1492137488967.png (393KB, 597x449px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 597x449px

>>129781314

I read that someone once said "leftists want any source of energy, as long as it doesn't work."

>>129806265
>Rancho Seco
300 mil decommisioning

not bad

>>129782859
>it's unnatural to brake atoms
yes in fact it's haram

File: 2 blessed 2 b stressed.jpg (105KB, 739x751px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 739x751px

>>129782859
>unnatural to brake atoms (fission)

File: sexdoll smile.jpg (146KB, 1054x1182px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1054x1182px

>>129785291
Why are deaths represented by cubes?

really makes you almond...

>>129788185
hur bur dur gama?
sir, im a genders studies scientist
dont EVER label me gama agian, its Xur

>>129783619
So terrible at civilization that blue states contribute 70% of US GDP

>>129782859
I honestly can't tell if your being retarded or not.

>>129791993
Whats wrong with burying it?
Isn't that where we fucking dug it up from?

>>129782859
Atoms are people too

>>129781314
BECAUSET THEY ARE DUMB NIGGERS THAT DONT KNOW ABOUT LFTR OR UNDERSTAND NUCLEAR PHYSICS IN THE LEAST

>>129796269
If you looked at the picture literally standing outside is worse than what a nuclear power station produces under normal conditions

>>129802124
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-the-editor-gender-and-matters-of-identity/

Fuck off with your kike """"science"""" magazine

>>129809587
>GAYATHRI VAIDYANATHAN

Jews at least know where to shit

because it would mess up their narrative that we need to keep giving money to alternative energy sector

>>129806265
They're trying to close one here in new york too by 2021 and the thing apparently powers 1/4 of nyc. Cuomo the homo strikes again

>>129808746
B-but duuuude I'm subscribed to ifuckinglovescience AND smartereveryday! I even follow Niel deGrasse Tyson on Twitter and one time I went to a vagina-themed climate change march/ indie festival! S-science rules :^(

File: 652351315323.png (12KB, 230x219px)

12KB, 230x219px

>>129782859

File: 1488804061942.jpg (788KB, 2400x1800px)

788KB, 2400x1800px

>>129781314
Why do leftists oppose anything at all ?

>>129781314
But muh Chernobyl

the objectively best power plant is hydroelectric, the only downsides to it are you are very limited to where they can be built and they do fuck with the natural landscape a bit
nuclear power is a close second to be honest

largest power plants in america by type

>wind
Alta Wind Energy Center - CA
Annual output: 2,680 GW

>solar
Solar Star - CA
Annual output: 1,664 GW

>coal
Gibson Generating Station - IN
Annual output: 1,257 GW

>natural gas
Midland Cogeneration Venture - MI
Annual output: 570 GW

That sounds impressive but then you come to these.

>nuclear
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station - AZ
Annual output: 29,250 GW

>hydroelectric
Grand Coulee Dam - WA
Annual output: 20,240 GW


In fact I would wager that every single wind farm in the USA combined outputs less power every year than just Palo Verde.

File: 14millionkeks.png (218KB, 520x548px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 520x548px

>>129783111
k?

>>129781314
leftists generally dont, jews do.

>>129785007
You are a fucking spastic. Ever heard of Thorium based reactors? Probably not because (((they))) have interfered with the people's knowledge of it. Read this an then dig deeper https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

>>129787780
>Radioactivity
>Measured in centimetres

You stupid idiot