Why isn't nuclear energy the most popular power source,

>>131514614
Hippies

Big Oil, Big Coal and recently, Big Wind and Big Solar.

>>131514614
Honestly? Fuck knows. I think the only thing is that people mostly aren't rational and will fear nuclear energy because it sometimes fails spectacularly, while "safer" options simply fuck up in less sensational ways (no boom, just X hundreds of birds killed each year, X thousands of people dying from cancer per year).

It's not cheap. Hydroelectricty plants are cheaper to build and operate.

I remember they were going to build an ice wall in the middle of the sea to contain the Fukushima accident, which they continue to suppress the severity of.

>>131514614
because people dont want to live near them

>>131515029
The initial cost of a power plant is high, but in the long run it's way cheaper than anything else

What about that time they passed out iodine bills in Brussels, due to a terrorist threat against a power plant.

>>131514614
Fear and lobbying

>>131514614
Most clean? This planet is a nuclear waste ticking time bomb. If any sort of massive scale disaster happens, the remaining life on earth will surely be extinguished by all of the radioactive waste unleashed by humanity.

>>131514614
because it produces waste that has an indefinite life, and no indefinite way to store it. We store spent rods in barrels that last 50 years and in pools that need constant maintenance.

We are going to have a serious problem with the accumulated waste.

>>131515236
Fukushima is still uncontainable and robots die within an hour of trying to even approach it- waste still pouring unstoppable into our oceans.

>>131515307
>send waste to space
>????
>profit

>>131515236
>>131515357
All that nuclear material came from the earth itself.

>>131515357
that's shitty but at least it meant that Japan got nuked for a 3rd time.

Managed decline

>>131515440
Impractical. Would cost more energy to dispose of the waste in space than it would produce.

Because Chernobyl ruined it for everyone

>>131515574
It was run by commies, so it's no surprise it failed

File: Rosatom.png (462KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 800x533px

>>131514614
Because Westerns too stupid and cannot into nuclear waste processing.

>>131515476
Packed beneath massive amounts of earth, not being poured into our water supply you dumb fuck. Oil exists on earth, but coat the oceans in our oil supplies and mass death of life occurs.

>>131515574
pretty sure the three mile island incident is what sealed the coffin for us burgers

>>131515476
Youre a retard.
>>131515357
its literally unstoppable, so they just ignore it.
>>131515480
Thats not how cesim works. It has a 30 year half life and more of it is leaking into the ocean every day. That is 30 years after it stops is when it will finally be clean.
If you still eat anything from the pacific ocean youre rolling the dice. Japan is finding fish of their shores thats to irradiated to feed to their population so they're shipping it overseas. Theres going to be massive out breaks of thyroid cancer in the near future.

There isn't any commercial plan made by Rothchilds, Rockerfellar, Morgans and some other. When the planning is done they will normalize it. Now the narrative is "its too dangerous because muh nuclear weapons"

fucking soviets, if chernobyl didn't happen europe would be all nuclear today

We are gonna run out of Uranium in about 80 years and Plutonium even sooner. With the high cost of producing these plants, whats the point if they will be inactive in 80 years

>>131514614
Can't speak for the rest of the world, but in the US it mainly comes down to cost. There hasn't been new reactor brought online since the 80's and it really just comes down to the cost.

The new generation of reactors are trying to change that though, but those are still years away.

>>131515767
Yeah the fucking environmentalists couldn't stop fear mongering. They're unable to do a cost/benefit analysis and come to a good conclusion.

Power could be clean and essentially free but instead we've got to waste billions trying to milk the sun.

File: 3168daf57afd5b91f1e2e565c382318c_i-12.jpg (91KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 600x450px

>>131515645
>Chernobyl explode in 26 april 1986
> Liquidated in November 1986

>Fukushima Daiichi metldown in 11 March 2011
>Still liquidating

Westerns cannot into Nuclear

>>131516070
>commies
>western
>Japanese
>western
nah

>>131514614
Because of Libshits and hippie tree huggers. I've never met a liberal that didn't hate nuclear power.

>>131514614
All the leaders of the green groups have heavily invested in wind and solar. Lower ranks acknowledge nuclear as a good option but it keeps getting shut down.

>>131515980
Just like we were going to run out of oil. Now it's not even clear that we'll ever get around to using all the oil we've found.

>>131514614

>Energy
Clean.

>Storage of spent fuel
Awful.

I'm not risking it. Fuck having tonnes of cancer sludge near urban areas or rural areas.

Also I don't want any other country to Fukushima'd

The only safe option would be power plants on the Moon and bring back the energy in giant batteries.

>>131514614
>efficient
Not economically
>Uranium has to be mined
>Carefully transported to plant under high security
>Plant costs hundreds of millions to build and 50 years later hundreds more to decommission
>All the waste has to be stored under lock and key for millenia, costing trillions of dollars.

File: thorium1.jpg (103KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 500x500px

>>131515980
Thorium cycle/closed fuel cycle

>>131515980
Breed thorium-232 into U-233.
Lots of thorium going unused so this could continue for centuries

>>131515814
>That is 30 years after it stops is when it will finally be clean.

That's not what a 30 year half-life means.

its how you know the paris deal was bs. if hippies were sincere at all about lowering or maintaining the earths temp, they would be all for nuclear

>>131514614

Politics

Most of the fear from Nuclear energy comes from post-WII era nuclear reactors and processing.

Modern reactor designs are much safer and allow reprocessing of existing waste.

The only issue that is nuclear reactors are bloody expensive and time-consuming to construct but once they are up and running. They can operate for decades without too much issue.

Long-term waste disposal is somewhat problematic. The best strategy seems to be burying it deep into the earth itself (well below the water table)

even if you have the perfectly safe nuclear plant you still have the waste that radiates for thousands of years...

Store that shit in some underground vaults until some water leaks in and poisons the earth for centuries? Shoot that shit up to the moon which is fucking expensive and screws all your "cheap energy" bullshit?

We need a better way to get rid of the nuclear waste before that energy souce is accepted by the majority of people. If we're lucky we get fusion power before that happens

File: sides.jpg (21KB, 340x340px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 340x340px

>>131514614
>be germany
>be energiewende superpower
>windpower doesnt work when theres no fucking wind
>buy overpriced energie from neighboring countrys
>fucking produce enough fucking energie for half of europe when there'S fucking wind
>sell energie for literally nothing to your neighboring countrys

GERMANY YES

>>131514614
Because some liberal cartoonist convinced most of the world that the people running them are overweight bafoons

>>131516274
Just mix it into cement and put the blocks on the impact zone of our various military bases.

We really really should build more Breeder reactors while working towards the thorium fuel cycle

>>131516202
>Fukushima Daiichi
> General Electric Mark 1 BWR-type nuclear reactor
It sounds Western to me

>>131516441

Bury the waste deep into the earth (Miles underground). It will become an non-issue and by the time it manages to come towards the surface via geological activity (span of thousands of years). It will be relatively inert.

Reminder that Chernobyl was a failure of communism, not of nuclear power.

Reminder that Fukushima was punishment for censoring hentai.

>>131514614
Because a constantly fluctuating Commie built NPP lacking any proper contingency plan in case of failiure represents nuclear power in it's entirety. Thanks again, USSR.

>>131514614
It's expensive and if there's a natural disaster or if it's run by a bunch of retards (Chernobyl) then you've got a big fucking problem on your hands. If a solar panel breaks, or a windmill falls over, there isn't a lasting effect for a millennium.

>>131516644
Could say the same about your post desu

>chernoshit
>some russian letters on the reactor

now its russian

>>131514614

>it's literally the most efficient and clean

And in reality, mining enough uranium to run a regional nuclear plant takes takes far more greenhouse gases than would ever be saved by the plant itself. Of course, the liberal MSM and greenpeace fliers fail to mention this, so obviously the dumb OP who only gets his information from them wouldn't know.

>>131516813
or wait I meant 'sounds russian to me'

>>131515124
>The initial cost of a power plant is high, but in the long run it's way cheaper than anything else

No, what happens in the long run is that they will fail to do maintenance because of budget reasons, and keep the facilities running longer than their operational time, resulting in a meltdown every 25-30 years.

>>131514614

3 mile island and retarded Ukraine operators

>>131516902
>Ukraine
Soviet* (imported Russian)

>>131514614
Because so many people are scientifically illiterate retards who believe that uranium used in reactor is weapons grade.

>>131514614

because if we actually curbed co2 emissions the left would lose their moral high ground on the future. Thats why they purposely adopt bad solutions so the problem will exist until whites are a minority, at which point they don't need white votes anymore

>>131514893
>people mostly aren't rational and will fear nuclear energy because it sometimes fails spectacularly, while "safer" options simply fuck up in less sensational ways (no boom, just X hundreds of birds killed each year, X thousands of people dying from cancer per year).

This.

I know so many people who will bang on about global warming for hours and then when you ask them about nuclear power, they have a screaming fit about "DIDN'T YOU HEAR ABOUT FUKUSHIMA? WE ARE ALL LITERALLY POISONED FOREVER!!!!!!!!! IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT????"

I don't know, it seems like the decision for these people is "the complete destruction of the earth" or "every once in a while a town becomes uninhabitable maybe", which isn't great but that's life.

File: 1487495160205.png (12KB, 650x450px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 650x450px

>>131514614
People fear what they don't understand.
That is what it boils down into, even if you consider all the massive lobbying.

>>131515029

every river that can be used for hydro has in the good parts of the world

if we want to avoid escalating, nonlinear climate change, emissions have to peak and come down very rapidly

I don't see a way to do that without nuclear energy. We have to start by phasing out oil, coal and gas. That's where you start and then you can go on to think about whether nuclear makes sense and can compete against wind, solar and hydro.

Doing it the other way around is just being dangerously irresponsible with not just human civilization but every living thing on Earth.

>>131516842

It takes more to make a nuclear plant, but it's also more efficient.

One nuclear plant can generate over 75 times the energy needed to build it, though obviously it needs a lot of energy to build it.
One wind turbine can generate about 2-3 times the energy needed to build it, but requires much less energy.

Building enough wind turbines to match the output of one nuclear plant would require vastly more energy, and by extension cause significantly more pollution.

>>131516842
>greenhouse gases
>oh, no, muh climate change
first they told us the earth would freeze
when that didnt happen they told us it wold overheat
when that didnt happen they said fuck it and just told us that something really bad would happen, but didnt say exactly what or how

But what is to be done with the waste? It's not so clean when you have to dump a bunch of waste where it shouldn't be.

>>131515476

C'mon anon.
Have you never heard of CONCENTRATION?

>>131514614
nuclear energy is cheap

you cant steal money or increase prices as much as in green and shit

Jews dislike nuclear energy for goys

>>131517112
We ARE literally poisoning this planet forever you dumb fuck.

>>131514614
Jews, solar panels.

>>131514614
No one wants waste in their backyard or traveling anywhere near it

Is geothermal power still a thing or does that not work well for larger power outputs?

Nuclear and trees will save the world from 'global warming'.

The sun emits more energy for us than we could ever use every second. It is our god, in a way, once we can truly harness it.

>>131517308
I think thorium-based powerplants are able to run on uranium-powerplant waste.

>>131517678
The main problem is that it is geographically limited.
And you have to build it on a volcano to get the most power.

Oh, and if that volcano erupts retards will blame you for it, even if it impossible for you to change the behavior of the volcano.

>>131514614
>Why isn't nuclear energy the most popular power source,

It consumes fissionable materials which are coveted strategic resources

>>131517118
>Understand global warming
You mean antropological induceed global warming
>even if you consider all the massive lobbying.
The massive lobbying is mostly to let the old ones stay and not to have to build new ones with current safety regulations. The so could energy turn is excatly what the nuclear energy companies want. Not have to build new ones, leave the old shitty ones on and if they have to shut them down get paid and then subsidies for new/green Energy.

>>131514614
when you say clean your talking about emissions but while i do support nuclear power its not waste free. some radiation escapes with the water vapor. its harmless in such low quantities but there is no proof it wouldnt be a problem in some areas over time because of natural wind current because of topography funneling it across the same area over decades

cumulative effect on a small body of stagnant water may be damning and people might go swimming in a pond

>>131517848
Only a billionth of the power of the Sun reaches Earth

>>131514614

Power Plant Fag here
outside of government permitting there are other reasons
Here is Quick run down

>Power companies must diversity
>As Fuel Cost Fluctuate
>Boiler Reactors are Expensive
>HRSG Boilers are module and can go for just a week in an outage
>Nuclear Plants are at some 800-1200 MW of power
>Coal Plant - 800 MW of Power
>Combined Cycle-300 MW Power
Numbers are just rounded
>Forced Outages
>Scheduled Outages
>Its not practical to make all plants nuclear
>You need Peakers
>Nuclear Is Expensive
>Nuclear Also Pays Well
>You do not want to have plants that only produce 1200 mega watts of power running 24/7 with no Peaking Power Units

>>131517254
I can tell you what would happen/is happening
- sea level rise of several meters (from the Greenland and WA ice sheets)
- more intense cyclonic storms
- poleward shift of storm tracks
- increased sinuosity of the extratropical jet and associated changes in weather patterns over much of the NH
- increased extremes of the water cycle
- ocean acidification
- exstirpation of all tropical coral reefs (with one possible exception)
- decline of oxygen content in the oceans
- functionally ice free Arctic ocean in the summer time
- weakening of the overturning circulation in the North Atlantic

>>131514614
Its not so cost efficient when you factor in the costs of maintaining containers and storage for the next millions of years it will take for the nuclear waste to stop being radio active.

Also uranium, just like coal, is a finite resource. Sun, water flow and wind are not.

>>131518250
The power peak could be handled by producing at constant rate and changing the consumption.

Desalinize water, make aluminum, run big pumps, anything that consumes lots of power, but is not time critical during the valley of consumption.

>>131518431
suuure, climatologists still have to actually predict anything with their models

THORIUM
H
O
R
I
U
M

>>131516858
>what is almost every meltdown in human history
god damn why can't people be fucking responsible, even with dangerous shit like this?

>>131518571
The difference being that a little uranium goes a long way, unlike fossil fuels.

File: 33485352403_c58428f92a_b.jpg (219KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1024x681px

>>131516070

>Chernobyl explode in 26 april 1986
>Liquidated in November 1986

What the fuck are you talking about?
You literally did nothing except covering reactor 4 with a roof that was never hermetically sealed.
You didn't remove a single pound of waste from the site and left the corium inside the reactor in a pretty precarious state.

The only real cleanup that will ever be done at Chernobyl is only just beginning. (pic related)

>>131515724
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRYtiSbbVg
assuming gates can shill enough for this it would easily tide us over until fusion.

File: storm.tracks.png (22KB, 694x225px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 694x225px

>>131518741
First, climate models aren't weather forecasts, they're not predict-the-future machines. You give them your best estimates of boundary conditions (aerosol concentration, GHGs, ocean mixing rate,...) and the output is an estimate of the average state of the climate in the future, associated with a fan of uncertainty.

Let's take just one example: the pole-ward shift of storm tracks was predicted by models, first in 2005. It wasn't until the 2010s that this shift was actually observed in ISCCP data and by peak-intensity data (compared to latitude) of cyclones in the Atlantic

>>131514614
Strategically timed large public failures. Probably sabotage courtesy of these >>131514817

>>131519171
>First, climate models aren't weather forecasts, they're not predict-the-future machines

they are shitty "predictions" that fail to predict anything, no better than a horoscope

>Let's take just one example: the pole-ward shift of storm tracks was predicted by models, first in 2005. It wasn't until the 2010s that this shift was actually observed
so, you had one successful hit, out of how many shots? a broken clock is right twice a day

>>131518245
Yet it's still enough to power all human activity. Clearly harnessing the sun is the only way forward.

>>131519394
did you read what I wrote?
I told you that climate models are never used, nor have ever been meant as prediction-machines.
We would know a lot of the stuff I listed, even if climate models had never been invented, because we can observe the effects of warming in the paleoclimate record.

Because of what can go wrong. There's a 2600 square kilometer area that nobody can live in because of chernobyl

>>131514614
Shilling by oil/gas/coal industry. They made anti-nuclear/pro-solar/wind propaganda. That made it a huge challenge to get all the permits and such needed to build nuclear plants.
As a result we haven't built any new plants or put real effort into R&D on 4th gen reactors. So now we're stuck using aging 2nd and 3rd gen reactors built in the 70s and 80s all over the country.

There's been some progress in getting permission to build new reactors in the last few years, but even those are just new installations of decades old designs, all of which carry the slim possibility of meltdown.
If we hadn't cut funding for experimental reactors in the 90s (thanks dems) we might have commercial 4th gen reactors that can't meltdown by now.

>>131518571
It's a scam of the companies. They earn everything while the nuclear power Station is in service and let the public pay for the thousands of years the burned fuel is arround. The so called reserves founds they had to start are nothing compared to the accumulated future costs.

>>131514614
The vast majority of people are to stupid to make rational decisions.
>nuclear power
>hur durr
>equal
>derp
>nuclear weapons
We are surrounded by morons.

File: power-generation-germany-2016.png (28KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 800x600px

>>131519704

>Yet it's still enough to power all human activity. Clearly harnessing the sun is the only way forward.

We use energy sources based on usability and availability.
Until someone invents a battery that has high energy density, is cheap and has a long life expectancy, solar will never be much more than a sidenote when it comes to supplying electricity. (pic related)

>>131519903
>implying this isn't done on purpose and not in the intrests of the nuclear companies
see >>131518141

>>131515440
Rocket explodes in atmosphere unclear fallout everywhere. Worse that 1 meltdown.

>>131514614
Because of fake news.

>>131519798
then youre telling me that youre not predicting anything, but that the use of fossil fuels is causing adverse climate effects, and youre ruling out natural causes by contrasting it against paleo climate?

I still dount the validity of that, theres no way to guarantee that a natural fast climate shift isnt happening right now

I know it sounds improbable, but I would be willing to believe you if you could rule that out too

then again, you dont have to actually do it because this is just an inetrnet shitposting site

>>131515129
You mean the time nothing happened?

How many campaign contributions do you see coming from owners of nuclear companies?

How many congressman hold stock in nuclear power corporations?

Almost none. There's your answer.

File: onkalo-spent-nuclear-fuel-repository.jpg (207KB, 1024x684px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1024x684px

>>131518571

>Its not so cost efficient when you factor in the costs of maintaining containers and storage for the next millions of years it will take for the nuclear waste to stop being radio active.

Why do i always hear this absolutely retarded argument from you braind dead Germans?

NO ONE IS PLANNING TO GUARD NUCLEAR WASTE FOREVER.

For example the Finnish plan to operate their high level waste repository for about 100 years.
After that the repository will be permanently and irreversibly closed.
No one will stay there and guard it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vWhoT_45s&index=4&list=PLzFr_hn5mPF5c8Ucu6YaL_AQSZJ_U4GbL

>>131519171
First, climate models aren't weather forecasts, they're not predict-the-future machines. You give them your best estimates of boundary conditions (aerosol concentration, GHGs, ocean mixing rate,...) and the output is an estimate of the average state of the climate in the future, associated with a fan of uncertainty.
Future machines with uncertianty...

>>131515767
Another time nothing happened.

>>131520618
you're asking something of me that is literally impossible. There is no way anyone can conclusively debunk the existence of some sort of natural process which just happens to perfectly fit observation, which no one has yet observed or thought about.
Because you can't 100% discount that, the IPCC has given the statement that humans have become the dominant cause of the observed warming 'only' a confidence of "very likely" (which means 95% probability).

While it can't be completely ruled out, you can also not make a positive argument for it either. And it isn't even a real scientific hypothesis. To count as scientific, you would have to propose a mechanism and (ideally) also show this cycle somewhere in the geologic record.

>>131519704
The real problems with solar are dilution and intermittency

Dilution means you need to cover large tracts of land with fuck tons of panels to generate enough electricity

Intermittency means that you have no sun for over 50% of the time, and then you have cloudy days and such

Highly specialized workforce which unionizes and rapes in their contract YOY. Combined with intial extreme cost overruns in building the damn plants ya nuclear sucks also it is just for baseload and can't move well with electricity demand.

>>131520754

The time that any credible attack on a nuclear power plant requires massive safety measures to an entire city in preparation for a huge disaster that will poison the land for a hundred years afterward

>>131521243
95% confidence, well, shit

File: ActivitySpentFuel_IAEA.png (71KB, 700x471px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 700x471px

>>131518571

>...millions of years it will take for the nuclear waste to stop being radio active.

Also nuclear fuel will never "stop being radioactive" simply because it is made of uranium.
It was already radioactive when it was mined out of the ground.

What will happen is that after about 100'000 years the spent fuel will be about as radioactive as the uranium ore it was made of was when it was mined. (pic related)

Germans really are absolutely ignorant when it comes to nuclear power.
They have literally swallowed every single anti nuclear lie. Sad!

>>131521616
are you aware of any natural process or cycle that would account for the observations?

>>131514701
/thread

>>131514614

The Jews, obviously. Look at any group against nuclear power and it will be a Jewish-funded group.

>>131514614
Because nuclear is a scary word to idiots

>>131514614
>efficient
>clean
doesn't nuclear fusion fuel requires to keep cooled for about 5 years after being fully depleted? and that cooling requires extra energy?

how is that clean OR efficient?

>>131514614
>Why isn't nuclear energy the most popular power source, it's literally the most efficient and clean
it makes libtards shit their diapers that's why

>>131518571
The materials to make solar panels and wind turbines are not infinite. Especially considering wind turbines are partially made out of oil.

You idiots, water vapor is the primary cause of global warming.

NASA ADMITTED IT 97% VAPOR 2.5 CO2

READ NIGGA READ

Heres how to post as though you have 105 iq: Boy, idiots don't trust nuclear power eh fellow redditors?

>>131514614
>nuclear energy
>clean energy

Pick one

>>131521833
sorry, I think I didn't express myself clearly in the last post, you have convinced me

It's not safe and is only used to create weapons. Thorium is the solution but it kills the oil/coal industry replacing those huge markets with very cheap clean electricity. Will not happen

>>131514614
two main reasons
>MUH CHERNOBYL AND FUKOSHIMA (the retarded reason)
>Nuclear waste (the logical reason, nobody has a clue on what the fuck to do with radioactive waste)

File: used-fuel-pool.jpg (122KB, 640x413px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 640x413px

>>131522053

>doesn't nuclear (fission) fuel requires to keep cooled for about 5 years after being fully depleted? and that cooling requires extra energy?
how is that clean OR efficient?

Are you seriously implying that cooling a couple hundred spent fuel assemblies that produce a couple of kilowatts each of heat at most,
costs more energy than a giant nuclear reactor that produces more than a GIGAWATT of electricity produces?
Are you retarded?

>>131516509

PHEW LAD

THIS MADMAN HAS SOLVED IT

AND IT TOTALLY DOESN'T FUEL THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

>>131515980
deep sea mining nigger, we have a timeline ; if we can land on the moon we can do this.

>>131522053
The depleted rods are cooled with air in specially constructed buildings that are naturally ventillated by the wind.

File: kraftwerk_neurath.jpg (361KB, 1024x646px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1024x646px

>>131522423

>german electricity
>clean and "green" electricity

Pick one.

>>131522704
>What is, a shed?

>>131514614
>Why isn't nuclear energy the most popular power source, it's literally the most efficient and clean
The problem is when private corporations run these facilities, the guards and technicians are all minimum wage workers who sleep on the job and routinely make dangerous mistakes.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1021493/scrutiny-intensifies-over-safety-at-us-nuclear-weapons-lab.html

>>131522556
ooh nooo we have to keep them in water for a while

>>131522827
Why is the coal train going away from the power plant?

>>131515029
Hydroelectric plants have fucked up the American West by destroying river systems. Water doesn't flow properly. The wild salmon populations are struggling big time.

>>131523027
Probably a coal train robbery

>>131522827
I choose both

File: blob.jpg (64KB, 680x200px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 680x200px

>>131523027

>Why is the coal train going away from the power plant?

There is another lignite fired power plant just near by.

>>131514614
>it's literally the most efficient and clean
But it isn't either of those things.

>>131514614
People are scared of it.

France for all the shit we throw at it produce 70% of their power by nuclear.

File: large_James Hansen.jpg (32KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x480px

>>131523331
>>131522827

the Hansen (2013) paper on climate sensitivity concludes as its last sentence

"Whether governments continue to be so foolhardy as to allow or encourage development of all fossil fuels may determine the fate of humanity."

File: electricppp.gif (23KB, 550x392px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 550x392px

>>131523268

>I choose both

You also chose to be the people who spend the most on electricity.

>>131514614

Because it's a problem in the race mixing scheme of globalists.

The existence of nukes, nuclear energy, and nuclear waste protect the existence of the White Man.

Europe will probably become a nuclear wasteland.

Who is gonna take care of them nuclear reactors when the White Man is extinct? The negros? The North Africans? The arabs are gonna tear them down and make nukes.

>>131515090
The only faggots still talking about Fukushima are hippy scammers like Greenpeace and Enenews. The same fags who post deliberately misleading articles, publish bullshit statistics, and even intentionally use tiny units of radioactivity to make things sound scarier (enenews, for example, almost always uses becquerels - which is the decay of a *single* atom - in every one of its papers instead of more appropriate units like sieverts and curies). And of course Greenpeace is still pushing its bullshit claim that Chernobyl killed millions of people.

>>131514614

Only the whitest, most well disciplined, most intelligent, and most intelligent White Men can efficiently, safely, and intelligently harness the power of the atom.

You need 100% prime cut white boi's to design, run, manage nuclear reactors and put them in the safest, best spots.

"Only the white man can make energy with love and make the world taste good. Only the white man, can."

>>131514614
imagine if car exhaust was solid rocks instead of the gas that it really is. now, imagine that those rocks are fatal to anything that comes in contact with them, and anything that gets near them. now, factor in that there is no physical way to make those rocks stop existing in that form. that is the nature of nuclear power.

im pro nuclear power but they need a way to get rid of the exhausted fuel. i always wondered why they dont just fire it into the sun, but i guess thats why i shitpost on image boards instead of developing a method of eliminating the hazardous waste.

File: 1479441734781.png (660KB, 1184x786px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 1184x786px

>>131514614
This is a very interesting topic but I don't know much of it.
Can someone explain me the problems of solar energy?

>>131514614
the real question is, why the fuck isn't in small by now. its 60 year old tech and they still take up city block. The first computer was the size of a class room and now we have super computers that fit in the palm of your hand.
Considering any sort of rate of advancement at all, I should be able to have a nuclear reactor powering by car right now

>>131523883
>Who is gonna take care of them nuclear reactors when the White Man is extinct? The negros? The North Africans? The arabs are gonna tear them down and make nukes.
Who gives a shit at that point? let them kill each other off if we are already extinct

>>131514614
WAAAAAAAH RADIATIONS WAAAAAAAH THE ENVIRONMENT!

>>131516858
It happened like Three times.
Get over It, hun.

>>131524360
Exactly we should stop burning fossil fuel too.

We still aren't nowhere near recovering from the damage caused by lead.

The first country to develop on a large scale MSRs will be the leading superpower for the next 100 years.

>>131524236
>. i always wondered why they dont just fire it into the sun
probably cost more in energy to export spent uranium from the planet than we get from the reactors

File: 1200px-Nuclear_dry_storage.jpg (243KB, 1200x759px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1200x759px

>>131524236

What a shitty comparison.
All the high level nuclear waste ever produced by the United States would literally just cover a football field if you stacked it a couple of feet high.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI_3gARwn3Y

File: 1495314189116.png (494KB, 400x601px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 400x601px

>>131524236
the issue with space disposal is that rockets carry limited payload and also pic related

>>131524236
>im pro nuclear power but they need a way to get rid of the exhausted fuel.
We have one - it's called long-term storage. You dig a deep crypt, and bury anything you can't reuse. Modern reactors produce less waste than their predecessors and can reuse something like 95% of the spent fuel in secondary cycles. We've had a long-term storage facility built under Yucca Mountain that's been basically finished for five years, but its use has been blocked by liberal politicians.

>i always wondered why they dont just fire it into the sun
Because if something goes wrong it's essentially a massive dirty bomb

>>131514614
NIMBY syndrome, look it up. this is a huge barrier to building nuclear plants.

>>131514614
It's uninsurable and you need a 100,000 year waste storage plan

Canada has plenty of decommissioned mines, I volunteer them as waste storage.

>>131524299
The batteries used to make the Solar panels require a lot of rare metals meaning that the production process for the them is expensive. not only this but the production produces a shit ton of waste anyways and they don't generate enough energy to make up for it.

>>131514614
Too much earthquakes here. =(

>>131514614
In the US almost everyone is in support of nuclear energy. Even big energy conglomerates that have the infrastructure to support it. It's free money in their eyes. The issue are state governors that are for it but very "NIMBY" or "not in my back yard," the fear of a catastrophe wards away state funding.

>>131524561
also if there is a accident and the rocket explodes you contaminate huge parts of landscapes

>>131524236
That spent fuel is the fuel for the next gen of nuclear reactors.

>>131514614
Chernobyl
Three Mile Island
Fukishima
That's why.

>>131524299
You need to clear a whole lot of land and cover it in solar panels to get the same amount of energy from a coal or god forbid nuclear. Since they can only produce energy in the day time, you need some kind of battery to store the energy so you're not in the dark when there's no sunlight. Also the manufacture of solar cells requires silicon and the processing of that requires a blast furnace that produces a lot of pollution.

>>131524793
>>131524961
Thank you anons.

>>131514614
Costs a fuck ton if you can't mine uranium and you don't want third world countries having them because it opens up their nuclear program.

>>131524918
>Chernobyl - caused by shitty Soviet engineering and gross incompetence - ~50 deaths

>Three Mile Island - caused by an unanticipated failure of primary and secondary safety systems which has been corrected in all modern reactors - 0 deaths

>Fukishima - survived the largest earthquake and the largest tsunami in Japan's recorded history, only failed because on top of all that all of its backup power systems were destroyed - 0 deaths

File: sellafield-aerial.jpg (87KB, 600x402px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 600x402px

>>131515711
depends on the country
about 50 miles north of where I live is a site where nuclear power plants from across the world ship their used fuel and other waste to be processed

>>131524594
you are stupid

>>131523077
Who cares?

>>131524890
this is by far the biggest problem
95% of rocket launches are successful, but having 5% being unsuccessful is too big of a risk considering the damage having 10 tonnes of nuclear fuel spread across a 50 mile radius could do

>>131521517
>>131515129
Because our country is incredibly cautious when it comes to anything nuclear

Literally every single incident has to be made public in power plants, even in the non nuclear parts. So once in a while we get "MAJOR INCIDENT IN [insert power plant]" and it turns out its just that one of the capacitors at the power lines blew, big friggin' deal.

>>131514614
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

Give this a read, its old but this is something that started long ago.

>>131524918

Let's try to argue in a similar way about other things:

Why don't we fly more?

MH17
9/11
Teneriffa airport disaster

>>131524961
Very relevant. Even if you have high efficiency solar panels that can be easily maintained and are dispersive enough to collect such a high amount of energy, you need those stationary energy storage devices. Highest efficiency in energy storage comes from physical storage like water towers but they aren't large enough for what is required and are essentially very brute force capacitors. If you solve the energy storage issue, then comes the conclusion that they would be better served off site to a nuclear power plant, as many plants bleed energy at night when usage is low; store that energy and you can supplement power at high usage. In a sense, wind and solar are niche in use and will never see the same benefits as nuclear.

File: PV-efficiency-timeline.jpg (201KB, 1372x851px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1372x851px

>>131524299
Expensive, produces lots of toxic waste, inefficient, can't actively produce power during peak hours (because it's usually dark by then).

Solar's not bad or anything, there's been a lot of progress in the last few years with new custom semi-conductor materials and organophotovoltaics, both of which could potentially make solar panels cheaper, less wasteful, and more efficient to produce... but we're just not at the point where we can rely on solar exclusively.

We need more solar, but we need more wind, more hydroelectric, more geothermal, and yes, more nuclear if we ever want to get ourselves off coal and oil.

>>131516858
>>131524483

That was human error and politics. Which can be corrected.

Chernobyl was because of a dangerously unsafe reactor design that had long been rejected in Western countries, and lack of a proper containment building, thanks to the bulldozer-like inertia of Soviet red tape and cronyism.

Fukushima was built in a shitty location because of kickbacks and Yakuza strong-arming.

Those were the only two serious accidents with nuclear reactors. And they weren't fucking meltdowns.

Three Mile Island wasn't a catastrophic accident because of a proper containment structure and failsafes. In fact, the other two reactors continued to run safely and efficiently decades after the incident. Three Mile Island is a textbook example of a proper and safe nuclear facility.

You fuckers have swallowed the anti-nuclear power kool-aid and watched that Jane Fonda "The China Syndrome" flick one too many times.

The Moar You Know...

>>131525401
BAN ASSAULT AIRLINERS

>>131515357
That's the core

Very small amounts escaped through cracks in the containment cache and washed into the ocean where it's been diluted to nothing.

The problems with fukushima are entirely within the plant itself. The nearby city is 100% safe to live in with virtually no radioactive contamination at all.

People are just scared of nuclear to a stupefying degree.

File: nuclearvscoal2.jpg (53KB, 397x238px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 397x238px

>>131524918
Coal
>5000 deaths a year in mining accidents
>1 MILLION premature deaths from pollution A YEAR
>100 times the radioactive emissions (thorium, etc.) compared to a nuclear plant https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Nuclear
>Chernobyl 56 direct deaths, 4000 deaths by cancer in 40 years
>Fukushima no direct deaths, 0 to 100 estimated deaths by cancer
>Three Miles Islands no deaths at all

Becaue it is easy to fuck up or let nature fuck up for us, thus, creating a catastrophe.

>>131515767
>plant operators do everything in their power to fuck up the plant
>Still 100% contained
>Oil lobby pays millions for """environmentalists""" to protest nuclear
>All nuclear production in the US comes to a grinding halt

3 mile was a false flag, not by government, but by oil corporations trying to get the world dependent on them. Nuclear is the only thing that could have 100% replaced oil. We wouldn't be in the middle east AT ALL if we had widespread nuclear power and hadn't tied the dollar to oil.

>>131515980
There's enough uranium to last us centuries

There's enough thorium to last us tens of thousands of years

>>131525647

Don't even try to argue numbers and statistics.

Environmentalists and anti-nuke activists are all college dropouts or sociology, psychology and pol-science majors.
They don't do maths, way too difficult for them.

>>131525739
that's true for other power sources as well
but you don't hear people saying "BAN ALL HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS" despite the fact that if the 3 gorges dam breaks, the death toll could run into 8 digits

They are a prime target for muslim terrorist attacks.

File: f4 vs reactor wall test.gif (3MB, 512x242px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 512x242px

>>131525928
Let em try.

>>131525338
The other thing is that do the physics that nuclear waste does not decay in a linear manner.

At first, it is highly radioactive and also very hot in the sense of heat. as short term radioactive elements decay the radiation levels quickly drop, and by the time you don't need to cover it in water to keep it cool it not scarily radioactive.

>>131516441
Dump it in an oceanic trench

But people are retards and think if you dump radioactive waste into the ocean it would kill the entire ocean and the world.

Newsflash: There's so much exposed uranium on the seafloor that you can literally filter uranium out of seawater already. That's just from naturally occurring radioactive material. People are so fucking retarded it's amazing.

>>131515814
Wow you are one dumb motherfucker.

Someone get the chart that compared naturally occurring radioactive particles in the ocean vs what was dumped from Fukushima.

>>131526009
Dropping it into a subduction zone would be the ideal solution - but long term storage is the best interim option.

File: sunpower.gif (2MB, 489x301px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 489x301px

This it's what we should be doing.

Taking power from the sun, directly.

File: Global Warming.jpg (35KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x480px

>>131517118

I would think that the IQ would need to be higher to understand man-made global warming. Physicists and other scientists who use math regularly can quickly discern from the plot graph that there's no recognizable relationship between CO2 output and global warming. Overcoming the "Y-axis dyslexia" of tards who believe in global warming (usually biologists) requires some significant mathematical or logical ability.

>>131517460
A day of coal burning spits out more radioactivity than every nuclear accident ever. You have shit for brains.

>>131525916
in fact, in August 8 1975, the Banqiao Dam in China failed. About 200.000 people were killed and over 10 million were displaced by the flood.

If there ever is a comparable event with nuclear energy, every power plant would be closed down the next day

>>131515814
You don't even understand what a half life is.

Let alone the concept of dilution.

>>131526009
ocean trenches are a bad idea because of the fact those are some of the most geologically active regions on the planet
it'd be about as stupid as dumping waste into a volcano

what they're doing is finding geologically stable regions of non-porous rock and sticking the waste there

>>131514614

Nuclear energy isn't clean. There is waste. That lasts forever. That you have to pay for storage facilities forever. That you have to pay to guard forever. Its completely NOT cost-effective and just a jobs welfare program.

geothermal is the future and the solution

>>131526009
>>131526124
Why throw away valuable fuel?
https://www.seeker.com/nuclear-plant-powered-by-spent-fuel-1766311945.html

>>131514614
>Hmm nuclear that sounds bad, that word is bad it hurts my fee fees, I don't want that. Coal, oil? Yuck they sounds like dirty and gross... Solar panels OMG cool! They would make my roof look futuristic and shit.

Literally the reason

The world should be straight up nuke power and hydro where applicable

>>131514614

Jews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cha%C3%AFm_Nissim

You can't make this shit up

>>131522423

This looks like water vapor, not "smoke." Good chemical and process engineers can actually look at smoke and discern the molecular constituents. It's an interesting trait.

>>131526252
fuck comparable events, if in this day and age even a small town of 50 goat herders gets irradiated every plant closes down the next day

and even the "but radiation is long term" isn't a proper excuse; a major dam flood will scrape away enough soil to fuck up the local ecosystem for generations

Disclaimer, I can't discern particulates from smoke and I'm not an engineer.

>>131521517
Air pollution kills 7 million people a year

Never hear a peep about that in any fear mongering media though.

Nuclear's killed maybe a few thousand over the course of 60-70 years and that includes every major and minor accident from construction to chernobyl.

It's not even a question - Nuclear is substantially safer than oil/gas/coal and always has been. It's even safer than hydro and solar and wind. It is the single safest form of power generation on the fucking planet.

But people are retards and don't want to bother with this "being informed" stuff.

>>131526334
We can reuse about 95% of the fuel for secondary cycles, but eventually you're left with a bit you can't use for anything, and that's gotta go somewhere.

Dumping it into a subduction zone where it'll get folded back into the mantle is the best option, but until we have the resources to do that, facilities like Yucca Mountain are the best available option.

>>131526270
Turns out that after it cool enough to actually bury, it not a big PITA to deal with as the radiation isn't that bad.

its the 40 years of keeping it covered in water in a pool that is the issue.

>>131522423
Nuclear is clean.

Only irrational and ignorant idiots believe otherwise.

>>131526252
I wouldn't say that's a good example
I'm not saying that it's terrible that it happened, but it's a dam that was built in the 50's by the Chinese. It's almost expected that it should fail.

If it was a dam in the first world that burst and killed 10,000 and displaced a further 50,000, THEN there would be serious talks about "closing" dams

>>131515357
so build thorium reactors, problem solved

File: BillNyeIsDumb.jpg (83KB, 672x960px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 672x960px

>>131525916

Interesting and compelling comparison. I've never looked at it this way. This is why I love /pol/

nuclear energy is awesome its clean efficent and you can bomb the shit outta people with it whats not to like

>>131526621
easier said than done
there aren't any alloys that can be used to make the pipes to contain the molten thorium salts

>>131520487
Easy enough to make it safe but it would be extremely expensive.

>>131515814
>If you still eat anything from the pacific ocean youre rolling the dice
you gotta be retarded to believe that.

>>131526543

Those traits are the hallmark of the leftist. In the U.S., they're the reason why we don't have nuclear power.

>>131526685
source?

>Top 10 oil producing countries
Russia
Saudi Arabia
USA
Iraq
Iran
China
Canada
UAE
Kuwait
Brazil

>Top 10 uranium producing countries
Kazakhstan
Canada
Australia
Niger
Russia
Namibia
Uzbekistan
China
USA


Tell me honestly, which of these lists contains more trustworthy countries?

File: 171483.jpg (137KB, 606x601px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 606x601px

>>131526680
>nuclear energy is awesome its clean efficent and you can bomb the shit outta people with it whats not to like

And the depleted uranium, because of its density, forms the bullets for some of our most bad-ass weaponry.

>>131526828
Woops forgot Ukraine there as 10th country for the uranium producers

>>131515980

Uranium is only scarce if you're only considering the 0.75% of uranium, that is uranium 235, but if you build newer reactors, they can unlock the power stored in U238 and Thorium 232.

>>131514614
Industry aside, the public does not understand the technology, does not want to understand the technology and as such, fears the technology.
This is because the left does not want people to understand the technology.

Through big oil and big coal, they can argue man-made global warming, which they use to promote a global carbon tax system which involves one world gouvernment.
With nuclear power, which doesn't cause global warming at all, they can't pull that trick, so they scare everyone into ignoring it and opting for inefficient, toxic solar panels instead.

File: IMG_3919.jpg (75KB, 402x565px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 402x565px

Why did Jimmy Carter not decide to pursue converting or waste to forms with more reasonable half lives? Oh yeah because he was a faggot and was scared of Plutonium. Thanks JC. Yeah we will surely be able to store things safely for 100k years... no problem.

Carter was a fucking moron. Also, people have somehow been convinced that nuclear reactor accidents will result in full scale nuclear explosions so when accidents happen people lose their shit.

>>131526621
We haven't worked out LFT reactors yet. We did a very rough proof of concept test at Oak Ridge in the 60s that demonstrated the basic concept of a molten salt reactor, but it used U-235 and U-233 produced by a separate device.

An LFT reactor needs to use an in-situ Th-232 to U-233 fuel cycle, which is a little trickier to set up. We haven't engineered a proven industrial scale reactor design yet.

File: BLM.png (588KB, 610x610px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 610x610px

>>131526828

South Africa not on the uranium producing countries anymore?!? They were when I last reviewed this topic - back in the 1980s. Fucking niggers ruin everything.

>>131516858
Good thing Thorium does not meltdown then.

>>131516274

Breeder reactors, breed the waste from older reactors into useable fuels.

>>131516274
build thorium reactos and the waste is really not that much. If Americans eat one bag of snack less each then the world got room for all the reactors we need and their waste simply by allocating the space saved from those empty snack bags no longer taking up space as trash.

seriously, compared to more or less everything else we do the impact of nuclear power plant waste is so minimal its laughable when you compare it

Dunno desu. The US could run it correctly.
Still tho, 20 years to build a plant to boil water and then having to dispose of the waste is an issue. And the results are catastrophic if something does go wrong...

>>131527053
south africa is number 11 (2015 numbers)
that said their total reserves are similar to Namibia with is number 6 so someone fucked up

>>131522554
I say we build ourselves Egyptian style tombs with warnings not to open. We leave the nuclear waste inside. Thousands of years in the future archeologists will ignore the warnings and open them anyway and a new horror genre is born

File: oak ridges_ver1.0_640_480.jpg (193KB, 640x455px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 640x455px

>>131526963
>Oak Ridge reactor

So safe.

>>131525640
Some retard here actually thought that leaking material poisoned the entire Pacific ocean.

That is the level of retardation we're dealing with.

>>131516441
where do you think we get the radioactive materials used as fuel from?

We dig it up from the earth! Are you really saying that if we put something back we will somehow "poison the earth"?

lol.

>>131526270
No, you don't understand

It DOES NOT MATTER

It doesn't matter if your casks of radioactive material are exposed directly to seawater, it doesn't matter if you pour 3 tons of liquid fucking plutonium into the ocean. The ocean is fucking ENORMOUS.

Do the math for dilution.

We could dump the entire world's current supply of nuclear fuel, spent nuclear fuel, and every pound of radioactive and semi-radioactive material in the ocean and it would do NOTHING. No ecological destruction, no uninhabitable coastlines.

>>131525647
Very much this, and the nice fact that currently our slow neutron spectrum reactors burn only U-235, which is a 3-5% fraction of the uranium fuel. Russians have BN-800 under full production conditions now and that is a fast neutron reactor, closing their nuclear fuel cycle by burning and breeding the fuel left from slow neutron reactors. China is joining that club too, they are building a site for BN-1200. 26°05'57.07" N 117°26'10.29" E

Future:

Fast neutron breeders, 2nd, 3rd, maybe 4th gen.
Thorium/Uranium LFRs.
Fusion stellarators.

>inb4 GREENS BTFO

>>131526009
Damn I thought of doing something like that for a subduction zone, family thought I was retarded.

>>131527224
>people taking proper safety precautions makes something unsafe

Has anyone ever experimented with Nuclear Barges for coastal areas? Constant water supply, just focus on containment etc., simple design. I'd rather have a problematic reactor just dropped to the bottom of the ocean inside a metal sphere than up on land blowing in the wind etc. A barge could be moved to avoid weather etc. too. Basically I'm just talking about a large energy only nuclear sub for powering cities.

>>131527072
>>131527131
Talking about thorium is pointless until someone actually comes up with a viable reactor design. >>131526963

In the meantime we need to focus on what we've got, and what we've got is some extremely efficient, reliable uranium reactor designs.

File: 1490806250667.png (99KB, 600x694px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 600x694px

>>131517034
Have you not started daily muh Russians ruin muh country-thread?

>>131527510
I agree, but it must be mentioned time and time again so people don't forget it exists, and people who've never heard of it can get a bit more redpilled on nuclear.

>>131515236
>>131515357
>>131516274

Hey kids, I'm going to blow your fucking minds with two concepts you've either failed to, or never bothered to learn in the first place

>1. The inverse square law
>2. Dilution

>1. a law stating that the intensity of an effect such as radiation in inverse proportion to the square of the distance from the source.

Here also is the simple english (retard-tier) definition:

> an inverse-square law is a physical law that states that the farther away from an effect, or a physical quantity, the less likely it is to be observed by an observer.


The "ocean contamination" you speak if is an even bigger joke if you look at the sheer size of it. We are not even talking about 1 part per quadrillion of radioactive material. "Muh alex jones says the ocean is being contaimated by the japaneses!". Consider the sheer amount of water in the Pacific Ocean:

>165,250,000 square kilometers
>or 187,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons

The sheer distance and size of the pacific ocean means the "radiation" from Fukushima is a non-issue. Stop listening to an obese radio show host with an IQ of 105 at best and a bunch of hippies for scientific advice, especially regarding advanced tech.

>>131524211
This.
People of Colour BTFO

>>131527293
oceanic trenches DO contains several localized ecosystems which one container of leaking nuclear material could in fact fuck up

also the costs involved in dumping it there instead of in mine shafts would be fairly so there's no point

also there's the practical problem of "half the world's public opinion is already against nuclear power, let's not give the ecomaniacs something resembling an actual argument"

>>131519798
> climate models are never used, nor have ever been meant as prediction-machines.
except for when the entire global elite tries to use it for political gain, then its a certain fact that makes you evil and horrible if you don't believe

>>131527589
The problem with mentioning it time and time again is that 99% of the time the people mentioning it do some without context or clarification, so now you've got an entire group of people talking about thorium on the internet the same way /x/ fags talk about free energy shit.

>>131515307
Bury it, most rocks in random places have been buried for millennia already.

>>131526517
Radiation rule of thumb: The more dangerously radioactive it is, the faster it goes away.

If it's going to kill you in 30 seconds of exposure, by the end of the day it'll take 30 minutes of exposure. By the end of the week it'll take 30 hours of exposure, by the end of the month it'll take 30 days of exposure.

Too many people just can't wrap their heads around what a "half life" actually means, and lack an understanding of what radiation even IS.

>>131526296
God damn why do retards feel the right to have opinions on this? Worse case scenario you toss it in a hole where it is no worse than natural uranium ore.

>>131527792
Couldn't we invest in processes that would greatly reduce the half lives as well?

>>131527889
... no that would involve changing the laws of physics.

>>131527758
also lets not forget that the most dangerous type of radiation (alpha particles) can be stopped by a couple of cm of air and is only deadly if you do something stupid like actually swallow the source

>>131527490
Russia has nuclear icebreakers that can do this

Sometimes the US does it with their carriers

>>131514817
You forgot Big Jews

>>131527510
I think we have or are pretty close then because we got taught about the two types as if they were both equally available and we got to see models of both in our text books and I know there is research being done at least, I just assumed other counties where nuclear energy was more common would have beaten us to it.

now in hindsight maybe the fact no one have is the very reason for the focus.

>>131514817
4U

>>131527889
You can reprocess spent fuel. 99% of the "radioactive waste" produced by western reactors can be re-used in another nuclear reactor.

But politicians and people are retards and instead, it gets stored on-site in casks and sometimes buried.

The <1% of material left over is dangerous for a few hundred years at most.

Oh and this process creates all the radioactive isotopes the medical industry needs and uses, too.

>>131527758
Exactly.

It stuff like iodine-131 (which has a half life of 8 days) that highly radioactive. Strontium-90 (28 years Half life) is really the biggest PITA, as it the one highly radioactive substance that hangs around for a while.

>>131525229
Don't forget SL-1.

>>131527664
And this is why democracy was a mistake.

To many filthy Jews manipulating public opinion.

>>131527957
if you bombard the atoms with something it might force them to break prematurely, but it might be energy costly

>>131527617
don't stop listening, question what you hear instead and look up things yourself from time to time, especially advanced things.

if you can't understand it because you are a double IQ pleb then at least check other sources than just one

>>131527889
You can reprocess it and reuse it so so you don't have to wait it out. High level waste is fuel. There are proliferation concerns so this should only be done in 1st world countries at secure facilities. The process creates plutonium at times.

File: nclimate3013-f1.jpg (162KB, 946x600px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 946x600px

>>131527708
I don't see this massive use of climate science for whatever purposes. The people who actually study this and know a bit about the climate that the measures so far are nowhere near enough of what would be needed to avoid dangerous consequences. So far, governments aren't able to come up with anything besides verbal commitments, while the world is slowly hurdling towards the precipice

>>131528306
We understand both fuel cycles very well, but the engineering is another matter.

Same thing with fusion - the physics are (relatively) straightforward: put a plasma under enough heat and pressure until the atomic nuclei have enough energy to overcome their repulsion of one another. Getting the plasma to cooperate is another matter altogether.

>>131528548
The simple fact is this.

Off all of Fukushima radiation, there will be 0-100 cancers. And it won't be from seaborn issues.

>>131528713
US understands the fuel cycle and breeder reactors very well. The issue is that Carter banned it for the US hoping to stop nuclear proliferation.

>>131528765
I completely agree with you on this issue, I just don't think its beneficial to rule out a source of information just because they got this wrong considering its a common thing to get wrong.

being mistaken about nuclear won't invalidate other things you might have been correct about

>>131528713

I recommend General fusion's piston anvil approach. Similarly with liquid metal fission reactor they are approaching a fusion reactor for the purpose of generating power. Using a spinning liquid metal cyllinder, they shoot plasma into the center of the vortex and then slam 360 degrees of pistons onto the cyllinder, the pressure wave then squeezes the plasma to 300 million degrees, the neutrons from the fusion events then are absorbed by the liquid metal and produces usable heat; unlike those shitty tokomaks and that awfully over engineered wendelstein stellarator.

>>131528707
because the environment or the climate was never their interest, they just wanted peoples money.

That is why all of these green projects costs so much, its a gift from the people to the rich elites

>>131515307

Most "waste" from a nuclear reactor is still highly fissionable material. We only throw it out because "muh children" and the fear that some shitskin will get it and make a dirty bomb.

Look up pebble bed reactors

>>131514614
Because it's neither clean nor efficient. Leaks in nuclear power plants happen all the time, you just never hear it from the (((media))) and the effects take longer to see. Also, the plants are costy as fuck to build and maintain. It's not worth it for the amount of power they produce. The only reason they are still around is because nuclear tech = bomb tech. Any country that develops knowledge and tech on nuclear power plants is one step closer to building a nuke, that's why the state finances them.
If you are looking for a cleannes/efficiency relationship the best are hydroelectric power plants.

>>131529328
lol, educate yourself son.

you are right about the weapon use, that can be avoided in other designs/types of reactors in the future too

>>131529093
Lockheed has it right.

>>131529328
But hydroeletric powerplants can't be built everywhere.

>>131514614
Hippies and Liberals are against it. They hype up Chernobyl, Three mile Island, and Fukushima to scare the masses to not build or continue Nuclear reactors.
Fossil fuel and Solar/wind companies fund the leftist lobbyists to scare people into not building Nuclear reactors. Government regulars (depending on country) also make the net gain from Nuclear energy rather small unless its winter or different type of power plant goes down.

What Is A Nuclear Reactor?

All nuclear reactors are devices designed to maintain a chain reaction producing a steady flow of neutrons generated by the fission of heavy nuclei. They are, however, differentiated either by their purpose or by their design features. In terms of purpose, they are either research reactors or power reactors.

Research reactors are operated at universities and research centres in many countries, including some where no nuclear power reactors are operated. These reactors generate neutrons for multiple purposes, including producing radiopharmaceuticals for medical diagnosis and therapy, testing materials and conducting basic research.

Power reactors are usually found in nuclear power plants. Dedicated to generating heat mainly for electricity production, they are operated in more than 30 countries (see Nuclear Power Reactors). Their lesser uses are drinking water or district water production. In the form of smaller units, they also power ships.

Differentiating nuclear reactors according to their design features is especially pertinent when referring to nuclear power reactors (see Types of Nuclear Power Reactors).
Nuclear Power Reactors

There are many different types of power reactors. What is common to them all is that they produce thermal energy that can be used for its own sake or converted into mechanical energy and ultimately, in the vast majority of cases, into electrical energy.

In these reactors, the fission of heavy atomic nuclei, the most common of which is uranium-235, produces heat that is transferred to a fluid which acts as a coolant. During the fission process, bond energy is released and this first becomes noticeable as the kinetic energy of the fission products generated and that of the neutrons being released. Since these particles undergo intense deceleration in the solid nuclear fuel, the kinetic energy turns into heat energy.

>>131529921
In the case of reactors designed to generate electricity, to which the explanations below will now be restricted, the heated fluid can be gas, water or a liquid metal. The heat stored by the fluid is then used either directly (in the case of gas) or indirectly (in the case of water and liquid metals) to generate steam. The heated gas or the steam is then fed into a turbine driving an alternator.
PWRs and BWRs are the most commonly operated reactors in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. VVERs, designed in the former Soviet Union, are based on the same principles as PWRs. They use “light waterâ€Â, i.e. regular water (H2O) as opposed to “heavy water†(deuterium oxide D2O). Moderation provided by light water is not sufficiently effective to permit the use of natural uranium. The fuel must be slightly enriched in U235 to make up for the losses of neutrons occurring during the chain reaction. On the other hand, heavy water is such an effective moderator that the chain reaction can be sustained without having to enrich the uranium. This combination of natural uranium and heavy water is used in PHWRs, which are found in a number of countries, including Canada, Korea, Romania and India.

Graphite-moderated, gas-cooled reactors, formerly operated in France and still operated in Great Britain, are not built any more in spite of some advantages.

RBMK-reactors (pressure-tube boiling-water reactors), which are cooled with light water and moderated with graphite, are now less commonly operated in some former Soviet Union bloc countries. Following the Chernobyl accident (26 April 1986) the construction of this reactor type ceased. The operating period of those units still in operation will be shortened.
Plutonium-fuelled Reactors

>>131529971
Plutonium (Pu) is an artificial element produced in uranium-fuelled reactors as a by-product of the chain reaction. It is one hundred times more energetic than natural uranium; one gram of Pu can generate as much energy as one tonne of oil. As it needs fast neutrons in order to fission, moderating materials must be avoided to sustain the chain reaction in the best conditions. The current Plutonium-fuelled reactors, also called “fast†reactors, use liquid sodium which displays excellent thermal properties without adversely affecting the chain reaction. These types of reactors are in operation in France, Japan and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
Light Water Reactors

The Light Water Reactors category comprises pressurised water reactors (PWR, VVER) and boiling water reactors (BWR). Both of these use light water and hence enriched uranium. The light water they use combines the functions of moderator and coolant. This water flows through the reactor core, a zone containing a large array of fuel rods where it picks up the heat generated by the fission of the U235 present in the fuel rods. After the coolant has transferred the heat it has collected to a steam turbine, it is sent back to the reactor core, thus flowing in a loop, also called a primary circuit.

In order to transfer high-quality thermal energy to the turbine, it is necessary to reach temperatures of about 300 °C. It is the pressure at which the coolant flows through the reactor core that makes the distinction between PWRs and BWRs.

In PWRs, the pressure imparted to the coolant is sufficiently high to prevent it from boiling. The heat drawn from the fuel is transferred to the water of a secondary circuit through heat exchangers. The water of the secondary circuit is transformed into steam, which is fed into a turbine.

In BWRs, the pressure imparted to the coolant is sufficiently lower than in a PWR to allow it to boil.

>>131530113
It is the steam resulting from this process that is fed into the turbine.

This basic difference between pressurised and boiling water dictates many of the design characteristics of the two types of light water reactors, as will be explained below.

Despite their differing designs, it must be noted that the two reactor types provide an equivalent level of safety.
Pressurised Water Reactors

The fission zone (fuel elements) is contained in a reactor pressure vessel under a pressure of 150 to 160 bar (15 to 16 MPa). The primary circuit connects the reactor pressure vessel to heat exchangers. The secondary side of these heat exchangers is at a pressure of about 60 bar (6 MPa) - low enough to allow the secondary water to boil. The heat exchangers are, therefore, actually steam generators. Via the secondary circuit, the steam is routed to a turbine driving an alternator. The steam coming out of the turbine is converted back into water by a condenser after having delivered a large amount of its energy to the turbine. It then returns to the steam generator. As the water driving the turbine (secondary circuit) is physically separated from the water used as reactor coolant (primary circuit), the turbine-alternator set can be housed in a turbine hall outside the reactor building.

Nuclear power plant with pressurized water reactor
Nuclear power plant with pressurized water reactor
Boiling Water Reactors

>>131530216
The fission zone is contained in a reactor pressure vessel, at a pressure of about 70 bar (7 MPa). At the temperature reached (290 °C approximately), the water starts boiling and the resulting steam is produced directly in the reactor pressure vessel. After the separation of steam and water in the upper part of the reactor pressure vessel, the steam is routed directly to a turbine driving an alternator.

The steam coming out of the turbine is converted back into water by a condenser after having delivered a large amount of its energy to the turbine. It is then fed back into the primary cooling circuit where it absorbs new heat in the fission zone.

Since the steam produced in the fission zone is slightly radioactive, mainly due to short-lived activation products, the turbine is housed in the same reinforced building as the reactor.

>>131529921
A nuclear reactor is a pot full of water and hot rocks basically

>>131529803
>Three mile Island
That one in particular holy fuck it was a fucking joke, there was hardly any measurable leakage. Even for fukushima there hasn't been a single death so far due to radiation.

>>131514614
It is essential that nuclear power be suppressed because dirty energy makes a case for environmentalist politicians to put their socialist agenda in place. With clean abundant energy there's no need to regulate for reasons other than safety. That's why nuclear energy must be seen as destructive, a disaster waiting to happen.

Again, it's the communists and Zionists working together to suppress the West and create a socialist state.

File: 1356671331968.jpg (24KB, 201x240px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 201x240px

>>131514817
>implying Big Nuke doesn't exist

The truth is that uranium is a bitch to acquire and dispose of. The uranium trade is 50% controlled by Russia who pull all the strings in world's top uranium miner country, Kazakhstan. The other competitors, Australia and Canada are pure-blooded anglo and don't give a fuck about your economy so they won't cut the Russians. And once there are enough plants in the world, uranium consumption and prices would skyrocket. Until no more big enough deposits of fissionable uranium could be found to satisfy demand. This would take no longer than 20 years. Fission is fucking stupid, a very imperfect way of generating power because the fuel is just the worst shit in the universe. We have so many options, let's fund the science and build harmless generators.

File: 1490752900322.gif (2MB, 350x255px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x255px

>>131515440
Mark my words. In the future we will shoot all of our shit into the sun.

>>131530528
Breeder reactors?

>>131530561
>>737114512

>>131515307
Stupid fuckwit, every piece of waste we've had in the entire history of America's nuclear power could fit inside a fucking Wal-Mart.

What about torium reactors?
Safe and they don't produce that much waste
Or they are just a meme

>>131515307
Only a very small fraction of nuclear waste is long term and there's such a minuscule amount of it, it doesn't really matter.

File: 6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01b8d1464adc970c-800wi.jpg (32KB, 489x200px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 489x200px

This is all just temporary stuff until affordable fusion comes along.

>inb4 hurr durr it's always 30 years away
There have been huge advancements in superconducting materials lately, enabling us to use a much higher magnetic field to confine the plasma
Since the energy density of a plasma scales with the fourth power of the magnetic field strength, it means you can build a reactor much, much smaller (i.e. cheaper)

You could build a test reactor like with this new technology for about the same amount that it cost to build the first fission reactor (adjusted for inflation). It really shows a lot of promise, and for the potential impact it could have on the world I think we should at least try.

>>131530719
Build one if they're so great, I guess.

File: What Liberals Actually Believe.png (360KB, 2468x1416px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 2468x1416px

>>131514614
I ran out of ideas.

>>131531503
Well they're being planned.

>>131530561
no, we will recycle it, why spend resources to launch fuel into space?