this type of nuclear reactor (breeder reactor) is capable of

>>134060612
Because when something goes wrong (and it always does) nuclear power fucks everything around it for thousands of years.

>>134060724
>and it always does

all 2 accidents is definitely a 100% rate of failure

If I had an epic awesome, but apocalypticly dangerous, nuclear reactor.. I'm not sure I'd tell anyone. In fact, I'm not sure why I would, did you also want some help stealing the materials we're breeding? Maybe I can even load it into a dirty bomb for you?

No, I think my public opinion is "nuclear bad" and my private opinion is "so where are there things REALLY?" Start thinking 4 moves ahead /pol/, I need you.

>>134060612
>billions of years
no, wrong. Even breeders run out of economically mineable fuel in 10,000 yrs or so at constant population and constant energy needs. Which is quite enough but do not bs this bord with "billions of years".

Deuterium-lithium fusion would last 50 million years if all lithium in sea water were used.

only deuterium-deuterium fusion would last billions of years

>inb4 believing humanity will last past the year 2200

Two words kid.Nuclear waste.
The problem is not with the reactor.The problem is the waste it leaves.

>>134060612

Because they're uneducated pretentious little twats? If you really look into nuclear power all the PRO arguments drastically outweigh the CON arguments (which there aren't many).

>>134060724

Sure, always. Like that Three Mile Island accident (biggest nuclear accident in US history) when it blew up the whole east coast.
Oh wait. It didn't.

>>134061114
Answer is Closed Fuel Cycle

>>134060926
what the fuck are you trying to convey here?
>>134061052
numerous sources have stated breeder reactors are capable of such a prolonged amount of time
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/references.html#cohen
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
>>134061114
breeder reactors consume uranium extremely efficiently that waste is barely a problem. to give you a reference, current reactors use 1% of the energy uranium produces; a breeder reactor would use 100 times this amount of energy. with advancements in technology, waste can be stored safely and securely and even refined for further use.

>>134060612
>for billions of years
sounds like nonsense

regardless I support nuclear power because it's the only way to satisfy energy needs without completely fucking up the planet

but only in the hands of experts.and the safest and most modern models available

which of course costs billions

File: IMG_9463.jpg (316KB, 600x355px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 600x355px

>>134060612

This type of reactor can not compete with light water reactors, not with uranium prices being at the level they are right now.
This will only change when peak uranium is reached.

Pic related is a fast breeder at Beloyarsk npp in Russia, it's one of only 2 fast breeders in use in the world right now.
Both are at Beloyarsk and they produce electricity at 20% higher costs than a normal light water reactor.

>>134060612
>why are normies against nuclear power again?

because it can go wrong and irradiate them

>>134061270
Myth
>>134061329
YEah lets make more nuke material thats a great idea.

>>134060612
Those are the type of reactor that can cause an actual fission explosion right?

>>134060756
waste glowing for thousands of years comes out in 100% of cases.

>>134061447
would you rather spend billions to reduce carbon emissions to barely non-existent or spend a few measly millions to further poison the planet? worrying too much about the economical factors is a neoliberal approach and shitty approach at that. nuclear power is long term. not 10, 25 or 100 years but tens of thousands of years long term.

>>134061114
>nuclear waste is extremely dangerous
>but radioactive ores inside earth are ok

>>134061114
we mine the nuclear material from the earth... it is already there. we are afraid of the disposal of waste of a prdouct the earth itself produced.

lunacy.

>>134061602
>nuclear power is long term. not 10, 25 or 100 years but tens of thousands of years long term.

yeah that includes the waste they produce kek

The media, left, and business interests love wind power. Or rather the subsidies for wind parks. Literally hundreds of billions of euros wasted on archaic technology that will never be economically viable.

I can see potential in solar panels if they become more efficient (which they have but not quite there yet) but if you defend wind power you don't deserve voting rights.

Nuclear is another option, but new generation plants are very expensive and very unpopular due to scaremongering about gen I/II plants.

>>134061661
>tries to look smart
>>134061684
Come on boy,tell me how many tonnes of ore do you need to process to get 1 kilogramm of fuel grade uranium.Its the concentration,you know.

>>134061329
I wouldn't tell the Australian public if I gained power, raised taxes for "climate change" and then built a reactor. I would keep it a secret for a while whilst I investigate the best way to keep it secure. I want nuclear power now but you're a real idiot if you haven't realised the real issue here are workers selling material to terrorists.

File: LFTR.jpg (52KB, 652x507px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 652x507px

>Breeder reactor
Get with the times grandpa

Breeder reactors can't be cooled by water and reach temperatures much higher than BWRs. They're more expensive to maintain and overall more dangerous.
Those are some arguments against them at least.

>>134060612

Chernobyl ("oh no there will be another Chernobyl even though current reactors are safer than coal") and because it's too good for Big Oil and Big Gas to allow.

>>134061544
56 people died directly from chernobyl, 0 people from fukushima and 0 people from three mile island. nuclear accidents is the greatest fearmongering tool known to man thus far.
>>134061561
>YEah lets make more nuke material thats a great idea.
i know this is sarcastic but why wouldnt that be a great idea? you are essentially turning nuclear power in renewable energy.
>>134061588
not too sure. what do you know about it?
>>134061595
waste that is completely unreachable by man. believe it or not, these waste products aren't boogeyman sitting in your closet ready to pounce at you, they are dormant and benign threats that will only affect you if you come into direct contact.
>>134061700
how far do you think technology will be by then? the waste could become a source of much use.

>>134061785
I would if you would find a solution to the salt eating the concealment away.

atomic energy is faustian, normies are afraid of faustian inventions, they want to live WITH nature

Faustian people want to CONTROL it.

They are polar opposites. What normies don't understand is that everything that puts them in a position to be triggered, is a faustian invention.

>>134060612
Liberal, normie, kike here. We are all for nuclear plants, but breeder reactors need more research. Lurk more on wikipedia.

>>134061771
>I want nuclear power now but you're a real idiot if you haven't realised the real issue here are workers selling material to terrorists.
this sounds like the argument against halal certification. what indicates that workers are selling materials to terrorists?

>>134061544
>because it can go wrong and irradiate them
Not really. There have been a handful of accidents caused by nuclear energy, but only a few caused big issues.
Tons of precautions have been taken with it and the radiation from a functioning reactor is trivial.

>>134061841
>56 people died directly from chernobyl, 0 people from fukushima and 0 people from three mile island.

according to this statistic, 0 people died due to tobacco.

The reality is, large lands surrounding chernobyl have high radiation and there were tons of thyroid cancer cases in children - they were not blamed on the nuclear accident though.

rare cancers in the region, but nobody really knows why...

>>134061841
>waste that is completely unreachable by man.
it has to be unreachable so it isn't a problem. A lot of the waste is already in the environment though. And how will we guarantee it never gets out? Most experts can only certify it will be safe for the next 50 years. That's nothing compared to the time it takes for the stuff to cool down.

>>134061841
>how far do you think technology will be by then? the waste could become a source of much use.
Yes, it could, but it could also be a burden our descendants don't know what to do, and eventually poison themselves with.

>>134062002
if breeder reactors need more research, the best way to research and test them is to build more.

>>134061329
There is plenty in the Conway granites of New England and in shales in Tennessee, but Cohen decided to concentrate on uranium extracted from seawater - presumably in order to keep the calculations simple and certain. Cohen (see the references in his article) considers it certain that uranium can be extracted from seawater at less than $1000 per pound and considers $200-400 per pound the best estimate.
------
we already know that we cannot extract uranium from seawater economically. We tried for 30yrs. The cost of mining uranium from rock is already at 10,000 dollars per pound and seawater extractions is still not economically.

Even China which focuses on fast breeders says it will rely on uranium mining rather than seawater retrieval.

File: chernobyldisaster.jpg (74KB, 500x582px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x582px

>>134060612
This is why, after Chernobyl Nuclear regulations in the US became so strict it basically became impossible to build a new Nuclear Power plant. Also Liberals have huge investment in green energy companies, they are betting on the industry becoming the new Standard Oil and cashing in big. that is why they push the dooms day global warming agenda so hard.

File: IMG_9464.jpg (457KB, 880x509px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 880x509px

>>134061114

The idea that nuclear waste is a problem is utter garbage.

This assumption rests on the false presumption that nuclear waste is:
1. Present in enourmous quantities.
2. So problematic in it's properties that no one can handle it.

Both arguments are simply false and only believed by people who know absolutely nothing about nuclear energy.

https://youtu.be/TI_3gARwn3Y

Pic related is the Onkalo repository which will open early next decade.

>>134061841
Plutonium is not a renewable energy form if you dont think of bombs as usable energy.

>>134061709
Exactly this. Solar panels can be good, but they're shit now. Trust me I know, I work in that field. Right now, nuclear fission is the cleanest energy source, besides the waste but that can be dumped underground. Thorium reactors are very promising, they produce more power and less waste. Eventual goal might be using nuclear fusion but we're a bit off from that. ITER is a promising fusion plant in france but it won't be operational for years and they only want to reach the break-even point.

>>134062174

if the environment changes and there's a sea over the tunnels, water will soak in, and the radiation will leak out

the same might even happen when there's a lot of rainfall.

50 g of radioactive waste in the water supply, is it a problem?

>>134061859
They're working on it, a minor issue compared to all the problems with traditional reactors.

>>134062011
The fact that weapons of mass destruction are millions of dollars and being a graduate nuclear engineer only pays 60k a year?

Please stop being retarded. Nuclear is awesome but it is dangerous, just not for the reasons idiots will tell you. Nuclear explosions can fuck an area as low as 100 years, its not a real problem, but nuclear explosions can give millions of people cancer which is a problem.

I'm not worried about creating a crater out of Moe or Gippsland, I'm worried about some bogan with a get rich quick scheme.

>>134062059
Yeah,its not like cancer is expected in 100% of the population in the short future.Its already happening.Last year out of 37 dead in my town 21 died of cancer.

>>134062059
>rare cancers in the region, but nobody really knows why
That already happens to the entire world ... nobody knows why ... maybe from breathing air that has had a shit ton of coal smoke dumped into it?

If you do a total lifecycle analysis on the human health risks nuclear is much better than coal.

Ironically almost all of the environmental groups now whinging about global warming have been funded by coal companies in the past to lobby against nuclear.

>>134060612
The viability and safety of Nuclear power is only going to increase. Automated systems that reduce the amount of human error at these plants is going to help. Modern Nuclear power plants have less accidents than other alternatives like coal, natural gas or oil plants.
>>134060724
>it always does
two major errors were very damaging yes, but understand that the we failures were both from old Nuclear plants. Chernobyl was due to the Soviet Union cutting corners and trying to run it as cheaply as possible and it was also old.

>>134061114
If Fusion ever happens, which it still may, the waste issue would be solved.
However, the current methods are, Reprocessing and geological disposal (In rocks that block the radiation),

Uranium mines and the refinement process for uranium has less radiation then standing in the middle of a city.


For the amount of power that Nuclear energy can provide I think the risk is worth it as long as the Plant is sufficient distance from towns and cities.

>>134062174
Its not like anyone has sound numbers of just how much waste there is.
That alone should make you question the scale of the problem.Bury it and hope our grandchildren will find a solution is a stupid thing to do in my opinion regardless the scale.

File: IMG_9465.jpg (580KB, 1916x1072px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 1916x1072px

>>134062336

Do you seriously believe they haven't thought about that?
Here is a video that answers most of the questions you might have and dispels what you just said.

https://youtu.be/A9vWhoT_45s

>>134062346
Its a minor problem in your head.Replacing the whole containment every 6 months is a nightmare,not a minor problem.

>>134062415
>maybe from breathing air that has had a shit ton of coal smoke dumped into it?
sure this also leads to cancer, but the areas there are so contaminated international observers were shocked to learn people still live there

but they don't own anything, they can't move to the city...

>If you do a total lifecycle analysis on the human health risks nuclear is much better than coal.

Yeah, because most nuclear waste is still concentrated. If it gets dispersed more (like coal ash), the numbers affected by it will climb up

Also, the risk for those people involved in nuclear waste burying is higher than a coal plant. There's less of them though.

>>134062366
you will have to elaborate more on how you know the materials are being sold overseas to terrorists. the annual pay grade of a nuclear engineer to a mass terrorist isn't a wholly convincing connection. i do agree with you, it is a dangerous source of energy and mustn't be treated lightly.

>>134062516
>Bury it and hope our grandchildren will find a solution
once it is buried it is solved. there is no other solution needed.

the waste meme is entirely manufactured by coal companies and phony environmentalists.

nuclear is settled science. stop being a denier you stupid fuck.

>>134062587
nigga just fire nuclear waste in to the sun

>>134062336
That's why you choose rocks with low permeability. And geologists have thought about the leakage of nuclear waste, hence why they select these specific rocks. As I also said, there are reprocessing options to use the waste for other nuclear research.

>>134062730
maybe SpaceX will find a way?

>>134062428
Fusion is a meme at this point,they try to imitate what the Sun does,but its very much not clear just what is the sun in the first place.
Fusion projects like ITER are the way to go for academics to spend their life on in a comfy job with unlimited funding,not a serious project.They cant even tell how its supposed to work in the end and they are at projects like these since the 70's at least.But economically viable fusion is only 25 years away,you know.

>>134062428
>Capitalism is not about cutting corners and trying to run it as cheaply as possible

>>134062666
>flag
>settled science
Oh,the democrat.Contributing nothing,shitting everywhere from the ivory tower.
Go on,entertain me with just how stupid you can get.

>>134062730
>put highly dangerous nuclear waste on rocket
>hope no rocket ever fails
>what is logic

>>134062774
>maybe SpaceX
Elon musk nuclear waste disposal company.

"If I can sell tesla stock. I can dispose of any nuclear waste"

>>134062646
It's literally happening in Russia.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3262821/FBI-foiled-four-attempts-gangs-sell-nuclear-material-ISIS-Authorities-working-agency-stop-criminals-Russian-connections-selling-terrorists.html

You all need to stop being retarded, the only issue with nuclear is proliferation and security. If you haven't realised this you are blue pilled about nuclear.

File: 34123423.png (194KB, 640x446px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 640x446px

>>134062781
>they try to imitate what the Sun does
I.E. building reactor with the size of the Sun? Judging from the trends.

>>134061052
>implying we wont have more advanced tech in 10k years
Thats a non-argument

>>134060724
fuck you.

you have cheap electricity because you abuse fossils AND you have shitload of nuclear.

besides, we didn't stop to play with fire when the first idiot burned himself.

you want progress? nuclear is progress.
you want free market? nuclear is free market
you want green? nuclear is the greenest
you want cheap? nuclear is cheap
you want power density? nuclear gives you the maximum we have available

Chernobyl was literally a warehouse, Fukushima was not built to standard

besides, we have designs that are much better

>>134062587
>The risk of burring nuclear waste is high
They use canisters that are resistant to oxidation and they use metals that mostly block the harmful radiation.
Not to mention the employees that deal with the waste wear suits to protect them (at least in 1st world countries).
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=eOHvBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=Nuclear+waste+drums+coating&source=bl&ots=b2i4loj-Ml&sig=nvQ-p7tuLLIovo2_xqWU2HU1tBc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM4_L435LVAhVIwbwKHeRPA3gQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=Nuclear%20waste%20drums%20coating&f=false

>>134060612
we need to save our nuclear fuel for the space race
nuclear power is the only way in space, we should not burn any of the fuel, as we have no idea how much of it we need at this time

humanity needs to think long term

>>134061785
No. No. No. No.

When dealing with dangerous shit solid is ALWAYS preferable to liquid

>>134062576
>Replacing the whole containment every 6 months is a nightmare,not a minor problem.
I'm saying for technology that was left in a file cabinet in oakridge for half a century it's a miracle that it's the only issue with the design. Do you think LWRs worked the first day and wasn't the result of billions of dollars of government funded infrastructure and research?

>>134062931
>muh Russia
Could burgers stop with their Russian virtue signaling already and admit that Drumpf was a mistake?

>>134062962
>They use canisters that are resistant to oxidation

some of those have corroded in just 20 years. sure, they were on the surface in the scent, but still, you can't expect them to hold the waste forever.

I would agree that working at a nuke plant is pretty cozy though, if you actually follow the procedures.

File: IMG_9466.png (21KB, 575x295px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 575x295px

>>134062516

>Its not like anyone has sound numbers of just how much waste there is.

We know very well how much waste there is. (Pic related)

80k tons sounds like a lot but because of the high density of nuclear materials it's volume is rather small.
All the high level nuclear waste ever produced by US commercial reactors would fit on football field and you'd only have to stack it a couple of meters high.
Which you would know had you watched the video i posted.

File: what the fuck am I reading 2.png (505KB, 498x454px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 498x454px

>>134063068
>solid coolant

>>134062962
>implying waste is stored in canisters
Burgers store 90% of their nuclear waste as fuel rods in near reactor ponds

>>134060612
We could always dump nuclear waste in the Marianas trench. It's more than 30,000 feet deep of water so even if the contaminates leaked into the water the sheer pressure at those depths would keep it on the bottom. Practically nothing lives down there either so you wouldn't be hurting the environment.

>>134063075
I think this was the main reason besides the need for more nukes to abandon that path of developement.So i dont think its a miracle.
Also,you need to be economically viable,proof of concept is not enough.
Just look at ITER,they are so full of shit that they have a proof of concept that will never be economically viable even if it works because right now they need to take the reactor apart every 5(or1?) minutes of running because the concealment gets eaten away there too.
You know,the americans had a working fusion power plant?They made a cave 200m deep with a small entry hole on the top,filled it with water,placed a steam generator on top and proceeded to drop nukes in there,nuke making heat,heat making steam,steam powering the generator at top.
But is that economically viable?See.

>>134063122
>proceeds to post pic from US
Yeah,the whole world consists only of the united states.With the government that would never ever lie about something like this.

File: IMG_9467.jpg (50KB, 850x421px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 850x421px

>>134063119

You are mixing up spent fuel storage casks with deposition canisters (pic related).
You seem to be rather ignorant on the matter.

>>134062922
Underrated

Here is a TV report on the nuclear problems in France (in french):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJokzr8nryk

There are a dozen waste disposal sites in france, but not all of them are properly sealed.

>>134062810
Cheaply as in resources. Communism has evenly distribute a finite amount of resources. Trying to build a Nuclear power plant would consume many of the resources that would also be used for housing (concrete, steel, etc).
Private enterprises are usually solely for building Nuclear power plants and can acquire resources from any international party. They also have strict regulations when building a plant.

>>134063342
>But is that economically viable?See.
It may be at ultra large scale. Soviets had such projects.
>when you thought Chernobyl was bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4exLSVvA6CE

>>134063448
I am referring to the canisters that were used back then, the canisters they put waste in and then dumped them into the ocean and into salt mines.

>>134063119
Look at the reference I sent you. It explains the process they went through to come up with coatings and metals to use. It's not a hard one to understand.

>>134063532
Its not economically viable.The cave structure will fail after a couple nukes,if not after the first.

>>134063542
Exactly. That's why I said modern Nuclear power plants are safe, not ones from 1960.

>>134061785

The Molten Salt Reactors have a solution for the chromium ion migration problem, Basically it involves switching the Salt to Sodium Chloride, or else using advanced materials to manage the corrosion rate. It is most pronounced in the first year I have read. Also the Tellurium fission product penetration is also a problem.
You could fix all this by following the Moltex Energy approach. http://www.moltexenergy.com/

>>134060612
We had nucular powa in Italy back in the '70s. It was good, we used to dump all the nucular wastes in Somalia. Good biz, mafia was doing a good job, in fact other countries started to illegally dump the shit in Somalia.
Than they got caught and we had to stop.

And this is the reason why nucular powa is crap: where to put wastes?
Ameritards dump them near Natives reservoirs, but we don't have such stupidity in EU...

>>134061270
Thorium

>>134063101
I have nothing against Russia, but they're highly decentralized (actually a good thing) and have lots of nuclear, the likelihood Moscow knows where every grain of nuclear material is in Russia is unlikely.

In fact, I would be shocked and disbelieving if Americans haven't been caught selling nuclear material too. They would never tell you because it'd scare too many people. This is real problem, everyone knows nuclear can be dangerous but keep diverting the real problems

>muh waste (not a problem, it usually turns out to be useful)
>muh accidents (not a problem anymore)
>muh cost (not a problem considering the efficiency)
>muh nuclear competition (not a fucking problem without mercantile style markets!)

But nuclear weapons should scare the fuck right out of you and bring the reverence in this conversation right to your face.

>>134062059
>it has to be unreachable so it isn't a problem. A lot of the waste is already in the environment though.
almost none of the waste is in the environment compared to coal and oil you fag
hanford and shit like that is the cause of our plutonium weapons program

as for fukushima
less dangerous to the ocean and you than rising acidity from co2 and excess contaminates washing into the ocean

almost all polutants of reactors can be safely stored unlike coal fuel

>>134063164
Basically there are coolants that remain in a solid state at room temperature. When heated though they would be more liquid than solid.

File: IMG_9468.jpg (64KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 700x394px

>>134063542

You mean barrels for low level waste?
Then you have been talking about an entirely different subject.
No high level waste has ever been stored in these barrels nor has it ever been dumped at sea.

>>134062170
>This is why, after Chernobyl Nuclear regulations in the US became so strict it basically became impossible to build a new Nuclear Power plant
That's not true. The problem was that the corporations building the reactors underbid to get the construction contracts, then complained that they couldn't be profitable unless they reduced quality, cut corners and got waivers from sensible regulation. They were literally trying to cause the next Chernobyl for profits.

>>134062781
>Fusion is a meme
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022072889800063
If you don't know what that is or you don't know what it means. Look up Deuterium.

>>134063226
All I'm saying is if waste management and storage is done properly there is little risk.

>>134063101
That's an Aussie you dumb slav.

>>134063882
I should have specified for you that fusion reactors are a meme.I know that proof of concept of fusion exists.

>>134063950
That risk equation is the problem tho, and even worse is it's been proven less trustworthy than politicians, so now the risk is even worse than you'd normally think of as an engineer.

Once they start lying to you about it, what the fuck?

File: IMG_9469.jpg (58KB, 500x318px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x318px

>>134063712

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Also Italy is the 2nd biggest importer of electricity in the world and most of that comes from nuclear France.
And still you have some of the highest prices of electricity for business and industrial customers in the world, which is why most industry has basically left Italy.
But it's all the EU's and Germany's fault right?

>>134063342
>I think this was the main reason besides the need for more nukes to abandon that path of developement
Are you forgetting the need for nukes was the primary reason the entire project was started in the first place? Einstein himself sent a letter to FDR telling him to research nuclear weapons.

>Also,you need to be economically viable
LFTRs take up a fraction of the size of traditional reactors.
They don't need to be near a body of water.
They don't need numerous redundant expensive safety systems.
But according to you since it's not working perfectly right now we should just throw all these potential advantages away and keep building our giant ticking time bomb boilers worth their weight in gold.

>Comparing a working reactor design to dropping nukes in a hole
Fuck off retard. It's luddites like you who hold back progress.

>>134063950
>>>134063226
>All I'm saying is if waste management and storage is done properly there is little risk.

In a capitalistic system, nothing is done properly. Rather everything is done to accumulate capital.

>>134060612
Well because we live in Australia. We have no education and job availability for people looking into nuclear science. So Next Gen reactors, heck cold war reactors or out of the question for us aussies.

>>134060724
This. Nuclear is great, but it guarantees a future of communism for 'safety reasons'.

We can't have communism, and thus we can't have nuclear.

File: Chernobyl_nuclear_plant5.jpg (196KB, 1280x691px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x691px

>>134060724
>fucks everything around it for thousands of years

File: fukushima-radioactivity-2011-2016.png (214KB, 725x383px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 725x383px

>>134060724

>Because when something goes wrong (and it always does) nuclear power fucks everything around it for thousands of years.

You do know that the isotopes which are the most radioactive also have short half-lifes, right?

>BUT THE NUCLEAR WASTE
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Why not just shoot the waste into space instead of building these underground facilities?

>>134064528
Too dangerous. Unlike nuke plants.

Australia,
>Of the world's proven estimated uranium reserves (5,404,000 tonnes), 31% are held in Australia
>Australia's known uranium resources are the world's largest – almost one-third of the world total.
>Buys shitty modified diesel submarine from france
>Sell uranium to china and india
>Whole country powered by coal

>>134064528
What would happen if a rocket with radioactive waste were to explode. Rockets blow up all the time you know.

>>134064528
It cost to much money and resources

>>134064142
No,not really.I think the primary directive was research and the need for more nuke material rised later.
You can have all the advantages when you have one disadvantage that makes the actual operation uneconomical,like taking the reactor offline every 6 months for god knows how long to change the containment.Its not about being perfect its about it has mortal flaws right now.
The dropping nukes in a hole is real mate.
I dont hold anything back.I tell you why is it not economical to build one.Do you think India switched from lftrs because its viable?They were the biggest "i'll show you boy how its done" and look what will they build now.
Pointing out flaws in your logic is not "according to me throw all thes advantages away".
Its this simple.

>>134060612
This design is prone to meltdown. The round pellet design is safer.

>>134064101
yeah okay. I would agree they don't exist yet. But people are still experimenting with Fusion to see if it's possible to turn it into an Energy source.

>>134064113
I think it's an acceptable risk. Nuclear power in Australia would be very worth-while considering we have massive Uranium deposits and a swath of useless salt lakes with rock underneath that is completely impermeable.

>>134064161
>everything is done to accumulate capital
As I said, there are very strict regulations for companies involved with anything nuclear.
And I agree with government intervention in creating laws and ensuring that the companies building these plants follow the regulations. But I don't think a company wants a massive law suit from its workers or the neighboring town for failing to provide antiquate protection and handling.

File: 1500153174669.png (330KB, 668x724px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 668x724px

Because there is a war on reason, and a quick google search on France's nuclear power and the authors of articles dooming it to failure will show you (((who))) is behind it.

>>134064528

>Why not just shoot the waste into space instead of building these underground facilities?

Because deep geologic repositories are safe, cheap and reliable.
Your proposed method is mindlessly expensive, terrifingly unsafe and rather unreliable in comparison.

>>134064631
>>134064673
>>134064582
well i'm not educated in this but i'm sure that we can eventually find a safe way to just jettison it to space, this would be the ideal scenario no? even ecologists would be happy because it's underground contaminating muh water

building massive underground bunkers and maintaining them costs money too

>>134064858
>we have massive Uranium deposits
Yeah you see that's why your politicians won't touch it. It's a valuable resource.

Once you take the bogpill and understand that politicians are all jewish satanic pedophiles, then you'll begin to understand why they do what they do. The foolish scientist goyim are their herd of nigger cattle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9c0-ZC-4-E

>>134065020
it's not underground*

>>134063867
>they couldn't be profitable unless they reduced quality, cut corners and got waivers from sensible regulation
total bullshit. for every planned reactor they spent hundreds of millions on safety studies and getting sued by fake environmental groups funded by coal companies and armies of liberal NIMBY idiots and eventually the industry just gave up.

>>134064877
>the move towards greener power sources
nuclear power is one of the greenest power sources there are. eventually europe is going to be experiencing severe disturbances in their power infrastructure due to this phasing out nonsense. the renewable energy sources they're talking about (solar, wind) are entirely inefficient to meet with power consumption demands.

File: streit_um_kkw_messdaten_von_leibstadt_geht_ans_bundesgericht@1x.jpg (512KB, 1023x576px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 1023x576px

>>134064877

That is a meme "phase-out".
The new energy law that was approved only contains one short paragraph about nuclear and it says:
"The licencing of new nuclear power plants is forbidden."
It has no shut-down dates that are written into law for our existing nuclear power plants so our last nuclear power plant would only be shut down in 2044.
Until then the paragraph can be removed by parliament with a simple majority.

>>134065020
The biggest concern is launch failure. But it is way way more expensive to launch nuclear into space. Also note that each rocket can only carry a certain amount of Nuclear waste, so you would have to launch multiple rockets to launch a year worth of waste, which is going to cost billions and billions of dollar.

>>134065046
They do touch it. Companies mine huge amount of it and it gets exported to other countries. And then Australia gets shit coal, because Australia has very little high-grade coal. Most of it requires fracking which is expensive and a waste of time.

>>134065163
>removed by parliament with a simple majority
eventually you people have to realize that forced deindustrialization is a bad idea right?

>>134060612
Nothing wrong with it, as long as it is in your back yard and not mine. Bonus points if you and your family are first on scene if anything goes wrong with it (not that it will coz like they are totally safer than sitting on a couch and long term effects of radiation are so overstated etcetc)

nuclear energy = god tier technology

everything else = inferior

if you are afraid of being a god, you aren't one, end of discussion

File: fusion.gif (26KB, 586x390px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 586x390px

>>134060612
Because fusion is better

>>134065211
>exported to other countries
Correct. That's like with Hillary and selling US uranium rights to the Russians.

It's not for you. It's for (((them))).

>>134065246

We will.
This bullshit was only possible because of Fukushima, but people will forget.
After Chernobyl the Greens succeded with a popular initiative that introduced a 10-year moratorium on nuclear. And just 15 years later the government was already thinking about replacing our nuclear plants with new ones and all their anti-nuke initiatives failed.
I suspect the same thing will happen with Fukushima.

>>134065422
Well that is also nuclear power

>>134065163
That thing is a cute CUTE!

The little building at the side with the slant roof looks just like the "industry" building from the original Sim City on an old mac.

File: images (10).jpg (31KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 512x288px

In Anno, i never even build nuclear reactors they polute too much, i always build solar farms, why would i build them in real life?

>>134064497
we already covered this. Nuclear waste is not yet in the environment.

>>134065624
I'm going to play this game again.

>>134064123
>>>134063712 (You)
>You have no idea what you're talking about.
>Also Italy is the 2nd biggest importer of electricity in the world and most of that comes from nuclear France.
>And still you have some of the highest prices of electricity for business and industrial customers in the world, which is why most industry has basically left Italy.
>But it's all the EU's and Germany's fault right?


No, I have a perfect idea what my country is: empoverished by the EU/Krauts and full of highly corrupted politicians (and managers).
You should thank the Italian ppl everyday that we voted against nucular powa, you ungrateful sfizzerlader.

Anyway, check "Ilaria Alpi case" for more infos on "Italian style" nuclear waste disposal.

File: 8.png (419KB, 584x601px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 584x601px

>>134062415
that may be the case for environmental groups but it certainly isn't for the people who actually know a bit about the climate and study it for a living. Some of the most important climatologists in the world have argued for the use of nuclear energy. Among them are

- James Hansen (NASA GISS), one of the leading contributors to the entire field of climatology
- Tom Wigley, possibly the most notable Australian climatologist
- Kerry Emmanuel (MIT), who is the foremost specialist on tropical cyclones
- Ken Calderia (Carnegie Institute), highly regarded expert on ocean acidification and the carbon cycle

>>134065422
Ye but fusion we will have in 2025 or 2030

>>134060612
Normies are idiots but thw real problem facing nuclear energy is the investment community and their ROI.

The reason gas and coal plants are still being built is they have a 5 year ROI where as nuclear is 25+ ROI and the boomers wont invest into them.

There are a bunch of different reactor designs on the table just waiting for investment dollar, good luck getting any.

>>134061602
>would you rather spend billions to reduce carbon emissions to barely non-existent or spend a few measly millions to further poison the planet?
well that's what I said. Spend the billions.

File: Decay in radioactivity of high-level waste.gif (26KB, 435x472px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 435x472px

>>134065734

>we already covered this. Nuclear waste is not yet in the environment.

And what makes you so damn sure that it ever will?

>>134061114
Fusion dontbhave waste boi so fusion is good

File: ezgif-1-d4e017bb0b.gif (2MB, 315x210px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 315x210px

>>134064481
>implying Cs-137/Sn-90/Pu-239 aren't dangerous as fuck

>>134064703
>I think the primary directive was research and the need for more nuke material rised later.
Horse shit. You seriously think not having a major US city turned into a glowing crater wasn't the priority of the project?

>You can have all the advantages when you have one disadvantage that makes the actual operation uneconomical,like taking the reactor offline every 6 months for god knows how long to change the containment
Nobody is suggesting that you tard.

>Its not about being perfect its about it has mortal flaws right now.
You are dismissing the entire technology because of it.

>I dont hold anything back.I tell you why is it not economical to build one. Do you think India switched from lftrs because its viable?
>INDIA
Japan, France, and China are still working on the molten salt design but no clearly the pooinloos know better.

>Pointing out flaws in your logic is not "according to me throw all thes advantages away".
At no point did I say the corrosion was not an issue.

>>134065805
>know a bit about the climate and study it for a living. Some of the most important climatologists in the world
If only I was born a Jew I could have this kind of opportunity and importance in life

>>134065422
fusion also doesn't exist in a sustainable form right now

>>134065777

>empoverished by the EU/Krauts
>"Our incompetence is the fault of others!"

Such an Italian thing to say.

>>134061329
Source for bottom reply about it utilising 1×100 of energy released during fission?

>>134065914

entropy begets for things to be dispersed, so time works against the stuff staying highly concentrated :^)

>>134065910
oh correction I didnt say it in my post. But in any case it's what I meant. Of course you spend the money.

Problem is not every country has those and if you relax on the safety in nuclear plants things happen.

I trust the people here in the west but even here things aren't as safe as they should be

>>134066089
http://www.ne.anl.gov/pdfs/12_Pyroprocessing_bro_5_12_v14%5B6%5D.pdf

>>134061661
Kurwa radiation in crust doesnt penetrate it and doesnt affect us on top.Radioactive waste on earths surface can affect rivers and be d34dly 2 humans.Look at the elephants foot 4 example

>>134065020
>this would be the ideal scenario no?
No.

Because the nuclear waste still has 99.97% of it's fuel value.
Reprocess the waste into more energy.

But lets pretend we don't want to reprocess it. Put it in salt domes, that are going nowhere for millions of years. Have no interaction with water and don't leak. Storage problem over.

File: 1500153288763.png (473KB, 960x852px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 960x852px

>>134065163
I'm really glad to hear that. Switzerland and France lead the world in nuclear and stand as bright examples of its efficiency in whi...I mean right hands.

>>134065140
It is, but degenerates would rather avoid facing reality and stick to their flawed view of the world, no matter how hard it opposes logic.

>>134061771
>workers selling material to terrorists
what the fuck do you think material in nuclear plant is you fucking dumb deathly accident creating blue collar worker

>>134061841 source for casualties caused by chernobyl pls

>>134061329
>current reactors use 1% of the energy uranium produces
0.03% for light water reactors, 0.05% for heavy water reactors.

>>134062952
Tokamaks are dead, stellarators are the future. We have the computing power to overcome their major disadvantage.

>>134066396
https://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00472331003798350?scroll=top&needAccess=true

>>134066106
>entropy begets for things to be dispersed
This is solid waste buried in rock deep underneath the earth. the idea that it is going to get up and start walking around is absurd.

Total fucking nonsense created by propagandists and believed by idiots.

File: aryantech.png (294KB, 1094x364px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1094x364px

>>134061902
a certain international clique is against it being controlled by man.

>>134066523
my mistake, the report did say "less than 1%".

File: 1484570466750.jpg (59KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 900x900px

>>134066377
Lots of shit, almost all of it can either be used to create a dirty bomb and even a full bomb, like plutonium which is a common in thorium reactors. Not sure if we're still talking breeder reactors, but there you have a smorgasbord of fertilizing materials and resultant materials and powering materials, any combination of these can literally be shot at each other like a gun and kill millions of people in a fiery death.

>>134065020
Two words:
Space elevator.

>>134060612
I am against nuclear energy in its current form for this very reason. Until we get one of these working uranium will dry up in a couple hundred years. We're wasting thousands of years worth of fuel by the day

>>134066626
The ground itself gets up and starts walking, to say nothing of the water in the ground that can and has turned fissile material into a natural reactor in the past.

I'm not for alarmism, but let's be realistic at least.

>>134066710
the security issue is blatant fearmongering. this scenario sounds like something straight out of the china syndrome. although it's a shame that the general public will actually take this perspective seriously. murder is a powerful narrative to have.

>>134062952
Bluat kurwa check out other fusion reactor projects.They are smaller than the fucking DEMO amd thw Iter tomakak.

>>134065422
>tokomack

Dropped

File: Fukushima-Melt.png (1MB, 1192x1015px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1192x1015px

>>134065990

There were almost no Sr-90 and Pu air releases at Fukushima because the reactors weren't on fire and they weren't totally exposed like at Chernobyl.
If you were to analyse a soil sample from Fukushima you'd find that nowadays almost 100% of the radiation that is still present from the fallout is from Cs-134 (half-life 2yrs) and Cs-137 (half-life 30yrs).
That is also why air dose rates are falling so quickly.

>>134066710
>almost all of it can either be used to create a dirty bomb and even a full bomb
the world is full of nuclear material and we are getting along just fine. nothing changes if we use some of that material for generating electricity.

>>134062978
Kurwa how are we supposed to make fusion or fission viable if not for testing them on earth.In 100-200 years when space race starts fusion would have become viable and they will have free enrgy.The nuclear materials on earth should be used to experiment.Think of it as oppurtunity cost

>>134066377
This is basically a self-solving problem as exposure will kill you.

>>134063164
There are solid electrolytes so solid coolants dont sound like a bad idea

>>134066784
>The ground itself gets up and starts walking
and what are the timelines that are needed to move something that is thousands of feet underground?

Longer than it takes for the material to decay.

Funny, it is almost like people have studied this before and designed solutions that take all of this into account.

>>134066710
terrorist can't make a full nuclear fission bomb by just acquiring plutonium and some ammonium nitrate, Its alot more complicated then sticking a nokia phone on a motar shell. But dirty bomb is a on the other hand yeah although the radiation emitted from the dirty bomb won't be that effective.

>>134066106

Again, watch this video.
https://youtu.be/A9vWhoT_45s

>>134067126
The ground is already on the move in our timeline mate.

I work in academia. Studies mean shit when it comes to realistic expectations or having to dig for more funding.

>>134067120
The idea of coolant is to have it heat up then move it to somewhere else to cool somehow, this doesn't work well with solids

>>134063342
There are other fusion projects which are more promising such as the one in germany whcih is not a tomakak rwactor

>>134066764
Yeah in its current form it is very outdated, cold war era tech

>>134067247
You're thinking of that Wendelstein 7-X. It's still experimental, but who knows.

>>134066088
>>>134065777 (You)
>>empoverished by the EU/Krauts
>>"Our incompetence is the fault of others!"
>Such an Italian thing to say.

Oh well, it's definitely not my fault! I can't take the blame for a corrupt motherfucker who I didn't vote for!

>>134066829
You think so until it happens and at this stage it absolutely will be the next nuclear disaster because our reactors are built safe these days.

Again, I love nuclear, I just wouldn't tell anyone I built a reactor and if it leaks I'll disinfo it about uranium.

>>134066944
Everything changes when some goes missing and turns up in a cloud over your city.

>>134067128
>the radiation emitted from the dirty bomb won't be that effective.
That's fairly optimistic, I think you know. Sure the success rate at preventing dirty bombs is actually quite impressive, but you're underestimating something.

Who are you kidding? We're teaching them right now, 50% of our university students are foreign.

>>134064101
Kurwa it will stop being a meme in 20 years

>>134066664
Fair enough.

The massive amount of energy in nuclear fission is just so out of line with any other process that even 0.03% fuel efficiency it's still the second cheapest form of electrical power.

>>134060612
>this type of nuclear reactor (breeder reactor) is capable of maintaining human energy needs for billions of years.
No it's not. The method of energy, sure. The components and motors, etc will all fail eventually. If they're not properly maintained (none of them are) they risk major malfunction.

>>134064858
>experimenting with the possibility
No.They categorically tell you this is how it works now gib monies and leave me alone for another 25 years when im old and retire.
>>134066015
>dismissing the entire technology
I dont dismiss the technology.I dismiss its economical viability.
>Japan France and China
Yes,they experiment with them.Only pooinloo told everyone with a loud mouth they will have them in no time.See where im going ?
>issue
Its a big issue making the whole concept stay a concept.If it gets solved im all for it,my only problem with nuclear energy is waste and these could reduce the ammount of waste mankind has already generated.

>>134060612
Maybe they remember the fact that our ocean is literally becoming radioactive thanks to fukushima.

>>134067497
>Australia
m8 our universities are illiterate in nuclear physics. We only have 1 uni campus in the entire country with a reactor and is focus on nuclear science, thats the Lucas Heights facility

What ever those foreign kids are learning in uni will probably end up making something that will blow up in their face.

Dirty bombs can't start a nuclear chain reaction, only fling radioactive particles away. Looking at average IED blast i reckon the radiation will be fairly contained.

>>134067247
Promosing for who?The scientists working on it for the rest of their lifes?Material science has limits that cant be solved by throwing money at it.
>>134067568
Yes.Its always 20 years away.Its was 20 years away in the 80's too.

>>134067659
The valves and pumps will fail eventually. However given the history industry has with pumps and valves they know very much when that will happen and what to do to get the most life out of a system.

That said the liquid metal reactor shown in OP's picture is a zero power safe design.

During tests of the EBR-II the operators shut off the primary and secondary cooling loop and cut all power to the machinery and controls while the test reactor was at 100% load.

It very nicely shut off into a safe state without any action taken by man or machine.

That's not even the best passively safe design we could build today, or 40 years ago.

File: radioactivity_oceans.jpg (129KB, 750x568px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 750x568px

>>134067770

>Maybe they remember the fact that our ocean is literally becoming radioactive thanks to fukushima.

Yeah, but only in the fantasy of Alex Jones-level conspiratards, not in the real world.

>>134060612
That's amazing.

>>134067176
what a comfy video. the narrator reminded me of the narrator from homeworld.
>>134067497
we could go through many "what if" events and use them as arguments against nuclear power but hypothetical situations don't have much conviction; the same goes for contriving hypothetical situations to be used as a strength for nuclear power but theorizing can only lead to so much. what matters is action. i agree that a dirty bomb is the only potential for the next nuclear disaster since nuclear power plants are built highly efficiently.
>>134067648
indeed. the potential for breeder reactors is astonishing.

File: pit_crane2_site_view_1a.jpg (149KB, 1024x652px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1024x652px

>>134067997

>Yes.Its always 20 years away.Its was 20 years away in the 80's too.

Yawn, it's also the same anti-science bullshit argument we've been hearing for decades.
Come up with something new.

>>134061595
Breeder reactors are about turning that glowing waste into more fuel.

Thorium for life

>>134060612

The watermelon fucks at the green party don't like it because they've been guzzling Exxon-Mobil propaganda like the dumb fucks they are.

>Muh Reeeeeeeeeeenewables
>What even is baseline demand
>Lol nigga just have the hospitals turn the lights off at night

>>134068237
Do i look like antiscience to you you utter imbecile medkit?Is it not the fucking TRUTH that its 20 years away since the 80's?

>>134062366
>Sure bob lemme just build one of dem enricher thingy in mah garage
Seriously Nuclear Terrorism is not a thing and won't be a thing. You'd need to enrich the uranium to get it to go boom in any meaningful way. Also you'd basically admit to being a bad guy in the eyes of anyone and everyone you are trying to convince you're the good guys.
Not to mention that would be a huge operation not just 5 guys with a chemistry kit and a garage.

On a similar note, kgs of uranium go missing every year from my country alone. Still no nuclear weapons have been deployed anywhere since we stopped our tests.

>>134068237
Fusion doesn't work.
Why delay fission reactors in the hope of fusion some time later?

If we had a massive tech breakthrough like artificial gravity then I'd say sure lets build a fusion reactor with that.
But we don't.
So rather than waiting on the fusion dream lets build fission breeder reactors today.

File: hqdefault.jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

>>134068408

>The watermelon fucks at the green party don't like it because they've been guzzling Exxon-Mobil propaganda like the dumb fucks they are.

You have no idea how right you are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpoPnrAc9qw

>>134062730
>That reply
>That flag
Ahmed can't even be bothered to do terrorism himself, he want's us to do it for him.

>>134067991
So we are told.

>>134068222
Nice twos.

Anyway, I really only have one point, the most dangerous thing about any nuclear power is people. It's no longer dangerous technology.

But yeah, I'd place a nice thorium reactor just north of Mildura in the sort of tristate no man's land with a few uranium reactors just because I'd have the stuff. After that it's a lever and whatever control I have over the carbon tax.

>>134068460
Did you know chemicals weapons were used in Syria and the middle east?

>>134068489
>Fusion doesn't work
In what sense?

>>134068460

THIS!

The physics package is insanely hard to build and even harder to ensure it operates correctly.

>>134068489
Because its the best,nearly unlimited money pool that can be tapped.

>>134068489
fusion reactors do work, they are just not sustainable and at the moment produce less energy than they consume. but this is how we work out new technology, through tests, evaluations, trials etc.
building breeder reactors asap would be extremely smart. it could help further research fusion as well as providing extremely clean and an abundant amount of energy for people.

>>134068599
>In what sense?
In the sense that it can't produce electrical power at a competitive price.

It is either below the break even cost to power it or it's only slightly better but only runs for a few fractions of a second either way.

It doesn't work in the way that any other machine with a task it fails to do doesn't work.

And no the sun doesn't count.

>>134060756
mexican stinky balls

>>134068489
In principle a fusion reactor does work, we only lack the energy to start a contained and sustained fusion reaction.

>>134066106
Huurr

File: environmentalism.gif (50KB, 520x388px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 520x388px

>>134068455

You are anti-science and anti-facts.
When i brought up the amount of spent nuclear fuel present in the United States you simply dismissed it as a lie.
You are willing to ignore anything that contadicts your world view just like the other anti-nuke green retards that have turned their beliefs into a religion with the undeniable dogmas that go with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gET_5inivQ

>>134065624
>Nuclear plant
>Pollution
Pick one
That game was bluepilled as fuck

File: CMO.jpg (156KB, 936x663px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 936x663px

>>134068651
>Because its the best,nearly unlimited money pool that can be tapped.
But not today. Not tomorrow. Not on any predictable time line.

It doesn't work. Just because it has great potential doesn't mean we should delay other working methods in favor or waiting on the perfect solution.

We have an energy need that's growing. We should build the best solution we can today. Pic related.

File: DDU5EVXV0AAm9dn.jpg (25KB, 651x315px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 651x315px

>mfw Nuclear power plant left untouched due to political dickwaving while having an outbreak of blackouts and sky high electric bill hikes

>>134068711
>fusion reactors do work, they are just not sustainable and at the moment produce less energy than they consume.
I would classify that as not working. Given that fusion power is meant to supply power not consume it.

>>134068788
True, but does that mean we should not divert some of our efforts to find out of we can make it work? There is some new worl with boron/proton fusion which could be very promising.
But right now, there is a lot of money dumped on ITER and similar projects that probably won't create working machines.

>>134068873
>In principle a fusion reactor does work, we only lack the energy to start a contained and sustained fusion reaction.
No, we have that energy. It doesn't work because of heat loss from the containment that ends the fusion process. It doesn't produce enough energy to power it's operation let alone having enough to power civilization.

The theory of how it should work is valid. We however, can not build a machine that will actually produce those results and have no valid time line that we can expect to get a machine build that will work.

In short we have a need for energy now and a solution that works now. Better than literally every other energy source currently in use. But people want to wait for the 'perfect' source before building our new energy supplier.

>>134068460
Yeah, even after you enrich, you going to need to figure out how to start a chain reaction in your backyard with a bunch of screw drivers and hammers.

>>134067997
Dude times have changed.There are more experiments done on fusion.20 years sounds true compared to 1970 when peoplr had no idea that the internet would fucking boom.More over fusion is very promising. look at the advantages comparwd to disadvantages.Also scientists are humans made to be consumed for humanities progression.Scientist will work all their life and research

>>134067997
Material science has ilimits that can be solved through research.Mofe money spent means more research

>>134068579
>chemicals weapons
And ?
Please develop we are talking about nuclear power here

>>134061509
Subsidize it like all of the other ineffective wind and solar that barely have an energy payback after ten years.

>>134069223
if it's operational then it's working but it's still in the evaluation stage. you could perhaps say "not working as intended" but these tests will ultimately lead to a sustainable fusion reaction.

File: waste.jpg (127KB, 931x573px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 931x573px

>>134069121
I told you the world is not the united states and i dont believe anything the us governments say,you cant deny that they worked very hard over many decades to make nobody sane believe anything they tell.Why havent you referred to something else,like this and see everywhere are just estimate numbers.

>>134066616
4000 hundred deaths caused by radiation and 600000 people are radiated.Source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

>>134069352
>True, but does that mean we should not divert some of our efforts to find out of we can make it work?
Not at the expense of currently viable methods of energy generation.
Also we shouldn't use the potential to refuse currently viable methods in the belief that it would be a waste of money to build the less than optimal option when we will get the optimal one, any day now.

>>134069837
We can smash particles together in particle accelerators and they will undergo fusion.

I wouldn't call that an operational nuclear fusion power plant.

To say that we have operational fusion power plants is intentionally misleading.

>>134069160
Yeah,but the scientists dont have work when you build something you can do now.
>>134069562
There is a multitude of things that are very promising.Somehow only fusion gets throwed trillions at it.Fusion research reached the point where you dont get further because you dont have the materials needed to make it.Yet fusion research gets trillions throwed at,not material science.
Times have changed,yes.But not for the better.

>>134069861

The picture you just posted is about the waste from nuclear weapons production.
You are literally talking about another topic.
We're talking about waste from commercial nuclear reactors, not highly secretive weapons programmes.

>>134060612
You need to take the thorium reactor red-pill.

>>134069891
The WHO places the death toll at less than 70 people.

>>134069891
in my original post claiming chernobyl was responsible for 56 deaths, i did mention they were direct deaths and not deaths related to the aftermath. there is no doubt that people have a distorted view on how the explosion took place and how many people succumbed to the initial accident.
>it is estimated that there may eventually be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[1][2][3]
its a guessing game, they don't even know how many people would've been exposed and to what magnitude.

>>134069139
Ubisoft and/or german devs.

>>134070124
The WHO also put the world under martial law to test drive the systems during the H1N1 hoax.

You have to understand how these operations work. They depend on a huge pool of gullible retards who happen to be autistic enough to front for them.

>>134070105
Breeder reactors can use throium as a fuel my friend

>>134061841
aussie shit posting top tier.

>>134070100
>400k tonnes processed worldide
>in broad terms there would be the same quantity of remaining depleted uranium
>you are literally talking about another topic
Go on,medkit.

>>134060612
That type of reactor has never been demonstrated.

>>134070377
>You have to understand how these operations work.
You need to understand how reality works not your conspiracy theory nonsense delusions work.

>>134070480
Literally the EBR and EBR-II.

>>134070377
i think the WHO simply overestimated the h1n1 virus.

File: Iter_tokamak.png (399KB, 989x689px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 989x689px

>>134070095

>Fusion research reached the point where you dont get further because you dont have the materials needed to make it.
You are clueless. The idea that we have reached an endpoint in fusion research is laughable and the problem isn't material science, it's the size of the reactor that is required to produce more energy than you put in.

>Somehow only fusion gets throwed trillions at it.
As i said, the problem is size and the investments that are needed for a reactor big enough for a proof-of-concept and that no private entitiy would ever spend that much on an experiment. That is why we're building ITER for $20bn, not trillions.

>>134070644
Go back and take a look.

They were pawning the vaccine off on homeless people in Poland so nobody would notice it was a death sentence. Merkel had to make a show of getting it to restore public confidence. It was a total shitshow.

And how did it get on that train?

>>134070706
So they dont have any problems with the stuff that converts electricity from heat being melted away in minutes,great.Go on,medkit.

>>134062428
To be fair, there is only so much automation that can be done in any power generating facility. No matter what, DCS systems are regulated and controlled by operators. Sure, certain processes are run by PLC and logic, but you will never get rid of the human element. Valves, steam lines, transmitters, motors, fire protection systems, the turbine itself needs to be taken apart periodically and inspected/repaired, they all fail (more than you think).

t. plant ICE Technician

File: world_uranium_production_and_demand.png (30KB, 700x346px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 700x346px

>>134070427

World Uranium production is about 60k tonnes a year.
We have processed millions of tonnes of Uranium since the start of the nuclear age, those 400k tons must be estimates for Uranium used in weapons programmes.

>>134070095
How did you derive at the conclusion that modern day scientists dont have the materials to make fusion a reality.Also fusion has "trillions " invested in it because it has the ability to solve the issue of radioactive waste and produce lots of clean energy. There are other scientific ideas which also have "trillions invested in them.Look at how much is invested in research in immortality.

>>134070095
And times have changed in society for the worst.In terms of technology and knowledge about the universe we have advanced a lot compared to 30 years ago

>>134071411
>Also fusion has "trillions " invested in it because it has the ability to solve the issue of radioactive waste and produce lots of clean energy.
So do fission breeder reactors.
And they work.

So why are we funding fusion when we have a solution that does the same stated goals?

>>134071156
(((Ray Kurzweil))) says we can have recursive robots that build and fix and inspect the robots the build and fix and inspect the robots.

Don't argue with him Google hired him as a top-level exec and armies of nerds agree.

>>134070203
An estimate is still a value with a range applied to it.3500-4000-4500 cancer deatgs is what probably is implied here and also the west probably published that data,not the russians who ran the project so there might be way more than 56 deaths at thw initial leak

File: what5.jpg (67KB, 599x277px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 599x277px

>>134070899

The problem is not temperature, the most important problem is embrittlement caused by the fast neutrons coming from the plasma.
But this isn't an insurmountable problem nor is it a new one, we've been dealing with it in fission reactors for decades.

>>134060756
well the waste we deposit in the earth is already fucking the people up that live there(before the waste was deposited)

>>134071777
Any death that is attributed to Chernobyl after a long period of time is based on highly circumstantial evidence. Whether or not the Chernobyl accident is responsible for these fatalities brings us off track; we've already learned so much from that event and the aim should be to never let it happen again.

>>134061544
>flag

you're close to being worse than a leaf

>>134071517
Yeah,like believing in black holes and stuff.That makes me sad.Technology didnt really advanced in my opinion.Technology got polished is a more covering term.
>>134071411
See
>>134070899

>>134071910
I heard a different story about thermoelectric converters because it would be more efficient than steam.

>>134071614
That's a crackpot theory

File: 40s3.jpg (48KB, 463x600px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 463x600px

>>134060612
The answer's Thorium reactors, everyone knows it, and those that maintain power by controlling the flow of energy resources beat down the idea every day.

the problem with Thorium is that it's cheap as sin, massively plentiful, and every country in the world has it.
How's a Jew to cope?

>>134072791
But a scary number of drones are following the pied piper.

>>134072900
People love to believe in technology that would allow them to do no work and just have "life experiences".

>>134060612
>why are normies against nuclear power again?

It makes female voters feel unsafe

>>134072992
There was a brave lad who called in to John Stadtmiller's show the other week from the tech industry who eventually worked his way up to advocating for UBI.

Pretty cool that the youth are starting to hook up with oldskool folks. It gives me hope we might pull out of this somehow.

>>134072900
Eat shit.One billion flyes cant be wrong mate.

File: Anon with working knowledge of plants....jpg (2MB, 2576x1932px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2576x1932px

>>134060612
Because they are stupid.

>>134072636

>I heard a different story about thermoelectric converters because it would be more efficient than steam.

Like a thermocouple? That's a pretty stupid idea. And you don't need maximum efficiency in that situation. You just need a good enough solution.

>>134067759

>I dont dismiss the technology.I dismiss its economical viability.

And for what reason exactly suggest there is no possible way to prevent or to drastically delay the corrosion?

If such a method was discovered would you then kneel down and admit that it would be the future of energy production?

>>134073484
Why would you spend trillions of moneys and not have the most efficient stuff?If you settle for steam then why the research we can just grow energyweed and burn it.
>>134073602
No,i would not.I would be happy that we produce less waste.In my opinion the future of energy production is tapping into birkeland currents or vacuum energy.

>>134060612
Why aren't a shit-ton of these fuckers places on artificial islands in the middle of the ocean?

>>134074477
Placed on*

Why go Fast Breeder, when you can just take the CANDU design and run with it?

>>134062170
shit like this is why the US might lose its status as number one.

>>134060612
>why are normies against nuclear power
because muh chernobyl and fear of nuclear holocaust instilled in their minds by (((hollywood)))

>>134075376
I grew up next to one of the most advanced nuke plants in the world.

But then they SHUT IT DOWN and instead all the old broken leaking shit is still going. Yeah, good one. The problem is that nobody has tried True Nuclear (tm) yet.

>>134074157
>No,i would not.I would be happy that we produce less waste.In my opinion the future of energy production is tapping into birkeland currents or vacuum energy.

So we'll go from "not economically viable" solution to even less economically solution. Sounds good.

>>134075578
Russia could turn half of Siberia into a big peat bog reactor and stave off solar cooling for the next 50 years, saving the white race as God Putin intended.

>>134062428
>failures were both from old Nuclear plants
implying other facilities wont get old...
>>134061195
it could run for thousands of years without any accident, but when something inevitably does go wrong in a power generating facility, it's WAY worse for it to have been nuclear power than for it to have been coal or natural gas.

>>134072245
just shoot the waste into space or something idk

>>134061595
>waste glowing for thousands of years comes out in 100% of cases.
Which you then bury into rock and forget about it for next 10.000 years.

Coal plants produce more radioactive contamination to environment during operation than nuclear - you can contain radioactive slag produced in sealed reactor, no such luck with radon farted out from inherently open furnace.

>>134062908
What are parachutes?

The problem with shooting them into the sun is that nuclear waste is dense, and thus heavy. And it needs to be kept in vault like contraptions.

>>134074654
>Why go Fast Breeder, when you can just take the CANDU design and run with it?
0.05% fuel efficiency for heavy water vs 98% with fast breeder.

Also the CANDU can't reprocess old fuel stores.

>>134060612
It's expensive and skill intensive to build and maintain. Chernobyl and Fukushima showed human retardation is the greatest risk in any high tech endeavor.

File: donuts.jpg (981KB, 5616x2092px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 5616x2092px

>>134067247
It looks more interesting, but not really more promising. Just another billion dollars for a highly sensitive experiment always on the verge of catastrophic failure. Granted, I'm not against the principle of exploratory projects, just realistically it doesn't change the fact that heating exotic gases to 150 million K inside a giant MRI machine doesn't get more economically viable by using a fancier donut.

>>134080123
Skill intensive means high paying, highly skilled permanent jobs.