Redpill me on nuclear energy? why are so many people against

File: Corporate flowchart.jpg (207KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1080x1080px

>>138311985


It something gets fucked, it will be a fucking nightmare to de-fuckitze it, look at chernobyl and look at fuckedupshima, they foobar nao senpai.

Radioactive Shit shouldn't be allowed, but hey! theres moneyz to be made there, so fuck everyone and fuck all your surroundings.

>>138311985
Nuclear waste basically remains radioactive for thousands of years as I recall, so all you can do with it safely is bury it under a mountain. Otherwise yeah people are scared of anything nuclear and shit I suppose. Chernobyl I guess is an example of shitty management of it or something. Fukushima is... not really an example of anything since a fucking 9.0 earthquake and tsunami hit the fucking plant. I guess don't build reactors in earthquake zones?

>>138312643
>>138312853
>Nuclear
Well Sun is powered by nuclear reaction and a lot of people every year die from UV rays and ozone layer doesn't stop all of the Suns radiation.

>>138311985
whole commercial power industry and peaceful atom was a trick to make an ample supply to make bombs. plants are stupidly expensive to build an maintain and economic benefits are only possible when waste is ignored and plant safety is ratcheted out

put the industry on a shelf for enough time so the old mentality and players will go away.

File: 56d.jpg (46KB, 1674x854px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1674x854px

>>138311985
Fucking tech hating ludites.

>>138311985
Expanding nuclear power would cut into the oil and gas industry's profits, which would be as bad as 100000 9/11's.

related to this thread:
https://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel

>>138313667
But you know, fuck NASA amiright?

>>138313046
do you require somebody to explain to you the difference between ambient radiation from a stellar body and radioactive decay in transuranic elements in the earth crust you fucking child

It cost a $billion to build a plant, and the waste it produces needs taken across state lines to be disposed of.

an oil spill is safer than radioactive waste

>>138313741
Define "Do"?

File: 3a7.jpg (127KB, 504x470px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 504x470px

>>138313046
>you share a board with brainlet contrarians like this

File: 1502820551103.png (723KB, 1006x672px) Image search: [Google]

723KB, 1006x672px

Pacific Power bribed out mayor into getting the hydroelectric dam shut down so they could monopolize the region's electricity. They're also responsible for the Roseburg Blast after parking fertilizer trucks in dangerous areas when the city had warned them multiple times not to do so, a bunch of people were killed or injured and they paid off the courts to get out of it.

Most energy companies also are heavily embedded into the military. Now I have to ask you, do these people seem like they have your best interests in mind? They don't give a fuck. They don't want you to have easy energy, they want your money.
Nuclear energy would fuck up their cash cow, so of course they'll suppress it by any means they can.

Remember that when the civil war comes.

File: 1502812007618.png (231KB, 734x1110px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 734x1110px

It's incredibly efficient but people are afraid of another 3-mile island, another Tchernobyl, and another Fukushima Dai-ichi.
It's a lot cleaner than coal, but the radioactive waste and the possibility of building nuclear weapons with it chases a lot of people away.
The public opinion is overwhelmingly negative, but people who know better support nuclear energy, even though it has risks.
The technology in recent years has improved a lot, and there's even Thorium reactors being built - you can't really use Thorium to build nukes.

>>138311985
Nuclear is the most energy density efficient power source created by man. It produces no carbon, gives off steam as a byproduct and its waste can be reprocessed into more fuel. The entirety of US Nuclear Power Plant waste production for the last 40 years could fit on a single foot ball field 8 meters high.

It is the longest lasting, most green, most powerful and most reliable energy source there is.

>>138311985
The SECOND redpill is that the public opinion of nuclear weapons stems from years of agitation from, you guessed it, fucking commies in academic circles in the West influenced by the US Communist party to oppose "The Atom" because as has been mentioned nuclear proliferation is bad and the world would be so much more better if no one had nuclear weapons.

This continued as the decades went on and became a center-point of the New Age faux-conservation movement.

>>138311985
Soviets funded "environmentalist" groups in the 70s to turn the American populace against nuclear. We never recovered. All the objections to nuclear power have been effectively solved since then, but the industry is frozen by regulations and NIMBYs and we can't get it off the ground again. It's sad. More people die every year from coal than have been killed in the entire history of US nuclear power. All because of an old disinformatsiya campaign.

American nuclear reactors have great safety records. We wouldn't put nuclear reactors at the heart of our carrier battle groups and submarine fleets if they weren't proven technologies. We invented this industry and for a while we were the best at it.

>>138314796

This. We are intentionally phasing out the cheapest, cleanest, most secure way to generate energy because of stupid fearmongering and envirotards. Fucking radium and mercury in flying coal ash kills more each year than nuclear power in history.

Cleanest, safest and most efficient form of disposable energy.
If possible, wind, solar and water are the best, but where not, nuclear dominates.
If you were to ask me, I'd shut every lignit mine in favour of nuclear power plant.

>>138316644

>If possible, wind, solar

Those are worthless, overpriced ecotoys, only scraping along because of massive government subsidization ie: taxpayer money

>>138317515
I think ~35% of our energy comes from hydro because we have water potential.
If you don't have natural potential, then don't do it, but if you do it's better in the long run.

>>138318283

Did you see hydro in what I quoted?

>>138318441
Oh shit sorry man, didn't see.
Wind can also be useful in certain countries but yeah, in 80% cases it's shit.

>>138318283
hydro is alright and useful for storage.

Solar and wind are dogshit with extremely volatile output that make them completely fucking useless and they always will be.

File: 1499995315743.jpg (62KB, 702x1000px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 702x1000px

>>138311985
But da nooooks. Muh Fallout gun be reel! Patrolin du Mohave gun make me wish fer NOOKLER WINTR.

>>138311985
Because the safety and operational costs often take away from how much energy it can produce

>>138311985
Three Mile Island
Chernobyl
Fukushima

All said to be so safe that an accident would only occur in a million years. Yet all failed spectacularly within our lifetime. In the last two cases, the damage has been in the trillions.