Why are liberals so scared of nuclear power?

File: uhf.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>8357149
because they're basing their politics off feels instead of science and nuclear energy was introduced to the world in bomb form instead of power plant form.

>>8357149
Because the average person, regardless of whether he is liberal or conservative, is largely lacking in basic scientific education.

fukushima?

>>8357149
Because they think it go BOOM.

Three mile island?

Aren't liberals the greatest advocates for it though?

Ah, you don't know what the word means.
>>>/pol/

>>8357623
No not really. There isn't a real advocate for it though but it seems more conservatives propose it as an alternative form.

>>8357149
That is not the reason nuclear has not taken off.

The primary problem is the lack of investor support.

Renewables have much quicker payoff period, better returns, less capital costs, easier land aquisition, lower insurance costs, and dont need highly skilled workers. An illegal mexican can setup and manage a solar installation for $5/hr, but a nuclear plant needs expensive specialists.

>>8357149
Because renewables are better, I am not even liberal I'm conservative

>>8357687

How?
Nucleur energy has a higher output per capita than any other source (even fossil fuels)

liberalism is a wholly top down ideology
they believe what they are told to believe
think what they are told to think

So when they are told to hate nuclear, they will hate nuclear, no thought or reason needed. If the media tomorrow decided to promote nuclear, they would all fall in line.

>>8357662
>The primary problem is the lack of investor support.
BULLSHIT the primary problem is that the NRC was formed in the 70's to prevent all new nuclear power plants. And it succeeded.

Nuclear is cheaper and better in every way.

File: nuscale-power-plant-design-overview.jpg (222KB, 1387x826px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1387x826px

>>8357149
if liberals are so against nuclear power then why is the only company in the US of A seriously working small modular reactors based in Oregon?

CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!

They got programmed to think it was bad

From the left, its mostly mistrust of big government/corporations and profound lack of knowledge about the actual dangers and risks of nuclear power. And confusion about the dangers of radioactive waste.

From the right, its large coal and gas lobbies that try to torpedo it by the ridiculous honeypot that is "renewables".

Renewables just won't ever replace Nuclear as a clean energy source. The chief problems being meeting the demands of changing daily and yearly demand (trivial in Nuclear, very large in renewables), and energy storage.

>>8357149
Because the cooling towers, like in your image, just 'look' industrial and bad.

>>8357805

>left
>mistrust of big government

Maybe in 1776, anon. You need to catch up on something called modern liberalism. It's kind of a big deal.

Nuclear is dumb, if it has any use its not for common house hold power, it can do it, its stupid to use it to do it.

>>8357775
And also more explosive

>>8357808

All the Gen 2 reactors in the United States are mostly part of an aging fleet that used U-235 deliberately to generate raw P-239 for nuclear weapons. It very much isn't the only way to build a reactor and its unfortunate that its basically the "standard" because it lets nation states like Iran obfuscate their intentions when they say they want "nuclear energy". Every government in the world has a natural, reflexive response to any potential crisis involving a nuclear power plant. And a large part of that is short sighted secrecy as happened as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

This isn't just "distrust of big government". This is a particular distrust of what appears to be (with good reason) some insidious relationship between big government and big power utilities. And it easily piggybacks off of the hatred generated from Wall Street in the great Recession and the complicity or incompetence of the government to respond to it.

>>8357149
They assume that the plant is going to blow up

File: 1473949864666.jpg (58KB, 494x849px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 494x849px

>>8357149
France gets 78% of its energy from nuclear plants; your argument is invalid. Make a new thread and replace "liberals" with "people" if you wish to be taken seriously.
>until then

>>8357149
They're a bit risky for big investors to put their money in. There are better alternatives that can take off using less investment with comparable returns.

No one cares much about what people thinks, they're all for getting that sweet investment in their countries and would sell it as a job opportunity to the people.

Also opposition is usually the vocal minority, most people don't care how the electricity they use is generated. It's just that one of the stupid discussions that is never going to conclude ever and will serve as a defining point for a group of people. Because you need to polarize your constituency to make sure they always vote for you no matter what.

>>8357158
this, sadly

>>8357149
Because there are near as many stupid liberals as there are stupid conservatives statistically. It also doesn't help that the average American vacillates between deriding science and mysticizing it.

Why do you guys want nuclear so bad anyways?
Because it sounds cool

>>8358104
Nuclear is literally the only thing we know right now can buy us time to get to something like Fusion without choking the world in oil, coal, and gas emissions.

Solar and Wind simply can't cut it alone. Geothermal would require even more investment than Fusion to get on a large enough scale to work unless you are particularly well gifted with geography/geology such as Iceland.

>>8357775
>Nuclear is cheaper and better in every way.

except for the stack of PhD's and competent engineers you need to run one.

>>8357775
This. The liberal class is a tool of the elite to get the populace at large to move in a given direction, often in a way that's against their own interests.

It's disgusting.

1hour of sun more energy than the entire planet uses in a single year... sounds to me like we should be throwing all the money for nuclear into solar

>>8358158
Now explain how you will extract that energy considering most of it doesn't even hit our planet.

>>8357149
Why do you keep making nuke shilling threads?

>>8358160
I believe thats 1hour of sun hitting the planet not 1 hour of sun floating randomly through space

>>8358165

Solar is a better choice than nuclear hands down for modern day application nuclear may have applications wear solar isn't feasbile, maybe under water cities or deep space colonies with little sunlight

>>8358158

It takes like 8-10 soccer fields full of solar panels to get close to the power output of a single nuclear reactor and that is when its operating at peak. The number is even larger when you realize that you need to overproduce during the day to store for the peak residential usage at night. Which is extremely lossy right now.

There is also the issue that you need to (of course) be in a region with nearly year round sunlight, and most of the cost "benefits" of solar are because of subsidies on both the sale of the panels and the power they produce.

No one in the energy industry realistically thinks that solar and wind will ever be anything except ways to ease power loading during summer months. Its why coal and gas companies spend so much into the research of it, because they know it isn't going to do a damn thing to threaten coal, oil, or gas.

>>8357149
Because even if nuclear power is incredibly safe on paper, in the real world corner-cutting, bribery and ignored maintenance can considerably harm reactor safety.

"Liberals" (by the US definition) generally fear the public health and interests are being harmed by large corporations, particularly due the a lack of government regulation or industry corruption of government regulation. The nuclear power industry makes a great example of those fears, and accidents like Fukushima Daiichi show the potential consequences of failing to address them.

>>8357149
Because it's sucking on the government tit.
no way it would be profitable if they would have to deal with the waste problem.
The only reason they exist is to create raw material for bomb production.

>>8358177
Its only lousy right now cus oil and gas got their foot on the gubments neck and you know it

>>8358186
>no way it would be profitable if they would have to deal with the waste problem.

You can literally dig holes and be done with it. Oklo was a "natural" reactor that ran for billions of years and all of its decay products moved centimeters since that time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

>>8358194

Any more than Solar and Wind and their MASSIVE subsidies right now?

It's not economical, and it isn't sustainable. It's realistically something geared towards reducing residential and office space power loads but it doesn't fill the meat of what you need.

Only hydro and Geo come close. Both require specific geographic features to take advantage of. The latter requires the added fortune of geologic features.

>>8357763
Nuclear, when done right, is not all that much cheaper than coal or renewables. The majority of the cost goes into maintenance and security. If we cared less about the safety of the reactors, which we actually probably could, it would be far cheaper than anything else. Unfortunately, the history of disasters that has plagued nuclear energy has drowned out most of the rational discussion. Public opinion, not necessarily liberal, is too stubborn.

Renewables like solar are an easy solution in my opinion. Solar manufacturing only causes environmental concerns for China, which they can do something about if they ever give a fuck. Moving from a decentralized power grid where the majority of the power in a given area comes from just a few sources is just not as good as a distributed one, where (whether it's individual homes or entire communities) generate their own power. The technology to do this right now exists and it could yield thousands if not millions of jobs.

>>8358204

You know that money is not the issue with these things right. If the Us was to start a fairly robust program to convert to solar right now, I would bet as panels were being produced you would start to see a fairly drastic increase in efficiency as the years went by.

>>8358196
wew lad

Thanks, saved this brainfart gem.
Couldn't have invented a better anti-nuke
slogan myself.

ok wait a minute can someone on the nuclear band wagon address fukushima isn't that a deterrent that things been spilling into the pacific for 5 years now. Its seems when you screw up with nuclear its a big deal

>>8358204
Population density in cities is what causes solar to have prohibitive space requirements. I think we will always need things like nuclear/coal/gas for cities. However the average 4-person home in the suburbs in a moderately sunny area could power their house year round by covering 1/4 to 1/2 of their roof with a ~$2500 investment in panels, junction boxes, and batteries (provided they have a significant section of their roof that is slanted southwards).

>>8358212

Literally every major study has concluded that "just bury it" works. This is a "natural" reactor. Its not a scientific issue anymore, or an engineering one. It's purely political and 100 percent based on complete ignorable from the public and politicians about the actual dangers of radioactivity.

It's literally one of the many "war on science" fronts.

>>8358211
It hasn't happened anywhere. Solar hasn't replaced the need for oil, gas or coal in anyplace that it has been heavily subsidized. It is an extremely inelastic supply and there are significant periods of time when you are NOT at anywhere near peak supply but have very large night time demand.

It gets dismissed as "just build a battery lol" but that is trying to dump at least half of daily demand into batteries, which are already extremely lossy.

Solar is placed on buildings to reduce their power consumption and reduce costs, provided heavy subsidies exist. It does not replace any of the big power sources- coal, gas, hydro, oil, or nuclear - that can respond to the ebb and flow of power needs.

Some regions are extremely fortunate and lucky like Iceland with Geothermal or large parts of China with Hydro.

It's an egregious waste of time to keep giving more and more sugar to an "industry" that can never come close to what is needed. And undercutting building of nuclear power plants, for example, just serves to keep oil, gas, and coal plants on for longer. Which is the entire reason the "solar" industry is literally subsidized in large part BY oil, gas, and coal energy companies.

>>8358215
Fukushima is bad, but really only locally. There are conflicting reports on the pollution it has caused across the ocean, so I could be wrong.

Fukushima, however, was not fully up to code. Corruption and bribery had resulted in some of the plant's failsafes to not be fully operational in time of disaster. Had the reactor been up to code, the damage would have been vastly minimized.

>>8358215

Entire books could be (and probably will be written) on the massive disproportionate fear of what Fukushima might have done.

I already know that there are studies that have basically concluded that more people will have died from the stress associated with being a "refugee" than will have died from radiation (so far, 0 radiation related deaths reported).

There are industrial accidents all the time that kill many workers all the time. Nuclear has accidents on the order of decades and its notable simply because its SO RARE and because the fear about such disasters are so completely disproportionate to the danger. Like Aircraft accidents, which get far more publicity compared to the relative death traps that are passenger vehicles.

The government response, especially in Fukushima, was by far the most disastrous thing about the entire accident. Reflecting total agency capture in a country already RUN by big business. It wasn't an engineering problem, it was a management one. Fukushima Daini, the sister plant, was CLOSER to the epicenter and experienced a LARGER tsunami wave.

It was actually where relief efforts were coordinated for the earthquake in the region and later to Daichi. Nuclear Power plants are designed to far greater tolerances than almost anything on the planet. In a large scale disaster, you are probably safest THERE.

>>8358238
>plant's failsafes
>needing active failsafes everywhere
>working with high pressure systems
Found your problem :^)

>>8357149
History

>>8358215
I could point out a hundred accidents with hydro or coal that are worse. A few people will get thyroid cancer that wouldn't have other wise and statistically they'll probably all survive it.

>>8358215

Insurance policies for coal plants specifically write in expected number of coal worker deaths.

Also the Shimantan/Banqiao Dam Failure killed as many people as Nagasaki and Hiroshima but you probably have never heard of it.

>>83582

0 radiation deaths not true at all, ok how often does any news media report on the extent of the damage of massive ecological contamination issue. If the government can't fix a problem they don't talk about it the damage from fukushima is more likely being downplayed than blown out of proportion. Oh yea and chernobyl.

A bad thing happened once and now they're scared forever

>>8358230
Thanks again, you truly are the gift that keeps on giving.

>>8358261
>massive ecological contamination issue

Where? The funny thing about "nuclear contamination" is that the dangerous things have to a) be produced in large quantities and b) have short half lives.

The only two that are even detectable without special instruments are Cs-137 and I-131. The former we have plenty of even now from open air nuclear weapons testing and the latter is really the worrysome one.

But several things. First, Iodine can be blocked by taking iodine tablets (something not done at Chernobyl because of delays and government secrecy) and it literally decays entirely away with weeks.

The problem Fukushima is having is actually the reverse. The government has put such unbelievably heavy handed activity limits on products from the region that many businesses go out of business (like Bq per Kg). Because its even less than background, because surprise, there is literally no such thing as a radiation free zone.

Radon gas will give you more exposure over your lifetime than anything from a nuclear disaster.

maybe Japanese people just like radiation now

>>8358268

You haven't even made an argument. You are entirely part of the problem. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are just defaulting to "common knowledge" which happens to be dead wrong on this issue.

And that has disastrous consequences. The Yucca mountain waste site never happened because of political pressure (not scientific) so instead of safely burying the waste it now has to sit on the site at each of these facilities in giant concrete caskets. Which has very serious proliferation and safety risks associated with it.

So instead of dealing with a non problem now we have a bunch of little problems all over the country now.

>>8357149
Because scientists aren't politicians. Never have been.

>>8358278
What if future humans colonize below the earth's surface, idiot.

>>8358278
bellissima, keep it coming

>its a solar or wind would be "finally completely viable" if they just got more subsidies episode

Hey, its that episode that has been playing since the 1980s!

>>8358170
>He thinks this is an intelligent contribution

>>8358305
So basically we can bury radioactive materials and not care where they spell because nuclear is tits

Possible melt downs
Radiation leaks
Radioactive waste has to be buried in underground man made caves

File: 1453432155643.png (28KB, 186x208px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 186x208px

>>8357149
>liberals so scared of nuclear power
I feel like there is some difference in what "liberal" means in US and Europe.
In here, no liberal would go against nuclear power, only pseudo-ecologistfrom green parties and socialists go against them. Liberals say people are free, so even if private company wants to build nuclear power to sell power, it can just do it. And I often see people posting that liberals are connected to LGBT and stuff, but in here it's socialists who bother with this shit, while liberals thinks everyone should be equal from point of law and that's all, no social campaigns, no positive discrimination and other bullshit.
Can someone explain this difference to me?

>>8358343
>and socialists go against them.
Why would a socialist who wasn't a pseudo-ecologist be against it?

>>8358343
American "liberal" means "leftist". Seriously did you just discover the Internet, everybody knows that.

>>8358343
American liberals are socially liberal, think "leftist" whenever you here an American say "liberal".

>>8358349
*hear

>>8358345
Because socialists always pander to lower class, and lower class is afraid of nuclear power because muh Chernobyl. They use pseudo ecologist arguments if any.

>>8358347
I just didn't gave a fuck about America. For me US's politics ends at Clinton vs Trump.

>>8358349
Well, it's kinda weird because when I think "socially liberal" I think about someone who is pro free speech and believes that state shouldn't intervene in what people think, say and feel in social situations.
But I guess it makes sense now.

Because nobody likes cancer.

>>8358378
We should ban radio because it sucks to step on a lego piece barefoot

>>8357810
>2016
>I'll take step down transformers for $500

>>8358382
Nice strawman

>>8358446
You get a C- in self-awareness

>B.. b.. because they dunno nofing bout muh science!
They may don't know how nuclear power works bur they know very well Chernobyl and Fukushima and it could happen again. I'll say more, it'll happen again. It's just a matter of time.

>>8358457

Sure because its literally so rare that it is newsworthy. And the effect of either of those was marginal at best other than psychological.

Can't say the same here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

>>8358343
Liberals in Europe it's more used when we talk about econonics, in the US it's more about progressive (gay people rights etc)

>>8358457
A meteor may hit the earth tomorrow so why don't you kill yourself and save yourself the pain? It has happened before and will inevitably happen again so get to it.

>>8358457

This is basically an argument about never building another rocket ship ever again. Or airplane...

>>8358029
What happened in that pic ? wtf plack people-

>>8358460
I like Socialism... Economic Socialism, not the extreme socialism. But liberalism is controlled by Jews... There's no way to have a 100% liberal country.

I like Ecologism and all parties that protect the Nature and Earth life, but we can get a good Centralized party with no fucking extreme Racism. Good for Economy and for some social rights... Not all like Anarchy (that's imature and stupid).
Sorry my bad english :/

>>8358460
So how do you call people who want free market and equality but without abusing non-aggression principle?

Have we found a good place to keep nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years yet?

I know China was going to make something in their mountains or something.

Other than that they just ship nuclear waste around and around constantly because nobody wants it, right?

>>8358512
conservative politics usually are the ones who are related with liberal economics and lefties are the ones who want the economy to be more controled by goverments, less private sector and more public stuff.

>>8358462
yeah but there's a little difference, one of those two things doesn't exist (and its risks) if we don't build it. Guess which one.

>>8358469
yeah it's pretty much the same... pfff. Same risks for humanity...

>>8358512
Anarcho-communists.

>>8358291

Not the guy, but I think you're just trolling or pretending to be stupid.

>>8358564
Anarcho-communism has nothing in common with free market.

>>8357149
because they think it will cause another Chernobyl.
The irony being that it's just liberal policies that caused Chernobyl, and the only way we'll ever have another Chernobyl is if enough liberals get into power at once: they'll start to defund nuclear programs and try as hard as they can to slay backups and safety measures because they can't just get rid of it all at once, and then when the liberal policies cause a nuclear disaster, they'll just use that as more justification for dude windmills lmao.
If you think about it, all of a liberal's fears tend to be things that only happen when they collectively gain enough power.
Really makes you think, doesn't it?

>>8358601
>liberal policies that caused Chernobyl
That statement makes as much sense as:
[math]1=\lim_{x\to0}1=\lim_{x\to0}(x\times\frac{1}{x})=(\lim_{x\to0}x)(\lim_{x\to0}\frac{1}{x})=0\times(\lim_{x\to0}\frac{1}{x})=0[/math]

File: rev.png (99KB, 224x239px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 224x239px

>>8358572
The essential reality of capitalism is, somewhat paradoxically, a series of assaults on the free market. There are clear material incentives for an individual capitalist - and the firms executing his capital - to subvert competition and interfere in product, resource, labor and capital markets, and the modern crises of capitalism may be broadly understood as the sum of these effects.
The drug cartel is archetypal - the full nature and scope of its activities (use of force) cannot possibly be explained by the mere defense of private property against the "official" states. The same phenomenon is at work in the first world, only more efficiently diffused through the matrix of the bourgeois state. Most libertarians will correctly observe that to varying degrees, under the label "cronyism." Limiting government power is certainly not an unsound reccommendation, but coloring it as a solution in its own right is severely utopian and neglects entirely the factors which give rise to states in the first place.

He/you also said "without abusing the NAP" which kind of excludes "propertarian" ideas from the get go

>>8357149
>LIBRULS
sage

this isn't math or science, return to >>>/pol/

>>8358484
>ruled by jews
But aren't they superior?
Why don't you let the superior race rule the USA?

>>8358650
Still Anarcho-communism uses common ownership of the means of production and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" which are opposite of free market.
>drug cartel
Drug cartel exists only because of support from goverment.
>cronyism
In free market, companies that choose employees basing on connections instead of merit underperform and lose.

How propertarian go against NAP? Being free to have property and not allowing state to violate property rights goes well with each other in my opinion.

>>8357775
Captial costs of nuclear power plants are enormous, so is the level of technical expertise needed. You need excellent infrastructure just to consider building it. Nuclear power per kilowatt hour is also just slightly cheaper than coal or oil. Nuclear plant construction and fuel procurement are hamstrung by regulations for safety reasons. And he half life of plutonium is 24 thousand years.

>>8358554
Airplane's pose a far greater risk to humanity as evidenced by the much greater death toll, ban airplanes now or it'll be our doom.

>>8358657
Go be buttmad elsewhere dumb smelly libtard >>>/mlp/

File: firefox_2016-09-20_08-42-32.png (48KB, 631x338px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 631x338px

>>8357149
https://twitter.com/drjillstein/status/715230945679380481

Because they cannot distinguish Nuclear power from Nuclear weapons

>>8358170
>Solar is a better choice than nuclear hands down
Sure as soon as batteries aren't toxic cesspools all over the fucking place.

Good luck hippie shitter.

>>8358752
Proof why "but smart people support cause X candidate Y etc" is so retarded.

>>8358752
that's because it's a very small difference

nuclear facilities can easily be utilized for nuclear proliferation

>>8358761
That's not what it's implying.

>>8358764
it's a dumbing dumb of an actual concern

>>8358477
>What happened in that pic?
niggers niggin´

>>8358768
I mean you can use cyclotrons to make HEU but national security is going to notice if your enrichment process is going over 50%, let alone 5%.

>>8358768
It's intentionally misrepresenting that concern. She's a britbong isn't she so it's not like shutting them down will prevent a state from acquiring nuclear weapons.

>be physics undergrad doing nuclear engineering grad school
>meet German chick at uni last night, she was playing Pokémon Go in one of the stairwells
>introduce myself she says she's a grad student in business
>tell her I'm doing nuclear engineering
>felt like I might as well have said I was a Hitler Studies major
>she says I'm a bad person and am going to make a bomb
>I told her I was doing atoms for peace
>"I'd rather there be no atoms"
>then she left

I didn't even know how to respond to a comment so stupid.

>>8358777
>She's a britbong

Jill Stein is American, she's running for President and is polling like 3-4%.

>>8358266
>once
and then again and again and again.
Oh and then there is all the waste

>>8358785
>Jill Stein is American, she's running for President and is polling like 3-4%.
Ohh, i thought she was leader of the UK greens for some reason. Still, it's not like the US is one day in any conceivable future going to give up their nuclear weapons, dismantling 20% of the country's energy supply because they can be used to make more of the many thousands of bombs they already have seems questionable to me.

>>8358736
Ok im gonna take the bait just because im bored.

Airplane accidents havent the potential of making a half continent unable to life in for more than 10.000 years or even make the whole world a unhabitable place for human race.

>>8358816
Doesnt have*

Unable to live in*

>>8358816
Neither do nuclear power plants.

>>8358177
>8-10 soccer fields

that doesn't sound like much,
a LOT less than I imagined

>>8358816
>potential of making a half continent unable to life in for more than 10.000 years or even make the whole world a unhabitable place for human race
So, they can potentially create and detonate thousands of three-stage tsar bombs?

>>8358685
>superior looters

Superior in what? Maybe in Finances and Rulling the entire fucking world by misleading all people in their bussiness...

The humanity eyes are BLIND! Because this guys are joking, playing with our lives as a fucking God! And I'm Atheist but I respect all the religions until they doesn't respect humanity, like stealing gradually the crowd...

They are like a religion but not showing their faces, and creating ideologys that broke our world!

I like some of National Socialism ideas, not including with racism, murder and colonialism, but the politics itself...

(Sorry again my bad english)

>>8358734
No doubt the cost of a plant are high, but that cost is inflated by government anti-nuclear policies that make doing ANYTHING involving a nuclear plant a gigantic pain in the ass. These are policies that are just based in fear and ignorance from last century, but they are still a big hurdle in building and maintaining a modern reactor.

>>8358752
I'm not even a liberal but honestly it's a large stretch to say that Jill Stein, a candidate polling lower than a dead gorilla, speaks for all liberals.

The green party is full pants-on-head retarded.

>>8358775
I think part of the concern is the foreign policy aspect of it. If we have a ton of nuclear power plants, other countries that we now prohibit from having nuclear power will want them more. Sure we can monitor our own plants (not that we worry too much about a rogue utility company trying to make nukes) but if nuclear power is allowed to proliferate around the globe, we will not have the means nor the authority to monitor everybody's enrichment process.

I still think this is a dumb reason, but I kind of understand the concern.

>>8358700
>"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
I mean, this is a common notion but it's not definitive/essential to all flavors of leftist. Ancoms can be pretty leery of any sort of central planning. It's just a line from Marx's purely polemical, general audience essay and doesn't all that precisely characterize any sort of idea.
Anyway, the existence of an inherently coercive labor market that never entitles a worker to the full value of his labor because of collusion and barriers to entry certainly isn't a free market. Perhaps I should have said "mutualists," but they're really just a type of anarchist.

>Drug cartel exists only because of support from goverment.
1. This is definitely, emphatically untrue.
2. At best it would only beg the question. The nature and scope of government's use of force cannot be explained by the mere defense of private property. From whence government? It's the specific factors I identify.

>>cronyism
>In free market, companies that choose employees basing on connections instead of merit underperform and lose.
No lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism
Every libertarian knows this term

>How propertarian go against NAP?
Private property is aggression.
The NAP is internally consistent and perfectly logical if you assume property is an a priori phenomenon. This is untrue, every item of property will ultimately have been made property from non-property (or its raw materials will have) at some point. This entails, practically, denial of its use by force to others outside a contract/agreement

>>8357149
Because there is no good place to store the waste. Yucca Mountain is going nowhere fast.

The biggest issue is nuclear waste.

>>8358926
>>8358935
That's just because Australia, the best place to store this shit, are a bunch of dicks who don't even want to help the world by storing it safely in the wild where nothing will disturb the waste until like a million years.

The solution to that is simple. Gather all countries and threaten war, forcing them to allow waste to be stored there.

>>8357149
If you think only liberals oppose nuclear power then you're retarded.

From my own personal experience, most people who opposed nuclear energy were mostly conservatives. The very idea of using a clean source of energy triggers them. They'll go into full autism mode denying climate change and citing the inefficiency of non-fossil fuel sources.

>>8358943
>denying climate change and citing the inefficiency of non-fossil fuel sources
Nuclear too? I mean there are well-placed efficiency arguments about the renewables, but nuclear is efficient as fuck.

>>8358937
>australian wild-life plus mutation causing material
Sounds like a brilliant plan.

>>8358956
Shut up, hippie. That doesn't even happen, but you're too stupid to even know why.
>there's no such thing as shielding

Honestly, go fucking kys.

>>8358955
Actually, nuclear still gets less hate, but I can assure you, with complete certainty, that whatever love the conservatives give to nuclear energy isn't because it's an efficient and clean energy source, rather because it provides the materials to make nuclear bombs.

>>8358965
you are making one excellent point after the other. You really should be president or something

>>8358937
Thats not a simple solution. Thats completely implausible and would never happen

>>8358920
If Drugs were legal and relatively unregulated there would be no cartels

>>8358974
Thanks, I think so too.

>>8358978
As if the dumb hippies would try to fight back, lol. It's the best solution. The Australian Outback is the safest place to store nuclear waste on the entire planet.

If we're being a little more serious though maybe some sanctions would do the trick. Put some pressure on their hippie asses.

>>8358985
Im portugueses u retarded. You really nees to see a world without rules... You need to fucking see actually a country working with drugs and all shit legalization? To understand that fucking cartels, crime and traffic will continue but with even more freedom ti actuate?

Look at Portugal! Schizophrenia increased by 49%!! Thats fucking crazy! And people are not stopping with drugs addition neither! In other and, we have the most stressed teens in Europe. They need drugs! They are fucking addicted... This poisons our economy. More Medicines to pay, less health in this country...

>>8358995
>>8358985
Thats a really bad ideology that is not even proven!
This is the addicted ideology, just to legalize that cancer!

>>8358920
I thought you mean pharmacy monopolies and legal drugs.
Still, cartels exists because of government support. Not direct, but any prohibition creates them. If they legalized possession and selling all drugs, cartels will not survive competition from legal shops.

>Crony capitalism
It's serious problem with no perfect solution in any system. However it's only this toxic because it relies on socialistic systems like "legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism" which should be not present or very limited in capitalistic systems. Of course we can't remove all taxes, but limiting them and removing various forms of state interventionism will greatly reduce how serious this problem is.

>The NAP is internally consistent and perfectly logical if you assume property is an a priori phenomenon.
So I guess I was wrong about NAP. I was just using it as local right wing politicians use, which means that you have full right to all money/property you gained/have and state cannot take it away from you(taxes, etc.), not that you cannot create property from non-property.

You give anything the sheer number of subsidies that solar and wind have received and it will appear "viable".

Hell, you could promote methane plants that run on people's poo. And how green is that? Literally pooing for power!

>>8358819

You need at least twice that number in theory to get total daily power output. Factor in the enormous inefficiency in power storage and its easily an order of magnitude more than that.

>>8358816

And here is part of the problem. Holywoodification of nuclear anything. It is actually impossible to get anything remotely resembling a "mushroom" cloud from a nuclear power plant. Chernobyl was actually an overly large reactor and the region has become hospitable within years, not even decades (see the absolute resurgence of local flora and fauna to levels not even seen in the surrounding countryside because of human hesitation to go into the area).

The reactor itself might be "inhospitable" for a long time, but nothing about the surrounding area.

File: DoctorZhivago.png (224KB, 851x315px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 851x315px

>>8358184
No health problems have been detected from fukushima. Pic related is the average liberal view about public health.

This thread belongs on the /pol/ containment board. Please don't shit up this board with your stupid frog memes.

File: 1467752309572.png (21KB, 586x165px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 586x165px

>>8358985
Yeah, if opium were legal and relatively unregulated Britain would never have brought China to its knees in the name of crown-chartered trade companies...

>>8359004
>it relies on socialistic systems like "legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism
Not socialist institutions. Those have nothing to do with worker ownership of the means of production.
This state interventionism is a result of and for the benefit of powerful capital. What you incorrectly call "socialist" is a logical result of capitalist rule.
If you abolish the government tomorrow, large industry will naturally fill the vacuum with another monopoly on force that functions quite like our government, because the material incentive exists for it to do so.
>not that you cannot create property from non-property
It doesn't say that, but considering that fact thoroughly is what causes it to break down. Intuitively, if all the water on the earth was my property and you had to pay me $1/oz for any use lest you be labeled "aggressive" and set upon by gun-toting goons in "self-defense," you may feel something's amiss. This, rigorously, is what's amiss.

>>8357158
this

>>8358995
But production and selling is still illegal, isn't it?
That's the reason cartels still exists.
Also from statistics, usages rate didn't raised and drug-related pathologies decreased.

>>8359037
>What you incorrectly call "socialist" is a logical result of capitalist rule.
It's a result of capitalist rule and wealth redistribution happening at the same time. Capitalists always try to maximize their income so they naturally use permanently leaky systems.
>If you abolish the government tomorrow, large industry will naturally fill the vacuum with another monopoly on force that functions quite like our government, because the material incentive exists for it to do so.
I don't believe society without government is possible, just like in your example. But if we had working government, minimal taxes for basic functions like police, military, natural monopolies etc, and no grants or similar forms intervening in free market, we could reduce crony capitalism to minimum.

>>8357149
because the truth is horribly horrifying to them
just imagine
nuclear power is safe?
how are we supposed to pretend like we care about the world while getting the people to waste money?

>>8358343
Sounds like your liberals are kind of like our "libertarians"

File: fedora lighter.jpg (78KB, 640x533px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 640x533px

>>8357775
>liberalism is a wholly top down ideology
>they believe what they are told to believe
>think what they are told to think
>So when they are told to hate nuclear, they will hate nuclear, no thought or reason needed. If the media tomorrow decided to promote nuclear, they would all fall in line.

>>8359090
>if we had working government, minimal taxes for basic functions like police, military, natural monopolies etc, and no grants or similar forms intervening in free market, we could reduce crony capitalism to minimum.
That isn't a stable equilibrium.
There's pressure on the system to move away from "minimal government."
>permanently leaky systems
Yes, but more as a system of pressure valves to protect class rule itself - very similar to how you might pay health/auto insurance.
http://bunkermag.org/social-justice-social-democracy-reactionary-bonnie-clyde/

>>8358343
Most people just use the term wrong, or the language has evolved, depending on how you look at it. While sjws are anti-liberal in the classic sense of the word, they get called liberals nowadays.
It pretty much became a buzzword

>>8357629
>it seems more conservatives propose it
Because it exists and works and offers a known cost:benefit. By nature, conservatives prefer a "bird in the hand".

Conservatism is believing what experience has shown you.

However, many conservatives oppose nuclear power on the basis of experience with big government and human nature in general, since nuclear power must be executed competently and each failure can render large areas of land uninhabitable indefinitely.

>>8357149
>Why are liberals so scared of nuclear power?
The la la prancing homoman hates any kind of big industry as a knee-jerk reaction.

Show him solar panels sitting on a roof and he'll applaud, show him that they come out of a factory and he'll chain himself to the factory door and start chanting something that rhymes but doesn't make any sense.

We have to hide all of the factories in places they're not allowed to go, like China and Mexico, so they don't notice where their stuff comes from and shut it down.

>>8359019
Sure ask the people who had to leave their homes in fukushima or chernobyl that it's hollywood fault, that they can come back to their houses, since trees dont have cancer they wont either. Or better, why dont you go? Please dont be a cynical.

>>8357789
Have you ever been to rural Oregon?

>>8358823
They have the potential of contaminating everything.

>>8359106
Yup. I was curious so I checked wiki and the same politician is called libertarian in english entry and liberal in Polish one.
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Korwin-Mikke?oldformat=true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Korwin-Mikke?oldformat=true

>>8359112
>There's pressure on the system to move away from "minimal government."
Yeah, probably, sadly.
We can only guess if that pressure is caused by group of people who get used to protective government and cannot function properly in real free market because of many reasons. But as long as we won't have single properly functioning country with such a government, this is only theoretical.

>>8359118
I guess it have to create massive confusion when people see "liberals" in media and then read about actual liberals in history books.

>>8358818
Kay ask to chernobyl and fukushima's families. Also ask all the kids that were born with deformations or died cause of cancer (bigger rate of cancer than anywhere, what a coincidence)

Does nuclear power really matter since industrial civilisation will end within the current century? We're going back to wood-based technology, baby!

>>8359134
>We can only guess if that pressure is caused by group of people who get used to protective government and cannot function properly in real free market
It's not personal unease.
That would be a pressure on the large welfare state to stay in place, not for a small government to expand in scope. Try to stay with me here.
The pressure is exactly >>8358650
>There are clear material incentives for an individual capitalist - and the firms executing his capital - to subvert competition and interfere in product, resource, labor and capital markets, and the modern crises of capitalism may be broadly understood as the sum of these effects.

Very, very simply put, you can sometimes make more money when you shoot someone for dealing on your turf

File: 1468803882284.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>8358971
>that whatever love the conservatives give to nuclear energy isn't because it's an efficient and clean energy source, rather because it provides the materials to make nuclear bombs.

File: 1466111881360.png (180KB, 1738x972px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1738x972px

>>8358457
>>8358816
>>8359138
Where does the fearmongering for nuclear power come from?

>>8359426
>that mental gymnastics

File: 1463759816610.gif (3MB, 345x258px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 345x258px

>>8359426
>Where does the fearmongering for nuclear power come from?

>>8358835
Or maybe they're there to prevent cost cutting and another Fukushima

>wanting to be on the risky side with nuclear power

>>8359418
I think I made wrong use of the word "material", sorry about that my mother language is French. Anyway, you get the idea. Conservatives only like nuclear energy because of nukes, nothing else.

>>8357158
/thread

Also this isn't /pol/, opening a thread with "Why are lefites so scared of X" or "right wingers don't like Y" IS /pol/ tier and belongs on /pol/

To be honest this entire thread is hardly sci related anyways, it's most about economics and political reasons for and surrounding nuclear power.
For that reason

>>>/pol/
>>>/biz/

File: 1314191706771.jpg (36KB, 343x503px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 343x503px

>>8358154
Do you think oil riggs are run by average hardworking americans?

>>8357149
Gee, I wonder why people are afraid of radiation and nuclear waste.

>>8359742
Why are they not afraid of petrochemical dumps, gamma radiation of the sun or even a fucking xray exam then?

>>8359677
>Billions of dollars spent & a decade of time just applying for a fucking permit to BEGIN construction

this is not normal

>>8359744
Because those things have not been sensationalized.

Welcome to the power of the mass media. Really made me think, huh?

>>8359677
BPs oil spillage killed more and had far worse ecological consecuences than fukushima. This drilling projects aren't kept in political limbo for 10 years before beginning to consider a permit.

>>8359742
Fossil fuel burning has made the air unbreathable in cities like Beijing and retarded faggots like you are worrying instead of nuclear waste stored in some remote place.

>>8359711
He was laughing at the idea, your usage was correct

>>8359130
Will you tell the families of the ones who died in the banqiao dam incident why you support hydro over a safer option like nuclear?.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

>>8359131
That company is not located in rural Oregon.

>Everyone saying i'm /pol/ because I asked why a certain political party is against a scientific subject
kek. I am liberal and I was wondering why other liberals don't like it.

>>8360017
>>8357789
portland is contrarian as fuck m8.

>>8360059
>portland
>contrarian
I live there and most people seem to do nothing but toe the anti-GMO, anti-nuclear pseudoenvironmentalist party line
Not to mention, of course, the SJW one

>>8357149
As a loser studying electrical engineering majoring in power I lean toward supporting nuclear energy, but I can see why someone would be scared of nuclear energy.

It's an efficient method for power generation, so when it's good its great but when shit hits the fan it's insanely scary.

Plus, all the political bullshit around nuclear stunts it from reaching its potential. We need to figure out how to make PV panels more efficient.

>>8358029
This pic is like an irl representation of a "what would you do if" question.

>What would you do if some guy held a gun to your head and told you to suck his dick?

>>8360198
>but when shit hits the fan it's insanely scary
Ignoring the fact that shit hitting the fan is extremely unlikely, it's really not insanely scary anyway.

>>8357155
I assume you're right winged.
Do you believe in global warming?

The whole liberal establishment has its basis in marxism. Nuclear power generates plutonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons, which could be used to deter the Soviet Union. There is a whole rabbit hole of Soviet influence on the Vietnam anti-war movement. I also collected newspapers from as many as 14 different boutique communist parties at the anti Iraq/Afghanistan war rallies in San Francisco 2003-2005. They controlled the anti war protests. Check out protest warrior.com and info about ANSWER, International ANSWER.
The other marxist angle is that plentiful power helps the economy prosper, and revolutionary struggle is about creating a crisis that the followers can exploit. So get rid of anything that helps society and the economy thrive to work towards the revolution.
I don't think they are all communists. As Lenin said, there are party members, fellow travelers, and useful idiots.

Leaving the marxist rabbit hole behind, when nuclear goes bad there is no sound, taste, smell that tells you to run away. Emotionally, that is uncomfortable. I think liberals are more left brained/emotional. When you don't trust big business anyway, that cinches the argument.
The biggest challenge in nuclear power is not the technology or the waste, it is the organization and regulation to use it safely and economically.
We recognize ancient Egypt as a civizilation because they organized huge amounts of men, energy, and other resources to build huge monuments and other public works.
The devil is in the details of the rules everyone involved in nuclear power works under, their motives, self interests, training, etc.
Aviation is inherently dangerous, yet flying airlines in the western world is very safe. It hasn't always been that way. Aviation is now a system, responsibilities are layed out for everyone. There are liability limits and protections that help ensure that an accident can be investigated and the true causes found to make the next improvement in safety.
The problems of managing motives and consequences were involved in the BP Deep Water Horizon spill. No one had the integrity to throw away their career to call BS on the failed tests of the blowout preventer before it was installed. There were also warning signs during the drilling, as I recall.

>>8359737
My dad was a chief engineer on oil rigs for a decade and never went to college.

It isn't just "risk", that you worry about, or ignore. Thinking like that is why you do stupid things in your youth. That is how disasters happen.
As you get older, you become wiser, you learn from your mistakes. Rather than building the next thing, seeing it go bad, and doing something different the next time, there is a formal way of being wise in engineering and technology.
There is this stuff called risk priority analysis, or Failure Mode Effects Analysis (and other names also). You rate the probability of a failure happening on a scale of 1-10 (1 never, 10 almost certain), the probability the failure will be detected and dealt with (1, it will certainly be noticed, 10 it almost certainly will not be found), and rate the severity of the failure (1, no big deal, 10 large numbers of people killed).
For each possible failure you multiply the three numbers together. If a possible failure is 1, your good. If a possible failure comes up 1,000, you better change your design, procedures, inspections, operation, or whatever.

Most failures will rate between 1 and 1000. You design the system to get make the numbers for all the failures to be smaller.
Simple example for pilots: Possibility of failed control surface is very low, I will call it a 2. Detectability of the failure, not good, I will call it an 8. Severity of the result, I take off and crash because the control surface isn't working, that is a 9 or 10. I multiply 2 x 8 x 10 and get 160.
Every pilot is taught to check their control surfaces during preflight, and check for full travel and operation before takeoff. This makes the detectability of the failure much better, say 3. The result is the danger for control surface failure becomes 2 x 3 x 10, or 60. That is better than 160.

>>8360426
Yeah, energy as it stands is ran and operated 24/7 by phenomenally normal people. From the production floor at least. Exploratory contracts naturally have geologists, and very unfortunately the office level and up is plagued with 'business' majors.

>>8358785
Just tell her you're working on NMR or some other application of nuclear physics that the unenlightened will think is peaceful.

File: 1461984700589.gif (3MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x500px

So renewables are pretty problematic in and of themselves. One there is the very obvious fluctuation in production capacity depending on ambient conditions. Secondarily there is a limited ability to store energy for peak demand. In combination tidal generators, wind, and solar would keep some less substantial populations sated, but where are all these variables practicable in the real world? Third, economically they could drastically cut well paying jobs worldwide. There are whole towns whose economies depend depend on mined resources. We're not talking exclusively miners, but equipment manufacturers, mechanics, geological engineers, bus lines, blasters, and countless contractors that serve various purposes as well as rail crews. Renewable maintenance is virtually non-existent, and construction is relatively simple. Fourth, there will, necessarily, be a supplemental requirement of nuclear fueled plants; this is a mining operation itself as the fuel must be taken from the ground. While risk is largely controllable there is potential for uranium and radon contamination outside of the minesite, and as such it could pose a risk to public health in the immediate area.

http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/uranium-factsheet4.pdf

Anybody have viable solutions?

I recently realized that this fear could be explained in a very rational way.

Most people refer to the expected value of a phenomenon to take a decision. If the expected value is superior to zero then it's good decision. The expected value is the first momentum of a distribution. Nuclear power obviously has a very high EV.

Then, educated people tend to also look to the second momentum of the distribution, the standard deviation. The greater the stddev, the more you have to invest to secure your returns, up to the point you don't have enough money for the amount of risk you require (cf. Hoeffding bounds). Accordingly to what I just said, nuclear has a high risk but it is well mitigated through a lot of additional investment.

Finally, anti-nuclear people seem to be more sensitive to the third momentum of the distribution, the skewness, which tells you if your distribution is asymmetric. In this regard, nuclear power has a very asymmetric distribution of for economic gains. Very high probability of positive output, and very very small probably of very very negative output. I'm not quite sure yet what is the criteria to take a decision that takes skewness into account, though.

I'm not saying liberals are smarter than educated people, because they probably don't even know about skewness.

>>8360006
When did I say I support?

Still that kind of accident dont contaminate nature.

>>8360006
Would you compare the effects of a tsunami with the effects of radiation?

>>8357149
because liberalism / feminism / social marxism was started in the middle of cold war as an ideological diversion against nato by ussr. and russia is still it's main source of income. and also lately china.
and nuclear power is a serious threat to oil / natural gas which russia exports in totally serious amounts.
and don't even think of writing that i'm from fucking /pol/, i am not and all i care about is truth, just look up Yuri Bezmenov on youtube, he's Soviet defector and KGB operative, he'll tell you al about it.

>>8360824
>there are still people who blindly believe any self aggrandizing lies of defectors
wew lad
this kind of people exists in every single conflict

>>8357149
The sad truth is that most people have no scientific education at all. They don't understand how even the small percentage of failure in nuclear reactors is far better than relying fossil fuels (both for the environment and politically). It's the same reason people hate GMOs and deny man made climate change. Irrationality. Telling them their personal views doesn't agree with measurable reality just makes them protest even louder (thank you cognitive dissonance).

My honest opinion is that the above explains the Fermi Paradox. Once advanced species get to the point where they can radically effect their environment, they "poison the well" which is a poetic way of saying they cause ecological collapse on a global scale. This resets the species to preindustrial levels which they never recover from because they used all the easily accessible resources to industrialize. From there, they eventually go extinct from environmental causes they no longer have the power to avoid (asteroids, continental scale volcanic eruptions, etc).

>>8360840
>the small percentage of failure in nuclear reactors is far better than relying fossil fuels
When you get behind the wheel to drive to the grocery store, you take on a non-negligible risk of property damage and serious injury. But it's so heavily outweighed by the competing harm of not buying groceries, or having them all shipped to you at cost.
The illiterates are so fucking obsessed with the comfy delusion of a wholly risk-free life which can never exist.
>the above explains the Fermi Paradox
A fascinating idea. I'd assume the tendency of particular intelligent species to act in this manner is more probabilistic. Perhaps it's necessarily so heavily selected for, independent of context, as to be statistical certainty, but I can't productively speculate one way or the other.

>>8357149
Because nuclear power is by far the most dangerous form of energy.

>>8360443
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

>>8360884
OP was a /pol/fag. We have a attained a higher level of faggotry here pal.

muh libruls

>>8360412
>there were warning signs

There were many, but no one paid it any mind because "it's not my job".

I think a nuclear plant would require a "personal responsibility" policy to keep everyone on their toes, hopefully avoiding the type of oversight that led to the BP blowout.

>>8360888
Liberals hate GMOs and nuclear energy. Conservatives hate climate change and evolution. Both sides are stupid in their own unique ways. The best we can do as /sci/entists is try to be as objective as possible why ignoring the /pol/fags.

>>8359106
No the liberal parties in Europe are basically like the American Democratic party

>>8359677
>fukushima
>outdated design that was long overdue for upgrade, but never happened because of politics (same type of policies that exist in the US, policies unreasonably costly to keep up with, so they don't)
>major earthquake causes once in a lifetime tidal wave, impacts reactor
>reactor meltdown, state of emergency, lost track of the core for a while.
>0 deaths, ecology of the area, while negatively impacted (likely from the flooding), is making a good recovery

The wave did more damage than the nuclear plant, by far. None of this is taking into account the sister plant which was up to code, closer to the epicenter of the quake, and remained perfectly fine.

>inb4 chernobyl

That place is practically a wildlife reserve in modern day. Plants grow uninhibited, and animals are abundant. Chernobyl's reactor site (the building) is still dangerously radioactive, as well, but that is only in the actual room where the nuclear material got ejected everywhere. A lot of the facility is safe for temporary living (weeks I believe), though levels in the area are still considered too high for permanent residence again.

No accident has even come close to Chernobyl, and look at it today. If you are expecting a Fallout style landscape, you will be sorely dissapointed.


Also, in regards to the policies, you might be wondering "well if they didn't follow policy what's to stop it from being worse next time?!"

The answer to this is that the excessive regulations in ANYTHING nuclear results in this, as the policies are unrealistic so they are treated as such.

>>8357155
>what is nuclear waste

>>8360893
Yea this. The thing is that whenever you try to argue some personal view through science, it may be contradicted by the results. But people are pretty good at selecting what they feel is better and end with their own butchered ideals. For instance, when talking about gender, you can not deny the present sexual dimorphism that exists between males and females and this doesn't contradict the fact that you may protest how things are expected from males and females in any society. But the evolutionary pressures are active and lets us form strong societal bonds that were vital for the formation of our species as a whole. Maybe there are some retarded shit like fashion or whatever that doesn't make a dent, but throwing gender put the window as some ilusión that isn't present in our identify is pretty fucking stupid. But many people would get really fucking mad about this even though it isn't contradicting their whole panorams judt the extreme cases.

>>8360564
So you don't support hydric power, or nuclear power, hopefully you don't support oil because of global warming, where does that leave you, will we be getting our energy from good wishes or something?
170000 people died and millions lost their home versus 0 in fukushima, I don't think they give a fuck how clean "nature" is from he incident.
>>8360571
Yes. The point is that the 'tsunami' is worse. Way worse

>>8357158
Second post best post

>>8360921

something which gives off radiation which can be entirely blocked by ten feet of rock/water/concrete

>>8357149
There is no solution to the nuclear waste problem. You can barely plan ahead for a few years, let alone tens of years. How are you going to do it for hundreds of thousands of years?

Then there are re-appearing accidents. It was said to be extremely safe. Yet Chernobyl and Fukushima happened. Sure, you can blame it on stupidity and interaction of many unfortunate events. But that's the reason for most big accidents. Explaining the issues in retroperspective is always easy. But you cannot always predict what is going to go wrong and it can eventually lead to another accident. Which can have disastrous consequences for nearby areas.

>>8358605
Laughed at this, very nice. Makes about as much sense as this:

y=x
=> y^2 = xy
=> y^2 - x^2 = xy - x^2
=> (y+x)(y-x) = x(y-x)
=> (y+x) = x
=> (x+x) = x
=> 2x = x
=> 2 = 1

>>8357149
>>8357149
I'm intensely liberal and i am in full support of nuclear power.

Obama started the construction of 3 nuclear power plants in the US during his term. The first plants to start construction in over 40 years in the US.

They have zero carbon footprint and we need them. Es specially if we ever plan to have electric cars widely available.

>>8361064
see
>>8361035
>>8360916
>>8359756
>>8359779

>>8361169
I have. Now what? That doesn't disprove any of my points.

File: tcon.jpg (273KB, 2281x1000px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 2281x1000px

The good thing about current deplorable nuclear practices is, that once we finally get our heads out of our asses, we'll have ready stockpiles of nuclear fuel for quite some time from reprocessing current nuclear "waste".

Personally I think that it's quite probable we'll only turn to nuclear when we've totally fucked up with regards to environment and have no choice.

There still isn't afaik conclusive proof of the non -linear radiation exposure model being true.

>>8361064
There is no current solution for climate change which has an affect on the entire world that is far greater than the occasional nuclear accident. Gen III reactors produce far, far lest waste than older reactors. Eliminating carbon burning fuels is the most important thing that we need to focus on. Nuclear power is a stop gap between now and when we can create more effective methods of collecting renewable energy.

>>8361064
A small amount of nuclear waste is objectively better than climate change and mass extinction on a level not seen since the fucking dinosaurs. As for nuclear waste being bad for long time, so what? Manmade CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for 1000+ years. It acidifies the ocean, basically killing off the largest reserve of life on the planet. The effects it is linked to slow down heat transfer across the globe, leading to more extreme weather events which wreaks havoc with basically all land life including humanity. A hot day today for example will be a normal day 100 years from now (hot days then will make many areas currently inhabitable by humans uninhabitable). Even now, they are predicting that tens of millions of people will be displaced from North Africa and the Middle East in next few decades because it is simply too hot to survive without technological assistance (something those poor fuckers are in short supply of). You can also say goodbye to those coastal cities as well which by the way most of the world lives near or at. Finally, I hope you like mass starvation because if the fisheries collapsing wasn't enough global drought will do global civilization in shortly (a slow down in heat transfer makes inland areas super prone to drought).

So yeah, small amount of nuclear waste vs mass extinctions + environmental global catastrophe + political upheaval on a scale not seen in modern history. It's a simple fucking choice that most "environmentalists" (i.e. liberal arts hippies who believe in shit like GAIA) fail to make. Not that their much better than the conservatives who deny Climate Change (something physicists debated in 19th, had virtually resolved in the 20th, and is now backed up by thousands of lines of independent observational evidence).

File: reactor-on-a-truck.png (164KB, 500x199px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 500x199px

>>8361206
Godless flaming liberal SJW feminist marxist pansexual commie here. I don't care what radiation exposure model we use, even with linear, nuclear still has less deaths per terawatt hour than any other energy source and it doesn't put more carbon in our atmosphere.

We fucking need nuclear. We need to build lots of nuclear, especially in Africa and underserved communities to empower people(literally) and fight climate change. As far as climate change goes, we need fucking everything at this point. Even if we have a couple more Chernobyls we still fucking need it.

Is that a picture of an SMR? SMRs are fucking great. With load following they defeat our classic liberal arguments of "nuclear is fundamentally incompatible with solar and wind because reactors have to run all the time while solar and wind are intermittent." We liberals love SMRs.

>>8362556
>small amount of nuclear waste
Small is relative. Powering all of earth for multiple decades will create a lot of highly radioactive waste.
>As for nuclear waste being bad for long time, so what?
So you have an issue with storing it. You cannot make sure it will be stored safely until it's not dangerous anymore. People like to ignore this issue and claim it is none. (Hurr we'll just put it underground.)

>better than climate change
I don't know why you think that it either has to be nuclear (fission) power or climate change, but it has not.

>>8358920
If you're talking about Mexico, then I can tell you that there is government/ law enforcement involvement at every level and stage of drug trafficking. That is not to say that the drug cartels could not exist without state support, but it is impossible to separate the two in the current state of affairs.

>>8362556
If we're still around in hundreds of thousands of years, handling a few warehouses full of nuclear waste won't really be a big issue.

>>8357149
I would of thought that ovbious.

Because radiation is harmful.

Are you retarded >>>?

>>8362582
>Godless flaming liberal SJW feminist marxist pansexual commie
Cringe

>>8357149
Why are conservatives against all forms of alternative energy and why do they deny climate change?

>>8363813
If you can even manage to contain the nuclear waste for that long. And it hasn't leaked into the ground long before already because the containment vessels degraded.

And what if a new society who is not that advanced will be around. And then they'll find the nuclear waste. And not knowing what it is and how dangerous it is, they will poison themselves and leak it all into the environment.

>>8363958
>And what if a new society who is not that advanced will be around.
Oh wow if we go all mad max and go back to being hunter gatherers I guess there will be a geographical area they won't be able to use, cry me a fucking river.

Anyway make no mistake, we don't get another shot at civilization. If we fuck up, the next ones won't have access to EZ coal and oil, they'll be stuck forever in the pre-industrial stage.

>>8363972
You don't seem to be able to grasp the time-frame we are talking about here.

>>8363980
so they won't be able to use some area for a very long time?
who cares?

>>8357149
>Why are liberals so scared of nuclear power?

It's not 'liberals'.

It's ecowackies.

These are people who feel that the only way forward is one hundred percent 'renewable' energy.

Of course, there is no such thing. They want to run the world on fantasies.

There is no reasoning with these people, because it has grown into their religion. They have dogma and verse, and utter faith that their beliefs are fact.

The terrible thing is, these people have infested governments worldwide with their modern-day Druidic religion, and they are making terrible, terrible decisions because of this.

In the USA at least, this is directly in violation of the First Amendment.

Observe:

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Most of the EPA is directly Unconstitutional these days, but you will never hear this discussed, because this new Druidism is so widespread it's practically the norm.

Because nuclear energy is really good option on the papers, but when you hand them to a human, its methods won't eventually be followed and then you got the boom.

>>8358269
>The funny thing about "nuclear contamination" is that the dangerous things have to a) be produced in large quantities and b) have short half lives.

Huh.

Pay attention to this guy, kiddies, he knows what he's talking about.

>>8358298
>>its a solar or wind would be "finally completely viable" if they just got more subsidies episode
>Hey, its that episode that has been playing since the 1980s!

Since the Obama administration got into office, the total subsidies that have been spent on renewables in the USA is more than a trillion dollars.

A trillion dollars.

What has that bought us?

>>8358535
>Have we found a good place to keep nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years yet?

First:

Only actinide waste is a worry for that long.

Second:

If it's born in a reactor, you kill it in a reactor. Fast breeder reactors run on an IFR-style closed fuel cycle is the way to go.

Seriously, they figured this out in the 50's. We just never did it because the anti-nukes fight every advancement in nuclear science to death.

The Clinton administration cancelled the IFR program in 1994. It was by far the most advanced nuclear reactor design ever brought to fruition, and the Clinton's just...threw it away.

Set us back twenty years and still counting.

>>8364147
nuclear reactors are not nuclear bombs waiting to explode...

>>8361206
>There still isn't afaik conclusive proof of the non -linear radiation exposure model being true.

Radiation hormesis is a hard thing to pin down. The only thing you can say for sure is that the linear exposure model is pants-on-head stupid at the lower ranges, and should be drastically overhauled.

File: 1466730488412.jpg (35KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 615x409px

>>8358752
>mfw
well at least she is useful in taking votes from hilldawg

>>8358269
>than anything from a nuclear disaster.

What if there are more nuclear disasters?

>>8364199

At low doses/dose rates the concern is over cancer incidence. But the "background" cancer rate for the population at large over a lifetime is 1 in 2 for men and 1 in 3 for women. And you are looking for effects that are harmful (linear NT) or possibly helpful (hormesis) that are a few percentage points at best.

The Signal to Noise is simply too bad for definitive modeling at the low tail. What we can say from more complete cellular studies is that cells CAN repair damage done from radiation, and have to on a regular basis anyway from solar radiation and (mostly) natural radon.

Just getting the regulatory agencies to abandon LNT is taking decades, something as "backwards" to them as radiation hormesis will take even longer.

>>8358785
>>"I'd rather there be no atoms"
kek

>>8358761
So she is worried that the US is going to get nuclear weapons from nuclear power plants? Because that doesn't make any sense. Or is she saying that such plants should continue in the US but not in other countries that don't have nuclear weapons? Because that is not the same as "time to shut them down". It seems like you are projecting an opinion onto her.

>>8363991
>who cares?
People who oppose nuclear power. And also a lot of people who support it.

>>8365041
>>>8358269
>>than anything from a nuclear disaster.
>What if there are more nuclear disasters?

Who cares?

We soak up disasters all the time. ALL THE TIME.

Here's a test.

Think of ANYONE you know who has been harmed, clearly and without doubt, by the nuclear power industry.

Notice that I did not say 'know of'. Among your personal circle of friends, relatives, and acquaintances.

Has anyone you know of ever been harmed in any way by nuclear?

Now, how many of those people have suffered from a car wreck? Swimming accident? Infectious disease?

Why is anyone wasting two brain cells worrying about nuclear? Aside from the relentless propaganda, it's effectively harmless on any significant scale.

>>8357149
they're all for claiming they are the "pro-science" side during election years, but when they are in power they do fucking nothing, and they fearmonger about nuclear energy

>>8363916
I'm conservative and I have absolutely nothing against any person or company using alternative energy source they bought using their own private budget.
And climate change exists, it's not manmade thought.

>>8363958
Just like when we discovered oil, we just poisoned ourselves and leaked it into environment?

>>8360203
Let him kill me. I don't mind sucking dick, I just want to die

>>8366648
Well gasoline was for a long time just dumped into rivers as useless byproduct of kerosene refining...

>>8358029
and our leftists are planning to shut down most of them

>>8360882
If it's so dangerous, why does it kill so few people?

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

>>8361182
If you choose not to argue against the points given (which do counter and touch on several things you mentioned), then the argument stays where it is with the several other people.

Ecofascism when?

>>8357149
Gun owners are more likely to get shot.
Countries with nuclear power are more likely to get irradiated.
Wind, wave, solar E.T.C. don't shit things up.

>>8357149
Pretty much only the ones who grew up during the Cold War are

>>8357149
There are anti-science people on all sides of the political spectrum. Most of the people I know are well educated and support nuclear power, regardless of what they think of social or economic issues

>>8358752
lol. I would worry about the tens of thousands of warheads that are actually waiting to be detonated

>>8368052
>i vote for energy forms with drastically higher carbon footprints because i care about the environment

>>8368069
>fucking Bill Nye is against nuclear
>a fucking science popular educator fails at being an educator
fucking hell
and his reasoning was the fucking worst
>we can't be trusted with it guys, it's Homer Simpson at the levers
fuck's sake Bill, not every engineer is as incompetent as you are

>>8357149

You can't hug your children with nuclear arms

>>8368052
>Gun owners are more likely to get shot.

If they are actively engaged in things like the drug trade, yes but usually those people are ex cons who are legally precluded from owning firearms anyway.

>Countries with nuclear power are more likely to get irradiated.

Yes, France is quite radioactive.

>Wind, wave, solar E.T.C. don't shit things up.

Except for economies, power grids, and the environments of the industrialized countries that actually make them.

>>8367720
What points?

>radiation is easily blocked
Yeah, but safely containing it for as long as it will be dangerous is almost impossible.
>Oil is worse
I did not argue in favor of oil
>Fossil fuels are worse
I did not argue in favor of fossil fuels
>fukushima was outdated
Yet it was still in use. There are lots of outdated reactors still in use. Because demolishing them (and getting new ones) is expensive as fuck. And power companies would rather spent as little money as possible (who wouldn't).
A large area got evacuated and there was actually still some good luck. The wind blew radiation onto the ocean, instead of towards populated areas.
It is too early to make an assessment of health issues of the people living nearby. E.g. there are increased cases of thyroid issues, but it's not possible to definitely link it towards the accident.

>>8368052
Car owners are more likely to get into car accident.
Countries with factories are more likely to get contaminated.
Primitivism, living in cave, farming and gathering food E.T.C. don't shit things up.

>>8368382
>Yeah, but safely containing it for as long as it will be dangerous is almost impossible.

b fucking s
totally wrong

First of all: If its radioactive then that means there is energy extractable from it
Secondly: There are tons of stable places we could permanently dump the shit, such as africa.

>>8359133
>>>8358823
>They have the potential of contaminating everything.

I know that you're a religious fanatic, and explaining how wrong this statement is will do nothing to sway your belief.

But just on the off chance your foolishness is believed by anyone, I wish to say: What you just said is utter nonsense.

How the fuck is supposed to 'contaminate everything?'

You know nothing factual. You are repeating the dogma of your ecowacky religion without applying any thought to it.

You make me vaguely embarrassed for you, to be honest.

>>8359426
>>>8358457
>>>8358816
>>>8359138
>Where does the fearmongering for nuclear power come from?


For serious, the huge bulk of it comes from Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Funding

European Druids give Greenpeace 300-400 million a year that they use to spread their religion.

That is what it is. A religion.

>>8368616
>There are tons of stable places we could permanently dump the shit, such as africa.
>use one of the most densely-populated and impoverished continents as a nuclear dumping ground
yeah your ideas will go over well in the international community, lel

in b4 /pol/-tier retardation in response

>>8360198
>We need to figure out how to make PV panels more efficient.


Jesus Christ, and you're a fucking EE?

LEARN TO THINK.

At 100 percent energy conversion, solar supplies at most 1 kilowatt per square meter.

That is as good as it gets.

Over time, that number falls to maybe, MAYBE, 20 percent. Hell, you lose 50 percent just for night time, then there's clouds, dirt, failures, etc, etc, etc.

How many square kilometers would we need to make solar work for us?

Fucking EE my hairy ass.

mistakes are "nuclear" kek

>>8368382
>this brainwashed

Go educate yourself on what radiation is. The amount of radiation that they were "lucky" to avoid would be equivalent to being flooded with bananas. Did you know a banana can set off the radiation safety checks In nuclear facilities? Fucking bananas.

>>8369379
Actually its America's fault, retard.

>>8369391
I'M NUCLEAAAAR

>>8369461
And I still don't see any arguments against my original post.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

>>8369384
Well, if the international community opposes it i guess it has no merit and it's dangerous. People oppose it because they're radiophobic idiots like you and not because it's a bad idea.

But let's ignore that, dump it in the center of Australia. I'd love to hear how that's dangerous.

>>8369700
I'm actually pro nuclear power and putting it in the outback is a feasible idea. It's just that your "hurrr dump it in africa who cares about niggers amirite xd" response smacked of /pol/

>>8369388
To answer your question though, in order for solar panels to power 100% of USA's needs it would have to take up 0.6% of our land but of course it shouldn't power all of our needs so 0.05% spread over most american households should be a decent help in knocking off coal with the help from increased nuclear. Obviously it shouldn't power everything but it has it's place within the next couple decades powering homes and businesses due to it already being economically feasible if you don't mind waiting 10 years for it to pay itself off. Taking away subsidies would hurt it but wouldn't destroy it forever as it creeps into your average joe that wants to save money overall in his life by going partially off the grid.

>>8369589
The argument is that you don't understand how radiation works, or what it even is for that matter. Go educate yourself on that, and then come back.

It is impossible to show you how overblown the concerns in regard to nuclear power are when what you understand about about everything nuclear is obviously from alarmist media/journalism.

Not even just nuclear; chemistry in general. Radiation is a normal part of the universe and you absorb plenty of it every day. It isn't a poison, or some scary green gas like chlorine. Until you understand the fundamentals of radiation this argument is pointless.

>>8357149
Idk I am a little scared about the radioactive byproduct that we just bury in the ground and forget about.

>>8370129
Uh-huh. Because I disagree with you, I don't understand radiation?

It seems to me rather that you don't understand both, the points I were making and radiation.

>>8370472
>>>8370129
>Uh-huh. Because I disagree with you, I don't understand radiation?

Not that guy, but no, you don't understand radiation.

Alpha, beta, gamma, which one is a helium atom nucleus, and why is that particular atomic structure so ubiquitous? (This is MUCH more fundamental than you think it is.)

Ionising vs non-ionising.

How is a sievert different from a becquerel, and how do they relate to Rem's and curies?

What is effective dose and biologic half-life, and how are they different from radioactive halflife?

How many long-lived fission products are there, and why do we care?

Heck, what's the difference between a fission product and a transuranic? How many are there of each?

Isotopes vs isomers and why do we care?

What is a decay profile and what does it tell us?

Why should we pay attention to daughter products?

Why is ALARA a dumb idea and linear-no-threshold one of the stupidest control schemes ever conceived of?

How much risk is there from background radiation, and hell, why isn't every native of Ramsar dead already?

This is just basic stuff that I'm rattling off the top of my head, and I don't even work in nuclear energy or even a slightly related field.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Learn, or just admit to yourself that you're working on faith, and being an anti-nuclear person is your religion.

There's no shame in being religious, but don't expect any critical thinker to take your dogma seriously simply because it's a matter of your faith. I do not worship your religion.

Sorry.

>>8360464
negative population growth

File: image.jpg (34KB, 634x354px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 634x354px

>>8370129
Chlorine gas isnt green, its yellow

>>8360464
>One there is the very obvious fluctuation in production capacity depending on ambient conditions. Secondarily there is a limited ability to store energy for peak demand

-Build overcapacity.
-Mixed rewnewables, Wind at night and Solar at day.
-Ultra-High Voltage power-grid for lower transmission loses over distance.
-Use Recycled Battery packs from Electric Cars as grid storage, and pumped hydro.
-Use Natural Gas as the bridge fuel until renewables can take over majority of Grid Electricity.

This is literally the US plan developed by the Department of Energy. It is working so far.

>>8358278
What about the risks of transporting nuclear waste hundred or thousand of miles to a central disposal facility? Trains derail, trucks jackknife, etc. its not a matter of if but when there's a spill or some kind, and a fire, and so on

>>8371388
Oh, look, someone payed attention in high-school physics.
Please point out in my posts where I made any mistake regarding any of these points.

>>8357623
Trump and Johnson are the only candidates still running that are pro nuclear energy. Even the Green party is against it.

>>8357149
Repubs are too. Everyone is, or rather they like getting their coal money

>>8360331
>global warming
That word.... I don't think it means, what you think it means

>>8366326
Does all of Nevada's underground water supply count or no because it was nuclear bomb testing

>>8357149
The power of nuclear energy, aside from its destructive capabilities, has not been taken advantage of for many reasons. Although the arguments used vary in presentation, the underlying reason behind the majority of the opposition is profit, an obstacle I'm sure we are all aware of. The larger issue; however, lays within the faulty arguments its proponents use in favor of it. The prevailing line of reasoning most use when advocating nuclear power is the "Its clean, fossil fuels aren't. Fossil fuels damage the atmosphere, nuclear won't." THIS IS THE PROBLEM. The argument they always use is based around the idea that Human industry is responsible for Global Warming and Climate Change, both of which are false beliefs. The climate is changing, that is a clearly observable fact with millions of years of evidence in support of it. However, the influence that Human technological and industrial emissions have on the atmosphere is so minuscule, it could almost be considered negligible. The most noticeable effect of our emissions comes from the CO2 we introduce, which, interestingly enough, has led to an increase in natural reforestation. One side of the debate uses faulty logic to belabor their point, the other side uses faulty intentions to maintain theirs.

Hey, thread! Tourist here. Just popping in to say "republicans are scared of nuclear power too," because no one's probably done that yet.

Okay, well, now that that's done, goodbye forever. Got a lot of threads to offer my insight in, and won't have time to check up on this one again. You're welcome for my contribution!

>>8371823
>Working

Lol, you can't declare something working if it's not been implemented.

>>8357149
Wind power now generates more electricity and jobs than nuclear power in North America.
Let you're tears flow nukefags. It's over.

>>8373421
Oh god who let you on this board

>>8373421
>However, the influence that Human technological and industrial emissions have on the atmosphere is so minuscule

Within 250 years or so, we've roughly tripled the amount of atmospheric CH4 (~1900 ppb) compared to the compared to the last 400k years (~ 600 ppb). What do you mean by human influence is miniscule on the Earth's atmosphere?

>>8357623
Found the liberal in denial

>>8371388
This.

>>8375678
The gaps in wind power are filled by coal and natural gas power plants.

Only interior Alaska is wind only and with On Grid batteries. They pay at least 25 cents per kw/h

nuclear france pays 19 cents per kw/h

wind heavy denmark pays 45 cents per kw/h

>>8358752
>https://twitter.com/drjillstein/status/715230945679380481

Fuck this piece of Luddite shit. Toss her ass out in the wilderness and let her live free of the big bad technology.

File: watermelon.jpg (36KB, 472x325px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 472x325px

>>8357149

This is why the environmental extremists don't like nuclear power-you can't push socialism if the problem of AGW was solved. This is also why we can't address the actual issue.

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste."-Rahm Emanuel

The left is using AGW to push their political agenda, which is unrelated to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg

Don't tell me after listening to this that you wouldn't be a little suspicious of climate science. At the very least, it's socialists using a real environmental problem as a pretense to push their ideology on a world that isn't interested in buying their bullshit.

>>8358752
I think I got cancer AND AIDS after reading that.

Nuclear fuel is on average SEVENTY PERCENT less refined than weapons-grade Uranium
... not to mention Uranium is less dangerous than Plutonium, which is usually used in nukes these days...

Fucking IDIOT....

>>8371745
Demographic crises.

>>8375678
Yeah after being heavily subsidized by the Obama administration.

>>8363670
What's the issue of putting it underground somewhere that's uninhabited with low tectonic disturbance? The main issue is long-term prevention of disturbance of it, but then again, a localized environmental disaster is better than a global ecological disaster.

>>8376620
Cost I assume.

>>8357687
They only look better in concept if you know nothing actually practical about them, start by looking up the efficiency and materials used.

Leftists are entirely sentiment based in terms of choices, they will twist and rationalize to fit their sentiment, not the other way around.

>>8358752
To be fair. We could switch to thorium based nuclear power, maybe she'd feel better no uranium.

>>8376679
The anti-nuke people hate thorium too. A few even hate nuclear fusion and would have it banned as well.

File: 1467019179201.jpg (427KB, 2197x1463px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 2197x1463px

>>8357149

Because some stupid engineers decided it would be a good idea to build a nuclear reactor on the coastline of Japan.

The main problem is nuclear waste, not the dangers of a fallout.

>>8376620
Those places are not readily available everywhere. Especially uninhabited is a problem for many countries.
And the waste containers can corrode, leak, get into ground water and contaminate it. That did happen in the past and poses current problems. Sure, now we can do better, but as I said before, afterwards it is always easy to say what was the problem. It's not the end of the world, but people would rather not have to deal with that at all.

>>8376671
Wind power nets energy (not money-wise, but looking at the total energy it took to construct them) after like 10 years. Current solar power is able to net energy like near the end of their lifetime. It's not very great yet but is constantly improving.
It's not great, but it's getting there.

Everyone arguing about nuclear waste disposal and containment problems with the tanks down the road seems to completely ignore the fact that generation IV reactors would literally use up everything our old reactors put out as 'waste' and process it to a substantially less long-term porblem, since what these reactors leave behind is only dangerous for about 300 years. And that's a manageable timeframe for waste containment.

>>8378285
>And that's a manageable timeframe for waste containment.
That remains to be seen. A lot can happen. Just think 300 years back.

>>8378285
That is not happening right now to the majority of nuclear waste. We're living in the present, not an idealized future.

>>8377335
Waste isn't a problem

>>8379326

Yeah? Got a good idea? Share it with us.

File: 1475006942964.gif (89KB, 287x713px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 287x713px

>>8379328

>>8378285
>>8361206


Put it back into the reactor.

>>8379422
This is not an option right now for most nuclear waste.
Any other genius ideas?

File: The+Elephant's+Foot+of+the+Chernobyl+disaster,+1986+(2).jpg (91KB, 1000x656px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1000x656px

>>8357149
fukushima and chernobyl and the waste problem make it easy to not support fission imho

fusion on the other hand is worth looking into

>>8379623

>Fukushima and Chernobyl

Two plants that would never be built in the US.

Three Mile Island, no radiation from the meltdown was released.

Also, current reactors are designed in such a way that, if the temperature rises, fission reactions will slow down.

http://www.theenergycollective.com/nathantemple/53455/nuclear-reactor-safety-cooling-and-failure-explained-keeping-japanese-event-persp

>long-lived waste

Most of the "waste" is actually unspent fuel. Turning it into a salt and placing it in a molten salt reactor will burn up most of it. The storage life of the spent material will be reduced to centuries and could be stored at any location that is geologically stable for 500 years or longer (the big deal about Yucca Mountain was whether or not it would geologically stable for 10,000 years).