Why does the average person hate nuclear power?

>>8739310
Do they?

Same reason why they support climate "science"

They don't understand it

>>8739310
because the average person is dumb

>>8739310
because the average joe when ever he/she hears the word "nuclear" their minds immediately says "nuclear is bad cuz its just made for warheads" all of that is thanks to the media

>>8739310
ppl do not hate nuclear power, they hate nuclear waste and radiation contamination

>>8739310

1. Mass media hysteria during the partial shit storm during Three Mile Island and the complete melt down of Chernobyl

2. Neutron sources can literally fuck anything up

3. Unlike Fallout 4, there is no Rad-X, Radaway or even a doctor that can flush your radiation sickness for 20 bottle caps. Lethal radioactive poisoning generally leads to death.

4. Despite advances in safety and technology, the average adult still thinks building a nuclear reactor is going to lead to a melt foe in the near future

5. Nobody wants one in their backyard

6. Politicians like to spend your hard earned money on useless projects that will not go anywhere

>>8739331

>melt foe

Melt down. My bad

>>8739310
Heard of Chernobyl?

>>8739327

why aren't they made aware of the fact that nuclear produces globally so little waste in a year that it can be fit in a vault about the size of a quarter of a football field very safely, and that with more proliferation of the technology, reactors can utilize even most of that?

Raid active or something like that makes people die and mutate so it's scary and worse it can even blow up an entire city and kill everyone earth.

File: 1405138836493.png (136KB, 247x253px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 247x253px

Would building nuclear power plants underground help with the radiation and safety?

>>8739369

... they already are built underground.

the part you see is just the steam tower. nuclear power plants are literally just steam engines. all the nuclear stuff does is get hot to boil water. it's kind of disappointing.

Lacking deeper understanding, the average person relies on heuristically evaluating emotional value through association with concepts that do have an established emotional value (radiation, nuclear weapons, chernobyl, fukushima...)

The solution is either to increase understanding, or more practically, promote positive nuclear energy related concepts to guide this shitty heuristic people are using.

I propose we produce and positively market homeopathic medicine manufactured from nuclear waste to achive this (which also has the nice side effect of discrediting homeopathic medicine...).

>>8739331
>Lethal radioactive poisoning generally leads to death.
no shit

They don't understand that regulations permit coal power plants to spew out more radioactive pollution than nuclear power plants.

>>8739379

>no shit

None whatsoever, dick face

>work in city hall engineering department
>a local politician read about lockheed martin's compact fusion generators being worked on
>asks us to write a report about it for the future
>write 10-20 pages about fusion, pros and cons, prices, etc.
Was fun but too expensive.

>>8739408

Wait till we can achieve ignition using d-t ice pellets. Then we will be cooking with gas!

Wait a second....

Because a nuclear incident in part of a Japanese plant, not even a full plant catastrophe, has effectively poisoned the Pacific for decades.

>>8739428

Wrong

File: 65674635745643.png (582KB, 600x453px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 600x453px

>>8739428
this

>>8739432

Castle Bravo did far worse damage to the Pacific Ocean than the Fukashima disaster did.

>>8739310
because radiation is extremely dangerous. people are scared of airport scanners, x-rays and CT scans, and you think they're going to be cool with something that can melt-down at any moment and blast them with at least 100 milisieverts to multiple sieverts of ionizing radiation and give them cancer at a rate that is highly increased to what their natural risk was? That's fucking retarded.

>>8739441

And do we still test fire hydrogen bombs in the ocean?

>>8739310
Radioactive waste lasts for a gorrilion years.

>>8739463
Up until the 1990's we did.

And yes, those isotopes are still present in our oceans.

Fukushima was small potatoes relative to the nuclear testing we conducted for 40 years

>>8739310
Because everytime there's an accident, the place becomes uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years.

Why bother with dangerous materials when you get free energy from the sun? The sun is also a nuclear reactor and much farther away and hence safer.

>>8739432
>posting the same fucking tsunami map as if it was radiation
Every thread

File: 117897979893.jpg (146KB, 397x605px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 397x605px

>>8739310

Because it's the one thing France does right other than pic related.

H8ers.

>>8739469

theres a good point under that paranoia - we missed the boat on the generation in which it would have been wise to keep building out more nuclear base capacity

at this point the cost curves for renewables are fine

>>8739310
because the word "nuclear", call it green energy and everyone is on board

>>8739500
>at this point the cost curves for renewables are fine
kek

>>8739495
hgggghhnnnnnhtedrbtjhkj

When Three Mile Island went critical, you lost the right to say that nuclear reactors are completely safe.

When Chernobyl went critical, you lost the right to say that accidents were the result of poor design and not inherent to all reactors.

When Fukushima went critical, you lost the right to fucking speak.

>>8739682
poor quality bait

Saudi funded propaganda

>>8739682

Eat shit and die you worthless waste of human skin.

>>8739698
>your average nuke shill

>>8739703

Right. I get paid for sitting on my laptop responding to uneducated meth junkies like you.

File: dyson-sphere-artist-2.jpg (975KB, 1400x788px) Image search: [Google]

975KB, 1400x788px

>>8739310
Because nuclear is fucking shit you brainlet. Nothing will ever beat solar. It is the end all of power.

>>8739441
Well, fuck, it is okay then.

nuclear isn't flexible enough for the energy needs of the future. at best, it will be used for large industrial loads.

>>8739749

Of course it is. We are still detecting the radioactive fallout from that explosion

>>8739747
I don't think the person who drew that really understood what a Dyson sphere is.

>>8739432
If your're going to try and pass the Tsnumai Wave height map off as a radiation map, you should at least use the version that doesn't say "Maximum Wave amplitudes"

>>8739918
That's totally "maximum radiation wave amplitudes".

>>8739472
I think it's sorta hilarious at this point

>>8739310
Because nuclear waste

The CANDU reactor is the best reactor. Third worlders should live up to the standards of the modern age tb.qh

File: 4c5.jpg (36KB, 660x257px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 660x257px

Because nuclear power competes with the oil porky, basically.

Fukushima isn't exactly helping things. Now they are claiming the rods have likely melted through containment and could end up in the ocean and be the largest radio active disaster ever.

FYI the same people also don't know that there are more than one type of reactor

Because when it goes wrong, it goes insanely dangerous
>Chernobyl
>three mile island
>Fukushima

Nuclear is also very subject to political tensions. I have in mind plutonium recycling vs just considering it a waste if uranium keep being that cheap.

Nuclear is a "short term solution", as we suppose that when nuclear resources will run out, we will have solved the energy crisis.

But often, the people hating on nuclear power are the very same people that don't want to give away their standard of living.

>>8739331
>There is no RadAway
WROOOONG. It's called Ex-Rad.


...okay so it's not a catch-all cure for lethal radiation poisoning but hey we're getting there.

>>8739883
Artists usually are not scientists, engineers, or mathfags. they get a pass because "magic tech."

It scares people because it's new and buggy.

>>8739469
Do people not live in hiroshima or nagasaki? Nuclear CAN make a place uninhabitable, but not every accident leads to that.

>>8739310
Because they think nuclear power gives cancer magically.

>>8740187
You know more people die per kilowatt/hour due to coal and oil plants, right?

>>8739363
>can be fit in a vault about the size of a quarter of a football field very safely
Except that is not true. We are already having trouble with stored radioactive waste from < 50 years ago.

And it is dangerous for tens of thousands of years. You just cannot ensure that it will be safely locked away for that long. You cannot even properly plan ahead 100 years. And all the while new waste is produced. How little it may be, it adds up to a lot.

>>8739310

Either:

A) they're uneducated about the subject or,

B) they recognize the many benefits and understand the process, but also know that accidents, while rare, can be absolutely devastating and have huge ramifications for decades or even centuries to come. Additionally, because of this, they make for extremely tempting targets for terrorism, enemy military action, and make for a huge risk during natural disasters (depending on location/design and severity of event)

>>8741528

I forgot to add on to 'B' - also, dealing with the waste results is a huge problem because there's no way to guarantee that our methods will be safe for the huge amount of time for this shit to fully decay.

>>8739469
Chernobyl plant shut down 10 years after the disaster. There are people living inside the exclusion zone just fine. Areas like that are probably more inhabitable than your average coal mining town. It's mostly a matter of radiation being invisible and therefore scarier than blacklung or predatory tigers.

>>8740013
Commie get out reeeeee
Communist stupidity is one of the biggest reasons nuclear is so feared these days.

>>8739363

Because they realise that if you used nuclear instead of fossil fuels, the waste produced would be far greater than it is right now, especially considering an increasing population

>>8740188
>Onconova suggests that Ex-Rad protects cells exposed to radiation against DNA damage, and that the drug's mechanism of action does not involve scavenging free radicals or arresting the cell cycle. Instead, they claim it employs a "novel mechanism" involving "intracellular signaling, damage sensing, and DNA repair pathways".[4]
Sounds an awful lot like a bunch of solar freaking roadways to me

>>8739441
What? Nukes are way cleaner than reactor accidents.

>>8741448
It's so little they've been storing it on site at the reactors after the 3 faggots that live near Yucca mountain got the project stopped.

>>8741542
And if we were actually serious about nuclear, we would reprocess said waste into far more fuel. What does end up totally unusable can just be buried. Volumetrically the far least intrusive kind of waste. Nuclear waste is not nearly the problem it is made out to be.

>>8739373
>all the nuclear stuff does is get hot to boil water. it's kind of disappointing.
Thats what my reaction was too when I tood thermodynamics

File: 1489238424187m.jpg (88KB, 699x1024px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 699x1024px

>>8739310
They're afraid

>>8739934
>>8739918
or you know the fact that it literally says "tsunami"

>>8739310
Because they're conditioned to think so.

>>8739431
You dumb niggers need to stop posting this as a reply. Your post can start with this, then be followed by an actual explanation, otherwise just shut the fuck up and stop looking dumber than the post you are replying to.

>>8739998
>CANDU
DINDU sounds not very promising.
Russian fast neutron reactors are the future. VVER is the very cool present.
Anyway, which reactors are the best shall be decided over a hockey match.

>>8741448
Why not just dump the waste into the Earth core? Worked just fine in Master of Orion 2.

>>8741650
Is this a serious question? Because the answer is that there is no need for such measures. It's fine.

>>8741650
I've wondered something like this too. Not the core just the mantle. Seriously why not?

>>8741677

Cost money to bury nuclear waste. Especially that deep.

Keep in mind the deepest anyone has drilled is roughly 7.5 miles underground (see Kola Borehole). Modern alloys, lubricants and methods really cannot drill much deeper than this.

There was an idea floated some years ago about deep-sixing nuclear waste at an active fault line deep under water. The idea is one continental plate would take the waste and "fold it" underneath another via the active fault line. The problem is the fault line isn't moving quickly enough to dispose of the waste and there is the issue of radioactive material leeching into the ocean. The idea was eventually abandoned.

>>8741707

---a clarification , the idea was to send the nuclear waste down to the mantle via that fault line

>>8741707
Bear in mind that there were two options to dispose of nuclear waste...1) as you said, toss it into a subduction zone, and 2) drill into a salt dome, which is one of the most stable geologic formations out there. When people began to realize that the options were to put the stuff in either the most or least geologically stable formations, they realized they didn't have a damn clue what they were talking about

>>8741725
Why not toss it into active volcano? Uranium and sheit is heavy and will surely sink into molten silicon, what could possibly go wrong?

>>8741543
>Intracellular signalling
What do you know, now a cell can talk to itself!

>>8741725


That is correct.

Yucca Mountain was the other location.

But that literally became a political hot mess for the US government so that too was abandoned.

>inb4 getting Superman to toss it to the sun like he did in that one awful movie

>>8740188

I'm sure it end result will eventually be some weird (and somewhat toxic) antidote that vaguely resembles Prussian Blue

>>8741537
So what do you recommend a nuclear capitalist empire?

>>8739747
Solar is just uncontrolled nuclear

>>8741574
>t. wizard scientist

>>8741776

Bring Russian physicists and engineers behind the tokamak design to America, give them 4 times the funding and access to the NIF at Lawrence Livermore and have them build a power generator.

It will be a glorious day when we achieve ignition. Imagine the looks on the faces of the Germans when we achieve a monumental first in human technology

>mein gott our Wendlestein-X ich sheiss

>>8739310
>>8739316

Because nuclear power is retarded. This isn't a conservative website, go shill somewhere else.

File: IMG_0595.jpg (122KB, 800x594px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 800x594px

>>8741815

>nuclear power is retarded

>>8741813
ITER requires an international collaboration for it just to achieve lengthy fusion with no output. Those superconductors, magnets, shields etc all come from around the globe. You think US got it all except for some russian physicists?

How will we store the waste safely for millions of years

>>8741776
I don't have to propose anything. I am merely rejecting your proposition. It won't work and will just make things worse. Unlike you I've experienced it.

>>8741823

I was actually being a little sarcastic. However we have what most other countries don't have: money.

Yes even in this shitty economic climate we have the ability to raise capital. At least more quickly than say the Germans.

In all seriousness you make a point about ITER. I think it's important to note that the ITER has a higher chance of success than most other projects, given the collaboration and the funding.

Side note: the NIF isn't a complete failure. I think someone is gonna figure out how to sustain first plasma for longer than several minutes at that facility (and that research will aid the ITER team in France)

>>8739310
There has been a pretty strong cultural conditioning to make us equate "radiation" with "YOU WILLDIE HORRIBLY FROM INCURABLE DICK CANCER!!!!"

Given that erroneous equation, fearing nuclear anything is not unreasonable. Especially given now little people know about the sources of radiation in their lives. You see that in everything from people who were terrified of the security scanners at the airport before boarding a flight across the country, or the people near me who worry, however slightly, about the radiation from a nuclear plant 15 miles away when there is a big honking pile of gently radiating coal outside the coal fired plant 10 miles away.

>>8739432
Since radiation is not measured in centimeters (see scale at lower right," this map has nothing to do with radiation. As somebody will have pointed ut by now, this is a map of the height of the tsunami wave as is propagated across the Pacific.

>>8739454
>radiation is extremely dangerous

And what about chemicals?!!? Can't forget how dangerous chemicals are!!!

>>8740162
Your assertion would be more compelling with a source.

>>8741448
Nuclear waste storage issues are political, NIMBY crap, not technical problems.

>>8741712
Slight correction -- they were talking about not just a fault line, but a subduction zone, here one plate dives under another, such as in the Marianas Trench. An issue this raises is that such zones typically are in the very deepest parts of the ocean, raising engineering issues n working there...

>>8741768
That whole mess was a great example of unintended consequences.

Environmental Activists (tm) were deeply concerned about how radioactive waste could not be stored safely at state of the art, centrally located facilities where security and standards would be easily monitored at a site best suited to store such material the most safely.

They fought it tooth and nail, and won...

... and so the same stuff is stored in multiple facilities constructed on a piecemeal basis,many designed only for short term storage, at sites that may or may not be suited for long term storage, presenting multiple opportunities for accidents or malign shenanigans.

Activists worked hard to achieve, by their lights, something that very much resembles the very worst possible outcome.

>>8739310
3 mile island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima spooked them despite the fact that there are hundreds of other nuclear plants that function perfectly fine around the world without melting down. Combine that with fearmongering from the news industry for profit and you get a lot of people who think reactors will explode if so much as a pin drops and turn the entire region into something out of a Fallout game.

>>8741882

Thank you

>>8739310

Explosions are scary

>>8741973
>/sci/ is the most polite board on 4chan.

>>8742023

>not as polite as /x/

>>8739310
Refusal by its proponents to factor in the cost of decommissioning into the upfront overall estimate. ...becuase no one has even an order of magnitude for that yet.

>>8742097
sorry could you explain please i can't understand that sentence...

>>8742134

Nuclear waste cannot be accurately quantified on a cost basis because of the many isotopes and their related half-lives and shit can't be accurately priced out

>>8742134
Irrespectivie of the generation method, the market price of electricity is considerably lower than the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of new plant. In other words, there is no type of electricity generator that gets built without government subsidy. In order to win government subsidy project planners have to show the LCOE of their project is competitive with other generator types. The nuclear industry does not (can not) include the true cost of plant decomissioning and fuel disposal into its LCOE. 35 years of urgently needed base load electricity generation ... at the price of tens of thousands of years of maintaining decomissioned sites and spent fuel repositries.

>>8742152

>put in barrels
>dump in the sea
>???

>>8742160

What's the fair market value associated with the extremely slow and natural process of burying radioactive shit underneath the earths crust?

>>8742153
What about them fancy fast neutron reactor thingamajiggies? When I was drunk watching edjewcational videos on jewtube I might've overheard that them have no waste whatsoever.

>>8742169

1. Expensive to build, even for a nuke reactor

2. Still have to contend with NIMBYs

3. It still produces some high level waste waste......

4. Investors aren't convinced they will work

5. Thorium and molten salt reactors are the meme

>>8742169
Your documentary probably knows more than I do, but I'd be astonished if there's any fission reactor that doesn't produce radioactive waste. Perhaps the program also covered nuclear fusion reactors? Once they're commercially viable we're in business but, unfortunately, there's the standard joke - "nuclear fusion is always 50 years away".

>>8742182

We wont achieve fusion ignition until the power generated from imploding d-t exceeds the power needed to implode the fuel

>>8739331
>Nobody wants one in their backyard
I literally do, but I can't afford it

>>8742200

>can't afford it

One day I hope you get to bask in the glow of Cherenkov radiation anon.

>>8742207
It's so pretty.

>>8742214

>the glow highlights the color of your eyes

>>8742207
Fingers crossed, my friend. Failing nuclear, I'll just dig a very deep hole and pour water in it to spin a turbine, but the blue lights are so gorgeous.

File: Blinky_caught.jpg (10KB, 160x210px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 160x210px

>Why does the average person hate nuclear power?

In my experience they don't, at all.

>>8742303

>don't pick on Blinky

>>8739714
As if he can afford meth

>>8742348

It's easy. Steal from Walmart. Return shit the following day. Get cash back. Buy meth. Wash rinse repeat.

>>8742097
Can you make a more literate argument please.

>>8739315
>>8739310
um ya why would I want to have some nuclear bomb in my back yard?

FUKUSHIMA
FUKUSHIMA
FUKUSHIMA
FUKUSHIMA
FUKUSHIMA

>>8742526
Argumentum ad hominem?

>>8739310
because nuclear power plant malfunctions can fuck a whole region or country and no one is held responsible, the scale of destruction is so vast and the decisions that caused the disaster so remote that our society lacks the capacity to even attempt to bring justice to the culprits.

>>8741815
>Have to be a conservative to think the future isn't solar FREAKING roadways

>>8742534
>thinking fukushima accident had anything to do with nuclear power.
What about don't put your emergency power supply in the basement in a country that coined the term tsunami.

>>8741815
What are your issues with nuclear power?

>>8742718
a power outtage only causes a nuclear disaster when your backup hooked up to a nuclear power plant, dumbass

normally a power outtage is an annoyance

>>8742221

I wish you nothing but the very best lolz

Many nuclear plant are ancient by now and ARE safety hazards.

It's sad how people listen to the nuclear lobby and have no solutions to the waste problem. Most of these people are brainlets who don't care about future generations at all.

Same people also deny or play down climate change

>>8743291
We have a solution: Bury it.

>>8743291
>no solutions to the waste problem
when will this meme end?

>>8743291
General waste from our daily lives will be more of a problem in the future than waste from nuclear energy.
>but tbqhwyf you're right about most reactors being hilariously out of date and decrepid

>>8742818
only an NPP that requires active cooling to maintain equilibrium

>>8739310
As an example, next to no contemporary nuclear power plant is actually airplane-safe. That means that a terrorist could steer even a medium-sized plane into one and make an enourmous zone uninhabitable for decades.

>>8743806
Chernobyl only got as bad as it did because the reactor was an archaic design that used graphite as the primary moderator. Fucker burned for days.

>>8741815
>nuclear power is retarded

How? And also, do you know anything at all about it? I find it hard to believe anyone who knows anything about nuclear power would deem it "retarded".

>>8739441
>t. Tepco

>>8743291
THIS

All this fucking BRAINLET apologists, when there are safer alternatives like geotermal or fucking hydroelectric

>>8743548
Water gets all fucked up

>>8743779
There isnt, fuck off

>>8743796
This is true, yet the common waste can be eventually recycled, degraded or used as filler. Try that with nuclear waste

>>8743911
Nuclear plants that are now safety hazards should be shut down. But we shold build new ones because it is a highly viable energy source. Nuclear waste is a doddle.
FUCKO, down into the bottom of the ocean. Lifeforms down there have practically zero impact on the surface and moderate oceans anyway. Hell, the crust at those depths is probably highly radioactive anyway, contributing to the fact that life is even possible down there anyway. For an organism to adapt to an extreme environment like that, it would have to be highly subject to mutations.

>>8743920
spent fuel is too valuable to bury. it should be recycled into more fuel and other useful isotopes.

>>8739310
>ten thousand replies
>they're all wrong
holy fuck
it's literally because the fossil fuel industry has spent billions of dollars in lobby money and commercials against nuclear
that's it
that's the only reason

>>8743922
Yah too fucking right. I'm talking about truly spent fuel. It will still be dangerously radioactive (I think) and would have to be disposed of. But I actually can't stand faggots who treat this like an actual problem.
Throw it into the earth or sink it into the ocean. Carbon fuels are abhorrently disruptive to the atmosphere. If we went full nuclear, all that would happen is a few ocean trench lifeforms would get a much-needed heat/mutation boost.

>>8743920
How will you make sure the waste doesn't get released into the water for millions of years?

Because they don't understand. Because it's hard to be an independent thinker and use Google when you have 100 IQ.

>>8743924
this