Why the fuck do people still shit on nuclear energy?

File: energy subsidies.jpg (36KB, 620x344px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 620x344px

If solar and wind weren't subsidized nuclear wouldn't be dying in America.

File: lcoe at a10 percent discount.png (80KB, 662x568px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 662x568px

Look at South Korean nuclear and how they do so well.

>>9112009
Because it is "scary" to the everyday person that doesn't understand just how great it can be and how "dangerous" it actually is. Also the plants take many many years to make in the US. If all focus went to nuclear maybe this would change, but at the moment it takes too long.

>>9112009

because people are uneducated and because ours politicians are peace of shit.

>>9112009
The only thing holding nuclear power back is the NRC taking its sweet ass time and peoples refusal to stop using water coolant.

>>9112021
>peace

piece

>>9112009
>hurr it's completely safe
No it isn't. If something can happen, it will.

The green movement originates as an anti-nuclear party, and has always been. Germany would rather burn brown coal than operate a nuclear plant. The opposition was always there.

>>9112095
Solar panels and nuclear power go together like peanut butter and jelly. The green fanatics can stuff themselves.

>>9112054
>tfw when you know jackshit and use a moot point of reasoning
read a fucking book dipshit, as other anons have said its because people are absolute fucking retards and politicians doubly so. even when in places where they are using the technology they dont even use it properly

>>9112011
The NRC was formed in the 70's and has prevented any new nuclear power plants since then
Nothing to do with Solar or Wind or whatever else

They literally didn't permit ANY new power plants for 35+ years
And they are killing the ones they approved recently because thats what their organization is for.

>>9112128
>people are absolute fucking retards and politicians doubly so. even when in places where they are using the technology they dont even use it properly
So we shouldn't be using nuclear because of retards everywhere? I agree.

>>9112029
>piece
Pieces.
You're welcome, namefriend.

File: 1501372940160.jpg (15KB, 378x365px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 378x365px

>>9112144
desu yes, for example I live in southwestern ontario and all of our active nuclear stations everyday have to offload A LOT of energy into the great lakes as heat (something they were not designed to do on a consistent basis) because the government decided they would pay out on contracts to wind farms first. Its literally ass backwards to the way it should work for maximum efficiency and no one has any idea what the environmental impact of heating the lakes will be in the long term. All based on the sheer idiocy of the general public and political establishment. People are retards in general but as soon as the word nuclear comes into the conversation its an order of magnitude worse, ie how MRI is actually NMRI for the same reasons.

>>9112054
dumbfuck

>>9112054
just to be clear most designs of fission reactors cant detonate, the absolute worst case scenario is you flood the station with super heated irradiated steam which is than pulled into a vacuum building. Obviously anyone inside is dead and the station is a write off but the damage to the local area is minimal to non existant

>>9112125
Why solar and not some other renewable such as wind?

>>9112365
desu senpai what if we started calling nuclear power something else, along the same lines?

>>9112372
>absolute worst case scenario
>not an earthquake, human error, tsunami, tornado, equipment malfunction or hurricane
lol

>>9112009
Dunno. Might have something to do with all the nuclear waste that will outlive human civilization. But hey, if you like it so much, maybe you can bury it in your backyard.

>>9112009
In Soviet Russia, nuclear energy shits on you.

Joking aside, media scare tactics play a big role.

That combined with people's lack of understanding makes it seem like dangerous voodoo black magic.

Also if there were better ways to minimize the waste it might seem more "clean".

>>9112140
I like how the public cannot benefit from nuclear, yet every submarine and aircraft carrier built since 1975 is nuclear powered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors

"There are no commissioned conventional (non-nuclear) submarines or aircraft carriers left in the U.S. Navy"

The military wants to keep the good shit to itself.

>>9112537
No, the military is the only organization that has the clout to tell the oil industry to fuck off. That's the problem here in the US, the oil industry doesn't want its profits cut into so it funds """"""""""Green""""""""""" energy and anti-nuclear groups.

>>9112472
Nah, we'll just use reactors that generate minuscule waste or none at all and build better reactors that can use waste as fuel, as we have been doing. But hey, keep on burning coal to fuel those wind turbines, the Koch Brothers told you that it's "Carbon negative" after all!

>>9112554
>has the clout to tell the oil industry to fuck off
As we use our military to protect our oil interests.

Look at Saudi Arabia. We are fighting/funding wars all around them. It's not because we need the oil and it's not because we think their way of life is great. We just want to claim a spot on the geographic Go board.

>>9112554
>You can either use coal (which we all know is being phased out) or you can use nuclear energy, but NOTHING ELSE
Know how I know that literally every single fucking pro-nuclear thread online is typed up by the nuclear energy lobbyists?

>>9112472
Sure. They can feel free to bury it in my back yard. I'm not concerned about the radiated energy from something with a half life of millions of years.

don't forget a lot of recent reactors and WIPs are expensive nightmares, just think that one EDF has been working on in Finland for decades

>>9112688
Why not go buy a nuclear superfund site and build a house? You could do it real cheap! I'm kind of surprised you pro-nuclear people wouldn't have jumped on the real estate investment opportunity of a lifetime yet!

>>9112702
I live in concord mass.

Nevada and Arizona have huge tracts of unpopulated area away from groundwater that will probably never be populated. We know how to build landfills, and we know how to safely transport nuclear waste. To insinuate that we can't handle the decreasing amounts of nuclear byproduct that comes with each advancement in the field is simply absurd.

I don't know why you're so insistent on throwing your hands in the air and declaring this an insurmountable obstacle that should never be attempted and immediately abandoned.

>>9112718
Well I guess that's that, huh? Nothing to worry about. There are, after all, never accidents during transit or spillage on-site at plants or multiple sites in America polluted into the foreseeable future or anything. Go nukes!

Away. Go away.

>>9112365
Yea well thats what a marxist government does

>>9112128
>>9112367
>>9112372
He's right though. For every nuclear reactor there's a 50% chance of a major accident happening: either it happens or it doesn't.

>>9112365
What should be happening is your shit getting shut down and tore to the ground.

>>9112009
Because it's an unprofitable government tit sucking dinosaur that only really exists to provide plutonium for bombs.

>>9112012
>china
>hydroelectric
>$28/MWh

holy FUUUUUUCK
no wonder they can make fuck all for pennies at a time

>>9112772
>>china
>>hydroelectric
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
>estimated 171,000 deaths and 11 million displaced

>>9112753
You are most likely the dumbest poster on /sci/.

>>9112009
>huge upfront investment
>takes a decade to build

the whole business model is so fucked up no one is even sure of the cost of a single kwh, not to mention how long it takes before the investment returns. all the nuclear power plants are state sponsored, and most attempts to sell them to the private capital fails because no one want to touch this shit.

the only way they could actually start making money is through state interventionism and banning/putting prohibitive prices on the co2 emissions.

>>9112009
Safety you fucking mongo

File: probability.png (283KB, 714x335px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 714x335px

>>9112777

>>9112791
Why do you think fucking nuke lobbyists make these fucking propaganda threads all over the internet every single fucking day?

>>9112816
t. oil lobbyist

>>9112816
exactly!

>>9112822
No. Fuck you both.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (65KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1280x720px

>>9112054
Oh really? Then list me every single thing that can go wrong in a LFTR. And don't invent your own imaginary flaws.

>>9112472
lol what the fuck, you think that just because a material has a half life of a billion years it will be incredibly dangerous for a billion years? No.

Radiation is spread out across time. The bigger the half-life, the less radiation is emitted. The shorter the half-life, the more radiation is emitted.

Therefore, all nuclear waste which is radioactive and can kill you, will stop being radioactive in 100 years (Mostly Cesium-137 with its half life of 30 years, other isotopes have even shorter half lives)

>>9112839
Oh so it's only pollution for a century. Well, I feel much better now!

>>9112845
That's if we keep using these nuclear reactors which produce useless waste.

The LFTR reactors don't produce *any* radioactive waste.

Also don't forget that there are reactor designs that basically burn waste for their fuel

>>9112835
t. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Green"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" energy stooge

File: deaths per twh.jpg (47KB, 1024x743px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1024x743px

>>9112791
The Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese built over 30 individual reactors each under 6 years.

Even the Russians build them fast.

Only in the west is there problems.
>>9112845
And while we don't use nuclear power we burn coal which pollutes even more.

What is your magic solution? To go back to the stoneage? Because that's what the likes of Greenpeace wants.

Renewable energy in its current state is a waste of taxpayer money.

>>9112863
The chinese can build reactors fast because they don't have 40 year old government-funded regulatory committee that can shut down any project they want for no reason at all

>>9112873
If only the NRC was run like the FAA

>>9112839
is the LFTR thing not just a meme? I remember being slightly obsessed with that shit in high school but then I heard nothing about it for years.
>>9112845
100 years is fucking nothing in storage

File: Energy-subsidies-according-to-the-EIA-chart-from-the-Energy-Information-Administration.jpg (44KB, 577x316px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 577x316px

>>9112011
All power generation is heavily subsidized and since renewables started competing for the same subsidies, things like Coal and Nuclear have been suffering for it. Battling for subsidies has always been a pretty heavily political thing.

That graph isn't nationwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

>>9113143
>coal and natgas gets 1/6th of the subsidies the renewables and nuclear get
>contributes 70% of the market energy

>>9113087
china has 700 engineers working on LFTR apparently, and they predict 2040-2045 the first reactors will start coming out of production lines

>>9112729
and there are absolutely never any accidents in the coal industry too

File: how secure is your password.jpg (312KB, 833x1082px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 833x1082px

>>9112009
But ANON what if it EXPLODES into l-like a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION and shiet?!?the entire world could die!imagine a entire country the size of britain getting nuked and being erased of existence!

this is what normies actually believe

>>9112009
because political reasons. Go to /pol/, they should tell you.

>>9112863
>And while we don't use nuclear power we burn coal which pollutes even more.
Not for long. That's leaving whether you shill or not.

>>9113267
So what? I'm not a coal shill.

You guys just keep on those scripted talking points. Maybe one day...

File: shill card.jpg (38KB, 960x538px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 960x538px

>>9113373

>>9113960
Nobody's losing anything. The fact that you nuke shills constantly try to claim that actual renewable energy is not even an option, when Germany produces more solar power than FUCKING AMERICA while having the solar incidence of fucking ALASKA proves you're lying sacks of piss with a financial axe to grind.

I'm sorry, but you're not getting your fucking way. PISS OFF.

File: german vs french nuclear.jpg (160KB, 1000x629px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1000x629px

>>9113976
Yeah, real progress Germany is making.

>>9114001
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/08/germany-breaks-solar-record-gets-85-electricity-renewables/

Just keep on shilling, shill.

>>9114007
>on one day
bravo

France does it cleaner everyday for years

File: 1494304477751.gif (775KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

775KB, 300x168px

>baseload generation is obsolete!

>>9114013
Careful, there's someone here who actually believes this.

File: 20130601_USC718.png (44KB, 290x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 290x480px

>>9112791

These guys really need to put down the physics books and pick up some economics books.

>>9113143

>not using energy is the most expensive form of energy of all.

????

>>9112807
How does that statement make any sense? An even might have a 2% probability of happening.

It is dangerous, releases more co2 than renewables, and incredibly polluting even without disasters.

>>9114010
>on one day

Even so, it means renewables are providing most of the energy most of the time.
It's bigger than non-renewables *today*,
and the trend is not reversing.

>>9112011
>Nuclear
>EVER paying for itself
Choose one nuclear cuck

>>9112391
Remember Fukushima? The worst that came out of it was the damages caused by the panicking masses more so than the actual emergency.

>>9112729
I guess we should ban cars since they cause so many deaths. It's fine, we'll manage with bicycles. Sure, it's way less efficient, but we'll be safe from accidents!

>>9114266
It's always great to see how nucucks get so triggered that they can only argue with strawmans

>>9114270
You still haven't rebutted >>9114001 and >>9112839

>>9114287
>Muh CO2
A non-issues when considering nuclear vs non-nuclear.
>Muh half-life
See above.

Now find me a single nuclear plant that actually made enough to pay for construction costs, fuel, energy production itself, storage and ultimatly deconstruction. [spoiler]You can`t[/spoiler].
It's a taxpayer funded scam, promoted by gullible and edgy brainlets.

File: 1502312277899.jpg (188KB, 586x514px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 586x514px

>>9112009
nuclear energy is dangerous goy

File: 1502573016834s.jpg (7KB, 250x206px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x206px

>>9112391
by the same reasoning all of manhattan shouldnt exist because there might be a giant earthquake there tomorrow and cause a catastrophe

File: 1502584773807.jpg (7KB, 226x223px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 226x223px

>>9112729
>spillage
is this a joke? are you forming your opinion based on the simpsons? Would it surprise you to know fissile material is shipped all over the place globally every day? Would it surprise you to know that there is a HUGE amount of fissile material that is missing?

Tell me more about this apparently liquid waste you seem to think exists, and elaborate on how a deep geological repository can cause meaningful pollution. Read a book so you dont sound like a complete ignoramus in the future

>>9113976
holy shit you cant be this dumb, the question with renewable sources isnt the number of megawatts you can generate its how to store the energy for use during periods when you cant generate.

You also apparently have literally no conception of how the modern power grid works in that there isnt just some invariant constant power that needs to be delivered. I actually despise people like you because you ostensibly have the power to vote and directly hurt the body politic via your willful ignorance

>>9112663
Ah yes of course there is the option of using wind and solar and just sitting in the dark when neither the sun nor the wind is available. How could I forget.

>>9112802
Nuclear energy is literally the safest method of providing a base load.

>>9112365
Do you have some sources on that? Not doubting just want to read more.

>>9113174
>adding renewable subsidies to nuclear subsidies for no reason when nuclear subsidies are less than half of coal and natural gas
Fuck off oil shill

>>9112863
>Hydro (w/o Banqiao)
this is a bad graph and whoever made it should feel bad

>>9114241
>It is dangerous
False

>releases more co2 than renewables
False

>and incredibly polluting even without disasters.
False

Why are you lying?

>>9114250
>Even so, it means renewables are providing most of the energy most of the time.
No it doesn't you massive retard.

>>9114241
releases more co2 than renewables

how does it release any co2 at all?
can somebody explain is there something involved during the production of the rods or some other shit?

>>9114532
It's just a retard lying through his teeth. He does this in every nuclear thread.

>>9114262
That was actually party in fault due to Naoto Kan's decision to not vent the reactor buildings, causing hydrogen gas to build up.

If the buildings had been vented the explosion most likely would not have occurred.

The guy even had the gall to claim that he "saved Tokyo" afterwards.

File: OPs Favorite Dildo.jpg (17KB, 421x274px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 421x274px

>>9112009
>cost, pollution, politics and etc. of mining rare radioactive elements
>politics and etc. of having nuclear fuel
>cost, politics, limited locations and etc. of building the nuclear plants
>politics, public disapproval and etc. of having nuclear plants
>cost, politics, area of effect, time frame of effects and etc. when shit hits the fan
Now go back to /pol/.

>>9114588
But anon, uranium is about as common as tin

>>9114588
>cost, pollution, politics and etc. of mining rare radioactive elements
>cost, politics, limited locations and etc. of building the nuclear plants
>cost, politics, area of effect, time frame of effects and etc. when shit hits the fan
Relative to what?

>politics and etc. of having nuclear fuel
>>politics, public disapproval and etc. of having nuclear plants
Well I guess we should stop doing abortions since they're politically controversial. Not an argument.

All you do is repeat the same lies over and over again, ignoring whenever you get BTFO.

>>9114602
>/pol/ logic

>Relative to what?
I'm talking absolute, not relative.

>Well I guess we should stop doing abortions since they're politically controversial.
I guess we should legalize savory, child porn, rape, murder, thievery, every drug, and give every country nuclear warheads because they're politically controversial; which is not a reason to not do things. It's not like they're politically controversial for a reason or anything.

Jesus, /pol/tards are thick in the skull. All you do is repeat the same lies over and over again, ignoring whenever you get BTFO.

File: 1440191065903.jpg (80KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 625x626px

>>9114639

I wonder how much of the stigma around nuclear power comes from the fact that (I think) sometimes nuclear power programs are/(were used to be?) put into action as a sort of pre-requisite to nuclear armament production.

>France
>75% of nuclear energy
>lowest electricity price in Europe
>low pollution
Why your country don't use nuclear ?

File: stop_fukushima.png (122KB, 558x354px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 558x354px

>>9112009
nuclear is shit and you should feel bad if you are pro-nuclear

also, fuck coal and active solar.

People think nuclear will go boom like a nuke, and they also think that waste is a magic green goop that kills you in seconds if you go near the barrels that have this magic goop, and also this magic goop lasts for gazillions of years

>>9114768
>shows a picture of cooling towers, essentially proving he's afraid of PWR reactors
>doesn't know anything about LFTR

>>9114639
>/pol/ logic
You're the one who is helping the coal industry.

>I'm talking absolute, not relative.
Then you have no point.

>I guess we should legalize savory, child porn, rape, murder, thievery, every drug, and give every country nuclear warheads because they're politically controversial
You seem very confused. If I point out that whether nuclear power is politically controversial has no relevance towards its value, that does not somehow imply that I am saying anything politically controversial has value. You're affirming the consequent, moron.

>>9114812
LFTR is the fucking devil you pagan shit.

>>9114639
Nuclear power has zero pollution dumbass.

>>9114875
>LFTR IS THE DEVIL

Explain.

>>9112095

I don't understand why the green parties still reject nuclear energy by current year. Over here, they once lfet the coalition government for the matter. Obviously both solar and wind energy has been insufficient over here.

>>9114497
>implying anyone who seriously advocates for wind or solar wants them to completely replace other fuels

>>9114912
Then you need fossil fuels or nuclear you stupid asshat.

>>9114919
Yes? Why are you insulting me again?

>>9114921
you're on 4chan m8

>>9114921
So you are pro-nuclear. God job retard.

Also, you just assumed that anyone pointing out nuclear is better than coal was saying one could only use coal or nuclear, then got offended when someone threw the same misrepresention back at you: >>9112663

>>9114935
>implying that was me

>>9114951
Then why are you replying when you clearly don't understand the context of the conversation, shithead?

>>9114851
OP asked why people shit on nuclear and I told him why. Do you even have the mental capacity to be able to read?
>didn't even read the full sentence that they quoted or the following sentence
Don't answer that question because it was rhetorical and I already know you don't have the mental capacity.

Nuclear will never have as much value as other energy sources unless it's widely used. It wouldn't matter if it created an infinite amount of energy. It's worthless if absolutely no one is willing to use it and absolutely no one wants others to use it.
you can go back to your board anytime now >>>/pol/

>>9115011
>OP asked why people shit on nuclear and I told him why.
And then I explained why those reasons make no sense. Can you read or do you just enjoy spouting non-sequitur?

>Nuclear will never have as much value as other energy sources unless it's widely used.
Why is it not widely used? Because it's politically unpopular. Why is it politically unpopular? Because people like you lie about it and claim it has no value. It's a self fulfilling prophecy with no rational basis. Instead of talking about the relative costs and benefits of nuclear, you revert to "politics" and how unpopular it is. This is no different from anyone who hates something for no reason. You are essentially an intellectual virus.

>>9115011
Considering that renewables only power 7.5% of the world and nuclear powers 14%, and that many countries don't care much about renewables gives it little value according to your logic.

France is over 70% nuclear-powered, all powerful navies use nuclear propulsion.

>>9115068
>It's the big bad gubmint/media/society suppressing X for """"""no reason"""""""
typical /pol/tard

I'll humor you. Go ahead and post your outdated uncited graphs, FOX/CNN news articles, papers citing Wikipedia/Google, "GoNuclearFTW" web blogs, or whatever you have. I've got other stuff to do. But I'll return in a day or so to see what you've got.

>>9112125
Never trust a man who doesn't enjoy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

>>9114510
you can get a quick outline of the way a CANDU works in general here
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/nuclear-power-plant-safety-systems/index.cfm
but the condensers in question are basically an over sized heat exchange that uses the cool water of the lake as its cold side.

Aside from the questionable environmental impact it also costs a huge amount of money in maintenance both in labour and material.
t. i worked at bruce power for 5 years and my entire family is/was employed there

Why haven't we adopted safe fusion reactors yet?

OOOGA BOOOGA FUKUSHIMA OOOOOGA BOOOGA RADIO BAD

>>9114532
the operators breath

check mate

>>9112025
So what would you use as coolant if not water?

Probably something stupid like the Simpsons.

>>9115011
>>9114639
>>9114588
This is what happens when we let these anti-/pol/ fags run rampant. Being pro-nuclear energy is suddenly /pol/ now.

>>9114588
>politics
>politics
>politics
>politics, public disapproval
>politics
You're arguing that Nuclear Energy is bad because you think it is bad.

>>9112125
If you want to go deeper, nuclear power is basically harnessing the power of same kind of stuff that happens on the sun (no fusion yet but still), solar power is a really roundabout way of doing it from millions of miles away.

File: The+Elephant's+Foot+of+the+Chernobyl+disaster,+1986+(1)[1].jpg (244KB, 1200x816px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1200x816px

>>9114877
Tell that to the residents of Chernobyl.

>>9112009
You don't know why?

>Muh Fukushiiima
>Every nuclear power plant is a bomb factory
>Muh [military type*] reactor in Chernobyl blew up

>>9116198
*Why it's nearly never mentioned? That was actual reactor intended to making plutonium for bombs

>>9116198
Chernobyl is such a great example. It continued to produce electricity until 1999 when the EU pressured Ukraine to shut down the final reactor. Why was the plant shut down? Maybe because it was outdated but it still produced electricity for 13 years after the disaster.

Because it's a temporary solution at best?
Because the cost of handling nuclear waste for several dozen generations is not factored in your electricity bill?
Because one big fuck up would make our life miserable, if at all possible?
Because the industry has a long history of fuck ups, even at the limited scale it's being used?

>>9114877
sure buddy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Health_risks_of_uranium_mining

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_in_the_environment#Mining_and_milling

>>9114755
>what are subsidies

File: 1499806307498.png (49KB, 254x273px)

49KB, 254x273px

tfw my country is building a new NPP

enjoy your gay ass unreliable "green" energy ecocucks

>>9112863
source?

File: 1495304689665.png (34KB, 812x746px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 812x746px

>Be a nuke cuck
>Have an unreliable grid
Kek, keep shilling. Also the plants look like shit.

>>9112054
Does that apply to power sources other than nuclear?

>>9112472
Material that is radioactive is an energy source -- it is literally spitting energy at you.

Another term for such a material is "fuel." Any nuclear waste that is emitting much energy will be a valuable resource someday.

>>9112729
>There are, after all, never accidents during transit or spillage on-site at plants or multiple sites in America polluted into the foreseeable future or anything.

These are also problems with coal, oil and everything else. They are not unique to nuclear.

If your position is that we can't do anything safely, and therefore should just freeze to death in the dark, feel free to say so -- I doubt that argument will carry the debate.

>>9112753
Define "major accident" please.

Thinking back over news reports of "major accidents" at nuclear plants over the past decades, I think your figures are inflated, unless your definition of "major accident" is designed to yield a high number by counting minor incidents in which nobody is hurt and no real impact on the outside world occurs.

I also wonder if you have figures handy for a chance of a "major accident," using the same definition, at other power plants over their lifetime.

>>9112777
>You are most likely the dumbest poster on /sci/.


NO! I won't have that!
There're those guys who post flat earth threads...

>>9112863
Because in the west we are hip deep in lawyers.

>>9113285
Reminds me of two old ladies in a coffee shop, trying to talk about a nuke plant down the road, but not sure how to say what they were trying to say. One of them came out with," You know, that fire-cracker-factory where they make electricity out of neutron bombs."

>>9113370
>>9113373

So no coal, no nukes, most "renewables" have huge scaling problems for the foreseeable future... what is your plan?

Freezing to death in the dark is a bad plan, so I assume you have something else in mind.

File: fukushima-mutant-flowers_mirror co ukfb_1457608834_725x725_1459932818.jpg (89KB, 725x380px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 725x380px

>>9114262
Fukushima is still leaking into the ocean.

The problem with nuclear accidents is they're not an acute problem. The damage to the environment is done slowly, and over time. If there's anything to be said about governments and bureaucracy is that they respond very well to an immediate or an acute problem, but slow ones such as a nuclear reactor with a slow leak, or global warming are impossible for them to tackle.

A single leaking nuclear reactor, like Fukushima, may be a literal drop in the bucket, but we could very easily become complacent in this fact, and have 5, 6, or 10 leaky nuclear reactors all over the globe, slowly poisoning it. We're not equipped to handle this sort of problem. Both from a practical mechanical stand point we're ill-equipped, but from societal or maturity standpoint, we're ill-equipped.

>>9114007
If, on a scale of one to one million, I move from a two to a four, I have doubled what I am doing and can get all excited about it... but I am still at four out of a million.

>>9114532
Notice he said "more than renewables." Presumably there is some carbon released by mining equipment, shipping parts and fuel and what not... There would be similar carbon costs for renewables, it would be conceivable that the carbon released per kwh for nuclear is higher -- though MUCH lower than burning gas or coal.

>>9114639
Relative to other options, so fucking obviously.

>>9114639
I think you meant "unsavory child porn, rape, murder..."

>>9114895
Because they were founded as anti-nuke movements, and are to some extent still run by those guys, well supplemented by Luddites who fear technology but haven't yet noticed that generating power at the necessary scales by any of their pet means will also be huge technological undertakings.

>>9116565
Every time I go to the beach I leak into the ocean too. So what?

Are there any negative consequences to this "leak?" I mean specific consequences you can cite, not 'muh feels."

File: figure11_en.png (128KB, 695x418px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 695x418px

>>9116596
Imbecile

Ammonia from piss is recycled by bacteria and is part of the natural cycle of life.
Let's look at something that's NOT part of any natural life cycle. Mercury for example. Slowly and surely mercury has dribbled into our oceans over the decades. Nobody cared cause nobody thought it'd have any effect. But now fish from the ocean, which use to be a staple food of many communities, is a treat that can only be had once a week with out risk of mercury poisoning. In a few decades or century all fish in the ocean may be toxic to eat. Same with whale meat. At this present time whale meat is toxic to humans due to mercury concentrations. A single bite is enough to cause mercury poisoning. It use to be a staple food of Japanese society.

These effects are cumulative and long standing. The damage will remain long after your grandchildren have died, assuming you mate that is.

>>9116277
>Because it's a temporary solution at best?
As opposed to what? The only other way to provide consistent power everywhere is fossil fuels, which is even more temporary and very harmful.

>Because the cost of handling nuclear waste for several dozen generations is not factored in your electricity bill?
The cost of nuclear fuel storage is miniscule. It's just sitting it in a container. The external costs of the alternative is much higher.

>Because one big fuck up would make our life miserable, if at all possible?
Nuclear disasters are not that dangerous. Fossil fuels are far more deadly and costly.

>Because the industry has a long history of fuck ups, even at the limited scale it's being used?
With practically no deaths and little harm caused.

Instead of telling me how nuclear is imperfect, why don't you tell me how nuclear is worse than the alternative, shill?

>>9114253
Proof that it doesn't already?

>>9116608
>asked for negative consequences to Fukushima leak
>can't answer so instead talks about mercury
Shill.

File: 300px-Shill_Card.jpg (10KB, 300x168px)

10KB, 300x168px

>>9116616
don't /pol/ post on /sci/ anymore.

Plz go, never come back

>>9112537
>yet every submarine and aircraft carrier built since 1975 is nuclear powered.

The military gets a different quality of reactor, with a different grade of fuel. And they don't run the reactors for profit- they run it to move warships through water. They're self-regulated, no NRC involvement. They're also married to the big water and mobile- if they fuck things up bad, they just move out into the ocean and sink the reactors.

It's a whole different ballgame.

>>9112012
What about non-photovoltaic solar?

>>9112009

Propaganda, just like most everything else.

>>9114599
>as common as tin
but you gotta use a certain isotope of uranium and that means using equipment that take lots of energy.

>>9116565
>5, 6, or 10 leaky nuclear reactors

leaks get detected much easier than that. They'll never have 5 reactors worldwide too complacent to notice a slow leak AND allow that contamination to reach the environment.

The slow poisoning happens through the production of radioactive waste. Every time they have to replace some pieces of their radioactive systems, they build a collection of all these activated metals. All the nuclear plants have to do this all the time, and the only thing they can do about it is expensively bury this stuff somewhere and try to forget about if for a couple centuries. This stuff gets out in small pieces, and the backround radiation exposure increases for humanity across the world, and chronic radiation exposure like that just keeps increasing the likelyhood of cancer. If over 60 years 9 billion people have a .01% increased chance of cancer due to nuclear power, nuclear power just brought 900,000 people to an early grave.

Someone post the story of the iradiated japanese guy that literally melted alive for 80 days and the government wouldn't allow to die, just because.

>>9116730
>left to painfully die in hospital bed for 2 months with 0 chance of recovery
>his last name was ...... Ouchi

>>9116662
>If over 60 years 9 billion people have a .01% increased chance of cancer due to nuclear power
It's actually a 0% increase.

>>9116640
that tech is still in the dark

File: 6a00d83476d35153ef019b00d3d817970c-600wi.jpg (23KB, 600x369px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x369px

>>9116518
Bravo for leaving out Korea

Is the "danger" aspect of nuclear energy even a valid argument? Oil production has produced tons of death and damage. From tanker spills, to blown up rigs, to territorial wars over wells.

Nuclear is ridiculously more efficient, stupid that the "muh danger" boogeyman is holding it back. I want to see controlled fusion in my lifetime.

>>9114240
how does it feel to have a 100% change of being dumber than a rock

>>9114240
Either I'm being double-bluffed or /sci/ has gone to shit.

>>9116551
jesus fucking christ how autistic are you

>>9116622
feel free to explain what mercury has to do with nuclear power any time, friend

>>9116482
http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/risk/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf
>>9116301
You might be retarded enough not to check out the second post
>>9112011

>>9116608
Caesium-137 decays to 1% of its initial mass within 210 years. Mercury doesn't.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/01/11/national/radioactive-cesium-fukushima-fish-government-limit-2016/#.WZnKwSh96Uk

>The proportion of fish samples surpassing the limit has decreased every year since 2011, when the figure stood at 39.8 percent, according to laboratory data.
>The figure stood at 16.5 percent in 2012, 3.7 percent in 2013, 0.9 percent in 2014 and 0.05 percent in 2015.

An exponential decline as expected.

http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html

>>9116847
You are etarded enough to miss the topic what the example of France.

>>9116996
What makes you think that it would much different?

Heck, French reactors were built cheaper.

File: forthemuppeton4chan.png (1MB, 1024x744px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x744px

>>9112009

>>9117007
>What makes you think that it would much different?
Knowledge

>Heck, French reactors were built cheaper.
Rrright, How much is that one they're building in Finland at right now?

>>9117036
>were
Your literacy is lacking

>knowledge
Show me the amount of subsidies France hands out to renewables per unit of energy they produce.

>>9112777
>>9114240
It's b8, holy fuck you're thick

File: fukushima[1].jpg (49KB, 623x300px)

49KB, 623x300px

>We still have children being born with birth defects from Fukushima and Chernobyl and we have radioactive waste leaking into the ocean with a massive effect on sea life but yeah... nuclear is totally safe and hazard free.
Nuclear idiots are so delusional it hurts. I'm no fan of coal but for fucks sake admit your shit can fuck up and when it does it pretty much renders the surrounding area uninhabitable for decades to come.

>>9117048
>Your literacy is lacking
what did a car cost in 1960? And how relvant is that number?

>Show me the amount of subsidies France hands out to renewables per unit of energy they produce.
when will you stop changing the topic?

File: 19603D4300000578-624_636x358.jpg (39KB, 636x358px)

39KB, 636x358px

>>9112009
Why don't you build a nuclear reactor in your garage?

>>9117078
>when will you stop changing the topic?
Are you daft? You're the one who put up the notion that renewables don't require as many subsidies as nuclear in France.

>>9117068
Nice wave height map.

>>9117095
>Are you daft? You're the one who put up the notion that renewables don't require as many subsidies as nuclear in France.
If you're too much of a brainlet to remember the content of the post that spawned the discussion then why don't you just follow the backlinks and read it up?

>>9117095
>wave height map
The delusion continues!

>>9117068
>We still have children being born with birth defects from Fukushima
But that's wrong you ducking idiot. Fukushima's radiation levels were so low the WHO and UNSCEAR don't even think their is a statistically increased chance of cancer or birth defects. When you can't even get basic facts straight and just spew whatever sounds correct to you, you make a fool of yourself.

>we have radioactive waste leaking into the ocean with a massive effect on sea life
Ah, what exactly is that "massive" effect? Do you have any idea what you're squawking about or are you just making it up as you go?

>I'm no fan of coal but for fucks sake admit your shit can fuck up and when it does it pretty much renders the surrounding area uninhabitable for decades to come.
Most people have already moved back to the surrounding area. Better tell them it's "uninhabitable."

At least admit you have no idea what you're talking about and that nuclear is far safer than coal.

File: 1502770682443.png (60KB, 800x960px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x960px

>>9112365
Gotta warm the lakes to justify the global warming carbon taxes

File: get.png (57KB, 287x189px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 287x189px

Here's a pic. from:
http://pubs.rsc.org/-/content/articlelanding/2012/ee/c2ee22019a/unauth#!divAbstract

>>9117495
Cute opinions. Now where are those citations?

File: 1346258688133.gif (349KB, 135x101px)

349KB, 135x101px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU

>>9112009
>nuclear is fine!
•September 13, 1987 – Goiania accident. Four fatalities and 320 other people received serious radiation contamination
•1996 – Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica. Thirteen fatalities and 114 other patients received an overdose of radiation.
•August 9, 2004 – Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident. Hot water and steam leaked from a broken pipe. The accident was the worst nuclear disaster of Japan up until that time, excluding Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Five fatalities.
•March 12, 2011 – Fukushima. Level 7 nuclear accident on the INES. Three of the reactors at Fukushima I overheated, causing meltdowns that eventually led to explosions, which released large amounts of radioactive material into the environment.
•September 29, 1957 – Mayak nuclear waste storage tank explosion at Chelyabinsk. Two hundred plus fatalities and this figure is a conservative estimate; 270,000 people were exposed to dangerous radiation levels. Over thirty small communities had been removed from Soviet maps between 1958 and 1991.(INES level 6).
•April 26, 1986 – Chernobyl disaster. (oh fug)
•1974-1976 Columbus radiotherapy accident; 10 fatalities, 78 injuries.
•October 8, 1957 – Windscale fire ignites plutonium piles and contaminates surrounding dairy farms, 33 cancer deaths
•Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; 129,000–226,000+ killed
•Church Rock uranium mill spill: Over 1,000 tons of solid radioactive mill waste and 93 million gallons of acidic, radioactive tailings solution flowed into the Puerco River, and contaminants traveled 80 miles (130 km) downstream to Navajo County, Arizona and onto the Navajo Nation.
•2016, Handford site, 3,500 gallons of nuclear waste leak at Washington State storage site
•Acerinox accident
•Bajzë Rail Station
•Goiânia accident
•Lake Karachay
•Mayapuri
•Ndrangheta
•Techa River
>nuclear is fine

Uh, nuclear is fine, right guys?

>>9117302
Cs-137, half-life is 30y, so it'll take 200+ years before 99% of it is gone.

>>9114250
>Even so, it means renewables are providing most of the energy most of the time.
but that is absolutely wrong are you literally retarded?

>>9117302
>Over most of the ocean it is in hundreds of Bq.
>Hundreds of decays per second in a m^2 of water
>Human body has natural radioactivity of 4k or so Bq
>Literally less radioactive decay than in human body
Oh wow, it is fucking nothing

>>9112383

Wind is literally the worst form of energy production. Expensive to set up, very variable production, highest maintenance costs per kw/hr, best places are usually difficult to build massive windmills in/are far from where the power is actually being used, etc.

Nuclear is the best option because it's the most energy dense, safest, cleanest, and most reliable. Solar goes with nuclear because nuclear fills all the actual demand, and solar is used for supplementary power/'because it's there'.

That's not even considering that there are vast improvements to be made with fission technology the moment we seriously invest in a liquid fueled design, since the fuel can be continuously cleaned of fission and decay products that poison the reaction, allowing 100% fuel burn up (as opposed to the 0.4% achievable in a solid fuel design). Liquid fuel reactors can run on Thorium too, because it's really easy to separate the fissile material bred out of the fertile Thorium in the reactor when everything's constantly liquid.

>>9112773

who gives a shit dude, a few hundred thousand fewer mouths to feed in return for cheaper electricity, there's no downside

>>9117068
>no legend showing what color corresponds to what REM dosage

for all I know blue could be background radiation and red could be 100.005% background radiation.
Also, you do know that ocean water has a shitload of thorium and uranium dissolved in it, right? Not to mention all that radioactive potassium.

>>9118702
The graph doesn't even show radiation density, it's just a model of debris flow.

because decades of soviet anti-nuclear subterfuge has set back the reputation of nuclear in the west

File: screen-shot-2016-02-09-at-4.14.33-pm-100644028-orig.png (4MB, 1394x932px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1394x932px

>>9116818
There are quite a few non-photovoltaic solar power plants in operation

>>9115896
>you can get a quick outline of the way a CANDU works in general here
What about DINDU?

>>9112365
>>9115896

I know more about nuclear power than I'm legally allowed to discuss on this public forum, and I always had lots of respect for the CANDU design. It's a shame it gets wasted in Canada.

>>9118564
>K-40 is the only noteworthy radionuclide in the human body.
>You're trying to compare the decay of K-40 to Cs-137.
>A fraction of the radiation from "4k or so Bq" within the human body emits gamma rays, and a fraction of that even makes it outside body.
>An area half the size of the US covered with 1k-10k Bq/m^2.
Lol. Go read about nuclear decay. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

File: EROI-Book-Figure.jpg (76KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 960x720px

>>9119458
Better than PV in many cases

https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf

>>9121035
now recalculate it with the state not taking over all responsibility and cost for nuclear waste forever.

Windscale
Three Mile Island
Chernobyl
Fukushima

Waste
Cost

The sun, the wind and the waves aren't going away. Why should we risk nuclear?

>>9121068
The cost would be essentially zero if you fucking retarded luddites hadn't scrapped the Yucca repository. Another self fulfilling prophecy from the braindead anti-nuclear fucks.

>>9121123
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because no renewable source can provide a consistent baseload? The choice is between nuclear or fossil fuels. Nuclear will always be the better choice. No matter how much you cry, the fact is that if you are anti-nuclear you are pro-coal.

>>9121068
this

File: Screenshot_10.png (695KB, 854x684px) Image search: [Google]

695KB, 854x684px

>>9116198
These are the residents of chernobyl and the are flourishing

>>9116565
>muh fukushima is leaking in the ocean
oh really, gimme those greenpeace """""""papers"""""" that say so

>>9121205
you might see donkeys, but I see a doctor, an engineer and a lawyer

File: la-me-solar-bird-deaths-pictures-009.jpg (52KB, 1250x703px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1250x703px

>>9119458
>This Mojave Desert solar plant kills 6,000 birds a year.
>as birds fly into concentrated beams of sunlight and are instantly incinerated, leaving wisps of white smoke against the blue desert sky.
>Workers at the Ivanpah Solar Plant have a name for the spectacle: “Streamers.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-solar-bird-deaths-20160831-snap-story.html

>>9112009

Probably all the radiation n shit

>>9121711
radical

this is literally my favorite form of power generation

File: thorium.png (318KB, 597x612px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 597x612px

>>9114588
>9115896
The nuclear solution is here. you can handled it with naked hand

>>9117026
>hurr, if i get photos of deformed kids that happen all over the world I can claim it happened because of chernobyl

>>9118275
>•September 13, 1987 – Goiania accident. Four fatalities and 320 other people received serious radiation contamination
>•1996 – Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica. Thirteen fatalities and 114 other patients received an overdose of radiation.
Medical, has nothing to do with power.

>•August 9, 2004 – Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident. Hot water and steam leaked from a broken pipe. The accident was the worst nuclear disaster of Japan up until that time, excluding Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Five fatalities.
No one killed by radiation. Exact same thing could happen in any thermal power plant that raises steam for generation

>•March 12, 2011 – Fukushima. Level 7 nuclear accident on the INES. Three of the reactors at Fukushima I overheated, causing meltdowns that eventually led to explosions, which released large amounts of radioactive material into the environment.
Didn't kill anyone

>•April 26, 1986 – Chernobyl disaster.
Incompetent Russians using and incompetently designed reactor. Only killed a few hundred people which is nothing compared to other energy sources.

>•1974-1976 Columbus radiotherapy accident; 10 fatalities, 78 injuries.
Medical, nothing to do with power.

>•October 8, 1957 – Windscale fire ignites plutonium piles and contaminates surrounding dairy farms, 33 cancer deaths.
Nuclear weapons, nothing to fo with power. Didn't kill anyone despite what Sovacool claims.

>•Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; 129,000–226,000+ killed
Nothing to do with power

>•Church Rock uranium mill spill
Killed no-one. Other mining disasters have been worse than this.

>•2016, Handford site, 3,500 gallons of nuclear waste leak at Washington State storage site
Nuclear weapons, not power. Hasn't killed anyone

>other minor incidents
Haven't killed anyone.

How does it feel to be so intellectually dishonest?

>>9119854
To be fair the design does get sold globally but afaik not to any relevant powers

>>9122036
yup. safest way to do it.

Nuclear is the future.

Solar/wind are Big oil/carbon's controlled opposition.

Just look at the yield of a nuclear power plant vs a solar farm at peak sunlight.

>>9117026
>Links chernobyl
>A reactor that the entire world knew would blow up any moment
>Thinks he is winning the debate because he is uneducated
Fucking leave

File: 3uAK0qnySTaetKlTiCyp4A.png (76KB, 630x314px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 630x314px

>>9117068
I can also take a picture of google earth and put radiation
Nice job listing those alt-news sites and channels that get their views for saying something stupid that no one else has said

>>9117495
Oh yes
Also my cat farts cesium-137 and it isn't covered by the news!!!11!!!


Fucking give us actual studies and not a random google images search

>>9118275
>Curiously doesn't mention all the deaths that happen from CO2 pollution, or all the accidents in oil-coal-gas powerplants

Death is death, do not sugarcoat things in order to make nuclear look bad. If someone died, someone died, no matter how.

>>9121123
>Thinks that more people died in those accidents than coal-gas-oil accidents
Fuck off

It's political hell

We can't get rid of spent fuel. We spent millions on a place in... Colorado I believe it was? Nevada maybe, to store our spent fuel, but That state doesn't want it potentially getting into their ground water or causing other issues when they dont even have nuclear generation.

We can't refine our used fuel and use it again for international political reasons. Basically the process is similar to that to make weapons and we get pissy when other countries do it so if we started doing it what would that say?

Basicly the spent fuel is a huge issue. Ends up making it more expensive than other options. On top of that many people fear it.

Due to the spent fuel and political issues around it it ends up being more expensive than many other options per KWH

My question is why don't we have more geothermal?

>>9114295
>CO2 is a non-issue compared to the actual non-issue of nuclear power
After 3 "famous" disasters, the planet still hasn't been irradiated. Hell, over 1,000 nuclear bombs detonated and things are still doing alright.

Oh, and look into the Enrico Fermi plant from DTE for a well-functioning and effective nuclear station.
>mfw DATE proposed a third reactor/station on the site and the community bitched about "toxicity", not even knowing that coal plants regularly emit more radiation into the environment

>>9122428
>geothermal

Most people don't live in between tectonic plates

Reposting a pdf from ages ago showing how little of a problem nuclear waste can be

http://thorconpower.com/docs/ct_yankee.pdf

>>9122428
>Due to the spent fuel and political issues around it it ends up being more expensive than many other options per KWH
The spent fuel is an issue because of politics. Literally the biggest actual problem with nuclear is politics. The entire argument boils down to "it's bad because we think it's bad, therefore it's too expensive because everyone thinks it's bad." Makes me want to slam my head against a wall.

>>9122428
>posts the same argument over and over again while ignoring responses
Anti-nuke shits are even more dishonest than climate change deniers

>>9118650
>human life is just another mouth to feed

Please kill yourself

Radioactive waste that is hazardous for tens of thousands of years is still a problem desu.

File: Deep-Borehole-Injection.jpg (73KB, 960x615px)

73KB, 960x615px

>>9122562

>>9122562
you are referring to the half life of u238, not the half lives of the dangerous isotopes

>>9122609
With modern directional drilling techniques you could get a lot more waste in there.

>>9122562
>forgetting that you can reuse nuclear fuel over and over again
The only fuel that can't be used for energy is the shit that isn't hazardous at all

>>9122619
RCT cleaning up after first reactor site still .t
plenty of hazards

>>9122487
Nice

>>9112054
Then you can suck my dick, you massive homossexual.

>>9122526
Yo that was my first and only post and it's all factual.

I don't think it's a bad idea but they are asking why it's not more popular. And that's why in the US at least.