Name one reason why nuclear power isn't the final solution to the environmental issue

Name one reason why nuclear power isn't the final solution to the environmental issue


Pro tip: you can't

You really cant...

the leader who implements nuclear power will go down as the GOAT

Maybe if you put nuclear power on the moon so there's less risk of accidents.

Jeff Bezos has a Charlie Rose interview where he envisions space as where we send all of our heavy, polluting industries while Earth remains zoned residential area.

nuclear power is the one place government should step in and be like "you know what if you fuck ANYTHING up, you're fucking done."
because the only real threat is people being too lazy/cheap/greedy with maintenance on the thing, look at chernobyl.
A town shouldn't blow up because some faggot was too lazy to make it run properly.

But at the same time I don't expect the government to do a good job of it either.

Well, but make sure its safe.

Because no matter how good nuclear power gets, you'll never prevent HR from fucking up, hiring retards, and causing Chernobyl 2.0.

Because HR exist to ruin everything, even nuclear power.

It's depressing.

We were so close. We almost had a future that would have transformed humanity more than coal did.

I wish we would switch to nuclear. We export uranium ffs. Plus we have so much land away from cities that does nothing so it would be relatively isolated if anything happened

>Maybe if you put nuclear power on the moon so there's less risk of accidents.

I can't even with you right now.

It would take more energy to transfer that energy back to the Earth. Even though it would probably never make it past the radiation belts.

I don't know if nuclear power is the final solution to the environmental issue, but it's certainly the final solution to another one...

thats why all the plants are from the 50's, dont see the point of trying to cut corners on something thats going to save you trillions of dollars anyways.

Because the Russians are behind it!

That's an engineering problem that's currently being worked on. As a policy question, it's possible in the future.

...

No, you put a space elevator on the moon, and use that microwave meme power propultion that physists say shouldn't work but it does.

Not too hard to exit the moon's gravity. Remember how small the appollo craft was?

Not enough uranium reserves.

Entire world nuclear-capable?

Waste is really fucking heavy, irradiated, and pain in the ass to deal with.

Not everywhere safe or practical. Requires steady, flowing body of water for cooling water.

Who'll pay for training thousands in nuclear power plant management?

>the government runs things better than private companies

no

Nuclear Waste

Actually you could beam it back as microwaves, space based solar power stations would do this.
The guy you're replying to is retarded but it isn't totally unreasonable. It's just that nuclear power is so safe that there's no reason not to build it on Earth.

10/10

Uranium fission is safe, environmentally sound, and absurdly efficient and the only reason we don't use it for everything is because groups like Greenpeace get 90% of their funding from the coal and oil lobbies.

if modern nuke plants were really breeders, they would be everywhere like niggers

It's not as big of a deal as you think it is.

Low educational penetration on the issue. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are all that people know.

>just send Uranium into space
>it's just an engineering problem!

do you not realize how ungodly heavy fissile material like Uranium is?

RLV cost decreasing every day.

Engineers usually figure this shit out. Just throw enough money at them. See: space program, defence budget.

>Dig a really deep hole in the desert
>Throw barrels of waste in
>Cover it up
Not hard

engineer here. you're solving a problem that does not exist.

The problem of nuclear accidents? Sorry, don't know much about energy. I'm a programmer. But I don't want another Fukushima.

Stuxnet

Because transporting dangerous fissile material through our atmosphere on top of an explosive canister is safer than driving them over to a concrete bunker.

...

>tfw it's a license to print money once a plant is up and operational
>tfw it'd cost a fraction of what it currently does to operate if the guberment didn't have retarded laws regarding how we use our nuclear fuel
>tfw we'd seriously be set for centuries if not for these laws

Energy industries shouldn't be allowed to lobby.

Well, there's the problem of nuclear waste disposal, but it's definitely way better than all the fossil fuel crap we're using now. I'd be perfectly happy with using nuclear power plants anywhere that renewable energy wasn't viable, as long as the power plants in question aren't shoddy pieces of crap.

I think these reactor plants look really neat.

I wish there was nuclear reactor simulator game

Chernobyl

>tfw today I took a reactor critical for the first time
it was so fucking nerve racking

Well played.
The Poonjabbers are ramping up, the Pakis have had nukes for awhile, potential flash point for sure. It's almost guaranteed the human race will obliterate itself with nuclear tech eventually so I am all for exploiting it now.

Oz is perfect for that! you can also just keep doing what we do now, manufacture the waste into really scary bullets, go some where far away and start a war use radioactive bullets.

>not using a kugelblitz as a final solution to energy
>caveman
But really the fuel is too expensive and the long term storage sucks ass. msr or fusion is the way to go.

You will run out of space to store all the nuke wasted garbage, pretty fast

modern reactors can be built with enough fail safes to be almost nigger proof

> muh risk of accidents

Accidents don't happen when its done correctly, by capable people. Fucking Slavs and gooks don't do anything right, so of course they had accidents.

Nuclear power is the beacon of light to power the figurative glowing city on the hilltop.

So...okay then.

If I'm not mistaken, Gen IV reactors are engineered in such a way that nuclear meltdown is an impossibility. Some designs are even able to use nuclear waste as fuel.

you're right, we should reinvest

This. Aren't japs supposed to be smart? I'm pro nuclear but we can't just go around building the plants on fault lines

Obviously the solution is to make a nuclear powered rocket that embeds itself into the Moon to generate power that it beams back to Earth.

Easy.

building a plant is prohibitively expensive and its lifespan is not very long.

Yes. Build nuclear power everyone.

you need fuckloads of water to keep reactors cool

Can you put nuclear fuel in a can to fire up your bbq grill?

>make stupid big railgun
>stupid big railgun requires 3 nuclear plants to operate
>fire uranium into space
>more space garbage
>irradiated space garbage
>kepler syndrome
>no more space

What do you think happens if you burn uranium.

>almost nigger proof
What happens when affirmative action liberals pass laws to force the nuclear plant to hire them?

>building a plant is prohibitively expensive and its lifespan is not very long.
steep upfront costs are easily offset by the 80+ year lifespan

Wind and Solar
>Decentralised, failure points distributed throughout network
>Not as cheap as fossil energy but rapidly becoming cheaper per kW/h
>Cheap and fast to establish, entire solar/wind arrays can be built in months
>Relatively low maintenance costs, aging equipment can easily be replaced with better technology
>Produces very little non-recyclable waste

Nuclear
>Centralised, single point of failure
>Unlikely to become cheaper than fossil energy without an enourmous technological breakthrough (fusion, thorium)
>Extremely expensive and slow to establish - approval, planning and construction process can span decades
>Relatievly high maintenance costs which increase with the age of the plant. Ageing plants are costly to replace or retrofit with contemporary technology
>Produces nuclear waste, which (if nothing else) is expensive to safely dispose of

Nuclear is a fucking reddit-tier meme. Environmental considerations aside, there is no economic argument for it either. The world should be moving towards wind and solar while maintaining a small number of fossil plants to power heavy industry.

Neither wind nor solar can produce steady power output.

Incidentally, you are a meme.

Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but relatively cheap to run.
Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
In assessing the economics of nuclear power, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are fully taken into account.
The newest reactor designs not only produce less waste but some are capable of using waste from previous generation reactors as fuel.

If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, the economics of nuclear power are outstanding.

Because zero point energy is alot more based

Almost all your shit against nuclear is caused by shitty nonsensical laws fully intended to keep nuclear from being able to properly compete with coal.

>Paying for fissile material
>Paying for full time plant staff
>Paying for a fuckton of water
>Paying for top notch maintainance and security so your plant doesn't allahu ackbar the neighbouring down
>Paying for secure waste disposal
>Literally paying people to guard your waste for hundreds of years

Could nuclear power be the most cucked source of energy in history ? ?

Waste byproduct storage, source in nuclear energy told me they've paid billions into places like yucca mountain, but when nimbyism kicks in they end up literally giving the keys to piles of waste for the govt to guard

lesse. monumental waste storage clusterfucks, earthquakes.....

FUSION is the solution fission isn't. Big difference.

>if things had gone differently you could be living in a utopia powered by clean nuclear power

well at least I'm in the the trump timeline

Could you be the most ignorant roofucker on Sup Forums?

What do you think happens if you burn uranium in the atmosphere?

The final solution is meme power

>the final solution

It can run on Jews? Sweet

Why not build a rail gun that shoots nuclear waste as payloads into the sun?
My thought process is that bullets are cheaper then rockets because you don't want the bullet back
So how does that work scaled up?

>put hundreds of tons of radioactive waste on a rocket
>something goes wrong and it crashes or explodes before leaving earth
>nuclear holocaust all over the planet

>>something goes wrong and it crashes or explodes before leaving earth

Launch from the coast of Israel, no problems

Some people live near fault lines where it's a bad idea to build a nuclear plant?

Build power plants a state over and use power lines?

Godzilla

because we dont know where to dump the nuclear waste? wow fuck me do these questions really exist in peoples minds?

What about mass-produced 10MW nuclear plants you can put in your basement? There's no law of physics you *have* to have a 1GW monster to get any nuclear power. It's all a human law out of harmful fear mongering.

>NOT JUST TAPPING ENERGY DIRECTLY FROM THE EARTH'S CORE

We can dump nuclear waste in the bottom of a medium community pool. 100% safe so long as the pool actually has a couple meters of water above the waste caskets.

Over the long term (~decades) we can process the waste into useful nuclear fuel and inert byproducts.

The only stupid thing is somehow convincing yourself that the only way to go is to store high-activity nuclear waste until the end of time. Why would we ever shut away perfectly useful nuclear fuel?

i saw a better idea dare i mention it
build pyramids in the middle of australia and leave it sitting in there till science finds use for it.

I really hope those friggin germans figure out how to do nuclear fusion (a usable one) in my lifespan

We can build some very nice reactors in theory, which are perfectly safe and generate little to no waste, but no one wants to pony up the billions of dollars it would take to actually build one. They're completely unprofitable.

T H O R I U M
H
O
R
I
U
M

Waste, risk of contamination etc

leave it to the germans if you want them done right.

Wtf do you need 10Mw in your basement for fucktard?

>modern reactors can be built with enough fail safes to be almost nigger proof
>almost nigger proof
>almost

Also can be doesn't mean will be. For example, OP can stop sucking 20+dicks per day but he won't.

You're fucking ignorant, mate. We're you aware we debunked this meme 10yrs ago on this very same board. Yet, we still assholes like you shitting up the whole education process.

>your plant doesn't allahu ackbar the neighbouring down
>Paying for a fuckton of water
>most cucked source of energy

same goes for you.
>monumental waste storage clusterfucks, earthquakes

It's been debunked!

let the niggers work in the coal industry cause the color doesnt impact them OLLOLOLOLO

nuclear waste

I thought gas was the final solution.

or we could just let the abos huff it
2 birds with one stone

works on developed nations, 3rd world countries are nuke hungry and can't be trusted with nuclear technology

because of nuclear fusion

Because we should burn more fossil fuels to exacerbate climate change. It benefits white Europeans and will ruin the crops of non-whites.

might create a mutant race of angry monkeys.

Microwave energy has a transmission range of 100 miles top. You could use relays but you'll lose too much to make it viable.

we need nuclear power for building spaceships to go to mars and beyond. Top NASA CEO said so.

>nuclear power isn't the final solution

I'm not sure you can cram many Jews into a reactor room.