Nuclear is good

>nuclear is good
>never heard about chernobyl
>or fukushima
>or three mile island

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/LZXUR4z2P9w
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
google.ca/search?q=is nuclear cost effective&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=pDhxWO-sLsuijwPC_IfIBg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>wind has little impact on the environment

so little impact that they don't turn half the time

That whole chart is full of shit, and Three Mile Island released about as much radiation as 2 bananas.

Fuck off Mohammad

That was supposed to be 800 bananas.
A person receives more dose from an x-ray at the dentist.

So you're saying bananas can be used as nuclear fuel?

>oil is good
>never heard about the hundreds of oil spills on land and sea that have destroyed entire ecosystems and populations

No, potassium isn't large enough.

>solar is cheaper than coal

kek.

If a Jew repeats a lie often enough at least a few good goyim will believe it.

>never heard about chernobyl
>Soviet tech ran by idiots
>or fukushima
>outdated tech who's modernization could have prevented disaster, but was blocked by nuke hating irrational libshits
>or three mile island
>early experimental reactor

Nuclear power could be the safest and most efficient method of power generation if it wasn't irrationally hated by retards and they actually let people develop and modernize proper plant design

So if we had a really big banana?

No, because the size of the banana doesn't change the molecular size of potassium.

So... we should switch to oranges? Is that what you're saying?

Oranges are not nearly as radioactive as bananas.

Your chart doesn't distinguish between high energy and low energy nuclear reactions.

Discarded.

Do you want to attract giant niggers?
Idiot

But are they the RIGHT type of radioactive?

Neither bananas nor oranges are appropriate for use in nuclear reactors.

I didn't think of that. What if we put them on string in-front of bicycles?

Well I'm out of ideas.

>Wind has a low impact on air pollution.

>So low, in fact, that it actually cleans the air: removing upwards of one hundred thousand birds from the skies each year.

I don't know much about Three Mile, but
>Chernobyl was considered shit even by soviet standards, along with intentionally turning off safety mechanisms
>Fukushima took an earthquake, tsunami and the safety mechanisms worked anyway despite it being old as shit
Notice how when you don't build them near faultlines or let retards near them they actually turn out alright

How the fuck is land and water risk high for nuclear?
It doesn't react with the environment.
There's no exhaust

It's not like they just toss out the depleted rods out the window or dump coolant water into the river.

And visual impact?
How the fuck is a fucking coal plant that's literally pumping clouds of smoke less visual impacting than a nuclear plant?
Do they think it's the Simpons with giant coolant towers?

Who the fuck made that?

Why no hydroelectric in the pic? Is it the power generation jew or something?

Guys, what we need to do is shut down all the coal power plants and put money into solar power, even though were' in Britain, or wind, even though when it's cold the wind doesn't blow as much.

Coal is evil, even though we have mass quantities of it, and therefore we should rely on France's nuclear power, which is totally bad, to get our energy, even though those totally bad plants are falling apart die to them being old (told you they were bad!).

What can go wrong?

Hahahaha

Fuck
Made me laugh

>nuclear
>higher visual impact than wind

Oh, and instead we should cosy up to Saudi, because they're great allies. Even though they fund ISIS... but don't worry about that!

The Greens literally, via proxy, fund ISIS.

>Hydroelectric generation not even on this graph

Sage

1 post bye this ID, Ignore 1 poster threads, do not respond to 1 poster threads, and dont get triggered bye 1 poster threads.

Gotcha covered

Good video on nuclear energy.

youtu.be/LZXUR4z2P9w

Graph was probably made by Euros.
And since it doesn't exist in Europe, it can't exist anywhere else

>nuclear
>noise/visual impact: high
How? They're no different from large coal plants in terms of noise/how they look.
These charts also conveniently leave out the "reliability" and "cost" parts. Wind and solar suck at both.

>nuclear is good

Well, you can get rid of the nuclear waste at least.
Just shoot around with it in countries around the world (depleted uranium munition). Sure, it will break some genes, but it's just foreigners, so who gives a fuck when they get deformed babies etc.

And yeah, some 'murican soldiers will get the same issues, but fuck those too. They are just 'muricans. Subhuman species.

Other than that:
>muh way to store nuclear waste for thousands/millions of years has no cost (for us)
>aka future generations can handle it
>aka fuck them too

so
>horray cheap and affordable and very very safe(*) nucular power!!

(*) except for a few cases. One was muh Russians. One was muh 'muricans and one was muh Japs. All of those are completely incompetent species, so those do not count.

Solar_is_cheaper than coal, per unit.

>I don't know much about Three Mile,
It can be briefly summed up as
>Oh shit Bob, something's going wrong with the coolant pumps.
>It's cool Jim, the safety mechanisms kicked in without any problems.
>Hey Bob, why are there reporters fucking everywhere?

>chernobyl
>fukushima
>TMI

- Safety protocols were deliberately ignored and they deliberately caused a dangerous situation for the reactor. Additionally, it would be impossible for a modern day reactor.
- Again, safety protocols were deliberately ignored. Again, it would be impossible for a modern day reactor, and the site was even slated to be shut down for being outdated. The total casualties was one death, and that was during the cleanup. We'll see if there are any long-lasting effects, though it doesn't look like there will be.
- No deaths or even injuries. The worst anyone suffered was radiation equal to that of a chest x-ray.

Nuclear has the least amount of casualties compared to other sources of energy.

>never heard of thorium reactors
t. Snow nigger bin fishlips.

Maybe with subsidies.

>oy vey fukushima killed thousands
>I'll just forget to mention the natural disasters killed all of them

>the government gave me this free roof panel!

>cars are good
>never heard of [insert huge pileup crashes here]
>or insert [car accident death toll per year]
>or the assault truck in france

wtf I hate nuclear now.

Without. I am talking about lifetime costs, not running costs by the way.

Maybe on a summer noon when the sky is completely cloudless - and consumption is at a minimum.
How about those January nights when it's cold enough to freeze your balls? Oh wait, you can't get any solar regardless of how much money you throw at it.

Renewables are good when used _properly_
The problem is that they're being pushed as the solution to everything, which they aren't.

And then when it get cold and you need to start the heaters you green energy cucks come begging for french nuclear power

Nuclear does not work without government support and price gurantees.

Chernobyl is to be blamed on communism.
Fukushima wasn't even lethal, and its effect on the environment was little worse than a leakage of industrial waste.
Three Mile Island was staged to create a fake energy crisis.

now add energy produced and see which seems better.

Modern reactors don't have meltdowns unless you build them in incredibly stupid places. Only stupid niggers don't know this.

And how much solar and wind would be built without those?

Nuclear is dangerous. At the end of the day it's still nuclear. Say a shit part is sourced, meltdown is around the corner

The issue comes when people retire well-functioning options because other 'progressive' ones have taken their place. Then when the 'infinite' energy source doesn't have sun or wind, they have to start up massive diesel generators.

>Chernobyl was caused by soviet retardation and extremely low standards
>You get more rads when flying a plane than by living right next to the Fukushima reactors.
>Three mile island is a perfect example of non-happening.

But I agree we should focus on Thorium salts reactors and fusion reactors in the future rather than the shit we have now, which were chosen because they could fuel the nukes.

Why are you implying the only renewable is solar?
What about hydro?

this

That graph is shit, it doesn't take in consideration the cost/materials per "unit" of energy created.
Wind energy's fucking garbage because to power the entire planet, you'd need to evict the world's population to replace them with fucking fans. Now, go calculate the material cost of having more 500m tall fans than allegedly holocaust victims.

Solar power's another beast. You could fill Algeria with solar panels and you would be able to power the world with it. The issue is, hightech chips like these in solar panels are fucking disgusting for the earth. While I don't really care, it's counter productive to cut down on global warming by putting poison on your own soil once your solar panel breaks.

Fucking retarded hippies. The best, so far, is hydro-electricity. Which can be used in rivers, bays and gulfs, making it possible for most countries to use.

The only down side is: it fucks up your local wildlife. But who gives a shit if a few thousand fish die?

ya lets just keep burning coal and gas. nuclear waste is scary but we have been dumping waste into the atmosphere for years. at least we don't have to put it in canisters and store it.

Private use is a different matter

>solar panels are like so le clean for the environment even though I have no idea how semi conductors are made

Gen4 Nuclear power is the only "green" power that is in any form viable. Greens who want to move away from carbon based fuels must except nuclear power as the main source of energy generation alongside solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources.

Oil, at the end of the day, is still combustible. Hire one Pole and an explosion is just around the corner.

This. Take one guess who started both the solar and wind power memes, who benefits from both and who pushes the global warming meme which pushes the focus away from fossil fuels and, by pure coincidence I'm sure you'll agree, on to solar and wind power. If you're anti-semitic, follow the money.

>solar panels are the only form of solar
Remove this meme, please

The most efficient solar power plant doesn't use anything more complicated than mirrors and salt.

>Solar and wind
>Low cost risk
Must not be per megawatt of production otherwise they should make a red extra high category for these two

and how many people have been killed coal mining....

What exactly is land and water impact of nuclear plant, faggot?

The problem with hydro is most first world countries have already tapped all available sources of it

If you are dead or sick, you are no longer able to mine, therefore you are not a miner.

No coal miner has ever died

What about granny smith apples?

Kek, no.

Even hydroelectric has more deaths per KwH generated, mostly due to the fact that idiots fish near the tailraces or camp out downstream from a plant.

I used to live in Niagara Falls, ON. Above river control, just north of the falls, was some of the most dangerous and awe-inspiring water flow you'd ever see.

Yet you'd still see jackasses in boats go too close to the falls and they'd have to be rescued. To put it in perspective, during low flow 50,000 cubic feet per second would go over horseshoe falls. High flow was 100,000 CFS.

Even with those disasters taken into account, nuclear kills the fewest people per unit of energy produced.

Also, the section on Solar and wind is highly misleading. Because each individual wind turbine produces so little, it takes a very large amount of land to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear power plant, so that means more deforestation is needed.

As for Solar, the minerals needed to produce the solar cells have their own environmental impacts when mined and refined before they are used to build the Solar cell. also, Planning and cost risk is laughably high, not low.

Finally, this goes for both solar and wind, the sun doesn't shine all the time, and the wind doesn't blow all the time. The energy needs to be stored, and this is where batteries come in. Batteries don't last forever, and when they need to be replaced, they have to be disposed of some how (more ground pollution). If we have to trade air pollution for ground pollution anyway, why not go with the source of energy that ISN'T a dead end technology and may one day help us discover how to use Thorium?

I've never read about that. Any link? What's the material cost/energy production rate?

what is nuclear waste

that's nerve gas not radioactive isotopes

>Solar panels
>low air water and land pollution

Do you even know the sheer amount of toxic waste produced to make a single wafer?

>waste = plant impact
Or you know, you can just not be a retard and utilize it properly or better send it into outer space since amount of such waste is relatively small?

That's objectivly wrong though. Solar is at the high-end for coal, onshore wind is close to the low end.

Do you even into scientific studies?

That'd be very cost inefficient tho

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

It's not superior to fossil fuel production yet, but what is nowadays?
The efficiency is great though.

Ignorant of the fact that I have to look at them all over the hill because they're so inefficient. They're just as bad as windmills aesthetically.

The least polluting form of pollution any of our energy sources create, even beating out wind/solar because of the sheer amount of energy produced in comparison to the amount of material required for the two; even wind and solar create pollution by proxy from mining and manufacturing.

A nuclear reactor has a smaller environmental footprint than the equivalent power generation of any current 'green' energy source.

There's no reason not to go nuclear, except that the media keeps people uninformed and scared of it, and oil lobbies keep the politician's pockets greased with money to add more regulations to nuclear, or to ignore it.

Hydro is neat and all, but all the available sources are already being used. Besides, the envirohippies don't like dams and try to stop them being build. There's one plant that has been planned since the 70's over here, but hasn't and most likely won't be build because of them.

>solar silicon panels are the only form of solar
Remove ignorance

im not arguing that just answering his question

>exclusion zone is basically a wildlife sanctuary at this point
seems like it was better for the environment then if it didn't go off

That's why you say "It's either this or global warming" and do it anyways

Hydro is the way to go.

why would you waste precious fuel that can be reused in the future when we find the technology?

Imagine if the dinosaurs decided that in order to save the planet, they needed to extract all the oil in every reserve, and send it to space, along with all of their corpses?

Everyone look at this fucking retard.

Hey Finnfag you do realize most of your country is powered by a nuclear plant Okiluoto right?

It would be better for the environment if Communism didn't exist.

There is a reason though: Nuclear is expensiv as fuck and unable to pay for itself

google.ca/search?q=is nuclear cost effective&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=pDhxWO-sLsuijwPC_IfIBg

Alright, put it in a secure container and put that container in a secure bunker or something. Dont just throw it in a nearest river in an iron barrel.

>Nuclear high land/water/visual impact
So long as you don't let slavs or chinks make your reactors you are fine. Worried about chinese plans for hinkley point desu sempai

Building costs aren't included in that, which is what drives the costs for nuclear up so much that not a single plant was build without government support

Nice try though nuclear shill

>coal
>high planning and cost risk

that's wrong

there is a planning and cost risk. Look what obama did to their industry single handedly.

THORIUM

Fun fact: Back when research into fission reactors was new, uranium was chosen over thorium as the fissile material because it could also be used in nuclear bombs.

Thanks America!