Are we pro-nuclear?

Are we pro-nuclear?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongtan
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

of course we are.

Thorium nuclear power plants are the future.
It's the sole thing I respect China for.

It's abundant, it's fertile, it's sexy.
IT'S THORIUM!

Uranium is a BITCH.

Pol is one person

Yeag, what I said

>we
>are we

Nuclear is the only viable option for clean energy ATM. But instead of investing in it we buy wind farms and solar panels which produce almost no useful energy, cost more to produce than they will ever recoup and are only affordable due to expensive government grants which get added onto all of out energy bills. Thanks Greentards.

As long control rods are located in bottom it is safe.

Yes. Nuclear is awesome. Upcoming nuclear engineer here.

Pic related is the nuclear reactor at my school.

Yes. You're not going to power a major city with solar panels or wind turbines.

Honestly at this point I wish we start using them but it's just too costly (to the earth that is)

yes

not pro-hinkley point though, that's a disaster waiting to happen. foreign interests should have ZERO control over the nuclear capacity of any country in design, operation or funding.

nodern nuclear reactors are very safe. They shut down automatically and require to backup generators or anything like fukushima.

Uranium is abundant and cheap.

>wind farms
funny thing is they defeat their own purpose of existence.

Wind farms require acres of land to build on, destroying and fragmenting habitats on the ground, and also killing birds in the sky.

They only exist to protect the environment but their existence destroys the environment.

Top kek.

True marvels of engineering

>we
kys FBI

It's no so much that it's foreign, it's the fact that it's fucking CHINA.

I don't trust them at all.

wind farms have never worked.

There's even an abandoned wind farm in one of the windiest spots in america, hawaii. If that isn't sustainable, then nothing is.

I certainly am. It's a very effective power source with little detriment if done properly. there are 3 things you need to consider when relying on nuclear power:
>make sure the nuclear heating element is always well supplied with water
>maintain the integrity of the facility very well
>build in a stable environment, safe from natural disaster
if anything, the third point would be hardest to cover

Of course

You obviously don't know shit all about nuclear energy. All the waste from nuclear energy for worldwide production in the last 50 years would take up the space of a very small landfill. Nuclear energy is safe and cheap. One of the biggest tragedies of all time is the media enstilling the idea that it's dangerous or related to nuclear bombs in the minds of the public, which in turn placed so many unwarrented regulations and public disapproval on nuclear reactors.

why would we not be?

Is it possible to build these things underground, so if they go haywire, you can just bury the fucking thing in tons of heavy cement, or some shit?

...

muh chernobyl

honestly nuclear waste should just be dumped in the middle of the ocean. It wouldn't do any harm.. nuke waste can also be turned into glass, but the process is expensive.

modern reactors don't go "haywire"

don't forget fukushima

not only that but the waste can be recycled.

There are isotopes in the waste (eg. Tc99) that have alternative uses like destroying cancer cells.

As nuclear energy is more accepted more research is being conducted into the potential uses of nuclear waste.

what if an earthquake shatters them or terrorists blow them up or fuck with them

Of course.

>Don't blame all muslims based on the actions of a few thousand
>But blame all nuclear energy for the actions of TWO incidents

Really hate the left tbQh

dont build them on fault lines, have the military guard them.

I am.

Yes. Thorium reactors are the way for carbon neutral energy.

Both were outdated, poorly designed, poorly operated, and poorly maintained reactors

never mind the chinese, EDF just had another explosion at a flamanville. guess who the main contractor at hinkley is? also the reactor they're playing with at that site is the same inefficient and unsafe piece of shit they're wanting to use over here.

the MSM is being very quiet about all this, mind.

Legalize Family Atomics

I'm antinuclear, but just because it's broken and makes old fashion violence obsolete.

>technological progress stopped in the 70s
laughing_girls.telegram

So long as we're not retarded about it, I'm all for it.

...

>building a nuclear power plant on a fault line

are you Japanese?

I'm as pro-nuclear as sweden is pro-immigrant.

welp time to jerk it to nigger women thanks a lot asshole

>or related to nuclear bombs

Well they are. They make plutonium in nuclear power plants. They don't have to go that route, but they do.

same with hydro dams
they stop people from burning fossil fuels and in exchange destroy miles of forests and rivers while irreparably damaging fish migration routes

Let's not forget that there has yet to be a single fatality attributed to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, whereas tens of thousands of lives were lost due to the preceding flooding.

kek

Just make sure they aren't defective and have proper domes built around them. Also, pick the location right.

The RBMK-1000 was a retarded design to begin with,

At least hydro actually works.

Could you imagine if you lived at the whim of wind current to get everywhere, where too light weight to really push into a strong gust, and one day you are just gliding along your favorite route when a nice storm rolls in?

You figure "No big deal I can just stay ahead of it and get up over that ridge there and go down behind those hills into the next valley." and just when you clear the crest you see a wall of 1000 spining blades right in the path of the most prevaling winds

More people die installing windmills than have died due to nuclear accident in the whole history of nuclear power generation

FACT

>muh thorium muh thorium muh thorium
Rant about thorium when someone actually designs a viable reactor, until then it's no more useful to us than fusion.

Uranium fission works, it's efficient, it's reliable, and we've made it substantially cleaner over the last 40 years. More uranium fission now!

Still better than coal

unless you're a fish

How difficult is your schooling?

Someone (you) me this one. Why cant we just blast waste off into space instead of the ocean or buried?

>Rant about thorium when someone actually designs a viable reactor
That's why the chinks are going to rule the world.
They have tonnes of thorium within China and are so confident in constructing viable reactors that they've planned to make the world's first 100% carbon neutral city, Dongtan.

I'd love to see Greenpeace's faces when they accomplish this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongtan

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Technically we cold fire all the waste into the sun.

However that means building what is basically a massive dirty bomb in the process.

And let's not forget that hydro power is one of the most dangerous power sources on the planet. The Banqiao dam failure alone caused as many deaths as Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Not really, coal is an efficient abundant resource and the only downsides to it are that it will run out eventually and it could potentially effect the climate. If it isn't just a small ice age we're coming out of, or if the carbon levels in the earth are even enough to blanket the sky in a heat absorbing gas layer.
Anthropomorphic climate change is probably bullshit but things could be cleaner since we have to breath in that shit eventually.

That and it's absolutely filthy.

Are you at Nuke School?

thorium is not the reason why its cleaner, the reason is that thorim reactors have liquid fuel this can be also adapted to uranim

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

As far as I know the huge windfarm on the Altamont Pass in the East SF Bay is abandoned too.

Yes the only problem with it is that nukes can be made with a decent cover up and do we really want Niggers getting nukes so they can fuck up Africa more than it already is?

>he likes smog
I bet you think bejing is a nice place to live

only thorium and fast breeder reactors

also LENR if its proven

Isn't nuclear fuel not clean enough for bombs, and refining it costs a fuckton?

while africa nuking itself wouldn't be all bad, why would we build them reactors? not like they would be able to do it themselves

Who is this semen demon (nigger)?

>destroying cancer cells
Miyazaki should make Sup Forums servers out of this stuff

We are pro anything that's cheap and effective and go out of our way to be sure to not give a fuck about environmental impact.
>be America
>want cheap power
>want fusion reactors to be reality
>how we gon do it?
>remove all regulations on all power generation types i.e coal and oil
>fucking power plants everywhere cheap as fuck
>don't lower price of power to consumers despite power creation being cheap
>use profits to fund research for fusion reactors
>figure it the fuck out in less than 20 years
>build reactors next to coal plants
>remove coal plants
>clean energy everywhere with fusion reactors >no more bitching about coal plants

It's just glorified steam engine. As primitive as it gets

What if the rocket exploded due to complications? What if it was destroyed intentionally with a missile? That would shower nuclear waste

Coal is fucking terrible and the sooner we get rid of it the better. Countries that aren't third world shit holes have no good reason to use coal or oil for electricity generation in this day and age.

I'm pro hydro.
Fully managing the rivers.

If the rocket fails and explodes its gonna be bad.

Coal causes more death per amount of energy generated than any energy source. Not only is it bad for climate change but the smog will kill you. It is the worst energy source.

You're assuming they'd use profits on clean energy and nuclear instead of doing business as usual.

Tell that to the nogs without power. Dirty power > no power.

one a board that entertains fart earth, vaccine black magic, and fluoride poofters?

most certainly not.

Obviously replacement reactors should be built before the coal and oil ones are shut down.

I'm just saying this primarily American obsession with coal and oil is very unbecoming. It wasn't the American Nuclear Society that had an ad on the Super Bowl.

You need to enrich it to ~30% for it to make a bomb but you wouldn't get much explosion out of it

Nuclear fuel enrichment :

less than 20% for reactors
more than 80% for bombs


you either use highly enriched uranium, but the bomb will have a pretty low yield and it's long and expensive to enrich 80%+ uranium with centrifuges


OR you make plutonium in a reactor while using it to produce electricity. But building and maintaining a reactor costs fuckshit tons of money, you need a constant flow of new nuclear fuel, which needs to be enriched in special enrichment plants (centrifuges) and also a plant where nuclear waste can be treated after being used.

Making a bomb is already a complex business, if you also have to make your own plutonium/enriched uranium then it's even harder and longer.

How much of a weakness is it to have nuclear energy if some foreign entity decided to target them?

>australian reading comprehension

Thorium is just a meme that'll probably never happen in a large-scale commercial way, just like fusion.

Pro Nuclear, pro oil and gas, pro solar and wind, pro energy.

Fusion reactors actually work, but they need improvements to work on a long period of time, that's all, we're making good progress.

Don't forget that when we actually start to use them, it's going to be a new revolution in the power industry.

Undoubtedly

>OR you make plutonium in a reactor while using it to produce electricity.

Nope. Fuel cycle for producing weapons grade plutonium doesn't match optimal fuel cycle for producing electricity. Plutonium for bombs is produced in purpose built reactors.

Yeah it's pretty fucked, I wasn't saying coal was the best I was primarily just saying its a very good middle man until we can fully convert to something better. And it is more mobile, same with oil.

So that's why the soviets used their RBMK-1000 to make plutonium AND electricity ?

Very safe. It's virtually inconceivable that an outside terrorist attack could cause a nuclear meltdown, a nuclear explosion or anything of the sort in a modern reactor. The worst you could do is blow it up, but the amount of radiation that would be released would be very low, and given that the core is separated from the outside with several thick walls of concrete the blast from an explosion that would destroy the reactor would probably hurt a lot more people.

If you're worried about terrorist attacks, the one power source you should absolutely avoid is hydro. Blowing up a dam is relatively inexpensive but can easily cause tens of thousands of deaths. Oil powerplants are also vulnerable but an explosion there would only affect a small area really.

Once the ignition facility figures out FUSION power not fission (nuclear) that will be the future. The radioactive byproduct lasts only half as long as nuclear waste and has a theoretically infinite fuel source when run on deuterium. Currently it takes deuterium-tritium to start the fusion process but it's possible to use deuterium-deuterium (which is found in water btw).

>So that's why the soviets used their RBMK-1000 to make plutonium AND electricity ?

RBMK produced shit tier plutonium that was never used for bombs. Too much pu-240. Optimal fuel cycle for producing weapons grade plutonium is different from optimal fuel cycle for power generations.

damn straight i'm pro-nuclear energy.

im going to start my own political party in this decade and advocate for nuclear energy. that will be my only goal, to implement nuclear power plants in australia. after i've achieved that goal, i will retire from politics

Fusion power has been 30 years away since fucking 50's and amount of money spent of research is rather minimal, so it will remain like that.

Thorium based fission reactors don't produce as long lasting nuclear waste as uranium reactors. The reason why thorium based reactors haven't been built is simple, those aren't useful for military applications, so there was never funding for those.

>nuclear energy
>i want my genes to be shredded molecule by molecule just so electricity is a bit cheaper

no, thanks, but no thanks.

protip 1 : nuclear reactors release less radioactivity than coal or oil power plants
protip 2 : your own body is radioactive
protip 3 : the sun emits gamma rays and UV lights that are more likely to give you cancer than a safe reactor


whatcha gonna do 'bout that Hans ?