What are some good documentaries about nuclear energy...

what are some good documentaries about nuclear energy? im sick of the general public's perception of it and i wouldn't mind some logical and reasonal explanations as to why its the best alternative energy source available to us right now.

Other urls found in this thread:

terrapower.com/
wikileaks.org/10years/nuclear.html
youtube.com/watch?v=5ZvLj_tU8x0&t=1s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

(((((Documentaries)))))

bump. im thinking of doing nuclear engineering this year and changing from aerospace

We're the biggest retards on earth when it comes to nuclear energy, all the uranium and space in the world but all the fearmongering hippies and coal lobbyists as well.

do you know any documentaries that aren't (((documentaries)))?
fuck yeah, i envy you. its such an interesting subject
agreed, i don't understand the reliance on coal nor do i understand the shilling for wind and solar energy

wind and solar suck but there's no downside so environmentalists champion it

LFTR
F
T
R

two main negatives i can think for wind and solar is they both cost too much relative to the amount of energy they produce and the amount of land that needs to be cultivated and dedicated to those plants. they do more permanent damage to the environment than if they were never built.

any literature/documentaries you can recommend on liquid fluoride thorium reactors?

but far less than fucking coal
stop it, i'm gonna cum

yes coal is so counter intuitive, we should've displaced it decades ago.

>wind and solar suck but there's no downside

Intermittent supply and high cost is a massive downside. The greenies just say that we should ignore that, or find "new technologies" to overcome it.

Greenies claim nuclear energy is "too dangerous" given that potentially 10s of thousands of people died from Chernobyl. Greenies also simultaneously celebrate the banning of DDT, the ban of which has facilitated 10s of millions of deaths due to Malaria. Take everything Greenies say with a grain of salt, most are hypocritical idiots.

They've been threatening to shut down Hazlewood here in Victoria for years and the schmuck workers are still complaining about "muh jobs".

so your looking for industry sponsored docs?
lol

Nuclear power is not the future, if the entire world used nuclear power, imagine the amount of incidents that would occur just due to natural disasters, never mind terrorism or human error.

It's just common sense, I mean imagine if there was a nuclear power plant in the area of that dam that is breaking? If something happened to it the entire area would be fucked for 50+ years.

fission nuclear power is madness

its the same deal in northern queensland. the rich bastards who own the mines obviously have lobbyists keeping that shit alive.

Malaria sucks but DDT would have killed us far sooner, which is why it was outlawed.
Logic isn't the greenies strong suit though, it's all feelings.
Labor strikes the best compromise between making bank and not being a complete sociopath, but that's just my opinion.

i think their long term goal is to pivot to nuclear after raping the country of it's coal and gas

The reality of Latrobe Valley power industry jobs is that they pay well and have good working environments. If so secure a job in one of those power stations it is common for it to become your entire career. Most staff at Hazelwood, if it is like the other local power stations are over the age of 50, and comfortably in a financial position to retire. They just don't want to.

The Latrobe Valley itself though will be ruined once those stations close. The privatization of the SECV already practically turned Morwell into a slum.

i guess so but anything related to nuclear energy is ok, i want all perspectives.

i see your point but nuclear power plants have rarely failed even in times of natural disaster. france for instance gets 74% of all energy from nuclear power and pic related is the amount of total incidents, some not even considered nuclear accidents. same case in germany, russia, china, india and the US (the three mile high was an incident similar to chernobyl but no where near as disastrous)

chernobyl occured due to human error, outdated technology and months of rigorous testing. the plant was already under scrutiny for not pertaining to safety standards.

fukushima had a 10m wall of water hit it after the earthquake shut it down. if it wasn't for the very surprising magnitude of the tsunami, the nuclear reactor would've have remained cool due to the external power generators which automatically started up to keep the reactor cool after the reactor automatically shut down.

you are correct that if the hypothesized nuclear reactor were to be compromised, it would release vast amounts of radiation although measures have been taken to reduce these accidents from emitting such large quantities of radiation due to modern designs of containment buildings and further updated technology which reduces the likelihood of accidents happening in the first place.

That's why you plan ahead of time and don't build fucking nuclear plants near other critical structures.

Also, if nuclear plants were that dangerous we'd all already be dead. There are 450 of them. Only one failed, and only another one was affected by natural disasters.

> Already dead
I get that it is more important to live in the moment but people need to realize that nuclear power has been around for less than 50 years, we are only 200 years since the start of the industrial revolution and human beings have been around for 200,000 years. Ok we are not dead yet, but you understand that it just takes one war or disaster to fuck up a power plant? If we all adopt nuclear power, over the next 200 years there will be a war and in that war infrastructure will be targeted.

People are so short sighted.

Pandora's promise is really good OP

I find it pretty ridiculous that Fukushima is frequently cited to show that nuclear power is unsafe.

It took the combination of the 4th most powerful earthquake ever recorded, and a tsunami that killed 15,000 people to cause Fukushima to lose cooling control. Yes, they lost containment of nuclear material. But, the Fukushima disaster still to the best of my knowledge has not resulted in a fatality.

> If we all adopt nuclear power, over the next 200 years there will be a war and in that war infrastructure will be targeted

Oh, shit, buddy, you're in for a treat when you realise a war is imminent (coming in less than two years, probably in less than one).

We need an energy revolution. Like, ASAP. And nuclear is the best, cleanest way to get there. That's why Bill Gates is behind projects such as this one to reuse nuclear waste (among other things): terrapower.com/

If you target a nuclear plant with a bomb it will spread nuclear material but I doubt it would be all that damaging (by comparison to a war). Chernobyl spread a whole heap of nuclear material into the atmosphere, but it had a carbon moderated reactor. With a modern reactor it would require the physical force of a bomb to put nuclear material into the atmosphere. It would not burn like Chernobyl. I doubt a bombed modern reactor would scatter anywhere near the quantity of nuclear material or over the distance that Chernobyl did.

This.

I'm glad to see pol is still pro-nuke. I'm taking my morning poo then heading to work at a nuke plant.

You didn't refute any of what I said
I would prefer global warming to death by radiation desu

>It would require the physical force of a bomb
that happens in war

you're referring to extremely circumstantial scenarios which display that theres nothing inherently wrong with nuclear power but that great and improbable events are the issue. if you can adequately predict that a war will happen and one of the consequences of that war is the targeting of nuclear power plants then it is no longer speculation but until then, you're just theorizing doomsday events
its very ridiculous; extremely unique circumstances for fukushima to suffer a meltdown but it makes good news i suppose.

I think the nuclear fallout from the plant would be the least of the problems. What about the likely use of nuclear weapons during the war?

nuclear weapons would not be used enmasse for the same reason they weren't used during the cold war: fear of human extinction

Don't be a smartass, toothpaste.

My point was it is only the energy of the bomb that would be scattering the nuclear material. It will not have a massive fire spewing radioactive smoke like occurred at Chernobyl.

Besides, your argument more effectively invalidates hydroelectric power than nuclear.

You didn't make any points in the first place for me to refute. You made blanket statements. Go ahead, reread it:

> I get that it is more important to live in the moment but people need to realize that nuclear power has been around for less than 50 years, we are only 200 years since the start of the industrial revolution and human beings have been around for 200,000 years. Ok we are not dead yet, but you understand that it just takes one war or disaster to fuck up a power plant? If we all adopt nuclear power, over the next 200 years there will be a war and in that war infrastructure will be targeted.
> People are so short sighted.

Really, what was your point? That if we build nuclear plants the next war will blow them up? I don't know about you, but I'm a bit more worried about the more than 15k nuclear warheads than a handful (in comparison) of plants.

Your fear mongering doesn't work here.

No alternative for now. Look at Germany, they stopped nuclear plants and now rely on coal and energy from France (that's still mainly from nuclear reactors).

I wish Australia had nuclear power

I sent a scathing 1000 word email to the greens party candidate of my city about their refusal of Nuclear Power last week. Still no response

wikileaks.org/10years/nuclear.html

Here ya go, it's not the science that sucks but the people that run it aren't too bright/not enough money/hnnnnggg Y U No Listen.

Like the chemical industry, it can work well, but protocols are there for a reason. If something is off you should do something about it, but because 'fear of the fear of the people' the reports are repressed/don't reach the knowable people/are done off with 'it will work' {Like the russian-LED from Sup Forums}

That's because it's in their dogma to refuse nuclear power. It'd be like trying to have an imam admit allah is a piece of shit, won't happen.

Without any scientific data I can say nuclear (uranium and thorium) are the only practical reailible way to phase out more polluting coal and gas

>what are some good documentaries about nuclear energy?

Go to putlockers.ch and search for "Pandora's Promise".
Its a documentary by Robert Stone from 2013.

Here is a good one.

youtube.com/watch?v=5ZvLj_tU8x0&t=1s

This seems to have been made by someone with such a bad understanding of maths, climatology and physics that i seriously wonder if that person graduated high school.

Also she never mentioned nuclear and she only showed fossil fuel fired power plants.