Nuclear Power

How can we save nuclear power?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
youtube.com/watch?v=PpoPnrAc9qw&spfreload=10
terrestrialenergy.com/imsr-technology/
youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1Xja6HlIU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

This fancy way of heating water is not worth saving. It was always meant as a temporal solution.
Fusion is where it's at

How high is your electric krut since you trying to be idiots and turn off all your reactors?

We need to stop using Nuclear Power and hope that God doesn't curse Humanity with Nuclear Cancer for our sins.

We should not have split His atoms.

By not having a shit ton of obsolete Nuclear plants, designed 40 years ago when we were just getting started in the technology, be the basis of how we view an entire field of power generation.

And if I hear one more liberal treehugging fuck, say that nuclear is dirty, I'm gunna smear radioactive waste all over my body and hug them to death.

>And if I hear one more liberal treehugging fuck, say that nuclear is dirty

Do some research on the after-effects of Fukushima and Chernobyl. We have angered The Lord twice. He will not be so kind a third time.

God is gay hehe xD

It's always funny how many of the same people who oppose fossil fuels also oppose nuclear power.
They always think in terms of ideal solutions and never trade-offs, which is why few things are clean enough for these assholes.

""""Fossil"""" fuels are much safer than nuclear power. Oil and coal are natural byproducts of the Earth and nobody ever got cancer from coal or oil.

>retarded nips who build on a fault line next to water
>drunk slavs who built a shitty reactor and basically said fuck it
America has regulations, checks and balances for those errors.

>plentiful power
>zero CO2
>not toxic solar or bird-choppers
You'd think the AGW crowd would be all over nuclear if helping the environment was their goal

>Fukushima
Not a single person has died to the radiation of Fukushima.

Globalists want us to be reliant on windmills and dams for power so that they can force everyone to live in cities.

My man, do you think inhaling that black exhaust is perfectly good for you?

>Chernobyl
>an accident in which a reactor design that never would have been approved in the west operated by a crew untrained for nuclear power performing a dangerous low-power experiment wherein one by one they disabled every single safety that would have prevented meltdown
>and that's why nuclear power is inherently unsafe and bad

Google Three Mile Island

prove that we don't have our heads up our arses (like the soviets) or heads in the sand (like the japanese) and that with a sensible regulatory regime we can slash both energy costs and carbon emissions

why are they measuring radiation in cm?

how do you measure radiation in cm?

They can't let go of the dirty hippy mentality of their predecessors, after all the environmental movement was getting started at the height of fear of nuclear energy.

Yeah and three mile was already proven to have had no effect on the surrounding area.

As if "natural" means good, or better than. It doesn't.
The debate isn't isn't centered around causes cancer and what doesn't either. That just presents a false dichotomy that limits our understanding of these energy sources to what can happen under worst-case scenarios. The regular use of nuclear power doesn't cause cancer at all.

i see the retards are online again

Thorium. Resume the developement of thorium reactors. The chinks and the streetshitters are doing it at the moment.

Tell that to the poor Men that encountered this Abomination. Do not sell your Soul to the Nuclear Devil.

Isn't Kyiv and most of Ukraine still reliant on nuclear power? Does that bother people?

How is he retarded? He's absolutely right that a reactor in soviet russia would never pass american standards now.

Liberal arguments on nuclear power piss me off to no end.

Remember Sim city 4 and how you placed a nuke plant in the middle of your ghetto then set it on fire, laughing as you watched your nigger sims burn?

Thats what they think will happen, but its not the case. We havent built a new reactor since 1985, and all these fucking libtards we can solve the worlds energy problems by investing in solar companies (systems are way to inefficient to meet our needs, around 15%, and are fabricated with extremely toxic materials which never decay) or go straight for wind power which leads to deforestation, noise pollution, etc.

The only waste for conventional fission plants is some radioactive shit, which they then mix with concrete and bury it deep within the earth in lead lined vaults. The waste-to-energy ratio is so low its retarded that its used as an argument.

Fission is the way to go until we can level up to fusion.

Check out this new fission plant design if your interested or autistic. Safer than conventional plants and the Japs should of looked into it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Throw the liberals that oppose it into mental institutions, where they belong.

You mean the literal nothing that retarded monkeys confuse with the fictional movie The China Syndrome because it came out a week before?

Literally not an argument

Oh boy, another thread full of hot opinions by people who have never worked at a nuclear power plant.

>ctrl + f
>throrium

Thank you guys for explaining this before I had to.

thorium propaganda. done

They use coal plants and buy nuclear power from French(almost 3 times what we and double what frogs pay)

The literal nothing was Three-Mile Island, brah.

Fusion is pipedream and a giant waste of money
>muh limitless energy
No. Even if you could somehow sustain a fusion reaction itd still require fuel and youd still basically just be using it to heat water. Fission power is basically just keeping a bunch of self heating metal inside a boiler, fusion power meanwhile requires floating million degree plasma in a vacuum chamber using -200 degree super conducting magnets and then somehow being able to transfer heat from it to basically just a boiler.
t. engineering student

he not wrong, the reactor design would not meet western standards of the time, or Russian standards of today. And they where running experiments on low water levels and turning off safety mechanisms to carry out the tests.

This

The really funny thing about fusion, aside from it being perpetually twenty years away and just another fancy way of heating water, is that you subhuman monkeys are going to protest against it just as hard as you do fission and for mostly the same reasons.

That picture you posted is the tusnami wave height. Radiation is not measured in centimeters (cm). Zerohedge passed it on as radioactive water as part of their click bait campaign that week and a lot of people fell for it.

Radioactive water hit the ocean and vanished into the background radiation. Seawater is already slightly radioactive to begin with and sprinkling a bit of caesium-137 into an ocean the size of the pacific means fuck all. The dangerous isotopes sank to the ocean floor and have a half life of only 30 years.

Up until 1993 boats used to go out to sea and dump far more dangerous radioactive waste into the ocean. Russia used to dump entire realtors and spent rods into the sea. Shit with a half life of thousands of years.

Fukushima was the equivalent to a typical tuesday afternoon in 1984 when it came to radioactive waste disposal. It was literally nothing.

Can't
Now that France turned out to have neglected the safety rules on their plants it's beyond saving

let iran and iraq build nuke plants and tell the jews we don't give a fuck.

build it ourselves instead of letting the french and chinese do everything.

actually mine uranium responsibly in countries like niger instead of shitting up the place because they are shitholes and we can get away with it.

use tried and tested BWRs rather than more risky PWRs which have a greater capacity to pollute when something goes wrong.

build as small as you can to save land SMRs are good.

look at the reactors in india,pakistan and china.

PHWR-220 for example at the madras nuclear power plant in india. produces 220 megawatts from a small piece of land and is highly efficent.

it makes no sense to build hinkley point c when we can do it for much cheaper ourselves.

its like buying a renault hatchback, when you could have a mini or tata nano for much less have it operate for much less and have it work just as well.

but we had to have the dumb faggot cadillac of nuke plants to show off.

the jews again just like the money wasted on concorde.

>Russia used to dump entire realtors
>realtors
I know what you mean but I still pictured Soviet Russia purging all of their real-estate professionals by casting them into the sea.

>1979
>basically no confirmed effects other than people attributing natural occurances to the event because people told them they should
1979 was the same year we had Kent State happen and we haven't abolished colleges yet because there "might maybe" a mass shooting
it's almost like standards and practices changed in reaction and any copycats found it far more difficult to action or justify

>They use coal plants and buy nuclear power from French(almost 3 times what we and double what frogs pay)

All french plants are knock off of westinghouse designs, then areva put original nuke plant do not steel on it and took it around the world. then the chinks knock off the frogs plant and then again original reactor do not steel.

meanwhile scores of physics and chemistry graduates come out of universities and what do we do use their ideas?

NO better come up with another variation on a 1950s GE westinghouse and copyright it, easy money.

Britain had its own reactors from 1950s onwards independent from the usa but this was shut down by the government so we could use the same westinghouse designs over and over again and be charged billions for the pleasure of doing so on our electricity bills.

I'll start studying nuclear engineering this Fall, how should I redpill my folks about nuclear power?

>neglected the safety rules on their plants

i wonder who could have been responsible for that oversight.

Coal ash contains large numbers of radioactive isotopes. Uranium and thorium is deposited in reducing environments, typically around organics such as the environments coal is formed in.
This has been demonstrated in studies focused on the lack of radiation in waters associated with roll front depoits in the Navajo nation.

Coal may not directly cause cancer, but it will the probabilty of contracting it for people living in their vicinity.

The Candu series of reactors were very popular in India.

>cannot be used for weapons development
>they can optionally use weapons grade fuel as fuel to assist with nuclear disarmament
>they can use spent fuel of other older LWR reactors as fuel
>can operate on thorium (which is three times as abundant as uranium and cannot be used to make nukes)

By not letting slavs, arabs and chinks use it

Fusion isn't a pipe dream, more of a "we have a lot to figure out before its feasible" scenario.

Room temperature or near room temperature superconductors will likely be achieved in our lifetime, additionally this has the obvious benefit of lower transmission loss.

The temp for most of the actively researched fusion reactions involve deuterium, which has plasma temps around 100m C. Most of these research projects are geared towards better understanding overcoming coulomb forces more efficiently. Given the publications of the last 30 years, unless a major breakthrough is made, it would be unlikely to see a workable/realworld positive yield system in the next 100 years.

The UK and France also dump waste in the English channel. US had a few ocean dump sites, although in recent years they just leave it sitting in storage lots after the failure of Yucca mountain

...

That has no bearing on whether there was an event that occurred. Nobody has died from Fukushima but that didn't stop people from acting like the atmosphere was igniting.

You can have all the safeties and regulations you want but there's always the chance of failure. I'm a strong proponent for nuclear power, but it's infantile to pretend the problems with nuclear power only apply to other countries because they suck, and can never happen here.

>How can we save nuclear power?

youtube.com/watch?v=PpoPnrAc9qw&spfreload=10

By exposing its opponents.

Pic related is of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, member of the german green party, describing how he fiddles children.

Irish sea too. And it was plutonium.

>Between 1952 and 1995, after which radioactive dumping was reduced, Sellafield discharged 182 kilograms of plutonium into the Irish Sea. But following Dr Kershaw's audit of the discharged plutonium, he concluded that 36 per cent could not be found and up to 40 per cent of the americium was also unaccounted for.

Jews literally killed nuclear research and set us back 60 years. The United States Atomic Energy Commission had an unbroken line of jewish control until Nixon appointed some bulldyke to crash the plane with no survivors. Kirk Sorensen is too autistic to realize thorium cycle reactors were killed because the goal was to provide Israel with the basic research and means to produce nuclear weapons at US taxpayer exepense and the thorium cycle provided an alternative non-weaponizable path to nuclear energy generation.

well the thorium cycle is still a work in progress. ie: waste processing stream. no one has presented a viable power scale process. not saying it shouldn't be researched, it should. But at this point we have enough usable fissile material in the waste stream of 60 years of LWR operation that there is no need for this in the short term.

The Chinks have 700 phds working on it full time, after literally walking into Oak Ridge and stealing the design papers. Fact is, nuclear tech would kill US middle eastern involvement, since we'd have no use for their oil. Nuclear + Fischer Tropsch = unlimited carbon-neutral sandnigger free hydrocarbon fuel.

The protections of Candu for nuclear weapons is Canada will only sell them with a safeguard agreement - India can build a heavy water reactor of the CANDU design for example and produce nuclear weapon material.

>Britain had its own reactors from 1950s onwards independent from the usa but this was shut down by the government
Well the (AGR) is a good design, but comes with two issues.

Magnox requires reprocessing and has export issues (due to it being a great way to make nuclear weapon material), and the newer AGR's with stainless steel cladding have costs issues.

>trying to stop the demiurge

Support research into nuclear power. Specifically LFTR reactors. Testing in the 60s showed this type of reactor was much safer and scalable than what is currently used in power plants. Heavy research is being carried out by China and some by India by using US research from that era. Although fossil fuels are still viable and will be for centuries to come, Nuclear power is critical for space exploration as it would be the safest and most reliable out there. Support deregulation of the nuclear power industry in the US and a lot of small outfits will bring you small modular reactors. The companies are already there thrying to get this done and you can see where design is going. The use of these is still 10 to 15 years away but we have already lost over 20 years due to a bill spearheaded by John Kerry to defund Nuclear Research Programs. The future is nuclear.

> Well the (AGR) is a good design, but comes with two issues.
> Magnox requires reprocessing and has export
> issues (due to it being a great way to make
> nuclear weapon material), and the newer
> AGR's with stainless steel cladding have costs issues.

Even without the cost, the other two screw it in the poisonous environment nuclear power operates in. Greenpeace and other nimby ecotards will be on the fence about the proliferation risk (provided they even bother enough research to see that), whereas the anti nuclear ecotards infesting nuclear regulatory agencies will be able to shoot plans to build one down easily due to "this is not the same Westinghouse teakettle everyone has been licensing or copying since the 1950s". That's a major hurdle for liquid fueled Thorium reactors, too. Those are a really neat design as well. They allow for excellent passive failsafes and could even do continuous online reprocessing of the fuel (by filtering out neutron absorbing byproducts that slow the chain reaction).

Pic related. Sadly the majority of people around here are a bunch of idiot ecotards.

Part of me wants to see those new designs come forward. Part of me just wants to say "Pick a standard design and lower the cost"

Why not both?

terrestrialenergy.com/imsr-technology/

You won't believe how many times I've got the weirdest looks for suggesting more nuclear power usage for the sake of the enviornment

If green parties were really caring about the environment, then they would be pro-nuclear power.

That is exactly what I'm saying, but our gree party has long since abbandoned it's green policy if it ever had really one to begin with. But there are still so many people who vote green and think they are doing good. Oh well those people are also the same who leave the city for one day and see a mono crop field and think they are seeing beautiful nature.
Good luck explaining those people why hunting is important

>he doesnt work at a nuclear power plant making 100k a year or more

plebs

Shoo shoo thorium shills.

Thorium reactors are a terrible idea. They aren't even real thorium reactors, the thorium is just a breeder material for U-233, which is actually the reacting isotope. U-233 is way more hazardous than U-235 used in the conventional uranium cycle, mainly because the U-233 cycle produces U-232 as a byproduct, which is some seriously nasty shit.

Beyond that thorium rectors have never been commercially viable.

The real future for nuclear is in uranium salt reactors.

Beyond reactor types the real issue for nuclear power in America is that we don't have a standardized reactor design. Every new reactor is built from the ground up, and the cost of engineering dominates the total cost of the reactor.

In comparison, the Chinese standardized their design and are now just shitting reactors out. I think they have like 36 operating reactors with 21 under construction.

Kek on photo

Oh fuck off, turning our backs on new technology will only stymie future developments

That also Chernobyl was a lesson learned for Nuclear Power from design to operation. If it didn't happen another reactor could have gone up and done more damage than Chernobyl has done. It's like airliner safety, a lot of lessons learned from crash aircraft

Are you saying that we now know that it is highly unwise to disengage all safty protocolls and then crank it up to eleven, because they did exactly that?
Cool, I've never could have come t that conclusion without this stupid shit they pulled.

i'm starting to believe that literally any other country chairing the eu will give better results

The operators of Chernobyl where far beyond the "Normal" operation guidelines.

they turned off all safety measures then was screwing around with how close they could get it to failure without it really failing.

That like doing low level acrobatics in a 747 with passengers and surprised that it crashed.

It doesn't need saving. The industry is finally moving towards modularity and portability (something it should have done at the start) and will be making them in the 2030s and 40s.

I'm talking about lessons learned in the design of the reactor itself as well as the other factors especially when planning for such tests. The test was ran at Chernobyl before but the reactor never blew then, it only blew because of the conditions building up to the disaster

Why would you risk the threats of nuclear waste and a possible meltdown when you have clean burning coal?

Great joke, gonna have to remember it for later.

that one isn't even right, 750 rads would've left the entire west coast an uninhabitable wasteland with no intelligent life. Oh wait...

Because coal releases more radiation in the athmosphere

youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1Xja6HlIU