Just spent a half hour arguing with people over nuclear energy.
Basically the only argument the other side had was "but muh solar panels and wind farms!!!!" despite the OBVIOUS fact that nuclear is WAAAAAAY more efficient, cheap, land effective, and actually very clean compared to any other possible energy source.
Why do these people have such an attachment to the idea of "clean energy", such that when I propose a CLEARLY better alternative, they cling to it and insult me? It's kind of clear that they only cling to it for some sort of moral high ground, very reminiscent of the cultural Marxism-infected "but muh feminism, free shit for everyone" etc.
Is it bias due to freak accidents? Or some sort of brainwashing?
when most other forms of energy break down by inevitable mishaps they don't have the potential to make large swaths of the earth uninhabitable while radiating even larger areas.
John Scott
Gee, have you seen a mining operation for precious metals required for "clean" energy? There might not be radiation but the land becomes inhabitable
Jayden Murphy
Problem is when people eventually fuck up nuclear, the consequences are Fukushima and Chernobyl.
I understand the benefits, but just remember what you're asking for.
Benjamin Robinson
last one of those "freak accidents" polluted the pacific ocean and its going to keep leaking shit in the water for indefinite amount of time, polluting all of our waters. Even if we could be able to make them foolproof of natural disasters there is always the risk of terrorist attack or war to blow them and fuck our shit up even more. In short, if something can go wrong, it will in long enough of a timeframe.
Hunter Campbell
Very true, definitely one of solar's weaknesses.
Nonetheless, a more-or-less containable and cleanup-able environmental disaster.
Can't say the same for Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3-Mile, at the very least.
Matthew Morales
PV solar cells are produced using amazingly poisonous chemicals
Wind is pretty much the only one that isn't
(Or solar thermal but that's not good enough yet)
David Cox
>I get all my facts on nuclear power from Greenpeace.
Christian Sanders
Coal/oil causes more deaths/pollution compared to how much energy it produces. The problem is that nuclear accidents are much more spectacular than the pollution produced by burning coal.
Logan Cook
It's fun to consider what would happen in a Mad Max scenario where society collapses and leaves nobody to run the reactors. Without grid power, generators and fuel, and people to run it all, the spend fuel pools would evaporate leaving exposed fuel to burn. The Japanese were scared out of their minds of that scenario at Fukushima, which accounted for desperate early heroic attempts like dropping water by chopper. A spent fuel fire is unimaginably bad.
Imagine this happening at every reactor site in America. So much for all of the SHTF fantasies of surviving after civilization falls; everything would be nuked by the fuel fires.
Luis Perry
>not an argument
Christian Phillips
We are completely unable to rely on power sources like wind and solar which are uncertain in their power generation because of clouds/no wind. We need something consistently reliable for the bulk of our power generation.
Josiah Thompson
Greenpeace is a corrupt piece of shit that needs to be culled. Supporting nuclear power is selfish in a way that you get to skip the instantenous bad effects on enviroment and live your own life in relative unpolluted earth while leaving spreading/ready to happen nuclear accidents to the next generations
Andrew Torres
if you seriously think this shit is worth the risk you are a fucking moron. Watch a documentary on Chernobyl you insipid fuck.
Justin Morgan
you should read up on the actual radiation levels in the Pacific due to Fukushima before you start regurgitating what you read in some baseless fear mongering greenie "news" article.
nuclear has the fewest deaths per unit energy produced.
plus, fusion power is about to become a reality and then nuclear power literally won't have any risks at all.
Ethan Rogers
yeah, I hear you and I've studied it a lot and you are right it makes the most sense if it wasn't for the fact that we just can't reasonably plan thousands of years in the future. Even if plants today were totally meltdown proof (which many essentially are) the waste lasts so long and who knows what burying that shit for thousands of years could lead to. Invent a space elevator so we can safely get it to space and shove it toward the sun and I say nuclear 100% but until then it's not a better option than building out solar and wind (and continuing work or fusion).
Nicholas Reed
this i am not a chemical-phobic / purist faggot by any means, but subcritical plutonium and other radioactive elements are literally the most toxic things on earth given their scale.
it's unfathomably devastating when a reactor is exposed to the environment we know this for sure know thanks to the japanese, which by the way, is a huge coverup. everyone in japan is fucked thanks to fukishima. its the worst disaster in memorable history all of japan should really be off limits
Dylan Foster
Fukushima will cost billions to clean up.
OP ignores the problems of nuclear power because shills do stuff like that.
Henry Russell
The initial capital expenditure is to much to front on its own without government funding. And with potential catastrophic consequences in the event of a meltdown, the government also picks up the tab (see Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act).
Why should we support socialized power production when other means are able to support themselves on their own.
Carson Cook
I have never meet someone that wasn't at least somewhat pro nuclear. The only concerns people had about it was how much it would cost to set them up.
Anti Nuclear people are a meme. They only exist within energy companies and lobby groups, and that is only because they make so much money from other forms of energy.
Xavier White
You are cherrypicking the source where to measure it. I could make an counterargument about the radiation levels at the fukushima plant where even robots are getting destroyed in mere hours, whereas humans would die pretty much instantenously, but im not. The amount of radiation that is getting out of there is actually rising every day and it just keeps getting bigger while there are no plans as to how to stop it.
Jeremiah Gomez
Wind, Solar and other forms of renewable energies are great. We should carry on researching and investing in those in order to provide a modulable margin to an electricity network which should be made out of a strong core of existing hydraulics + nuclear power plant.
Basically, we need to produce a huge part of our electricty from Nuclear Power Plants and pin some solar and wind farm where the network can't really keep up, and in order to provide more versatility to the network ( because it's easier to shut down a useless wind farms during a certain period of time than a whole nuclear reactor ) What we need is 0% combustion power plants Going 100% renewable isn't compatible with going 100% electric transportation, it would require a shit tone of wind and solar farms.
Retarded ecoterrorists can't distiguish pollution from a nuclear plant and from a combustion plant
Nuclear Plant is just " don't eat and touch that waste you fucking retard we'll burry it deep in some mountain where there's no geological activity nor any hydraulic activity and then we'll seal it and it wont hurt anybody "
Combustion plants are just " muh it's just some smoke don't worry ", then the temps rises up, the icecap melts, and half of the civilized world becomes Atlantis while the other half of the civilized word has to deal with fucking poo in the loo climate refugees.
Nathaniel Phillips
>Why do these people have such an attachment to the idea of "clean energy"
Cause they're racist and they want to export all pollution to China.
Bentley Turner
Gonna be laughing my ass off when CO2 emissions increase because of the opposition to nuclear energy. The US will be worse than China when the decommissionings begins.
Nicholas Mitchell
Solar panels are actually important and they're improving too, but wind farms are the biggest meme. >no wind no energy >too much wind no energy
Tyler Cooper
don't build them on fault lines or have commie infrastructure. There are lots of fail safes on modern reactors. I blame the simpsons for intentionally obfuscating facts about nuclear power.
Connor Wilson
Fukushima was a human error tho
Nuclear Plants aren't the problem Baboons operating them are.
Jaxon Fisher
No, the reason you aren't doing that is because the radiation levels today are literally harmless, and you couldn't find any real, substantial information that supports your fear-mongering even if you tried.
Literally no humans died from radiation exposure from Fukushima.
Ethan Harris
You keep posting all these claims and accusing everyone who disagrees with you of cherrypicking... but you've yet to post a single credible citation for your claims.
>inb4 enenews
Ayden Thomas
Fukushima is the worst disaster of our time and there's literally nothing we can do to stop it.
Tepco doesn't know where melted cores are because they have melted deep into to the earth and radioactive groundwater keeps leaking into ocean. We cannot just pour concrete over it because it will leak into ocean anyway. Radiation inside the buildings is too high even for robots and humans would collapse in seconds.
Marine life is dying in pacific, you can google "pacific die-offs". MSM is covering it up to avoid global panic. Tokyo isn't safe for 2020 olympics either. I would not be suprised if they were cancelled because by 2020 Japan is really fucked. People have radiation sickness symptoms and birth defects have gone trough roof.
Just remember my words if you don't believe me now. Fukushima will lead to major panic in the future when MSM cannot cover it up anymore. It's much worse than chernobyl, reactor 3 had MOX-fuel made from plutonium, thats why it exploded critically, it wasn't hydrogen explosion. It has been estimated that by now Fukushima has released over hundred times more radioactive fallout into ocean than Chernobyl did into atmosphere.
America isn't safe either. Jet stream brings radioactive particles over the pacific and ocean currents will spread them around the world.
Follow them if you want redpill on this. People don't realize that it will slowly kill whole globe. What happens when Japan runs out of nuclear engineers and becomes inhabitable? Who will fix it then?
Landon Green
Aircrews and people who fly a lot are suffering from radiation poisoning because planes attract radioactive particles from Fukushima:
Pilot are having blackouts and seizures, even fistfights have occurred. Aircrews get more radiation during 40 hours of flying than nuclear workers get in a year. Radiation levels inside planes have increased over tenfold after 2011 Fukushima accident. There's lots of static electricity on airplane skin which attracts radioactive particles and engines are sucking them also. Wigner effect is causing planes to fail.
Fukushima is massive coverup and it's much worse than MSM lets you believe. It's still leaking as we speak.
Ryder Anderson
>enenews Ha, fucking called it!
That shit's about as credible as citing PrisonPlanet articles as proof 9/11 was an inside job.
Thomas Perry
holy shit Finland is way more cuck'd than i realized
Connor Fisher
>Nuclear power is scary Wtf I love huffing coal fumes now
Luke Carter
Wind and solar are meme energy sources that wouldn't even be able to replace fossil fuels. Nuclear can not only replace them entirely, but increase our energy production by a few orders of magnitude.
Levi Reyes
Environmentalists hating nuclear is the greatest failing of the movement, and will probably be the defining reason why climate change fucks us
You are all missing the point for why wind/solar power is not being more widely. This guy gets it. Solar power generates electricity when the sun shines and wind power when it's windy. A civilized country cannot function a system where you can't get electricity out of the socket on a clody and windless day. Currently no method of storing energy when circumstances are good to use later is viable to be used in such large scale. This is why solar and wind power are called 'secondary' power sources. A country must fulfill it's peak electricity consumption with PRIMARY power sources, which are nuclear, coal, oil, gas, etc, which can be run regardless of uncontrollable circumstances. Solar and Wind are used in conjuction so that total electricity production is much more than needed, but pollution heavy and costly gas power plants are not normally in use and are used when solar/wind power can't function due to shitty weather to keep the grid at proper currents.
Thomas Bennett
>very clean dropped
Anthony Kelly
So basically if we had natsoc instead of crapitalism/lolbertardianism/demoshitcy and cultural Marxism, we could have used nuclear power to get ourselves situated in space and Dyson sphere the sun by now. Instead we chose to feed niggers. Thanks Jews.
Josiah Garcia
Fukusima was built before the chernobyl incident
Aaron Stewart
Oh wow, another nuclear cost estimation that ignores D&E and manufacturing costs.
I'm pro nuclear but the level of shilling the nuclear industry tries to do is insane. Nuclear plants always go way over budget, especially in America where there's no standardized design.
Case and point, Seabrook nuclear power station was supposed to have a capital cost of $520/kW, when all was said and done it came out to $2200/kW.
A realistic LCOE for a nuclear project is approximately 11c/kWh, which is higher than coal, natural gas, wind and solar, with at least 10X the capex.
Cameron Brown
Nuclear power production creates dangerous waste products that we don't have the slightest clue how to clean and they degrade extremely slowly. That's the major difference, creating functionally permanent poisons needing strong containment, monitoring and upkeep.
All other power production has more ephemeral negative effects
Sebastian Green
i literally work in nuclear power (fusion)
i can state without a doubt that anyone who is anti-nuclear is a massive sissy
Jaxson Robinson
how is that an argument for national socialism at all?
Thomas Rivera
The batteries of new alternative energy and things like electric/hybrid cars create more pollution because of rare earth metal run off and waste
Luke Brooks
sources?
Sebastian Fisher
>Nuclear power production creates dangerous waste products that we don't have the slightest clue how to clean
Just launch the shit to space. Problem solved.
Nathaniel Wilson
>> All other power production has more ephemeral negative effects
Well if you think rising the sea level and flooding millions of km2 is a " more ephemeral negative effect " than some radioactive waste which will irrediate the bedrock for millions of years, you are either :
- a complete retard - loving rocks too much
Sebastian Hernandez
If I was in charge of the Australian grid I'd set it up as following: Short term- LWR + supercritical coal + gas + some renewables (plus heavy investment into 3rd and 4th gen reactor design) Medium term- LWR + emergency gas plants + wide scale renewables + MSR/breeder + large storage facilities Long term- MSR/breeder + emergency gas + renewable with storage all installed at the regional level except for the gas + of it's not a meme, fusion
Juan Cruz
Is it actually cheaper though? I heard it was expensive.
Ryan Brown
>Aryan space empire >shitskin multiculturalism and slow death
Pick one. Natsoc would have colonized the solar system by now. Instead you chose wasteful crapitalism.
Jonathan Garcia
Holy shit we should be memeing harder for MSRs they are literally a fission silver bullet for energy and could be built on a fucking factory production line. It will see us through until fusion is ready for adoption. Sup Forums used to be crazy into this back in 2011/12.
Spent fuel is the fuel for the next generation (gen4) of reactors within a decade or two it will be valuable and sort after.
Nathan Brown
Why can't we just go to the moon and mine helium-3 getting rid of the "MUH RADIOACTIVE WASTE!!" issue?
Jayden Phillips
It's a matter of polarization, because anti nuclear sentiment is rooted so deep and based on emotions pro nuclear people have dug in deep to argue back when most of them don't know how it works either.
Still, it's not so much that nuclear power is super productive or profitable, but the fact the energy consumption is increasing across the globe (mostly due to population) and the electricity needs to come from somewhere. Fossil fuel electricity production gets even more flak than nuclear, most rivers worth building a water power plant on already have one, wind/solar power is a meme that can't replace primary production and so on. Something needs to be built to make more electricity and the alternative options aren't looking any better either.
Isaac Ross
Finland's new Olkiluoto-3 reactor has been massive failure. It was supposed to be ready back in 2009 but it's still not completed despite costing over 10 billions. There has been quality issues with foreign workers and all kind of controversies.
Areva and TVO are suing each others for cost overruns and both are demanding several billions from another. Costs are spiralling out of control and it seems like it will never be finished.
Nathaniel Russell
And use sites like the Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository for nuclear waste
>haha don't worry bruh it's just a little bit of radiation what's the big deal?
kys.
>fusion power
way too expensive to go commercial.
Thomas Fisher
Well seeing as the only reactors we have now aren't even operational/can't self sustain if say that's a big problem with them too
Ryan Edwards
Of course it's brainwashing. The Soviets started the anti-nuke movement in the West because they wanted to make it harder for our governments to make weapons. Truly, the political left is a creation of our society's enemies, and for that reason alone it must be purged.
Elijah Allen
Construction and decommissioning is expensive. The industry is going to shift to small modular reactors in response.
Thomas Wilson
Don't the reactor have some sort of fail safe mechanism, in case nobody is there to monitor the reactor would shut itself(at least for the newgenerations of nuclear plants)
Landon Anderson
Why the fuck are you building nuclear reactors? Don't you drill the oily jew?
Evan Fisher
*I'd
Sorry being a phoneposting faggot on the train
Adrian Martinez
Everyone it's scared of the atom, it's not just the countries you can name at the top of your head.
Ayden Rodriguez
It's because of the mental image they have. They picture wind and solar like some futuristic clean Disney scenario with animals dancing and energy being delivered via butterflies, meanwhile nuclear conjures images of atomic bombs, Mr. Burns, and plants that looks like smoke billowing industrial factories. Eww!
Wind and solar = good, Nuclear = bad. They think like children and cannot look at the problem logically.
Jordan Hughes
Libfags can't get their heads around the fact that solar and wind are both deadlier than nuclear. It just makes their minds freeze up and start autistically screeching.
That solar and wind are so shit at producing electricity that, when measured as deaths / gigawatt hour, people fall to their deaths from rooftops and wind turbines at a rate that dwarfs the worst fatality estimates for chernobyl and shit.
Michael Ross
Nuclear power is not clean. Current uranium levels in uranium ore are so low that you actually need more fossil power to dig it up and enrich it than you get from reactor. Easy uranium deposits were depleted during cold war and now only few remain. Current uranium levels are around 0,2-0,3% while during cold war some uranium mines had 40% levels. You have to dig up massive amounts of earth to make 100 tons of enriched nuclear fuel.
This raises question why build nuclear power if it takes power than it creates?
The answer is plutonium which can be only created by nuclear fission. Plutonium inside nukes needs to be replaced every 3-4 years or it doesn't go critical anymore. This creates constant need for it while supply is limited, ton of plutonium costs several billions.
Obviously nuclear industry and military doesn't want people to know how nuclear power maintains nuclear weapons. That's why everything what's been told to public about nuclear power is a lie. They have downplayed and censored every nuclear accident just like they did with Fukushima.
They don't build thorium reactors simply because it doesn't create plutonium.
Earth is full of uranium but digging it up and enriching it consumes more fossil power than nuclear reactor produces. They simply do it for plutonium which creates massive dark revenue for nuclear companies.
That's the redpill about nuclear power.
Joshua Cook
REEEE YOU SAID THE EXACT SAME THING WITH A JAPANESE PROXY LAST TIME AND I DEBUNKED YOU
Gabriel Brown
I don't think it's possible to die "Instantaneously" from radiation. Even the guy who got nuked in the face for being a dumbfuck reactor employee lived for a few days without anything happening.
Chase Miller
What power production is causing sea level rise at what rate?
Adrian Nelson
I think using some nuclear energy is fine, but mishaps will always happen at some point, so it shouldn't be used too much, and we endeavor to eventually find alternative energy through the free market, aka when it's more efficient and viable.
This is the only reasonable answer
Camden Foster
Wow, that's really eye opening. Can you link me to the study you got the info from?
Jason Murphy
It was that old? Plus I wonder what those japs were thinking when building a nuclear powerplant in a place that has earthquakes and then building it next to the sea.
Asher Robinson
Who cares what people in rathole countries think? You should be scared. You are subhuman.
Charles Ramirez
Pretty sure America built it for them.
Grayson Parker
Any power production using combustion
Ryan Gonzalez
Nuclear is good. but there is a new "nuclear" coming out. or trying to. And its entirely safe. but puts out more energy than nuclear.
google it.
Solar and wind is bullshit. The ratio of space vs energy created. It's good for a roof. And if you calculate all the roofs in america. ya, it would solve huge energy issues.
But the cost of solar is still entirely too high. Solar panels are still not effective enough. if someone who burns through 30 to 40KW a month (like i do)
i would literally need 50 panels on my roof. And a huge ass battery bank (which is the most expensive thing in solar, due to batteries only lasting 3 to 7 years)
nuclear and alternate nuclear energy is the way to go.
"The device, along with other robots, may also have been damaged by an unseen enemy: radiation. Before it was abandoned, its dosimeter indicated that radiation levels inside the No 2 containment vessel were at 250 sieverts an hour. In an earlier probe using a remote-controlled camera, radiation at about the same spot was as high as 650 sieverts an hour – enough to kill a human within a minute."
Nathaniel Ramirez
nigger do you know distance and medium matter mean? No? Maybe in Finnish, etäisyys ja väliaine? Of course you get radiation levels that destroy electronics and kill people when you literally fucking drive a robot to the broken reactor to prod at it hoping to fix it. Yet for some magical reason you don't receive the same amount of radiation a 100 meters away, and much less if there is a wall or two between. Get your dumbfucking skull out of your ass; alfa and beta radiation are literally not an issue more than a meter away from the radiation source, and neutron and gamma radiation are inversely squared by distance as well - I'm not sure how far they away they reach dangerous levels are Fukushima, but it literally cannot be more than a few kilometers in worst case. Kind of like heat, there is difference in sticking your hand in the campfire and standing half a mile away.
The problem with nuclear accidents usually is the fallout; radioactive matter going place and then radiating there, not radiation from the main source.
Connor White
>but there is a new "nuclear" coming out the lockheed compact reactor is a meme LENR is a meme stellarator is a meme
call back when something goes even slightly past breakeven or doesn't request a total scrapping of the reactor after 2-3 iterations
Aiden Carter
That's not an answer. If you can't provide a rate or rationale how do you make that claim?
I have to assume you're talking about CO2. Except I could point out that methane is a substantially stronger greenhouse gas, and that cattle production could easily be more impactful.
Not to mention the original argument indicated millions of km being submerged which also may not be the case since as permafrost and icesheets melt the continents under them actually rise. See:Greenland
Colton Cruz
Nuclear energy advocates have no permanent solution for nuclear waste. All you're doing is either burying it or containing it in a small area covered by some material that would only last centuries despite the fact that nuclear waste lasts 10s of thousands of years or longer.
Another problem is cost, solar and wind energy are declining in price, while nuclear energy is increasing. Already manufacturing solar and wind energy are cheaper than nuclear, and will be even more affordable as the years go by.
And don't mention batteries to me. That problem is almost solved and Telsa corp plans make high storage energy capacity of batteries a reality.
But yes PWRs will always be pricey but shockingly enough even with around 1% fuel potential absorption still economically competitive, MSRs are the most cost effective of the newer generation of reactors.
Yeh in China they have now put MSRs on the backburner and for thorium based cycles are instead focusing on a solid fueled pebble bed thorium reactor similar to India's reactors which won't even be finished until 2024 (bare in mind this will be a prototype reactor). It looks like they intend to continue work on the MSR experiment after that period so its presented itself a good opportunity for a western country to look into the technology in the meantime and begin working on a modern day MSRe before expanding upon the program. My country is particularly interested in MSR even here we will have MSRs before 2040. Regardless, what ever country gets MSRs first will define the century ahead as a leader, its a shame Trump doesn't know about them.
>Nuclear energy advocates have no permanent solution for nuclear waste. Their solution is to use it up in the next generation of reactors.
Noah Wright
You didn't get the point. Power supplies based on energy creates CO2 CO2 makes greenhouse effect.
bringing the methane and cattles doesn't change this fact.
Harvesting energy through combustion is primitive and will fuck us.
If you're this kind of retarded thinking CO2 pollution doesn't exist then I wont bother arguing with you.
the main meme with nuclear power is that people irrationally hate it despite its clear benefits, overall you could have a major nuclear incident every 10 years and it would still be less harmful overall to the environment and people than conventional power, which has led to the entire commercial industry being set back decades because most governments wont go hard in the paint, with a solid push and new designs of reactor things would be safer and more efficient than ever but there is no real money in it
the only reason that you have problems with permanent storage is because do gooder green lobbyists and fedora tipping citizens complain "not in our back yard". If they just committed to using specific sites and told everyone to get to fuck then it would be fine
Jaxson Gonzalez
The reactor does, indeed have a SCRAM mechanism to shut down after such an event, however the reactor fuel still needs to be cooled and spent fuel needs constant water circulation to remove heat. Take away the cooling, and all that fuel in the rack burns. Spent fuel often has little more than the corrugated metal shack over it, as used on the GE reactors (i.e. Fukushima), which provides little radiological containment when it all burns too.
Thus, it's absolutely mandatory that someone babysits each and every one. If society collapsed, this would be a real nightmare scenario.
Btw, Fukushima's reactor had indeed a passive condenser to keep circuit cooling down in case of full shutdown. Since the power plant had lost all its power because the emergency engine generator got flooded, the operators had to manually open valves to get the condenser online. Which they didn't Because they didn't even read the fucking manual That's what happens when you put baboons in commands of a power plant.
Put a fucking windfarm or a solar farm in nigeria and i'll guarantee you it won't be online anymore within two years due to no maintenance except tribal dancing around it
Jackson Barnes
Then I refer back to my original question. At what rate is Power production raising sea levels?
