NUCLEAR ENERGY BTFO
>more expensive than solar, wind
>endless leaks wherever you store it (see Hartford Nuclear Storage Facility)
>meltdowns every couple of years, rendering miles of cities unlivable
>vulnerable to terrorist / military attacks
>massive start up costs
>not profitable
Sup Forums why havent you joined arms with our lord and savior, Solar?
Other urls found in this thread:
foxnews.com
sciencedirect.com
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
festkoerper-kernphysik.de
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
>foxnews
Where the fuck did you hear solar is cheaper than nuke? Solar/wind are the most expensive and unreliable.
>>more expensive than solar, wind
aaaaand stopped reading there
wake up and smell the coffee my man
France is dependent on nuclear, right? Bad investment. Bad idea.
>solar
It generates less energy than is spent on making and installing the panels
sciencedirect.com
>capacity
I see what you did there.
France uses nuclear.
From which it follows that it's green friendly, until Macron pulls the plug.
US needs more nuclear, so we can be like France and Make Our Planet Great Again.
>nuclear
its dead user
Solar
In baizuo countries cucked by greenpeace maybe. You will wither into irrelevance in a few decades anyway.
Truly, nuclear is the way to go, specially molten salt reactors, unless fusion is reached.
However, nuclear plants are plagued with corrupt corporations, who put low costs over security, making accidents like fukushima a likely catastrophic scenario, until we stop seeing this as a money making scheme there will never be a truly safe plant. Fucking human greed.
>more expensive than solar, wind
wrong. government subsidies for renewables don't make them cheaper, the government is just paying part of the cost
>endless leaks wherever you store it (see Hartford Nuclear Storage Facility)
"endless" is absurd hyperbole
>meltdowns every couple of years, rendering miles of cities unlivable
wrong
>vulnerable to terrorist / military attacks
no more so than any other energy infrastructure
>massive start up costs
true
>not profitable
true, but only because oil is so cheap right now
>61 units
wow that IS a lot
meanwhile, in a thriving industry ...
>>vulnerable to terrorist / military attacks
>no more so than any other energy infrastructure
if you blow up a nuclear plant you have to abandon the entire city
>more expensive than solar, wind
Wong.
>endless leaks wherever you store it (see Hartford Nuclear Storage Facility)
Ends after thousands of years, and it's just leaking into a mountain range in the desert so who gives a fuck
>meltdowns every couple of years, rendering miles of cities unlivable
Unless you're incompetent commies from the 80's this isn't a problem. Fukushima isn't a wasteland.
>vulnerable to terrorist / military attacks
Terrorists and militaries already have ways of scorching the earth, they'll do it if they want to regardless of whether you have a nuclear plant.
>massive start up costs
It's worth it
>not profitable
Wrong
>spend billions of dollars
>install 40 GW capacity of panels
>which only generate 4 GW on average
>mostly at the time when no one even needs it
>and don't generate energy when it's needed
>still burn coal because people need reliable electricity
IQ level: green
That's not a question of vulnerability though.
Actually I'll revise my statement from before. If anything nuclear plants are likely more secure than other energy infrastructure because they're largely self-contained.
>Fukushima isn't a wasteland
Neither is Chernobyl. It's basically a nature preserve right now, overgrown with forests and teeming with wildlife.
>Capacity is cost
kek
green energy has been MASSIVELY subsidized
Why couldn't we just build the nuclear power plants on the moon and just ship the energy back to Earth?
We really need to bring the nuclear industry into the 21st century. I'm not one for ultra government regulations, but we need it for nuclear.
Put age limits on reactors. Bring in military security. Reverse the retardation of the Obama administration and give incentives for nuclear power.
It's the only viable clean energy we have at the moment. It's the only way we can reach the climate goals (((they))) say are important to our survival.
But alas, these hip green technologies just make so much money from the goy's tax pools.
>install solar panels on roof
>electricity bill goes negative
>pays for itself in 13 years
>insured for 25
>guaranteed profit
meanwhile, in arctic-circle Russia:
>no sun, no hope
>rely on government projects to provide power
>get irradiated
>drink vodka
>>more expensive than solar, wind
Only due to regulatory shenanigans
>>endless leaks wherever you store it (see Hartford Nuclear Storage Facility)
because you hippie tards won't let us build a giant tunnel in the desert
>>meltdowns every couple of years, rendering miles of cities unlivable
building nuclear sites on or near active faults is retarded
>>vulnerable to terrorist / military attacks
so is your anus
>>massive start up costs
thanks to retards like you
>>not profitable
liar
>China
i am terrified
when every single one of their reactors undoubtedly melts down they're going to roast the entire fucking earth
>It works for a single household in sunny California so it must work for entire cities in every part of the world
Pic related is the size of the solar farm you'd need to do this. It isn't feasible for anything larger than a house.
Do you have any idea the damage that would be dealt if a terrorist legitimately planted bombs in an oil refinery?
Have you heard of the Halifax Explosion?
>meltdowns every couple of years
First operating nuclear power plant connected to an electrical grid was 63 years ago this month.
63 years, 3 meltdowns, only one of which resulted in any loss of human life. Not a bad track record.
>wants more regulations on nuclear
>wants less regulations on nuclear
which is it anons?
you were saying?
Better regulations. Ones that promote it, instead of inhibit it.
Regulation is not the same as the unending leftist cabal anti-nuclear brigading bullshit. Stop being willfully retarded, as it looks silly.
the more plants you build the more meltdowns you get. simple math.
if you scale up nuclear by 10, we'll have 30 meltdowns in 60 years. thats 1 every 2 years. is that acceptable to you?
The only reg that user actually suggested was age limits. If the government would actually grant licenses to build new plants that wouldn't be a problem. So, less regs.
Thorium is a meme until someone develops a working, industrial-scale reactor design. It's about as useful to us right now as nuclear fusion is.
Uranium fission is safe, efficient, and available NOW, not 30 or 40 years from now.
thorium is truly a meme (unproven) and not politically viable because it promotes nuclear proliferation
The nice part about building nuclear reactors is that you'll build nuclear centrifuges to go with them
Which can simply be spun up to promote the end of the world
That isn't how statistics work user
this graph btfo's wind and solar but solar is decentralized and cannot be kill switched by a kike botnet tier false flag.
>mostly at the time when no one even needs it
You mean during the day?
Too bad (((greedy assholes))) aren't allowing us to use this technology. Some of our engineer here in France have the skills and ressources but aren't doing anything because it would be economicaly a bad thing compare to our current nuclear technology.
Dozens of reactor designs exist, at least a couple were built at Oak Ridge in the 60s. There just isn't an existing prototype reactor in existence because the project lost funding and the government won't approve any new reactors (even for research purposes) to be built in the U.S. That's why Bill Gates is building his prototype breeder reactor in China. The entire reason nuclear has failed is due to interference of the U.S. Government and the Green lobby. That's it.
yes it is.
you build 10x more plants you have 10x more accidents. 30 meltdowns in accidents in 60 years is not acceptable
i thought you nuclear wastelands were supposed to be scientifically literate?
>rely on government projects to provide power
It only pays off because it's heavily subsidized by your government.
And it's far from clean, the amount of (coal) energy that was used to mine the raw materials and make the panels and several packs of lithium batteries is likely greater than you've saved. It's not energy generation, it's energy waste.
New plants are far safer than those built 30-60 years ago. SMRs are all designed for passive safety.
Finland's new Olkiluoto-3 reactor has been massive failure. It was supposed to be ready in 2009 but current ETA is around 2018-19 and it could still be delayed.
It has costed over 10 billions now and both Areva and TVO are now suing each other for cost overruns and demanding several billions from eachother. They are basically bankrupt, that's why Areva split it's company so they could let it fail. 10 billions + 10 years of lost electricity is pretty heavy price. It has taken over 80% Finland's energy budget during past 10 years. With that money we could have whole country full of geothermal energy plants.
en.wikipedia.org
There has been countless of quality issues with foreign workers. Reactor itself has been considered so dangerous that it would not even get permits in other EU countries. Nuclear lobby has corrupted finnish politicians so they will keep pushing nuclear even after failure of OL-3.
Now it seems like russians have taken over OL-3 because site is surrounded by russian soldiers. Areva and TVO cannot finish it because they are bankrupt so maybe Rosatom is bailing them out.
Real reason why elites are shilling so hard for nuclear is plutonium. Plutonium inside nuclear weapons needs to be replaced every 3-4 years or it might not go critical anymore. You can create plutonium only by nuclear fission and cheapest way is to extract it from used nuclear fuel. Obviously nuclear industry and military doesn't want people to know how nuclear energy maintains nuclear weapons.
Those who say that nuclear power is "clean" will never say how much fossil power was used to build/dismantle nuclear power plant or how much energy was used to dig and enrich uranium. Easy uranium deposits were depleted during cold war, it constantly takes more fossil fuels to dig and enrich it.
Geothermal energy is the future. We are now building geothermal plants even in Finland where bedrock is relatively cool.
BUT A SMALL SOLAR PANEL ONLY COSTS SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS WHEREAS A NUCLEAR REACTOR COSTS MORE. CHECKMATE DRUMPFKINS.
>Gigawatts vs. Gigawatt/hours.
Learn the difference.
May your most beloved person die in agony if they haven't already.
May you never reunite in death.
Sage
This has to be a joke. I'm done. Fuck.
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
Sup Forums IS COAL
>Sup Forums IS COAL
its gigawatt-hours you dolt
this is basic stuff, cmon
That's not quite how it works. The later generation plants get better and safer because we learn how to better engineer and manage the things.
>thorium promotes nuclear proliferation
you can't make nukes from thorium that's the entire reason the US government shut down the project
Fukushima was not a result of a design flaw with the reactor. It was a result of it being simultaneously submerged under water and torn apart by an earthquake.
Fuck you. A thorium based MSRB was built at Oak Ridge in the 60s. You can literally tour the facility and see the reactor with your own two eyes. It most certainly is proven technology. Also, it specifically mitigates proliferation risks as U233, the fissile product, is to hard to separate chemically and too dangerous for handle to convert to a weaponized state.
You are blatantly lying.
The biggest demand is in the evening and early morning, when solar generates little to none.
Intermittent sources are crap anyway. Would you want a computer or a car that decides if it works or not based on the current weather, time of day and season of year?
Actual red pill truth is that nuclear is being suppressed and sabotaged by the oil leaders until they exhaust the resources for maximum profit. It's actually an amazing source of energy.
why don't they just dump nuclear waste into a volcano?
Just kys. Please. It's time.
>nuclear volcanic eruption
sounds safe user
uranium should be where its most safe, buried deep underground.
We need fusion energy. That much is what we all know.
By the way, wouldn't it be possible to boost solar energy by using fusion energy?
so you admit even flawless designs will meltdown unexpectedly? good. you're on the first step to the road of healing
Yup, you're trolling. I'm done with this fucktards thread.
>dumping a small lump of shit into the mantle will cause it to explode
You're not too bright are you?
youtube.com
That dismissive attitude is why China or Europe will develop it first. Makes you wonder why no working industrial scale has been attempted? I'm sure it has nothing to do with oil companies lobbying or irrational fear regarding a totally different type of nuclear power plants.
solar literally is fusion because it draws energy from the sun, a natural fusion reactor
⭐
The Oakridge MSRE prototype never successfully ran on Thorium - it used U-235 and U-233. It was only ever designed to demonstrate the validity of molten salt reactor concept.
The results showed some promise, but Uranium has a much higher yield/mass ratio and was deemed easier to work with at the time. To date no one has successfully operated a molten salt reactor like the MSRE prototype solely on Thorium.
volcanoes often explode regardless of what you do to them, user
nuclear is the future and frankly it's pretty disgusting that in 2017 humans still make shit run on cow farts and dead fossils
>Areva
France is no longer France.
>geothermal
Since when Finland has geothermal sites?
>how much fossil power was used to build/dismantle nuclear power plant or how much energy was used to dig and enrich uranium
About 70 times less than generated.
festkoerper-kernphysik.de
>more expensive than solar, wind
>endless leaks
>not profitable
Educate yourself you fucking moron:
This, it's kinda weird.
The root cause of Olkiluoto 3 is batshit retarded government policy where every single reactor core has to go through the parliament. So obviously the industry power group that wants a lot of power wants one gigantic core that has never been built before.
The project would be done ahead of schedule if getting permits for like 10 off the shelf cores would be as easy as 1.
are you serious?
you divide gigawatts by hours you get a useless unit
you multiply gigawatts by hours you get a unit of power
jesus christ nuclear supporters are retarded
I fucking know, you idiot, fusion energy is something I'm deeply interested in and have been researching about.
However, fusion energy is used to heat water in order to produce energy through turbines, which makes me rather doubtful as to whether we can make set a layer of photosensitive cells inside tokamaks. Would that shit even work since the process for earthly fusion is a deuterium/tritium-based process while fusion process in stars uses hydrogen and is rather different?
I'm not being dismissive, I'm being realistic. By all means fund the research. But like fusion, we have no guarantees on when or if it will become practical to use as a means of generating power.
You CAN'T build a sound energy policy on technology that COULD or MIGHT become available 30-40 years from now. You have to work with what you've already got. Right now we've got uranium fission - it's safe, it's clean, it works, and we've even got a big fucking long-term storage facility ready and able to store the waste if the yuppie faggot liberal politicians would stop blocking it.
you got to be kiddin me burger, sorry but you are complete retard. the country most beneficial AND WITH MOST RESEARCH in 'nuclear' as the D would put it is .... USA. Surprise.
>falling for the nuclear jew
Hamster wheel power is the future, goy.
Not sure if trolling or stupid.
Volcanoes erupt on their own.
It seems that the average intellect of Sup Forums is worse than that of Kenya and Nigeria.
I hope this would help
there are solar power plants that work by reflecting sunlight into water and boil it, same way a theoretical fusion reactor would
fusion is neato but it requires a containment field (usually electro-magnets, which take power) and we already have a working fusion reactor for free in space that's self-contained by gravity
As a white man, I feel defiled and degraded by "renewables". Renewable energy is an existence without dignity. It is like collecting cans on the street for a living. It is like shitting on your soil for growing food. Solar and wind are like scraping pennies. Nuclear is talking dollars. If you want to be a spacefaring civilization, renewables are the shits.
Here is a soviet nuclear icebreaker. Good luck with building a replacement with sails.
Pretty sure U235 was a catalyst to transform Th232 into U233 as U233 doesn't exist naturally and can only be created from a nuclear fission process involving fissile Uranium that already exists (U235) and fertile Thorium (Th232).
So... yes, it was operational. They did use Thorium, because that's the only way to create U233. It consistently creates fissile material which is then in turn used to transform more fertile material into fissile. This is how all breeder reactors work.
Also, the only reason they even learned about the flouride salt corrosion problems of the time was that they were operating the reactor with Thorium and Flouride salts. So, again, it most certainly did work and used Thorium.
>people dying of water
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHGAHAHAH
No. One of the bigger engineering obstacles with fusion devices is that discharges have a tendency to ablate the wall material. Any material that flakes off becomes heated and radiates in the core of the plasma and can potentially lead to a complete dissipation.
Walls for most fusion devices are now built out of carbon panels because the carbon is orders of magnitude cheaper, generally fares better, and ablated material getting into the plasma isn't as cataclysmic as with heavier materials.
Solar cells are made with silicon or heavier materials like GaAs. You don't want that shit lining the inside of your tokamak. If it ablates its basically guaranteed to dissipate the entire plasma, plus its a helluva lot more expensive to repair and replace.
this is shitty b8, 0/8
>meltdowns every couple years
Yet the only fucking examples you can point out are from Drunk Russians, Tsunami, and Earthquake.
Piss off fuckhead. You would probably suggest retard spots for solar panels (like areas with more cloud cover than sunlight in a year).
God some of you 100% Renewable energy fucks are brainless.
The U-233 was produced by other reactors, not by the Oakridge device. At no point did the Oakridge device run on its own using only Thorium.
>i learned about nuclear power from the china syndrome
You people literally deserve to be locked up.
The problem is that it's impossible to harness the full heating potential of the sun because there's space and no particles means no heat transmission. Using sunlight only is using like a millionth of the sun's energy, and we can't use hawking radiation just yet.
Figured so too. Thanks for the heads up, still nice to learn more.
Murrilards don't know the difference between power and energy. I am speechless.
Fast breeders do work. BN-600 is proof. You don't need to chase the LFTR fantasy to make use of depleted uranium and thorium.
>AND WITH MOST RESEARCH in 'nuclear' as the D would put it is .... USA
exactly, as a citizen of the USA I should be considered an authority on the subject and I asses that nuclear energy is on its way out and solar is on its way in
Flooding when dams are broken.
I fully agree.
Here's a video of some nuclear explosions. Good luck bombing gorillions of shitskins with conventional bombs.
tell me all about this unit known as 'gigawatt/hours' and how useful it is to measure electricity. I'll wait, I'd love to hear your citations about 'gigawatt/hours'
Hillarious mock up user.
Have you ever heard of a Dyson sphere?