This type of nuclear reactor (breeder reactor) is capable of maintaining human energy needs for billions of years...

this type of nuclear reactor (breeder reactor) is capable of maintaining human energy needs for billions of years. why are normies against nuclear power again?

Other urls found in this thread:

www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/references.html#cohen
www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
youtu.be/TI_3gARwn3Y
youtu.be/A9vWhoT_45s
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3262821/FBI-foiled-four-attempts-gangs-sell-nuclear-material-ISIS-Authorities-working-agency-stop-criminals-Russian-connections-selling-terrorists.html
books.google.com.au/books?id=eOHvBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=Nuclear waste drums coating&source=bl&ots=b2i4loj-Ml&sig=nvQ-p7tuLLIovo2_xqWU2HU1tBc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM4_L435LVAhVIwbwKHeRPA3gQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=Nuclear waste drums coating&f=false
youtube.com/watch?v=zJokzr8nryk
youtube.com/watch?v=4exLSVvA6CE
moltexenergy.com/
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022072889800063
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because when something goes wrong (and it always does) nuclear power fucks everything around it for thousands of years.

>and it always does

all 2 accidents is definitely a 100% rate of failure

If I had an epic awesome, but apocalypticly dangerous, nuclear reactor.. I'm not sure I'd tell anyone. In fact, I'm not sure why I would, did you also want some help stealing the materials we're breeding? Maybe I can even load it into a dirty bomb for you?

No, I think my public opinion is "nuclear bad" and my private opinion is "so where are there things REALLY?" Start thinking 4 moves ahead Sup Forums, I need you.

>billions of years
no, wrong. Even breeders run out of economically mineable fuel in 10,000 yrs or so at constant population and constant energy needs. Which is quite enough but do not bs this bord with "billions of years".

Deuterium-lithium fusion would last 50 million years if all lithium in sea water were used.

only deuterium-deuterium fusion would last billions of years

>inb4 believing humanity will last past the year 2200

Two words kid.Nuclear waste.
The problem is not with the reactor.The problem is the waste it leaves.

Because they're uneducated pretentious little twats? If you really look into nuclear power all the PRO arguments drastically outweigh the CON arguments (which there aren't many).

Sure, always. Like that Three Mile Island accident (biggest nuclear accident in US history) when it blew up the whole east coast.
Oh wait. It didn't.

Answer is Closed Fuel Cycle

what the fuck are you trying to convey here?
numerous sources have stated breeder reactors are capable of such a prolonged amount of time
www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/references.html#cohen
www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
breeder reactors consume uranium extremely efficiently that waste is barely a problem. to give you a reference, current reactors use 1% of the energy uranium produces; a breeder reactor would use 100 times this amount of energy. with advancements in technology, waste can be stored safely and securely and even refined for further use.

>for billions of years
sounds like nonsense

regardless I support nuclear power because it's the only way to satisfy energy needs without completely fucking up the planet

but only in the hands of experts.and the safest and most modern models available

which of course costs billions

This type of reactor can not compete with light water reactors, not with uranium prices being at the level they are right now.
This will only change when peak uranium is reached.

Pic related is a fast breeder at Beloyarsk npp in Russia, it's one of only 2 fast breeders in use in the world right now.
Both are at Beloyarsk and they produce electricity at 20% higher costs than a normal light water reactor.

>why are normies against nuclear power again?

because it can go wrong and irradiate them

Myth
YEah lets make more nuke material thats a great idea.

Those are the type of reactor that can cause an actual fission explosion right?

waste glowing for thousands of years comes out in 100% of cases.

would you rather spend billions to reduce carbon emissions to barely non-existent or spend a few measly millions to further poison the planet? worrying too much about the economical factors is a neoliberal approach and shitty approach at that. nuclear power is long term. not 10, 25 or 100 years but tens of thousands of years long term.

>nuclear waste is extremely dangerous
>but radioactive ores inside earth are ok

we mine the nuclear material from the earth... it is already there. we are afraid of the disposal of waste of a prdouct the earth itself produced.

lunacy.

>nuclear power is long term. not 10, 25 or 100 years but tens of thousands of years long term.

yeah that includes the waste they produce kek

The media, left, and business interests love wind power. Or rather the subsidies for wind parks. Literally hundreds of billions of euros wasted on archaic technology that will never be economically viable.

I can see potential in solar panels if they become more efficient (which they have but not quite there yet) but if you defend wind power you don't deserve voting rights.

Nuclear is another option, but new generation plants are very expensive and very unpopular due to scaremongering about gen I/II plants.

>tries to look smart
Come on boy,tell me how many tonnes of ore do you need to process to get 1 kilogramm of fuel grade uranium.Its the concentration,you know.

I wouldn't tell the Australian public if I gained power, raised taxes for "climate change" and then built a reactor. I would keep it a secret for a while whilst I investigate the best way to keep it secure. I want nuclear power now but you're a real idiot if you haven't realised the real issue here are workers selling material to terrorists.

>Breeder reactor
Get with the times grandpa

Breeder reactors can't be cooled by water and reach temperatures much higher than BWRs. They're more expensive to maintain and overall more dangerous.
Those are some arguments against them at least.

Chernobyl ("oh no there will be another Chernobyl even though current reactors are safer than coal") and because it's too good for Big Oil and Big Gas to allow.

56 people died directly from chernobyl, 0 people from fukushima and 0 people from three mile island. nuclear accidents is the greatest fearmongering tool known to man thus far.
>YEah lets make more nuke material thats a great idea.
i know this is sarcastic but why wouldnt that be a great idea? you are essentially turning nuclear power in renewable energy.
not too sure. what do you know about it?
waste that is completely unreachable by man. believe it or not, these waste products aren't boogeyman sitting in your closet ready to pounce at you, they are dormant and benign threats that will only affect you if you come into direct contact.
how far do you think technology will be by then? the waste could become a source of much use.

I would if you would find a solution to the salt eating the concealment away.

atomic energy is faustian, normies are afraid of faustian inventions, they want to live WITH nature

Faustian people want to CONTROL it.

They are polar opposites. What normies don't understand is that everything that puts them in a position to be triggered, is a faustian invention.

Liberal, normie, kike here. We are all for nuclear plants, but breeder reactors need more research. Lurk more on wikipedia.

>I want nuclear power now but you're a real idiot if you haven't realised the real issue here are workers selling material to terrorists.
this sounds like the argument against halal certification. what indicates that workers are selling materials to terrorists?

>because it can go wrong and irradiate them
Not really. There have been a handful of accidents caused by nuclear energy, but only a few caused big issues.
Tons of precautions have been taken with it and the radiation from a functioning reactor is trivial.

>56 people died directly from chernobyl, 0 people from fukushima and 0 people from three mile island.

according to this statistic, 0 people died due to tobacco.

The reality is, large lands surrounding chernobyl have high radiation and there were tons of thyroid cancer cases in children - they were not blamed on the nuclear accident though.

rare cancers in the region, but nobody really knows why...

>waste that is completely unreachable by man.
it has to be unreachable so it isn't a problem. A lot of the waste is already in the environment though. And how will we guarantee it never gets out? Most experts can only certify it will be safe for the next 50 years. That's nothing compared to the time it takes for the stuff to cool down.

>how far do you think technology will be by then? the waste could become a source of much use.
Yes, it could, but it could also be a burden our descendants don't know what to do, and eventually poison themselves with.

if breeder reactors need more research, the best way to research and test them is to build more.

There is plenty in the Conway granites of New England and in shales in Tennessee, but Cohen decided to concentrate on uranium extracted from seawater - presumably in order to keep the calculations simple and certain. Cohen (see the references in his article) considers it certain that uranium can be extracted from seawater at less than $1000 per pound and considers $200-400 per pound the best estimate.
------
we already know that we cannot extract uranium from seawater economically. We tried for 30yrs. The cost of mining uranium from rock is already at 10,000 dollars per pound and seawater extractions is still not economically.

Even China which focuses on fast breeders says it will rely on uranium mining rather than seawater retrieval.

This is why, after Chernobyl Nuclear regulations in the US became so strict it basically became impossible to build a new Nuclear Power plant. Also Liberals have huge investment in green energy companies, they are betting on the industry becoming the new Standard Oil and cashing in big. that is why they push the dooms day global warming agenda so hard.

The idea that nuclear waste is a problem is utter garbage.

This assumption rests on the false presumption that nuclear waste is:
1. Present in enourmous quantities.
2. So problematic in it's properties that no one can handle it.

Both arguments are simply false and only believed by people who know absolutely nothing about nuclear energy.

youtu.be/TI_3gARwn3Y

Pic related is the Onkalo repository which will open early next decade.

Plutonium is not a renewable energy form if you dont think of bombs as usable energy.

Exactly this. Solar panels can be good, but they're shit now. Trust me I know, I work in that field. Right now, nuclear fission is the cleanest energy source, besides the waste but that can be dumped underground. Thorium reactors are very promising, they produce more power and less waste. Eventual goal might be using nuclear fusion but we're a bit off from that. ITER is a promising fusion plant in france but it won't be operational for years and they only want to reach the break-even point.

if the environment changes and there's a sea over the tunnels, water will soak in, and the radiation will leak out

the same might even happen when there's a lot of rainfall.

50 g of radioactive waste in the water supply, is it a problem?

They're working on it, a minor issue compared to all the problems with traditional reactors.

The fact that weapons of mass destruction are millions of dollars and being a graduate nuclear engineer only pays 60k a year?

Please stop being retarded. Nuclear is awesome but it is dangerous, just not for the reasons idiots will tell you. Nuclear explosions can fuck an area as low as 100 years, its not a real problem, but nuclear explosions can give millions of people cancer which is a problem.

I'm not worried about creating a crater out of Moe or Gippsland, I'm worried about some bogan with a get rich quick scheme.

Yeah,its not like cancer is expected in 100% of the population in the short future.Its already happening.Last year out of 37 dead in my town 21 died of cancer.

>rare cancers in the region, but nobody really knows why
That already happens to the entire world ... nobody knows why ... maybe from breathing air that has had a shit ton of coal smoke dumped into it?

If you do a total lifecycle analysis on the human health risks nuclear is much better than coal.

Ironically almost all of the environmental groups now whinging about global warming have been funded by coal companies in the past to lobby against nuclear.

The viability and safety of Nuclear power is only going to increase. Automated systems that reduce the amount of human error at these plants is going to help. Modern Nuclear power plants have less accidents than other alternatives like coal, natural gas or oil plants.
>it always does
two major errors were very damaging yes, but understand that the we failures were both from old Nuclear plants. Chernobyl was due to the Soviet Union cutting corners and trying to run it as cheaply as possible and it was also old.

If Fusion ever happens, which it still may, the waste issue would be solved.
However, the current methods are, Reprocessing and geological disposal (In rocks that block the radiation),

Uranium mines and the refinement process for uranium has less radiation then standing in the middle of a city.


For the amount of power that Nuclear energy can provide I think the risk is worth it as long as the Plant is sufficient distance from towns and cities.

Its not like anyone has sound numbers of just how much waste there is.
That alone should make you question the scale of the problem.Bury it and hope our grandchildren will find a solution is a stupid thing to do in my opinion regardless the scale.

Do you seriously believe they haven't thought about that?
Here is a video that answers most of the questions you might have and dispels what you just said.

youtu.be/A9vWhoT_45s

Its a minor problem in your head.Replacing the whole containment every 6 months is a nightmare,not a minor problem.

>maybe from breathing air that has had a shit ton of coal smoke dumped into it?
sure this also leads to cancer, but the areas there are so contaminated international observers were shocked to learn people still live there

but they don't own anything, they can't move to the city...

>If you do a total lifecycle analysis on the human health risks nuclear is much better than coal.

Yeah, because most nuclear waste is still concentrated. If it gets dispersed more (like coal ash), the numbers affected by it will climb up

Also, the risk for those people involved in nuclear waste burying is higher than a coal plant. There's less of them though.

you will have to elaborate more on how you know the materials are being sold overseas to terrorists. the annual pay grade of a nuclear engineer to a mass terrorist isn't a wholly convincing connection. i do agree with you, it is a dangerous source of energy and mustn't be treated lightly.

>Bury it and hope our grandchildren will find a solution
once it is buried it is solved. there is no other solution needed.

the waste meme is entirely manufactured by coal companies and phony environmentalists.

nuclear is settled science. stop being a denier you stupid fuck.

nigga just fire nuclear waste in to the sun

That's why you choose rocks with low permeability. And geologists have thought about the leakage of nuclear waste, hence why they select these specific rocks. As I also said, there are reprocessing options to use the waste for other nuclear research.

maybe SpaceX will find a way?

Fusion is a meme at this point,they try to imitate what the Sun does,but its very much not clear just what is the sun in the first place.
Fusion projects like ITER are the way to go for academics to spend their life on in a comfy job with unlimited funding,not a serious project.They cant even tell how its supposed to work in the end and they are at projects like these since the 70's at least.But economically viable fusion is only 25 years away,you know.

>Capitalism is not about cutting corners and trying to run it as cheaply as possible

>flag
>settled science
Oh,the democrat.Contributing nothing,shitting everywhere from the ivory tower.
Go on,entertain me with just how stupid you can get.

>put highly dangerous nuclear waste on rocket
>hope no rocket ever fails
>what is logic

>maybe SpaceX
Elon musk nuclear waste disposal company.

"If I can sell tesla stock. I can dispose of any nuclear waste"

It's literally happening in Russia.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3262821/FBI-foiled-four-attempts-gangs-sell-nuclear-material-ISIS-Authorities-working-agency-stop-criminals-Russian-connections-selling-terrorists.html

You all need to stop being retarded, the only issue with nuclear is proliferation and security. If you haven't realised this you are blue pilled about nuclear.

>they try to imitate what the Sun does
I.E. building reactor with the size of the Sun? Judging from the trends.

>implying we wont have more advanced tech in 10k years
Thats a non-argument

fuck you.

you have cheap electricity because you abuse fossils AND you have shitload of nuclear.

besides, we didn't stop to play with fire when the first idiot burned himself.

you want progress? nuclear is progress.
you want free market? nuclear is free market
you want green? nuclear is the greenest
you want cheap? nuclear is cheap
you want power density? nuclear gives you the maximum we have available

Chernobyl was literally a warehouse, Fukushima was not built to standard

besides, we have designs that are much better

>The risk of burring nuclear waste is high
They use canisters that are resistant to oxidation and they use metals that mostly block the harmful radiation.
Not to mention the employees that deal with the waste wear suits to protect them (at least in 1st world countries).
books.google.com.au/books?id=eOHvBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=Nuclear waste drums coating&source=bl&ots=b2i4loj-Ml&sig=nvQ-p7tuLLIovo2_xqWU2HU1tBc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM4_L435LVAhVIwbwKHeRPA3gQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=Nuclear waste drums coating&f=false

we need to save our nuclear fuel for the space race
nuclear power is the only way in space, we should not burn any of the fuel, as we have no idea how much of it we need at this time

humanity needs to think long term

No. No. No. No.

When dealing with dangerous shit solid is ALWAYS preferable to liquid

>Replacing the whole containment every 6 months is a nightmare,not a minor problem.
I'm saying for technology that was left in a file cabinet in oakridge for half a century it's a miracle that it's the only issue with the design. Do you think LWRs worked the first day and wasn't the result of billions of dollars of government funded infrastructure and research?

>muh Russia
Could burgers stop with their Russian virtue signaling already and admit that Drumpf was a mistake?

>They use canisters that are resistant to oxidation

some of those have corroded in just 20 years. sure, they were on the surface in the scent, but still, you can't expect them to hold the waste forever.

I would agree that working at a nuke plant is pretty cozy though, if you actually follow the procedures.

>Its not like anyone has sound numbers of just how much waste there is.

We know very well how much waste there is. (Pic related)

80k tons sounds like a lot but because of the high density of nuclear materials it's volume is rather small.
All the high level nuclear waste ever produced by US commercial reactors would fit on football field and you'd only have to stack it a couple of meters high.
Which you would know had you watched the video i posted.

>solid coolant

>implying waste is stored in canisters
Burgers store 90% of their nuclear waste as fuel rods in near reactor ponds

We could always dump nuclear waste in the Marianas trench. It's more than 30,000 feet deep of water so even if the contaminates leaked into the water the sheer pressure at those depths would keep it on the bottom. Practically nothing lives down there either so you wouldn't be hurting the environment.

I think this was the main reason besides the need for more nukes to abandon that path of developement.So i dont think its a miracle.
Also,you need to be economically viable,proof of concept is not enough.
Just look at ITER,they are so full of shit that they have a proof of concept that will never be economically viable even if it works because right now they need to take the reactor apart every 5(or1?) minutes of running because the concealment gets eaten away there too.
You know,the americans had a working fusion power plant?They made a cave 200m deep with a small entry hole on the top,filled it with water,placed a steam generator on top and proceeded to drop nukes in there,nuke making heat,heat making steam,steam powering the generator at top.
But is that economically viable?See.

>proceeds to post pic from US
Yeah,the whole world consists only of the united states.With the government that would never ever lie about something like this.

You are mixing up spent fuel storage casks with deposition canisters (pic related).
You seem to be rather ignorant on the matter.

Underrated

Here is a TV report on the nuclear problems in France (in french):

youtube.com/watch?v=zJokzr8nryk

There are a dozen waste disposal sites in france, but not all of them are properly sealed.

Cheaply as in resources. Communism has evenly distribute a finite amount of resources. Trying to build a Nuclear power plant would consume many of the resources that would also be used for housing (concrete, steel, etc).
Private enterprises are usually solely for building Nuclear power plants and can acquire resources from any international party. They also have strict regulations when building a plant.

>But is that economically viable?See.
It may be at ultra large scale. Soviets had such projects.
>when you thought Chernobyl was bad
youtube.com/watch?v=4exLSVvA6CE

I am referring to the canisters that were used back then, the canisters they put waste in and then dumped them into the ocean and into salt mines.

Look at the reference I sent you. It explains the process they went through to come up with coatings and metals to use. It's not a hard one to understand.

Its not economically viable.The cave structure will fail after a couple nukes,if not after the first.

Exactly. That's why I said modern Nuclear power plants are safe, not ones from 1960.

The Molten Salt Reactors have a solution for the chromium ion migration problem, Basically it involves switching the Salt to Sodium Chloride, or else using advanced materials to manage the corrosion rate. It is most pronounced in the first year I have read. Also the Tellurium fission product penetration is also a problem.
You could fix all this by following the Moltex Energy approach. moltexenergy.com/

We had nucular powa in Italy back in the '70s. It was good, we used to dump all the nucular wastes in Somalia. Good biz, mafia was doing a good job, in fact other countries started to illegally dump the shit in Somalia.
Than they got caught and we had to stop.

And this is the reason why nucular powa is crap: where to put wastes?
Ameritards dump them near Natives reservoirs, but we don't have such stupidity in EU...

Thorium

I have nothing against Russia, but they're highly decentralized (actually a good thing) and have lots of nuclear, the likelihood Moscow knows where every grain of nuclear material is in Russia is unlikely.

In fact, I would be shocked and disbelieving if Americans haven't been caught selling nuclear material too. They would never tell you because it'd scare too many people. This is real problem, everyone knows nuclear can be dangerous but keep diverting the real problems

>muh waste (not a problem, it usually turns out to be useful)
>muh accidents (not a problem anymore)
>muh cost (not a problem considering the efficiency)
>muh nuclear competition (not a fucking problem without mercantile style markets!)

But nuclear weapons should scare the fuck right out of you and bring the reverence in this conversation right to your face.

>it has to be unreachable so it isn't a problem. A lot of the waste is already in the environment though.
almost none of the waste is in the environment compared to coal and oil you fag
hanford and shit like that is the cause of our plutonium weapons program

as for fukushima
less dangerous to the ocean and you than rising acidity from co2 and excess contaminates washing into the ocean

almost all polutants of reactors can be safely stored unlike coal fuel

Basically there are coolants that remain in a solid state at room temperature. When heated though they would be more liquid than solid.

You mean barrels for low level waste?
Then you have been talking about an entirely different subject.
No high level waste has ever been stored in these barrels nor has it ever been dumped at sea.

>This is why, after Chernobyl Nuclear regulations in the US became so strict it basically became impossible to build a new Nuclear Power plant
That's not true. The problem was that the corporations building the reactors underbid to get the construction contracts, then complained that they couldn't be profitable unless they reduced quality, cut corners and got waivers from sensible regulation. They were literally trying to cause the next Chernobyl for profits.

>Fusion is a meme
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022072889800063
If you don't know what that is or you don't know what it means. Look up Deuterium.

All I'm saying is if waste management and storage is done properly there is little risk.

That's an Aussie you dumb slav.

I should have specified for you that fusion reactors are a meme.I know that proof of concept of fusion exists.

That risk equation is the problem tho, and even worse is it's been proven less trustworthy than politicians, so now the risk is even worse than you'd normally think of as an engineer.

Once they start lying to you about it, what the fuck?

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Also Italy is the 2nd biggest importer of electricity in the world and most of that comes from nuclear France.
And still you have some of the highest prices of electricity for business and industrial customers in the world, which is why most industry has basically left Italy.
But it's all the EU's and Germany's fault right?

>I think this was the main reason besides the need for more nukes to abandon that path of developement
Are you forgetting the need for nukes was the primary reason the entire project was started in the first place? Einstein himself sent a letter to FDR telling him to research nuclear weapons.

>Also,you need to be economically viable
LFTRs take up a fraction of the size of traditional reactors.
They don't need to be near a body of water.
They don't need numerous redundant expensive safety systems.
But according to you since it's not working perfectly right now we should just throw all these potential advantages away and keep building our giant ticking time bomb boilers worth their weight in gold.

>Comparing a working reactor design to dropping nukes in a hole
Fuck off retard. It's luddites like you who hold back progress.

>
>All I'm saying is if waste management and storage is done properly there is little risk.

In a capitalistic system, nothing is done properly. Rather everything is done to accumulate capital.

Well because we live in Australia. We have no education and job availability for people looking into nuclear science. So Next Gen reactors, heck cold war reactors or out of the question for us aussies.