Why do greens hate green nuclear energy? Its efficent its clean, and about radiating waste...

Why do greens hate green nuclear energy? Its efficent its clean, and about radiating waste. Those elements are in earth already humans are not Gods and we do not create them neither we bring them from mars so what wrong with using the energy and than buring wastes in the ground?
>they will stay there for millions of years
uhh how spooky, but guess what theya are already there.


so how about we stop feeding global warming and petro jew
keep earth clean and keep our current standards of living by going nuclear?
sure it isnt best choice for every place terrorist therat and natural disasters should be consider when planing the plants but over all there is no better choice.

Other urls found in this thread:

electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=map
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_plants_in_the_United_States
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

NIMBY makes a lot of media dollars.

They want a perfect option. Too bad compromises will have to be made.

nuclear is only viable if global population was under 100 million
otherwise you WILL inevitably kill the planet because of the hundreds of nuclear plants around the globe because you need to give power to billions

>trusting BWR/PWR
The reaons we have nuclear waste is because the current reactors in service are all horribly inefficient
Nuclear waste is a fucking nightmare to deal with, and it's not as simple as just putting it into the ground. If radioactive waste gets into the groundwater, you'll face a number of problems due to most waste being toxic on top of being radioactive.

What? They produce a fuckton more power than renewable ever will.

ok
then go ahead and kill this planet to give power to billions of people when they dont need to fucking be here in the first place

apparently they think you can run a grid on solar/wind
I don't think there's any "environmentalists" who know how electrical grids work

it's only a issue of burying it in right place
old reactors may be but new ones are quite efficient wastes are minimal

because feels

Just like how paper bags are way worse for the environment than plastic but paper makes you FEEL something

not even about the waste
having that many plants around the globe is making the world into a ticking timebomb

What if the country Balkanizes into black and white zones and the nigger half kicks out their nuclear scientists? All the reactors will melt down and the whole country will be uninhabitable.

>NIMBY
i don't mind living near nuclear power plant in fact i would prefer living near one than to live near coal power plant

>and the whole country
just like chernobyl and fukushima? Though call but nature dont give a shit and natural wildlife drive in those areas because humans fucked off.

I used to a big proponent of nuclear power (ironically starting SRO classes next year)

It's just too fucking pricey and doesn't help the consumers but the pay is too good to stop

Being a green pandering idiot isn't about seeking efficient renewable power, it's about prostrating yourself before the graven idol of mother earth, the feeble god of hubris and narcissism.

well about bags
its not the problem of production but the fact that people dump them irresponsibly

so over all paper bags may actually be beter but only because you cant make sure that average idiot joe wont dump them in to ocean

its compleatly different story then nuclear power

The problem with nuclear waste is not just the storage, it's the cooling, processing, handling and security.
Lets say you have extracted all the radioactive materials from a spent fuel rod, you now need to decontaminate everything that has come in contact with that material, any clothing and handling equipment must be cleaned endlessly or disposed off as nuclear waste itself.
It's all very expensive and one of the main reasons why commercial nuclear power depends on state support on almost every level, and in the long doesn't really offer much power in the long run compared amount that's used on spent fuel.
This is why old reactors need to be shut down and replaced.
I'm not a big fan of LFTR as it requires a lot of work before a commercial reactor will be possible, but modern breeder reactors are the way to go for the next 30-50 years.

Yeah fossil fuels are so much better.

Fucking retard just kys pls.

They are hippies brainswashed by them. The higher the energy prices the higher the poverty rate, the higher the poverty rate the more power (((welfare))) state has. Nuclear power is, meanwhile extremely cost efficient and clean.

Green is a 90's meme for liberal boomer women and their cucks. They all have dementia now.

Fossil fuel companies fund the green tech initiatives and Anti-nuclear because they are still expensive and industry will always prefer the cheaper option.

enjoy fixing an overpopulated world that is doomed to fail
you need to fix the amount of people on this planet before worrying about pollution and energy sources, otherwise you will fail inevitably

also rolling for Irma to hit NO

The entire green energy movement is just pissed of jews because they didnt get into the nuclear buisness

Because retarded people are afraid of things they don't understand and can't see.

It's all fun and games until a reactor melts down pedalarz

T H O R I U M

whites already fixed them selfs
and if nigger and wogs cant some led cure at high velocity may be needed

funny
you think white people control nuke plants
soros prob has every plant on speed dial

electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=map

Nuclear still providing more energy in Germany (from France) than wind power, even though Germany autistically screeched about it after fukishima and shut down all their plants.

Toxic waste is still waste

yeah 17 fucking nuclear plants in ONE country
that is INSANITY
they should be fucking mad

Why? It's not like a reactor exploding somehow causes other reactors to do the same.

Delivered by Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?

By the free market of course. Not that a Democrat would understand that.

>or disposed off as nuclear waste itself.
that level of "nuclear waste" is just sent to a glorified landfill. it's not dangerous.

Not really commercially viable. We already have wind turbines that produce more power than a whole nuclear plant.
And nuclear waste is a massive hassle, let alone the dangers of a failing reactor. It's happened before and will happen again.
I used to trust them to be safe and all but after several incidents worldwide and the news that even our NPPs (in the oh so modern Netherlands) were neglected and have several issues, I would argue the risk and hassle is just not worth it. We have safer alternatives, so why not use them instead.

The problem with nuclear is that it's not very adjustable to meet peak energy demand. You can't turn output up or down to meet changing grid demand throughout the day. This means you need to have some sort of alternative energy source to provide electricity during peak hours. You can use coal, oil or natural gas to do that, because it's very easy to turn the output up or down very quickly to adjust for demand. And obviously you can't use wind and solar to do this as it's unreliable as hell.

The other issue with nuclear is the incredibly high upfront cost. Once you pay the thing off, you reduce electricity rates to a very low level, but the cost of building the facilities is insane and taxpayers hate that. Also, once you reach a point where your nuclear facilities need to be upgraded or replaced, it's going to cost a ton of money.

I support nuclear, but I see those two major problems being an obstacle to the claim it's the "future". As long as you can afford the new builds and upgrades, and as long as you can complement nuclear with something like natural gas to supply peak needs, then yes nuclear would be a decent energy portfolio for anywhere in the future.

>1 goes critical
>large area uninhabitable for decades
>have hundreds more everywhere else just waiting to do the same
fine
dont depopulate the earth and have very few nuclear plants to generate power for everyone
instead lets keep overpopulating and build nuclear plants everywhere, what could go wrong

The nuclear waste problem is a huge issue, but it's still the best option we have until fusion reactors become a thing.

>The problem with nuclear is that it's not very adjustable to meet peak energy demand.
this isn't a problem

>allowing russians to have nuclear power plants

free market based energy is a meme to begin with state need to control and sustain energy be it nuclear fossil or renovable no difference there are some things that are needed and will never sustain them selfs as a free market venture

ok then i guess it will just be are homeland fucked then
thas so much fucking better dude
you really are winning this argument

>One nuclear meltdown in all of history
Worst thing ever clearly

are you drunk, or just retarded?

The only time a larve area became uninhabitable because of nuclear reactors was when the Russians purposefully overloaded one.

I'm not a Democrat. Just a fan of the noble donkey. Irrespective, you will not see a Thorium reactor with workable EROEI in your life time.

this this this
the initial capital outlay is enormous, and the costs will only INCREASE as tech progresses
why, you ask? because the bigger and hotter the reactor, the more thermally efficient it is, so the better the chance to compete with the prices of wind and solar.
but big reactors also have big drawback - namely that you lose a big chunk of change every time you shut them down for maintenance or refueling or whatever upgrades are needed
so the operator skimps on service intervals and pushes engineering to choose the fastest fix, for every problem, every time
you don't get three guesses as to what happens next

no wind turbines and solar energy is not efficient and nowher near the fossil or nuclear
>just think of the potential daner!
>will somone think of children!
scare mongering

germany isn't just autistically shutting down their own plants, they're screeching at us to shut down all of ours

yes lets instantly give up god damn 50% of our energy generation because your feelings got butthurt

by all means set up mass inevitable environmental damage all around the globe, idc
love how you think that make it better than fossil fuels because the damage will just come in the future

Thermal pollution mainly

greens fear a nuclear meltdown, like what ukraine had and what japan regularly faces

I guess you just love them smoking chimneys and greenhouse gases

guess you love leaking high amounts of radiation into our environment
im not for fossil fuels idiot

Not as efficient is not an argument when we have an infinite amount of the resource in question.
Fossil and nuclear resources are finite and produce highly toxic waste that's literally destroying the habitability of our planet.
I'd rather use a cleaner albeit less efficient energy source that won't run out or pollute the planet. Also think of the massive geopolitical manipulation associated with fossil fuel, we'd be better off without the fucking muslims holding all that influence.

that's not a very impressive straw man you built
I am purely arguing from economics
there is a cost to risk, and having lots of eggs (dollars) in the same basket (reactor) results in a very high risk cost
NPPs are uninsurable right now, anywhere in the world they are built, they are built on (partial) government guarantees because no sane insurer or reinsurer wants to back a technology that has 1% lifetime catastrophic failure rate.
if 1% of planes or cars broke down of their own accord during their planned operating lifetime, almost no-one would have cars or planes, because almost no-one could afford the insurance. as it stands, NPPs are in the same situation - only governments with a LOT of cash (US, Israel, Iran) or with nothing to lose (NK) can really afford to underwrite one.

>inevitable environmental damage
>one and a half of the hundreds of reactors in the world ever did any significant environmental damage
That's like saying we shouldn't use oil because oil pipelines inevitably burst and contaminate everything around them.

so you're also okay with living on an energy budget that's about 1/12th of what you currently have right?
because that's what the lower efficiency means: there simply won't be enough electricity to go around for everyone.
Not to mention how unstable it is. Oops wind's blowing to slow/to fast, my electric heating went down, sure hope it's not winter.

You realise that only certain areyas are sutable for wind power? And even than its not constant.
Too strong wind and you have to shoot the plant down too weak and it wont work.
Solar panels? Same story its actually efficient only in some parts of the world and do you realise how much production and disposal of used solar panels cost and how short of a life spawn they have?

ok so i guess for a start you shoud throw out your pc and all other electirical devices because you are clearly proponent of abandoning electrical power at last in daily life

start replacing every energy factory with nuke plants
lets see how many fuck up now

Well my preferred solution would be to kill half the population so we don't need as much energy :^)

nope
depolulation faggot
already fucking said it
all that need to happen, then we can have a few nuke plants powering everything

> one and a half
more like four, out of a total of 400 power producing reactors ever built
it's immature, expensive, risky tech that has no business ever being used outside of extreme environments like space, underwater or the Arctic, environments which present far greater risks to human life and health than the reactors themselves ever could

ok that start with yourself by committing suicide

>the only reactor that exploded did so because of intentionally disabled safties
>"Ye they'll be exploding left and right"
And why would you ever replace all of the power plants?

alright, you, your family and all your friends are part of the half that needs to be killed
suddenly not as good a solution eh?
also learn better math, killing half the population would still end you up with only 1/6th the energy budget

we're going with numbers?
Total deaths caused by wind energy exceed the total deaths caused by nuclear energy.

>immature and risky
If you're talking through a time machine from the 60s maybe.

100 million people is peak comfort capacity on earth, and that as high as it should ever go
so you are suggesting we just continue down the path of overpopulation and continue to build a dystopia???

because every plant has a failure rate, even if that rate is 1/1,000 years. And the HUGE longevity of radioactive half-life in a spill, meltdown, contamination, etc of a plant failure of any kind, means that the cumulative effects of using nuclear energy, even if the accident rate is extremely low, is extremely bad for long-term habitation of earth. Nuclear energy in space, fine. On earth. No.

alright, you start
grab a gun, aim at your brain stem and pull the trigger

>Those elements are in earth already
wrong. look up plutonium, it's completely man-made and extremely toxic and a product of breeder reactors. Learn what you're talking about before opening your fucking mouth.

top tier argument
how will i ever recover?

that's why we should use nuclear fission to bridge the 100 to 150 years we need to get fusion operable
then we happily coast on fusion until we find something better because that's actually about as safe as it gets

you wont because he is right now grab a gun and do your duty to mother earth by blowing your brain out

yeah we're going with numbers, faggot
I don't care about deaths, in themselves. we can put a cost to those as to anything else
total economic damage caused by nuclear is far far greater than that caused by wind, or solar
what price for 2600 km^2 of prime Ukrainian farming land taken out of the economic circuit for 500 years? how much did the thyroid cancer treatments for ten thousand children cost?
what price for the towns of Futaba and Okuma?

deaths from solar and wind? don't make me laugh. they are already priced into the cost of the solar panels and turbines. YOU CANNOT GET INSURANCE FOR NPPs. nobody ever paid full price for an NPP ever in history. governments are just borrowing unknown amounts from the future, to finance nuclear weapons...

hey if 100 million is the optimal then you've only got a 1/70 chance of survival
so might as well kill yourself on your own terms if you truly believe in it

well
you sure are doing your duty wanting mass environmental damage
nah
ill just wait till we run out of oil and then pretty much everyone dies of starvation and disease
i can wait

Just go the Ontario route to power generation.
Which is to say, fill your bathtub, get inside, and throw your toaster in with you while we still have power to do it.

>what price for the towns of Futaba and Okuma?
an insignificant part of the total costs for the cleanup of a 9.1 earthquake and subsequent tsunami?
also the very idea that you think nuclear power plants can be used to make nuclear weapons makes it quite obviously clear you have no idea what you're talking about

but go ahead, stand outside the power plants singing your hippy songs, maybe you'll actually get lucky and change the world

See, you think you outplay people by telling them to kill themselves and if they don't want to do that they are a hypocrite, but you forego the fact that they obviously mean that other people should be removed. Undesirables such as nonwhites for example. The suggestion is made because we are dealing with overpopulation which is unsustainable. The solution to making life better for myself would be to decrease the population without me being part of the decrease.

Also kidding aside, depopulation is certainly possible to do humanly, no need for killing. We just need a solid long term plan to reduce childbirth. And find a way to deal with the abundance of old people. I fear it would be inevitable they'd get the short end of the stick, but so be it. Can't be helped if we want a better future.
The problem is that we would need to protect ourselves from foreign invasion during this process, lest they replace us (because niggers never stop breeding).
We need to get rid of all leftists for starters.

> an insignificant part
that's where you are wrong, see
earthquake+tsunami lasted half a day, affected land is now back in use
land affected with nuclear pollution is taken out of play for many generations. the opportunity costs are simply staggering, literally incalculable, which is why insurers don''t even try

i could do that but than again i dont have a bath tube and even if i did safty in both toster and my house grid would prevent any thing bad to happen aside me having a broken toster

also if there is no power generated no matter how much tosters i throw there would be 0 effect

funny isnt it?

Meh, there are other forms of energy. Geo-thermal, molten salt, condensed light, tidal, bio-fuel, hell we may even be able to genetically engineer plants that efficiently turn their photosynthesis process into a voltage output rather than into chemical bonds of sugars. No reason to create a literal tomb world.

> stand outside the power plants singing your hippy songs
why should I? the invisible hand is shutting them down one by one, I don't have to lift a finger, beyond investing in sane technologies, that is.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_plants_in_the_United_States

If only there were some sort of massive bunker built out in the middle of the desert where all of the waste could be safely stored. It could be called Yucca Mountain or something. Too bad such a place can't exist.

so you admit you're a sociopath who'd kill 70 people without guilt, regret or emotion just to enforce his world view

because that doesn't really help your "nuclear power is evil" argument one bit

> you think nuclear power plants can be used to make nuclear weapons
are you claiming they can't? ahahahahaha

i agree, as long as we build the yucca mountain permanent storage facility to store the waste rods. nuclear power is the most efficient and "green" process we have as long as it's done right. Wont happen during pic related's tenure tho

wut r plutonium durr.

"Those elements are in earth already"

No, cunt fag. They are anthropogenic.

>world view
we are overpopulated
objective fact, continuing to be overpopulated and go down this path makes you the crazy one if anything

>geo-thermal
unless you're iceland you can't sustain a population with that
>molten salt
it's funny because that's nuclear energy
>condensed light
scifi, next
>tidal
Unless you're norway you can't sustain a population with that
>bio-fuel
never thought I'd see the day where an ecologist would advocate mass CO2 dumping
>genetically engineered plants
even more scifi

and what about the ground water table that descends into california? lol.

Sure it will kill the commies, but it will also infest all your fruits and veggies with plutonium and other radioactive particles that will replace calcium in your bones and continue irradiating your until you're dead.

every NPP that uses uranium produces plutonium
what's there to laugh about, you mongoloid?

There's a difference between killing because you're a sociopath and analyzing the situation and coming to an objective conclusion that we are with too many, resulting in the inevitable solution where people need to die one way or another. Accepting the shitty situation and that the solution, however cruel, will ultimately be for the better.
Ignoring the facts and continuing on the path to ever increasing population with reckless abandon is suicidal and literally insane.
Life's a bitch and sometimes you need to accept harsh reality and make hard choices.
Doesn't make me evil or a sociopath. Just sane.

Most of greens don't understand science or economy.

it's dry storage under a mountain in nevada? no groundwater around right?

molten salt is not nuclear, you're thinking of a thorium liquid salt reactor. Molten salt is a high heat capacity salt directly heated and melted with mirror arrays reflecting solar heat and stored in huge insulated vats for use later.

fiber-optics, yeah, totally scifi

bio-fuel is by definition carbon neutral, dumbass, and I didnt know im an ecologist.

gmo's
you'd be surprised.


It seems like you know very little but believe you know alot.