Nuclear power necessity and safety awarness thread continued

Nuclear power necessity and safety awarness thread continued.

Previous:

Other urls found in this thread:

pnas.org/content/112/20/6277
eenews.net/stories/1060011478
theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html
washingtonpost
unvis.it/washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

just saying
depopulation is the answer

Thats easily rebutted.
To the point of being a trivial task.
Dont know if I shall though.

p.s.
never ever ever use these 2 words
"just saying"
that is always so very much the worst thing you can add

it has less than no meaning
it is self-insulting and shameful in its mindlessness
tantamount to:
"lol fuck gramer" and even worse

im going to depopulate your mum tonight

the earth is already over comfort capacity???
you have no argument the earth is overpopulated
holy shit
this whole post over 2 words KEKEKEK

How do you build Nuclear plants to resist sea level rise? Can they be built as floaters?

do you even understand what is meant by carrying capacity. The term could be easily redefined with advances in technology. You are retarded. You'd rather have us stay permanently in the cycle of history than escape it. Stop being retarded. Either provide an argument and back it up or shut the fuck up

>you have no argument the earth is overpopulated

well besides that being subjective, i never said it wasnt

>holy shit
>this whole post over 2 words KEKEKEK

that was for your benefit
i try my best to fight the any egregious slight of grammar no matter how small in order to stamp it out hopefully, someday, permanently

do not relish in your own sounding as though you were passionate simpleton

Nuclear energy is an answer, if we innovate to thorium, it will be far more efficient, safe and a nuclear cycle can be made.
Do research on making energy from nuclear waste

this is nothing, just make sure the radio-material can be simply removed when need be, for it is so very small to the scope of the entire facility

and in the face and time scales of real sea level rise will also be trivial for structures for which such removal was never considered

>i try my best to fight the any egregious slight of grammar no matter how small in order to stamp it out hopefully, someday, permanently
wow dude some top tier cringe here
is this pasta or something?
this is the fucking internet not real life
just saying

thorium is all but absolutely the certain final & best stepping stone to fusion

its not subjective
people live off of oil
no oil
people start dying

AGW is unfalsifiable - in that the models that show a runaway water vapor effect are unfalsifiable. The issue with what happened at Fukashima was that it was a fast breeder high pressure water reactor. there are better designs that dont require water as coolant (such as the one depicted in the OP) so they have no need of being put near bodies of water or the ocean. Infact if you beleive all the hocus pocus about AGW 4th generation nuclear power is the only way to save us now considering the runaway methane effect

>wow dude some top tier cringe here

stay on topic

take it or leave it
it was for your benefit
and the internet is indeed real

>just saying

very well, you choose to leave it then
your choice

back to nuclear power discourse

With this being the place to ask, how safe are all of my nuclear plants here in FL? Is Irma strong enough to send them to critical? Am I going to grow a double dick if I live in the Tallahassee?

strawman
i never said that wasnt subjective
i said "over comfort capacity" i.e. "overpopulated" was subjective

words have meaning
you assert overpopulation, and i then i agreed with you

you say population reduction is the only answer, and i say no, that is a foolish answer

>stay on topic
>makes one whole post about my grammar
is this fucking troll serious LMAO

you dont even need fusion if you have working thorium, whats the point?

and why isnt bill gates or something investing in a thorium reactor? maybe they dont work so well? whats the deal here.

safer than you would think
the architects and builders are aware of the climate there and they are built like fotressess

just give it some time.
It takes about 2 months after watching the LFTR playlist on youtube to come to your senses.

you audio/visual lemming

????
they will die anyways
they are dead men fucking walking what do you mean?

Only some areas on earth are overpopulated. But look at the advances of technology, it has advanced so far already.
Some areas on earth have no population. Look at some areas of Siberia, the Arctic and Antarctica. Also take a look to greenland

there are plenty of companies investing in it - look it up. Also both China and India are both investing heavily into them. God I wish our governments weren't so retarded. We will have to buy patents and pay for licensing fees. so dumb

you got us off topic initially, i put you back on
now you want to not take, but leave that as well
thats nice, also your choice

the point is that fusion will be a few orders of magnitude more fruitful and easy and cheaper, no matter how good thorium will be, fusion with make it pale in comparison

stop talking to the dude - he spent the last threat trying to derail the whole time. He is irredeemable

>they are dead men fucking walking what do you mean?

and yet you still see constant net-gains in population in the places with highest density and worst quality of life

we rely on technology
society should never rely on tech

advanced tech* duh

Well, that's true, but I'm more likely long term minded.
So let it make clear, what will happen if we run out of thorium?
The answer on this problem is simple:
just combine nuclear fission and fusion and you will have the nuclear cycle.

>run out of thorium
the human race will go extinct first

terrible and absurd anti-intellectual defeatist advice if ever i heard it

That's true, it's better to be independent.
That's why stone age tier tech could still be liked, especially for poor people who don't want to get taxed.

so?
they all rely on monoculture which wont be available a century or so down the line because we are turning our fertile lands into deserts

once you have fusion, everything else is immediately obsolete for millennia, at least

>relying on oil to feed billions is good
i guess you will just reap what you sow eventually

>they all rely on monoculture which wont be available a century or so down the line because we are turning our fertile lands into deserts

exactly, those are their faults and symptoms of how and why their quality of life is so low, but it neednt be that way

i never said rely on oil
you keep trying to put words in my mouth, to assert i made claims i never did

you constantly assume things, try not doing that

>models that show a runaway water vapor effect are unfalsifiable

proof?

Yup, that'll tremendously increase our population capacity too.

Idk how far we will go on this, but the good thing about thorium is that it's hard to turn it's waste into nuclear weapons.

Oh good, you're back. You wouldn't happen to be from Georgia, would you?

Why not just use thorium instead?...it cannot be made into nuclear grade material at all, and it cannot be used to make a bomb.

Yeah, we don't really need three eyed fish and shit like that.

why do you want fix a symptom of a disease?

i look forward to a far future with reasonably established ease of some "near" earth space travel where nuclear weapons might even be used as artistic things, their detonations are so very very beautiful

no im not kidding

imagine a cascading rings of dozens of 99.9999 clean fusion devices synchronized like fireworks set off in say venus' atmosphere, or near the sun

because you wrongly identify what the disease is

coal is a necessary evil for a time

and population growth is not necessarily a disease except when not accompanied by infrastructure to make said lives as pleasant as can be realized by highest QOL(quality of life) societies of the time

Not gonna lie.

Nuclear power is pretty fucken scary.

no its not
i can appear that way when you simply lack understanding of it

try learning a little bit

the disease is (((them)))
and you will get fucking no where because they do control the whole world more than you or me fucking know.

Russia already has started doing so to bring power to northern Siberia

it is when you have them around the globe
its not when you have a global population of 100 million and then can have lower amount of nuke plants

You understand that you're shitting up the board with low IQ posts, bad points and shit grammar?

right
which is why in addition to all of this, I am entirely comfortable looking forward to the 2nd arrival of the Lamb of God to put blinding stop to every last bit of all of the bullshit once and forever

Nuclear power? Are you guys fucking nuts??

Molten Salt Thorium Reactors are safe,

They use up all the Fuel and they dont make Nuclear Bombs.

You first.

please be serious

>Nuclear power? Are you guys fucking nuts??

No, but you are Ignorant.

Regulations have forced nuclear reactors to be overbuilt to shit. You could fly a plane into all but the oldest ones and they would not have an issue.

Nuclear power is not the answer. The answer is green energy, solar and wind power.

The reason why we have unsafe types of Reactors is so we can make weapons grade material.

Wrong, you dont understand how safe and clean Thorium Reactors are.

>namefag
>bad points
like what?
that i know it will be devastating to use nuclear as #1 energy source with this size of a population?
or that you dont even have enough uranium on the planet to make it #1 with the current population?

Time to shit on renewables!

More people die per GWH generated with solar and wind than nuclear. Installers falling off roofs, getting caught in fires & drilling into electrical wires kill enough that the minuscule power amounts generated by diffuse energy sources mean they kill more people per unit power generated.

its really not
even if we depopulated its just not stable enough

see:
etc

Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future. Nuclear energy is both expensive and dangerous, and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn’t mean it’s clean. Renewable energy is better for the environment, the economy, and doesn’t come with the risk of a nuclear meltdown.

see:
ignorance is not "a point of view" nor at all valid

the proofs is in their epistemology - the models are positivist. There is no reasonable means to falsify their claims on the water vapor feedback cycle except for waiting for it to happen because the system is too complex. For example an AGW proponent will claim that Co2 ---> heating ----> extra water vapor ---> more heating ----> more water vapor and so without taking into account what more water vapor in the system would mean. In this example this example the additional vapor leads to greater cloud cover thus leading to less heat. Another example would be their claims on the expansion of water due to heating not coming true in the last decade.

This is all besides the point I was making

Costs!

As you install more renewables their cost per unit power generated increases. Usually, with renewables being a meme generator of energy actually useful sources can make up for their variable and uncontrolled supply gaps. However, as the percentage of renewable climbs, the ability for base-load to vary to make up increasing gaps decreases. Requiring costly pumped hydro or batteries to store energy at a grid level. Massively increasing costs.

>necessity
Not as long as there are other options.

>safety
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima.
Check and mate.

>...but the good thing about thorium is that it's hard to turn it's waste into nuclear weapons

The same is true for the waste that comes out of a regular light water reactor.

I always ask myself when i hear you thorium/MSR people speaking:

1. Do you understand that thorium-232 is not itself fissile and it first has to be turned into uranium-233 in a nuclear reactor by absorbing a neutron? It is this uranium-233 that is then actually fissioned and produces the energy.

2. Do you people understand that fissioning uranium-233 creates comparable amounts of nuclear waste?

The only advantage thorium has over our regular nuclear fuel is that it is much more abundant. That's it.

This is also the reason why no one uses it.
Why the hell would anyone go through all the additional costs and technical steps required to make nuclear fuel out of thorium when you can just directly use the uranium that is actually already there in the ground?

nope
see:
and more importantly

>MSR
>control rods
what? Thermal expansion controls the fission process, not control rods

You are wrong about Thorium Molten Salt reactors.

You are only right about the old type.

Your Ignorant

Meltdowns like the ones in Fukushima or Chernobyl released enormous amounts of radiation into the surrounding communities, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate. Many of them may never come back. If the industry’s current track record is any indication, we can expect a major meltdown about once per decade.

that is a part of the story, but only a fraction of it

just keep learning, dont stop and be one of these imbeciles decrying "evil" when all they did was turn their minds off when they decided they "knew enough"

CO2!

Renewables, because their supply is unreliable, have to be paired with CO2 generating gas turbines (usually). This means the stated carbon footprint of renewables is FAR below the actual levels.

Not to mention the fact that the toxic by-products & pollution from building renewable PV and the neodymium magnets required for wind are hidden in China, so are never added to the environmental costs.

actually its 2 decades but that assumes nothing is changed

dont assume the status quo
the status quo is not the end of things

if not to the mindless NIMB apes and bureaucrats and MBAs but instead totally to the engineers who have a fucking clue it would be not even be 1 per century

Even with the renewable "boom" recently, driven by the fact that the environmental costs are ignored by basing all manufacturing in China, renewables are and will continue to be a laughably small percentage of global generation. We simply cannot build it fast enough to meet demand. Not without poisoning all of China.

Yes,

And Molten Salt Thorium reactors CANNOT MELT DOWN dumbass

you are thinking of Fast breeder high pressure reactors you retard. If people made the right investments back in the 60s we would have a completely safe and competitive form of nuclear energy decades ago. Look up 4th generation nuclear power and get back to us.

CO2, yes, "bad"
but makes for ever more green growth, as a huge silver lining

all of the great toxins of coal/petroleum industry not at all withstanding

Because PV solar is so inefficient, the sheer volume of waste generated per unit energy is absurd.

pnas.org/content/112/20/6277
eenews.net/stories/1060011478

"renewable" and "green" my arse

Thorium Reactors have Liquid fuel, not Solid Fuel Rods.

They are designed so you dont have a Meltdown.

Good or bad I dont care. Mitigating uncontrolled externalities is always preferred.

I did a school essay on the Fukushimas and there i calculated the change of getting cancer because of the additional radiation. Here's a ruff translation of that part :
In most places of the "no go zone" (see the scale on left) the radiation is about 10 micro sieverts per hour.
And if you were exposed for that kind of radiation your change of getting cancer would rise 5% (as in 1% + 5% = 6% not 1% + 5% = 1.05%).
And as no one is living there it doesn't really give anyone cancer as the doses on short periods are really small.

And in the outer sections of the "no go zone" the radiations is about 0.4 micro sieverts per hour.
And that would approximately double your change of getting cancer because of the background radiations if you lived there your whole life (85 years).
So it would rise from 1.5% to 3% change of getting cancer in your lifetime

to clarify:
he means waste generated by PRODUCTION(making) of the solar materials/panels and also generated in their disposal

Solid Fuel rods are retarded.

The most efficient types of Fuels are Liquid.

Even with the newer reactors, there is still no safe, reliable solution for dealing with the radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants.

Every waste dump in the U.S. leaks radiation into the environment, and nuclear plants themselves are running out of ways to store highly radioactive waste on site. The site selected to store the U.S.’s radioactive waste — Yucca Mountain in Nevada — is both volcanically and seismically active.

These are fun links to annoy renewable hippies with.

theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html

They are even from leftist websites so they cant dismiss out of hand.

What if we archive it

>washingtonpost com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html
unvis.it/washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html

You are still talking about the Old Designs, because you dont know how the Molten Salt Reactors work.

do you not understand how 4th generation nuclear power works? Do you know how half lifes work? You have been meme'd on kiddo.

>Even with the newer reactors, there is still no safe, reliable solution for dealing with the radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants.

yes, there is

unless by safe you mean ZERO chance of ANY danger EVER
which is absurd

>All nuclear reactors that have ever produced electricity since 1956 have accumulated a combined 17000 reactor-years of operation.
>There have been 3 major accidents at commercial nuclear power plants, 2 of them led to significant releases of radioactivity and long-term evacuations. Only 1 of these accidents has caused deaths that are directly attributable to the accident.

This isn't a bad safety record, especially when you compare it to the safety record of other power sources.

But you're German so of course you can't really be rational about this, nor are you people very rational about anything.

Yes, lifetime waste, from manufacture to decommissioning vs lifetime energy generated.

Renewable advocates often like to cut up the analysis to leave the parts detrimental to their agenda off.

Molten Salt Reactors DONT HAVE RADIOACTIVE WASTE !!!!!!!