Why do some green party people hate on nuclear energy?

Honestly, I tell you, nuclear energy is the cleanest and most climate neutral form of energy. There is literally no better energy.

Why in the world are green party leftists against it???

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
youtu.be/TI_3gARwn3Y
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_buildings
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

dear user, that shit was buried by mother for a reason. uranium etc. are on earth as the result of meteors colliding with it millions of years ago.

Because it's deadly.

>green party people
The waste from fuel rod change out can be a serious hazard. I don't consider nuke power green because of this obvious waste. Sure it is "sequestered" but for how long?

>Because it's deadly.

It‘s actually the safest source of electricity.

How is it deadly?

What waste? What hazard For whom? Where? When? Have you ever seen anyone in the history of mankind harmed by the so called “nuclear waste”?

This has long baffled me as well. While I get the whole panic over nuclear waste, the next generation of reactors is expected to produce waste that becomes safe within centuries, rather than millennia. It's not perfect, but it's a fuckton better than what the reactors that are still online are producing.

Even the national security issues are ridiculous. My cousin works security at a nuke plant in Illinois. The fucker is kitted out like some kind of Navy SEAL. Suppressed M4s with top-of-the-line red dots, thermals, body armor, flashbangs... everything you could imagine.

The funny thing, they're actually decommissioning at least one of the nukes in Illinois in the next few years. Reason? Natural gas is so cheap because of fracking. Despite nuclear energy having a ridiculous efficiency level, all the regulatory and environmental overhead make it extremely unprofitable.

There has never been an accident involving spent fuel from a commercial nuclear power plant in the US.
Literally not even once.

until it isn't, which has happened three times in my life then its Literally the worst.

Shit's gonna go boom.

Because green dipshits don't realize that solar and wind are extremely ineffective and, ironically, wasteful in their own ways. They aren't sustainable for maintaining the loads that civilization requires.

In comparison, coal and natural gas fuck up air quality and (if you believe in it) fuck the atmosphere. At the same time, energy produced by coal-fired power plants and similar natural burning fuels have sort of 'capped out' in terms of usefulness - the tech can't really go any further in squeezing out more energy. Meanwhile, despite no more nuclear power plants having been built for years due to greenfags pissing themselves from the three mile isle incident, nuclear produces 20 percent of the entire us energy grids power. Furthermore, the only waste that comes from nuclear is depleted rods - which are easily stored and can actually have practical uses. Plus, with nuclear FUSION being so close to fruition, we wont even need to worry about that anymore.

Tldr ignorance is why nuclear isnt producing 100% of our energy.

toxic waste
risk of contamination that lasts for thousands of years before it decays
google it
all they do is bury it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

japs can't control the shit, but you think burgers can

literally my sides you fucking dumb dumbs

Liberals in general don't understand the science they claim to love.

>Inb4 "yea but da dont men it no happen HURR"

people are idiots
the masses are asses

agreed.
>see video of a drunk russian crashing his car and dying
>never drive again and shame anyone who does
this is the attitude toward nuclear

>Furthermore, the only waste that comes from nuclear is depleted rods - which are easily stored and can actually have practical uses.

From a theoretical standpoint this is correct, but in practice there is a great deal of low-level waste that every plant generates that has to be properly handled and disposed of. Contaminated tools and clothing are a major part of it.

Of course, this waste tends to be quite truly low level: It's creates a mild to moderate (but still unacceptable) health risk, but isn't really useful even for a terrorist.

not possible

Because they want less growth - both population and financial.

>commercial nuclear power plant
Is there any other kind ?

Experimental/Research. Those tend to be operated by universities or national laboratories.

Except that all accidents are included in the pic i just posted.
Even when you include the 3 major accidents, nuclear still comes in as the safest source of electricity.
Hundreds of thousands of people die every year from air pollution from coal-fired power plants and yet nuclear is the great boogeyman?

Also, military (i.e., naval).

This is true, but practices will nonetheless advance to make the workplace safer. Plus the significantly less risky thorium nuclear fusion reactors will further displace this factor. Just compensation by nuclear companies will also make the health risks worthwhile. Furthermore, spent rods are typically stored within deep portions of the mountain, and while there are some risks here involved, this places it in a significantly less harmful position. In addition the recent advent of reusable rockets will allow us to simply dispose of nuclear waste (and other trash) by ejecting it into the sun. Fire and forget, recycling edition.

t. nuclear energy welfare baby

why is there no private investment in nuclear power?

Waste disposal is still a challenge, but honestly it is easily solvable.
The fact of the matter is that environmentalists are not scientists. So all of their arguments are based in feels. Unfortunately normies respond to that shit so say bye to nuclear for the foreseeable future

yes...

> yet nuclear is the great boogeyman?

yes, your using misleading statistics there is 449 nuclear reactors in the world and i couldn't even find a stat for coal but there is 7,658 coal power plants in the US

>nuclear energy welfare baby

Wtf does this even mean? Are you even going to address the rest of my post you ignorant imbecile?

The nuclear industry is privately owned you dumb fucking cocksucker. If you're talking about subsidies, all major methods of energy generation receive r&d subsidies with nuclear being the most lucrative and promising.

>Waste disposal is still a challenge, but honestly it is easily solvable.

The silliest part is it really shouldn't even be classed as a challenge. It's more a matter of ensuring the disposal operations are actually carried out as ordered, and there aren't people cutting corners or making mistakes and trying to conceal them.

>why is there no private investment in nuclear power?

Of course there is. Exelon (formerly Commonwealth Edison), which operates the nuclear plants in Illinois, is fucking traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

>Waste disposal is still a challenge

No it isn‘t.

youtu.be/TI_3gARwn3Y

This, liberals hate themselves, they want to hasten the human demise.

the left is the opposite of progress, any of their solutions are worse than the problem,with them, the world will burn

According to the measurements conducted by the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (Säteilyturvakeskus STUK), ionizing radiation emitted by nuclear reactors and waste annually is lower than the amount you get from eating a banana.

Chernobyl

>Tldr ignorance is why nuclear isnt producing 100% of our energy.

Actually, the real reason is that the Nuclear industry simply failed (at least in the US)

>The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale. The utility industry has already invested $125 billion in nuclear power, with an additional $140 billion to come before the decade is out, and only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible. Without even recognizing the risks, the U.S. electric power industry undertook a commitment bigger than the space program ($100 billion) or the Vietnam War ($111 billion) and, in little more than a decade, transformed what elsewhere int he world is a low-cost, reliable, environmentally impeccable form of energy into a power source that is not only high in cost and unreliable, but perhaps not even safe. Forbes, February 11, 1985

compare the average output of a nuclear power plant with that of a coal power plant

Literally the safest way to store it

cont.

>Many utilities were totally unprepared for projects requiring management skills of such a high order. The NRC shut down Marble Hill and South Texas for over a year because construction managers there had problems pouring concrete correctly. Contractors had difficulties welding metal almost everywhere—Marble Hill, Zimmer, Shoreham, Clinton, Byron, Limerick, Nine Mile Point, take your pick. They couldn't always install electrical equipment properly, either, or follow the specifications for steel. At Commonwealth Edison's Byron plant, the NRC chewed out the contractors who did the electrical, piping and duct work, and even banned one from supplying safety-related components to the industry. At Nine Mile Point, rejection rates in final welding and mechanical aspects for poor workmanship ran around 38%. Poor craftsmanship, an NRC study concluded, "was an effect, not the cause. The principal underlying cause...was found to be poor utility and project management."
"We developed the whole nuclear technology in the U.S.," laments New York consulting engineer Gerard C. Gambs, "and now the nuclear program is falling apart. Not on nuclear technology. It's falling apart on conventional construction, which I think is absolutely incredible."

This may sound stupid, but couldn't you just shoot the nuclear waste into space? Surely scientist could calculate a course for the waste so it won't vother anyone anymore, considering that they calculate how stuff is flying around already.
Or is shooting something up into space really that expensive?

Big Oil propaganda

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
Keep being in denial

>$10,000 to put a pound of payload in Earth orbit.

imma go out on a limb here and say thats a retarded fucking idea hans

>there is 449 nuclear reactors in the world and i couldn't even find a stat for coal but there is 7,658 coal power plants in the US

What the fuck are you trying to say?
Coal kills tens of thousands of americans every year.

Everyone says that and everyone forgets how expensive and risky putting things in space is
Rockets explode all the time

Because of the leftist EU (German) indoctrination:

>companies are bad
>entrepreneurship is bad
>capitalism is evil
> coal and oil are bad
>global warming
> virtue signaling
>too much time, too much money, not earned but "created" through euro manipulation, Brussels and export
>leftist education, brainwashing
> incompetent young people who think they know a lot just because they have a university degree
>lack of war, poverty and real threats that make one "normal" and realistic

Yeah, it's only a chance that an entire region has to be abandoned for hundreds of years. Totally worth it for some electricity.

fpbp

It's expensive and nuclear waste isn't dangerous at all when stored properly. Also future reactors could use plutonium to create energy.

The nuclear industry basically cannot exist without subsidies. Nobody will even start digging in the ground without loan guarantees, price guarantees, government insurance and whatnot. This is one of the major reasons why more nuclear plants are not built today.

What is with Chernobly? A team of engineers deliberatly removed (manually) all safeguards from a first gen nuclear reactor and thus blew it up. Impossible for all Western designs since the 1980s. Same with FuckYouShima. The four 2nd gen plants didn’t even register as much as a slightly elevated heat, the two first gen plants from the 1970s were the problem... plus illegally storing nuclear waste en masse in the attic...

Tell me, how many people died from radiation at Fukushima?

that comparing the safety record of something that is common place across the globe and something that is more rare might be misleading, my bad thought it was obvious

Ah so its also an infrastructure issue then. However from what ive learned (training to be an electric utility lineman) part of the reason is also contributed to the fact that the government also has prohibited the construction of new plants which could in theory replace all coal plants.

Infrastructure also affects all other sectors of the economy so arguably its a separate issue (albeit interconnected) issue.

Part of the problem is that there is literally no heavy plant construction industry in this country anymore, particularly at the level that can provide construction of a quality sufficient for any power plant, let alone nuclear.

The real sick thing is how environmental regs and coal plants work. It is next to impossible to license a new coal generating station. The lead time you need, because of all the litigation involving the Sierra Club and the EPA, as well as local litigation involving landowners, and all the insanity involving state public utility commissions and interstate power transmission pacts... it becomes impossible to reliably predict where you should build the plant.

Two words:
USEFUL IDIOTS

Sup Forums needs to wake the fuck up about nuclear energy. It's 100% a game changer and there is absolutely no reason we shouldn't be getting >90% of our electricity from 4th generation thorium or uranium plants.

No reason of course besides ZOG suppression of information, but what's new?

There is also the fact that industrial megaprojects tend to have a higher rate of failure. This is also a problem for large dams.

I thought that you'd maybe end up positive again if nuclear energy is much more cost efficient than other forms of energy. But as I mentioned before I'm no expert on this topic.

I didn't know about the dangers of shooting stuff into space.

>This is one of the major reasons why more nuclear plants are not built today.

Except they are being built.

Yeah, in China. Built by a state-owned company.

Meanwhile, pic related is the real story.

Considering the long term effects of coal and gas, nuclear energy is well worth the cost. As the market and demand for nuclear energy becomes higher the call for construction companies that can handle such a task will bring someone forward to accomplish it.

Those subsidies are for r&d, by the way. Nuclear plants are also significantly smaller in number than coal and yet produce 20 percent of our power. It more than state afloat on its own merit.
>inb4 they dont use it for r&d
The us and other countries/conglomerates are in a race to try and achieve fusion reactors, so yes they are utilizing it for research.

Green parties are like a watermelon - green on the outside red inside. Environmentalist policies were first put by Hitler and everything after 1945 with a green tag is neo-trotskyist anti-European party.

Jävla bergsapa! I suppose you deem fossils and oil the work of the devil ALSO!

Because Russia fire missile there and surrounding area becomes unhabitable.

That and fracking.
But meanwhile every delusional environMENTAList thinks it's reasonable to pursue an almost absurdly diffuse and intermittent power source that requires mass storage, trillion dollar grid changes, an enormous amount of land allocated, and cutting residential, commercial and industrial electricity consumption effectively in half.

I'll tell ya what, the ZOG brainwashing has truly done a number of these suicidally altruistic leftists. The gas company executives couldn't be happier, nuclear would easily outcompete them without the ignorant, burdensome regulations and paranoid electorate.

I'm pretty green and I support nuclear.

Because nuclear energy is basically outlawed. No point to study something that is outlawed -> brain drain. Smartest people moved to finance and IT, pharma.
EU supports every windmill and solar panel even if it is losing money literally always, but it's "green". It is easy to extract tax money for green projects. Mention nuclear energy and you are literally Hitler.

>Because Russia fire missile there and x happens
You could make the same argument for everything.

The drop in nuclear electricity production after 2011 is because 35 japanese nuclear power plants are waiting for their new operating licenses.
But they‘re slowly coming back now, 5 are already operating and 4 more will come back online in january-march.

Well, a new and dynamic power source is certainly deserves more support than an established industry which has been around for many decades, no?

>Because nuclear energy is basically outlawed

Dude, EU spends billions of dollars on fusion research. Which actually makes sense, as opposed to subsidizing 70yrs old technology.

>why is there no private investment in nuclear power?
Massive non-recoverable expenditure prior to any construction taking place. Gotta do geological surveys, environmental impact studies, gotta deal with protestors, gotta pay off indians, gotta deal with the department of energy, gotta go through a decade long approval process, etc, etc. Tons of hippy dipshits fucking with you at every step of the way. Lawsuits upon lawsuits upon lawsuits And a few years into this regulatory death march the laws might change requiring you to start all over.

All before you even begin construction.

Also, what happens if partway through this process energy prices fall so far your plant won't be economical anymore? The entire process of going from deciding to build to actually producing power is so dragged out that market conditions can only be guessed at prior to money being invested.

The regulatory burden has to be slashed. Not reduced, but nearly fucking eliminated. The hippies need to be shut the fuck down by the court system. If you could reduce the planning phase to even two years instead of ten plus then there would be private investment.

>35 japanese nuclear power plants are waiting for their new operating licenses.

God. Nuclear plant licensing has to be the most inefficient form of government regulation there is. I don't care how much higher the stakes are; you'd think there'd be a commensurate amount of funding going toward clearing that backlog given half the abuse comes out of making it even worse.

>Which actually makes sense, as opposed to subsidizing 70yrs old technology.

Like solar panels?

Seriously don‘t use the „nuclear is old tech because it was invented in the 40s“-argument, it makes you look stupid.
Especially when you consider that we discovered photovoltaics several decades before we found out that atoms can be split.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3
>In February 2005, the Finnish cabinet gave its permission to TVO to construct a new nuclear reactor, making Finland the first Western European country in 15 years to order one. The construction of the unit began in 2005. The start of commercial operation was planned for 2010, but has been pushed back several times. As of August 2017, the estimate for start of production is December 2018.
>Olkiluoto 3 is the first EPR, which is a type of third generation PWR, to have gone into construction. It will have a nameplate capacity of 1600 MW. Japan Steel Works and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries manufactured the unit's 526-ton reactor pressure vessel.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_buildings
>Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant
>Rank 3
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I don‘t think they can be much quicker then they are.
Keep in mind that they are also having to implement extensive construction projects to conform to the new earthquake/tsunami protection standards. (pic related is the new tsunami wall at hamaoka npp)

Yes, I should have said industry instead of technology.

In the case of solar, it's quite clear that the subsidies are actually doing something. Compare with

99 problems but the warp core breach ain't one

Old advertising has the most comfy language. I love these old clipouts from 40s-50s catalogues.

>In the case of solar, it's quite clear that the subsidies are actually doing something
Yeah it's propping up an industry that produces electricity for $0.60 per kwh. Meanwhile coal, which faces more strict regulation every year, produces electricity for $0.15 per kwh

0 from radiation

Solar will be cheaper than coal one day. It's definitely cheaper already if we consider fact that coal is "subsidized" by ignoring people's heath and the environment.

Also for those interested, nuclear is about $0.11 per kwh. The big issue with nuclear is that it takes 10-15 years before you start to see a return on your initial investment, which is enough to discourage investors before you consider that it could face more regulatory issues that could destroy the project mid-construction.

>Having women CEO's

I gues we should leave all the oil and mineral deposits too then.

LFTR's when?

I love 2 km away from the nuclear plant in PPS pic. It is known as Bein unsecured as fuck and reports weekly some small accidents. The French government is incompetent as fuck and that shit plant facility is outdated and ols as fuck.
Im scared as fuck because the French are known to be arrogant incompetent idiiots
They should close the plant immediately!!!!!!

Oh look, a German.
You people are literally beyond saving.
Burning BILLIONS of tons of lignite a year and then having the gall to complain about France that actually emits HALF the CO2 per capita of Germany.
But the media can‘t stop talking about how green Germany is...

Molten Salt Reactor.

Fair point. I don't even like coal but was just trying to provide a relative cost.

Personally I prefer biodiesel rather than photovoltaics as a source of solar power. There's something about building panels that seems more destructive. But even that is terribly inefficient compared to other forms of energy.

Kyshtym