Nuclear is our only Option

The best and most beneficial energy source for the growing world population is nuclear. Why is it so hated when it doesn't damage the environment and produces more power?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power_transfer
youtube.com/watch?v=2wkAK0ihUus
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

We can give you guys another 30 years worth of energy in another 2 packages if you want.

because of boomer lefty faggots

>doesn't damage the environment
That's kind of the main issue. That and nuclear weapons (which everybody should have anyway -- that's old jews)

I'm against it.

We can make electricity from "Radiant Technology". Check out Tesla patent in 1901, titled :"Radiant Technology"

Our of all the country to make this thread, is Japan really the most qualified? You guys got nuke three time, including one by yourself.

I'm a little surprised Einstein didn't steal that.
Looks promising.

Einstein was more interested in a Jewish ritual of nuking Japan a couple of times to create eternal global peace through massive blood sacrifice to g-d, via exerting superior control over reality (nuclear reactions).

#JustJewishThings

There is even a discussion about it anymore? Nuclear it's the only way, everyone is talking like solar it's the big shit when in fact it consists of eating the scraps of a massive nuclear reactor which is the sun.
Nuclear can work everywhere without worrying about the environment, not like the others which need specific situations to barely work.

perhaps for us but not for japan, you guys have way too many fault lines and it wouldn't be worth it building more

Once we figure out fusion, aint no stopping the nuclear industry.

What if we just built the reactors out of wood, the traditional Nipponese way?

I would prefer them being built out of tamahagane

Nuclear is done, coal is done, natural gas is done, hydro is done, biomass is done, wind is done. Solar is becoming so damn cheap. Only thing holding that back now is batteries and guess what. Not anymore. Give it 20-30 years and every power plant will be solar.

For Japan, it's a terrible idea. You guys should probably be doing geothermal or hydro

>Solar is becoming so damn cheap.
But it's still far more environmentally damaging than nuclear. Even worse when you add in batteries.

There's actually been quite a bit of pushback against another field of solar panels in my home town because it's not necessary for the area due to transmission losses, it's ugly, it's a poor use of wonderful land, it's an ROI boondoggle, and the only reason it might happen is due to government gibs. I was really surprised, considering this is a really libtarded area that believes in the global warming faith.

Build nuclear energy plants in places that do not have earthquakes and hurricanes and then beam the energy to places that do. There, I fixed it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power_transfer

They are afraid for unrational reasons because they be brainwashed n shit. and they cant see radiation, but thats a bonkers reason.

Coal companies dont wont to give up their stuff and the government is responsible.

Fuck nuclear
We should just have 2000 rows of hamester wheels generating our juice.
It's clean, we don't have to maintain it too much (hamesters are small, so they don't eat much), and tens to hundreds of thousands of hamesters get exercise.

Literally because radiation is scary to normies

nuclear waste literally just sits still and does nothing. it's a non-issue. put it somewhere nobody goes and leave it alone.

or go the thorium cycle, ant don't have any long-lived waste at all. it also solves the nuclear weapons problem.

Einstein didn't steal it because it was shit and wouldn't work.

LFTR in every major city when?

Spent fuel rods literally blow up and spray radiation everywhere if they're not actively cools. That's half the entire problem we saw writ large with Fukushima, and why nobody can agree on what to do with all the rods safely.

Thorium, OK. Get back to me when the Jews will let something like that happen.

>it doesn't damage the environment
But it does, you just don't usually hear about the daily leak of radioactive material on your water sources because people are more interested on the latest tweet Trump wrote and because the nuclear lobby pushes the media not to. Not to mention that when a disaster like Chernobyl or Fukushima happens the consequences remain for decades or hundreds of years. Compare that to the oil leak in the gulf of Mexico, which is no longer a concern.

Burn coal and don't pay the toll.

>nuclear waste literally just sits still and does nothing. it's a non-issue. put it somewhere nobody goes and leave it alone.

this, I think people also wildly overestimate the amount of spent fuel that gets generated too. I worked at a huge 3.2 GW nuclear station and we stored decades of full power operation spent fuel in concrete and steel boxes in a small warehouse the size of a grocery store. its not spooky at all and actually very boring.

I kept shilling for reprocessing the stuff to get all that sweet sweet Pu-239 fuel out of there but everyone in the industry is cucked by retarded normies being scared

The vast majority of dumb liberals are in the younger generations.

it's perfectly suited to our land though, there is tonnes of useless desert, give it a few decades and solar will actually be viable and we will hopefully become cutting edge in this field if our politicians stop being retarded and riding the dying coal industry

>doesn't damage the environment
Don't you have a zone of alienation of like 40 km in diameter right beside Tokyo?
Well, if that happens to you, who are motherfucking Japan, it can happen to any country. The US had a scare too.

Old home town is white flight rich whites in retirement.

>it's perfectly suited to our land though
It specifically isn't. It's fine in some areas for supplementing our shitty coal network. But otherwise the country is just too big. Transmission loss sucks, and the only way to alleviate that is to take up arable land with those environmentally horrific panels.
Nuclear and tidal are the only real options and green options.

have you vacationed in Fukashima lately? Chernobyl?

Sorry nip nuclear does damage the environment in a very big way. Its rare but when it happens it fucks shit up big time.

Maybe if that sweet secret tesla information some user was talking about in regards to wireless electricity transfer is real, then we could build a reactor in space or something.

Solar is getting cheaper, but that is in large part due to MASSIVE government subsidies. Solar is also more impractical in some areas due to annual cloud cover, basically if you live north of the 45th parallel you're not going to get much use out of it. The cost of solar also increases the further north you go because of reduced solar input.

IMO the big advantage of solar is in individual applications on homes and businesses that are supplemented by external power when needed. Mass-scale solar farms are still quite impractical due to size and transmission losses.

>have you vacationed in Fukashima lately? Chernobyl?
Got any other examples? Because the former was incredibly poor planning, and the latter was active retardation forcing it to happen.

Who needs base load anyway.

holy fuck, people who don't understand physics should have their mouths stapled.

Lockheed Martin is grinding out the final points of a fusion generator now. Fission power will be completely depreciated within a couple decades.

Poor planning? How about Jewish money tricks because anybody with enough intelligence to run a nuke plant would have decommissioned that a long time ago and replace it if it weren't a big Jewish money scam. Even in the case of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina they had the backup generator on the roof. The new house down the street has the heat pumps on the roof just so that they don't make so much noise.

Jesus Christ. This is why we don't want morons or Jews having more power than they can be trusted with.

Let's just spam the countryside with these fuckers.

transmission problem will be solved in a a decade if that, renewable are the fastest growing power generation industry. When that time comes the desert will be the best place on earth for it

>transmission problem will be solved in a a decade
How? I'm not up to date on that.
But then will that solve the environmental aspects to do with the production of them?

You need to do something with green infestation. May be based Kim will help by nuking SF and LA.

How many examples will we need to have before we abandon nuclear energy near our homes?

You nor I can foresee the future. I'm all for nuclear energy, but as long as a slim chance of destroying the planet exists I'd rather not risk it. What about solar, geo-thermal, or tidal? Isn't that getting better?

In Sweden we still have to deal with the effects from Tjernobyl. Sometimes I belive thats the reason our politicans went full retard all in and betrayed us.

THIS

Every single nuclear power plant accident in history was caused by human error. In Fukishima's case, building on a fault line was the error. Stop employing lazy retards to run these plants and the problem will be solved.

The fault was the human error of not decommissioning a retarded design and upgrading it on schedule. Typical Jewish managment techniques. And now they dump the costs on all the goyim and just keep playing Head Jew as usual.

Get a grip.

t. spent fuel rod

They should put spent fuel rods in cars to use as permanent seat heaters. Balls will feel so /comfy/

Firmer nuclear reactor operator here but I won't be at my comp for 15 minutes or so. I'll answer anything that's sent.

The redpill on nuclear energy is that nuclear waste generation, and even most of the potential dangers, are entirely liberals' fault for creating hysteria. Will explain in a bit.

>How many examples will we need to have before we abandon nuclear energy near our homes?
At least one reasonable one, i guess.
>but as long as a slim chance of destroying the planet exists
It specifically doesn't. Remember, they FORCED Chernobyl to go critical, and they kept it running for years afterwards. Fukushima was built over an active fault line, and that too was kept running after it's meltdown.
> What about solar,
Ineffective, environmentally damaging.
>geo-thermal,
Fine, but rarely enough, and not everywhere.
>or tidal?
Also good, but not that effective, and takes a shittonne of maintainence.

That's literally false.

That's literally the problem with the design of the busted old nuke plants at Fukushima.

that's a one time problem of pollution, it's not going to be an ongoing issue of constant pollution like a coal or oil powerplant would have even after it's built.

The only truly Aryan method is putting all our current resources in constructing a Dyson Sphere.

A Dyson sphere is a hypothetical megastructure that completely encompasses a star and captures most or all of its power output. The first known mention of the concept of a star enclosed by a sphere was in an early Indo-European religious creation myth which described the prenatal sun as being enclosed by rock. (wikipedia)

but seriously, I dont fucking know what to do, but we ought to do something fast, and we must do it in a way where all those savings actually come back to us, because the fuckers lied to us before.

>hey everyone will save big $$$ if we put in this power plant
>ok
>Hey we got all this power we should import some people from other countries and GROW our economy besides they sure got it hard in dirkadirkastan
>ok?
>geez I guess we dont have enough power to give you those savings, but we still need to grow our economy so more people it is
>ok......
>Hey user if we build this new super duper reactor your power bill will be cheaper.
>fuck....you.....

>that's a one time problem of pollution
One neverending time for as long as you're making the panels?
And i'm not arguing for coal, but at least it doesn't use REMs.

Have you seen American infrastructure m8? There's no such thing as something that's not going to be an ongoing issue.

Jesus Christ you sound like my boss who doesn't understand the first thing about a long-running development cycle when his whole thing is a piece of software that's supposed to live forever.

yeah just cover everything in solar panels and batteries. fuck nuclear power

Tidal and geothermal are where it's at.

Tidal because it's like hydro but fucks up ecosystems less and covers much larger areas.

Geothermal because we literally need to start venting heat from supervolcanos to prevent the end of days anyway.

Dyson spheres are so fucking cool but thats a Type 2 civilization thing on the Kardashev Scale and we arent even Type 1 yet

but user we are already living in an ancestor simulator powered by a dieing star at the end of time. All those galaxies are gone and the sky is black so we all decided to live in here and forget about the heat death of the universe.

You will remember one day, sorry

get fucked cunt

>doesn't damage the environment
>Fukashima still leaking contaminated water into the pacific years later, with no signs of them being able to fix it

Alrighty - former reactor operator finally at comp.

>Spent fuel rods literally blow up and spray radiation everywhere if they're not actively cools.
No, they just keep radiating neutrons and melt shit around them.
> nobody can agree on what to do with all the rods safely.
False. Even the first nuclear reactor had sufficient control rod composition to render fuel rods benign.

Fukushima's construction had many critics and several walk-offs because it was rushed and unsafe. Control rod functionality should never be in question, they failed at Fukushima. The back-up to control rod failure is an adequate freshwater source to constantly refresh the cooling of the fuel rods - this also failed at Fukushima.

Fukushima was a shit show. But despite that, it creates less contamination in the Pacific Ocean than is present in the Mississippi from latent radioactive metals in US soil. And nuclear power remains, by a gigantic margin, the most environmentally-friendly source of fueled power generation.

Solar, wind, and biogas have their merits - but they're not as refined nor prolific.

Thorium in liquid fluorine salt reactors you slant eyed zipper head.

You do realize that if you do tidal that you are LITERALLY slowing down the arbitrage orbital speed of the moon around the earth until it goes into geolocked orbit?

DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH YOU WILL KILL THE WEATHER IF YOU DO THAT
>green

Le geolocked orbit. It would take how many millions of years, faggot?

Hang on what. You're full of shit or Im just that ignorant to what tidal actually does.

You're arguing the wrong angles. The most advanced nuke plant almost went up in my more or less back yard until retard lefties started protesting after extracting massive tax gibs out of it until the local electrical company had to restructure after blowing a huge wad building the thing and then not having any money to do anything with it after the initial test run, and then sell off the infrastructure to try to comp the losses.

What we're talking about here is not what could be, but rather what is. And what is is that 99% of the world is retarded and can't do this shit right, and the other .5% are evil satanic Jews who want everything to fail to destroy the entirety of creation.

Despite the scary colors on the maps you look at, the ocean more than 5 km from Fukushima has less contamination than US river water.

Water does not get hit with neutrons and instantly turn contaminated. Sea water turns contaminated quickly - but again this is a function of how shitty Fukushima's construction was, as the backup to a scram is natural water pumping, and it doesn't work.

This is the Jap's fault, not nuclear power. You don't blame the gun when a nog kills, don't blame nuclear power b/c Japs are retarded and corrupt.

well only one thing left to do I guess
*cracks a beer*
Sit back with a beer and watch the universe end.

The moon causes the tides, dude. Literally the reason why the tides go in and out is because of the gravitational pull of the moon orbiting around the earth.

you're not going to be making unlimited panels? and sure even if you do have to make new ones to replace them they are going to be far less pollution intensive than any carbon burning power generation plant.

>comparing a piece of hardware to a piece of software
please improve your education system

Its not that Nuclear power is bad, its that Nuclear Power is just a side effect of transmuting uranium into Element 93 (Neptunium)... And (((WE))) cant let just any GOY getting their hands on that shit now can (((WE)))...

youtube.com/watch?v=2wkAK0ihUus

No I get that but I thought tidal power generation was just harnessing the energy from the tides themselves, not the fucking tidal forces that the moon exerts onto the earth, causing said tides. How on earth would that cause the moon to slow to a geolocked orbit

fuck that!

Lets figure out how to turn jews into batteries or some shit.

At this rate fewer than it would take to radiate everything and then enact the Circumcision And Satanic Blood Sacrifice of Perfect Judaism Act of 2030 to engender transhumanism.

We cannot allow the retardation of libshits to hold humanity hostage.

At the same time, we cannot act like they don't exist.

It's a conundrum.

>they are going to be far less pollution intensive than any carbon burning power generation plant.
Not by much. I suggest you look up how they're made. It'll make you favour wind and nuclear.

>nuclear waste literally just sits still and does nothing.
If anything, all the money we can save by switching to nuclear, they can just shoot the waste into space and forget about it.

Gravitational tidal pull. We simply have the benefit here of a young moon that hasn't come into equilibrium yet. The Earth also used to have something more like 400 days in a year before the moon slowed down its roll.

>but as long as a slim chance of destroying the planet exists I'd rather not risk it
We are literally struggling to keep fusion reactions going as is. That shit's not going to destroy the planet. And as for fission, the most it would do is make an area the size of a small country uninhabitable and maybe spike some cancer rates and kill some plants.

Also a slim chance low level radiation exposure may cause hyperfertility in some predatory animals which could cause massive shifts in biodiversity near exposure sites and potentially trigger packs of radioactive carnivores moving into populated areas, but I mean that's just like a few extra maulings in a given year. And no I'm not kidding.

>they can just shoot the waste into space and forget about it.
There's about a 1% failure rate for rocket launches and we produce a crapton of radioactive material each year. Do math.

>two notable nuclear incidents in 30 years
Welp, guess we better just scrap all the active nuclear facilities in the world because they're clearly too dangerous.

>shoot the waste into space
Absolutely not. Rockets still explode on the launch pad, on launch, or in flight. The amount of weight that would be added to have a containment system strong enough to survive the explosion and possible reentry into the atmosphere would make the energy required to send it into space to be insane. The cost would be too great in that case. If we use the conventional delivery systems we have now, there is a chance that you have a flying dirty bomb that could drop tons of radioactive material back onto earth in the event of a catastrophic failure.

You need the WASTE GOY, if you dont have the WASTE YOU CAN GET THE Large Hadron Collider...

YOU NEED THE Large Hadron Collider to ADVANCE TO THE NEXT LEVEL OF THE PYRAMID

Oh so in millions of years. Got it

Interestingly, it's libshits' fault that nuclear power even has a tiny bit of danger attached to it, in the USA anyway.

Reactor coolant is purified water. It passes over the fuel rods, where it is heated by radioactive decay (neutron radiation) from the fuel. Reaching temps over 400F (still liquid because it's pressurized in the pipes) it's piped through a secondary water tank.

The secondary water is heated, and from here on it's just another steam engine. Heat -> steam -> turbine -> power.

Now, pure water does not become contaminated quickly. The original plan was to take in new water constantly, and purge old water constantly. In the few days it would cycle, it would still come out of the primary system with less contamination than it entered. The side effect of nuclear reactors was meant to be purifying a small amount of river water.

Enter the libshits...
Because of libshit hysteria, primary water (or SCARY REACTOR COOLANT PROBABLY GREEN OOZE OR SOME SHIT) is kept in the system for far too long, becomes nuclear waste, and is treated as such (boringly kept in a building and inspected periodically.)

ok how about
>crane handle hooked up to the moon
>lower(raise?) grabby arm down to earth
>grabby grab the uranium and zoop it up
?

Time for a sky hook, then.

>millions
How many years until the nuclear waste settles?

You're missing the point. The point is thinking ahead.

Well when you put it that way,
That doesn't sound concerning at all. Except where I live is a small country size away from a nuclear power plant.

Am I gonna die if this fucker blows up

So just stack it really high until whenever you put a new barrel on top it floats off into space. Problem solved.

Actually just tell libshits "BOO FUCKING HOO THIS IS HOW IT ACTUALLY WORKS:" and replace primary coolant like we should, and spent fuel rods for the next century wouldn't fill a medium-size warehouse.

THAT is actually problem solved.

I am. In the amount of time it would take for the moon to slow to a point that tidal would no longer be viable (or we manage to speed up that process somehow, which you insinuated earlier) we would, without a doubt, have found an effective and efficient means of recycling or disposing nuclear waste. Millions of years to figure that out.

No your going to die with the rest of us from the Large Hadron Collider they create with the element 93 they Transmute from the Uranium in that power plant...

Depends which way the winds blow. Jet stream will carry it toward the Atlantic to the extent that the Jet stream sill exists, given the stoppage of the Gulf stream.

In the end, it will just diffuse everywhere. That's the argument they use for why it's OK to dump shit in the ocean because the ocean is fuckhueg and it won't matter. This lead to the counterconcept of "bioaccumulation"

I agree with you completely. However you have cunts like Feinstein who continually block any kind of nuclear commissioners and DOE representatives whenever they are on the floor to discuss alternative energy options through nuclear power. Without some serious upheaval in our government, cunts like her who get elected will continue to act (((in our best interests)))

>Am I gonna die if this fucker blows up
It won't blow up. At least not in a traditional sense. Worse case scenario a steam explosion destroys the containment facilities on sight and the core basically turns into a gigantic lump of radioactive slag kicking poisonous material downwind for a signficant distance causing a permanent widespread evacuation and spikes in cancer rates for years for those near the affected area.

You'd only die if you were a plant worker, emergency responder, or part of the team brought in to contain that shit.