Hello lads, I have been given the opportunity in my speech class to give a speech on a topic I'd like, and I have to persuade my fellow students to agree with me. Given my professor is a left wing, virtue signaling, progressive asshat (naturally) I've decided to go with a more subtle red pill. That being nuclear energy.
I'm just getting started with the research phase. So throw some reasons at me as to why nuclear is superior.
it's not and it's a waste of resources
then what is your alternative?
and everything I have read so far claims it is the most efficient form of energy.
Nuclear power plants are at least a thousand year commitment, the minute that shit is not being cooled you have a fukashima. The real black pill is that at some time industrial civilization will not be able to keep the cooling ponds cold and the 450 nuclear reactors around the world will go fukashima trying or planet into Venus, or Mars? Whatever in the fuck all that radiation in the atmosphere will do.
nuclear energy is a dead end.
zero point energy can provide all the energy humanity needs for free.
Check on nuclear fusion plants that the poos and some russians use, low budget stuff thas ultra effective, focus on WHY the others failed, the human errors, focus on axtual ammounts of nuclear waste and the actual way its processed/eliminated, quote studies and sources on efficiency and above all else, dont preach, educate.
When you preach, people will not listen as you asume to be above them all and act like it, being condescending is not the way to change minds, being calm, informed and friendly is. Focus on getting as much irrefutable scientific data as possible, memorize and understand itpeople then say it with confidence and a intent to educate, not fucking redpill. Hate that fucking word, you people misuse it to shit.
maybe it's efficient until it runs out then what?
solar steam engines would be more appropriate
someone has been playing too much Stellaris
it can't because free energy nutballs haven't, and will never find a way to harness it.
Fusion is the future
Q: What spreads faster than nuclear waste?
A: Jane Fonda
You‘re clueless.
Spent fuel only resides in spent fuel pools for about 5 years. It then either goes into dry casks or is reprocessed.
In your country it is put into dry casks.
who else here /radiophobia/?
i stopped eating fish and all japanese foods because of possible hot particles from fukushima.
Hi! You should check this out: thoughtco.com
Only old reactor designs are in the sort of danger of meltdown on a constant basis. New designs work exactly the opposite way; if something goes wrong the system essentially just cools down reasonably safely with no threat of a runaway thermal event.
Also, Fukushima should not have even been operating. It was an ancient reactor kept alive long after it's intended lifespan was over due to lack of funding to build a new one. This is the reason idiots are so opposed to nuclear plants, they think every reactor is just another Chernobyl.
lmfao zero point energy
Here's the link to the World Nuclear Association, I used them a few years ago and they have excellen information. Nuclear is a rest source of energy for the next century or more until we can get fusion, or a more effective way of harnessing renewable energy since it is still a developing technology.
world-nuclear.org
Yeah, but that is at best a 100 year solution when 1000 years is necessary. Reprocessing is the best because it sorts the waste into streams which are manageable on a 100 year life while reusing the fissile material.
>Fukushima should not have even been operating
All Honeywell MII reactors should be shutdown but they wont be.
Read up on Thorium Molten Salt Reactors specifically what ORNL did in the fucking 70s, or any other Gen 3 3+ reactor tech. The real redpill was nixon killing a program that could have given us safe and clean reactor tech for some fucking bullshit politics, and scrapping his chosen LMFBR anyways lmaoo
Research Thorium. Research why we don't use it for nuclear energy. See how stupid the reasons are.
Research how superior in every way Thorium reactors would be compared to what we currently use.
Interesting paper.
At least you‘re aware of the fact you‘re suffering from radiophobia...
1) no carbon emissions
2)no need to rely on foreign despots for fuel
3) SCIENCE - even if we got a better source of energy, the reactors should stay open for research...which brings us to
4) MOAR SCIENCE - we will no doubt soon master fusion technology, making fission reactors obsolete.
Stress the FUSION vs FISSION angle - and show that it is only through what we have learned about atomic energy so far that we are nearing the new age of fusion technology (the Germans claim to have the first fusion power reactor so far, so it is not a mere speculation at this point - it is a reality). Even your hippy teacher should be impressed and less skeptical if you phrase it all correctly.
This is a very poorly written shill thread.
Homework is not politics either way.
Admittedly I am clueless, I am under the impression that spent fuel rods are radioactive for thousands of years, and need to be looked after and cooled. With the way the world is going I see it as being highly probable that there will be a point where: insert any kind of shtf situation where they will not be maintained and humanity will be fucked, where am I wrong?
>All Honeywell MII reactors should be shutdown but they wont be.
>Honeywell
Jesus, i‘ll just assume you meant GE‘s mark 1 and mark 2 boiling water reactors...
No, they don‘t need to be shut down.
They just need hardened venting systems, preferably filtered and passive venting systems.
Nuke plants are designed to collapse in on themselves to stop an explosion. If you don't want Fukishima, don't build your plant on a cliff. The Japs have had a terrible relationship with nuclear power since its introduction. Look up the Mutsu, it was a ship they poured tons of money into but couldn't handle and it had leaks and whatnot. Nuckear isn't 1,000 year commitment, after a plant is defiled and non-operational you have about 50 years in the U.S. to clean it out radiologically. The waste gets dumped somewhere, in the future hopefully yuca mountain or whatever, and the land can be reused.
The only people who hate nuclear don't understand how they work and think they are literal time bombs.
Oh whoops, youre right, it is GE reactor MII reactor, I dont know why I thought it was Honeywell aside from the fact that I was looking at a Honeywell product at that moment.
That being said, the operational lifespan of the MII reactors was supposed to be 30 years.
You are really paranoid dude, I'd be more worried about an oil rig exploding. I used to be terrified if nuclear, but in reality it is beautiful and fascinating. They store them far away from people. I would be more worried about the submarines the Ruskis let rot in dry dock with their fuel rods still in.
You can always get them reevaluated and get lifetime extensions. It was 30 years because they wanted to be overly safe. Nuclear is amazing, but I think it is headed out like steam power.
OP: Tell him that big oil lobbying wants to shut down nuclear power due to competition. Tell him you'd just need to invest a few billions into research of thorium reactors (inform yourself about these) and you'll have a check mate argument. You are against big capital, you provide a solution that will even re-use the old nuclear waste and provide society with energy which does not produce CO2.
Spent fuel only produces enough heat to potentially damage itself if left uncooled during the first 5 or so years after discharge.
Fuel that us older then that could theoretically be cooled by air convection alone. Even if it was exposed to the air, it would not be damaged.
Agreed. Emphasize that it is a relatively clean source that demonstrates the peaceful uses of nuclear energy outside of armaments. A useful example may be Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program and their flagship, the Savannah.
Nuclear isn't superior. If you believe burying thousands of tons of radioactive waste every year for a million years is safer than burning coal and capturing and processing the carbon, you are literally brainwashed and there's no hope for you.
Renewable energy is all cheap and good but it isnt going to advance humanity out towards the stars. Theres a reason our rovers and deep space probes use a form of nuclear power.
Pandora's promise
documentary on netflix. All about nuclear energy. In the doc it states that the main pusher behind clean/alternate energy are the Oil/Coal companies. They are the number one pushers to delegitamize nuclear energy.
>the operational lifespan of the MII reactors was supposed to be 30 years.
That is simply not true, in the US nuclear reactors are licensed to run for 40 years initially and can get a 20 year licence extension after that.
Fukushima wasnt in the US though and its operational lifespan was supposed to be 30 years according to both GE and TEPCO.
>Nuclear is clean because the pollutants are buried until humans go extinct, but coal can never be clean, even if you capture and process the carbon for industrial purposes...
>t.brainlet
All the spent fuel ever produced in the US could fit on a football field and would only have to be stacked a couple of feet high.
And carbon capture and storage is totally dead, it died before it even got started. It can‘t even compete with renewables, for christ‘s sake.
>nuclear
>superior
Don't think so mang
let me know when a nucler plant project comes in under budget. There is no energy source on this planet that comes in as far over budget as often as nuclear. Take that to the bank. It 's a terrible investment.
Thank you for the (you) and corporate shilling. Looks like you're getting coal in your stocking.
>The government punishes clean coal and subsidizes everything else to benefit their buddies in the Nuclear industry
>"See? Clean coal can never work. So let's get behind a monopoly, create thousands of tons of radioactive waste and bury it in the desert until the sun dies out"
We've got some intellectual heavyweights here.
>Fukushima wasnt in the US though and its operational lifespan was supposed to be 30 years according to both GE and TEPCO.
Fukushima was not that old, there are many reactors that are older than Fukushima’s and most of those are in the US.
And even so, age had nothing to do with the accident. The plant could have been built in 2010 and it wouldn’t have survived the tsunami either.
The design basis for tsunamis was just wrong.
>Supporting free market clean coal ran by independent businesses all over the country = corporate shilling
>Supporting nuclear monopolies run by friends of career politicians and corrupt organizations such as the Clinton Foundation = progressive
>t.brainlet
(((They're))) clearly not sending their best..
"Clean coal" is an oxymoron. Youd literally have to be a coal miner or a troll to parrot that garbage. Even natural gas is better and cleaner lately than all forms of coal. I'd take low quality Venezualan crude over over American "clean coal".
>until it runs out
Out reserves in Australia alone could run the world for thousands of years. That's just the uranium being enriched once. That's not even considering reactors that make use of daughter products or re-enrichment. Literally the only reason why it's not implemented is because it costs billions to make a reactor but the power production itself is very cheap and the only way they'd be making enough profit to justify the expense of making a reactor is by massively over charging on the actual power bills, which nobody would stand for.
Real solution = nationalization of the power supply + fission reactors, funding for fusion research for transition away from fission in the future.
Thanks for the graph user. I am not paranoid, i love this shit show of modern life. I am pretty clueless about nuclear energy, however I have little faith that there will not be a major shtf senario within the next 50 years due to human nature, over population,some kinda plague, resource scarcity, a fucked ponzie economic system based on fractional reserve banking, snack bar wars, emp attack, solar flares ect,ect.
My assumption is that we are due for the shtf and when that happens the man power and resorces will not be enough to stop most reactors from going fucked.
We have not been able to contain fukashima with everything thing running smoothly.
Coal is dying, bro.
And it‘s not being killed by the government either, it‘s being killed by ultra cheap natural gas.
That natural gas is also hurting a lot of nuclear power plants right now.
This is not politics.
take it to /bant/
they already massively over charge for power bills
All modern politics is predicted on energy.
>radiophobia
If it ever comes to it just wear a water suit, you'll be fine
I think you are underestimating the density of fission energy vs combustion, but I agree they still overcharge and would like to see the energy system get nationalized anyway. Especially since there was that whole deal with China nearly buying all of Sydney's power grid. The fact that it is even possible for that to happen blows my mind.
>We have not been able to contain fukashima with everything thing running smoothly.
Fukushima is pretty well contained.
They‘re also much further along at decomissioning the plant than the Ukrainians are at Chernobyl. And that happened 31 years ago.
>Believes nuclear is clean because the thousands of tons of deadly radioactive waste produced every year is buried in the desert until the apocalypse, but capturing and processing the 'pollutants' from coal is not "clean" because the man on the TV said so.
Are you even trying?
It is superior in every way, except for the danger of radiation leaks in case of an earthquake or bombing, and the pain in the ass of disposing of the nuclear waste. It is not possible to solve the disposal problem.
>Spending money constantly filtering filth vs spending money once to build storage for filth.
It seems the miner is the one who needs to try harder.
>It is not possible to solve the disposal problem.
Then you better quickly tell the Finns that what they‘re building right now can‘t be built.
en.m.wikipedia.org
>It seems the miner is the one who needs to try harder.
He should also start looking for a new job.
In other words, you have no argument. You're simply repeating keywords you learned from the TV because you've put zero thought into the topic. Even a retard with down syndrome should know that deadly radioactive waste is less "clean" than captured carbon.
Sorry, but a huge earthquake will easily dispel those delusions. They can try to shoot it into space, but the cost would be prohibitive. You better quickly tell them to give me a call, they are stupid and dangerously delusional.
its safe. find info on deaths from other energy sources compared to nuclear, and use that video of the plane crash test
Yes, (((politicians and bureaucrats))) killed the coal industry with the stroke of a pen to benefit their buddies in the monopolized nuclear industry. Got any actual arguments in favor of burying deadly nuclear waste for an eternity vs capturing and processing carbon? No? Didn't think so.. Again, they're clearly not sending their best.
>there are no places on earth that lack earthquakes
australia is literally on it's own continental plate
...
are we using heat maps now?
>t.brainlet
Not an argument. I never implied there's no gun violence (or earthquakes) in the USA. Nice try though.
Nuclear power plants are cost effective if you have a sufficient number of plants, as the static cost to build, maintain them, and dig waste is high. Plus the best way to implement nuclear energy is to build reactors based on different technology (conventional + superphenix type to recycle a bit a used fuel).
The heatmap you've provided doesn't indicate severity. The earthquakes we get in north QLD are barely a little rumble. I've never seen or heard of one doing as much as rolling a pen off a table.
Well, our currently available sources of nuclear fuel would last us at least 90 years, with another 200 years of fuel that can be reasonably expected to be found if necessary. This gives us about 300 years of nuclear fuel, guaranteed. Enough time to find and perfect better forms of energy generation.
There are other byproducts from coal than just carbon, if you actually knew anything about the garbage you try to advertise, you'd speak a different tone. Sulfurs and cyanides just to name a couple. Even petroleum is a clear energy source. Keep calling people brainlets but its not going to bring back a dying industry. Might as well advertise milkmen and chimney sweeps while youre at it.
Here you go OP. Here is the main reason why nuclear is superior to every other energy source.
All these other retards who have hardly looked into nuclear will bitch about fukushima and radioactive waste, but those are easily solvable problems.
Look into liquid fluoride thorium reactors. The nuclear fuel gets dissolved in the coolant, and it runs at high temperatures naturally so it can't melt down. Also runs at atmospheric pressure so it won't rupture or burst from high pressure water or corrosion. It can run off of radioactive waste, and can produce valuable medical isotopes that otherwise get disposed of in uranium reactors. It is also has inherent safety mechanisms built into it, so that should something go wrong, it can't do any harm. There's literally nothing better than this, don't let these niggers tell you otherwise. Hope this helps. nuclear master race
Name one byproduct from coal that is anywhere near as bad as the radioactive waste from nuclear. Name one single utility for radioactive waste. Yeah, didn't think so, brainlet. You're either a shill or you've put zero thought into the topic.
US Military has been using nuclear power for about 80 years with multiple fail-safes on top of fail-safes , hear anything about them?
yata yada efficient yada energy meltdown rare energy houses yada yada
Thank you. 5 shekels have been deposited into your account. Remember goys, capturing and burying thousands of tons of deadly and useless radioactive waste in your backyard forever is safer than capturing and processing coal byproducts.
citation needed. What nuclear fuel sources are you talking about? Uranium? Fissile uranium is scarce, and it takes a lot of processing before enough can be separated to use which is why it's so expensive. But thorium is abundant as fuck. You can get way more than 90 years off of other nuclear fuels.
>hear anything about them?
Yes. I hear they capture and bury the radioactive waste, which can be done with coal, minus the deadly radiation and international monopolies.
>Name one byproduct from coal that is anywhere near as bad as the radioactive waste from nuclear.
I'm sure you're dead set terrified of how severely you're being irradiated right now by those fuel rods that are encased in concrete.
>Name one single utility for radioactive waste.
Re-enrichment. Heat source for other energy production means such as Sterling engines. That's two off the top of my head. People who actually work in the field spend a lot of time thinking about this question and could probably name dozens of possible uses. The only limitation here is the government's attitude and the laws pertaining to what can actually be done with radioactive waste.
The only real nuclear reactor that's cost effective and infinitely safer to harness is the huge fusion reactor about 91 million miles away in the sky.
If all of the time, money and energy wasted developing nuclear power (which has the handy dandy side-effect of providing weapons grade material for governments to boot) was instead put into developing harnessing the Sun's energy, we'd have solved that problem decades ago. But, of course, that didn't happen, because the same governments are heavily wrapped up in the oil industry as well as the nuclear. Oh well.
So you have some theoretical uses at some unspecified point in the future if someone coughs up the money, unlike the actual practical current uses of the byproduct of coal which doesn't kill you just by being in the same building as it. Got it.
Solar energy is fine for short term. But it requires extensive investments and research in chemical batteries to store energy for the other half of the day the sun becomes unusable. Solar still produces waste in those batteries as does wind.
Hydrogen sulfide kills you pretty painfully. Of course you're convincing no one in this thread if you think carbon is the only byproduct.
>So you have some theoretical uses at some unspecified point in the future if someone coughs up the money
It's already a simple task to re-enrich depleted fuel you absolute dipshit. The only reason why they don't do it is because nobody forces them to use the waste and uranium is so cheap they just buy more instead. Are all Americans this ignorant? Do you just make shit up without even googling what the fuck you are talking about?
It's a stable and cheap source of energy (even with the end of life costs leftists like to complain about, the end of life costs are similar to offshore wind), there's no need for costly, difficult and polluting (batteries) investments in grid infrastructure, and its use claimed the least lives of all energy sources. Plus a lot of forms of green energy pollute a lot during the production phase (e.g. solar panels, check out pics from China).
I'd love to type out more, but I really have to go to bed. Best of luck, user.
>burying thousands of tons of deadly and useless radioactive waste in your backyard forever
>deadly and useless radioactive waste
>useless
This stuff can be recycled for more energy, toss it back in the reactor. Thorium reactors consume 99% of their fuel, and they can eat up the shit you're bitching about burying.
>coal
Have fun with your 33% efficiency cancer plants
Nuclear is superior because it burns radioactive fuel and turns it into heat.
The waste from modern reactors has a waste byproduct that can be burned in a hot fusion reactor.
Hot fusion is a one million degree hot plasma burner that makes energy efficiently from nuclear fuel.
If the world were to start using nuclear fission it would be safety netted by nuclear fusion.
There are even other better radioactive reactors such as Thorium based molten salt reactors. They are much more efficient, less dangerous and can be cooled in small enclosed spaces.
I.e Under Water Rivers.
The most powerful application of nuclear reactors is in space. Once you can make a nuclear reactor in space you can then build a laser to send energy to a mirror system that can then instantly power earth.
The simplest way to build a laser and do so is to use readily available dust on Mars, The Moon or other dusty planets.
Melt it.
And make a glass crystal/mirror system to beam all the energy back.
Sigh... correction
>Under GROUND rivers.
>posting this on Sup Forums
good luck, the brainlets here don't believe in global warming
Two hundred thirty years of known uranium resources at present consumption with present technology. Probably the same amount waiting to be discovered. More efficient fuel recycling will double that, getting us up to 920 years at present consumption levels.
This is extendable to 30,000 years with breeder reactors or 60,000 years when it is economical to extract uranium from seawater.
We could increase our nuclear power generation a hundredfold and we'd still have energy for centuries.
scientificamerican.com
Fukushima was an inside job. 3/11/11 @11:00, a little coincidental dont you think? Not to mention the israeli security firm magna bsp at the plant, and the drilling ship chikyu maru boring at the exact epicenter in the weeks prior. Nope! nothing to see here, just keep buying more (((middle eastern))) oil honorable samurai!
*hand rubbing intensifies*
>those batteries
Are largely recyclable. Certainly with as much investment as nuclear has had the problems associated would have been long solved.
>using lasers to transport energy between planets
Considering beams through laser apertures widen over distance and the energy flux is therefore inversely proportional to 1/(distance^2) it seems pretty much impossible to transfer any energy whatsoever between say, Mars and the Earth via this method.
"Nuclear waste" is fuel rods which can't be kept in a reactor without shattering from a build up of gas (xenon) inside of the them. The only reasonable way to "get rid" of "nuclear waste" is to take it out of the rods and continue the reaction. Molten core reactors, like the thorium one, could continue the reaction without having the gas build up issue.
Nuclear power creates demand for nuclear materials, including the materials housed inside nuclear weapons. Otherwise the only real purpose for nuclear materials is to create nukes.
They would be shut down if morons wouldn't be against them building new ones. The fact is, if you cannot build new reactors because hippies would protest it, you tend to keep the ones you have.