Green energy thread

Nuclear power. Is it good, pol?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/h1ECWtWk85k
iflscience.com/physics/effect-radiation-body0/
technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-next-gen-nuclear-reactor-program/
youtube.com/user/gordonmcdowell
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

If it's done in a place far from people and the waste isn't dumped into ground water then yeah sure

youtu.be/h1ECWtWk85k
Did Jews do this?

iflscience.com/physics/effect-radiation-body0/


Radiation is a myth.

This is just a friendly reminder that Sup Forums and Sup Forums are controlled by CIA operatives trying to deradicalize right wing movements.
>nothing to do with politics, it's a shill thread

Do your own research, spoon fed gen Z

can you personally guarantee nuclear waste will be secure for the next 50,000 years?

anyone ever hear about thorium and molten salt reactors?

4 reactors have melted down. 400+ have been created. Therefore, about 1% of all nuke reactors melt down.

We don't know how to get rid of spent fuel either.

It is therefore bad.

Hail Hitler.

As long as reactors produce radioactive waste, then no. Anyone supporting nuclear power's past, current, or future use is a short sighted idiot. Look into how it's disposed of cased in concrete and buried under ground. No thought for what happens over time when the concrete enclosure fails. No thought of what could happen of it contaminates an aquifer. .

it isn't good, it isn't bad. radiation doesn't have a moral alignment.

it just is. And it has pros and cons.

pros are it is very good at creating vast amounts of power for long periods of time. Much like Asbestos, Nuclear power is a multi purpose miracle of science.

But much like Asbestos, it has highly negative downsides. The biggest being safety.

if handled improperly or not properly maintained, the results can be catastrophic as we have seen in Chernobyl, and in the event of an "act of God" Fukushima is another example of nuclear power gone wrong.

The biggest myth of Nuclear power is that in the event of an accident, you'll get a nuclear explosion with a mushroom cloud.

This is false. Nuclear power does not split atoms, which is what causes explosions- it basically just uses the heat from the radioactive process to generate steam.

Nuclear power is just glorified steam power.

reminder that nuclear power is a rothschild venture.

>The biggest myth of Nuclear power is that in the event of an accident, you'll get a nuclear explosion with a mushroom cloud
that would probably be preferable in the long run, have the whole thing expend itself in one big fiery explosion, not hang around drip drip dripping high levels of radiation into the environment for centuries to come.

Generally speaking, yes, it has an extremely high energy density, produces no gaseous wastes, and is fairly easy to find and refine. The main problems are caused by excessive regulation by leftists, as the prevent the reprocessing of high level waste, prevent upgrades to reactors, make it unnecessarily hard to build new reactors, and block policies that would help prevent terrorism. Problems unrelated to over regulation all come down to several acts of extreme incompetence at the same time.

Yes, Nixon cucked it up and now we are giving all that Oakridge know how to the Chinese to build their own experimental MSR.

The tech wasn't perfect, but most of the technical details had been more or less worked out in the Oakridge experiments.

People are trying to integrate modern fuel pellets with molten salt for a low pressure, high temp, hybrid reactor which seems like a promising bridge, but molten salt with advanced metallurgy to combat tellurium embrittlement is the way to go since it has an extra safety step intrinsic to the process - IE the hotter the salt, the less dense, the less fission. Oakridge had it all figured out...

>high levels of radiation into the environment for centuries to come
You are aware that it is possible to clean up contamination, especially if you catch it early,
right?

Need a giant rail gun for proper disposal into outer space

Nuclear power is the best. Too bad the fossil fuel fat cats keep it down with shit like Chernobyl.

>Clean up contamination
Does this translate to more storing it in drums and burying it?

>Let's use outer space as a trash can, nothing could possibly go wrong
orr we can use less energy until we find a method which doesn't produce massive amounts of radiation every single day

Are you talking about reactor waste or leakage of radioactive material due to accidents?

technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-next-gen-nuclear-reactor-program/

This shit should be taking place in the USA...

>Nuclear needs help with having a shitty reputation
No, it's very well earned on it's own

If nuclear power were as great as its proponents claim, we would already be powering our entire civilization with it. If not, the chinks or the russians would be for sure.

The fact that nuclear power plants typically go way over budget and that they dont get built very quickly or at a large enough scale is a hint to me that they probably aren't up to the task of replacing fossil fuels.

Then again, probably neither are solar or wind.

better than renewables

I'm asking you to elaborate on your comment about 'cleaning up contamination' in reference to the other anons post.

Yes. Its like a energy multiplier. Problem is convincing the american people to use it.

The vast majority of waste can be recycled. It's retarded that we're not expanding our nuclear capacity

you can't really clean it up, once it's been spread those highly radioactive isotopes are in the environment for centuries. Shit at Fukushima they don't even know where most of the corium is, it burnt through the containment vessel and sank somewhere beneath the site and is leeching into the Pacific. They are never cleaning that up

I'll assume that you are referring to accidents then. While the most important thing that one can do is to initiate SCRAM as soon as things start to get ugly, the most important thing to do is toss PR aside and begin isolation and cleanup of the contaminated materials as soon as possible, without any delays.

>Nuclear power.
Its not green energy. It produces waste that is toxic for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

>I'll assume that you are
As I said, I was speaking to your original comment user, the one you made replying to the other user.
>Shut down the reactor and get some guys to try and keep the spill from spreading
Which is then followed by canning it and burying it as standard procedure?

>Radioactive waste can be recycled
Elaborate how and for what

Yes. Is that all you wanted to ask?
The largest nuclear plant in the US uses sewage water for cooling.

>Infrastructure power
Nuclear, solar and stepping off fossil fuels.
>Automotive
Green crude and EVs. Green crude can be used to replace fossil fuels in power plants too.

It's the best

If possible, you would want to separate the radioactive materials from the dirt/water/etc. as much as possible, and if you can remove enough, dump the (mostly) cleaned materials, while determining whether or not the radioactive materials can be reprocessed.

>Filter radioactivity from soil/dirt
If this could be done effectively - or at all, then we wouldn't have entire no go zones/those high in radioactive contamination around the world.

>Can be reprocessed
Meaning what specifically

>it's very well earned on it's own
Right, because a sleep deprived staff on a cut-rate soviet nuke plant in the 70's is a valid reason for not using the best source of power on the planet.

then dont eat it!

safe methods of storing nuclear waste, as well as technologies that reduce the amount of waste a reactor produces, have been developed for decades.

But the (((environmental))) lobby has stood in the way ensuring that if we ever do have a plant, it'll be the worst kind possible and we'll be as irresponsible with the waste as we can. As if this is some kind of compromise between doing it right and not doing it at all.


And we can't not do it. It is one of the only forms of terrestrial energy there is, and if we're going to power a society without fossil fuels we can't turn our nose up at the best source of energy we can utilize.

>Radioactive waste which will last thousands of years and contaminate everytthing we put it into contact with isn't enough reason to not pursue it
>Nope, overheating reactors is why we shouldn't

by being feed into a breeder reactor. The waste undergoes another fission and comes out as a lighter element. You can keep doing this until the remaining waste isnt radioactive enough to undergo fission.


This is the stuff that's "RADIOACTIVE FOR HTOUSANDS OF YEARS!!!" because it emits particles so slowly it has a really long half life.

>Nuclear power. Is it good, pol?

You wouldn't exist without it.

What are breeder reactors and proper storage?

...

>Safe methods for storing it
You mean concrete blocks? Blocks which will not last forever? Blocks which have already eroded surrounding on site storage facilities and soil samples show as much?

>Reduce the amount of waste
Any amount of radioactive waste is to much user.

>Only form of terrestrial energy
Geo-thermal

>no go zones
For Chernobyl, that is entirely due to allowing excessive amounts of time to pass before attempting cleanup due to attempts to hide the incident, something that I explicitly mentioned as something to never do. As for Fukishima, the cleanup efforts have actually made most of the affected areas safe to live in again, but a lot of people choose not to due to excessive fear of the amounts of radiation remaining.
>reprocessing
Separation of fuel grade materials from the rest of the materials.

It is quite possibly the cleanest energy source available to us and we should be investing in it and building better and safer nuclear reactors and technology.

Everyone who fully and utterly believe climate change is happening and the world is doomed, should be lobbying for nuclear because it's probably the only answer to the problem.

I'm not going to be alive that long, fuck off

Yes it will be what saves the planet once goverments get out if the way.
youtube.com/user/gordonmcdowell

> implying humanity will last nearly that long.

Naive twat. As long as we can get 200-300 years of solid containment nuclear is the best alternative energy we hsve.

>We can turn all the radioactive waste into non-radioactive material
If what you're saying is 100% accurate then there wouldn't be any need to store radioactive waste in the first place. I find it hard to believe that no country in the world would take advantage of 100% waste free reactor system.

I think it has a lot of potential, and will definitely be important in the future. But it's also such a political quagmire, full of half-baked fears and scientific misunderstandings that it's gonna be a long time before it really goes anywhere further.

In the meantime, renewables are a feasible stop-gap. As fossil fuel consumption winds down, eventually we'll realize we need the consistent and reliable output of nuclear.

Thorium is a meme

...

Radiation isnt a magic sickness field. It has understandable rules, and we can exploit these rules to mitigate the danger from toxic waste. But the EPA doesnt recognize ANY method as safe for disposing of radioactive waste.
But we're still making, and we gotta do something with it. So it just gets piled up on site in big cans waiting to fuck up someone's day.

>Chernobyl is a no go zone because not enough effort was put into de-contamination
The only reason more land wasn't rendered no-go is because they rushed so quickly to sacrifice many lives to contain it. Practically all of those involved in Chernobyl containment died shortly after because of such high exposure.

Ironically it was the Soviet's ability to throw lives away for a greater cause so easily that allowed them to avoid a worse case sceario. Japan's inability to do that is why Fukushima was - and continues to be worse.

Neither of those are what I was talking about however, the amount of radioactive contamination is vastly under stated. Not just from nuclear weapons testing sites - or those down wind either.

>Fukishima is safe to live in again
Last I checked it was still leaking massive amounts into the ocean. The storage tanks that where in tact where leaking into ground, and the massive cover up of just how bad surrounding areas are being effected has been helped by the companies efforts.

>Separation of fuel grade materials from the rest of the materials.
With "rest of the materials" still being radioactive?

>Weather is bad so let's radiate the world more

>Who cares about the consequences of my actions if I don't live to see them
This is the kind of attitude that has brought our societies to such utter levels of degeneracy in the first place you idiot

>Let's keep producing radioactive waste, box it up and hope for the best

i didnt say that.
Breeder reactors cause fissions ractions to harvest energy. This reaction changes the elements in the fuel. You then re-enrich the waste and use it again. Eventually there are not enough elements in the fuel to cause another fission reaction, but it's still radioactive.

These elements arent as reactive because they're more stable and therefore emit radiation very slowly. Which is why they have long half lifes.

Thats not how radiation works. Thats not even how modern nuke plants work. The only way radiation gets out of the reactor is if a meltdown occurs, which is extremely unlikely thanks to many many safety features and modern technology.

anti nuke shills or are some of you just this retarded? Both?

it is literally impossible to radiate the world more.

All of the super dangerous nuclear waste started its life as nuclear elements naturally occurring on earth. Sitting underground, doing no harm to anything, for millions of years.

when you don't fuck up, it is
no pollutants aside from waste materials which can be stored safely if done properly

>mitigate the danger
But not eliminate completely right? With mitigate translating to
>This concrete box will definitely hold

>EPA doesnt recognize ANY method as safe for disposing of radioactive waste.
If you can come up with one which eliminates all danger then I'm all ears.

>

no, let's keep producing nuclear waste, and dispose of it in a well engineered and responsible way.

>there are not enough elements in the fuel to cause another fission reaction, but it's still radioactive.
Figured as much

>The only way radiation gets out of the reactor is if a meltdown occurs
Are you claiming reactors do not produce radioactive waste user?

no one commented on this video:
youtu.be/h1ECWtWk85k
Is this a problem?

>It's underground so it doesn't count as radiating the world if we bring it above ground to do harm
You're being intentionally obtuse on a technicality of meaning user, my original point remains

>muh oceans
You didn't address my point that PEOPLE can now safely live in the majority of areas that were previously contaminated at dangerous levels.

radioactive waste isn't "put in a box" It gets ground up and mixed with inert, radiation absorbing materials. Like lead, and concrete. What this does is it disperses the radioactive atoms and distributing their energy over a larger area.\

This is basically the only difference between uranium and pitchblende. you're returning the radioactive material to it's natural state and burying it in the earth where it came from. You secure the site till it fills up and then you seal it away. Such that you'd have to literally re-mine it to get it back out.

>stored safely
>Let's put it into a concrete box and hope for the best

Again, we can store it safely for millennia. Nothing an underground bunker in a seismically stable area with lead walls and reinforced concrete can't fix. Also breeder reactors.

Uhm. Yeah? you should have figured as much.

>Well engineered and responsible way
Meaning what? A lot of pro Nuclear anons ITT and in general when discussing nuclear energy. Always have plenty of jargon and nice sounding words to skirt around the actual reality of what they're talking about.

You realise the west has been on a nuclear scare since the 70s and that there isn't anyone thing that can change that, right?
As for turning radioactive waste into non-radioactive, that's... not true. It's just less a lot less dangerous short term(won't have an effect on the environment for 10,000 years instead of 10)

Who the fuck is paying you to sperg out over someone being pro nuclear power.

It can be safe. It isn't because it isn't given a chance and is usually just used as an excuse to have a nuclear weapons program.

>Fuck the oceans, who cares if we contaminate it
You're an idiot user.
>Doesn't know how much the ocean ties into practically every single part of wood webs globally
>Doesn't know how the health of many ocean dwelling organisms effects humans

Are you just upset that you don't understand what he's saying? Every response he gives is reasoned and thought out, then you argue semantics and act like it's some gotcha moment.

>People can now safely live in heavily contaminated areas
Sure, same way some people stayed behind in Chernobyl

Nuclear power, if built with modern Western technology and not built near areas where Earthquakes happen, is basically fine.

The major issue with it is that it's still not competitive with fossil fuels economy-wise.

You gotta have some of it if you wanna be in the nuclear weapons, nuclear powered subs/space probes, nuclear fuel and high end nuclear technology research biz though.

Not at all the same. Chernobyl was the plant deliberately fucking with safety protocols and causing a meltdown. How can you compare that to a place like Yucca Mountain?

>radiation absorbing materials
If this is true why can't we use these magical materials to mop up any waste and then dissolve/burn it?

>It's natural state
>It's okay to dump waste into the earth because that's where it came from

and your characterization of what I'm saying tells me you don't understand.

Nuclear fuel is radioactive. We don't make it form nothing, it comes from the earth. The earth is currently filled with radioactive elements.

All we do is concentrate those atoms into a central location. Then they become dangerous. Like pitch blend is something like 0.001% radium. It accounts for half of its radioactive power. Pitchblend if safe to handle. It'd be a good idea to not eat it and to wash your hands afterwards, but you'd be fine. Now radium if all concentrated is deathly toxic. Being around amounts large enough to see have a high risk of radiation poisoning.

This radium, all the radium that will ever exist on earth, already exists on earth and has existed since the earth first formed. We are not adding to the radioactivity of the earth by using nuclear power. We're consolidating, utilising it, and then leaving it in the parking lots of nuclear powerplants.

What we COULD do is process the waste so its more like its natural state and burying it. But people like you harping on "oh well its not 100% safe" are why we handle our waste in the worst way we can

>equating 1950s Soviet tech with modern Western tech as if it's the same thing

wew lad

>Avoid the question and goes for the
>It's okay, we just need to bury it deep enough

I did, that's why I expressed doubt of your claim in my first reply.

>You realize this has been going on for a while right
Yes user, I'm aware
>Nothing can change that
Anything can be changed user

>It's okay because we can kick the can down the road
Massive lack of long term planning is why all of our societies are currently collapsing

>Perfect is the enemy of good enough
We are destroying our planet and poisoning our air and water because of
>what about 50,000 years from now if the concrete cracks?!?!?!??!!1!

what the fuck are you talking out of the 160 people hit with a 200 rem or higher dose only 28 died of ARS that same year, the rest liked Dyatlov, did not die of any discernible radioactive causes

>You're a paid shill if you oppose something I support
If you say so
>It can be safe, it just needs a chance
Does it being 'safe' involve as many other anons have said - just more secure concrete boxes for the waste?

Disolive what how? Like suspend a bunch of nuclear waste in lead laden concrete then melt it in acid? Because then you'd release all the nuclear atoms from the substrate.

But you got my claim wrong. I didnt say they weren't radioactive I said they weren't radioactive enough to cause a reaction

>Produces jargon instead of actual content
>You just don't understand
Okay

>Like it's some gotcha moment
No user, I'm annoyed because no matter how many conversations I've had on this subject. Nothing ever changes, it's like the climate change idiots, or any other area of mainstream science. Everyone just spits the same talking points with no consideration for the bottom line or short/long term impact of what they're talking about.

Actually pretty sure we'll find use of it.
Like how we harvest rare isotopes from control rods

>>It's okay because we can kick the can down the road
>Massive lack of long term planning is why all of our societies are currently collapsing
We can't plan 5 years out right now. A plan for clean energy for 10,000 years comes along and it isn't fucking good enough for you? It's either embrace squeaky clean and basically completely safe nuclear energy or keep using "hate fuck mother nature in the face" coal. Which do you think is a net positive step forwards?

Oh shit! A guy once told me there are two types of concrete in the world, concrete that's cracked and concrete that's going to crack.

Thorium is infinitely worse than uranium and something like 2 MILLION times more rare.

>Intentionally missing the point this hard
My comment was in relation to his assertion people can now live in an area effected by a reactor melt down. Not that the circumstances surrounding the melt down itself where the same.

Attention, dummies:

The nastiest byproducts of nuclear reactors can be, to all effective purposes, completely contained and prevented from damaging anyone by sticking it in a few feet of concrete in a box down a disused mineshaft.

There are high energy cosmic rays from space hitting you every day. And this natural background radiation remains (and will remain) far more significant than anything man has ever done - unless you get too close to a test blast or your idea of tourism is a trip around Fukushima or Chernobyl (silly location for nuclear reactors and ancient, flawed Soviet tech respectively)