Redpill me on Nuclear energy and its ethical dilemmas

Redpill me on Nuclear energy and its ethical dilemmas.

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/news/0/mafia-toxic-waste-and-a-deadly-cover-up-in-an-italian-paradise-t/.
youtu.be/bDw3ET3zqxk
health.com/health/gallery/0,,20490855,00.html#el-centro-calif
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

There are no ethical dilemmas with it and it is the most efficient clean and green energy source we have.

>inb4 "clean energy"
It produces tons and tons of radioactive waste, which is deadly to humans. It's all buried underground or in places like Italy dumped into the ocean by the mafia telegraph.co.uk/news/0/mafia-toxic-waste-and-a-deadly-cover-up-in-an-italian-paradise-t/.
Imagine if it got into the drinking water.

...

Yeah, another hilarious detail is that German plants are(were?) paying France to get rid of our nuclear waste, then instead of burying it the frogs just diluted the fuck out of it to meet certain standards and poured the shit back into the Thames where currents would bring it back to Germany's shores. What a great world we live in. Nuclear power is a great technology, but only if the people who are responsible for running the plants are not kikes.

Ehm, I mean the Channel, not the Thames.

>Imagine if it got into the drinking water.

I, too, can use completely theoretical events to justify my non-arguments.

just bury the waste deep, way under the soil water

>diluted the fuck out of it to meet certain standards
like it not being dangerous anymore? you know everything is radioactive? even you are naturally radioactive

This. Now watch as the nuclear energy apologists/shills come out the woodwork to defend it

this is what freaks me out the most.
We have internet to collect information now, ut still if you look back 100.000 years in history how much the earth and humanity has altered how can we pass the information on about where radioactive dumps are located and how to deal with it?
Otherwise after the next pandemic the humans won't know what to do and just settle there and die

The amount of high-level radioactive waste (the actually dangerous, "needs storage" kind) worldwide is currently increasing by about 12,000 metric tons every year. Meanwhile, some 299 million tons of plastics were produced in 2013. I know which issue is actually a problem.
Solar panels have a ROI of 10 years for their initial carbon footprint ever since China started producing them. What you put in solar panels makes them pointless atm. Not mature enough, and we need a solution to fossil fuels now.
Hydroelectric, even when fully exploited, can only account for a small fraction of energy use and uses way more land than 100 chernobyl/fukushimas. That means that when nuclear fucks up, it causes less damage to land than what hydro does intentionally.
Air pollutions causes an estimated 7 million premature deaths per year. Note that the production of solar panels can easily contribute to this. For what it produces, nuclear's air pollution is negligible.

It's truly /ourenergy/, but there's so much misinformation out there that people believe. Meanwhile they stick radioactive bananas up their assholes.

Come on, you're not seriously trying to tell me it's alright in your book to pour radioactive waste into ocean water. Burying it in old mines in areas with low seismic activity is a mid-term solution but considering some of the waste will stay hazardous for the next couple thousand years it's still not really responsible.

Scientists are actually discussing this. I've read a paper unironically suggesting to erect huge threatening monoliths over our dumps and creating a new pictographic language warning future civilizations about the danger because it's unclear how our language and culture will develop in the future. Maybe that's the original purpose of sites like Stonehenge, eh?

Modern reactor designs are about as safe as one can hope for. Where available, alternatives such as hydroelectric or geothermal can be preferable. The fact remains however that nuclear reactors produce huge amounts of power with a relatively small footprint. As long as proper precautions are taken to dispose of spent fuel rods and other potential waste materials, the danger is quite low.

That being said, nuclear waste doesn't seem to be taken too seriously by politicians, particularly in the US. The Yucca mountain facility is basically a perfect location to bury all that waste, but grandstanding politicians are trying to score outrage points with their voters by whipping up opposition to it and thus allowing America to go without a proper long-term disposal site.

>That being said, nuclear waste doesn't seem to be taken too seriously by politicians, particularly in the US

Why do you think that is?

You can't deny that Czernobyl and Fukushima happened. I don't blame the technology itself for shoddy energy providers who cut corners to maximize profits, but shit like that will stay a risk factor forever.

>That being said, nuclear waste doesn't seem to be taken too seriously by politicians, particularly in the US

What do you expect from career politicians who get bribed by industry lobbyists to finance their campaigns? What do you expect from presidents who get elected for max 2 terms?

It will put coal power, green energy, and many other forms of electricity out of business.

That's the only 'ethical dilemma' stopping it from widespread adoption.

No other option works. Its nuclear power or darkness.

>tfw when noice cleanio hydropower a plenty.

Its the best source of energy we have.

Perhaps I misspeak when I say they don't take it seriously. I'm sure that they are well aware of the danger it can possibly, and understand that a permanent disposal site has to be built somewhere for the safety of the country. The issue is some of the old "not in my backyard" sentiment, even though they know it needs to be built nobody wants it to be built near them. Politicians also care more about being re-elected than they do about any issues that may require them to show some backbone, obviously.

Or it could just be Jews, I dunno.

Are you actually in Rwanda or is this just a proxy?

youtu.be/bDw3ET3zqxk

>he unironically defends the cucked opion on nuclear energy

Look at all the radioactive waste coming out of that faggot, now ask yourself if its,"MUH CLEAN ENERGY". Conservashits want to ruin the world if it makes a buck, you ppl are worse than the kike shills.

>radioactive waste
Thats steam. Those are cooling towers, filled with water.

lol at "carbon footprint" :P

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, expensive and obsolete. First of all, it is toxic from the beginning of the production chain to the very end. Uranium mining has sickened countless numbers of people, many of them Native Americans whose land is still contaminated with abandoned mines. No one has solved the problem of how to safely store nuclear waste, which remains deadly to all forms of life for much longer than all of recorded history. And the depleted uranium ammunition used by our military is now sickening people in the Middle East.
Nuclear power is dangerous. Accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima create contaminated zones unfit for human settlement. They said Chernobyl was a fluke, until Fukushima happened just 5 years ago. What’s next - the aging Indian Point reactor 25 miles from New York City? After the terrorist attack in Brussels, we learned that terrorists had considered infiltrating Belgian nuclear plants for a future attack. And as sea levels rise, we could see more Fukushima-type situations with coastal nuke plants.
Finally, nuclear power is obsolete. It’s already more expensive per unit of energy than renewable technology, which is improving all the time. The only reason why the nuclear industry still exists is because the government subsidizes it with loan guarantees that the industry cannot survive without. Instead we need to invest in scaling up clean renewable energy as quickly as possible.

Nuclear waste fuels should be put into breeder reactors and reduced by a factor of 99%.

Maybe you should look into waste generated from rare earth mining and the environmental impact of building a solar power.

This. Greens are not against polution they are against modern life and think that living in the wild like a hunter gatherer is paradise because they don't think they would have to work as hard. They would only be ok with a technologically advanced world if they literally never had to work and robots did everything for them ala fully automated space communism.

Mark my words, after 50 or so years planet Earth will be just radioactive Moon.

Czernobyl happened because the russians were cheap communists who were using reactors meant to enrich the fuel rods into weapons grade material. Their design was faulty, and outright stupid to begin with. Modern plants (yes, even the ones built in America during the 60's) use much less enriched fuel which make them less dangerous. Fukashima didn't even release much radiation - the media just blew it out of proportion.

Also, over 95% of the energy in a fuel rod is still present when 'depleted'. With the right breeder reactor, they can be re enriched (Almost) indefinitely creating practically no waste.

gr8 b8 m8

I honestly can tell if you are trolling or very stupid.

It's safe, clean, and reliable. Modern plants produce less than 1% of the waste of their predecessors, are less susceptible to meltdowns, and can reliably produce power 24/7.

The only reason we don't have more nuclear power is because
1) Fossil fuel lobbies and leftist greenpeace fags in Congress keep blocking new nuclear power sites and waste disposal facilities and because
2) The Dems sold off a shit load of our uranium and pocketed the cash

Assume by 'best' energy source you mean 'most expensive'?

Do your own research for your paper

How many nuclear accidents is needed to get rid of all stupid Americans?

It pays for itself senpai.

Cheapest only beat by large scale hydro and dirty coal.

It only exists because nuclear tech is one step closer to nuke tech. It's not cheap, it's not green and it most certainly is not efficient. Only reason internet pseudo-intellectuals have bought into the nuclear scam is because it makes them feel smart to talk about it. Those are the same kind of people that wet their pants with a picture of Elon Musk and his meme rockets.
If you want to know which is the best energy source it is hands down hydroelectric power.

Thank you /pol
I live in Mersin where a new nuclear reactor for Turkey is being built. I feel much better.
Russians are building it...

>You can't deny that Czernobyl and Fukushima happened.
The former was the result of shitty Soviet engineering, held together with string and superglue, and operated with non-existent safety regulations. The latter was due to the combination of the largest earthquake, the worst tsunami, and the biggest power grid failure in Japan's history.

Those are hardly 'normal operating conditions' for nuclear power.

The ethical dilemma presented by the use of nuclear energy is thus: is it more ethical to let liberal idiots stunt technological growth and the potential to provide electricity to everyone in the world due to their unbased fears or is it more ethical to murder all greenpeace hippies and their windmill merchant friends?

...

When an oil refinery blows up, they don't have to stop eating the vegetables 1000 miles away.

>hippie
>absolute retard
checks out

What's stop us from launching that nuclear waste into space and possibly even the sun?

2 incidents with almost 0 deaths over the course of many decades vs constant guaranteed health issues and polution that kills thousands and causes hundreds of millions in health problems every year. You are literally afraid of nuclear because you don't understand how it works. Every kind of radioactivity with the exception of Gamma Emission and Neutron Emissions are less dangerous than hydrocarbon byproducts. You can stop alpha and beta particles with literal fucking paper. If someone gave me the choice of 60 seconds in a locked room with 3 lbs of Uranium and 60 secs in a room with 3 lbs of burning oil I would choose the Uranium because the oil would significantly increase my chances of lung cancer and might kill my be suffocation while the radiation from the Uranium can be sheilded by the fucking table you set it on top of. You are literally fucking retarded, and I am so fucking sick and tired of srupid fucking people being afraid of radiation because it's spooky and they don't know how it works.

It doesn't produce as much radioactive waste as coal, and all of a nuclear powerplants nuclear waste is buried instead of being spread out into the air.
The exaust it does emit is just steam
>doesn't pollute
>doesn't cause cancer
>doesn't contribute to climate change

Uranium is overrated. I use thorum

I want you to plan your next summer vacation to Fukushima, I heard there's a really nice beach there.

Modern coal captures almost all of the naturally occurring radioactive material in the stack scrubbing.

There's already people living in Fukushima and plenty of Fukushima tourism.

> it most certainly is not efficient
Energy density (in J/L)

Methane
>36,000
Wood
>13,000,000
Coal
>30,000,000
Gasoline
>35,000,000
Uranium
>1,539,842,000,000,000

They transmute thorium 232 into uranium 233 by bombarding it with neutrons.
LFTR reactors are definitely the way forward though

>depleted uranium ammunition used by our military is now sickening people in the Middle East
Good.
>No one has solved the problem of how to safely store nuclear waste
Breeder reactors, transmutation into other elements, or subterranean storage. Pick your favorite.
>Chernobyl
Understaffed and overworked soviet power plant explodes. Who could have forseen such an event?
>Fukushima
Maybe don't build a nuclear reactor in a place where it can get hit by natural disasters.
> It’s already more expensive per unit of energy than renewable technology
pic related

Can we not do this again?
These threads happen every other day and have the same idiotic opinions show up every single time.
Honorable mention to for being the first to bring up this stupid "solution".

>Uranium mining has sickened countless numbers of people, many of them Native Americans whose land is still contaminated with abandoned mines.
not in first world countries

>No one has solved the problem of how to safely store nuclear waste
wrong, its just a piece of metal, you put it in a sealed concrete and steel cask and it just sits there forever, MUHH NUCLEAR WASTE is the most exaggerated non-problem ever

>which remains deadly to all forms of life for much longer than all of recorded history.
lol

>And the depleted uranium ammunition used by our military is now sickening people in the Middle East
this has nothing to do with nuclear power, also I don't care

>Nuclear power is dangerous
least deadly form of energy ever conceived based on deaths per TWh

>Chernobyl
shitty reactor operated by braindead slavs, modern reactors are vastly safer

>Fukushima
shittyish reactor operated by braindead gooks, killed no one, areas already re-inhabitable

>Nuclear power is too expensive
that is why we need to start using sources of power that are 10x as expensive :^)

In terms of fuel use efficiency light water reactors are terrible at 0.3% fuel efficient.

Nice, then you have nothing to be afraid of.

>almost all
Them what do they do with it? They still have the same problem a nuclear power plant has, plus the other two I mentioned.

if you really think global warming is going to destroy the earth you are pro nuclear power and would be building as many reactors as you can right now

>It produces tons and tons of radioactive waste, which is deadly to humans.
Just use it to build border walls

>implying the nips wouldn't have done the same if the tables were turned.
>not realizing Japs used chemical weapons which is infinitely ethically worse than flash frying fish heads

we cant have nice things because the jews and muslims will steal the material and make bombs

Glad you came to your senses.

>meme rockets
>implying reusiability isn't what allows SpaceX to charge half of what everyone else does and still make dickloads of money

its expensive and the rockets can blow up contaminating a good launch site for hundreds of years.

would work if we had a space elevator though.

>tons and tons

brainlet

you would be shocked how little waste it produces

Nuclear waste is literally NOT A PROBLEM. You know what you do? You put that shit into a deep sea subduction zone and its gone! Who would have thought? Or alternatively, if you would like to possibly reuse it in the future, just dig a really really deep hole, line it with dense, impermeable materials, put the waste neatly in storage containers, there you go, problem SOLVED. Politicians and uniformed voters are the problem.
Anyways why talk about Uranium type plants when we could be building Thorium plants?

greentards constantly change the goalposts

If you care about overall resources usage, building 7 trillion faggot hippie panels uses WAY more energy, minerals, labor, transportation, and rare earth metals (strip mined) that nuclear per unit energy produced

Have fun if that rocket pulls a Challenger

>Redpill me on x. With 0 input of his own
Did you even fucking read the stickied rules you colossal faggot? Sage this thread retards.

>See?! Look at what happens when you put 4 times the normal amount into the tank and get to see the blue flash from 15ft away!

I live far from Japan, dickhead.

In order to launch something into the sun you have to launch it into orbit, then impart a Delta-V of 30 km/s to it. Not worth it for garbage. Keep in mind how big a rocket is just to get into orbit (8 km/s)

The collected NORMS are gathered and then handed over to hazardous material waste disposal. Normally just a section of the local landfill that gets the nasty waste. The NORMs are mostly the traces of uranium and thorium found in everything.
It's harmless to take it and dump it back into the ground as it's where it came from.

Think of it like this go and pick up a rock. That rock has radioactive material in it. If you ground the rock up and then could burn the rock leaving unburnt the radioactive material you would have the same problem the coal plant has. Do you care? I have a backyard filled with radioactive rocks, I don't care.

But now expand that to millions of tons a year. The best answer is to take the NORMs and dump them back where you found them.

Holy shit I thought that was an aerial photo of a nuclear facility in the desert or something at first lol wtf

nuclear power makes 98% of my states carbon free energy

they wanted to close it... but then reality got in the way (cant meet carbon goals without it)

Danger aside, it's a waste of useful material.
The waste material of traditional LWR is still useful for more advanced reactors.

It's much easier to get methane, wood, coal, and gasoline compared to uranium. So much for efficiency.

Sustainable source of comparatively clean and affordable energy with the proper finances and labor backing, in theory.

But the current industry in the US is marred by regulation, lobbyists, and an already aging environment consisting almost entirely of old-as-fuck plants and retiring businessheads that only care about getting theirs and fucking off with as much as they can before something breaks. They'll sooner cut corners on maintenance and run their sites into the ground to the tune of a new disaster that'll sweep the industry and make it even more expensive to maintain/build. All to save pennies now and preserve their special corporate kickback, even if it risks putting a few more sites out to pasture while increasing costs to build any new ones.

It's better than most the slide threads on here

Vermont?

>Air pollutions causes an estimated 7 million premature deaths per year

6,999,999 of which are in China.

it's pretty straightforward OP- it's by far the most efficient energy source, and also among the safest (though obviously when shit goes bad, it goes really bad). if the word nuclear wasn't associated with atomic bombs, you would see plants all over the place.

nuclear power is the god send of energy. it's like rediscovering electricity all over again. but regulations and pussies in our government are so afraid of it that we can't move forward. all of the reactors we have in the US used for commercial energy production were designed in like the 60's. so when liberals point to this shit as the examples they are being completely facetious. engineering has solved all of the problems we have encountered with nuclear energy, but it can't be implemented because it's so fucking expensive

take fukushima for example. old as fuck. but the rods were above sea level and the water pump was below. switch those and there would have been no problems. and people recognized this but they couldn't do anything about it.

in idaho alone there are nearly 100 test reactors that have been functioning for decades without a single serious issue.

vermont yankee was closed early by anti nukes

>put nuclear waste between tectonic plates
>container breaks before its even a meter into the earth and contaminates the ocean
woooooow this is the power of leafs

Dickloads of money from state subsidies. And the only reason they are subsidising Space X is because, just like nuclear tech, rocket tech is one step closer to ICBM tech. Just remember how Kim Jong Un tried to disguise his ICBM tests as space launches if you don't believe me.

that's steam
literal steam, nothing abnormal it in, just vaporized water.
why the fuck do people like you have to inhabit this country

>It's much easier to get methane, wood, coal, and gasoline compared to uranium. So much for efficiency.
Not really, and once we move to thorium not at all as thorium is an unwanted byproduct of the electronics industry.
A single mine in Canada provides most of the fuel to the east coast of the USA and all of Canada. The cost of fuel is negligible.

Why does nobody listen when I say build the wall with radioactive waste? Or even just dump it into a border trench.

and california

health.com/health/gallery/0,,20490855,00.html#el-centro-calif

Neil Hansen father of bogus global warming scam endorses nuclear as the ONLY solution.

>brainlet
>you would be shocked how little waste it produces
I post in these threads from time to time and have decommisioned three reactors. The fact is they all leak, even with perfect operational records. The first reactor I worked in had an unlined spent fuel canal that leaked for 30+ years, contaminating an enormous area and it's groundwater with tritium. They all produce enormous amounts of waste.

I don't think they expected a 9.0 quake. That kind of quake destroys everything.

>Maybe don't build a nuclear reactor in a place where it can get hit by natural disasters.

Natural disasters are unavoidable. Hind sight is 20/20.