Nuclear power is safe

nuclear power is safe

Other urls found in this thread:

statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
youtube.com/watch?v=G8zOHZINyG8
youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Fi3BnwL94
youtube.com/watch?v=6tQqRQ_mwdA
twitter.com/AnonBabble

you can be cautious,
but you will never be safe!

power is safe

That's not a nuclear plant though.

nuclear power is safer, cleaner, more reliable, and more sustainable than all forms of fossil fuel generation and even many 'renewables'

only bugmen like nuclear power

don't listen to their lies

Statistically, cleanest and safest form of energy production.
I'll bet you Eurocucks think literal nukular explosions is what happens inside a reactor.
>sage

Nuclear power is the safest.
It's so safe that even not using the safest type of nuclear fission it is safer than all other types of electrical power generation.

Windmills threaten large bird species
Hydroelectric dams threaten migratory fish species
All green energy requires large swaths of deforestation for strip mines and then pumping of toxic chemicals for processing the rare earth elements necessary. Which results in byproduct containing toxic chemicals, radioactive dust, and heavy metals that pollute air/water/soil/wildlife.

I only see big hot robot boobies

do carbon and oil shills ever stop

statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/

Nuclear power has caused the least deaths per trillion kilowatt. Making the most safest types of power generation.

In these modern times, alot of people think that safety is some kind of starting point. Nuclear power is a little bit unsafe. It doesn't make it bad you fucking pussy.

More coal miners and oil drillers died this year than have died in the entire history of nuclear power.

same desu

>Shows gas storage tanks

Jews fear the splitting of the atom.

accidents happen so we should just fuck off back into caves and shit

You retards are glossing over the fact that Nuclear Power isn't viable yet on a nationwide scale, less so for global.
We use Nuclear FISSION which isn't good enough for what you guys want. You'd want Nuclear FUSION. It would take too much money and energy to build a nuclear power station for every town and by the time we do Nuclear Fusion would probably be discovered and result in all the nuclear plants that were built to be obsolete costing more money to fit them with Nuclear Fusion stuff.

...

>You retards are glossing over the fact that Nuclear Power isn't viable yet on a nationwide scale, less so for global.
Why not? Nuclear fission is as viable a means to produce national electric power as coal is. Commiefornia closed a nuclear power plant that had an average electrical cost of 2.19 cent per kilowatt hour.
It's cheap, it's on demand and it's sustainable.

The advantages from either fast neutron breeder reactors with liquid metal cores or the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (also a breeder reactor) make them the best power source you can ask for.

With higher temps from not having water in the reactor you can use the nuclear reactor to power gas turbines. You need to be above the compression temperature of the gas turbine to be able to add energy to it, or above about 500C. Now you have a gas turbine that you can augment with natural gas to meet peak demand at no further construction cost. Then collect the waste heat from the gas turbine for a conventional HRSG and steam turbine.

With loads cheap heat you can crack water into hydrogen and oxygen on the cheap. Extract carbon from water and now you have hydrogen and carbon ready to be made into hydrocarbons. The US Navy is looking into building floating refinery ships to help lower the cost of fuel. That same tech can be used on high temp nuclear reactors to make liquid fuels for transport during low grid demand times. This lets the reactors run as close to 100% of the time as possible. No more having nothing to do with your power generation during the night.

youtube.com/watch?v=G8zOHZINyG8
youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Fi3BnwL94

Those are gas storage. Not nuclear power.

Fuck off.
You have to stick the waste into drums and bury them for thousands of years

Until it's not. Then, you can't walk that back. Need fission!

>You have to stick the waste into drums and bury them for thousands of years
Or put them in a breeder reactor and get the other 99.97% of the fuel value out of them. The current supply of 'spent' fuel in storage could power the USA for about 300 years without mining another gram of new fuel.

True, but chances are we will find a purpose for them before anything serious ever happens. Also, the U.S. collectively buries all their drums in a Nevada mountain, so fuck it.

>posts an oil refinery

Or you can launch it on a rocket into the sun.

>putting all tanks together with no safe distance
the absolute state of snow nigger engineering

>Also, the U.S. collectively buries all their drums in a Nevada mountain, so fuck it.
They don't. They store the fuel on site at the power plant mostly in parking lots or in the same location after plants have shut down surrounded by fences.
Pic related all that's left of a nuclear power plant's fuel waste.

top fucking kek

Literally zero people died from radiation exposure in Fukushima.

Meanwhile, millions die every year from cancer and respiratory disease caused by breathing the fumes of fossil fuel burning power plants.

Why bury them in drums when we could just dump them in Africa and solve two problems at the same time.

Better yet, use the spent fuel to power our army of sex-bots so that we can finally free ourselves from the yoke of slavery to the cunt.

Marty, I've got it!! Plug into 11 of these and we'll have exactly enough electricity!

>Surely this isn't a pole talking about Germany nuclear energy.
>Surely this pole also knows that this is a oil distilling plant.
>Surely he knows that self sealing reactors are a thing since Chenobyl
>Surely this pole also knows hes a faggot.
>Surely im getting way far ahead of myselfs in my assumptions.

Surely this pollack isn't a pollack at all,

>nuclear power

Seriously, those are depository tanks, commonly found around the refineries.

Nuclear Energy doesn't burn, you fucking retard.
Worst Case Scenario a lá Chernobyl: The Uranium Overheats and cooks the water so much that it not only causes water vapor but the vapor to part itself back into pure oxygen and hydrogen, which explode immediately when exposed to the heat, destroying the turbine equipment immediately if the gasses aren't ventilated, then the exposed uranium rods can melt which is a mess to clean up the explosion might even fling parts and irridiated water into places.

But we are talking about the fucking Ukrainians, they dont know shit.

That was not nuclear.
one post by this ID

sage and move on

Fukushima

>inb4 Japanese don't know shit

>Ukrainians we're controlling a nuclear power plant under soviet occupation
>Being this retort

That plant was run by Nuclear physicists from Moscow and a few electricians, if anything the only Ukrainian in the fucking building was a janitor.

Remember when you were allowed to have a nuclear program?

>building a nuclear reactor on the coast next to an active fault line

Isn't that an oil refinery?

I know you are a real German.

don't be sad that its over, be happy it happened

Molten Salt Thorium Reactors are the only way forward.

Here's the deal. Jews know that man made climate change is a thing. They even believe it's bad. That's why they're accelerating it. People here like schlomo are shilling to prevent nuclear because it's our only way to avoid an existential threat. Why don't you want to stop an existential threat, schlomo? Do you want to cripple the goyim so they're better slaves?

>Nuclear Energy doesn't burn, you fucking retard.
It can burn. The UK had the Windscale fire. Uranium when hot can burn.

>Worst Case Scenario a lá Chernobyl: The Uranium Overheats and cooks the water so much that it not only causes water vapor but the vapor to part itself back into pure oxygen and hydrogen, which explode immediately when exposed to the heat, destroying the turbine equipment immediately if the gasses aren't ventilated, then the exposed uranium rods can melt which is a mess to clean up the explosion might even fling parts and irridiated water into places.
The cracking of oxygen and hydrogen is caused by neutrons hitting the water molecules and breaking the comparatively weak bond.
The turbine equipment is on a different loop than the reactor water because steam turbines leak and it would be bad to have reactor water in the turbine leaking.
The hydrogen and oxygen will explode if you can't either combine them back together (burn it) or vent to atmosphere.

But yeah Ukrainians are stupid.

The issue it's petroleum.

youtube.com/watch?v=6tQqRQ_mwdA

The reactor was more or less undamaged. I believe they had two cracked pipes that were leaking.
However, the fault came from not building the suggested sea wall or having the generators proof against flooding.

If the Japanese had the resources to spare they could have powered up the plant with external generators and everything would have been fine. But at the time they were dealing with the 3rd most powerful earthquake in human history that killed 17,000 people. The quake was powerful enough that we had to slightly adjust our best clocks to be slower because it changed the rotation of the earth an important measurable amount.

>The current supply of 'spent' fuel in storage could power the USA for about 300 years

There you go, every last bit of used fuel is either sitting in a drum, in a pool or in a dead Iraqi.

>nuclear power is safe
Safer than everything else we have, good job Jamal. It also has the least amount of accidents.

It is! Those tanks are the uranium tanks.

coal power is safe

After a half century old nuclear plant was hit by both a tsunami and an earthquake, 0 people died
Thanks for contributing to OPs point. The more people learn about the safety of nuclear reactors (even old ones like Fukushima's), the faster we can get it mainstream to substitute (((coal))), (((oil))) and (((solar)))

You oil refinery fags need to get the fuck off my board.

>muh ebil nuclear power!
>muh oil is so much safer!

And then the rocket fails a single time after thousands of launches, raining radioactive wastes miles upon miles over the failure zone.

Oh and there are 70 million tons of waste here already, what are we going to do with that?

We're better off dumping it into the Marianas trench

They made nuclear the big scary boogieman because it's way too efficient.

We need to figure out waste disposal first, otherwise the nuclear argument is dead in the water.

All the current waste pretty much just stays on site, and imagine how many disasters would occur during transit to a depository. By train or truck a single accident could render an entire neighborhood uninhabitable.

We all know how many truck accidents happen in the US.

It shouldn't be all that hard to have an escort for such transports, or hell just do them at night when you can shut down roads entirely without causing much stress.

It would be easier to clean up and cause less problems than any other fuel spill. You do know spent fuel is stored in very tough casks which won't break open in a mere traffic accident. Speaking of which, you do know that nuclear material is transported to and from plants already by normal means, and there have been no accidents yet over the past 60+ years.

>transporting 70 million tons of nuclear waste without accidents is easy, cheap, and safe.
Ok guys.

To transport that much waste to a repository without any problems is an exercise in futility.

Accidents would occur especially with that amount of waste transported.
>muh invulnerable cement casks
Ok buddy, whatever you say.

It's not better than coal. Coal has radioactivity from sitting in the ground for a fuckilloin of years. When burning much of the radioactive material from burning coal goes straight up the chimney the rest remains in the ash. Considering that you need to burn 100000 kg of coal for every 1 kg of uranium to get the same energy, the radioactive fallout is comparable yet more dispersed and less containable. Nuclear is not the future either we as a species are just fucked.

>moscow, ukraine, same shit different smell

What people don't understand about nuclear energy is that nothing else comes close in terms of energy per mass, where an equivelant mass of average chemical energy per gram can be about 5kj
One gram of nuclear fuel can give us 100 million kj of energy, that is a stupendous gap with virtually no substitutes in between. The problem plants like Chernobyl, three mile island and Fukushima failed because of piss poor management and bad construction. Go look into the Yakuza muscling their way into building Fukushima, that will probably surprise you, Chernobyl in particular was a flawed design using graphite controllers and three mile was caused by bad politics.

Something that will cause major benefits has met a small setback, shut it all down!

Fucking idiot boomers and their nuclear paranoia.
The second they die out is the second we can start producing clean and efficient energy.

why does this natural gas plant fire always get shilled as Fukushima?
Fukushima blew its guts all over Japan, lost containment, made the crew of a US ship sick and is still fucked up.
Show the right picture Israel.

You can put them close together when you live in a country where things typically don't explode on a daily basis everywhere you go.

This is 100% true, also the amount of physical nuclear waste that is produced per person (per year) for the UNITED STATES is the size of one 12 oz can, think about the other "green" alternatives and what byproducts they produce

>uranium tanks.
There are uranium balls you dipshit

it actually wouldnt have melted down if they followed safety protocols

Not a nuclear plant. This is a slide thread.

Sage

Are Nuclear Power Generation Stations Safe?
CIA's STUXNET says no
INTEL's CPU's say no
AMD CPU's say no
ARM CPU's say no
The real reason why Tesla won the current wars was because generation stations would be expensive and limited making them great central points of failure. Oh, and free fallout for nuclear versions.

All I know is that San Onofre plant shut down and it's been 3 FUCKING YEARS and there is STILL giant pools of spent radioactive fuel rods that can't be moved. Are they just gonna fucking sit there ON THE COAST, in the most earthquake prone zone in America, surrounded on all sides by cites for the next thousand fucking years?

If nuclear power is so safe then why does no place in America want to accept the waste? Even a fucking shit hole deserted desert under a mountain in Nevada doesn't want the spent fuel rods.

Yea safe.

Underrated math and physics.
(Or you know... pic)

Nuclear is relatively safe
BUT CHERNOBYL
that happened in a shithole comunist country like 40 years ago, why would that case be releant today?
BUT FUKUSHIMA
ok, that power plant withstood the strongest earthquake ever in the history of the world, followed by a tsunami, all it did was a small leakage, no catastrophic meltdown, that doesn't sound like your everyday scenario does it
BUT RADS ARE BAD, MAKES ME THINK OF NUKES AND THE FALLOUT FRANCHISE
yeah radioactivity causes cancer, but you are never-ever exposed to it, unlike coal and diesel emissions
BUT SOLAR PLANTS AND WIND TURBINES
they work, but the surface required/energy produced rateo is embarassing, they help but they can't be a perfect substitute. Also it's unreliable

there's 0 reason not to go nuclear nowadays. it's safe. And yeah, there are nuclear wastes, which stored safely have no risk of contamination and will eventually lose all its radioactivity, not to mention can be reused for a lot of application. The strongest argument they have against it is fearmongering, trying to associate nuclear power to atomic bombs and 2 incidents happened 50 years apart (the latter was pretty much the worst case scenario on earth)

>It can burn. The UK had the Windscale fire. Uranium when hot can burn.

It doesn't. That was a graphite fire.

With new generation of plant technology and use of Thorium as fuel, you could outfit all Western countries with nuclear and finally switch to all electric/hydrogen economy, while keeping oil for chemical production (even though plastics can be polymerized from plant sources now and made biodegradable.)

The problem are those (((companies))) that profit from oil.

The main problem is luddite greens and NIMBYs blocking anything with the world nuclear in it from being built.

Wind power is sa-

I don't think they are the biggest obstacle, just look at nuclear investment in France. The difference is, France doesn't have a major world oil corporation, unlike us with Shell or BP or US with their oil production.
It's the petrochemical Jew that is strangling nuclear, even though Britain is on the brink of energy catastrophe, because of our inability to invest in power infrastructure well ahead of time.

the hydrogen from spliting water is not a big deal and was not the cause of the
fukushima splosins. it was the hydrogen from the melting zircaloy fuel cladding as it melted.

people who advocate for Thorium are fucking homos

coal doesnt release radioatctive material for hundreds of thousands of years when the furnace cracks.

What, did Thorium fuck your dad up the arse or something?

you're right. coal releases radioactive material as it burns.

yeah but the radioactive material has a half life of like 20 minutes, and 5 years or something. The half life of nuclear material is literally 100,000 years at minimum.

sure is

Burning coal churns out more radioactive waste than fukashima did.

The longer the halflife of the radioactive material the weaker it is. It's the 100 year lasting shit that is the most dangerous. The 100,000 year stuff nothing.

nulcear is safe and cheap goy, e e e except those few small acidents... a a a a and the trillions it wil cost to decommission it all, but thats not part of the fuel lifecycle r r r right?

nuclear is a fucking disaster where ever it is, its first and primary function is to produce fissile material for weapons. energy production is secondary.

even in the uk that shit has been a disaster, selafield leaking plut since day one, the ukaea even admitted digging fuel rods out of a beach near dounreay about 7 years ago. how the fuck did they get threre? the fucking reactor spat them out in a fire/explosion back in the 70's.

yep, plz build more.

>when a mouthbreathing retard acts as if he knows absolutely anything about what he's talking about

>"oh no, coal is radioctive. i guess i cant eat these 20 dollar steaks i just grilled."

you're actually joking, right?
Im already done with this thread. legit. Im out.

Shorter half life means more radioactive. Longer means less.

coal =/= charcoal

>you're actually joking, right?

No. That's basic physics, taught in high school.

you understand we could just permanently put all the depleted uranium heating elements into old abandoned salt mines without any risk to contaminate the environment, right
the reason we don't do that is because once we have access to the technology all the u-238 will be reusable
the future is not fusion but thorium and u-238 reactors

>What is Total

Nuclear energy was one of the means required for our strategic independance from the US during the cold war

i want you to google "mox plutonium". Then you can call me a retard all you like.

THAT is not how that works. What matters is the type of isotope it is. Alpha, beta, or gamma.

pssh i know that.
oh did you hear they're building new apartment buildings in chernobyl? I think im going to move their and hunt two headed boar.

i have literally no response to this