/nuclear/

Why aren't you using nuclear power?

>inb4 expensive
Koreans build it cheaper than coal

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Hirai_Yanosuke
bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2016/07/28/georgia-power-gets-green-light-on-new-nuclear.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

hydro is the superior option. Cheaper and safer. You won't risk having two-headed animals nearby and nobody will have to breathe that disgusting smog of coal.

but user hydro electric is best electric

>You won't risk having two-headed animals nearby

People this stupid still exist?

But I am.

I work at a cancer factory.

Hydro requires you to have a river and displace habitats.

lol hydro has its problems too
destroys entire eco systems desu.

Yes friends, I know they how they did it in the 70s. Nowadays only China and some third world countries use this obsolete reservatory system.
Even then, this world belong to us anyways. Who cares if some birds die if we can produce cheap energy without polluting the air we use.

Solar power is the superior option where I'm from.

>You won't risk having two-headed animals nearby
nigga what

Do you also believe vaccines cause autism and Wifi gives you cancer?

But I do. 75% of my country electricity production comes from Nuclear Power Plants.

Hydro is horrible for the environment. Nuclear, wind, and solar are telling future.

The only reason the US doesn't use it more is because the general public is too retarded to allow one to be built anywhere.

Hydro actually causes pollution; turns out when submerge huge swaths of land underwater, things die and rot at the bottom of the reservoir which releases greenhouse gasses.

That is if you believe in the retarded GHG nonsense.

fucking this.

Hydro causes a lot of CO2 emissions

Nuclear is IMO the way to go but they always fuck it up regarding bad publicity. Why can't they invest in better staff and safety regulations. How hard is it? When normies read about a nuclear plant not passing a safety test they start crying that their grandkids might have three arms and an extra leg. 'Radiation' sounds a lot scarier than it actually is, when it comes from powerplants at least.

>what is the food chain
>how do inconspicuous species effect their environment
did you not finish grade school?

we are out of big rivers to dam for hydro in the US. Except for micro-hydro it is fully exploited here.

>cheaper
You can also only build it in very specific places
>safer
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people that died in a single dam-breech accident.

Nuclear fission is the best option considering cost, output, fuel supply, pollution, etc. But it will never be properly harnessed on a large scale because of people like exist who because of Chernobyl and Fukashima will never allow a Nuclear plant built near them even if it had a 0.01% chance of meltdown or something going wrong.

I would love to see Nuclear Fusion because available but I don't think it will in our lifetimes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

Governments all lied and suppressed the story.
your graph is bullshit.

All those rreactors were built in the 60s. Theyre a lot better built now.

You can't argue with retards that cite Fukushima

Nice location near the seashore you have there. Would be a shame if something happened to it.

>Fukushima explodes because old af and dumb japs build it next to earthquake site, yet NO ONE DIED
omg let's close all nuclear reactors

>muslims regularly shoot up/bomb city, some 50 people die
c'mon it's just 50 people, shit happens xD

fucking liberals I swear to god

Why do people always build it next to the ocean?

But US reactors are already incredibly safe - the safest workplaces in the nation. You are more likely to be injured working at a hospital or bank than at a nuclear plant.

>no one died
>cleanup costs are expected to be approximately $200 billion USD

I'm all for nuclear, but there need to be some rethinks on cost and safety. The main issue right now is natural gas is crazy cheap, cheaper than coal in many cases.

Also you might want to look up the definition of liberal.

If the animals are too dumb to avoid the rising water then they deserve to die anyway.

New lakes get formed by nature at times anyway. It's not like we are doing something abnormal by making one ourselves instead.

Not an argument.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

In Europe its different AFAIK.

because water is cold.
You need to cool it
Ocean has a lot of water.

But user, 3/4 of the energy used in my state comes from our two nuclear reactors.

>But US reactors are already incredibly safe
And they're ALL Gen II designs. No Gen III reactors are operating in the US I'm hopeful if/when we do start investing in nuclear again we use Gen IV and V reactors.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Hirai_Yanosuke
All that matters is having someone with a brain in charge.

Though I have heard people say there were plans to upgrade the Fukushima plant before the earthquake happened but it was getting blocked by people who were anti-Nuclear, which would be hilariously ironic if true.

F U S I O N
W
H
E
N

hydro and wind all the way

>nuclear waste
>inevitable nuclear accidents eventually
no thanks

>nuclear waste
Kek, we dug it up, just bury it again until we have a working fusion reactor. Then launch all the old nuclear waste into the sun with a giant rail gun or similar.

We have plenty of storage space to keep 75-150 years worth of nuclear waste.

Yeah that sounds a lot simpler and safer than building dams and windmills

It is when you consider that mankinds energy demands, even today, can't be covered with dams and windmills.

[citation needed]

>No Gen III reactors are operating in the US I'm hopeful if/when we do start investing in nuclear again we use Gen IV and V reactors.
The Simpsons/Homer Simpson has ensured that we won't be ramping up the production of new plants anytime soon.

That being said, Georgia is getting a new one.
bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2016/07/28/georgia-power-gets-green-light-on-new-nuclear.html
>State energy regulators gave Georgia Power Co. the go-ahead Thursday to start laying the groundwork for a new nuclear power plant south of Columbus, Ga.

>...Commissioner Stan Wise, who made the motion, said growing pressure from the federal government on states to reduce carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants coupled with the volatility of natural gas prices make additional nuclear power an option that can’t wait.

>McDonald questioned the wisdom of building a nuclear plant along the Chattahoochee River because of the huge volumes of water consumed in nuclear power generation and noted that the federal government still doesn’t have a long-term plan for disposing of the nuclear wastes being generated today at plants across the country.

Frenchfag here. We do more than you all.

Dams would destroy far more of the environment than my idea.

My idea just costs money to build a giant space gun.

Besides it's way safer than trying to send nuclear waste off planet with rockets. At least with a rail gun you're basically 100% guaranteed to minimally reach orbit, and even if your aim is off the odds of the waste ever coming back to the earth's orbital plane is astronomically low.


Also you're forgetting how much physical space is taken up by dams and wind farms. You're talking about significant chunks of land dedicated to power production. Vs a nuclear reactor which takes up a few hundred acres.

Jill shekelstien said its the most expensive form of energy possible, and that nuclear plants are bombs waiting to blow up.

Nuclear is cancer, literally. If you think nuclear energy is clean you're fucking stupid.

She has no fucking clue, panders to anti vaxxers and is a generally insufferable cunt and one of the reasons why third party candidates can never be taken seriously.

Worst of all the fat pedo Stallman supports her

Yea it's good to see some progress. But they're Gen III+ expected to become operational in 2030's. Gen IV reactors are expected to be operational in China by the same time period.

Hopefully further reactors strive for Gen IV designs.

When Bernie Sanders was all the hot stuff of the internet I hated his so much.

On one hand he preaches about global warming and need to do something. On the other hand he is against nuclear power and want to phase out nuclear

Fuck the hypocrite.

You see pic related? That's the share of the respective means of electricity production in Germany. It's also the result of tens of billions of euros being pumped into the renewable energy sector. The results are that renewable energy doesn't even outweigh nuclear power (which we're getting rid of), all while paying the second highest price on electricity in the whole EU. And this is in one of the most technologically advanced nations on this planet. But I'm sure the exploding populations of Africa are going to do a better job at this.

is this a city simulator thread?

Your Skylines looks funny.

triggered

Nuclear power makes no sense: you are basically generating extremely dangerous radioactive waste that will be around for several thousands of years just for some momentary satisfaction (like watching tv, making tvs, producing stupid tv shows). Plus you get a Fukushima every couple of decades.

Fission shills should be exterminated tbqh

>extremely dangerous radioactive waste
this meme again. No one was killed from that shit, ever.

>that will be around for several thousands of years
so what? It's a couple football fields. There's plenty space and nothing needs to go near natural habitats.

>Plus you get a Fukushima every couple of decades.
You don't if you maintain them properly. Also again, no one died.

Yes because all nuclear reactors are actually Gen I reactors in disguise. /s

Half of what you're spouting simply isn't a factor with Gen III+ reactors.

Everything produces waste, solar dumps it onto some Chinese village and coal puts it in the sky.

All of USA's waste would fit in the space of an eight-foot deep football field.

Also fast reactors like Russia's BN800 can burn most of it.

And if that doesn't work, we can just bury it.

go back to your green hugbox

Space guns can't put significant payloads into orbit. Scale physics eats all the payload. And they're not really all that robust to operate.

Bullllllshit. All it takes is a large enough capacitor bank and free energy.

Assuming you don't care about the integrity of your rails that is. But if you just want a single shot that's no issue.

This is the whole power plant? It's looks small.

Nuclear power has the smallest footprint of any energy source.

It is, nuclear plants have a tiny footprint for the amount of energy produced compared to most types of energy production. But especially solar, wind, and hydro.

Yeah, they don't have to be huge.

>t. works at nuclear plant

>Then launch all the old nuclear waste into the sun with a giant rail gun or similar.
It's actually really quite hard to launch something into the sun. It would probably just end up in orbit somewhere.

Yes I know, but the orbital period would be long enough to essentially not matter for our species.

To the moonbin it goes.

Assumptions shamumtions.
If you don't care about your rails, you don't care where shit goes? Free energy? Are you serious?

You don't know how orbits work. Stop baiting

The stuff that gets buried in the ground is actually intermediate to low level waste, they keep the spent fuel in storage ponds at the power plant for about 10 years so that the highly active isotopes decay to the point where it becomes relatively safe. What was uranium before it was pulled out of the ground? It was dangerous radioactive waste that was completely exposed to the environment.

Fresh spent fuel on the other hand is literal condensed death. Standing within reaching distance of a spent fuel bundle for one minute will kill you.

Burning it in a fast reactor is infinitely better than your idea.

Oh, and it's a proven technology.

Watch Thunderf00t

...until its orbit gets disturbed and we have Grandpa's multikilometre artificial nukular asteroid heading back home for tea and tearing us a glowing brand new Chicxulub.

It's just more efficient to reprocess it and run it through another reactor.

I specifically floated the rail gun idea only if we have a working fusion reactor.

Use nuclear for 75-150 years while heavily investing in Fusion research. Whenever you achieve viable fusion reactors start replacing the old fission reactors and use the excess energy from the fusion reactors to charge the capacitors for your rail gun.

Storage space for nuclear waste isn't an issue and you have literally hundreds of years to come up with a solution

This. "Shoot it into the sun XD" just reeks of armchair nuclear experts.

How will it solve the waste issue?

Lol you think firing a 20 ton mass into space it will magically return to the earth's orbit? Just aim it somwhat close to the sun and gravity will fuck with it more than enough to assure the odds of it EVER intercepting earth are incredibly low.

In theory/from a technical standpoint they are pretty good.
In practice someone wants to save some cash for personal gain at the cost of safety (this applies to both maintenance of the power plant itself and disposal of waste) and they take a long time to build.

Picking out a boring asteroid in the Asteroid Belt and dumping the waste on it would be a more cost effective and logical solution than your idea.

>Just aim it somwhat close to the sun and gravity will fuck with it more than enough to assure the odds of it EVER intercepting earth are incredibly low.
I will agree with you that the odds of it intercepting Earth are incredibly low but you have no idea about orbital mechanics.

By literally consuming it into more stable material. Learn to fucking Google, you illiterate manchild.

Oh my sweet summer child. You didn't have physics in high school, did you?

No it wouldn't. How do you get it into orbit without the risk of spreading nuclear waste over half a continent? The only solution is a ballistic trajectory from a ground based launcher. Rockets explode so you can't use that.

You have the option of a rail gun, space elevator, or invent something new

...

>You didn't have physics in high school, did you?
Worse I have a masters degree in physics and am getting a PhD in astrophysics currently.


But hey, you know best.

High-level waste is still very dangerous... there is a reason why no country wants to handle that shit.

>I have a masters degree in physics and am getting a PhD in astrophysics currently
And I'm Miguel San Martín himself

It can be reprocessed into fuel for other reactors, but it's legally not allowed because of retarded non-proliferation treaties.

Kek, do your math and show me how launching a 20T mass towards the sun could ever in our life times make it back to Earth.

It's rather basic math and most of your variables are known.

Even with a railgun it would take less energy to launch it towards the Asteroid belt than towards the Sun.

The French, Brits, Japs, and Ruskies do it, the US is left out, though.

Be recycling all the usable uranium.

Average construction of the ABWR (Gen III) was 5 years, at ~$2000/kW; that's not very long or expensive at all.

>towards the sun
Into the sun?
Just a little nudge upwards?
Farting the load in its general direction?

No, it's "legally not allowed" because the consequences of a potential accident are catastrophic.

"Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong."

No it's not allowed because the spent fuel contains plutonium. Has nothing to do with safety issues, reprocessing fuel is what they do anyways to make nuclear bombs.

It's not legally allowed because some terrorists are going to break into a highly guarded facility in the middle of the USA to steal Plutonium and make a super scary bomb.

Because there are better sources of power.

For example, if we could harness the power of this faggot's butthurt then we would be able to power the entire Earth for centuries.

>Nuclear power is totally safe :^) literally no deaths tolls!

>twf to smart for solar energy

>Accidents only happen in third world countries

You could at least have used a real Chernobyl victim instead of that medical pasta churned into a "victim of uranium munitions"

>>inb4 expensive
>Koreans build it cheaper than coal
and what about when the reactor hit its end of life? or not even that, when the rods and radiating things are "done with"? Just leave it there? Yeah good plan

...

Decomissioning costs are rolled into cost of construction and operation.