FUCK NUCLEAR POWER

FUCK NUCLEAR POWER

We have cheaper, more efficient, safer and cleaner alternatives. The only reason nuclear is used is because it was heavily subsidized by tax payers, but we have superior sources of energy we should be subsidizing instead.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Y_e7rA4fBAo
youtube.com/watch?v=t7EYQLOlwDM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

who cares

Jill Stein is a fucking retard, but she was actually right about nuclear and people are too fucking stupid to realize it.

No matter how well trained you feel you are, there WILL be some incompetent dipshit somewhere on the planet that doesn't know what to do when there's a meltdown. It's already happened, it would be childishly naive not to expect it again.

Japan

Everyone should be faggot. But just like you, I, and everyone else on this cesspit would rather beat off to odd shit. Nice one. Faggot.

Yes, unfortunately you do not have enough of the others to meet the need.

Modern nuke plants, not crappy obsolete ones like we have, are the ideal backbone, and put out less toxic and radioactive waste than the "clean" coal and oil plants. And in nuke plants, that waste can be used in industrial and medical applications.

Don't be dumb, it's not the 1970s anymore.

fucking retard, go suck a dick OP; that's the only thing you're good at

>not enough of the others
that's because they haven't been subsidized like nuclear energy

Trust me, there is more than enough sunlight, wind and running water to power the entire planet.

and let's start talking about HYDROGEN FUEL-CELLS, can we?

I've been on these buses, they're fucking SILENT

Efficiency =/= Quantity

The US relies on nuclear energy for 20% of its energy distribution, and this comes from less than 100 nuclear plants. Meanwhile, there are over 1000 wind energy plants and they only account for 0.6% of total energy produced.

>muh COSTS
>we have cheaper alternatives
LEARN TO READ FAGGOT

Nuclear energy is more costly than almost any other form when you include all the tax money we subsidized it with.

>huurr durrr I dont understand economics

>quantity
yes, wind plants are small and cheap compared to nuclear plants, so looking at pure numbers of plants is just fucking stupid.

If nuclear power wasn't subsidized by tax payers, it would not account for 20% of our energy and we could have invested in cheaper, more efficient and cleaner sources.

THAT'S MY FUCKING POINT

Fucking faggots spreading lies and panicking about nuclear are the fucking problem.

>the problem
for who, the nuclear industry?

We have BETTER ALTERNATIVES, why are you still sucking their dick?

Yes, modern nuclear facilities are relatively safe, but mistakes will ALWAYS happen; counting on flawless human execution around the planet for decades is naive as shit.

I work at a nuclear power plant lol. I think they're quite nice actually.

I work in the energy sector and the one thing I can say with absolute certainty is you're all fucking retarded.

I bet, they spared no expense to the taxpayers when they built those plants. Would you trust a bunch of half-educated Africans and Asians to run your plant?
>if not, consider where the propagation of nuclear power will lead

nuclear is much cheaper per-watt. assuming it doesnt fail, nuclear power plants are very small and efficient means of power production, wind is not. geothermal heating and cooling is the shit tho. just fucking expensive as fuck to install.

you wouldn't have a job otherwise, amirite?

nope. just, nope.

>cheaper per-watt
only because it is subsidized by tax payers. If it had to compete fairly with renewable forms of energy it would not be cheaper.
>expensive as fuck to install
nothing compared to the costs of developing nuclear power
>assuming it doesn't fail

Great argument, you fucking piece of shit

you keep saying subsidized... if you can prove that the nuclear power industry is more heavily subsidized than alternative energy, i'd be very impressed.

you are right. we should turn off all coal, oil, nuclear energy plants... for san francisco and let them build wind turbines all over sf

The last part of your statement only emphasizes how much you really don't know about the subject.

>use up all the wind energy
>clouds stop
>no more rain
>all crops die
GOOD FUCKING JOB FAGGOT

>comparing nuclear subsidies to all alternative energy subsidies combined
not exactly fair, but that's still missing the point anyway

nuclear power only gets about $1,000,000,000 in tax payer subsidies per year at this point, but that is NOTHING compared to the original research and development costs for the nuclear program.

Alternative energy sources get more subsidies now, but it's to catch up in the research and development we already heavily paid for with nuclear power.

So what happened in Fukushima?

Was that or was that not the error of half-educated Asians running technology they didn't understand?

are people stupid enough to think this could happen?

You do know that wind and solar have both been subsidized ridiculously for the last 8 years or so, right? And neither can provide power without a backup plant to pick up the slack when they regularly stop producing.

This is a quote from Scientific American magazine (that's called a source, it helps legitimize your point)

"the typical nuclear generator in North America could produce power at $50 to $75 per megawatt-hour, depending on assumptions about construction costs and interest rates, against $70 to $80 for coal-fueled power. Wind-powered electricity would cost from $60 to $90, but there are limits to how much it can be scaled up. A megawatt-hour of solar power still costs in the hundreds"

They fucked up. Backup cooling systems didn't work.

Just put them in the bay or on the coast, way cheaper than SF property prices.

Nuclear energy is literally the only hope of humanity ever leaving this shithole

also, hydrogen fusion is potentially unlimited energy

fuck fission I'd say, but nuclear fussion? well that should be our top priority

and if you think that won't happen again you're naive as fuck. Errors happen, and we cannot afford errors with nuclear power.

this factors in waste disposal, which is significantly cheaper per-watt than renewables.

HURR DURR GURR, just wait for fusion power faggots.

Wind power isn't clean at all. I read an article about how producing the solar cells in the wind turbines cause more pollution than coal power. Of course this is always conveniently omitted by renewable advocates.

>This is a quote
>no year, issue, author or link

My picture cited the Wall Street Journal calculations for power plants opening in 2016 you dumb faggot

>jew street journal

What exactly do you want to know?

or molten salt thorium plants.

no

we have better alternatives already, we don't need your expensive science fiction

>

kys

WSJ is owned by the same people that own FOX
>and the rest of the largest media empire on the planet that just so happens to be ultra conservative

>Was that or was that not the error of half-educated Asians running technology they didn't understand?
read nigger

...

>nuclear power is only hope
wut
>this shithole planet that I fucking hate and want to leave
ok, I see

>producing solar cells in the wind turbines
nigger wtf are you talking about?

What happens when it's not windy?

>They fucked up. Backup cooling systems didn't work.

They didn't anticipate that the nuclear plant would need to handle total submersion in seawater. An understandable oversight that I'm sure won't be repeated.

How else are you going to generate the power needed to rotate the propellers?

I don't think you get that the reason we can't rely soley on the renewables is because they can't appropriately accomodate growth and power spikes over the course of a day.
Also Hydrogen fuel cells are retardedly inefficient

it's always windy somewhere, just like the sun is always shining somewhere and rivers are always running somewhere.

Even if the air is completely still, you can still use it to make power.

Fuel cell systems are in use all over the planet, they have no emissions and are more efficient than natural gas.

The tsunami was outside of their design basis. The exhaust ports of their emergency diesel generators were close to the ground. The water rose up so much that the diesel generators couldn't run because the exhaust couldn't escape. When they were on battery power they only had 4 hours left. The newer nuclear power reactors are pretty remarkable. You don't have a stem degree otherwise you would have actual facts to meet me with. You don't know shit, but you like to talk shit. How quaint.

>inefficient
no they're not, they're more efficient than gas depending on how they're set up. There's a lot of different ways to run a fuel cell.

Hey somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. What a refreshing change.

youtu.be/Y_e7rA4fBAo

>outside of their design basis
yeah, well shit happens, natural disasters are still NATURAL, you can't act surprised every time one happens.

The truth is that you CAN'T prepare for every single eventuality, which is why nuclear power has already done so much fucking damage to our planet.

>using wind power

unless were talking balloons in the atmosphere transferring the energy down a la Gundam/big hero 6 i am all fucking set. i like living in a world with birds thank you.

might lead to harvesting energy directly from stars

wind is only one of several sources of energy that are superior to nuclear energy.

>uclear power has already done so much fucking damage to our planet

Better alternative than the only hope of solving all energy problems and enabling us to go to space one day with water asteroids powered by fusion power.

We're a long ways from that and nuclear energy is not the choice to take us there. There are simply better alternatives everywhere.

fuck off, do you really think that's easy, cheap or not bad for nature to build those giant wind things?the amount of metal you have to extract and the industrial waste of building them completely offsets the advantages

now fuck off

That's because everyone for a hundred miles had to leave the areas where nuclear power went wrong.

You're trying to take credit for fucking shit up SO BAD that humans had to flee for their lives instead of stay.

I smell green party filth in this thread

You don't have any counter argument whatsoever. You just say literally anything in the world in history can happen therefore we can't have it. You are illogical and provide no substance to this discussion. You can be loud and whiny somewhere else. You don't know how power markets work.

Buddy, I live in WV. You can Fuck nuclear energy as much as you want after we get rid of coal and gas. That shit has ruined our economy.

>only hope
no, don't buy into that sci-fi bullshit

we don't need to power a Death Star, our needs are relatively simple and easily filled

>because you don't need to build nuclear power plants out of metal
die in a fire retard

And you're using an early 50's soviet reactor fallout that accounts for over half of those ever displaced by a nuclear disaster as an example while not realising how much modern western countries use nuclear without so much as a hiccup. France currently runs off of 78% nuclear energy and has done so for years, the only difference between them and the US is that they didn't have decades of anti nuclear propaganda

>anything
no, the same thing that has happened several times in recent history to absolutely disastrous consequences.

Quit shoving your head in the sand you moron

You mean the sci fi shit of being able to produce fire in the stone ages?
The sci fi shit of being able to burn coal to get steam powered energy?
The sci fi shit of burning coal/oil for electrical energy?
The sci fi shit of using nuclear power plants?
Go back to living under a rock, while people with a vision for the future to what they always did.
Ill have my fusion energy

The USA would switch but the initial investment for wind energy is fucking massive

Do you believe in climate change?

If a single tsunami could cause Fukushima, I would not trust any of those old nuclear plants in France. Yes, they've been fine SO FAR, but you wouldn't have to be so dogmatically blind to the possibility of failure if you weren't using nuclear power.

Wind turbines are huge, loud and cause depression on people who happen to see them every day of their lives, and also kills birds, lots of them, so you can shove one right up your arse.

Your standard of absolute disaster seems skewed, you act as though every nuclear error has been to the extent that Chernobyl was, while Chernobyl cost literally 3 times as much as the next largest nuclear error which was three mile. Not only that but only 45 people died due to THE LARGEST nuclear disaster and people already live in areas near pripyat again

not as massive as the initial investment for nuclear was
>but then, we had a war to win too

all we need is to find a military application for wind power, and then maybe we could spend our money on something worthwhile.

>skewed
compare it to literally any other type of power disaster and NO, it does not seem skewed.

Holy shit you're completely retarded haha. My head in the sand? Did you just say that all nuclear disasters have been because of the same thing?
Once again, you prove that you have no arguement besides your lack of knowledge on the subject. Do some research. Come at me with facts. Don't come at me with your feelings because fuck your feelings.

That won't happen, the military industrial complex has zero reason to care about wind or developing it in such a way that civilian applicatipns would be subsidized. Stop dreaming

>Ill have my fusion energy
you need to walk before you can run

right now we're dragging our broken bodies using a single arm and you're trying to fly

>The two largest experimental fusion plants are being build right now in the US and Germany

yeah, it was just a joke

maybe we can get them interested in fuel cells if we make it seem confusing enough

>experimental
there's a big difference between knowing theory and making it an affordable reality.

FACT: nuclear power is less efficient and more dangerous than readily available alternatives

And thats why are researching it right now, are you kinda retarded or something.

Look up how many people died building the Panama Canal fuck head. You don't know shit. Watch the video of the two men on top of a burning wind turbine jump to their death because they were forced to pick between burning to death or jumping.

Provide reputable statistics or you're basically just saying 'but muh feelings'

Or you can make ethanol from CO2, burn it again to produce CO2 and use that CO2 to burn it again. Repeat infinitely.

youtube.com/watch?v=t7EYQLOlwDM

Says who? Where? How so? No basis behind anything you're saying.
Fact: you're a whiny retard

great, spend your money on research if you want

that's not the point, we still need sources of power in the meantime.

>muh FEELS
fuck off retard

Yes, nuclear power plants.

already posted source, try reading the thread
>it was the WSJ

No they're actually not at all. Do some research. They're still trying to figure out how to make it efficient,and if they do they'll be great, but right now I think it has less than 50% efficiency.

they dont own those coasts nor the bay

unnecessarily dangerous waste of money

there are superior alternatives by every single metric.