Is it dangerous?

Is it dangerous?

no, it's the future.

That's safe, for sure.

It's literal water steam. It's completely harmless.

IDK, we aren't allowed to build new nuclear reactors since the 1970s.

99.9% of the time: no.
But in case of that one other 0.1%, they're disastrous.

We're too dependent on them by now to turn back, but we should at least make them as safe as possible. We should probably try to limit our energy usage in order not to grow more dependet on them, as well.

>We're too dependent on them by now to turn back
Eh, depending on the source 1,2% or 4% of the Dutch energy comes from nuclear.

If managed properly then no. Although the current method of nuclear waste disposal ridiculously stupid and short sighted.

There were two major disasters in a relatively short time since the introduction of nuclear power. No, it's not safe, but it's better than fossil fuels. Nuclear power will have to stay until we fully switch to renewables, or manege to make fusion work.

>Nuclear accident happens because using shit old technology
>SEE GUIZ NUCLEAR ENERGY IS LITERALLY HITLER

I'm not really in favour or against nuclear technology, but nuclear waste really doesn't take up much space.

If your country isn't blue on this map, it's pretty much a country of luddite cavemen.

Considering those are just for water and they are used for both coal and nuclear reactors
I would say yes

Jimmy Carter banned all construction of new reactors after Three Mile Island and nobody's ever bothered revoking said ban.

It is.

Depends on the generation of reactors
1 and 2 are not very safe, but the current 3 and 3+ are much much safer
gen 4 reactors are even better, with molten salt reactors being one of the best possible type of fission reactors in terms of safety and effectiveness of using as much potential energy from the fuel as possible

Not really

You can't build a perfect system. Pinholes are found on metal parts like water pipes. How can you prevent that? Are you sure that won't happen to containers of nuclear fuel?

REMOVE CATTENOM

>1 and 2 are not very safe
Not very safe? There's been exactly one actual meltdown (Chernobyl doesn't count, as it was an experimental type) and that required a 100 year tsunami and a perfect storm of fuckups to happen. One significant accident in the entire world in over half a century. If that's "not very safe," then we should just stop all of our industrial activities for being too unsafe.

This pretty much
People hating on nuclear are as stupid as people saying "smartphones suck", when they've only ever used an iPhone2G/Samsung Galaxy S

I mean compared to stuff like gen 3+ :p

But yeah, statistically speaking, even non advanced fission is one of the safest possible means of producing energy that we currently have
and that is even more so true for the more advanced generations, which also happen to be much much efficient in getting more energy out of the same starting amount of fuel

And what does this graph mean? And why is Germany blood red?

>mfw there are more nuclear plants in France alone than in the entirety of Europe, Russia included

What' wrong with going 200% nuclear?

No, unless you're an idiot and build it in an area very prone to earthquakes and/or tsunamis

I thought that was stonehenge

Nuclear > rest

how much energy does one nuclear plant produce? and how much does it cost to build one?

can a single plant provide for an entire city

And even there it is possible to make it safe

>muh Co2
>muh global warming

This shit every single day. Why aren't people more pro-nuclear?

>can a single plant provide for an entire city
Of course and even several.

Because
>muh nukular waste
>muh chernobyl

Test them before using them?

Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island and scaremongering in general. Also because it doesn't fit into the green narrative which is exactly who is pushing the global warming panic. Greens don't like nuclear because it can be weaponized, it leaves radioactive waste and it operates on the same basis as coal, big fucking plant providing energy for millions of people while the owner gets rich. Nuclear isn't a change for them since it's just a different rock you dig up from their sacred Mother Earth. They also don't like it because it would fix the fucking problem and they would be irrelevant again.

Good point. That's exactly why we don't build chemical processing plants or bridges or dams, ever. Because there is a nonzero chance that something bad could happen.

Get out of here stalker!

France is like 70%

Yes it's very dangerous and should be banned.

T E M E L Í N
E
M
E
L
Í
N

The ones most western ans asian countries build?

One of the safest and cleanest ways of energy production.

The shit Belaruse is building on our border?

I'm pretty sure that shit is rigged to explode on purpose. They went out of their way to build it as close as possible to Vwilnius AND chose literally the most seismically active spot in the entirety of eastern Europe.

Wtf potato niggers? I thought papa Lukashenko would personally kill Putin in single combat, reform the Grand Dutchy and become a friend of the west.

Why you do this.