Hey Sup Forumsros why is nuclear energy so looked down upon...

Hey Sup Forumsros why is nuclear energy so looked down upon? It isn't like in today's time it isn't safe enough to prevent a second Chernobyl.
So why do the masses hate it?

Other urls found in this thread:

scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_disadvantages
wordsthatfollow.com/play/game.php?gid=786
large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/micks2/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because tehe companies somehow managed to make the taxpayer pay for containment of their radioactive waste.

You're even showing the old shitty design. Helium pebble reactors are way better.

If you walk away from that old style reactor it will keep running and you WILL have a problem eventually.

Helium pebble only has a reaction when helium is present. If you walk away, the Helium runs out, reaction stops.

Because people don't understand energy production. They like to say things like "green renewable safe for the environment" without actually knowing anything about the logistics and inefficiencies of the technologies they're referring too.

In truth, there is no one answer to energy production. Different geographic areas have different advantages and disadvantages and energy needs to be transported! Which has financial and environmental cost and energy is lost in the process... We need nuclear, we also still need coal, we also still need hydro and wind and solar. We need all of it.

You ever heard of fukushima? Fucking dumbass you peoplr are so brainless

The working time of a reactor is very small in comparison to the cost, and there is huge issues of what you do with the spent uranium cells.

Because humans are timid, stupid little creatures.

This is literally the reason.

>fukushima
See its exactly why I mention geographic advantages/disadvantages. Reactors shouldnt be built in coastal areas susceptible to natural disasters, nor should they be built near major fault lines. Coastal areas are able to make use of the buoyancy generator technologies as well as wind turbines which can profit off of offshore breeze. This won't be enough power to support entire coastal cities, but it will be enough to dampen costs while the other 50-60% energy can come in through high power lines from inland power stations.

Have you heard of Thorium reactors? Fuck, you are a stupid fucking fuckwitted fucktard, I wish we were allowed to kill people as stupid as you just to protect the gene pool.

>Hey Sup Forumsros why is nuclear energy so looked down upon?

Wut?!?

Read up on spent uranium fuel. Deadly as fuck, very difficult to handle, expensive to store, and no legal disposal method. Nukes are the dirtiest power.

Yes i have heard of that and i don't remember anyone dying of radiation. From the tsunami yes about 20 000 of them but not from the radiation

>uranium
>not thorium
Faggot detected

Japan made huge knock on effects with the global energy production by closing all its reactors after fukushima, leaving them solely reliant on LNG plants, making the LNG prices massively spike.

Oh, you know how to read? Sweet! Read about thorium based reactors and how they will literally CONSUME SPENT URANIUM FUEL. But, you won't, because unlike the founder of green peace you are too fucking stupid to realize that nuclear power is actually the *alternative* to humans destroying this planet.

thorium reactors make uranium-233 in the end you fuckwit.

>thorium based reactors and how they will literally CONSUME SPENT URANIUM FUEL
Wat? Where did you read that bullshit. Thorium reactors will produce uranium-232 as final product.

>Deadly as fuck, very difficult to handle,
There's a safe procedure and guidelines for handling the used rods and it is nothing more than another day at the office for guys that work in power plants
>expensive to store, and no legal disposal method
The cost is factored into the cost of production and guess what? Its still the cheapest energy to produce in a lot of places. Also your second claim here is downright false. There are legal disposal methods, its cased in cement and stored. Yeah you can't "throw it away" it needs to be kept in a storage facility because people can turn it into plutonium and make nuclear weapons out of it. But at the same rate, we don't just 'dispose' of our trash. it goes to landfills and those landfills get maintained for a hundred years burning the methane off, monitoring the gray water and treating the effluent on-site, and then one day in a century or two the land can be used again.

Spent fuel rods don't take up much space at all, and we could go thousands of years without running out of space for them. fuck off nigger

Fucking because of fukishima etc...

Because every single nuclear power plant disaster has been caused by a failure of the staff to adhere to regulations. Nuclear power is perfectly safe when handled correctly but the penalty for mishandling is sever.

Google is your friend, sparky. They are doing amazing things with molten salt and fluorine these days. You'll be all right, just sound out the big words.

Nice argument there pal, you sure provided me facts.

And I really like, that you think a THORIUM reactor won't use the thorium to uranium decay, but instead use the slow uranium decay. Even a braindead might see, that the name of the reactor implies something.

Don't be such a disingenuous blatherskite. You know full well that they've ironed out the process and can specifically and intentionally generate essentially unlimited energy while removing the harmful byproducts of pretty much every previous incarnation of nuclear reactor.

These are the facts. But they do not sit well with your "hurr durr, nookyulur is teh evil" bullshit platform, hence this nonsense.

Sure the land can be reused; in 250,000 years!
scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/

Sorry to interrupt. Not that guy but it was you that stated that there is no legal disposal method and that nukes are the dirtiest power.

The burden of proof is on you because you made the claim. The other user was providing you with a topic to research to better educate yourself.

I have no stake in the argument and I know next to nothing about nuclear power so I am not picking sides, I am just pointing out that you are responsible for the proof because you made the claim.

Because living next to a potential fallout new vegas sounds like a shit time in reality

>hail ceasar

>nuclear energy

There is no place to store the spent fuel. No government nor kingdom has lasted as long as the fuel will remain dangerous.

That's more than reason enough to pursue THORIUM fuel. Nuclear fuel is a disaster. Witness TMI, Chernobyl and Fuckyoushima.

But Fallout is a post post apocalyptic setting. Post apocalyptic might be cool.

Are you being ironic? Reading through text is unclear

I hear what you are saying and it is a valid point but Thorium fuel reactors are still nuclear power, it is a different fuel with different waste but its potential for meltdown remains the same. Remember, all nuclear power plant disasters, including the ones you listed, happened because safety regulations were ignored.

Burden of proof is always on the guy telling to educate, because he could have provided links. But here you go.
Thorium can be cracked down either to 232, which has to be stored somewhere, or 233, which can be used in weapons or for a second splitting process to generate power, but it still would produce 232 in the process.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

Dumbass helium is the cooling gas it doesnt react with the pebbles helium is inert

fukushima spooked everyone again

Pathos appeal. Nuclear waste has applications as a tertiary fuel in Thorium reactors.

Here's a great video heavy and dense in information.
youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Yeah no not really though.

Fuck mirelurks.

Isnt helium flammable?

Source on that? Reactors always produce a radioactive byproduct, that is not potent enough to use it in reactors again.

it's a noble gas. It doesn't react with anything, and fire is a chemical reaction.

Oh uh, stay woke btw. The first 5 minutes is gonna cover everything you NEED to know.

You're thinking of hydrogen.

To clarify: you're probably thinking of hydrogen, since it is extremely flammable, and also has a low density. The heidenburg for example was filled with hydrogen, but if it was filled with the (much more expensive) it wouldn't have exploded.

>Burden of proof is always on the guy telling to educate
Burden of proof is always on the one who makes the claim. You made that claim, prove it or stop complaining.

Thinking of hydrogen gas m8.

They don't. USA just need better reactors.

Some of the Zepplins were filled with helium though.

Are you able to read a three line long post? Then you can maybe find a source. But again:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_disadvantages

Did those ones turn into immense fireballs?

And he made the claim, that thorium reactors never produce nuclear waste. I really want to see that source.

When you take into account the costs of the times when it went wrong, it is the most expensive energy source there is.
They of course, do not count the disaster recovery into the costing , preferring to assume that they will have a perfect and unfailing system....history tells us there is no such thing.
There are better energy sources we could be developing, but they do not bet you weapons grade plutonium (the real reason countries maintain nuclear power plants)

Helium is not flammable and it is inert (doesn't react well with anything)

Helium is why Allied blimps in WWII never caught fire. The U.S. was the only one manufacturing high quantities of Helium so other nations were using Hydrogen which is lighter but very reactive.

You're thinking of hydrogen. Helium is the stuff you put in party balloons and you don't worry about those bursting into flames.

I want to like nuclear power. It seems like a semi-sustainable power solution until solar doesn't suck balls.

But the failures keep happening. Yes, if managed correctly, they won't happen. But they never are.

those numbers

The claim was nuclear power is the dirtiest power and that there is no way to get rid of the waste. That claim was refuted which means the burden of proof is on the person who made that initial claim.

>not knowing how many the environmental damage and health caused by fossil fuels

nuclear energy has fewer deaths per MW generated than any other form of energy

No but they still had a tendency to crash in the ground and damage the structure of the rigid airship. Such majestic creatures

oil lobbyists

and they will NEVER prove it beyond quoting the Linear No-Threshold hypothesis, which is largely disproven by theory of hormesis.

Are you really dense or just trolling. For you I really hope, it is the later. I provided source, now I want to see his source for his claim, that there is no waste.

Yes, U232 is produced as a part of the thorium fuel cycle. 232 has a half life of only about 70 years. The amounts produced are orders of magnitude smaller than the byproducts of conventional reactors.

So you can take those barrels of shit that will still be deadly when the sun is going nova, get useful energy out of them, and end the end have to deal with a much smaller container of shit that will decay into more useful stuff by the time your great great grandchildren are in college.

I mean, someone else's great great grandchildren, obviously, as you are clearly too fucking stupid to be allowed to propagate. But you get the gist.

>Semi-sustainable

It is not at all sustainable but the fuel is in such abundance and it produces so much power that it is attractive.

Harnessing the power of the sun and the moon is the only way to be "sustainable" and even then they will not be around forever but if we can't leave earth by then, we don't deserve to.

Theory of Thorium reactors allows you to burn spent fuel from Uranium reactors as fuel.

I saw that and I appreciate it. I didn't read it. Like I said I probably don't know enough to make sense of it but you and several others were claiming that you didn't need to prove your initial claim which is ignorant and infantile.

I'm glad you saw differently.

join fags

wordsthatfollow.com/play/game.php?gid=786

>never are
Oh. Show me how poorly managed most nuclear reactors in Tier 3 are poorly managed. They're practically antiseptic.

Doesn't U232 eventually decay into Ra224, which has a Half life of 1600 years? (I can't remember, my A-level physics is rusty.)

I just don't care enough to argue pro or contra nuclear energy, but your argument seems really strange.
>Thorium reactors are better, because the waste will emit stronger radiation in a shorter amount of time, so it is completely safe to use

>tries to show up guy on online argument
>to prove his point, links to a web site that literally any retard with a computer and internet access can edit
Sure showed that asshole

They all only decay, Alpha, Beta or Gamma radiation

>Thinking wikipedia is biased in scientific questions
But here again:
large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/micks2/

inb4 stanford doesn't know the real truth you only can learn from youtube university

Come on now, you know what he meant. The power plants that fail are never managed correctly.

Not him, but watch this If you can watch Kirk Sorenson talk and still disregard Thorium, I'll be really surprised.

>implying I was saying it's biased
>implying I wasn't saying LITERALLY anything other than it's an unreliable source
>still trying so hard to sound smarter than everybody else in an internet argument
Why are you even bothering dude? Like seriously are you that bored?

If the half time is lower, more radiation is emited in a specific time frame.

Nope, Ra224 has a half life measured in days. Like, around 2 of them. You're probably thinking of Ra226, which is not actually in the decay chain of U232.

Pretty much, funny thing is, I don't even care about nuclear plants. But I like arguing though.

Doesn't change the argument that poor management is up there with
>where do you put the spent fuel?

Entirely separate: the issues all seem to be fixed with LFTR's but the US government is letting China take the curve on study regarding it and there's only small, privately funded groups doing Thorium testing in the US. Mark my words: China/India will create the first marketable Thorium reactors and will sell it. They will be the energy market leaders 20 years down the road because the process burns 200x better than Uranium, the fuel is extremely abundant, and there's inherent safety systems in place.

Cool, I was looking at INES levels and nuclear reactor disasters. Fukushima is listed as both a 7 and a 5 in different sources.

Wow, that is some serious moving-the-goal -posts there.

> "But, it makes waste!"
> "Yeah, a lot less, and shit that stays dangerous for a much shorter time."
> "But, but, it's radioactive!"
... Um, unlike the other stuff?!? Fucking morons, they are everywhere.

>Helium as a reactant
You didn't take chemistry did you, user?

>Doesn't change the argument that poor management is up there with....

That is objectively incorrect because a failure to adhere to regulations has been the cause of every single nuclear power plant accident on land in history. It is a fair point to make, there is a potential for deviance that leads to an accident and the results are sever. It is a non-sequitur to imply it isn't a consideration in a debate about how safe that power source is.

Follow the argument chain a little bit. user just refuted another anons claim, that thorium reactors never produce waste

No one ever said that. The closest was:
>removing the harmful byproducts of pretty much every previous incarnation of nuclear reactor.

Which is still true. The argument for Throium reactors was that they don't produce the same waste product as uranium reactors and the waste is much easier to dispose.

Straw men are easily slain.
False dichotomies are a crutch of the weak-minded.
One thing can be true: (thorium reactors can consume dangerous waste byproducts of other reactors)
While the other thing is also true: (thorium reactors themselves produce a small amount of U232 as a byproduct).

Ask your mommy to explain it to you if you are still confused.

Fair enough, been a while since i did physics.

It's funny how much of someone's character is revealed by how they argue. You can immediately tell, for example, if they instinctively know that their position cannot stand on its own merit, so they start reverting to deception and distortion to try to "win points". This is a tell tale sign that they are arguing from a position of emotion, rather than trying to engage in an honest intellectual debate.

>That ad hominem

Hypocrisy is ugly especially when quoting logical fallacies.

we need nuclear salt reactors.

No, YOU'RE ugly!

(It's now abundantly clear that this is the only level at which you are willing or capable of engaging).

Because on the whole, the general population is dangerously stupid.

They are some toxic things coming out of this, but as soon as we develop nuclear fusion it will become way better and everyone will love it !

I'm not the guy arguing for or against thorium reactors.

I just pointed out that you went out of your way to point out the logical fallacies of some one else and then went and committed one as well. That's not cool man.

It's looked down upon because of several factors, the most prominent one is business.

When they were first building these guys, the engineers designed a sort of "proof of concept" version that would generate energy, but didn't have as many of the safeguards as they would have liked (wasn't in the budget). In addition it would generate more waste than they liked, but they figured hey, we are just trying to prove that it can be done so we can get more money for better reactors.

Once they did that they then approached the funders with what their actual designs were for general production. It had much better stats, better power generation, better fuel consumption, its waste could literarlly be used as more fuel, was far far safe, but was also much more expensive.

The business men looked at these new plans, and said no thanks, were copying the prototype's design instead.

>tfw fusion has been 25 years away for about 50-60 years now

Because ignorance of technology runs rampant in today's society.

So, if I say "you're wrong, because you're stupid" - can this only be described as an ad hominem attack? Can you conceive of no possible reality in which this could be a simple statement of fact?

Further, if you cannot conceive of such a reality, does this not prove my point?

:3

Fision is old. Nuckear fusion is the future. ITER in 10 years will produce net power

faggots all want solar and wind power now

The masses don't really hate it, just some of informed people and hippies.

Most people hate it because it's dangerous, some because it is way too expensive compared to other energy sources, others because it will be hard and very very costly to treat waste and used plants.

Some people think it's a big magical endless source of cheap energy while it's really not. Fission must be like 7 to 9 percents of earth energy production.

Nuclear energy is more expensive than wind power, and there's always a risk of a meltdown.

/thread