Fact: nuclear energy is perfectly safe and cannot blow up

Fact: nuclear energy is perfectly safe and cannot blow up

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/568iDYn8pjc
world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Fact: if you start your sentence with the word "Fact", it indicates that your premise is shaky and you are trying to set the reader up to assume there is evidence behind your assertion.

TRUE FACT.

Chernobyl.

Google it it is literally impossible for nuclear power to explode there is absolutely no danger involved

Chernobyl was mis managed and poorly setup and even then it was not an explosion it was a meltdown we have come a very long way since

you should read about how chernobyl actually happened

imagine people trying to make a nuclear reactor blow up as hard as they could, intentionally, and then ignoring multiple repeated warnings that it was going to blow up, and in fact then disengaging safeguards which stop it from blowing up

thats basically what went down

Holy shit I'm believing you.
STAHP

Google it retard

>risk of carcinogens introduced to environment from mining fuels / operation

>mid-term power, lasts about ~150 years before fuel runs out

>'safe' but not clean

>not as viable as solar / hydro / thermal combinations of power

no seriously read about it, you get to read about some real nigga shit

>two engineers swam up a duct of completely radioactive water, knowing theyd die within hours
>if they didnt do this the plant would have actually exploded, effectively like a nuclear bomb going off

There were explosions at Chernobyl fuccboi.

Shill your nuclear shit elsewhere. This is coal country

>Thermal

Most power is thermal in some way

>>mid-term power, lasts about ~150 years before fuel runs out
? doesnt make sense
>>'safe' but not clean
byproducts can be stored or reused

Pro. tip: It doesn't need to blow up, just leak ;)

We have so many safe guards against that it's virtually impossible we're you one of these people backing solar roadways?

This is only true of the heavy water reactor style used, which was designed decades ago.
Thorium reactors would be massively less radioactive and impossible to melt-down.
This research was abandoned in the US during the 50's as there was no chance to get weapons grade plutonium from it.
The Chinese are currently pumping huge amount of capital into these new reactors.
The US, thanks to your current political regime will fall behind China by at least a decade.

Fukushima

You men like how a thorium powered car will run for 100 years on 8grams of fuel?

youtu.be/568iDYn8pjc

i saw that blast from the other side of the ocean. good one.

The fuels only have so long before they deplete, and the plant process needs more of the fuels from the initial design or to revamp their plant to handle a new fuel source. The chemical processes don't last forever. IIRC there was an infographic with the functional lifespan of nuclear power plants.

Nuclear byproducts are rarely valuable--just highly radioactive heavy sludge, or minerals, which no one wants to recycle, handle, or even move. They're just expensive pollutants.

Solar / is superior in pretty much every way.

No, I mean like real science stuff. Not made up conspiracy theory shit.
You can also have a look at pebble bed reactor. These are also inherently safe, but have a radioactive byproduct.
But, the waste is easier to manage than current reactor designs.

Solar is superior yes but solar roadways is as stupid as ideas come

it really bothers me that the cities in that picture are not located correctly within their states

>Solar / is superior in pretty much every way.
What about at night or when it's cloudy?

While it IS true that nuclear reactors themselves do not explode, nuclear reactors are FAR from being "perfectly safe".

This is the people who are looking forward to the hyperloop they made this map the hyperloop is another horrible idea

Well not really but there was a plan to make the entire EU switch to clean energy. Would require to take some of the main beaches of Spain + the upper part of the Sahara in North Africa. Huge project worth billion, but would make us independent. Sadly it would seem that technology in't that far yet. They however have already started testing it.

The only instances where nuclear reactors have ever melted down or leaked are cases where safety protocols were disregarded or the plant was build in an unsafe area.

>We have so many safe guards against that it's virtually impossible
Tell that to the Sendai earthquake.

the explosion at Chernobyl blew apart one of the cooling towers

Fact, safe, free, near endless energy will be the damnation of mankind

So it's perfectly safe except for when something goes wrong.

Accept it's not.
It actually takes a lot of energy to produce solar cells. For bulk power production photovoltaic cells are pretty terrible.
If you want to use solar for bulk, then use molten salt plants.
These use a ton of mirrors to focus solar on a tank of molten salt, then a bunch of science stuff happens to turn a turbine.
Best part is, it continues to work for a few hours after the sun goes down.
Massively more efficient than photo cells.

this is partially true

it wouldn't be like a nuke going off but the aftermath and radiation spreading is that would be like the aftermath of a nuke

also it did exploded its what started the event

It's perfectly safe except when you deliberately ignore all safety regulations. I don't expect someone like you to understand.

to be fair that happens so rare that it makes news every time it happens

i can think of like 3 and there are over 400 nuclear power plants in the world

Free, limitless energy is what will allow mankind to take the next steps in humankind's evolution.

is that what happened at three mile island?
i know that happened at Chernobyl
and Fukushima was designed without its passive cooling system

>over 400 nuclear power plants in the world
Many of which have been operating for almost 50 years. Pretty good track record for safety.

yep kind of my point thats far less than 1% failure rate

>Fukashima was designed without it's passive cooling system

No wonder everyone was pissed about that

They will still produce power at night or when it's cloudy, as it's neither the light or the warmth that produces power, but the UV rays, which are still present, albeit in lower quantities, when the sun isn't perfectly clear or even visible

So it's literally perfectly safe.
"Literally" as in "figuratively", though.
And let's not even discuss the whole nuclear waste storage problem that will never, ever go away. Because it's perfectly safe except when companies don't follow safety regulations. And all that happens then is extremely deadly poison that will never, ever go away contaminates soil and water which then have to be contained as even more nuclear waste which will never, ever go away.
PERFECTLY safe.

>is that what happened at three mile island?
The start of the problems there was that there was a coolant leak but the majority of the problems were determined to be the result of inadequate emergency response training. Who ever would have though that it would be a bad idea for poorly trained people to be operating a nuclear plant?

Also the plants were designed to last for 50 years, 70 years at the most. So there's a huge amount of waste / infrastructure associated with plants designed in the last century.

Solar is totally viable when you begin to look at large-scale continental infrastructure. Solar roadways can be done through very large grids (albeit at the cost of a lot of ambient power), grids which pull energy from the atmosphere, or through sufficiently powerful capacitors in the short term (which is expensive/wasteful).

>cloudy
Cloudy doesn't impact large solar grids as much as you'd think. The greatest limitation to solar technology is the capacitor (battery) capable of storing/trickling solar energy at night.

The energy cost is mitigated by the cleanliness of products. A nuclear plant will have products costing human resources for a much longer period of time than a solar plant. Radioactive fuels require at least some form of industrial attention in order to not be a threat to human life/health. This could mean burying radioactive materials, for example, which forces people to work with radioactive materials.

Solar cells, particularly ones that use molten salt, don't have any of the pollutant risks that nuclear power does. The cost of producing photovoltaic cells is also relatively clean and low.

Modern rectors can take what we've been calling waste and rerun it to generate more power. The only people who are against nuclear power are uneducated trash whose opinions inherently have no value.

yea it was a really really bad design

for those who don't know there a system of water in power plants that keeps moving no mater what

it does this by having water reach different temperature by virtue of location to the core and this means its always moving

this keep the core cooled even if things completely shut down or are fucked up

...except Fukushima didn't have one

It's still too high. Besides, it's not the failure rate people are afraid for, it's what we do with the spent nuclear fuel. We can't have a million Onkalos around you know

>Nuclear byproducts are rarely valuable--just highly radioactive heavy sludge, or minerals, which no one wants to recycle, handle, or even move. They're just expensive pollutants.

bzzt wrong. totally wrong. need to read up on this before you speak on it

reminds me of horse carriage people saying automobile was a horrible idea

But why do solar roadways when you can line the sides of the road with cell panels that track the sun?

They store energy during the day to be used at night... and cloudy weather doesn't stop the storage of solar energy...

Earth eventually gains and loses energy to the "space", but those variations happen at the rate of thousands, maybe millions of years.

Nuclear energy proposes a very reasonable trade. That destroying a insignificant ammount of matter, you gain massive ammounts of energy.

Here's the problem, it's too much. The system (Earth) a closed system on the scope human life spam.

What I'm saying is, if an nuclear plant can provide several times the ammount of energy gained from hydroelectrics, then it's the same as saying the nuclear plants add to the system, multiple times the ammount of energy needed to cover massive landscapes in water...

>complains about not even discussing it
>is in a discussion right now

do you think this problem could of been prevented with better engineering ? like in the way we build more modern plants?

That's the opposite of what was just said.

First it was an exercise in complete incompetency. Then all of the sudden the workers prevented bigger disasters. Make up your mind.

but its ok to have coal ash dumped in waterways right?

what about what we do with old core from nukes

we get rid of those about 50 at a time

Not true. You probably dont know this but the majority of the earths heat isn't from the sun. It is from thorium in the earths crust. That energy is there to stay anyway. The sun isnt actually heating up the earth as much as you think so the nuclear energy is actually already here and already part of the equation.

wtf is going to happen to westinghouse?

Probably, 3 Mile Island happened decades ago so I'm sure that a more modern system would have greater safety redundancy to mitigate human error.

>can take what we've been calling waste
contaminated soil from leaking drums?
>and rerun it to generate more power
citation please

No. This is a common myth between uneducated trash, but it's totally wrong. We can't use spend nuclear fuel, that's why we build structures like Onkalo and why we bury our shit. I'll say it again for the slow, WE CAN'T USE SPEND NUCLEAR FUEL

You cannot have a power grid which relies on solar for 100% of it's power. It is simply too variable in its output.
Power grids require stable power.
I agree that the heavy water nuke reactors are stupid. There is no reason to use them.
We should use thorium reactors, which are inherently safe, and the spent fuel will not give you 3 eyes.
The fuel is also much more abundant and easier to gather. Also without the massive environmental issues of uranium mining.

is it possible they just didnt understand what would happen because at the time it was untested and a unknown?

why do you think both can't be true? read the fucking events, holy shit.

millennials are like human vomit. argue about shit but refuse to educate yourself on it. amazing.

The fact that you wrote "spend" when you meant "spent" leads me to believe that you are also uneducated trash whose opinion has no value.

>WE CAN'T USE SPEND NUCLEAR FUEL

Yes we can. Why do you think you have any idea what you're talking about?

world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx

There's also a new type of plant that is just being conceptualized that uses spent fuel directly.

When did I say that? I'm against the use if coal. Wind, hydro and solar is our future

I'm just saying that user's definition of "perfectly safe" seems to be completely ignoring the constant creation of extremely toxic waste. The fact that the process creates byproducts that have to be sealed in barrels and buried in concrete to prevent them from leaking and killing people is "safe" in the same way that shoving all your toys under your bed is "cleaning your room".

Well, time will tell, or better, weather.

How do we get rid of those?

Both of them are true. The disaster was caused by an appalling level of incompetence but once shit hit the fan many of the safety workers there did some truly heroic things to keep things from getting worse.

No. it was a case of people not being willing to sacrifice careers to tell superiors who were wrong that they were wrong.

thats the thing they were "testing it"...at like 200% of its theoretical capabilities.

>heavy metals (UO2)
>fuel rods -- UO2, steel
>water
>storage materials

>hanford

capacitors, there's no way to affordably store power

>you cannot have a national power grid which relies on solar for 100% of its power
>you can have an international power grid
>you can have international power infrastructure
>you can have international solar power which doesn't involve carcinogenic fuel sources

What about leading you to believe that not everyone is anglophone?

stacking them in a small struckture than blowing them up

>FACT that nuclear power has no danger
>Pripyat is still extremely radioactive
>Yeah, but that was mis-management

Looks like your fact is subjective. You are a faggot and should go back to lurking.

i think you miss understand my question

they said it would be like a nuke

maybe they thought that but they were wrong

How is that img OPs using even remotely legit? It would take me 8 hrs to get to the eastern coast of florida to catch a train that can travel to NY in 5 additional hours?

>Solar cells, particularly ones that use molten salt

Think you mean solar farm brah

There is a huge difference between using what small amount of energy can be salvaged, and "using nuclear fuel as new fuel"

>90% of the nuclear reactors in the US are leaking.

You probably live in some insignificant backwater that doesn't merit being added to the loop route.

There is also a huge difference between saying something is impossible and not done, and the very thing you said in fact being possible and done.

eat shit.

What is this antinuclear propaganda.

Everyone involved in it knows very well its a gigantic son of a bitch and all possible precautions must be taken.
Than the same managers that told you nuclear is perfectly safe show up and decide not to take some of the precautions because managers gonna manage.

Nuclear is the future, fuck managers.

In an ideal world, science things would me managed by scientists.

Uh, no, I have more billionaires and millionaires living in my city than NY or CA.

Definitely not the backwaters.

You're a dumb nigger.

Just because you have rich people living in the nice parts of your town doesn't make it a significant city. Where do you live?

Hell yeah TX has 3 dots r3pr3s3nt n1ggaz

The Chernobyl disaster was not a nuclear explosion, but there were several explosions of irradiated steam that were powerful enough to completely lift and throw the concrete cover to the reactor. I know they are statistically very safe and I support nuclear reactors, but there is a lot of space between being unable to explode through fission and being completely safe.

The Chernobyl disaster wouldn't have happened if safety protocols were followed.

No, seriously, solar roadways is a very bad idea and will never be viable, simple thermodynamics and cost calculations will tell you this.

looked up the road that they already set it up on
its a fucking disaster

Yeah okay, but hyperloop is really fucking stupid and will never be viable.

What makes you say that?

>this guy who invented a bunch of revolutionary stuff made it up
>it's a bad idea though because i said so
>what? no i don't have an engineering degree

I never said otherwise. In addition though it was poorly constructed.

Fucking retard. How do you think nuclear, coal, gas, and other fuel based electricity is generated? By heating water to a gas, then using the force of that to turn generators.

Can't you look at the fucking map and where the stations are and see for yourself the its a bad idea? Oh, wait, you've never left the basement, let alone traveled across the country and been to major cities before and can tell that the hyperloop misses tens of millions of people.

In the immortal words of Albert Einstein,
"Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water..."