Can my Sup Forumsrothers help me out with my essay?

can my Sup Forumsrothers help me out with my essay?
why nuclear power good.
thanks

Other urls found in this thread:

scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/06/03/deaths-per-unit-of-electricity/
strawpoll.me/13336063
msu.edu/~renn/RHE-_mixed_race.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.ca/2011/10/problems-with-mixed-race-marriages-and.html
nature.com/scitable/topicpage/haldane-s-rule-the-heterogametic-sex-1144
majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/alon_ziv_on_race_mixing/
dailystormer.com/transplant-organs-do-not-exist-for-race-mixed-persons/
humanvarieties.org/2013/04/18/iq-regression-to-the-mean-the-genetic-prediction-vindicated/
books.google.co.uk/books?id=BMXVZzvLXz8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
amren.com/news/2006/06/scientists_stud/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html
amren.com/news/2008/08/race_and_psycho/
ronunz.org/2013/07/20/race-and-crime-in-america/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-dangerous-states-in-the-u-s.html
www1.udel.edu/soc/faculty/parker/SOCI836_S08_files/Landetal_AJS90.pdf
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Give lot of energy and make stronger animals

Cheaper, more efficient and produces the most energy out of all the sources. But if it explodes we die.

Also it is clean.

Give me energy to power computer to watch loli

Give power to let me watch loli

kek

lots of energy lets you microwave leftovers from night before

nuclear is bad mmk

cause modern reactors that cant melt down exist but because dipshits like japan use 50 year old GE reactors and build them right next to the ocean with generators by sea level and then they blow up because of that people are scared.

ignorance is bliss

Nuclear energy yields the lowest death rate per kilowatt of energy produced compared to other energy sources. This includes wind and solar.

woah really?

scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/06/03/deaths-per-unit-of-electricity/

The early reactors that used graphite moderators (britan, Russia rbmk type)
Where simply infant stage ones.
In the us we use many old and aging light water reactors that can only run on enriched uranium, but again they are more toddler stage than anything.
The "fast breeder" types are better but much can go wrong in short order with them as we witnessed in the rocekdyne sodium reactor accident in california.
The newer heavy water reactors are quite a bit better as you don't have to burn as much energy making critical capable uranium, and instead can use plutonium as well but you have to go through the different stages of fission to get to the best fuel...
Cont.....

please continue

Nuclear reactors (along with particle accelerators) can produce precious metals through nuclear transmutation.

Part 2

Some have been pushing molten salt method "thorium" reactors due to the massive abundance of it in the earth...but still fission is a half step in this field of technology.
What we are attempting to do is unlock fusion.
However the greatest downfall is the question "how much do we have to spend before it makes us a profit?"
This question gas crippled science and progress world wide.
I praw we are not sitting on some "miracle power solution"
Just so we can get more cash for fossil fuels first....
"We screwed up bad somewhere....and the saddest part is we let it happen...instead of fixing the mistake we witnessed......" - K- 41

>molecular stripping, recombination, generation atomic fracture and reconstruction

bumpp?

I think the main thing is no CO2 emmissions.

Its bad
its the dirties form of energy
this, they are pressurized on top of that blasting radiation clouds in to the air when they fail.
>enriched uranium
pallets, which is a high $ industry also the reason why there is no advancement
are you stupid?, co2 isnt a issue
nuclear plants only have a short live after which they have to run on a low capacity and have to be maintained whilst producing little power.

Make this 250 words long and you'll score an A... Guaranteed!

Nuclear power is good because when there are accidents it leaves huge swaths of the earth uninhabitable which then gives us large wildlife refuges, albeit with mutated animals.

nuclear powder makes godzillas.

coal makes men.

you decide.

>its the dirties form of energy

How the fuck is it the dirties form when there is no waste other than fuel spent which can be re-purposed?

Look up kerk Sorenson and molten salt thorium reactors on YouTube. The potential of nuke technology is vast but the stigma of bad reactor designs from the 70's make people think it's a bad thing. The true potential of nuke energy is only bested by fusion

Co2 emissions are bad true. But a waste that takes 400k years for it to reach its half life isn't a great thing too.
>side note each molecule or methane traps as much sun as 29 molecules of Co2 "thanks cows"
And preaching the "clean coal" bit is as dumb as the use of enriched uranium required reactors.
Half me sure are what will kill us in the long run...
Like swapping to this massive natural gas run over petroleum...ect
If we suppress a technology and it's progress...we doom our species to the adverse effects of these half developed technologies.
If we force a old technology too long we are doomed....
We must find the balance between old and new technology.... and stop with the blind freaking greed that is holding us back.

Only .2% of it can be reprised and it's not even the percent that was used in the actual reactor the depleted uranium shells the military uses are made during the enrichment process.... and the dust is still inhalable and gets embedded in the calcium of your bones where it can collect any electron radiation like a funnel until you are radiating yourself.
DU rounds are dangerous to humans before they are fired....and far more so after.... they become "active"
And contaminate everything

>which can be re-purposed?
It is not re purposed.
its stored in leaking containers wasting 10 million in energy per ton

Chemical energy is an inherently limited resource. Uranium and thorium deposits hold enough energy to power our civilization for billions of years. Light and heavy water reactors operate under large pressure because they use water as the cooling and working fluid. Molten salt thorium reactors solve every design problem that conventional reactors have while producing waste that only decays in 300 years vs 12,000 with light water reactors. If you expand your vision far into the future, then you will see that 300 years is not that long. Current light water reactors refuel every 18 months and always produce full power, otherwise they would have shut down by now due to economy factors. You need to learn updated information on this topic

CO2 is an issue, why ?

OK, I'm not writing the essay for you, but you can develop the following arguments further...
1. Relatively clean. Zero emissions; that ominous thing eco-faggots bitch about coming form the cooling towers is just steam. Sure it leaves dangerous waste, but well managed and safely enclosed they posed little to no danger... There will always be a some forgotten shithole to put it. In perspective medical waste is a bigger problem than nuclear one and one GAF.
2. Relatively cheap. Unless your country have to import fuel, it is probably the non-renewable resource that yields more energy by pound/kilo.
3. Although needing advanced infrastructure, it doesn't require much land or intense modification of landscape in contrast to hydroelectric, for example...
Those are the ones I can think of right now, I would probably contribute more, but I'm wasted AF right now...

But it CAN be repurposed. Only into dirty bombs, but I feel that counts.

>Relatively clean. Zero emissions; that ominous thing eco-faggots bitch about coming form the cooling towers is just steam. Sure it leaves dangerous waste, but well managed and safely enclosed they posed little to no danger... There will always be a some forgotten shithole to put it. In perspective medical waste is a bigger problem than nuclear one and one GAF.
see
>Relatively cheap. Unless your country have to import fuel, it is probably the non-renewable resource that yields more energy by pound/kilo.
No its not, if it is a lot of country will do that but they instead use diesel to power their plants.

>Simple green house gas
>Add to the instability of weather patterns by cause and effect

Believing what corporate sponsored or "donation" based sources is the same as being blinded by greed.
Gather results yourself.... work with other non paid researchers.
Think for yourself.

>fun fact....during the first days or the deep water horizon incident / spill one scientist was preaching what a mess it was 3 days later his university got a 30 million dollar "grant" and then he went on a media tour across the nation preaching how simple a fix this "incident" was..

Near anyone can be bought.
We should know better.

3% of spent fuel is fission products. 1% plut. 96% uranium. Bith if which can be reused in the fuel cycle. .2% ?? Do you even lift

the uss pennsylvania is a nuclear sub that hasn't had to refuel since it was commissioned in 1989. just, think about that for a moment. it doesn't have to be a nuclear power plant, which historically have been proven to be categorically unsafe and prone to human errors. just looking at the u.s. navy, it's hard to argue with a sub that hasn't had to refuel once in its 28 years of service.

Learn the difference between breeder reactors, and burner reactors. Right now all nuclear power plants burn uranium 235, which is why they need enriched fuel. We can use fast breeder reactors to use the "depleted" uranium 238 but the process creates plutonium 239 which creates a nuclear proliferation risk which is why they are not used. Thorium breeder reactors can create uranium 233 for nuclear fuel and does not create proliferation risk due to contamination with uranium 232 which is a hard gamma irradiator. Every problem caused by light water reactors are solved by thorium reactors including fuel abundance, stability, safety, waste products, and removes the ability for meltdowns because the design is based on nuclear material being dissolved in molten salt that freezes solid in the event of a core breach which traps the nuclear material within it.

iz gud cuz iz nukler

nuclear power isn't cheap. in fact it isn't profitable at all and the only way it's able to exist in the united states is through ridiculously large subsidies provided by u.s. tax payers. you were right about the other stuff tho.

Ever walk into one of the cooling tower foundations when they are offline and take radiac readings for leftover contamination?
Just like public water works, coal power plants...
They are allowed "acceptable" amounts of contamination to include radio electron contamination, murcury, and lead....so long as it's at acceptable levels.

Does that sound safe to you?
Do you sweat anytime your car leaks / drips something?....and clean it up?
Didn't think so.

Ignorance is no excuse.

Nuke subs use higher enriched uranium 235/238 fuel and the core is a different design. Only light and heavy water reactors are inherently unsafe and require strict control

agreed, the nuclear sub reactors seem much much safer.

Light water reactors can only sustain the nuclear reactions when the uranium 235 concentration is above 3%, the uranium fuel is made in the form of uranium oxide ceramic pellets that crack and swell as a result of gaseous fission products until they push against the sides of the zirconium cladding, forcing removal before all fuel is used up

If the military uses it to fuck up people, that's a way different thing; much aside from energy production.
By that logic, one of fossil fuel's energy disadvantages would be its use as napalm...

Actually, you're wrong on both counts. The French actually reprocesses and re-use 80% of their actual burned fuel into mixed actinide fuel that can be re-burned in matrix with Uranium/Plutonium Oxides. In the US, there is a mandated maximum burn time (by law) after which "spent" fuel MUST be removed and stored on site. So really, it's the government preventing recycle of fuel that's not even completely consumed.

And if you want to be fair, no energy is truly cheap. Fossil fuels and solar also get HUGE subsidies. The difference is there is very little up front capital in those two compared to nuclear. Again, the majority of the money spent in nuclear goes towards government approval and licensing, which is over burdensome and really unnecessary when you consider nuclear is actually more safe than fossil fuels.

You fuel these fuckers once every 2 years and run them continuously. They give off less radiation than a coal plant and less CO2 emissions (zero to be exact).

The main problem is public perspective of these fuckers cause when they fail, they fail biggly.

I must say, the Navy has some serious balls to name a nuclear submarine after the US state where Three Mile Island happened.

One more time.....
You can only make DU products out of the leftover material from the enrichment process.
After it has been used it's not DU
It's spend fuel assemblies and they are contaminated as he'll
Alpha, beta, gamma, etc are produced by the spent fuel assemblies.
They have to be kept cool, under a water shield (Wichita the water becomes permanently contaminated btw)
And must be stored with extensive careful considerations.
You can not use them for anything productive after they exit the fission process of a reactor at the end of the "life span".

Lift?
Ur serious about this level of ignorance?

>former reactor tech us navy

No CO2 emissions. Reliable power source. Highest mass to energy ratio of any energy source used today. Very safe compared to all other energy sources(more deaths have occurred from solar/wind/hydro no joke) --Former Nuclear Operator for 6 years.

Which rate? Also, not the retard you're talking to.

wait i'm sorry, did you say nuclear power plants are safer than coal or natural gas?

I believe he did. Correctly so I will add.

For user's purposes my point is valid enough, but sure, you're right... To the extent of viewing energy production from a purely financial standpoint... Which can also be said for solar, wind, etc.
At the risk of sounding like a fucking leftist, sometimes taxes should paid for things that not all people could afford.

Yes. Coal fly ash and byproducts from burning natural gas emit more radioactivity to the public than nuclear does. And, as mentioned earlier, nuclear results in the least deaths per megawatt hour.

Right now there are rare earth mines in the US that cannot operate because they extract large amounts of thorium as a by-product. One mine can produce 5000 tones of thorium a year, that's enough to supply the world energy grid for an entire year. Nuclear power uses cheap, abundant fuel and can carry 100% of our energy requirements if we allow ourselves to use it, all anti-nuke arguments have merit only with water based reactors, there are no logical arguments against thorium salt based reactors, they have no inherent flaws

DU shells.....105mm....120mm.....30mm gau.....ect
Are...not....made....from....spent....fuel...from ....reactors.....
They are made from leftover material from the "enrichment.....process"
The cap that usually get tossed out after we make fissile material....
..............
......am I getting this through to you?.....
Not....made...of ....spen...fuel.....

Underrated also dubs. Now ima go nuke some popcorn

I said I wasnt the retard talking to you earlier. I was curious as to what rate you were in the Navy. ffs.

Solar tec is getting more efficient and cheaper also with the improvements in battery technology I can't justify uaing nuclear technology due to the waste it produces.
Please can you vote for romojman in the poll
strawpoll.me/13336063

Yep, pretty sure re-processing has been going on for decades now in several countries outside of 'murica. sure you looked nice in your whites and all. But come on. Its a proven technology. Just because you yanks dont use it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

it's the only energy source strong enough to to power your moms vibrator

Asking my rate is like trying to argue on a debate by attacking your opponents credentials....and attempting to attack a informed argument with their "lack of graduation credentials"....
Look stuff up....read for yourself....and avoid using Google for real answers.

Hooyah

We are well aware of the ability to recycle spent fuel for further use in reactors.
The effort and energy needed to make it happen isn't very cheap or simple...and the risk for spill, leak, and further contamination is pretty broad.

GOD FUCKING DAMNIT. I am not the idiot you were arguing with. I agree with you, because I am a prior Navy nuke as well. Fuck. Jesus, branch out from your engineering background and learn how to fucking read.

Just stick the spent rods up your ass, not the worst thing that been up there

>Add to the instability of weather patterns by cause and effect
Creating more evaporation and cloud cover in a self balancing cycle.

Fuckoff

Not even that guy, but...

Sure sounds like you're moving the goalposts, my friend.

Gotta move the goalposts when u faggots can't kick goals

Haha navy nuke tech. Kind of worries me the level of retard the guy is

Funny when you go from:
>Fuel can't be reprocessed
To
>Everyone's aware that fuel can be reprocessed but it's too expensive.

Nigga, are you serious?

Pls someone vote for romojman in this straw poll I need to win pls

Apparently you are nuke waste, and not truly a nuke, which is what I guessed, by you saying you were a "reactor tech". Which is not a rate in the Navy. Albeit it is a qual. Which very few people would every call themselves by a qualification. So to you good sir, go eat a dick, coming from someone who actually made it thought their entire contract as a nuke.

I dont think he is. See

just look at them sons of bitches OP... how can that not be good?

>end essay

Lmao....
Nothing against you brother.

Ya just get a little sick of people clinging to anything for the sake of conflicting argument instead of reading up.

CPO

The ONLY reason it's not reprocessed is that it produces material useable in weapons.

That was a technology that was conceived and was almost used in the US.

However, de-escalation of nuclear arms from SALT II talks made us close most if not all of the spent fuel recycling efforts.

Thank the Cold War for that one.

The structure of your essay should be:

* Introduction - in this paper we will discuss the benefits, negatives and social views of nuclear energy and aim to reach a conclusion blah blah.

* First section: Benefits. Talk about all the stuff people have already said in here. When it is working with no problems it an exceptionally good way of power generation. The technology is now extremely mature, power stations going into meltdown can be almost designed out of the system, compared to other technologies like coal etc it is massively less dangerous. The statistics prove that it is, when done right, one of the most reliable and safe methods to generate power.

* Second section. Discuss the negatives. There are two main ones which are factually correct which are the issue with storing waste and the risk (though very small) of something going wrong can be devastating. You could also make the argument that in some parts of the world international restrictions may be in place due to the concern of taking spent material and turning it into arms (North Korea and Iran for example).

Section 3: Then go onto the third key point which is about peoples fear; they are right to be worried about where waste is stored, the risk of something going wrong and even weponisation. But as with anything fear related, humans tend to be irrational and the statistics show a different story. Yes, when it goes wrong it goes massivly wrong but draw a parrallel to air travel; many are afraid of flying yet all the statistics show it is the safest form of travel. Same story with nuclear energy. Then address the storage, yes it is bad for the environment, but the flip side is that on the whole its better than all traditional technologies.

Final section, conclusion: Make the point that once a technology has been invented, it becomes impossible to un-invent it. Point out that renewable energey is very important, there is no 'one size fits all' answer and nuclear is part of the puzzle too.

I can understand that. But putting CPO there was pretty gay. Just saying.

One more time...
Guy was talking about the military reusing it for field applications......ammo type......not fuel.....
You cannot use spend fuel.....for DU munitions....
Only the material from enriching the fuel can be used for DU rounds.

As for fissile "spent fuel" it can kinda be reprocessed..... but it's still energy intensive.....come's with a high contamination risk....and isn't too economical....

The basic reactors that have been used and are in use are dinosaurs of the technology...
The heavy water, salt, and the classified navy design's are our best bet rn....but are still a half step in the right direction to a better technology.

Why it's good:
Cheap
Relatively safe
Relatively low environmental impact
Jobs

Why it's bad:
High risk in event of catastrophe
No adequate way of neutralizing waste

RACE MIXING AND WHY IT'S BAD
------

msu.edu/~renn/RHE-_mixed_race.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.ca/2011/10/problems-with-mixed-race-marriages-and.html
nature.com/scitable/topicpage/haldane-s-rule-the-heterogametic-sex-1144
majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/alon_ziv_on_race_mixing/

dailystormer.com/transplant-organs-do-not-exist-for-race-mixed-persons/
The unspoken problems of race mixing.


IQ of offspring shifts towards the average for the race.
humanvarieties.org/2013/04/18/iq-regression-to-the-mean-the-genetic-prediction-vindicated/
books.google.co.uk/books?id=BMXVZzvLXz8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Certain genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.
amren.com/news/2006/06/scientists_stud/

Environment accounts for little or none of the USA racial IQ gap:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

In academic standardized testing , the wealthiest Black children underperform all but the poorest White children and just barely outperform even them.
jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html

Even when IQ is controlled for, Blacks display higher measurements of psychopathic personality than Whites:

amren.com/news/2008/08/race_and_psycho/

Violent crime correlates more tightly with race than with wealth or population density:
ronunz.org/2013/07/20/race-and-crime-in-america/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-dangerous-states-in-the-u-s.html

Race is also more tightly correlated to homicide rate
www1.udel.edu/soc/faculty/parker/SOCI836_S08_files/Landetal_AJS90.pdf
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840

Bro about to make your day.

Argument - Why is Nuclear power good.

First define what form of nuclear power you think is good, there are two types fission and fusion.
Fission is our current source of nuclear power production and leads to the great amounts of nuclear waste and is problematic in the fact that the waste it creates cannot be easily repurposed or recycled except for use in nuclear power production. As such large holding areas in the US and in 2100 in Finland will be used as means to store nuclear waste, until technology means it can be recycled. We have had two designs for power plants of this nature, and the ones that used heavy water to cool the reactors won out, over the other design. The design for these is flawed and leads to Chernobyl/Japan esque problems, where as the other more expensive design does not. Even after the Americans tested it, by causing a reactor overload the more expensive design managed to shut itself down with no damage to the plant. In the end, costs won out and that is why people don't trust this form of reactor.

Like I give a shit?

They're not firing the bullets in your hometown, so why should I give a shit?

Oy.....u asked...

My brother was an ammo dog in the army loading DU for gunships and 105's for abrams.
He got contaminated....his kids.....and anyone he was in any form of contact while that shift was on his uniform walking the base...ect....
Anywhere we fire/ store/ use the shit reads hot on a radiac.
Ranges, equipment rooms, land we walk on in other contries, the poor bastards handling it....ect.

Get the picture?
It's much like dioxins... the ability to contaminate by proximity is way too easy to ignore.

"What is this?.....the 50's....are we back to arguing about the effects of leaded gasoline again...?..."

Continued

Fusion tends to be the cleanest form, however the technology was always behind that of fission until now, with the advancements of the French and Russian designs Fusion power generators can be produced, and their has been a move to create even smaller compartmentalised nuclear reactors that would provide energy to a local area from a building about the size of a small house. So in terms of big massive nuclear reactors as long as there is a push towards this micronized technology it would mean free, abundant and clean energy for small investment compared to all other forms of energy production. The fail safes built into the designs of the plant, is so that it cannot have an overload.

Now a lot of people around the world have a negative view towards nuclear power, partly because they equate nuclear power with the destructiveness of nuclear weapons and the fallout experience by the Japanese and partly because of the experiences with Chernobyl, both of which are moot points specifically that if you take the background radiation produced by a small city then it nearly at the same levels you would experience if you lived close to a reactor and not as harmful as you would think as it depends on the type of radiation. Even the sun produces radiation in this respect.
Secondly the Soviet design for Chernobyl was one of the cheaper option heavy water coolant plants, and suffered from a lack of maintenance and training that could have avoided the problem. Japan was a natural disaster whereby the plant was knowingly built on an area of coasts that consistently gets ravaged with typhoons, so there error in both situations is human made and not due to the power plants. Secondly the production of nuclear energy has been a positive aspect for humanity in the respect that while the production of fission power has led to the creation of more waste than could be used in better plant structure methods, it has also lowered net the whole of the worlds nuclear.

It isn't.
The argument for it is that it's "cleaner" energy, but that's only if you only look at the lack of exhaust/air pollution and ignore the radioactive nuclear waste that won't break down for hundreds of years. Honestly the fact that we are able to split the atom and the only thing we do with it is boil water is kinda pathetic. If you didn't know, the primary heat exchange in a nuclear reactor is used to boil water which creates high pressure steam which blows on a turbine and spins it. That's all it is, a high-output water heater that produces radioactive waste.

Guy was arguing its a dirty technology. Who gives a fuck about du and military applications. Thats not the issue. Nuclear in general is. And reprocessing can and is done on a large scale and is done safely. Lots of clever ways exist to clean or reuse active effluents from a typical purex methodolgy. Trust me, im not a navy tech ha

Benifits to long term issues it causes.

You can look at only one side / facet of something.
You must consider the while picture of it or you end up back with the "this technology will kill us In the long run" issue.....
C'mon man think....

Benefits. Incredibly energy dense so doesnt take up huge swathes of land that countries other than america dont have spare. very reliable and will provide a national base level of electricity. no dependance on foreign powers like fossil fuels which is why france and the japs use or used it. Can be effectively reprocessed as weve established so the waste from legacy reactors can be reused in a traditional method, purex then mox fuel, or used in newer generation reactors directly. Releases no green house gases and is the only way anyone will meet the international clean air targets.

Downsides. Big up front cost. People are scared of it because they dont understand it, disasters have happened on very old designs, and funnily enough a huge anti nuclear campaign in america by the coal companies under the guise of a push for renewables.

Swing....yet a miss....

arsenal, as the US and other countries such as France have been purchasing nuclear weapons from the former Soviet states and Russia and using the Uranium in the production of power.
In closing the net benefits and advancement in technology against the temporary environmental costs, means that nuclear power will be the only main form of power provided for a post fossil fuel society.

Which is correct.

Thorium reactors are insanely efficient and way safer. But they dont make that which goes boom and that's a no go in the nuclear bomb age. That and the oil companies would like to keep lining their pockets with our tax dollars.

>it produces a shit load of clean power
>newer designs are extremely safe
>it produces enriched fuel necessary for making nuclear devices
>nuclear devices can be used to propel pic related

Dirtiest form of energy? Are you fucking retarded?