Is nuclear power worth the risk?

Is nuclear power worth the risk?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yeah. Look at Japan, they were given nothing in the resource lottery but are still working on bleeding edge tech.

It would be if people weren't a bunch of hippy pussies and we had third or fourth generation power plants. Current tech is a little bit shut when they fuck up.

It is if they start using reactors that aren't obsolete technology. It's also a good idea to not build them in earthquake prone areas.

New reactors are safe as hell, and can survive Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima-level disasters

If they can make fusion reactors work properly we'll have A LOT of clean power.

yes, especially the new line of reactors
>oil costs war

What's wrong with war? I make a killing on war. The more the better.

they are close. They are using pulses instead of sustained though

If we ever get thorium reactors on line they'll be safer. And yes, I saw that on in a nutshell

Actually, fusion would be a disaster.
With machines able to run 24/7 with no cost to power them, natural resources would be stripped clean in no time

Did I say war was wrong? But in comparison to nuke reactors safety, the cost had to be mentioned

People would still have to pay for it

Yeah, think of all the coal you could mine, and oil you could drill
>but why?

yes, the entire solar system's natural resources would be stripped in 'no time'

Yes they create less radiation than coal power plants and are the cause for fewer deaths/ kilowatt.

Then the private sector would have an interest in space travel and mining outside of Earth.

yes

Ask japan

Yeah they are. For the most part nuclear power is just a glorified steam engine as is.

Double Trips confirm

Hell yes. If safety precautions are taken and it is operated in a safe manner by properly trained competent people.

>solar system
yeah because those mining facilities on mars have only just scratched the surface

Fuck no just go Pochinki like a normie simpleton, wreck nubz and get better loot

Yes, but we have to be serious about safety. 3rd World countries and short-cutting companies have no business trying to run a reactor.

Absolutely, security and performance improve year after year and the output energy skyrockets through the roof. Just remind your fucking government to be responsible and to close those power plants too old to be safe.

Nuclear has hit a wall in terms of progress thanks to regulations not making advances worth the risk. Furthermore, there needs advances to be made but governments don't want to take the costs of R&D and most businesses are too conservative to take the big leap required.

indeed it is as long as we move on past water reactors which are just retarded to still be using

there is no 'big leap'
regulations arent exactly in the way

>commercial HTGR (now decommissioned due to greed)

I live in SC where a huge project for several reactors was just abandoned and I'm pissed. The governor is trying to find investors to complete the project but it doesn't look well.

Nuclear fag here. The entire industry across the country is pissed about it.

>tsunami prone areas.
This wouldnt happen if they built their nuclear reactors in the western coast instead.
Look at a map of their location, most are in the Pacific coast

what type of reactors are planned?

It's currently safer than coal and natural gas. Fewer deaths and injuries per watt-hour.

Same here. Would like to see someone pick the project back up. Such a massive waste of money.

>Is nuclear power worth the risk?

If global warming is indeed the greatest threat to humanity then yes, nuclear power is worth the risk.

Indeed if global warming is a great threat then nuclear power is just the start
> 100% sin tax on gas is OK
> massive internet infrastructure is needed to allow telecommuting to workplaces
> a cap on children is necessary
> populations who exceed their malthusian limits must be allowed to die (fucking niggers)
> electric cars should be mandatory

I'm convinced that there is indeed global warming, but not convinced that all those things should be done and, therefore, that it's the greatest threat to mankind.

Yes, very much so.
An estimated 6.5 MILLION people die EVERY YEAR because of air pollution.

Nuclear power killed - taking the worst estimates - around 100 thousand in 65 years.

The only thing that matters is pic related.

Three pressurized water reactors.
They're seeking federal funds to complete the station. Hopefully they'll get it and get that shit operational.

>Hell yes. If safety precautions are taken and it is operated in a safe manner by properly trained competent people.


So that would mean "no" taking human nature, shareholder return, etc, into account, right?

we need nuclear fusion reactors.
till that time we'r gonna struggle.

>PWRs

Yes, the risk at this point, with modern techniques is no final. The way that older plants like the one in Japan failed can't happen due to the removal of the rod based system. Without rods there is no large fuel source to meltdown and act as fuel so the chain reaction stops.


It hasn't always been worth it but it is now.

youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

watch the first 5 minutes. this is kirk sorensen a former nasa engineer. i believe that the reactor he is designing has the potential to solve 90% of the worlds energy problems and have benefits in the bio medical and deep space research fields.

Depends.

If you think Global Warming is a serous threat, it is absolutely necessary to utilize nuclear power in the short to medium term until other carbon-free forms of energy are technologically and economically feasible.

Anyone who claims to be sincerely concerned about AGW and who also opposes nuclear power is either a moron or a hypocrite.

If you do not thing warming of the climate is a serious threat, the necessity of nuclear power i less urgent, though it is still economically advantageous if you can get unnecessary legal roadblocks out of the way.

dont forget fukashima wasnt built to code. they cut corners and so they fucked themselves, this is no different then building a skyscrapper out of cheap material and saying buildings arent safe when an earthquake happens becasue weve fracked the place to shit (which releases a shit ton of radioactive zenon)

Exactly the point I came here to make. Nuclear (fission) power is the safest option - for both humans and the environment - to power an industrial society. At least until we increase the efficiency of solar panels by several factors or figure out fusion.

Not exactly true. While thorium is useful it's still actually less safe than current plans for future power plants. It's amazing that thorium could have been so useful but now has nearly become obsolete before it's introduction.

Molten salt reactors have a bunch of problems:

Fuel dropping out of solution
Everything in the loop gets heavily contaminated.
Depends on fast neutrons, low stability.

I am not saying that graph is wrong, but I am saying a source would be worthwhile.

You're kidding, right?
That's exactly the design that went poof in Cernobyl.

The Plants that were being build in GA by the same contract shutdown or was delayed as well.

I just took the first one from google images.
Anyone who wants a source can find it in 5 seconds by googling "deaths per twh by power source"

1) It's Chernobyl
2) It really really isn't. Chernobyl had 4 RBMK reactors, which have nothing at all in common with pebble fuel reactors.

fucking wonderful if it's true , I will look more into it

chernobyl had RBMK water cooled graphite moderated reactors

very VERY different from high temperature GAS COOLED reactors

Only if its build by commies.

Chernobyl, right.

Pebble reactors are graphite moderated and have low stability, just like Chernobyl.
Also, the pebbles have a habit of breaking and fucking up the fuel exchange gear.

...

>Chernobyl

waste of uranium. stick with renewable sources
the future will need that shit far more than you idiots who just wanna use it as a means to destroy your environment so you can fap all hours of the night

Yadda, yadda, stick with water moderated designs, they're safer.

Also, the whole discussion is pointless because solar is cheaper by an order of magnitude.

Chernobyl's problem wasn't the graphite moderator (although that's what ended up catching fire and making a mess), but a slew of design errors and questionable choices.
It had both a positive void coefficient AND a positive temperature coefficient. It didn't have a sarcophagus to allow quick reloading (RBMKs were designed to make it as easy as possible to produce weapons grade plutonium).
But the worst of all is that the first part of the control rods was also made out of graphite, which is an absolutely absurd design choice.
When the operators realized how much they'd fucked up and intiated a SCRAM they unknowingly caused the power output to spike even more because the control rods _increased_ the neutron flux rather than reduce it.
If the rods were made entirely of boron like in every other reactor they would have probably been able to get the reactor back under control.

As far as the pebbles breaking up you may be right and this may be a shitty reactor, just saying that it doesn't have much in common with an RBMK.
LFTRs are the future. Your reactor can't meltdown if it's already molten.

except every single disaster has had water as a component whether its a steam explosion or creation of hydrogen from the reaction of steam with zircaloy cladding.