Why are we still using nuclear power when just one accident could literally destroy an entire country?

Why are we still using nuclear power when just one accident could literally destroy an entire country?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZUQ-Mhb4OVo
sciencealert.com/radiation-levels-in-the-fukushima-reactor-have-started-unexpectedly-climbing
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

because its godlike power generation

Why are you asking Sup Forums this shit

>destroy an entire country
No. No it can't.

Also, there have been three documented failures, they were all man-made out of ignorance.

why are we still flying round when 1 accident could literally kill 200 ppl

this

this guy gets it

Yes it can look at chernobyl

Not a country.

All you have to do is keep it from blowing up and you have amazing electricity production for a very, very long time based on one initial investment and just maintenance. You don't fuel a reactor with anything once its built - but there is no great way to dispose of all the waste it generates (which is finite and doesn't increase with time). We keep that shit under mountains but I wonder why we aren't just shooting all our heavy water and spent rods into space...

why are we still driving cars when there are literally over 1 million traffic related deaths per year

yeh pretty good idea having a rocket with tons if of radiation contaminated material. i can't see anything going wrong with a rocket launch.

bc the US abandoned the safer and cleaner LFTR tech to pursue the easier, dirtier, and much more dangerous uranium pellet technology to beat the dirty commies

Chernobyl was barely a city, let alone a country.
Get educated.

Ask vsauce

There are ways to throw shit without rockets. I'm sure Musk has patents on some mega LIM that could just toss shit into space without any exposed flames for miles.

Plus, you can just build a better container for your radioactive material that you can't break even with an intentional rocket detonation.

Why dont we just build nuclear reactors in space and laser the energy down? Could also create mini deathstars and vaporize the dindus, kangz, and allahus. No risk to America, massively powerful weapons, space.

nothing nuclear is allowed in space due to some convention during the cold war for fear of orbiting nuclear weapons

Water is heavy and slosh-y.

Name one instance where nuclear power did such a thing.

Progress is hard and dangerous. Want to live in the dark ages move to Denmark or some shit. Live on potatoes and get your power from a windmill.

Nigga the earth moves constantly. Lasering that shit could lead to many deaths

TMI was one that was contained pretty well even if the core did melt.

the heavy metals are heavy as fuck making them insanely expensive to put into space
also, if China's LFTR works they will be charging every one else to "store" their nuclear waste then toss it into their LFTRs

Nuclear waste is heavy. Rockets are expensive. That's pretty much it.

Physict here. Everyone who knows anything about nuclear power supports it. A nuclear plant cannot explode like a nuke. Chernobyl was a very poorly designed plant, Fukushima wasn't really that much of an accident as it was portrayed to be. Not a single person died due to radiation, only due to the stress of the evacuation.Coal power plants kill thousands thourgh air pollution.
IMO:
Fusion (not viable yet) > renewables > nuclear > gas > coal
Since we cannot run everything on renewables nuclear should be the way to go.

Yeaaa that like the worst thing you could do with nuclear waste man. Rocket launches have a terrible track record.

Coal is really fucking bad for the environment on a CO2-per-unit-of-energy basis, whereas nuclear power is pretty damn clean.

then build a better box for your waste that is rocket proof

>i can't see anything going wrong with a rocket launch.

Do you think that you were the first person to think of this? Obviously not. So what do you think the reasons are for why they have not done this?

>when just one accident could literally destroy an entire country?
Why answer your own question?

Because real threat assessment is potential damage times probability.
Even if potential damage is massive, if probability is tiny enough, threat levels can be passable.

lol you fucking moron it can and chernobly nearly did if they didnt drain the water from under the plant

>We keep that shit under mountains
Actually, you THINK we're keeping that shit under mountains but a lot of spent fuel rods are still stored at the reactors due to bureaucratic red tape over the new storage facility.

Yeah, a lot of Russian niggers went on a suicide mission to cover that site in concrete. It could have been a lot worse.

we have the means right now to power the world for 5000 years and supply free energy for every living being even when you calculate in the growth of the spiecies

Why wouldn't we?

Well wont is it illegal for cars to travel 500 per gallon even though its possible.....because of big companies buying patents and burying them until needed for profit.

Just google some of it. It's all there.

this is true
the UK's premier nuke reactor was shut down bc they filled the place with spent rods and have no where to put more spent rods

>>Not a single person died due to radiation,...
Yeah, because they didn't go the last mile like they did in Chernobyl. As of today relevant questions are not answered like where is the melted fuel. Let alone building large scale protections against environment contermination
especially below the reactor. They just did nothing that could kill people. But that is exact what you have to do in such a case. You have to send hordes of people into death if you take resposibility. But we don't do this anymore. We are now civilized and let the environment just get uncontrolled conterminated.

Oil spills....

depleted uranium shells my dude

Uhm Chernobyl? Country is still there and except for a small region, all is fine. Fukushima? Country still their and again except for a small region all is good. A single nuclear plant event will never endanger an entire country nor is it even possible for a nuclear plant to explode like a nuclear bomb can.

Cuz were all looking forward to nuclear annihilation. Its like you dont even want to die you fucking autist

You must be an uneducated spawn to ask a question like that.
Nuclear power is by far more efficient as far as power output than electricity, solar and wind combined.
It's lifespan for a city it powers is decades.
It's carbon footprint is less than coal or gas.
Is the ideal fuel source for long term travelling in space.
It's one downside is the nuclear waste it puts out, but even it's waste is recyclable for other products we make.

Because nuclear power is actually the safest, cleanest, most efficient means of power generation on the planet.... It's just that fucked-off hippie dipshits who know nothing of nuclear science think otherwise.

Had we not had all these fucktard hippie eco-dipshits in the 70's and 80's, we'd have FAR fewer coal plants, hydroelectric dams, mines, etc., and far more clean, safe, modern nuclear reactors.

It's dipshits like Japan who put a fucking nuclear plant right next to a fault line, or Soviets who assign retards careers because of dumbass socialist mandates, that cause accidents... In fact, those are the ONLY two nuclear accidents in history to actually contaminate the surrounding area (3MI released immeasurably minute radiation, if any, due to American excellence and proper containment by well-trained, competitively-hired, competent staff)....

Two accidents versus how many oil spills, gobs of pollution from coal plants, man-made lakes eating up entire towns due to the need for hydroelectric dams, etc. etc. etc....

Nuclear power is actually a very GOOD thing...

For space travel? It might be. But getting the stuff up there is risky. Would have been if challenger had such a spacecraft on board.
The recycling of radioactive fuel is not done to reduce waste as it suggests. In best case scenarios recylcling is at 10%. But doing so produces radioactive additional waste. So the only intention is to save fuel but not reduce waste.

it needs fuel... its refueled once every year
you know.. uranium

why do niggers post faggot threads when they know they shouldn't?

>expensive
>waste storage problems
>uninsurable
>no one wants to organize evacuation drills

Semi-legal and very dangerous if it contaminates drinking water or if one breathes in small particles.

Like others have said, it did not destroy an entire country. Also the quality of the play structure and crew operating it were sub par by today's standards.

plant*

Like the post after me said
Much cleaner and is the better long term fuel source.
To weaponize it is a waste of a a valuable fuel source that could be used to power cities and factories.

...

because the rich don't want to live near a nuclear power plant

AND THE QUESTION OF THE YEAR AWARD GOES TO.. THIS GUY

looks like Akira

It's the same type of reactor that Fukushima uses. The ring around the bottom is where the emergency cooling water is stored and where excessive pressure and gases are vented in the even of over heating. As we have all seen though in rare cases this design can fail.

b8 or op an idiot

I would like to know where he found that image and if there are more.

it is clean and effective

we should have way more nuclear power plants

your question gives away your massive ignorance of nuclear power. It cannot destroy a country and we relatively very safe

You really do not know why! MONEY

because Sup Forums is nothing but cancerous poojeet spam and ledditor faggots circle jerking

???

In Chernobyl, a pool of water became flooded with highly radioactive liquid that was in danger of blowing up. Three divers, who died in the proces, prevented this from happening. If this shit happened, Europe would have been a nuclear wasteland.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZUQ-Mhb4OVo
Documentary relevant to thread. Norway's got a tomb for nuclear waste, it's being built over the course of the next 100 years.

Also you're retarded for being afraid of a nuclear accident that happened before you were born when there's a much more dangerous and recent one still spewing radiation into the ocean as we speak.

water is one of the best radioactive protections available
nuclear reactors don't use a critical mass, necessary for creating a nuclear explosion
in Chernobyl the reactor became so hot is melted and released massive amounts of radiation into the surrounding area and radioactive fine particulate into the atmosphere
stop talking out of your ass

>warfare
>legal
top kek.
they usually just bury it then pour concrete over it, then it leaks into the water because shit underground actually moves and well we're fucked.

if we were smart we'd be cloning the mushrooms at chernobyl which literally lives off the radiation (some of them convert it to harmless energy somehow, though i don't exactly remember the process or waht it turns it into)
or we could just use diamonds which harmlessly soak and convert the radiation into electricity.. or do what nature does and let the radioactive material fall to the bottom of the ocean (see fukushima and why the pacific ocean didn't fry the planet).

No, just the whole Eastern Europe...

Problems occur if this reactor is not kept cool, then the core can melt, but it doesn't explode. It just turns into a place that gives you cancer forever, no mushroom cloud like Fallout.

Because it is the cleanest and one of the most efficient forms of energy regeneration we have. With the technology that we have nuclear fusion/fission is our best option at meeting our energy needs in the future.

...

>Nuclear power is by far more efficient as far as power output than electricity, solar and wind combined
>electricity
>nuclear power is better than electricity
what the fuck did you take? nigga, we use nuclear power to MAKE electricity

>stop talking out of your ass
Actually this guy was right, although IIRC the problem was basically a steam explosion that could have released even more radionucleids that it already did. Corium falling on water is definitely something you want to avoid

sciencealert.com/radiation-levels-in-the-fukushima-reactor-have-started-unexpectedly-climbing

I wish we bombed more shit.

Physicistfag here. I'll explain this in simple terms, because it really is simple:

There are two major designs for nuclear reactors in use today. One that produces plutonium as a byproduct (for weapons), and one that does not. The one that does not produce plutonium uses water as both a reactant and a coolant. So it is literally incapable of melting down. If the system gets too hot, the increased pressure dumps the water, and the reaction fails. The only issue you can run into with this type of plant is if you build it by the ocean, in a tsunami zone. Or other similarly retarded ideas.

the only actually dangerous and uninhabitable place at Chernobyl is reactor no. 4, where the melt down happened.

the rest of the plant itself is moderately safe.

the town of Pripyet, where the plant was located is completely safe, and the city of Chernobyl, which was many miles away from the actual plant was basically untouched.

furthermore, the Ukraine is a shithole, but not because of anything to do with Chernobyl.

wtf are those lines?

Photo from modern (abandoned) Chernobyl

instead it's now a racial wasteland. hard to see how they came out ahead...

>Why are we still using nuclear power when just one accident could literally destroy an entire country?

Greed. The suits don't give a fuck about nuclear waste, they'll have made their money and died of old age.

I believe those are tracers, in order to measure differences in the way the blast moves the air around, they'd check the film frame-by-frame after the test and figure out minor details of the way the bomb exploded.

Pripyet would be an amazing place to live
I always wanted a semi-enclosed arboretum

>ywn explore commieblok forests and hunt radioactive boars
Why do we go on

>Muh murican superiorly trained crew
>Muh superior design
>All accidents happened because of untrained crew and soviet commie shit

That spirit is exactly what lead to accidents. Fukushima accident was highly unlikely, yet it happened. You have to deal with the fact that a nuclear reactor can experience a unpredicted critical failure in its lifetime. The probability is low, yet it exists.

For instance, any PWR or BWR in the US can experience loss of coolant (pump failure, flood, unlikely earthquake...) which can lead, if the crew and maintenance have been neglected (come one, budget cuts exists in private power stations), to critical failure.

Containment building are not safe for massive H2 release in case of a melted core, a PWR experiencing core melt and H2 explosion could be worst than Fukushima, and it can happen anywhere say in France, the UK, the USA, where power stations tend to get old and safetly standards are decreasing.

idk why dont we just use the energy spent from OP jerking off niggers all day

two reasons they're not jettisoning that into space.

don't quote me on this first one, but i'm pretty sure a big part of that is international law regarding the militarization, and industrialization of space itself.

more importantly, there is no safe way to really do that, until we have either a space elevator, or a mass driver system we can't really get nuclear and highly radioactive material to orbit without substantial risk.

>this

Fukushima disaster destroyed the entire Japan

This guy gets it. Renewables have such low density, we can't really hope to supply the world with them. Even though they have seen exponential growth in output, their market share has dropped. So we can only hope to supplement with them.

If thorium can be funded and prototyped, I think that's the way to go. They would expend current nuclear waste, and thorium is plentiful. Plus, the technology exists and it could be up and running in a commercially viable way in 30 years (rather than the constant 50 year plan for fusion).

IMO: fusion (if possible) > renewables (supplementary) > thorium (especially to use nuclear waste) > gas > oil > coal

In the mean time, we can make coal cleaner. And remove all subsidies for all energy. Even the best economists can't figure out what a gallon of gas really costs anymore with all the layering of subsidies. Same goes for green energy-- no one knows the real cost since it's all government funded.

OP is a fag

this. plus modern reactors use boric acid as a fail safe. if it gets too hot its pumped into the reactor which stops the fission completely

make great video games and/or we not sissy fags.

>I believe those are tracers,
Rockets. They were fired just before the explosion, as you said, to measure the height of the cloud and to measure blast effects.
Very early tech in the nuke story, as you can tell by the fact that the explosion is above ground.

we couldn shoot and eat game for some fucking time without geting cancer..

yeah
it was worse than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined and the few survivors were eaten by godzilla

>use water as both a reactant and a coolant
>so it is literally incapable of melting
Nigga you just went full retard
>Physicistfag
come one, with that one everybody can see you're a 12 yo basement dweller

this is sort of irrelevant, but makes a good point about how not micheal bay or fallout nuclear power/energy is.

japan has had two atomic bombs dropped on them, was unintentionally hit by the outer blast radius of a third nuclear test detonation at sea, and has had one if not two nuclear plant meltdowns.

and, aside from a fucked up economy, a strange social structure, and a crippling sexual apathy, they're doing just fine.

Nuclear reactors don't make explosions, there is not enough fissile material even in spent waste.
Radioactivity scales with half-life, Technetium-99m injected into people has a T-1/2 of 6hrs, Iodine-131 is 8 days, Uranium-238 is 4.5billion years (only about as dangerous as lead), Bismuth-209 is 4.5 with 19 zeros, so only 2 decays/year in 1g

I realize above-ground tests are bad, and probably led to John Wayne's death, but goddamn if they're not pretty to look at. Kimmy boy should test his next one on the surface for a laugh.

Ever played bingo?