Nuclear power is safe they said

>nuclear power is safe they said
>back ups to the back ups insure reactors are 100% failsafe
>It's one of the cleanest energies in the world they said
>energy will be too cheap to meter they said
Why in God's name are we still using nuclear power? It is shocking to me that people have not demanded all nuke plants be decommissioned ASAP.

Other urls found in this thread:

chernobylguide.com/fukushima_disaster/
youtu.be/CNV0cmKO8sM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because there isn't a reliable solution to replacing them that aren't just as disastrous to the environment.

Coal plants cause more deaths.

Nuclear power has the lowest deaths per TWh out of all the major electricity sources, including renewables. Nuclear disasters are terrifying and covered by media extensively (also inaccurately), but actually very infrequent. Disasters in other sectors go largely unnoticed.

Nuclear power is safe.
Only accidents are due to operator error..

Yeah okay but the problem with nuclear is that if shit does hit the fan that shit doesn't leave the fan for literal thousands of years.

Nuclear power is actually pretty efficient, it also has one of the highest energy yields. The problem with it is waste disposal, there isn't a really safe way of disposing it.

There really isn't much waste.. Just depleted fuel and some activated metals.
Coal exposes us to much more radiation.

>there isn't a really safe way of disposing it.
I always wondered why they couldn't just lauch it into space or something, but then I read up on it, and if the launch vehicle were to malfunction or something, I don't think we'd want to have radioactive waste spread over a large area, so I guess that isn't safe enough? If they could make it safe, though, That'd be a great way to get rid of it, just launch it on a trajectory out of the solar system, and never see it again. Assuming they could make it cost effective to do so, that is.

>nuclear waste is safe to transport and store they said

Waste disposal is different among the nuclear using countries. In th eUSA, this is limited to long-term storage. In Europe and Asia, this is full recycling, actinide separation, and reuse. There are still some nasty leftovers, but it is more manageable in quantity.

It is safer… now. The issue is for more than 30 years we just dumped everything here and there without any consideration for the consequences on environment.

Wouldn't that take more energy than what that same fuel produced durint it's lifespan?

>Asian nuclear waste processing

Building them on fault lines is RETARDED!

Quit your bullshit. that is obviously a natural gas shipping port. Look at the docks!

That's the thing. I don't really know, but if they couldn't find a way to make it cost/energy efficient as well as safe, there'd be no point in doing it. Maybe that's why they don't. I'm not a rocket scientist, so I have no idea.

There actually is a safe way of disposing of it. Because the volume is so small, you can just pick a geologically stable spot, dig a very deep hole and dump that shit down there. Fill with concrete. If done properly, it's below groundwater and thus won't pollute it even if the containers leak.

>The Japanese Nuclear Crisis – Fukushima
>chernobylguide.com/fukushima_disaster/
It's the fucking cover image.
Troll harder, ignorant loser.

I'm all pro nuclear power. fossil fuels are way less efficient and the pollution they cause kills and killed way more people than all nuclear accidents combined. and we all know renewable energy is a joke so far.

We're trying to do that in the US, at Yucca Mountain, but the government keeps delaying the project and/or trying to shut it down. They've been working on that shit since sometime in the '80's.

deep sea disposal worked well enough. The solution is dilution. youtu.be/CNV0cmKO8sM

You vould say that about almost every energy source though. Look at how much damage fossil fuels are causing? Environmental damage by nuclear power accidents are a drop in the bucket compared to the damage that is caused by billions of people casually burning fossil fuels every day.

cause we use the products to create bombs.

there are over 250 identified elements on the periodic table. each with different properties and different uses. there are at least two isotopes for each of those elements, each with their own uses and chemistry.

we have had for over 70 years the capability for safely generating electrical power using nuclear chemistry how ever that pretty much makes the fossil fuel industry obsolete. but they are entrenched and they don't want to go quietly.

the only reason they allowed nuke plants in the first place is cause the government wanted bombs. this is the point of most nuke plants. not power, but fissible products. and the deal was only make power the dangerous way so it doesn't catch on and public opinion doesn't get behind it because it is so dangerous.

TL:DR, we are still using "unsafe" nuclear power be cause the oil and gas companies have spent billions on lobbyists to make sure we do.

Fuck you I will shove my 1 foot penis in your ass for to 2 hours.

>you can just pick a geologically stable spot, dig a very deep hole and dump that shit down there

>forgetting that you have to transport the waste from across the corners of the country over an aging/failing infrastructure

sure hope your train doesn't derail or your long haul trucker doesn't fall asleep.

a: reactors are still the cleanest option even with all the meltdowns they are less damaging for the environment and humans than all of the other options and yes that includes the renewable sources.

b: reactor designs are being constantly improved the ones that blow up are all decades old designs that were outdated by the time they were constructed and hardly comparable to modern reactors.

c: what other options are there? using coal and oil and live under constant smog blanketing the sky? plastering the entire earth in wind turbines that kill millions of birds and cost insane ammounts of rare earth metals? using inefficient solar power that barely produces enough energy to break even with the production cost?

How come they didn't just put the nuclear power plant on the other side of the island if they knew about tsunamis being possible coming right from the Pacific?

trips of truth

true but what other options does japan have? they have no space for solar or wind and gas, coal and oil costs too much and would kill the environment even faster than a few reactors blowing up

You will be happy.

Per Kw/h Nuclear is safer, cleaner, and more sustainable than almost all other alternatives. Its the same thing with Airplanes, planes are HUGELY more safe than cars, but when shit goes sideways its bad and people lock onto that rather than the truth that its safe. Its a logical fallacy, humans are bad machines.

>How come

because like everything else big business, profit and convenience takes first place over safety and wisdom
this is why fission nuclear energy will always be a disaster - you can't trust the people behind it

a modern castor can survive a train crash also those things usually drive slow as fuck to prevent any major incidents .

yes let's stop using the temporary effects of coal and clean energy solutions such as solar, wind, and hydro, and use the inefficient method that creates toxic waste with million year half lifes

That image is not Fukushima. They do not have docks made like that. In fact there are no docks near the plant. Just a break wall. Look on google earth you nimrods.

I agree.

>just as
Nuclear power is much better than the alternatives even by environmental standards. Nuclear power currently has the best power to waste ratio of any power source we have. We should be scaling up nuclear power implementation drastically to buy us the time we need to fully transfer to solar/wind/sea energy.

Think of the children!

Chernobyl was caused by operators manually disabling the safety devices and the back ups while ignoring procedure and not communicating. Russia screwed themselves on that.
Fukushima was caused by a literal act of god. The magnitude of the natural disaster would have fucked up anything.
Nuclear waste doesn't always stay as waste. The used crap we threw out in the 70s and 80s is now being reprocessed since we have better technology and it has become financially feasible.

You have to live within 1 mile of one of these for the rest of your life.

1. a hydroelectric dam
2. a nuclear power plant

What's it gonna be?

Sure hope your coal mine doesn't collapse.

Even if there is an accident during transport, the fallout would be extremely limited. Why? Because nuclear waste is made up of very dense solid matter. If the train derails, the immediate surroundings will be slightly contaminated. Most of that shit can, and will be, cleaned up. All you have to do is scoop up the shit that's on the ground and the topmost soil layer. Long-term effects would be negligible, indistinguishable from background radiation.

>accidents never happen
>we are in total control

I wish I could find the source, bit I remember reading that if we switched the entire world's electricity production over to nuclear... We would only be able to power the globe for a year before we completely depleted the Earth's supply of nuclear fuel.

that explains all those underground containment sites they keep building then

sorry, most irradiated material has a half life of at least 10,000 years

try again

well you seem like an accident that's really out of control right now so maybe you should take a breather outside of the thread?

Ummm you sir are talking out your ass. The decay rates and stability of fuel grade materials means they can not be used in a nuclear bomb. Physics dont work dat way hommie.

shilling this hard

nuclear plant, since the housing is cheaper and i dont care if i live or die

hydro power cant be used near population centers most of the time

solar is highly situational and only works about half of the day and is the leats efficient of all renewables in terms of energy invested vs energy gained

wind is just as situational as solar and requires the same remote locations as hydro most of the time

coal and other fossil fuels cant produce enough energy to eep the economy running and also produces tons of pollution regardless of how muhc you try to filter it and its fucking expensive.

utill we get fusion reactors stable and profitable there is simply no cleaner , ressource efficient alternative to nuclear.

>water is a dense, solid matter

Tut tut tut, Breeder reactors. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

How many have "Blown up". ummm one cherynobl. Fukishima didnt explode.

Not a valid argument. Nobody cares what a few people living near a plant think when we're talking about what is cleaner, safer and more economically viable for mankind and the planet as a whole.

Pretty much once society falls, humans will die from leaking radiation.

Nope just correcting incorrect and immature posters acting like the news and giving misinformation.

if you think the earth recovers from oil, gas and coal extraction and usage in less time you are nuts.

Chernobyl didn't explode either. Nuclear power plants can't blow up like an atom bomb. They don't have a pure enough form of uranium, nor enough of it. Otherwise we wouldn't let Iran have nuclear power plants.

I'm not making an argument, slapdick. I'm asking a question. But thanks for backhandedly answering it.

a: thats not a castor
b: a castor survives such a whimpy fire
c: as i said before the transports move slow and nothing short of a missile strike will crack it open

even IF a castor is breached the effects are fairly minor radioactive waste isnt half as dangerous as most idiots presume. you could even touch a spent fuel rod with little to no issue after it is properly cooled down and ready to transport in a castor.

Actually it did explode, that is why the water is contaminated. "Explode" just means the vessel breaks because that is the serious problem.

Anyone who doubts these are pictures of Fukushima,
go to Google Images and put in "fukushima disaster"
and they are all the first hits.

Don't fall for the pro-nuclear shills who are lying to your face.

This guy is what happens when you watch youtube conspiracy videos lol

fucking retard

Bump, Thorium.

The only reason they fuck up is because people are stuck using power plants that are over 40 years old.
Stupid motherfuckers like you are the reason we don't build new, actually safe ones. Fear-mongering literally cost lives dilbert.

This map shows tidal heights after the tsunami.

Most waste material from reactors have densities similar to lead. They are very heavy and once airborn would fall very fast and travel too far in the event that a shipping container was damaged. Water is only dense when under force. Why do you think the ancient proverb says to be like water? It can be gentle or it can be destructive. It all depends on how it is used.

they build these sites because the old ones were shit and the material needs to be resealed in better facilities

also newer reactors produce vastly less waste than the old ones somewhere around 50 to 80% less infact.

There is nothing involving nuclear power in that picture, numbnuts.

You can distill the solids out of the water that's in the reactor. The water itself won't become very radioactive. And even if it did, due to the hydrogen somehow turning into tritium, it's half-life would be at most ~12 years. Oxygen has two radioactive isotopes, but their half-lifes are less than 5 minutes.

New gen nuclear power is fucking awesome. Too bad no one is building new plants, instead they're just keeping old ones up and running. Fucking stupid. And meanwhile hippies keep bashing on nuclear while coal is killing thousands and is releasing much more radioactive particles into the atmosphere just by burning fossils alone. Also wind turbines are bullshit since they're too fragile and have to be replaced after a couple years. Same with solar: solar panels are busted within ten years, plus they cost a lot of energy to make and leave a lot of waste.

I live less then 20 miles away from 1 of the nuclear power plants on lake Michigan. And boy if it blows up oh man we are fucked.

>The decay rates and stability of fuel grade materials...

sir do you know how you produce enriched uranium or plutonium?

But the fire and the scary feelings!

>pro-nuclear
>shills
There is a huge difference between someone who is pro-something and a shill. Stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a shill, because I much doubt there just happen to be nuclear-specific shills on this board right now. Besides Fukushima happened, no one is denying that. WHo cares if these are or not the right pictures? That doesn't change anything.

"all those underground containment sites"
You mean the 3 big ass abandoned salt mines we started using in the 80s?
The ones that are at less than 2% capacity...
The ones that have decreased the amount of stored materials in the past 7 years...
That radioactive source used in every Xray machine used to be waste...
That smoke detector in your house has a slightly radioactive element that was made from.....you guessed it. What used to be considered nuclear waste.
Half life doesn't matter because we are no longer just sitting on it wait for it to die. We are actively reusing it.

The real Fukushima plant before the accident. Hmm notice any spherical tanks? I did not think so.

Shit only goes wrong cause countries still use old reactor tech, modern reactors are designed so that they can never melt down.

> CANDU reactor

your picture should've said "Gone Fishin'" because this is some damn good bait

Better get your iodine tablets ready boiii

fukushima blew up ... multiple times actually

>machines are fragile and busted after a few years and leave a lot of waste
>trust us with nuclear power though

Thank god not everyone here is a total retard.

Canada has exclusive rights to CANDU technology and will not release it to anyone else.

iodine tablets cause autism.

exploding usually means the reactor core is breached and due to the iintense heat the building is filled with hydrogen and oxygen gas from the coolant system wich then ignites blowing the reactor building to hell .

probably because of some meme using the wrong picture. if you search "fukushima power plant," you dont see any of those spheres

Yes I do.
I get paid a decent amount of money for what I do and part of it involves knowing the equipment and techniques used to process radioactive materials.
Hint: I do work for part(s) of the government.

Really? Because that sounds a lot like an emotional argument hidden as an innocent rethorical question, since we all know what most people are expected to respond.

>google images "fukushima disaster"

the problem with standardizing nuclear power is all the countries that do everything on the cheap and with typically low quality
(I'm looking at you, Asia, eastern Europe, and Russia)
well, you can figure the rest out

No they arent, china has them

Canada is actively trying to sell them abroad

Implying factual.

"Nuclear power is a hell of a way to boil water."
~Albert Einstein

Just want to make sure everyone knows that literally ALL we do with the power to split the atom is BOIL WATER.
The primary heat exchange uses superheated water from the primary coolant to heat water in the secondary coolant, and that's used to blow high pressure steam across a turbine to generate electricity.
Also it's only the "cleanest" form of energy if you ignore the fact that it produces the deadliest waste product in the history of human civilization.
>but we bottle it up
It's still there.

Of course, Mr. Trump. I forgot that everything you don't agree with is fake news.

Oh, indeed- and it almost helps perfectly explain why no one's building nuclear power plants, doesn't it?

regardless of the pictures this particular fire is nowhere close to any nuclear material.

here is the picture of the 4 reactor buildings in fukushima as you can see there are no gas tanks or docks like in your picture anywhere close to it and a fire in said gas tanks would not affect the nuclear material or the reactors .

Fukashima didnt have a nuclear explosion and neither did chernobyl. Those were steam explosions contaminated with nuclear material. HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE. Its the difference of ground zero at Fukishima and ground zero at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You do realize that fukushima had nothing to do with the reactor it self but rather the stupidity of humans putting the backup generators under the water level and not on the nearby mountain for safety right? you arent this stupid right?

You do realize chernobyl happened cause of the idiots not following protocol right?

You do realize all of this?

You're literally a retard