Facts you don't want to hear:
Nuclear power is the best solution to climate change.
50 years of laws to protect the planet yet the amount of operational coal plants is about twenty times as many as nuclear.
Tree huggers hate nuclear because it doesn't seem very safe on The Simpsons.
Other urls found in this thread:
nei.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
ft.com
chicagotribune.com
twitter.com
Well there is the radioactive waste that just keeps piling up. it's not the cleanest solution, that's for sure.
what to do with the high level nuclear waste? we tried recycling it and even built palo verde to run on recycled fuel but recycling spent fuel rods was a clusterfuck of contamination. I say we launch them into the sun but what if that shit explodes on the pad?
What's wrong with solar?
the fuck are you talking about OP? even greenpeace advocates for nuclear power
Solar still can't meet demand.
All the bad stuff concentrated in one place that can be moved to wherever you want as opposed to evenly dispersed throughout the atmosphere.
takes a massive amount of solar to provide the energy we need. Maybe once we get panels on every flat surface we could start relying on it. It is also sort of expensive.
This is a myth. Waste is not a problem at all
I agree. I'm a tree hugger and even I think that's one of the best solutions right now. The worst failure we had in recent history (save for Chernobyl or maybe Three Mile Island) was Fukushima and none of the people that went in there to fix it were seriously harmed. They handled it well, so it survived a fucking tsunami. Coal pollutes and sickens when it works as intended.
There's a big hold in the ground we ship all our shit too.
It should be a combination. Solar where nuclear can't reach due to geographical limitations.
Yes, just because of The Simpsons...people definitely have never heard of Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island.
ok.jpg
www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/Solutions/Reject-false-solutions/No-to-nuclear/
Clearly you're a fucking moron.
yeah but without constant supervision it will leach into the ground water before it decays to safe levels
nuclear isn't cost effective any more. devil's bargain with natural gas while we transition to renewables is what is going to happen.
>Tree huggers hate nuclear because it doesn't seem very safe on The Simpsons.
bitch please...
OP is not wrong, if we could come up with technology to handle the waste and potential literal fallout.
You could burn it in a breeder reactor. You'll still get waste but 100x less and mostly short half-life
We still don't know what to do with the nuclear waste besides shove it somewhere.
Coal burns for more, for less, than nuclear power does.
Nobody is giving a fuck about the aging nuclear reactors, and they keep getting older.
There are more facts, but the fact is that you went into this with the intention to bait or sell a particular narrative.
We can't move it to space reliably. That would be the best place to put it. Away from us. Because it's not conducive to any aspect of human life as far as the radiation goes, or any life for that matter in the doses that it could dispense.
Can I start bathing in spent pellets?
Facts you don't want to hear:
Climate change does not matter because you and everyone you care about will be dead before the disaster promised. It simply will not matter. This climate crap is a waste of time but certainly a useful tool for those invested in it politically and or financially. People are suckers for a perceived good cause.
In short, it's a life investment that you will not see pay off.
>spacex
Fukushima being the worst. Even worse than Chernobyl.
I think it's also true that current solar panels are only something like 15% effective at converting sunlight into energy. Guess a lot would change if they could move that needle.
>Tree huggers hate nuclear because it doesn't seem very safe on The Simpsons.
>tree huggers
>watching a lot of TV
proof that OP is talking out of his ass
Rolling with this,
We have a solution to most of the worlds issues and that's population control.
Read somewhere that the Earth can support 19 billion people. If we manged to halt growth now over time we'd get more efficient and pretty much everyone could be taken cared of in a few generations. It's not even as dystopian as it sounds, it's 2 kids per couple. The problem is the poor having a boatload of kids.
But that's a "no go" subject so we're just gonna let ourselves die.
With all 3 major disasters combined, nuclear is still WAY safer than coal in terms of deaths per year
3 accidents over 60 years of nuclear power plant operations. That's your reason? This is like doing nothing to avoid a head on car crash because you might scuff up your tires jumping the curb to steer clear.
Are we trying to save the fucking world or not?!
>a life investment that you will not see pay off
you can say the same about fighting and dying in a war but that isn't stopping anyone
>the conservative/libertarian mindset
But, it's happening right now. Don't tell me you don't believe in thermodynamics.
You nigged when you should have nogged
>In short, it's a life investment that you will not see pay off.
Adults consider those investments worth making. People have been making those investments for thousands of years.
What kind of selfish, short-sighted, greedy little feckless child in man's clothing are you that you only live for yourself?
fuck off china
Even if this were true, how is that worst then the total destruction of our environment from coal?
Given how little it's used now there exist some solutions. If it were used more, better solutions will be engineered.
>Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced 76,430 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about eight yards deep.
nei.org
Wow one accident is surely reason enough to let coal power destroy the world.
It's a problem, a solvable problem but a problem nonetheless
this is the most loaded and off-base question on all of Sup Forums right now. you should feel bad
The only qualm I have with nuclear power isnt the harmful effects if it is run correctly, its the potential for a problem if its run by corporate-underfunded retards instead of professionals who actually have consequences if they don't meet inspection minimums.
Greed and morons will ruin any otherwise great system. Look at Flint fucking Michigan.
I'm not wrong because even if you do nothing to handle waste and major accidents, the result are still better than what we are doing now. And more realistic than any plans for the near future.
How are any of your down sides worse or even in the same ballpark as 40 foot rise in sea levels?
The waste meme is hilarious. It's minuscule compared to the damage we're doing to our earth by mining and burning coal.
Jesus you two are stupid.
First, just because something is LESS dangerous doesn't mean that it's still not TOO dangerous.
Second, you know what DOESN'T kill anyone? Wind, solar, tidal capture, etc. etc.
And last, it's not like the current solutions are the ONLY solutions. Future solutions are going to provide clean energy without any of these terrible side effects.
You should be talking about fusion power generation as the next stop, not fission. Though fusion isn't perfect, it's the next step prior to truly clean power generating options.
>This is like doing nothing to avoid a head on car crash because you might scuff up your tires jumping the curb to steer clear.
Well, Chernobyl alone won't be safe for approx 10,000 years.
Fukishima is still spewing radioactive material into the ocean. We can measure the radioactivity in California.
Both of those incidents cost over 1,000,000x the 'savings' from other sources of energy.
It's just not worth the risk. Ecologically, financially, or morally.
Shit. We still don't know we are going to create signs to warn people in 3,000 years to stay away from those areas.
nothing, they've powered entire town in trials in Italy
Radioactive shit is leaked continually into the water supply of hte US thanks to those death machines, you twat. There are maps of cancer hot spots thanks to radioactive water leaked into the water supply in certain areas. Nuclear use is the constant death of us and the planet.
Are you completely retarded and don't realize how Fukushima poisoned the entire goddamn pacific ocean?
>climate change
Stopped right there.
>Wow one accident
when do you think they'll have Fukishima contained?
how many trillions of gallons are contaminated?
how is anti-nuclear = pro coal?
put it in the poor neighborhoods. they dont seem to mind living in filthy polluted areas.
Don't worry user, the short bus will be here to pick you up soon.
Confirmed idiot
the two major accidents have created 2 major zones of the exclusion
en.wikipedia.org
and Fukishima en.wikipedia.org
20 Km in a very densely populated part of Japan
On our current path no one will be alive in 3000 years.
A few hots spots on the planet vs. wiping out most life on earth seems like an easy choice to make.
>2 cold war era reactors built to use uranium without much knowledge of how uranium even behaves in a reactor
>1 reactor built on a fault line within striking distance of the ocean
Build them away from fault lines, away from oceans, and use fucking plutonium like all the modern ones.
All I'm hearing is "I'm an emotional conformist faggot"
I'm not in any way denying reality. I'm simply pointing it out.
Perhaps, I don't really have an one mind set.
Very true, I'm not trying stop anyone.
I just live for now people. I love and take care of people in the here and now. Make sure my immediate family is taken care of. I'm not planing for my kids, kids, kids kids, kids ect That's their fucking job, if nothing else happens before then, and I will not be around to care one way or the other. Neither will you, or you kids, or theirs.
And there exists more potential gaffes that will require better solutions it its memed like solar power, in a shorter time frame if damage control is ideal, because of all the loosey-goosey regulation shenanigans going on. Coolant spill? Haha, oops, someone clean that up later.
We'd be producing more if we used nuclear power more, and we would have less problems packing it all into a football field eight yards deep if we all chipped in and streamlined the process of getting the waste into a football field-sized tomb reaching at least eight feet depth wise. But, that's wishful thinking. Instead, we have to consider our options in a world with vastly different and often ass-backwards constraints and conditions, like zoning.
They're not? I don't remember making the claim that they were. But, they're still factual downsides that many people don't want to hear. Maybe they will be when fossil fuels are exhausted or the easily accessible deposits are exhausted. Or, maybe it'll be a problem when our children's children's children's children decide that building new plants with modern technology through and through is a job for their children.
Hahaha, oops, another incident with a nuclear reactor further driving the populace away from its use as a source of power generation.
>Radioactive shit is leaked continually into the water supply of hte US thanks to those death machines, you twat. There are maps of cancer hot spots thanks to radioactive water leaked into the water supply in certain areas. Nuclear use is the constant death of us and the planet.
>Are you completely retarded and don't realize how Fukushima poisoned the entire goddamn pacific ocean?
This is entirely talking out your ass. The effects of coal power have cause so much more pollution in the world's oceans than Fukushima they aren't even on the same fucking scale.
>wont happen in my lifetime so its not important
go back to Sup Forums and jerking off to traps fag
There's certainly an argument for containment of nuclear waste while we figure out what to do with it. Presumably at some point in the future we'll be able to safely get it off the planet.
No way to undo coal pollution though.
You're pointing out that you don't think that the current model of thermodynamics is sufficient to explain much about whatever climate change is supposed to be about.
...
Nuclear power is completely safe if you do it properly.
We are very bad at doing things properly.
it is the cleanest solution, the amount of 'waste' is very small compared to the amount of power you collect
>Shit. We still don't know we are going to create signs to warn people in 3,000 years to stay away from those areas.
they actually are working on plans for that
ft.com
our distant descendants will think these areas are taboo or some such nonsense
...
>you know what DOESN'T kill anyone? Wind
Anti nuclear is pro coal, because these two power sources are the only thing that can meet world demand now, or in the foreseeable future.
Wanting solar and wind power to work well enough to replace coal doesn't make it true.
>A few hots spots on the planet vs. wiping out most life on earth seems like an easy choice to make.
Those few hot spots will never go away.
I don't know how you concluded that eliminating nuclear power will wipe out most life. We were fine without it for the 1000s of years before nuclear energy, I'm sure we will be fine for 1000s years after.
>Fukushima and none of the people that went in there to fix it were seriously harmed
The workers of course were heavily protected, unlike the citizens in the prefectures around the plant. Would you care to talk about that, or shall I help you out?
Or, your post was tongue in cheek, right?
I think there may be a few ways, but it's in the same boat of
>too expensive
>I don't know
>someone else will figure it out
just like the containment of nuclear waste in that the containment is as frank and as clear-cut as boiling water and dissolving salt in it.
Being pro solar as a solution is like being pro fairy dust. Yeah, you aren't pushing coal or nuclear, but you aren't living in the real world either.
>Nuclear power is completely safe if you do it properly.
Ya, if you define properly as Not at All
>We are very bad at doing things properly.
Yes because we are humans.
And natural disasters occur.
We were fine because we didn't use electricity. We do now. No nuclear means more coal. I believe that was user's point.
So you are suggesting that those results are worse than 25 foot sea level rise and half the worlds population dead by 2100?
No, I'm not. I don't have that information to form an opinion.
Might one day though. Got to start somewhere.
>because these two power sources are the only thing that can meet world demand now, or in the foreseeable future.
We could drastically cut demand.
80% of all energy consumed is discretionary
Well, solar, wind...
On the production side there's hydro, tidal, bio fuel, natural gas, ...
On the conservation side there's greater efficiency, conservation of power, better battery technology, ...
It's not like there's a one-or-the-other choice here.
Only an idiot would reference the Simpsons, for or against.
chicagotribune.com
This is not a permanent solution. With the exception of the waste management which will last beyond generations of your mutant seed.
My parents used to work in environmental engineering, they worked on jobs doing cleanup for that site up in Washington where most of our waste is held. Long story short, theyre gonna need a bigger box. If it were up to me, id dig a hike to the center of the earth and shoot it down there with a missile or something
450 nuclear reactors in operation at the moment world wide. 3 major nuclear accident in the history of their use. Seems like we're pretty fucking good doing nuclear power properly.
This guy gets it.
Nuclear waste is the last thing I would be concerned about. Nuclear power has come a LONG way.
The problem about Fukushima is that the japs lacked any creativity and decided to build the plant in one of the most vulnerable parts of the country. They had it coming. The plant was literally built right on the east coast where tsunamis have always hit.
But there's no reason why we can't fund a project in a place like New Mexico where weather and geological phenomena are not a thing. We can store the nuclear waste deep within the ground or in giant lead vaults.
Build something akin to a national highway system but in this case power lines. We can easily build a future proof series of power plants.
Also uranium is naturally found in the desert so transportation costs are kept to a minimum while the raw material is imported from nearby.
>We are very bad at doing things properly.
>Yes because we are humans.
>And natural disasters occur.
Flint, Michigan
hanford is waste from weapons production not power plants
>No nuclear means more coal. I believe that was user's point.
It's also fallacious.
>We could drastically cut demand.
You first.
>I believe that was user's point.
and my point is that the majority of power you consume isn't essential and can be eliminated.
Carter tried this and told people to wear sweaters indoors, it didn't work and people hated him
>3 major nuclear accident in the history of their use
Yeah but... when they go, they go big and long.
Radioactive cooling water is building up trying to keep Fukushima from going molten.
>I'm insulted that user not part of my cult
Look at where we are at after 50 years of preaching conservation. Be realistic.
Hydro is great, tree huggers block the construction of hydro now as well. Tidal is far from practical to meet demand. bio fuel still fucks the climate just not as bad, natural gas does far more harm in it's extraction than nuclear does in its waste storage.
Sure but let's be real. We're all consuming power to do this right now when we could all be sitting with the lights off. If anything consumption is going to increase exponentially.
>You first.
I'm one of those people you claim don't exist.
over 90% of my energy comes from my rooftop.
Your move.
I don't really get why solar isn't the clear cut winner. We have a giant nuclear reactor in the sky that will continue to run for thousands of years. Once the technology is improved to harness and store that power the problem is solved.
It's the only realistic solution. No other option meets demand. The world is going to increase demand as time goes on. Coal and nuclear are your choices for meeting that demand in the real world. Coal will kill everyone. The choice is pretty clear, you don't have to like it. But you'd be better off to accept it.
>over 90% of my energy comes from my rooftop.
so how much was this?
piss off libtard
So your affirmation of a reality with regards to a particular phenomenon or set of phenomena is not based upon any verifiable, corrigible aspect or aspects of fact. In other words, you are pointing out... what? You believe in something without question or knowledge? You are now claiming you have no knowledge of thermodynamics. Do you believe in something you don't understand, or do you not believe in something you don't understand?
If I read this at face value, it comes out to being that you do not think, literally, that the current model of thermodynamics is sufficient to explain much about whatever climate change is supposed to be about. As in, you do not know about thermodynamics, so it reads as if you do not choose to make a claim or have an opinion on thermodynamics as it relates to climate change. But you have an opinion on climate change.
So now it is that you do not think about the relationship between thermodynamics and climate change, or anything involving the correlation between the two, let alone causation involving both at some point, but you are willing to make conclusions with what you do know about climate change, such as what climate change is or when it will happen, which then doesn't seem to be sufficient if you are willing to throw away something as elementary as fire make hot, where we live in a world where fire make hot is all around you. You don't think about it, you don't comment about it, and so it does not factor into your equation when evaluating climate change. That's what I'm getting from this. You don't think that something as elementary, today, as aluminum getting hot is enough to explain why some places get cold in the most general, hypothetical example, ever.
Feel me here, user. What does this look like to you, besides autism.