42kms of tunnels, 420 metres under the ground

>42kms of tunnels, 420 metres under the ground.
>100 years to dig
>Sealed for 100,000 years

But hey guys, nuclear power is totally clean, safe and cheap! It's not like we have to create entire catacombs just to power a small country.

abc.net.au/news/2016-06-08/finns-to-bury-nuclear-waste-in-world's-costliest-tomb/7488588

Other urls found in this thread:

inhabitat.com/australian-wave-energy-project-sets-world-record-with-14000-operating-hours/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
worldwatch.org/node/5650
nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/aberfan/desc.htm
britannica.com/event/Deepwater-Horizon-oil-spill-of-2010
forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY DOING TO MY COUNTRY

Solar is better but even that is not totally useful because of power storage issues and the rare earth minerals required to make panels.

>strongly implying the volume of nuclear waste is bigger than the amount of uranium you take out of the ground in the first place

>implying that is relevant

...

>implying the underlying implication was not "muh we will run out of space"

>Nuclear Waste gives of radiation
>Radiation is energy
>Convert that energy into a usable form
>No more Nuclear waste

Only relevant if you plan on using your uranium mine as the storage facility.

Which you aren't.

the truth is, we do not have the technology to destroy radioactive materials yet.

> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Solar is good, battery technology is getting better though and panels more efficient.

Wind is good. People are hard on it because a lot of the early models were shit but they keep getting better with modern windmills paying themselves off much wuicker than before and ahve expected lifecycles of 70 years +

This is the real new hotness though - tidal power.
inhabitat.com/australian-wave-energy-project-sets-world-record-with-14000-operating-hours/
Unless the moon falls out of the sky, we'll always have the tides and swell.

The jess won't let us do this tho

>It's not like we have to create entire catacombs just to power a small country.
But you can just dump it in the desert brah

>battery tech is getting better
Batteries havent improved sinch lith ion m8

THe underlying implication is that there are FAR FAR more costs associated with Nuclear power, primarily storage related, that are never taken into account when people talk about how cheap Nukes are.
Of course the waste is less than the volume of uranium mined.

Theres no such thing as radioactive waste
This happens because governments are fucked up and liberals are intentionally doing stupid shit/sabotaging nuclear power.

Used nuclear fuel can be re-used in certain nuclear reactors. Google for breeder reactors, Russia already has full cycle nuclear plants based on that tech.

You think capitalists would do that? Just waste money to spite people?

>Countries have been wrestling with what to do with nuclear power's dangerous by-products since the first plants were built in the 1950s.
>something that hasn't even been around for 100 years will need at leasy 100000 years to to make up for damages
from unleashing multiculturalism to sending out two space probes for aliens to enslave us to unknown nuclear disasters you people have doomed us all

Why don't we shoot nuclear waste in space with rockets? Is it still too expensive?
Then why not pour molten lead over it and create a sort of envelope to contain radiation?

Nonononono.

You see, we can recicle all that nuclear "waste" there is still some very usefull uranium overthere and we know how to extract it again, the problem is that when you do that you also extract plutonium, plutonium that you can reuse into nuclear bombs BUT since you cant reuse all the plutonium(it would be too costly to create so many nuclear bombs) you have to store it safely in more and more increasing quantities in foolproof unassaultable facilities with incorruptible people... a security nightmare.

So the goverment takes the easy way, and just let it rot in underground facilities.

Capitalists? No. But shortsighted governments, who are ultimately the ones who commission, build and run power plants? Yes.

After extensive research I have found a solution to the nuclear waste issue:

>take nuclear waste
>create dirty bombs
>nuke Africa

Trust me, I'm a scientist.

>We can re-use the waste in bombs
Yeah that sounds way more productive.

It would be far easier to just shoot that shit into space.

What if we were to load it all into a shuttle and send it into the Sun?

Why shoot into space valuable and scarce resource? There's very limited amount of usable Uranium on Earth.

Damn right emu lover.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Solar is great until you get clouds, or in finlands case a never ending winter.

You don't know much about stars.

Dem trips tho
Straya will be ded tonight

Nuclear is far cheaper than anything else
Intentional mismanagement, bad designs, excessive regulation, and the fact existing reactors today are old as fuck is what causes most of the costs.

Costs too much

just air drop it all on that stupid abo dirtpile they worship

Space mirror with magnifying glass.
It'll always overproduce solar power on earth until you get bored and start scorching targets on earth for fun.

Solar is great until you actually ask what those panels are made of, then see how destructive the extraction and refinement of Neodymium (and all Rare-Earth Minerals) is.

Nuclear power is a scam, it's only real purpose has been the creation of bombs. They use a ridiculously complex and dangerous procedure with radioactive material to boil water, yeah right.
Too hard to light a fire and keep it going with coal since it's so rare, we only have a few mountain ranges of the shit here.

>It's not like we have to create entire catacombs just to power a small countries sewer system
>it's not like we have to create entire catacombs just to store all of our dead people

way too dangerous, and do not underestimate the weight!

That's a lot less messy than digging a dozen of these (to get the same amount of energy) then firing all the trapped actinides straight into the air. It's almost as bad for 'renewables', you might only have to remove a couple of mountains instead of a dozen to get at the rare earth elements needed for your precious solar panels but the pollution you generate refining those mountains down is even more hazardous. The beauty of nuclear is that it minimises the volume of the nasty stuff and we can bury it afterwards.

>Cheapest source of power
>scam
k

Forgot pic

explanation: the departure phase is most dangerous. Our rocket technology is primitive. But yes, you could shoot all of our radiocative waste into the sun without issues

>Nuclear power is a scam, it's only real purpose has been the creation of bombs
You are correct in that uranium power plants were created for this purpose. A thorium power plant would be able to process the old waste in addiction to having much less waste.

>They use a ridiculously complex and dangerous procedure with radioactive material to boil water, yeah right
Boiling water is now complex and dangerous

Hey, I live literally 800 meters from there if that's the one i think it is.

It's genious. Other countries are paying us money to take their nuclear waste and we use it in secret to build our own nuclear weapon arsenal. Russia should be afraid, very afraid.

Finland is about as geologically inactive as it gets. For your information, we don't store just our spent fuel in there, but also rent the space for other countries as well. For us, nuclear power is the only solution for reliable energy production. We don't have oil or coal, the climate for large scale solar production, the geography for large scale hydroelectricity, and wind power is a meme. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power doesn't depend on massive logistical solutions to keep us supplied, and is indeed better for the environment. Green-leftie-axis loves to bitch about nuclear power because of muh Chernobyl (blatant ignorance of each and every safety procedure) and muh Fukushima (building a plant on the coast of a geologically volatile country prone to tsunamis), but I haven't heard any of them propose an alternative other than cutting down half of our forests to build wind parks and buying energy from Russia (nuclear produced of course).

What is graphene, Alex?

>put nuclear waste in sealed barrels
>drop into subduction fault
>its gone for a billion years

haha nuclear waste though guys what do we DO about all this POLLUTION

It's in Arizona. To be fair, big holes in the ground tend to look similar.

>Boiling water is now complex and dangerous
No the fucking point is that boiling water to turn a wheel centuries old technology, the use of a complex and dangerous method of doing it is stupid, for fucks sake.

Nice complete lack of an argument there leaf, I know right, coal comes out cheaper every time. Even when the globalists try and destroy It's economic advantages.

they should just do what they do with other industrial byproducts

put them in the water supply and get doctors to say they're good for us

aren't newer generation reactors capable of using waste as a power source?

or am I mistaken

Well but guys, one of the problems is that uranium is not unlimited. Countries can't depend only on nuclear power plants or the deposits would be depleted in one century or so(without taking into account the increasing price of uranium)

Is just a good complementary energy source.

The waste doesn't just magically disappear.

THORIUM.

100 years is more than enough to figure out nuclear fusion

CHINA YES
BLIGHT THIS MOTHERFUCKER

>the use of a complex and dangerous method
Almost all power is produced by a method that's complicated and dangerous at one point or another:
worldwatch.org/node/5650
nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/aberfan/desc.htm
britannica.com/event/Deepwater-Horizon-oil-spill-of-2010
forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/

IDK but as already stated there is no such thing as waste, fuel rods can still give their unspent 85% uranium, is just that the goverment doesn't want to recicle it in fear of creating a plutonium black market.

Nuclear is the way of the future, although props to hydro, solar and wind will also be needed to help.

Waste of space, would be perfect for """""refugee""""" center

Yeah I laugh every time some nuke shill says its clean energy. Fuck that shit build more wind-powered turbines and put solar panels on every fucking roof.

You don't know that... it would be a serious bet to center all your power production in just one resource with expectations of finding "soon" a replacement.

In fact, in strategic terms, depending on one resource is just retarded. Makes your country both dependable from the source and easy to blockade.

>Local vegetable farmer Timo Rauvola was sanguine about the plans for a nuclear burial ground.
>"Personally, I believe that when [the waste] is placed deep down there with care and expertise, it is better than how it is now around the world — placed wherever," he said.

Why are farmers so sanguine and always right

Why not both? I mean mutated islamic mole people might be a problem later but we'll all be dead then (or, if not, shortly afterwards).

It would work but it would be
A.) Expensive
B.) Risky as fuck.

What do you think would happen if the take off goes wrong or the rocket explodes several hundred kilometers in the air? All that sweet nuclear waste will distribute across the skies and eventually rain down.

an intelligent Finn
what a Saturday

Didn't you know that roaches can survive nuclear radiation?

>the use of a complex and dangerous method of doing it is stupid, for fucks sake.
Radioactive decay is not actually very complicated. I'm sure a steam engine and combustion engine seemed dangerous when they were first created.

As for safety? Per megawatt, even in its infancy, nuclear has been the safest way to generate power ever

Who the fuck uses the word "sanguine"?

Because it would suck if one of those rockets happened to explode

vampires usually

Can they chew through solid rock? Obviously, you'd seal them in.

Honestly, we should just turn Africa into one big global landfill.

>it would be too costly to create so many nuclear bombs
surely the free market would fix it?

>Send waste to Ukraine
>Pay locas to steal artifacts
>????
>A нy, чики-бpики и в дaмки!

So that`s why you almost always have a nuclear subsided by the State?

Plutonium has other uses, but in the black market/goverment bussiness is usually bomb related.

>can't build new reactors because mentally deficient liberals
>can't afford to pump tons of money into advancing the tech
>old reactors are inefficient
>still using old reactors

>subsided by the State?

while all your homogaywindsolar projects are 10x worse with subsidies, and then people pay 4x more for electricity

Idiot Kraut, go present your ass to your local Achmed.

Safest, in what regard? It might not kill as many people as other methods (I dunno), but making whole regions uninhabitable >>>>>>>>> a few ded people

Also friendly reminder that they still haven`t taken care of Fuckoshima

>Be against nuclear power
>Prevent it from evolving to something more efficient and less wast producing

Good job, retardo

Just dump it in a third world shithole that has no future beyond misery. The West can use the superior energy production to fuel its expansion into space.

No it fucking isn't.

Every single nuclear plant that has ever operated did so via massive subsidy.

Name one reactor that runs commercially and has operated for one fucking week without any subsidy.

Anywhere on the planet, any time in the past or present.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Why doesn't big oil just roll their entire capital into wind turbines, then cut off the oil supply?
They'd force countries to adopt their windpowered money printers at whatever cost they wanted.
And the world would praise them for it.

its one of the four humours; sanguine, melancholic, choleric and phlegmatic

I'm sure the demand for nuclear bombs would be high if they were legal.

We have a feed in tarifs, no subsidies. Here is some advice: When you don`t know what you are talking about, shut the fuck up.

As for the price, that mostly comes from large businesses being excluded from the EEG.

>Safest, in what regard?
In terms of deaths per kWh generated. A lot of people die from the pollution released by fossil fuels as well as in the process of obtaining them and the scale that other renewables have to be constructed on to compete means more people die from stupid shit like climbing up the hundredth wind turbine tower of the day.

>making whole regions uninhabitable
They're relatively small on a planetary scale and China is doing much the same thing on an even larger scale to produce the composites for your wind turbines or doped silicates for your solar cells. Also, unlike in the latter cases, accidents which cause areas to become uninhabitable don't happen with modern reactor designs. It's like comparing the localised horror of an occasional train crash to the steady, diffuse drip of deaths from driving.

>Italy

>Why doesn't big oil just roll their entire capital into wind turbines,

Not all of it, but they are.
Not oil companies anymore, but 'energy' companies.
They will corner the market, kill off the competition, and fuck us all.. again.

For now, oil still nice and cheap.

Wow, America.

You do know that there's a type of solar panel that was invented by Australia that can charge while covered by a cloud?

It's pretty old new tech, so i can understand why you still think its the 1990's for solar panels. After all it came out in 2008.

>pic related

Safest as in less deaths per kilowatt hour. As for making whole regions uninhabitable... coal fires are the first thing that come to my mind. Obviously building nuclear reactors on active fault lines, at water level or as Russia likes to do, turn off all of the safety precautions and run your reactor, that's 20 years over due for maintenance, on full blast... is gonna lead to some issues. But even with these classic examples of retarded reactor handling, it's still safer

Most of the anti-nuclear faggots don't realize we already use by products of fission in every day products (namely smoke detectors, as one example, bomb detectors, and helium 3 which is highly sought after in the medical fields). They ALSO go out of their way to PREVENT reserch into USING it.

Because muh hippy fears muh Gaia muh nature provides.

>MY COUNTRY
It's "everyone's" country now, goyim. Don't forget to pay your EU taxes, and take your mandated niggers.

>420 fuse it

>as above, so below

I am sure you can back that up with numbers (for renewables vs. nuclear). Also, would be interesting to know if that covers death from long-term deaths as well.

Sure, and that wouldn`t be an issues if it happens in the desert. But when you get shit like that in europe of japan then it is a different matter.

>Coal
We aren`t in 1880 anymore.