What do u think?

What do u think?

Attached: IMG_20200103_145309.jpg (720x495, 89K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LZXUR4z2P9w
youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=320s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

100% true.

Source: I work in the nuclear field

I heard that , if something happen (like in russia) its human fault ,not mechanical

I should add an addendum, US nuclear power is safe.

I live in a small country in the middle of the EU called Hungary , we got one nuclear plant called "Paks" and they want to expand it

Pretty much.
>live in Germany
>green energy is a huge industry
>Fukushima happens
>instant ban on nuclear power plants
>now the government is floundering to simultaneously close coal plants and somehow find the space they need for the ridiculous numbers of wind turbines and solar panels to replace them
>tfw they find a spot for a wind farm and the locals protest so hard that it gets abandoned

I just read that the paks facility produces more than half of all electrical power for Hungary.
That's kinda cool.

Orange Man Bad.
If CNN says it's unsafe thats what im going to believe

Attached: 1574471684722m.jpg (1024x439, 44K)

Porn Faggot agrees with OP

I'll suck cock for nuclear power

Attached: 1575766899865.jpg (580x985, 115K)

I think :
therefore I am .

Bump

Attached: 1569078400013.gif (390x260, 35K)

the concept is if you think of it as a generator sound and works.
but its not just a generator you have to consider but the supply chain of the fuel, which includes handling waste that will radiate for several millenia.

to burry trash is not a solution. its literally the same as brushing it under the rug.

What about all the waste created?

this, Design flaws and bad maintenance are the biggest threat

You need fuel (risk), the plant (risk) and a way of disposal (risk).
Yes, it is generally safe, but only because we make it safe(ish).
If someone slacks of during any risky stage, then the CONSEQUENCES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME.

I would prefer more research into viable fusion reactors, instead of better maintenance of existing nuclear plants.

Yeah, it seems pretty safe, and the energy yields are nice and hefty. The problem with nuclear is that when something goes wrong, it can be pretty bad. A lot of people have seen too many movies and have this doomsday idea of nuclear power.

Attached: 1578059739447.png (720x495, 426K)

>I would prefer more research into viable fusion reactors
Research into this never stopped. There is some promising stuff coming from the MIT Plasma Physics Lab right now, and a startup staffed with members from the lab (forget the name). A huge experimental tokamak is going online in yurp fairly soon as well.

Except you can literally just put it back where you found it. It was already buried, if we didn't have to worry about terrorism we'd just be digging it up, expending some of its radioactivity, and putting it back without fuss. Move a couple army bases out of nebraska to protect them and it's all pretty fucking safe.

Even so, our current, much more elaborate strategy of weird nuclear waste silos are verrry compact for the energy output. Especially when compared to, say, something like the oil sands of canada which span miles. Also as refining technology improves we are going back to the old waste for a few last squeezes of juice more and more these days. Not because we're out of glowing stuff but just because we can and it's nice.

Cant it be treated and re used ? I thought the plants only extracted a little bit of the energy from the fuel in the first place

>more fucking taokamaks
Yeah, let's continue to beat our head against the same wall we've been banging it against for the past several decades. Hell, in fission reactors let's continue to use the same Plutonium-producing process we've been focusing on, too.

Oh, and then the final nail in the coffin is that the alternative is entire continents being on fire for half the year.

The waste management of nuclear only sounds scarier because it forces us to address waste at all. We breathe the waste of coal every day and think it's fine because it didn't start really trying to kill us all until a hundred years later.
That too.

>Research into this never stopped.
That's why I said "more research" and not "start/resume research".
You're right though, advancements have been made, like with the deuterium plasma reactor types.
Those reactors are better in every way, plenty of fuel and it's easily accessible, safe plants (no criticality risks), and no radioactive/dangerous waste. They on top of that also generate more energy.

You can thank the cold war arms race for the Plutonium breeders.
"Hey! Let's have Nuclear plants for energy and weapons of mass destruction!"
"Shouldn't we also think about a more efficient nuclear power solution?"
"What? Hamburger? Yes! Hamburger! HAMBURGER! MURICA!"

Yeah, waiting around for a fusion magic bullet we don't even know to be theoretically possible on earth makes about as much sense as hoping bill nye and greta thunberg will do a fusion dance and Kamehameha all the co2 out of the sky.

Wouldn't it be easier to just, you know, not have any waste?

Why do you spend so much time peeing and pooping? Couldn't you just, like, not?

and what energy source does that.

Perfectly safe and much much better for the environment over many "green" solutions. A solar panel is like 300x more toxic to the environment from the lead in it

i've never heard anyone say it was dangerous

you must only talk to well informed people.

*real people, of course lunatics who aren't really people have said it's dangerous

you realize that the US doesn't run any breeder reactors. Right.

You can't just bury it as it's been enriched and fissions to things like plutonium and other heavy metals, if they leak into the water table they can cause issues.

I mean, nuclear power is the most eco-friendly source of energy, before we can make renewable energy sources efficient enough to provide electricity for everyone.

Waiting around, no. Actively pumping money into alternate methods, yes. (Muon catalyzed, migma, inertial confinement, crystal lattice encasement, whatever.)

water is what we use to contain the reactivity of those elements, they don't leech into the water and cause issues the way you see in movies.

A couple of good TED videos with the same guy, both about nuclear. Watch!

youtube.com/watch?v=LZXUR4z2P9w
youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=320s

Attached: 1vekgyF5oIAQz2ogzRqC1B11ISwhm1tCelNQe-ip22Y.jpg (1080x627, 57K)

I could, if I didn't exist.

I didn't say anything about an alternative.

What I meant was that you don't have to worry about where to put the waste and/or what to do with it, if you don't produce the waste.
By that I mean that Nuclear fission plants as we know them, are producing a lot of fucking dangerous waste, we should be focussed on researching better alternatives.

the waste isn't as dangerous as what you seem to believe it is and furthermore per watt it generates less waste than any other source.

NUclear produces less waste than others, like coal and hey, even solar! Solar panels will need to be changed in 30 years, and were are we going to bury these things, which are full of heavy metals?

your argument here is non existent all you are doing in countering factual statements with idealistic notions that have no realistic footing.

You are just arguing by repeatedly saying "yea but we should do something else" when you don't even understand what is already being done and what answers we have come up with. Furthermore you are rejecting the answers that you are familiar with based on misinformation and emotional notions of just not liking what you think you know about it.

Say something useful

We can process 95% or more toxic waste, we'd be putting out less than we put in

No, I'm saying it's functionally illogical to assume that net positive fusion is physically possible at all on planet earth. It should still be pursued as there's a chance that it is, but we don't know if it"ll ever work. Ever. Regardless of funding, regardless of science, the only positive fusion we know to exist is only net positive by the natural force of gravity, which we don't even fully understand. And even then it's inefficient as all hell.

All the while we have a perfectly serviceable interim solution.

I'm saying we didn't get to the moon by researching teleportation. We did it by brute forcing it with dumb technology we knew could actually solve the problem at hand.

but the problem getting to the moon was the timeline we wanted to do it in, not that we thought it was impossible to do.

I'd say we're in vehement agreement, then: I'm all for funding more research into fission reactors, but I suspect that all the focus on tokamaks is probably misguided. I can think of few other technologies where people have been actively plugging away at refining methods for *decades* with that little to show for it but have ultimately emerged as successful.

Yeah, I don't know if you noticed but the planet's on fire and we're on the verge of nuclear war because the guys with oil hold too much power. We're kind of on a tight schedule too.

only one of those statements actually holds any factual value.

Again, I didn't say anything about any specific alternative.
Nuclear fission is a good energysource, but it also produces lots of waste, which is difficult to handle and has longlasting impact.
We should leave the reactors running just as long as we need to, focus our efforts on better energysources and shut them down as soon as the better alternative is running.
The amount of waste the reactors produce is not sustainable in the long run.
I said that Nuclear Fusion is the alternative we should be researching.
It is in every way better than Nuclear fission.

Solar energy is currently not really better than Nuclear Fusion, as Solar panels need a lot of rare elements to be build and we also do not have energy storage that is efficient enough.

Wind power is ok I guess, same problem with energy storage though.

Water based energysources, I personally dislike dams because of their damage to ecosystems, but they're mostly reliable, if build in the correct places.
Tide turbines are kind of niche and I think they're not sustainable because they're prone to accidents.

Coal is outdated and should be stopped immediatly. The working field is dangerous, the energy yield pathetic, the damage to wildlife in the case of brown coal, and more problems. It's just stupid.

All our current energysources have drawbacks, we should focus on new, better sources.

I agree, and feel it's only thing that'll save us from climate change, but people are fucking retarded. So we're all going to suffer.

Tell that to the pacific ocean after fukushima

>Nuclear fission is a good energysource, but it also produces lots of waste, which is difficult to handle and has longlasting impact.

this is what you are not understanding.

It produces the LEAST amount of waste of ALL the energy sources per watt generated, and it is in no way as dangerous as you seem to think it is.

nuclear fusion is a pipe dream.

>Yes, it is generally safe, but only because we make it safe(ish).

Yeah, so, like literally everything we utilize.

>lots of waste
again, it's relative - coal produces both 1) a shit-ton of ash, and a shit-ton of CO2. Nuclear produces a barrel of waste for 20 tonnes of ash or whatever it is. Ridiculous comparison.

In the wrong hands, it is.

I hold a degree in this field and have worked in it for almost 3 decades and I am soo tired of trying to convince people.

What kills me is how much they get from tv and movies.

Again though, I only speak for US based nuclear operations, breeder reactors CAN BE as dangerous as most people believe nuclear in general is.

One of seven continents is on fire from coast to coast and the middle east senior advisor (i think? He's some kind of ambassador to iran/iraq for like twenty years) just told the american people on national television to presume a state of war with iran, who is also a nuclear power backed by russia, the only guys with more nukes than we do.

And everyone holds too much power, I don't think you're really going to bat for saudi arabia, are you?

Probably another poster, but how is putting it in a barrel and burying it in a secure mountain a problem? Sure it produces waste, but it can be transported pretty securely, unlike CO2 from coal which is just pollution.

Basically anyone who's for 'clean' energy, but against nuclear power, is a dumbass

Like I said, only one statement, the people who control the oil do have too much power in my opinion.

The world is not on fire because a continent is experiencing wide spread fires.

And we will not have a nuclear war precisely because the people who have the power are only interested in keeping it and that level of destruction would only ensure that there is nothing left for them. Nuclear war will always be a fear tactic and not an actual option. Having a nuclear war wins absolutely nothing. That is why it is called mutual assured destruction.

I am not sure what you are asking, it isn't an issue in my eyes as the waste is actually no more of a problem than the naturally occurring elements that we mined out in the first place. Once spent the fuel really isn't like what movies show it as.

It may produce the least amount of waste, but the waste is dangerous.
You can't store it close to humans for long.
You can't store it out in the open, as it could be used for something malicous.

Yes, it's relative. And yes coal is shit, as you said. Coal plants should be shut down.
I would rather see more Nuclear reactors, then to see the existing coal plants continue their operations.

Cus you krauts build your mills here in Norway, fucking up what we have left of untouched nature. Thanks EU and ACER

STOP getting your info from TV

>ctrl+F
>molten
>msr
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

Attached: samurai-archers.1401342855938.green-arrow-nuke.jpg (476x284, 41K)

What are you talking about? Nuclear waste emits gamma rays, you can't store it near humans for long. Unless you want cancer or other things...

Ah, thank you! :)

Have some tits.

Attached: 1559783582854.jpg (1536x2048, 268K)

perhaps this will help some of you.

The waste is a danger but it is important to understand what is real and what is hype.

world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx

Hope the link works.

I agree. I think it's been held back by oil company funded propaganda, I think they paid it's scary image into existence to protect their business like the wood pulp industry did with hemp. There is a certain terror in being killed by something you can't see or feel or perceive in any non-mechanized way, a sort of invisible boogeyman. But in reality far more people get bludgeoned, drowned, incinerated, blown up and given cancer just dealing with petrochemicals day to day. So much of it has to be mined, collected, processed and transported there's really no way to avoid the danger associated with millions upon millions of gallons of flammable chemicals.

Also I think if you threw the respiratory deaths in there it would really push it from 1000x more to 1,000,000 times more deaths. I'm pretty sure emissions are the primary cause of asthma, I've seen too many people recover like 99% of the way from asthma when they move above 1,200 feet to not see the connection.

Oh, and I was reading about the Goania incident (Brazilian scavengers break open a powerful teletherapy source they found in an abandoned hospital) the other day, I notice if you google street view the address where the source was cracked open there's a graffiti piece of the event.

Attached: Untitled.jpg (1025x355, 71K)

That's true, but everybody who runs a nuclear reactor is human
>inb4 muh cumpooters
Also human-designed and operated machines.

Gammas can be easily moderated with dense matter, silly. Keep It Out: Build A Wall!

it would take an entire semester full of course learning for me to explain how our reactors are designed so that they can not experience a critical core regardless of human interaction or machine malfunction.

But a simple answer is that they operate on a negative coefficient of reactivity and if all human safeties fail the core will actually shut itself down naturally.

The waste water is a bit of a problem. We can’t ship our nuclear waste into space by any means.. Incasing it in concrete and putting it at the bottom of the ocean is not a good idea either.. but all in all I do agree 100% it’s not nearly as dangerous as people make it out to be. In the North America. I don’t think I would want to be a part of the North Korean or Iranian nuclear programs. Seems a little shady to me

Knucklehead

>The waste water is a bit of a problem
wut?

>live in Germany
>green energy is a huge industry
>Fukushima happens
>instant ban on nuclear power plants
Was it a political move? I mean, it's not like you can have a fucking tsunami in Germany.

its prettymuch true. i mean, we still have a long way to go to make nuclear reactors 99.99999% fuckup free, but the waste footprint is so infinitesimally small compared to other kinds of powerplants.

only thing is that tiny bit of waste practically never stops burning, and can turn you into a walking corpse just by crossing its path for a couple seconds.


so yeah, amazingly clean energy with some pretty important snares to work out.

wut?

It's insane to me that that:
1- Energy generating reactors are literally the most important part of modern society.
2- Nobody understands at all that we now have designed intrinsically safe fission reactors, or even why they might want to care about it.

Aren't the french pebble bed reactors also intrinsically safe?

nuclear reactors = good
nuclear waste = bad

road forward: make nuclear reactors that produce less and less nuclear waste.

your understanding of the dangers associated with the waste is "loose" at best.

No, he totally watched Chernobyl and played Fallout. He gets it.

that show is a travesty. It really bothers me that people are believing it to be an accurate documentary. Part of why this thread exists actually.

to my understanding, used fuel is salvaged and repurposed for other things, and anything that's been irradiated is stored in containers that can withstand being burned/hit by trains/dropped from the sky/etc.

am i correct in this understanding?

Why would it be a problem to put it in the bottom of the ocean? It takes a couple hundredthousand years for deep ocean water to reach anywhere close to the surface not to mention you have an entire ocean to dillute it.

Ex-Navy nuclear tech here.

Nuclear power plants are safer than the public thinks.

Their product, nuclear waste is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than the public thinks.

It's basically indestructible poison. Particularly spent fuel and control rods. They're literally so dangerous that they have to be actively cooled with water for DECADES, and will continue to put off fatal amounts of radiation for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

Think about that. To run our air conditioners, to be moderately more comfortable for a single moment, we're creating a substance that will have to be controlled for longer than modern humans have existed.

That's the height of irresponsibility. The US Congress can't even plan a budget for a single year. What right do we have to create things that future generations will have to be responsible for protecting, FOREVER? That's insanity.

It was 100% a political move of Merkel to boost her popularity with the left and green voters. It wasn't even a democratic decision she simply decreed it from her throne and the rest of germans had to deal with the consequences.

Inb4 "reprocessing." If you even try to use this argument, you prove that you don't know enough about this topic to be commenting on it, GTFO.

>that tiny bit of waste practically never stops burning, and can turn you into a walking corpse just by crossing its path for a couple seconds.

It wouldn't be waste if it was so active. You could simply dump it in a pool of water and produce steam with it if any of what you said was true.

Back in the day nuclear waste was stored in simple steel drums and moved by unprotected workers. That alone should tell you that nuclear waste isn't as lethal as you claim

He used "burning" incorrectly, but his basic point is correct. Nuclear waste stays deadly, basically forever.

not quite.

Some of the used fuel is re-purposed, more should be but that is a different discussion.

The containers they are put in aren't that robust, they are strong but the magic is more in the matrix they cask the actual fuel in so that it can not be broken apart.

There are also varying levels of waste and it doesn't all get treated the same.

I question your credentials as I was also a navy nuke and some of your info is WAY off. The spent fuel is a danger but not nearly as dangerous as you are claiming. It isn't cooled with water for decades and the High level waste that remains dangerous for thousands of years is produced in incredibly small quantities and is managed and dealt with appropriately.

Like most things, greed gets in the way. Maintenance isn't done in a timely manner or problems are completely ignored.

Lead stays "deadly" forever as well the real question is just "how" deadly it actually is.

If you can move steel drums full of reactor waste without wearing a 2inch thick lead suit I would argue the "deadlyness" is rather negligible as long as you store it properly.

>The decay heat production rate will continue to slowly decrease over time. Spent fuel that has been removed from a reactor is ordinarily stored in a water-filled spent fuel pool for a year or more (in some sites 10 to 20 years) in order to cool it and provide shielding from its radioactivity.

Direct quote from the wikipedia entry for "spent nuclear fuel".

You've been misinformed. I graduated 3rd in my class (9501) NNPS Orlando. I seriously doubt you're a real Nuke, but even if you are... Power School doesn't spend much time on the waste or its processing. Most of I've learned about it I've learned since I left the service.

Also, spent control rods are even hotter than spent fuel.

It sounds like you might be thinking my point in all this is to say nuclear power is bad and nuclear reactors are irresponsibly dangerous. I'm not. They're amazing, but if we're still at a point where the generators are leaving behind some kind of byproduct we're unable to neutralize or utilize, it just means we still have room to make them even better than they currently are. We're not at the peak yet. If anything, that should be inspiring, not an insult at the current state of affairs.

There is this other technology where you don't use uranium but instead something way more safer. But because it would 'damage the economy' they don't use it instead

we probably know each other.

Nuclear power is the only future for humanity. Fusion is 50 to 80 years out.

The simple fact is this: there are currently ZERO permanent storage facilities for nuclear waste in the US, and only one in the ENTIRE WORLD. We're storing crazy dangerous waste in vast amounts entirely in temporary storage facilities. It's just a matter of time until this bites us in the ass, and it's only going to get worse as time goes on.

Nuclear power is highly irresponsible. Solar is as cheap now anyway, and wind soon will be.