Nuclear power

Enough is enough. We can no longer continue to pollute the Earth with poisonous forms of power generation like natural gas or coal. It is time for mankind to rise above and embrace nuclear power as the energy of the future. We must switch to an all-nuclear power grid and outlaw all other forms of electricity unless they meet strict environmental standards.

Other urls found in this thread:

eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Lol.... the same libtards that preach this shit refuse to let companies build plants or store spent rods or waste materials.

Meanwhile the power companies laugh non-stop about solar amd wind power because the tax credits mean they don't pay taxes meow. So they'd be stupid not to build this shit technology.

Liberal green logic as explained by a power company insider.

Except nuclear is way too fucking expensive.

Natural gas is good and pretty clean.
Hydro-electric is also good where you can get it.
In some areas like Texas and Florida futures for industrial electricity by wind are selling at like 5cents/kwh which is as cheap as it gets.

It's on par with solar believe it or not (MW/$). But it's ROI is much much better since nuc has longer commercial lifespan. The regulations and lack of waste solutions cost the most.

Wind is laughable and only a tax haven.

Yes... hydro is win but again. We need to pull a China and seek hidden MW potentials by flooding some basin areas which would trigger the greenies... a catch-22.

USSR built nuclear stations all the time though. And we have cheapest gas too. Maybe they made nukes from this stuff.

if you amortize the cost over the life span of the plants/use nuclear loses to pretty much everything

wind, hyro, natural gas all beat it.

eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

wind is incredibly good in the right places, I have no idea what you are talking about

Russia does have a based power infrastructure. Dunno bout the safety on some of that shit but atleast Russians still have balls... unlike our current bitchass gooberment.

Feels bad.jpg

Nuclear is good because it can be used for mass generations in small areas with huge populations and no feasible alternative (no hydro, no geothermal, no on shore wind, etc).

For example the UK is building a new nuclear plant I think because it's a tiny little island with no other alternatives except coal plants which are very dirty.

In huge countries like the US, Canada, Russia with vast natural resources, there is no reason not to do coal, natural gas, hydro, wind.

There are also military considerations for nuclear which may have been why the USSR was doing nuclear but I don't know much about how that works

Reprocessing plants are a boondoggle. They don't significantly reduce waste. This is because MOX is once through, MOX waste itself can not be reprocessed with current technology.

Only fast reactors can significantly reduce waste and they have yet to be proven commercially.

>nuclear

you mean FUSION

Friendly reminder that nuclear plants are fully dependent on dem sweet state monies to be built and maintained

Bumping with a rare David&

>Announcement Video
youtube.com/watch?v=OJ97gEFBH5k

>Campaign Website:
dukeforsenate.com

>Platform:
dukeforsenate.com/issues

>David's Website (Not campaign specific):
davidduke.com

>Podcast:
renseradioarchives.com/dduke

>Twitter:
twitter.com/DrDavidDuke

>Youtube Account:
youtube.com/user/drdduke

>David Duke vs. Alex Jones
youtube.com/watch?v=sPa1wLvCovE

GODDAMNIT, why can't they build a fucking breeder? It's very efficient, and I think it's practical.

...

Nuclear power is one of the most dangerous types of power generation. Chernobyl and Fukushima. Never forget.

I heard soviets modernized all Chernobyl-type stations after 1986. The damn thing exploded because faggots in charge experimented with reactor too much, now it's impossible to nuke yourself with a button push.

Enjoy your earthquake

>and I think it's practical
Nobody cares

I'm talking about reality. Not some shit .gov study. Do you seriouly believe that shit? I've talked with the people shaping energy policy in the super south east.

People that think any of that renewable energy crap is a win are deluded sheep.

It's a business. These guys don't do shit without a 30-50 year ROI model and they aint going to lose money.

Look up the biomass scam plants. We sold "green power" for a shit load of money to a muni then deliver that power from the cheapest source in our system. CC or normaly coal. That delta is pure profit.

But link me some more .gov sheep materials lol.

Good. I invested 200K into uranium mining stocks.

Tokamak is the only way forward.

Nulclear power isn't bad but it needs to be padded with intelligent green energy, like pic related, a 'solar updraft tower' that uses the properties of heat and air to generate power

It's the wave of the future

The wave of the future

The wave of the future


The wave of the future


The wave of the future

The wave of the future


The wave of the future
The wave of the future
The wave of the future

I have little info about Uranium.
But the last documentary I saw about it, they talked about the radioaktive waste, that can be used multiple more times and thus making it less dangerous, bit the profit is too low. So they wont do it.
Anyone have any knowledge about this?

The sodium cooled ones keep blowing up.

They call it passive safety.

Nuclear power isn't that sustainable. It generates dangerous waste that is never pefectly handled. There are several burrying sites here that had problems, in one of them the plastic containers started to melt, and some sites aren't perfectly airtight, some have no floor so the containers are right on the floor and leak, etc.

Also the plants themselves aren't that safe and well maintained, regularly there are incidents, but the general population never hears about them. Usually it's radioactive water rejected into rivers.

Also, it's well known that populated areas near power plants have higher rates of leukemia

It's not as perfect and clean as you think it is. Would be better in a perfect world with no corruption and if people were all smart, enlightened and benevolent but we're not living in the Star Trek universe. Money talks here, not principles.

Why not profit and environmental benefit? Win-win.

Yes, nuclear is not "clean" energy. Cleaner for the air? Sure. But radiation is much worse that CO2.

PV just keeps getting cheaper and cheaper, I doubt anything will be able to compete in the end.

We just need cheap energy storage technology.

I approve the nukyular mandate

Do you know when the first Tokamak reactor was built?

Fusion is a PhD welfare program.

Because there is no benefit to the environment. It's a scam, the biomass plants don't run due to stacking orders.

Cheaper more poluting plants operate in stead. Solar is similar, they peak around noon then we spin up fast start units to cover the lamba.

It's all bull shit to make people feel good about themselves... I mean I'm paying more for green powe so it's a good thjng right? Nope... it's more profit. Need to redpill yourselves on this shit cause energy is a huge thing deal. Like healthcare it can be used as a control scheme.

One of the problems you guys have with solar is that peak demand and peak solar production aren`t allinged.

Why build a nuclear power plant when you can build 50.000 wind turbines?

Test

Don't wind turbines kill lots of birds?

BUT FUKUSHIMA!!!!!!!!1111

Can't you store the power?

Only if you use...

THORIUM

look it up and drop your jaw

Oooooooh pretty.

The problem is that solar and wind are best used locally. It makes no sense to have fields of wind turbines or solar panels, it's very inefficient. However, having panels on your roof makes sense in certain cases.

They do, they also cause strokes I think because they constantly emit infrasounds, from what I understand it prevents you from getting rest. Also, electromagnetic fields make the animals go crazy in the fields, sometimes make them ill.

And they're mostly a big fucking scam, honestly. They're popping everywhere mostly though grants and various gibsmedats. Everybody gets some cash down the line so they're happy, but I don't think the pros outweight the cons.

youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Interesting. I didn't know wind turbines were that bad.

What's left then? Hydro and geothermal?

How much do you think Homer makes as a nuclear power plant safety inspector anyway?

I know his title is "Safety Inspector," but the job he appears to be doing on the show (Reactor Operator) pays about $150,000 starting.

I think nothing is perfect. Hydroelectric and geothermal are good but they can't be used everywhere.

In a perfect world we would simply do a lot more research and innovation to make nuclear more safe and a lot more efficient, and use solar, hydro and geothemal locally when possible.

holy FUCK

if you think about it, he does live in a big house and goes on vacations all the time

>$150,000 starting

How do I acquire this job?

No reason not to use the nuclear fuel we have.
It'd last us for a decent while and death rates are actually very low compared to even wind energy afaik

Get an engineering degree and then either get incredibly lucky and obtain training in the private sector, or join the Navy and earn it by operating a power plant on either a sub or a carrier for 5 years. Once you're out, you're set.

Bullshit! Nuclear plants put out huge amounts of smoke, what do you think those huge chimneys are for? Fucking conservashits.

pretty much the same in canada too

>tfw nuclear worker

the only downside to nuclear cost wise is the building and startup. countries that use CANDU reactors are even more expensive but potentially safer and with constant fueling rather than 6 month fueling periods.

the benefits of thorium are highly exaggerated, although they are worth looking into and still is a viable power source. one of the problems is that it requires nuclear activation since thorium itself isn't fissile. You need to convert it to uranium-233 if i remember correctly.
From a financial stand point it's not worth it for a company to invest in further research into thorium reactors because uranium is so damn cheap and abundant (just like thorium) that the costs for creating these new plant designs isn't worth it.

To add: there are no Homer Simpsons doing Homer Simpson's job in the real world. You need to be smart at the very least; smart and athletic if you go the Navy route. Homer Simpson is neither.

Thorium is never gonna happen anyways

It's all pretty much owned by Canada, Australia, and Russia so it can't be acquired by slave labour to reduce costs

>Cold-War era Russian powerplant
>Powerplant built next to the ocean in an earthquake zone

Yeah totally great examples of the standard.

No, they fucked it up because the documents they were given outright lied about the limits of the reactor. They gave propaganda to people literally controlling some of the most dangerous materials known to man. I slavaboo pretty hard, but they fucked this up.

>Friendly reminder that all municipal energy plants are fully dependent on dem sweet state monies to be built and maintained.

FTFY

Literally no one cares.