Nuclear Energy

What are your thoughts on nuclear energy, Sup Forums? Do you think the common fear of them(caused by Fukushima and Chernobyl) is justified, or simply a knee-jerk reaction?

It's clear that after these accidents nuclear has essentially been thrown out, at least in western countries, as a valid replacement for fossil fuel plants, and that the only places seeing new ones built are in Asia and Russia. Personally I feel that in stable first world countries we should really reconsider them, and oil and coal pose just as much risk to health and the environment if not more so.

Other urls found in this thread:

soundcloud.com/couchtruthing/hillary
youtube.com/watch?v=htgcz87-Wqk
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Why the fuck would I want to put my life in danger with "nuclear energy" (AKA nuclear weapons) which could blow up at any moment?

A

FUCKING

LEAF

A

FUCKING

LEAF

Nuclear energy is by far the cleanest and most safe energy there is and has best safety record of any source of energy. Chernobyl was a fluke and Fukushima legit ally got hit by 9.0 earthquake and a fucken tsunami and still didn't go critical. People are just scared of things that they don't understand.

LMAO
>Be American
>Nuke yourself

It's the best source of energy until cold fusion comes along

I know this is Sup Forums but goddamned this is the most ignorant thing I've read in weeks

Ignore him, he's probably from Iqaluit.

I'm okay with them, as long as I'm outside their blast radius. I don't trust the locals to not fuck it up Chernobyl style, it's totally worth investing in though.

I think nuclear energy is the future of energy as we know it. The common fear associated with those accidents is completely blown out of proportion , there are 444 operational nuclear reactors, and out of those only 6 have resulted in a meltdown. The vast majority of those that melted down were caused by a human error from a lack of training and mechanical failures also from poor training. Fossil fuels are a finite and inherently harmful to the environment. Nuclear energy is the future

Okay there, toothpaste. Have fun with your second head.

If they just make sure there is enough funding for thorough inspections and no-shit replacing worn components I have no problem with nuclear.

Shit I was stationed on a nuclear aircraft carrier for 4 years. I literally lived on top of two reactors.

shit's safe as houses

I you weren't aware my active component is fluoride
I am already nuclear

Nuclear is the best energy - I think my appliances work better with nuclear.

Reminder that Uranium based reactors were worked on instead of Thorium because it was easier to weaponize.

>Implying fluoride atoms can explode into nuclear bombs
Read a fucking book.

this

>OP'S country doesnt even have nuclear weapons

asks about nuclear power

It can actually
You just need a lot and the explosion is still shit even then
Fluoride can definitely chain react

...

There's literally no reason why my country shouldn't get the majority of its energy from nuclear power

I agree, and honestly I think it is a deliberate propaganda attempt to keep the worlds dependence on fossil fuels.

I was watching a famous documentary of Chernobyl, The True Battle of Chernobyl, which had all kinds of interviews with Soviet officials and other such people. The amount of disinformation was shocking. One so called "expert" said that if the corium had melted down and hit the water pooling under the reactor, a 3mt explosion would erupt, destroying Minsk and rendering all of Europe inhabitable. Which is ridiculous if you know even the basics of how nuclear fission works and that a 3mt explosion wouldn't even reach a quarter of a way to Minsk(which is 300+ km away from Chernobyl).

>Canada
>#2 exporter of Uranium
>has 30+ Nuclear reactors
>burger education

Canada is covered in nuclear reactors and is one of the largest producers of radioactive isotopes for medical imaging.

Then why am I not exploding when I exhale in? When you breathe oxygen it reacts?

>Be American
>Get mutated

We sell nuclear energy to you
A quite decent region on the east coast runs in Dutch nuclear energy

Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest sources of energy

Its the current year and you're a leaf, why the FUCK doesn't Canada have nuclear energy?

There's no rational reason why we're not 100% nuclear by now.

You are exploding actually
Really slowly
This is called aging
Oxygen is slowly killing you

Is thorium viable or is it meme tier?

>Canada doesn't have nuclear reactors
Didgeridoo education everone...

I'd love to see modern nuclear power plants get built to satisfy the country's energy needs, but it seems like both parties stay the fuck away from ever even mentioning the revitalization of nuclear power. Democrats obviously piss their pants at the mere mention of nuclear, but Republicans have me more confused on why they never address it. I suppose it could be to curry favor from coal and oil industry who don't want to see another competitor rise, but I could be wrong.

I know it's bait but I'm still triggered

Very clean source of energy, but can't account for natural disasters.

Like we saw with fukushima, even absolutely modern facilities are subject to total failure under the right conditions, and failure merits a world wide disaster, so ehhh???

Yes because we had a retarded Labour government that voted against renewing the nuclear stations when we had no alternative, so we had to run a fucking cable under the channel and rent from the Dutch grid. Absolutely tragic.

It's still a meme
The closest we have is a breeder reactor in Finland but it's been under construction for years

No it isn't, Canadian air is clean as fuck.

Wow
Just wow
Read a book
Educate yourself

It would be more accurate to say you were "rusting".

See: If you've ever had an Xray done, it was probably with material purchased from Canada.

>Update
oxygen is inherently dangerous to us

You should probably stop breathing then.

I bet you're just a real happy person ,aren't you leaf..

Literally no nuclear relted deaths at Fukshima after the power plant was hit by an earthquake.

>if we find something better to breathe we could literally delay aging an enormous amount
Why have we not done this

>Fukushima
>a safe modern facility up to code
Kek

Tell that to the Fukashima people. Fuck nuclear.

And a tsunami.

>blast radius
You do know that it's physically impossible for a nuclear reactor to explode like an atomic bomb, right? Explosions at nuclear power plants are due to high pressure steam rupturing containment vessels. Essentially, identical to a boiler explosion.

and a tsunami, which was technically caused by the earthquake. such a disaster would be virtually impossible to fully prepare for.

Nuclear rods , like uranium, are only at the 5% enrichment , nuclear bombs require upwards of 95% enrichment. A reactor is not an idle atomic bomb

Fukushima's not even modern. It's over 40 years old.

Real talk, why haven't we engineered ourselves to breathe more compounds than O2 by now?

>we had 4 NPPs
>all of them got shut down in the late 80s/early 90s
JUST.

Daily reminder that multiple RMBK's are still in operation (with upgrades)
Nuclear energy is like a car, great until something goes horribly wrong. Not all cars are equally safe, and all cars will eventually have an incident or accident.


Why the FUCK don't we have reactors that can't melt down/don't produce as much waste?

Great fucking idea

soundcloud.com/couchtruthing/hillary

Fusion energy sounds better when it'll come out. Nuclear is gross tho.

I wasn't talking about deaths you mongloid, look up any satellite maps of the fallout, shit reached all over the pacific

That's why nuclear energy is rare, because idiots like me are the majority.

That would be a monumental task, Mr toothpaste. Nonetheless, it would be a very very very beneficial one.

We do breathe more compounds than o2

Because low pressure design aren't fully working yet
The moment we have low pressure nuclear reactors it will literally be the safest form of energy

that was part of my point, nuclear energy is clean but it's also got the largest gamble of oh shit scenarios that we can't prevent.

Because people are two scared to build new safer ones and decommission the old ones. Yet we still need the power that it supply's.

wtf, You are not an idiot, my friend!

This is just because if the left misinformation

They are necessary, there are no affordable, viable alternatives to power large metropolitan areas.

The technology is reliable, their main problem lies with the authorities managing them that are crooked and shady as fuck.

There should be international protocols for dealing with nuclear waste other than dumping it as sea in fishing waters or to provision the funds necessary to dismantle old power plants.

(You)

With proper training and proper fail safes protocol , any reactor can be prevented from going critical in almost any situation!

Because we rely on oxidative phosphorylation for our energy, and hopefully you can guess by the name that the process requires oxygen.
Don't they teach this shit in school anymore?

I know we do
But there has to be a better way

Why don't we just engineer ourselves to not rely on oxdotive phoswhatever? Think outside the box friend

There's got to be some compound that can react in the same way that oxidative phosphorylation allows us to breath

So you propose we do this... when our atmosphere is still going to contain in large part oxygen...

If we were talking about space travel, then fine. We could turn ourselves into blue haired elves while we're at it, just like my Japanese anime!

Seriously, if we were going to genetically alter ourselves for longevity, there are better ways to go.

Also, I'd rather we genetically alter ourselves so we photosynthesize.

yes plant people gg

Man why don't add the ability to breathe like

CO2 and shit

That'd be dank

or weed, do you know how much more fun it'd be? You could just take perpetual hits holy shit

fuck I want this now

when can this be done pls respond

I'm just going to take the opportunity to suggest you read and/or watch Knights of Sidonia.

youtube.com/watch?v=htgcz87-Wqk

>have world's largest uranium reserves.
>lefty cucks are anti coal/gas fired plants
>lefty cucks are anti nucler power (I.E THE ONLY VIABLE ALTERNATIVE IF YOU WANT TO COMPLETELY REPLACE COAL)

fuck this place.

How can you call it "clean" when it produces waste which will be radioactive for milennia?

Either way, nuclear power is great and THEORETICALLY extremely safe. But there's still the chance of natural disasters, human error and, on top of all - human greed. Since it's all about money you can bet your ass that there will always be somebody trying to cut corners to get an advantage over the competition, and he will always find some government official willing to look the other way for a decent enough bribe. Look at waste disposal: German providers are bound by law to deal with the waste they are producing, of course. But since it's pretty expensive to bury all that shit yourself they ship it to France and pay french providers to deal with it. Now... do the Frenchies properly bury it in old salt mines or whatever? Nope, they dilute it and pour it into the Channel because their laws allow it.

Great technology, but it's just too risky because there will always be a slight chance to fuck up big time and pollute a whole country or even continent. So for the time being it shouldn't be used on inhabited planets, at least not as long as we're unable to deal with the potential hazards.

>Which is ridiculous if you know even the basics of how nuclear fission works
It wouldn't be nuclear fission, it would be a thermal explosion which would be large enough to rupture the remaining reactors and spread all the nuclear materials on site all over the continent

You have 24/7 sun.

80% of failstralia is abo tir and unihabitel.

Why no green energy shitpostralia?

A steam explosion would be impossible to create a 3 MEGATON explosion, large enough to "raze" Minsk(300+ KILOMETERS away). The only way such a large explosion is possible in the scenario were if somehow all the material chain reacted in a nuclear explosion, which is what they were implying in the documentary, but would be basically impossible in that scenario. The worst case scenario wasn't nearly as bad as making the whole continent uninhabitable.

>solar.
>efficient.
choose one and only one.

the only viable renewable we have is hydroelectric.

>implying solar is cost effective at all beyond running a house in the woods

The stuff that lasts for millennia isn't that nasty - it's the stuff that has half lives of 10,000 years and is extremely radioactive. Thankfully, there's a solution for that in breeder reactors. You can reprocess spent fuel from conventional reactors and then stuff it into a burner reactor that basically consumes all of the nasty stuff that's both energetic and lasts a long time. When it's all said and done what comes out falls into two categories: a) shit that has a half life of less than 100 years which is relatively easy to bury and seal in concrete for long enough that by the time the containment fails it's relatively harmless, and b) shit that has half lives of >200,000 years (up to millions of years) which is so low energy that it's relatively safe and can be buried in stable geological formations. The problem with breeder reactors is they present an enormous weapons proliferation risk, so they have to be very well guarded.

tldr: we have a fairly good solution but its too scary to use

Which is FAR from being ecologically friendly.

Solar energy ,in its current state, is completely inefficient in its energy conversion.Normal PV cells are only like 15% efficient. Solar farms actually have to be subsidized by the us government because of how ineffective they are atm. Give it time, when they are futurized they will be a top contender for energy production

correct.

Nuclear is the GREENEST option for us, but we ignore it.

No moving parts.
Instant energy.
No supervision needet.
Hazard lvl very low.
Securety risk very low.

99% more efficent then nukes or other typs of power plants.
It is the perfect energy source.

Yeah greenest as in turning green from radioactivity u dumbass

have fun getting blown up

Only get power when the sun is shining.
Takes up a lot of room.
Yes, it does require maintenance.

Photovoltaics are a great, but they currently can't be much more than a supplement.

>le shitposting Canadian.
thought it was just a meme.

>How can you call it "clean" when it produces waste which will be radioactive for milennia?
Because under standard operating conditions the waste never escapes.

Not commenting on the validity of that observation, but that's how the term is justified.

>imying Chernobyl didn't happen

Thats because we have to convert the energy. Send it throu shity energy infrastructure.

The UK has planes for a new nuclear reactor but for some reason people seem scared of it, think it's still being built anyway

hahaha you don't even need shitskins to go kaboom

>solar more efficient than nuclear
I don't think you know what 'efficient' means.

Our country would go bankrupt trying to get a substantial part of our energy production from solar with the current technology.

>implying Chernobyl wasn't run by a dying empire with no regard for safety and a failing economy

Nuclear planes do sound like a bad idea desu senpai

Chernobyl won't happen again because graphite is no longer used as control rod tips