Why are the majority of Sup Forums posters for Nuclear Power? Just because sources dis approve of it doesn't mean it's some sort of (((Conspiracy)))
I know the jews are guilty of lieing and deceiving, though why Nuclear Power? In anyone's eyes it looks like something that's bad for the environment - not that, that even matters
It's the most efficient, waste can be recycled, and can be built anywhere.
We have lots of fuel
it's extremely reliable
it's relatively cheap
waste is easily stored snd modern reactors don't make much
other than that, it only releases steam
it's safe
it's space efficient
Nuclear fission plants actually produce less background radiation than a coal-fired plant.
It's just scary to people who don't know any better because radiation is a meme
@85148066
Bait thread detected
Try harder next time
If not a bait thread, umm idk because maybe it's fueled by literally the most energy-dense substance currently available to mankind?
Why the @? Are you trying to bait?
People also continue to eat salt despite humans get most of their radiation during their lifetime through potassium impurities.
But that's normies for you. They are only scared about what (((they))) tell them to be scared about on TV.
For all seeing this shill ask about the @
Realize that he's upset because they get paid by (you)s
Deny the shills their payment (we all know that's what they care most about)
Nuclear energy is the best thing there is
>but muh radioactive waste
Just put it back where you found it
The mines
>it's dangerous
It's dangerous because of crony capitalism
>use nuclear power for decades
>only known nuclear incident in Europe where people actually died of radiation is Tschernobyl, which has been deliberately blown up by crazy Soviets
Muh car exhaust causes lung cancer, but nanoparticles from coal plants are perfectly healthy :^)
>why Nuclear Power?
Because it would devastate the fossil fuel energy industry and (((they))) have huge stakes in that field.
>it looks like something that's bad for the environment
It's the cleanest energy source we've discovered.
The ideal solution is actually a reactor based on thorium, which is found in coal and is much less dangerous than uranium, but Pajeet is the only country taking it seriously.
LFTR when?
This dude has it right
There are thorium reactor designs that can actually use certain waste products to cut their fuel expense and reduce quantity of waste (still produces waste, but less volume means easier storage).
Cars powered by Po-210 rtgs when?
How about you tell us why you don't approve of nuclear power, Damo.
Scare-mongering about Nuclear power is some real smoke and mirrors bullshit. Radiation dilutes far too quickly for even catastrophes like the one in Japan to have anything more than a local effect. The only problem with Nuclear power is that it's expensive to start up and needs government subsidies to realistically happen only the government doesn't like giving subsidies because the voting populous get all their information about Nuclear safety from The Simpsons.
Nuclear plants do have limiting factors, but they are an important pillar of a diverse power grid.
Adam Curtis has a good documentary on this:
youtube.com
The whole series is good, but that particular episode is on topic. He offers an interesting story of how politics and economics interacted with science, leading to hilarious fuckups like three mile island ("Well, this safety system doesn't *definitely* work, but we can't prove it *won't* work, so that's fine. Even though that's stupidly unscientific.")
In his own words:
>The film tells the story of the rise of nuclear power in America, Britain and the Soviet Union. It shows how the way the technologies were developed was shaped by the political and business forces of the time. And how that led directly to inherent dangers in the design of the containment of many of the early plants.
Note - Curtis isn't some anti-nuclear hippie, and the message of the documentary *isn't* that nuclear power is bad, just that early designs were flawed as a result of political and economic pressures, tying into the overarching theme of the series: en.wikipedia.org
Indeed he cuts into the risk-averse anti-nuke people in a blog post of his: bbc.co.uk
>But if the scientists had been naive - so too was much of the counter-reaction.
>The truth was that it might not have been the science itself that was at fault - but the way the science had been distorted and corrupted by the economic and political demands made on it.
Won't need them in the infinitesimal chance that Lockheed Martin actually delivers.
LFTR is a meme
thats the molten salt one innit?
You're a meme
because nuclear energy is actually viable
big oil meme for green energy because they know that "renewables" will NEVER displace oil. not until we can erect a space elevator and put those solar panels into an orbital ring, and then the saudis are fukt beyond measure.
As someone that's spent a good deal of time studying this topic as a hobby and very pro-nuclear power here's my take
Pros
>Assuming good handling, very safe
>Assuming good handling, very safe
>long lasting
Cons
>Waste
The majority of spent fuel is unusable after it's gone through the reactor. It decomposes and becomes extremely radioactive producing noxious gases, toxic heavy metals, and isn't suitable to produce the heat needed for further energy production. Some can be recovered but that amount is small. IMO this is the largest issue. As of now most reactors today simply store it on site but with more piling up every day with no real solution it would inevitably be a matter of time before a natural disaster fucks some shit up. There are deep storage facilities being constructed but those that are are already set to be entirely filled.
>Contamination hazards
Don't let some of the non-chalant answers in here fool you, this stuff is very deadly. However, so is a fire if you let it get out of control and a fire will kill you far quicker. What makes nuclear sources more dangerous is the lack of an apparent threat as you can't see radiation and long term effects (the only super power you'll be getting is cancer).
>Costs
Nuclear energy is not cheap energy for a multitude of reasons. The Uranium used is essentially a precious metal due to rarity. Consider the idea of burning Platinum for fuel and you get the idea, then there's start up costs, security, construction etc.
>Nuclear Proliferation
As part of the process in a reactor the Uranium fuel breaks down into Plutonium and Tritium elements which are used in nuclear weapons. It's a big part of why up until recently we didnt permit Iran to build any such plants because it's then very easy to disguise the production of these weapons. ThanksObama.jpg
There's some more but those are the main issues imo. Yet despite all that I'm still heavily for it
The only thing bad for the environment is the slag when exposed to it in an attempt to get rid of it. Once an effective use for slag or recycled form of is found, its evil.
If Fukushima is irrelevant why did the US radiation monitoring network mysteriously go offline during the meltdown and then radiations limits in food and water increased by 1000 times
>>Waste
Just dump it in the desert. Ain't shit going on there anyway.
Don't they reuse a good part of it anyway for things like tank armor plates and ammunition?
I genuinely think that the fucking Simpsons has more harm to nuclear energy than any other singular thing.
It's not eve the big oil boogeyman. US-side nuclear production came to a standstill largely because of the Three Mile Island incident entirely on it's own.
>Radiation dilutes far too quickly for even catastrophes like the one in Japan
Bioaccumulation.
Calcium and potassium may be diluted and sparse from their natural surroundings, but plants and animals can accumulate it to amounts that have an impact on your nutrition. Same is true for any poison.
Don't forget to mention that some of those hazardous products have medical uses.
>dump it in the desert
the Yucca mountain project is essentially that, but more carefully done. but that's one of those instances of it's already filled up before even completed.
And if you did mean just dump it out on the open ground that'd be a horribly, horribly bad idea. it'd saturate the land and likely be blown out into the wind for miles lol. Good way to fuck with people with a dirty bomb sort of attack.
>reuse
a truly minimal amount does, but as I mentioned - during operation the fuel breaks down into many different types of materials. Some of it is usable. Most of it is just complete useless toxic waste.
>And if you did mean just dump it out on the open ground
Nah I didn't mean that bro, I meant like what they do with those huge underground bunker things like you mentioned.
The only problem is the waste.
I would prefer sun energy but (((they))) are holding up progress in sun energy field and in the battery field. They don't want you to have decentralized energy for your own, they would rather bind you to them forever and make you pay forever.
Nevada doesn't use nuclear power but everyone wants to dump their waste here. Fuck off. Drop it somewhere else or pay for a nuclear power plant for us.
>Conveniently not mentioning radioactive isotopes of calcium and potassium occur in nature in huge amounts because they are regenerated in the atmosphere
Evil whitey and their nuclear power, amIright.
A Pro but a smaller scale one.
I listed out and explained the Cons largely so people might better understand why it's not a miracle energy source on it's own.
Even fusion isn't entirely clean, creating radiation as part of it's process. The most abundant danger from it are high energy Neutrinos that tend to rapidly eat through the inner shielding of proto fusion reactors.
>FYI I wouldn't bank on fusion power becoming a thing. THAT is the real meme energy
Because it's really efficient (iirc 1 truck of uranium is worth months of trains full of coal once or twice per day produced electricity wise), and even if we'd start running low on uranium, there's always thorium.
It can also be placed almost everywhere unlike solar, wind, geothermal or hydro power plants. The only thing you should avoid is building them in places known for the biggest natural disasters like earthquakes. Japan is good example, but they are fucked resource wise so they don't have much choice.
They aren't much more dangerous for environment than coal powered plants. Radioactive waste can be stored in underground bunkers for future use. France buys/is paid to collect nuclear waste and store them in their silos/bunkers. They know that once "clean" uranium runs out, you can recycle waste because not all of uranium is used in the first cycle.
People overreact and scream "muh chernobyl", but looking back, it didn't poison whole continents like people want you to believe. Mainly little chidreen were in danger due to their livers or something absorbing one of toxic carriers during that incident during early months of life.
Also we aren't using graphite to control process. It was graphite smoke/dust that carried radioactive particles. Today I don't even know if there is chance for helium explosion, and even if it would explode, all the shit would remain in the dome because no smoke carrier. Only few workers of power plant would likely die.
Well nevermind the fact that solar takes a ton of maintenance/replacement, uses up valuable elements that could be utilized for other tech, isn't anywhere near as efficient enough to sate the needs, is affected by weather and produces a significant amount of toxic waste in its manufacture.
Oh great, now you're mixing nutritional pseudo-science with eco-terrorist's calling cards? Sorry, but if you weren't fishing off the coast of Fukashima within 2 months of the disaster happening and you're not eating the two-headed worms in Chernobyl's dirt then you're getting a thousand times more radiation from normal dietary sources than from any man-made source. Never mind the sun.
How the hell do you expect bio to accumulate something whose nature is to radiate (i.e. dissipate)? It's fun to say "a fish that eats a thousand fish with a little radiation each has a LOT of radiation in it" but chemistry simply doesn't work that way.
> The most abundant danger from it are high energy Neutrinos
That's total bullshit, neutrinos rarely even interact with matter, especially not high energy ones.
>creating radiation as part of it's process
That's a problem because? Radiation is not persistent. You can observe that every night when it gets dark. The radiation doesn't remain anywhere.
I figured but there's always some retard out there...
Worth mentioning too that the locations deemed suitably safe for this sort of storage are extremely limited. The radiation takes thousands of years to bleed off before it's no longer a hazard so the terrain needs to be stable w/ no water to risk corrosion. In addition most people dont want it in their backyard like..
YOUR LAND IS WORTHLESS. SUCK IT UP FAGGOT.
No but seriously, even if there was an earthquake and it risked fucking up any mines storing the stuff, just avoid the mines. Radiation is scary but it's not a goblin under your bed. your biggest risk is if it somehow got into the water supply. but that's also why deserts are chosen sites
Thorium is readily available and can be turned into energy without generating transuranic wastes. Thorium's capacity as nuclear fuel was discovered during WW II, but ignored because it was unsuitable for making bombs.
Uranium-pltonium fission breeders can recycle more fuel than the waste they consume. It's a Perpetuum Mobile. Endless energy out of FUCKING NOWHERE. Nuclear energy unquestionably asserts human dominance over nature, and Judaism teaches that nature is god.
Also magnets are the future. Look up magnet motors.
Funding for Yucca mountain ended in 2011 and the project was shut down.
The only operating nuclear waste depository in the US, the Waste Isolation pilot plant suffered an explosion of a barrel containing plutonium waste in 2014 and is now also on hold.
people dont understand nuclear power so they fear it.
t. ICBM electrician
> in anyone's eyes
In the eyes of the uneducated and the mindless. As one who has devoted their life to scientific pursuits I get so pissed when I see politics interfering with scientific truths (climate change, Big Bang, coal)
No shit sherlock. That's why I'm saying they are holding up progress. They won't let it reach it full potential.
Decentralized energy is the true redpill, you must be some sort of cuck if you want to be the slave of a energy company.
Daily reminder that dirty bombs don't spread radioactive material beyond their initial blast radius and all concerns about them were just media fear mongering for ratings, a convential bomb built with the same money and time will do more damage than a dirty bomb.
This. Resources for light water nuclear reactors could power the entire the entire global energy needs for thousands of year. With Thorium it goes into the millions. Even counting Chernobyl, there's been less environmental damage and deaths from nuclear power than any other source.
It's one of the Nigger particles. Either way point is Fusion reactors have many problems and that happens to be one of them. If they're going to work they need to work without being eaten from the inside out.
>radiation isn't everywhere
Just about everything is radioactive. everything. YOU are radioactive to a point. And just because you can't see something with your autistic eyes doesn't mean it's not there. Goddamn you're dumb
Hmm, i was positive last i checked it was completed but not permitted for usage for whatever reason. Like i said, a hobby. I have a day job.
while true and largely not a long-lasting threat (Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fine and dandy today) you still wouldn't want to be around them.
>Implying those are the same types of radiation released from strontium 90 and Cesium 137.
>pseudo-science
Bioaccumulation is a biological phenomenon. It's been studied extensively.
>bio to accumulate something whose nature is to radiatebio to accumulate something whose nature is to radiate
3 things
1) The source material has not been contained. They have 0 containment at Fukushima, which means all of their cores can continue decay, providing a stream of input of a given radionuclide.
2) If you're a chemist then you know that radionuclides that share bonding affinities with essential nutrients can be taken up on that basis. There's also the fact that not all radiation is the same. Some types of radiation are inherently more deadly and also have different decay energies. Some isotopes can decay through multiple half lives than many more of the naturally occurring isotopes. So, yes, it does work that way.
3) If you do not understand biology, then there's no use talking to you.
You wouldn't want to be near buildings damage by a blast either. The only difference is you have to the guys who clean it up are a slightly higher paygrade and have fancier robots.
Is there not some kind of problem with molten salt and Thorium?
I think it may already have been solved with a different kind of rector design or something, but I'm interested in jogging my memory as to what the problem was in the first place.
>*the only difference you have is the guys who clean it up are a slightly higher paygrade and have fancier robots.
my spaghetti, everywhere
I don't understand the chemistry of it really.
I do think it would be good to look into alternatives for when current reactors need replacement. And I think the monopolised market is the biggest restraint on improvement. From what I understand it is very cheap as long as the reactors work but the real costs come when they no longer do due to old age. Which is maybe more of a planning issue than an issue with the reactors themselves. Here in Europe at least.
this guy gets it.
NUCLEAR POWER IS A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN
ONE SOLAR STORM, EMP STRIKE, EARTHQUAKE, LABOR INTERRUPTION, AND THE DAMN THING IS MELTING DOWN
NUCLEAR PLANTS REQUIRE CONSTANT STAFFING AND ANYTHING, LIKE A VIRUS OUTBREAK OR CIVIL WAR, CAN CAUSE DISASTER.
>radiation isn't everywhere
I was just using visible light as an example to state radiation (unlike radioactive waste that emits radiation) is not persistent.
You are the autist for not getting that.
Also constant grid power you have to power the cooling for at least 15 years after you shut it down
The main problem with MSR's is the research was all but shelved and forgotten up until around a decade ago. Meanwhile breeder reactors and even fusion have been advanced and developed.
There are some remaining kinks but from everything i understand nothing substantial that some R&D can't overcome.
Because with nuclear power we could free up a lot of oil for other uses
user, if a zombie virus is wiping the population to the point of disrupting power plant operations then melting cores is the last of your worries.
>NUCLEAR PLANTS REQUIRE CONSTANT STAFFING AND ANYTHING
so?
in your scenario the world is already ending, even if we take your assertion that it would cause the plants to melt down at face value, it doesn't mean shit anyway since it would be localized
Nuclear fusion has downsides but is still efficient.
Nuclear fission is much more efficient without as many downsides. It needs more research, however.
if radiation simply vanished it wouldn't be an issue now would it? Look, i know you're a dumb nigger but please stop.
same reason they are for trump or hitlery. Evil or retard. It always boild doen to one of those in the anglosphere
Read about modern nuclear domes. Iirc this shit can stand plane crash, unless plane uses jet fuel, because as we all know, it melts steel beams.
>Safe
>Cheap
>Clean
>Energy dense
>Space efficient
>Can be used for process's that require only high temperature
>Can be used on Space ships for exploring the solar system
>Can be made better to not melt down
Nuclear generated electricity has made it so that energy basically became a non-profitable commodity.
Or rather. I would implore you to consider that efficient, cheap and reliable energy might be something that the people selling the energy do not want. And then i want you to consider the odds of those same people actively working against efficient, cheap and reliable energy, and be realistic about it. Garnering everything else you know about the free market and capitalism, do you actually think the people selling energy are inspired to build up humanity as a whole or are just looking to min/max their profits?
calm down leaf bro and watch the link here As far as I can tell the only thing standing in the way of a thorium reactor is public opinion and funding.
That's what I'm saying, radiation is NOT an issue unless you are standing right in the beam.
Only if you're using a nightmarishly designed plant from the 1960s. (Which alas many places are because new-build projects aren't too popular even though they're immeasurably safer.)
Nuclear power stations are now designed such that if something horrible happens and everyone operating it suddenly turns into a zombie, it just stops generating power and safely grinds to a halt instead of melting down.
Nuclear reactors are great, they just need to stop building them in 3rd world countries such as Russia and Japan.
And it doesn't "simply vanish", it gets converted to heat eventually.
Luckily in Germany we can choose between cuck or cuck. And this cuck is going to kiss the boots of a retard sitting in the white house.
t. oil oligarch
chernobyl
oy vey. i didn't say the shit would irradiate everyone to death merely that it still produced as part of the process.
t. Gasprom
>someone made one of these for Nevada
>it's mostly empty
Fitting
the catch though is these are "modern reactors. most aren't. especially in the US because faggot hippies protest against them. of course even ours have been updated but it's not nearly the same.
Oh vey, and I said this is hardly a con because in a fusion reactor the source of the radiation stops emitting right after the reactor cracks, because the fusion can't be sustained in an uncontrolled environment.
How's atomstroyexport doing. Heard we owe you asianniggers money for what your agents signed over here.
Fuck that, Fast Breeder Reactors where ready for action and didn't require any new development of nuclear technology with new materials while still extending our energy reserves to current growth figures for a few hundred thousand years. Sure, Thorium reactors are a whole order of magnitude greater still, but like the Orion, we had the crafts and the technologies to make the nuclear future we were promised. Then making bombs, and later the enviromentalist, took priority and fucked it all up.
>hardly a con
this was all stupidly pointless since i agree and wasn't arguing otherwise. you're still a nigger
Pol is red pilled about energy too, Oil and Renewables go hand in hand because they warrant the inefficient use of intermittent power stations and intermittent renewable power, It's like Driving your car in the city and always starting and stopping, you waste more fuel in the end this way and the same thing happens when you couple Fossil fuels and Renewables together to work in tandem.
It means big bucks for both the Fossil fuel industry AND the renewable energy ((((((((proponents)))))))))
Nuclear on the other hand can potentially mean too cheap to meter, As the fuel is so energy dense by accessing the higher energies of E=MC^2 and the strong nuclear forces, it's just much more efficient, too much to return a profit.
Background radiation is the biggest factor when it comes to radiation for the average person.
You get bombarded with a lot more when you fly too.
just another evidence that ukrainians are irresponsible subhumans who can't be trusted any other technology than two rocks
>orion
It could have been in alpha centaury by now.
Fucking eco nutjobs. If the gaia thing is real they might be a human virus meant to kill humanity.
actually, cigarettes are. thus they're only for degenerates. literally
Not really, you're forgetting that the nuclear fusion reactions we'll most likely be able to achieve in the near future in a sustainable way will be neutronic reactions and will have an insanely high neutron flux, This flux of neutrons bombards the Containment vessel and the atoms in the container capture some of the neutrons and become radioactive.
But nothing fucking happened in three mile. This is like the government suddendly deciding to ban all hydropower due to the Delhi Damn, which I am pretty sure you and most people in this thread have never even heard of.
(((((they))))) shut it down as well unfortunately.
The Hitachi PRISM fast breeder reactor is commercially available tho....
>what is Hormesis
it's because normies fear what they dont understand. When nuclear goes bad it can go very bad but if it effects anyone it'll mostly be due to a cancer. you're gonna die from that anyway.
>But nothing fucking happened in three mile
I don't think blowing open the lid on how horribly designed plant-safety systems were is "Nothing", just because by dumb luck it didn't kill anyone doesn't excuse that it got as far as it did.
I emphasise again that Three Mile isn't an argument against nuclear itself, the problem is the interaction between politics and economics and science, not the science itself, and nuclear technology in itself with appropriate investment is as safe as any other method of electricity generation.
Furthermore Nuclear Plants haven't been banned in the US. It's public opposition that's the problem, not government policymaking in itself.
>they get paid by (you)s
What's your basis for this assumption?