How do we get people to stop irrationally hating the most based source of electricity?

How do we get people to stop irrationally hating the most based source of electricity?

Other urls found in this thread:

scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-10/u-s-ousts-russia-as-world-s-top-oil-gas-producer-in-bp-report
vox.com/2016/6/7/11868208/donald-trump-america-winning
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I don't know but god I love nuclear power

You aren't truly redpilled unless you like nuclear.

Nuclear energy is everything man could ever ask for.

explain to greenfags that France gets over 75% of their electricity from nuclear

You can't SJWs want an energy source that's both clean and inefficient

>based
Naw mang

> implying nuclear isn't both

Doesn't apply in France. We love nuclear.

I wish the EPA would not fuck over nuclear energy development here in the US as much as it is.

It isn't it's clean and efficient

Anyone who is anti-nuc is a certified cuckold

Same way we solve all of the West's other problems: We ban Marxism.

Current: Solar
Future: some matrix bullshit

Get them to agree that CO2 is the biggest issue we face bar none then bring out stats showing nuclear is better per twh than solar or wind.

Watch the fucking hippies back-pedal.

So nuclear?

How is nuclear energy inefficient when it produces the highest amount of energy?

whoops wrong image

>Nuclear power
>Requires more energy from fossil fuels to mine and refine uranium, and complete construction of a nuclear plant, than you ever get out of it
>Uranium comes from limited sources in the earth and is still a finite natural resource
>People of the future will have to try to safely manage and control nuclear waste dumps built tens of thousands of years prior
>safety implications, i.e. every person on earth has radioactive isotopes flowing their body from chernobyl

Nuclear power makes sense for submarines only, because they require a sustained power source to stay underwater for long periods.

When will you nuclear retards realize you've been bamboozled by memes?

Avoid accidents like Chernobyl/Fukushima
>Win

But Hydro is based too when you let white people build it. Chinks just can't into proper construction or safety regulations.

My state owes it's most popular form of recreation to hydro power. Without dams we would have no large lakes.

Also, pointing out that coal releases nuclear material into the atmosphere as a part of normal operations and actually releases more radioactivity into the environment per twh generated than nuclear is fun.

scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

One important thing would be explaining to all those retards who think that stuff pouring out is "smoke" are wrong.
>hurr durr nuclear is bad bcos global warming
It's painful how many libtards I've heard say this shit.

Nuclear reactions should be for delivering God's retribution directly to shit skin heathens and nothing more.

haha whatever Jamal you're gonna keep buying our uranium for the foreseeable future

>using uranium
>not thorium
>not building breeder reactors to recycle over 90% of "waste" back into useable material
>not switching mining machines and construction equipment to electrical powered charged by clean efficient nuclear power as soon as it is possible to do so

>tfw anti-nuc fags never do their research

>one thing all parties from far-right to far-left in my country have in common
>it's hating nuclear energy
thanks democracy

>t. windmill

Hydo is great but is very location specific. Even if you find a place that looks like a good candidate for hydro it can turn out otherwise due to the geology. The chinks actually ended up causing earthquakes because of the mass of water sitting on the surface deforming the ground for miles around.

That said hippies always block hydro even when/where it is viable because they can always find some endangered frog or something that is living within the floodzone.

Old nuclear can be built anywhere with access to water and new nuclear (if the research is not blocked by hippies) barely needs water at all. Some preposed LFTR designs are actually able to run dry or with a partly closed evaporative cooling loop.

Yes goy you should keep building more coal power plants and remain dependant on foreign energy sources.

Good goy.

*citation needed*

The research was extremely poor since the radioactivity levels detected when burning coal depend on the extraction site of the coal. Some coal mines are next to radon sources, some others are not, hence some coal is radioactive and some other is not

Their fear for nuclear power comes from scaremongering.

The solution then is to bombard them with facts and redpills, as usual.

Like a specific thorium reaction gobbling up nuclear waste as though it's starving and thorium being idiot proof.

>can't into weapons
>can't into meltdown
>can't into lethal radiation
>can into cars (oy vey muh oil shekels)

Truth prevails.

baseload for green energy

>every person on earth has radioactive isotopes flowing their body from chernobyl

I bet you panicked with those autists scanning black-sand beaches with Geiger counters after fukushima and thinking the radiation they detected was from the reactor too.

I thought breeder reactors needed to recycle the waste created weapons grade material, or is that disinfo I've picked up somewhere?

>only liberals are against nuclear energy
where does this meme come from?

>Chernobyl released loads of radiation
>autism starts increasing roughly the same time
>autismos are the greatest anti-Socialist carpet bomb in our meme arsenal
Be grateful.

Let them freeze after they chopped all wood up

>muh thorium meme
Except there aren't any thorium reactors online and in use producing power. I think Norway is testing one, but the concept isn't proven. If it works out, great, I hope it does. But for now, it is not what we use, and people in this thread are arguing for nuclear plants as we currently understand the technology. We're not banking on 'what if muh star trek technology ends up working'?
I know, Australia shitting up the internet with posts and shitting up the planet with uranium.

Are you morons actually confused as to why we haven't built a new reactor since the 1970's?
>muh environmentalists
Nope, try again. It's because they are literally not profitable. They are not economically viable, both in terms of costs for kilowatt-hours and in terms of risk management.

I think if people realized that we have been powering subs and aircraft carriers for decades off of nuclear power without incident then maybe they would change their mind

It has also powered many space probes including Mars Science Lab, Cassini, Voyager and Viking

You can do it extremely safely with the right procedures

By getting more people to play Stalker

>aren't any thorium reactors online and in use producing power
Because anti-nuclear niggers keep defending research and blocking project efforts.

>anti-nuclear niggers think anything beyond their meager comprehension of a subject they're mostly ignorant about is sci-fi tech

We're so dumb. We've got shitloads of U and do nothing with it other than ship it to others. Stupid.

It has nuclear in the name, ergo is must be bad in liberals' minds.

Thorium reactors are far from Star Trek energy; they've been around forever. We just used uranium to support making nuclear weapons.

The process will take any waste material, even Wikipedia admits it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

Because the corporations that own them also own other types of electricity production. The safest and most reliable form of production is the min nuclear power plant. Our navy has been using them for over 60 years. Because they are small and a mid size city could buy one and be energy independent it has to be against the law.

It varies yes, but all coal is radioactive to some extent and all coal power-plants, no matter how clean the coal, release radioactive material into the environment as part of their normal operations. The average coal power-plant releases radioactive material in a higher volume per twh than the average nuclear plant.

The point here is to annoy hippies, not be completely rigorous in the explanation. Getting caught up in the details stalls the argument IRL.

Thorium reactors have been researched by all nuclear powers during the 50s and 60s. The US stopped funding their thorium project because it couldn't be used in the production of nuclear weapons, as well as new methods to extract uranium in larger amounts being introduced making it more economical to have uranium reactors than thorium reactors.

Well yeah, I know it takes any material, I was just always told that the process CREATES weapons grade material, and that's the reason we don't use breeder reactors and instead just dispose of all our waste.

China is going to have a test reactor running by 2020 and the son of the ex-party leader is heading the initiative.

Good luck competing with china if they gain dominance in energy too.

How many thorium shills come here?

Is this true? I know our ships are powered with them but I figured there were logistic problems or something.

you have to remember op that the vast vast majority of people in the world are mouth breathing retards

if there is something invisible that could kill you it doesn't matter how based it is the retards at the bottom will chimp out at it because they don't understand it

shill/victim of brainwash spotted

Nuclear is the best unless you're a nip with regular earthquakes

Just do some research

>It's because they are literally not profitable. They are not economically viable

Because enviromentalists keep loading them down with absurd regulations driving costs up. Regulations coal gets to avoid because lobbyists.

Hell hippies got mining tailings for rare-earths declared low level nuclear waste and in one stroke killed heavy rare earth mining in the US. China now dominates the market and uses their dominance to secure downstream manufacturing on their shores by restricting overseas sales of the raw materials.

Those same laws have an exclusion clause for the fly-ash pools of coal powerplants because nuclear material is concentrated enough by the burn off to violate those same laws.

Get fucked hippie.

You're both fucking dense if you think a real solution that gives cheap energy would not be immediately put to use by every energy company seeking profit. The instant a truly cheaper and better energy source becomes available, it will be made EVERYWHERE.
>shell and exxon are shutting down muh scientific research
They're literally fucking not. And the governments of the world are pouring HUGE amounts of money into research grants for alternatives because everyone realizes the looming energy catastrophe associated with fossil fuels. I want an alternative as much as anyone else in this thread, but nucelar power, as we currently produce it, isn't it. If it was truly more viable it would have completely taken over by now on its own.

Inb4 you say I have no knowledge of the subject again, You haven't done situps and burpees 3 feet away from the bulkhead a nuclear reactor like I have. (Engineroom forward for those that know what I'm talking about.) I've also have an EE and also studied environmental geology and have an independent interest in this topic, which is why I am posting in this fucking thread you massive ultranigger so stop saying my comprehension is meager you fucking faggot.

Nuclear is fine you dumb fucking cunt.

They're putting money into SPECIFICALLY NON NUCLEAR ALTERNATIVES YOU DUMB FUCKING NIGGER

I guess because I live near Parliament I know about running a country you disgusting subhuman cunt.

I wish I could fucking lynch you over the internet.

>Yes goy stay dependent on oil from saudi arabia
Fuck right off lad

Clean up the dying Pacific Ocean and Fukushima

Another good point to annoy hippies is the fact that it's impossible for nuclear waste To explode and it's like 97-98% recyclable

Nuclear power would be the best way to end the California drought.
We need desalinization but unless a massive breakthrough comes along, the best way to do it requires a lot of power.

If we had seaside nuclear plants AND people were not afraid of nuclear power, we could safely desalinate all the water California needs.

>nuclear power should not have as many safety regulations
>coal power gets to avoid regulations
t. Rare Earth merchant

>le edgy NEETs who played Stalker trying to shill for nuclear energy as armchair engineers

That's the irony of it all. It was ditched because it's very difficult to weaponise compared to uranium.

>You're both fucking dense if you think a real solution that gives cheap energy would not be immediately put to use by every energy company seeking profit

They are pushing developments of solid fuel uranium based reactors because it is the tech they know and because anyone that buys a reactor is locked into a fuel supply contract with that company for the reactors life, keeping margins high. Its the Gillette razor model for reactors.

Underrated.

do you?
you don't know shit about it

you don't know what makes a sub critical mass, or the history involved with it

nuclear power is awesome though

>method of energy generation that runs mostly on recycling the same amount of material for extended periods of time while creating very little waste
>somehow more profitable than making people constantly buy consumable fuels and then having to pay for the equipment and facilities to deal with the waste produced

You have no idea how the energy market works, kid.

The material it creates is heavily contaminated with other material that makes it useless for bombs and is nearly impossible to separate.

Useless for bombs, useful for burning in a reactor.

I hate it because I am deathly afraid of cancer. The reason is that I had cancer once.
The fact that there is a 0.0000...001% chance of a second chernobyl somewhere is enough for me to be against it. I know that this is not a rational fear though.

Armchair engineering is best engineering though

This, and I love stalker.

The shit is fucking dangerous. Until fusion is perfected we shouldn't be fucking with new plants.

>b-but user the new reactor designs are safer! Thorium reactors!

That doesn't mean shit when one natural disaster can completely fuck it up and essentially permanently contaminate large swathes of land

And it will be so easy to avoid radon contaminated coal. I mean, were just digging into the earth here, how difficult is it to just close a mine the second radon is detected?

Because we realized in the 70's that nuclear was a SHAM. BIG COMPANIES with A LOT OF MONEY and BIG GOVERNMENTS with a vested interest in energy made the decision based on COST and RISK.

They care not what IFL Science memefags have to say about it. They put their money into what is the most sound decision. The only reason we still operate the existing plants is to try and salvage capital from something we already invested heavily in. When our current plants become too old to operate, and shut down, that will be the end of uranium power production. Hopefully another solution will be made by then.
Thorium niggers need to realize that the current arguments made against nuclear (that i am making) I am not making against thorium. My argument on thorium is: "sounds great, keep researching, hopefully it pans out" But its not a fucking argument to build more uranium plants.

>nuclear power should not have as many safety regulations

>implying the regulations make things safer

Handling dirt like low level nuclear waste made nobody safer, it just killed an industry.

There is nothing wrong with nuclear power, ok?

It is very safe to use, ok?

I go to Chernobyl every week, ok?

There is no radiation there, ok?

It is very safe, ok?

Like how we fear Columbine style mass shootings, even though we're more likely to be killed by food-born illness. Praise memeland!

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-10/u-s-ousts-russia-as-world-s-top-oil-gas-producer-in-bp-report

What's that? USA is #1 oil/gas producer?
As usual, we're always #1 in everything.

The best way would be massive geo-engineering projects to bring down melt water from the north but hippies and politics both would block it.

Chernobyl is safe, ok?

Stop this lie about Chernobyl, ok?

Nuclear power is best power and most safe power, ok?

You are getting more radioactivity from the particulates from the coal powerplants operating throughout germoney due to you shutting down your nuclear plants.

Breathe in that cancer hans, you earned it.

The bomb is a good thing, even (((Vox))) agrees.

vox.com/2016/6/7/11868208/donald-trump-america-winning

>Petrol is fucking dangerous. Until safe storage is perfected we shouldn't be fucking with new engines
>Steam is fucking dangerous. Until pressurisation is perfected we shouldn't be fucking with engines
>Water mills are dangerous. Until we can control the tides we shouldn't be fucking with hydromechanic power
>Farming art hazardous. Ye shalt burn with sunstroke lest thou mastereth the brilliance of the sun

I can keep going.

WHEN IT IS PROVEN AND IT WORKS THEN OKAY FUCKING USE IT

You keep strawmanning me about your thorium obsession, that's not what I'm arguing! I am arguing that uranium nuclear plants suck ass economically and thats.. All i keep hearing in this thread is
>muh fucking thorium
wake me up when it works nigger

Fifth post best post

>"sounds great, keep researching, hopefully it pans out"

Wont happen because anti-nuclear niggers make funding research a lost cause.

Hell the research into the materials needed for containment is carrying on as part of a standard nuclear reactor research program, the research for the CO2 gas turbines is being run under the guise of making COAL more efficient.

If you explicitly try to develop thorium energy funding dries up faster than a womans cunt at a currynigger convention

>Engineering in a chair without arms
Come on man, you gotta be comfy while you argue on the internet and solve google sign recognition puzzles

Yeah i'm sure your number one in obesity too.
Also just because you have oil that dosen't mean you shouldn't use a cleaner alternative.

This.

This is the only person in the thread we should be listening to.

...

The public has massively bad images of nukes due to nuclear scare-tactics during the Cold War. The fact is it would take a major education initiative to educate the masses about radiation, which is the biggest threat factor in the public eye. Radiation is scary to them for a variety of reasons:
1- you cant see radiation except for sparkle from gamma emitters (rays tripping your eye-circuits, note this requires a strong source)
2- you cant smell it
3- you cant hear it
4- you cant taste it
5- the public doesnt understand half-lives
6- the public doesnt understand how ridiculously tight waste is managed (ie, the steel tanks, which are absurdly strong)
7- the public doesnt understand how tight nuclear reactor security is (note that every fence-jumper has been intercepted, and no successful theft or attack has occured to my knowledge).

it is hard to educate people about dangers they cant percieve beyond a yellow hazard sign, and this remains true globally.

Based Ukraine weighing in on the subject

We do fucking use it because it does fucking work you fucking nigger, in fact they provide over 11% of the world's energy.

Unfortunatey we arent the fattest anymore. I believe we outsourced that to Mexico, and Qatar is up there now too i think

I digress, my last post was mostly made of shit. I don't want to use oil any more either.