She's right y'know

She's right y'know

*yawn*

Except nuclear has the lowest death per kW-hour of any energy source.

>even pro environment politicians in the us are fucking retarded

Can we just improve our stellerstors, Z-machines, and tokamaks instead and achieve sustainable nuclear fusion already?

I hate the fact that we're so close to this and yet I never hear anything about it from the science world. I bet you those military industrial complex fuckers perfected it and are keeping it all to themselves right now. Bastards.

And replace them with what? More fossil fuels? I don't know how you can call yourself a Green and oppose nuclear. Other renewables can't make up the difference yet.

You can't literally "detonate" a nuclear power plant. The fuel is not enriched enough. And yeah, I get that it's an analogy and all that, but it's a pretty fucking stupid analogy.

Also this Nuclear energy is the future. There's no way of avoiding that.

and replace them with what Jill stein? more fossil-fuel burning plants?

I believe you but that graph is a little misleading. It doesn't take into account that there are less nuclear power plants Than the rest

>Don't complaing about actual nuclear weapons
>Complain about the safest, most efficient form of energy instead
This is why nobody takes greens seriously

Big oil man. Fucking hate em

Core geometry of any commercial nuclear power plant precludes the formation of the critical mass necessary for a nuclear explosion to occur.

HOLD THE PHONE!!!
STOP THE PRESSES!!!
A WOMAN IS TALKING OUT HER ASS AND SOUNDING LIKE A RETARD!
UNPRECEDENTED!

We need to harness the shit or nuclear energy no matter the risks. No Pain No Gain MUTHAFUCKAS

Remember folks, it's the right that's "anti-science"!

She didn't say that there were causing deaths, she said they very well could.

Your graph isn't relevant to her point.

It works out for deaths/kWh of power produced as well.

>she
>right
You must choose

So could absolutely everything

Warheads and reactors don't work the same way. No wonder only 1,000,000 people voted for her.

How is she a trap?

Nvm

>complain about lack of storage for spent nuclear fuel
>prevent any and all legislation to safely store SNF off site

Reopen yucca mountain when?!

>waiting to be detonated
except she's not. Nuclear power plants don't blow up, the worst that could happen is a reactor meltdown.

WEW LAD how is it possible to know so little about so much

>mfw I probably would have voted for Stein if she didn't have this stupid belief
She is definitely not right

What's the difference?

She didn't say "could". She said plants are weapons of mass destruction.

Even better
>complain about lack of storage for spent nuclear fuel
>prevent fuel reprocessing due to fear of uranium 235 and plutonium isotopes
It's absolutely retarded to simply let all that wasted fuel sitting in caves because "muhhh nuclear weapons".

meltdown is when the fuel rods they use get so hot that they literally melt, which causes them to give off a fuckton more radiation than can be absorbed by the material they use to insulate the cores

Jill is sorta hot, for a gilf, I mean. But she doesn't know shit about nuclear energy. You should't just take her word for this stuff.

I think they believe we can reduce consumption. Maybe they'll make it so that odd-numbered addresses get power on Mon-Wed-Fir, even-numbered addresses get power on Tues-Thur-Sat. (Sunday is Earthday, and nobody can use power).

>Thorium reactors are a thing

Saying that climate change is driven by human development and then not wanting nuclear power is the stupidest position you can have on the spectrum of opinions on Climate Change.

Not until we have a sustainable and economically sound alternative. Why can't they understand this?

No she isn't.

She isn't right about anything you wild fuck. Did you READ her platform? Do you think it's just a fluke that she doesn't understand the basics of energy policy?

How many nuclear plants did mama Merkel leave us? Oh wait they are all gone! Well better take in a million refugees and give money to the greek gypsies! That should fill in the huge economic gap that was left behind when every single nuclear plant was shut down....

>germans

Yes, it does. in unit analysis, the metric is [(deaths) / (kW)(h)].

This means that for every kWh of energy produced by ANY energy source, nuclear is responsible for the fewest number of deaths.

There could also be a tea-pot orbiting Jupiter.

>what is Chernobyl

Reid is finally out, so hopefully soon.

>31 direct deaths
yeah no

Chernobyl had literal mongrels running it.

A city-sized area being vaped [except for anything made of concrete and steel] and a neighborhood-sized area being irradiated to about the same level of a dump truck full of bananas.

Something that could have been prevented months before it actually happened had it been properly supervised. You could even add dozens of Chernobyl's and nuclear energy would still come up on top. Besides, Chernobyl's design was fucking retarded.

She implied that they could - "waiting to be detonated".

>as a dump truck full of bananas
made me kek

>the only commercial nuclear disaster to result in death
>cold war Russia makes situation 1000% worse
>industry has been around 50+ years

Pretty good safety track record if you ask me

>enriched
I hate this word now

Yeah and fucking nuclear reactor is definitely not one of the worst things in the list of everything. Not at all.

/k/ here.

That's gun grabber logic.

That's mitigated by the extremely low chance of a catastrophic failure happening

Cold fusion when. Hell, fusion in general when.

> what is communism
Fucking Sowjets managed to starve 8 million people in the "bread basket of Europe", the Ukraine.

Anything communism touches goes to shit. It's not the technology behind it.

Thorium breeder reactors can utilize waste as fuel.

There's still waste, but it's about a tenth as much.

It's like taking a poop, then burning that poop to make more food for you to turn into poop.

>what is stuxnet

Ah yes, the poster child for the nuclear power scare. Nevermind the government running it was collapsing at the time, the equipment was terribly outdated and poorly maintained, and was run and operated by yokels with little to no training. Surely this serves as the end all example of nuclear power and not a death throe of russian communism.

> What is russians not giving a fuck about safety and cut a bunch of corners.
> Something like this happening in the united states has the statistical chance of happening once in a thousand years

>le good ol power plants enrich to the point of bombs meme

Research a little more into this Jill.

What about Fukushima? I heard well all have 3 arms in about 30 years

AAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAH#EHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

I honestly think she's a jewish plant, thats sole purpose to make the united states as unproductive as possible.

oy vey shut it all down right now i'm warning you goyim

>let's build this nuclear plant along a coastal fault line
>what could go wrong?!

So rationing, then?

Which really means that the plebs will be rationed while the ruling elite will continue as normal.

As always, it's NEVER about the environment. It's about power and control.

Just the nips, just the nips.

I suspect that greens are simply mentally handicapped. Wasn't nuclear the "clean" solution before they started pushing global warming.
We should trust them this time. What could possibly go wrong?

>a program made to hack into the controllers of a dirt-poor country with safety regulations far below our own
You realize that all reactors have manual failsafes, right? At least in the U.S.

Also, the RBMK the Russians were using had no hard shell outer containment structure. So that was a pretty dumb design decision.

I remember reading some article scoffing about the people scoffing about the Japanese nuclear program. Apparently some people criticised building nuclear reactors on a very seismically active island.

I also remember reading a quote by some French General declaring a country with nuclear reactors to undefendable in a conventional war. All it takes it a couple of hits from small bombs before you have bits of fuel rods everywhere.

Even Israel chose to hit Bushehr (Iran's first reactor) before it was loaded with fuel.

She has scope insensitivity and loss aversion. Classic cognitive biases. People are far more afraid of dramatic but extremely rare causes of death than less dramatic but nonetheless far more likely causes of death. People are far more afraid of dying in terrorist attacks than from cancer, for instance.

Women = weapons of mass destruction already detonating. Time to shut them up. #BackToKitchen

>Has literal mongrols running extremely out of date, technology with no safety protocols or redundant failsafes

SEE NUCLEAR ENERGY BAD :DDD

I have no idea, I was really disappointed when my brother started being for the green party when Bernie lost.
> Socialism doesnt lead to communism
> Real communism has never been tried

Why is it so easy to tell when someone's only experience with nuclear power is the springfield power plant?

Literally nothing happened. Recently the WHO published their investigation, stating that zero people died in the Fukushima accident, taking long term effects into account.

Most people who died related to the accident actually died of stress due to the evacuation procedure, mostly old folks. Would they have stayed in their homes, they would have gotten a higher radiation dose, but nothing too bad, especially if you're old and going to die within 5 to 10 years anyway.

Then what's her feelings towards the Iran nuclear deal?

That man has no idea what he's talking about. Nuclear power plants are designed so that if attacked from the outside, there's no way they would melt down. You could fly a fucking plane into one and it'd be fine, but you'd obviously have to stop what you're doing.

God dammit, no. This is the one major area the left has let the hippies wander off from the scientists and spread decades of misinformation, fucking the partys position on energy completely.

Nuclear is still the cleanest, safest, and most reliable form of energy there is. They put out less fuckin radioactive waste than a damn "clean coal" (there is no such thing) plant.

Yeah, our fucking plants are ancient and relatively crap thanks to politics fucking up public opinion, resulting in hamstrung development for half a century.

Time to build some modern nuke plants, with modern technology, and invest in the future, with LTFR salt reactors.

Get with the fucking future. Only the combination of modern nuclear, solar, wind, geo, & wave power can take over when we finally get sick of propping up shitty middle east countries to get fossil fuels.

And fuck off Texas, if we turned to deplete our strategic domestic reserves, we'd utterly fuck ourselves in a years time.

>Nuclear energy is the future. There's no way of avoiding that.

Has anyone figured out what to do with the waste yet? That is the elephant in the room whenever this discussion crops up.

Also, their backup power systems were below ground so when the water came, it flooded emergency power systems (i.e. No Instrumentation or cooling water) and the site had to operate w/o power for a while.

No. She is a retard. And she is wrong.

Why in fuck does my post look like I double spaced every goddamn line. FUck, first I'm pissed bc of this stupidity, and now this shit too! FUCK

FUCK

hahaha

This plus
>have the backup generators underground where they're susceptible to water
>TEPCO lying for DAYS in a situation where seconds are minutes and minutes are hours
>TEPCO managed to skip inspections a handful of times before the incident
>not big enough dikes even though they were due a long time ago
If you look at other nuclear plants in the vicinity, you see they managed just fine despite being hit much more than Fukushima.

Well they won't blow up like s bomb, but get s few terrorists to decide fully attack a nuclear plant and your growing to have a meltdown that can render entire cities and towns unlivable.

Allocate military resources to defend them, or hire private military contractors to defend them.

You reprocess it or bury it. It's not like uranium doesn't exist in nature already, just find the deepest mine in the most dessertic place in the world and you're done.
But if you're planning on passing more restrictions on nuclear power, noone is going to take the job of developing any of that

I want nuclear power. Why do idiots keep shutting down my dreams?

Yes, there are plants able to reuse the waste til it's nearly gone, and then when the tiny tiny tiny fractions that are left in the end are combined, able to be used in industrial and medical and scientific instruments and devices.

Or if that suddenly changes for some reason, there's always putting it in a rocket and launching it into the sun.

>You can't literally "detonate" a nuclear power plant.

Hohols managed it.

Can't they make some bad ass artillery shells from them?

Uh, I was thinking we could, uh, have like a giveaway?
Cause people love free stuff.... or something....

Breeder reactors can reduce waste to a tenth of what it is.

If we start utilizing thorium it would be even less.

Idk about the small amount left though.

Can we process it into something useable? Like chemo treatments or diagnostic imaging?

Much of the "waste" being stored in caves right now is pretty much wasted fuel. Due to regulations you can't reprocess that "waste" out of fear of nuclear weapon proliferation mostly due to uranium-235 and various plutonium isotopes. If you get these regulations out of the way, you can greatly reduce the waste by a massive amount.

see and this is what prevented me from supporting the green party. nuclear is the future

Aren't all our plants from the 70s and 80s?

jk about that last part.

i just like the idea of putting shit in rockets and firing them into the sun.

> Socialism doesnt lead to communism
> Real communism has never been tried
i hear this all the time and it astounds me that people actually think this way

It just melted, reactors don't have enough fissible material to literally detonate.
You could leave every nuclear reactor on Earth go full Chernobyl and not even one would expldoe

Name a nuclear plant built in America in the last dozen years.

Protip: You can't.

Nope. What blew apart was the containment chamber due to the design in pressurized water reactors. In other words; high pressure water at ridiculous temperatures managed to escape and released its energy all at once and the concrete building couldn't handle it. There was no nuclear explosion whatsoever.

What is Trump's stance on nuclear power?