/jp/ - Otaku Culture

They're just trying to make their own Gojira and try to take over the world again.

>>979214
But it is Japan in general

Also nuclear power is a front for nuclear bombs

>>979206

wtf? ths isn't animu

They're also investing in the Canadian oilsands. Smart move; get them before the Chinese do.

What's more moe: uranium or plutonium?

NUCLEAR POWER YEAH!

>>979206
Japan kinda has to rely on Nuclear Power, considering they lack any resources. France is apparently pretty good too in that regard.

>>979219
Taiwan also has nuclear power for a couple of decades now, but the US installs video cameras in them so Taiwan can't use them to make nukes against China.

Ironic that it was the same thing that wiped a large number of the countries citizens out in WWII

France even has gone to nuclear energy. American's population is too retarded to think "nuclear power" is unrelated to horrible accidents causing your skin to glow and your hair to fall off.

>>979232
I like this idea. Except those cameras also belong in the restrooms.

>>979236
The entire english-speaking world is full of fear-mongering, anti-nuclear left-wing hippies.

And Germany stated that they would stop using it... Except they will probably buy from France who uses a shitton of it.

>>979236

Segueing into a /n/ thread already?

>>979236
Happens with old age anyway.

>>979236

Well, it's certainly possible for radiation, even large amounts, to escape. But it's very unlikely with today's technology and any sensible PRIVATE security policy.

>>979245
I'm a left-wing hippie and for that very reason I think we should be using nuclear power.

>>979255
That's impossible, you're not fitting into the stereotyped box I tried to put you in!

Actually, even super enviro-fags in America are starting to realize that modern nuclear energy is far safer and better for the environment than our current energy product methods.

Sure, nuclear waste is really hard to deal with, but the relatively small amount of it that you can store deep in a mountain for a long time until you figure out something to do with it is better than the tons of shit you put in the air.

What I wonder is, the reason we don't put things like garbage in rockets to shoot at the sun is that it'd cost too much money, because there's too much garbage. However, nuclear waste would be a lot easier to send to the sun.

That is, unless there's another Discovery explosion with a ton of nuclear waste in it, and then we're all dead. :>

The biggest weakness of the US has always been its political system.

The problem is that you have to store the waste somewhere. And it's not like your cheetos bag trash, the place has to be safe.

>>979257
How about the SDF headquarters, I heard in the news that it's pretty safe from katana-wielding assailants.

Only problem with America and Nuclear power is the fear of a terrorist attack on a Reactor.

>>979206

OP, there was a good article in the Japan Times today abut Japan's nuclear plans.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20080710a1.html

in b4 revenge on america

>>979255
>I'm a left-wing hippie and for that very reason I think we should be using nuclear power.
Seconded.

>>979266
Nah Japan is Tsundere for America.

>>979269
Attacking a reactor won't do anything. Modern reactors can't meltdown or spew radioactive shit everywhere.

I'm as leftwing as they come, I'm a self declared socialist and am pro-enviromentalism. And I support nuclear power. Yet I hate Greenpeace (hipocrites), PETA, most green parties (how can a party that has one or two seats in most countries fucking influence so much? Especially in nuclear matters).

In Europe all the smart countries are using nuclear power. Even Sweden who will shut down plants and will not build any more in the future is the majority owner in Finnish nuclear plants and they're all hooked up to the same electrical grid. So much for doing things on principle. People are retarted on all spectrums of the political system. It's ignorance and lack of transparency that dooms modern politics and policy-making.

We had a nice thread about Japan. Well, not really, but it's failed so much more since then.

OP here.

>>979261

During Operation Dominic there was a launch pad explosion at Johnston Atoll of a nuclear missile. It wasn't armed. Granted that bombs don't use a lot of fissile material, the nuclear contamination was just limited to the immediate area around the launch pad.

>>979266

Good article. Thanks.

>>979286
You sound like me, except I reject the concept of money. Wild.

>>979286
>People are retarted
>retarted
Indeed they are.
Joking aside, the politicians will rarely make a controversial, unsupported move against the popular opinion. That is why the failure of nuclear power should be seen as a result of political circumstance, not shortcomings in technology or safety. As the latter has permeated the popular media, regardless of the level of prestige of the publication/show/etc., there is no easy way to convince the politicians that being pro-nuclear will ensure their stay in the political system.

Perhaps it is the fault of us, nuclear supporters, as we haven't made our voices as loud as our non-nuclear loving counterparts.

Your all retarts.

>>979307

needs moar animu like I said before

AND WHAT WAS JAPAN?
A VICTIM OF SOME SHYT THAT WILL FUKK U UP IN THE LONG RUN
LIKE I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO THAT MOTHER FUCKER.
Suck a fucking cock, OP.
Choke on it.
I'm going to tell your mom.
That you like men.

>>979368

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a liberal.

>>979261
>>However, nuclear waste would be a lot easier to send to the sun.

Hmm, not really you know, you really don't want a rocket full of nuclear waste to malfunction and fall back to earth or the many other things that can go wrong with rocket launches.

>>979377
>Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a troll.
Fixed.
Though in recent years the two words are looking more like synonyms. I'd make a similar claim about post-reagan conservatives but the only ones they're trolling are themselves.

>>979396
Why don't we just drop it under the crust, into the mantle? Radioactivity is high there already; it keeps our core warm as-is.

We don't have to waste tons of rocket fuel, we don't have to slowly chip away at our planetary mass, (changing our orbital period slightly, though it'd probably take millenia to be anything substantial), no chance of failed launches...

>>979460
Give this man a nobel prize.

>>979460

Because it costs a fuckton of money to drill a hole that deep, through bedrock.

Bury it in a mountain cave, where it can't leech into the water table.

>>979377
Don't lump me in with that fucking Martian....
Although it IS getting harder and harder to find anyone who even knows the issues, rather than voting on party-lines or focusing on one single retarded issue....

>>979460
Does lava work that way? I never rocked the geology, so I honestly don't know.

>>979460
Why don't you just store it such that its radioactivity cannot harm anyone even after weeks of sleeping next to the waste. Then, when technology is available, re-use the waste. Oh wait, this is how it's done already.

>>979471
Even at the thinnest places, the crust is still 10km thick. The part which would grant you the nobel prize would be figuring out how to effectively drill through all 10km and keep a resealable gateway to the mantle without having it do what mantle normally does when it breaches the crust: erupt. As in Volcanoes.

nuclear scat

Nuclear power is not and will never be the answer to Earth's energy problems. The only viable solution in the long run are various forms of solar energy.

The reason is simple - nuclear fuel is as much a non-renewable resource as coal, gas and oil are. Were we to switch all the Earth's energy production to nuclear, we'd run out of uranium in the next 100 years. Whether it would actually be beneficial in the short-run is another story, but as long as no advances in the field of clean, renewable energy are made, we'll be back to oil and coal in no time.

>>979553
So the obvious solution is dump it all into a volcano.

>>979604 dump it all into a volcano

Worked for Xenu.

>>979590
Sorry you are so behind the times Breeder reactors process all kinds of stuff into fuel and also deal with most of the waste. Have fun thinking about nuclear power with 40 year old ideas. The rest of the world is leaving the USA in the dust.

>>979590
While solar is still being worked on we switch over to Nuclear from coal. It's cleaner and it's a viable source to power entire countries on (something that solar isn't as of right now).

>>979590
>non-renewable

Oh lol.
It will run out, but at that point, we'll have long since all died.

>>979590
It might not be THE solution but it is part of it. Lessing are dependence on fossil fuels is the first step. And any clean energy like nuclear energy is welcome. Plus, I know it's a far cry but most of the world's uranium is on the sea floor, I know it's just as viable as deep sea drilling, but nuclear power isn't necesarily condemned to just the next 100 years.

tl;dr nuclear power is but a stepping stone.

>>979590
In 100 years we'll have cold fusion nailed down and problems like that will be non-existent.

>>979608
Oh, wow. Do you really think breeder reactors are some kind of perpetuum mobile?

>>979286
There are very valid reasons for why nuclear power is no option for anyone.

Mineable uran is projected to be used up by 2050. Note: This is earlier than it is the case for oil.
Furthermore, proclaiming, that nuclear power is environmental firendly is a lie. You may see no smoke leaving the plants, but producing uran is as environmental unfriendly as burning coal.
Addtionally, what are we suppossed to do with atomic waste? Nobody has been able to give an answer to that issue. It needs to be stored for several ten-thousand years and we aren't able to keep it safe for less than half a century.
Most importantly for many people: The only way to keep this kind of energy cheaper than conventional and renewable energy sources is by governmental funding, which makes it effectively more expensive in the end.
Last, but certainly not least, there is the danger of an accident. It has happend before, it happened yesterday and it will happen again. We are playing around with something we can't entirely control.

Nuclear power is neither future-proof, nor environmental friendly, nor cheap and under no circumstances safe.

>>979656
>but producing uran is as environmental unfriendly as burning coal.

I like how you spit this out there without saying why or how

Also sage for not being /jp/ related

>>979642
Do you have any idea how a breeder reactor works? Lots of stuff can be processed in nuclear fuel including nuclear waste. I suggest you look into it.

>>979656
Please take your Green Peace and Sierra Club propaganda and eat it.

For the life of a solar panel you don't get the amount of energy out of it that it took to produce it.

>>979656
The radiation released from burning COAL kills more people every year then nuclear power ever will. Like that Mercury in you sea food? That comes from burning COAL too. You are spouting propaganda not facts.

>>979666
>Sierra Club propaganda and eat it.
>Sierra Club
Oh god. Those guys a riot. I love reading their stuff and then the "Clean Coal" stuff, placing them side by side and trying to decide whose PR department costs more to run.

>>979656
Sources or GTFO. This is the uninformed bullshit that anti-nuke people would like you to swallow.

read this for supply (I know wiki, but it's better than your empty words): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Supply
There's more than enough, also see the seafloor as a viable source if we can get our act together.

It doesn't burn, contaminate or do anything if properly enclosed in the reactor. The only downside to it is that it requires water for cooling (WHICH IS NEVER IRRIDIATED BTW). Other than that clean as a motherfuking whistle. Yeah nuclear waste is a problem, but with newer technologies it's becoming more and more viable to reproccess and to extend utility. And in any case, I don't see natural occuring uranium magically not emiting radiation under the earth. GUESS WHAT: processed uranium (plutonium and other heavies) would be the same.

FYI most nuclear power plants in Europe and in the states ARE NOT STATE OWNED. BIG SURPRISE, RIGHT? Not really, when you consider that when the costs for oil is so fucking high nuclear energy suddenly looks very attractive and the energy to cost ratio for it is very good.

As for the accidents, lol. It's a possibility, but very remote. Chernobyl was because of gross human incompetence and something like three mile can be prevented with good safety regulations. SPOILERS: It's much friendlier to the enviroment to have that eventuality than the (still) burning oil fires in the middle east caused by war. Also volcanic eruptions alone have done more to destroy our enviroment than our energy consumption.

So, try again, but this time without the propaganda.

>>979730
The Sierra Club's they get nonprofit status all the Coal Combines get is a deduction for advertising.

>>979666
Yes. I realize, for example, that it still requires a stable intake of radioactive material to work.

As >>979656 said, our current resources of uranium, at its current usage (which would have to be greatly extended were we switch to nuclear energy as a main source of power) will run out a lot earlier than 100 years. With breeder reactors, this deadline is extended, but due to elementary laws of physics cannot and will never be eliminated completely.

>>979661
There are two ways in which nuclear power is hurting the environment. Mostly during producing uran:
1. CO2-emmissions - small, though.
2. radition enters soil and ground water; cancer rate multiplies.

>>979780
Do you have any idea how many people Coal burning kills every year? If we went 100% Nuclear popwer the number of deaths would be a drop in the bucket in comparison to the number Coal kills right now today.

>>979758

Keep in mind that in 85 years it's not unrealistic to think that we will be mining asteroids.

Solar is not a viable alternative, at least not now. Nuclear is a viable alternative now, and is better than coal. If you're going to cockblock every proposed solution to the problem, how do you expect the problem to get fixed?

>>979813

Sierra Club faggots really just want everyone else to conform to their shitty, "green" lifestyle.

>>979813

BIOFUELS, NIGGA. BUY MORE CORN

MMM, DELICIOUS LOBBYIST MONEY

>>979813
I think a lot of the people against Nuclear power just want us all to slowly die of starvation. What they are really against is progress and humanity.

>>979833
I'm going to bawww when corn on the cob becomes a gourmet dish.

>>979833
He voted for FISA today too.

>>979842
Goddamn it, the ONE major thing I disapproved of....
The whole damn system's fucked.

I'm leaving this country; I'm gonna go live in a powerless wood cabin somewhere else.

>>979833
Wow.
Is this not shopped?
He has uglier body than I thought.

>>979747
>It doesn't burn, contaminate or do anything if properly enclosed in the reactor.
Which apparently no one is able to guarantee.

>And in any case, I don't see natural occuring uranium magically not emiting radiation under the earth.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you talking about. The radiation of natural uran is lower than what leaves a power plant in the end. It's not called fuel rod (or is it called differently in English) for no reason.

>NOT STATE OWNED
The state is at least funding research. Recent studies in Germany have shown that you would be able to buy two additional ice a year, if you were to entirely change-over to nuclear power. It's not cheap and it's no question that the state is tilting the balance.

>As for the accidents, lol. It's a possibility, but very remote.
That "remote" is inconveniently close.
>good safety regulations
What do you suppose those should look like. Look: even the smallest irregularity in an nuclear reaction chain can blow all your security measures away. And even small security breaches like in France yesterday are security breaches after all. There is no thing like full security.

>>979813
Noone said anything about cockblocking. It's just ridiculous to create a false dichtonomy between nuclear and fossil energy to make nuclear power look good.

Either way, we'll have to switch to the solar energy (which is, at its basics, also nuclear in origin) sooner or later.

>>979871
>Either way, we'll have to switch to the solar energy (which is, at its basics, also nuclear in origin) sooner or later.

and until then... ?

>>979858
How many timse you you Green Peace faggots have to be beaten down. You can't trust any figures from Germany since the Greens play with the numbers to get the answers they want.

The Radon gas that leaks into my house is much more dangerous than radiation from Nuclear power generation. Most modern Nuclear plants have level of radiation lever below what is teh nature back ground level in most parts of the plant.

Less propaganda and more reality.

>>979858
Talk about putting your head in the sand. Way to miss the point. No one can guarantee that the oilfields tomorrow won't be turned into a gigantic sea of fire because of terrorism. Or that dams won't be destoryed for the same reason. Nothing is completely safe from a security perspective. Just like a valve might get stuck on a nuclear reactor one of the turbines or sluicegates could fail on a dam causing water pressure to build up and crack the dam. Unlikely? Yes, but so is a nuclear accident.

For your second 'point' look up the aforementioned reprocessing and disposal techniques. Within 40 years spent fuel's levels drop to something comparable to natural uranium. Also about 'wild fission' happening like you're claiming it could. I don't believe there's enough critical mass in a nuclear reactor to cause an explosion. Safety regulations and standards have long since made things like three mile island statistically improbable (not impossible, but then again NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE). So quit your bitching, do you only travel by car knowing that the train is there because the train might derail? No, and that's the point, everything has its inherent risk.

My last point was to illustrate that the amount of CO2 emitted is insignificant. And it DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT come from the actual fission, but from the mining in the most part. And if you're planning to put a stop on all mining, then I guess you're more retarded than I thought. Enjoy your cables and wiring made from wood - Oh wait we need minerals for that as well.

So yeah, stop with the stupid alarmist and disproportional response. Nuclear power is safe and viable. And if it weren't for people like you, we might be moving ahead instead of dicking around with biofuels and other means of energy that only end up hurting the common person. Oh yeah, look it up, biofuels drive up food costs and are energy inefficient. A lose-lose situation.

>>979871
The process of creating Solar panels uses nasty chemicals and is very polluting. The amount of power required to create a Solar panel is more than it will ever produce in it's lifetime which is rather short.

If you use Solar to make steam directly you get more out of it but it is not suited to produce base load power. It also will be opposed by the green lobby who will fight it's sighting.

>>979873
Until then we have to be ready for that. Which we won't be if people treat nuclear power as some kind of holy grail.

Nuclear power is not as cheap or safe as you people make it to be. There are a lot of reasons to switch to it, but environmental considerations should not be among them. IF you're arguing from environmental standpoint, you should not be a proponent of nuclear power, but a solar one. IF you don't, don't make it look like you do. Period.

oh yeah I almost forgot.

GOVERNMENT FUNDED-RESEARCH!? OH NOES!

They aren't the only ones investing idiot. Plenty of privately-owned corporations are investing in research into alternative fuel sources.

>>979894
>you Green Peace faggots
I'm no "Green Peace faggot", even dispise PETA.

>Most modern Nuclear plants have level of radiation lever below what is teh nature back ground level in most parts of the plant.
Which might be true and sounds logical, but doesn't invalidate even one of the arguements brought forward.

>Less propaganda and more reality.
>You can't trust any figures from Germany since the Greens play with the numbers to get the answers they want.
Be careful with the word propaganda, since it's what you are leaning towards.

>>979923
Yes, there are severe environmental problems with current solar power plants, too. But given proper caution, they're not really greater than those of nuclear ones.

>>979930
>Until then we have to be ready for that. Which we won't be if people treat nuclear power as some kind of holy grail

No, when I said "until then..." i meant "what should we do about our energy situation until then?"

>>979960
Well if you consider no pollution controls in the factories in China making most of them not a problem I think you need to think again. That shit finds it way into the Air here, California already is effected by the Asian brown cloud and it is only going to get worse as China is not going to sign on to any thing that puts restraints on it economy.

>>979961
I know. But I'm not qualified to answer that question. Noone is, probably.

Once again, I'm NOT arguing againist nuclear power, really. Only againist the mindset of people who try hard to distance themselves from anti-nuclear "environmentalists" while getting caught in the same, just reversed, one-track mind process.

tl;dr: IT'S ALL NOT THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.

>>980016
Well at least I ma not just saying "NO NUCLEAR!!!!!" NO NEW POWER PLANTS!!!

We need to build non Coal fired base load power plants. Nuclear power is good for that. Wind and Solar are good for peaking power generation and we need those plants too. We need to be building this stuff two years ago. Everyday it gets put off is one more day we are screwing ourselves.

Missing the point? Oil fields may blow up and dams may crack, but do you know the difference to when an accident happens in a nuclear power plant?
First, nuclear power plants are constructed while there are alternatives. Second, if they blow up, everything around them is done for and it still has effects hundreds and thousands of miles away.

Uncontrolled nuclear reactions have already happened - you have mentioned it yourself. What stops them from happening again? Security measures? Don't make me laugh. Security doesn't prevent these plants to make headlines regulary. Everything has a risk, you are right, but the risk is intollerable for nuclear power. It is not safe.

The usual destructive effects don't have their origin in the nuclear reaction, but they do exist. This sort of energy is by no means clean as many people want to make you believe.

[OT]While biofuel is stupid by all means, it is only responsable for about ten percent of the food price increase. Which is still much, but not all too much.[/OT]

>>979923
Well what do you know.
>>979676

>>980053
All straw men.

>>980053
I'm sorry but it's YOU that's missing the point, presenting all those strawmen arguments. I clearly stated that normal accidents happen as well besides terrorism. What's there to prevent a stuck valve from messing up a dam?

And it's not like people put up dams on a whim just like, guess this one: NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. Truth is you are consistantly failing to address my points with hard evidence, instead derriding the topic to implausible scenarios. Like I said before nuclear power is not THE answer, but it's part of the answer. It sure as hell is better than crossing our arms and hoping that tomorrow will be better.

And 10%? That's both undocumented (since you fail to provide source) and stupid to brush off. Ten percent increase for the prive of food would make millions that are already struggling starve even more. So yeah, enjoy your faulty views of the global market and naive enviromentalism.

>>980053
>[OT]While biofuel is stupid by all means, it is only responsable for about ten percent of the food price increase. Which is still much, but not all too much.[/OT]
>about ten percent of the food price increase.
>ten percent

gb2/sucking bush cock/, faggot

this thread fucking sucks

>>980114
Sorry you Ass. My food costs have increased 40% since December.

>>980114
Why? It's a number that was in the newspapers some time ago, and if you have a more precise number, share it.

>>980110
Messed up dam and dike it seems. I have a split opinion about dams, but there is no doubt the overall risk of dams is considerably smaller.
These scenerios as you call them are not unlikely since they have already been played through in reality.

We'll all see the consequences in the end and we'll see what's the best strategy.

Lastly, read that last sentence of >>980053 one more time, please.

Now it's a /n/ thread.

>>980187
See
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5j6dVGDEeXjjcY96MwzBMkvKMNU_A
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

My point is, and you're missing it: Everything has an inherent risk, and through science and proper regulation can we minimize them.

Biofuels are the worst idea ever. Even a 5% increase is devestating. Not just african countries suffer, but many asian countries (including even japan) are battling high prices for food. It's a huge fiasco. I'm sure the people in the US are feeling their wallets become lighter in light of rising fuel and food costs. Also, thank you again for brushing off the danger risk as
>but there is no doubt the overall risk of dams is considerably smaller.

I recommend you read the previous posts carefully and construct actual arguments instead of continuing with your onslaught of fallacies and more specifically, straw man arguments.

Also hoping to sage because this belongs in /g/ at the very least. But I'll be damned if they'll stop their OS faggotry to discuss real technology.