/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7961231
>http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/for-the-first-time-most-americans-oppose-nuclear-energy-160326?news=858538

Nuclear shill BTFO

Chemists and Physicists tend to dislike nuclear energy
Pop-science fans/atheists/people that want to seem more intelligent usually blindly support nuclear power and mock those that don't

Guess which category /sci/ will fall in

I think one part of the problem is the near religious acceptance for anything "nuclear" in science hipsters minds.

Pipedreams
Pipedreams EVERYWHERE

ITT insensitive monsters....

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/04/26/ukraine.chernobyl.anniversary/

ITT antiNuke propaganda and images

"Nuclear reactors are built by engineers, not scientist."

>2 out of 3 melt-downs there would be no deaths

since when has there been a melt down without massive deaths?

>: A fuel melt-down might be expected once in 20,000 years of reactor operation.

pure propaganda bullshit!

>air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year,

"oh noes smog! Deadly deadly radian is one thing but smog-" *drops dead*

Okay, I'm sick of it. I keep hearing that nuclear energy is the logical choice when investing in energy. It's complete nonsense and people are being fooled by corrupt organizations into believing it. Here some reasons why Nuclear Energy is a total fraud.


Economic costs

Firstly, NP is not going to be cheap. Various studies estimate the cost of nuclear electricity to be higher than Malaysia's national average of RM0.30/kWh. Wall Street and independent energy analysts, whose cost projections have been the most accurate to date, put NP at an average of RM0.50/kWh.

A 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study noteworthy for being pro-nuclear power and the first of its kind states that potential NP cost improvements are only theoretical, but not demonstrated today. In fact, actual projects in South Korea and Japan have seen a 25% increase in average costs and in Finland that figure is 90%.