/sci/ - Science & Math

Troll thread, nothing to see here.

trollolloll

herewegoagain.jpg

>>2717800
actually i'm legitimately interested in why. despite it being clean and "safe" energy, why build it when if something goes wrong, pretty much everything is going to hell?

>>2717800
>>2717811
>>2717813
Ya'll niggas mad.

>>2717826
Because AIDS.

I ask all of the following to everyone and they think I'm crazy:

-Can you make it better than it already is no matter how farfetched?
-Don't take shortcuts, ever.
-Don't half-ass your work, faggots.
-Stop procrastinating and fix it.
-I don't care about fucking money. If you can make your money work for you to improve your shit, spend it. Time is more important than man-made objects.
-If you create something that will destroy a large part of the world, you better not fuck up.

But does anyone listen to me? Nope.

>>2717826
Alright I'll bite.
Basically power plants that burn coal do constant harm to the environment, coal is slightly radioactive and burning it releases the isotopes into atmosphere, also, lets not forget the greenhouse gasses and smog. Nuclear power is dangerous, but in the same way that giving a baby control of a semi trailer is dangerous: the chances of a baby ever having control of a semi are so remote that it can basically be called 0.
Chernobyl only happened because the stupid russians turned off all the safety systems for a test and couldn't reengage them when the plant blew, and these reactors in japan were hit by a 9.0 magnitude quake and a tsunami. I'm not saying NP is totally safe, it isn't nothing is, but when you weigh out the danger vs the outcome, NP comes out on top by far.

In case you're serious, do you have a better suggestion for generating the 101,229 Megawatts that nuclear currently provides in the US alone?

ITT: the butt hurt tastes like chicken

op is a faggot

honestly, OP it all boils down to money.

As long as it's profitable for somebody, they'll do it. They don't give a fuck about possible consequences.

>>2717786

Kill yourself

The largest windmill farm atm is the Roscoe Wind Farm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Wind_Farm

It's nearly 100,000 acres. Has 627 windmills and produces 781.5 MW's.

Most nuclear powerplants produce far over 2000 MW's.

>>2717847
>-If you create something that will destroy a large part of the world, you better not fuck up.

this is p much my concern, considering there are plenty of these all across the earth and no one seems to understand the full implications until something goes wrong.
and judging from this thread, it seems like the reasoning behind building apocalypse-prone machines is "cause we can."

You all live too convenient lives. We need to go back to living in huts with candles and live off the land and nature.

>>2717872
>>2717872
>no one seems to understand the full implications until something goes wrong.
Are you fucking 12?
Chernobyl, look it up.

>>2717872
>"cause we can"

Tell me another source of relyable green energy.

while I do not think my opinions align with OP's, as I do believe there is such as thing as safe nuclear power, many of the nuclear plants in operation today (plants in the US certainly included) are very unsafe. they have known design flaws which can quickly allow them to get out of the control of their operators. safe reactor designs do exist, but the old unsafe reactors (unsafe not by age, but by design) are allowed to operate out of a combination of corporate greed and, rather sadly, public opposition to construction of new safe plants to replace the flawed ones.

Here's the problem with nuclear power:

Countries let them run forever. The one in Japan is over 40 years old. It's first generation. New plants built now are 5th generation. The one in Japan has many security layers that Chernobyl did not have. Chernobyl was an isolated instance of fucking lazy, sloppy Russians being lazy, sloppy Russians. They would fix a nuclear reactor with gum if they could.

If governments would just shut down these fucking old plants and build new ones in their place, we wouldn't have problems such as this.

If I were going to build a nuke plant in an area prone to quakes and tsunamis, I would double and triple bag that fuck out of the containment, and provide at least 6 forms of backup cooling.

>>2717893
>implying nukes = green

herp, i still think peepoles wull belivitat dis

you've been fukushima'd nigger, start playing simcity 2000 or get to know the real next gen fuel....algae

>>2717907
There is always a chance for something to go wrong with newer generations. It's rare, but there is.

>>2717904

What the fuck are you talking about you ignorant child?

Three mile island - look it up. Everything went wrong, the reactor melted down but every bit of radioactivity is contained.

Chernobyl was a disaster because of a myriad of reasons - mostly using graphite as a neutron moderator.

The worst part about what's going on in Japan is the bad publicity for nuclear power.

>>2717919
It would be too rare to care about. With 40 year old plants, it's rare enough to care about.

>>2717907
The problem is that many western countries won't build new generation reactors since the public is largly against them. But you cann't just chop off 20% of your power supply.

So they let old reactors run longer until they find a solution to that power shortage.

>>2717921
>The worst part about what's going on in Japan is the bad publicity for nuclear power.

No, I'm pretty sure that the worst part is the deaths and the massive humanitarian crisis, but feel free to continue spergin' on about your precious nukes.

>>2717870
>781.5 MW's.
>Most nuclear powerplants produce far over 2000 MW's.
from that page:
>construction cost >1billion

mfw the new nuclear plant they wanted to build was gonna cost 8-9 times as much

>>2717921
TMI was only a partial meltdown. It was contained and not that bad.

Chernobyl was bad because the fallout was exploded out of the reactor. It was just a bad design though, as you said, graphite acting as catalyst for the fission. Also, the fucking reactor was not protected/contained, I mean those poor plant workers had no idea how radiated the shit was and they went in and pushed the rods back into the reactor with their bare hands staring into the open fission generator. Scary shit.

The Japanese one is destined to be worse than TMI because there are too many reactors fucked at once and they haven't made any progress whatsoever keeping it cool, quite the opposite, more and more is blasting away that's why radiation keeps spiking and workers are evacuated for hours leaving the reactors unmanned. In fact, half the time they don't even know what's happening cause the instruments are all dead (which is a worst case scenario sign). Basically if the reactors start to fuse and rods to melt, even if there is no graphite to explode, the meltdown may very well leak through the already ruptured containments and reach the outside, poisoning water supply.

>>2717883

are you fucking dumb? who REMEMBERS Chernobyl until something like this actually happens? no one goes around thinking "hm, i wonder what would happen if the power plant had a malfunction and went Three Mile Island on us?" and even if they do, they force themselves to think of something else because that could NEVER happen again, rite?? our power plants are perfect and flawless and will never have any problems. besides, chernobyl was all the way in russia russia's stupid they have dumb scientists no nuclear winter's gonna happen in MY america.

>>2717907
They can't afford to sanitate the old plant AND build a new one, because nobody factors in the cleanup cost when calculating the cost of building new plants

DERPDERPDERP SHUT DOWN ALL NUCLEAR REACTORS BECAUSE THEY COULD EXPLODED AT ANY MOMENT!

also
>implying coal and oil don't cause just as much if not more environmental contamination and do it more frequently than radiation

>>2717882

Shut up hippy. That's backwards thinking.

mfw when terrorists will get inspiration from this and the next terrorist attack against the usa will be to their power plants

problem america?

Too bad they didn't bother to install core catchers in those plants. Could have just let it meltdown and be done with it then.

>>2717950

>In fact, half the time they don't even know what's happening cause the instruments are all dead (which is a worst case scenario sign).

this is actually what i'm talking about. what happens when things GO WRONG and the precious nuclear workers and scientists don't know what the fuck to do because they can't tell what's wrong and there's no procedure for this kind of thing? are you going to sit around and say "well it'll fix itself, nuclear energy is safer than driving a car"?

>>2717953
That's dumb. You're dumb.

You really think the people who actually know what is going on just say "oh it probably won't happen?"

No.

Nuclear Reactors in the United States have a minimum impact rating, be it from explosions, earthquakes, or reactors.

Do you know what the simulation is?

They crash a fully loaded airliner into the side of the fucking building. If there are any cracks or anything in the containment shell? Redesign, it isn't strong enough.

They don't fuck around. Thats the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's motto: "We don't fuck around."

5th Generation reactors are 50x as safe as the japanese reactors.

>>2717826
>despite it being clean and "safe" energy
define "clean"
>why build it when if something goes wrong, pretty much everything is going to hell?
Return/investment ratio
Everything is about money in this sad world

feels good to live in Italy, where we voted not to build nuclear power plants. Finally something that makes me proud of my country

lol. Godwin's law

>>2717978
it is going to fix itself
the japanese fucked up by letting out hydrogen gas that set up a fire
but even that fire went out by itself
it's funny how the media is getting more ominous hour by hour even though nothing has changed

>>2717921
the reactor did not reach meltdown. partial meltdown maybe, if you really want to use that term. if it had reached meltdown, things might have not been able to be contained like they were.
>The worst part about what's going on in Japan is the bad publicity for nuclear power.
you're inhuman.

>>2717992
reactor 4 is still on fire

>>2717978
Even when they don't know exactly what is going on, the technicians know what COULD happen, and work for the worst case sceneario first.

>>2717985
>mfw I'm in the middle of the plants...

>>2717978
That's precisely what they're doing. They're just trying to cool the rods down to prevent shit from melting and beaching containment. See all that radiation is at extreme levels already inside the reactor, it just can't get out YET. The reactors are shut down but the rods etc. maintain heat for months not to mention radiation. They literally can't do more than try to cool them down at the moment, and if that fails, they have to try and seal them off and hope it doesn't melt through the containment underneath.

It's relatively simple really, think of the reactor with rods and lots of harmful shit in it like a big box that is being cooled from the outside, if that box gets a breach (like a reactor vessel rupturing which has happened already), the nasty shit can leak out and go wherever it wants to. That's why they're just dumping seawater onto the reactor from the outside.

>>2717997
No, it's not on fire.
>>2717992
Yeah, soon there are going to be big headlines: JAPAN SAVED BY MIRACLE: read this massive circle-jerk about the dangers of nuclear power

>>2718003

I wouldn't care about it. Europe's the least exciting continent when it comes to natural disasters.

>could easily demolish all life within several hundred miles of the plant?
no it couldn't.
And it didn't happen at chernobyl, and it didn't happen at windscale.

read the actual effects of nuclear disasters. It's really no worse, and in many respect even better, than acidents with coal or oil plants.

>>2717786

Then wth should use instead? windmils? No fucking way we are going to produce amounts of power anywhere close with windmils.
The only alternative is fossil fuels then. But those are running out and getting more and more expensive. Not to mention stuff like deep ocean horizon which are probably even worse for the enviroment then what's happening in japan can ever be.

mfw when i will write a virus like stuxnet to change the readings of instruments of all the nuclear power plants in the usa at the same time, and them the usa will explode. Lulz will ensue.

>>2717978
>it'll fix itself
better reactors can do this. see link below. however, the flawed reactors like the GE Mark I at fukushima (27 of these also still operate in the US) rely on backup systems functions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety

>>2718005
Partly true. They are already working on getting the electricity working in the plants.

A attempt to use mobile devices failed because voltage didn't fit

>MSRs can be safer. Molten salts trap fission products chemically, and react slowly or not at all in air. Also, the fuel salt does not burn in air or water. The core and primary cooling loop is operated at near atmospheric pressure, and has no steam, so a pressure explosion is impossible. Even in the case of an accident, most radioactive fission products would stay in the salt instead of dispersing into the atmosphere. A molten core is meltdown-proof, so the worst possible accident would be a leak. In this case, the fuel salt can be drained into passively cooled storage, managing the accident.

>mfw we're still using antiquated 40 year old reactors because environmentalists won't let newer, safer plants be built to replace them

>>2718017
what about we stop wasting so much energy to start?

>>2718031
what's the waste disposal process with MSR's?

>>2718016
yeah chernobyl didn't become a dead, irradiated wasteland or anything like that.

>>2718017
IF YOU TAKE AWAY MY NUCLEAR PLANTS, WHAT WILL I USE FOR TEH POWARS?? HOW DARE U TAKE AWAY MY POWARZ TO REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING SAFER GRRRR!!!!!

>>2718025
Read your own article. The reactors will be unusable (not "fixed") but safe.

>>2718014
Natural disasters aren't the only problem

>>2718040
There are people living in Chernobyl. In Chelyabinsk there are people living in even more contaminated areas. They have maybe 3x the cancer rate.

>>2718040
>yeah chernobyl didn't become a dead, irradiated wasteland or anything like that.
It didn't
>IF YOU TAKE AWAY MY NUCLEAR PLANTS, WHAT WILL I USE FOR TEH POWARS?? HOW DARE U TAKE AWAY MY POWARZ TO REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING SAFER GRRRR!!!!!
I would take that energy you mentioned right away. How do you achieve it?

>>2718035

That's currently not an option.

>>2718035
This, it's the first step if we want a clever energy source

>>2718041
ok, "safe" is good too. consider the dire situation "fixed".

There's always a risk to everything. The point is to manage risks, not eliminate them totally. Nuclear power is just another risk to be managed.

>>2718053
Yes it is, there's a lot of useless things consuming a lot of energy
(pic related)

>>2718040

Chernobyl is like a wild life park. There are animals spotted there that haven't been seen in those regions for years. There are now more animals there then there were before the accident.

>>2718066
> he finds candy more important than complete understanding of the world
get out of my /sci/

>>2718037
They can use thorium as a fuel and reprocess the waste on site to reuse it. No idea how much is left after all is said and done, but it's definitely less than what those old reactors are producing.

>>2717907
the irony of this post is that the Fukushima reactor was schedule for decomission at the end of this month.

This is actually a case of the "I'm retiring tomorrow" cop in an action film.

>>2718075
>No idea how much is left after all is said and done
Under 0.1%

>>2718069
funny what happens when you remove most of the human population from an area.

>>2718066

I would call that one of the least useless things that we are currently doing with energy.

>>2718072
I think complete understanding of the world is a great thing, that's why I think it's stupid to waste energy and great minds on such an useless shit

>>2718050
uhhh. pretty sure that there's only a few people left in Chernobyl, the rest GTFO because it was dangerous and the area would be dead. do you not know what the Chernobyl Zone is?

>I would take that energy you mentioned right away. How do you achieve it?
what does this even mean? how would i replace the energy from shutting down the power plants? i'm not saying SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN right away. i'm saying find better ways to harvest energy, or replace the plants with safer and modern technology. besides, you could power your house entirely on your own, why do you need a power plant to do that for you?

>>2718076
>reactor was scheduled for decomission at the end of this month
i sooo believe that. It's incredibly unlikely. If you heard that somewhere probably they were just
>"hurr durr new other plants are all safe, that was an old one we were right about to dismantle it"

>>2718098
>I think complete understanding of the world is a great thing
>call the LHC "useless shit"
OK

>>2718088
It didn't happen with fishes in the italien sea during WWI

Fishing boats weren't able to set sail for 3 years. As the war ended they thought that the sea would be full of fishes(3 years is a long time for fishes). But there was less than before the war.

>>2718076
>reactor was schedule for decomission at the end of this month
only partially true.

>Unit 1 is a 460 MW boiling water reactor (BWR-3) constructed in July 1967. It commenced commercial electrical production on March 26, 1971, and was initially scheduled for shutdown in early 2011. In February 2011, Japanese regulators granted an extension of ten years for the continued operation of the reactor.

>>2718103
Get ready to eat crow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boiling_water_reactors
>Fukushima I (Daiichi) Nuclear Power Plant, unit 1
>Scheduled Shutdown 26 Mar 2011[3]

>>2718108
>In February 2011, Japanese regulators granted an extension of ten years for the continued operation of the reactor.
Well shit.
>>2718110
here.

>>2718103
It was originally planned it would go offline this month, but it was given a ten year extension last month.

>>2718112
Oh the irony.

I guess greed wins after all.

>>2718105
did they ever come up with theories as to why the populations didn't recover?

>>2718066

OP confirmed for a moron with no understanding of science.

Any idea all the things that particle accelerators have gave you? You're using one right now.

Also, learn the difference between a well-located 5th Generation Reactor ( especially after we get Thorium Fission and Waste-Recycling things going) and a 1st Generation hit by a 8.4 earthquake + tsunami or a 1st Generation Reactor running with fucking Graphite.

If the fucking environmentalists actually learned a thing about energy production, they would allow us to build NEW fucking 5th Generation Reactors and we wouldn't have to use 40 year old ones. Goddamnit, environmentalists are the group of people in the worlds that does more harm to the environment than anyone else.

>>2718101
"pretty sure" is a lousy source, brother.
I wasn't even talking about humans, but wildlife.

>i'm saying find better ways to harvest energy,
Coal? Wind? Solar satelites and fusion reactors have a dozen of decades to go.
>i'm not saying SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN right away.
So we should let old reactors run even longer?
>or replace the plants with safer and modern technology.
Almost nobody wants to build new generation generators after this recent incident.

People need to put this in perspective. There are hundreds of nuclear power plants throughout the world, and outside of Chernobyl (24 years ago) not a single plant has had an accident that has killed non-workers through radiation exposure or substantially irradiated an inhabited area, and that occurred because of stupidity. Nuclear plants today are much safer, as evidenced by the fact that it took a literal clusterfuck of natural catastrophe to bring about another incident like this. I ain't even sweating

>>2718126
It's the same kind of people that brought us PETA.

>>2718122
They did. Because humans also eliminated natural predators.

>>2718142
Meanwhile coal kills many thousands of people a year, but they don't count because it's not nuclear you see.

>>2718126
5th generation? Do we even have any running Gen III reactors?

I think people are far more afraid of radiation then needed. The Chernobyl cloud had a minor effect and that was the worst case in history. Also... how many people died because of Chernobyl? I remember it being less the a major bus crash.

>>2718153
India is building gen 5 reactors this year.

>>2718101

>besides, you could power your house entirely on your own, why do you need a power plant to do that for you?

You could build your house on your own, why do you need a builder to do that for you?

You could get food on your own, why do you need a farmer to do that for you?

You could make a surgery in yourself on your own, why do you need a doctor to do that for you?

Ever heard of a thing called "Division of labor"? It fucking works.

>>2718154
full retard.jpeg
thousends of people died

>>2718142
These plants in Japan went through a 9.0 quake, the complete loss of external electricity, a giant tsunami, several hydrogen explosions and partial meltdowns. I'd say they did pretty well considering they're 40 years old.

But still, it's not good enough. We're up to generation V in designs, we shouldn't have ANY 1st generation reactors still running. But try explaining that to the public.

power companies are cheap bastards. that's why GE's Mark I sold so well for many many years. it was marketed as a "cheap" BWR, albeit with some significant design flaws. and don't blame GE; they delivered what the market demanded.

>>2718166

. The facts are that 31 people died as an immediate result of the accident and fighting the resulting fire (28 from radiation injuries, two from non-radiation blast injuries and one due to a coronary thrombosis), and 134 were diagnosed with acute radiation syndrome. Of the latter, 14 people have since died, but their deaths were not necessarily attributable to radiation exposure. In addition, about 800 cases of thyroid cancers have been reported in children, of whom three have died. The total of 48 deaths, tragic as it is, has to be compared with the hundreds that die in other natural and man-caused disasters.

Money and profit

Plain and simple

>>2718158
>You could build your house on your own, why do you need a builder to do that for you?
Implying I haven't built my house

>You could get food on your own, why do you need a farmer to do that for you?
Implying I don't grow my own food

>You could make a surgery in yourself on your own, why do you need a doctor to do that for you?
Implying I need surgery

Ever heard of a thing called independance? It fucking works better

>>2718154
from wikipedia:
"Estimates of the total number of deaths attributable to the accident vary enormously, from possibly 4,000 to close to a million"

>>2718167

>But still, it's not good enough. We're up to generation V in designs, we shouldn't have ANY 1st generation reactors still running. But try explaining that to the public.

It's a funny little irony: Anti-nuke "environmentalist" groups are precisely the ones preventing us from making Generation V reactors and force us to rely on 40 year old 1st generation things. And even the shitty 1st generation, 40 year old reactors already prove to be a safe and effective source of energy, imagine what the tech we have now could do.

All this anti-nuclear fear mongering will just set back development of truly safe nuclear energy for even more 20 years. If it weren't for those goddamned Russians running Chernobyl with fucking graphite and turning off safety measures, we'd have Thorium Reactors and would be recycling nuclear waste by now.

>>2718179
Nono, this is nuclear we're talking about, so it must have killed at least 146 billion people. Every human-made particle of radiation released into the air kills at least three billion people instantaneously.

TL;DR: you'll never convince zealots their cause is retarded

>>2718190
>close to a million
hurr de fucking durr

How about I go make an estimate of 10 million? Oops, better change the upper bound on "esimates".

The better question to ask, since some people are actually wondering this without trolling, is why we're still using water reactors when better technology has already been implemented.

Meltdowns don't have to be a risk.

>>2718154
only about 50 died directly from the accident but its hard to quantify the effects of radiation on cancer rates. Lower estimates have about 4000 dying because of Chernobyl. Make no mistake, Chernobyl was an awful, awful incident. But its more or less the literal worst-case scenario when it comes to these things, coming about as a result of poor design and operator negligence. As such its incredibly unlikely to happen again, especially when you consider newer power plants.

>>2718201
They are established and thus cheap

>scientific argument
>suddenly 'OMG NUKULAR IS SO BAD WE CAN'T BUILD NEW ONES COZ THEY KILL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE JUST LOOK A CHERNOBYL AND JAPAN!'

>>2718126
troll detected

>5th Generation
>implying we can even build 4th generation reactors
I don't know where you live, where I live environmentalists have always been pro building last-gen reactors and against the old ones. Seriously where did you hear environmentalists say to build 3rd gen reactors instead of 4th gen?

>environmentalists are the group of people in the worlds that does more harm to the environment than anyone else.
do you listen to yourself? you srsly think that? That sentence is an insylt to any intelligent life form

>>2718157

No, it is building a Generation III molten salt reactor.

>>2718136
yes, so it's still not inhabited by many humans because of the potential health risk. wildlife flood the area because there aren't scary walking fleshbags that have tools and massive machinery anymore. i don't think the wildlife know too much about radiation poisoning. doesn't really add up to chernobyl being a "mild" incident.

as for the energy, we need to figure something out then. shut down the existing, outdated reactors. either replace them, don't replace them, or keep using the reactors that will inevitably fail. it isn't science. if no one wants to replace them, then you're either going to have to live with reactors that ARE going to fail given enough time, or you can shut them down and learn to live without wasting so much energy. horrible radiation death, or being less wasteful?

>>2718158
a builder can mess up my house, i can get that fixed.
a farmer can fuck up his crops, i can survive on other goods.
a doctor can botch my surgery, okay i die but that's just me.
a nuclear power plant fucks up? there really isn't any recovering from that. it isn't comparable to anything you listed.

>>2718190

That's wikipedia. I'm quoting numbers from a U.N. Report. and the World Health Organization.

>>2718202
but the risk remains.
and there is just no final storage for the radioactive waste.
there have to been better energy solutions than nuclear power.

Why are People taking about 5th generation reactors? Aren't most countries just starting to transition to Gen III and Gen III+ reactors?

>so, can someone tell me why we're still using technology that risks ruining the entire fucking earth if something goes wrong?
As far as I was aware, there is no such technology.

>is there any justification at all for building something that could easily demolish all life within several hundred miles of the plant?
No, there's really not. If someone made something like they, they should probably stand trial for it.

I don't know what you're referring to, OP, but it sounds terrible. We should definitely ensure that nothing like this gets invented.

>>2718226

>look at deaths per TWh
>nuclear power BY FAR the least
>risk

>>2718196

YOU CAN ALWAYS TELL WHEN YOU POST BECAUSE YOU KEEP MENTIONING GENERATION V REACTORS. WE ONLY HAVE GENERATION III ONES RUNNING AND GENERATION IV DESIGNS.

PLEASE STFU, YOU MAKE YOURSELF LOOK RETARDED

>>2718231
exactly, don't listen to the idiots mentioning 5th gen. They're just trolls

>>2718222
the WHO is an agency of the UN. of course they'd agree with themselves.

Never mind now, these plants are going to be a nightmare to cleanup afterward...

>>2718242

Guess I'll look for some Greenpeace numbers. They'll be less biased.

>>2718226

Fast breeder reactors use 99.9% of the waste of a normal reactor. That leaves you with a grand total of 2 tons of dangerous waste produced per year worldwide.

>>2718242
AND OF COURSE THEY'RE BOTH LYING
IT'S A CONSPIRACY

>>2718252
just build a huge sarcophagus like they did in russia. it'd have to be a bit bigger though. then let it sit for a mere 100,000 years.

>>2718216

Environmentalist everywhere oppose the building of all reactors ( despite the fact that Nuclear is the only source of energy that can keep up with society's needs with out fucking the environment). And this is exactly why we aren't building fuck-awesome shit and have to rely on 40 year old shit.

Ever fucking heard of PETA and Greenpeace? The average "environmentalist" man that uses canvas bags on the super market and recycles his trasb is good, but the organized environmentalist groups that fuck shit up have NO idea on how to help the environment and only make things worse.

Pic related.

>>2718226
>there have to be better energy solutions than nuclear power

Oh, there are. We just haven't invented them yet

Nuke tests, nuclear explosions with real fallouts have been conducted in the dozens all over the world. Why on earth should we be THIS worried over this accident. It obviously took an unthinkable scenario plus the effect it has is that the existing plants will get re-examined and fixed accordingly with the knowledge this accident has provided us. Calm down or come up with a REAL option for NP. If one does come up and it's really better I have no problem moving on from the current technology.

>>2718253
>Greenpeace numbers. They'll be less biased
>Greenpeace less biased
>Greenpeace
>less biased
what is this I don't even

Has to be a troll.

>>2718221
>doesn't really add up to chernobyl being a "mild" incident.
I never said that. You, however said:
>yeah chernobyl didn't become a dead, irradiated wasteland

What you said seems to be logical but it isn't going to happen. Most of the energy is consumed by the industry. With India and China adcancing to a industrial state we have 2 billion more people to provide with energy.

If you have to replace nuclear power the only way would be to build more fossil power plants. I think I don't need to elaborate the downsides of this scenario

>>2718269
>unthinkable scenario
like losing the backup systems? it's scary to think they never thought of that happening. what will they not think of next?

>>2718226
Not being able to store the waste is also the ONLY thing keeping nuclear power from being exactly what we want - safe and clean.

>>2718221
Life will continue.

Oh, not the life you're used to. New life, evolved from the radiosynthetic fungus now growing around Chernobyl. First fungal plants, then fungal animals.

>>2718271
It wasn't even a troll, it was sarcasm, fucktard.

>>2718262
>Ever fucking heard of PETA
Yeah, I have, actually. They don't have the environment on their agenda at all.

>>2718281
fullretard.jpg
this is why support anything that leads into legally killing more people

>>2718283
Just make sure the water cooling never breaks down again. Have plumbers on-hand 24/7.

>>2718281
You really haven't studied the subject, have you? Contemporary plants cool passively without the need for external power. Though you're right they should've had better insurance for power supply there since the plant is old and it absolutely needs power even after shutdown. Still I think that a 9.0 and a tsunami that size is pretty extreme, and the backup was obviously useless (lack of maintenance?).

>>2718220
Molten-salt reactor (MSR) are generation 4

>>2718216
>do you listen to yourself? you srsly think that? That sentence is an insylt to any intelligent life form

Just like that sentance.

>>2718366
Sentence* Dammit!

>HURR IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS OVER NUCLEAR POWER YOU'RE A PETA MEMBER, ENVIRONMENTALIST, AND YOU SIMPLY DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE DURR!

Why do morons always underestimate the chances of "rare" events like natural disasters, terrorism, or simple human error?

Molten salt plant - on sunny days, just point the giant fresnel lens at it, and on cloudy days fire up the unranium fuel rods. Simple.

>>2718332
>plants cool passively without the need for external power.
you are unfamiliar with the GE Mark I design. Passive nuclear safety was not a part of it's design. GE's later reactors however, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company#Scandal

The reason this happened is because Japan is retarded, well at least their power companies.

>>2718376
We aren't underestimating it. This is the worst incident of its kind in a quarter century and it took an unprecedented catastrophe. When all is said and done the negative consequences might not even amount to much and almost certainly will be nowhere near Chernobyl level.

>>2718376
Cognitive bias. Same reason no Vegas casino has ever gone bankrupt.

But they're right; the radiation from two or three nuclear plants' dinky little fuel rods isn't even remotely likely to destroy life on Earth.

We have avoided several apocalyptic scenarios before, however. Like that time they hacked the genes of a bacteria to turn dead plant matter into ethanol, but it was so good at doing it, it rotted living plants too. They almost used it anyway, but then one scientist figured out that it would have infected the entire biosphere of Earth in one week, and all plants would be dead the following week, and the soil of Earth permanently unplantable. THAT was a close one.

>>2718376
Tell me, how do you feel about project Spaceguard? Shouldn't we have nuclear pulse rockets to deflect the next big rock that's gonna kill us all?

>>2718410
>We have avoided several apocalyptic scenarios before, however. Like that time they hacked the genes of a bacteria to turn dead plant matter into ethanol, but it was so good at doing it, it rotted living plants too. They almost used it anyway, but then one scientist figured out that it would have infected the entire biosphere of Earth in one week, and all plants would be dead the following week, and the soil of Earth permanently unplantable. THAT was a close one.

Can I have source on that?

>>2718376
BECAUSE IT IS NOT BASED ON UNDERESTIMATION
IT IS BASED ON SCIENCE
COMPLETE RISK ANALYSIS IS DONE ON EVERY ASPECT OF THE PLANT
READ THE REPORT A FEW WEEKS FROM NOW TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED
IT WON'T JUST READ THEY WEREN'T PREPARED HERP

>>2718410
cool story, bro

>>2718387
..and that's why I said "contemporary" at the beginning of the sentence.

>>2718449
in other words, unlike a large percentage of the plants in operation today. and weren't we discussing Fukushima?

>>2718431
http://www.cracked.com/article_18503_how-biotech-company-almost-killed-world-with-booze.html

This has sources at the bottom of the article.

>>2718440
"Risk analysis" is about as scientific as astrology. We simply don't have enough comprehension of chaotic systems like weather or plate tectonics to predict natural disasters in any sort of worthwhile manner.

>>2718431
I know what he's talking about, it's legit.. I just can't remember the name.

Tldr; it didn't get approved because someone did their job properly

>>2718493
Klebsiella planticola

>>2718431
http://www.pioneervalley.org/forums/f24/dangers-genetic-engineering-517.html

>>2718492
fullretard.jpg

>>2718492
UPPER LIMITS
EVER HEARD OF THEM

>>2718492

Oh wow.
Brilliant troll or sheer stupidity.

>>2718520
>Shit fails because of natural disasters
>HURR BUT THAT'S A RARE EVENT, IT'S ONLY SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN ONCE IN A BILLION YEARS DURR
Yeah, how scientific. It couldn't be because we don't have enough information to make good models or anything, right?

>>2717786
BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPEST FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

>157 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>2718551
no disaster has occurred, you know except for the one that's not nuclear
tepco is going to get some spanking from those explosions though

>>2718580
OMFG i fucking love that gif.

>>2718551
I'm still waiting on your responce to my comment about nuclear pulse propulsion

>people think nuclear power plants are less safe than coal power plants
Let me see one coal power plant survive a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami

>>2718592
they are safer because regulations don't demand that people go rushing in to save them at any cost

>>2718592
you'll see that the same time you show me one coal plant that will make a 100 mile radius unlivable.

>>2718608
venus.jpg

>>2718608
are you that much of a faggot that you think the 20km radius is not sufficient and that the radiation is going to persist

>>2718581
>no [nuclear] disaster has occurred
can I quote you on that? oh, I think I just did.

>>2718628
>except for the one that's nuclear
these words, what do they mean?!

>>2718628
quote the french on it:

> be Russia
> declassify Soviet documents in the 90's
> "oh there was tank in chelyabinsk with 80 tonnes of nuclear waste which blew up"
> "the explosion released more radiation than Chernobyl"
> "we also dumped nuclear waste to rivers and lakes at that site"
> "we had to stop when the arctic sea started to become a radioactive and a lake dried up"
> "chelyabinsk is now the most contaminated region in the world"
> "we also didn't bother to evacuate anybody or tell them about this until now"
> "the life expectancy of the hundreds of thousands of people currently living there is below 50"
FRANCE: SIX POINTS

> be Japan
> immediately declare nuclear emergency when cooling systems fail
> evacuate all the people straight after that
> no one has died because of radiation yet
FRANCE: SIX POINTS

>>2718661
france is pro-nuclear. I trust them to be honest.

>>2718589
If it works substantially better than other kinds of rockets for that task, which I am not remotely well enough educated on the subject to have an opinion one way or another, then I don't see why not. I have no problem with nuclear power, just with the people who insist that plants are unquestionably robust until these supposedly incredibly rare events like catastrophic earthquakes and tsunamis happen.

because nuclear is economical

>>2718680
because france consists of one person only, who has the same view on things all the time

>>2718680
>France agrees with my position. I trust them to be honest.

>>2718680
>france is pro-nuclear. I trust them to be biased.
Fix'd.

>>2718699
>>2718698

Confirmationbiasmind

>>2718699
Derp, France has been saying awful things about the Fukushima incident. Seeing as how they're pro-nuclear, you can trust these comments as their concessions.

Fucking moron.

>>2718711
Even the tepco officials said bad stuff about fukushima. Because that's a disaster, you know.
Not being outrageously dishonest does not make one trustable.

>>2718745
Yeah but TEPCO has been withholding information, to the point where the White House flew a plane over the reactor to have a look.

why dont we just let every nuclear plant in the world go nuts?

Let evolution deal with it after a couple years we are immune to radiation and can walk in space!

>>2718760
are you referring to the satellite imagery?

>>2718782
Satellite images were provided by germany. They did it in order to help Tepco to get a better overview of the situation.

>>2717985
>be german
>dat map
>mfw

>>2718854
So you are part of the 70% ey?

>>2718854
You didn't know there are nuclear power plants in germany?
Are you retarded?

>>2718608

you'll see that the same time you show me one Nuclear plant that will make a 100 mile radius unlivable.

>>2717985
>Italy confirmed as stone age civilization

>Trolls trolls and more trolls

Why on earth there are so many threads about this. Same shit in every thread. Fuck this shit.

>>2718862
>Are you retarded?
He is German. It not his fault that he is brainwashed by the green peace ridden media

http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article12822903/Mehrheit-der-Deutschen-fuerchtet-schweren-Ato
munfall.html

>>2718871
>be german
>Nur 28 Prozent schließen einen solchen Unfall aus. Außerdem haben 39 Prozent der Deutschen haben die Sorge, dass Radioaktivität aus Japan auch nach Deutschland gelangen und hier Luft, Wasser und Lebensmittel verunreinigen könnte.
HURRRP DURRRRP HERP DERP DERP

No, it doesn't.
a) The plant in question was almost 50 years old.
b) It's the most eco-friendly (NO CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSION) method of them all and it doesn't depend on the sun.
c) Do you REALLY want to shut down power plants that cost billions if not just millions of dollars and man-hours and expertise to make? REALLY?

>>2717907

The problem is people dont want new ones being built, so old ones remain in operation for possably decades after they are compleatly out of date.

>>2718882
Geiger-Müller counter sell like hot cakes. Imagine their faces if they receive backround radiation or radiation of food and stone buildings.

>>2717786
the same reason your happy to sit on the internet all day.

Deaths/TWh

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

>>2718902
time to buy geiger counter shares

Now, I know a lot of people are going on about how the primary containment vessel of the fuel rods isn't damaged, or at least no severely enough to warrant worry, but have any of you considered the following:

The spent fuel was not stored in the primary containment vessel. In fact, the spent fuel was stored ABOVE the vessel in a much less protected container.

Any of you consider than the explosions may have exposed that spent fuel? Or that the explosion may have thrown spent fuel into the fucking air?

DISTRACTION TITS.

>>2718913
>>2718913
care to give us sause or did you pull those numbers out your ass?

It was german scientists that brought the world nuclear power and it will be german scientists that will bring down nuclear power again.
How dare you imbecilic Untermenschen criticize the german people? We were more advanced than you cavemen a hundred years ago and we are still more advanced.

>>2718927

And a quick Google search later...

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

>>2718927 just google'd "energy source death per twh" and the same numbers came up quite a few times. They could be from someone's ass but not mine.

But nuclear power is actually getting safer. Pretty soon the chances of things fucking up on account of human error and/or natural disasters will be orders of magnitude less than they are now. And I mean, it's already pretty low, Chernobyl occurred partially because of a very unsafe design. Three Mile Island was not inherently unsafe, the occurrence can be attributed to human error and the corporations' unwillingness to spend even a small amount of money to fix an obvious security issue (the faulty valve), but even that reactor is primitive compared to the new ones of today.

Environmentalist organizations are infiltrated, and manipulated into opposing new nuclear reactors being built, so that there is justification to keep the old ones active beyond their recommended lifetime, and make $$$ for big business. It would be less profitable to build new reactors, so they plant opposition to their own "advancement."

>>2718950
You forgot to mention the jews and the NWO.

>>2718950
Once the old reactors are too old to be sustainable, it will suddenly become more culturally acceptable to build new reactors.

i saw it over and ovver again we need to stop angering mother earth nuculure energy goes angest mother earth we need to use wind power and solar panels

>something that could easily demolish all life within several hundred miles of the plant?
A complete, even and total dispersal of the whole interior of the reactor couldn't even remotely achieve that
People really need to realize that a moderate increase in cancer rate in a specific region does NOT equal the end of the world

>>2718871
Google tranlation for those who are unable to understand german:

http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Fpolitik%2Fdeutschland%2Farticle128
22903%2FMehrheit-der-Deutschen-fuerchtet-schweren-Atomunfall.html&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie
=UTF-8

Also fuck german media. Is there a live-ticker about the events that doesn't bother with apples release of the Ipad2 in Japan?

>>2718970
Mother earth is powered by nuclear decay

>>2718995
And fusion.

>>2719045
And Lemons!

>Deaths per TWy
>Coal (world average) - 342
>Nuclear - 8
LOLOLOLOL

Source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

>>2718979
>Is there a live-ticker..
not really, but try ftd.de
even if it sounds unlikely

>>2719205
>Experten beschwichtigen häufig, die möglichen Folgen seien geringer als beim Unglück in der Ukraine. Für die gesamte Weltbevölkerung mag das stimmen. Für die Japaner nicht

Stopped reading there.

The current radiation at the plant is measured in milisieverts per hour, outside of it - in microsieverts per hour. A mili- and microsievert are, respectively, a 1/1000th and 1/1000000th of a sievert. You need 1 full sievert to vomit and 5 full sieverts to die. Nothing bad is gonna happen, but people love to be retarded.

>>2719254
>Für die gesamte Weltbevölkerung mag das stimmen. Für die Japaner nicht
>implying Fukushima is in any way,form or shape worse for Japan than Chernobyl for Ukraine

>>2718979
>>2718979
>>2718979
>>2718979

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

>>2719281

The germans are being completely retarded

Seriously whatever happened to that nation? Bismarck has been constantly tumbling in his grave ever since he got kicked out by Wilhelm II

>>2719265
actually about %10 die at just 1Sv, and there won't be adequate medical care available at that point

>>2719316
Were did you get those figures from?
Last time I checked you need at least 50 Sievert for instant death.

>>2719342
Doesn't matter, instant death isn't a lot worse than acute sickness for a few hours or days followed by certain death.

>>2719342
>>2719316

Let's disregard the fact that comparatively tiny amounts of radiation to the numbers you gave can already cause pretty serious cell destruction.

Yes the situation as it is now is pretty harmless for anyone outside the evacuation zone, however radiation should not be underestimated like that.

>>2719347
uhh, i don't know about you, but i would MUCH rather die instantly than suffer for hours/days/years due to radiation poisoning.

>>2719354
is actually right. everyone's like "NO YOU'RE FINE IF YOU DON'T GET X AMOUNT OF SIEVERTS"
yeah uh
you still just got blasted with extreme amounts of radiation. have fun with whatever cancers and illness you just developed, or will inevitably develop in the next few months or years.

>>2718921

OMG, THE PRIMARY CONTAINMENT CANNOT HOLD!

>>2719455
>you still just got blasted with extreme amounts of radiation.
Not if your dosage is only 100 mSv.

>>2717786
>clever luddite trolling detected.

The coal and petrochemical plants as well as the oil refineries exploded instantly when the tsunami came through, throwing ash, coal, benzene, toulene, and zylene into the environment. They then set on fire, dumping more damaging smoke and co2 than any of the 6 reactors in question. Because of the chemicals listed previously, the coal and petrochemical factories already poisoned the groundwater and because of that benzene and coal the water may be flammable in some places. Those nuclear reactors would have to go into full meltdown (not possible now) then boil through the ground (probably also not going to happen. Did not happen even in Three Mile Island) all the way to the ground water. If anything, nuclear power just had a competition with our current coal and oil infrastructure and came out 4 to 5 days superior in stability and cleanliness. The reactors may be worsening, but they are still not critical. Coal plants, oil refineries, and petrochemical factories were shot the moment they were even damaged.

>>2719588

Thread pwn

Have i go this right?
1.20 years worth of spent fuel rods stored in cooling pools.
2.cooling pools stored on the roof.
3.Roof missing from 2 of the reactor buildings on the satalite image.

>>2719783

2 years. They are disposed of every 3 or 4 years I believe.

>>2719796
ah thanks Anon so they went up in the air and didn't come down?

>>2719811

No, not all.

The cooling pools are stored somewhere else within the main building, and currently in an area that's relatively undamaged. The only problem is that more explosions could cause additional damage to this containment, that could expose them to a much greater degree, which would be dangerous. Not Chernobyl dangerous, but dangerous nonetheless.

>>2719588
>Coal plants, oil refineries, and petrochemical factories were shot the moment they were even damaged.

How many RADs did they release into the environment when they collapsed?

>>2719899
>implying anyone tracks radiation from fossil fuels or that petrochemicals are not known to the State of California to cause cancer and other birth defects.

>>2719899
the least amount of toluene and benzene are 1000x more dangerous than a rad

>>2719871
thanks for clearing that up

>>2719914
whatever the fossil fuel plants released will be insignifant in comparison to a nuke plant. Plutonium beats everything in comparison.

>>2719925
yeah, no.

>>2719931
But Plutonium doesn't beat fosil fuel in the amounts it's stored.Still pluto will be more dangerous

>>2719931
>implying that petrochemicals are not known to the State of California to cause cancer and other birth defects.
Nice selective reading.

This do not "risks ruining the entire fucking earth".
Fossil may do it with GW.
But the serious effect of the jp meltdown is local.
Americans buying iodine tabs are idiots.

Wasn't there a refinery that went up in flames after the tsunami? Have they managed to put that out yet. I've no idea how that's doing as every news site is going LOL NUCLEAR.