/sci/ - Science & Math

For because power off all nuclear plants and see what happens. In long-term, I think a safer way is needed (or much better risk planning and oversight).

>>6042078
The safety measures are already incredibly high standard. The problem is that the people who run those plants often decide to cheap out on that stuff and when bad things happen it looks like there's no way to make nuclear power safe.

I think it' s an energy source that's worth developing. Sadly nobody seems really willing to improve the process even though current 235U fission processes are the stone age of nuclear power

>>6042063
I think we should have no reactors in the eurozone, but still import nuclear power, or rather become a big bidder for it, while focusing on industrial or commodity exports.

>Remember, I'm talking about nuclear power, not nuclear weapons.

>implying you can separate the two

>>6042092
I like that plan.
>do as we tell you!
>no
>oops, looks like the price of your electricity went up by five thousand percent
>...
>we'll do as you tell us

>LFTR
>mfw nobody talks about it

>>6042092
>no reactors in the eurozone
>It makes up for over 80% of France's power consumption

You go teall that to them okay?

>>6042123

I don't really care particularly, but we got plenty of hydroelectricity. but the north western european industrial complex is a power guzzler, and I don't want nukers in my backyard. after the last habbening , the pools were closed for a whole year.

>>6042063
Against only for that we have no plan for nuclear waste.

We literally put the waste in barrels in fenced parking lots with a fat, underpaid security guard overseeing it.

The plan as of now, is to hire a fat security guard to watch it for the next several thousand years.

>open yucca mountain.

>>6042128

yea well the french are retarded they can leave the eurozone. nobody needs clay and construction right now.

Just use it. Why not? We can just shoot all of the waste into the sun. What's the worst that can happen?

>>6042138
>the french can leave the eurozone

>>6042135
>Against only for that we have no plan for nuclear waste.
But we do. My work is related to very long-term nuclear waste storage and microbes, but to be honest I think the 'waste' will be utilized and will never end up underground..

Nuclear power should be government only business and in every government there should be a nuclear power minister who is directly responsible for the safety and oversight of nuclear power plants.

>>6042144

frenchfag or 8-ball detected

>>6042139
>What's the worst that can happen?
our physics models turn out to actually be wrong and introducing those elements to the sun cause it to collapse into a black hole which then cause the entire universe to collapse into nothing. no rebound, no second big bang, just nothing.

>>6042139
I hear a lot of know-nothings say how we should shoot nuclear waste into space. This makes no sense, because for one, it's way more expensive than just burying it deep underground, and for two, it's way more dangerous because of the possibility of a launch disaster.

>>6042220

it's about time all the namefags get banned again.

>>6042129
If it means no rolling blackouts at the behest of unstable eastern countries, I'll take two nuclear plants in my back yard please, thank you.

>>6042063
Fucking FUKUSHIMA is not a weapon either.
well the nuclear fusion might be intriguing for the abundance of energy and safer. but current nuclear strongly against.

>>6042063

For: LFTR
For: Tokamak plasmonic fusion
For: Whatever skunkworks are working on
Undecided : Laser fusion
Against: Fission

>>6042388
>For: LFTR
>Against: Fission
I've got some bad news for you...

>>6042389

k, my bad

Against: Non LFTR fission

>>6042391
How about fission-fragment reactors which only contain a tiny amount of fuel at any given moment despite putting out gigawatts of power, and are high-enough efficiency that you can destroy their long-lived waste products with a particle accelerator while still remaining highly energy-positive?

Zero-waste-accumulation, no-disaster-potential fission reactor designs are possible.

>>6042401

And these are deployed where?

>>6042418
Conventional reactors are just cheaper for now.

Where are your Tokamaks deployed right now?

>>6042420

France is building one.

The JET lab has already made a working one but it's not self sustaining.

>>6042420

Also. Do these fission reactors have a name?

They sound intriguing. Especially the part about destroying nuclear waste.

>>6042422
>France is building one.
It's not deployed. It's nowhere near done.

>>6042431

is building, not, has built

And yes it's going to be ridiculously expensive. I hope the Americans make breakthroughs before then with those mysterious little ones that keep surfacing on the science sites.

>>6042424
I suppose the dude was thinking about fast breeders.

I have a random question about alpha radiation.

If an alpha particle bumps into some other atom, does it just steal some electrons and becomes a stable helium atom or does it go into the core of another atom and change the atom to another element? If it's the later, would the new atom likely be unstable?

>>6042063
against

Private industry + nuclear power can only result in shit

>>6042442
Nope. Talking about fission-fragment reactors.

The latest design is the dusty plasma fission-fragment reactor. Basically, you make a dust cloud of fission fuel in a big vacuum chamber with walls made of a good moderator material. The dust particles are electrostatically charged and held in place with electric and magnetic fields, generally in a tubular chamber.

The dust particles are so small that when an atom inside fissions, the relativistic-speed nuclear fragments can break out without slowing down much. So you steer these flying charged particles (the fission fragments, not the dust) with a magnetic field and can convert their kinetic energy with high efficiency to electrical power, without using any heat engine. (of course, there probably still would be heat engines involved, since you'd have to cool the moderator material, and there's no sense in wasting that energy, but it would only give you about 1% of the power)

It's much more sensible than anything based on diluting the concentrated energy of the fission fragments, and then extracting power from the relatively small temperature difference this creates.

I am for conventional and "advanced" fission nuclear power because it's cheaper, and safer, and environmental cleaner, and more reliable, near inexhaustible, and better in basically every way compared to alternatives.

I am for those things as well because raising the standard of living lowers human suffering, and because it tends to lower reproduction rates and thus helps with overpopulation.

>>6042115
No one yet AFAIK has made a nuclear weapon from a repurposed nuclear power plant. It can happen, but it's inconvenient compared to just building a specific purpose facility. And that's what inspections and the IAEA are for.

>>6042135
And the problem is? You talk as though it could be stolen to make weapons or something. Not really.

>>6042225
Shooting it into space is super retarded. Much more expensive. Much greater risk of environmental impact.

>>6042469
>>6042471
>>6042477
Also, these are me, and I am still around.

>>6042471
What do you think is happening in India?

Sure, their first bomb was made in a research reactor... that was set up so they could train people and prepare materials for their power plants.

But after that, they used their CANDU power plants to make plutonium, and to bootstrap a better plutonium production system.

It's all based on technology shared with them and equipment and material exported to them so they could have nuclear power.

>>6042487
Were those power plants actually producing power for civilians, or were they repurporsed? I understand that they were CANDU reactors, but I ask whether they were operating in "normal operating procedures" and producing electricity, or whether they were repurposed.

>>6042489
I don't even know what you're asking here.

People helped them get set up to have nuclear power. They used that to get nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power lead to nuclear weapon proliferation. And this can obviously be done with every kind of nuclear power. There's no sense quibbling over details.

As a nuclear plant operator, I'm for it. People who are against it are misinformed plebs.

I laugh my ass off in movies when people freak out that a reactor goes 'critical' then explodes. The reactor being critical is a good thing and it's physically impossible for them to explode by design.

>>6042493
>lead
I don't know why I make this mistake over and over again. I guess it's because the metal is pronounced like "led".

>>6042493
It makes a lot of sense to quibble over details. The details are what matters. My contention is: As far as I understand it, getting nuclear weapons for any large government is already doable, and you do that by building a custom purpose reactor whose design and function is not to produce electricity.

Furthermore, while conventional electricity producing reactors can also make plutonium, they must be operated in an entirely different way, and it's much more expensive to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor#Nuclear_nonproliferation
> In addition to its two CANDU reactors, India has some unsafeguarded pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) based on the CANDU design, and two safeguarded light-water reactors supplied by the US. Plutonium has been extracted from the spent fuel from all of these reactors;[13] however India mainly relies on an Indian designed and built military reactor called Dhruva. The design is believed to be derived from the CIRUS reactor, with the Dhruva being scaled-up for more efficient plutonium production. It is this reactor which is thought to have produced the plutonium for India's more recent (1998) Operation Shakti nuclear tests.[14]

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionF.htm
>F.2 Did India use a CANDU reactor in the 1970's to make an atomic bomb?
>This is a prevalent misconception.
> As an issue affecting CANDU reactors, the matter is irrelevant. The technology for producing electricity with a CANDU reactor is highly incompatible with the production of weapons-grade plutonium (see related FAQ). However, because of the highly technical differences between research reactors and power reactors, along with the regrettable fact that the Indian affair is linked to Canadian technology, the incident has caused some confusion.

>>6042505
>F.2 Did India use a CANDU reactor in the 1970's to make an atomic bomb?
>This is a prevalent misconception.
These are words from the CANDU people, splitting hairs trying to dodge blame. What India used was the research version of the CANDU, basically a CANDU minus the power generation equipment, and it was sold to them as part of the effort to get them going with CANDU.

>Plutonium has been extracted from the spent fuel from all of these reactors
It's exactly as I described in >>6042487

> their first bomb was made in a research reactor... that was set up so they could train people and prepare materials for their power plants.
>after that, they used their CANDU power plants to make plutonium, and to bootstrap a better plutonium production system.

This is not Germany or Japan, this is fucking India. They can barely put together a working sewer system on their best day. Without this huge boost of foreign technology and equipment, there's no chance they'd have had the bomb so early, or anything resembling their current nuclear program now.

>>6042515
First - let's be clear. I don't have sources offhand, but I am willing to bet that the amount of weaponizable plutonium extracted from the actual CANDU reactors is miniscule, enough to be entirely neglected. You talk as though any amount is dangerous. That's just silly. It might be more easy to make nuclear weapons from smoke dectectors.

Second, you want to say that India's economy and expertise is to bad that in the 1970s, or for this discussion in the 2010s, is so bad that they could not do it on their own? Please - all of the information on how to make a bomb is readily available online for those who are willing to do it. We're talking about policy now, not policy 40 years ago. Look at Iran for example. Little to no outside help, and see how far they've gotten.

>>6042524
>more easy
>to easy
Ugg me.

>>6042495
Physics student here. While I have no doubt that nuclear plants could be a thousand times safer and cleaner than coal or gas if they're run properly, I'm worried about whether governments and corporations can be trusted to maintain such a standard in spite of corruption, regulatory capture, budget cuts, and other carelessness.

Since you're our eyes on the ground, could you please tell me if you and your fellow employees are aware of protocol and if you actually follow it?

Also, just because 'critical' is a good thing if the reaction is controlled, that doesn't mean that it's always good. A puddle of molten enriched uranium which more is dripping into every minute going critical is not a good sign.

>>6042524
Starting a nuclear weapon production program from nothing is a major industrial undertaking, which requires consistent technical competence through many steps.

They wouldn't even have had the uranium or heavy water they needed without this foreign effort to get them set up with nuclear power.

They got handed a bomb-factory, and that's how they ended up with the bomb.

>>6042534
And Iran was handed none of those things, and still has a bomb. Today's technological climate is not that of 40 years ago. Your ideas are silly.

>>6042531
It is a fact that a single coal accident has killed more people than all of the deaths from radiation from all nuclear power plant accidents put together.

Protip: Chernobyl was not a power reactor, and had a design so fucktarded that none have been built like it in the last 40 years.

Protip: Contrary to popular belief, the scientific consensus is that there will not be any deaths which will be shown to be related to radiation released from Fukushima.

Protip: The Linear No-Threshold model, on which many of the "scary" estimates of nuclear deaths are based - is complete and utter horseshit. The evidence is overwhelmingly against it.

>>6042542
>still has a bomb
Err, will still be able to get a bomb.

Against Nuclear.

I know it can produce vast amounts of power, but it just ain't safe.

Look at Chernobyl. Look at Fukushima. Too dangerous to have around in the event of a disaster.

There's also the fact that we currently have no way to actually get rid of nuclear waste, other than burying it, or storing it in storage sites. Oh by the way, in Washington DC? there's a leak in their nuclear storage site.

Until we can figure out how to actually re-use spent nuclear waste, or safely destroy it, It's just not worth the potential damage that shit can cause to not only the environment, but whole cities.

>>6042531
>cleaner than coal or gas

HAHAHAHAHAHA no.

>>6042534
>Starting a nuclear weapon production program from nothing is a major industrial undertaking, which requires consistent technical competence through many steps.

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionF.htm#x1_2

Also, are you some kind of racist - do you think Indians are just technically incompetent and could not do it? I agree it's a big undertaking. India's a big country. Even if most of the people are dirt poor, the country as a whole still has a lot of money to spent, and it still has some centers of education.

Furthermore, the link shows that contrary to your idiocy, India had to develop a majority of the know-how in house, and the introduction of the CIRUS and CANDU reactors was not some magical thing that gave them nukes.

>>6042550
see:
>>6042542

>>6042542
>>6042548
Iran is spending years and years trying to get the bomb, which can be put to an ugly end with one conventional strike which various people are just itching to launch.

And what they're saying is, "What bomb? We just want clean, sustainable NUCLEAR POWER like everyone says is so good."

There is exactly zero chance what they were doing would be allowed if not for the nuclear power excuse. This is another way that acceptance and promotion of nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons: by giving people an excuse to take steps leading to weapons, with the justification that they're necessary for power.

>>6042555
hahahahaha yes

>>6042560
>Also, are you some kind of racist
Yeah, I'm done talking to you.

>>6042531
When I say nuclear operator, I mean naval nuclear operator. We have stricter and more redundant safety guidelines than any civilian plant and it has to be followed to the T, note that there has never been a nuclear incident regarding the US Navy and we've been nuclear for over 50 years.

And your last sentence doesn't make sense to me. I can't talk about details, but that's not possible.

>>6042542
>Protip: Contrary to popular belief, the scientific consensus is that there will not be any deaths which will be shown to be related to radiation released from Fukushima.

Nobody is worried about the deaths. You'd have to be living right inside the plant to get that kind of lethal radiation.

No, what worries me, is the damage to DNA and possible sterility it can cause. have you SEEN some of the plants that have grown in the aftermath? Some of the wildlife as well.

>>6042576
>note that there has never been an acknowledged nuclear incident regarding the US Navy
What happens underwater, stays underwater.

>>6042570
Ok, at least you're starting to make some sense now with your latest argument - namely that a country like Iran can keep inspectors out, and keep up a pretense of doing a civilian-only nuclear program.

The answer of course IMHO is a new international treaty requiring inspections of nuclear power in every country. I agree it probably won't happen in the current political climate, but that's what should happen.

>>6042572
I didn't realize nuclear waste was environmentally friendly.

I don't give a fuck about how "clean" the smokestacks are. there's still nuclear waste in the end.

>>6042578
Yes. A lot of radiation was released because a 40~ (?) year old reactor with insufficient safeties was put in an area where it was well known that tsunamis happen.

Now, this kind of accident happens once a decade or worse, and it was also made more likely by the old and worse reactor design.

Compare this with conventional coal, gas, oil, etc., and the environmental impact of that. Any honest analysis will come to the obvious conclusion.

>>6042589
Those smokestacks of nuclear power plants are steam stacks. It's part of the heat engine. It's just releasing completely safe and clean water. No smoke at all.

Would you rather want the waste of power plants small and concentrated, or hundreds of times worse and released into the atmosphere daily like as done in coal and oil plants?

>>6042589
>I didn't realize nuclear waste was environmentally friendly.
Well you would be wrong then.
Because unlike the pollutants generated by coal and fuel, it's really easy to contain them.

Also what you call waste is fuel.

>>6042592
>A lot of radiation was released because a 40~ (?) year old reactor with insufficient safeties was put in an area where it was well known that tsunamis happen.
But this doesn't happen! You can trust the government and industry to never cut corners or make mistakes!

The problem is that potential consequences of incompetence or malice are so severe that nobody can be trusted with this responsibility.

>>6042598
>coal and gas plants
Fixed. I cannot type today.

>>6042575
I'm curious why you have such flagrantly false misconceptions about the state of the Indian economy and Indian technical

>>6042609
Exactly what is so severe? I just said that the worst accident in the history of nuclear power plants - Fukushima - is expected to kill about 0 people from radiation, or at least such a small amount as to be unmeasurable.

Compare and contrast with coal and gas plants, where they kill people just by operating via their pollution.

>>6042598
>Would you rather want the waste of power plants small and concentrated, or hundreds of times worse and released into the atmosphere daily
You've got that backwards. The problem is that nuclear waste is thousands of times worse.

The only excuse is the hope that it will not be released.

>>6042617
It's not a fucking excuse, it's a fact that you can't contain pollutants from coal and oil operations.

>>6042617
How exactly would it be released? After the initial cooling-off, once it's in dry cask form, how exactly do you see it infecting the environment? Suppose we open one of the cases. Is it going to somehow magically just explode over the county? Do you think anyone within direct line of sight is going to be affected by magic death rays and drop over dead in the next week?

For.

* Excellent source of power that won't run out for centuries

* Safer than anything else we have. Even the shitty 40-year-old reactors kill less people per TWh than modern coal, oil, gas, even renewables

* Cleaner than anything else we have. Even the production of photovoltaics creates more waste IIRC

* I'm not afraid of the words "nuclear" or "radiation" because I understand what both of these are

* I'm not a fucking moron and understand that you really can just find some desolate place where nobody lives and store your nuclear waste there and never see it again. The Earth is a big place. Could dump it down a goddamn ocean trench if we really wanted to - let the creepy deep-sea fish deal with it.

>>6042601
>easy to contain

sure it is, there's no argument there.

but nothing lasts forever. even the sturdiest of waste vaults have been breached before. be it by earthquakes, faulty construction, general shifting of the ground, or other reasons.

I'd prefer some smoke in the sky to radiation in the ground. at least it doesnt last for such a long time.

it's still an issue, donmt get me wrong, but it's far preferable.

>>6042592
That nuclear is too dangerous.

nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their back yard. it doesnt matter how safe or new it is, nobody expects disasters to happen. nobody expected a combination earthquake/tsunami.

just like nobody could expect Joe Baxter the nice guy tech at the new plant, to suddenly lose his marbles and start some kind of disaster in the reactor.

there's also the human factor to consider.

for example, Nuclear power plants are a big fat target for a terrorist attack. especially in the US, where they are desperate to do something big.

>>6042615
>the worst accident in the history of nuclear power plants - Fukushima

>the most ignorant poster in the history of internets - Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH

Go home, tripfag. You're drunk.

>>6042601
>it's really easy to contain them.

You're utterly retarded

>>6042619
>it's a fact that you can't contain pollutants from coal and oil operations
That's not a fact.

It's just expensive to contain the pollutants.

And guess what? It's expensive with nuclear power, too.

>>6042624
>but it's far preferable.
No it's fucking not.
What do you think will happen in case of an earthquake? That fissile material will somehow burn the whole country to the ground?

>I'd prefer some smoke in the sky
Then you're a total moron.

>>6042626
Not even comparable.

>>6042625
Shut up you cretin, you're not qualified to operate a computer.

>>6042063
As long as we don't know how to dispose of the waste, I am against. Stocking them for millions of years, hoping nothing wrong will ever happens during all this time is too much of an optimistic scenario for me to abide with.

>>6042623
Gonna correct me on any details? I'm curious where you think I'm wrong.

Also, I've never had a drink of alcohol in my life.

>>6042624
>but nothing lasts forever. even the sturdiest of waste vaults have been breached before. be it by earthquakes, faulty construction, general shifting of the ground, or other reasons.
And so what if that happens?

Furthermore, with some basic reprocessing, or with some advanced nuclear designs such as LFTR, the waste will only be "dangerous" for 300 years. We can design for that quite readily.

>That nuclear is too dangerous.
I'm still waiting on why you think that, and a justification for that. I've been explaining how it's actually the safest form of power generation. The evidence shows that number of deaths is the lowest by far. Even ignoring climate change, it's the best for the environment, and factoring in climate change, there really is no excuse.

>nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their back yard.
Education problem. I'm working on that now.

>it doesnt matter how safe or new it is, nobody expects disasters to happen. nobody expected a combination earthquake/tsunami.
And the worst case scenario if Fukushima is to be the example? An evacuation that kills more people than what would have died from the radiation if there was no evacuation. People can return to their homes less than a year later (although I'm not sure you would want to eat the food from there for a while - bioaccumulation and all). The only place that will be significantly dangerous is the plant site itself.

Whereas I live in California, where the San Bruno gas explosion happened a few years ago, killing quite a few people. More people than Fukushima killed. I'd rather live next to a 40 year old nuclear plant than a new gas line or gas plant any time. It's safer.

I'm for Nuclear Power, indeed, if fusion is sucessfully developed, we could be able to have a lot of low cost energy thanks to water.

>>6042631
Why would you want to dispose of them you twat? That's thousands of year of energy production in fast breeders you would inconsequentially deprive us of.

>>6042624
>I'd prefer some smoke in the sky to radiation in the ground. at least it doesnt last for such a long time.
It kills more people. Fuck, the carcinogens produced by coal and oil operations likely even cause more cancer than nuclear operations per KWh.

Are you that afraid of the word "radiation"?

Why can't we just get rid of the waste by slinging it into space with something like a super powerful catapult/slingshot? Like a nanocarbongraphene slingshot

>>6042628
I don't think you understand what you are talking about, anon.

It's still radioactive. it seeps into the ground and contaminates it. it can spread from there. what if it hits water? it could spread that way too.

>>6042639
Did you know that right now you are radioactive? That you contain many radioactive elements, such as carbon 14?

Did you know that many rocks contain naturally occurring radioactive elements, including granite, natural uranium ore, and so on?

>>6042639
And again, what exactly do you think will happen?
That a breach somewhere will somehow turn the whole country into mutant?
Lay down the fucking sci-fi you moron.

Nuclear power is bad. It produces nuclear waste and cancerous radiation.

>>6042643
Did you know that coal plants release more radioactive waste into the environment than nuclear power plants? I'm just saying...

>>6042639
>It's still radioactive.
OH MY GOOOOHOOOOHOOOOOD
Tell us more about your "understanding".

>Itt: Nuclear industry shills

>>6042647
>I am a green-peace ignoramus who doesn't know the first thing about nuclear stuffs.

I can play this game too!

>>6042592
>Compare this with conventional coal, gas, oil, etc., and the environmental impact
From the point of view of the standard human live, the nuclear accidents are still the most impacting.

when coal, gaz or oil plant mess up over habitable zones; and destroy the area, it is inhabitable for a few years, but we have the chemistry knowledge to render the waste inert and relatively armless, if the job is done well. In a few years, the zone can be habitable again.

When a Nuclear plant mess up.... Well, Chernobyl happened thirty years ago and the zone is in no way predicted to be habitable soon.

The only people who support nuclear power are "science worshipers" who only have a little superficial knowledge of nuclear power but believe supporting it increases there science cred and those who don't are uneducated hippies or hillbillies.

>>6042601
>Also what you call waste is fuel.

Most of which we don't use and forsake into pits in the ground because MUH MONIES. At the rate we're burning through the world's uranium supply, we only have 100 year of power production left.

>it's really easy to contain them.

No it's not. It's a huge headache for any plant to deal with spent fuel rods. Holding pools were never meant for long term holding and dumping it somewhere is a massive logistic hassle that take years of work in advance.

>>6042645
No, they don't.

>>6042652
The area around Chernobyl is quite habitable now. Same for Fukushima. I don't know where you're getting your information. Pseudo-science-R-us?

>promoting nuclear power
>after Fukushima

ishygddt

>>6042636
>That's thousands of year of energy production in fast breeders
Fast breeders that we are not able to make yet.

As a matter of fact, using wastes in fast breeder, IS actually a way to dispose of the waste, so what you say doesn't contradict my statement.

>>6042647
No, they're underage pop sci fans who support nuclear power and atheism to make themselves look smarter

>>6042654
Uhh, yes they do.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Geendpeace would be stupid to disagree Fusion Energy, it's better than wood or petrol

>>6042656
You're really talented at throwing around provocative claims without any citation backing them up.

>>6042659
I'm sorry that reality has an anti-god bias, and a pro-nuclear power bias. I'm concerned about what's true, both for its own sake, and as a way to stop needless human suffering.

>>6042641
Do you have any idea how much nastier nuclear waste actually is than the common radioactive materials in our environment?

People used to talk about how you'd design one bomb, one single bomb, to kill off the whole world with radioactive material. It wasn't a terribly difficult design problem.

If you're *not* scared of this stuff, *that* is the ignorant position.

>>6042658
>Fast breeders that we are not able to make yet.
But we are...

Conventional reactors are just more profitable for now.
Try to see more than one week forward for once.

>>6042667
>one bomb to kill every human

>>6042663
One sec, working on it.

>>6042645
>coal plants release more radioactive waste into the environment than nuclear power plants

>>6042645
> release
That's the keyword.
And that is because Nuclear plants are pureposely build so almost all of its nuclear wastes of Nuclear plant is still contained (thankfully).

That still change nothing over the fact we still don't know how to dispose of them.

>>6042667
And an appeal to emotion to complete the picture...
Numbers anon, they matter.

76,5%
Jaloux ?

>>6042681
Wtf?

>>6042677
That still change nothing about the fact that you're hung on a false problem.

Disposing of them would be getting rid of thousands of years of energy.
Why would you want to do that? Are you stupid?

>>6042672
No, don't get in an argument over this. This is technically true. You're being dragged into an idiotic semantic quibbling match.

A properly functioning nuclear power plant doesn't release any radioactive waste into the environment, because all of the waste is supposed to go into containment. (just don't ask them about the part where they mine the uranium)

A person who eats a banana and shits in the woods is technically releasing radioactive waste into the environment.

>>6042687
Now you're getting it! That's right!

>>6042669
I do not count blue prints as "being able to make". Call me when we fast breeder will be developped beyond the prototype level.

In the meantime, well... Nuclear wastes aren't going anywhere anyway.

>>6042687
It's not semantic you cretin.

It's comparing the actual effect of coal and oil to the actual effect of nuclear power plants.

I'm so deeply sorry the debate doesn't happen to take place in your fantasy world, but you'll have to get to terms with that.

>>6042687
Nice example!

>>6042667
>Do you have any idea how much nastier nuclear waste actually is than the common radioactive materials in our environment?
Do you have any idea how minuscule the increase in worldwide environmental radiation caused by nuclear waste is?

>People used to talk about how you'd design one bomb, one single bomb, to kill off the whole world with radioactive material. It wasn't a terribly difficult design problem.
Maybe this would be a worry if we stored our nuclear waste in munitions factories located on huge zeppelins strategically placed in the sky.

>>6042686
>Disposing of them would be getting rid of thousands of years of energy.
>Why would you want to do that? Are you stupid?

And you suffer from basic understanding. Using them to produce energy IS A WAY TO DISPOSE OF THEM.

But we still haven't gone beyond prototype level, if even on that point.

>>6042690
>I do not count blue prints as "being able to make". Call me when we fast breeder will be developped beyond the prototype level.
You do not count a prototype as "being able to make"? You strike me as one very simple individual.

There is no reason to make them right now because they are more expansive.

Arguing that we should get rid of something precious because we don't use it right now would be a very, very stupid position. I hope it's not what you're arguing.

>>6042699
The level after prototype is industrial, no reason to go there while conventional reactors are cheaper...

Are you seriously trying to argue that there is something elusive about fast breeders? It's not fusion you know. It works.

>>6042700
>Arguing that we should get rid of something precious because we don't use
Again, using them in fast bredding IS A WAY TO GET RID OF THEM. Stop being so fixated on your position you don't even try to understand what people are actually saying.

>You do not count a prototype as "being able to make"? You strike me as one very simple individual.
The accurate word is "cautious", anyone will tell you there is a gap between theory an practice that can only be truly understood once we actually try to cross it.

>>6042713
>Again, using them in fast bredding IS A WAY TO GET RID OF THEM.
If you think so, then there is nothing more to argue, we HAVE a way to get rid of them.
Fast breeders work, period.

>>6042713
>anyone will tell you there is a gap between theory an practice
No, only morons will tell you that.
If your theory doesn't give you the correct result, the theory is wrong.

And I'm pretty sure actually building reactors count as practice.

>>6042663
It's actually quite annoying to find something. Here's this:
http://pripyat.com/en/monitor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_%28unit%29
So, not more than 2x or 3x normal background rates, aka quite safe.

>>6042704
>The level after prototype is industrial, no reason to go there while conventional reactors are cheaper...
-You know all those house we all building close that cliff, there might be a risk it crumble, maybe we should restrenght it.
-sure we can. We can even use the building material left by the construction of the houses in the first place. We have checked, everything is alright on the paper.
-You say that but you have never actually done it. So what are you waiting for?
-It cost too much, we'll do it later, when we feel more like it.
-You have not even statted it, you don't even know what difficulties will arise with such construction, why are you not starting now.
-Later I say. Hey let's build some more house on that Cliff.

>>6042719
>If your theory doesn't give you the correct result, the theory is wrong.
And that, my dear, is the difference between a scientist and an Engineer.
>And I'm pretty sure actually building reactors count as practice.
An industrial level fast breeding reactor hasn't been build yet, and it's really different from your classic reactor.

>>6042725
What the fuck are you trying to prove with that stupid parable?
Holy shit try to express yourself in an intelligible manner.

There is no point in making fast breeders right now because it's too fucking expensive since uranium is so abundant that it's better to keep making conventional ones.

But you know what's great? The fuel doesn't go away. What can't be used in a conventional reactor can be used later in a fast breeder reactor. That's what we'll do when natural uranium reserve run out.

>>6042679
I'm not appealing to emotion, I'm explaining what the actual facts are.

Yeah, numbers do matter, but what you need is an actual education in the relative harmfulness of different radioisotopes, which I'm not going to be able to give you in a 4chan thread.

What's naturally in our environment, we're evolved to handle, in the amounts that are naturally present, whether it's radioactive or not. Things which are *not* naturally in our environment, we're not evolved to handle, so our bodies do things like absorb exotic radioisotopes and transport them to our most radiation-sensitive tissues, and keep them there until they kill us.

Our natural environment doesn't have a lot of high-output fission reactors in it. Just traces of thorium and uranium, and their decay products, plus potassium and whatever space radiation makes by hitting the atmosphere. That shit, we can deal with, unless some bozo gathers a lot of it up and feeds it to us, because its always been there. It was there for the fish to deal with, and it was there for the monkeys to deal with, and it was there when the big black rock told us about bone clubs.

Stuff like plutonium-238, or strontium-90? Nope, nope, nope. Can not handle it. Our bodies don't know to piss it out posthaste, or how to heal the damage it does. Tiny, tiny amounts kill us. And nuclear power plants make oodles of this kind of stuff.

If nuclear power plants just started dumping their waste outside, it would kill everybody. Absolutely everybody. And it wouldn't take very long.

So yeah, the informed position to be very concerned that this stuff is being produced, regardless of whether the people making it say they're super-careful about not releasing any of it.

>>6042733
I'm pretty sure fast breeder reactors have been the standard for plutonium production for a good long while now.

And that France made at least one big power plant based on them.

>>6042733
No, I don't think you understand.
1200 MW for a single reactor largely qualifies as working, you don't have a single idea what you're talking about.

>>6042733
>An industrial level fast breeding reactor hasn't been build yet, and it's really different from your classic reactor.
Uhhh... about that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_metal_fast_reactor#Power_generation

Also, while a full LFTR prototype has not been built, all of the central pieces have been demonstrated to work at ORNL and elsewhere. Just no one has put them all together yet.

>>6042736
>If nuclear power plants just started dumping their waste outside
That's a completely retarded scenario.

>>6042736
>If nuclear power plants just started dumping their waste outside, it would kill everybody. Absolutely everybody. And it wouldn't take very long.
I wish I could post the "Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh harder picture" again. This is just ludicrous.

>>6042736
DID YOU KNOW IF OIL PLANTS MADE EVERYONE DRINK THE OIL INSTEAD
WE WOULD ALL DIE?

>>6042755
Except the oil thing is right, and the nuclear thing is a product of pure fantasy.

>>6042733
>And that, my dear, is the difference between a scientist and an Engineer.
Do... do you actually think fast breeders are a purely physics lab thing?

Have you been awake for the last 50 years?

>>6042734
>There is no point in making fast breeders right now because it's too fucking expensive since uranium is so abundant that it's better to keep making conventional ones.
>That's what we'll do when natural uranium reserve run out.
And that illustrate my point exactly. The solution you provide is based on untested project.
You do not provide a solution now but later. The waste instead of being disposed kept being stocked for an unspecified amount of time, being concentrated in area that, no mater how safe we pick them are never 100% guaranteed to be safe.

For any other kind of waste, we make sure it is rendred inert, no matter the cost, or we simply forbid whatever cause its production, if we can't.

For nuclear waste, we stock them up until some point, later, when we will use them. You know? when it will be cheap!

this is precisely the kind of nuclear politic that make me against Nuclear.

When you produce wste, you dispose of them, ebery other industry do it, even if it cost them money, there is no reason the nuclear industry should act differently.

>>6042733
>And that, my dear, is the difference between a scientist and an Engineer.
No it's not, it's the difference between an educated person and someone who forges his opinion on Greenpeace pamphlets.

>>6042209
this

>>6042760
>untested
>fast breeders
Jesus fuck stop fucking talking I can't fathom the amount of stupid that's pouring out of your mouth.

>>6042752
It's the fucking truth, you ignoramus.

Why do you think the reaction to a Chernobyl or Fukushima is, "Oh shit shit shit, everybody run away! Far away, and stay away for years! Except you sacrificial lambs, you run back there and plug that shit up, so it stops leaking!"?

Imagine if every power plant was going full Chernobyl all the time, on every reactor, with no attempt to stop it spewing nuclear waste into the air and water. That's what it would be like if they just dumped their waste outside instead of carefully containing it forever.

It would kill everybody. Quickly.

>>6042765
It's actually pouring out of my keyboard, but whatever.

>>6042760
>For any other kind of waste, we make sure it is rendred inert, no matter the cost, or we simply forbid whatever cause its production, if we can't.
OR YOU KNOW
WE JUST SEND IT UP IN THE ATMOSPHERE

>>6042767
>Why do you think the reaction to a Chernobyl or Fukushima is, "Oh shit shit shit, everybody run away! Far away, and stay away for years! Except you sacrificial lambs, you run back there and plug that shit up, so it stops leaking!"?
Because of stupid shits like you.

>>6042769
No waste at the same risk level than the one produced in Nuclear plants is being released in the atmosphere.

>>6042760
>we stock them up until some point, later, when we will use them. You know? when it will be cheap!
It's actually perfectly rational, what do you have against that?

>but MUH ACCIDENT
So? The thing is those can power fast breeders for two dozen millenia at the current rate. While uranium will run out in a couple centuries. We would have to store them anyway.

>>6042770
You really have got absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

>>6042769
Are you really compared the waste that use to be released in the atmosphere to the one being stocked in nuclear containment or being chemically treated to be rendered inert?

>>6042775
Stop fucking spouting senseless sentences, and moving subjects all the fucking time.

>>6042778
>moving goalposts
I see a sentence saying
"For any other kind of waste, we make sure it is rendred inert"
It's wrong, and stupid, and everyone saying this sentence and defending it is a fucking moron.

If that's not what you meant, then formulate a proper sentence and we can discuss.

>>6042760
Fast breeders are not untested you poor uneducated fuck.
Are you from the past?

To the experts (or "experts") in this thread:

What are the most advanced nuclear reactor technologies so far? I know there's laser fusion and something about plasma. Just a small info about the "best" technologies so far and what we can expect to see in the future.

Absolutely support it. I'd like to see nuclear hydrocarbon plants, built adjacent to uranium (or thorium, whatever, screw you) mines, making hydrogen which can then be converted to methanol and shipped worldwide. When the mine is exhausted, fill it with the waste and move on.

>>6042787
This man.

I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to build the hydrocarbon plant next to the mine, but he definitely has the right idea.

>>6042786
Pebble bed reactors might be the future of fission but they're having difficulty getting the small scale models to work reliably (fuel element degradation and jamming). At the moment, PWR or BWR is the most likely design for any plant to be built this decade.

>>6042776
>While uranium will run out in a couple centuries. We would have to store them anyway.
Assuming that, in a few centuries not a single accident will ever happens in the stock depots is dangerously optimistic to the borderline unconscious.

If we have the means to burn the waste now to produce energy and thus render them harmless, let's do it now.
>but MUH MONEY!
If those breeders works, it will still turn out a profit. Justifying the burning of all the uranium first for the sole sake of making more profit than if we had an hybrid system is selfish and irresponsible.

An hybrid system simply means we would consume the natural resource of uranium more slowly. It is not getting away.

>>6042790
You could well transmit the power to the coast (I'm mainly thinking of Australia) for conversion to fuel, since you're transmitting so much from and to single locations you could use superconducting cables to minimise transmission loss.

>>6042784
>It's wrong, and stupid, and everyone saying this sentence and defending it is a fucking moron.
>If that's not what you meant, then formulate a proper sentence and we can discuss.
What was implied was "for any kind of other substance considered as dangerous as Nuclear waste or close to"

It was obvious for anyone that wasn't you. The level of threat of the waste released in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the one of Nuclear one nor the chemical waste that are treated in the industry, and you know it.

>>6042793
If fast breeders can indeed ever be made viable we can simply chuck in all our old waste and DU. It would take some uranium to get the ball rolling but the 2 centuries figure is until it stops being economically viable to mine uranium for power use in conventional reactors. We've eaten the really sweet stuff (the first mines to be exhausted were chosen because the uranium was unusually rich in 235).

>>6042793
>If we have the means to burn the waste now to produce energy and thus render them harmless, let's do it now.
You don't understand, it would take millenia to do so, there is absolutely no point in starting now rather than in a century.

>but MUH MONEY!
Yes, "muh money" is part of that "practice" world you like to oppose to the "theory". Learn to live with that, it will be important in your "engineer" career.

>If those breeders works, it will still turn out a profit.
Jesus fuck I don't think you have a single idea how the world works.

The question is ALWAYS comparative cost. Does it work? Yes. Does it cost less than competing reactors? No.
Then don't fucking do it until the competition is more expensive.

>Justifying the burning of all the uranium first for the sole sake of making more profit than if we had an hybrid system is selfish and irresponsible.
What's irresponsible about it? The point is we don't burn all the uranium.

>>6042800
And once again, hoping that nothing wrong will ever happens to the nuclear stocking depots for 2 centuries is a level of optimism I do not share.

>>6042799
Oh shut up.
Try to come up with a definition of "as dangerous" that doesn't involve some unrealistic scenario, and we'll talk.

>>6042736
>What's naturally in our environment, we're evolved to handle

Are you sure ?! does human body has ionizing radiation receptors and releases some immune system agents to repair the damage, every time cells undergo mutation?
Also it is confirmed that even smallest dose of radiation is malicious.

>>6042805
Nobody is asking that.

You're still turning a blind eye to the security issues in other generation methods.
>but it doesn't count because it's just people getting killed!
You disgust me.

>>6042808
>Also it is confirmed that even smallest dose of radiation is malicious.
No, it's not. That's bullshit. You are radioactive you dipshit. Carbon 14, among many other radioactive isotopes.

>>6042805
>oh gee, one or two small areas became evacuated for some time, what a disaster of a scale comparable to the pollution and deaths actually caused by oil and coal, not to mention climate change

>>6042808
>does human body has ionizing radiation receptors and releases some immune system agents to repair the damage, every time cells undergo mutation

We may never know.

Also, LNT is dated, a low level of radiation (particularly, spread out over time) is relatively harmless and might even be beneficial in preventing other mutations (though that's a big might).

>>6042812
So what? Didn't knew that Boltzmann transport equations were different to human beings?

>>6042799
So, in the backward mind of anti-nuclear activist, undesirable side effects that actually happen are not actually "dangers", and they count less?
Fantastic.

>>6042802
>The question is ALWAYS comparative cost. Does it work? Yes. Does it cost less than competing reactors? No.
With that kind of logic, no chemical waste would ever be treated.

Money is just a means, it doesn't dictate the direction our cvilisation must take.

If the people want to get rid of the nuclear waste now and there can still be a profit made out of it, even if not as big as piling up and waiting for later, then there is no reason to not do it.

There is risk in stocking and concentrating nuclear wastes for centuries and it can not just be waved away for only monetary reasons.

If the nuclear cycle can be done with no waste at the end and no need to stock and if this is what the people want, then there is no reason for not doing it. As long as a profit is made to be self-sustained, it doesn't matter how big or little it is.

>>6042823
>With that kind of logic, no chemical waste would ever be treated.
It's cheaper to treat it than to store it or get sued for releasing it straight up. This is capitalism, people get shitty when their power bills go up.

>>6042823
>With that kind of logic, no chemical waste would ever be treated.
>Money is just a means, it doesn't dictate the direction our cvilisation must take.
But what would be THE FUCKING POINT?
The fuel isn't vaporizing, it's not going away. It's there.
>but muh potential breach in containment
Why exactly do you think adding a few hangars greatly increase the nuclear risk when compared to all the running reactors?
You don't make a single ounce of sense.

Also, at this point you're not discussing the topic anymore. That was for or against nuclear, not how you would like to see it handled.

>>6042814
oh gee, one or two small areas became evacuated for some time when this could have been avoided if we had burned the waste immediately instead of stocking it. but who care, our causalities allowed someone else to make bigger profit than if he had run an hybrid cycle instead. We are so glad our ruined lands allowed him to be richer.

>>6042823
Opprutunity cost eco 101

>>6042822
There is no way you could have interpreted that out of what I have written.
Stop pulling points out of your ass.

>>6042823
But whyyyyyyyyy?
Why oh why would you care SO MUCH about a couple more nuclear installations than all the ones already existing?

>>6042822
>anti-nuclear activist
It's really better to call them anti-science advocates, just as bad as young Earthers, anti-vaccers, anti-GMOs, and so on. Their grasp of reality is just as flawed.

>>6042767
>It would kill everybody. Quickly.
There aren't nuclear reactors near everybody. There will never be nuclear reactors near everybody. Do you understand that nuclear waste isn't a magical miasma that expands outward in all directions forever until it encompasses the whole world? Ever if radioactive material gets into the air, water, and animals nearby there are limits on how far it can travel and at what concentrations. The Earth is a huge, huge place.

>>6042830
>Why exactly do you think adding a few hangars greatly increase the nuclear risk when compared to all the running reactors?
This, the main risk with nuclear power is when the reactor is critical and immediately after when the short term isotopes are decaying. Long term, you just have to stabilise the fuel elements (or reprocess them, Britain sits on a stockpile of reprocessed plutonium that would embarrass even the largest superpower).

>>6042832
>this could have been avoided if we had burned the waste immediately instead of stocking it
What?
What sort of argument do you have to prove this?

Actually conventional reactor are safer.
The later we do fast breeders, the better the security will be.

>>6042841
>, the main risk with nuclear power is when the reactor is critical
>reactor is critical
You are an idiot. You need to read a book or two.

Nuclear reactors are always critical you dumbfuck. Learn nuclear engineering 101 before you come back to this conversation.

>>6042838
There is no good interpretation since you still haven't defined what dangerous means.

>>6042830
>Also, at this point you're not discussing the topic anymore. That was for or against nuclear, not how you would like to see it handled.
I am against the current Nuclear politic of stocking waste when we already have the means to burns them.

>>6042845
I think this was his point anon.
That reactors are more dangerous than waste storage anyway.

>>6042842
>The later we do fast breeders, the better the security will be.
So, what you are saying is Let's burn uranium now and the Waste be someone else problem?

>>6042852
He has no point. He is so ill-informed that he is stupid ignorant to even have a point. When he knows the meaning of words like "critical", then he can take part in the conversation.

>>6042847
But why the fuck?
Those storage centers contribute nothing to the rest when compared to running reactors.

>>6042845
>Nuclear reactors are always critical you dumbfuck.
Only when they're operating, which is obviously what he was talking about.

Jesus Christ, you're stupid. You've made one stupid fucking ignorant post after another in this thread, trying to play the expert about something you know very little about.

>>6042844
>Do you understand that nuclear waste isn't a magical miasma that expands outward in all directions forever until it encompasses the whole world?
Eventually it does but, like a fart in a cathedral, you only hurt a few in the immediate vicinity. At Chelyabinsk there sit lakes with as much nuclear waste in them as the entire civilian US nuclear programme that connect to rivers which drain into the Arctic Ocean. These really don't pose much risk to anyone but the poor bastards who live downstream and downwind for a few hundred miles.

>>6042853
Yes.
You might have noticed that impressive thing with technology, it's that IT GETS BETTER.

>>6042857
No, it's obviously not. Either he is an idiot, which seems likely, or he is engaging in purposeful fear-mongering.

>>6042855
But that's what he was referring to.
Calm the fuck down.

>>6042857
>Jesus Christ, you're stupid. You've made one stupid fucking ignorant post after another in this thread, trying to play the expert about something you know very little about.
Also, you say that, but I have yet to be corrected in this thread on a substantive matter. Do you know any mistakes I've made yet?

>>6042856
The logic we currently use is to stock the waste while hoping nothing wrong will happens with them for the centuries to come.

If we have means to dispose of them now, we have to dispose of them.

>>6042855
The reactor can be in a potentially critical configuration but, with the control rods inserted they (hopefully) haven't 'gone critical'. That high horse you're on is something more akin to a wooden donkey.

>>6042867
I don't know what the hell you're talking about. In 99%+ of normal operating, a reactor is critical. It has "gone critical", and remains critical for months or years at a time.

>>6042862
Calm down dear, you're confused as to the difference between critical masses, critical configurations and criticality. I (foolishly) had a higher opinion of posters than is evidently justified. I apologise and will spoon feed you in the future.

>>6042846
The point is, I don't need to define them because it's already defined, in many legislation, about what is allowed to be released in the air or the water and what has to be treated or stocked.

>>6042866
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
I'M TIRED OF ASKING YOU WHY
MAKE SENSE NOW OR SHUT YOUR GAPPER

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT'S MORE DANGEROUS TO STORE THEM FOR NOW THAN MAKE FAST BREEDERS

>>6042865
>I have yet to be corrected in this thread
OH GOD YOU ARE SO STUPID IT HURTS

>I am still wrong about everything I was wrong about at the start of this thread, and will remain wrong about those things forever, despite being corrected repeatedly.

>>6042871
>the other pollutants are totally ok because they can go in the air
I was expecting numbers, quantitative reasoning, you silly cunt.

You missed your chance.

>>6042873
>In 99%+ of normal operating, a reactor is critical
That's what the guy you quoted referred to.
He's not the guy you have been arguing with before that.
He was on your side.

>>6042874
I know what I'm talking about. I know those things.
This person obviously does not:
>>6042867
>with the control rods inserted they (hopefully) haven't 'gone critical'.
I hope this is not the same person, bcause that would be really stupid.

>>6042875
Waiting on an example.

>>6042873
I apologise for failing to detect your shortcomings sooner. That's what I was talking about, a critical reactor is where the greatest (comparative) danger lies when contrasted against long term waste storage. Green fuel is a different beast but all that requires is cooling and time.

>>6042852
>>6042842
And then, suddenly, those fast breeder reactors that can brun Nuclear waste and who are not prototype and that we know how to use are not so well developed anymore.

>>6042881
There is no such thing as a not-critical reactor. I have no clue what you're talking about.

Talking about a critical reactor is like talking about wet water.

Ok, there are some half-brained ideas about an accelerater driven reactor which remains just below critical, but let's ignore those for now.

>>6042878
>I hope this is not the same person, bcause that would be really stupid.

Yes, curse me and my accurate description of reactor physics. I'll notify the board of science at once so we can have more distinct words to describe the difference between critical configurations and criticality.

>>6042884
>not so well developed
What the fuck are you talking about?

Obviously the risk in a running reactor is higher than in storage.

Do you have trouble with comparison, my poor little plebeian middle schooler anon?
It's when you take two quantities and say one is bigger than the other.

>>6042884
Jesus, did some part of your brain believed you were being clever or something?

>>6042872
>WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT'S MORE DANGEROUS TO STORE THEM FOR NOW THAN MAKE FAST BREEDERS
People in those threads claiming fast breeders is a perfectly controled technology and not on the protoype level anymore. But they seem tohave changed their mind, now.

>>6042886
Ok. I'll take back some of my stances. You may know what you're talking about.

You may just be an idiot when it comes to communication.

When you said that the greatest danger comes when the reactor is critical, you are right. However, in the sense that that is correct, that is equivalent to saying the greatest danger comes whenever the reactor is "on". In the sense that you are correct, you must know that this is going to be misunderstood by 90% of the readers of that post, and is willful fearmongering and misinformation.

>>6042885
This is down to the difference between describing a reactor configuration and its operation. Perhaps there are also differences between American and British descriptions, we also describe reactors 'going critical' during start up.

>>6042877
You are the one who started to compare poulutant being released in the air to the one being treated or stocked.

>>6042894
>perfectly controlled technology
That doesn't mean anything you poor cretin.
As always, it's about numbers. Risks.

>>6042902
Show me the studies that prove that it is safer to stock than to start burning now.

>>6042899
You're the one saying they shouldn't be compared for some reason...
>eyh that method is better because it doesn't store any waste
>it sends everything in the wild...
>WELL IT DOESN'T COUNT THEN

>>6042896
Not at all, this isn't /pol/, I merely had a higher opinion of the people on /sci/. Thanks for appearing as rabid as Greenpeace (albeit, on the other side of the argument).

>>6042896
>>6042898
Really, to the extent that you are correct, the meaning of your posts is: The greatest danger comes whenever the reactor is on. Is that really what you meant to say? That's like... so empty of intellectual content that I assumed complete ignorance of the terms involved. Now, I have to say that you are merely engaged in dishonest propaganda to say something as obvious as "nuclear reactors are more dangerous when they're on, compared to a reactor which is off (and has been off for a long time)".

>>6042885
>Talking about a critical reactor is like talking about wet water.

>>6042894
If quantity A is higher than quantity B, that doesn't mean A is higher than C.

Did you pass pre-school yet?

>>6042906
>>it sends everything in the wild...
>>WELL IT DOESN'T COUNT THEN
Except it doesn't send everything in the wild.

>>6042910
I was discussing comparative risk, not to illustrate the dangers of an operating reactor but to illustrate the safety of spent nuclear fuel after cool off.

>>6042909
>studies
For all your talks about engineering, I don't think you understand how it works.

>>6042915
see
>>6042660

shush now

>>6042909
There's a reason we shut down Dounreay but kept Sellafield running.

>>6042916
In which case... my apologies.

>>6042919
Thank you, my apologies for the nastiness on my end too.

>>6042924
Meh, looking it over, mostly my fault. You're right I'm on a hair trigger.

>>6042925
Also: pretty fucking stupid, and in full pretend-expert mode.

>>6042927
>Also: pretty fucking stupid, and in full pretend-expert mode.
Meh. Disagreed.

>>6042925
No problem, I believe we must be better than the greentards and treat them like a child repeatedly asking why with a wry smirk.

>>6042928
Exactly what a full pretend-expert would say.

Im for nuclear weapons. If it is what makes America secure, every good country in the word showed also have many of them.
Who is to decide what country is good and what is not? Certainly the bad countries would be the first to try and assume the position to rule on this question: hence the only solution is to allow every country to have nuclear weapons.
But as I actually think all countries are decidedly bad institutions, my deeper argument is that every human institution should have such weapons as a means of self defense.
And nuclear power should be completely accessible, as much as fossil fuels. That would make civilization, specially the most poor amongst us, incredibly richer and comfortable.

>>6042920
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
>The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities
Once again, you are talking of the waste that is actually released by the plant, when, all along, was talking about the wastes being stocked or treated to be rendered inert.

I was comapring the chemical industry who usually render inert its most dangerous wastes, to the Nuclear plant, who only stock them. Neither of those are ever released in the air.

You were comparing coal plants emissions in the air to Nuclear plants emission released in the air.

THIS ISN'T THE SAME THING!

>>6042938
It really is. If we want to talk about comparative risks, we need to look at what actually happens in practice - not what happens in fictitious worst case scenarios where we nuke everyone.

>>6042921
>There's a reason we shut down Dounreay but kept Sellafield running.
Money?

>>6042063
Was I the only one really disappointed as a kid to find out that nuclear power boils down to just fucking heat energy for steam power?

I am for it because i work in the industry and my job and elevated pay depends on it.

>>6042939
Coal release in the air similar radiation dose than a Nuclear plant release in the air too.
coal doesn't produce radioactive waste.

>>6042944
Pretty much, it was a few decades ago but running a fast breeder couldn't be made economically viable.

>>6042971
The ashes aren't classed as radioactive waste but (as I understand it) the ash and tailings are active enough that, were they produced from nuclear industry, they would be classed as low level waste.

>>6042939
>If we want to talk about comparative risks, we need to look at what has actually happened in practice so far, 0.0001% into the required containment period of nuclear waste - not scenarios of what might happen if everything doesn't go perfectly forever
I'm not sure you're entirely familiar with the concept of risk.

>>6042938
>Once again, you are talking of the waste that is actually released by the plant, when, all along, was talking about the wastes being stocked or treated to be rendered inert.
No you were not, I was replying to that post >>6042915 about released pollution.

>>6042992
So what, it is effectively true that a chemestry industry will not release everythingin the air.

>>6042998
And how the fuck does it fucking matter?
It's still releasing much more than plants.

>>6042999
The initial argument was that Chemestry industry render its most dangerous waste inert, whereas the Nuclear industry simply stock them. I was not even limiting that to Coal plants.

The reply to that was
NO THEY RELEASE EVERYTHING IN THE AIR!
And I wasted a lot of post trying to explain that the waste released in the air hasn't the same level of risk than the one being rendered inert.

Oops, I must have dropped this.

>>6043024
>Oh look, shitty technically incompetent countries have really unsafe industry, and also can't make nuclear power plants work.

>>6043033
it's partly tech inexperience, but i don't think it's technical incompetence so much as lower safety standards in the interest of cost cutting or lack of proper regulation enforcement of what is on the books.

>>6043024
does this chart include deaths resulting from being bombed by foreign govts for building nuclear power facilities?

>>6043051
It didn't have to be this way

>>6043024

I think it's not fair to compare modern nuclear plants with the deaths in mines or oil refineries product of shitty/old technology and greedy capitalists.

>>6043013
>Rendered inert.
You wish this was going on, Red Mud is an example where they can't do anything but store it in vast quantities.

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

>>6043111
>>The initial argument was that Chemestry industry render its most dangerous waste inert
>You wish this was going on, Red Mud is an example
Red mud is hardly "most dangerous waste". It's just this stuff that's not good soil for growing crops in, and takes a long time to dry out. It even sucks carbon dioxide out of the air.

The toxicity is low. The problem is simply quantity, not unlike the problems large pig barns have disposing of pig shit.

You neutralize it (with CO2), you dry it out, you stick it back in the hole you dug the bauxite out of. Short-term problem.

Seriously? They deleted my post in support of nuclear weapons? What is this? The NSA forums? Well, shattered any suspicion this is a forum for free speech. Just aweful censorship.
Should have figured it when 4chan captchas turned to infinite sequences of numbers...

thorium

>>6043190
im dumb

Yes. But the only problem is that they can't be shut down.

Well I want to get a job when I graduate, so I'm all for it.