/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10341435]

Why is there such stigma against Nuclear energy?

[Anonymous No.10341439]

stigma finger in your ass

[Anonymous No.10341448]

>>10341439
so this is the power of /sci/

[Anonymous No.10341452]

>>10341435
G, Eye Oneder Y.

[Anonymous No.10341459]

>>10341435
Why don't you have one built in your back yard and find out for yourself?

[Anonymous No.10341460]

>>10341452
GREEN ROCK BAD

[Anonymous No.10341462]

>>10341452
good post

[Anonymous No.10341467]

>>10341435
female lawmakers who care more about feefees than rational arguments

[Anonymous No.10341470]

>>10341435

Nuclear waste that will take millions of years to decay. Is there a solution against nuclear waste? If not, then all you'll be doing is create a problem that will persist for millions upon millions of years.

[Anonymous No.10341477]

>>10341470
Uranium takes millions of years to decay and it's everywhere in the earth's crust, i don't understand the point, it's merely taking uranium, getting useful work out of it, then burying it back in the ground where it came from, and there is even a chance of possibly reusing it.

[Anonymous No.10341478]

The reason is american propaganda blew the chernoby accident that could happen to anyone out of proportion for evil political reasons and now everyone thinks nuclear is bad. Good job americans

[Anonymous No.10341485]

>>10341452
>the general populace is half-retarded and democracy (aka mob rule) was a mistake
We already know that.

>>10341470
What problem, you dumbass nigger. You just bury it in the ground or use it in breeder reactors (the development of which was fucked by subhuman double-digit IQ muh-feelz public).

[Anonymous No.10341487]

>>10341435
Economic interests and kgb propaganda leading to warped image in pop culture which feedbacks into regulation and reduced innovation and other problems further worsening the situation. The cat's been out of the bag for a long time.

[Anonymous No.10341489]

Because it works.

[Anonymous No.10341494]

>>10341477
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density

[Anonymous No.10341498]

>>10341435
In older generations Manhattan project and the resulting bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then, in later generations the Chernobyl disaster and the Cold War.
Then, in our generation Fukushima.
In other words, a continued fearmongering due to poor choices, and negligent accidents.

[Anonymous No.10341500]

>>10341435
-Extremely high fixed costs and generally relatively high cost per kwh during lifetime
-Only acceptable price per kwh if run at near maximum capacity at all times which greatly reduces their flexibility
-Cant be build anywhere, needs water ressources to cool
-Meltdown risk
-Nuclear waste

I'd even go as far to argue that the real reason governments go for nuclear is to be able to quickly build nuclear bombs if needed. Nuclear plants are not that great to produce electricity with.

[Anonymous No.10341502]

>>10341470
Thorium reactors? Or perhaps, actually funding fusion research?

[Anonymous No.10341511]

>>10341500
All of these are problems, especially the last 2 are issues related to light water reactors, which have an inherent design flaw in that the EXTREME case coolant (water) flow is cut off then your fucked, these reactor designs are obsolete and 4th gen reactors are poised to mitigate the saftey issue, nuclear waste has already been talked about

[Anonymous No.10341527]

>>10341511
>muh breeder reactors

They are even more expensive and dangerous and therefore every point (except for the waste one, okay) is even more prevelant with them.

[Anonymous No.10341535]

>>10341527
What about:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
Checkmate, theist.

[Anonymous No.10341539]

>>10341535
Thoriums are breeders.

[Anonymous No.10341603]

>>10341477
Drinking 1 oz of lead in one day vs 1 oz of lead spread over life time.
Which would you choose?

[Anonymous No.10341608]

>this thread again
Why don't you check the archives for the other 10,000 times this identical thread has been made.

[Anonymous No.10341619]

>>10341477
As long as they dont bury it anywhere near you, amirite

[Anonymous No.10341692]

>>10341470
You can reuse uranium waste, but we don't, because of feelings

[Anonymous No.10341785]

>>10341692

Crazy people being able to have acces to nukes is not feelings

[Anonymous No.10341791]

>>10341470
Turns out you can actually recycle nuclear waste, problem is you get plutonium out of it which is the perfect ingredient for a nuclear weapons, there lies the problem

[Anonymous No.10341913]

cuz the word 'nuclear' is in it

[Anonymous No.10341924]

>>10341435
It looks really scary, like even in the picture you posted it requires a deep dark tank of water where you can't even peer through the depths to see what lies below...
if a man were to fall down there he would surely die of drowning with no hope of recovery, his muscles instantly melting from the intense radiation so that he is too weak to swim up to the surface and is boiled alive in a murky radioactive darkness

[Anonymous No.10341938]

>>10341924
To add onto this other forms of large-scale power generation have the same risks, such as Bellmouth Spillways in hydroelectricity
These things kill at least 10 people every year.

[Anonymous No.10341941]

>>10341938
I'm very afraid of deep dark holes like this where you can fall into and die with no hope of being rescued... I hope I will never encounter one in my life and would never support a project that required construction of more...

[Anonymous No.10341945]

>>10341435
We don't have waste disposal set up. Waste is just accumulating on site in US nuclear plants. Worse yet, it's accumulating in water. If the situation stays as it is for too long, decommissioning will be fun. Brits made that mistake at sellafield. At least we are keeping our pools indoors unlike the brits. Seriously, if we're doing onsite storage we need to store in dry casks. Yucca mountain was supposed to happen, but no we couldn't do that. Actually it would be much better to store it in the appalachia mountains, much more geological stable, but goddamn nimbys don't want it there. There's also the nuclear weapon proliferation risk. That and nuclear is fucking dying in the US because natural gas is so cheap. The best way you can help nuclear is to advocate for natural gas paying its true costs. Natural gas might actually be as bad as coal due to gas leaks. Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas.

[Anonymous No.10341955]

>>10341941
you must never ever go near these
https://www.washingtonpost.com/videonational/drone-video-shows-iconic-glory-hole-spillway-overflowing/2017/02/21/109aa4a6-f883-11e6-aa1e-5f735ee31334_video.html?utm_term=.d50b06a7a741

[Anonymous No.10341959]

Now look back at the OP picture
>>10341435
and imagine falling down into there except there's rods emitting intense radioactivity and the water temperature nearest to them is hot enough to cook you alive, you'll die an agonizing death in the moist dark before anyone realizes what happened to you

[Anonymous No.10341967]

[Anonymous No.10341971]

I wish someone would do something about these like installing a grate on top to help prevent deaths but i've asked the staff at the local hydroelectric plant and they say its a waste of money and would slow down the flow of water to fit safety grilles to the intakes of the penstocks for the turbines...

[Anonymous No.10341987]

>>10341971
What about all the animals in the lake?

[Anonymous No.10341997]

>>10341435
Because energy is the biggest industry in the world and if you make it easily available to everyone for cheap with low maintenance costs then the justification for your reaping goes away.
International Climate Panel is actually a BIG ENERGY controlled organization and lobby, a way for big energy oligopoly to push barriers to entry to market (such as absolute restriction on nuclear, such as mining up and hoarding uranium and selling 1/5th of it to russia to artificially increase its cost domestically). Nuclear Power would give power to the people, so there's no way it will ever be allowed.

[Anonymous No.10342014]

The stigma for nuclear energy isn't against nuclear energy. I would say it's about nuclear waste, but it isn't even that. It's about our governments competence, honesty, and integrity when dealing with nuclear waste. Even one lapse would cause an unacceptable catastrophe.

>>10341692
pic related
It's our goverment's idea of an acceptable and responsible use for nuclear waste material.

[Anonymous No.10342259]

People can't even understand the basic concept.

[Anonymous No.10342315]

Here lies the biggest problem outside of meltdowns
Title - "Into Eternity"
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3eqof3

[Anonymous No.10342318]

>>10342014
Wait, 7.62 DU rounds? What country is this?

[Anonymous No.10342331]

There isn't. It's a controversy that the media invented.

Sure there are some anti-nuclear hippies but those are a tiny minority. Sure maybe a few people are apprehensive but definitely not super fanatically anti-nuclear.

The media decided to shill this stupid controversy that nuclear was being attacked by greenies.

It's completely false and made up.

[Anonymous No.10342364]

>>10341470
Dump it in the Sahara?

[Anonymous No.10342374]

>>10341489
that pic got me thinking
what if people applied same logic framework to liberals but on meta level, portraying them as moral winners, taking adventage and discriminating against moral losers?

[Anonymous No.10342396]

>>10341489
Did he actually say that? Damn, he's retarded.

[Anonymous No.10342437]

>>10342374
You need a cult for that. That is why it doesn't work for right/center but works perfectly for the left and far left.

[Anonymous No.10342601]

>>10341941
I go kayaking all the time, this is my greatest irrational fear.

[Anonymous No.10342605]

>>10341955

[Anonymous No.10342637]

>>10342437
Trump's support is cultish. I still support him.

[Anonymous No.10342645]

>>10342396
Butt-hurt leftist detected.

[Anonymous No.10342658]

>>10342601
>>10341938
>>10341941
>Saying that like you don't fall in head-first into your mother's gaping canyon of a vagina every night.

[Anonymous No.10342663]

>>10341959
your fear is irrational and has no basis in reality.
water is such a good radiation quencher you dont have to worry too much.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

[Anonymous No.10342672]

>>10342645
hitchens was a retard

[Anonymous No.10342693]

>>10341470
Just bury it deep in the ground in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere, problem solved

[Anonymous No.10342699]

>>10341459
I plan to one day like really I do but I need degrees first

[Anonymous No.10342702]

>>10341435
Nuclear bombs and a certain poorly maintained soviet reactor going down negatively effected the public view of nuclear energy

[Anonymous No.10342716]

>>10342693
Too many problems with that. Major recuring one with all waste is that bumfuck nowhere becomes the cheapest land around and the government then plans cities and things to be built there. There have been more than a few state schools built on toxic waste dumps.

[Anonymous No.10342718]

>>10341502
You wish a thorium reactor is like a molten salt reactor all but a pipe dream

[Anonymous No.10343384]

>>10342014
>DU IS BAD

[Anonymous No.10343386]

>>10341435
Brainlets are in charge of public policy

[Anonymous No.10343410]

>>10341435
Green/environmentalist movements are retarded and baseless, kneejerkingly ignorant. They're just as ignorant as though who dismiss the environment and continue along with their ideology of destruction.

[Anonymous No.10344021]

>>10341435

Tschernobyl
Harrisburgh
Sellafield
Fukushima

[Anonymous No.10344437]

>>10342663
and when water absorbs that radiation it results in hydrogen. a build up of hydrogen becomes a hazard.
Hydrogen escape can lead to an abundance of corrosive oxygen, or hydrogen itself can assist in corrosion.
Hydrogen gas buildup is an explosive hazard- requiring ventilation. Immediately you should recognize that if ventilation is required then it can't be an enclosed system and the risk of releasing contamination to the environment has increased considerably.
Furthermore, now that the system requires ventilation, ventilation being lost due to a loss of power can mean a hydrogen explosion is most likely to occur at the worst possible time.

This is just a minor minor minor analysis of a little bit of the design effort required in nuclear power. It points to the fundamental flaw behind nuclear power; it requires the engineering of elaborate safeguards to ever be safe, but by the very nature of nuclear fission any mishap can cause the reactor itself to work towards destroying those safeguards and resulting in a cascading failure scenario.

Advocates for Nuclear Power are always in one of two categories. They are either
a) people who want to be seen as smarter than other people by arguing for nuclear power, but don't know enough about nuclear power to actually understand it
b) people who understand nuclear power, but they work in the industry and it's in their best interest to push it forward, often placing belief in finding the "perfect engineered solution" that would solve all the risks that they are intimately familiar with.

[Anonymous No.10344441]

because it contains the word nuclear

[Anonymous No.10344458]

>>10342437
>doesn't work for right/center
Huh? The right has plenty of scapegoats often completely without evidence. Foreigners takin our jerbs is a prime example of wanting institutions to implement policies such as closed borders to prevent people who work more competitively from assuming their position.
Now obviously there are also good arguments for having borders (and laws n shiet), but this is one thats often presented, and it follows the exact same structure.

[Anonymous No.10344475]

>>10341435
Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island.

[Anonymous No.10344506]

>>10341470
>millions of years to decay
The only reason that nuclear waste is so dangerous is because it decays so rapidly. The half life of Cs-130 is 30 years which is why it is dangerous. If nuclear waste takes millions of years to decay then it is, by definition, not nuclear waste.

[Anonymous No.10344525]

Why use bad, dirty uranium when you could just use beautiful, fresh clean coal?

[Anonymous No.10344536]

Nuclear fission is associated with nuclear bomb is associated Hiroshima is associated with Chernobyl is associated with Fukushima is associated with radiation is associated with mutation is associated with sickness is associated with bad. The best thing nuclear fusion could do is drop the nuclear and just call itself "fusion energy" because nuclear is a tainted term. People are ruled by thier affectual associations especially when they have few other conceptions of the subject to ground their judgement.

[Anonymous No.10344540]

>>10341435
rampant epidemic of homosexuality

[Anonymous No.10344544]

>>10344506
ok guys, you heard him,
dump the shit in his back yard!

[Anonymous No.10344548]

>>10344021
I'll never forgive them for making such a good song into a political whinefest

[Anonymous No.10345963]

>>10341435

It's not practical and it's primary purpose is really just producing fissile material for the nuclear powers weapons supplies. I say not practical because if you were to put the world on a nuclear supply you would run out of fuel in 100-200 years. Mining it and refining it is nasty business. It's also what's keeping us from taking a serious stab at thorium because in places like America it can't survive the lobbies that support standard reactors.

[Anonymous No.10346151]

>>10341435
because neither big corp or government can make sure it's safe enough. Maintanance, upgrades, personnel competence, budget, who do you trust 100% with them?

I can imagine after an incident the left and the right pointing fingers at one another, am I the only one who can see that?

[Anonymous No.10346191]

>>10342437
>the right has no cults
reaganomics
congrats on looking like a retard

[Anonymous No.10346201]

>>10341452
chernobyl always looks so fucking scary. The pictures are always black and white and make it looks so dark and evil. But really tho, this was an extremely fucked up situation and could have been 10x worse.

[Anonymous No.10346203]

>>10344437
Every power plant requires elaborate engineering safeguards you idiot. Its not even the reactor that requires most of them, its the heat transfer system and turbine array.
>but by the very nature of nuclear fission any mishap can cause the reactor itself to work towards destroying those safeguards and resulting in a cascading failure scenario.
Blatantly wrong, it depends very much so on the specific design of reactor of which there are dozens. A nuclear reactor is not a bomb.

[Anonymous No.10346211]

>>10345963
>It's not practical and it's primary purpose is really just producing fissile material for the nuclear powers weapons supplies.
You rarely see this mentioned however, and it turns out some politicians are fucking clueless about it in the west. Theresa May went around making deals with China willy nilly at one point, and then had to pull back after the fact because of security shit.

[Anonymous No.10346261]

Nuclear power is several times more expensive than fossil fuel options and has way more risks, as well as the problem of waste disposal which also has contamination risks of its own.

[Anonymous No.10346264]

>>10341435
Nuclear was never as cheap as coal, and fracking completely wrecked the economics of building new nuclear power plants.

[Anonymous No.10346285]

>>10346261
>I don't know a single solitary thing about the topic at hand
>here's my opinion

[Anonymous No.10346477]

>>10345963
>if you were to put the world on a nuclear supply you would run out of fuel in 100-200 years
We recently discovered an effective method of extracting the (self-replenishing/renewable) Uranium found in Seawater. While it is double the cost of mining Uranium, the cost of fuel is one of the smallest costs involved in the entire process of building and maintaining a Nuclear power plant. Doubling the cost of the fuel only adds a few cents to the $/kwh as a result. This Uranium is part of a self-regulating cycle in our oceans; when Uranium is extracted from the oceans the chemical process which first leeched it from the crust will leech more immediately. Technically Uranium concentrations in the Earth's crust are finite, but even if with increasing global energy demand you would not exhaust this supply before the Sun became a red giant. I'm not going to pretend Nuclear Fission is perfect, it has very real flaws with the set-up/maintenance/shut-down costs as well nuclear weapons proliferation. But limited fuel is not an issue anymore, and the dangers of modern reactors and their waste (beyond proliferation) are demonstrably (statistically) less severe than that of coal. You would in fact be more likely to save millions of lives over several decades if you replaced all coal plants with nuclear plants even if you assume several catastrophic meltdowns are inevitable.

[Anonymous No.10346491]

>>10346261
>Nuclear power is several times more expensive than fossil fuel
absolutely true
>and has way more risks
completely false, fossil fuel is far worse. Even if you ignore all but radioactive waste (and the fossil fuel pollutants are far less regulated and immediate), coal produces proportionally more in the form of radioactive ash.
>he problem of waste disposal which also has contamination risks of its own
this is a problem due to the politics of safe disposal sites and weapons proliferation, not an immutable characteristic of nuclear waste

[Anonymous No.10346521]

>>10346203
I didn't say it was a bomb. Use of false equivalence, and you know it. Don't be disingenuous.

Which kind of power plant requires more effort to put into the safeguards, a conventional coal or gas power plant, or a nuclear plant?
You already know that answer. Think about why that is the case.
Which kind of power generation station, nuclear or gas/coal, have had periodic catastrophe, despite generations of design improvement? Again, you already know the answer.
Think about why that can be the case if nuclear, gas and coal simply required the same level of power plant engineering.

Finally:
>2003
>Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets. It is suspected that inadequate cooling of the rods during the cleaning process combined with a sudden influx of cold water thermally shocked fuel rods causing them to split. Boric acid was added to the tank to prevent the loose fuel pellets from achieving criticality.

What about this accident strikes you as something fundamentally different than scenario involving non-nuclear power?
I will spell this one out for you so you can't possibly play dumb.
Due to a small mistake in handling the heat from decay during a period of maintenance (ie. the opposite of neglect), because of the inherent properties of nuclear fuel, a situation developed that required the addition of an outside poison to ensure things could not worsen to an extreme degree.

[Anonymous No.10346560]

>>10341435
After chernobyl the public was concerned about the safety of nuclear. The coal industry heavily lobbied to discourage nuclear and run fear adds. Since nuclear was a power competitor.

[Anonymous No.10346578]

>>10341470
>NUCLEAR WASTE BAD!
>DEBUG {I'M TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND HOW INFINITESIMALLY SMALL IT IS RELATIVE TO OTHER POLLUTANTS AND HOW IT CAN BE SAFELY STORE IN SOME REMOTE DESERT AND IGNORE THE FACT THAT RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES ALREADY EXIST IN GREAT QUANTITIES IN NATURE}

[Anonymous No.10346580]

>>10341470
Recycling fuel, vitrification, and burning it really deep.

[Anonymous No.10346581]

>>10341477
It would be fine if they had various sites they bury these things, spreading it out in a uniform way that more closely represents a natural distribution of uranium. Otherwise, they are just making more problems for future people to deal with.

[Anonymous No.10346589]

>>10346578

Respectfully disagree.
1. Nowhere in nature have we observed nuclear material spontaneously enriching itself. Nowhere.

2. Nothing lives in a reactor. Nothing.

3. I have absolutely no faith that human beings will be here 100 years from now let along the half life of even our least radioactive waste.

The earth has survived 5 extinctions and we are in the middle of the 6th. Ruptured Nuclear waste containment has the potential to make this our last.
I'm not thinking of us. I am thinking of whatever comes after us.

[Anonymous No.10346592]

>>10346581
Stick it a mile down away from aquifers. It's no longer a problem.

[Anonymous No.10346597]

>>10346592
You don't know if there are aquifers a mile down and you also don't know if you're not about to create one by firstly drilling, secondly dumping a load of stuff in the new hole, thirdly the stuff in the hole heating up and decaying and changing chemically, fourthly changing ground conditions...

Unfortunately it's not that simple. You can bury it it just takes a lot of work to find a good place.

[Anonymous No.10346598]

>>10346521
>I didn't say it was a bomb
True, you said cascading failiure which if I assume you dont know anything about nuclear power means a critical reaction. Its false anyways, reactor designs have always included a multiple redundant methods to very quickly poison the neutron population.
>gas and coal simply required the same level of power plant engineering
I didnt say it had the same level, my point is twofold. 1) Most of the engineering in power plants is because of the heat transfer system which exists in all power plants 2) the additional engineering required in nuclear plants is principally for storage and fuel handling not operation.
>ie. the opposite of neglect
That example actually very likely is neglect, quality control, inspection, and procedure would have prevented it.

You seem to think that radiation is far more dangerous than it is and that nuclear power plants have catastrophic incidents unique to them which is untrue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
All of them operator, procedural, or planning errors.
So really the question comes down to which causes more damage to the environment and human health nuclear or coal, and statistically coal does by a mile.

[Anonymous No.10346608]

With the big push for green energy (which is a good thing) I doubt even Elon Musk would be willing to back LFTRs.

[Anonymous No.10346615]

>>10346477

If they can do that and make sure all reactors can make it through a Carrington event without irradiating the planet it would be more attractive. The problem is the waste. We need much better solutions for storage and it's still the best reason to put more research into materials to make molten salt thorium work. Thorium half lives are 150 and 300 years if memory serves. A lot better than millions.

[Anonymous No.10346616]

>>10341435
retards think nuclear plant equals to nuclear meltdown

[Anonymous No.10346618]

>The cold war's over
>But the world is still getting colder

[Anonymous No.10346625]

I'm all for thorium, but personally, I can't trust /sci/ when it comes to being the rational middle ground when it comes to nuclear energy. /sci/ was the one saying again and again how Fukushima was fine and that nothing bad would happen despite all the evidence, right up until the point it exploded.

[Anonymous No.10346629]

>>10346589
Just make an orbital ring and launch the nuclear waste into the sun bro

[Anonymous No.10346636]

>>10346592
The best system would be a completely closed off automated system, that can also self expand. Humans just dump off their nuclear waste, and the AI takes care of it; hole opens up and bad stuff goes away.

[Anonymous No.10346640]

>>10346589
>Ruptured Nuclear waste containment has the potential to make this our last.
No it doesnt, you are wildly WILDLY uneducated. I'l use canada as I am a leaf
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/radiation/introduction-to-radiation/radiation-doses.cfm
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/radiation/introduction-to-radiation/radiation-health-effects.cfm
As you can see you would need to receive a dose of at least 5000 MSV at once to be at risk of death.
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/043/30043557.pdf
Here we can see that even if you were stood beside a container for an entire year you would only receive ~1mSv we also see that the site boundary measurements were all below ambient dose.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.10346647]

>>10341435
Cooling pools look so fucking comfy and scifipilled. I just wanna jump in one and swim around!

[Anonymous No.10346658]

>>10342374
If the leftwing types were morally superior, whatever that means, they'd have figured themselves out of the mess that they've put themselves in.
But because they're dumb enough to apply morality on a universal scale, they were (and are) dumb enough to fall to the whims of Jewish-Marxian Communism and/or other ideological pitfalls.

Moral Relativism is for first year college students in the arts departments.
Anyone else is just a traitor to human thought and the decency of our planet.

[Anonymous No.10346677]

>>10346640
CANDU are some of the best designs in my opinion, for many reasons

on the other hand, any amount of increase in radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer. Any amount at all.
Now you can argue that there's a certain amount of cancer increase that's acceptable as long as it remains below a reasonable limit. You can argue that there is a price to human life, especially when you contrast the cost in human life against other things in which you might be replacing. And that's fine. But to pretend that there isn't a risk, or to pretend that nuclear catastrophes are incapable of making large geographical areas uninhabitable is either naive, or dishonest.

[Anonymous No.10346678]

>>10341435
Why is that every person on the Manhattan Project was Jewish, except for one (who was a communist)?

[Anonymous No.10346709]

>>10346677
>Any amount at all.
Yeah true, but people cant have their cake and eat it too right now, in this case cake being energy.
> or to pretend that nuclear catastrophes are incapable of making large geographical areas uninhabitable
Well it would be impossible to argue against this given that chernobyl and fukashima are exactly this case, but "losing" a few hundred square km is ultimately not a big deal. Particularly given that you can build it away form major habitable centres although then you deal with transmission loss. Really my argument boils down to nuclear energy despite all its issues is still less damaging than coal in all respects including radiation. Given coal is really the only other alternative currently for baseload generation its pretty open and shut.

Of course people could always just decide to use less energy but given the consumptive castle of gold we live in that will never happen.

[Anonymous No.10346717]

>>10346598
Cascade failure something that is specifically referenced when talking about engineering nuclear safeguards, because it is such a persistent concern. Fukushima is almost the perfect example of such a thing.
>All of them operator, procedural, or planning errors.
Of course they are. Even if it is initially claimed equipment failure, the failure is only translated to human error somewhere along the way in manufacturing, or design, or whatever. To state that the accidents come from a certain category of "errors" is a complete non-argument because the errors can never be fully removed to begin with.
quoting myself earlier
>people who understand nuclear power... ....placing belief in finding the "perfect engineered solution" that would solve all the risks
It doesn't exist. It's not possible. By the very fundamental nature of something engineered it can only operate within limits. You can only hope that those limits are not exceeded. Fukushima was designed to handle earthquakes, and tsunamis. It just hadn't been designed to handle a quake beyond a certain limit, triggering cascade failure of safety features and actions until ultimately contamination was released to the environment.

The only way forward, by a proponent of nuclear power, is to say that these inevitable accidents are acceptable costs.

[Anonymous No.10346727]

>>10341435
Weapons

>>10341489
I see this and think of incels instead of sjws now

[Anonymous No.10346766]

>>10346727
sjws are generally incels. don't be fooled by the memes.

[Anonymous No.10346769]

>>10346615
Interesting point with the CME, you can harden facilities but it is something to consider when designing reactors. I'd say storage is more of a consequence of the bigger issue of proliferation. Ideally you would just recycle the fuel but that can very easily be used to produce weapons grade materials, which forces you to consider storage. Even something as basic as Yucca mountain was working though, it seems like more of a NIMBY problem then something insurmountable.

[Anonymous No.10346778]

>>10346766
all the groupings are shit and simplistic to begin with

[Anonymous No.10346782]

>>10346778
you mean tribal, and yes.

[Anonymous No.10346783]

>>10346782
Yeah tribal is a better term

[Anonymous No.10346794]

>>10346783
that's what it is.
one of the elements to their divisive success is pitting each person against another person and his "identifying group".
Why do you think Judea declared war on Germany?

The US had to implement extensive social engineering to condition the military people into fighting their relatives. It was brutal and disturbing.

[Anonymous No.10346796]

>>10341477
Holy shit are people actually this retarded?
Spent nuclear fuel is a million times more radioactive than it is in organic form
There are places on earth now that no one can ever go because of radioactivity caused by nuclear energy mishaps
When we come up with a way to properly dispose of nuclear waste, then we can start seriously discussing the mass adoption of nuclear energy

[Anonymous No.10346811]

>>10346794
People fight their relatives all the time.
Look at the American Civil War. Incredibly bloody and extreme. The social engineering at work isn't one that tries to condition brother against brother, but one to suppress the violent instinct of mankind.

[Anonymous No.10346826]

>>10346811
The American Civil War was a similar scenario. The US refused to pay taxes, so the British bankers sent their military to take care of them.
The military lost, so the bankers thought of other ways to make money off the US.
There are many types of social engineering. The human nature is violent, but not all humans are violent and it's not because of social engineering; it's because of free will.

[Anonymous No.10346848]

>>10346826
American Civil War, 1861–1865
Sherman's March, etc.
No brits, no taxes
I wanna call you an idiot but your mistake is so huge I'm giving you the benefit right now.

[Anonymous No.10346850]

>>10346625
>After decay of shorter-lived isotopes, off-site contamination is now dominated by 134/137Cs, with ∼1800 km2 having external gamma doses above 5 mSv y−1. Although the significance for health of such radiation levels is low, there has been a Government decision that these areas will be cleaned up to reduce exposure and allow displaced residents to return home.
That's roughly twice what you would normally get in a year, which is already negligible.Fukushima was pretty bad, poor decisions from the beginning. So you have the Fukushima disaster, negligence and terrible decisions for a long time. Then it all comes back and a worst case scenario happens. The result isn't some catastrophic steam explosion with massive soil and air contamination that will persist for centuries. It results in venting of radioactive gas and leakage into the oceans, the former of which as stated above was miniscule the latter is inconsequential due to how well the oceans disperse radioactive materials (and have done so for most of the Earth's history). People point to this as an example of how its dangerous, yet despite this catastrophic accident there was 1 death and 16 injuries. Meanwhile far more common "accidents" (disasters) in fossil fuel plants cause dozens or hundreds of deaths, and they certainly are doing more long term ecological damage than Nuclear ever has. I'm not saying to ignore the severe risks of nuclear reactors, but it seems like people happily ignore how much more dangerous the "conventional" sources of power are which are far more prolific and are far less regulated. Refinery explodes into massive fireball killing hundreds? Oh wow thats scary, eh whatever. Coal fire makes hundreds of square miles uninhabitable for centuries, who cares I don't live there. Oh fuck a Nuclear plant had a meltdown but was able to mitigate release of radioactive materials to well below safe levels, and only 1 person died? FUCK NUKE

[Anonymous No.10346862]

>>10346848
oh yeah, that one.

the Industrial Revolution.
The Confederacy was owned by Jews and wished to keep the divide.

[Anonymous No.10346996]

>>10341439
lmao talk to him

>>10341460
>>10341467

[Anonymous No.10346999]

>>10341435
Because radiation increases the rate of cancer and miscarriages in wide areas.

[Anonymous No.10347235]

>>10341470
them why do you dumbfucks cockblock Thorium energy research?

[Anonymous No.10347239]

>>10346796
>Spent nuclear fuel is a million times more radioactive than it is in organic form

So? as long as it's 1000ft underground and stays like that it can't harm any living thing.

>There are places on earth now that no one can ever go because of radioactivity caused by nuclear energy mishaps

Which is why we bury it.

>When we come up with a way to properly dispose of nuclear waste, then we can start seriously discussing the mass adoption of nuclear energy

From what I've read there have been plans for reuse of nuclear waste in the US that have been predictably howled down by anti-nuclear proponents.

[Anonymous No.10347294]

>>10346850
This. It's so dumb, like how people are scared of flying but resent having to wear a seatbelt in while driving.

[Anonymous No.10347297]

>>10346999
High temperatures can cause third degree burns and even death but, fortunately, our powerplants protect burning fuel behind layers of insulating material.

[Anonymous No.10347360]

>>10346658
poop? wtf

[G No.10347368]

>>10341435
BeCaUsE nUcLeAr MeAnS bOoM bOoM
goo goo gaa gaa science gone too far
>>10341460
this honestly

[Anonymous No.10347387]

>>10346608
>green energy
>energy produced by panels that need materials which will run out literal millenia before uranium
Pick one.

[G No.10347407]

>>10342014
>Even one lapse would cause an unacceptable catastrophe.
Because every nuclear reactor is like the Chernobyl one and would annihilate a whole portion of the map in an event of a catostrophe... what are you saying? a nuclear reactor in fukushima melted down in this very decade and released waste into a damn tsunami and they still managed to have the town back up and running within a year?! PREPOSTEROUS!

>Thinks depleted uranium is harmful nuclear waste
ABSOLUTE BRAINELT

[G No.10347437]

>>10346578
this
>>10346589
1) idiot that doesn't understand that enriching is just a term for seperating uranium235 from uranium 238 and both of them exist in nature. There are elements we synthesize for nuclear reaction like plutonium 238 but just because we make or seperate a material doesn't mean it's unholy.

2) nothings lives in a campfire or under the edge of a kitchen knife, or in the earth's core. are you saying the earth's core is bad because nothing lives in it? Stupid argument with nothing but appeal to emotion, cheap pathos.

3) It's been over a hundred years since Marie Curie discovered isolated radium and changed the world with her research on radioactivity. It's been over 70 years since radioactive siotopes were put into use as weapons. We are currently living in the most peaceful time from nuclear threats ever. You are a crazy idiot if you are now having the red scare.
>thinking of what's after us
bullshit.

[G No.10347439]

>>10346616
this
and
>retards thinking meltdown right away means Chernobyl and half a continent engulfed in radioactivity.

[G No.10347441]

>>10346618
poetic af
true
>>10346647
I'd do it!

[Anonymous No.10347493]

>>10346862
>>10346848

>We should all operate as independent robots free from nature's social connection rules!

Jesus christ the level of cope in this thread. There's nothing wrong with love for self, family, tribe and nation. In fact, it is healthy, and completely natural. It is observed in the wild among other species. Anyone with an aversion to it is literally a cum-guzzler.

[Anonymous No.10347511]

>>10341460
>>this
It's just plebs acting like a plebs, nothing new