Why does the average normie hate nuclear power so much?

File: 315 KB, 1200x799, REU-SWITZERLAND_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Mar 29 10:43:31 2019 No.10506365 [Reply] [Original]

Why does the average normie hate nuclear power so much?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 10:46:24 2019 No.10506377 >>10506365 because Cherenkov radiation has a scary blue glow to it

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 10:49:25 2019 No.10506383 >>10506377 Most people think uranium is a green goo substance.

Anonymous Fri Mar 29 10:49:56 2019 No.10506388

For the most part, people fear things they don't have experience with.

For most people it's hard to conceive that radioactive waste can be safely contained when they hear about Chernobyl and Fukushima.

However, there are some valid criticisms like the cost of building reactors, and the difficult chemical processing involved in some reactor designs like molten salt reactors.

But overall I'm in the pro fission camp.

Anonymous Fri Mar 29 10:53:56 2019 No.10506396
File: 30 KB, 575x448, chart2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

because:
>nuclear power is only profitable because it's subsidized by the government
>after building, you're forced with the costly and timely decommissioning
>the US had a plan to store nuclear waste, which was a national dumping ground, but so far no one has agrees to play host to nuclear waste site
>instead, nuclear plants are paid to store waste, permanently, way past their decommission dates
>currently today, most nuclear power plants make all their money from the storage of nuclear power, they make nothing from actually producing power

Nuclear power is an economic poison pill, which ironically, the public conflates with a literal poison pill. In short, public fear isn't even wrong, and pretty damn accurate.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 10:55:16 2019 No.10506400 governments only want to fund nuclear research that can be diverted into weapons development and sane people don't want us to develop more powerful nuclear weapons

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 10:59:37 2019 No.10506405 >>10506396 Another very valid criticism

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 11:00:20 2019 No.10506406 >>10506365 I wonder that myself. It seems like no rational explanation can get through. As soon as they hear the word 'nuclear' it’s all just no no no ban ban ban!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 11:00:31 2019 No.10506407 >>10506396 >currently today, most nuclear power plants make all their money from the storage of nuclear power ???

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 11:04:00 2019 No.10506412 >>10506407 meant "storage of nuclear power"

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 11:05:30 2019 No.10506415 >>10506407 meant to say "storage of nuclear waste"

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 11:06:30 2019 No.10506420 >>10506396 >most nuclear power plants make all their money from the storage of nuclear power, they make nothing from actually producing power wtf do you mean? and that is surely not true in europe!

Anonymous Fri Mar 29 11:56:36 2019 No.10506522

>>10506388
>For most people it's hard to conceive that radioactive waste can be safely contained
In the Soviet Union they literally just dumped it in a lake because it was too hot to keep in storage. Now if you go to that lake and stand on the shore you will get several times the fatal dose of radiation and more radiation than if you go to the Chernobyl NPP. Yeah. "Safely contained".

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 11:59:36 2019 No.10506526 >>10506383 its not? :o?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 12:01:12 2019 No.10506527 >>10506365 Because for the average normie nuclear power = uranium, and most people don't know about thorium.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 12:03:31 2019 No.10506531 >>10506522 >the USSR did it wrong so it’s impossible to do right I don’t even care if you’re memeing, kill your self for being this low OQ

Anonymous Fri Mar 29 12:06:03 2019 No.10506536

Nuclear is not financially feasabile.
In general, investors in 2019 are not going to invest in anything with a potential return that is decades in the future.
And that's the least of its financial problems.

The only way we are going to have any nuclear power is if the government built and ran the plants themselves.

Anonymous Fri Mar 29 12:17:42 2019 No.10506556

>>10506531
>muh IQ
I'm not against nuclear power, I'm only wary of it because it always winds up in the hands of arrogant shitheads like you who don't appreciate how dangerous it is and it is precisely that arrogance that leads to the repeated accidents we've had. Every time the guy with the astronomically high IQ that thought he had it all figured out was the first one to shit the bed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 12:40:07 2019 No.10506594 Maybe because we have already experienced what happens when shit goes bad (3 pretty famous examples for the result of nuclear detonation in no testing environment)

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 12:46:47 2019 No.10506609 >>10506594 no reactor has ever detonated. chernobyl was a fuckup, but the only thing on that scale that's happened since was fukushima and even that is mostly contained now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 12:48:16 2019 No.10506614 >>10506556 its not dangerous just useless

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 14:05:37 2019 No.10506738 >>10506377 >scary blue glow to it Honestly I think its the coolest shade of blue. I'd want a cherenkov lava lamp if it wasn't for muh radiation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 14:45:43 2019 No.10506816 >>10506377 Its a beautiful blue. I love going to the fuel pool at my plant

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 14:49:27 2019 No.10506819 >>10506556 >it always winds up in the hands of arrogant shitheads like you who don't appreciate how dangerous it is Exactly this. They always have this attitude of "what could possibly go wrong, of course we'll do things right this time"

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 14:58:52 2019 No.10506835 >>10506365 Because its expensive as fuck with proper safety precautions and dangerous when safeties are skipped.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 14:59:59 2019 No.10506838 >>10506609 The area won't be safe to live for a few hundred years though

Anonymous Fri Mar 29 15:24:14 2019 No.10506877

>>10506609
>mostly contained now.
it's still leaking nuclear material into the ocean.
This is an immediate problem for an island nation that lives off fish and seaweed, but eventually it degrades the quality of all fish harvested from any and every ocean.

Anonymous Fri Mar 29 23:40:24 2019 No.10508043

>>10506365
There are two major concerns that are not adequately addressed.
1) when something goes wrong, it has the potential to go horribly wrong. This statement has precedent.
2) waste disposal is a big issue. Apart from NIMBY, storage facilities that are supposedly 'safe' can become hazards without detection until it manifests itself in areas where it deosn't belong. This statement has precedent and is current in Hanford, WA.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:02:55 2019 No.10508085 >>10506365 Because it's uneconomical and dead. We're SOLAR noa

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:13:12 2019 No.10508108
File: 320 KB, 1469x1102, 3xfto2jnb1g21.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10508085
>be solar
>5000 acres of land to generate 1000 megawatts

>be coal
>over 500 tons of waste PER DAY to generate 1000 megawatts

>be nuclear
>less than 10 tons of waste (if waste is reprocessed to separate unused uranium from waste) PER YEAR to generate 1000 megawatts

sorry but 5000 acres of land isnt worth it buddy

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:21:41 2019 No.10508123 >>10506365 >nuclear Sounds like a bomb! Bombs bad. All you need is love and good vibes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:22:43 2019 No.10508127 >>10506377 .....why does it glow so?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:26:01 2019 No.10508130 >>10506365 The kikes brainwashed them

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:26:46 2019 No.10508133
File: 17 KB, 610x359, 55649766_2251632051563727_8238506950363447296_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10508043
>it has the potential to go horribly wrong

>be nuclear
>be the safest form of energy known to man
>nobody willing to invest in you because you are mostly out-of-date tech built by boomers in the 80s
>somewhere in the world the extremely safe yet out-of-date tech manages to actually meltdown
>nobody dies but someone's pet cat
>DURR HOLY FUCK NUCLEAR BOMBS DUDE SOLAR SOLAR SOLAR

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:28:08 2019 No.10508135 >>10508133 Uh how the fuck has solar killed anyome

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:29:38 2019 No.10508139 >>10508135 Did you not play New Vegas?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:30:37 2019 No.10508141 File: 116 KB, 400x280, renewable energy lmaoo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10508135 even wind is safer lmaoo pic related this has been brought to you by NUCLEAR GANG

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:32:22 2019 No.10508147 Ban nuclear power, nuclear power is evil, unlike the gargantuan nuclear clownfest we orbit!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:33:50 2019 No.10508149 >>10508135 Skin cancer :^)

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:37:42 2019 No.10508158 >>10506365 It's pretty obvious. People don't want another charnobyl/long island/Fukushima, or something even worse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:40:05 2019 No.10508163 >>10508108 >if waste is reprocessed to separate unused uranium from waste NOBODY DOES THIS. THEY HAVEN'T EVEN BOTHERED INVENTING THE TECH TO DO THIS.

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:41:19 2019 No.10508166
File: 769 KB, 1920x1080, homersimpson_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10508135
see >>10508108
solar panels on home rooftops so it's kind of cheating but even if we ignore that imagine 5000 acres of solar panels that have to be actively maintained vs a single nuclear plant

pic related

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:43:21 2019 No.10508168 >>10506383 It lights up green when UV light hits Uranium ore.

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:45:42 2019 No.10508170
File: 50 KB, 656x369, homer2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10508163
>NOBODY DOES THIS. THEY HAVEN'T EVEN BOTHERED INVENTING THE TECH TO DO THIS.
what the fuck are you talking about dumbass?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprocessed_uranium
>as done commercially in France, the UK and Japan

moreover, if you seriously want to argue this point.. where are you going with this? without reprocessing it's still only 20 tons/year. kill yourself solarfaggot

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 00:49:21 2019 No.10508176 >>10508166 >>10508170 in fact, that wiki page i linked says directly that it's been done for DECADES. the only reason its not usually done is because uranium is too cheap to bother, but the option is there

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 01:22:15 2019 No.10508222 >>10506365 oh great look guys how surprising https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9APLXM9Ei8 when is the nuclear scare going to end? this shit happened over 30 years ago

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 01:40:09 2019 No.10508247

>>10506819

Coal kills tens of millions each and every year
>Coal kills tens of millions each and every year
Coal kills tens of millions each and every year
>Coal kills tens of millions each and every year
Coal kills tens of millions each and every year
>Coal kills tens of millions each and every year
Coal kills tens of millions each and every year
>Coal kills tens of millions each and every year

BuT WhAt aBoUt tHe NuCLeAR WaStE? ChErNoByL?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 01:42:33 2019 No.10508248 >>10508168 That's how it attracts mates

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 01:45:28 2019 No.10508253 >>10508247 >Coal kills tens of millions each and every year Mainly chinks, who gives a shit

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 01:48:36 2019 No.10508260

>>10506365
I used to love nuclear technology in my teens, literally once tried to strike up a conversation with a girl about pebble bed reactors, still almost die from cringe whenever I think about it.While still fascinated, I have to admit that the costs for building the advanced, i.e. good and safe reactors, are so brutally high they are effectively prohobitive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 01:49:31 2019 No.10508262 >>10508253 I like the way Chinese girls pronounce the name 'Linfen', don't be mean.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 01:56:30 2019 No.10508270 >>10506365 Daily reminder if you aren’t nuclear gang you are actually fucking retarded beyond repair

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 02:26:49 2019 No.10508323 >>10506365 green propaganda + fossil fuels industry supporting them

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 02:57:28 2019 No.10508365 >>10506531 In case you forgot what the thread topic was about after only 10 posts, the guy is only explaining where "normie" nuclear fears come from

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 03:06:07 2019 No.10508380 >>10506365 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpoPnrAc9qw

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 03:09:23 2019 No.10508383 >>10508222 >Jared Harris I'm in

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 03:12:53 2019 No.10508391 >>10508247 Dumb argument. Life kills only 55 million/yr worldwide. Quit making it seem like if we got rid of coal we'd save tens of millions each year. Nuclear objectively kills people on the spot.

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 03:14:21 2019 No.10508396

>>10506396

Most people don't understand what "nuclear waste" means and think it's way more dangerous than it actually is.

The vast majority can be recycled and reused. The rest is fairly safe, by virtue of the fact that it's spent. It's mostly no more radioactive than the contents of an indiglo watch dispersed within about a tonne of dirt.

It's not completely safe, though, as, of course, it's primarily elements of mid range mass.

Of course, if Tokamak works, it's all academic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 03:15:24 2019 No.10508398 >>10506536 >In general, investors in 2019 are not going to invest in anything with a potential return that is decades in the future. When interest rates go negative, they will.

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 03:17:33 2019 No.10508401

>>10506838
>>10506877

Even children, in the immediate area of the disaster, will not suffer longterm health effects. Yes, it was a disaster but it was also largely overblown, due to the constant media desire to turn everything into the end of the world in order to sell more tv ads.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 03:33:50 2019 No.10508419 >>10508391 >Dumb argument. WW2 only kills 10 million people per year. Quit making it seem like if we ended the war we'd save tens of millions each year. Peace kills people too. How fucking dumb can you get?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 03:41:14 2019 No.10508432 >>10506377 Č

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 05:55:18 2019 No.10508565

>>10508391
>quit making it seem like, if we got rid of the most dangerous power source known to man, we'd save tens of millions each year
>According to the World Health Organization in 2012, urban outdoor air pollution, from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is estimated to cause 3 million deaths worldwide per year and indoor air pollution from biomass and fossil fuel burning is estimated to cause approximately 4.3 million premature deaths
you are actually retarded, see >>10508133
for more info. doing the math: yes, we would literally save tens of millions each year. but that's not the point. even if we would save half a million as an extreme unbelievably modest lowball, it still means you are retarded because
>Nuclear objectively kills people on the spot.
>Coal mining accidents resulted in 5,938 immediate deaths in 2005
that's just IMMEDIATE deaths in coal mining alone. while nuclear only 90 deaths/petawatt hour GLOBALLY. you are retarded and should kill yourself immediately. COAL kills people on the spot statistically, while nuclear doesn't. moreover, that statement makes no sense on any level. reactors meltdown on extremely rare occassions, they dont just explode like atomic bombs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 06:23:21 2019 No.10508588 We got a pretty limited supply of uranium, if the US would go completely Nuclear that'd eat up our reserves pretty quickly. That stuff is nowhere near as plentiful as natural gas and oil.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 06:24:21 2019 No.10508589 >>10506838 that's ok, we've got lotsa other areas

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 06:30:14 2019 No.10508595

>>10508588
>We got a pretty limited supply of uranium, if the US would go completely Nuclear that'd eat up our reserves pretty quickly. That stuff is nowhere near as plentiful as natural gas and oil.
yet uranium is still way too plentiful to bother reprocessing nuclear waste even though you get a majority of the uranium lost back from doing it

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 06:49:47 2019 No.10508627 >>10506531 And whats your solution to the waste storage problem? Keep in mind that it should have to last for a million years.

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 07:04:43 2019 No.10508640

>>10508627
>waste storage problem
fallacy of presupposition. you haven't established that a problem actually exists, you've just presupposed it.

at a bare minimum, coal plants produce roughly 10,000 times more waste per year, not even including emissions contributing to global warming. the amount of space required to store 200,000 tons of coal waste per 1000 megawatts could very comfortably be used to store nuclear waste whose danger is extremely exaggerated

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 07:06:44 2019 No.10508642 >>10508640 >>10508627 by "store 200,000 tons of coal waste" i simply mean that coal waste takes up that much space even if we throw it in the ocean. that arbitrary space can be comfortably allocated elsewhere

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 07:07:36 2019 No.10508643 >>10508627 >t. Knows nothing about half lives Back to high school

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 07:44:43 2019 No.10508681 >>10506396 Nuclear energy is not expensive if the construction is subsidized by the government and the decommissioning fund goes unfunded so later generations can pay.

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 11:27:31 2019 No.10509010

>>10508133
Look, OP asked why normies think NPO is dangerous. You shoot right into whether the reasoning is correct, and project that onto me.
You obviously have a mental handicap. Your chart also has very much wrong with it, the biggest being no qualifiers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 11:28:54 2019 No.10509014 >>10508147 It's not nuclear (fusion) - it's fusion. True that is a nuclear process, but it's not what we think of when we say "nuclear power."

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 11:29:54 2019 No.10509017 >>10508247 And that's a great argument for not using coal. Doesn't mean nuclear is the alternative.

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 11:48:21 2019 No.10509039

Well all the people worried about nuclear weapons being a result of nuclear power plants id argue that we could probably disarm the entire world just from using the uranium from the weapons to power our nuclear power plants. It could take alot of negotiating with other countrys but In the end we won't have to be worried about nuclear aniahlation.

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 21:41:54 2019 No.10510155

>>10508419
>>10508565
Prove those people wouldn't die anyway from fast food or sun radiation or old age or any of the other million ways to die. Again, worldwide, only ~55 million die/yr. You cannot objective pin tens of millions on a single source when theres clearly a holistic cause for most deaths (you're not leaving much for 2nd hand smoke statistics!), including accidental nuclear waste leakages into water streams.

Also poor mining practices killed those people, not the processing. Nuclear meltdowns however are super easy to spot as a smokin gun for increased radiation related deaths.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 21:50:57 2019 No.10510176 >>10506365 Why do you ask questions that you already know the answer to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 22:22:38 2019 No.10510239 >>10508222 As cool as that looks, I completely see your point. Nuclear has enough of a PR battle on its hands as it is, without adding the fuel which this series will undoubtedly do

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 23:22:56 2019 No.10510342 >>10506365 Tell you what. You store the nuclear waste on your property, pay for it with your own money, not public tax dollars and clean up any messes by yourself, again, without public assistance and we've got a deal.

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 23:31:07 2019 No.10510354

Because radiation isn't something they have any intuitive sense of. Like, they get wind pushing a turbine, and burning stuff for fuel. But alpha particle radiation is often sort of a mystery and so they're reflexively afraid of it.

Compounded by the fact that (rightly or wrongly) they feel shafted by the government, and they are paranoid that politicians and scientists are secretly trying to fool them or don't care enough whether they'll be harmed. So they don't wanna outsource the decision to deploy nuclear power plants to them.

Compounded by the fact that they associate nuclear energy with bond villains and WMD.

Anonymous Sat Mar 30 23:42:20 2019 No.10510373

>>10510342
“Tell you what. You store the nuclear waste on your property, pay for it with your own money, not public tax dollars and clean up any messes by yourself, again, without public assistance and we've got a deal.”

Why? Nuclear waste is much less harmful than CO2 emissions, so why shouldn’t the government dispose of it in some hole instead of shitting out billions of tons of greenhouse gasses?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 23:43:21 2019 No.10510377 >>10509017 Nuclear is the alternative because it can easily outproduce solar and wind and hydro.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math