/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10684366]

How safe is nuclear power? And what distinguishes the older reactors from the newer ones?

[Anonymous No.10684368]

>>10684366
pretty safe comrade
old RBMK reactors can't explode, don't know about newer models

[Anonymous No.10684372]

>>10684368
>t. Anatoly Dyatlov

[Anonymous No.10684376]

>>10684366

It's pretty safe as long as you don't built the fucking thing on top of a god damn fault line. I'm looking at you Japan

[Anonymous No.10684500]

>>10684366
Pretty safe as long as you can guarantee no humans will get close to wherever you decide to store the waste in the next 200000 years. So yeah, perfectly safe

[Anonymous No.10684523]

>>10684500
Why is sending it to space not a viable solution? Is the final byproduct just way to heavy? Is burying it in a really deep hole away from water sources the normal solution?

[Anonymous No.10684551]

>>10684366
safer than any other power plant, as long as you abide the safety protocols
>>10684523
weight
possibility of re-processing (once we run out of cheap uranium ore in ~100 years or so)
>rocket blows up
>radioactive debree covers area with 300km radius

[Anonymous No.10684553]

>>10684523

Not a good idea to send it to space unless it's via a space elevator which most likely won't happen. It is safer and more cost effective to bury it deep underground.

[Anonymous No.10684554]

>>10684523
Because nuclear "waste" can still be used in advanced breeder reactors as fuel, that's why it's all put in temporary storage.

[Anonymous No.10684582]

>>10684366
>How safe is nuclear power
The guy who invented the heavy water reactor said they were unsafe as fuck and never meant to be scaled up to grid scale.
>And what distinguishes the older reactors from the newer ones
Nothing. The faggots are too cheap to invest in foolproof molten salt reactors. Joke is on them though, molten salt batteries will totally kill the nuclear industry in the following decades if they haven't died already.

[Anonymous No.10684583]

>>10684376
Japan's fault line reactors got fucked up by earthquakes and tidal waves and still didn't kill anyone though.
>>10684366
Nuclear power is actually negatively dangerous. It brings the dead to life and makes the living stronger.

[Anonymous No.10684586]

>>10684523
no sane nation would put tons of highly radioactive material on the top of ICBM and launch it

[Anonymous No.10684592]

>>10684500
Easy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt_Waste_Isolation_Project

[Anonymous No.10684598]

>>10684583

>Still didn't kill anyone though

This is a common misconception. There was radiation exposure and one person (worker) died from cancer https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/world/asia/japan-fukushima-radiation-cancer-death.html

So yes it did kill someone. Also in the surrounding area biodiversity has been genetically damaged

[Anonymous No.10684607]

>>10684500
>>10684551
The ground's already full of natural radioactive uranium ore and the sky's already full of radioactive fallout from thousands of cold war nuclear tests. Europe is a radioactive wasteland because of Chernobyl and the pacific ocean is irradiated because of Fukushima.
None of that hurts anyone. It really is perfectly safe.

[Anonymous No.10684608]

>>10684598
>one person
rounding error

[Anonymous No.10684626]

>>10684523
Real reason: net negative energy record

[Anonymous No.10684627]

>>10684500
But we should definitely pump a bunch of pressurized CO2 into the ground, right?

The bizarre thing about nuclear safety is that the moment the spooky glowing rocks are involved, everyone's safety standards go through the roof. China shitting sulphur into the air for most of their electricity? Well we just gotta deal with that. Nuclear power plant makes a spooky rock that we know how to keep away from people so it never hurts anyone? SHUT EVERYTHING THE FUCK DOWN, THE SPOOKY ROCKS ARE COMING FOR US

[Anonymous No.10684646]

>>10684583
How much marine life has it killed? Healthy oceans are pretty important for our whole ecosystem

[Anonymous No.10684653]

>>10684592
>cancelled
Not sure which point you are trying to make

[Anonymous No.10684673]

Are there any decent papers written about the Fukushima spill and its effects? One that isnt a blog-level shill piece written by some screaming nobody on either side of the debate? Because i kinda want to read that

[Anonymous No.10684715]

>>10684607
Stop strawmanning and moving goalposts. We're not talking about some slight radiation in the air, we are talking about how to keep humans away from highly radioactive materials away for the next 200,000 years

[Anonymous No.10684723]

>>10684376
This would get you upvoted on reddit.
Here it makes you look like a retard that has no understanding of how nuclear power works.

[Anonymous No.10684756]

>>10684627
>Nuclear power plant makes a spooky rock that we know how to keep away from people so it never hurts anyone? SHUT EVERYTHING THE FUCK DOWN, THE SPOOKY ROCKS ARE COMING FOR US
Yes, don't worry goyim, radioactive materials are perfectly safe to handle! They are so safe you could let your kids play with them and nothing would happen!

[Anonymous No.10684768]

>>10684756
>The jewlumminati wants nuclear
If that's the case, why does the media shill against it? At least be a consistent schizo.

[Anonymous No.10684781]

>>10684768
The media shills for it by deliberately ignoring the issue, and instead making up fake debates about non-issues

[Anonymous No.10684785]

Just a quick remainder that environmentalists' smear campaign against nuclear energy forced many countries to rely on oil & gas damning the whole world.

Thanks environmentalists!

[Anonymous No.10684790]

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

[Anonymous No.10684795]

Take the LFTR pill.

[Anonymous No.10684862]

>>10684523
1. If the rocket explodes you're talking about making a massive dirty bomb that explodes over the upper atmosphere. It would be not good. Very bad.

2. Our "waste" is not truthfully waste. A fully nuclear society of the hypothetical future will view this as fuel and reprocess it.

3. Payloads are too expensive to send into space. It would be feasible with a space elevator. This would still be dumb because of (2).

Best solution is to further R&D and put the waste in Yucca Mountain (which is sitting empty btw) until it can be used.

[Anonymous No.10684876]

>>10684785
Germany is so fucking retarded that it makes me want to scream.

[Anonymous No.10684888]

>>10684646
Probably almost none considering how the marine life around Pacific nuclear test sites is thriving

[Anonymous No.10684910]

>>10684756
>several million people die every year as a result of exposure to 'normal' fossils fuel based power generation
no one cares
>worst case scenario and perfect storm of incompetence results in at the very worst several hundred deaths
my God how foolish we were, letting this death technology exist!

[Anonymous No.10684911]

>>10684723

>The Fukushima disaster was the most significant nuclear incident since the 26 April 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the only other disaster to be given the Level 7 event classification of the International Nuclear Event Scale.

Oh yeah no big deal!

[Anonymous No.10684923]

>>10684627
It's not a rock. It's also lots and lots of water, soil, and lots of other technical parts, all sorts of stuff that came into contact with radioactive material. And it's really tough to store all this correctly and not to make a huge mess nobody ever can clean up.

[Anonymous No.10684924]

>>10684673
>ground/air pollution
negligible, barely higher than normal background radiation
>water pollution
even more negligible, despite the large amount of immediate contamination the oceans are extremely effective at dispersing radiation and in fact maintain a natural steady state of radioactivity
>Fatalities
at most a single person died, though some tried to blame tsunami deaths and wastewater sickness on Fukushima

[Anonymous No.10684927]

>>10684911
>Most significant
True
>A horrific disaster
Only when you let the media blame the tsunami deaths on the power plant.
A whole bunch of shit went down at Fukushima, but people only ever blame the power plant.

[Anonymous No.10684930]

>>10684523
glad I'm not the only one who thought of it

[Anonymous No.10684933]

>>10684927

And you do realize that what initially triggered the incident was an earthquake right?

[Anonymous No.10684941]

>>10684911
>one person dies
>no serious contamination of any area
>no major exposure of the public to fallout

Don't get me wrong, it highlighted the corruption and negligence that led to the disaster in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10684952]

>>10684933
Yes, I do realize that. That's the point. You don't blame the shit that would've happened whether a power plant was there or not on the fucking power plant.

[Anonymous No.10684960]

>>10684523
>space
Just send it to Yucca Mountain, it was shut down for purely political reasons. It posed absolutely no threats to the surrounding environment or people. Then when the nuclear grid matures it becomes a source of cheap fuel.

[Anonymous No.10684972]

>>10684941

>No major contamination of any area

lol what? Did you not see how many people needed to be evacuated? Many are still not able to return to their homes and TEPCO had to pay out large settlements for their fuck up

[Anonymous No.10684976]

No one on hear has mentioned them yet, but what's the problems surrounding thorium reactors? Aren't they a lot safer than the current ones and their byproduct CAN'T be used for nuclear weapons? Anyone with info on this?

[Anonymous No.10685019]

>>10684911
>reddit snark continues
Thanks for proving my point.
Fukushima was the result of an old reactor design several precautions failing, due to incompetence on part of the firm managing it.

[Anonymous No.10685026]

>>10684366
More people died worldwide mining coal since you started this post than have died in nuclear accidents over the last 70 years.

[Anonymous No.10685042]

>>10684785
>>10684910
Strawmen, 99% of the people who advocate against nuclear power would agree that fossil fuels are even worse

[Anonymous No.10685047]

>>10685042
In which case they should be advocating for nuclear power because it's objectively better, as well as an actual viable option to build, unlike the perfectionist pipe dreams most environmentalists advocate for.
That's the fundamental issue most activism suffers from, the whole "Any improvement will be scrutinized more harshly than the status quo, only perfection is a sufficient improvement" bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10685130]

>>10684500
Also known as "underground", possibly where you got the ore in the first place. Very complex stuff.

[Anonymous No.10685134]

>>10685130
Oh, I forgot about that one. And then we just put up a sign "do not go underground" and the problem is solved°

[Anonymous No.10685142]

>>10684876
The infuriating part is when ecofreaks look at that graph while ignoring completely the electrical consumption breakdown which is far more important than the installed capacity.

[Anonymous No.10685144]

>>10685134
Right, which they fucking wont because there's nothing valuable down there. And if they do serves them right.

[Anonymous No.10685147]

>>10684876
Isnt this graph showing a decline in fossile fuel use? Isnt that a good thing?

>pls no bully

[Anonymous No.10685149]

>>10685147
The fossil fuel use is practically unchanged, but they halved their nuclear power because glowing rocks scary

[Anonymous No.10685154]

>>10684653
>cancelled for no reason
Not sure what point you're trying to make.

[Anonymous No.10685157]

>>10685147
It's not their electrical consumption, just their capacity. i.e in an absolutely ideal scenario here's how much power the krauts could produce

[Anonymous No.10685161]

>>10685144
You're retarded. If we found a several thousand year old sign (of whatever kind, e.g. glyphs in a rock) somewhere, managed to decipher the language, and deduced that it said "there's nothing valuable buried here", what do you think our first reaction would be?

[Anonymous No.10685188]

>>10685161
Dig a hundred meters straight down through top unremarkable soil and bedrock, and then when a few people start getting a bit ill we force feed them what we find in those big concrete containers and then spread it in our water supply.
Obviously.
Obviously

[Anonymous No.10685236]

>>10684366
The concept that nuclear can do no wrong and is the solution to every problem is a big part of the infinite-growther new religion.

[Anonymous No.10685241]

>>10685161
I am still bewildered as to why you thought that's what should be on "the" sign (as opposed to a perimeter surrounding the site). The meaning is obviously that they have no good reason to dig so far down, sign or not. No more than digging several tens of meters or more under my house.

[Anonymous No.10685247]

>>10685236
No it's just usually a lot better than the other alternatives.

[Anonymous No.10685250]

>>10684366
Nuclear waste is only a political problem, not a scientific one

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/05/14/nuclear-waste-disposal-isnt-science-supposed-to-reduce-the-uncertainty/

[Anonymous No.10685292]

>>10685188
>unremarkable soil and bedrock
The fact that there has been previous digging at that exact position is already remarkable
>then when a few people start getting a bit ill
They are going to die, not just get ill, and the only hint to the cause of death is the correlation with being down there. But hey, what are a few dozen deaths every thousand years for every nuclear waste storage location? Who cares, right? It's optimal for our own convenience after all
>we force feed them what we find in those big concrete containers and then spread it in our water supply.
never go full retard, not even when posting strawmen

>>10685241
see above, previous diggings in the same location will already be enough to make new diggings interesting

[Anonymous No.10685299]

>>10685292
This sounds really bad and all, but you have to take it in the context that the alternative is
>Designate some places where we're just going to toss waste in the air
>Millions die of pollution every year

[Anonymous No.10685307]

>>10685292
They'd probably use the nuclear waste holes in some kind of human sacrifice ritual. So it would be a lot more than a few dozen every thousand years.

[Anonymous No.10685316]

>>10685161
So thousands of years from now we will dig up places without any safety measures? No geiger counters anymore?
In that case, maybe we deserve to find them, to finally become extinct.

[Anonymous No.10685317]

>>10684523
The brainlet solution to someone who doesn't understand how heavy and how little space nuclear waste occupies and how it can be safely contained in containers that long exceed its radioactive half-life.

[Anonymous No.10685324]

>>10685161
lol. And if we put skulls and crossbone signs everywhere and DO NOT ENTER OR YOU WILL DIE signs everyone I'm sure there'd STILL be a big enough; dumb enough group of people that would dig it up for kicks and giggles.

[Anonymous No.10685328]

>>10685317
this
it is not necessary to send it anywhere

[Anonymous No.10685370]

Coal and oil kill massive amounts of people slowly over time with basically zero media coverage.

Nuclear kills tiny amounts of people rarely with massive nationwide media coverage every time it happens.

[Anonymous No.10685383]

>>10685370
>hypothetical
Real data indicates nuclear has less deaths associated with it than wind energy even. And that's including the overblown disasters.

[Anonymous No.10685636]

>>10685324
i mean we could just write
>do not enter because this is where radioactive waste is stored

[Anonymous No.10686009]

The most horrid thing human's use!

[Anonymous No.10686170]

>>10685019

And the violent earthquake caused it to fucking leak radiation. Autistic faggot.

[Anonymous No.10686190]

>>10686170
>And the violent earthquake caused it to fucking leak radiation.
I don't understand the first thing about nuclear power, radiation, or anything the post—wait—and to support my brainletism I'll speak strongly and call names, that will surely help my case [end].

You really need to go back.

[Anonymous No.10686198]

>>10686170
say it with me folks
the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami killed 13,386 people
the reactor killed 1

[Anonymous No.10686334]

>Ctrl+f
>No mention of French nuclear waste glass
>no mention of solar power in germany except in this picture >>10684876
Come on lads. Germany did a great thing on solar but they should've kept nuclear imo.
>>10684366
As I understand it way better and safer than oil and coal as long as you aren't a fucking retard. If we just get batteries to not be shit I could see the nuclear/solar utopia over the horizon.

[Anonymous No.10686408]

>>10685292
What would indicate any evidence of digging THOUSANDS OF YEARS IN THE FUTURE if you just do a half decent job of filling the thing back up?

>muh strawman
fucking pseud

[Anonymous No.10686411]

>>10685292
Also a few dozen death every thousand years is a far better track record than any other source of electricity on the planet. By like a few orders of magnitude.

[Anonymous No.10686424]

>>10684366
Very safe.

But the memetards who push their windmills don't understand the basics. Most of their nonsense comes from what they in movies, much like their whole "climate change" argument.

[Anonymous No.10686468]

>>10684366
>How safe is nuclear power?

safer than using vast amounts of fire to boil water to turn a turbine.

literally.

[Anonymous No.10687377]

>>10686190

>Tsunamis and Earthquakes don't exacerbate the risk of nuclear plants having issues!

Imagine having so much autism you are blinded by rage because you think someone frequents a website you don't like. You're deranged.

[Anonymous No.10687812]

>>10684876
We desperately need an Energiewende 2.0: this time it's nuclear

[Anonymous No.10688167]

I think the problem with nuclear power is they're enormous unwieldy industrial complexes that require constant maintenance or they'll spew invisible poison.

Why can't we make them smaller and more manageable? Something that doesn't need replacement parts. A self contained sealed unit, designed to last the entirety of it's life cycle without human intervention. And then all the humans have to do is treat this box like a fragile egg and ensure it doesn't get broken. Once the nuclear fuel runs out, bury the whole unit. They make these things small enough to fit in a submarine. Surely we can make one the size of a shipping container or something.

[Anonymous No.10688201]

>>10684523
Because:
1) Most rockets can't send more than ~10 tons to LEO, which costs several million dollars per launch.
2)You need to constantly readjust the orbit of said nuclear waste, meaning you have to periodically send a rocket up there to refuel the orbit adjust mechanism or to push the waste to a higher orbit.
3) If for whatever reason the rocket has to abort, or it outright explodes, you are basically detonating a dirty bomb, which is equal or worse to a reactor meltdown in PR terms.

[Anonymous No.10688214]

>>10684976
>>10684795

[Anonymous No.10688255]

>>10684715
That's not how long nuclear waste is dangerous for. It's bullshit. Hot rods fresh from the reactor core would no longer be dangerous to handle in less than 1000 years. After 100,000 years the radiation goes down to that of high grade uranium ore, which is all over the fucking place and not a problem.

I find it funny that people get so spooked by nuclear waste when everyone has multiple chunks of americium in their smoke detectors at home. Americium is literally one of the worse waste products from a nuclear reactor. Isolating nuclear waste and sequestering for long enough that it is not a problem is not hard, people just don't the extremely permanent solutions because they're more expensive, and just putting it ina steel can inside a concrete box in a field with a fence around it is perfectly fine.

If you really want to dispose of nuclear waste permanently and forever, all you need to do is mix it with silicon dioxide, smelt it into glass beads, while the beads are still gooey roll them in some porous aluminum oxide grains for crush protection, then add another layer of molten glass to seal it. These beads prevent the nuclear isotopes within from diffusing into the environment over time. Next you mix a load of beads in with some cement and basalt fiber reinforcement, to form 1 meter cubed blocks, and once they set up, add a layer of highly porous cement+basalt fiber mixture (crush protection again), and once that's set add one more layer this time of concrete (again with basalt fiber reinforcement, no metals because they corrode relatively quickly and expand when they do, breaking the concrete). As a very final step, slather the whole cube with two coats of enamel paint to seal it further.

You now have a 1.5x1.5x1.5 meter block of radiation shielding that contains your waste, wont degrade, is rough-handling proof, and which you can now safely drop to the abyssal plain.

[Anonymous No.10688261]

>>10684795
>you could carry a small amount in your pocket without harm

is less comforting than

>you could live in a house made of thorium your whole life without harm because thorium doesn't produce penetrating radiation that can get through your dead skin cells

[Anonymous No.10688265]

>>10684876
>double the solar and wind capacity since 2011
>zero decrease in fossil fuel use

really shows how much 'renewable energy' supply you need to have in order to replace even a little bit of nuclear.

[Anonymous No.10688278]

>>10684366
Thay all are just kettles boiling water. If an old RBMK reactor would explode, which it cant, the radiation outside the plant would be no more than 3.6 röntgens.

[Anonymous No.10688280]

>>10684933
The earthquake triggered the tsunami which knocked out the diesel pumps supplying coolant to the already shut-down reactor.

The true irony of Fukushima was that if our policies weren't to immediately shit ourselves any time anything happened near or around our nuclear reactors, the reactor would have never had a problem. Why? Because if the reactor hadn't been shut down when the earthquake hit (it wasn't damaged in any way from this event) then the reactor would have still been generating power, and if it had been generating its own power it would not have required the diesel pumps to operate to remove the heat generated by the decay of the products of the fission reaction. Therefore when the tsunami came and overflowed the sea wall barrier, flooding the room the diesel pumps were located in, the reactor would have not even been using them to begin with and therefore would not have lost cooling and eventually melted down.

[Anonymous No.10688282]

>>10684523
Because it costs way too much you stupid nigger

[Anonymous No.10688317]

>>10684976
Thorium reactors aren't really thorium reactors, they are U-233 reactors that breed thorium into more U-233. The breeding cycle is way way better than the U-235 cycle which requires manual isotopic enrichment of natural uranium, but to do it effectively you really can't use a solid fuel. Since the entire nuclear industry today is geared towards solid fuel elements and reactors that use solid fuel, it's really hard to get the momentum necessary to develop thorium based breeder reactors. Using solid fuel in a breeder reactor means you need to do solid fuel reprocessing, which means you need to remove the elements you want from a ceramic you designed earlier to be as hard to remove elements from as possible.

Therefore to do an effective breeder reactor you need to use liquid fuel. That's not impossible, in fact in some ways it makes a lot of things about reactor design way easier. For one thing, if your fuel is liquid, you can actually flow your fuel into and out of the reactor and allow nuclear 'poisons' like xenon which damped the reaction to escape very quickly, and you can also continuously add new fuel to the liquid stream so you never need to shut down. The two substances suitable for carrier fluids in liquid fuel reactors are molten metal and molten salt. To boil down the differences, molten metal works really well for reactions that require fast neutrons like the uranium-plutonium breeding cycle, while molten salt works best for thermal neutron reactions like the thorium-uranium breeding cycle. Each have downsides, like the fact that the molten metal options are all extremely reactive with air and water, so leaks are really bad, and molten salts are highly corrosive.


The biggest advantage of the liquid salt fuel breeder design is that it doesn't use highly pressurized water or highly reactive molten metal, and therefore even in a major disaster cannot over-pressure and explode. At worst the salt leaks out into the catch basin and hardens.

[Anonymous No.10688339]

>>10686170
Fukushimas reactors melted down because the tsunami knocked out the diesel pumps that were supplying cooling water to the cores, which had been shut down the moment the earthquake hit but still had decay heat to deal with.

It was not a leak caused by the shaking from the quake. It was not a leak caused by the tsunami hitting the facility. It was a reactor overpressure event caused hours after the tsunami after so much decay heat built up due to the lack of cooling that the pressurized water moderating the reactor boiled and blew open the safety valve that stops the core vessel from becoming a steam bomb.

If the reactors HADN'T been shut down when the quake happened, they would still have been running idle and using the electric pumps to cool themselves when the tsunami hit, which would not have affected the reactor operation because of the design of the containment building and the fact that the diesel pumps were not in use. Fukushima happened because people are overcautious and panic when anything bad happens around a nuclear power plant. The correct action to take for the plant operators would have been to do nothing except bank the reactors when the power grid went down, supplying enough power to keep the facility itself running until the disaster was over, and once there was no more danger of tsunami or further quakes shut down the reactors as necessary.

[Anonymous No.10688367]

>>10688167
We can, they're called liquid fuel reactors. The single biggest problem nuclear power engineering is the use of pressurized water as a moderator. As soon as you get rid of the need to hold 350C water back from flashing to steam, and all the risk and danger that implies, by going to a solid moderator liquid fuel design, the engineering almost does itself. Worst case scenarios go from "giant steam explosion following a melt down that blasts hot fission products everywhere" to "puddle of hot radioactive molten metal or salt pours out of the reactor core onto the floor of the containment building and solidifies after five minutes, releasing zero contamination into the environment".

The reason we haven't transitioned away from pressurized water reactors yet is because they're what we know and the entire industry and regulatory environment is geared towards dealing with that type of reactor. Liquid fuel solid moderator designs are such a radical departure that despite the massive advantages in safety, cost, simplicity, and efficiency, they are essentially inaccessible, blocked behind cubic kilometers of red tape. The fact that most people are totally ignorant about nuclear technology other than what they read on facebook and watch in TV dramas (side note, that new Chernobyl drama is definitely funded by oil and gas companies and is meant to spur more fear-mongering in the public I GUARANTEE IT) also makes it extremely difficult to secure public funding for any nuclear technology, even just building more of the proven-safe designs we already have, let alone developing entirely new reactors.

[Anonymous No.10688406]

>>10688367
The chernobyl show's production companies are owned by AT&T and Comcast. Make of that what you will.

[Anonymous No.10689618]

>>10684523
Sending nuclear waste to space is a really stupid idea. We could safely dump all nuclear waste to bottom of the Atlantic or Pacific ocean.

[Anonymous No.10689629]

>>10688339
Fuck me thats just sad

And because of that fuckup and the ussrs retardation we all suffer.

[Anonymous No.10689636]

>>10684366
ye is preddy safe

[Anonymous No.10689706]

>>10685161
Dunno if I found a sign that depicted what is clearly a human skull crossed by two human bones I would probably steer clear.

[Anonymous No.10690034]

>>10689629
The problem with giant nuclear plants is they're designed like the Titanic. That is to say, they're build in a way that makes them believe it's impossible to fail, because they simply cannot be allowed to fail. Obviously anyone who says anything is impossible simply lacks imagination.

Reactors should be designed with the expectation of catastrophic failure, and designed to keep the absolute maximum potential for contamination/damage to a level that's within our ability to deal with. Anything bigger than that is a very well engineered ticking time bomb.

[Anonymous No.10690045]

>>10684366
>How safe is nuclear power?
Pretty safe, but the potential devastation from a catastrophic failure is bad enough to spook your average citizen from wanting one in their back yard.
Sort of like how traveling in an airplane is the "safest way to travel" but if you are unlucky enough to be involved in a plane crash you're probably not going to limp away from it. While cars crash all the time.

[Anonymous No.10690062]

>>10690045

You're a fucking stupid RETARD. Fukushima resulted in 1 death and is expected to cause 130 premature CANCER deaths. All because a bunch of Jap retards decided to build an ATOMIC nuclear power plan on top of the most vulnerable Earthquake prone area in the world. Do I need to remind you that it wasn't even the Earthquake that is the reason the plant failed but the massive tsunami waves that crashed against it which triggered a fucking. nuclear melt down spilling tons of radioactive debris into the oceans and atmosphere? There is still a multiple mile EXCLUSION ZONE just like in Pripyyat Ukraine (where chernobyl is) and people won't ever be allowed to return to their HOMES for the rest of their lives. Nuclear power is SHIT. It is GARBAGE. Daily reminder that we only have about 230 year supply of plutonium left and nuclear energy is garbage when you compare it to wind and solar which are clean, safe and abundant. Leave it to a bunch of retards to think that an energy source which produces TOXIC waste that can kill you in the most painful way possible is a "good idea." Fucking retard. I hate autistic nerds so much. "Teeehheeee nukes are kewl guys soooo efficient!"

[Anonymous No.10690065]

>>10690062
It irradiated the ocean to such an extent that the detected it in the water all the way over in California. Now there's two-headed sharks swimming around.

[Anonymous No.10690094]

>>10688339
I'm not a nuclear engineer engineer or anything, but I've always wondered why you wouldn't make the water cooling system gravity fed (or at least hae a gravity fed failsafe, and use the pumps to get water out. That way, worst case ontario and you lose all power you've got to dry up a rive/lake/resevoir/coolant pond/etc before it could go critical.
Hell, you could put turbines on the intakes of the gravity fed system and generate some power.

[Anonymous No.10690100]

>>10690065
>Shark-Shark vs Gigapus
Please don't give the asylum any more ideas.

[Anonymous No.10690104]

>>10684366
the new ones are very safe

[Anonymous No.10690107]

>>10684366
Newer ones?

[Anonymous No.10690110]

>>10690094
better yet, create a heat engine so it pumps itself with the hot water it's generating. It'll never stop pumping till it runs out of water or it cools down enough to stop powering the water pumps

[Anonymous No.10690131]

>>10685292
>But hey, what are a few dozen deaths every thousand years for every nuclear waste storage location?
absolutely nothing? how fucking bleeding heart are you, you absolutely insane retard?

[Anonymous No.10690256]

>>10690094
The AP1000 reactor uses passive safety features, e.g. gravity or differential pressure, and does not require operator action for up to 72 hours following an accident. There are other designs that are even more passively safe.

wikipedia Passive_nuclear_safety

[Anonymous No.10690294]

>>10684756
Isn't it reassuring that this guy literally hoarded radioactive shit in his cuck shed for decades handling it with zero security measures and yet didn't even die from it?

[Anonymous No.10690929]

>>10684368

[Anonymous No.10690956]

>>10687377
>>Tsunamis and Earthquakes don't exacerbate the risk of nuclear plants "having issues!"
Failsafes exist brainlet, that more than compensate for these. In fact, nuclear power is so secure that other plant failures are much more likely. Nuclear is bad to you because you appeal to an absurd, unlikely scenario. The absolute worst case scenario with 3/4 systems failing in Fukushima and not a person died. The person who is enraged is you, which is why you have resorted to insults and reductio ad absurdum scenarios for your argument, the former a symptom of rage, and the latter which really is the definition of a delusion thought process.

[Anonymous No.10690998]

The one thing Fukushima showed was the true danger of reactors lies in the hot spent fuel pools which are not within the containment, as opposed to the reactor proper which can meltdown and everything is cool.

Fucking spent fuel was just sitting on top with nothing more than a tin shed to protect it, blown away in the hydrogen explosions. Then the water started to boil off and they brought in firehoses to keep the fuel from being exposed - I remember the press conference where the Japanese gov official, Edano, had a look of absolute terror when there was a threat of the fuel burning.

The interesting takeaway of this is the consequences for the TEOTWAWKI scenario preppers live for of society crumbling. If the grid goes down, gov collapses, anarchy, the reactors themselves will automatically scram, but the spent fuel will burn after the generators run out of fuel and the pools dry up. Would love to know the consequences of every spent fuel pool in the USA burning at once - dumb fuck preppers better hope civilization never falls.

[Anonymous No.10691005]

>>10684366
Gen IV nuclear is the solution to climate change

[Anonymous No.10691018]

>>10684376
Fail-close cooling circuit valves was the dumbest idea desu

[Anonymous No.10691989]

>>10684376
-t. memelord
The real problem was putting the emergency and backup switchgear right next to each other at the lowest point in the plant with zero waterproofing, which guarantees a station blackout in a bad flood.

[Anonymous No.10691992]

>>10684756
>Drug addict picks at his face
>Hurr must be radiation
ok retard

[Anonymous No.10692002]

>>10686170
The violent earthquake caused the plant to shut down and then the flooding that came after it was ground zero for a tsunami caused a station blackout because TEPCO refused to update the station to international standards or even relocate the equipment that was knocked out when it flooded in 1991.

You would know this if you read anything beyond headlines and youtube comments.

[Anonymous No.10692009]

>>10688167
We do, they're called RTGs, and they're inefficient and fit only for the very narrow use case of "We need long term power in a place with no sunlight like siberia or space."
The reason perfect solutions are never implemented is because they don't exist.

[Anonymous No.10692026]

>>10690062
>All because a bunch of Jap retards decided to build an ATOMIC nuclear power plan on top of the most vulnerable Earthquake prone area in the world.
Which is why the rest of the nuclear power plants on the coast had catastrophic meltdowns and hydrogen explosions right?

>There is still a multiple mile EXCLUSION ZONE
Which is widely considered a disastrous mistake, but which is understandable because nobody wants a repeat of Chernobyl where everyone's still in town after the reactor is open

>and people won't ever be allowed to return to their HOMES for the rest of their lives.
Proof?

>Nuclear power is SHIT. It is GARBAGE.
Sperg harder

>Daily reminder that we only have about 230 year supply of plutonium left
We had a zero year supply of plutonium seventy five years ago for a very good reason which I'm sure you're aware of.
Power reactors don't run on plutonium but I'm sure you already knew that.

>nuclear energy is garbage when you compare it to wind and solar
By what metric? Cost per kilowatt hour? Area per KW/H? Power generated at night or on days with too high wind, not enough wind, or clouds?

>which are clean, safe and abundant
Abundant because you need an entire mountaintop of wind to generate less than one percent of what a nearby small nuclear powerplant was generating on a few acres until it was shut down by screaming harpies who live at the other end of the state.

>Leave it to a bunch of retards to think that an energy source which produces TOXIC waste that can kill you in the most painful way possible is a "good idea."
Good thing the overwhelming majority of that waste is solid and easy to handle.

You're a screaming retard and should commit wind turbine jump ASAP

[Anonymous No.10692030]

>>10690062
Capitalizing RANDOM words doesn't MAKE you seem any less FUCKTARDED by the way

[Anonymous No.10692165]

>>10692026
>>10692030

LOW IQ RETARD NIGGERS

[Anonymous No.10692168]

>>10692165
Cry harder faggot, it won't make you any less wrong.