/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11073537]

How do you deal with nuclear fear-mongers who are afraid of nuclear waste in spite of our modern methods?

[Anonymous No.11073538]

>>11073537
kill em

[Anonymous No.11073561]

>>11073537

Make them sleep for a fortnight inside a nuclear waste facility.

[Anonymous No.11073570]

>>11073537

In spite of which modern methods?

[Anonymous No.11073572]

>>11073570
putting it in a hole in the ground and hoping no-one digs it up

[Anonymous No.11073579]

>>11073537
Eat ur anium

[Anonymous No.11073582]

>>11073570

Geological Disposal
Reprocessing
Transmutation
Space Disposal

[Anonymous No.11073584]

>>11073572
>bro, what if civilization collapses and then a farmer 1000 years from now accidentally digs a 100ft deep hole in the ground and is exposed to some spent fuel!?!?!?
literally who cares?

[Anonymous No.11073599]

>>11073537
>who are afraid of nuclear waste in spite of our modern methods?
It's a legitimate concern, but not a deal breaker.
I was also reading an article yesterday that they figured out a way to make plutonium stable.

[Anonymous No.11073602]

>>11073582

None of those are viable or possible.

[Anonymous No.11073643]

>>11073538
'CAUSE WE'RE JUST GONNA KILL EM

[Anonymous No.11073649]

what if I told you that the heat nuclear reactors emit warms up rivers and kills all the fish in it?

Anon I think we just fucked up, theres no sustainable energy source.

[Anonymous No.11073665]

Anti-nuclear is anti-white.

They hate us for our freedom and prosperity.

[Anonymous No.11073801]

>>11073649
Literally any thermal cycle powerplant will do that. Coal, natural gas, nuclear.

[Anonymous No.11073804]

>>11073537
Is the pic a modern method?

[Anonymous No.11074117]

So what actually is nuclear waste?

It's not a green glowing sludge, right? What is it? Just a bunch of radioactive dust or something

[Anonymous No.11074196]

>>11074117
Glass-like substance or an alloy.

[Anonymous No.11074340]

Reassure them that other forms of non-carbon energy will end up being less expensive overall and will naturally take over all the places nuclear plants were going to be used?

[Anonymous No.11074374]

>>11073665

[Anonymous No.11074486]

Like, i feel bad for any of you nuclear fans who are honest to god, just - it's your best judgement. You think it's good, and the people opposed to it are shooting themselves in the climate foot.

I'm sorry to tell you that your technology's time has basically passed. It's not QUITE done yet. I'm not *totally* in fantasy land. Just, got a foot there. But think about this with me please. Nuclear power is going to continue to have applications in the military and in space flight, and in certain remote or otherwise inhospitable locations that make other technologys simply silly to consider. They might do it any way, but there will still be plenty of places where it's OBVIOUSLY the best choice, and i totally support using it there.

But basically everywhere we're gonna be using solar, wind, and batteries(or some other weird battery-like storage medium). Not because it's sexy or anything - aww yeah, check out dis sexy fan thing.... It's just gonna end up cheaper because solar and wind and batteries parts just don't undergo the kinds of strains of nuclear power.

Your technology would have been the bold, intelligent move like 40, 50 years ago. We SHOULD have moved to nuclear then, and got off fossil fuels for main power right there. But we were stupid and didn't. Now the technology... is gonna go obsolete soon. Just 'cause it's too expensive.

I am legitimately sorry genuine nuclear fans. I am.

[Anonymous No.11074493]

>>11074486

On the other hand, any nuclear fans who are also FUSION fans - we're still working on that shit, and that could produce enough energy to like run off-world bases and large-scale ships and shit - so we still should definitely fucking develop that.

And if we develop fusion, it will likely kick solar and wind and batteries aaaaaaaayss. So if you have some kind of great resentment towards them, hop on board the iter hope train with me, and if they hit a home run, we can watch it blown every solar panel and wind turbine off the face of the earth together.

[Anonymous No.11074516]

>>11074486
>Let's just base our grid on weather
Gee, what could go wrong.

[Anonymous No.11074521]

i've sat through enough hours of IAEA talks to know that nuclear waste processing and storage isn't quite the slam-dunk popsci mongs claim

[Anonymous No.11074543]

>>11074516

Even with all the redundancies required to make renewables as reliable as a traditional power plant, they're STILL gonna get cheaper than nuclear almost everywhere.

We'll need more redundancy. It'll be a waste of money. And that waste of money... is going to end up being less than they'd spend on an equivalent nuclear system almost everywhere.

Once again, i seriously am sorry. Nuclear power is so fuckin' cool. And... it's gonna be obsolete fairly soon.

[Anonymous No.11074550]

>>11074521
Is there even any kind of danger to it apart from post-apocalyptic civilizations deciding to dig it up and use it as a weapon?

[Anonymous No.11074552]

nuclear was the worst thing to ever happen. nuclear bombs irradiated the earth and fucked up steel production forever, and nuclear power generates a retarded amount of heat that is causing global warming.

[Anonymous No.11074694]

>>11074486
>>11074543
I see where you are kinda coming from, and while I kinda agree, people said this 10 years ago too.

In my view we should build some amount of nuclear, you know as a backup plan. We shouldn't go for replacing 100% of current fossil fuel plants with nuclear. But maybe around 30% to 50%. Because while renewables will *likely* take over, what if they don't? If there is some unexpected issue, and history tells us that unexpected issues are pretty common, it will be nice good to have some nuclear to lean on.

[Anonymous No.11074722]

>>11074694

Well they're likely gonna build a few more nuclear plants - i don't think the last one was the LAST ONE, but it's not like it's up to me, or you. I'm telling you guys this not because i'm trying to win you over the "solar vote" or some shit. It's gonna be market forces which do this. Solar and wind aint gonna win because people are irrationally in favor of it over nuclear power, it's gonna win just because it's cheapest. That's what the investors care about. Best return on investment. Nuclear power is getting to be less and less of a good deal on net(whole useful life of plant) which is once again, what the investors - the real people making decisions - care about.

[OP No.11074731]

>>11073801
I know, whats the solution to it?

[Anonymous No.11074742]

>>11074731

Same solution as yer fuckin' computer dude. It's not like we can't ever dissipate the heat those things produce, we just need enough surface area to do it. Your computer uses a lot of thin metal fins to increase the surface area that air can move through to carry away energy. We can just use a lot of fucking water.

Yeah, the wildlife in the immediate area will not fare too well. But that's why you're careful about where you PUT a reactor, and why nuclear is always a bit finicky.

[Anonymous No.11074750]

>>11073537

Aren't France, Russia and China heavily investing in nuclear, selling nuclear power plants like pancakes?

[Anonymous No.11074756]

>>11074731

Like, when you put down a power generator anywhere, you're accepting certain amounts of damage to the local wildlife and general health and cleanliness of the area. Although it's uhh... it's a little harder to make the case there for solar or wind, but i'm sure ya could. I'm sure ya could. But like, there would be some damage to the ecosystem there, but there would also be damage to the ecosystem there if it was like... a coal-fired power plant. So i'm not 100% blaming nuclear power for taking a bit a toll on the nearby area.

[Anonymous No.11074921]

>>11074543
Redundancies are not the only issue here. You'd have to build shitton of dams to store the energy or come up with some new super-tech. Storing also reduces the efficiency by a large margin. Your hypothesis still lies in the world of "gonna" and we are going to stay there for quite some time (as far as I know nuclear is still cheaper than large-scale renewables, at least in russia).

[Anonymous No.11075122]

>>11073537
All those barrels

[Anonymous No.11075134]

>>11073584
More like someone builds condos on it, and they start leaking into people’s basements. Never underestimate peoples stupidity when greed motivated them to make stupid choices. They become conflated and it literally becomes a competition of who can be the most stupid and gain the most profit

[Anonymous No.11075322]

>>11074722
The speed of fossil fuel phaseout is driven by politics not market forces.

A slower phase out favors solar, a fast phase out favors nuclear.

[Anonymous No.11075584]

>>11075322
>you can transfer to green energy with solar and nuclear alone

Almost all experts agree we need a type of plant that is operating 24/7 in addition to them. Nuclear is the best option

[Anonymous No.11075605]

>>11075584
Not true, once we get giant rock gravity batteries renewable's consistency will improve drastically.

[Anonymous No.11075848]

>>11074196
an alloy of what? is it liquid or solid? what the fuck is nuclear waste?!

[Anonymous No.11075857]

>>11074552

[Anonymous No.11075859]

>>11075848

spent fuel rods and items/equipment that are contaminated.

[Anonymous No.11075872]

>>11075859
i specifically meant whats in the barrels, but i see and understand you.

[Anonymous No.11076001]

>>11074486
I love how renewables are always peddled as cheaper and overall more safe when renewables will be linked to huge problems as soon as they are actually implemented.
>Hurr Durr I'm pulling energy from the wind
>Hurr Durr I'm pulling energy from the sun/ocean
>Implying this isn't a huge geoengineering experiment that noone has thought about
You people think too small, what happens when wind speeds start dropping globally and plant proliferation is much harder? What happens when similar ideas are applied to wave extraction and tides decrease? There's plenty more to think about and the rabbit hole only continues to go deeper. I have a real problem with climate scientists that claim X will happen in 40 years but can't predict the weather 6 hours in advance with cutting edge radar satelites.

[Anonymous No.11076087]

>>11076001
Your argument would be more convincing if you could point out the actual problems rather than saying "something" might go wrong.

[Anonymous No.11076105]

>>11075134
>into people’s basements
or from this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump#Vertical

[Anonymous No.11076113]

>>11075848
URANIUM
---------------------------------------------
Uranium fuel rod
U-235 5%
U-238 95%

when rod is used
U-235 breaks up
U-238 --> U-239 --> Np-239 --> Pu-239

after U-235 portion drops to 0.3%
the rod is used up

waste storage: 10,000 years

Pu-239 can be used to build nuclear weapons

THORIUM
---------------------------------------------
Th-232 --> Th-233 --> Pa-233 --> U-233

U-233 is then used to make pellets

when pellets are used
no U-238 in pellets => no Pu-239 is created
U-233 --> U-232 --> Tl-208

waste storage: 300 years

U-233 can be used to build nuclear weapons,
but only after the U-232 is separated from the mix

[Anonymous No.11076622]

>>11073537
Nuclear weapons tests blasted millions of tons of weapons grade radioactive material out all over the place and it didn't hurt anyone.
Anyone who says nuclear waste is dangerous just hasn't thought about it.

[Anonymous No.11076638]

Just think if it wasn't for all the antinuclear enviroshilling we would've had clean, cheap, plentiful power for decades already and polar bears wouldn't be going extinct.

[Anonymous No.11076717]

>>11074552
>nuclear was the worst thing to ever happen
Compared to the world wars, the plauge and Mao I don't think it comes close.
>nuclear bombs irradiated the earth and fucked up steel production forever
*Fucked up steel needed for very specific uses.
I agree that above ground detonations fucked shit up but that has nothing to do with power generation.
>nuclear power generates a retarded amount of heat that is causing global warming
You know we aren't even close to being a Kardashev 1 civilization yeah? Even if all our power came from nuclear it wouldn't come close to the energy from the sun (which is trapped by greenhouse gasses).

[Anonymous No.11076768]

>>11073537
Remind me why I should trust any private interests with my safety?

[Anonymous No.11076776]

>>11073570
paying nuclear plants to keep it on site because we didn't build a repository for it

[Anonymous No.11076843]

>>11075134
The condos of the next millennium, A lot of basements in active granite areas already have dosimeters and fans for dispersing radon buildup and it not like it was a HUGE problem before. I'm sure we could manage it in the future, also these places are isolated, sealed and deep you would have to be quite determined to even get into that position.
>>11076113
And with that 9700 year time saving the products are highly radioactive and fairly useful as a radiological weapon
>>11073602
Geo might be possible if you chose your subduction zone right but your probably better of burying it in a geologically stable area. Reprocessing/breeding/transmutation to reduce the final waste product is possibly and practiced with the benefit of the more expansive your nuclear the more complete your fuel cycle as you can have specialized reactors for certain processes in a robust network.
>>11073804
no, a political abortion
>>11073649
And birds fly into turbines and hydro stops fish at least the manatees like the warmth. Who cares, the benefit of not pumping heavy metal waste from that capacity of renewable into the ocean outweighs it. Anyway, placement is important for nuclear as it is for renewable. Choose better

[Anonymous No.11076849]

>>11075605
yikes, he paid for the kickstarter. Rocks are a scam, hydro is the only way outside of magic batterys

[Anonymous No.11076853]

>>11076768
Do you trust a government? Do you trust anyone? Your already trusting a bunch of conflicted and flawed people with your safety unless your some ultimate isolated prepper. Confusing post.

[Anonymous No.11076861]

>>11073561
I can only sleep max 18 hours, a full two weeks seems pretty much impossible

[Anonymous No.11076863]

>>11074731
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating

[Anonymous No.11076865]

>>11076861
when have you slept 18 hours strait you lil liein whore

[Anonymous No.11076867]

>>11076865
a couple of times when i stayed up for extended periods of time

[Anonymous No.11076870]

>>11076867
ok goodnight

[Anonymous No.11076879]

>>11073537
>How do you deal with nuclear fear-mongers
Swiftly and without care.

[Anonymous No.11076883]

>>11073572
>>11073602
>>11076776

cant we just bury nuclear waste on the moon?

[Anonymous No.11076888]

>>11074486
>I'm sorry to tell you that your technology's time has basically passed
Thanks, good to know I don't need to waste my time reading the rest of your shitty blogpost you mouthbreathing fucking cretin. Hang yourself with a belt retard.

[Anonymous No.11076889]

>>11076883
i volunteer my ass

[Anonymous No.11076918]

>>11076853
No. Governments let people die. See for example Flint's water.
Companies let people die. See Purdue Pharma.
Not only that, they both do illegal activities, and we only see those that lead to legal action. Except the vast majority of legal recourse comes AFTER damage has been done.
The same thing will happen with nuclear energy.

Furthermore if nuclear energy were to be generalized in the next few years to save the planet, you're saying we should give this technology to literally every government on earth. Let that sink in. And I certainly don't trust those with my safety.

[Anonymous No.11076961]

>>11076883

Yes, let's load nuclear waste into unstable rockets and potentially vomit it all over our atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11076980]

>>11073537

this article says if human can master nuclear energy, it will be even more revolutionary for human civilization than the mastering of fire 1 million years ago

https://quillette.com/2019/05/24/why-we-should-embrace-our-nuclear-era/

[Anonymous No.11077012]

Can we drill a hole deep enough for our Nuclear Waste? Yes we can! Drill a 3 miles or so deep hole and nothing will come up for millions of years. It doesn’t matter where you put it in the country. At that depth, you’re so deep in the crust that the overlying rocks don’t matter. The water table doesn’t matter. The climate doesn’t matter. Human activities don’t matter. By the time they pop up to the surface they will be no trace of radiation left.

The technology used was actually developed the oil and gas industry. The technology takes advantage of recently developed drilling technologies to place nuclear waste in a series of two-mile-long tunnels, a mile below the Earth’s surface, where they’ll be surrounded by a very tight rock known as shale. Shale is so tight that it took these new technologies to get any oil or gas out of it at all.

As geologists, we know how many millions of years it takes for anything to get up from that depth in the Earth’s crust. So what better way to use this technology than to put something back in that you want to stay there for geologic time.

[Anonymous No.11077146]

>>11074486
Pretty sure wind and solar are some dumb little fourth-grade science experiment that certain people took a little too seriously. Fuck it, let's go all the way and replace everything with potato batteries. Probably more renewable and cost-effective than rare-earth solar cells and wind farms anyway.

[Anonymous No.11077195]

>>11077146
look at how triggered you are over technology that's actually useful
What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to go through to want to keep using outdated tech?

[Anonymous No.11077262]

>>11076888
I second this post. Fuck the anti-nuclear cretin.

[Anonymous No.11077267]

>>11076980
Ah yes. Fusion will become our new fire, while interfaces between mind and machine will bring forth the new tongues.

[Anonymous No.11077277]

>>11077012
Question is what amount of waste will we have to put in? How much waste will humanity produce yearly if we use only fission for all our electricity needs?

[Anonymous No.11077341]

>>11074486
This post is like christ cucks who are clearly wrong saying "I'll pray for you."
>obsolete
>too expensive
You're literally retarded and nuclear "fans" don't think about you at all.

[Anonymous No.11077360]

>>11076879
Stardust the space wizard will help us!

[Anonymous No.11077407]

>>11077195
kILL YoURsELFffffff faggot
gen 4 reactors are not outdated
the problem is oil/coal lobbying government
you're so fucking mentally deficient it hurts

[Anonymous No.11077458]

>>11077407
the problem is nuclear fission lobbying, like you.

[Anonymous No.11077479]

>>11077458
Aren't most nuclear plants either state-run or owned by companies that operate predominantly oil as well?

[Anonymous No.11077525]

>>11073537
>modern methods
>store in metal cans
anon, plz stop this meme


Our most modern method is glass vitrification. It's locks nuclear waste in stasis for thousands of years. Metal cans will last maybe 50 years. Once in glass the waste practically becomes inert. When worked properly glass can become SUPER fucking hard and unbreakable. If you could press the glass into an ingot mold with nuclear symbol stamped on it so it's clearly marked would it then be safe enough that they could even be used in consumer grade nuclear waste powered batteries to power peoples homes?? There would have to be registration, regulation, and tracking of each nuclear waste battery, but once you have all the red tape necessary to keep things safe, then people could have a battery that could power their homes for centuries.

[Anonymous No.11077535]

>>11077525
>>11077277
>>11076961


we can just shoot nuclear waste into the sun

[Anonymous No.11077541]

>>11077535
That would surely be a very cost-effective solution.

[Anonymous No.11077553]

>>11077535
i don't know if I'd fuck with the sun; yeah it's huge and the waste tiny in comparison, but let's leave well enough alone. sticking it on an exit trajectory bound for elsewhere in the universe is good; heck we could stick it on things like oumouamoua and tell it "deuces!"
of course, what happens when the rocket taking it off the planet explodes?

[Anonymous No.11077573]

>>11077535
Ignoring the potential danger of a rocket failure and spreading waste on Earth, the rocket would be destroyed by solar radiation b4 reaching the sun. It's physically impossible to send anything into the sun. Nuclear waste would be spread across the solar system instead. Why not jump it on Pluto or send it on an interstellar trajectory?

[Anonymous No.11078487]

>>11076918
Bruh any tin pot dictator can build a nuke that secret is 50 years out of the bag, see the Nth Country experiment/ nt Korea. If you cant trust anyone with anything then your best bet is isolation and I can see renewables being desirable from an individualist-anarcho perspective but if we want to progress together as a 'society' then nuclear is the best option.

[Anonymous No.11078508]

>>11077573
>>11077553
Space is already highly radioactive a bit of dust on a random solar orbit is not a problem. Saying that space disposal is retarded and it is cheaper to send things out of the solar system in Delta V than dump them into the sun. Its like having a barrel of compressed CO2 from a power plant and your best idea is to put it in Antarctica. You waste all its potential energy with a retarded disposal system when there are perfectly safe geological conditions on Earth which could later be a valuable deposit, from the Earth it came and to the Earth it shall return.

[Anonymous No.11078714]

>>11077573
Do you know how orbital mechanics work? I don't think you do.

>>11077553
What the fuck do you think could possibly happen to the sun by sending a rocket into it?

[Anonymous No.11078771]

>>11078714
could get angry and spit it out

[Anonymous No.11078804]

"modern methods" involves alot of accidents and very recent meltdowns. And the power plants being hacked puts me on edge.

As of 2014, there have been more than 100 serious nuclear accidents and incidents from the use of nuclear power. Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and about 60% of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.[10] Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), the Chernobyl disaster (1986), the Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).[11] Nuclear power accidents can involve loss of life and large monetary costs for remediation work.[12]

Nuclear-powered submarine accidents include the K-19 (1961), K-11 (1965), K-27 (1968), K-140 (1968), K-429 (1970), K-222 (1980), and K-431 (1985)[11][13][14] accidents. Serious radiation incidents/accidents include the Kyshtym disaster, the Windscale fire, the radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica,[15] the radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza,[16] the radiation accident in Morocco,[17] the Goiania accident,[18] the radiation accident in Mexico City, the radiotherapy unit accident in Thailand,[19] and the Mayapuri radiological accident in India.

Wiki

[Anonymous No.11078841]

>>11074486
Yeah, explain that shit to Germany. I bet they'd be real comforted to know that their 0.40€ and rising unsubsidized cost per kWh is going to get better any day now.
Eat a fucking dick. If you cunts weren't spouting your seemingly plausible bullshit to normies all through the 60s-today, we probably wouldn't even have a climate problem by this point, and all the non-issues which plague nuclear today would have been solved long ago. I seriously hope you're baiting, because if not, then you're one of the most dangerous people alive: Someone who can convince regular jackasses that they should make TERRIBLE choices.

[Anonymous No.11078862]

>>11073537
Polonium-210-laced tea.

[Anonymous No.11078888]

>>11077277
At current waste generation, about 10 boreholes per year would be needed, but we're incredibly shitty at reducing our waste volume right now. If we got extremely serious about nuclear and decided to make it 80% of our generation (hydro and other renewable can handle the rest easily), we'd really have to change the fuel cycle. An anon above detailed a thorium cycle which is far less wasteful. It's hard to tell, but we might be able to keep the ten boreholes per year figure even with nuclear handling 80% of generation. A borehole will take about five years from ground breaking to final sealing, but the technology to make them is the same shit used to make thousands of fracking wells every year. It's extremely easily parallelized. If we suddenly needed 100 a year, it would still be doable.

[Anonymous No.11079018]

. Initially Mayak was dumping high-level radioactive waste into a nearby river, which flowed to the river Ob, flowing farther down to the Arctic Ocean. All six reactors were on Lake Kyzyltash and used an open-cycle cooling system, discharging contaminated water directly back into the lake.[4] When Lake Kyzyltash quickly became contaminated, Lake Karachay was used for open-air storage, keeping the contamination a slight distance from the reactors but soon making Lake Karachay the "most-polluted spot on Earth".[5][6][7]

Kyshtym disaster haha, how can you trust these people?

[Anonymous No.11079023]

Explosion Edit
In 1957 the cooling system in one of the tanks containing about 70–80 tons of liquid radioactive waste failed and was not repaired. The temperature in it started to rise, resulting in evaporation and a chemical explosion of the dried waste, consisting mainly of ammonium nitrate and acetates (see ammonium nitrate/fuel oil bomb). The explosion, on 29 September 1957, estimated to have a force of about 70–100 tons of TNT,[10] threw the 160-ton concrete lid into the air.[8] There were no immediate casualties as a result of the explosion, but it released an estimated 20 MCi (800 PBq) of radioactivity.[11] Most of this contamination settled out near the site of the accident and contributed to the pollution of the Techa River, but a plume containing 2 MCi (80 PBq) of radionuclides spread out over hundreds of kilometers.[12] Previously contaminated areas within the affected area include the Techa river, which had previously received 2.75 MCi (100 PBq) of deliberately dumped waste, and Lake Karachay, which had received 120 MCi (4,000 PBq).[

[Anonymous No.11079037]

>>11077525
is there any reason this wouldn't work?

[Anonymous No.11079053]

>>11078487
but it's not, you literally haven't given any argument as to why nuclear is the best option to progress as a society. There is literally no reason why you couldn't replace "nuclear" with "solar and wind' in that phrase.

[Anonymous No.11079060]

>>11079053
different anon, but it is best for highscale energy density and space used, if energy use continues to increase at the rate it has been then even covering every inch of the planet with solar panels and wind turbines won't be enough to create the power we need.

[Anonymous No.11079063]

>>11073602
Nice trolling

[Anonymous No.11079066]

>>11079060
We need an area of solar panels the size of Texas to power the whole planet.
It's less than one regular house footprint of panels to power a house, it's practical.

[Anonymous No.11079073]

>>11079063

The only troll here is the nuclear industry.

[Anonymous No.11079087]

>>11079066
>but what about these vague figures I regurgitated out of a magazine
It's like the retards who tell you overpopulation don't real because the world population can theoretically be condensed into a similarly Texas-sized plot of ideal contiguous land that doesn't exist and totally ignores the many complexities of the real world.

[Anonymous No.11079095]

>>11079066
>implying our power usage doesn't increase on an exponential scale
did you even read my fucking post?

[Anonymous No.11079098]

>>11079073
0/10

[Anonymous No.11079268]

>>11079098

I'd give them a 0/10 rating as well.

[Anonymous No.11079532]

>>11077535
That's about the most risky and expensive solution there is

[Anonymous No.11079547]

>>11075134
Good. I lived in poverty my entire life. People who can afford new condos deserve to get cancer.

[Anonymous No.11079552]

>>11073561
What has fortnite to do with it?

[Anonymous No.11079568]

>>11073537
It seems really retarded to use pallet stacking like that. Did they never play with toy bricks as a kid?
I don’t get what is wrong with the Navy’s storage method, pic related. The hiding it in natural caves always seemed retarded, as several later incidents proved.

[Anonymous No.11079602]

>>11073537
lobotomy

[Anonymous No.11079610]

>>11074543
>Even with all the redundancies required to make renewables as reliable as a traditional power plant, they're STILL gonna get cheaper than nuclear almost everywhere.

yes, with hefty subsidies from taxpayers, despite all this crowing about cheap electricity for some bizzare reason it isn't filtering down to the household bills, i wonder why?

>Once again, i seriously am sorry. Nuclear power is so fuckin' cool. And... it's gonna be obsolete fairly soon.

so what makes you say that when India is set to add 20MW of Nuclear Energy over the next 10 years?

I think it is face, renewables that will be reduced to the dustbin of history, sorry :)

[Anonymous No.11079619]

>>11079037
given enough retards and given enough time someone will eventually pickaxe that thing out of whatever storage you have and go mental with it. what could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous No.11079756]

>>11079619
Ok minus the removing from storage it would have to be a determined organization to try and gain access to something sealed in rock deep underground in a developed country at a monitored site

[Anonymous No.11080261]

>>11077525
>>11073537

why is Chernobyl not the waste storage of the world.

>already contaminated as fuck
>cranes and equipment there
>big as Sarcophagus
>no one life's there
>Ukraine could make big bucks

[Anonymous No.11080294]

>>11079037
money

[Anonymous No.11080296]

GreenPeace and Friends of Earth gets paid by the fossil fuel industry to bash nuclear as much as they can. Part of it because the movements was originally made under the fear that cheap electricity would lead to more people and overpopulation that would kill the environment faster than fossil fuels could. But because they knew they couldn't use such a misanthropic argument popular among the public, they focused on anti-nuclear hysteria instead.

[Anonymous No.11080299]

>>11080294
>be given money to dispose of nuclear waste
>process waste into safe nuclear batteries
>be given money in exchange for nuclear batteries

where's the money problem here?

[Anonymous No.11080302]

>>11080261
contamination isn't as bad as you think
people do live there
you fell for (((big oil and coals))) "nuclear is dangerous!" meme

[Anonymous No.11080304]

>>11080261
let it be a tomb, and a monument. Ukraine is a war zone now, and has always been a borderlands in part between conquering nations. Instead go for some quiet deep dark place in the nordic sphere.

[Anonymous No.11080308]

In the 1950s and 1960s, conservationists were pro-nuclear. They understood that nuclear plants would produce pollution-free electricity on a tiny fraction of the land required for coal mining, hydro-electric dams, and oil and gas drilling.

At the time, California’s utilities were heavily regulated and had an obligation to the public to keep electricity prices low. They proposed to build nuclear plants to eliminate the state’s reliance on oil and natural gas.

In the mid-1960s, the Sierra Club supported the building of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant to replace fossil fuels. “Nuclear power is one of the chief long-term hopes for conservation,” argued Sierra Club President Will Siri in 1966.

“Cheap energy in unlimited quantities is one of the chief factors allowing a large, rapidly growing population to set aside wildlands, open space and lands of high-scenic value,” added Siri, who was a biophysicist, mountaineer, and veteran of the Manhattan Project.

Not everyone thought cheap energy was a good thing. “If a doubling of the state’s population in the next 20 years is encouraged by providing the power resources for this growth,” countered Club Executive Director, David Brower, California’s “scenic character will be destroyed.”

After weighing the arguments, the Sierra Club’s Board of Directors voted nine-to-one to support the building of Diablo Canyon.

In response, Brower quit and started a new group, Friends of the Earth (FOE). “There’s no more important issue in my life,” said Brower, than to “see that Friends of the Earth does everything it can, here and abroad, to stop the nuclear experiment.”

Would you be shocked to learn that the founding donor of FOE was oilman Robert Anderson, owner of Atlantic Richfield? He gave FOE the equivalent of $500,000 in 2019 dollars.

[Anonymous No.11080312]

>>11080308

“What was David Brower doing accepting money from an oilman?” his biographer wondered. The answer is that he was developing the environmental movement’s strategy of promoting renewables as a way to greenwash the killing of nuclear plants and the expanded use of fossil fuels.

At the exact same time, California’s former governor, Edmund “Pat” Brown, was raising $100 billion (in 2019 dollars) from U.S. banks for Indonesia’s state oil company. In exchange, he received exclusive rights to sell Indonesian oil in California and a $360,000 (in 2019 dollars) donation to his son Jerry’s campaign for governor.

After he won, Gov. Jerry Brown’s aides took actions to defend the family’s oil monopoly. One of them, acting as an air pollution regulator, killed a refinery being built by Chevron, which would have competed directly with the Brown oil business, while another worked to kill nuclear plants.

By 1976, activists who feared that cheap nuclear energy would fuel overpopulation had taken over the Sierra Club. The organization’s new executive director proposed a strategy to foment hysteria about nuclear in order to impose regulations to make nuclear expensive.

"Our campaign stressing the hazards of nuclear power will supply a rationale for increasing regulation,” he explained, “add to the cost of the industry, and render its economics less attractive.”

Along with groups like Union of Concerned Scientists and NRDC, Sierra Club claimed that the clean if slightly warmer water that comes out of nuclear plants was a kind of “thermal pollution,” and demanded unnecessary and expensive measures to mitigate the non-problem.

Working together, Brown and the Sierra Club killed so many nuclear power plants between 1976 and 1979 that, had they been built, California would today be generating all of its electricity from zero-emissions sources.

[Anonymous No.11080323]

Today, the Sierra Club, EDF, and NRDC together take in more than half a billion dollars each year from donors that include billionaire coal, natural gas, and renewables investors like Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg.

Sierra Club and EDF have received a minimum of $136 million and $60 million, respectively, from oil, gas, & renewables investors, and are currently working alongside the American Petroleum Institute to kill nuclear plants in California, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

NRDC, for its part, has a minimum of $70 million directly invested in oil and gas and renewable energy companies that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants. It, too, is working to kill nuclear plants in California, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Even smaller groups, like WISE International and Environmental Law and Policy Center, take money from natural gas and renewables companies while fighting to replace nuclear plants with natural gas and renewables.

Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace — which rakes in $350 million annually, crashes drones into nuclear plants, and recently declared, “Sabotaging nuclear is a vital part of saving the climate” — both keep their donors secret.

EDF, NRDC, and Sierra Club know perfectly well that solar and wind require the expansion of fossil fuels. How could they not? They’ve been killing nuclear plants and watching air pollution rise, as a result, for a half-century.

[Anonymous No.11080333]

>>11073804
well at least its not just thrown under a pile of salt.

now since there is water leaking in this peace of shit Germany has to get everything out again.
only problem is that no one knows what they disposed there in the 60s.
there is even evidence that they threw spend fuel in there.

[Anonymous No.11080344]

>>11080333
>no one knows what they disposed there in the 60s.
>evidence that they threw spend fuel in there

Throw it in a hole, and let future generations deal with it. Oh wait, WE ARE THE FUTURE GENERATIONS!!

Darn you baby boomers!! You did it again!!

[Anonymous No.11080937]

>>11080308
>>11080312
capping this

[Anonymous No.11081001]

>>11073584
>>11073572
>>11073582
>>11073602
throw it into volcanos

[Anonymous No.11081527]

>>11073537

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Mr3i6XZ1s

[Anonymous No.11082356]

>>11074731
Stop using electricity

[Anonymous No.11082366]

>>11079610
Doesn't Germany still have to resort to buying nuclear generated electricity from France?

[Anonymous No.11082371]

>>11073537
We definitely still have a problem with nuclear waste

[Anonymous No.11082418]

>>11079610
why does France with an entirely socialized electricity sector still pay 2x what i do for electricity? I thought nuclear was cheap?

[Anonymous No.11082428]

>>11082418
wut?

[Anonymous No.11082433]

>>11077535
Why don't we just dump all the waste into russia and nuke them

[Anonymous No.11082446]

>>11082428
I didn't realize it was still 2014 like I said, double what I pay

[Anonymous No.11082464]

>>11082446
Still some of the cheapest in Europe, can't really compare to US coal funded by gimmedats

[Anonymous No.11082465]

>>11080333
I don't know what you're talking about exactly, but I wouldn't put it past the German government to borderline lie about the severity of any nuclear "problem". Since they killed nuclear and went full retard on renewable, their energy prices have skyrocketed.
>You see! Good thing you're paying several times what France is paying for power! They'll surely have big problems later!
>[Intense perspiration visible on clothing]

[Anonymous No.11082480]

>>11082464
a third of my states generated energy is wind, with the rest being mostly NG, why would anyone think paying double for nuclear is a good deal?

[Anonymous No.11082488]

>>11082465
German consumers pay 33% more not several times, and interestingly enough Germany is a net exporter of electricity to France

>https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/column/20180302.html

[Anonymous No.11082736]

>>11082488
>33% more
Include subsidies. Thanks.
>Germany is a net exporter of electricity to France
By logic of contracts, not physical flow. Germany makes shitloads of unreliable wind and solar now, but their baseload has hardly changed (because it can't, or they'd have to make even more expensive peaking purchases from outside the country). Yes, they're making more power, but it's expensive. They're making money on it, but far less than if the source had a high capacity factor, and if they shut down their coal and gas, they'd be surviving on external energy.

[Anonymous No.11082768]

>>11082736
>Include subsidies. Thanks.
what do you even mean by this? aren't we talking about how much people physically pay for energy? Isn't France's state owned grid entirely subsidized? clarify your statement.
>By logic of contracts, not physical flow.
Which is what matters, Europe's grid is connected, if you only measure physical flow power routed through Germany supplied to other counties like Belgium is counted as imported by Germany. Contracts tell you who's actually using and paying for power which is what really matters.

>and if they shut down their coal and gas, they'd be surviving on external energy.

unironically retarded statement, you could say this about virtually any country on the planet. Even France would have to import power if they shut down their 10% fossil fuels overnight.

[Anonymous No.11082834]

>>11073538
FPBP

[Anonymous No.11082871]

>>11082480
>implying NG won't run out

[Anonymous No.11082984]

>>11082768
France pays 14 euro cents perk Wh on the energy bill. Germany, 29 euro cents. But hold on, France has almost no fossil fuel production. They're sitting at 4% while Germany is at 48%. Much of that is coal. Do you know how many people coal kills? It's extraordinarily dangerous to the public health. This is a subsidy, and it's enormous. The US also ignores this, and people say the power is cheap at ten US cents per kWh. It's not. People are getting sick and dying slowly. The France price per kWh is more real, because more side effects are accounted for.
>Which is what matters
The interconnected nature of the EU makes it harder to reason about what exactly is happening, even as a general trend. Contracts are drawn up by imperfect humans. Physical measurements are less fallible.
>you could say this about virtually any country on the planet
Except, Germany is trying to do it. France doesn't have a coal problem. Germany does. You can't just replace the coal with solar and wind because it's too unreliable. You could build out double capacity and add battery, but holy shit the cost. So they're stuck with either keeping coal, somehow getting more gas, or importing even more.

[Anonymous No.11083590]

>>11082446
France still has the cheapest Electricity in Europe after eastern Euro nations who heavily use fossil fuels, and guess who's still the second most expensive?

[Anonymous No.11083615]

>>11083590
Double what I pay isn't a convincing argument for nuclear

[Anonymous No.11083731]

>>11083615
>Double what I pay

what country are you from?

[Anonymous No.11083819]

>>11082488

Germany pays about 50 cents in taxes per kwh for energy.

Without them, solar and other renewables become completely nonviable.

[Anonymous No.11084043]

>wind and solar cant keep up with exponetial enegie needs over time

[Anonymous No.11084045]

>>11083731
US

[Anonymous No.11084089]

>>11084045
So you are comparing a country using 75% nuclear to a country that uses 80% fossil fuels and surprised ones cheaper? Of course fossil fuels make cheaper electricity, that's why we are in this climate mess smoothbrain, Nuclear is more expensive than Coal but less than renewables, >>11083590 this graph supports my claim, what we need in an energy source used to be reliable and cheap, now we need something emission free, and Nuclear Energy ticks those boxes.

[Anonymous No.11084091]

>>11073537
ask them politely, yet firmly, to leave

[Anonymous No.11084094]

>>11084089
So you want me to pay double for energy? Literally more than California what are you some kind of commie?

[Anonymous No.11084097]

>>11084043
Is this a mockery because its what I believe. To be fair the futures power is their own concern but it would be good to develop the technology that will unlock exponentially more energy for humanity instead of subsistence.

[Anonymous No.11084100]

>>11084094
To be fair costs would plummet if new reactors were being built and the reprocessing network grew

[Anonymous No.11084104]

>>11081001
And when they erupt?

[Anonymous No.11084108]

>>11084094
Fossil fuels are massively subsidized in the US through war and taxes, money that effectively goes to companies. Nuclear also has to pay for the proper disposal of its waste while fossils are allowed to just shit into the air, killing thousands with particulate pollution even before CO2 comes in.

[Anonymous No.11084128]

>>11084094
So you want me to pay double for energy?

Would you rather unchecked climate change or paying double for the short term with a steady decrease?

Renewables are even worse, along with the problems with indeterminacy and extra cost for energy storage and grid upgrades, chose your poison.

>>11084100
Theres this possibility like anon said, South Korea has been reducing construction costs for new reactors over the decades, France has kept it constant, and these huge prices are derived from US reactors whos construction are wrapped in layers of red tape and regulation.

[Anonymous No.11084278]

>>11073537
not even japan niggers can get it right

if third worlders ran entirely out of nuclear they would completely ruin earth and it wouldn't even get reported

[Anonymous No.11084378]

>>11079066
ok lemme just run an extension cord from texas to berlin and hope night never falls on the lone star state

[Anonymous No.11084932]

>>11084278
Why don't they just filter the radioactive from the water. Would shrink the storage required wouldn't it?

[Anonymous No.11084938]

>>11074731
Build the plant on the ocean. Who the fuck uses a river?

[Anonymous No.11085136]

>>11084378
Glad retards like you don't plan infrastructure

[Anonymous No.11085138]

>>11084128
Why is the lcoe of pv+ storage cheaper than Nuclear and falling?

[Anonymous No.11085161]

>>11084045
>>11084089
US coal and gas power looks cheaper on paper, but your utility bill cost ignores the huge subsidies given to fossil fuel companies, and the external effects of pollution e.g. increased healthcare costs, eventual effects of AGW. You're getting jewed by coal, oil and gas. They've been manipulating the narrative for a long time, and they have tendrils woven through the government like bankers do.

[Anonymous No.11085250]

>>11084932
The radioactivity comes from an isotope of hydrogen (H-3, tritium). It's bonded to oxygen as (H-3)2O, which is chemically the same as H2O. The only difference is weight and radioactivity. There are ways to separate water from tritiated water. None are economical for the volume of water the Japanese have. It would be silly to do it anyway, as the amount of tritiated water they're dumping is essentially nothing compared to the naturally occurring tritiated water in the ocean. If they dump it over a reasonably long timespan, nothing will notice. It doesn't bioaccumulate, and the half life is 12 years. The news hyped this up (as usual for anything to do with nuclear), but it's really a non-issue.

[Anonymous No.11085788]

>>11084089
>>11085161

a very interesting fact is that a Coal plants release more radioactive emissions than a nuclear plant.

Coal naturally contains traces of uranium ,thorium and radium.
Worldwide coal power plants emit 10000 tons of uranium and 25000 tons of thorium.

[Anonymous No.11087074]

>>11075134
>It starts leaking
1) not all waste is liquid
2) liquids dont run uphill
3) nuclear waste containers, for the purposes of your point, dont leak
4) nuclear waste that you find in long term storage isnt dangerously active unless you take a bath, have a drink, or pitch a tent for months at a time
https://www.iaea.org/resources/safety-standards/search
Try reading some relevant literature before contributing your retarded opinion.

[Anonymous No.11087082]

>>11076001
>real problem with climate scientists that claim X will happen in 40 years but can't predict the weather 6 hours in advance
You have a problem with this because you are functionally retarded. Consider the following true statement: The global map of nation will eventually change drastically. Does the fact I cant tell you what will happen in 5 years detract from this? Long term, broad scope trends are significantly easier to predict than the inverse.

[Anonymous No.11087564]

>>11084932

It doesn't matter, really. It's not dangerous with such low concentration.