/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3994900]

Outrageous calls for nuclear energy have echoed in the halls of Washington.

This is the worst possible thing that we can do, falsely, dumbly, in the name of so-called "Green Power."

Based on personal experience, here are the reasons:

1. The volts produced by nuclear reactors are too big to fit inside the power lines, and they never reach their destination. Instead, they leak out onto the desert sands, and kill the native life - mostly endangered species like the spotted owl.

2. The volts are square instead of round, like the other kind of volts made in natural ways. The square nature of the volts, makes them have to work lots harder and they cannot get through the smart meters now being installed by electric companies. This means they will pile up in the meters and report false useage and we will have to pay for what we didn't even receive. It's a plot, folks.

3. Nuclear Volts make your stereo sound funny.

4. Nuclear volts get into your toaster and make it burn your toast, no matter how low you set the appliance.

5. Sometimes at night, during the winter, the nuclear volts seep out of the outlets, onto the floor and burn your bare feet when you go to the bathroom.

6. Sometimes nuclear volts make your alarm clock run backwards, and you wake up the day before you went to bed.

7. Nuclear volts sometimes come out of the water faucets, and make your water spurt out of the light bulb sockets.

Just say "no" to nuclear energy.

[Anonymous No.3994916]

You make a compelling point.

[Anonymous No.3994941]

We already had this thread.

[Anonymous No.3994952]

0/10 troll. You have no idea what you are talking about. Read a physics book.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3994964]

>Sometimes nuclear volts make your alarm clock run backwards, and you wake up the day before you went to bed.
holy shit i'm laughing like a motherfucker right now
good show op, 10/10

[Anonymous No.3994974]

weak as fuck.....

[Lunatic !!h/HxpkvWDAR No.3994994]

>>6. Sometimes nuclear volts make your alarm clock run backwards, and you wake up the day before you went to bed.
BRB gotta get me some nuclear volts so I can wake up yesterday bet on horse races, buy lottery tickets, buy and sell stocks, and suck the economy dry.

[Anonymous No.3995007]

>Every time a nuclear power reactor idea doesn't work out, and ordinary people get down-hearted and start to doubt the magnificence and benificence of nuclear energy, nuclear proponents rush back to their well-stocked dream factory to fetch another idea -- one that is sufficiently unfamiliar and sufficiently untested that ordinary people have no idea whether it is good or bad, safe or dangerous, feasible or foolish, or whether the almost miraculous claims made about it are true or false.

>Just a few years ago, nuclear proponents were pushing Generation 3 reactors -- enormous plants that would generate huge amounts of electricity, yet be cheaper and faster to build than earlier models, as well as being safer and longer-lived.

>Then Areva ran into a blizzard of problems trying to build one of these behemoths in Finland -- the cost soaring by billions, the construction time stretched by years, and fundamental safety-related design problems surfacing late in the game. Check and mate.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3995013]

>>3995007
>Generation 3 reactor being built
>in finland
>costs soaring
i will be you money a decent bit of those soaring costs was due to court cases by NIMBYs

[Anonymous No.3995018]

>Undaunted, nuclear proponents quickly executed a 180-degree turn and are now promoting small reactors which can be mass-produced by the thousands and sprinkled on the landscape like cinnamon on toast. Pebble-bed reactors, molten-salt reactors, thorium reactors, have been paraded before the public with as many bells and whistles as the nuclear industry can muster, to distract people's gaze away from the construction fiascos, the litany of broken promises from the past, the still-unsolved problems of nuclear waste and nuclear weapons proliferation, and the horror that is Fukushima.

>The breeder concept is very attractive to those who envisage a virtually limitless future for nuclear reactors, because the naturally occurring uranium-235 supply is not going to outlast the oil supply. Without advanced fuel cycles, nuclear power is doomed to be just a "flash in the pan". They do not see a nuclear phaseout as even remotely feasible or attractive.

>Molten salt reactors are not a new idea, and they do not in any way require the use of thorium -- although historically the two concepts have often been linked.

[Anonymous No.3995019]

It's artificial. The whole thing is being made up the energy supply is being lobbied more waste of energy so they need more.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3995026]

>>3995007
>>3995018
i'd also like to bet money this was written by someone who fanatically pushes solar and wind power, claiming "they will get better" and "they will be grid viable"

and i guess nuclear power cannot advance or become better ever?

[Anonymous No.3995035]

>Currently the Japanese are working on a 100-200 MWe molten salt thorium breeder reactor, using technologies similar to those used at Oak Ridge, but the Japanese project seems to lack funding. India is pursuing thorium near-breeder technology of a more conventional kind with full reprocessing capabilities, dating back to Canadian plans in the 1970s that never saw the light of day. (In fact, India has been trying to develop a thorium breeder fuel cycle for decades but has not yet done so commercially.)

>Some U.S. Administration departments have feared that fuel reprocessing in any form could pave the way to the plutonium economy with its associated proliferation dangers.[21]

>A similar argument led to the shutdown of the Integral Fast Reactor project in 1994. [22] The proliferation risk for a thorium fuel cycle stems from the potential separation of uranium-233, which might be used in nuclear weapons, though only with considerable difficulty.

[Anonymous No.3995042]

>>3994900
>Based on personal experience
>>3994916
>You make a compelling point.
Really though?

[Anonymous No.3995048]

>Reprocessing plants around the world have exhibited poor records of occupational safety, pollution control, waste containment, and security. For example, at the Hanford military plutonium reprocessing plant in Washington State, over a million gallons of high-level liquid waste has escaped from steel-and-concrete tanks into the soil. One gallon of this waste is enough to ruin an entire city's water supply. Hanford workers have also shown a significant increase in the incidence of cancer. In Russia, an explosion involving high-level liquid waste contaminated hundreds of square miles and hospitalized thousands of people. In the UK, a small explosion in 1973 occurred at the Windscale reprocessing plant [now known as Sellafield], and radioactive effluents have been substantial. In the US, large quantities of plutonium are missing and "unaccounted for" -- enough to make several hundred atomic bombs.


>But this is by no means an off-the-shelf technology. The optimism and zeal exhibited by proponents is based not only on technological considerations, but is also driven by a sense of "nuclear fatalism" (that civilization cannot survive without nuclear energy) combined with a heady air of "engineering euphoria" that often accompanies such an attitude.

[Anonymous No.3996025]

HOW TO GET NUCLEAR VOLTS????