Why is nuclear power bad?

[Anonymous No.9258299]

Why is nuclear power so universally hated?
Why are there so many fervently opposing groups?

[Anonymous No.9258301]

>>9258299
It's spoopy and has a scary symbol

[Anonymous No.9258311]

>>9258299

The energy?

Pretty clean, no emissions.

The reliability?

It's constant, unlike hydro or solar or other renewables that can vary with natures cycles.

The waste?

Horrible.

Just literal tonnes of highly radioactive spent uranium and other waste that we simply don't know what to do with.

Also meltdown or natural disasters can cause this radiation to leak into out natural environment causing damage that we can't even fully understand yet.

Personally, while these risks are quite unlikely to happen, the severity of them make me wary of nuclear power.


My solution? Nuclear power plants on the Moon and then ship back massive batteries.

[Anonymous No.9258380]

>>9258311
>massive batteries

[Anonymous No.9258386]

>>9258299
Mostly because of the Cold War, also Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly didn't help.

[Anonymous No.9258401]

>>9258386
Cherynoble

[Anonymous No.9258405]

>>9258311
>Also meltdown or natural disasters can cause this radiation to leak into out natural environment causing damage that we can't even fully understand yet.


I feel like this statement is not well informed.


You should research the newer ways in which nuclear energy is harassed we've addressed a large number of concerns. The problem right now is mostly that we continue to use out dated tech.

[Anonymous No.9258409]

>>9258401
Oh yeah and that.
Even though those are extremely rare.

[Anonymous No.9258410]

>>9258299
Literally the worst run industry in existence filled with corruption.
They are constantly fucking shit up and cover it up with government aid.

Only the "I Fucking Love Science" crowd supports that shit because "Nuclear" is a science word.

[Anonymous No.9258414]

>>9258311
>Nuclear power plants on the Moon and then ship back massive batteries.
Hue

Or we could generate the power on the moon and then use that power to throw moon rocks at the earth, we can then use the kinetic energy of the rock to make power.

[Anonymous No.9258417]

>>9258410
Lol, you're fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.9258425]

>>9258299
Because fossil fuels are everywhere, therefore fossil has way more lobbying power than nuclear, even though it's cheaper, cleaner and safer. Unless you build reactors on A FUCKING TECTONIC QUAKELAND or make the workers SCARED OF THEIR OWN SHADOWS REPORTING THEM TO NKVGBBQ FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE GLORIOUS OLD FART PARTY ORDERS.

[Anonymous No.9258428]

>>9258425
Can't forget that you have to prove that new things making it better an easier have to be proven over a 10 year fucking period before they get implemented so literally any reactor we bud is already 10 years out of fate, if not more.

[Anonymous No.9258441]

>>9258311
>Nuclear power plants on the Moon and then ship back massive batteries
oh you were doing so well right up to that point

[Anonymous No.9258452]

>>9258299
>Why is nuclear power so universally hated?
>Why are there so many fervently opposing groups?
Koch brothers and other powerful far right wing entities pay astroturfing organizations to shill against it.

Same thing with climate change deniers.

[Anonymous No.9258457]

Far as my ignorance knows, our "nuclear energy" tech is out-dated, as its research stopped, but some independent research my ignorance found, there is something called thorium, that is way more effective than uranium, its a little way more common and its not so waste producer
I hope thorium is that way better making nuclear energy more effective

[Anonymous No.9258509]

>>9258299
It produces some nasty waste that you have to store for millions of years
When radioactive material leaks, it creates nasty shit
Some of the "waste" is used to create nuclear weapons

[Anonymous No.9258512]

If America hadn't pussied out the country would be running on 80% nuclear power to this day, and climate change wouldn't be a concern.

[Anonymous No.9258516]

>>9258417
Not an argument. You can't shame people into supporting you.

[Anonymous No.9258520]

>>9258452
[citation needed]

conservatives luv to shill for nuke power.

[Anonymous No.9258522]

>>9258299
>Why is nuclear power so universally hated?
It isn't.

[Anonymous No.9258526]

>>9258516
You took that as me making an arguement? Im sorry, try being less retarded. Do some fucking research.

[Anonymous No.9258530]

>>9258299
>Why is nuclear power so universally hated?
Its not, large fossil fuel companies and the far right would like you to think that though and to be afraid of it.

[Anonymous No.9258532]

>>9258414
Good idea, and you also get moon rocks out of it

[Anonymous No.9258534]

>>9258512
You're an idiot

[Anonymous No.9258541]

>>9258532
Yeah man, lets go hit up Elon Musk. I'm sure he will fund us, well be like the next hyper loop or vertical take off and landing rockets for civilian transportation. This is a really great idea.

[Anonymous No.9258552]

>>9258526
>but muh echo chamber says nuclear power is the bestest evar dude!
>yo--you're retarded!!

[Anonymous No.9258555]

>>9258299
Read a book.

[Anonymous No.9258565]

>>9258552
That's an argument?

[Anonymous No.9258567]

>>9258552

[Anonymous No.9258571]

>>9258530
https://newrepublic.com/article/139700/democrats-party-science-not-really

The right is the pronuclear we don't need no regulations no how party.

[Anonymous No.9258584]

>>9258571
Nothing in that article seems to support your claim that the right is pro nuclear. It only makes the case that the left isn't pro science. That's not the same thing at all, there is a huge amount of proof that the right is anti nuclear. Just research it for me. Be honest when drawing conclusion and try not to be biased. Not everything is left vs. Right. Don't try to make it that way.

[Anonymous No.9258591]

>>9258299
Because it's a failure that can only run if propped up by the government.

[Anonymous No.9258744]

>>9258299
Because people are fucking retards, how have you not figured this out yet. Tyranny of the majority is stagnating our culture hugely because no one gives a shit about education.

[Anonymous No.9258752]

>>9258410
Im going to give you the benefit of the doubt here by assuming what you mean by cover shit up with government aid is actually subsidy. Given that every industry receives subsidy of some kind this isnt a point against nuclear power or even a point at all, similarly corruption is present everywhere and indeed is far more extreme in other industries particularly finance.

You know what else isnt an argument? Just spewing non sourced, nonsensical bullshit and then expecting people to agree with you.

[Anonymous No.9258760]

>>9258591
You mean just like the auto, finance, and telecom industries among others?
>haHAA i think I live in a totally free market, i dont know anything about antitrust laws, subsidy, corporate structures, economic incentives, currency, or history PLs alloww me to share my opinion

[Anonymous No.9258854]

>>9258452
>http://news.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx

[Anonymous No.9259023]

>>9258311

what waste?

https://youtu.be/rv-mFSoZOkE

[Anonymous No.9259120]

>>9258299
Probably because it hurts and kills people.

[Anonymous No.9259125]

>>9258854
>republican voters don't hate nuclear power
>therefore, republican donors don't work against something that could compete with them
how is that an argument?

[Anonymous No.9259131]

>>9258311
>waste that we simply don't know what to do with
Umm, how about bury it? Literally you only need like 1-2 meters of rock on top of it and the radiation problem has been dealt with. Who doesn't know this?

Google Oklo, no one designed that and it worked out just fine.

[Anonymous No.9259136]

>>9258509
>millions of years
lol nub

[Anonymous No.9259138]

>>9258311
Spoken like someone who has no idea what they are talking about. I work in the industry as a nuclear engineer and can tell you you're spewing media overhyped spooky misinformation.

[Anonymous No.9259144]

>>9259131
the only reason "but waste!" is even an argument is because of dumb fucks like Obama stopping the yucka mountain project. Literally 10's of millions of dollars in limbo on a facility thats nearly completed but stopped because uneducated smelly hippies complained to their democunt overlords. Having spent fuel pellets housed at reactor sites is a disaster waiting to happen and its all because of morons like him perpetuating lies by the media.

[Anonymous No.9259270]

>>9258311
are you also afraid of MRIs and nuclear medicine? because those sources are more dangerous to the public than waste by far

[Anonymous No.9259277]

>>9258311
Oh no! how do you sleep at night? Doesnt the eeeevil oogy boogy radiation man gunna get ya while you sleep?

[Anonymous No.9259354]

>>9258299
Dont you see all those greenhouse gases coming out of the cooling towers in your own pic? There's your answer right there.

[Anonymous No.9259360]

>>9259354
You probably know this but some of the nubs don't so I'll say it: It's water vapour
(yeah, that's a greenhouse gas too, but negligible impact on climate considering the amount).

[Anonymous No.9259370]

>>9259360
water vapour is the number one greenhouse gas that affects the temp.

[Anonymous No.9259374]

>>9259370
>water vapour
>greenhouse gas
Nein

[Anonymous No.9259381]

>>9259374
are you retarded?
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

[Anonymous No.9259384]

>>9259370
Yes, but the amount of water vapour added from nuclear plants is next to nothing. Like I already said.

[Anonymous No.9259386]

>>9259374
Lol is water vapor not a greenhouse gas now?

[Anonymous No.9259388]

>>9259384
i know. not like it could stay dispersed as an aerosol anyway because of the saturation being dependent on temp.

[Anonymous No.9259409]

>>9258299

Incredibly dangerous, finite, polluting, and readily usable by warmongers.

Everything is wrong with it.

[Anonymous No.9259415]

Anyone talking like public view can stop shit from happening is delusional

No public will ever condone the endless waste of billions of dollars caused by the NRC dragging out construction projects.

For 40 fucking years the NRC has stopped the construction of all new nuclear power plants, that was why it was created, thats it's defining purpose, and thats what it continues to do
The NRC needs to be bulldozed into the ground.

This has NOTHING to do with public opinion, Judges are not required to listen to frivolous lawsuits, nor is there any people voting over single issue "muh nuclear power" stuff

[Anonymous No.9259424]

>>9259415
>NRC is the big problem
Lol. Clearly you don't work in the industry. Why was the NRC created? Who do they answer to? who enacts the laws?
The politians pander to moron voters so they can be voted in again. NRC isnt the reason nuclear power has been underfuned for 50 years. The NRC isnt stopping projects you moron.

[Anonymous No.9259430]

>>9259415
The NRC was only created by the ERA in 1975 so why was nuclear severely underfunded before then...?

[Anonymous No.9259434]

>>9259424
>Why was the NRC created?
Because coal & oil companies were scared of being run out of business, so the NRC froze the nuclear power output at 20% of the US's power. This is just normal corrupt corporate-government cooperation, happens all the time.

>NRC isnt the reason nuclear power has been underfuned for 50 years.
Is this a joke?

>The NRC isnt stopping projects you moron.
They 100% ARE stopping projects, thats the purpose of their existance.
They didn't issue a single new permit for 30+ years, they issued a few recently but they will drag out those projects until they get cancelled

[Anonymous No.9259436]

Why don't they just make nuclear roadways?

[Anonymous No.9259438]

>>9259430
What are you talking about
It is not the government running nuclear power plants..
Existing power plants are immensely profitable, private companies would love to be able to build new plants.

[Anonymous No.9259439]

>>9259409
Tally up the sick and dead via coal/oil pollution and those via nuclear accidents and radiation-caused mortality increases. You'll be surprised. And then view this per produced kWh in these technologies. You'll be shocked.

[Anonymous No.9259441]

>>9259434
I worked with Dr. Macfarlane for half a decade. You dont know what you're talking about. They completly have their hands tied by the government. The NRC is only quasi indipendent to the fed government.
The NRC is filled with pro nuclear people that are safety minded and extremely strict because they have to be. Public relations is the main factor holding nuclear back by far. The populace has no idea what the fuck radiation even is.

[Anonymous No.9259449]

https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html

Look at all these Withdrawn permits, thats them giving up because its taken too fucking long with no end in sight
Look at the 7-8 year delay before issuing permits for the Issued
Then they get cancelled because the companies have gone bankrupt waiting to be allowed to start construction

>>9259441
Does the Fed government decide how long they take to issue a permit? That they need to spend a year reviewing it, then another 5 years doing "safety" & "environmental" inspections?

>Public relations is the main factor holding nuclear back by far.
What does this mean? What aspect of the NRC is controlled by public opinion?

[Anonymous No.9259450]

>>9258299
Lrn2radioactive-hazmat, n00b

[Anonymous No.9259460]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Anna_Nuclear_Generating_Station

They are ALREADY operating 2 nuclear reactors at this side
So how much safety or environmental inspection needs to be done?

>Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC submitted its application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the North Anna site on September 25, 2003.
>On January 19, 2017, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced that its staff had completed its Final Safety Evaluation Report for a Combined License for a proposed reactor at the North Anna site. The report concludes there are no safety aspects that would preclude issuing the license for construction and operation of the proposed reactor.

I guess 14 years is an acceptable amount of time for a company already operating 2 reactors, to be allowed to build another

>On May 31, 2017, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced that it had authorized the issuance of a Combined License for North Anna.
Sits on it for another few months just cuz, and then imposes lots of other conditions for a new reactor. Most of which are likely useless other than imposing costs.

[Anonymous No.9259466]

>>9259449
A good amount of that is excess red tape but also a significant cause of these failures are the compamies themselves not doing the proper due diligence in regards to the permit.
Just look at URENCO. Didn't take them too long because they knew what they were doing. They stepped up their game after the Abdul Khan disaster.


The NRC could easily be smacked down and stripped of power if congress decides to do so. Thats why they are bound so strongly by public opinion. It's how the ERA was designed. Go and read some of subchapter one of the act.

>>9259460
Again this isnt the full picture. The fact that it too an absurd amount of time isn't fully on the shoulders of the NRC.

[Anonymous No.9259477]

>>9258311
23 tonnes of uranium = 1 cubic meter.
Stop measuring waste by weight, if it's a stocking problem, it's an issue of volume.

[Anonymous No.9259480]

>>9259466
When you say Due Diligence, thats a government bureaucracy requiring them to jump through insane hoops while dragging shit out for years.

How long did the URENCO permit take, can't seem to find when they applied.
Also that isn't a power producing plant, so its a little different, doesn't compete with oil/natural gas/coal/green/etc interests.

>The fact that it too an absurd amount of time isn't fully on the shoulders of the NRC.
But they are the one who issues the permit, this is their authority, not anyone elses.

Now I might accept this argument you are making if SOMEONE, ANYONE was getting permits in an appropriate amount of time.
You can't blame the companies when every single new power plant is being delayed 7-8+ years just applying for a permit to start construction.

Not to mention the years wasted while the NRC studies/approves a new reactor design.
This is starting is be a serious safety issue in that they can't build new power plants, so they have to keep operating old ones well beyond their expiry dates.

[Anonymous No.9259489]

>>9258311
You do realize that the volume of waste produced by nuclear is literally thousands of times less than fossil fuels... Right?

[Anonymous No.9259523]

I'd rather have a fusion reactor than a fission reactor powering my community. Also I'd like a more reasonable backup power system than just a diesel generator (common at fission plants).

[Anonymous No.9259589]

>>9259523
>I'd rather have flying cars

[ChinkHater No.9260906]

>>9258299
bad for who libtard

[Anonymous No.9260916]

LFTR/MSRs first touched base here right on this very board about 8 years or so ago before /pol/ caught on, it is an absolute shock that its yet been mentioned. Dam /sci/ was comfy back then. But to answer your question OP its purely a lack of education in the subject that the ordinary man has that makes them so afraid to embrace what could be a revolutionary step forward for humankind if it was allowed and encouraged to reach its logical conclusion. Which is gen 4 fission reactors with little waste, passive safety (100% instead of 99.999%), anti-proliferatory, high efficiency and runs on spent fuel supplies - whats shocking is that we've basically had 75% of this available just off the back of the MSRe back in the 60s.

[Anonymous No.9260930]

>>9258311
>My solution? Nuclear power plants on the Moon and then ship back massive batteries.
For the poster and those wondering, it's this line that defines why this comment is being so brutally criticised. And honestly, I'm thinking wtf too.

[Anonymous No.9260935]

>>9258311
>waste is horrible
You know there is a lot of space on earth.
You could probably easily store all nuclear waste ever created just in Texas.
It'd be expensive to maintain such a facility there but not >>horrible<<.

[Anonymous No.9260942]

On the topic of Nuclear Energy, here's something that's been bothering me ever since I was exposed to the idea: What's the deal with Thorium?

Thorium doesn't cause any of the problems Uranium causes. Any problem, any argument that you can make against Uranium field Nuclear Energy, can easily be avoided by using Thorium. It's less harmful, more abundant, and easier to gain access to; so it clearly isn't money related. So why don't we use it?

[Anonymous No.9260962]

>>9260942
Thorium is not a developed technology. That's all.
It would take several years or decades to develop it for industry. Some countries are working on it, but not really with the greatest effort because nuclear isnt very popular atm.

[Anonymous No.9260979]

>>9260962
I suppose that checks out. Seems like something that'd be extremely simple to do though, but that little latter tidbit does explain a whole lot.

[Anonymous No.9261174]

>>9259439
you think that dipshit is going to do research? not even once

[Anonymous No.9261182]

>>9259460
One of the reasons its so hard to get a permit is because nuclear proliferation is a huge fucking problem that costs an incredible amount of resource to mitigate. There is a frightening amount of fissile material missing around the world and any idiot could make a dirty bomb with it. Aside from that it isnt as simple as ok you have the money you get to build a plant because as a commodity electricity is quite unique chiefly because currently we dont have an effective means of storing it.

[Anonymous No.9261300]

>>9261182
Is nuclear proliferation a problem in the USA? no
Do fuel rods just magically disappear in the USA? no
Is "dirty bomb" even a real thing? no

A fast "no" is ALWAYS better than fucking 8+ years of pointless delays, there is no excuse for this shit other than the fact the NRC exists to stop new nuclear power plants. Which it has succeeded in doing admirably since its creation.

[Anonymous No.9261301]

>>9258299
It's dirty. It is allowed because it is cheap. Nuclear reactors can and do melt down. I can think of three times off the top of my head. Have you seen the animals being born around Chernobyl. The gains can never outweigh the risk unless it's you and your buddies making the money.

[Anonymous No.9261320]

>>9261301
>It's dirty.
It's very clean compared to other sources of baseload power.

>Nuclear reactors can and do melt down.
Due to ancient technology not being replaced.

>I can think of three times off the top of my head.
Woah THREE times? Can you think of how many times oil refineries and transportation have exploded? Can you think of how much damage fossil fuel pollution has caused to the environment? No, because it's greater than "three," which means it is apparently too much for your puny brain to comprehend.

>The gains can never outweigh the risk unless it's you and your buddies making the money.
Considering you have not given an iota of thought to the gains from replacing fossil fuels, how could you possibly know that?

Fucking hell, where do these idiots come from?

[Anonymous No.9261322]

>>9259589
We've had flying cars for decades. It just turned out to be stupidly expensive and hard and therefore not practical for individual transport.

Are you suggesting fusion power will end up in a similar niche?

[Anonymous No.9261327]

>>9261322
>Flying cars have tires.
>Are you suggesting that fusion power has tires?

I think the point is that practical fusion does not at this point exist, so saying you would rather have it over existing technology is pointless. I would rather have a flying car, but it doesn't practically exist yet.

[Anonymous No.9261337]

>>9261301
>Have you seen the animals being born around Chernobyl
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/wildlife-returns-to-radioactive-wasteland-of-chernobyl/
Chernobyl is one of the last bastions of indigenous European wildlife.

[Anonymous No.9261357]

>>9261301
>it's dirty.
>Nuclear reactors can and do melt down
Oh wow the only example is Chernobyl. And that's only because the russians literally ignored EVERY single safety feature.
Nuclear power is cleaner than solar. The cleanest power source by far is wind followed up by nuclear.

[Anonymous No.9261361]

>>9258299
Its expensive and irrelevant but people still believe building reactors will somehow lead to fusion.

[Anonymous No.9261373]

>>9261322
No we haven't had "flying cars" for decades, and it is absolutely illegal to fly your personal plane over cities, nor are you allowed to land on the street outside your house/work if you wanted to.

>>9261327
Flying cars DO practically exist, its just that flying is like motorcycles, its a fair weather vehicle.
The only real impediment is infrastructure not designed for it, and the fact its illegal.

[Anonymous No.9261377]

>>9261373
>Flying cars DO practically exist
No, flying cars exist but are not practical enough to replace cars, you ninny. Why did this simple fucking point have to be explained to you twice?

[Anonymous No.9261383]

>>9261377
plenty of ultra-lights are small enough to park in your driveway & fly to work.
The issue is that its illegal

However no flying vehicle will ever look like a fucking car, which is what scammers pretend a "flying car" has to be.

[Anonymous No.9261385]

>>9261361
It's the cheapest and cleanest form of power

[Anonymous No.9261390]

>>9261383
>plenty of ultra-lights are small enough to park in your driveway & fly to work.
>The issue is that its illegal
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Plenty of flying cars have been certified by the FAA, the problem is that they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[Anonymous No.9261410]

>>9261357
Not him but you can add Fukushima to that list though

[Anonymous No.9261416]

>>9258311

Is not so much about waste but rather dealing with the subproducts.

There is no such thing as nuclear waste, you can recicle fuel rods, the thing that is problematic is dealing with the plutonium that forms and that you can use for nuclear/dirty bombs, so a single terrorist organization focused and with enough luck can cause a lot of damage since they only need to reach the plutonium that you processed for them.

So, they just lock it up and wait it to either find a way to use it cheaply in a nuclear reactor or die off its half-life.

[Anonymous No.9261470]

>>9261390
None of them you could actually buy today, because they are scams not real vehicles.
Also you can only fly from airports which makes the whole concept worthless

[Anonymous No.9261472]

>>9259131
Isn't nuclear waste still fissible, though?

[Anonymous No.9261477]

>>9261472
yes. They are stored in specially lined canisters. Imagine a metal barrel thats 4 times your height. Those are placed underground inarge hex patterns inside concrete.

Also he is incorrect about the rock part. It's not the radiation leaking out the top that you have to worry about, its a possible ground water contamination because there is no way to contain that.
That is why most nuclear waste storage facilities are in the middle of nowhere in flat, dry places like new mexico.

[Anonymous No.9261548]

>>9258405
>You should research the newer ways in which nuclear energy is harassed
Leave nuclear energy alone!

[Anonymous No.9261568]

>>9258311
>My solution? Nuclear power plants on the Moon and then ship back massive batteries.
Never, we need to connect a giant cable from the moon to earth. That's the best solution.

[Anonymous No.9261576]

>>9261357
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents

My main complaint is, the way the US builds and operates them at least, they never pay for themselves. They are basically money pits due a combination of corruption and regulation, with the subcontractors that build them often taking the money and running or being liquidated while the government ends up pumping in several times the time and cash ever originally intended.

Granted, that's a lot of "free money" so people keep pressing for them.

Then, if anything goes wrong, it costs billions just to "pop the hood" and generally, it's so expensive, the plant is just shut down.

You could build hundreds of regular power plants for what any one of these cost, and still get more energy out of them. For what it usually costs to repair a nuclear power plant, you can build dozens of traditional power generators.

Then there's this stupidity going on where, despite the world producing hundreds of tons of nuclear waste every year, we only have two designated places on the planet to put the shit long term. It's almost all in "temporary storage". It's not like there aren't good places to put the shit, but clearly, well, politics... Social evolution has clearly not reached the point where we can be responsible for shit like this. More than 30 countries, with more than 400 reactors, managing several hundred thousand tons of nuclear waste, and only one permanent civilian waste storage among them all.

Nevermind the fact that all the new nuclear powers got their weapons through abuse of peaceful nuclear programs. It's kinda defacto proliferation, at least in the developing world, which is also, sadly, where the plants are the most useful, and they're apt to be the only solution for some regions.

Really, all you need to generate power is turn a wheel. A big one slow and steady, or a small one really fast... And using radioactively produced steam to do so seems... Well...

There's always Thorium.

[Anonymous No.9261588]

>>9261576
t. complete absolute fucking retard unaware that Nuclear power plants make hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profit

Probably a typical Bernie voter who thinks Nuclear is subsidized

[Anonymous No.9261591]

>>9261337
So we should make all the reactors melt down to protect wildlife

nice argument

[Anonymous No.9261602]

Ah yes, let's provide the world with more efficient energy so that they can overpopulate more efficiently and gobble up more resources, all the while producing the worst waste products that exist. As a bonus, they can now create the worst possible weapons that exist in a world where Islamic suicide terrorism is at an all time high. What could possibly go wrong?

Thankyou engineers, for once again solving a problem that didn't need to be solved, and creating several more in the process.

[Anonymous No.9261650]

>>9260942
to add on to what the other anon said, the industry has built the foundations for a uranium-based nuclear industry. You'd basically have to start all over again to switch over to Thorium.

[Anonymous No.9261654]

LFTR thread? LFTR thread

[Anonymous No.9261659]

>>9261602

[Anonymous No.9261667]

>>9261576
>i have no idea how nuclear plants operate or how much they cost vs how much they make in profit!

[Anonymous No.9261670]

>>9258311
>My solution? Nuclear power plants on the Moon and then ship back massive batteries.

Cost of building massive batteries = huge
Cost of getting all the materials required to build a nuclear power station to the moon in the first place = gigantic
Stupidity of you = incalculable

[Anonymous No.9261991]

>>9261373
>and it is absolutely illegal to fly your personal plane over cities

Lol what
Not in the least.

[Anonymous No.9261995]

>>9261991
Post video proof of you flying your "flying car" to work

[Anonymous No.9261996]

>>9261576
>There's always thorium

[Anonymous No.9262002]

>>9261995
Why would I do that just to prove that it's perfectly legal to fly over a city in a personal plane?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Ke1rtT5Kg&index=64&list=LLM0_HWd_PAQ4rNioDqsy3xQ

[Anonymous No.9262006]

>>9262002
Yea its legal to fly OVER
but you can't LAND anywhere there, even though cities are filled with "runways" that we call roads.

[Anonymous No.9262011]

>>9262006
>Wanting to land on a road
A: Oh shit nigger what are you doing
B: The original post said it was illegal to fly over cities.

[Anonymous No.9262013]

>>9258311
At least, the Reddit spacing will save me some time.

[Anonymous No.9262025]

>>9262011
It's illegal to fly an ultralight aircraft over "congested areas" aka cities

>A: Oh shit nigger what are you doing
For any sort of practical aerial commute, you will need to take off + land on roads near your home

[Anonymous No.9262048]

>>9262025
If you were talking about flying and landing an ultralight on city roads, why didn't you mention it in the first place?

[Anonymous No.9262055]

>>9262013
>spacing meme
Killyourself, youre pathetic.

[Anonymous No.9262288]

>>9261477
So, why don't we just get more energy out of it until it turns to iron?

[Anonymous No.9262401]

>>9262288
it doesnt really turn into iron. It is not economically viable to keep using the waste products past a certain point.

[Anonymous No.9262410]

>>9258311
I feel like you'd waste more energy and money shipping than you could gain. I say just quarantine places like Nevada and kyzakistan to power the grids, fly the shifts and supplies in by helicopter

[Anonymous No.9262414]

>>9259138
And I'll assume you're spewing propaganda.

[Anonymous No.9262450]

Leftists oppose it because they conflate nuclear power with nuclear energy. Rightists oppose it because they are firmly in the pockets of natural gas (or more recently, coal). Both sides distrust it because of the necessity of government oversight/investment due at the very least to security concerns.

The radiation waste problems are solved. Nuclear is also for baseline power so it isn't supposed to compete with renewables (despite their "BUILD BIGGER BATTERIES" memes). The problems are purely political and social, not technical or financial.

[Anonymous No.9262456]

Leftists oppose it because they conflate nuclear weapons with nuclear energy. Rightists oppose it because they are firmly in the pockets of oil and natural gas (or more recently, coal). Both sides distrust it because of the necessity of government oversight/investment due at the very least to security concerns.

The radiation waste problems are solved. Nuclear is also for baseline power so it isn't supposed to compete with renewables (despite their "BUILD BIGGER BATTERIES" memes). The problems are purely political and social, not technical or financial.

[Anonymous No.9263047]

>>9261300
I see you form your opinions off nothing and then present them as fact.
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/PUB1238.pdf
https://nnsa.energy.gov/
And as far as saying dirty bombs arent real:
>Step 1: Acquire radioactive material
>Step 2: Attach said material to a dispersal device re bomb
>Step 3: Detonate in dense population
And this is only the most cursory inspection of available information.
Research, not even once.

[Anonymous No.9263050]

>>9261576
The amount of retardation in this post is giving me cancer, every single one of your points is either wrong or moot. Please for the love of god do some research and become an informed citizen.

[Anonymous No.9263053]

>>9259136
>lol
Are you incapable of reading a log-log graph?

[Anonymous No.9263057]

>>9258409
>Oh yeah and that.
Thing is, to do risk analysis you map seriousness against probability and that still does not look pretty.

>Even though those are extremely rare.
Sure. We have Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale plus an unknown number of accidents under military secrecy that has left the Irish Sea one of the most radioactive waters on this planet.

[Anonymous No.9263228]

ignorance. Most people don't realize how safe it actually is and that all the meltdowns in history have occurred in old prototypes from the 70's and 60's

[Anonymous No.9263276]

Because the same chemical processes that are used to create fuel, might be used to create one of the most destructive kinds of weapons humans ever engineered.

Burning coal is dirty but at least it doesn't kill noone.

[Anonymous No.9263282]

Greenpeace was started to protest nuclear power. In Alaska.

[Anonymous No.9263397]

>>9263276
>but at least it doesn't kill noone
>t. uneducated retard
Honestly the funniest thing ive seen in this thread.

[Anonymous No.9263400]

>>9263057
> three mile island, Windscale
i suggest you do some reading on what you're talking about before you spew shit.

[Anonymous No.9263476]

>>9263276
Do you even know what the fuck three mile island even was?
Operation sellafield was scummy as fuck but its not like it has done anything of significance. A whole .14 rem over natural background. Congratz, that's literally nothing.
It's not like anyone today would be dumb enough to fucking dump Pu214 into the waters. Even if they wanted to, they wouldnt be able to because of international laws and everyone would be able to see the dumping from satalite.

[Anonymous No.9263670]

>>9261588
>>9261667
>>9263050
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants

>Corruption and overruns everywhere.
>Government picking up the bill everywhere.
>Companies outright vanishing.
>Hidden and ignored costs only way to anywhere near break even.
>Even in France, the cost is actually going up as they build more.

[Anonymous No.9263726]

>>9263670
>An EU-funded research study known as ExternE, or Externalities of Energy, undertaken from 1995 to 2005, found that the cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double, and the cost of electricity production from gas would increase by 30% if external costs such as damage to the environment and to human health, from the particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, chromium VI, river water alkalinity, mercury poisoning and arsenic emissions produced by these sources, were taken into account. It was estimated in the study that these external, downstream, fossil fuel costs amount up to 1–2% of the EU's Gross Domestic Product, and this was before the external cost of global warming from these sources was included.[130] The study also found that the environmental and health costs of nuclear power, per unit of energy delivered, was lower than many renewable sources, including that caused by biomass and photovoltaic solar panels, but was higher than the external costs associated with wind power and alpine hydropower.[131]

Just the direct costs of pollution (not global warming) put the costs of coal and gas over nuclear. Include the costs of global warming, and they are sky high relative to nuclear.

[Anonymous No.9263742]

>>9262414
>I'll stick my fingers in my ears and yell LALALALA

[Anonymous No.9263747]

>>9258311
Just beam back the energy with a giant laser made of moon dust glass...

>.>"

[Anonymous No.9264348]

>>9258299
because it is

shutup nazi

[Anonymous No.9264367]

>>9263670
This has got to be the dumbest post ive seen. Did you even read the thing you fucking posted? hilarious ignorance.

[Anonymous No.9264490]

>>9258311
Hahaha brainlet!

[Anonymous No.9264620]

>>9263276
last time I check radiation kills people bub.

[Anonymous No.9264686]

>>9264367

[Anonymous No.9264696]

It's not owned by the fossil fuel lobbies, and its depleted fuels, along with the path to developing nuke power by smaller countries, leads to the proliferation of nuclear weapons by said countries. That means that the powers that be hate it. Eventually when the only way to have reliable industry is to use nuke power the world will come around.

[Anonymous No.9264698]

>>9258311
>De-orbiting a massive battery
That's a bad idea. A better solution is to just build the plants here, the danger is far less than even a coal plant.

[Anonymous No.9264701]

>>9258541
>>9258532
>>9258414
I hope you don't mind us using those moon rocks in a little defense project of ours :^)

[Anonymous No.9264711]

>>9258299
1. It has a slow ramp up speed.
2. What do you do with the waste?
3. Taxpayers subsidize almost 100% of the risk. It is mandated (for obvious reasons) that energy producers who use nuclear buy insurance, but they claim that this is too costly, so the government (we) pays for it. This brings up questions about safety standards and where or if liability is felt at production plants.
4. It only takes one mistake for a huge swath of land to be ruined for thousands of years. The Tree Mile Island accident is considered a success in terms of nuclear accidents. Let that sink in.
5. Since breeder reactors are illegal in the US (due to concerns about plutonium getting into the hands of terrorists in the late 70s), the amount of time we could use fuel is way lower than places like France.

[Anonymous No.9264713]

>/sci/ is supposed to be ``smart'' they said
Jesus Christ, the argumentation here is /b/-tier.

You can spew out as many objective facts as you want, but no one can stop retards from construing something completely different than what was said, or pulling shit out of their ass as a response.

[Anonymous No.9265267]

>>9264713
so its just like irl

[Anonymous No.9265306]

>>9263670
That feel when you dont even read and understand your source and it actually contradicts the argument you use it for. Ostensibly you can vote and people still wonder why NA is a shithole.

[Anonymous No.9265364]

Just build geothermal power plants, they dont use any fuel and use the same principle as fracking.
They pump cool water 10-50m deep into a hot-spot with permeable pathways where the water heats up and can later be extracted as hot water. The steam from the hot water powers a turbine which is connected to a generator which in turn produces electricity.
The only "catastrophe" that could happen is that the rock could slowly desolve into the water and cause a sinkhole.
But again, there will be no waste, they dont use any fuel, are safe and they are pretty cheap to build.

[Anonymous No.9265371]

people just now that in future basketball americans won't be able to handle technology properly. radiation will become a magic beams once again

also this is a plot of asimov foundaition. leftshits are not so stupid as they look, they understand that future aboriginals inherit the world, so we need to destroy technology before it falls into hands of africans and musilms.

[Anonymous No.9265730]

>>9261568
>Never, we need to connect a giant cable from the moon to earth. That's the best solution.
despite the intent behind your post a weightless cable loose between the the north poles of both bodies would absolutely work, of course if we had the power to make things weightless we wouldnt need the cable now would we

[Anonymous No.9265733]

>>9263747
use the portal gun?
brilliant!

[Anonymous No.9265741]

>>9258311
the solution is to build all the nulcear power plants for the entire world near mecca and palestine and all world wars would end for fear of super-fuckoff-armaggedon

[Anonymous No.9265752]

>>9258299
Even me i can't understand why so much people hate it

[Anonymous No.9265757]

>>9265371
God what a fucking word salad. Do you speak like this in real life because that's probably why no one listens.

[Anonymous No.9265831]

>>9261602
holy shit, at least inform yourself before saying such bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9265859]

>>9258509
>using waste to make nukes
Too expensive for the jihadis or DPRK, desu.

Source: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-plant-security/nuclear-reprocessing

>Weapon capable isotopes, such as Plutonium, can be chemically separated from spent fuel rods.
>reprocessing plant with an annual capacity of 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel would cost up to $20 billion to build.

[Anonymous No.9265862]

>>9258571
>The right is pronuclear

Logically, that makes no sense seeing as this is also the "drill baby drill" party.

[Anonymous No.9265884]

>>9265831
>>9261659
Not him, and not even related to this topic, but I'm just tired of seeing these sorts of posts. Inform yourself, dammit. If you're posting on this board, it seems you should either have or be working on an education that requires at least one philosophy or debate class - or at the very least, English. I can't even tell what point you could possibly be refuting in that post.

>let's provide the world with more efficient energy
Are you denying this?
>so that they can overpopulate more efficiently
Okay, it's more an overconcentration of population than an actual population problem - although with the "no want to live around" area the such reactors create...
>all the while producing the worst waste products that exist.
Okay, not the absolute worst (especially given giant glass jars of chlorine trifluoride are involved in the power transfer grid itself), but close, especially when you consider...
>they can now create the worst possible weapons that exist in a world where Islamic suicide terrorism is at an all time high
...and are you denying this? You do realize the few largely muslim nations that have nuclear weapons got them due to "peaceful" nuclear energy programs?

Yes, he said something mean about your source of fandom (or something nice about something you hate - hard to tell), but no amount of information or education is going to really change any of the points he made.

There are other arguments for the pros of what he's deriding, yes, but instead of presenting those as a counter argument, you just said, "Fuck you! You're retarded!" to a post that, while omitting those pros, is all but perfectly factual in and of itself.

[Anonymous No.9265910]

It's not cheap anymore. There is too much fucking red tape to build one. Combine that with the fact that a union ends up running the damn plant and are too powerful to ever layoff so you end up paying workers way more than inflation over the long run. Then combine that again with women in the workforce. BRB Nuclear Engineer/Power Engineer that is a women take's 5 years of training and a shit ton of other training then decides to have a baby and another baby and another. Guess what she can't be near a reactor for all that time she is having the baby so she is useless. Then you need a physicist doctor guy to monitor her womb. Then she gets maturity on top of all that. Nukes are a pipe dream.

[Anonymous No.9266118]

>>9265371
holy fuck mate stick to one slang word per sentence nobody can read your fucking post

[Anonymous No.9266158]

>>9258311
>>>9258299 (OP)

>Just literal tonnes of highly radioactive spent uranium and other waste that we simply don't know what to do with.

Recently (like the last decade) we have been investigating new and better fuel sources. For example thorium. Which is highly abundant, will decay in a few thousand years (compared to the million for uranium) and any meltdown would likely not leave the parking lot. The downside to thorium is that the byproducts cant be used to make bombs.

[Anonymous No.9266164]

>>9266118
he said
american basketball asimov inherit the russians with hillary and destroy technology and nuclear muslims plot to look at radiation magic beams with need to look stupid and handle techonology properly.
What dont you get m8?

[Anonymous No.9266180]

>>9266158
>Implying that's the only downside

[Anonymous No.9266191]

>>9266158
lol do you even know what the fuck a half life is?

plus the biggest problem with nuke reactors is only decay heat.

[Anonymous No.9266229]

This fucking thread

We are reaching John Oliver levels of misinformation

[Anonymous No.9266240]

>more people die every year falling off their roof while installing solar panels than have died in all nuclear accidents combined
>but solar is safe goys!

[Anonymous No.9266251]

>>9258299
We should just ship nuclear waste in space

[Anonymous No.9266257]

>>9258299
The main problem is the waste

[Anonymous No.9266259]

>>9258452
It's left-wing environmentalists such as the Green Party who oppose nuclear power

[Anonymous No.9266274]

>>9258299
Actually nuclear fision is really hated, but if someday we can produce rentable nuclear fusion energy it would be clean af