Does this article debunk nuclear power altogether?

I have much better shit to do, like playing with my balls for example.

The person who wrote that shit would get slapped to death by anyone who works at a power plant, not even a nuclear power plant, just a classic power station.

It was written by a "green" energy shill, which "green" being the paper they get in their back pocket by posting this propeganda.

STOP SHILLING NUKEFAG

Come up with some actual valid enlargements first

Article is full of shit. Says nuclear cannot load follow. France is 75% electricity from nuclear power, and it load follows just fine. It raises costs a bit, but the cost increases are not uneconomical, contrary to the article's later claims that lack numbers and citations.

Nuclear power is quite cheap. Nuclear power is only expensive when the society chooses to make it expensive.
euanmearns.com/nuclear-capital-costs-three-mile-island-and-chernobyl/

Chernobyl's death toll is at most 4000, and possibly 300. Higher estimates are based on known pseudo-science, specifically the linear no-threshold model.

The so-called problem of disposing of nuclear waste is a political myth. There is no nuclear waste problem. When you understand that it's not infinitely dangerous, and when you understand just how little there is of it, it becomes immediately obvious that it's a non-problem. Whereas, the millions that die every year from airborne particulate pollution from dirty fuels? That's a real problem.

Their estimates of CO2 emissions probably include substantial portions of diffusion enrichment. It's a standard tactic by the lying greens. There's practically no diffusion enrichment plants in the world today. This is goddamned fraud.

Uranium fuel supplies are only a very small portion of the cost of electricity. Uranuim ore prices could go up by 100x and you would barely dent the cost of nuclear electricity. It is true that uranium supplies are still limited, possibly on the order of a century, maybe more, for conventional reactors. For breeder reactors, supplies are practically infinite, because with a breeder, everyday rock can be burned for more useful energy than coal.
energyfromthorium.com/cubic-meter/

TBC

Nuclear weapons proliferation is a legitimate concern. I also think that it can solved to a satisfactory conclusion. I also believe that dedicated nations will obtain nuclear weapons even if no one else uses nuclear power, and the only solution here is an international treaty enforced with the threat of military action.

The article mentions the biggest problem of renewables, EROEI, but side-steps the problem by distraction. Unbuffered EROEI isn't that bad. The problem is the intermittency and the EROEI when you throw on storage to fix the intermittency.
bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

For a further response to similar claims by a knowledgeable person:
atomicinsights.com/clean-doable-liquid-fission-lf-energy-roadmap-
powering-world/

Incomprehensible kek.

>It is true that uranium supplies are still limited, possibly on the order of a century, maybe more, for conventional reactors
Totally false. We have enough uranium in the oceans to last until the sun fucking dies.

ornl.gov/news/advances-extracting-uranium-seawater-announced-special-issue

I encourage you to read the next few sentences that follow that, including my citation.

>using nuclear energy to compensate for night/no wind is a bad plan
>we'll just use hydro and gas for that

GetALoadOfThisGuy.pdf

What about toxic materials which are used in making solar panels and batteries?

no

>Muh thorium

>Higher estimates are based on known pseudo-science, specifically the linear no-threshold model.
>LNT
>Pseudoscience

I'm glad idiots like you use a trip code, it makes it easier to ignore.

>Number of uses of the word uranium: 2
>Number of uses of the word thorium: 1, and it appears in a link.

Right...

LNT is pseudoscience. It's well known to be false.

It's trivial to show that it's false for high doses. People in Denver receive about 12 mSv per year. There's no detectable statistical difference in cancer rates. Consider the total dose from 50 years of exposure, delivered instantly. That's a dose of 600 mSv. A dose that high will definitely have immediate symptoms of radiation poisoning.

The problem is using it to determine cancer risks for exceptionally low dose rates, dose rates that are comparable to or smaller than background levels of radiation. Here, we know it's false, again because of places like Denver, which don't have the larger cancer rates predicted by the model. We also know it's false because we know a lot about the cell's responses to radiation, including some repair mechanisms.

Dose rate matters. LNT as a thing is "pants on fire" false.

Also, I should add, uranium from the oceans might make conventional reactors workable for forever. However, I personally still am not yet satisfied that such schemes are scalable due to the relatively small concentrations of uranium in the oceans, plus things like having to deal with flow rates, mix rates, etc. It would be cool if it was scalable.

news.mit.edu/2012/prolonged-radiation-exposure-0515
I'll read the paper later, but the popular news report is that they found no negative effects on laboratory mice at a dose rate of 105 mSv / year, experiment duration 30 days. Apparently they also did biopsies to check for genetic damage, and also found none.

Again, LNT is just false. All of those big numbers that you hear cited for numbers of deaths from Chernobyl are lies based on pseudoscience.

Oh wait, my apologies. They're using cGy. My mistake. I misread as mGy. Hell, they did an experiment with a dose rate of 1050 mSv / year, aka 1.05 Sv / year! Damn that's high.

I did some more looking. I am impressed about the amount of conflicting literature out there. It gives me a little bit of pause, but I'm still pretty sure that I'm on the right side. Several of the opposing "studies" that I've found seem to be willfully dishonest uses of stats, i.e. cherry picking. It has made me want to look more into this.

We could easily go full solar/wind/geothermal/hydroelectric. We actually don't consume very much electricity as a species.

However, these energy sources are often inconsistent, inefficient and not as 'renewable' as they seem. In terms of the amount of resources and land required. Of course nothing is actually renewable, just that we'll all be dead by the time it runs out.

I say we go primarily renewable and secondary nuclear. Nuclear is also needed for anything that requires a lot of energy at once or in places derived of other sources. Like a spacecraft or large sea-faring ship.

The article initially seems solid, but a lot of the arguments are "well funding in it and building of nuclear power plants is quite low so that means it's bad", such things are low because of activism and powerful entities intentionally keeping it from taking off more. Both traditional means of energy production like fossil fuels and renewable energy as well, renewable energy companies/entities are now a player in the capitalistic game. So they have a huge incentive of diverting development away from other areas.

Also, outside of these most of the answers are simply wrong, usually by omission of info or only partial answers or don't make any actual points.

It's too intermittent, and energy storage is too hard.
bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

i have a question for people like you: is my choice only between hard or moist?

>LNT is pseudoscience. It's well known to be false.
You're wrong. According to NAS LNT holds well.
dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/beir_vii_final.pdf
>. A comprehensive review of available biological and biophysical data supports a “linear no-threshold” (LNT) risk model

I get it's litterally an angle, but what's so funny about 60 degrees specifically?

>atomicinsights.com/clean-doable-liquid-fission-lf-energy-roadmap-
powering-world/
Damn, this is some neat stuff.
What do you think are the the chances of this type of nuclear power taking off and supplying a significant portion of our future energy needs?

If we can solve the political problems, I'd give like 90% chance? With the political problems, hell if I know. Convincing the greens that they're wrong is going to be hard.

I'll take a look, but they probably don't have any experimental or historical data concerning actual low dose rates, and they're just extrapolating.

There are a few "studies" out there which do involve low dose rates which show increased cancer risks in humans, but as far as I can tell, it's all from anti-nuclear kooks who cooked the data with bad statistics, i.e. cherrypicking data.

Also just offhand, look at their language. They say "it supports this risk model", and they probably mean "it's consistent with this risk model, and we should use this because it's a conservative risk model". Again, they probably don't have any actual data to support it, and I have lots of data against it.

>Again, they probably don't have any actual data to support it, and I have lots of data against it.

So what you're saying is that I should take some shitposter on Veeky Forums over The National Academy of Science? Yeah your a moron.

even if we some how ran low on uranium. we have thorium. we can recycle old fuel and old nuclear weapons to create isotopes for different kinds of reactors.

If we cut 50 billion from the US defense budget and put it towards fusion, every year. we could have a fusion commercial power plant in a few yeares.

No, I'm saying you should look into it yourself, and realize that NAS is wrong. There's a legitimate controversy in the field among respected experts. Please don't trust me. Please trust the data.

>If we cut 50 billion from the US defense budget and put it towards fusion, every year. we could have a fusion commercial power plant in a few yeares.

Highly dubious.

Solar energy is the biggest crock of shit ever pushed on the masses.

>good goy keep fighting about renewable while we continue to get rich off oil and coal

>cutting the US defense budget or re-allocating it towards research
lel good luck with that.

Just for example:

news.mit.edu/2012/prolonged-radiation-exposure-0515

Assuming this study wasn't faked in its entirely, then LNT is almost certainly wrong. Of course, the threshold for mice may be different than the threshold for humans. Of course, there's a small chance that mice have a threshold but humans do not. Of course, even if we establish a threshold, with radiation "in the wild", it may vary over time, and so we probably want stricter standards to account for the unknown variability of sources in the wild.

However, LNT is almost certainly false, based on this, and other reasons.

>realize that NAS is wrong

Well this is the difference between me and you, I appreciate that I'm not an expert in the field, and so don't opine on it, but do find the opinions of experts in the field. You're a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect, who thinks he knows everything about everything, numerous threads (including this one) show that you don't.

>There's a legitimate controversy in the field among respected experts.
Only in the low dose region, elsewhere it's linear.

>Only in the low dose region, elsewhere it's linear.
And that's precisely what we're talking about. No one disputes that it's linear with acute doses in the range of 100 mSv approx to something like 6 Sv or something (I forget the exact numbers). What is under dispute is the damage from chronic dose rates of like 1 mSv to 1 Sv per year.

Solar energy will only be viable when we can absorb energy from plants' photosynthesis.
Then all our houses can be giant pumpkins, we can plug our electronics directly into the wall and absorb that sweet plant energy.

And I keep telling you that according to the current meta-analysis there's no strong evidence to favour anything other than LNT. I've no idea what else you're expecting to get out of me, the current best research points towards LNT, perhaps in a few years with BIRE VIII that might change, until then, LNT all the way.

He's a "Radical communist" who has a popsci understanding of nuclear power.
Don't bother engaging.

> He's a "Radical communist" who has a popsci understanding of nuclear power.

Please don't lie, and if you cannot remember correctly, please don't make shit up.

>the current best research points towards LNT,

So the claim goes.

Let's start with just one. I don't care about the meta-analysis of opinions. I don't trust the so-called expert opinion on this topic. Give me an actual study - experimental or epidemiological - that deals with low dose rates.

>I don't trust the so-called expert opinion on this topic

Why not change your name to pseudo-scientist, lmao.

When the data and the experts disagree, the experts are wrong. That's the difference between religion and science. Get your shit straight.

You have this wrong dumbass, you're the one that's disagreeing with expert opinion here, you're the one asserting that the experts and data disagree (and not that your understanding of the data and science are wrong). You're a pseudo-scientist, like """"Dr."""" Ken Ham, """"Dr."""" Andrew Wakefield and the rest.

All you are is some retard on Veeky Forums. I'll take the opinion of the people who have spent their entire lives researching the topic over you. Like I said, change your name.

>I'll take the opinion of the people who have spent their entire lives researching the topic over you. Like I said, change your name.

No, you're the one who is dismissing data in favor of expert opinion. That makes you the dogmatist, and my adherence to the actual evidence makes me the scientist, whether it's the MIT study linked above, or the lack of predicted cancer rates for populations with increased background radiation levels such as Denver, Ramsar Iran, etc. The hallmark of science is the absolute authority of the evidence, and a rejection of expert authority where the data clearly contradicts the experts. Again, religion and dogma are the systems of belief where one respects the experts because they are the experts, even when the data disagrees.

Ken Ham is more like you. He's the one who said that he trusts his experts (the Bible), no matter the contradicting evidence. Wakefield just faked data, and so I don't see the connection.

Good luck producing those high tech solar pannels when we will run out of indium (~10 years from now)

Fucking lol, you're such a self important retard. BEIR VII is a research group with NAS, they released a 400 page book on this subject, the conclusion of it were posted above. You're the dogmatist here, you're ignoring the expert opinion. Like Steve Jobs, who thought he could cure cancer with colonics or some shit. You do you read things like IPCC reports and just go "lmao they're just some expert opinions". Like I said, you're just some fag on Veeky Forums with a grossly over inflated sense of importance.

Again, if it comes down to clear evidence vs the consensus of experts, I'll go with the clear evidence every time.

But you're wrong.
>Source: BEIR VII and their meta-analysis

>Please don't lie, and if you cannot remember correctly, please don't make shit up.
You have called yourself a "radical communist" before, and you have exactly a popsci-level understanding of nuclear power.

Why do you have to come to these threads and shit all over them? Look at this topic. You're like half the posts and three quarters of the text in it. And it's all garbage you've posted a hundred times before.

I can tell you're one of these mentally-ill characters who's on the internet all day because you can't get a job, obsess over some shit that sounds important (but you're completely incompetent at) because you feel important by association when you do, and come to Veeky Forums because you get banned anywhere else.

Guess what? We don't want you here, either. You're a human spambot.

>You have called yourself a "radical communist" before
No I haven't, and in that conversation which you are misquoting, I went to extreme lengths to explain that I am not a communist.

>I went to extreme lengths to explain that I am not a communist.
Come on, man. I understand you can regret your words, but your behavior already seems schizophrenic enough as it is without pulling this kind of shit.

Is there an archive? Go check that shit. You're wrong.

>I'll go with clear evidence every time
>Is a communist

Come on. That's a pretty poor troll attempt. Are you even trying?

Fuck off pinko.

Calling me a communist doesn't make me one.

Sorry Marxist
warosu.org/sci/thread/S8858776#p8865790
>Marxist != commie. Completely different things. I'm not a communist. Social democrat is pretty accurate.

You're still a filthy pinko.

So, glad that you both discovered and admitted your error. Excellent. Did you also read the part where my positions mostly amount to standard European social-democrat policies? Call me a socialist if you want, even though that might not be technically accurate according to some pedantic definitions.

Calling yourself a marxist does.
Your verbose retardation is doing nothing but harming the perception of nuclear power and its supporters on Veeky Forums. The most help you could possibly give to nuclear power is to shut up or admit you're only into popsci.

"Marxist" is not, and never was, "communist". Let me guess, you're a free market nut who doesn't care about the differences between socialist, communist, social-democrat, etc.

The best thing that I can do is to speak up every time that I can to point out obvious bullshits that you and other people like you say. Your attempts to silence me are doomed to failure. Go fuck yourself.

Why do leftists hate science?

Why are you conservatives so hateful regarding, well, everything that isn't you?

I'm apolitical. You're a moron.

>I'm apolitical.
No you're not. Attacking the "leftists" is itself a political act. Maybe you're not cliche conservative, but it's ludicrous to say you're apolitical.

Just speaking from experience, people on the left hate science.

And people on the right?

What about the elephant in the room: Young Earth Christian creationists in the US are very often Republican.

I had a friend once who tried to equate vaccine denialism to young Earth creationism. I stopped talking to him shortly thereafter, just due to how ludicrous that was. If you're going to argue something similar, I will not be impressed. If you are going to argue as my friend did that vaccine denialism et al is a bigger rejection of science than young Earth creationism, and then I will dismiss all of your opinions on all matters as irrelevant.

> people on the left hate science
Thank God for the right wing then, with their enlightened, scientifically-attuned candidates.

Leftists base their entire political view around anti-science. All evidence to date shows that leftists societies don't work, yet they still want to push them on the rest of us.

Anyway we've moved off topic now.

God, you are a racist nativist asshat. Go die in a fire. And I'm a survivor of near third degree burns, and so I know how horrible that is.

I know leftists who hate GMOs and "Chemicals" and nuclear power.
I suspect you're the third, trying to discredit nuclear power supporters with your obvious popsci bullshit.

Typical leftist, just call someone a racist without engaging with them. Pro tip: I wasn't even talking about multi-multiculturalism lmao.

Please. No need to resort to asinine conspiracy theories.

It may be popsci, whatever that means exactly, but it's not bullshit. Continued scientific acceptance of LNT is bullshit.

PS: I never said the American left is free from pseudoscience. That same group of people who hate GMOs, "chemicals", and nuclear power do exist. It's the leftists, the environmentalists, who are the biggest impediment to solving global warming because they resist nuclear power.

However, as bad as the left is, at least they submit to basic scientific principles. They disagree about some details. Whereas, the right has large segments that outright rejection basic scientific principles, like "evidence is the absolute authority, and where evidence and experts (i.e. the Bible) disagree, the experts are wrong". Staggering amounts of the American right reject evolution. Large amounts reject practically all of modern science by accepting young Earth creationism.

>They submit to basic scientific principles
Such as?

your whole post amounts to
>NO YOU, LEFT BETTER THAN RIGHT WE MORE SCIENCE

honestly tripfags should be gassed

Again, such as evidence is the absolute authority. They don't say vaccines cause autism because their holy book says so, or because an angel told them. They say so on the belief that there is evidence which supports their conclusion. A horribly mistaken belief, of course.

>should be gassed
Probable anti-semitism to boot. Excellent. I'll go with what I said earlier: Please go die in a fire. The rest of the world would be better off without you.

Except when that evidence involves preservatives, radio, nuclear power, nuclear waste, transportation, weapons, or a whole host of other topics that members of the left ignore the evidence about.

>Communist
>Telling people the world would be better off without them
Oh gee how unexpected.

Still not a communist.

Disagreeing about which evidence to trust is not a rejection of basic scientific principles. It is still very wrong-headed.

Young Earth creationism requires rejection of science itself, replacing it with religious dogmatism.

"Electromagnetic hypersensitivity" and "Radio waves cause cancer" requires rejection of science itself, replacing it with environmental/naturalist dogmatism.

See? I can paint an entire side of the political spectrum based on a handful of retards too.

stop filling the board with your shit honestly
fuck off

Yes, you can try to draw parallels, but your parallels are laughable and wrong.

No

>but your parallels are laughable and wrong.
They aren't. You're just too entrenched in your Marxist dogma to see it, yo.

>Laughable and wrong
How so?

>"Electromagnetic hypersensitivity" and "Radio waves cause cancer" requires rejection of science itself, replacing it with environmental/naturalist dogmatism.

Those are obstinately evidence based. They hold those beliefs because they have other beliefs that evidence exists which shows that this is the case.

Young Earth creationism is not based on evidence. It's a rejection of evidence based on what's written in a religious book.

>Those are obstinately evidence based.
But they aren't. Evidence literally points in the opposite direction, you have to ignore that in order to hold the belief.

dude no one gives a fuck about your shitty opinion, stop flooding the board

They /believe/ it's evidence based. That's the difference. They accept science. They disagree about what evidence is available, and what the conclusions of that evidence should.

>stop flooding the board
No.

> dude no one gives a fuck about your shitty opinion,
Counterexample:

>They /believe/ it's evidence based. That's the difference. They accept science. They disagree about what evidence is available, and what the conclusions of that evidence should.

Holy shit, so as far as you're concerned all you need to do is "believe" that something is scientific in order for it to be scientific? Fuck me, that's impressive. I'm adding your trip to the filter, please continue to use it.

>Evidence
By your logic, the bible is enough evidence to make young earth creationism evidenced based.

>Bullshit is evidence based if a hippy believes it but it's dogma if a christian does
-You
I care about your opinion because it's uninformed and you fill threads with your confident bullshitting about topics you don't completely understand.
Creationists believe their beliefs are evidence based, as do faith healers and other people who believe in pseudoscience/bullshit. This doesn't make it scientific. Evidence doesn't even have to be true.