Nuclear

Read "Nuclear 2.0". It should give you some insight on the topic. It makes a convincing environmentalist argument for nuclear energy, whilst simultaneously explaining how it came to be a folk devil

Meh. Hydro electric and nuclear is where it's at.

FREAKING

Thanks I'll check it out

>there are people who unironically oppose nuclear power and believe in their hearts that they are doing good by protesting it

Reminder that nuclear meltdown is a fucking meme and that after the meltdown, the other reactors were still operating in Chernobyl until 2000.

Mudslimes in Yurope

>tfw we'll never have nuclear fusion reactors generating energy because of anti-nuclear stigma even though the fallbacks of fission don't even apply to fusion
>nuclear fission isn't even as bad as people make it out to be
w-well at least we got that research reactor right?

It's one of those things leftists are anti-science about.
Like GMOs or genetic-anything in general.

Al gore and chernobyl happened

I am kinda a retard. Is Thorium better then normal Nuclear Plants?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

>muh nuclear power is perfect
>it was dem greenies who scared people away from it
It's because nuclear is too expensive to be commercially viable without government money.

Yes, they are better, but even more expensive.

Nuclear energy is literally the cheapest one. You just need a fuckhuge investment at the begining, but it pays of at the end of the day.

Fusion would be even less economically viable than fission and would output considerably less than the near-infinite amounts of energy promised by delusional techno-believers.
No one knows because they haven't been built but nuclear fags will tell you it's the solution to all our problems.
>Nuclear energy is literally the cheapest one. You just need a fuckhuge investment at the begining, but it pays of at the end of the day.
Source?

>Fusion would be even less economically viable than fission

No.

>considerably less than the near-infinite amounts of energy promised

No

nuclear is a scary word, common people don't understand statistics and would rather let oil and coal magnates have their way than use an efficient energy method that has the world nuclear on it

At its core, the problem is nuclear powers association with nuclear weapons in the mind of the public. Of course this is irrational, it's difficult enough to make a nuclear weapon, a nuclear power plant cannot become a nuclear bomb no matter how badly managed or constructed.

Imagine for one moment if we had a different word for nuclear power versus nuclear weapons. Call it Thermometal power, it would probably get a better reception.

well the spent uranium is an actual environmental problem so...

It's a lesser problem than most common energy sources.

> nuclear accidents liberate tons of invisible radioactive material into the atmosphere poisoning large areas that kill bystanders, give cancer and primary DNA damage to their immediate and faraway victims and future generations with unforeseen consequences for the human gene pool
> Poison the ground for millennia
>Accidents already happened on the world largest economies and nations so no excuse apply at least 3 times
>Governments LIE on ALL accidents getting MILLIONS irradiated
>Generate tons of radioactive waste that nobody knows what the fuck to do with but to bury and hide
>There are options like geothermal or hydroelectric energy available

Nuclear apologists must due in nuclear fire

> nuclear accidents liberate tons of invisible radioactive material into the atmosphere poisoning large areas that give cancer and primary DNA damage to their immediate and faraway victims and fucks up future generations with unforeseen consequences for the human gene pool
> Poison the ground for millennia
>Accidents already happened on the world largest economies and nations so no excuse apply at least 3 times
>Governments LIE on ALL accidents getting MILLIONS irradiated
>Generate tons of radioactive waste that nobody knows what the fuck to do with but to bury and hide
>There are options like geothermal or hydroelectric energy available

Nuclear apologists must die by nuclear fire

>Statistics
Oh boy! Let's build an energy plant that can power a whole city!
But it has a tiny small minimal chance that by negligence, sabotage, or natural disasters it can explode or meltdown spewing unfathomable and eldritch levels of horror, suffering and death to half the country for generations and millennia to come; sure it's a win win!, right goy?

non arguments

>MUH CONSPIRACY

go back to /pol/

>Give real founded arguments
>Not an argument

It's pretty popular and it's being built up all over the world, just not in meme countries like Germany.

>It's because nuclear is too expensive to be commercially viable without government money.
The major cost is in the construction of it, after that the fuel is far cheaper.

>Geothermal
>Viable
The number of countries that can use geothermal is limited

>nuclear accidents
>"Accidents"

You mean Russians overclocking their wonderful Peaктop Бoльшoй Moщнocти Кaнaльный for the lulz and literally ignoring all the warnings since "its always high"?

>Source?
world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.asp

It's obvious, why did you through it would be otherwise?

>It's because nuclear is too expensive to be commercially viable without government money.
Nuclear has been commercially viable since the tech existed.

Muh Chernobyl. British people are terrified of nuclear despite the fact France has tons of nuclear reactors that will blow us up anyway.

You make a claim about some unspecified, unforeseen, unknown consequences, then scream that it cannot be unproven so therefore it is true. Do you even realize how retarded you sound?

Get real. It's easy to point to Fukishima or Chernobyl and just spread alarmist bullshit. Actually look up the statistics about nuclear energy.

Shouldn't have expected any less from China

Solar should be used for the everyday person and their needs.

Nuclear should be used for large programs like space flight and such.

Wind energy is a meme and makes everything look retarded.

>Solar should be used for the everyday person and their needs.
Except everyday person needs consistent, predictable baseload and solar can't provide that.
Also the everyday person would, I imagine, prefer cheaper energy to one that is magnitudes more expensive.

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima turned people off; nuclear can be safe with the proper safeguards but it can also go off spectacularly.

We have a few ships that run off near power. The aircraft carriers need refueling once in their 50 year lifespan.

CO2 crisis was inevitable either way.

Typical greenie retard.

>with unforeseen consequences for the human gene pool
It's called accelerated evolution.

>wind
>solar
wat

>Solar should be used for the everyday person and their needs.
Yes let's ignore the pollution from producing that many panels.

>Nuclear should be used for large programs
Migrant housing lol

>Wind energy is a meme and makes everything look retarded.
Nah. It looks pretty cool.

I want to suck your cock.

The oil cartels love their gibs too much.

Because electrons from Solar plants are totally different to the electrons from nuclear plants, right?

>something goes wrong
>entire area uninhabitable for 20,000 years
>all for clean energy

My name is Legion: for we are many.

Most of the world is uninhabitable peroid. I don't see you complaining about that.

Making it sure shit will go wrong is better?

Protesting nuclear power is actually perfectly rational...if you work in the fossil fuel industry, that is.

Part of the reason it's so expensive is because of all the regulations and safety audits that have to be done, though it's quite possible that without those it wouldn't have as great a safety record. Government subsidies are basically a way of ensuring safety without financially penalizing those who operate safe reactors.

Uranium is going to run out eventually (I think in a few hundred years, though that's only because we refuse to use reprocessing) so if we don't have fusion by then, we're screwed. And when fusion is fully developed, it will likely outperform fission anyway - though that's still very far away.

Haven't researched the Japanese accident enough to say much about it, but Chernobyl was entirely preventable. It totally lacked a proper containment structure that would have prevented (or at least SEVERELY reduced) the release of radioactive material to the atmosphere. And even with the accidents that have occurred so far, the total radiation release per gigawatt is less than you get from burning coal.

...

>It totally lacked a proper containment structure that would have prevented (or at least SEVERELY reduced) the release of radioactive material to the atmosphere.
Except it DIDN'T and the countermeasure was USED.
It cost lives but it was successful.

Nuclear gets way more government money than oil does relative to the amount of energy generated.

>Do you count wars?
>Sauce?

eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41953.pdf
instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/energy-subsidies-study/

Basically it's super expensive, takes a long time, is "scary", and no one, I mean NO ONE wants to clean it up.

People keep saying it's a great idea and we should get right on it but Chernobyl is still a forbidden zone, right? I hear a few people actually live there although I don't think they're supposed to, and that it's not /that/ bad, so I don't know if it's uninhabitable but it's still off-limits.
If an accident can make the surrounding area a total no go zone for God knows how long, the opposition doesn't seem totally unfounded.

Chernobyl and the surrounding areas have become a paradise for wild life. Even wolves have returned.

>so if we don't have fusion by then, we're screwed.
You can get uranium from sea water.

Areas that were literally nuked were inhabitable pretty much immediately afterwards. Why do people continue to believe in 1950s myths?

>implying
The other reactors were still fully operational until 2000.

Nobody gives a shit about toxic tailing ponds ruining water tables though.

Those same wolves have been found to have a significant number of tumors.

>Typical greenie retard.
Read his posts again, carefully.

>chinese coal + usa coal / 2 = 57.5
>world coal = 60
Do China and the US burn almost all the worlds coal? Jesus.

thats steam you mong

>geothermal
In Iceland, Yellowstone, and fuck all else.

The other reactors in the power plant were operational until 2000.
Nuclear meltdown is meme tier.

That's his point. People are being turned off nuclear power by photos carefully chosen to look bad.

Thats why you recycle your fuel and re-enrich it or re-purpose it.

And brain damage.

Some poor bastard has his safety line break while repairing a wind turbine? Dumbass walks into the "all reflectors aimed here" part of one of those liquid salt solar things?

All you guys missing the point.
Let's take in count that:
>Ok no accidents
>Ok not that much pollution
>Ok cheap
>Ok a lot of energy

Then all the waste?
That's the true problem, the waste.
Where you put that shit?

>>wind
>>solar
>wat
Or someone installing solar panels on a residential ceiling falls and hits his head.
I think technically is someone dies of a heart attack on the job they have to count that.

So everyone could just move back in and be at least relatively safe and healthy and it's just fearmongering and misinformation that keeps them away, or what?
Cause if not I can see why people aren't too eager to build more plants, even if other ways of producing energy have more problems overall.

I know japan, mexico and new zealand are candidates too.

In the ground where it was dug up in the first place.

...

You take radioactive material out of the ground and make it less radioactive.

Yeah let's put nuclear waste in the ground. Are you that fucking clueless?

No, it's correct that you don't want to live at Chernobyl for another few decades, but it's also true that Chernobyl/Three Mile Island type disasters are physically impossible with modern plant design. Fukushima is livable and will only cause a maximum of about 600 deaths (compare to the deaths of coal power).

About as clueless as the people who insist nuclear reactors can explode in this thread.

Everything can explode if you try user.

Then why are there not attacks on uranium mines?

So how come in the last 60 half century of viable commercial nuclear energy there have been a total of three (3) major nuclear accidents, and zero (0) incidents of sabotage, or terrorist attack?

It's still not as cheap as fossil fuel based power and the only cost of electricity people care about is the one that appears on their power bill at the end of the month.

That would have been a good argument if you hadn't pulled it off your asshole.

I live in SoCal, people here are very concerned about environmental racism (basically, air is worse in the shitty places, I don't agree that it's any kind of prejudice but it's useful to push for cleaner energy).

>Haven't researched the Japanese accident enough to say much about it
an earthquake cracked the coolant tanks which caused a partial meltdown, they were prepared for this possibility and so there were large tanks of extra coolant stored nearby, however the flooding from a tsunami had washed them away.

This caused many to argue that nuclear power is unsafe because you can never prepare for every one in a million eventuality, as Fukushima was the one.

>This caused many to argue that nuclear power is unsafe because you can never prepare for every one in a million eventuality

Or you y'know, don't build nuclear power plants inside the fucking pacific ring of fire.

Wasn't the construction company responsible for building and maintaining the plant found to be grossly incompetent and corrupt, cutting corners everywhere?

No, but the board of directors didn't fix a couple obvious flaws with the cooling system because the accompanying announcement would make a shamefur dispray.

If nuclear power is so good, what are we supposed to do with the tons of nuclear waste?