Why is nuclear power bad?

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

Other urls found in this thread:

newrepublic.com/article/139700/democrats-party-science-not-really
news.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx
youtu.be/rv-mFSoZOkE
ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor
nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Anna_Nuclear_Generating_Station
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/wildlife-returns-to-radioactive-wasteland-of-chernobyl/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It's spoopy and has a scary symbol

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.

>massive batteries

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

Cherynoble

>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.

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

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.

>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.

Lol, you're fucking retarded.

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.

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.

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

>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.

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

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

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.

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

[citation needed]

conservatives luv to shill for nuke power.

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

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

>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.

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

You're an idiot

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.

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

Read a book.

That's an argument?

...

newrepublic.com/article/139700/democrats-party-science-not-really

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

what waste?

youtu.be/rv-mFSoZOkE

Probably because it hurts and kills people.

>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?

>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.

>millions of years
lol nub

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.

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.

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

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

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

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).

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

>water vapour
>greenhouse gas
Nein

are you retarded?
ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

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

Lol is water vapor not a greenhouse gas now?

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

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

Everything is wrong with it.

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

>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.

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

>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

Why don't they just make nuclear roadways?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Lrn2radioactive-hazmat, n00b

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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).

>I'd rather have flying cars

bad for who libtard

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 Veeky Forums 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.

>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.

>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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

>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?

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?

>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.

>Have you seen the animals being born around Chernobyl
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.

>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.

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

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.

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.