UN climate change organization gives the cold shoulder to nuclear power

>For major industrial operations, there's no such thing as zero leakage operation. Stuff breaks. Things get spilled. Equipment needs to be washed out.
>That nuclear power has or can have zero emission of its wastes is a tremendous lie.

"There's no such thing as a perfect legal system. Therefore, release all of the rapists and murderers because one of them may be innocent."

You can tell if someone has an axe to grind with something if they invoke the perfect solution fallacy.

dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis

twtnp.com/2012/09/the-real-waste-problem-solar-edition.html

Also, this would imply that any amount leakage is deadly even when it falls below the background radiation level and this faggot's argument implies that one radioactive atom leaking for a nuclear power plant will destroy all life on the planet.

JFC dude you are beyond hope

>Environmentalists are against one of the most damaging to the Environment sources of energy

You should probably work for trump. He needs people with your level of critical thinking and education.

>Why would researchers who make these studies have a motive to conceal problems?
Don't be an idiot.

In the first place, they aren't direct observers. They have to accept and trust in information given to them by the industry itself and by government regulators with a vested interest in presenting their own efforts as effective and successful at making the industry clean and safe.

In the second place, nuclear power researchers who don't show a friendly attitude toward nuclear power will find themselves cut off from information sources, from funding, and from opportunities to publish. Powerful forces will align to cast them as fringe kooks.

>You can tell if someone has an axe to grind with something if they invoke the perfect solution fallacy.
You ridiculous chimp. That wasn't "the perfect solution fallacy", it was in response to: >this would imply that any amount leakage is deadly even when it falls below the background radiation level
There is no "background radiation level" of radioisotopes which weren't present in the evolutionary environment. Radiation isn't something you can just assign a "level" to. Our bodies have evolved to deal with and recover from the low-energy beta radiation of potassium, to not hold inhaled radon for longer than a single breath, and to quickly pass ingested uranium out of our system. They have not evolved to deal in any effective way with things like plutonium.

thorium is a fucking meme and the UN along with these other international organizations are diabolical satan worshipping communists

You're a lying sack of shit, you dicksucking cunt.

That's exactly what he was claiming.

>Satanists
>Communists
>bad

The rednecks called and want you back.

prove that plutonium is chemically distinct from uranium

These cunts need to die already, I am from India and nuclear power is the future for this country. We don't have land for shit tier solar panels with a laughable 22% energy efficiency when we can easily 10 or 20 good nuclear power plants in the next 5-10 years and use it for like the next 60 years with slight repairs and maintainance every now and then

>t.brainlet

back to /pol/ cleetus adults are trying to have a discussion here

>In the first place, they aren't direct observers. They have to accept and trust in information given to them by the industry itself and by government regulators with a vested interest in presenting their own efforts as effective and successful at making the industry clean and safe.
And again, you are caught LYING. Many of the studies that determine the death rates of various sources of energy are not based on government death counts. For example, Markandya and Wilkinson (thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61253-7/fulltext) calculate the death rate for nuclear via a linear no threshold model of radiation. It's a worst case scenario estimation that actually predicts a higher death rate than the historical data.

But even if your lie was true, the same conspiracy logic would apply equally to the fossil fuel industry and the green energy industry. You're just completely irrationally biased against nuclear.

>In the second place, nuclear power researchers
Markandya and Wilkinson are not nuclear power researchers. Try again, asshat.

>Powerful forces will align to cast them as fringe kooks.
You are a fringe kook. If the glove fits, wear it.

articles.latimes.com/1989-04-19/news/vw-2042_1_fusion-uc-berkeley-inexhaustible

" And even if it were, given society's dismal record in managing technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child," Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich says.

Laments Washington-based author-activist Jeremy Rifkin, "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet"."

Go back to giving blowjobs to dogs.

Anti nuclear shill detected. How much are you getting paid to promote the extinction of the human race. Nuclear is the ONLY way forward, the other options will be good supplements but they will NEVER be enough. Why do anti nuclear faggots hate society so much?

Quads of truth.

How is he wrong again?

Unlimited energy at low cost even if clean will create unimaginable pollution since cost is an obvious limiting factor in how much damage humans can do to nature.

Long list of nuclear disasters and accidents, including recent release of radioactive cloud of Ru-106 all over Russia and Europe finally got under my skin. At my 36, me, long time nuclear power supporter, have to admit - I just can't stand this shit anymore.
My mother living in an area that was directly affected by damn "harmless" (as our government claimed) radioactive rains. And the fact that government kept hiding it just a reminder that it haven't changed ever since Chernobyl even a tiny bit - they just don't care about us.
I've been monitoring Russian nuclear forum ever since Fukushima disaster - all they cared about - their profits which went down, since people got fed off with nuclear shit. Not a single one of our nuclear scientists and engineers, neither old not young, took any responsibility for Chernobyl, by the way and their ignorance and arrogance just knows no border, on top of that, government censoring any nuclear related news now. Its worse than in USSR I swear. You just can't trust them.
And its not like we haven't just before another nuclear accident with power station close to Sanct-Peterburg, which released radioactive cloud earlier and they claimed it wasn't dangerous of course.

Fuck them, fuck them all! Be it Russia or Japan, anyone involved in nuclear industry just as irresponsible, all of them greedy little cunts, liars cares only about their paychecks and ready to kill us all - they would find 1001 excuse to get away with it. Technocrats do not solve problems - they make them. They are already fucked up USSR. It doesn't even matter at this point whether we are talking about nuclear power or any other scientific project. In USSR they even managed to destroy entire sea (google Aral catastrophe), FUCK THEM!

I gotta add:
Coal is dirty, all right, but anything with half-life just too dangerous. There is nothing clean in nuclear energy - for example its not the first accident on Mayak (plant responsible for recent catastrophe with Ru-106) And Mayak supposed to be the place where they currently trying to make nuclear waste less lethal (yeah, right). In soviet times it was nuclear weapon factory.

>the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,"
>cost is an obvious limiting factor in how much damage humans can do to nature

>suck at biology
>start lecturing humanity about their "evils" even though you suck at economics worse

>In the first place, they aren't direct observers. They have to accept and trust in information given to them by the green industry itself and by government regulators with a vested interest in presenting their own efforts as effective and successful at making the world clean and safe.
>In the second place, climate researchers who don't show a friendly attitude toward global warming theory will find themselves cut off from information sources, from funding, and from opportunities to publish. Powerful forces will align to cast them as fringe kooks.
Funny how all you have to do is replace nuclear power with global warming and you have the exact argument a retarded climate change denier would make!

Truly you are intellectual scum. Conspiracy-addled science deniers belong on or not here.

Coal is far more dangerous than nuclear. Just because you see nuclear in the news more doesn't mean it's more dangerous.

Coal is 350 times more lethal than nuclear.

Nice larping there georgie

You'll tell me that after cancer get you and mutations disable your kids.
When I was working in housing agency in my town as a lawyer, I had to deal with social support for people who suffered after Chernobyl and previous Mayak catastrophe. My friend's father suffered and died - he was one of military men sent to save the nation after Chernobyl disaster. People who made it meanwhile got their money and keep feeding us lies.
They even hiding real number of casualties after all this years.
Decades later someone would be dealing with social support for thousands of those who will suffer after recent disaster...and many will die before that and government would claim of course that they died due to natural reasons - its natural after all to die if you get cancer.

Yeah, our government told us that rain was even good for kids.
Totally not manipulated numbers and nobody hiding victims, yeah.
This days not only Rosatom's, but entire IAEA's statistics serves only one purpose - to keep them afloat, no matter the cost.

What do you want Olya?

>olya
also olka - female name for Russian government's paid trolls

just to elaborate for naive foreigners

>basing your beliefs on fear

>radiation is harmless
you are shilling too much, olya

>Funny how all you have to do is replace nuclear power with global warming and you have the exact argument a retarded climate change denier would make!
Funny how you nuke fans want to play both sides of the aisle by supporting the shit-tier science of catastrophic AGW while dismissing as crazy idiots the same greens who are pushing that bullshit.

Gee, I wonder why you're finding yourself so friendless politically these days. You're like the libertarian party demanding both an end to anti-discrimination law and completely open, unguarded borders.

Replace every place they're burning coal in the world with nuclear, and you'd see death tolls hundreds of times higher yet. Half of coal is burned by people too incompetent to even do that right. Tell those clowns to set up nuclear reactors, and you'll have a Chernobyl every day.

Modern coal power plants can be made to emit nothing but CO2 and still be far cheaper than nuclear plants.

>MUH GUBMINT
You haven't even tried to determine where the data are from have you?

>muh baseless speculation
this is ann coulter-tier denial

You are the only one sounding like a troll to me..

>uses perfect western English
>hurr durr current russia worse than ussr :(
>Hurr durr muh cherynbol accident

Unironically kill yourself georgie

what if I told you you're constantly being exposed to EM radiation 10000x stronger than the one in your microwave oven
besides, no radiation from the plant is able to reach you unless it explodes, which is less probable than winning powerball as long as there is no human mistake involved

As it turned out radiation lvl near Chelyabinsk went up to 986 times more that normal.
Ru-106 has half-life period more than entire year.

And just something to laugh about:
While Putin's trolls claim to know more about science, they actually made childish mistake (or was it intentional?) when they tried to lie to people about "harmless" radiation - they said after one year Ru-106 will not be radioactive anymore, according to them half-life is entire period of radioactivity, yup!

Truly we have found the stupidest person on Veeky Forums. You have to go back

I used to hear a lot of pushback about LFTR specifically, and Thorium in general, but now I mostly read general anti-nuclear stuff, has there been some shift in 'the literature' and/or public opinion?

What if I told you that Ru-106 release beta-particles which, in conjunction with relatively long half-life, not only provide you with opportunity to get cancer due to inhaling it, but also to get cancer due to eating contaminated food from the land where "harmless" fallout happened?

Hint for scientifically challenged Putin's trolls:
Due to half-life after one year+ radiation level will drop only to a half. And after another year - again to a half.
But that AGAIN doesn't give you two years of radiation - after another (third year) radiation again will drop only to a half of previous level. So you get many-many years of contamination in case of Ru-106, at the release of which radiation went up to 1000 times more of normal level.
Worse probably only Ce-137 released by Chernobyl. Its still there.

Yes, Russians learn that at school normally, but to be paid Putin's troll you don't have to finish school.

Thorium was a popsci fad. The main meme has gone back to luddite Greenpeace nonsense now.

You nuke-pushers will get nowhere with your blatantly contrafactual implications that nuclear power is *inherently* safe and clean, and therefore we should just encourage everyone, everywhere to start doing it, regardless of technical incompetence or corruption/nepotism inconsistent with any kind of disciplined rule-following.

People recognize it as insane too easily, and it just discredits you, and everyone on your side by association. If you want to gain any traction, you've got to start with realistic recognition that nuclear power is completely unsuitable for most of the world to use.

Up until Fukushima, the pitch for nuclear was basically that something like that would *never* happen in an orderly first-world country.

After Fukushima, nuke-pushers have been going with, "So what? It's not a big deal. Even evacuating the area was an overreaction." and "I know we said it wouldn't happen, but now we really mean it when we say it won't happen again, and you should definitely trust us now." and "Stop being anti-science pussies, radiation isn't even bad for you."

Nobody outside their weird little fanboy circle is sympathetic to these arguments, so nuclear power advocates have been actively turning people against nuclear power for years.

I guess no amount of education can stop an ignorant 70 IQ schizophrenic

In developing countries like India and China, responsibly built nuclear power plants are the safest, most cost effective way of reducing their rising carbon emissions.

The amount of radioisotopes properly operated nuclear power plants contaminate the environment with is negligible, and unless the power plant is a stupidly engineered piece of shit like, say, a graphite-moderated reactor without any containment (e.g. Chernobyl), the environmental damage caused by a full meltdown is still small compared to the damage caused by a coal or oil power plant throughout its lifetime.

Life has evolved alongside radiation in the form of cosmic rays and naturally occurring radioisotopes since its genesis. In fact, if you keep mice in a dense enclosure made to shield them from background radiation they'll develop cancer and die faster than mice in an enclosure that can be penetrated by cosmic rays. This is because small amounts of radiation actually stimulate the transcription and then translation of genes that code for DNA repair enzymes in cells.

The amount of nuclear waste a nuclear power plant generates over its lifetime varies depending on what nuclear reactions are used to generate the power, but in a mark III reactor (the most prevalent kind) the amount generated is actually relatively small. That being said, what to do with the waste remains an unsolved problem.

Obviously solar, wind (assuming it's farmed in areas that don't alter weather patterns that affect agriculture or ecosystems too much), tidal (assuming you don't use it so much that you end up endangering species that live in intertidal zones), geothermal (which has the added benefit of "disarming" volcanoes!!!) and other forms of renewables are preferable to nuclear, but unfortunately many of these remain too inefficient to replace the energy gap left by fossil fuels.

What is it with (((users))) shilling nuclear power on the Internet? Is it maybe some power play by energy companies to keep energy generation centralised in the post-fossil fuels world? That must be it.

As somebody who has studied nuclear physics and is good friends with two nuclear physics professors, I don't get this sudden hype for it.

Unlike solar and wind, nuclear energy is not a plug and play solution. You cannot just decide to go nuclear and have energy generation in a couple of years. It's entirely non-feasible for non nuclear countries to go nuclear.

People saying they know scientists to prove their ethos on science is like racists saying they know black people to prove they aren't racist.

>developing countries like India and China
>high corruption, corner-cutting countries like India and China

>the safest, most cost effective way of reducing their rising carbon emissions
>the surest way of ensuring major nuclear accidents affecting densely-populated areas, and diversion of nuclear material to rogue states and terrorist groups

>many of these remain too inefficient to replace the energy gap left by fossil fuels.
There's no cost argument to be made in favor of nuclear power any more. Solar's already much cheaper, joule for joule (and is still getting cheaper quickly), and to replace fossil fuels means charging batteries and synthesizing fuel, so if you want to get away from fossil fuels, the storage problem has to be solved regardless of which way you go.

The pro-nuclear argument, "We can't use solar because of the storage problem." taken to its logical conclusion means, "We can only replace fossil fuels for grid power, so just give up on getting more than a modest temporary reduction of fossil fuel burning."

There was never a strong case for nuclear power, and as technology advances, the case is getting worse, not better.

I'm saying, I trust the opinion of two experts in the field, more than I trust the opinion of some entity on the Internet whose poliitcal agenda and motives, are entirely unknown to me.

If the hype was legitimate I am supposed to encounter it in real life.

The Internet isn't a representation of real life. It's filled with propaganda from all kinds of "interest groups".

Solar is inefficient you fucking retard, why should India and China waste money on a piece of shit technology that has an efficiency rate of 20%?

>corner cutting corruption

India has been operating nuclear power plants since 1960s, guess how many accidents they had so far?

0. Ziltch. Nada.. that's how many, same with China

India and China have shit political systems but they have more and better scientists than anywhere in the wolrd, bar perhaps the US, which itself gets thousands of scientists from India and China every fucking year

The most efficient way of getting energy is nuclear energy

>the storage problem
As I understand it, the storage problem has to do with both scarcity and abundance. Obviously, you want to be able to store power generated on especially windy/sunny days so that you can use it on especially calm/cloudy days, but what do you do when you have no storage left because you got too bullish and all the wind/sun overloads your transformers? Modern power grids use computers to help prevent this, but even they can only reroute so much (a similar discussion could be had about our grid's readiness to handle CMEs, but I digress).

The unpredictability in the amount of current provided by variable output power sources is a big reason why they're inefficient.

Power generated by boiling water with the weak nuclear force on the other hand is pretty predictable.

Shouting statistics at each other will just devolve into ad hominem attacks and won't be productive. I will say, however, that I'm pretty sure solar is still way more expensive for nuclear-capable developing nations with rapidly growing populations (India and China) than nuclear in the long term and a less feasible way of reducing carbon emissions.

I base this on work I did for a think tank years ago, so perhaps the cost has shifted a little though.

Please hang yourself luddite.

>Solar is inefficient you fucking retard, why should India and China waste money on a piece of shit technology that has an efficiency rate of 20%?
Because that's not the relevant number, and solar gets you more energy for less money, sooner than nuclear does, with no catastrophic potential or long-term waste disposal problem.

>India has been operating nuclear power plants since 1960s, guess how many accidents they had so far?
They bought their nuclear stuff from Canada, and put their very best people on it. Now they're making their own and trying to greatly expand it, while their best people move to less shitty countries.

Anyway, guess how many they'd tell you about if they did fuck it up?

>The most efficient way of getting energy is nuclear energy
Now THAT is a claim that's not at all backed up by experience or statistics. Tell me as well about how TRUE communism works, but has never been tried.

FUCK
OFF
stop sending every shit eating retard to /pol/
if you stopped sending them to us, they'd stop coming right fucking back and shitting up the place even harder

People need to stop feeding the retard
he's doing this because you dumbasses can't stop eating the bait

>Because that's not the relevant number,

fucking hell, are you mentally retarded? How is energy efficiency not a relevant number? How is building one nuclear plant to replace literally 1000 solar panels not a relevant number? Literally kill yourself you moron

>solar gets you more energy for less money

Except that is bullshit, the cost of installing and maintaining solar panels that could produce ~500-700 MW of energy is around the same as setting up one nuclear power plant
Do yourself a favor and learn some basic math and economics

>They bought their nuclear stuff from Canada, and put their very best people on it. Now they're making their own and trying to greatly expand it, while their best people move to less shitty countries.

OK this confirms you are retard, the best people in those countries were moving to western countries in 1960s too and guess what? They had less money and resources back then than they have now.. if they could retain the best people then, why won't they be able to retain their best people now? The number of immigrants from China and India to other countries has decreased over the last decade, you might want to check your numbers before spewing bullshit. And no, they only bought the first set of reactors from Canada, they have built and operated their own nuclear power plants after that for a long time. The fact that you don't know that says a lot about your agenda and how little knowledge you actually have about nuclear energy in these countries

>Anyway, guess how many they'd tell you about if they did fuck it up?

Uh all of them? India isn't a communist shithole that would hide news, their media is the most sensationalist and anti establishment news media there ever was.. hell they are always hitching about the govt., you think they'd actually cover up for the govt.?

Also nuclear accidents can't exactly be hidden, just like chernboyl wasn't.. it's something you simply can't hide even if you tried

>Now THAT is a claim that's not at all backed up by experience or statistics.

That's rich coming from a moron who thinks energy efficiency doesn't matter and nuclear radiation is mysteriously killing people everywhere around the world, despite having zero evidence to prove it.

>Tell me as well about how TRUE communism works, but has never been tried.

Nice rambling shitpost there cleetus but you are not on /pol/ anymore, maybe you should fuck off back to your containment chamber

Why are you here pablo? Back to /pol/ with you

>I base this on work I did for a think tank years ago, so perhaps the cost has shifted a little though.
PV's a semiconductor technology. It has its own equivalent to Moore's Law, and the progress isn't going to end. If you did a cost comparison "years ago", it won't have just shifted a little, solar costs will likely have dropped to half or less.

If you look at dandelions, under ideal conditions one tiny seed will grow into a plant that spawns a hundred in about two months. Some algae will double its population in a few hours.

That's the potential of solar power: full energy payback on the first day, no labor cost but designating the area where it should be installed. That's where it's headed as technology advances. There's nothing to stop people from experimenting with it and improving it. It's not a technology that needs to be limited, secured, controlled, so it can advance as quickly as people choose to spend effort on it and share what they've learned.

There's certainly no long-term case for nuclear power anymore, and it's very hard to make a short-term one when nuclear power plants take a long time to build and a much longer time to pay themselves off.

>How is energy efficiency not a relevant number?
For one thing, you're not comparing it to anything, you're just going "ZOMG! 20%! That's low! That's bad! I put my own dookie in my mouth sometimes when I masturbate!"

You could just as well say that typical nuclear power is only about 0.1% efficient in converting the nuclear potential energy of the mined uranium into electricity. First, they only use the U-235, even though the U-238 could be fuel too, then they fail to separate much of the U-235 leaving it in the depleted uranium waste product, then burn-up is incomplete, and finally the heat to electricity steam turbine generators waste more than they successfully convert. ZOMG! 0.1%! That's low! That's bad!

Fucking monkey.

>the cost of installing and maintaining solar panels that could produce ~500-700 MW of energy is around the same as setting up one nuclear power plant
Old numbers. Solar's been rapidly getting cheaper, nuclear's been slowly getting more expensive. If you go back further in time, solar was much worse than that. If you come up to the present, it's much better than that.

>You could just as well say that typical nuclear power is only about 0.1% efficient in converting the nuclear potential energy of the mined uranium into electricity. First, they only use the U-235, even though the U-238 could be fuel too, then they fail to separate much of the U-235 leaving it in the depleted uranium waste product, then burn-up is incomplete, and finally the heat to electricity steam turbine generators waste more than they successfully convert. ZOMG! 0.1%!

Technology to make nuclear more efficient has been opposed by the "solar and wind only" cult.

forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/01/why-doesnt-u-s-recycle-nuclear-fuel/#4b00db7a390f

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704409004576146061231899264

youtube.com/watch?v=QEX-_B6e2UA

>Solar's been rapidly getting cheaper

Since getting billions in subsidies and still dependent on them

washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/11/30/the-energy-202-why-the-wind-and-solar-lobby-is-terrified-of-the-senate-tax-plan/5a1f40b430fb0469e883f925/?utm_term=.cc4b7f2f231e

stopthesethings.com/2017/11/16/wind-power-subsidy-cuts-kill-thousands-of-green-jobs-siemens-sacks-6000-workers/

cfact.org/2017/11/05/tax-plan-eliminates-billions-in-green-energy-subsidies/

>nuclear's been slowly getting more expensive.

"We predicted that nuclear would get more expensive and we'll make damn sure that prophecy would come true by frivolous lawsuits and getting regulators to bury nuclear power plants in red tape."

phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

nytimes.com/1984/04/30/us/diablo-canyon-reactor-starts-up-amid-protests-and-industry-praise.html

energy-net.org/01NUKE/DIABLO1.HTM

sfgate.com/news/article/Regulators-broke-quake-rules-at-PG-E-nuclear-5854229.php

recordonline.com/article/20090306/NEWS/90306009

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x287615

>Technology to make nuclear more efficient has been opposed by the "solar and wind only" cult.
Way to miss the point.

Anyway, breeder tech got tried, and turned out to be considerably more technically challenging and expensive than the "inefficient" conventional methods. Uranium, like sunlight, is abundant.

>>Solar's been rapidly getting cheaper
>Since getting billions in subsidies and still dependent on them
The subsidies have promoted premature, uneconomical deployment, and funnelled money to political croneys, but that doesn't explain the dramatic cost reduction curve over time.

Nuclear has benefitted from the same dirty politics. In fact, that's the only way it can exist. Yet the expected costs have gotten worse and worse, from "It'll be too cheap to meter!" to "We should shoulder the painful burden of this additional cost, in addition to the catastrophic risks and indefinite hazard to prosperity, in order to reduce fossil fuel consumption."

>>nuclear's been slowly getting more expensive.
>"We predicted that nuclear would get more expensive and we'll make damn sure that prophecy would come true by frivolous lawsuits and getting regulators to bury nuclear power plants in red tape."
Sure, everything's a big conspiracy against nuclear power. It's not like with experience they keep learning just how much more difficult and expensive it actually is than they previously thought to achieve a zero failure standard.

This attitude is why Fukushima happened:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#2008:_Tsunami_study_ignored
>A 2008 in-house study identified an immediate need to better protect the facility from flooding by seawater. ... Headquarters officials insisted that such a risk was unrealistic and did not take the prediction seriously.

Anyway, what are you doing with all these links? You're not in a position to hand out reading assignments.

>indefinite hazard to prosperity
*posterity

Time for bed, maybe.

>Anyway, breeder tech got tried, and turned out to be considerably more technically challenging and expensive than the "inefficient" conventional methods. Uranium, like sunlight, is abundant.

petrushelsinki.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/france-germany.jpg

France reprocesses its nuclear fuel.

>Nuclear has benefitted from the same dirty politics.

Frivolous lawsuits and constantly changing regulations that nuclear power plants have to be compliant with doesn't help.

BTW: if you people really thought solar and wind power could compete with nuclear, you wouldn't be trying to ban it or regulate and sue it into bankruptcy.

Jesus Christ I fucking hate this anti nuclear rhetoric, it's such a load of garbage. I live in New Zealand and hate having to put up with this shit, our hydro power barely copes with our existing needs, let alone all the electric cars that rich yuppies are bringing in without any consideration of where the electricity will be generated from. Our entire grid could run off 2 or maybe 3 max nuclear plants.

Don't get me wrong, solar and wind are very promising for home power, but until I can get at least 20-30kw of storage for 10k or under it just isn't viable. Our power companies sell electricity at around 30-35c per kwh and will buy it back for 8-9c max, it's fucking offensive. I hope these glass batteries end up being a thing and I can give power companies the middle finger.

>Anyway, breeder tech got tried, and turned out to be considerably more technically challenging and expensive than the "inefficient" conventional methods. Uranium, like sunlight, is abundant.

gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/euan-mearns-europe-electric-price.png

euanmearns.com/an-update-on-the-energiewende/

France reprocesses its nuclear fuel.

>Nuclear has benefitted from the same dirty politics.

Frivolous lawsuits and constantly changing regulations that nuclear power plants have to be compliant with doesn't help.

BTW: if you people really thought solar and wind power could compete with nuclear, you wouldn't be trying to ban it or regulate and sue it into bankruptcy.

>Our entire grid could run off 2 or maybe 3 max nuclear plants.
>Our power companies sell electricity at around 30-35c per kwh
Building nuclear plants wouldn't push that price down one cent, unless they played games and shifted it to your taxes instead, like they do in France.

Here's a great big long thing about the nuclear industry's long history of lowballing estimates:
olino.org/us/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/cooper-report-on-nuclear-economics-final1.pdf
...but pic related gives you the gist of it.

When they fail to deliver, it's all persecution complex stuff, like this guy is spouting: ...which ignores the fact that the same people who lowballed their estimates and came in at double or triple the claimed costs were also still cutting corners on safety and proper waste disposal, as came out in the Fukushima investigation and other nuclear scandals like Three Mile Island and the French simply dumping waste at sea, and so they had to be stopped from doing that kind of thing. Then as these plants reach end of life, the true scale of the decommissioning and waste handling cost starts to dawn...

>I hope these glass batteries end up being a thing and I can give power companies the middle finger.
There are lots of other promising stationary battery technologies. Solar has only just got cheap enough to make them worth developing. Should see some progress on that front over the next few years.

>I hope these glass batteries end up being a thing
Glass batteries? Do you have a link?

google.co.nz/amp/s/www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/glass-battery-technology/amp/

Take it with as much salt as you want, but it's the same guy who developed the Lithium Ion battery and he is very confident about it so I think this one has a lot of potential. Provided he doesn't have a convienient accident.

Glass batteries sound too good to be true, but I'm still hopeful for ORBAT.

5,000 cycle lifespan, one tenth the cost of lithium-ion batteries, no scarce elements involved:
kurzweilai.net/a-new-battery-thats-cheap-clean-rechargeable-and-organic

>100$/kwh

Fucking A. Even if it's 4 or 5 times that then I'm sold.

you're like alex jones but not funny

>the claimed costs were also still cutting corners on safety and proper waste disposal

theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

businessinsider.com/solar-panel-makers-grappling-with-waste-2013-2

asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Tech/Japan-tries-to-chip-away-at-mountain-of-disused-solar-panels?page=1

This bullshit double standards doesn't end with the environmental footprint. Anytime someone brings up solar and wind's shortcomings, it's handwaved by the promise of some new technology that's just around the corner.

>There are lots of other promising stationary battery technologies. Solar has only just got cheap enough to make them worth developing. Should see some progress on that front over the next few years.

But when someone brings up advances in nuclear technology, it's dismissed offhand.

Same thing with subsidies. Subsidies for solar and wind is okay but subsidies for nuclear power is wrong.

BTW: it's telling how much faith the "solar and wind only" advocates have in their miracle product when they, not only calls for banning their competition, but even having them put on trial as Nazi war criminals.

youtube.com/watch?v=LLvqn6saz7A (at 4:10)

>Same thing with subsidies. Subsidies for solar and wind is okay but subsidies for nuclear power is wrong.

Because Solar is actually really effective with it's subsidies. Nuclear had it exclusively (no solar or wind to compete) and it still had issues despite being heavily pushed at it's peak. Not to shit on Nuclear though.

eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

Nuclear subsidies- $1.6 billion
Solar - $5.3 billion
Wind - $5.9 billion

And nuclear produces more than either solar and wind combined.

Imagine if that 11 billion spent on solar and wind had instead been spent on LFTR development.

I'd call myself liberal so it hurts when your entire political affiliation is retarded. NUCLEAR IS FUCKING CLEAN

It's clean the same way all energy is (it isn't).

how isn't it, it only has harmful effects if you dont have a basic understanding of nuclear physics.

mining user.

Then I guess we should give up all our metals, oils and plastic then since that involves mining.

Fossil fuels literally give more people cancer than nuclear does, be several orders of magnitude

Fusion itself is supposed to be clean, but it promotes extreme energy inefficiency and waste.
Pollution will simply shift from energy production, to energy use, and increase in light of abundant energy.
I shudder just to think of the amount of junk that will be produced in throwaway mentality and how much damage it will do to the environment we are supposed to be preserving.
Cheap energy is not the answer.
Efficiency and recycling is.

The leftists running the government want higher electricity prices & deindustrialization

>Solar is actually really effective with it's subsidies

With an energy efficiency of a laughable 20%, it really isn't. Solar is a sham and its main proponents are mentally retarded hippies who don't understand how nuclear power works and who overestimate the number of deaths caused by nuclear power plants, most of them either because they are ignorant or because they are connected to the green industry and have an agenda of their own

Mining can be made sustainable and typically is in case of uranium or thorium mining

Uh the govt is run by drumpf and his right wing administration of neo nazis, how is that leftist?

>blumpf is an overlord lol xD #rezist

newsweek.com/kim-jong-un-may-have-caused-parasitic-worm-epidemic-north-korea-making-farmers-714571

Behold the fruits of your hippy-topia.

It's really efficient recycling your own shit for fertilizer. And all you have to put up with is a few thousand parasitic worms in your gut.

BTW: It takes energy to recycle just like every other fucking thing humans do and that includes things that can be done but isn't due to the cost. Why drill for more oil when the CO2 can be recycled with some hydrogen from electrolyzing water and create whatever hydrocarbon that you want and that includes octane for your car. Desalination becomes cheaper and takes the pressure off fresh water supplies. The cheaper energy is, the more items can be recycled. They use massive arch furnaces to meltdown scrap metal for recycling.

It's time to stop romanticizing this "less is more and let's get back to nature, man" hippy bullshit that will only impoverish the world and lower the standard of living at a time when we can make a mad dash to a post-scarcity world and provide for the entire world.

...

Absolute KEK

TRUMP IS TEH LEFT