Why are large nuclear reactors that could cause a disaster similar to the Chernobyl accident used? Why not, instead...

Why are large nuclear reactors that could cause a disaster similar to the Chernobyl accident used? Why not, instead, make a series of many many tiny reactors so that if something goes wrong in one, it doesn't cause as much damage and is easier to contain?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
youtu.be/LEXG7h6kBOQ
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel_and_the_Dragon
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

just spreads the threat.why not get off reliance to nuclear and use proven shit like solar,wind and hydro?
we still need nuke but we need to lessen dependence on it.we can spend money on research on other shit,i havent looked at cold fusion in a long time but fuel cells on an industrial scale theres alot of alternatives.

>proven shit like solar,wind and hydro
I'm sorry to break it to you but the only thing those are proven to be is inefficient. Nuclear is the "cleanest" way we can reasonably expect to generate power.

hydro is good af
Wind would be good if it wasn't for kooks
and solar is a good supplement, not standalone tho

there's so many people against wind for NO fucking reason, idk what their problem is

> tiny reactors
> it doesn't cause as much damage and is easier to contain?

when there is a nuke fuckup, it all turns to shit regardless of size. look what happened to the tiny sl1

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

So basically you are all saying it's because humans are too stupid to not be trusted to NOT blow themselves up?
//
所以基本上你都稱這是因為人類是太愚蠢不被信任,以不吹自己了?

Because chernobyl is a meme that only happened because they stopped half way between being sub critical and china syndrome.

Yes.

Reactors like the one at Chernobyl aren't used anymore.

But the poor birds :(

Ok, im pro nuclear, but to say that nuclear is cleaner than hydro, wind, or solar is straight up pants on head retarded. Nuclear is great, but you cant pretend like waste disposal is a non issue.

Chernobyl was a fake, like the moon landing

I hear thorium reactors are a much safer alternative than the traditional uranium powered reactors

There will be one in Hungary.

Why not just slowly poison the atmosphere instead with thousands of fossil fuel plants?

Imagine knowing nothing about nuclear energy engineering and then making a post about it.

>hydro
>wind
>solar
All three are wildly damaging to the environment all the way from installation, through production, to retirement of the asset. Solar and wind arent typically useful for baseload generation and due to political maneuvering sometimes cause even more environmental damage by forcing nuclear plants to dump energy as waste heat into their local body of water.

Nuclear fission IS for the time being the most efficient, cleanest, and economical way we can produce large amounts of energy. Legacy issues surrounding spent fuel are a problem, but its one that is blown out of of proportion by the uneducated, illiterate public.

>Why are large nuclear reactors that could cause a disaster similar to the Chernobyl accident used?
They are vastly different

>Why not, instead, make a series of many many tiny reactors so that if something goes wrong in one, it doesn't cause as much damage and is easier to contain?

Cost, you'd be paying similar design and operation costs for each reactor to what you would be paying for a larger scale one. It's much cheaper just to have it be centralized.

Why don't we subsidize nuclear energy companies to pay NASA or SpaceX to jettison nuclear waste into space?

...the mines where uranium comes from are nightmares too

>All three are wildly damaging
only hydro, new dams are major co2 sources

But in the event of the ship blowing up then it can fuck everything.


Also it may come back to earth anyway

yeah ok fag, is that why alberta canada is already 20% reliant on wind? and 20 years from now 80% of power from from wind?

been reading about thorium salt reactors?

/thread

Veeky Forums has like no physicists left

It s the oldest scam in the book op.
So they had to take it out of a book so people would stop thinking critically about scams.

youtu.be/LEXG7h6kBOQ

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel_and_the_Dragon

The Earth is flat. You can prove it in no time. Get some aerial photography of the Google images. Identify to points and measure the distance between them (protip: the 20 mile mark and beyond the lie falls completely apart).

Curvature=8 inches times the distance in miles squared. Divide your results by 12 to get the apex in feet.

...

Luckily metabunk.org s 2 dimensional fake towers let us know we can observe the curvature near the ground...

...so you ll be able to see it in the aerial photography you re measuring

they are conservatives user
if you want wind power because its better for your country or planet earth that means its a liberal agenda and you need to stand up against it

Science and math board
Does gematria count as math here?