Sometimes, I just fucking hate this country

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

there are still 99 nuclear reactors operating in the US
in fucking 2018
sometimes, I just fucking hate this country

Attached: jordan-nuclear-energy-protest2.jpg (219 KB, 2048x1371)

All urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=MgmHKgFeLiA

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

There should be far more.

Supergrass
Supergrass

and I see the paid shills from the nuclear lobby have showed up right on cue

Spamalot
Spamalot

Do you have any less harmful sources of electricity?

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

falling for bait
current year

Attached: bait-gif-6.gif (641 KB, 375x200)

cum2soon
cum2soon

Water, solar, wind...
Shall I go on?

Bidwell
Bidwell

Solar kills more people every year than all nuclear power accidents combined.

iluvmen
iluvmen

Any *viable* solutions?
Explain how exactly nuclear reactors are harmful, and why solar, wind etc are better solutions to provide the grid with power.

Inmate
Inmate

So out of curiosity, is your plan to burn more hydrocarbons, or just to freeze to death in the dark?

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

Explain how exactly nuclear reactors are harmful
Fukoshima, Chernobyl, 3-mile island, etc

why solar, wind etc are better solutions to provide the grid with power.
renewable energy is better for the environment. and energy conservation always helps

Evilember
Evilember

Overall lifetime output of radiation into the environment is much higher for coal plants then nuclear plants per watt of power produced.

More so the danger from nuclear reactors is that we stopped funding them. Every time we update a reactor it must be completely revamped from the ground up, you can't just slap a new controller onto the old system. This means we are using 1980's era technology when we can create plants that are designed to make sure they can't melt down or even run off of things like Thorium and be unable to weaponize the materials needed to make the power. Solar, wind, water, geothermal, they all require rare earth metals and very specific conditions. We need to work on solidifying our power networks and creating robust grids to prevent power outages in this day and age.

SniperGod
SniperGod

Fusion power when? What do y'all think of the new MIT fusion project?

SniperWish
SniperWish

Fuck off, nuclear is extremely efficient, cheap, and safer than almost all other forms of electricity generation (yes, including the famous catastrophes).

I know you're just baiting though, so I'll move on. You gave it away too quickly here

RavySnake
RavySnake

Still nuclear so it's just as problematic.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

Attached: 3e1.png (72 KB, 1413x958)

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

wow, fun fact eh

whodathunk

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

exactly this OP.

How else are we supposed to double our population every 30 years?

geez don't you know about economics?

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

Fukoshima, Chernobyl, 3-mile island, etc
Bravo, three instances in almost a century of nuclear power generation, with combined confirmed deaths not even breaking 1,000.
This can be beaten on paper by one shitty coal plant.
This gets beaten ANNUALLY by "safe" "green" energy related deaths.
Fukushima is especially embarrassing, as crushing majority of deaths from that one were caused by hysterical evacuation.

JunkTop
JunkTop

I find Nuclear power to be great, aside from the Waste it produces :/

Just find a solution for that, and we're pretty much set.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

The world is very nearly approaching negative fertility rates, except for Africa. Cool your heels.

whereismyname
whereismyname

I'm a thinking person who thinks things through and I have thought about what you said and I think that you are also a thinking person who really thinks things through and the only fault you can find with nuclear is the waste.

Im convinced.

Illusionz
Illusionz

Name something efficient

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

liquid thorium salt reactors!!

THOR. GOD OF THUNDER. SO COOL

it just has to work

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

ITS FUCKING 2018 HAVEN'T YOU HEARD WHY IS EVERYTHING NOT PERFECT BY NOW IT'S DEFINITELY NOT 2017 WTF

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

googles it
"people fall off roofs installing panels"
Wut

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

Mostly the problem with nuclear energy is the ability to use the Uranium as a weapon. Perhaps Thorium will be a successful alternative, because it is a lot harder, if not impossible, to use as a weapon.
Renewable energy do seem cleaner, but the cost of making them, and their output, puts them at disadvantages to nuclear fission at the moment.
Maybe in a decade or two, the progress made in each field can make them a good alternative to coal and such.

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

This gets beaten ANNUALLY by "safe" "green" energy related deaths.
Yeah I'm gonna need a citation on that

King_Martha
King_Martha

there are still 0 nuclear reactors operating in the commonwealth of Australia
in fucking 2018
sometimes, I just fucking hate this country

farquit
farquit

This thread is a shithole
Bravo

Attached: 1478992793773.png (191 KB, 351x374)

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

We could empty all of our superfund sites into the ocean and nothing bad would happen. But we don’t do that because pandas and crying indians and reasons.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

How is that not solar's problem?

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

We could empty all of our superfund sites into the ocean and nothing bad would happen.

You seem like someone who really thinks things through

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

There have been many dam failures that have killed significantly more people than all nuclear accidents combined, including one in China which killed 170,000 people (the most devastating nuclear accident, Chernobyl, had only 45 fatalities confirmed from the accident and resulting radiation sickness). By your logic, hydroelectric power is an even greater threat than nuclear.

We have one in Sydney creating medical isotopes. None produce electricity though, thanks to Green retards who think like OP.

TechHater
TechHater

Whats with you people.

I think the sun down there turns whites into fucking savages or something.

Better Go back to Ireland or wherever before you start eating albinos to ward of evil demons and shit.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

seriously aussies are fucked.

fucking blood thirsty flailing retards

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

Nuclear reactors are like planes. People think that they are dangerous, because media talk about them all the time, while in reality they are safe and good.

whereismyname
whereismyname

renewable energy is better for the environment. and energy conservation always helps
How do they serve a grid demand? How would you solve the duck curve? I will grant you that magic batteries will make wind and solar work, but the same batteries can also be used on nuclear or coal to greater effect.

Thing is we don't have magic batteries.

Just find a solution for that, and we're pretty much set.
They are called breeder reactors. They consume nearly all of the fuel elements and reduce waste by almost 99%. They cost about 1 cent more per kilowatt hour to operate, which for the US is vastly higher than the 1/10th of a cent the DoE charges them for building and operating a nuclear fuel waste storage site (which the DoE is not doing and are actually currently in violation of federal law for that failure).

Mostly the problem with nuclear energy is the ability to use the Uranium as a weapon
I'm sorry who don't you want to have nuclear weapons? North Korea? Iran? India? Pakistan? Russia?
Or one of the 63 nuclear ready nations the CIA says are less than 1 year from viable weapons, like Germany, Japan, Canada, Brazil... Yeah maybe we don't want some nations to have nuclear power under their own control. But that's easy to regulate with inspections; it's impossible to hide nuclear weapons production from inspectors of nuclear power plants if they can do inspections every 3 months.

Attached: CPUC-CalISO-DuckCurve-535-374.jpg (101 KB, 535x374)

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

green energy
youtube.com/watch?v=MgmHKgFeLiA

Attached: sam.jpg (77 KB, 1280x720)

viagrandad
viagrandad

Being a german you will understand how shilled that "green energy" is.
It is that inefficient that we have to import energy (obviously generated from nuclear power plants) from other countries while ours got shut down for no reason at all
but muh Tchernobyl
Yeah sure, lets compare outdated soviet technology with new standarts
but muh Fukushima
We totally have tsunamis every day
Electricity price is almost doubling every year.

And imagine, all of that could have been easily solved with atom of peace, but no, because of faggots like you we have to pay half of the money that we get after paying rent on electricity bills.
Fuck green faggots and fuck you

Illusionz
Illusionz

Fukoshima, Chernobyl, 3-mile island, etc
According to the WHO, Chernobyl killed about 300 people total, and Fukushima and Three Mile Island killed 0 each. Coal kills more than 300 people per day from premature death from airborne particulates alone - that's before we even start talking about global warming.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

Nuclear waste is a non-problem. The problem is a fiction created by the greens. Every industrial process created industrial waste. Nuclear waste is not infinitely dangerous - it's less dangerous than what you think it is. Nuclear waste is the best kind of waste, because they're so little of it, that we can safely contain it, unlike stuff like coal ash which we just leave sitting in pits or something.

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

Almost every nuclear weapon, if not every nuclear weapon, was made from centrifuges or custom purpose reactors, e.g. not from a civilian electricity reactor. The connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons proliferation is pretty tenuous. For example, North Korea - no help from the international community for nuclear power, and they have nuclear weapons. South Korea, they have nuclear power, but no nuclear weapons. Nuclear power plant tech is really not that useful to get nuclear weapons.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

This thread

Attached: 1518242192360.png (902 KB, 480x480)

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

This. Give me nuclear or give me greens, Fuck of, big oil

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

the power of liberalism
You nutters will be against anything because some hippie jew who hasn't showered in a week tells you it's evil.

Evilember
Evilember

this tbqh

WebTool
WebTool

You nutters
You exactly do you think you're responding to?

DeathDog
DeathDog

anti nuclear posts

These trigger me so hard.

Attached: SKELLINGTON-NO.gif (486 KB, 475x347)

TechHater
TechHater

Solar kills more people every year than all nuclear power accidents combined.
Is that accounting for the fact that there's way more people actually manufacturing and using solar power or is that just another of those bullshit statistics like saying X animal is more dangerous than sharks just because it kills more people per year, or that we no longer need Y vaccine because nobody gets Y anymore?

eGremlin
eGremlin

Maybe if you faggot hippies would stop cutting funding we could update facilities and work on making nuclear power more safe and efficient.

muh chernobyl
Don't push machines past their limits.
muh fukushima
Don't build on fault lines.

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

Renewables are already beating o&g, give it another decade and it'll start beating nuclear too

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

And I see the paid oil company shills are here as always

RumChicken
RumChicken

It's intrinsic to the tech. Solar produces far less net energy worldwide, but solar also requires a lot more parts and labor, and that means that solar generally produces more toxic waste and causes more human deaths. The number of deaths from solar is really quite small, but the number of deaths from nuclear is also very small.

girlDog
girlDog

Don't build on fault lines.
Better yet, don't put your backup power generators for an active emergency cooling system underground next to the fucking coast in a tsunami hazard zone.

5mileys
5mileys

No they won't. Only solar and wind have a chance of scaling to the sizes needed, but they have intermittency problems, and no storage tech will scale to the sizes needed.

cum2soon
cum2soon

Renewables are already beating o&g, give it another decade and it'll start beating nuclear too

The metrics used to reach that conclusion are shonky and based on incomplete infrastructure costs.

takes2long
takes2long

Jesus fuck you are dumb

hairygrape
hairygrape

Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Chernobyl: A few, completely misinformed and brainwashed people run stress test after stress test on a badly-build soviet reactor, deactivate nearly all safety features, while not being told by the government about possible hazards because og muh Rassia. No shit, something goes wrong.

Fukushima: They build a nuclear reactor in a spot where there a regular earthquakes and Tsunamis aren't that rare either. All are surprised when there is an earthquake and a flood. (Who ciuld have known)

These are the main reasons why we shouldn't build nuclear reactors in completely safe regions with a fuckton of safety measures. Let's just use meme-sources like solar/wind that are just as resource-intensive in production (if not more) like using coal and/or oil.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

This

Techpill
Techpill

there are still 0 nuclear reactors operating in Australia
in fucking 2018
sometimes, I just fucking hate this country

Methnerd
Methnerd

This

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

A pipe dream like warp drive or brain uploading.

SniperWish
SniperWish

Fpbp

Methshot
Methshot

Attached: Chart7.jpg (16 KB, 424x308)

Evilember
Evilember

You're the fucking problem, retard, nuclear is by far the safest way we have to make electricity both for the environment and for people.
Moronic "environmentalists" like yourself are only fucking up the planet more by trying to stop nuclear power. Coal and gas will be burned instead, always.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

brain uploading
Google the Moravec Transfer

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

Got a better rez version of that chart?

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

I think it would be awesome if people made Nuclear Fusion an actual Viable source of energy, it would be a dream come true. Also the Environmental thing, hasn't that been debunked multiple times? Like CO2 being in the air really does affect the Earth as bad as we thought, since we know Plants take in more CO2 if there is more present?

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

The problem isn't how many reactors there are bit how old they are. A bunch of them are still running years to decades past their planned lifetime.

Three mile island harmed no one

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

There's nothing wrong with that because I can calmly watch the moron falling off the roof while installing a solar panel array without a safety line or any other anti-fall protection. Because morons don't need to breed. However, I take high offense when a nuclear power plant spews a shitload of radioactive material into the atmosphere 500 miles upwind of me while my wife is newly pregnant.

Lunatick
Lunatick

Fpbp

Nuclear is the future. Only faggot scared cucks don't want it.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

Literally none of those are good lol

Booteefool
Booteefool

Keep killing birds you hippy faggot. Much bird lives matter

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

there's way more people actually manufacturing and using solar power
there isn't, you retard, solar is both less popular AND it kills far more people.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

because it is a lot harder, if not impossible, to use as a weapon.

We NEED to develop thorium reactors because of middle east countries who demand nuclear power just so they can get their hands on nuclear weapons materials. As soon as we give them thorium as an option for nuclear power, they'll change their minds about it.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

I wish there was 990+
We can now use the irradiated graphite control rods as low-voltage batteries by encasing them in diamond. Why we aren't scrambling to build a thousand more reactors is beyond me.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

Increased CO2 may increase the growth of C3 plants but that is by no means the only feedback associated with increased CO2 levels. even if it is a negative feedback (which is debatable) the net effect is nowhere near large enough to stabilize atmospheric CO2 based on current emissions.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit