There are still 99 nuclear reactors operating in the US

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.

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

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

Still nuclear so it's just as problematic.

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

wow, fun fact eh

whodathunk

exactly this OP.

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

geez don't you know about economics?

>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.

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.

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

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.

Name something efficient

liquid thorium salt reactors!!

THOR. GOD OF THUNDER. SO COOL

it just has to work

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

>googles it
>"people fall off roofs installing panels"
Wut

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.

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

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

This thread is a shithole
Bravo

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

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.

How is that not solar's problem?

>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

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.

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.

seriously aussies are fucked.

fucking blood thirsty flailing retards

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.

>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 (535x374, 101K)

>green energy
youtube.com/watch?v=MgmHKgFeLiA

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

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

>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.

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.

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.

>This thread

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

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

>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.

this tbqh

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

>anti nuclear posts

These trigger me so hard.

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

>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?

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.

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

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

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.

>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.

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.

>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.

Jesus fuck you are dumb

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.

This

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

This

A pipe dream like warp drive or brain uploading.

Fpbp

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

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.

>brain uploading
Google the Moravec Transfer

Got a better rez version of that chart?

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?

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

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.

Fpbp

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

Literally none of those are good lol

Keep killing birds you hippy faggot. Much bird lives matter

>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.

>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.

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.

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.