Why illegal?

Retard. I’m not going to type out paragraphs to explain why you’re a retard because I have a life. But just know you’re incredibly retarded and should get tested for Down’s. Fucking mong.

modern reactors can't physically meltdown like the corner cutting communist Chernobyl plant

Imagine being the sort of retard who doesn't know what happened in Chernobyl

@102090211
dont you EVER give me a (you) again, you b*Ltoid
you even have the bolivian color scheme

(You) WILL take my (You)s and (You) WILL enjoy them, like a whore that (You) are.

They have slot of earthquakes

you are a retard if you don't realize that a chernobyl-like accident in france would fuck up italy too, and btw italy can't produce enough energy to sustain itself and we have to import the extra energy from russia.
>muh nuclear disaster
never happened with 4th generation power plant

>imagine being the sort of brainlet who does not understand that even slight temperature changes can shut down and even risk the safety of an entire nuclear plant
>Imagine not knowning that a simple heatwave can shutdown your entire plant like what happened constantly in America and Spain and what happened in 2003 in France
>imagine not knowing any of this and pretending you're an expert on the safety of nuclear energy just because you want more toil

You are taking the "failure scenario" into account, but not the "normal operation". Not only are failures in nuclear super rare and with a shit ton of oversight, contingency measures and fast respones (that most other types of power lack or have far lower requirements for), nuclear is unironically less radioactive than coal during normal operation. Go read the absolute shit mix that is coal ash constantly being pumped out.

@102090365
the only balt I'm willing to take (you)s from is estii and estii alone
desist

because terroni are afraid of progress and want to drag us down

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Implying Japan doesn't

lmao are you for real?

>le laffing as an argument
>expecting Jow Forumsards to actually read
oh well what the hell
>nuclear energy is significantly more expensive to produce than fossil fuel and even other alternatives
>Due to cooling problems in France during the heat wave in thesummer of 2003, engineers told the government that they could no longer guarantee the safe-ty of the country's 58 nuclear power plants (Duval Smith, 2003). This is of particular impor-tance as it suggests that nuclear power production will become even less safe as heat wavesbecome more common due to climate change

nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf

let's see you laugh when global warming starts fucking up your reactors. oh let me guess you dont believe in that either?

Attached: 546456345345.jpg (258x245, 12K)

>sandnigger education
and yet there has never been any catastrophic disaster in all those countries

because democracies allow everyday uneducated commoners to have influence over government policy.

For one thing you'd have to assume Western safety standards are as poor as Soviet ones were.

>a 10°C difference in ambient temperature is enough to shut down a nuclear reactor usually going in the hundreds of degrees at their core
that paper really didnt explain the reasoning behind shutting them down, it just said that technicians said it may be dangerous and leave it at that...
if it was an issue with the cooling towers, well, coal, gas and oil powerplants also require cooling towers

I don't know. People voted, and I respect their decision. IIRC I voted to keep them

>Netherlands
>Building new reactors

I fucking wish

>Africa with nuclear power stations

This is going to end well

maybe it considers those smallish reactors for medical applications that are constantly cropping up everywhere the same as the big power generating ones

The Ukrainians didn't seem to care. They built a new city to replace Pripyat and kept operating Chernobyl's remaining reactors until the 21st century when the EU nagged them to shut it down.

Attached: Slavutych.jpg (1280x960, 259K)

I'm not implying that.Also have you heard of fukushima

Get tested for Down's.

Your logic is phenomenal
>we have an energy deficit
>we need some jobs
>I know let's build a nuclear power plant
>so that if there is unexpected future climate change or earthquake or a volcano we don't just have to deal with the ramifications of them
>no we'll just have to extinguish our entire race

Do whatever you want I don't give a fuck

Attached: 1530462058548.jpg (334x334, 88K)

Don't want to deal with a disaster when shit hits the fan like Japan did

Volcanoes don't erupt anymore silly, it literally hasn't happened for hundreds of years

>climate change
How is that relevant.
Even if you take everything about it seriously it is just meaningless for this context.
Weather is BY FAR more important than climate to operate a nuclear power plant, which should be completely obvious.
A 2 degree increase in average temperature over a couple of decades is ABSOLUTELY meaningless.

>earthquake or a volcano
Here is my secret plan. Don't build nuclear powerplants near regions with earthquake or volcanic activity. I know it is very complicated and hard to understand but I think it might just work.

>>no we'll just have to extinguish our entire race
Just the shithole races will kill themselves and that's great for humanity.

Nuclear power is expensive. Italy has better things to do with that money, like paying off the mob.

>more expensive
>not "clean" you just shit the nuclear waste somewhere else
>low risk but builds up with the variables of time
>one failure is all you need to end it all

When did nuclear energy become a religion? It's like arguing with fanatical Muslims at this point. Do whatever the fucj you want just don't talk like it's some magical fucking fairy solution to Italy and the world's energy problems with 0 fucking downsides

the absolute state of this board, don't at me again

Attached: 1403824269942.jpg (350x473, 55K)

>>one failure is all you need to end it all
Clearly false, as multiple failures happened and nothing has ended.

Just stop, or at least make a non retarded argument.

> 0 fucking downsides
I mean there are reasonable objections but neither "volcanoes", "earthquake" nor "climate change" are even remotely good ones. They are absolutely retarded objections which show you are either an ideologue or insane.

>New in planning
That was before the 2010 earthquake

Ok fine I'll bite

I already addressed the climate change one
Volcanoes can cause seismic action
You do realise that tsunamis are caused by earthquakes right?
You do realise that Italy is susceptible to earthquakes and has a ton of volcanic action.
When you build a nuclear plant you're building it for 100 years not 10 and it's not mobile

"Proponents of nuclear energy, like Patrick Moore, cofounder ofGreenpeace, and the former Argonne National Laboratory adviser Steve Berry, say that new reactors will be safer than current ones—“meltdown proof.” Such safety claims also are myths. Even the 2003 M.I.T. energy study predicted that tripling civilian nuclear reactors would lead to about four core-melt accidents. The government’s Sandia National Laboratory calculates that a nuclear accident could cause casualties similar to those at Hiroshima or Nagasaki: 140,000 deaths. If nuclear plants are as safe as their proponents claim, why do utilities need the U.S. Price-Anderson Act, which guarantees utilities protection against 98 percent of nuclear-accident liability and transfers these risks to the public? All U.S. utilities refused to generate atomic power until the government established this liability limit. Why do utilities, but not taxpayers, need this nuclear-liability protection?
Another problem is that high-level radioactive waste must be secured “in perpetuity,” as the.."

Not to mention security issues with terrorists and the like

>calling me an ideologue
Go pray in the direction of your local nuclear plant

Now seriously don't at me again, this is getting embarrassing

>Terrorists use uranium and plutonium for nuclear missiles.

Nigger you have any idea how fast plutonium or uranium deteriorates? Also thorium would be a better alternative.

>I already addressed the climate change one
It's retarded.
Climate change won't cause Germany to turn into North Africa over night.
Even over decades the changes are minimal, weather is a billion times more important.
If a plant can operate in March at 17 degrees it will also be able to operate in March at 17.01 degrees.

>Volcanoes
Already provided a genius solution for that.

>Earthquakes
I had another genius solution for that.

How about NOT FUCKING BUILDING A PLANT NEAR A VOLCANO.
Your objection is retarded, even Italy doesn't have a volcano around every corner you fucking morron.

>"Proponents of nuclear energy, like Patrick Moore, cofounder ofGreenpeace, and the former Argonne National Laboratory adviser Steve Berry, say that new reactors will be safer than current ones—“meltdown proof.” Such safety claims also are myths. Even the 2003 M.I.T. energy study predicted that tripling civilian nuclear reactors would lead to about four core-melt accidents. The government’s Sandia National Laboratory calculates that a nuclear accident could cause casualties similar to those at Hiroshima or Nagasaki: 140,000 deaths. If nuclear plants are as safe as their proponents claim, why do utilities need the U.S. Price-Anderson Act, which guarantees utilities protection against 98 percent of nuclear-accident liability and transfers these risks to the public? All U.S. utilities refused to generate atomic power until the government established this liability limit. Why do utilities, but not taxpayers, need this nuclear-liability protection?
Another problem is that high-level radioactive waste must be secured “in perpetuity,” as the.."
An opinion without an argument.

In all honesty I don't give a fuck about nuclear power (and would favor a slow fadeout as alternatives become viable, SPOILER: They really aren't right now, unless you really want coal plants) but your objections indicate braindead levels of ideology.

>first nuclear reactor was built by an Italian
Lmao

>he thinks volcanoes are just the hole on the top
>he thinks he can guarantee safety from earthquakes for the virtual lifetime of the plant
>he thinks nuclear waste just goes *poof*
>he thinks climate change can't at the very least shut down the plant (which it has been proven to do) cutting off the country from power and at the most cause a meltdown
>he's arguing that a 1% chance at 100% damage is acceptable, nay, better than a 1% chance at 1% damage
>he's a zoomer who thinks these kinds of plants are only relevant during his lifetime then whatever happens happens = Boomer mentality
>he doesn't know that solar, wind and hydro power can already take over but natural gas margins are still too good to give up

Attached: 435346545645.jpg (450x355, 13K)

We are moving forward :)

Attached: eh.png (674x380, 318K)

>>he thinks volcanoes are just the hole on the top
No, which is entirely irrelevant since NOT EVERY PART OF ITALY IS NEAR A VOLCANO.

>>he thinks he can guarantee safety from earthquakes for the virtual lifetime of the plant
There are large regions of Italy which hadn't had an earthquake in over 100 years.

>>he thinks climate change can't at the very least shut down the plant (which it has been proven to do) cutting off the country from power and at the most cause a meltdown
If an increase by 0.01 degrees can shut down the plant the WEATHER INCREASE a thousand times larger will make them impossible.

>>he doesn't know that solar, wind and hydro power can already take over but natural gas margins are still too good to give up
Yes, that's what you call not viable.

Honestly you are a braindead ideologue, explain to me how miniscule changes in global temperature make a plant extremely dangerous, but the difference between day and night temperatures a thousand times larger is still manageable.

Honestly, this was the worst argument I have ever had, most people had some kind of point, but you really have none.
Or do you seriously think that the entirety of Italy is full of volcanoes?

I bet New Zealand outlaws nuclear power. They won't even let US nuclear carriers park there last I heard.

>solar, wind
Just need to find a way to take, store and give terrawatts first

>he doesn't know that modern reactors are flooded with water and the isotopes are separated in the event of a loss of power

fusion has been 20 years away for 60 years by now
while I think it's good to invest in the future, investing in a not-so-distant future is more applaudable

UAE has a reactor operating

We are the greenest >20mil people country, even with our huge manifacturing output (2nd in Europe)

Attached: VH2vN7YZVI6YnOdx7YzoIz5vPBhQwkIo-0xskHOWbao.jpg (1131x754, 115K)

blah blah blah blah

China is building nuclear plants here.

Attached: 1549516038610.jpg (400x677, 41K)

Hasn't your country had enough bad experiences with nuclear power already?

I mean it's fine if all is under control but shit can hit the fan very fast.

Yeah, remember the Fukushima nuclear meltdown? Me neither.

Well, the budgets for fusion research have also been constantly changing

Attached: mfe-funding-rct-share-us-income-top-10-2012-1101.png (1012x578, 46K)

>Western safety standards are as poor as Soviet ones were
Italian and pretty much the Meditteranean in general are just as shit though

To be fair, they're a big player on nuclear, just behind the US and France. Their air quality is shit, they have to import a ton of fossils, and they've promised to address their impact on climate change so their government went all in with hydro, nuclear, and wind
Also, if 1% of the population falls within 130 IQ, then China would have the equivalent of 20% the population of the UK just in genius level people. They wouldn't have their droolers designing reactors if they considered them a matter of national interest so much

Attached: Untitled.jpg (847x2295, 719K)

On the other hand, China can't even construct escalators without them collapsing or eating people. High IQ or not, if you cut costs and ignore safety standards that happens.

>he actually believes intelligent chinese people exist
oh no no no...