You have 4 seconds to explain why the world shouldn't prioritize nuclear energy

Each one is a potential nuclear bomb in cases of political instability or act of god.

Actually impossible, cores have a different reaction process.

Nuclear waste is not already a problem. Here in the US Yucca mountain is at 1/5 storage capacity and when full there another mountain right next to it that can be used all the same. And it's safe to live right next to the mountain because radiation leakage is practically non-existent. You'd get more radiation exposure from eating a single Banana than living next to a waste storage plant or and power plant for that matter.

>what is reprocessing
The only reason nuclear isn't more common is because tree hugging lunatics who want to "help" nature at the expense of humanity; the only two major nuclear incidents with long-term consequences were caused by corrupt and/or incompetent workers and governments.

We should have more nuclear energy.

Fukushima, Chernobyl, 5 Mile Island.

Done and done, dumbass. Solar and wind are the future.

You're fake.

>Space is fake

Attached: Should_have_looked_into_it.jpg (398x432, 20K)

but then we wouldn't "need" a tyrannical global carbon credits (backdoor global government) system run by Goldman Sachs and friends to "save us from climate change"

because the world runs on diesel, not atomized kikes

Firmament is real. Sonoluminescent lights.

Attached: 1516302698986.webm (1008x494, 2.82M)

100% with OP
How else will long term space voyages get energy when they can't survive solely on thermal radiation?

Nuclear power if not contained by professionals is devastating. The future is filled woth niggers and spics, will they be able to operate the technology?

Because some asshole always fucks up and we end up spreading radioactive dust all over the place

Dem cooling towers. Any engineer fags on? I have a dumb question.
An evaporitive cooler forces air through a wet media, cooling the air by evaporating the water. Cold wet air exits the side of the unit. A cooling tower drops water from above, it falls down on a media and the wind going up expels heat. Same princaple, air crossing a wet media but it expels heat and cools the water. Why is this different? The orientation? A cooling tower being straight up and a evaporative cooler being sideways. I know hot air rises, just don't get why any cool escapes the top.
Sorry murican education has ruined me.

The only thing that can compete is shale my dude.

Did you just say, "5 Mile Island"?

Saying these incidents prove we shouldn't use nuclear is like saying we shouldn't use planes because of their accidents.

Again, proportionately to how much power they produce and how many plants there are, more people literally die by falling off of fucking roof-tops while installing solar panels than have ever died from Nuclear incidents.

Nuclear meltdowns are large scale and scary, but in reality they accumulate less deaths than any other source of energy.

Nuclear is the future.

Whoa man look at those big words though, now that's convincing.

You just haven't looked into it, that's all.

Solar is Cheaper by the KWH and the public views it as safer

If they get to a point where they can construct and use nuclear power they've gotten to a point where they'll run it fine. The problems would come if for some god-forsaken reason they decided to actually install plants in Africa or some shit, but that's way more costly than just transferring power so nobody would do that.

As someone who was stationed on nuclear subs and lived, breathed, beat off and slept in a tin can with a reactor, I am all for them. They are very safe when maintained and operated with strict controls. Hell the navy operates around 100 reactors 24/7 365 and have you ever heard of a single incident in the 6+ decades we have been operating them?

>There have been 3, just 3 major nuclear incidents
2 of which still aren't really under total quarantine YET. TMI is fairly stable. Chernobyl needs a MASSIVE infrastructure upgrade.....Fukishima is not just a simple nuke disaster. It is possibly the worst human caused disaster EVER.

Nukes for power need to be left to people who are 100% perfect every time. We humans obviously are flawed. 99.9999% is not good enough.

>that wasn't REAL nuclear power, real nuclear power has never been tried before
>that was just a government mistake, it'll work this time for real i promise
>implying planes can meltdown and permanently irradiate the area for several square miles
Are you just being disingenuous or are you really that fucking stupid?

No trust me I have, as someone who actually studies astrophysics one of the major phases I had to go through was exploring the world of space conspiracies and people such as yourself who make claims based on technically scientific words that you don't truly know the meaning of. I will be impressed if you can provide one piece of evidence that can't be debunked in 5 minutes.

Except that it isn't actually safer.

>astrophysics
gravity is your religion. It's not science. Space is fake.

Fukushima , Chernobel.

Normies won't spend more money for something they see as dangerous

o-oy gevalt!

based bubblehead

>Fukishima is possibly the worst man-caused disaster EVER

You lost me there. Considering most professionals still agree that Chernobyl was worse, we have to actually look at death count a real-world effects. Less than 5000 deaths are attributed to all three of the major incidents combined, and that's factoring in the long term high exposure casualties.

Now consider that fossil fuels could cover that amounts of fatalities thousands of times over.

newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/

The comparison went right over your head didn't it?

More people are scared of planes than cars, even though planes cause far less deaths and are considered the safest form of travel possible. This is because plane incidents are huge events that get covered like crazy, while car wrecks are happening all the time but hardly any of them get coverage, it's the same thing with nuclear energy. Every incident and casualty ever associated with it adds up to far less than any other form of energy, but because they're big incidents, people see them as unsafe. Even though once again, more deaths are caused by solar panel installers falling off roofs per kWh

Actually no gravity is an illusion created by resisting force of the Earth's surface while the laws of relativity dictate that all objects wish to move along a straight path in curved space.

But nonetheless, gravity is not my religion, Standard Christian-Catholicism is.

Nah. You're a zionist shill. You deserve execution.

I'll take a lot of insults, but being called a zionist is not one of them.

Because you are a dumb conservertard, as a proud green supporter I say we need to cut down Forrest to build wind energy and increase our energy production through coal, in order to save the environment.

I wish I was kidding:
welt.de/wirtschaft/plus179837848/Hessen-erlaubt-Bau-von-Windkraftanlagen-in-Grimms-Maerchenwald.html

>will they be able to operate the technology?
No and that's a good thing.

nuclear energy should be the backbone of every nation. It's clean, cheap and powerful

Attached: 1492115985361.jpg (959x777, 157K)

Aw man I feel bad you kraut lads. Ever since your libtard populace voted against nuclear and than tried to force renewable sources into the grid your CO2 emissions haven't moved an inch yet you've got some of the highest cost of electricity in Europe. Rough.

fukushima leaking plutonium from MOX rods that will kill the entire pacific.
Its bad, burn more coal.

And now THE FUCKING GREENS are tearing down our Forrests to make place for wind energy.
You couldn't make this shit up.

Bait/10

Every wind turbine with a plant needs about 400x400 meters of space soooo yeah, I guess that does mean a lot of Forrest getting torn down. I never really thought about that one. The more you know.

Lefties are immune to cognitive dissonance, also water is wet.

because how else will we pay ((their)) paychecks with oil?

Attached: bird.jpg (241x210, 9K)

daily reminder flat earth fags WILL get the rope

Attached: 1517809469525.png (400x400, 55K)

Good question fellow good goy. . .

And how else we we simultaneously pay (((Their))) paychecks with funds to reduce carbon emissions. . .?

Higgs Boson

Attached: 1531866757420.jpg (1466x1036, 1.26M)

>5 Mile Island
That was an example of a meltdown handled properly, if I am correct, they even reactivated the reactor after doing the necessary repairs.

Englert Higgs Boson actually. The God Particle.

lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/

Attached: rehcd3.jpg (1000x609, 241K)

you mean fake particle