Give me an argument against nuclear power

Remember this? Did you all think this shit just went away?

youtube.com/watch?v=Hn-P3qnlB10&t=0s&list=LLW52Ndw7GHVHQXceg-DT_nA&index=9

>STUXNET
>operating costs
>Fukashima = purposefully built to fail in a tsunami scenario
>many possible meltdown vectors
>target for terrorists

if the pot boils over, vacate the area.
we knew the risks. humanity was poised to destroy itself the from the beginning, but it's not like nuclear energy is going to do it. more likely to be nuclear weapons.

Fucking leaf. Always a fucking leaf

Radiation is bad retard

Yes because that’ll fix it
J U S T
E V A C U A T E
Unfortunately that won’t fix the problem

Attached: 7F1B3838-68C5-4DDC-B094-ECCA742DD4A8.jpg (660x440, 116K)

>Humanity was never intended to use nuclear energy
nothing was intended
>much better energy out there
like what? solar meme?

Attached: B6581DF0-C45D-4A9C-AA29-87E21CEEE0C9.jpg (880x587, 164K)

Fusion power when?

Attached: 458236.jpg (1920x1252, 465K)

>nothing was intended
You can look at it like that or you could think about what you say; wether you like it or not we have a purpose here it is. Eat, reproduce, die. With time has come new things some things were intended to happen

durr radiation fallout

The problem being accidents happen. Might as well kill ourselves.

Attached: 1520633208110.gif (700x700, 295K)

>more likely to be nuclear weapons
no, demographic weapons
niggers breed explosively, and humans dont breed in presence of niggers

CIA NIGGER Detected.

It's not really an issue anymore. Once the rods cool down and are extracted from the pool they can be turned into glass that will not dissolve into the water table under any circumstances. It can be safely buried with little concern.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification#Applications

We are already planning on making breeder plants. We will conquer the lands of the ancients soon

>we have a purpose here it is. Eat, reproduce, die.

Attached: 1510028163518.png (586x578, 37K)

Even its lcoe is now shit compared to PV

>NUCYULER
dropped

When will lazer defence make nukes obsolete?

>one accident can destroy the plant
It cant though. Even with Fukishima which was built over a fault line against advisement, the majority of the plant survived and contained everything.
>muh chernobyl
The Russians didnt use safety measures at all.

>Humanity was never intended to use nuclear energy
what the fuck does this even mean? you sound like a fucking retard

Quint. Checked. Praise Kek

serious argument: it's NOT competitively cheaper.

Light Water reactors are crap and create too much unusable waste.

Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) are much cleaner, more efficient, and their waste can be reused on site. Also, molten salt reactors waste cannot be weaponized, and they take up less space.

As long as people adhere to strict NRC standards, we don't have to worry about natural disasters creating issues.

Outside of the US, there is no NRC, so people build out dated plants with bad specs, then scratch their heads when things go wrong and cannot be "easily" fixed.

MSRs are not the end, but the stepping stone to new and cleaner nuclear fuels for the future.

than what

Shitskins.

with pic

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

Loviisa is already a breeder, serkku.

typical shit eating coward leaf skipped these arguments another pathetic thread made by a cripple

the only reason it is not cheaper is because of the miles of red tape

what happens when the diversity hires take over running the plant?

>and there's much better energy out there.
No there isn't.

Attached: 1509869052309.jpg (1080x683, 284K)

It's radioactive in an ever browning West.

Wtf are you on about lol. Religious nuts are something else

Love nuclear power
Work at one in Ontario

Attached: 20180812_062232.jpg (4032x2268, 2.56M)

>Thorium reactors

Fukashima, chernoble.

>Give me an argument against nuclear power.
It is improbable that we as humans can contain the waste longer then the total of recorded history until it is "cool" enough to disperse. Contrary to the things retards say, it is not "Green energy". It creates waste that will kill you, and unlike Co2 is totally unusable by anything on this planet.

STOP STEALING ALL THE HEAVY WATER FROM LAKE HURON, YOU THIEVING DOG FUCKERS.

>Fukashima, chernoble.
Don't forget Three Mile Island.

>Give me an argument against nuclear power.
convincing big money and the people that nuke actually makes sense would offset the gains for years and would essentially be operating at a loss for most of its inception stages, which are going to be riddled with faults and contention anyways

Attached: but id love to tour a 21st century regional nuke station.jpg (225x225, 11K)

Oh yes, thankyou.

can you swim in there? looks comfy

Stuxnet. Israelis. Mossad.

to enter the forbidden pool bears the penalty of death...

>Oh yes, thankyou.
I was VERY nearby when that thing failed.

Fermi I. "The Day We Almost Lost Detroit."

>are going to be riddled with faults and contention anyways
build them near the niggers, that way you get some more glow in the dark niggers

It's not a great comparison since nuclear has zero economy of scale in the US at the moment and all the reactors are starting to age out of cost effectiveness due to compounding maintenance costs. Assuming new generation reactors started to be built with lower maintenance costs in mind during design and large scale production drove costs down I wouldn't be surprised if nuclear was economically competitive with coal. Also I'd want to see wind and solar graphed as a combined power grid that can deal with the intermittent highs and lows of supply and demand since only having lights when the sun is out doesn't help us much. It's easy to say solar is cheaper when you're just looking at the cost of dropping panels in a field with no regard to actually building a functional power grid.

Yup, I do remember it fondly.

Unintended consequences

>Give me an argument against nuclear power.
challengekike posters should be hanged wit any second thoughts

Attached: 2kmf8i.jpg (485x569, 73K)

You’re already heavy enough, mutt. Why do you need more?

>imagine a world without detroit

And everything between to Cleveland.

The setup cost and efficiency is is absolutely terrible. Example being a 625mw combined cycle plant cost 550 million. And 2,300mw nuclear plant costing 13 billion.

The one thing that worries me about it is if a nuke plant gets targeted in a war.

Even in a nuclear war, it's supposedly OK to come out of shelter after two weeks because the fallout is all short-halflife species and decays to basically nothing by two weeks. But what happens if a nuclear plant gets blown up and the fuel core goes all over the place?

I live in a town where nuclear plants are the largest industry, and there's nothing of any real military strategic value. If this place were to get nuked, it'd be as part of broadening the attack to industrial targets, and the nuclear power plants would likely be the ground zero.

I'm pro nuclear power in general, but the war scenario does worry me.

Attached: Screenshot_20181022-172418_Video Player.jpg (1440x2560, 1.09M)

Because enough heavy water makes for an undetectable way to kill someone.

we should be using thorium instead of uranium

Studies dont show a correlation with illnesses caused in the area over a long period of time

If we ever stop tending the reactors, e.g., after a pandemic or EMP, the live reactors will melt down and poison the planet for 6 Gorillion years.

>mfw can’t eject fuel rods because no circuit boards working.

We all glow in the dark now user

Speak of the devil

Fukushima

>humanity was never intended to use a cart.
>humanity was never intended to use a wheel.
>humanity was never intended to use concrete.

Kys

youtube.com/watch?v=Hn-P3qnlB10

>Works with the World's Worst Reactor Design
>Takes pics instead of whatever his duty is to keep that piss poor CANDU from failing

Just SCRAM that bitch and go home.

>Studies dont show a correlation with illnesses caused in the area over a long period of time
I am part of their study sample. My dad died of ALS, and my mother is currently dying of bone cancer. I am sure it is a coincidence.

thorium salt reactors maybe
ultimately the biggest problem is nuclear waste. the amount may be smaller, but the longevity, the fact it can't really be processed easily and the complexity of handling it creates a waste stream that's really difficult to deal with
some fuels help with that issue but none solve the problem

do not rant
bin that plant

Go back to /reddit/. That shit is NOT production ready. But if you think replacing the heat exchange pipes every year is feasible go for it.

So far both accidents have come from ignoring basic safety regulations. Chernobyl was just testing stuff out and Fukushima ignored the wel--known required height of the walls against tsunamis.
Also the effect on nature of the accidents were way less dramatic than publicly presented. Operating coal plants emit more radiation than those accidents.
Please give me one quotation from a nuclear scientist that would say something like 'nuclear is too dangerous, it just doesn't make sense'. It's always the regular folk having a strong opinion on something they don't understand.

I bet an illegal immigrant could swim in there. fuck this country

>Destroy the whole planet.

user I know pot hasn't been legal long but you need to slow down.

that happened because you touch yourself at night

>against nuclear power
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

Pessimistic predictions of future high-grade uranium production operate on the thesis that either the peak has already occurred in the 1980s or that a second peak may occur sometime around 2035.

At the start of 2015, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 5.7 million tons.[9] At the rate of consumption in 2014, these reserves are sufficient for 135 years of supply.

why baka aboot CANDU

>user I know pot hasn't been legal long but you need to slow down.
Fukishima is.

it's taking too long, we need new-gen nuclear plants meanwhile

>Operating coal plants emit more radiation than those accidents.
I Have been in many coal fired power plants, and none of them would destroy a robot sent in to look at the boiler....Whereas Fukishima is.

>Humanity was never intended to use nuclear energy
by who?

There is no valid argument against nuclear power.
The only one semi-reasonable at surface level is waste disposal, but all the waste can easily be stored for literally millennia. The volume of waste per unit of power generated is simply not a valid concern. That’s not even factoring in that we can recycle a lot of the fuel, though it’s not currently legal.
Nuclear is a realistic long term solution to climate change. Solar/wind and giant batteries are not a solution.

Thorium-based nuclear power is fine.

A reaction which you can not stop is not fine.

Check out the gen 4 high temperature salt reactors they are nuts.

>all the waste can easily be stored for literally millennia.
What do humans make that lasts that long?

Protip: Nothing.

Space Force.
youtube.com/watch?v=QhuOMnHhFB0
youtube.com/watch?v=AYPpwPkoAls
youtube.com/watch?v=IKcTxwvzv8M
youtube.com/watch?v=Pg6VTzacb9I

Attached: 1522731674974.png (581x479, 511K)

You say that and you don't realize that DOE security would make anything most nations militaries do look like a fucking joke. Those folks at DOE don't fucking play.

My Nigga, I work Transmission operations in Alberta

"I am personally convinced that nuclear power engineering is indispensable to humanity and must be developed, but only under conditions of practically complete safety, which in real terms demands that reactors be located underground. An international law is needed that would prohibit location of reactors on the surface. We must not move slowly."
- A. Sakharov

The technology that would actually use that waste as fuel exists. But it's being back down by public delusion about solar and wind power.