What's the problem with Nuclear Energy?

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

Combustion is satanic

Attached: 1534634921031.png (868x980, 729K)

Who cares if it is renewable? Nothing really is. There is so much energy released per a set amount of mass that it’s basically renders wind farms (costs a lot of space and materials) laughable by comparison.

>reuse waste
Cite source.

Congratulations on poisoining the Oceans. You really think that CORPORATIONS are going to sequester anything with certainty? Fukin amatuers.

This is fag politicians and faggot paranoids against the most efficient emission free power source in the world.

>One of the problems associated with this option includes the difficulty of recovering the waste, if necessary, once it is emplaced deep in the ocean.
>Also, establishing an effective international structure to develop, regulate, and monitor a sub-seabed repository would be extremely difficult.
Nah son, we dump enough bullshit in the oceans as is. Either fire it into the sun or deal without nuclear.

Its scary

>faggot paranoids
Nigger take a good look at humanity.
Now look at corporations.

It's cheap, abundant, and safe. And the coal and oil industry can not have that.

>fire it into the sun
Kuz teh rawkits are renuablz n sheeit.

this... wouldn't it be funny to convince aoc to be pro nuke energy? Shes smart enough to fall for the bait and dumb enough to divide the left about it....

Doesn't fucking matter. Only way to ensure it's been safely dealt with.

>cheap
How do you build reactors? How do you mine uranuim? Amatuers.

The left is against it too cuz muh enviroment, muh fukushima, muh Chernobyl

>tfw we could be splitting the atom and colonizing space
>tfw we decided to continue burning coal like primitive cave niggers instead

>digits
yeah and isn't that why its been negatively memed so hard? can't have that now can we?

>Only way to ensure it's been safely dealt with.
Then guess what? It ain't happenin. Try researching the cost of sending a rocket to the sun.

whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html
Breeder Fuel Cycle, shit source but it's a quick read

In school my physics teacher said its a target for future warfare, domestic or WW.

1.build rocket ship
2. Full with nuclear waste
3. Light fuse and get away

Australians, mostly.

if a wind or solar power facility fails, it isnt a big deal. if a nuclear facility fails, the leaking nuclear waste will be a pretty big deal. No thanks. Also where will the waste be discarded? How expensive will that process be?

Attached: 1335407943842.jpg (467x350, 30K)

Ocean floor disposal is a stupid idea. Water finds a way. Imagine Deepwater Horizon, but with nuclear waste.

Drilling deep into geologically inactive land and disposing waste deep into the earth is a safer option.

>Breeder Fuel Cycle
Is not without waste that isn;t toxic for tens of thousands of years.

build railgun
point towards sun
shoot small amounts of waste daily into sun
???
abundance?

>colonizing space

Do people actually believe this Star Trek level nonsense?

The important questions

Attached: 95E8F675-B5D5-4099-B509-1EFB886DF8B7.png (472x470, 304K)

Please research energy required to break payload free from the gravity well. Please research cost of sending rocket to sun. Rank amateurs.

No problem, we make the energy, we turn the waste into nukes, destroy asteroids with nukes, bada bing, bada boom, we eat pizza with a low electrical bill.

Attached: 1544800416060.png (268x257, 90K)

>muh enviroment, muh fukushima, muh Chernobyl
I love how you use 3 things, the first of which is far more important than any invented fucking economies to safeguard as we're FUCKED if the planet becomes uninhabitable on us; and the other two are actual fucking disaster that actually happened in reality, both through sheer incompetence in the interest of finances, and both are still leaking shit to this fucking day.
Fukushima has ruined the pacific more than it already fucking was.

If it's not worth the cost, then nuclear isn't worth the risk.

It was a very real possibility when countries were still in control by white people.

We better. It is the sole & only option for us to not have every single trace of our existence save for a lonely Voyager probe completely wiped out.

Who invented the phrase “fossil fuel”?

The ceramic waste (which would be liking dissolving your coffee pot) would be buried under 10 meters of abyssal plain which has the elasticity of mud would ensure the stability from earthquakes. Also water is a great absorber of radiation. You wouldn't have to worry about local contamination. If there were however a leak you can be sure the ocean is already pretty radioactive and wouldn't even increase by 1% if all the waste were to just dissolve into the ocean it would only result in a local effect.

Attached: Matter-and-Antimatter-Comparison.png (1002x1406, 45K)

With jobs

After all the fukups by all the corps in history, you actually are going to believe that they will do this properly? What a mouth breather.

Derp. unhuh. And those jobbers, what are they building the reactors and mining with? THier dicks?

the left is against every energy source, muh carbon, muh salmon, muh migrating birds, muh fukushima, muh land use

Better idea: bury 100% of it under 1 foot of concrete in the center of Jerusalem.

>q predicted this
but seriously i'm an /o/ fag and love my combustion engine so you're not going to convince me to give it up but still... its obvious there has been an effort to demonize nuclear and make it synonymous with bombs and evil bad no dont do it chernobyl 3 mile island never again #metoo

Attached: 1507432472235.png (1280x749, 649K)

The ocean is 75% of the earth's surface and most of it is desolate desert. Such as the abyssal plains. You have a natural source of shielding with the several kilometers of water on top of several meters of ocean floor mud. The ocean is already radioactive. It wouldn't increase it to even by 1% and would be local. Take a look at this waterencyclopedia.com/Po-Re/Radionuclides-in-the-Ocean.html

Attached: VLHC.jpg (720x467, 190K)

Build a fucking geostationary elevator platform on a tether and power it with the sun faggot

Wouldn't need to worry about any of that if everyone would get on board with my "minus 7 billion" plan.

Fiat that have been crushed in value due the perpetual oil wars

Nothing

>tether
Unhuh. And with what fibre are you creating the rope that tethers your space elevator?

Nah, the source deems the remaining waste in "medium" term storage, which it defines as around 500 years, a much more realistic time scale to design containment for waste... You're reading how long we could make our uranium supplies last, which is apparently in the tens of thousands of years according to the source.

oil is unlimited, it regenerates faster than we use it. Prove me wrong

It would be like dissolving ceramic plates only a few atoms would be leeched at the surface and the mud can't be affected by the radiation.

Attached: EXPANSION_RATE_OF_BUBBLE_CAUSED_BY_UNDERWATER_NUCLEAR_EXPLOSION.png (640x607, 23K)

You're assuming 100% of compliance with safety regulations eternally on the part of unsupervised corporations, who'll just hire contractors most likely, who are even less reliable.
In other words, they'll be dumping straight, barely shielded shit straight into the water & not bothering with the whole "abyssal plain" shit.

Your pubes

ITT, rank amatuers with no ability to analyse a system have a wet dream.

>posting this sentence on a public forum
Go outside sometime

Nothing wrong with thorium.

Attached: science-thorium.png (938x4167, 2.46M)

It wouldn't be hard to do just need a regulatory body to ensure it is not done to close to shore. Think a few hundred miles at sea.

Attached: The+D+value+is+temperature+dependent.jpg (960x720, 73K)

if we make fossils we have oil forever... so thats what happend to the 6 gorrilion...

Attached: 1507056367040.png (325x499, 393K)

Nuclear industry has a better safety record than other industries and it would not cost more to put it in the abyssal plain than any other part of the ocean. Fuck ups happen in any industry it just has to be shown that it doesn't happen at a rate that is harmful to the general population to work.

>leak
Is it too expensive to mix the waste into solid concrete bloks before dumping them in the ocean?

>Think a few hundred miles at sea
Fren, you have no idea the level & sheer amount of shit that gets dumped in "international waters", nor the sheer lack of "don't give a fuck" associated with it.
t.former Merchant marine

Why do people cry about radioactive waste when ever the subject of nuclear power comes up? It took only 140 years to go from the light bulb to the first commercial quantum computer. The problem of nuclear waste will realistically be solved within your lifetime, it's a non-issue. Building more nuclear power plants will fuel the need for more research.

The left (Ralph Nader) went to war against the nuclear industry and pretty much destroyed it or at least set it back a couple decades before they started pissing in their panties about global warming. Literally fucked themselves in the ass by removing the most viable immediate alternative to fossil fuels.

Thorium is great but what you are really selling is a form of breeder reactor. Fuel cost is not the limiting issue for nuclear energy and won't be for thousands of years

Attached: log scale nuclear energy.png (508x400, 28K)

>not solving the problem BEFORE going full steam ahead with some shit
90% of humanity's fuckups right here.

Literally nothing as long as you don't let Slavs or Japs near it.

You could do it that and I would recommend that so you give the containers time to sink into the abyssal plain but even if you didn't do it that way the biggest threat would be to the people dumping the waste as water will naturally shield the environment from the radiation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water

Attached: superconducting-super-collider.gif (700x700, 249K)

What it needs is the one thing we consistently fail at: regulations with actual teeth that are strictly enforced.
Think of the kind of compliance that could be had with, say, a fine of 99% of profit for ten full years.

You realize that would put out the sun, right?

You realize Sol is thousands of times larger than our entire planet, yeah? I seriously doubt it would have any effect at all, long as it wasn't being marksmanned into the exact same spot constantly.

You don't get funding to solve problems, if the demand for the technology is stifled. If we didn't take risks we'd still be living in caves.

"Grug find fire, fire useful but fire also burn down forest and hut, Grug think fire too dangerous. Better to not use fire."

The plastic and trash thrown in the ocean is a man made disaster, however this is quite different than setting up a few locations at the bottom of the sea to bury a football field's worth of solid waste. In fact it would be much less than that since if we use breeder reactors we can store the waste on site for a decade and 80% of that can safely removed before the need for long term storage.

I get your point; but this is not the same, at all.
The risks FAR outweigh all the benefits combined.
Either it's done right before even starting or it shouldn't be done at all.

nigger, it already has been solved.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor
>FNRs can reduce the total radiotoxicity of nuclear waste, and its lifetime.[8] They can use all or almost all of the fuel in the waste.
the reactors we are using now are the equivalent of the model T. imagine having all of the plans for a modern formula 1 car, but the government won't allow you to build more than 1 because the public and government officials think going more than 30 mph will tear the human body apart.

You're not getting what I'm saying; there's TONS of existing regulations against what already goes on, pamphlets & binders full of them.
All ignored, nobody gives a shit, even if you whistleblew with video evidence nobody would get anything done to them except the whistleblower.

it's also how humanity made 90% of it's discoveries. many tech innovations were made by accident or because it hurt someone.

>there's TONS
>there is tons
there are*
don't talk like a nigger.

I'm typing fast & all of these words go into the void anyway. This level of pedantics is useless here.

from the article I linked earlier
"Beyond technical and political considerations, the London Convention places prohibitions on disposing of radioactive materials at sea and does not make a distinction between waste dumped directly into the water and waste that is buried underneath the ocean's floor. It remains in force until 2018, after which the sub-seabed disposal option can be revisited at 25-year intervals."

>toxic for tens of thousands of years

Yeah if you use it like a pumice stone. It's waste primarily because it's lost most of it's latent energy.

Attached: 1493905030283.jpg (479x640, 44K)

Water blocks radiation really well. If you were to jump into a reactor pool, you would actually get less radiation than you normally do walking around above ground.

Everyone keeps talking about these mythical risks all the time, but it's a boogeyman risk. There have only been a few incidents of nuclear power disasters, most of which was during the pioneering phase of the technology, and even then the seriousness is blown out of proportion. Chernobyl was 33 years ago and the radiation has already mostly dissipated in the surrounding areas. Only 37 people died out of the whole ordeal.

It provides an answer to the fossil fuel problems that isn't de-industrializing the west and only the west. So we're not allowed to have it. That's all this green shit is about. Whitey doesn't deserve electricity.

Nuclear waste is the fuel for the next gen of fission reactors
Next gen fission is mindblowingly good with molten salt reactors at the peak of the list of next gen reactors, impossible to have a nuclear accident, uses plentiful fuel, 1% waste
Nuclear fission is the only thing that will keep our energy needs well and truly met in a clean way until fusion is possible - the whole thing will also be supplemented by slowly improving renewables but they alone are not enough.
Fission is essentially zero-carbon, and newer reactors will be even more environmentally friendly
Fission and improving fission technology is the answer to energy which in turn is the answer to the environment. Everyone across the spectrum agrees with the need for fission once they have been educated just a little bit.
Our need for this energy source is a uniting thing and something that will propel humanity literally towards the stars (in the 1% waste of an MSR some of that is RTG fuel for deepspace probes that we now have a shortage of.).

Yeah, that is more theoretical at the moment. You can't justify it economically

Uranium is denser than lead, and there is a fuckload of fuel out there.

To expand on the h20, why the fuck is nobody questioning why the banks are buying up the world's water supply with little to no mention anywhere