Question for nuclear power fags
1. How can you guarantee that a nuclear facility won't get damaged in a war/civil war and cause a meltdown permenantly fucking up a country
2. 'its safe now', can you guarantee that all nuclear sites across the world are safe for the next 100+ years? Sure the chance of a single nuclear power station failing (for any reason) is very very low, that chance is multiplied the more the world has and if one blows it can fuck an entire continent.
3. Are you a brainlet?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
nextbigfuture.com
nextbigfuture.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
Nothing is guaranteed
Some things are better than others
Don't be a pussy
Nuclear fallout is a myth. No one died of radiation poisoning in Fukushima, no one is being affected by radiation now
There ain’t much point in running a nuclear power station when all the distribution lines are on the ground.
1. Can't.
2. Can't.
3. No.
In risk management there are no guarantees. There is only probability. You should know this. The low risk of something really bad outweighs the risk profile many other technologies, especially for current gen nuclear.
Unlike muslims, nuclear energy provides meaningful work
We need nuclear plants so we can develop materials required to make nuclear weapons.
The energy is just a useful by-product.
How about fuck you and your kind trying to ruin europa, without a clean Europe we have nothing. I'm glad Germany banned it I just wish low iq people like you would fuck off
Yes retard, that's my point. The PROBABILITY of something going wrong in the long run somewhere in the world is very fucking high ps fuck you
Sweet I'll enjoy my 'meaningful work' baby and irradiated homeland
>Britbongistan
>Europa
1.You cant or you can stop them.
2.All nuclear plants have a life spam and need to either be reinforced or destroyed so its a non issues.
3.No
Thorium reactors are the future, but we’re too reliant on uranium enrichment to make the switch.
You don't have a choice and there's nothing Jow Forums can do about it. Just slap a wig on your mutant baby and pray that the horde doesn't find you
1.Because in any situation where we are near the front line or say under the risk of a strike, we could shut down operations in seconds by disrupting the neutronics. That would atleast prevent a total meltdown. Granted the rods would still be in the reactor but it'll be cooling down after that point. Also I'm going to assume nobody is going to even attempt to bomb a nuclear power plant because they could very well make a 200 mile radius around the plan uninhabitable for centuries.
2. Anything can happen. It could be an earthquake on an unknown fault or some random natural disaster that comes from nowhere and fuck up a reactor and cause the rods to melt. So umm... no they've been fucked up before and some will probably get fucked up in the next 100 years because natural disasters are still mostly unpredictable and there's not a lot we can do about this.
3.Yes
>ruin europa
Have you seen the Red Forest around Pripyat and Chernobyl? It's beautiful. It's like a nature preserve.
Fuck off oil shill
At least you admit it's a sucide cult can't stand it when people pretend it's okay
Yeah, good luck living and breeding successfully in that forest..
Tell me user, what biome are you suited to breed in if not a forest
>Sure the chance of a single nuclear power station failing (for any reason) is very very low, that chance is multiplied the more the world has and if one blows it can fuck an entire continent.
>entire continent
>Are you a brainlet?
>How can you guarantee that a nuclear facility won't get damaged in a war/civil war and cause a meltdown permenantly fucking up a country
By building them better and stronger. All the major disasters happened in the development stages of nuclear powered power stations. We have learned a ting or two about building them by now. And just for your information: concrete dome over reactor can withstand a jet fighter ramming in it at full speed.
How can you guarantee that an oil fired power plant won't get damaged and explode, permanently fucking up a country?
>Be leaf who lives in a city where an oil-fired plant / refinery had a butane leak and there is now a large swath of toxic land in the middle of our city
I can see your point though, but from my understanding of things that its nearly impossible to have a modern reactor go all Chernobyl unless it gets damaged in a disaster or war or something?
As another user said, risk management is about all you can do.
Nuclear power plants have come a long way in the last 60 years.
The technology in place to prevent such disasters is quite good, I assure you.
Nothing without consequence, of course. But today’s nuclear power plants are incredibly safe. The stigma behind them is the only thing holding us back.
Only forest
Not even a suicide cult, it's just stupid unless you're nowhere near it, never plan on having the land around it, and just want to fuck up that nation then ya go ahead but even then the Cs137 cloud that would be produced from the reactor being exposed to the open air (with radioactive steam going into the Atmosphere) would create such a problem for everyone with in 1000-2000 miles (especially if the wind carries it) that even the produce over 2000 miles away would have to be tested for Cs137.
youtube.com
Main issue is can it withhold the pressure from within? The thing that cause most reactors to fail catastrophically is the team building up in the reactor room untill the roof blows off and spews radio active vapor all over the place. That is what I mean
youtu.be
Have they solved the problem of no water fucking shit up?
>Main issue is can it withhold the pressure from within?
It's required by design. Problem is if systems for heat transfer from the dome fail, then it might exceed it's pressure rating. Dome is also the final safety device, there are a lot of other safety systems in place to prevent disaster.
Yeah but sometimes those systems fail (because an earthquake or something) and ya things go to shit. My main point though is when it comes to nuclear reactors, the biggest doesn't come from attacks from the outside but rather failures from within.
MUH CHERNOBYL
MUH THREE MILE ISLAND
MUH FUKUSHIMA
NUKE BAD NUKE BAD NUKE BAD NUKE BAD
Gonna answer your questions in reverse order:
3. Not a Brainlet, had to learn about basic nuclear power plant operation while I was getting my Submarine Warfare Qualification.
2. I can't guarantee shit. However, when I look at the Risk vs Reward of nuclear power against other "green" forms of energy production, the Benefits always outweigh the Bad.
1. Rule 3 of Nuclear Power, according to my ENG: Never build a Nuclear Reactor in an area of Civil Strife. Nuclear Power plants will have to be built in the rural areas of the US, so they will be mostly insulated from the violence that will take place in the major liberal urban centers.
Can we build underground with gravity fed cooling flow and mitigate meltdown woes?
That's actually a good question.
I'm not one of those dumb nerdy nuclear engineers, I was a fucking cone.
So I don't know.
its not a bomb in a room, they are safer now. look up how modern reactors work, they are basically meltdown proof.
Like diverting part of a river to run through the reactor and back out. Couldn't be that hard and you'd have to dam the river to cause a meltdown. No pumps
1. Nuclear reactors are getting smaller, and in all likelihood can eventually be reduced to something approximating the size of a large shipping container. This would make nuclear reactors mobile, and thus can be shifted to sites where security can be guaranteed. Larger reactors are considered a prize in any conflict, as a reliable electricity supply is a major cornerstone of any group that purports to be a government. If you can't keep lights on and water running, your support among the resident population crumbles. This makes wholesale destruction and reduction of large landmasses to wasteland unlikely. It serves nobody's purpose.
2. If one blows it does not "fuck an entire continent." The dangerous elements have a very short half-life and degrade rapidly. After 3-6 months the radiation is well below dangerous levels. Reactor design has advanced quite some way in the last few decades. 'Pebble bed' and 'thorium salt' being two examples of reactor that fail gracefully and sit inert when power/infrastructure is disrupted. In other words, it takes a lot of engineering to keep the heat on, rather than a lot of engineering to keep the heat down.
3. Totally, yeah. My windows are the cleanest they've ever been. Been licking them since I go out of bed.
I would also add that cheap, reliable electricity is probably the single most effective method of making a developing country worth living in. The knock-on effects on agriculture, life expectancy, industry and societal stability are huge. Immigration falls, everyone has a nice place to call home. peace reigns. Why so down on it?
> MUH MUH MUH
ST FU retard
Fuck off to Reddit
> It's all safer now
You didn't answer question 2
This guy gets it.
Look up Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors & answer all of your own questions with a fucking cursory google search like a decent human.
Fucking brainlet.
1. It's literally impossible for modern-day reactors to meltdown unless everyone in the plant works together to intentionally sabotage it. And even then, I'm not entirely sure it's possible.
2. Those sites are already operating, so I'm not sure what the point of the question is.
3. No
1. Self repairing nanofibers.
2. Yes I can.
3. No.
no guaranty, fuck off and also enjoy your urinium-free şòy latte, MUH SAFETY faggot, i hope you can still see this post through the smoke-rich air from local eco-fiendly coal burning plant.
I'd rather have the risk of nuclear fallout than energy costs going up and coal pollution getting pumped into the air.
Only reason Chernobyl happened is because soviets were retarded.
Truth, there is no such thing as radiation actually
And there are no waves
The thing about todays nuclear reactors, they have a temperature treshold where, if a temperature crosses that treshold, the fission process will decrease to prevent a complete meltdown (so no, it cant blow). In the case of war... well if someone is invading, it is the point to control the land.. so why would they want to irradiate the entire area, when they can instead use the nuclear reactor to their advantage once the land is conquered.
>Portable nuclear reactors in development:
nextbigfuture.com
I almost feel sorry for OP, who has very obviously fled the thread rather than admit his argument was raped by every user who replied. Probably an undergrad with a naive trust of authority who believed every word said to him by a forty-year old environment activist.
probably believes solar panels and windmills can power up the entirety of UK
well we can use that in conjunction with nuclear power of course
Great points, all valid. Have you considered the use of less volatile nuclear components like thorium?
Do you have loicence to make the thread about nuclear meltdown brainlet safe now guarantee nuclear site single nuclear blow it fuck entire 100+ years continent it's safe now
Seeing as you're an ignorant faggot that thinks Chernobyl and Fukushima were the same systems and there is only one way to make nuclear power, here...
youtu.be
Just imagine being that naive. If wind and solar panels covered the whole land area of the UK, they wouldn't be supplying enough power to keep the lights on. That's before you even touch the ramifications of removing energy (wind/solar) from the ecosystem. It would probably be an environmental catastrophe.
The thing about an electrical energy framework, it needs to have a foundation. The foundation power plant is almost always, a thermo plant (based on coal or nuclear), which must ALWAYS give off the same amount of energy in the framework, all the other power plants, based on hydro, solar, wind or lesser thermo plants, are merely there to regulate the energy which is being requested by the households and other consumers. Usually it was the rule that in winter, more electricity would be consumed due to electrical heating, but nowadays that trend seems to be reversing due to the introduction of the AC's in summer. The energetical framework has to be diverse to always maintain the same energy level to satisfy the consumer. Solar and wind energy however.. its just another one of those things parrotted by the "enviromentally concerned" people that dont know a single thing about energy distribution.. but their parotting has lead to a good bit of money earned by electricians who install such plants onto the gullible minds who wont take a single minute of their life to get informed about energy.
It's just another virtue signaling tactic to appear cool infront of their society, its everpresent no matter the place. Feelings are now more valued than facts.
i see i was one of those gullible people, thanks for the information
i only watched the 5 minute clip, but this seems too good to be true. whats the catch here?
Possible downsides would be that this tech requires a sizeable population of high IQ engineers to repair/maintain. Africa will never, ever have a population that can maintain, let alone construct such technology. They might be able to have coal plants and keep them running, but this is beyond them. If IQ keeps sinking in the West, we won't be able to maintain them either.
Okay, interesting video, could someone in the know explain the saftey risks of thorium vs current reactors.
If there's genuinely safe reactors or fusion then my (op) opinion is open to change
That's the thing, Africa will try and Africa will fail with catastrophic results
Two hours of your time watching that full vid would be instructive, user.
Could someone give me a tldr im busy rn
I think the main risk will be economical, as you need to prime the system with energy before it starts to sustain itself, an emergency shutdown would mean a lot of money down the drain.
As far as I know about these there's a plug of frozen material that's going to melt a lot before the piping, dumping the fuel into a reservoir, freezing it in place
Africa couldn't even get a basic nuclear pile working. They definitely wouldn't be able to first build a working reactor and then fuck it up. If anyone builds one for them, they'll disassemble it and bring the naughty bits home before they abandon ship.
Old reactors; Highly pressurised with trememndous demands on the cooling system. If the power fails/mechanisms fail, the cooling systems fail, which leads to tremendous build up of heat. The whole thing catches fire and Chernobyl happens.
New reactors: Power fails. Whole thing cools down naturally. No fires, no runaway processes that have to be manually restricted.
Nigga what nature gave them reactors
nuclear pressure bombs are fucking retarded. we're only stuck in that paradigm because of corporate greed. if we continue to use this shit we're going fuck everything up. liquid fluoride thorium reactors are the key to unlock humanity's potential, it's our ticket to the stars.
but it'll never happen because muh sheckles faggots.
There's a working reactor in South Africa that gets attacked every so often.
Even with current failure rate it's much safer and more clean than any other energy source we used.
Yes nuclear energy is the future and there's nothing bad about it unless your japs committing sudoku or Russian. Stop being burger tier brained. Next your gonna make a thread about how coal should be a primary energy source and go full trump rick perry boomer.
>but it'll never happen because muh sheckles faggots
whats the reason for this? what do they gain by not using nuclear or thorium energy?
This is why governments need to have control over citizens. Disarming regular citizens ensures that no civil war can be damaging enough to cause a nuclear facility or its power sources to be damaged.
It's important to understand that there is simply no free lunch for power generation.
Wind turbines are hell to maintain, are less efficient in numbers, have large environmental foot prints. Solar panels are expensive, need quantity to be effective, need large amounts of space and are difficult to increase output. Hydropower seriously fucks up river systems. Geothermal is limited in application. Fossil fuels are genuinely the best solution, albeit a somewhat dirty one.
So, for your questions the answer is really you make sure it doesn't happen. It's quite similar to a question like
>You keep a nuclear silo full of nukes that could go off at any second and completely fuck up the country! Sure, it's a low chance, but still!
The answer is, there is a trade off, and the trade off is considered, and the complications are minimized. That's really all there is to it.
You need sterilized for being so fucking stupid, and for having a six year-olds understanding on nuclear power. Immediately kill yourself, simple nigger
companies like Areva and General Electric lobby against researching LFTR because they're making money hand over fist selling the fuel rods needed to power our nuclear pressure bombs. they have invested heavily in the current technology and revamping the industry would go against their financial interests.
Pussy
STFU, Jacinda. Nobody wants you here.
The potential risk is worth it. That someone may fuck up sometimes doesn't mean shit shouldn't be researched. With safety protocols and procedures, the risks are very low, and the potential gain outweighs the risks
>A nuclear facility can fuck an entire continent
Yeah, I remember when Europe dissappeared because Chernobyl and Japan was desintegrated after Fukushima, RIP those 60000000000000000000 gorillions
Suck my dick, nuclear is the future
>nuclear is the future
it is indeed, friend. just not in it's current evolution. why would you want to put fissile material under pressure in an innately unstable environment? it just seems silly when there is an easily workable alternative.
> Ad hominems
hhahahah the absolute state of nuclear fags, can't even answer some simple questions!
Uranium based nuclear power is retarded and you can't disprove it, I'm gonna call this a win, gnight
So you're just gonna skip over this?
By refusing to get educated on the subject and calling nuclear power retarded instead of giving us your perspective and arguments, is not a win. If you're not a troll, i pity you.
This video is fantastic. Learning a lot. Thank you for sharing, user.
Classic shifting of goalposts. No mention of uranium reactors in the original post, only 'nuclear power'. What a little bitch.
