/Pol, what do you think of nuclear energy?
re-post because there might be more traffic at this time
The only realistic option for actual renewable energy if people want to hit Co2/global warming targets
Didnt you get the memo OP? You supposed to mention 4G nuclear...Along with the two bullet points:
* Can use leftover nuclear waste as fuel
* Meltdown proof
SAVE THE PLANET!
good, if used to create nuclear warheads and annihilate humanity.
This guy fucking gets it...
Looks like some of them don't need to be cooled by water too.
> (You)
>Looks like some of them don't need to be cooled by water too.
lol...heh...Dont talk to me. Everyone knows your dumb as shit user
Clean, reliable and most importantly renewable.
its great much better than the green jew and greener than him
That .. that literally is the only way to harness energy from nuclear what the fuck are you babbling about
I support the Green New Party, whose main agenda is switching entirely to nuclear weapons. Preferably ones that will cause green glow from the radiation.
i think it's a disgrace how liberals are trying to break it up
It's just a really expensive way to boil water. Man never split the atom. Nuclear bombs are fake and gay.
> (OP)
>i think it's a disgrace how liberals are trying to break it up
Its a disgrace when liberals try to do anything...
pretty good
nuclear fearmongers begone
> (OP)
>It's just a really expensive way to boil water. Man never split the atom. Nuclear bombs are fake and gay.
Millions of crusty burnt japanese would beg to differ...
seriously?
The US dropped many many bombs over Japan and they were not nuclear. Likely napalm or some other experimental incendiary at the time.
Also
>/Pol
It's "Jow Forums" you fucking autist
Neck yourself, or swallow some plutonium, I don't care which
I think nuclear energy would be best applied at spots close to our southern border. ...also think that we might consider revising our southern border to be on the southern side of the Panama Canal...it would be a much cheaper wall!
wow, you're the big autist, making Spain proud
declare war on mexico?
Incendiary bomb raids over Tokyo and Dresden were more deadly than nuclear weapons due to the ensuing fire storms. Really, the use of nukes was only a scare tactic. We had more effective, less long term deadly and cheaper options for ending the war.
>memeflag talking about flags
I guess you're either a kike or a shitskin. Understandable that you use a memeflag, if I were I'd be ashamed of it too
Not really required to declare war. Just close the border completely and the rest will come to pass.
I think it should be dropped on Israel at least 3 times.
Another boomers fucking shit up. I dare even say if we went full nuclear in 4 decades ago, UBI is possible by now.
Environmentalism is the worst thing that ever happened to mankind.
who says? and you just decided to be hostile and attack me right at the start, and you didn't even talk about nuclear energy
but seriously, about nuclear energy as a power source
but seriously considering its use as a source of energy for society
I'm fine with liquid fluoride thorium reactors since they can't produce weapons grade materials like the fast breeding fission systems do, nor do they meltdown in case of an emergency
there's a 50 year old navy invention, alpha beta
and gamma voltaics, nuclear waste is pretty
much a limitless power source in terms of human
life span. let that sink in, 50 years.
It's the only viable large-scale energy source.
Any energy plan that doesn't include nuclear fission as a major component isn't worth taking seriously, while wind, solar, and geothermal power have all made major strides in the last twenty years, the idea that we can provide affordable, sustainable, consistent grid power using only those options is completely unrealistic. Uranium fission is proven, efficient, and (despite whatever propaganda might be coming out of the Greenpeace bogeyman's mouth) generally clean and safe compared to most other available means of generating power. Sure, one day we might get a working in-situ Thorium reactor working. Sure, one day maybe we'll get sustainable fusion working. Sure, one day we might get some kind of crazy matter-anti-matter reactor working. But none of these things are guaranteed and you can't develop a long-term energy plan on 'mights' and 'maybes'.
The bottom line is that if the US spent half as much subsidizing nuclear power as we spend on fossil fuels and green energy solutions, we could probably *double* our installed nuclear capacity within 10-15 years, and that would have a bigger effect on emissions, pollution, carbon footprints, and fossil fuel dependency than a million windmills or solar panels.
t. plasma physicist
How do I get in on this as a lawyer
>t. plasmaman
fusion when?
WEN?
If somebody who is an "environmentalist" isn't a full-throated supporter of nuclear power, they're just bullshitting you and they're just another globalist control freak looking to get into your pocked and control your way of life.
Kill yourself, shitkenazis. Another poster mentioned it. You don't have a degree in this crap, subhumans.
This and fuck Greenpeace, they created a considerable delay in the adoption of nuclear energy but the general public.
Gen IV is the ultimate bargaining chip with lefties.
They seriously BELIEVE we have 12 years to apocalypse.
Gen IV has NO meltdown risk and several models produce no nuclear waste. They can actually use spent rods as fuel.
EVERYONE agrees. We can get something in exchange for this. Go fully carbon neutral. It's the ultimate leverage.
ITER in 2025
Oh look, a fellow Scott Adams fan.
He's right about it. Because he actually IS a libtard he knows exactly what will make them bite. Global Warming is to Dems what Israel is to Boomers. Apocalyptic prophecy. Literally nothing else is more important.
my dad is president of nintendo too.
no mention of SAFIRE, pathetic
What's the deal with that model in particular?
Molten salt is the easiest to make and most advanced.
But Molten lead or molten sodium eat nuclear waste.
No model uses water in general is. Hence no meltdown risk.
fag
I'm a big fan of burying deadly radioactive waste in our backyard until the end of time and calling it "clean"
The design was made around the same time slow breeding fission reactors were so the plans already exist and can be used immediately.
The FUD around LFTR is that the salt eats away at the housing but it's just FUD and that problem was solved a long time ago.
Yeah, let me break out my nuclear energy opinions real quick.
Gen iv has no waste. 3 models can use waste until it becomes inert. It can actually eat our old waste from Gen 1 and 2 plants.
Someone has done their research. Cool.
Perhaps we should also use the angle that we don't have to give money to sand-monkey nation's if we go nuclear?
The scary thing about the nukes in Japan was that it was a single bomb from a single plane. Japan's skies had been filled with conventional bombs and planes before that, so as far as they knew total destruction was ahead.
based and gamma-irradiated
pretty much this
not as ugly as windmills too
The US has several lobbies supporting nuclear energy, but at the moment they're hopelessly outgunned by the coal, oil, and green lobbies. The hippies have done a fantastic job of propagating fear of nuclear energy and even with as well as the containment and cleanup of Fukushima has been handled, it didn't do nuclear power any favors. In terms of how you would get involved - finding work within one of the nuclear power lobbies wouldn't be bad, or focusing on aiding power companies with legal roadblocks to building new plants.
Your guess is as good as mine. I work mostly with low-temp plasmas, not fusion, but every conference I go to it's basically the same story - for every problem they manage to solve, four more pop up, and most of the solutions they're coming up with are ad hoc, as opposed to planned and formulated from theory. The biggest problem facing fusion right now is actually its centralization and focus on large-scale projects like DIIID, W7-X, and especially ITER. They're inadvertently pushing their entire field in a direction where experiments are becoming more and more expensive and more and more exclusive to smaller research institutions and that's really not good for long-term development of the technology - if your entire approach is that if you keep going bigger and more expensive then it'll eventually work, then you're going to scale and price yourself right out of being viability.
Childs is a fucking quack.
The Oak Ridge MSRE design successfully demonstrated the molten-salt concept, but they never successfully made it work with an in-situ Thorium fuel cycle, all the fuel they tested in the MSRE was produced in a separate device. The in-situ production of fissible Uranium from neutron-bombardment of Thorium is a fundamental part of the LFTR concept.
It's like saying you've developed a "self-cleaning mousetrap" by demonstrating that it can clean up dead mice provided by a separate mousetrap, but not demonstrating that it can also kill mice on its own.
Nuclear is powerful, fairly clean, and the safest energy source, sadly it has fallen to an organized fear-mongering campaign.
Any environmentalist that doesn't support nuclear is an idiot.
I was expecting to see Nigger.
I legit think Simpsons ruined sane talk on nuclear