What do you think about nuclear energy? Why does everybody hate it this much...

>nuclear waste
>not exporting it to africa

Too much money to be made on oil and gas.

Yang knows that nuclear is a technological deadend. And the US is huge

The problem with storage facilities is that they eventually have to be expanded. The waste builds up at a much faster rate than it decays.

Not him, but the way I see it nuclear power is the best bet for now until we can tap energy directly from the Sun on a massive scale which won't happen until maybe a few hundred years later. So at least for the next century, if not somewhat more, nuclear energy seems to be the best temporary energy source.

It would work if we put the reactors on the moon and stored the energy created in giant batteries that we then send down to earth, this way if there is a meltdown the radiation would just harmlessly vent into space.

fear

If the main argument against the entire endeavor is "we will need to dig a bunch of holes under some mountains", then I think we're doing pretty well.

Attached: 1555004304880.jpg (610x395, 74K)

Not only that, but what is the bulk of any renewable power plant (wind, solar, hydro) made of?

- transportation
- steel
- concrete
- glass

What's needed to produce these?

- Electricity.

Only retards don't support it. I've worked with nuclear weapons and nuclear waste but never commercial power. Maybe one day I will.

Just bury the waste. Dig some really deep holes in the desert and dump it all there. What's the worst that could happen? You pollute the dirt?
No need for massive underground storage facilities or moonbases or space guns, just load it into storage units and put it in a hole.

Attached: .jpg (616x462, 162K)

Except the amount of waste a modern day reactor generates is so physically small, that simply replacing existing power plants with nuclear power would give you more than enough space to house the modern plant and all of the waste it would generate in its entire life.

That's literally what they did where I work now. It's a fucking mess.

We should utilize much more if we actually want to break dependence on fissile fuels

Nuclear is literally the only technology that can match the power output and consistency of coal and natural gas. If people actually want to cut down on carbon consumption (I personally don't care, but some do) then they should be pushing nuclear power.

the disgusting part is they could make reactors that produce nearly 0 waste relative to current but they dont because they are slightly less efficient

It's no problem now, but over the course of 1000yrs the storgae of the waste would make up the size of a small country if not worse.

>Why does everybody hate it this much?
Oil companies lobby mainly. Also being associated with nuclear weapons allows to blow each and every issue with nuclear energy out of proportion. It's better than fossil-fuel based power grid, and is going truly renewable if we will invest in improving nuclear fuel recycling.

We need BASED nuclear weapons to destroy the shitskin infested cities.

Do you think we won't have any technological advances in power generation within those 1000 years? If we even exist in a millenium, anyway.

Also nuclear plants are an enormous liability in the case of natural or man made disasters, think fukishima. Stability becomes less and less of a certainty over a longer and longer timeline.

Nuclear fusion is the future

Attached: 1555739045376s.jpg (125x125, 3K)

because it was created by humans and humans are imperfect and prone to error.

it will inevitably fuck up at some time. its fuck ups cannot be recovered from.

Fukushima was completely avoidable had TEPCO listened to the NRC's recommendations.

This. Literally every nuclear disaster happens because retards don't do what they're told.

I'll have 2 mcdoubles and a large coffee, one cream one sugar.

Attached: _NsoU7Dcs2oBC8jqCoprvwfVQgMBDsZp7ornQk5Q13U.png (1024x656, 279K)

You don't know shit about nuclear energy. You work at McDonalds

More... More....

>1000 years
If humanity survives the next 1000 years then it would have easily shifted to the Sun as the main direct source of power.

Water containment

And? So fucking what?

Throw it in a small, small bunker and forget about it?

Did you know that Coal plants spew out 10x more radiation than nuclear plans... and the radioactive contamination settles across the county side in he spot.

Get learnt, bitch

Gen4 will save us all

Oh no! A tiny small volume of easily controlled waste!!!

Two options:
1. Bury it deep in that mountain in Nevada
2. Ship it to Africa

>'it's perfectly safe, we just have to put the waste somewhere safe for the next million years'
also it's a vulnerable strategic target, it's beyond me why states invest into that tech except wendelstein 7 tiers

bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-nuclear-waste-storage-france/ praise the atom !

we poos use thorium, gets you past sanctions too

>Why does everybody hate it this much?

Jews make more shekels by media-shilling for chinese solar panels

>forget about it
>200yrs later someone builds a town on top of it

>So fucking what?
>Throw it in a small, small bunker and forget about it?

Put it back in the reactor and make more power

>Why does everybody hate it this much?
once you stop Fukushima from fucking up the planet then we can talk

>moonbases or space guns

I mean, there's no 'need' for it, but we should still build moon bases and space guns

Not perfect but the best we have.
Should use it more until something better comes along

>Fukushima
>fucking up the planet

You can literally tour Fukushima's damage zone

Nope. Gen 4 nuclear power stations burn the waste.

Will you store nuclear waste in your living room?

Jews hate efficiency and advancement. Much better in fooling the goyim to re-invent the wheel because reasons.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties
> It was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[10] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines. Despite this, there were no deaths caused by acute radiation syndrome. Given the uncertain health effects of low-dose radiation, cancer deaths cannot be ruled out.[11] However, studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected.[12] Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged[13] in the academic literature from none[14] to hundreds.[11]

>because reasons

Because shekels, quadsnake

>burning plutonium
that sounds clean and safe as hell. Definitely no issues.

Would you have a coal plant in your backyard?
Would you want a wind mill in your backyard?

>It's pretty environment-friendly and relatively safe.

The absolute state of atomic energy shills.

Attached: 894569868.jpg (940x529, 78K)

thats the best we have actually just we have the problems of waste but even that is not a big big deal since the radioactivity of the waste decrease quickcly.
then come the problem of the uranium and that is not an infinite ressource.Apparently research on fusion is advancing so maybe in the future we will use it and it will be cleaner

It's just a really expensive way to boil water.

Yet Hiroshima and Nagasaki were growing flowers the next week. One of these things must be fake.

Attached: lolno.jpg (946x502, 50K)

Fukushima took 7 years to kill a worker off.

Attached: FukushimaRads2.png (664x579, 96K)

You can reuse nuclear waste.

Attached: NucleaReprocessing.png (703x113, 41K)

According to a 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

We should be switching to LFTR anyway.

Attached: LFTR.png (868x214, 71K)

I didn't mean reasons for the Jews as that one is always a given, but reasons for the goyim such as "climate change". :p

Or just toss it in the ocean.

Attached: OceanFloorDisposal.png (1182x168, 83K)

Radiation from Fukushima probably won't hurt anyone outside of Japan.

Attached: RadiationDistance.jpg (638x359, 57K)

>oh noes, dust blew in the wind

the horror, the horror

>climate change

Is a jewish trick

why do they hate you have the audacity to ask russian scum... because of you russian scum... your government... russian scum and your ancestors... russian scum

chernobyl never forget

>According to a 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster. These municipalities are in the no-entry, emergency evacuation preparation or expanded evacuation zones around the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant. A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by "fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster".[20]
>"fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster
By contrast the earthquake and tsunami killed 15,000 but nobody is interested in that anymore

As someone who has worked in nuclear plants, the biggest problem in North America is the unions. Holy shit for too many people doing to little work and they just keep hiring. "You can't put a price on safety" is what the union spouts. Wanna see a nice lean operation go to Wolsong or Quinshan. Lean and efficient.

>unions

Are why every factory is in China and every construction crew is mexican
youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls

Maybe you should look up gen4 instead of talking out your ass.

Attached: Mystery solved.jpg (900x900, 148K)

Yep.

I've been with the Department of Energy doing research with nuclear materials for six years and even those people are unionized.

The federal government is the biggest union. Why are you surprised?

BNPD & PNGS have both had major construction projects over the past decade that involved the construction of multi-story building for additional staff. The people working on site just grows and grows.

Not surprised at all. It's just ridiculous.

>Why does everybody hate it this much?
Because sooner or later an accident will happen. Either it is a preventable accident caused by cost cutting or carelessness or one that cannot be prevented such as the 2011 japanese tsunami on reactors located on the seashore.

Attached: wormhole entered at incorrect trajectory.jpg (1280x720, 160K)

Groundwater contamination.

send it to the moon

Good point. Let's centralize our entire government and give it unilateral power. An accident will happen eventually and nobody will die. :^)

Because not one reactor in human history has ever operated in the black without subsidy.
Most never even make up for their initial overhead, which almost never comes from private funding and has never solely come from private funding.
We're just not there yet, as it stands, the only nuclear power that exists or has existed is and was socialist.

>It's pretty environment-friendly and relatively safe.

really?

Attached: michaelj.jpg (194x260, 6K)

lets hope the Fusion bullshit works out

Attached: ITER_Tokamak_and_Plant_Systems_(2016)_(41783636452).jpg (3000x1468, 3.36M)

Also we can way safer nuclear plants than the old ass ones we still use. The reason why we still use the old ones is because of government regulations

Wtf are you talking about retard lol, radioactive waste is proven to take a much much longer time to decay than the effects of coal burning plants.
>... But but this one is just a little bad
Holy shit please kill yourself.

>Did you know that Coal plants spew out 10x more radiation than nuclear plans.
Source?
Nvm i already know its bs lol, kys

Why not Antarctica?

They don't to disturb the space nazis

>poos use thorium
>poo in..
Wait what? Honk Honk

But wait... Aren't the greenhouse effects of burning coal and pollution from these plants irreversible anyway? What's the bigger dilemma , nuclear waste or a out of whack climate?

scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
>In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

In eastern Washington I see :)