Nuclear Power

Only Fusion can lead the way. Fission is just a temporary solution until we improve fusion reactors.

>"Nukes r scurry", and , "muh Chernobyl".
damn that sucks

that is the consensus of normies and the political landscape in general. "nukes can go wrong and stuff"

Hey, that was me, I think. Nuclear engineer user here, happy to answer questions again for those who have them.

In general though, my stances are as follows:
>Nuclear power is a net good
>Fusion and Thorium reactors are cool, but still experimental or not feasible yet.
>Uranium fueled pressurized water reactors are a safe and tested technology.
>We could easily scale PWRs to replace fossil fuel plants in developed countries if the funds were made available and the governments of the various countries cooperated on the regulatory and public education fronts
>Chernobyl and Fukushima were accidents due to reactor design and/or poor leadership, poor operator knowledge, and a bad operational culture
>Reactor accidents can be avoided and a 100% safety record is achievable

>Nuclear Power is much cleaner
are you stupid? all those reactors are leaking

yes nuclear power is better, but only LFTR fits the bill, but we don't use that instead we use stupid risky high pressure bullshit power that leaks everywhere so we can make weapons

DID YOU KNOW THE QUEEN OWNS THE ENTIRE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY?

>Its all just a panic scheme, they have unrealistic fears of doom scenarios.

last time we got a big dust storm bringing red dust from inland to the coast i remember people talking about stuff like "see imagine if we had a nuclear reactor out there and it went into meltdown, those winds would have poisoned the whole city" not realising how unlikely that whole scenario would have been.

>All those reactors are leaking

The total release of radioactivity by the nuclear industry every year in developed countries can be measured in microcuries. However, there are still contaminated sites, mostly from weapons production, places like Hanford. That pales in comparison to the daily release of carbon by fossil fuel plants, which is literally killing us.

>he believes in climate change hoax

shut the fuck up

Attached: 1558626118570.png (772x635, 463K)

The problem is diversity hiring. When the reactors are no longer run by capable people things will turn Mad Max really quick.

So far this has mostly been avoided by having third party inspections that can shut down a plant if it isn't up to par. A very rigorous continuous training program is necessary to make sure that operators actually know their shit.

Nuclear power stations release a fraction of the radioactive isotopes that get blown into the atmosphere by coal powerplants along with other carcinogenic pollutants and greenhouse gases.

The Commies fucked it up big time. Total loss shutdown systems aren't cheap but China is pushing ahead with then 4 gen plants using pebble bed and molten salt liquid reactors.

Attached: 80c95cefd0d37c390002cf7026570427.jpg (240x387, 18K)

>The total release of radioactivity by the nuclear industry every year in developed countries can be measured in microcuries
why are background levels going up across the globe by .04% a year? why did they make UCLA stop releasing the results?

why do we use this stupid bullshit when we end up losing 80% of the energy we produce during transport? how come we don't use safer LFTR which you can put in your basement and lose none of the power produced for peanuts, we've had the atomic pig for 50 years and we're still spinning our wheels so some old drug addict crone can stash money away

carbon is killing us? you're a fucking idiot, carbon is everywhere no matter what

what isn't everywhere is cesium released into rain water by the steam at the fukushima reactor thank you Israel for causing that

don't take my word for it, listen to former Trump security manager Bob Ball talk about it

youtube.com/watch?v=1Y6Cli2odss&t=

>Nuclear power stations release a fraction of the radioactive isotopes
an increasing fraction, it keeps going up until you repair or shut down the reactor, those reactors were designed by GE Bechtel to operate for 25 years, that was decades ago they aged out and we're still going

youtube.com/watch?v=4MpTJ4ykgCw&t=

youtube.com/watch?v=db1eupR8hUw

people who use air travel often are most at risk, because of the wigner effect

It's about the money aspect.
More money can be made from solar and wind.
Also, climate change is BS. They aren't after a solution, just fear in order to impose shit like carbon
taxes

1 word faggot, Chernobyl.
When you have shit like 3 mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl this energy becomes less desirable when slight human error could end up killing millions.

because all this climate change garbage is about money.

>why are background levels going up across the globe by .04% a year?
because of...you know.... fucking burning fossil fuels you fucking idiot
>carbon is killing us? you're a fucking idiot, carbon is everywhere no matter what
too much carbon is killing us, we can not survive in a climate with too much carbon
ratioation is also everywhere but that doesnt mean its good for you

>1 word faggot, Chernobyl.
chernobyl was a soviet mistake.
the way it was build was way below standards back in the day.
standards that are not a thing of today.

>lets turn off all safety measures and see what happens
It's human error.

You are correct.
>What is wrong with the green left
The difference between right and left is that mostly the left base their opinions on emotions, rather than logic.
In this case, fear determines their opinon. Fear of nuclear fallout, that is.

3 mile Island wasn't, Fukushima wasn't.
I'm noticing a trend of humans fucking up with this energy.

based krautbro

>3 mile Island wasn't, Fukushima wasn't.
there have been like maybe 10 nuclear power plant accident in the past that killed like what... 100 people in total at best? most of which died because of chernobyl
meanwhile every other fucking energy model kills more humans on a daily basis

For now, who knows what or how these retards will fuck up in the future. Just seems to be one oops after another and the apology reads like BP apologizing for fucking up the ocean

Because climate change is about income redistribution, not science.

The goal is to drain the wealth from the “rich” American middle class who is far more affluent than most of the world.

An annual household income of $40,000 usd makes you a 1%er when compared to the 7 billion people on the planet.

Engineer here, the reason nuclear is so hard to make economically viable is because construction involves billions of dollars of overruns due to litigation.

China can construct the exact nuclear plant in China for 1/4th the cost because they don't allow any leftist to take the power company to court.

For example, st plant Vogtle in Georgia, a leftist construction worker intentionally laid rebar in the wrong direction, his friends then sued Georgia Power for breach of approved design standards, and cost the company over $100 million in repairs.

Other engineering anonhere.
>Reactor accidents can be avoided and a 100% safety record is achievable

This is BS and makes you loose credibility.
What's true is that it can be vastly improved to an order or magnitude or so.
Which basically means that we could scale it up to the point that it becomes our dominant electricity source worldwide and still have to deal with only 1 accident every 20 years, which is vastly better than continuously breathing air with particulates from coal plants or even the crap that comes with solar panel production and recycling.

Because retards think nuclear power plants just pump out toxic waste and spoil the water system.
>they do look pretty ugly tho I will admit.

yeah i agree with you
saying that something as complex as nuclear energy harvesting is 100% safe of accidents is delusional.

fuck this is such a good show.
And at least we know how it ends unlike GoT

>They aren't after a solution, just fear in order to impose shit like carbon
>taxes

green groups across the western world seem more interested in wealth redistribution than protecting the environment. they all support mass immigration and you never hear about them wanting to push wind and solar in the third world just for developed countries.

Yes, nuclear power is the way to go - but more research into thorium reactors should be done - or make fusion reactors happen.

First Germany shut down nuclear reactors... and now they will shut down coal plants. Are they gonna rely only on gas now?

An RBMK reactor cannot explode. Are you stupid?

We will reach a point soon, that nuclear is no longer viable because the market share of solar and wind is too high. When solar and wind are a large percentage of the market, its intermittent operation causes market price distortion that make nuclear impossible.

The only way to make nuclear work is to ban solar and wind, and that's not going to happen. The future is in clean coal, and natural gas due to renewables.

Before 2011 25% of Germanys energy came from nuclear plants. Now it's about 10%

What about the waste it produces?

we will take of the waste as soon as 4rd generation reactors become a thing
if you dont know what i mean, look it up

Reactors are already supposed to be idiot proof, yet idiot humans still find a way to fuck up.
100 percent safety isn't achievable as long as humans are in charge, maybe with 100 percent automation it could be achieved but humans have already proven to be complete fuck ups in managing a reactor

Nuclear waste doesn't really exist, it's a stockpile of future energy.

>fossil fuels
hey dipshit, you want to throw Rockefeller marketing terms from the 1890s around go ahead but it makes you look stupid, the entire fucking earth is made is carbon you hoodwinked troll

youtube.com/watch?v=2cUg3lDgJ20

Research the work of Holger Strohm. (Friedlich in die Katastrophe, etc.)
Nuclear energy is not clean, not safe, not cheap and it can literally wipe us out within a few generations.

So far, Gen III nuclear reactors have been operating for several decades without incident. The major accidents were all old designs that have zero chance of being licensed today.

>Because climate change is about income redistribution, not science.
it's beyond that, it's a way to ignore whats really wrong with the environment in a way that doesn't cost anybody anything

bitch about chemicals like PBB? well that fucks with the nuclear industry, the plastics business all kinds of money will have to stop being made to tackle that,

same with nuclear power, address the issues there and money stops rolling

blame carbon and greenhouse gas you pass guilt onto the citizenry for their own part in the mess when they had nothing to do with it and made none of the money

you also get to ignore the real problems so the money from those industries will continue to flow

>reactors already exploded
>durr hurr no a reactor can't explode are u stupit?

>He hasn't watched the show
It's a meme at this point my guy

>Holger Strohm
A case study in someone who is mentally ill.

Wew, sounds like someone is undermining the fruits of their own labor.

fpbp

Attached: 1552741901571.jpg (634x594, 86K)

>Nuclear energy is not clean, not safe, not cheap and it can literally wipe us out within a few generations.
yes but only the high pressure variety that makes weapons, the westinghouse LFTR reactors designed in the 70s are very safe, cannot be used to make weapons (they can but if you tried it would take forever)

and you can fit one in the basement of every home, imagine you pay 5-10K and never have no pay another power bill

we have had that design since the 1970s and instead of making these things and selling them Obama makes an EO to prevent their production inside the USA, instead China is building an efficient grid that cannot be taken down with a 20 foot piece of chain thrown into a pile of transformers,

thats how easy it is to take down huge sections of our grid power, it's a national security disaster

nuclear energy is going to become disastrous if economic collapse occurs

>entire fucking earth is made is carbon
YOU AS A HUMAN CAN NOT SURVIVE ON CARBON YOU RETARDED MONKEY

If there is 1 more nuclear related disaster in our life time my guess is the entire industry is gonna go bankrupt, better hope you don't fuck up

Engineer user have you seen this lecture?

Risks, deaths and illness from nuclear power plant accidents are incredibly overrated.

youtu.be/pOvHxX5wMa8

Even if you barely escape getring glassed it's unlikely you get cancer from it

Attached: cover.jpg (1400x1400, 643K)

>something that doesn't already exist can exist easily, it's just obama's fault

A stupid experimental prototype slavnigger bomb making reactor maybe, not a commercial gen energy-orientated one. Only if it's hit simultaneously by a huge tsunami, an earthquake, and loses power. Even then it's not as bad as the first

Not so. In fact the economic collapse of the USSR improved their nuclear safety record by several orders of magnitude.

not only that.
coal and other fossil fuels create more radiation than a nuclear power plant

i doubt it- the existing nuke plants will be kept online because they provide a lot of our electricity. THey keep getting their permits extended. Unless small-scale nuclear can be proven to be useful and safe, I don't think there will be much growth in nuclear plants

camopedia.org/index.php?title=Splinter

Patrician-tier cammo pattern.

>can literally wipe us out within a few generations.

theyre saying the same about fossil fuels.

hey stupid, guess what the most common element on earth is?

OXYGEN

dipshit, you're watching too much MSM, ok so if climate change and fossil fuel are so much truth

why does MSM talk about them all the time? isn't everything on MSM total bullshit? because it sure plays as such to me, NASA tech briefs saying the same so take your marketing and shove it up your ass

>If there is 1 more nuclear related disaster in our life time my guess is the entire industry is gonna go bankrupt,
impossible, those people have unlimited money and the entire point is killing you useless eaters

Drawbacks are that nuclear is not cheap and it requires competent people to run the plants. A nuclear plant expansion in Georgia caused Westinghouse to go bankrupt because of cost overruns. You trust niggers in Africa to not have meltdowns Hans?

THIS
we might be able to recycle them into fuel for other reactor designs

So basically, we fuck ourselves over?

Micro generation is kind of what you want to do anyway though. I dislike the idea of the government being in complete control of a few major power station sites which at any point they can then abuse to remove power from dissidents, create pretexts for more control etc etc.

I have no issue with the actual mechanism of nuclear power, and it is better for the planet by low CO2 emissions, but I would rather have individual communities be in charge of their own power generations.

I'm not talking about soviet collapse. They were able to maintain their civil structure enough to keep society functioning, although with breadlines and the chechnyan war. Ukraine was a similar situation.

I'm talking about future economic collapse where civil order can't be maintained, and the grid gets wrecked by looters or vandals

The problem with the Fukushima power station was it didn't have the ability to hook up backup power to steam generator pumps. At US power plants, we have secret locations where go teams are waiting with emergency assistance if something like station blackout were to happen. Generators would be flown in by helicopter, and installed within minutes.

It's small, compact, and re-usable in the near future.

>mad max scenario
At that point who gives a fuck about what happens.

fuckoff oil is good for mother earth it provides co2 for plants to grow healthy
if you're against co2 emissions then you're a jew
climate change is great and will warm up earth into a lovely temperature
fact : during the bouts of warming earth has gone through they found fossilized rain forst as far north as Germany
imagine living in an earth where everything between Germany north and Argentina south is a tropical paradise

The left is almost 100% responsible for the climate disaster we face.

We would like to use it as much as possible but problems exist.
First problem is that EU forced us to turn off 2 of our reactors, that made us energically not self sufficient country. Basicly because of that we now have to import energy from other countries.
That is being fixed now by building 2 new reactors, one will be finished right now? It is supposed to be turned on during spring 2019, second one will be turned on next year.
We are also planning to build a new reactor, much stronger than our current ones around 2029 it will be finished.
But this is the second problem, it costs too much for a country like ours, 6 billion €.

Here we also had problems with reactors wich resulted in death of 2 and we nearly ended up having second chernobyl. But this was caused by having experimental soviet carbon dioxide reactors wich were very problematic.

Attached: Bohunice_(13).jpg (1569x823, 522K)

Time for a Green Right party

Attached: 3456343467345536.png (1076x710, 58K)

yeah, Japan isn't really experienced with nuclear tech to have such contingencies desu. Incredible one in a billion situation that happened there, without the tsunami flooding everything they probably would have done something like that and prevented it

>create more radiation than a nuclear power plant

how?

>germans
>relying on gas
we did it before, maybe we can do it again

Large scale Fusion would legit solve 90% of our problems

Coal releases massive amounts of radioactive radon into the atmosphere.

Because the coal and oil companies have long propagandized nuclear power as being "dangerous" and evil and retards believe it even though its completely the opposite.

It's difficult to do that when the STUXNET virus is raping your backups.

pic reminds me of the simpsons.

>Drawbacks are that nuclear is not cheap
LFTR has none of those problems, would take forever to gather enough material for a weapon with one

mustard gas and PBB used as flame retardant on the nuclear missiles are related, we used to give PBB to soldiers as a sedative, which is probably whats wrong with most of you

>Its cheap af
cost of construction, maintenance and insurance are really quite high, but the watt-hour of evergy itself is indeed quite managable
availability of technology is also a thing, only like a few companies in the world have the tech needed to build nuclear power plants, and due to olygopoly they can pick their buyers however they like, european areva for example is politicising hard while being rather subpar on tech as of lately, and murkan westinghouse just straight up bankrupted and was bought by a toshiba, which in itself after fukusima slowed down their nuclear power developments
All in all whats left is chinese state corps, european areva on the last leg(so bad finns straight up nulled their contract for the construction after many years of fuckups), and our glorious rosatom, building with which is forbidden in western-aligned world for strictly political reasons(russia anything bad)
In the end westerners are left with the choise of submitting to chinese rule or abandoning nuclear completely

>Coal releases massive amounts of radioactive radon into the atmosphere.

interesting. its the first time ive heard of that.

damn, looks like you're right

nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/25295/1/IJPAP 40(4) 242-245.pdf

health problems from natural radon is a huge undiscussed problem in south west england btw, because of the geology

Poll made in France. They asked different generations over the years if they thought nuclear power caused greenhouse effect. Anti-nuclear propaganda effectively spreads lies to the general population.

Attached: Opinion-sur-nucléaire-et-effet-de-serre.png (744x681, 76K)