Do you support nuclear energy?

Yes, but no retarded half-assed stuff. 4th generation breeder reactors, no water cooling, Thorium, waste vitrification... only the real deal.

only an idiot wouldn't
keep idiots out of nuclear decision making

Why not?

Society is too stupid to handle the responsibility. Its like giving chimps a machine gun.

Completely

Oh hello user, good question.
I am a financially stable married black woman living in Chicago, IL.
I have voted Democrat my entire life and that will not change, no matter what.
I believe Jussie Smollet was telling the truth.
I am worried about Climate Change and believe that we should do something to stop it, but I'm not sure what that is.
I'm afraid of the current social division, especially racism.
I support the wholesale eradication of the constitution, reparations, and most tenets of socialism.
I think nuclear energy is a good idea so long as the plants do not blow up and destroy my house or my car.

Don't trust society enough to live by one

Cleanest, safest form of power there is, so yes.

yes, it's the best temporary solution until geothermal or smth is ready to provide virtually unlimited power

Yes

Absolutely, it's energy efficient, no CO2 emissions, really dangrous nuclear waste is kept safe and contained, we can make melt downs more unlikely with Thorium.

Attached: downloadfile-119.jpg (474x474, 21K)

meh. sure i guess. Just as long as the engineers can keep it running. And it isn't some liberal scam.

Attached: MANDieselCrosshead-2StrokeDieselSuperStrokerInline7.jpg (370x459, 71K)

Yeah, I support it.

yes everyone should be allowed to own a nuclear reactor

Yes.

It should be the main source of power for the world until we can develop something truly renewable.

I also forgot it's far times more efficient than all of the other generators of electricity (I'm looking at you solar power).

My house is powered by nuclear it's based.

yes

Yes, muh chernobyl is not an argument.

die nigger

on paper yes.
But then there is the ginormous cost of the plant that makes it basically a no.
However, there is an interesting design of "mini" nukes that hopefully would reduce costs thanks to mass production and also be safer
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

My inner tinfoilhatter wants LENR to be real though.

Renewable, large scale and decentralized energy production/reuse is possible with better technology and biologically inspired solutions, but everything is so fucked up nuclear is the quick solution for now (and it might be the only one for industrial or heavy transportation uses)

Ok, caveat: NOT if the power plant is manned by poos, chinks, niggers, spics, commies, dune coons, fags, muslims, liberals, jews or women.

>ginormous cost of the plant
A lot of that comes from fees paid to the government.

pretty sure you are talking out of your ass, since in UK for example the state pays a great deal of the plant construction and guarantees that the price paid for electricity of that plant will be at least X, with X being usually much more than from other plants
Other than that, the cost comes from all the safety measures necessary.

Meanwhile molten salt thermal (mirror) solar power plants have the potential to produce as much energy, keep producing it at night (molten salt) and cost much less to build & operate, are safer obviously too.
Texas/Cali/Florida/Nevada could probably power half the continent with a few of these. Here in Spain we could go full solar if we werent ruled by idiots.

Molten salt plants are cool but no, they don't produce even a fraction of the power of a nuclear power plant

I never said they weren't expensive you dumb moor

Every energy source works like that, you have to calculate the total cost per gazillions of Joules after 10 years or something to get a real idea. Solar and wind currently are one of the most expensive, it costs a lot and doesn't generate shit.

you said it was "gubmints fault" which clearly isnt

yep I was mistaken. Anyway I still think solar is a better choice in general:
earth911.com/business-policy/solar-vs-nuclear-best-carbon-free-power/
>in 10 years 1 2500MW nuclear plant could be built, vs 14 250 MW solar plants
>this is assuming that you build them sequentially and not in parallel
>cost of solar plants (total) 3.3 billion
>cost of nuclear: 25 billion
Nuclear is still a winner in efficiency of material & terrain use, but otherwise solar is my favourite. Unless MNR really plummets reactor building costs.

Molten salt thermal generates about 10 times less energy than some of current outdated reactors used by Ameriburgers.
It is worse if you consider the complete lack of investment in research and development since the late 60's to avoid hurting the jews' feelings.

Nice strawman nigger, you know you can quote my exact comment right? Too much of an invalid to do so?

Israel is controlling the whole middle east because of oil. By getting rid of oil they become irrelevant.

But only poos, chinks, niggers, spics, commies, dune coons, fags, muslims, liberals, jews and women are stupid enough to work and operate a nuclear power plant, where they then all mutate into horrible glowing zombies.

but its cheaper, safer, faster to build...
And there has been research into nuclear fission idiot, otherwise there wouldn't be Gen III and Gen IV designs.
Solar is (per kilowatt) 6 to 12 times cheaper than nuclear. Do a little research.

Agreed. The power of atoms makes the goy stronger, so you gotta keep the goyim chained to oil/gas as well as ""renewable"" energy.

Yes absolutely. It's really the only choice if you care about both the environment and a credible electric grid.

As long as shitskins don't manage them and as long as they are well-funded. We have around 50 reactors here between 30 and 50 years old. Given our demographics can you imagine the series of disasters?

>Solar is (per kilowatt) 6 to 12 times cheaper than nuclear
That's because nuclear has absolutely insane regulations imposed on it. Many now obsolete as the technology has move on since those regulations were imposed on early test reactors. Ease them and you could see nuclear not only cheaper, but brought far further closer to the consumer. Nuclear powered container ships anyone?

>watching too many movies.

Most research cease, compare the progress from the late 30's to late 60's and the period after that.
I know you are kind of slow (or a jewish fag) but what matters is the long term total cost per MW, this includes maintenance of 14 solar whatevers that must be kept clean, break all the time,... until you have this kind of statistics this is just mental masturbation.

>Solar is (per kilowatt) 6 to 12 times cheaper than nuclear.
That's pulled out of made up graphs that have no relations to reality. All grids employing solar in a major way are extraordinarily expensive. Ontario had the cheapest electricity prices in North America with most of the power coming from nuclear power until the libshits decided to switch to solar and wind.

>All grids employing solar in a major way are extraordinarily expensive.
>All grids
This really is the issue. Reneables like winds and solar are just not compatible with an electric grid due to their unpredictability, and the technology that might allow it just doesn't exist.

Which still means that as far as a user is concerned power from renewmemes (except hydro, geothermal and in some instances tidal) is far more expensive than just about anything else.

It is the only ecologically responsible form of energy generation. So yes. Sooner we have molten salt reactors (MSR) the better.

No, there are cheaper forms of energy.

Nuclear power plants have a finite life and decommissioning and dismantling them is a real pain.

And it's inevitable that Chernobyl won't be the last catastrophic nuclear disaster.

No. Everyone acts like it's so futuristic and advanced but it's been used since the 50's, and is basically just steam power. Also creates so much radioactive waste no one knows what to do with.

I support energy. I don't give a rats ass where it comes from.

>it's inevitable that Chernobyl won't be the last catastrophic nuclear disaster.

Looking on it now, Chernobyl was not exactly the apocalypse it has been sold as. Life goes on.

>Also creates so much radioactive waste
Not true. In actual weight of waste material, nuclear produces basically nothing compared to say coal, and the waste is itself useful. For example plutonium is technically "waste" from another reaction, and this waste can be fed into another reactor to produce more power, and elements.

Coal unironically releases orders of magnitude more radiation in the environment.
No, not just pollution, radiation.

100% correct. There are radioactive gasses trapped in the coal that are released when burnt.

This

>society runs power plants
lol retard much?

It was apocalyptic enough. And it could have been worse, and so could the next one.

Let's just say I don't want to be living within 50km of any nuclear power plant.

Yes.

I was rained on by Chernobyl. It really wasn't that bad. At worst we had to cull some sheep.

Is the public so dumb that can't imagine a cost benefit risk analysis?

There are thousands of reactors in operation and waste can be reused until it is barely active then vitrified. Waste as it is discarded now is also a viable source of energy.

Yes, it's the white man energy.

Yes. The waste is technically worth megabucks, and there are shenanigans afoot regarding that.

Yes, it’s a legitimate way to solve our energy problems, but a certain (((group))) is against it because they want to milk climate change as much as they can.

Where was that?

>he doesn’t know about thorium

Attached: B5CA80E8-5E9B-4210-8773-DD3A66CEFC36.png (342x343, 127K)

Fresh pasta?

Scotland.

The British nuclear programme as well as not been without incident, but has been pretty much fine overall.

Your money goes towards illegal immigrants health care, schooling and unemployment. And you know it

Kek
Japan will have to dump toxic Fukushima nuclear plant water into Pacific Ocean, environment minister says

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), the utility company operating the nuclear power plant, said last month it's running out of space for the radioactive water. The company said it plans to build more tanks, but can accommodate only up to 1.37 million tons, which it will reach in the summer of 2022.

Yoshiaki Harada, Japan's environmental minister, said Tuesday that because of the lack of space, TEPCO will have to dump the toxic water into the Pacific.“The only option will be to drain it into the sea and dilute it,” Harada said at a news conference, according to Reuters.

foxnews.com/world/japan-fukushima-nuclear-plant-toxic-water-dump-pacific-ocean.amp

They should filter it.

Yes

Absolutely

Im sure the sea life will help filter all the bad stuff, we should all do our part to help out and eat more tuna

It goes to propping up coal and worthless solar and wind.

LFTR only

>I pay taxes and that money goes to building nuclear power plants. So yes.
nobody has built any new plants since the 40s, they're all leaking and supposed to be decommissioned for repair, the by products of the reactors are sold for nuclear weapons, so you pay money to get the power you paid tax money to build the plant and a private company sells the nuclear materials to the weapons industry you pay for

The problem would be bioaccumulation. Things eat the filters, which eat those, which we eat, with each level getting a more concentrated dose, same as mercury in tuna.

It would be fine to release it into the sea eventually, but it would also be wise to filter out the worse of it. It may also be possible to recover interesting substances in the process.

Well, you were like 2000km away, so I can understand why it's not that big of deal.

Then again, if an energy event that happened 2000km away had such an impact, one can't really question if safety wise it's an optimum solution.

>Japan will have to dump toxic Fukushima nuclear plant water into Pacific Ocean
they have no control, 60 billion gallons a day for years already, we can all thank the Israeli security firm for causing that accident to show Japan whats up for selling materials to Iran

retards all

Hey, don't jinx it now!

Even the Chernobyl exclusion zone is now an unintended nature reserve. The rare European Bison has made quite a comeback there.

>The problem would be bioaccumulation
this guy knows, you can listen to former Trump Taj Majal security head talk about it in this 2016 interview

youtube.com/watch?v=1Y6Cli2odss&t=1410s

Yes.

Touch wood.

A lot of shills in reddit lobby for nuclear energy recently.

youtu.be/Qk_zpjK3cTo

A good documentary about our nuclear programme if you're interested. It's a crazy time.

This nuclear power plant looks suspiciously similar to the Ratcliffe coal power station.

Thank you, I'll definitely watch it later.

Still the best in terms of efficency

I do. Especially Thorium

Digits of truth

>super expensive to mine and process fuel.
>spent fuel is toxic for thousands of years (recycling doesn't fix this, it just improves efficiency).
>when shit goes wrong entire landmasses or oceans become contaminated for hundreds of years.
Nuclear is worse both environmentally and economically than fossil fuels.