Thoughts on nuclear energy technology?

Fukushima was nothing but a fart when compared to Chernobyl, it was also caused by sheer retarded design
>hey guys let's build a nuclear plant next to the coast in a tsunami zone and then put both the backup and emergency pumps in the basement

>japanese
>retarded design
It doesn't matter is what this user said

>Thoughts on nuclear energy technology?
it's excellent.. except for no solution for the waste except for barreling it up and sealing it in a permanent underground vault.

I'm hoping someday it'll be figured out, figured out to the point where there is no danger of dying to horrible radiation poisoning.

I want to have power my gadgets with nuclear batteries that enable them to be played continuously for decades. Don't have to ever worry about recharging your phone or laptop, just leave it running! I imagine operating system programmers will decide to just remove Battery Status from the taskbar because it never falls below 100%

Attached: 8369366339_7a64d478ab_o[1].jpg (550x326, 151K)

>60 years since the start of Nuclear Power
>2 massive nuclear disasters that have to hundreds of thousands of people being displaced
>contamination in many areas will be around for centuries/millennia
>Numerous other serious accidents such as the Windscale Fire and Three Mile Island
>Constructing fission reactors (which can take over a decade) when Fusion is about to happen
Let's say we run nuclear fission reactors for another 200 years. How many disasters are going to happen and how much land will be uninhabitable?
Nuclear fission is a waste of time and money. All money that is going into fission should be put into fusion instead.

Attached: 1555537398631.jpg (681x384, 115K)

>it was also caused by sheer retarded design
So how many other reactors are running right now with retarded design?
Three Mile Island is still running, despite having a partial meltdown in one of the reactors. If an earthquake happened the remaining reactor could melt down as well. 200,000 people live around it.

thorium reactors are the future

Don't worry none of this will EVER happen again. These were all just shitty designs.
>Kyshtym disaster at Mayak Chemical Combine (MCC) Soviet Union, 29 September 1957. A failed cooling system at a military nuclear waste reprocessing facility caused an explosion with a force equivalent to 70–100 tons of TNT. About 70 to 80 metric tons of highly radioactive material were carried into the surrounding environment. The impact on the local population is not fully known, however reports of a unique condition known as chronic radiation syndrome is reported due to the moderately high dose rates that 66 locals were continually exposed to. At least 22 villages were evacuated.
>Windscale fire aka Sellafield (United Kingdom), 10 October 1957. Annealing of graphite moderator at a military air-cooled reactor caused the graphite and the metallic uranium fuel to catch fire, releasing radioactive pile material as dust into the environment.
>Three Mile Island accident near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (United States), 28 March 1979. A combination of design and operator errors caused a gradual loss of coolant, leading to a partial meltdown. An unknown amount of radioactive gases were released into the atmosphere, so injuries and illnesses that have been attributed to this accident can be deduced from epidemiological studies but can never be proven.
>First Chalk River accident,Chalk River, Ontario (Canada), 12 December 1952. Reactor core damaged.
>Goiânia accident (Brazil), 13 September 1987. An unsecured caesium chloride radiation source left in an abandoned hospital was recovered by scavenger thieves unaware of its nature and sold at a scrapyard. 249 people were contaminated and 4 died.
>Sellafield (United Kingdom) – five incidents from 1955 to 1979.
>SL-1 Experimental Power Station (United States) – 1961, reactor reached prompt criticality, killing three operators.
>Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant (France) – 1969, partial core meltdown; 1980, graphite overheating.

These weren't SERIOUS accidents. Accidents don't happen at modern nuclear reactors.
>Buenos Aires (Argentina) – 1983, criticality accident on research reactor RA-2 during fuel rod rearrangement killed one operator and injured two others.
>Jaslovské Bohunice (Czechoslovakia) – 1977, contamination of reactor building.
>Tokaimura nuclear accident (Japan) – 1999, three inexperienced operators at a reprocessing facility caused a criticality accident; two of them died.
>Mayapuri (India) - 2010, a university irradiator was sold for scrap and dismantled by dealers unaware of the hazardous materials.
>THORP plant, Sellafield (United Kingdom), 2005; very large leak of a highly radioactive solution held within containment.
>Paks Nuclear Power Plant (Hungary), 2003; fuel rod damage in cleaning tank.
>Vandellòs I Nuclear Incident in Vandellòs (Catalonia, Spain), 1989; fire destroyed many control systems; the reactor was shut down.
>Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (United States), 2002; negligent inspections resulted in corrosion through 6 inches (15.24 cm) of the carbon steel reactor head leaving only 38 inch (9.5 mm) of stainless steel cladding holding back the high-pressure (~2500 psi, 17 MPa) reactor coolant.
>Blayais Nuclear Power Plant flood (France) December 1999
>Ascó Nuclear Power Plant (Spain) April 2008; radioactive contamination.
>Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant (Sweden) July 2006; backup generator failure; two were online but fault could have caused all four to fail.
>Gundremmingen Nuclear Power Plant (Germany) 1977; weather caused short-circuit of high-tension power lines and rapid shutdown of reactor

Nuclear fusion is never, ever happening.
Mark my words.

lol No one even died from these who cares if these could have easily turned out far worse than they did?
>Shika Nuclear Power Plant (Japan) 1999; criticality incident caused by dropped control rods, covered up until 2007.
Sellafield Magnox Reprocessing Facility (United Kingdom) 2017; confirmed exposure to radiation of individuals which exceed or are expected to exceed, the dose limits (2 incidents in this year).
>Penly (Seine-Maritime, France) 5 April 2012; an abnormal leak on the primary circuit of the reactor n°2 was found in the evening of 5 April 2012 after a fire in reactor n°2 around noon was extinguished.
>Gravelines (Nord, France), 8 August 2009; during the annual fuel bundle exchange in reactor #1, a fuel bundle snagged on to the internal structure. Operations were stopped, the reactor building was evacuated and isolated in accordance with operating procedures.
>TNPC (Drôme, France), July 2008; leak of 18,000 litres (4,000 imp gal; 4,800 US gal) of water containing 75 kilograms (165 lb) of unenriched uranium into the environment.

True or false.
>All the world's high-energy radioactive waste can fit on a football field.

A partial meltdown from 40 years ago, which was completely contained in the containment structure after being subject to both equipment failure and colossal human error. Fukushima was underbuilt not only to international and US standards, but japanese standards. The engineers at the plant knew it was vulnerable to flooding, unit one already had emergency power knocked out by a flood in 1992, the japanese government knew it was trash, and they still did nothing.

Cherboble or Fuckyshooma could never happen here.

Attached: CopyQ.zXifzY.png (477x446, 85K)

There are plenty of fusion reactors that operate right now. ITER is being constructed right now, MIT is funding SPARC, and there's tens of other reactors working on and off right now.

> equipment failure and colossal human error
You could say that about literally every industrial disaster, but they still keep happening. I wonder why.

Wind generated power already provides more electricity and more jobs.

at the cost of tens of thousands of bird lives every year

blackhole generators>orbital solar array beaming power where it's needed>fusion power>fission>hydro-electric>wind>wave>gas>coal>charcoal

My point is when things go tits up in a properly designed plant like America was able to build fifty years ago, you don't get a Fukushima or Chernobyl tier disaster, not that equipment failure and human error can be completely averted. A properly designed plant takes those and local geography into account, unlike Chernobyl where massive safety shortcomings were assumed to be covered by training, and Fukushima where the plant was never updated to account for conditions that had existed before and could exist again. Fukushima also had the problem of TEPCO stalling the disaster response, and the prime minister's office micromanaging the plant during the disaster.

Attached: 1508975530704.jpg (640x427, 100K)

This. If someone could find a use for it or neutralize it in some way, I'd be on board. Humans being the lazy and sneaky pieces of shit they are, will find a way to kill us all in an attempt to save a buck.

There's no such thing as a "properly designed reactor", and there have been plenty of nuclear issues in the last decade, involving newer reactors.
>Gravelines (Nord, France), 8 August 2009; during the annual fuel bundle exchange in reactor #1, a fuel bundle snagged on to the internal structure. Operations were stopped, the reactor building was evacuated and isolated in accordance with operating procedures.
>TNPC (Drôme, France), July 2008; leak of 18,000 litres (4,000 imp gal; 4,800 US gal) of water containing 75 kilograms (165 lb) of unenriched uranium into the environment.
>Shika Nuclear Power Plant (Japan) 1999; criticality incident caused by dropped control rods, covered up until 2007.
>THORP plant, Sellafield (United Kingdom), 2005; very large leak of a highly radioactive solution held within containment.
>Paks Nuclear Power Plant (Hungary), 2003; fuel rod damage in cleaning tank.
>Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (United States), 2002; negligent inspections resulted in corrosion through 6 inches (15.24 cm) of the carbon steel reactor head leaving only 38 inch (9.5 mm) of stainless steel cladding holding back the high-pressure (~2500 psi, 17 MPa) reactor coolant.
>Blayais Nuclear Power Plant flood (France) December 1999
>Ascó Nuclear Power Plant (Spain) April 2008; radioactive contamination.
>Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant (Sweden) July 2006; backup generator failure; two were online but fault could have caused all four to fail.
There's no such thing as a reactor you can leave and forget about. They all require maintenance, and all have a finite life span.
Any one of these disasters could have turned out far worse given unlucky circumstances.
You don't even need a melt down to cause massive amounts of radioactive smoke to be spread over millions of people. The risk FAR outweighs the reward in the long term. Even climate change is a better option.

When you compare numbers regarding how electricity is generated in the USA you need to take into account that 44% of the hydro-electric used in the lower 48 is generated in British Columbia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_River_Treaty

Ah bloo bloo. Seal it away in a concrete tomb and deal with it in 10,000 years. Either we're extinct or have come up with a solution by then.

>Concrete doesn't break
>Contamination isn't possible if you bury it
>People in 10,000 years will even know what the fuck we were doing in 2019
Or we could just not product nuclear waste, and wait a few more decades for fusion and solar to take over.

Attached: tsukasa-hiiragi-522.jpg (300x450, 45K)

Why not just launch nuclear waste into space?

It's extremely heavy, there's lots of it, and unless we spend even MORE money to launch it into the sun, it will eventually fall back to Earth. Might as well just dump it in Point Nemo instead.

Aren't we all going to be dead in a few decades due to global warming any way? Surely a bit of nuclear waste that will likely never be an issue is better than massive pollution in the meantime.

i've seen worse, it's safe

Attached: 1557347677820.jpg (960x960, 229K)

>There's no such thing as a "properly designed reactor"
How have you come to this conclusion?
>Any one of these disasters could have turned out far worse given unlucky circumstances.
Such as SL-1 which was the worst case scenario and only managed to kill three people who were standing directly on top of the reactor?
Half of your list aren't even disasters. Safety concerns yes, but you're just fearmongering and ignorantly sperging out.

The fact everyone from big business to both sides of the political aisle rally against it constantly tells me it's probably pretty based.

The premise is good but the technology is very dated and could use new ideas that are more efficient and produce less waste. Personally I think that nuclear fusion is very promising.

>Aren't we all going to be dead in a few decades due to global warming any way?
The worst thing that would likely happen is mass famine in arid, poor parts of the world, leading to mass migration, combined with frequent extreme weather events thanks to all the added energy in the atmosphere. Sea level rise has the potential to displace many people, but it's so slow that by the time it starts becoming an issue people will have moved away, or developed work arounds (See: The Netherlands).
Nuclear waste is an issue now, and will be an issue for people thousands of years from now as well.

>How have you come to this conclusion?
All materials degrade, which requires maintenance. Maintenance requires a human. If a human is ever involved then it allows the possibility of human error/negligence.

>Such as SL-1 which was the worst case scenario and only managed to kill three people who were standing directly on top of the reactor?
And required other people to decontaminate, deconstruct, and transfer contaminated material to a storage facility that isn't fit for long term storage of nuclear waste. What if a truck crashed and caused a fire? All you need is radioactive particles being blown around everywhere by fire, wind, and rain to cause harm to lots of people.

>Mass famine and migration is a smaller issue than some barrels potentially leaking centuries from now buried underneath a mountain.

Okay.

Attached: 1553228031683.jpg (726x728, 60K)

>All materials degrade, which requires maintenance. Maintenance requires a human. If a human is ever involved then it allows the possibility of human error/negligence.
Well then we'd better throw out everything made by human hands because it's going to need work eventually and that's just too hard.
>And required other people to decontaminate, deconstruct, and transfer contaminated material to a storage facility that isn't fit for long term storage of nuclear waste.
Last I checked it was all buried near the site then covered in rocks and concrete.

Said mass famines are inevitable. Even if every human died tomorrow and all fossil fuel use went to 0.0x10^-infinity%, climate change would still happen.
The only thing we can do about it now is lessen the impact. It's the difference between driving into a brick wall at 30km/h and 90km/h.

When the risk is literally contaminating land for thousands of years, failures over a span of 60 years are a very bad sign.
The only human invention more immediately risky than nuclear fission reactors are nuclear bombs.

>Last I checked it was all buried near the site then covered in rocks and concrete.
Some of it maybe, but the core, and many parts of the reactor had to be shipped on the road to be disassembled, decontaminated, and stored more securely.
Pic and link related.
osti.gov/servlets/purl/4828615

Attached: 2019.05.08_17-11-38.png (1130x1132, 231K)

This thread is cringe on both sides.
>nuclear accidents will never happen because muh new tech
Yes, they will. They'll just be fewer in number. That's how accidents work.
>muh big scary nuke accidents
The only relevant metric for safety is the average number of deaths and injuries, not number of people killed at once.

Also, the problem of nuclear waste is vastly exaggerated. It's basically a non-issue.

>The only relevant metric for safety is the average number of deaths and injuries
That makes you WILLFULLY ignoring DNA damage to thousands or even millions of people through exposure to radioactive elements that they wouldn't have been exposed to normally.

Which is less than what people who board aeroplanes is.

Also, radiation follows a hormetic curve with regards to exposure and damage. No radiation is actually bad for you, and in fact a little more than average is good for you.

That's included in the average number of deaths and injuries you cucklord. Also, your whole argument rests on the assumption that background radiation is zero, which it is not, and that DNA damage doesn't otherwise happen, which it does. You are literally eating, drinking, and breathing in radioactive stuff every single day of your life and there's not a single thing you can do about it.

>Which is less than what people who board aeroplanes is.
Radioactive detectors in nuclear facilities in Norway were giving alarms to the people coming into work due to Chernobyl. Millions of people were exposed to radioactive dust thanks to it. Even today there are tons of freaks of nature being born in Central Europe thanks to Chernobyl.
You are downplaying the single most dangerous aspect of nuclear fission reactors. Melt downs are so dangerous because they cause fires, which spew radioactive material across vast areas (and trace amounts over the entire planet).
Being exposed to elements such as Caesium-137 is not good for your health, and not an element that is naturally occurring (at this point in the solar system's existence).

What "average" are we talking about here? There's multiple organizations which are involved in nuclear safety all around the world, and many ways to interpret "deaths" and "Injuries", both semantically and statistically.

>Also, your whole argument rests on the assumption that background radiation is zero
That's a strawman. My argument is that if there have been numerous releases of radioactive material in the 60 years fission has been in use, then it's safe to assume in another 100+ years there will be plenty of more accidents. If for some reason we continue using it for centuries, the damage will accumulate.
There's also a large difference between radioactive nuclear waste and background radiation. For example most radiation is non-ionizing, while the waste and fuel used in nuclear reactors IS ionizing. Ionizing radiation WILL damage your DNA.

You need some serious education. Here, watch these videos. They're easy to digest and cite top of the line research published in top ranked journals listed in the Master Journal List. If you think you can debunk years of hard scientific research on this matter, let me tell you, you have A LOT of work ahead of you, and if you're right, you'll win a Nobel prize. Good luck!
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcp63Rw5m_QcohHCu3jEFSFuEF4Va2HHh

>it's safe to assume in another 100+ years there will be plenty of more accidents
It's safe to assume that there will be accidents, but it's also safe the assume that they will be way fewer in number than before because the new technology is safer.

>If for some reason we continue using it for centuries, the damage will accumulate.
The most dangerous radioactive elements have half lives on the order of a few decades. It won't be a continuous linear increase but an asymptotic one towards a fairly mundane level.

>There's also a large difference between radioactive nuclear waste and background radiation.
Literally the first line of the wiki article on background radiation says that background radiation is a measure of ionizing radiation present in the environment. It doesn't include fucking microwaves and shit.

>Even today there are tons of freaks of nature being born in Central Europe thanks to Chernobyl.
Proof?
>Melt downs are so dangerous because they cause fires
Reading accident reports about several of the accidents you spammed would instantly prove you wrong
>which spew radioactive material across vast areas
Chernobyl did that yes. Why not explain exactly why that happened and why literally any design would behave differently since you're obviously an expert on the subject?
>Caesium-137
Decays in a few years
>numerous releases of radioactive material in the 60 years fission has been in use, then it's safe to assume in another 100+ years there will be plenty of more accidents. If for some reason we continue using it for centuries, the damage will accumulate.
Many of which were in the infancy of nuclear power. Technology and procedure evolves and can ensure none of that happens again. Also many of the accidents on the list you posted earlier were fucking nothing
>There's also a large difference between radioactive nuclear waste and background radiation. For example most radiation is non-ionizing, while the waste and fuel used in nuclear reactors IS ionizing. Ionizing radiation WILL damage your DNA.
The solution is to not come in contact with waste. If only there was a big bunker in a big mountain somewhere where we could store big concrete casks full of material.

>japanese
lmao general electric designed fukushima

that's all test bullshit, there will never be a commercially viable fusion reactor, ever

because rockets still have a >20% chance of exploding while they are launching into space, so if your nuclear filled rocket explodes midair, you're going to turn many square kilometers into radioactively contaminated land

GE designed the reactors. The responsibility for completely failing to harden the plant against flooding is on TEPCO

>All materials degrade, which requires maintenance. Maintenance requires a human. If a human is ever involved then it allows the possibility of human error/negligence.
gee then we should never build *any* sort of power plant or *any* machine in the future at all

>Appeal to authority
How about you just tell me their magical fix to the fact that human error exists, accidents happen, and radioactive material WILL be released if given enough time?

>It's safe to assume that there will be accidents, but it's also safe the assume that they will be way fewer in number than before because the new technology is safer.
That would be fine in most cases, but nuclear fission has the potential to (and already has) caused generations worth of damage to people, the land they live on, and their economies. You only need one disaster for this to happen.

>The most dangerous radioactive elements have half lives on the order of a few decades.
Which is a huge risk if you consider they can be spread over large areas thanks to a single fire. Don't forget that's only half of the material, the other half is still dangerous at that point.

>Literally the first line of the wiki article on background radiation says that background radiation is a measure of ionizing radiation present in the environment. It doesn't include fucking microwaves and shit.
That doesn't change the fact being around radioactive materials capable of ionization is bad for your health.

>radioactive material WILL be released if given enough time?
Prove it
>Which is a huge risk if you consider they can be spread over large areas thanks to a single fire
Chernobyl was a worst case scenario that was uniquely due to the Soviet Union taking unacceptable risks that literally no other country save maybe North Korea has. It happened near populated areas of Europe and somehow it wasn't the apocalypse.

>That doesn't change the fact being around radioactive materials capable of ionization is bad for your health
The solution is don't be around them, which is why traditionally they're stored in fuckoff hueg concrete and steel jars that can survive getting hit by a train

>Fallacy fallacy
Explain why you wouldn't trust top of the line research which has been peer-reviewed in top journals. Also, you seem confused about what I'm linking here. Nothing I linked will flat out deny human error or accidents will happen. It will however explain that even the worst accidents that have happened didn't result in anything near apocalyptic scale.

>Proof?
theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/04/child-of-chernobyl-25-years-later/237881/

>Reading accident reports about several of the accidents you spammed would instantly prove you wrong
The local effects of a melt down are dangerous sure, but but they're LOCAL. The radio active particles spread by a fire can affect entire continents, and are the biggest issue by far.

>Chernobyl did that yes. Why not explain exactly why that happened and why literally any design would behave differently since you're obviously an expert on the subject?
Why would I need to be an expert on the subject? Either way Chernobyl had a melt down, the melt down lead to a fire which was impossible to put out, which spewed so much radiation over Europe that every other country was DEMANDING the USSR tell them what the hell was going on.

>Decays in a few years
30 years. And that's only the half life. So there's still 25% of the material which is radioactive after 60 years. 13% after 90 years, and so on.

>Many of which were in the infancy of nuclear power. Technology and procedure evolves and can ensure none of that happens again. Also many of the accidents on the list you posted earlier were fucking nothing
Accidents always happen, disasters are inevitable. Look at the next safest form of energy generation, the dam.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
It only takes one failure to cause a cataclysm, no matter how safe the technology is in general.

>The solution is to not come in contact with waste. If only there was a big bunker in a big mountain somewhere where we could store big concrete casks full of material.
That's not easy when you have a fire fueled by extremely hot nuclear fuel burning everything it comes into contact with, spreading radioactive material over large regions of the host continent.

Most forms of energy generation are not capable of causing widespread, extremely long term damage even in the worst case scenarios.

>Explain why you wouldn't trust top of the line research which has been peer-reviewed in top journals.
Eventually you will have a catasophic failure, no matter how over engineered you make your reactor. Nuclear fission wants to continue until there is not enough material to sustain it. The bias is toward failure, and failure can result in widespread, multi-generational damage.
People whose job it is to research and develop nuclear reactors would like to stay employed, so they are not going to focus on that fact. That doesn't stop it from being a fact however.

>It will however explain that even the worst accidents that have happened didn't result in anything near apocalyptic scale.
I never said apocalyptic. Causing millions of people DNA damage, who go on to have mutated kids is definitely a cataclysm however. And it's entirely possible for it to happen again.
The rewards of fission are not worth the risks over the long term.

>Pile of soviet retardation that no other nation would build exploding is proof that all reactors are fated to release radiation
Nah
>Why would I need to be an expert on the subject?
I assumed you were one from all your broad generalizations and assertions.

>but but they're LOCAL
That's the point, dumpass. Only the soviets were retarded enough to build a sheet metal warehouse around their reactor and call it a containment.
Failure modes of the RBMK are not applicable to fission reactors as a whole because the RBMK is haphazard garbage that was only used by the Soviets.

>30 years. And that's only the half life. So there's still 25% of the material which is radioactive after 60 years. 13% after 90 years, and so on.
And it's fucking nothing even before 30 years

>disasters are inevitable
Absolutely not.

>It only takes one failure to cause a cataclysm, no matter how safe the technology is in general
Then we'd better revert to the stone age so everybody is safe

>That's not easy when you have a fire fueled by extremely hot nuclear fuel burning everything it comes into contact with spreading radioactive material over large regions of the host continent.
Graphite is not nuclear fuel and isn't used in those quantities in any modern reactor. Chernobyl's failings are not all applicable to fission reactors as a whole.

>Most forms of energy generation are not capable of causing widespread, extremely long term damage even in the worst case scenarios.
Except for hydrocarbon burning and hydroelectric

>Eventually you will have a catastrophic failure, no matter how over engineered you make your reactor
You keep asserting this, but that doesn't make it true.

>Nuclear fission wants to continue until there is not enough material to sustain it. The bias is toward failure
You're completely clueless about how reactors work.

>Causing millions of people DNA damage, who go on to have mutated kids
Reliable sauce for these millions of people having millions of kids?

youtube.com/watch?v=2awk_P41LqI

>Reliable sauce for these millions of people having millions of kids?
Good luck with that, lol. Will probably be some random blog or singular "expert".

youtube.com/watch?v=5xYRvnCBZOM

ITT: brainlets triggered by TV show.

Nuclear is the best option we have right now, too bad our energy policies are dictated by emotion.

But muh waste.

>Said mass famines are inevitable

American education everyone

Ever ever? how can you be so sure of that?

More people have been displaced from hidro and more have been killed from fossil fuels. Nuclear is the safest energy source you big oil shill.

There hasnt' been enough generations of humans born since chernoble to see proof of genetic damage. Insects and small animals with short lifespans have already shown it tho.

Can't we just shoot nuclear waste into the sun along with niggers and effectively remove two severe types of garbage from Earth?

IMMMMMM NUCLEARRRRRR

IMMMMMM WIIIIIIILLLLLLD

Redpilled

Nuclear waste is NOT A FUCKING ISSUE!
We have permanent solutions which can never happen because anti-nukes stand in the way of anything which could solve any problem with nuclear. You know what would work? Drilling three miles into granite using petroleum drilling equipment, and dumping the waste in the hole, filling up about a mile, then sealing the top two with rock and concrete. Guaranteed sealed for a geological time scale, and leaching is impossible. It would take just a dozen holes per year for all the waste in the US if nuclear supplied all the power. You could put the holes out in the desert where we already blew up dozens of bombs and made the surface low level radioactive, but really that's not necessary. Two miles of rock is enough that you'll never get any contamination remotely close to the surface.
>But what if-
No, fuck off. This shit would work. So would storing it in a salt mine. But we're not even allowed to try. When the DoE tried to get a pilot hole drilled they swore up and down and signed in blood that the pilot would never store any waste. Well the anti-nuke nutjobs still came in force wherever they went and convinced the locals that the government was making a modern love canal in their backyard. Fuck you cunts. You're the only ones holding nuclear back. All the engineering problems are solved.

ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy

sage
Yes, I too consider 50 year old power plants to be modern. Great post.

breeder reactors. they still generate (less) power, and they break down radioactive material into lightly-irradiated but non-radioactive elements, or literally accelerate the breakdown of the stuff till it's super easy to contain.
Breeder reactors just need to get common enough to outpace the power-generating full scale reactors.

It's the only future that makes any sense. Capitalist and brainlets b e g o n e.

Attached: 49d6b1a92783983ca6b34215434e367e95b9736f_full.jpg (184x184, 7K)

genocide good

sink it into a subduction zone and let the core of the earth take it
it's full of radioactive material already anyways

it gets a bad rap
it's a lot easier to deal with the byproducts of it than fossil fuels because they're smaller and not gaseous, but being more contained like that makes them more dangerous in small amounts, and that gets people worried
anyway a lot of that isn't even a factor if you build stuff around thorium instead
also this

bitch you did not just say that fossil fuels can't cause widespread long term damage
even if you want to deny global warming it produces tons of toxic compounds and it's affected the health of millions of people in places like London and New York and still does in places like Beijing and Mexico City
>Eventually you will have a catasophic failure, no matter how over engineered you make your reactor.
bullshit
>Nuclear fission wants to continue until there is not enough material to sustain it.
nigger that's literally how a fire works, are you about to say we can't have fire?

There is some good progress being made on bolt "fast" and thermal burner/breeder reactors.

This will hopefully be a break through because they offer the ability to be walk away safe like molten sodium reactors without the increase in complexity due to a isolated pressure vessel to prevent the sodium from reacting with the air, and also the removal of solid fuel rods which are way more complicated than they're worth.

All in all though, nuclear is the only possible option to get away from fossil fuels, with an optimistic outlook being solar at 30% and + wind 10% and hydro pretty much static.
Those others are actually probably more expensive than a 100% nuclear world since the cost of storing the energy and gird instability isn't included in the cost of solar/wind.

A few other people have pointed out all the "accidents" with nuclear reactors, You can pretty much throw away all military and test reactors for obvious reasons. That leave you with chernobyl, 3 mile island and fukushima.

Well chernobyl you can write off because those rectors have 0 containment and the people who were killed were fire fighters with 0 protection spraying water on solid exposed cores that were on fire.

Con.t
Then you have 3 mile island and Fukushima, which can essentially be boiled down to (heh get it) the main problem with solid fuel reactors. That you put in 18 months of fuel all in one go and have to prevent it from going critcal with really complicated rod and cooling systems. The obvious solution is to go to either molten sodium reactors or Molten salt reactors. both designs in a general sense are walk away safe and in the case of molten salt only have enough fuel for a day or two before they begin to lose the ability to go "critical"

Add onto that there are a whole bunch of extra safety features you get from having low pressure and liquid fuel.

Although its important to note that its easy to confuse reactors there are essentially 3 independent options
1. Burner or breeder
2. Liquid or solid fuel (sodium reactorrs are solid fuel with liquid sodium coolant instead of water but can be either breeder or burner designs)
3. there are 3 possible fuel cycles u235, plutonium, and Thorium/u233

And i think the best way to go that will be most likely to succeed in the future are
Burner, liquid plutonium fuel cycles

The plutonium fuel cycle lets you reduce current nuclear waste by 90% but also avoiding the reprocessing that goes with breeder designs.
Also if you do it in a molten salt reactor you get the inherent safety that should be required going forward.

We don't need to deal with waste. Just put it back where it came from. Who gives a shit about people accidentally stumbling upon it in a few thousand years. Worst case scenario some dumb explorer dies of radiation poisoning.

>This. If someone could find a use for it or neutralize it in some way, I'd be on board. Humans being the lazy and sneaky pieces of shit they are, will find a way to kill us all in an attempt to save a buck.
It's called a breeder reactor. The tech is almost as old as nuclear power, and has been used in at least 5 major nations with nuclear powers to reduce waste fuel.
The EBR-II was tested to be fail safe. They ran the reactor up to max output then turned off all the power to all the control systems, pumps, you name it. It got warm then settled down to a safe and stable tech.
The same reactor the same was tested by going to full power then having the secondary cooling loop turned off.

In any standard LWR that would have damaged or destroyed the reactor.

We can build better reactors, and this isn't even getting into changing to a thorium cycle.

Attached: EBR-II_-_Reactor_operating_floor.jpg (1408x963, 261K)

Most nuclear reactors in operation today are solid fuel burner reactors only like 0.4% of the energy in the uranium is used and the rest is waste.
There are other designs that either use this 99.6% more efficiently (liquid fuel reactors/molten salt) or a breeder design that essentially removes all nuclear waste by reprocessing it into new fuel (at the risk of being able to make nuclear weapons in the process)

The fail safe capability of that reactor had nothing to do with it being a breeder see
The fail safe design was the ability for the liquid sodium to convect heat away to a passive heatsink without any need for pumps.

>Gravelines (Nord, France), 8 August 2009; during the annual fuel bundle exchange in reactor #1, a fuel bundle snagged on to the internal structure. Operations were stopped, the reactor building was evacuated and isolated in accordance with operating procedures.
>TNPC (Drôme, France), July 2008; leak of 18,000 litres (4,000 imp gal; 4,800 US gal) of water containing 75 kilograms (165 lb) of unenriched uranium into the environment.
>Paks Nuclear Power Plant (Hungary), 2003; fuel rod damage in cleaning tank.
You do understand those accidents are nothing right?

>>Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (United States), 2002; negligent inspections resulted in corrosion through 6 inches (15.24 cm) of the carbon steel reactor head leaving only 38 inch (9.5 mm) of stainless steel cladding holding back the high-pressure (~2500 psi, 17 MPa) reactor coolant.
Well those units are all wrong. 38 inches is 96cm not 9.5mm. And a 38 inch thick steel anything can hold back vastly more than 17Mpa. A standard air tank holds about double that pressure and is about 37.9 inches thinner.

>Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant (Sweden) July 2006; backup generator failure; two were online but fault could have caused all four to fail.
I love the could have game. And a fault could have caused a time portal to open and bring Stalin back to life.

>The fail safe capability of that reactor had nothing to do with it being a breeder see
No one implied it was. In fact:
>We can build better reactors, and this isn't even getting into changing to a thorium cycle.

>$0.01 has been deposited into your account

>1 massive nuclear disaster in fucking Soviet Russia
If this counts, then hydro power is the most dangerous source of power since the Banqiao dam disaster killed 230,000 people. But realistically you shouldn't include disasters resulting from extreme carelessness for human life, as was the case with both Chernobyl and Banqiao. The Chernobyl plant was essentially ordered to fail as an experiment.
>+1 nothingburger nuclear disaster
Far more people were killed in the panic evacuation than any radiation. A whole one person died from the actual reactor. How many people died from the tsunami? Before you read the answer, just guess. Ballpark it.
Fifteen thousand eight hundred. Jesus fucking Christ! But all anyone ever talks about is the stupid fucking radiation that killed ONE PERSON. That's way less than any coal plant will kill via lung diseases in nearby populations. Coal plants emit orders of magnitude more uncontrolled radioactive waste, even! Although the other pollutants are far more harmful.
Fukushima was an economic and disaster planning boondoggle and the Japs should have known better. Oh well. Now they do, oh wait they're still retarded. Throwing more money and lives down the drain, they shut down all their nuclear plants and spun up a shit load of dirty ass coal and gas plants to cover the 30% lost generation. Good fucking job. This move cost them 4 trillion yen a year, and now people are dying from the increased pollution.
>How many disasters are going to happen
Fewer. Reactors get safer as we discover what works. Nuclear is still an emerging technology. 60 years is not mature. Yet by all accounts it's safer than all other sources except hydro and geothermal, neither of which scale.
>Fusion
Hasn't generated a single joule of self-sustained energy despite decades of research and billions of dollars. Dumping more money into it is a moonshot. It's gambling. Fission is a sure thing. Don't gamble the future of humanity because you're afraid of nothing.

>lol No one even died from these who cares if these could have easily turned out far worse than they did?
Commercial aircraft routinely lose operation of an engine despite strict maintenance schedules. We know we can't build them and maintain them to be perfect, so we build in redundancy instead. Hence the two to four engines on commercial craft.
You don't say "airplanes lose engines all the time so they're unsafe, you should never fly!" unless you're exceptionally retarded. Losing an engine is within the design envelope, and aviation remains exceptionally safer than other forms of travel per mile. Nuclear is the same. Shit will fail, but total catastrophic failure is rare, and even when it happens it's hardly the end of the world, it's just a bit of a mess. In the end, you add all the numbers up, and nuclear is safer than all other sources, or is maybe beat by geothermal and hydro depending on how you run the numbers. But geo and hydro are pretty much tapped.
Source: forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#27847e84709b
Being afraid of nuclear is the same as being that guy who is terrified of flying, and spends lots of his time checking to make sure a plane isn't coming down on him.

Nuclear energy is great but the problem is nuclear wastes.