What do we think of nuclear energy?

What do we think of nuclear energy?

Attached: 86fdcf2c1918e7bc08b4f96fd6e3f590-imagepng.png (1024x486, 249K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disaster_films
youtube.com/watch?v=SsdLDFtbdrA
youtube.com/watch?v=BrC0Lm23VqY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Fuck "renewables".

Attached: burning-turbine.jpg (780x439, 28K)

Nuclear energy good
renewable energy bad

@71538029
"We" think you have to go back.

Fusion is going to make it moot.

Fusion is the future.

Fusion is nuclear

The show didn’t portray nuclear energy in a bad light. Only thing was that the soviets cheaped out and made bad reactors.

Yes and OP's image makes it clear he meant Nuclear Fission, thanks to the retarded, innaccurate HBO "Dramamentuary" about Chernobyl.

>The show didn’t portray nuclear energy in a bad light. Only thing was that the soviets cheaped out and made bad reactors.
But yeah, that wouldn't have gotten Jow Forums or whoever made this shit a hot new meme.

>The show didn’t portray nuclear energy in a bad light.
IF THIS CORIUM LAVA TOUCHES THE WATER ALL OF EUROPE WILL BE DESTROYED BY A NUCLEAR BLAST

this. Go back to facebook, wojakfag

Nuclear is lit, too bad the government is so cheap they make tier one factories and then cry big crocodile tears when they fail. Tier 2 and 3 are expensive but way more safe and reliable.

Attached: uranium.jpg (640x389, 30K)

Who the fuck ever thought Chernobyl was about conveying nuclear energy is bad?
It was all about showing how shitty the USSR was and the people who acted.

Can you get any more tinfoil hat?

Attached: +_818ffbcdd5781f636f99b25faae3e6ba.jpg (788x739, 101K)

How much did it cost to go back to 1960?

Who?

You're overestimating the attention span and the viewing comprehension of the average NPC

normies absolutely took away from the show the message to never use nuclear energy ever

The show greatly exaggerates the risks that surrounded Chernobyl. I don't even think fission energy is worth doing at this point, but Chernobyl was never at risk of exploding like a nuclear bomb. Not only that, but even if it did, it wouldn't destroy all of Europe, or even "devastate" it.

Can someone summarize the show? What did it even talk about? Was it just the first 2 minutes stock footage of productivity and how nuclear energy is good and then the rest sliding still images of Chernobyl getting fucked?

>russia bad
>america good
Just the usual jewish bullshit.

Attached: 1558296151559.jpg (820x822, 195K)

Hey, genius, radiation is a thing and the atmosphere (air) doesn't stop it from spreading. Metal housing or walls do. A blast wouldn't have taken a good part of the continent, radioactive fumes might have.

The writer gave the soviets one heck of a handjob, though. Muh sacrifice and whatever.

>russia good
>white man bad
t. nazbol tranny

Attached: muh based russia.jpg (1528x1528, 628K)

This is your brain on Jow Forums.

>What do we think of nuclear energy?
>what do we think
>what do we
>think
that image makes it triple ironic

nuclear energy isn't bad, you're delusional

Shouldn't be used until we have a way to dispose the waste instead of just storing it. Fuck meltdowns, do you have any idea what kind of a national security risk the depleted uranium poses? A lot of the power plants store it on-site.

Nuclear Energy Good, when done with Safety in mind.

Renewable Good, if we can minimize the footprint and/or fit them into existing structures.

Watch it (illegally), it's good

A couple chernobyls a century is actually a worthwhile price to pay for not DESTROYING THE ENTIRE PLANET

I thought this show was about how much the russkies are mongoloids with the brain of a hot potato who should have continued to poke dirt with their peasant hands, because even giving them a damn shovel would result in someone getting hacked to death.

it's good

A nuclear explosion is not possible in a nuclear reactor, let alone one that is in meltdown. The worst you'll get are steam explosions, and those are just going to spread radioactive material in the area around the reactor.
Radioactive smoke was a far, far, far, far bigger concern, and it actually DID spread nuclear ash all over Europe. That's how other countries knew about it in the first place, and why the USSR didn't bury this failure under the rug like every other failure they had. They couldn't hide Chernobyl, because every other country was DEMANDING to know what the fuck was causing radioactive ash to fall over their land.

Literally blast it through a laser furnace and solidify the leftovers, so it doesn't leak, and then bury it in the middle of the Sahara. No biggie.

And it's worth noting that even in the worst case scenario, most of Europe would have been fine. The most you'd see is a larger exclusion zone, maybe a few more depending on the way the ash was blown around, and increased rates of cancer (which is already reality).

Nah it's a 5 episodes drama, not a documentary.
It's not historically accurate but it does it's job at being entertaining

You think Chernobyl was anti-nuclear power? Why?

>solidify the leftovers, so it doesn't leak, and then bury it in the middle of the Sahara
You can't be sure it won't leak later. You can't prevent it from being stolen and weaponized by rogue parties. By weaponizing I mean dirty bombs.

>i want to be a free thinker, so pleast tell me what to think

OP is the type of person who thinks that some opinionated rando "redpilling" them on something means they're relaying some sort of deep truth

And they showed and explained how the clusterfuck was the result of USSR being a cheap, secretive piece of shit and how the people responsible did everything wrong. Did you even watch the show?
It honestly seems more like some retards on Jow Forums are worse. People are talking about the show without even having seen it.

It seems like some people expect some agenda from the show and are projecting that agenda to it, even when it's not actually there. I fucking hate this outrage culture.

What's the point you're making? The show makes it seem like a nuclear reactor melting down is somehow going to destroy all of Europe.
Even for someone who opposes nuclear fission, that's completely, mindbogglingly absurd.
Imagine if you argued that a car accident may cause gasoline to ignite and destroy an entire country. That's about the same difference in magnitude between reality and fiction as you're getting with the Chernobyl dramatization.

Who's fusion?

Take the LFTR pill.

>20 billion calories
that's like 2 spoons of nutella

This is such a terrible show. The accident at Chernobyl was a global tragedy and ow they're using it in Hollywood to get views and ratings. It's disgusting and fuck everyone that participates in it. You dont see them making TV shows of 9/11 so why is this allowed?

All those TVs watching that are powered by nuclear, just seething.

>You dont see them making TV shows of 9/11
You'll see it in the 2030s.

What

In their mind they're so much smarter than normies because they're being spoonfed what to think by something other than mainstream media. It's embarrassing.
>What's the point you're making?
Can you fucking read?
>And they showed and explained how the clusterfuck was the result of USSR being a cheap, secretive piece of shit and how the people responsible did everything wrong.
The show wasn't about how nuclear is dangerous but how being completely reckless and going out of your way to do dangerous shit can lead to a catastrophe. This is actually the only place where I've even heard that Chernobyl is somehow about nuclear bad. It doesn't seem to be a popular conclusion, which is not surprising at all to anyone who has seen the show since the last episode goes to great lengths to explain how the people made fucking awful decisions, not that the tech in itself is dangerous.

If the core melted down into the pool of water below and caused a steam explosion that takes out the other 3 reactors next to it, the cloud of radioactive dust would be enough to contaminate most of Europe to make it unfit to live in. Or did you assume they were talking about "blowing up" the continent?

>What's the point you're making? The show makes it seem like a nuclear reactor melting down is somehow going to destroy all of Europe.
I'm sure the radioactive magma ball breaching and reaching the groundwater table beneath it would have no consequences. Totally no risk of giant contamination and vapor saturated with radioactive material being released in the atmosphere at an insane rate

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disaster_films

Good point. Sucks that people want to make bombs from top tier fuel and its leftovers.

Steam explosions DID happen and nuclear ash WAS spread all over Europe IN REAL LIFE from Chernobyl. And the effect was not the destruction of Europe. The scale of destruction this show makes you think nuclear is capable of is absurd no matter how you frame it.

>why is this allowed?
This is where your wrong user. Fuck you and your reactionary censor mentality.

Thorium reactors when?

Attached: thposterinverted.png (938x4167, 1.86M)

lmao who gives a fuck about 9/11

I hope you and your family dies then Disney makes a film about it completely butchering everything you and your family represented for a quick buck

>some small explosions happened and everything was fine so why should i worry about a really big one

Incredibly dangerous.
Should be banned we should focus on renewables and cutting down on emissions drastically.

A really big explosion would have increased the amount of radioactive material spread. This wouldn't turn Europe into a giant exclusion zone as the show implies. It would have been devastating, like everything else involving the REAL world Chernobyl, but it was never possible for Chernobyl to make Europe uninhabitable.

A malfunctioning nuclear power plant could easily nuke the entire continent unless suicidal people go inside it to do something.
That should tell you enough about how good of an idea nuclear power is.

Why do retards imply people only dislike nuclear because of the HBO miniseries? People hated nuclear for decades. Does it make sense? No, but it's not a 5 hour mini series that suddenly made people think hurr durr nuclear bad.

The most dangerous thing is to not use nuclear energy. You can't be both against nuclear and for reducing emissions. Nuclear fission is EMISSION FREE, PLENTIFUL, and A TECHNOLOGY THAT ALREADY EXISTS.

>emission free

Besides the tiny risk of creating lifeless wastelands and of course the small issue with the million years lasting waste.

But who cares about that right?

Well, you'll be surprised but the MAJORITY of the world does care so keep in mind your nuke dreams are just that - dreams.

We're heading toward clean and reusable energy sources and there's nothing petrol shills or nuclear crazies can do about it.

Jow Forumseddit is filled with complete normalfag low IQ brainlets. What else do you expect from a Jow Forums meme?

Attached: 1561179416511.jpg (597x800, 79K)

Even the spooky scary long term storage is really a non issue.
And if I ever have another armchair nuclear physicist tell me about the spooky radiation of nuclear power plants I'll lose my fucking mind.

This fucking meme
>how dare big companies sell what sells! Its like we’re under free market capitalism or something

>melts you inside out
>not spooky
lel

>Jow Forums meme
I honestly should have known something retarded as that can only come from my "favourite" containment board...

Fine, as long as I can complain about Disney and not get dragged to jail by Mickey's Fun Forces(tm).

How are you sure of that? I mean, it could've been exaggerated but i'm not an expert in the field so i'd rather trust what experts have said about it.

People have done calculations on this over the last 35 years. The most accessible way to overly dramatic the show gets is to watch Thunderf00t's video on it.
Yes he's a rambling sperg, but he does go through the calculations.
youtube.com/watch?v=SsdLDFtbdrA

Does anyone think the current administration could handle a nuclear disaster as well as chernobyl was handled by the soviets 30 years ago? We can’t even get hurricane relief out in a timely fashion today.

Are you sure you want to do this? Are you really sure?
Cause if you want to compare nuclear vs coal I don't think you'll like what you'll find out if you even put in 5 minutes of research.
And besides how many nuclear incidents with long term problems are there? Two.
What caused them? Well one was Chernobyl and I think even you know what happened there and the other literally got hit by a tsunami and was still fine until the pumps failed because retards pumped salt water through them before the reactor blew up.
On the other hand we got coal power plants.
When you live remotely near a coal power plant you got a higher yearly radiation dosage than living next to a nuclear one.
Coal power plants kill over 800.000 people each year world wide through the let's favourably call them side effects of burning shit tons of coal, not to mention the environmental impact.
Then you got the deaths and environmental damage from digging up and shipping said coal to the power plants.
And to top it off before you even mention it how big was the environmental impact of digging up and processing the rare earths needed for batteries for solar etc again? Oh yeah right.

If you actually gave a shit about climate change or clean energy you'd favour nuclear over literally everything else we have right now, but since you are nothing more than another retard getting a hard on when he sees solar panels why do I even bother?

I'm not aware of any coal chernobyls or fukishimas so not sure how much trust to put in your post.

youtube.com/watch?v=BrC0Lm23VqY

I don't give a shit about if you trust my post. Everything I said can literally be confirmed by various sources with a 2 minute search. But I see I am correct that you can't be bothered to put in even minimal effort into researching something before spouting shit.

>gets BTFO in the comments
Don't give that autist views

I think it's good but fucking people will obviously use it in military force

This.

Attached: land requirements wind vs nuke.jpg (436x682, 131K)

Reminder, renewables are controlled opposition. They will never be viable competitor against fossil fuels per kWh. That's why BP freely makes and airs commercials shilling for them and has "strategic predictions" on their website and funds studies showing that the 'future is renewable'. They know they will never be cost effective against coal, gas and other fossil fuels and will always require adjacent backup fossil plants to account for intermittency.

Attached: 2013-electricity-price-per-KWh.png (418x260, 5K)

free, clean energy. pretty based to me.

>They will never be viable competitor against fossil fuels per kWh. That's why BP freely makes and airs commercials shilling for them and has "strategic predictions" on their website and funds studies showing that the 'future is renewable'. They know they will never be cost effective against coal, gas and other fossil fuels and will always require adjacent backup fossil plants to account for intermittency.
yea currently no, but it's not like one day someone just comes up with a magical solution to solve the actual problem at hand. funding for research and development has to come from somewhere. sure current renewable energy might not be nearly as cost effective as non renewable sources, but to sit here and imply there is no merit to looking for alternative energy sources is a pretty shit tier human way of thinking

>Can someone summarize the show?
commies were fucked retards and drunkards who wanted to destroy europe. but a lone science man and a strong independent woman opposed the goverment and saved the world from soviet catastrophe.

Ugh, Thunder00t, that clickbait thumbnail, his fucking smug demeanor, talking about this now because it generates views...

OK, that aside, i'll take your word for it without watching the video, lets say calculations have been made that prove that the claim was exaggerated. You can't blame the HBO show for spreading misinformation because that's what they actually thought would happen at the time. They also thought that most of the material was still in the reactor core, but later determined that a large portion of it was spread into the atmosphere, so their prediction about it melting down was off and the tunnelling operation under the complex wasn't necessary.

to add to that, why wouldn't it be within these energy companies to have money invested in these sort of things? once these renewable energy resources become more viable, wouldn't it make sense from a business standpoint for an energy company to already have some stake in those renewable resources?

> Reminder, renewables are controlled opposition
jesus you've got your tinfoil hat on tight

That's a good point.

What's the source for the wind power plant numbers? Seems like the land use is way higher than in most studies I've found.

That's the simple fucking thing everybody is missing. It's not a question of what would've happened, it's of what those working on the cleanup at the time believed would've happened. To that, it seems reasonably accurate.

God I hate that smug cunt. How can someone get btfo'd so many times and yet still be so smug and self righteous when talking about shit he has no clue about.
I haven't seen the video but judging by the ones I had the displeasure to watch before he's probably completely wrong yet again but he's got some calculations onscreen so he must be right of course.

That line of reactors are the most timeless in history so far
far superior to western reactors, the issue was a extreme lack of protocol and safety
The reactors themselves are way more efficient and safe in general, the people operating just happened to be vodka swilling soviets

>That's the simple fucking thing everybody is missing
Seems like the people most outraged over the show are ones who haven't even seen it, as usual. That's outrage culture at its finest.

>Seems like the people most outraged over the show are ones who haven't even seen it
That's exactly my impression as well. Suddenly people are all nuclear physicists and Chernobyl experts that have been in the control room at the time and the show is complete dogshit and fuck nuclear but they have never seen the show nor have even a single clue about nuclear reactors.

But in the show is was clearly stated that it was a steam explosion? Why are you sperging out

It is a zero sum game. Putting money toward major 'renewable' farms at present raises people's electricity bills and the cost of property in the area surrounding it and precludes the construction of superior projects like nuclear. Not to mention, that industry VEHEMENTLY opposes nuclear, the only truly clean reliable form of energy than can be located almost anywhere. Promoting or embracing renewables makes you at best a useful idiot for the fossil fuel industry. Scientist and universities will always be experimenting with photovoltaic panels and wind; people will always be free to buy them for their own personal use. To think that renewables would be even remotely as efficient as fission is delusional.
They lobby to promote their biased interest and effectuate restrictions against their only real competition, brainlet.

>4MT "steam" explosion that will annihilate most of europe