Nuclear Energy

holy shit Jow Forums is actually environmentally, psychologically and economically woke

Nuclear is fucking awesome.
The only problem is that we need a bit safer way of using it. There is now a lot of talk an probably experimentation behind the scenes to use Thorium as reactor fuel (in form of a liquid) instead of Uranium. That'd bring the cost and the risk much down.

Oh, that and most other "renewables" are a meme and a scam as practical, primary means of power generation.

Absolutely based. Ignorant people will have you believe waste is a problem, despite the fact that all spent fuel since the 1950s would fill a 10 yards deep football field.

Annoys hippies great

Attached: download (1).jpg (474x315, 47K)

20 years ago I did read articles stating that fusion is 20-30 years away from being energy positive. I don't want to be negative here, but I call this one bullshit.

Ask the folks living in Chernoble.
Oh wait, they're all dead lol.

The waste problem keeps getting ignored.
It's not even the only problem but I won't name any other ones because you still haven't understood the scope of this particular one.

LFTR is a scam, the waste products are the problem with it

Should never be managed by private for-profit entities. The accounting practices and problem management has been atrocious so far. Just about no one even established a safe waste disposal site.

But we do kind-of need nuclear power. Put it on the to-do list for when you've actually gone to fairly close to the limit with hydro and solar power.

It has the lowest deaths per gigawatt hour of power.
Might not be the cleanest, but it IS the safest.

I hope you don't mean woke as in left leaning.

Fusion is worth pursuing as research, but often it's as if it's used by people who are against nuclear power as a delaying tactic. It's always, "oh we are all for nuclear energy, but it just isn't safe enough, so we need to work even harder on fusion."

Nah. The casualties in Chernobyl were sad, but not excessive.

But their economy and nearby cities basically died out. That's arguably unacceptable, too.

There were casualties?

THE NUCLEAR THREAD GETS UGLY
REAL QUICK
No bullies, please :-)
P.S. I'm a nigger.

Yeah bunch of thots died in the protest

Things should look better in about 25,000 years.

based and redpilled

Also it's usage should be prioritized, because the more we wait to use it the more we will lose due to decay.

>glowniggers derailing threads
dont you faggots have anything better to do than shitpost on Jow Forums?

There's a long standing joke since the 1960s that fusion is 20 years away from commercial implementation, but back then they didn't even have super computers so the estimation was clearly a complete joke. People still make the 20 year joke, but Chinese researches are seriously on the cusp and gaining energy out of insane processes like blasting maglev matter with a hundred lasers in pulses for heat, and the moment any promise is shown, this will be the most sure financial investment in history, energy is similar to software in distributional, ubiquity and commodity-isation.
But if fusion really isn't common then uranium mining asteroids is literally the eternal future for humanity until we get kugelblitz blackholes (same process as I described for fusion but with enough energy to cause matter collapse momentarily and safely)

Yes? People died in that accident. Also many probably died much earlier due to the accident.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

Sure, but nobody organized their (definitely always small, heh) guarded storage area for that long just yet.

Also I recall 100k years sounded more realistic until you can't do much harm with the material anymore.

The waste products are still no worse than current reactors.
And they don't create weapons grade material ad a by-product.

xD

Anyway boys micronuclear plants every in every 100 mile grid with only 300m exclusion radius is the future of the US whether next decade or next hundred after a tremendous collapse and reliance of shale gas for a while, guaranteed. The investment is already in motion, tech is already ready. Just need leftie fuckidiots to not boycot "scary tech" and rightie backwardsfucks to not boycot "future tech"

If you look at any event of any size, you'll find harm and casualties, every financial crash has thousands of suicides, does that make them more deadly than Chernobyl?
An irrelevant and dead soviet society fucked up and didn't use enough funding and realism, it doesn't even deserve to be in the conversation anymore. Just as how we don't discuss the ancient roman senate every time we want to consider anything in the modern US government. Grow up. History does not repeat, only inform.

I want to marry a nuclear reactor!

Attached: okuu_head_scratch.webm (600x440, 237K)

Soon you'll be able to marry the AI girlfriend who is powered by the electricity from a nearby nuclear reactor, kinda like marrying the reactor itself, lucky you.

Chernobyl could credibly have had more than 60k severe / lethal casualties, so only the very big financial crashes might have more victims.

But sure, financial crashes and the like also are very damaging, so most nations put extremely considerable safety measures (worth billions to trillions of Euro / CHF / JPY / CNY / ...) in place.

This isn't that much the case for nuclear power, it's mostly just that it gets outsourced to private companies who then cheap out and take the risks in operating the reactors. Hundreds of serious incidents after Chernobyl rather than zero like the pro nuclear lobby always tries to claim with the "hurr we got it solved, trust us this is safe and cheap". And no reasonable waste sites either.

>highly reactive water soluble fluorine compounds that love to spall are no worse than normal waste products!
you haven't a fucking clue

It's pretty good when the reactor is in a safe distance from us
Example: the sun

>like germans and wholey irresponsible and spoilt for abolishing all their nuclear in favour of completely unsustainable yet not-in-my-back-yard "renewables"
What I find hilarious about this is that because of this Germany is now dependent on Russia for gas and electricity. What's their game plan?

and they're digging up the oldest forest in Europe for coal too

It isn't, because there are less dangerously radioactive by-products.
All you're really saying is that you need to store it in a suitable container.

Except Chernobyl was the fuck up of a government not a private company with stocks and investors who could bail and destroy the lives of everyone involved forever at the first sign of shortcoming.
American corporate cukery is tragic but government enforcing sanctions while competition enforces success really actually works even in saving lives from irresponsibility; it's not in the interest of corps to kill 60k people.

would be great but i'm concerned about how we're supposed to store the waste long term. i've heard that liquid salt reactors are better in that regard but i could be wrong

regardless i think it's equally as important for us to make consumer goods more energy efficient even if we can never generate the political push needed for us to build the newer generation reactors

What are the cons of Nuclear Energy?

> because of this Germany is now dependent on Russia for gas and electricity
They do use 1/3 Russian gas/oil, but it's definitely not "because of" nuclear power.

And they don't depend on Russia for electricity.

Russia isn't smart enough to trick gentrified Germany into relying on them for power - that'd be some next level shit.

Fukushima was a private fuckup, and US corporate cuckery looks exactly like these two based on non-nuclear accidents.

Of course it's in no one's interest to flood the coast with oil for the x-th time either, but they still won't bother to make oil tankers and platforms that adhering to a design/maintenance/operation schedule that is safe and careful enough so they don't sink/leak.

It eats through metal, it embrittles plastic, it decays organics, it dissolves in water, it produces dust if stored in air, and is both chemically and radiologically toxic. The test reactor cleanup resorted to vitrification in small borosilicate pellets, because anything large would crack open due to wigner swelling, and cooling it via heatpipes rather than submersion. You can't just stick it in 55 gallon drums at the bottom of a pool.

nasty fuckin shit

Technological complexity which is still getting more safe and feasible as we speak
small, containable, extremely eternally hazardous waste product which must be buried forever, somewhere (there's a project to bury all the worlds current nuclear waste in a mountain in finland for longer than humanity is expected to survive)
high cost of materials and entry due to the above
the rest of the world has to trust you enough to not be poor and incompetent
>nuclear bombs and cancer are not remotely feasibly related, bombs require very specific construction completely unlike that of any reactor ever considered, and nuclear decay product has no reason to leak, we simple use the heat through conduction.
>legisation to prevent countries from having nuclear facilities because of nuke biproducts is a laughable joke powerplay/show of dominance
I got bored writing sorry if any sentences are unfinished

I remember hearing about reactors that run off of the waste of other reactors that leave non-toxic waste or some shit. Can't remember the details.

It's based. Especially combined with a pumped hydroelectric energy storage. Also I think that PWR are sexier than BWR.

Attached: 1559764841590.gif (326x182, 884K)

Oil is too low barrier to entry and too many shithole countries are invested in it. You never hear of oil spills around Europe because it's a relatively wealthy and successfully regulated (and of course climate-stable) place.

Japan needs energy, Fukushima could have been better designed and in the future shall.
I guess the question is, are the nuclear power plant consequence too major to justify?
If we could base the worlds actions on that sort of thinking they maybe we wouldn't have causes such dramatic and lethal climate change, but we did and avoiding nuclear is not helping.
The real but indirection answer to my above is that smaller, safer reactors are already in production and final testing.
Was Fukushima anyone's fault? Well Japs love to take honourable blame... But the only thing's I see them being able to do are even more failsafes on their failsafes and just not building nuclear near a faultline, which is not a luxury all the the world has if they want electricity.

I used to be scared shitless because I have bought into what the uneducated shills were saying.
Now I educated myself and think that nuclear is currently the preferable way of generating energy. Although it's important not to let irresponsible boomers run it, or they will
>use shitty reactors (Chernobyl)
>turn off automatic safety procedures while cluelessly fucking with the reactors (Chernobyl again)
>put other untrained boomers in charge (Three Mile Island)
>build a power plant in a seismically active area, probably because the land is cheap (Fukushima)

CIA nigger technology

Attached: 1538110037804.png (720x540, 450K)

>why yes I have never held hands with a girl, hate black men, love Donald trump, love guns and believe nuclear is the future what gave it away

What makes PWR better than BWR?

Shilled. Not cost efficient.

You've leaned something but you have not grown
In real life, we compromise (building where with who and when are necessary), and you only noticed and criticize when it becomes disastrous/newsworthy
But the future does learn and will be better, uphold your high standards in action (not just criticism and inaciton) and so will you

>boomer scum
*happy bankers
(Not really though, it's not about one scapegoat, it's just how the whole system is arranged.)

Extremely based. Nigh infinite energy, right there, right now. Just learn how to use it in a proper decent way.

You can complain about muh nuclear waste, or you can realize that nuclear energy is the most efficient mean of energy production, and the one that creat the least amount of pollution.
It is our best option for the decades to come

> Oil is too low barrier to entry and too many shithole countries are invested in it.
And exactly the same situation with nuclear power should you make it attractive for random small countries and US private companies and so on to try their hands at supplying energy with it.

> If we could base the worlds actions on that sort of thinking they maybe we wouldn't have causes such dramatic and lethal climate change
I just see this as a reason why most countries shouldn't use nuclear power. They just are not competent and careful enough.

> Nuclear energy is the most efficient mean of energy production
No, that's probably hydroelectricity:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations_in_the_world

> It is our best option for the decades to come
Maybe when muh thorium molten salt isn't a meme anymore, current uranium reserves aren't THAT plentiful. Even at current consumption we'll hit 3x the current price in like 80 years.

You got to deal with (((Australians))) for uranium

Dangerous and expensive
t. Exxon public relations employee