We could have had widespread...

Fukushima in 2010 caused a ton of backlash against any new plants. It's the best option we have for base power loads.

Attached: c62.jpg (546x700, 136K)

Because the fossil fuel industry made huge gains when the nukes fucked up in the early stages. Even now they are fighting very hard against renewables but it's much harder to make missinformation stick with a more educated and connected population. Only the real retard idealogues believe the bullshit.

Literally the only reason nuclear is safe is because there are simple alternatives. If they had a captive audience like coal has enjoyed then Chernobyl would happen at some sort of regular period. It's NOT inherently safe, it's safe only if you invest significantly in safety.

We already have a source for cheap, safe nuclear power.

Attached: file.png (733x412, 281K)

Fasciation is common all over not just near rad plants

What happens when a natural disaster hits? Or when war breaks out? The plants are only safe as long as you can maintain semblance of control. History has shown us how quickly things can spiral out of control.

>Seriously, why the fuck do they go "nuclear bad"
muh Chernobyl that killed 40 people
muh jap plant built on fault line that killed no one
muh nuclear waste that we can recycle but cant because of regulation
muh nukes which have only been used twice and it was to end the world's largest conflict
normies are retarded. most people anti-nuclear are anti-everything.

It's not common, it's rare.

>The plants are only safe as long as you can maintain semblance of control
>get rid of prison because if the prisoners start rioting things get dangerous

Perhaps this will help you.
youtube.com/watch?v=jjM9E6d42-M

As an AMD fan, I Kek'd a little.

Yeah fuck that

Attached: 1427408548203.png (285x368, 86K)

user, the sun is like, realllllly far away, you'd need like, a lot of pvc to even get it here.

I'm all for nuclear energy but when your country isn't sourcing the best technology available, it's kinda hard to root for the cause

>my fucking third world county is considering RMBK generator which is bundled with fighter planes and tanks

Also how are we going to recycle it after it burns out?

They started making chernobyl reactors again?

Modern reactors are ridiculously safe. You would be safer living on the top of a nuclear plant than in whatever shithole you're from.

Russia doesn't export RMBK reactor user. When they said they wanted russian nuclear reactor, they meant VVER reactor

Then by all means, do live on top of nuclear plant. Practice what you preach.

translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.friedenskooperative.de/friedensforum/artikel/atomwaffenstandort-buechel-klarheit-zwingend

>Judaism is the world's greatest hindrance
ftfy

170 kms from a huge ass plant. Me and my electricity bills are super happy.

Ashkenazi make me Nazi

user,western nuclear reactors have negative void coefficient.So,when it overheats the reaction rate falls.
user,renewables are unreliable and solar panels generate toxic residue.

But don't feel bad,in the 2060s/70s.when we make solar farms in mercury's orbit it will be really good.

Because then politicians and their special interest groups wouldn't be able to use the "the threat of climate change" as a pretense to get more and more power.

I'm not pol, I supported nuclear power before this thread

Good post. They don't want real solutions they just want to control the population

Yeah, Trump and Putin sure use that tactic a lot

Big fossil keeps pushing renewables through (((NGO))) lobbying and dumb hipsters eat it up.
They know people want to be seen like they're compassionate and care about the environment but they're too lazy to actually do any thinking or research. So they give them these half baked inferior ways to produce electricity, which coincidentally all have huge gaps in power output depending on the weather, pretty much making sure there's a need for fossil fuel power plants to fill those gaps.
>"good goy, let's install this huge field of wind turbines that genocide your native birds and turn the beauty of your countryside into a blade runnery scifi abomination. but hey, they're white and like really sleek and modern so we'll pretend it looks good"
>"oh what's that, it's only generating power like 30% of the time, and the battery tech to store any meaningful power STILL doesn't exist? how are we going to power a city like this?"
>"oh well, I hate to do it but it looks like we still need good old coal as a "fallback", you know just for the majority of the time when these things don't so anything."
>"what a bummer, it just looks like despite all of our best efforts it's impossible to ditch fossil fuels :^(, well at least we still did something and we're using a few percent less coal and oil so everyone is happy"
>"btw don't look at france and their energy prices and emissions, that's antisemitism. here, watch this documentary about Chernobyl instead"

Attached: 1566849152209.jpg (640x464, 57K)

that happens already and is a major factor in keeping earth geologically active and thus habitable

Nuclear energy is unsafe
See Chernobyl

>Just what do you need more energy for?
Money, that raises the standard of living.
You can more or less plot a 0.8 line between quality of life and power use.

Attached: power of power.jpg (1429x808, 230K)

I'm interested in, and educated on the topic of electricity generation, but I'm against nuclear for one simple reason:
If a reactor construction started today, it would be at the very least 10 years or so before it really started paying back over solar or natgas.
I may be dead by that time.

Attached: 1566495966709.png (1800x2890, 574K)

You're such a fucking retard who knows nothing about the subject at hand.
Dunning-Kruger incarnate.

Attached: 1559302838615.png (500x405, 276K)

>What happens when a natural disaster hits? Or when war breaks out? The plants are only safe as long as you can maintain semblance of control. History has shown us how quickly things can spiral out of control.
Build your plants able to ignore natural disasters. Fukushima took a hit from the 3rd most powerful earthquake in recorded history and the only damage the quake did was a few secondary loop pipes leaked. For the record that quake was powerful enough that the GPS had to change the length of a day because the quake changed slightly how fast the earth rotated.

The failures of Fukushima was that they didn't have a low power option to run off their reactors, the interconnecting power lines had been destroyed and they ignored the recommendations to raise the height of the sea wall because they were literally planing on decommissioning the plant later that year.

>radiation illness, mutations and cancer
Not a concern except for two places in the world, and even then it's only a concern for humans. Nature doesn't give a fuck. Life finds a way.

>2010
2010+1

I recall when the oil crunch of the early 2000 hit and sensible people said drill more oil and retards say it would take 7 years to get it online so we need solar power or some retarded shit. That 7 years to get it online is now almost 9 years ago and the USA is a net exporter of oil.

"Nature doesn't give a fuck. Life finds a way."

Attached: file.png (681x383, 276K)

Solar doesn't help much because of all the byproducts involved in harvesting the materials and manufacturing the solar panel themselves. It's just polluting someone else's country instead of our own.

You're a fucking retard.
Being a net exporter of oil isn't a magical solution to all problems. The liquid jew extraction always - every single fucking time - comes with massive political problems.
Look at russia or muslim countries. This is what oil drilling brings.

I hate how everyone focuses on Fukushima as if that was the worst part of 3.11 and not the thousands that died in the tsunami. Fuck these anti-nuke shitters.

>Same with 5G.

Molten Salt reactors are safer and more well-understood than 5G. 5G isn't even an IEEE/IETF standard

It really is a doomsday cult. The same people that screech about pollution in the West are completely mum on the worst offenders, China and India.

It helps a lot, but fossil propaganda pretends that it's within an order of magnitude of fossils.
People who can read and do math will quickly realize that solar is amazing for the environment in the long run, but retards are convinced by fearmongering and think it's time to build another coal plant or shill for thorium, which won't be viable for decades.

Solar panels aren't cheap. Solar needs to be backed by baseload power. It takes far more land to generate solar power per GW than building nukes. I love how you idiots love to pretend to care about the environment but can't consider any consequence that isn't immediately obvious. Go suck Al's cock.

the US is actually number one producer of OIL as of today.

>People who can read and do math will quickly realize that solar is lacking in basically every metric compared to nuclear except feel good propaganda
FTFY

>m-muh land!
>meanwhile USA has entire swathes of unused desert

That's some fucking conjecture.

>cheap energy in the form of nuclear power

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no. Nuclear power is 5 to 10 times more expensive than other forms of electricity.

You're not getting the meaning, the US was back in the 2000s short on oil and dependent on imports not only from Canada and Mexico but also from other oil producing nations. The political commentary at the time was divided between drill more oil and radically reduce oil use. Today the US now exports more oil than it imports thanks to efforts to expand production.

This relates not to some energy crisis but in the context of the conversion that you shouldn't put something off because it will take a few years to get online.

Nice argument, fag. Go back to drinking you Söylent.

>People who can read and do math will quickly realize that solar is amazing for the environment in the long run, but retards are convinced by fearmongering and think it's time to build another coal plant or shill for thorium, which won't be viable for decades.
I like having on demand electricity and no solar system can do that. Battery tech simply isn't up to the job and even if it was it would work even better with a nuclear plant than it would with solar.

Storage is the problem with solar/wind.

>fuck the ecosystem of ugly places, just build it everywhere that people and cute animals aren't
Strange, I thought people who shilled solar were supposed to care about the environment...

>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no. Nuclear power is 5 to 10 times more expensive than other forms of electricity.
It's literally 3rd cheapest, just behind big hydro then coal.

>taking out 0.0001% of desert space will ruin the environment!
Your retarded argument is basically the same shit as "so much for turning the other cheek/tolerant left".
If you genuinely believe it, you're an actual retard.

I see your cumbrain is really putting out the big thinks today.

Attached: soy.jpg (994x745, 162K)

>0.0001% of desert space
So not only do you not care about the environment, you only want to generate an insignificant amount of solar power as well. I just don't understand your strange ways.

They're non-white countries so it would be RAYCIS to say anything.
>nothing lives in the desert
>Strange, I thought people who shilled solar were supposed to care about the environment...
They only care so far as they can virtue signal. Fuck the consequences.

>Emission taxes
Yeah, the state cashing in will save the planet.

>nuclear
>cheap

Attached: 4way.jpg (855x1199, 81K)

>nuclear technology
>Jow Forums
>nuclear is technology

Epic argument. Mind telling me exactly where I'm wrong? Nuclear is by far the best in every single metric and wind and solar only produce power about half the time, actually much less for peak power. The manufacture of solar panels is extremely damaging to the environment, and they have a limited lifespan, after which they're toxic waste. It's not feasible to run a city off of solar and wind so these "green cities" always have a bunch of coal/gas generators to fill the gaps. Meanwhile nuclear is safe, clean and cheap. It literally has no emissions besides the mining equipment used for mining uranium, and the vehicles used to transport it.
It's in the best interest of big fossil to keep pushing renewables because nuclear makes them redundant while renewables keep them around because they're shit.

>Western economy reliant on cheap labor from those countries
>Said countries have no money or incentive to improve emissions
Capitalism is to blame, unironically

>Nuclear is by far the best in every single metric
It has massive initial cost which means you have to spend millions before getting anything out of them. For literal decade after starting construction, it won't beat solar or even fossil with bank notes used as fuel.
It also doesn't beat solar, wind or hydro in terms of fuel efficiency.
It doesn't beat natural gas in terms of cost efficiency, despite having much cheaper fuel.
In b4
>but if you disregard initial costs and swizzle the numbers around, nuclear starts beating natgas

>wind and solar only produce power about half the time, actually much less for peak power
I'd like to hope that you can understand we wouldn't be replacing 100% of grid with solar and wind, but you almost certainly do mean this stupid shit.
This idea is as stupid as equating
>men are stronger than women
with
>we should replace all women with men, literally everywhere

Solar and wind combined with peaking natural gas, biomass, pumped hydro etc. are perfectly viable.

>The manufacture of solar panels is extremely damaging to the environment
Memes by and for retards.
>after which they're toxic waste
Not as toxic as nuclear waste and far more recyclable.

>Meanwhile nuclear is safe, clean and cheap.
Not as clean as solar and wind and not as cheap as natural gas.

>It's in the best interest of big fossil to keep pushing renewables because nuclear makes them redundant
That's fucking retarded and only a deluded retard could believe this.
You have to be a deluded retard to believe this.

I work at a nuke plant. ama

How many super mutants do you employ?

>It has massive initial cost which means you have to spend millions before getting anything out of them. For literal decade after starting construction, it won't beat solar or even fossil with bank notes used as fuel.
Yeah it takes 10-15 years to pay back it's construction cost then runs for upkeep and fuel for the next 30+ years. 2-4 cents is a reasonable expected average cost over a lifetime operation.

>It also doesn't beat solar, wind or hydro in terms of fuel efficiency.
It actually does if you count the nuclear fusion in the sun fusion hydrogen as the fuel input costs, and in fact beats it by a huge massive amount because the sun is stupid wasteful.
>It doesn't beat natural gas in terms of cost efficiency, despite having much cheaper fuel.
That's 100% driven by the current cost of natural gas. At 2GJ you're correct, at 8GJ that's no longer correct and at $13GJ you really start to question your gas turbines.

>It has massive initial cost which means you have to spend millions before getting anything out of them
Poor forward planning is a sign of retardation, user. Those plants will produce energy for at least half a century, also one of the main arguments for renewables has always been that the cost is worth it if it saves the environment.
>fuel efficiency
Completely arbitrary and dumb metric when the "fuel" for renewables isn't fuel at all.
>inb4 solar is ackchually fusion energy so it's fuel
>we wouldn't be replacing 100% of grid with solar and wind
That's literally what many "environmental groups" are pushing. "100% renewables by 20xx!!!" is a very common slogan. I know it also includes hydro but you can't install hydro plants everywhere. Also hydro is probably the only legit renewable for large scale use, I have no problem with using it as long as it can be done in a way that doesn't fuck up rivers.
>Memes by and for retards.
Literally not an argument. Cadmium, tellurium and many silicone compounds are highly toxic. You can't be seriously arguing that the manufacture of silicone wafers isn't toxic.
>not as clean as solar
Cleaner. No silicone wafer manufacturing, doesn't break down after 25 or so years, waste is actually tiny in volume and weight and can be either reused or put in a box and buried with no interaction with or impact on the environment. Solar produces a fuckton of waste and it's expensive to recycle so a lot of companies just dump it in shithole countries. Not to mention the impact of having to level large areas to accommodate solar panel arrays while nuclear takes up a much smaller space.
>ur a retard, deluded retard, deluded retard, I'll keep saying it to reinforce it
Nothing of value was said

>Same with 5G.
5G is literally useless. Nobody needs these speeds, it's an incredible waste of time and money which could have been spread over the next decades.

>I have no problem with using it as long as it can be done in a way that doesn't fuck up rivers.
If you removed all the dams that the TVA built you would devastate the local environment for some period of time until things changed from lakes back to rivers.
Run of the river hydro electric is shit. You need to build dams to get the efficiency and flexibility of hydro.
Dams don't damage rivers or the environment they just change it. Is a river better than a lake? Is a natural condition superior to an engineered one?

-d-- -e -r -e---f --yu --r ----- ---wy ----?

(Warning: Question may require minimum sperm count for legibility.)

haha nuclear waste does not exist guise!

Solar panels are neither, cheap, nor environment friendly.

They are just another form of non-economically viable electricity production.

New plants are safe. The old ones are not. We have pre-chernobyl reactors running RIGHT NOW because they were scheduled to be decommissioned and replaced in the 90s, but new ones could not be built due to the difficulty of building a new one.

>tfw a few days ago an official report concluded that NO DAMAGE from radiation has been found in Fukushima and there are no risks for the people living there and the future generations

Here's the real decider.

Nuclear Power : Centralized as fuck, completely out of my control

Solar Power : Decentralized as fuck, can't shut mine down without physically disconnecting it

>What happens when a natural disaster hits?
Nothing, unless someone MAJORLY fucked up, in which case a few dozen people die.

>Or when war breaks out?
If 2 nuclear power go to war a fucking nuclear power plant is the LAST thing people should worry about.

> History has shown us how quickly things can spiral out of control.
But there really wasn't any "major" disaster, even when witnessing pure incompetence the consequences were quite minor, just compare Fukushima deaths to some of the major natural disasters.

It doesn't anymore. New gens of nuclear reactors can run off the waste of the old, leaving no waste behind. Also, new gens create no waste.

rt.com/news/188332-mox-nuclear-fuel-production/

"if I pull your helmet off, will you die?"

Here’s the real decider.

Nuclear Power : Centralized as fuck, a few companies building and maintaining the reactors

Solar Power : Centralized as fuck, a few companies building and maintaining the panels

Generating electricity with a wheel in your nearby river on your property : metal af

>New plants are safe. The old ones are not.
Not as safe as we can currently make them but still the safest form of energy production ever used.

Generally I'd consider something as safe it was safer than the alternatives. Measured in overall damage to human health or ecological damage.

I really don't care how many companies produce solar panels after I buy mine. Won't have to buy more for 30 years; if I were rich I could buy extras for when SHTF.

>2019
>STILL nobody found out where to keep the radioactive wastes

>Poor forward planning is a sign of retardation, user.
Irrelevant, because I'm considering all scales.
Pretending that short time concerns aren't real is a sign of autism.
>Completely arbitrary and dumb metric when the "fuel" for renewables isn't fuel at all.
You were pretending that nuclear wins by all metrics. Having to supply fuel is something it obviously fucking fails at. Also waste.
>Also hydro is probably the only legit renewable for large scale use
And solar and wind - especially offshore.
You have to be massively ignorant not to know that solar has made giant leaps in terms of cost efficiency and is the fastest advancing energy source in last few years.
>Cadmium, tellurium and many silicone compounds are highly toxic.
And recycled. And not all are present in all panels.
>Cleaner.
Far, far dirtier.
Nuclear fuel processing alone is blight. It just doesn't get the attention because fossil fuel lobby doesn't care about stopping nuclear as much as it cares about stopping renewables.
Market forces are better at stopping nuclear - it's just too much of an investment to bother with without price guarantees or government gibs.
>Not to mention the impact of having to level large areas to accommodate solar panel arrays while nuclear takes up a much smaller space.
That's a nearly irrelevant meme.
It's comparable to requirement for some nuclear plants to operate near a body of water. It's barely worth mentioning.

We did, then it got shut down by environmentalists. France deals with their waste just fine, america cannot. Waste sits outside stations in massive rusting piles.

Um, sweetie, I saw a show on HBO, nuclear is fucking dangerous and I don't want it near my furbabies. Maybe do a little more research next time, so you don't look so stupid, okay?