you embed it in glass and it's perfectly safe
funnily enough the nuclear industry is the only one which actually takes responsibility for its waste. all the others just shit up the atmosphere with coalium and then we all get lung cancer
reminder that treehuggers are directly responsible for climate change. fricking renewable garbage
everything fricking started with dumbass hippies falling for an advertising campaign ran by big oil to shill plastics
and now we are getting round 2 where dumbass hippies are falling for a 'solar good, nuke bad' advertising campaign
Nothing wrong with burying an exploitable energy source for our future generations. Too bad we're too numb-skulled to realize our current generation can exploit it right now.
wojakposters are leftypol homosexuals. can you be surprised they are moronic? i went over there today and actually posted word for word from the communist manifesto and had the morons telling me marx never said that. they don't even know their own ideology.
2 years ago
Anonymous
this post gave me brain damage
stop engaging with politics and your life wont be so shit
Even if we were to throw nuclear waste around in haphazard piles next or on top of dumps, the environmental impact would STILL be far smaller than fossil fuels.
Better than the alternative of not storing it and letting it pollute the air you fricking nimrod.
Also the government has blocked waste recycling programs.
>nooo putting radioactif stuff deep into the ground is bad >doesn't know the Earth's crust is made of radioactive material >doesn't know half the Earth's internal heat is generated by nuclear decay >doesn't know about the Oklo mine in Africa where fission reactions took place billion years ago, waste didn't move more than a dozen meters away from the core of the mine despite water causing erosion in the rocks.
Dumb greentards
You're not replacing the overwhelming reliance on coal with solar and wind. It's just not happening. Those have their own environmental draw backs as well. Nuclear on the other hand is extremely efficient and is extremely clean compared to coal. So stop being a moron and actually look into it.
I forget where I heard it but it goes like this: >You can have the lights on and not meet the "climate targets", or you can freeze in the dark with solar and wind and meet them. The only way to do both is nuclear.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Just use all four, with coal/fossil fuels slowly being phased out. It's not hard. The only issue with nuclear has, and always will be, governments and misinformation. But yeah, solar and wind don't cut it, especially if the "green" crowd want a future of all electric vehicles.
Ideally - the cleanest we've got.
Realistically - THE WORST overall. Not green, and not safe.
So we bury the nuclear waste in the Nevada salt rock. That's fine. There is plenty of space. (but to TRANSPORT it to nevada, is that safe? No? So where are you burying it? Your back yard?)
However, the issue is that the plants themselves are EXTREMELY unsafe. It doesn't matter if we have electricity for 500 years if a single plant destroys millions of people. Further, nuclear plants emit radiation within some miles of their existence, and inside the plants themselves. The radiation is small though <100mSv. But it's still radiation.
Luckily, not too many disasters have happened, compared to the number of plants that are running, fukushima, chernobyl, 3-mile, (also pic related) etc, etc
But to build and run these things without failures takes highly skilled nuclear engineers, and manufacture of lots of equipment, production, ore, etc. The energy source relies on a VAST amount of first world supply chains, and education. Meaning some solid, good people have to run this shit.
And they're EXPENSIVE to build and run as well.
Coal, burn it. > The byproduct pollutes the atmosphere?
Filter it as best we can.
I think there's going to be more of these disasters in the future. Just based on how the world is progressing. We assume skilled engineers are going to continue to be educated, and dutiful, while the education system, and the rest of the world, the political system, government, that support these hard-wroking engineers becomes utter garbage, filled with drug use and violent opinions. The west is becoming infested with utter garbage from every race and culture imaginable, and such washing is destroying the moral fabric that keeps people feeling like they want to contribute.
So yes it's technically most "clean" we've got, but I don't want to live a thousand miles from any of these frickers.
gigamoron spotted. not even CAPITALIZING words can make you sound intelligent.
>lets build a googolplex aluminum and concrete skycrappers that require constant maintenence, and lets cover the earth in rare earth heavy panels that require 4 times the surface area of what is powering, that's 100% green.
>waste
There's a reason there are no operational long-term storage facilities.
This, so-called, "waste" is perfectly fissile material that needs to be refined or just chucked in a fast-spectrum breeder.
But stupid laws stand in the way - except in France.
Doesn't matter if it's green or not, nuclear is the only real answer to the energy crisis. Uneducated homosexual treehuggers holding back nuclear power is the root of the problem for the past four decades.
It ain't black but it also ain't exactly green, it's gray.
Tho they do blow up, rarely but it happens and then that area is fricked forever. Still better than everything but hydro, solar and wind.
I don't understand why they're decommissioning existing nuclear plants in places that are already starved for electricity like california, they could end their drought and power issues immediately if they built nuclear plants along the coast that also doubled as desalination plants, instead, they're spending billions on solar and they don't even break even before the panels start to degrade.
nuclear power is expensive, solar/wind is cheap, you just plant those things into ground and they pull money out of thin air, it's like a magic really.
>solar/wind is cheap
Bullshit, at least not if you use energy/$. And if you take into account the operational time of solar (operating at maximum capacity for about 25% of the time) there is no contest.
waste is reusable several times.
Average persons waste generation in a 80 year life span with the average power usage of a Texan is 10 grams
if every human produced 10 grams of waste on the planet, that isn't that much. However if nuclear was that popular I'd assume we'd have figured out ways to use it even further. Also probably have fusion already
No he's not, he's a great resooooooter he wants you to live like a Holodomor era Ukrainian. OR he's a moron who thinks electricity is an energy source.
I don't understand why they're decommissioning existing nuclear plants in places that are already starved for electricity like california, they could end their drought and power issues immediately if they built nuclear plants along the coast that also doubled as desalination plants, instead, they're spending billions on solar and they don't even break even before the panels start to degrade.
>I don't understand why they're decommissioning existing nuclear plants
I'll get called a lolbert for this by morons who are too heavily invested in absolute shit energy like solar and wind, but unironically over-regulation strangles nuclear plants to death because the government is moronic and panders to NIMBYs. Something as simple as upping the output of the plant to meet demand can take over 5 years and millions of dollars in pointless regulatory fees. In that time, regulations can change based on newer, safer, and more efficient technologies, making the regulatory agencies less likely to grant permits.
Ideally - the cleanest we've got.
Realistically - THE WORST overall. Not green, and not safe.
So we bury the nuclear waste in the Nevada salt rock. That's fine. There is plenty of space. (but to TRANSPORT it to nevada, is that safe? No? So where are you burying it? Your back yard?)
However, the issue is that the plants themselves are EXTREMELY unsafe. It doesn't matter if we have electricity for 500 years if a single plant destroys millions of people. Further, nuclear plants emit radiation within some miles of their existence, and inside the plants themselves. The radiation is small though <100mSv. But it's still radiation.
Luckily, not too many disasters have happened, compared to the number of plants that are running, fukushima, chernobyl, 3-mile, (also pic related) etc, etc
But to build and run these things without failures takes highly skilled nuclear engineers, and manufacture of lots of equipment, production, ore, etc. The energy source relies on a VAST amount of first world supply chains, and education. Meaning some solid, good people have to run this shit.
And they're EXPENSIVE to build and run as well.
Coal, burn it. > The byproduct pollutes the atmosphere?
Filter it as best we can.
I think there's going to be more of these disasters in the future. Just based on how the world is progressing. We assume skilled engineers are going to continue to be educated, and dutiful, while the education system, and the rest of the world, the political system, government, that support these hard-wroking engineers becomes utter garbage, filled with drug use and violent opinions. The west is becoming infested with utter garbage from every race and culture imaginable, and such washing is destroying the moral fabric that keeps people feeling like they want to contribute.
So yes it's technically most "clean" we've got, but I don't want to live a thousand miles from any of these frickers.
>And they're EXPENSIVE to build and run as well.
Yes, precisely because literal NIMBYs like you who know jack fricking shit about nuclear and are vehemently against any sort of self education go full moron and demand that the government choke out any and all attempts at creating or maintaining nuclear plants. You're stupid enough to unironically quote Fukushima, the accident where literally everything that could go wrong did go wrong (including a fricking tsunami) and then NOT A SINGLE PERSON DIED FROM RADIATION. Fukushima is the poster child for why people like you are complete fricking morons.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>NOT A SINGLE PERSON DIED FROM RADIATION
Not quite: >1 confirmed from radiation >2,202 from evacuation >Non-fatal injuries >6 with cancer or leukemia >37 with physical injuries >2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns
But considering this happened due to the biggest earthquake ever recorded in Japan and a 40m high tsunami, that's peanuts.
Tsunami caused: >9,747 deaths >6,242 injured >2,556 missing >228,863 relocated permanently
So, yeah.
>Further, nuclear plants emit radiation within some miles of their existence, and inside the plants themselves. The radiation is small though <100mSv. But it's still radiation.
250μSv is the maximum permitted YEARLY radiation release for a nuclear power plant. For comparison: 4mSv (4000μSv!) is a regular dose of radiation you get every year, and 100mSv is the lowest yearly dose linked to increased cancer risk.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ > As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.
what. the. frick. you are literally the biggest fricking fear monger i've seen on IQfy for a long ass while. congrats on that little achievement. every single thing you wrote was dead wrong.
The personnel issue in a nuclear plant isn't one one I've thought of before. They have to be staffed by people that won't go on strike or swayed by political events. Or can they be run by such a small crew that it doesn't matter?
scared-to-fight-the-oil-industry Black folk like you are the reason why IT DIDN'T RAIN EVEN ONCE SINGLE FRICKING TIME IN TWO MONTHS AND I HAD TO PAY HUNDREDS ON IRRIGATION AND STILL MY CROPS WERE SHIT. i won't tell you to kys, because I want you to starve to death you piece of shit
I don't understand why they're decommissioning existing nuclear plants in places that are already starved for electricity like california, they could end their drought and power issues immediately if they built nuclear plants along the coast that also doubled as desalination plants, instead, they're spending billions on solar and they don't even break even before the panels start to degrade.
happening in German too. i'm stunned. it's almost as they want to die
You're not wrong anon, it's scary to think what would happen if the kind of gender confused blue haired troglodytes that have made their way into tech make their way into nuclear engineering.
I still feel burning coal isn't the answer. Maybe burning coal to get to the point where we only have renewables and use renewable energy to maintain and make more renewable energy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I still feel burning coal isn't the answer.
Natgas kills coal because gas burning power houses require far less maintenance and repair.
>The radiation is small though <100mSv. But it's still radiation.
It couldn't be worse than all the onions, microplastics, corn slop, and other cancers we're consuming on a daily basis.
>unsafe
The chernobyl disaster has caused less deaths then a dam break in China. Should we outlaw dams as well. Fukushima, a popular example used as a "modern" nuclear disaster, killed 0 people. A few hundred measured a radiation dose of <10ms and 10 people measured <100. Die average for an American is 1-2ms. Compare this to people living close to coal mines and power plants.
>expensive
Just not true, studies reporting that for example solar energy is cheaper then nuclear do not take into account government subsidies for solar. Given, nuclear has high input cost but it also lasts 2 to 3 times as long as solar.
>waste
It's in a cave, hurting no one. Or better yet in a open hole in Uganda.
the government is up nuclear's ass because they know very well that the industry is one tiny breakthrough or two away from being able to enrich uranium at 1/1000th the current price, after which the entire world order would be instantly FUBAR
I am not one of those "big oil suppressed magic engines that run on water!!" moron conspiracy theorists but I am really suspicious that there has been zero progress on uranium enrichment beyond centrifuges. You've gone through the laser revolution, dirt cheap computing power, 3D printing, and there's never been one thing that just like halves the cost since centrifuges? It's just a relatively simple physics problem. >Technically no, because uranium ore is a finite resource. Practically yes, because we have more than enough of it.
You can electroplate uranium out of seawater for much less energy cost than it would generate as fissile material, the Earth would be completely unrecognizable by the time we literally ran out of uranium in a full fission economy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
A lot of developments are stifled for fear of nuclear proliferation. Breeder reactors can be used to make plutonium, so they're a big no-no, for example.
nimbys literally just blocked a desalination plant in long beach by pretending to give a shit about wildlife conservation and asserted that the desal plant would kill fish and super salinate the water on the coast, but the real reason was that it was literally in their backyard and they thought it was an eyesore.
yea sounds about right, they should just.. get ready for it, not dump the salt back in the water. holy shit wow.
wild life is massively fricked by how they run water already lmao
2 years ago
Anonymous
What are they supposed to do with the brine?
Don't suggest something moronic like a 100 mile long pipeline into the desert.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's Long Beach, sell it as gangsta salt, not to be confused with bath salts.
Yeah until something goes wrong
Proponents always say nothing can go wrong until it does then act like they saw what was wrong all along and idiots just built it anyway
Regardless, pretty sure burning coal has released far more radioactive material than nuclear waste even adjusted for total energy output
Coal contains trace amounts of radioactive material that doesn't get burnt when used to make power, and instead escapes into the atmosphere
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-power-plants
Yes. No matter how dangerous nuclear waste may be the fact that it can be positively tracked, controlled, and contained makes it infinitely less dirty than fossil fuels. Or even renewables because China don't give a shit about properly disposing of manufacturing waste, not to mention that they're burning coal to make solar panels, which kind of defeats the whole fricking purpose of clean renewables.
Obviously not. the waste is radioactive and leaks into naturally occuring water systems well below the surface that you end up drinking. This is how ~~*they*~~ control you. Burn coal like a white man.
Solar - literally power from sand.
Peltier - power from sand, albeit low efficiency.
Bioelectric cells - power from moss, however also look above.
Thats all for now I think.
'Greener' than current coal/fuel methods? Yes.
But since risk involving just little mistakes mean something will go wrong eventually. There's no flawless system made by humans so nuclear will always have that 'high risk high reward' style to it. And honestly I don't think it's worth it.
the military manages to have people live/work with nuclear on a ships generally without incident. The problem isnt nuclear the tech works, its taking shortcuts and regulatory meddling that causes problems.
All nuclear shills will tell you that we solved all problems, that we can reuse the waste and it will only take a few decades, no wait, merely a few centuries, until the stuff degraded enough to not outright kill us.
That solution is expensive. No one will build a power plant capable of doing that. Nuclear plants only can go online if they're heavily subsidized by governments. On its own, no power plant can be afforded or break even, ever. Nuclear power as a concept exists because the science community desperately wants something like fusion energy and settled for the inefficient crap they can pretend to have solved.
France still produces 33 tons of long time radioactive waste that cannot be recycled anymore per year. That's 33 tons per year more than we can handle.
Well then the goverment will just have to pay up, there's no choice here, either we switch everything to nuclear, we give up on having electracy or humanity goes extinct
Feel free to give up. Humanity will prevail without you.
What's the alternative? Coal? Solar? Hydroelectric? Each has their own problems that far outweigh the problems of nuclear. Hydroelectric less so but it requires very specific geography.
the parasitic slave empire that the USA has been subverted into, a fascimile of the British empire before it, is not 'humanity', you disgusting liberal
America was made great, and secured its independence through 19th century policies of investment in public infrastructure and manufacturing, financed through tariffs
we will only conquer the stars if we destroy the parasitic financial, banking, and capitalist classes, establish a national bank to serve as a public utility, abolish income taxes, eradicate the bureaucratic state, seize the assets of those who have looted our wealth, encourage meritocracy and exceptionalism, fund science and technology, and invest in energy infrastructure in the form of MANKIND'S MOST MAGNIFICENT ACHIEVEMENT OF HARNESSING THE PRIMORDIAL ENERGY OF THE UNIVERSE, which will cause productivity and living standards to skyrocket, because the exploited factor in production is nature (energy), not human
What's the alternative? Coal? Solar? Hydroelectric? Each has their own problems that far outweigh the problems of nuclear. Hydroelectric less so but it requires very specific geography.
Well then the goverment will just have to pay up, there's no choice here, either we switch everything to nuclear, we give up on having electracy or humanity goes extinct
is it wrong i find that mildly attractive and want to stick my dick in it? please tell me i am not the only one.
We've got thousands of and thousands of cases of oil and gas being dangerous.
We've got like three cases of something bad happening relating to nuclear.
1. Completely stupid design no one even uses anymore plus slavs can't boil water.
2. Deaths in the ~140s and everyone go as much radiation as an xray scan. Again different design from what we use today.
3. Literal fricking tsunami had to destroy the factory. To this day the Japanese still fish with no issues
>3. Literal fricking tsunami had to destroy the factory. To this day the Japanese still fish with no issues
don't forget tsunami AND earthquake.
Honestly, I don't think much will happen if you stick your dick into the top.
Just a bit of blue Chernenkov radiation, which is really harmless blue light.
What's the alternative? Coal? Solar? Hydroelectric? Each has their own problems that far outweigh the problems of nuclear. Hydroelectric less so but it requires very specific geography.
Hydroelectric has the compounding problem of climate change.
Look at the situation now at Lake Powell and Lake Mead, it's quite dire.
Yes > zero co2 emission while operating > zero methane and other ghgs > minimal land use compared to renewables > uranium is aboundant and available everywhere > can run chp and trigen > can generate process heat > can combine with renewables (solar pv, solar thermal, hydro and pumped hydro mostly)
Don't let the anti nuclear israelite say otherwise. Whatever the german "greens" think isstupid. Nuclear is part of the solution.
G*rmans and israelites, a match made in hell.
Nothing good comes of either of them.
Hydroelectric is fine if you don't push it too hard and manage it properly. Having a backup power source is helpful too. I mean, look at Niagara falls it works flawlessly and reliably because we didn't build it in the fricking desert and there are nuclear reactors for backup.
>is it wrong i find that mildly attractive
You wouldn't be the first
Bunch of brazilians died after playing with radioactive cesium powder because it looked all pretty and glowed blue in the dark
>is it wrong i find that mildly attractive and want to stick my dick in it? please tell me i am not the only one.
I always wondered if it's possible to sneak into a spent fuel holding tank to take a swim
I hear it should be warm and the danger is only when you get really close to the rods
We've got thousands of and thousands of cases of oil and gas being dangerous.
We've got like three cases of something bad happening relating to nuclear.
1. Completely stupid design no one even uses anymore plus slavs can't boil water.
2. Deaths in the ~140s and everyone go as much radiation as an xray scan. Again different design from what we use today.
3. Literal fricking tsunami had to destroy the factory. To this day the Japanese still fish with no issues
Yes > zero co2 emission while operating > zero methane and other ghgs > minimal land use compared to renewables > uranium is aboundant and available everywhere > can run chp and trigen > can generate process heat > can combine with renewables (solar pv, solar thermal, hydro and pumped hydro mostly)
Don't let the anti nuclear israelite say otherwise. Whatever the german "greens" think isstupid. Nuclear is part of the solution.
Don't forget > capable of generating hydrogen isotopes
There's some news articles in the past few months, right when we began to actually figure out fusion, that fusion fuel is actually rare as frick and that scientists are completely disregarding fusion as a way to solve the problem.
yes but for whatever reason leftypol homosexuals hate it because of the moronic hippy generation.
hating technology is moronic. we are human. its what makes us the dominate speciies. if we want to advance we cannot be fearful of it. its like early cave people wanting to ban fire because it burned down their hut sweet hut. but i'm glad they were not listened to because fire changed our lives for the better. all technology is good. don't be a moronic leftypol homosexual.
The entertaining part is when lefties don't realize coal plants give off more radiation than a normal functioning nuclear power plant. Our energy needs wouldn't be an issue if we had fully invested in nuclear but lefties hate anything that actually has a chance of working
>shuts down nuclear power plants because LE BAD >invests billions in muh renewable energy >highest energy prices in the world >ends up burning coal instead >bans diesel cars because "they pollute the environment" while the government keeps burning coal, producing incomparable more emission than any diesel car >their diverse energy portfolio relies heavily on Russian gas in addition to coal and meme pinwheels
If they invested in nuclear technology instead, they would be set for life with cheap energy, and they would not have to pollute the world or worry about Putin's gas. See, this is exactly the kind of backwards logic why the EU is a catastrophe.
So from what I gather, nuclear is bad because it's expensive (because government regulation forces it to be), it's dangerous (because it kills far, far, FAR less people proportionally compared to other methods of energy), it causes waste (that can be sealed away and kept perfectly safe, and in the case that it needs removal and re-disposal that can be done safely too), can be turned off due to mismanagement (like every other form of energy), and because taxpayers get screwed when something goes wrong (again, like EVERY OTHER FORM OF ENERGY).
Did I miss anything? Your low effort screencaps of extremely biased articles were a bit lengthy, so please let me know what else needs to be addressed. Assuming of course you actually read the schlock you're expecting to make your arguments for you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You sound like a deluded leftist who argues that communism works in theory.
2 years ago
Anonymous
except nuclear works in practice
2 years ago
Anonymous
Communism also worked in practice but we know what the result was
2 years ago
Anonymous
so it didn't work
nice talking to you
2 years ago
Anonymous
>ignores everything besides the points that support his predetermined opinion >pretends to have an argument but has noting else to say so he just leaves
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but we know what the result was
Which implies it didn't work
While even the worst incident that's ever happened with nuclear was basically inconsequential
Which means it works in practice, not just in theory
As opposed to communism, which didn't work out at all
There's your stupid argument
2 years ago
Anonymous
>someone elses leukemia is not my problem and doesnt matter.
t. you
2 years ago
Anonymous
Compared to all the other deaths by "safer" energies it really didn't matter, yes
Not to speak about coal
2 years ago
Anonymous
All of your moronic posts assume that pro-nuclear people are saying it's 100% accident-free and safe. In reality, nothing is. However, nuclear energy is markedly safer than any other source, and this is proven statistically.
The question then becomes this: What sources do you have which prove that nuclear energy is more dangerous on average than other forms of energy?
Everyone in the EU told them to not close their nuclear plants and import russian gases, I honestly have a hard time having compassion for them since they're such morons
I hope Germany burns (metaphorically because there isn't anything to burn)
This whole passing the buck game saying you're "green" because you personally don't produce gas or nuclear power while relying on imports, I really, really hope bites them hard. Let a few million freeze.
Everyone in the EU told them to not close their nuclear plants and import russian gases, I honestly have a hard time having compassion for them since they're such morons
I hope Germany burns (metaphorically because there isn't anything to burn)
This whole passing the buck game saying you're "green" because you personally don't produce gas or nuclear power while relying on imports, I really, really hope bites them hard. Let a few million freeze.
>tfw powerless minority in Germany that is completely against what the gov does
What the frick am I supposed to do, it's like the vast majority of politicians and normal Germans have willingly thrown their brain into the blender and decide to the most moronic things possible while telling themselves it'll be fine and willingly believing propaganda that is skewing reality at best or simply untrue
Where do I go???
>Where do I go???
Hope for the absolute worse.
There are plenty of normal people who will figure out the government is responsible for what is happening they just havent personally suffered enough.
As of right now they are willing to take what media says at face value for the minor inconveniences but perhaps when they are broke, hungry and freezing maybe you'll have a critical mass of people actually dig into why they are suffering.
>Hope for the absolute worse.
It's the only thing I have left right now, yeah. Going against the majority of things people commonly accept here has led to me being prepared for a whole lot of shit previously seen as very unlikely but that come in handy now more than ever, but it would still be nice for a larger part of the population to wake up before shit goes really fricking bad here, it's just so unnecessary. Like you can see perfectly fine where everything went wrong and what of things happening now are steering us even closer towards the abyss, it's honestly very frustrating to see people that openly state they agree with what the government does/did in the past. Not sure how this country arrived at the place it's in within the world hierarchy for a lack of better words with so many people being this out of touch with reality now.
>Where do I go???
You tell me.
The Greens are literally what "we" have been warned about for the last 77 years, but since they completely control the mainstream media, no one dares to point that out.
No one wants to live near a thing that can make an entire region uninhabitable and pollutes the earth almost indefinitely. Thank f*ck the outside world isn't comprised of /misc/ schizo midwits that think they know any better. The sooner nuclear power is gone the better. And by then those midwits will have something else to bark about so really it doesn't matter.
you're the midwit here m8
where do you think they get the radioactive fuel to power the reactor? From outer space?
Modern nuclear is very safe and the risk of something going wrong is basically zero. This is even more true for thorium reactors but they won't ever be implemented.
Most of the reason people don't live near Chernobyl is because the government stops them. The radiation level is around 11 micro sieverts per hour in the most extreme cases and less than 2 in other areas which is pretty safe. It also seems pretty livable for all the animals and trees there.
Nuclear is the most reasonable option for "clean energy", solar and wind are trash for a lot of reasons and things like batteries are going to reach their peak efficiency very soon.
tbh the main reason nuclear isn't used more is because it takes over 25 years to become more profitable than coal which means you don't get investors or votes.
the sun is a literal nuclear reactor
moronic lobbyists and middle easterners have set humanity back at least by 200 years by promoting fossil fuels and not allowing nuclear energy to be commonplace and mature
their children will pay the price and i hope they burn in hell as well
Ah yes, the reactor design that's not finalized and does not currently work produces theoretical waste, usually short lived compared to traditional fission reactors.
Your post sounds like a clickbait title.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the whole reactor suffers so much neutron bombardment it becomes nuclear waste.
Even steel becomes nuclear waste.
Tokamak fusion is a nightmare >and they're still using it to boil water...
This always happens when talking about nuclear man
YEAH BRO OBVIOUSLY THE WASTE IS MORE DANGEROUS
THAT IS WHY NUCLEAR IS BETTER
with fossil fuels, everyone is able to say >well the amount my local power station burns is insignificant in the greater scheme of things.
and everyone says this until we are flooding the atmosphere with it and polluting the ocean.
If you have a huge hunk of depleted uranium, no one is going to say >well the amount of radiation my local nuclear power plant produces is insignificant
AND THEY ARE CALLED TO ACTION INSTANTLY
They can't just wave it off and "not my problem" it down the sink
But none of this matters because the world needs climate change to kill off all the useless eaters of the world anyway
>nooo le germany le bad le nuclear le good >implying the frogs couldn't just build dozens of extra nuke plants and export to the rest of Europe for huge profits
but they don't because it was really fricking expensive compared to cheap solar panels backed with cheap russian gas and they probably would have phased out nuke power too if not for supporting their nuke weapon and submarine industry programs.
It's the most based form of energy production that exists. It's clean and very capable.
And even chernobyl - which was basically the worst possible accident that could happen in a nuclear power plant - didn't cause that many deaths or cancer cases. Unless you believe greenpeace lmao
The only reason it's not more common is the never ending fearmongering and people generally not understanding anything about it. I also hate how people act like dumping a ton of shit into the athmosphere by burning fossil fuels doesn't cause all sorts of health issues
We should move towards not needing energy in the first place. We should just burn wood for our heat and that will solve everything. We don't need anything else. As long as you have enough technology to boil water, that should be enough.
It was more about bureaucratic incompetence than about commies, so in a way it's still an anti nuclear series. It's not hard to imagine this level of mismanagement in the US, considering glowies have zero concern for human life.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The creator goes into his thoughts in the podcast and isn't anti nuclear
2 years ago
Anonymous
What the creator means isn't always what viewers hear.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Smooth brain problems
2 years ago
Anonymous
communism can't exist without bureaucracy, bureaucracy is always incompetent.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's also an unavoidable fact of life, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you a bridge.
"Give me shit now, who cares about the consequences in 100 years, I'll be dead anyway"
This is how 99% of people think and always have. If you believe you can change that then you're a fool. They need to see the impact instantly (within weeks) so their survival instinct kicks in, otherwise they won't do shit about it.
All energy has waste products. But depending on whose definition you are using nuclear energy is more efficient than any other power source we can currently develop
yeah, but that doesn't make them part of a global scale conspiracy. The homosexuals that made LoL were also bought by chinese companies, the homosexuals that made forknite also are owned by chinese companies. If every shitty company that was bought by china became part of the owners of the world, it would be unmanagable
Yes. Anyone that tells you otherwise is a Greenpeace NIMBY that got their (uninformed) opinions from the mouths of fossil fuel barons riding on the coattails of the PR disasters of 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima even though fossil fuels per unit of energy are more deadly than nuclear.
I for one wish it were LESS safe and MORE dangerous
I want my nuclear apocalypse and I know it will never happen because even the worst fricking accident that could have ever happened was actually pretty tame in terms of consequences
Sad!
Coal is irrelevant, the discussion whether nuclear should be classified as green is about nuclear getting extra money that would otherwise have gone to actual green shit like wind or solar. Stop being disingenuous.
>actual green shit like wind or solar
No-one tell him.
2 years ago
Anonymous
this. solar and wind waste a frick ton of rare metals. also this
wind or solar aren't as efficient as nuclear is. also, there are more deaths in solar/wind than in nuclear
source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
2 years ago
Anonymous
wind or solar aren't as efficient as nuclear is. also, there are more deaths in solar/wind than in nuclear
source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
wrong solar and wind are harmless to everything except bird
2 years ago
Anonymous
deaths also include the extracting and building process of the eenergies btw
2 years ago
Anonymous
Solar and photovoltaik arent the same thing
Again, stop being disingenuous
2 years ago
Anonymous
I mean, you could use the sun to boil water, but that makes it even more unefficient
wind or solar aren't as efficient as nuclear is. also, there are more deaths in solar/wind than in nuclear
source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
2 years ago
Anonymous
>statistics that only count imminent deaths
How convenient.
not nearly as efficient, ironically enough not even as safe
2 years ago
Anonymous
this. solar and wind waste a frick ton of rare metals. also this [...]
wind or solar aren't as efficient as nuclear is. also, there are more deaths in solar/wind than in nuclear
source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
>Yes I too watch tunderf00t he has the best debunkings
>this nuclear plant from the 1960's is bad guys you totally shouldnt research how to make it safer and more sustainable because this 1960's nuclear plant is bad
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
Which would make the average plant in the US from the 80's which is 20 years later.
2 years ago
Anonymous
With up to date regulation and safety standards. How old do you think our coal plants are?
2 years ago
Anonymous
greentards are actively making plants less safe by stifling any plans for new ones and further development of the technology. it's a whole causal loop of moronation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah, the closest plant to where i live is a second gen nuclear plant that is being kept open way past it's intended lifecycle because frickers have been wienerblocking the newer more modern replacement reactors.
Meanwhile this old as frick reactors has some micro tears in several places, and greengays are using this as "proof" that ALL NUCLEAR is dangerous, pieces of shit also never mention this plant is the only thing keeping away rolling blackouts.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the oldest american plant is 10 years younger than the one in question
what did he mean by this
I heard that the EU just recently stated that nuclear and gas (like natural gas I think) will now be considered "green" energy. Most of the gas comes from... Russia lmao
Why the frick is no one mentioning hydrogen? That shit can be made with solar pretty easily, and on a smaller scale it's small booms, on large scale frick ups it's awesome large booms. Surely explosions that create water, with gas made by the sun from splitting water, is the way
Why is this discussion still being had? It's not the 80's, there is no fear of nuclear annihilation. Anti-nuclear sentiment doesn't make sense, less now than ever.
You'd be surprised. Pretty sure waste management for nuclear is just glass and concrete. A lot of it, sure, but those are cheap materials. Could be wrong, though. I'm guessing the issue with solar and wind are proper recycling of materials.
Nuclear supplemented by Hydro/Geothermal/Wind is the future
Solar panel production creates a ton of pollution
Coal/NatGas/Oil is not "green" as it produces CO2
>sssssssssss >psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss >*explodes* >*renders half your state uninhabitable* >heh, nothing personnel, kid :^)
We have enough junk in space already anyway, and there is literally no way to get rid of it.
Yes. No. But yes.
Windturbines use steel, rare earth elements, need energy storage, and have impact on ecosystems because they emit electromagnetic field as well as infrasound.
Solar is nice, but doesn't really work outside of very high solar exposition like the sahara desert, or nevada desert.
Unironically, yes.
The nuclear waste generated by a single plant is a negligible impact to the environment over the course of it's service life.
>Let's just store that crap in the ground, it's safe how would something bad happen.
> let's just spew our shit everywhere. Nobody will notice will they?
Can't see it from my house
you embed it in glass and it's perfectly safe
funnily enough the nuclear industry is the only one which actually takes responsibility for its waste. all the others just shit up the atmosphere with coalium and then we all get lung cancer
reminder that treehuggers are directly responsible for climate change. fricking renewable garbage
everything fricking started with dumbass hippies falling for an advertising campaign ran by big oil to shill plastics
and now we are getting round 2 where dumbass hippies are falling for a 'solar good, nuke bad' advertising campaign
i want my fricking paper bags bags god damn it
Nothing wrong with burying an exploitable energy source for our future generations. Too bad we're too numb-skulled to realize our current generation can exploit it right now.
Where do you think it was before we mined it?
You don't just find enriched uranium out of the ground moron
>wojakposter
>moronic
every time
wojakposters are leftypol homosexuals. can you be surprised they are moronic? i went over there today and actually posted word for word from the communist manifesto and had the morons telling me marx never said that. they don't even know their own ideology.
this post gave me brain damage
stop engaging with politics and your life wont be so shit
Even if we were to throw nuclear waste around in haphazard piles next or on top of dumps, the environmental impact would STILL be far smaller than fossil fuels.
>if you go digging around in a nuclear waste landfill you might die of cancer in 80 years
vs
>the entire planet is going to turn into venus if we don't stop burning coal, oil, and gas
Damn, what a tough environmental decision to make
>going to turn into venus
Better than the alternative of not storing it and letting it pollute the air you fricking nimrod.
Also the government has blocked waste recycling programs.
Full cycle, moron
that's what world does with its current garbage but instead they ship it to 3rd world countries
>nooo putting radioactif stuff deep into the ground is bad
>doesn't know the Earth's crust is made of radioactive material
>doesn't know half the Earth's internal heat is generated by nuclear decay
>doesn't know about the Oklo mine in Africa where fission reactions took place billion years ago, waste didn't move more than a dozen meters away from the core of the mine despite water causing erosion in the rocks.
Dumb greentards
That's basically all energy generation, except oil and coal store the crap in your lungs, and only nuclear is able to completely replace those
Just flush it down the toilet
better than putting CO2 on the atmosphere
You're not replacing the overwhelming reliance on coal with solar and wind. It's just not happening. Those have their own environmental draw backs as well. Nuclear on the other hand is extremely efficient and is extremely clean compared to coal. So stop being a moron and actually look into it.
I forget where I heard it but it goes like this:
>You can have the lights on and not meet the "climate targets", or you can freeze in the dark with solar and wind and meet them. The only way to do both is nuclear.
Just use all four, with coal/fossil fuels slowly being phased out. It's not hard. The only issue with nuclear has, and always will be, governments and misinformation. But yeah, solar and wind don't cut it, especially if the "green" crowd want a future of all electric vehicles.
moron spotted.
gigamoron spotted. not even CAPITALIZING words can make you sound intelligent.
my brother in Christ, this shit came from the ground
>lets build a googolplex aluminum and concrete skycrappers that require constant maintenence, and lets cover the earth in rare earth heavy panels that require 4 times the surface area of what is powering, that's 100% green.
Better than coal that's for sure.
Its not that bad. Just store it in the middle of nowhere earth has lots of spaces like that.
You can just reuse the waste too.
>waste
There's a reason there are no operational long-term storage facilities.
This, so-called, "waste" is perfectly fissile material that needs to be refined or just chucked in a fast-spectrum breeder.
But stupid laws stand in the way - except in France.
Doesn't matter if it's green or not, nuclear is the only real answer to the energy crisis. Uneducated homosexual treehuggers holding back nuclear power is the root of the problem for the past four decades.
It ain't black but it also ain't exactly green, it's gray.
Tho they do blow up, rarely but it happens and then that area is fricked forever. Still better than everything but hydro, solar and wind.
nuclear power is expensive, solar/wind is cheap, you just plant those things into ground and they pull money out of thin air, it's like a magic really.
>solar/wind is cheap
Bullshit, at least not if you use energy/$. And if you take into account the operational time of solar (operating at maximum capacity for about 25% of the time) there is no contest.
waste is reusable several times.
Average persons waste generation in a 80 year life span with the average power usage of a Texan is 10 grams
if every human produced 10 grams of waste on the planet, that isn't that much. However if nuclear was that popular I'd assume we'd have figured out ways to use it even further. Also probably have fusion already
the nuclear israelite will say yes
> t. oil israelite
No he's not, he's a great resooooooter he wants you to live like a Holodomor era Ukrainian. OR he's a moron who thinks electricity is an energy source.
Meds, now!
It's acceptable to use in our current circumstances, it's not exactly ideal to give money to genocidal presidents.
Wtf are you talking aboutm
I don't understand why they're decommissioning existing nuclear plants in places that are already starved for electricity like california, they could end their drought and power issues immediately if they built nuclear plants along the coast that also doubled as desalination plants, instead, they're spending billions on solar and they don't even break even before the panels start to degrade.
>I don't understand why they're decommissioning existing nuclear plants
I'll get called a lolbert for this by morons who are too heavily invested in absolute shit energy like solar and wind, but unironically over-regulation strangles nuclear plants to death because the government is moronic and panders to NIMBYs. Something as simple as upping the output of the plant to meet demand can take over 5 years and millions of dollars in pointless regulatory fees. In that time, regulations can change based on newer, safer, and more efficient technologies, making the regulatory agencies less likely to grant permits.
Ideally - the cleanest we've got.
Realistically - THE WORST overall. Not green, and not safe.
So we bury the nuclear waste in the Nevada salt rock. That's fine. There is plenty of space. (but to TRANSPORT it to nevada, is that safe? No? So where are you burying it? Your back yard?)
However, the issue is that the plants themselves are EXTREMELY unsafe. It doesn't matter if we have electricity for 500 years if a single plant destroys millions of people. Further, nuclear plants emit radiation within some miles of their existence, and inside the plants themselves. The radiation is small though <100mSv. But it's still radiation.
Luckily, not too many disasters have happened, compared to the number of plants that are running, fukushima, chernobyl, 3-mile, (also pic related) etc, etc
But to build and run these things without failures takes highly skilled nuclear engineers, and manufacture of lots of equipment, production, ore, etc. The energy source relies on a VAST amount of first world supply chains, and education. Meaning some solid, good people have to run this shit.
And they're EXPENSIVE to build and run as well.
Coal, burn it.
> The byproduct pollutes the atmosphere?
Filter it as best we can.
I think there's going to be more of these disasters in the future. Just based on how the world is progressing. We assume skilled engineers are going to continue to be educated, and dutiful, while the education system, and the rest of the world, the political system, government, that support these hard-wroking engineers becomes utter garbage, filled with drug use and violent opinions. The west is becoming infested with utter garbage from every race and culture imaginable, and such washing is destroying the moral fabric that keeps people feeling like they want to contribute.
So yes it's technically most "clean" we've got, but I don't want to live a thousand miles from any of these frickers.
fricking moron doesnt understand the difference between a fail on system and a fail off system
>but to TRANSPORT it to nevada, is that safe? No?
Yes, moron. Engineered casks are made just for that purpose.
>muh transport
you dont know how we transport our nukes do you?
>nukes
in planes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash
>And they're EXPENSIVE to build and run as well.
Yes, precisely because literal NIMBYs like you who know jack fricking shit about nuclear and are vehemently against any sort of self education go full moron and demand that the government choke out any and all attempts at creating or maintaining nuclear plants. You're stupid enough to unironically quote Fukushima, the accident where literally everything that could go wrong did go wrong (including a fricking tsunami) and then NOT A SINGLE PERSON DIED FROM RADIATION. Fukushima is the poster child for why people like you are complete fricking morons.
>NOT A SINGLE PERSON DIED FROM RADIATION
Not quite:
>1 confirmed from radiation
>2,202 from evacuation
>Non-fatal injuries
>6 with cancer or leukemia
>37 with physical injuries
>2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns
But considering this happened due to the biggest earthquake ever recorded in Japan and a 40m high tsunami, that's peanuts.
Tsunami caused:
>9,747 deaths
>6,242 injured
>2,556 missing
>228,863 relocated permanently
So, yeah.
>but to TRANSPORT it to nevada, is that safe?
Unironically yes. Have you seen the tests done to those containers?
This is the most moronic post I have ever seen
Humans: A million dead from lung cancer isn't coals fault, but the 12 dead from a meltdown? Oh god ban nuclear.
>Further, nuclear plants emit radiation within some miles of their existence, and inside the plants themselves. The radiation is small though <100mSv. But it's still radiation.
250μSv is the maximum permitted YEARLY radiation release for a nuclear power plant. For comparison: 4mSv (4000μSv!) is a regular dose of radiation you get every year, and 100mSv is the lowest yearly dose linked to increased cancer risk.
yes
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
> As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.
what. the. frick. you are literally the biggest fricking fear monger i've seen on IQfy for a long ass while. congrats on that little achievement. every single thing you wrote was dead wrong.
It's only July and we already a contender for "moronest post of the year award". Where did you get your 100mSv measurement from?
>moronation: the post
>Source: My Microsoft Bing newsletter
>if a single plant destroys millions of people
Fortunately that never happened even in the most catastrophic scenarios where everything went wrong.
>fukushima
fukushima is now the cleanest place in Japan and maybe the whole earth
>transport
the caskets for used up fuel are literal small bunkers
it's the cleanest and safest energy source we have, its safer than wind power, fewer people have died from nuclear power than from wind
The personnel issue in a nuclear plant isn't one one I've thought of before. They have to be staffed by people that won't go on strike or swayed by political events. Or can they be run by such a small crew that it doesn't matter?
scared-to-fight-the-oil-industry Black folk like you are the reason why IT DIDN'T RAIN EVEN ONCE SINGLE FRICKING TIME IN TWO MONTHS AND I HAD TO PAY HUNDREDS ON IRRIGATION AND STILL MY CROPS WERE SHIT. i won't tell you to kys, because I want you to starve to death you piece of shit
happening in German too. i'm stunned. it's almost as they want to die
You're not wrong anon, it's scary to think what would happen if the kind of gender confused blue haired troglodytes that have made their way into tech make their way into nuclear engineering.
I still feel burning coal isn't the answer. Maybe burning coal to get to the point where we only have renewables and use renewable energy to maintain and make more renewable energy.
>I still feel burning coal isn't the answer.
Natgas kills coal because gas burning power houses require far less maintenance and repair.
>However, the issue is that the plants themselves are EXTREMELY unsafe.
The most moronic statement on IQfy right now.
>The radiation is small though <100mSv. But it's still radiation
Imbecile
btw this pic isn't ouchi
it's a random burn victim
>The radiation is small though <100mSv. But it's still radiation.
It couldn't be worse than all the onions, microplastics, corn slop, and other cancers we're consuming on a daily basis.
He's delusional, get him out of here.
0.03 ETH has been deposited to your account, oil glowie.
>unsafe
The chernobyl disaster has caused less deaths then a dam break in China. Should we outlaw dams as well. Fukushima, a popular example used as a "modern" nuclear disaster, killed 0 people. A few hundred measured a radiation dose of <10ms and 10 people measured <100. Die average for an American is 1-2ms. Compare this to people living close to coal mines and power plants.
>expensive
Just not true, studies reporting that for example solar energy is cheaper then nuclear do not take into account government subsidies for solar. Given, nuclear has high input cost but it also lasts 2 to 3 times as long as solar.
>waste
It's in a cave, hurting no one. Or better yet in a open hole in Uganda.
Your picture is the picture of a 4 degree burn patient. Please do some research and not garbage copypasta.
so the problem is yet again not real and just made up by moronic bureaucrats
the government is up nuclear's ass because they know very well that the industry is one tiny breakthrough or two away from being able to enrich uranium at 1/1000th the current price, after which the entire world order would be instantly FUBAR
I am not one of those "big oil suppressed magic engines that run on water!!" moron conspiracy theorists but I am really suspicious that there has been zero progress on uranium enrichment beyond centrifuges. You've gone through the laser revolution, dirt cheap computing power, 3D printing, and there's never been one thing that just like halves the cost since centrifuges? It's just a relatively simple physics problem.
>Technically no, because uranium ore is a finite resource. Practically yes, because we have more than enough of it.
You can electroplate uranium out of seawater for much less energy cost than it would generate as fissile material, the Earth would be completely unrecognizable by the time we literally ran out of uranium in a full fission economy.
A lot of developments are stifled for fear of nuclear proliferation. Breeder reactors can be used to make plutonium, so they're a big no-no, for example.
liberals, bruh. liberals.
same moronic hippies
different name
At least California has the excuse of being in a geologically active zone with frequent earthquakes. Unlike Germany, for instance...
they can already do this if they used the solar production during the day to desaltinate ocean water
nimbys literally just blocked a desalination plant in long beach by pretending to give a shit about wildlife conservation and asserted that the desal plant would kill fish and super salinate the water on the coast, but the real reason was that it was literally in their backyard and they thought it was an eyesore.
yea sounds about right, they should just.. get ready for it, not dump the salt back in the water. holy shit wow.
wild life is massively fricked by how they run water already lmao
What are they supposed to do with the brine?
Don't suggest something moronic like a 100 mile long pipeline into the desert.
It's Long Beach, sell it as gangsta salt, not to be confused with bath salts.
As long as it doesn't melt down.
Yeah until something goes wrong
Proponents always say nothing can go wrong until it does then act like they saw what was wrong all along and idiots just built it anyway
Regardless, pretty sure burning coal has released far more radioactive material than nuclear waste even adjusted for total energy output
No system is 100% safe
i agree with you, but what the frick does
>...coal has released far more radioactive material...
mean? Coal has other types of pollution.
Coal contains trace amounts of radioactive material that doesn't get burnt when used to make power, and instead escapes into the atmosphere
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-power-plants
Glowing green radiation
Yeah it sure looks like it's green.
regular cum jar in pripyat
Yes. No matter how dangerous nuclear waste may be the fact that it can be positively tracked, controlled, and contained makes it infinitely less dirty than fossil fuels. Or even renewables because China don't give a shit about properly disposing of manufacturing waste, not to mention that they're burning coal to make solar panels, which kind of defeats the whole fricking purpose of clean renewables.
Obviously not. the waste is radioactive and leaks into naturally occuring water systems well below the surface that you end up drinking. This is how ~~*they*~~ control you. Burn coal like a white man.
unironically the best there is so long as you build it properly
Yeah. Especially when you dont cool the reactor
carlos?
Only if you mean makes you glow green
Just watch thunderf00t break down how stupid nuclear is compared to kino wind or thermal energy, both free and safe
>literally sounds like he's choking on wiener 24/7
It just boils water
its ok anon
we have advanced as a species
we can boil sand
...to boil water with the hot sand
I mean... is there literally any other way
Solar - literally power from sand.
Peltier - power from sand, albeit low efficiency.
Bioelectric cells - power from moss, however also look above.
Thats all for now I think.
Billions of people use a kettle every day. Why don't we harness that kettle energyh
>that pic
i know these feels
all the anti nuclear power and anti oil gas power are all crashing economies right now
no worries, we can all go back to coal like germany
'Greener' than current coal/fuel methods? Yes.
But since risk involving just little mistakes mean something will go wrong eventually. There's no flawless system made by humans so nuclear will always have that 'high risk high reward' style to it. And honestly I don't think it's worth it.
the military manages to have people live/work with nuclear on a ships generally without incident. The problem isnt nuclear the tech works, its taking shortcuts and regulatory meddling that causes problems.
No it's more of a blue thanks to cherenkov radiation.
All nuclear shills will tell you that we solved all problems, that we can reuse the waste and it will only take a few decades, no wait, merely a few centuries, until the stuff degraded enough to not outright kill us.
That solution is expensive. No one will build a power plant capable of doing that. Nuclear plants only can go online if they're heavily subsidized by governments. On its own, no power plant can be afforded or break even, ever. Nuclear power as a concept exists because the science community desperately wants something like fusion energy and settled for the inefficient crap they can pretend to have solved.
>2019
>france recycles 96% of the reusable material in spent fuel
France still produces 33 tons of long time radioactive waste that cannot be recycled anymore per year. That's 33 tons per year more than we can handle.
Feel free to give up. Humanity will prevail without you.
Solar and wind until we find a real solution.
the parasitic slave empire that the USA has been subverted into, a fascimile of the British empire before it, is not 'humanity', you disgusting liberal
America was made great, and secured its independence through 19th century policies of investment in public infrastructure and manufacturing, financed through tariffs
we will only conquer the stars if we destroy the parasitic financial, banking, and capitalist classes, establish a national bank to serve as a public utility, abolish income taxes, eradicate the bureaucratic state, seize the assets of those who have looted our wealth, encourage meritocracy and exceptionalism, fund science and technology, and invest in energy infrastructure in the form of MANKIND'S MOST MAGNIFICENT ACHIEVEMENT OF HARNESSING THE PRIMORDIAL ENERGY OF THE UNIVERSE, which will cause productivity and living standards to skyrocket, because the exploited factor in production is nature (energy), not human
Okay so the alternative is we burn coal until civilization collapses. I hope you're happy with that.
What's the alternative? Coal? Solar? Hydroelectric? Each has their own problems that far outweigh the problems of nuclear. Hydroelectric less so but it requires very specific geography.
Well then the goverment will just have to pay up, there's no choice here, either we switch everything to nuclear, we give up on having electracy or humanity goes extinct
It's blue actually.
is it wrong i find that mildly attractive and want to stick my dick in it? please tell me i am not the only one.
>3. Literal fricking tsunami had to destroy the factory. To this day the Japanese still fish with no issues
don't forget tsunami AND earthquake.
>the fukushima onahole
is there a fukshima-tan?
Honestly, I don't think much will happen if you stick your dick into the top.
Just a bit of blue Chernenkov radiation, which is really harmless blue light.
Hydroelectric has the compounding problem of climate change.
Look at the situation now at Lake Powell and Lake Mead, it's quite dire.
G*rmans and israelites, a match made in hell.
Nothing good comes of either of them.
Hydroelectric is fine if you don't push it too hard and manage it properly. Having a backup power source is helpful too. I mean, look at Niagara falls it works flawlessly and reliably because we didn't build it in the fricking desert and there are nuclear reactors for backup.
>is it wrong i find that mildly attractive
You wouldn't be the first
Bunch of brazilians died after playing with radioactive cesium powder because it looked all pretty and glowed blue in the dark
>is it wrong i find that mildly attractive and want to stick my dick in it? please tell me i am not the only one.
I always wondered if it's possible to sneak into a spent fuel holding tank to take a swim
I hear it should be warm and the danger is only when you get really close to the rods
Why is it so pretty bros
I refuse to believe this. radiation is green and that's the end of it.
That poster is just colour blind. Radiation is green and that's scientific fact
yeah I have a degree in nuclear engineering, definitely glows green, kinda like acid, which also glows green, but it has bubbles.
Gamma rays are purple
untrue, the gamma rays in the hulk movie are green.
These days I think we use thorium which can't even blow up.
Can you believe it? Nuclear energy that even slavs can use
We've got thousands of and thousands of cases of oil and gas being dangerous.
We've got like three cases of something bad happening relating to nuclear.
1. Completely stupid design no one even uses anymore plus slavs can't boil water.
2. Deaths in the ~140s and everyone go as much radiation as an xray scan. Again different design from what we use today.
3. Literal fricking tsunami had to destroy the factory. To this day the Japanese still fish with no issues
What's the second one?
Yes
> zero co2 emission while operating
> zero methane and other ghgs
> minimal land use compared to renewables
> uranium is aboundant and available everywhere
> can run chp and trigen
> can generate process heat
> can combine with renewables (solar pv, solar thermal, hydro and pumped hydro mostly)
Don't let the anti nuclear israelite say otherwise. Whatever the german "greens" think isstupid. Nuclear is part of the solution.
Don't forget
> capable of generating hydrogen isotopes
There's some news articles in the past few months, right when we began to actually figure out fusion, that fusion fuel is actually rare as frick and that scientists are completely disregarding fusion as a way to solve the problem.
disregarding fission*
frick
i just fricking hate solar panels and wind turbines
solar towers are ok though
yes but for whatever reason leftypol homosexuals hate it because of the moronic hippy generation.
hating technology is moronic. we are human. its what makes us the dominate speciies. if we want to advance we cannot be fearful of it. its like early cave people wanting to ban fire because it burned down their hut sweet hut. but i'm glad they were not listened to because fire changed our lives for the better. all technology is good. don't be a moronic leftypol homosexual.
not really, but it's way greener than the alternatives
The entertaining part is when lefties don't realize coal plants give off more radiation than a normal functioning nuclear power plant. Our energy needs wouldn't be an issue if we had fully invested in nuclear but lefties hate anything that actually has a chance of working
until we can harvest raw plasma straight from the sun, nuclear will probably be the "greenest" option for us.
Germany rn
>shuts down nuclear power plants because LE BAD
>invests billions in muh renewable energy
>highest energy prices in the world
>ends up burning coal instead
>bans diesel cars because "they pollute the environment" while the government keeps burning coal, producing incomparable more emission than any diesel car
>their diverse energy portfolio relies heavily on Russian gas in addition to coal and meme pinwheels
If they invested in nuclear technology instead, they would be set for life with cheap energy, and they would not have to pollute the world or worry about Putin's gas. See, this is exactly the kind of backwards logic why the EU is a catastrophe.
>because LE BAD
Yes, they are unironically bad and were only profitable because of subventions
So from what I gather, nuclear is bad because it's expensive (because government regulation forces it to be), it's dangerous (because it kills far, far, FAR less people proportionally compared to other methods of energy), it causes waste (that can be sealed away and kept perfectly safe, and in the case that it needs removal and re-disposal that can be done safely too), can be turned off due to mismanagement (like every other form of energy), and because taxpayers get screwed when something goes wrong (again, like EVERY OTHER FORM OF ENERGY).
Did I miss anything? Your low effort screencaps of extremely biased articles were a bit lengthy, so please let me know what else needs to be addressed. Assuming of course you actually read the schlock you're expecting to make your arguments for you.
You sound like a deluded leftist who argues that communism works in theory.
except nuclear works in practice
Communism also worked in practice but we know what the result was
so it didn't work
nice talking to you
>ignores everything besides the points that support his predetermined opinion
>pretends to have an argument but has noting else to say so he just leaves
>but we know what the result was
Which implies it didn't work
While even the worst incident that's ever happened with nuclear was basically inconsequential
Which means it works in practice, not just in theory
As opposed to communism, which didn't work out at all
There's your stupid argument
>someone elses leukemia is not my problem and doesnt matter.
t. you
Compared to all the other deaths by "safer" energies it really didn't matter, yes
Not to speak about coal
All of your moronic posts assume that pro-nuclear people are saying it's 100% accident-free and safe. In reality, nothing is. However, nuclear energy is markedly safer than any other source, and this is proven statistically.
The question then becomes this: What sources do you have which prove that nuclear energy is more dangerous on average than other forms of energy?
Everyone in the EU told them to not close their nuclear plants and import russian gases, I honestly have a hard time having compassion for them since they're such morons
I hope Germany burns (metaphorically because there isn't anything to burn)
This whole passing the buck game saying you're "green" because you personally don't produce gas or nuclear power while relying on imports, I really, really hope bites them hard. Let a few million freeze.
Nothing wrong with Russian gas.
>tfw powerless minority in Germany that is completely against what the gov does
What the frick am I supposed to do, it's like the vast majority of politicians and normal Germans have willingly thrown their brain into the blender and decide to the most moronic things possible while telling themselves it'll be fine and willingly believing propaganda that is skewing reality at best or simply untrue
Where do I go???
>Where do I go???
Hope for the absolute worse.
There are plenty of normal people who will figure out the government is responsible for what is happening they just havent personally suffered enough.
As of right now they are willing to take what media says at face value for the minor inconveniences but perhaps when they are broke, hungry and freezing maybe you'll have a critical mass of people actually dig into why they are suffering.
>Hope for the absolute worse.
It's the only thing I have left right now, yeah. Going against the majority of things people commonly accept here has led to me being prepared for a whole lot of shit previously seen as very unlikely but that come in handy now more than ever, but it would still be nice for a larger part of the population to wake up before shit goes really fricking bad here, it's just so unnecessary. Like you can see perfectly fine where everything went wrong and what of things happening now are steering us even closer towards the abyss, it's honestly very frustrating to see people that openly state they agree with what the government does/did in the past. Not sure how this country arrived at the place it's in within the world hierarchy for a lack of better words with so many people being this out of touch with reality now.
>Where do I go???
You tell me.
The Greens are literally what "we" have been warned about for the last 77 years, but since they completely control the mainstream media, no one dares to point that out.
No one wants to live near a thing that can make an entire region uninhabitable and pollutes the earth almost indefinitely. Thank f*ck the outside world isn't comprised of /misc/ schizo midwits that think they know any better. The sooner nuclear power is gone the better. And by then those midwits will have something else to bark about so really it doesn't matter.
you're the midwit here m8
where do you think they get the radioactive fuel to power the reactor? From outer space?
Modern nuclear is very safe and the risk of something going wrong is basically zero. This is even more true for thorium reactors but they won't ever be implemented.
Most of the reason people don't live near Chernobyl is because the government stops them. The radiation level is around 11 micro sieverts per hour in the most extreme cases and less than 2 in other areas which is pretty safe. It also seems pretty livable for all the animals and trees there.
Nuclear is the most reasonable option for "clean energy", solar and wind are trash for a lot of reasons and things like batteries are going to reach their peak efficiency very soon.
tbh the main reason nuclear isn't used more is because it takes over 25 years to become more profitable than coal which means you don't get investors or votes.
pic rel is endgame
An artificial sun is the endgame with endless power.
>cause globule worming
>harnes storm energies
wa la
nuclear is 100% greenest option
anyway if a nuclear power plant fricks up whole area is now a forest
the sun is a literal nuclear reactor
moronic lobbyists and middle easterners have set humanity back at least by 200 years by promoting fossil fuels and not allowing nuclear energy to be commonplace and mature
their children will pay the price and i hope they burn in hell as well
>the sun is a literal nuclear reactor
To be fair, the sun is a fusion reactor. I don't think anyone would be against that.
people will be against it once it happens
fun fact they still produce nuclear waste
>fun fact they still produce nuclear waste
Ah yes, the reactor design that's not finalized and does not currently work produces theoretical waste, usually short lived compared to traditional fission reactors.
Your post sounds like a clickbait title.
the whole reactor suffers so much neutron bombardment it becomes nuclear waste.
Even steel becomes nuclear waste.
Tokamak fusion is a nightmare
>and they're still using it to boil water...
This always happens when talking about nuclear man
YEAH BRO OBVIOUSLY THE WASTE IS MORE DANGEROUS
THAT IS WHY NUCLEAR IS BETTER
with fossil fuels, everyone is able to say
>well the amount my local power station burns is insignificant in the greater scheme of things.
and everyone says this until we are flooding the atmosphere with it and polluting the ocean.
If you have a huge hunk of depleted uranium, no one is going to say
>well the amount of radiation my local nuclear power plant produces is insignificant
AND THEY ARE CALLED TO ACTION INSTANTLY
They can't just wave it off and "not my problem" it down the sink
But none of this matters because the world needs climate change to kill off all the useless eaters of the world anyway
>nooo le germany le bad le nuclear le good
>implying the frogs couldn't just build dozens of extra nuke plants and export to the rest of Europe for huge profits
but they don't because it was really fricking expensive compared to cheap solar panels backed with cheap russian gas and they probably would have phased out nuke power too if not for supporting their nuke weapon and submarine industry programs.
>for huge profit
Oh boy you know nothing of European energy exchange
Ok, but what happens when the planet runs out of fissile material on top of fossil fuels? What then? Back to the pre-industrial society?
The supply is practically inexhaustible, and the oceans leach it from the crust faster than we could ever use it up.
No, but better than having no power in winter.
Its more of a blueish hue if you look in the reactor.
It's the most based form of energy production that exists. It's clean and very capable.
And even chernobyl - which was basically the worst possible accident that could happen in a nuclear power plant - didn't cause that many deaths or cancer cases. Unless you believe greenpeace lmao
The only reason it's not more common is the never ending fearmongering and people generally not understanding anything about it. I also hate how people act like dumping a ton of shit into the athmosphere by burning fossil fuels doesn't cause all sorts of health issues
Technically no, because uranium ore is a finite resource. Practically yes, because we have more than enough of it.
We should move towards not needing energy in the first place. We should just burn wood for our heat and that will solve everything. We don't need anything else. As long as you have enough technology to boil water, that should be enough.
cartoons have told me that anything relating to radiation is green. so yes.
This guy's usually a homosexual, but his nuclear videos are really good
Yes. You could argue the mining isn't but by that logic wind and solar isn't either.
>wtf nooo hbo told me nuclear is le bad!
I love some parts of that show though
The show was actually great, smooth brains just couldn't understand what the acual message was
It was more about bureaucratic incompetence than about commies, so in a way it's still an anti nuclear series. It's not hard to imagine this level of mismanagement in the US, considering glowies have zero concern for human life.
The creator goes into his thoughts in the podcast and isn't anti nuclear
What the creator means isn't always what viewers hear.
Smooth brain problems
communism can't exist without bureaucracy, bureaucracy is always incompetent.
It's also an unavoidable fact of life, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you a bridge.
>the message
that made-up history is bad?
that soviets were c**ts
...you do realize Chernobyl is historical fiction, right?
commie detected
It had nothing to do with reality apart from the visuals
Yes
yes, you'll glow green, but at the end of the day I prefer to generate my own energy, frick electrical utilities and frick you
"Give me shit now, who cares about the consequences in 100 years, I'll be dead anyway"
This is how 99% of people think and always have. If you believe you can change that then you're a fool. They need to see the impact instantly (within weeks) so their survival instinct kicks in, otherwise they won't do shit about it.
All energy has waste products. But depending on whose definition you are using nuclear energy is more efficient than any other power source we can currently develop
the frick is doing supercell there? they just developed some shitty phone games
>In 2016, the company was bought out by Chinese conglomerate Tencent holdings, taking an 81.4% stake in the company valued at €8.4 billion
yeah, but that doesn't make them part of a global scale conspiracy. The homosexuals that made LoL were also bought by chinese companies, the homosexuals that made forknite also are owned by chinese companies. If every shitty company that was bought by china became part of the owners of the world, it would be unmanagable
Very green, pls invest a few more billion tax payer money
There are plants that can run off the waste now.
such as?
any submarine, I assume. Breeder reactors can do it, but it's less economical
Your assumption is wrong
99% of nuclear waste is contaminated crap, not the actual fuel
>concrete filled barrels put in a cave
vs
>smog, pollution, oil spills and even wars over the oil
>out of sight out of mind
yes
it does you frickall damage, contrary to the pollution you breathe in everyday
>barrels in cave scary
>oil wars and nigh-irreversible pollution? pshh
>bad thing is actually le good because something even worse exists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)
oh i get it
you're just moronic
or baiting
>no argument, but I got this, I just resort to ad hominem
Try not to have nightmares about barrel's in caves tonight
Might hyperventilate and cause you to inhale even more pollution
>is actually le good
Where exactly did I type this?
Are you having a fricking psychotic episode, anon?
>it's bad because... it just is, okay?
KYS moron
The ozone doesn't give a frick about psychology, moron. You'll die from heat or lack of farmable land before you ever even saw a single waste casket.
Who are you quoting? And why did you post an image of yourself?
literally yes
it actually is. images like that are made for morons who cannot conceive the notion of energy/waste ratio. protip: solar panels create much more waste
How long is solar panel waste dangerous to the environment?
>dangerous to the environment
Chernobyl has been reclaimed by nature and is full of lush forests and wildlife.
it's just glass with ultra thin layer of film
>someone says to just stick the nuclear waste up your asse
>moronic germans take it literally
versus
Yes. Anyone that tells you otherwise is a Greenpeace NIMBY that got their (uninformed) opinions from the mouths of fossil fuel barons riding on the coattails of the PR disasters of 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima even though fossil fuels per unit of energy are more deadly than nuclear.
>per unit of energy
cope
I for one wish it were LESS safe and MORE dangerous
I want my nuclear apocalypse and I know it will never happen because even the worst fricking accident that could have ever happened was actually pretty tame in terms of consequences
Sad!
kek what a troll
there's no way that is gonna work
It's all just boiling water
nuclear is great in theory
just like communism
but I bet you hate communism
>nuclear is good because the altright news i watch told me it is, ok?!
Nuclear bad is a leftie talking point though
At least where I live
*nuclear good
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T USE NUCLEAR ENERGY BECAUSE OF THIS ONE POORLY MADE SOVIET-ERA POWER PLANT THAT EXPLODED
>nuclear good only when it suits me for medical reasons
your point being?
want me to dig up every coal related accident with actual consequences?
Coal is irrelevant, the discussion whether nuclear should be classified as green is about nuclear getting extra money that would otherwise have gone to actual green shit like wind or solar. Stop being disingenuous.
>actual green shit like wind or solar
No-one tell him.
this. solar and wind waste a frick ton of rare metals. also this
wrong solar and wind are harmless to everything except bird
deaths also include the extracting and building process of the eenergies btw
Solar and photovoltaik arent the same thing
Again, stop being disingenuous
I mean, you could use the sun to boil water, but that makes it even more unefficient
wind or solar aren't as efficient as nuclear is. also, there are more deaths in solar/wind than in nuclear
source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
>statistics that only count imminent deaths
How convenient.
not nearly as efficient, ironically enough not even as safe
>Yes I too watch tunderf00t he has the best debunkings
who?
>prototype
>had accidents in the 1970s
>operator only admitted to them 4 decades later
But yeah nuclear is extremely safe because the operators say so, just trust them ok?!
nuclear plants are safe if the people operating them are not morons. most if not all of nuclear accidents happened due to human error
>this nuclear plant from the 1960's is bad guys you totally shouldnt research how to make it safer and more sustainable because this 1960's nuclear plant is bad
Which would make the average plant in the US from the 80's which is 20 years later.
With up to date regulation and safety standards. How old do you think our coal plants are?
greentards are actively making plants less safe by stifling any plans for new ones and further development of the technology. it's a whole causal loop of moronation.
Yeah, the closest plant to where i live is a second gen nuclear plant that is being kept open way past it's intended lifecycle because frickers have been wienerblocking the newer more modern replacement reactors.
Meanwhile this old as frick reactors has some micro tears in several places, and greengays are using this as "proof" that ALL NUCLEAR is dangerous, pieces of shit also never mention this plant is the only thing keeping away rolling blackouts.
>the oldest american plant is 10 years younger than the one in question
what did he mean by this
>shit design from the early 60s in a cucked country
Damn bro, how will nuclear ever recover? Whatever you do don't look up coal related deaths.
Seriously, why is everyone ignoring fusion
Isn't it only theoretical? I don't think we have the technology.
This is when the perpetual and zero point energy schizos come out.
Yes. From every depiction I've seen in cartoons and movies, nuclear glows green and looks super cool.
Wow so green
I heard that the EU just recently stated that nuclear and gas (like natural gas I think) will now be considered "green" energy. Most of the gas comes from... Russia lmao
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/eu-parliament-vote-green-gas-nuclear-rules-2022-07-06/
EU politicians are starting to realize that if we have a hard winter this year we are fricked.
More research needs to go into Thorium.
WHY IS EVERYONE FORGETTING ABOUT FUSION
THAT'D BE THE CLEANEST GREENEST FRICKING SHIT AND NOBODY COULD COMPLAIN ABOUT FRICKING WASTE
30 more years
Nah the green one is Radium not Uranium
Why the frick is no one mentioning hydrogen? That shit can be made with solar pretty easily, and on a smaller scale it's small booms, on large scale frick ups it's awesome large booms. Surely explosions that create water, with gas made by the sun from splitting water, is the way
>yes, fission is great, please give us more money
Why is this discussion still being had? It's not the 80's, there is no fear of nuclear annihilation. Anti-nuclear sentiment doesn't make sense, less now than ever.
I love these misleading charts
Smaller means better right, but now compare the costs, and I do mean the actual costs including the waste management
You'd be surprised. Pretty sure waste management for nuclear is just glass and concrete. A lot of it, sure, but those are cheap materials. Could be wrong, though. I'm guessing the issue with solar and wind are proper recycling of materials.
>I'm guessing
and that's the problem. Look up shit instead of making assumptions.
Try sharing information, friend.
A good starting point is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste_disposal
Nothing regarding cost at a glance, but thanks I'll look it over.
>and I do mean the actual costs
How much proportionally is regalatory fees? Be honest.
>>L-l-look it up yourself
I did. Now be honest.
Nuclear supplemented by Hydro/Geothermal/Wind is the future
Solar panel production creates a ton of pollution
Coal/NatGas/Oil is not "green" as it produces CO2
christ, no. Please don't fall off the floaty. That would be a hell of a way to die.
Bro it's an inflatable doll, it'll be okay
Yes
how can I educate myself on nuclear?
my physics/chemistry background isn't great
maybe this question is more suited to IQfy
Is it not feasible to launch our nuclear waste into space?
>sssssssssss
>psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
>*explodes*
>*renders half your state uninhabitable*
>heh, nothing personnel, kid :^)
We have enough junk in space already anyway, and there is literally no way to get rid of it.
Looks plenty green to me.
Yes. No. But yes.
Windturbines use steel, rare earth elements, need energy storage, and have impact on ecosystems because they emit electromagnetic field as well as infrasound.
Solar is nice, but doesn't really work outside of very high solar exposition like the sahara desert, or nevada desert.
No energy is green. That's the ultimate blackpill. You either replace nature or nature replaces you.