>MUH NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS ONLY KILLED LIKE A FEW DOZEN PEOPLE TOTAL!!!
Fukushima displaced 80,000 people of whom 40,000 were still displaced in 2021. It cost $143 billion. If terrorists seize a nuclear facility there are only trivial steps left to building a weapon, Where do people get this idea that nuclear is this totally safe thing that troglodytes are holding humanity back from? Tragedy is not some binary category where every death counts as a '1' and non-death is a '0', people being forced from their homes forever because of a nuclear accident is pretty fricking sad lol.
oh, we're doing the whole statistical abuse of money thing. op, do you have any idea how many billions of dollars of manpower it took to produce the computer chips in your computer, the wifi router you use, the electricity delivered to your house, the money used to educate you on how to use the internet, and the money used to produce the food to keep you alive to make such a post? we're talking literally TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS just for you to make this post. unbelievable waste of money and resources, and you chose to use it to make this post? i'm disgusted. literally shaking. i'll pray for you, and hope you find salvation.
you're just zeroing in on one point I made out of like three. STATE how displaced persons don't count as casualties.
>STATE how displaced persons don't count as casualties.
for starters, they're not fricking dead you colossal homosexual
casualties arent fatalities you absolute mongoloid
he zeroed on that point because your post is cancer inducing and its not worth the effort to correct your moronic nonsense arguments.
has there ever been a thread on this site not made by a homosexual?
I make threads all the time
cause the shitty reactor design was only invested in because it made nuke material
Most reactors around the world are LEU and IIRC none use plutonium in the current year so the terrorism aspect is bullshit. There is bigger risks in medical facilities that leave equipment like in the Goiana incident falling into the hands of terrorists than from having a nuclear reactor running.
>Goiana incident
>On September 13, 1987, the guard who was tasked with protecting the [Goiania] site did not show up for work. He took his family to a screening of the movie Herbie Goes Bananas.[9]
topkeke
Nuclear shit is garbage. Not meant for dumb humans to play around with. Humans ego causes bad shit to happen.
Hydrogen, Oil, natural gas, and wood, and to a limited extend geo-thermal and wind, are the future.
Nuclear, solar, etc. are garbage and poisoning the Earth.
saw this the other day, felt like it was an actual future
Yeah electro pulse boring would be a complete game changer. We could have clean, reliable geothermal energy virtually anywhere on Earth. It even has built in storage by simply leaving the heat underground.
I believe the primary challenge now is developing the alloys and electronics for the drilling machine so it can withstand the temperatures of hot dry granite.
>geothermal energy
>he doesnt know
Wood? The future?
https://vimeo.com/589650406
>Wood? The future?
What's old is new. Steam power back to the future.
>t. brainlet cope
Wood is even worse than coal as an energy source. It's only used as a "zero net carbon" cheat for governments panicking about carbon emissions. Only it's not zero carbon as the plants are generally fired by wood pellets acquired from deforestation, and there are doubts that even a tree farm-fed wood pellet plant would actually be "zero net carbon".
>noooooo a tsunami washed away a power plant next to the FRICKING OCEAN
>this shit is unsafe just like big oil said!
Worst part is that it was completely preventable if only the GEBlack folk hadn't forced TEC to build the emergency generators in the basement. TEC wanted it above the reactor hall but GE-Hitatchi got b***hy and almost pulled out because of it.
it was also preventable if the slant-eyed Black folk followed regulations and flooded the reactor with salt water to prevent a meltdown - which would have ruined their precious expensive reactor
They did use seawater for reactors 1 and 3, they tried to save reactor 2 because it wasn't as bad as 1 and 3 and it hadn't experienced a hydrogen gas explosion. Trying to save it was a lost cause and we know that now, but back then it is understandable as they knew 1 and 3 were fricked and in the end those were the ones who leaked all the radiation anyways.
Didn't they also omit safety upgrades like adding filters to the overpressure-valves (that would have prevented almost all fallout) standard in all reactors of the type outside of japan?
Yes unfortunately, it was a complete shitshow. That being said, it's useless as a case study on the overall dangers because they're like planes. People are pendanticallyafraid of them yet they are the safest form of transportation.
>inb4 737 MAX
Yea, but it's worse than that,
you have to start by getting them up to date on current tech before even starting to argue, as people all out against nuclear tech tend to be stuck in the 1960s, or spewing complete BS not corrected or covered by the media.
e.g. current German minister for economy and climate protection (that's one in Germany) claiming 1000000 years of necessary storage for the unsolved problem of nuclear waste (ignoring recycling and transmutation options)
or the house speaker (same party) remembering the 10000 people the power-plant killed (after they drowned in the tsunami ..).
Transmutation doesn't exist, negative temperature coefficients don't exist, even filters and core-catchers don't exist.
It's hard to begin a decent conversation on hybrid cars with someone holding their ears screaming that we need to ban all cars because of the leaded fuel and should have speed-limits of 20 as there is no way to keep a body from flying through the windshield if you crash into something.
pic related,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNR-300
If you read
and
In this context headlines like this might make more sense:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/germany-welcomes-eu-green-energy-plan-gas-still-opposes-nuclear-2022-01-02/
Got a link where I could read more about this? I never heard about GE insisting on the generator's location before
I tried looking for a hot minute but nothing came up, I think I read it from stackexchange or from an NRC report but it's very difficult to find, closest I found was a lawsuit against GE but it didn't detail the generators and a Japan times article behind a pay wall detailing GE's involvement with the reactor.
Completely agree. morons don't understand for example that the waste issue is a man-made constduct and can easily be solved if worldwide NRCs would quit being anal about proliferation.
>It's hard to begin a decent conversation on hybrid cars with someone holding their ears screaming that we need to ban all cars because of the leaded fuel and should have speed-limits of 20 as there is no way to keep a body from flying through the windshield if you crash into something.
Great example, I'm going to start using this.
>I tried looking for a hot minute but nothing came up
Gotta love modern search engines
ree I wanted to read that
>be solved if worldwide NRCs would quit being anal about proliferation.
Thankfully a main aim behind Gen-IV designs is getting rid of waste without proliferation worries.
So we got a point less to argue about. (and waste easily dealable with if encased in geopolymeres, we got man-made structures older than the storage requirements.)
btw, in case someone mentions that renewables "work" in places like Germany ...
You tend to only see smooth monthly or yearly averages, that look and sound great .. but pic related is what they are actually dealing with, hardly any ability of energy storage, the grid at its limit pretending renewables "work" but actually being based on natural gas power-plants able to quickly react providing almost 100% standby backup, smoothing out the curve as long an there is availability of fuel from Russian pipelines.
.. there is a reason Germany was very reluctant on the matter of sanctions.
>averages, that look and sound great .. but pic related is what they are actually dealing with, hardly any ability of energy storage, the grid at its limit pretending renewables "work" but actually being based on natural gas power-plants able
Perhaps I'm slow, but wouldn't batteries be great at high frequency charge/discharge cycles because they have few moving parts aside from the cooling system? For example, let's assume the total net energy output is roughly the red line. If you run the wind/solar through storage (and assuming you have sufficient storage to cover the peaks/troughs), you would be able to have a continuous, smooth, output on an hour-by-hour basis even though the input may wildly vary.
The problem is the amount, batteries are not a feasible option, hydrogen infrastructure doesn't exist, and is less effective.
Gas plants pretending the production works is the cheapest option but still results in prices as pic related. (pre current increase)
To get an estimate of the volumes we are talking about, Germany would have to annex Scandinavia and build pump storage plants in all suitable fjords to have a working system.
The available options in the alps wouldn't cut it.
We're dealing with having to with having to run a country, including industry on batteries for a week+...
In the context of this thread the most effective co2 neutral option would be micro nuclear reactors with salt storage to use in peak demand scenarios.
Stop thinking advanced monkeys are foolproof enough to safely utilize nuclear power.
Nuclear power is not safe, it isn't worth it.
>Fukushima displaced 80,000 people of whom 40,000 were still displaced in 2021
Nah man, that was the government overreacting and actively caused more damage...
> terrorists seize a nuclear facility there are only trivial steps left to building a weapon
Oh you're moronic. Carry on!
>Fukushima displaced 80,000 people of whom 40,000 were still displaced in 2021.
Three Gorges displaced 2,000,000 people
>Why are nuclear fanboys so autistic?
bc its the only technology that ACTUALLY save humanity, you dolt.
because autists are obsessed with optimization, and nuclear is the optimal solution for global energy needs. NTM nothing makes autists REEEE more than when a normie proposes a worse solution (solar + wind) but people accept it because they make it sound cool where autists will just number bomb and shout facts over other people beliefs.
source: am nuclear autist, regularly watch 4 hour kirk sorenson lectures. Know the whole thorium-238 decay chain by heart.
>If terrorists seize a nuclear facility there are only trivial steps left to building a weapon
lol. lmao, even
Frankly I don't give a frick about the downsides. If we just built redundant nuclear we could combine it with process heat production/storage and bruteforce all our energy problems away for a few centuries. If a few million people get irradiated or some shit it's still worth it.
The safety arguments are just normalgay dickwaving.
>our energy problems away for a few centuries
resources available with current tech (seawater uranium etc.) are sufficient to supply the whole planet with EU style energy consumption for about 4000 years.
>The safety arguments are just normalgay dickwaving.
It's important to point out that anti nuclear arguments are for the most part outdated or lies.
>we need more relaxed, casual nuclear engineers,
looking into the effects of radon on lung cancer we actually found that the linear exposure model usually assumed does not apply in this case.
A little radon (typical indoor) is better than no radon.
In 2042 years, people are going to say
>Sure would be nice to set the AC below 85 due to there being a 115 degree heatwave in Chicago and power rationing being in effect
>Sure would be nice to have extra energy for desalination so we can grow food in California.
>Build more nuclear? But even if we built it, it wouldn't be complete until 2062!
t. Coalshill
Is that just the deaths from acquiring the source? Or say, do car accidents count as oil deaths or home fire deaths from coal barbecuing?
Or when it says coal does it mean blacks? I can never tell with nazis anymore.
>I am just pretending to be moronic
>trivial steps left to building a weapon
sorry, but that is just flat wrong.
the steps may be trivial in theory, like "invent the airplane so you can fly", but in practice no towel headed terrorist can refine nuclear fuel to the weapon stage.
I am glad the world is imploding so larping morons like this can get a taste of what real down bad looks like.
>troglodytes are holding humanity back
True and based
What's with hippies hating on nuclear power simply from an emotional standpoint?
Nuclear plants could power literally everything and also do hydrogen electrolysis so we can have non moronic green vehicles
>you have to start by getting them up to date on current tech before even starting to argue, as people all out against nuclear tech tend to be stuck in the 1960s, or spewing complete BS not corrected or covered by the media.
It's not simply emotional, it's wrong assumptions creating the basis for an emotional response.
e.g. Germans begun phasing out nuclear based on the narrative that the tsunami victims were killed by radiation (ambiguous wording on state-run news), rallied by the green-party, helped by the green-supporting press the "knowledge" of a Japanese high-tech reactor murdering a small city cause it got wet, created the emotional response.
It being a vintage plant omitting simple updates that would have eliminated fallout was never discussed.
Transmutation and negative temperature coefficient reactors completely unknown. Emotions created by ignorance.
This is an extreme example but the general problem.
The basic Principe of making money with environmentalism is:
1. Make adds/pamphlets creating fear.
2. Get money by people being afraid.
3. Use part of money to make more adds/pamphlets to create more fear.
4. Get more money by more people being afraid.
etc.
Interviews of Patrick Moore on how Greenpeace worked when he was still part of it are fun to watch to get a good insight.
Greenpeace and Sierra Club have inflicted irreparable damage to the environment and to the human psyche. Bunch of psychopaths determined to kill people in the name of Mother Gaia. The French were right in sinking that boat. I only wish that they had used a nuclear sub to do it.
a bit more ot but ..
Reminds me that psychologically the movie Avatar is basically a long sparkly Church of Euthanasia commercial.
The basic massage of the movie is:
Humans are evil, the hero is one of the few good humans, and he commits suicide after saving the planet from evil humans. (listen to the narrator at the ending and what is known to happen, not hoped to happen, shown on screen)
And the only explanation for "Avatar Syndrome" a known phenomenon of people getting depressed and wanting to kill themselves after watching the movie was: "It's sooo beautiful CG people are just depressed by living in bleak reality!"
Source on that? I haven't heard about using movies as a suicide scapegoat, but maybe I just didn't kill myself in the right way.
Just look up "Post Avatar Depression Syndrome" PADS, was in the news a little after release.
My different take is based on keeping up to date on research on stuff like mind-uploading during the time, and the uncertainties you're dealing with on the matter. (and reading books on movie psychology & hidden marketing)
.. taken from a purely cold unestoteric perspective avatar is the story of a poor frustrated guy in a wheelchair, tricked into suicide by a giant information copying mushroom.
We are just so used to Humans = Evil that it no longer appears as obvious as it is would be if you didn't take it for granted.
It's almost as creepy as star-trek
https://mangadex.org/chapter/2a2301ad-bd31-4d71-b2a8-852d0e83fb1b/6
I wonder how many people and animals will solar and wind kill indirectly. To be more precise, what going to be the environmental cost of manufacturing so many panels and turbines and batteries. This is not to say that this "renewables" are without merit, just that the position of labeling nuclear as some sort of devil and giving free way to environmental marketers is stupid.