/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10737275
They dont work as good and are more costly than renewables supplemented with hydrocarbon. oh, and the whole nuclear waste thing.

Almost all the problems are political ones but they are not trivial problems.

>>10737275
Nothing, it's perfectly safe, just get the feed water running comrade.

Just you wait....once I get my fusion reactor working.... I'll be the one laughing

Supporters of Nuclear power need to realize that perception is the most important thing in the world.

Perception of politics, perception of fiat currency, perception of the truth in news.

Perception is the most important metric in our society and almost everything depends on it. What is the one thing Nuclear absolutely fails in? Perception of the public. And therefor will NEVER EVER be adopted no matter the amount of political will and economics you throw at it.

You could start a fucking illuminati organization that controls all banks and corporations and you STILL wouldn't be able to switch to 100% nuclear due to its perception to the public.

Not great, not terrible.

>>10737275
It's not so much the meltdowns, or even the radioactive fallout that people are afraid of, it's the tumors.

>>10737365
you want to know how I know you're autistic?

Shit scaled up military designs that cost more than their weight in gold and tend to explode randomly.
Forget it unless you can make them cheap, useless for nukes, and reliable.

>>10737275
>Why are they so underrated?
NIMBYs

>>10737275
overpriced piece of shits
this is a typical story, 15 years of building and still not ready
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Timeline

>>10737275
>They dont work as good [sic]
Brainlet and wrong.
Fission works better than practically any other source.
>more costly than renewables supplemented with hydrocarbon. oh
t. BP executive shilling the controlled opposition of renewables. Not even trying to hide it now.
Regardless, they are only more costly in terms of start-up costs. Their operating costs are so low that the consumer cost is cheaper per kWh is cheaper than any other source with the exception of hydroelectric.
>oh, and the whole nuclear waste thing.
A non-issue. The amount of material needed is minuscule and waste occupies little space. It is able to be stored in containers that long exceed the half-lives. The sum total of waste generated in the United States throughout its 60+ years of its existence occupies no space than volume a football field with the height of several feet. That's nothing in comparison to the waste generated by coal. The amount of junk photovotaic panels alone takes up more space, and unlike nuclear, is often disposed of improperly and leaches into the enviroment.

>>10737280
>They dont work as good [sic]
Brainlet and wrong.
Fission works better than practically any other source.
>more costly than renewables supplemented with hydrocarbon. oh
t. BP executive shilling the controlled opposition of renewables. Not even trying to hide it now.
Regardless, they are only more costly in terms of start-up costs. Their operating costs are so low that the consumer cost is cheaper per kWh is cheaper than any other source with the exception of hydroelectric.
>oh, and the whole nuclear waste thing.
A non-issue. The amount of material needed is minuscule and waste occupies little space. It is able to be stored in containers that long exceed the half-lives. The sum total of waste generated in the United States throughout its 60+ years of its existence occupies no space than volume a football field with the height of several feet. That's nothing in comparison to the waste generated by coal. The amount of junk photovotaic panels alone takes up more space, and unlike nuclear, is often disposed of improperly and leaches into the enviroment.

>>10737504
Am I a BP executive or a brainlet? Stupid frog. The waste from carbon can actually be returned to the environment, by the way. Spent fuel just fucking...sits there while being toxic all life.

>>10737280
>They dont work as good and are more costly
Off to the infirmary, comrade.

>>10737525
You are a brainlet.
>CO2 good
>nuclear waste bad

>>10737504
>nuclear waste
TBQh they leak nuclear waste all the time, there's no accountability because they're too big to fail even if there is a problem it will be covered up, and oh yeah the reactor area will forever be toxic for all time even if it doesn't melt down.

>>10737280

>>10737275
Its not that underrated.
The initial cost is incredibly big, and there is a ton of regulation roadblocks because of the danger of environmental damage and control of materials for nuclear weapons. Research and approval of new reactor designs is also incredibly costly on time and money, its a big gamble. You can't just make a nuclear power plant.

These are the exact same reasons why molten salt reactors(thorium) aren't used yet either. Its expensive and slow. And its a pretty unknown technology with is own challenges.

Daily reminder that there is no permanent solution for nuclear waste, and the "best" practice is to construct a concrete barrier designed to last for 20 years (meanwhile the waste will be toxic for 100s). Can you imagine 20 years from now? Who will be in charge? Do you trust them? Can you be assured they will handle the material safely? Maybe there will be a budget cut or a recession or a war.

>>10737553
>CO2 good
>nuclear waste bad
unironically "yes." youre a fucking idiot if you dont see why

>>10737525
First let's be clear. BP executives are brainlets relative to actual scientists; the only trait truly favored for such a position is sociopathy. Second that was done in jest, obviously but since you took it literally, you most definitely are a brainlet, brainlet.
>The waste from carbon can actually be returned to the environment, by the way.
Energy intensive process. Maximizing forest areas is the best way.
>Spent fuel just fucking...sits there while being toxic all life.
Yes. It just sits there. And that's not a problem.
>>10737557
>TBQh they leak nuclear waste all the time
They do not.
>there's no accountability because they're too big to fail even if there is a problem it will be covered up, and oh yeah the reactor area will forever be toxic for all time even if it doesn't melt down.
>he fell for the Chernobyl TV series meme
This isn't the USSR. The only case of gross incompetence in first world has been at Fukushima.
>>10737572
The longevity of the containers of the waste exceed their radioactive half-life.

>>10737470
>typical story, 15 years of building
Yeah maybe for eurocucks
The same reactor design as Olkiluoto started several years later and finished first in China, while also being the first of its design. The same thing happened with the AP1000 design as well.

>>10737581
>They do not.
Of course not comrade.

>This isn't the USSR. The only case of gross incompetence in first world has been at Fukushima.
Lies. There have been accidents at Three Mile, Los Alamos, and San Onofre which were covered up, downplayed, and we were told they were "minor".

The US military industrial establishment is just like the USSR in saving face. The journalists are all shill retards MSM members who can't or won't ever rock the boat, and if they do the NSA will know it.

The only way a nuclear accident is ever made public, by anyone, is if it is undeniable -- i.e. the reactor core has exploded as in chernobyl or a meltdown occurred as in three mile, all of which is detectable across the world.

However many smaller accidents can and do happen. Many accidents at Livermore, in Idaho, in other places besides.

>The longevity of the containers of the waste exceed their radioactive half-life.
False.

>>10737598
You're the one who provided no citation for your claim. They do not "leak" waste in the first place. Disposed waste is solid.

>>10737605
The storage of the waste is what (radiocatively) leaks.

>>10737609
t. physics illiterate that knows nothing about the inverse square law

>>10737613
>retard who thinks the waste facilities are being built to specification or being funded.
At San Onofre, the concrete barrier is 5/8th of an inch TODAY and the textbook barrier is supposed to be 10+inches. And the textbook disposal in Nevada, in a purpose built national underground waste storage facility is NOT happening because Harry Reid lobbied the Obama administration to scrap it, so the waste is being kept long term in the designed-for-short-term facilities on site, many of which are also in earthquake danger zones.

>>10737580
Well, last time I checked, nuclear waste didn't pose global threat to humanity on this planet, unlike CO2 in the atmosphere.

>you're a fucking idiot if you dont see why
Oh no, better tell us then, since its so obvious.

>>10737598
>TMI
>Detectable across the world
u w0t

>>10737288
*economic

>>10737609
>>10737618
Seriously how? Can you give us a source? I just genuinely don't know how solid materials are leaking through its concrete containment?
Its not like it would be any danger even if one of these containers split open, it would just be inconvenient and somewhat expensive fix.

>>10737649
Yes you absolutely brainlet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

Same situation in every nuclear site https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/28/17765538/san-onofre-nuclear-generating-station-radioactive-spent-fuel-waste-yucca-mountain

>I don’t understand how a solid leaks hurr durr
The leak is radioactive decay.

>>10737649
This post right here as exhibit 1 for anyone who thinks what happened at Chernobyl can’t happen in the US.

>>10737683
That's not a source about the claim you made. That's just a Wikipedia page on a storage site.

>>10737687
It is a source, because it explains what I said almost word for word. You didn’t even read it.

>>10737687
If you think a solid can’t leak radiation for thousands of years, please go pickup a graphite metal rod that used to be in a nuclear core.

gee, i wonder...
might have something to do with people wanting breathable air?

*is a shitty contractor*
*drops cobalt-60 all over the motorway*

>>10737275
why don't they just build them in the ground so they can pour cement in when shit goes bad

>>10737683
You gave me a link to a inconvenient and expensive clean up and a relatively safe but not optimal storage spot. That people who don't understand radiation are afraid off. Are you trying to prove my point? Even if that storage site would be swallowed by the ocean we would be fine.

>>10737683
>The leak is radioactive decay.
What? I'm absolutely convinced you have no fucking idea what you are talking about now.

>>10737686
It can't. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor(which burns unlike heavy-water) without an containment vessel and with safety features that could be overridden. Worst case and still incredibly unlikely in the US is a meltdown.

>>10737706
Jesus, I didn't know they were pumping Dihydrogen Monoxide straight into the atmosphere like that. I have read that shit is lethal in big quantity's. This changes everything.

>>10737706
anon that is literally water vapor, c'mon you can do better than this

nuclear is the future, why can't we stop being cucked and socialize power production like france, russia, and india so we can actually utilize nuclear power?

>>10737729
The premise for it being unsafe is that the agencies and companies tasked with cleaning the waste are not incentivized to report anything less than a catastrophic accident. Can you trust the US military industrial complex, Southern California Edison, PG&E, and various other megalith nuclear operators fully?

are there power plants that run on decay heat? like a big RTG

>>10737696
The graphite is used as a moderator(Which, unlike actually accelerates the reaction.) in the core. Its not there for containment. Concentrate however is used for containment, and is has not been bombarded by the critical reaction within the core. The spent fuel is only put in that kind of containment once the spent fuel has "cooled" down enough. You should actually read up on this if you are seriously concerned, much of it is way overblown and not based in reality.

>>10737751
I think Terrapower is supposed to be using spent fuel in the reactor, but I haven't really read up on it. It wouldn't just be the heat though, it would still be a critical nuclear reaction powering the reactor.

>>10737741
And that is why we have The International Atomic Energy Agency.

>>10737768
They only get involved at the planning stage and if there’s an accident, not in the daily operations of the plant.

>>10737633
No, political. In theory the economic problems could be resolved by letting the government just run the thing as they should.
The big problems: nuclear proliferation, handling and storing waste, sourcing uranium, all nominally political problems.

>>10737280
Nuclear waste can be converted to nuclear weapons

>>10737374
Radiation doesn't cause tumors you retarded fucking envirofaggot. Nuclear is the future.

>>10737837
>They only get involved at the planning stage and if there’s an accident,
This is not true.
>The IAEA executes this mission with three main functions: the inspection of existing nuclear facilities to ensure their peaceful use, providing information and developing standards to ensure the safety and security of nuclear facilities, and as a hub for the various fields of science involved in the peaceful applications of nuclear technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency

>>10737901
>international agencies which are proven to be corrupt are not corruptible by the US government if it wants to corrupt them.

>>10737912
>which are proven to be corrupt
Everyone is corrupt and everything is a conspiracy.
And proven by the way.

How do you imagine this works? Is Trump paying the massive international organisation hush money so they can continue their unsafe reactor use?

>>10737928
It’s not trump. If there is a minor accident, the IAEA will not be in a position to force the USA to disclose that it occurred if the USA does not want to disclose it.

>>10737945
>It’s not trump
I meant Hillary of course, and proven in her emails. Which is how you know this too right?

>>10737957
It’s the unelected bureaucrats who decide this. The DOE already covered up a bunch of things that later got exposed, TMI for example.

>>10737969
>>10737969
>It’s the unelected bureaucrats who decide this.
Unelected like Hillary, right. I only like the elected ones too. Those damn bureaucrats!

Jesus, just link something already, something criticizing the organisation or whatever, because you are just talking out your ass right now. What TMI cover up for example?

>>10737991
In the USSR, critics were called conspiracytard fearmongers

In the USA, critics are called conspiracytard fearmongers

Fact is, you’re dealing with utilitarian ethics at the kind of large scale organizations required to run nuclear plants. These organizations will always conclude that it is worse to horrify the public and ruin the potential for nuclear energy than to suffer the radiation damage from minor leaks. The calculation will not take into account the fact that truth should always prevail.

Daily reminder that the USA is covered in superfund sites which will never be cleaned up and which constantly leeche toxic pollutants into the soil, groundwater, and air.

>>10738019
>Fact is
>Still no sources
Oh uh.

>>10738021
All thees toxic sites and the US public is still mostly worried about the industry with the strictest control of its waste. Pretty ironic.

>>10738019
You have literally no sources, and it is super easy to find out if these sites are actually leaking radiation, since you can just buy a Geiger counter and check yourself.

>>10737275
More like overrated as fuck

>>10737382
perception?

>>10737275
People are stupid
People are allowed to elect politicians
Politicians have authority over national infrastructure
Also, le solar energy meme

>>10737686
>a guy who obviously doesn't work at a nuclear power plant is exhibit 1 for anyone who thinks what happened at Chernobyl cant happen in the US
Throws yourself off a bridge holy shit

>>10738359
Nuclear power thrives in almost every nation with state controlled power generation, yet fails when private companies are in charge, I wonder why.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_whistleblowers

If you could design reactors that run exclusively on automation and with very few human decision makers, I think it could be safe.

>>10738060
Solar isn't?

>>10737706
Low quality bait, nobody is that stupid to post this unironically

>>10737696
You need to start getting info from better sources than just watching hbo's tv show.

>>10738391
I'm not for privatising most of public infrastructure. My point is that politics hold back the development of nuclear energy

>>10737572
We have different reactor designs that minimize waste and even other designs that use the waste as fuel being still radioactive and all. Besides, we can further develop laser technology specifically for destroying nuclear waste if these routes are not pursued.

>>10737686
>I have no idea what actually happened at Chernobyl but I HAVE to post something

>>10738521
Nope, it's almost entirely due to up front costs compared to any other source of power, It's just not an investment most companies want to make.

Because it explodes

>>10738666
RBMK reactors cannot explode.

>>10738666

>haha DUDE Chernobyl memes!
>who here from Chernobyl series!
>take him to infirmary at once comrade delusional XDD
>RBMK don't explode bro!
>it's not 3 its 15 gorillion roentgens XDD
>WAAAAAAAAA WAAAAA MUH TYRNOVO MUH FOCUS INTERACTIVE

>>10738735
Delusional.

>>10738751
There he is. There he goes again. Look, everyone! He posted it once again! Isn't he just the funniest guy around?! Oh my God.

I can almost see your pathetic overweight frame glowing in the dark, lit by your computer screen which is the only source of light in your room, giggling like a like girl as you once again type your epic Chernobyl meme and fill in the captcha. Or maybe you don't even fill in the captcha. Maybe you're such a disgusting NEET that you actually paid for a 4chan pass, so you just choose the picture. Oh, and we all know the picture. delusional comrade, isn't it? I imagine you little shit laughing so hard as you click it that you drop your Doritos on the floor, but it's ok, your mother will clean it up in the morning. Oh, that's right. Did I fail to mention? You live with your mother. You are a fat fucking fuckup, she's probably so sick of you already. So sick of having to do everything for you all goddamn day, every day, for a grown man who spends all his time on 4chan posting about a shitty HBO series. Just imagine this. She had you, and then she thought you were gonna be a scientist or an astronaut or something grand, and then you became a NEET. A pathetic memelord. She probably cries herself to sleep everyday thinking about how bad it is and how she wishes she could just disappear. She can't even try to talk with you because all you say is "ITS NOT 3 ITS 15000 ROENTGENS" You've become a parody of your own self. And that's all you are. A sad little man laughing in the dark by himself as he prepares to indulge in the same old dance that he's done a million times now. And that's all you'll ever be.

>>10738766
Take this man to the infirmary immediately.

>>10737280
>renewables
Name ONE SINGLE fully “renewable” form of energy

>>10737580
lol wtf

>>10738766
Put me in the screencap

>>10737591
>finished first in China
bribe the inspectors, hey presto it's ready!

>>10737275
Years of bad publicity and the public understands exactly 0 about it so they just repeat stupid myths and don't trust it.

>>10738891
Geothermal, solar, wind, ocean waves, etc etc.

>>10737580
There is literally nothing wrong with nuclear waste. It is easily managed.

>>10737280
>falling for the renewables meme
lmao, lrn2battery

>>10739829
If that's the case how come we can't touch it?

>>10739830
Wind and solar with storage is already pretty much cheaper than fission.

>>10737365
>perception
this is why our society is collapsing. fucking political sociopaths and no one gives a shit about facts.

>>10739828

Ummm, sorry to tell you this sweaty, but the sun will run out of fuel eventually. It is not renewable.

>>10739852
Then we will use the earth

>>10737275
So how much are you paid for each nuclear shill thread you keep spamming here? Or are you one of the many unemployed cuckgineers from all the plants that shut down recently from being uneconomical?

>>10739850
Sorry Anon, humans are status maximizers. Facts have never been the foremost concern in public discourse of any kind, democracy is a sham.

>>10739912
They get paid as much as you do to ignore intermittency.

Because a couple of Soviet idiots scared everyone

>>10738766
Haha ebig. RbmGAY BTFO X-DDD

>>10739160
>>10740435
newfags

>>10737280
How does that Sierra Club dick taste? I imagine it tastes very hypocritical.

>>10738159
lol

>>10738891
My dick's kinetic energy inside your mom

>>10737275
Because of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard)
Most people like the idea of having more nuclear power once you spell out all the benefit, but do not want a nuclear reactor anywhere near their home.

>>10737275
Why are so many modern things so ugly ?

Besides the incredible danger of pollution that lasts for millions of years continually killing people in all kinds of terrifying ways?

We should be scrapping that for cleaner and much safer power alternatives such as solar, wind, hydro, clean coal, biofuels and so on.

I can't imagine what kind of incredibly shitty evil being you have to be to even suggest building one these death traps even after knowing how dangerous they are.

>>10742130
>Besides the incredible danger of pollution that lasts for millions of years [...]
Reductio ad absurdum
[..] (sic) continually killing people in all kinds of terrifying ways?
They aren't. They have a lower occupation hazard rate than wind workers.
>solar
Requires hundreds of square miles to achieve similar power generation, and that's at peak hours in locations suitable. PV panels have a limited lifespan.
>hydro
Limited as to where, signicant sites are very limited and regardless are disruptive to surrounding ecosystems.
>clean coal
An oxymoron. Coal is incredibly dirty and polluting.
>biofuels
Agriculture is very inefficient and polluting. Wastes thousands of square miles, requires pollutants for yield, and exhausts the land in the long run.
>and so on
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
>I can't imagine what kind of incredibly shitty evil being you have to be to even suggest building one these death traps even after knowing how dangerous they are.
They aren't death traps. They aren't dangerous.
I can't believe how big of a brainlet you have to be to have made this argument. The only reason is to ascribe malice. Emotional and low IQ.

>>10738021
>NJ has the most landfills.
Some memes right themselves

>>10737280
renewables are a meme and a waste of time, honestly more damaging to the environment than nuclear.
The amount of nuclear waste produced per X kwh is pretty minuscule compared to the waste products of coal/ fossil fuels. It can be easily contained and stored, while waste from the alternatives are released uncontrollably.
Also pretty sure thorium reactors would solve many of the waste problems posed by uranium ones while being superior and more safe.

Renewables are objectively shit though. The amount of material needed to build and maintain wind/solar farms is enormous, as is the amount of land that would need to be cleared. Ultimately this would damage the environment more than it ever saves it. All this while being inefficient and producing inconsistent amounts of energy, with problems arising on how to store it in the event of surplus.
Fuck renewables, they are a red herring that fucking hippies have us chasing and ultimately we're going to have to go nuclear at some point if humanity is going to continue prospering.

>>10737275
Because of kikes

>>10737280
This is bait

>>10738042
corruption and coal lobby bribes are a hell of a drug

>>10742562
This.

>>10742581
Coal doesn't irradiate you and dump pollution that lasts longer than humans have been alive on this planet.

10742587
I know you consider ignorance a virtue, but nobody else does

>>10742587
>Coal doesn't irradiate you
In point of fact, it exposes more people to radiation than nuclear. Nuclear doesn't irradiate anyone. Even its workers its workers are exposed to radiation to any significant extent.
>dump pollution that lasts longer than humans have been alive on this planet.
Non-argument. It sealed in containers whose longevity exceeds the half-life of their contents, is placed in secure facilities, is properly disposed of, and the quantity generated is so minute that it scarcely occupies any space relative to the waste of other power sources.

>>10742613
>are exposed
aren't*

>>10742587
You should probably do some reading on coal before you say more stupid shit.

>coal particulates pollution are estimated to shorten approximately 1,000,000 lives annually worldwide.[4] A 2004 study commissioned by environmental groups, but contested by the US EPA, concluded that coal burning costs 24,000 lives a year in the United States.[5] More recently, an academic study estimated that the premature deaths from coal related air pollution was about 52,000.[6] When compared to electricity produced from natural gas via hydraulic fracturing, coal electricity is 10-100 times more toxic, largely due to the amount of particulate matter emitted during combustion.[7]

>"Power plants... are responsible for half of... the mercury emissions in the United States. In New York State winds deposit mercury from the coal-fired power plants of the Midwest, contaminating the waters of the Catskill Mountains. Mercury is concentrated up the food chain, as it is converted into methylmercury, a toxic compound which harms both wildlife and people who consume freshwater fish.

>Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally occurring radioactive isotopes which, if released into the environment, may lead to radioactive contamination.[25][50] Coal plants emit radiation in the form of radioactive fly ash, which is inhaled and ingested by neighbours, and incorporated into crops. A 1978 paper from Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimated that coal-fired power plants of that time may contribute a whole-body committed dose of 19 µSv/a to their immediate neighbours in a 500 m radius.[51] The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation's 1988 report estimated the committed dose 1 km away to be 20 µSv/a for older plants or 1 µSv/a for newer plants with improved fly ash capture, but was unable to confirm these numbers by test.[52]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry

Nuclear energy is unsafe.
-It pollute the Air with Co2 radioactive air, because the water goes in contact with the core radiactive system.
-It pollute the enviromeant with the waste that isn't rinnovable, 300 year to 1'000'000 years to become radioactive like the natural uranium.
-The waste is just buried under the ground and in water of oceans. and it pollute all the environment, animals, us, we eat radioactive things)
-Many disaster happened, the last is to 2011 of Fukushima and was level 7, the highest, and other bis one of level 7 is Chernobyl 1986.
thttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents..

Any options could be geothermal, hydropower with waves, solar, wind.

The nuclear waste buried in the ground and in the oceans is just a really Dangerous thing.

>>10742693
>-It pollute the Air with Co2 radioactive air, because the water goes in contact with the core radiactive system.
Are you really this stupid?
>-It pollute the enviromeant with the waste that isn't rinnovable, 300 year to 1'000'000 years to become radioactive like the natural uranium.
What????
>-The waste is just buried under the ground and in water of oceans. and it pollute all the environment, animals, us, we eat radioactive things
t. has literally no idea how waste is disposed and how contained it is.
>-Many disaster happened,
Only two major incidents happened, only one can rightfully be called a disaster. Both happened due to gross incompetence.

>>10742693
>>10742708

>>10737741
>cant know nuffin
christ you people cant be real

>>10737837
>They only get involved at the planning stage and if there’s an accident, not in the daily operations of the plant.
Blatantly incorrect, there is live uninterrupted cctv feed to the IAEA hq vienna 24/7 from nuclear waste storage sites. Stop pulling shit out of you ass.

>nuke gang BTFO'ing anti-nuclear retards yet again.

>>10738019
You arent a critic, a critic indentifies something in particular and raises specific concerns about it. You think that because you personally dont understand or operate nuclear energy it must be corrupt. You are the epitome of dunning kreuger.

>>10742587
>Coal doesn't irradiate you and dump pollution that lasts longer

>implying pollution just magically disappears after an arbitrary timespan
>implying because you cant see it its not there
Holy shit lmao I fucking cant, please neck yourself.

>>10742830
we've been btfoing their asses since the fucking 50s
the fact that the unwashed masses still eat the green rock bad propaganda is infuriating
I've never met a person who complained about it that actually knew how the fuck a nuclear reactor even worked, or what nuclear waste even was

How long does it usually take to "burn" a fuel rod?
Would it be feasible with more smaller power plants instead of few big one like today?

Seen pictures of people holding fuel pellets in their hands, aren't those things radioactive?

>can turn entire continent into a desolate wasteland after a hiccup
yikes I wonder why.

^^10742892
low IQ post

>>10742896
Are you not replying on purpose?

>>10742891
alpha emitter, not strong enough to penetrate skin
it'll only harm you if you eat it, and eating random shit is something people usually stop doing by the time they're 3

>>10737559
The lads have returned to claim another thread. This image has inspired me to start generating nuclear gang memes

>>10737391
Gen IV and thorium reactors

>>10739828
No one has figured put a viable commercial scale ocean wave/tidal power pkant.

>>10742130
>clean coal
>bio fuels
Is this b8?

>>10742878
6 years, but they do 1/3'rd at a time, so they refuel every 2 years.

There are some smaller designs underway i belive, but those are generally smaller so they are more fail safe. They will still use mutple of them in a powerplant.

The problem is cost, and the size of the reactor is not a huge contributing factor. What is costly is regulations, approval and planning, the infrastructure and the waste. Minimizing it wont reduce this enough to justify it I belive. If you are going for nuclear power, you might as well build big.

>>10742900
>not Class of MMXV

>>10742587
What does coal ash contain trace amounts of?

>>10742918
Spent fuel can still be used as fuel in other types of reactors.

>>10742924
I don't think any are in operation today. As far as I know.

>>10742920

>>10742130
>clean coal

>>10742862
If only you could convince utilities the upfront costs were worth it.

>>10742923
BBQ

>>10738486
Yeah, this is not /x/

>>10737729
Yes, do hydrogen monoxide can actually fill you lungs in seconds forcing all the CO2 and nitrogen you need to breathe out and kill you within minutes

>>10737280
Breeder reactors can use that waste as fuel now, 100x less waste output than conventional light water reactors, a non-issue compared to the damage caused by mining minerals, shipping them and manufacturing unreliable underperforming renewables that don't work well in most places anyway

>>10737368
About as much as a chest x-ray, I've seen worse

>>10738766
This pasta is worthy of a chest x-ray. You did everything right

>>10738766
this is some ancient pasta
I love it

>>10743033
the costs wouldn't be a problem were it not for endless bribes spawning infinite red tape to ban nuclear power

>>10743584
>ancient
anon, 2014 wasn't that long ag-

What would happen, if you decided to detonate a nuke on top of a nuclear power station?

>>10745979
I'm more interested in what happens if it was a neutron bomb...

>>10745979
It would be nuclear a disaster, even worse than Chernobyl.

>>10745979
What would happen if you took the time to learn how to properly use commas?

>>10746038
Is this how you want to use your Saturday?

Super expensive and extremely volatile
Im all for it but I understand why we dont have thousands of plants developing everywhere

>>10746241
>volatile
you understand nothing, you ignorant brainlet

>>10745979
the nuke would explode with its normal yield and the fuel in the reactor won't go critical.

>>10737275
Politics and economics
A: they don't give immediate profit
B: they remind people of the Cold War
C: they are too effective, aka they'd lower the price of energy too much for the linking of corporate interests
D: they depend on a highly educated class of workers, meaning their goals can't be easily manipulated for political gain

The rest is posturing. It's no wonder the Soviet Union was one of nuclear power's biggest proponents, as it allowed them economic independence and unprecedented energy generation. It's also no wonder that they were also incompetent at it, as technocratic interests and necessities were ignored by civilian politicians who did not understand them.

Nuclear power is the key to an economic revolution, but it's hampered by the stupidity and greed of incompetent people.

>>10743033
if only there was a publicly owned utility

>>10746908
>as technocratic interests and necessities
While true this is overly generous to the soviet operators, chernobyl was 100% them being completely fucking retarded with their procedures.

>>10746944
I don't know if 100%
Political meddling stopped them being able to carry out necessary renovations and maintenance

>>10746953
>Political meddling
Goes to retardation.

>>10745078
Name one country which has banned nuclear power, additionally regulatory costs are a very small portion of total costs.

>>10746933
BUT THAT WOULD BE SOCIALISM LITERALLY COMMUNISM DID YOU KNOW HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST

>>10747008
Solution
1. Kill the Jewish bourgeoisie
2. Become Nazbol
3.???????????
4.Nuclear power

>>10747003
Italy, Austria, Denmark and Uruguay iirc

>>10747062
damn really a death blow to the nuclear industry right there

>>10747062
All pretty much non-countries.

>>10747062
So just countries that would be wiped out by a single nuclear disaster?

>>10738766
He didn't post a picture

>>10737470
Olkiluoto is just the result of Areva having to deal with an actual first world nuclear safety authority.

>>10747934
inspectors can't be bribed
>fuck, this has to be safe for real?

>>10737275
Politics mostly. Nuclear power is one of the few realistic options for an inbetween for fossil fuels and renewables, but NIMBYs won't let the government build proper waste sites anywhere.

>>10738159
noice

>>10747996
It's an end. Not an in between.

>>10739832
Because its radioactive as shit while its still unprocessed waste. You can touch many but not all of the post processed materials, the ones you can't touch being used in medical equipment for X-rays and CT Scans and being moderately radioactive.

>>10748300
It's an end if energy from fusion is something more than a meme. Fission could provide enough energy for a while, but it's a technology with limited possibility of growth in the long run.