Nuclear is the safest way to make electricity

>2016
>Not accepting nuclear fusion as the one true energy source

Map is obsolete. Germany shut down all its reactors.

This is true. I cringe hard when people hate on it.
Someone signed and shared a petition on shekelbook some time ago to ban nuclear power. When I asked why he refused to answer because 'it's obvious'.

How to we fix stupid, though?

It's genuinely retarded that we just don't send nuclear waste up into space

>safe
>all that radioactive polluting smoke.

Maybe not the safest, but the best there is the universe (that we know of).

And we can't go fusion without first going through thermos nuclear (fission?).

>Annabelle McAllister who is raising up the dead...

>Radioactive water vapor
nope
even if it was, radioactivity disspoears from water extremely quick

Not the safest, but definitely much cleaner than burning coal.

>Not the safest
>only malfunctions were extreme fuckups
>less deaths then solar
Why do you believe the lefty nuclear boogeyman?

we put it in deep vats of water where the radiation can't penetrate to the surface

>liberals don't like coal and oil power
>>Well fine, nuclear is much cleaner and much more efficient
>liberals throw another hissy fit
>>well fine, hydroelectric is a good investment
>liberals throw another hissy fit
>>well fuck, what do you want?
>liberals want wind and solar
>which end up costing more than the electricity they produce
>and being a larger burden on our industry
>which means more pollution

Also, not only is solar power expensive, it is not even a renewable resource. Solar panels have limited lifespans and use rare-earth metals in their construction. Until there's a huge breakthrough like graphene based solar panels, which I believe the chinks have been working on, it stays a joke.

...

this
a molten salt reactor costs 28 - 18 times less then solar/wind would cost if it were to produce the same amount of energy
only leftist cuck babbies pick """"renewables""""

ayy lmao

Thorium is in abundance too. Fuck big oil and coal.

Eating potato chips is more dangerous than nuclear energy.

Ya. Till a monarch swoops in and destroys that shit!

youtube.com/watch?v=QiNRdmaJkrM
youtube.com/watch?v=bOelqGl2Ux0

Which one do I trust? To be pefeclty honest, the blatant appeal to emotion on the second video's beginning already puts me in favor of nuclear.

>High tier
Nuclear
Natural gas

>Mid tier
Hyroelectric
Oil/Coal

>Low Tier
Wind
Geothermal
Photothermal

>Meme Tier
Photovoltaic

So it gives more than 3x the radiation of eating a bag of crisps? Clearly both crisps and nuclear power are evil deadly things like spiders.

We know what to do with the waste, and it is very safe

Fuck outta here, its the best option we have by far

wrong

My room mate and his group for software engineering had to do a sparring round about their projects.
The group they sparred with said we should just send nuclear waste into space.
I think all dropped out atleast.

Maybe, but we gotta first get rid of all the environmentalist dickheads who think that everything humans do ever is a breach against nature.

It's vice versa you illiterate shit

No, Geotermal is

Nuclear waste can be turned back into fuel if you're not worried about making plutonium. Fast fission reactors are extremely fuel efficient.

where does meme energy fit in?

No, but it's by far the best balance between safety, efficiency, and scalability. Has been for decades, but the greenies freaking out over 3 Mile Island stunted nuclear power development in the US, and we're still playing catch-up to the rest of the world.

>knowing this many fancy words
hey nerd..

Geothermal is best desu

Methane Digester masterrace reporting in

The waste is easily disposed of (plasma torching it), the problem lies with radiation.

So it's better just to store it and wait until tech advances in order to give it a useful end.

We are talking about dozens of thousands years of safety required. What kind of construction can last that long?
Don't get me wrong, it is our best alternative for now, but it is unsafe, and the waste are a serious and real threat.

Troll thread

Safest?

That would be solar. Install a panel and it works and if it breaks down, you get a new panel.

I'll just leave this here.

>cucked by "environmentalists"...
Makes me sad...

What happens if shitskin blows himself up there?

When you just take "safe" as a relevant factor, I would say cycling on a stationary bike is safer than nuclear power. Obviously this would be retarded, since safety is not the only relevant factor.

Lol, what a fucking meme

Do you even know how much that would cost to put all across the Autobahn? I doubt it would even make back the money compared to regular roads because of maintenance and repair costs on this new technology

Read the thread faggots
solar is a meme

How about nuclear roadways then?

Just train the workers to work with firearms
or get security guards

youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

Just watch this.
Jews are keeping nuke power from being safe.
Thorium popularisation would revolutionize nuclear power.

how about a molten salt reactor?

It's genuinely retarded that we don't reuse the other 99% of the energy still contained in nuclear waste.

This.

>Solar panels have limited lifespans and use rare-earth metals in their construction.
To be completely fair, there is also the mirror/tower kind of solar power. So a few birds getting torched as they fly too close, still better than all the waste from solar panels.

We could store it in your unused olympic stadiums.

only used 7+1 times

Or maybe use it to print food stamps for your googles or craft coffins for your mass shooting victims.

Lithuania shut its down.

Worst decision made in this country.

Is this even possible in a PC country?
Being suspicious of muslims is "racist". You won't even notice when he blows himself up.

>drop nuclear wast into spaceX rocket
>rocket explodes 20 seconds after lift off
Congrats, you just wasted millions of dollars on a subpar dirty bomb.

Hey that actually a good idea. Theres plenty of arenas standing empty

Con is that they are rarely close to water however, and they are often in the middle of the city

>storing nuclear waste in a shithole like hueland

Sure, I guess. I mean it's not like they could be any dumber or worse off. Could be funny.

It doesn't matter if it's a meme or not. OP asked for safest way to produce electricity.

It's solar.

Is it the most effective? That's not what OP asked.

solar has a bigger deathprint then nuclear so that's false

It depends

If you check dead people/watt produced, im pretty sure it wouldnt be as safe as you think

Even ignoring the explosion risk:
Rockets have very thin hulls. This is necessary to make them lightweight.

This also means they won't shield against highly radioactive waste for shit.

Which has the bonus that it'll probably fry the electronics guiding the rocket.

To shield it, you'd need to add a huge increase in weight so you'd end up spending something like $1bn/launch (which is what I think Saturn V came to), even reduced to lower than that you're probably killing your cost-savings on electricity generation with the costs of waste disposal.

I'm still pro-nuclear, but dumping it in pools of water or underground is preferable for now.

Finally and OP that I can agree with.

Ever seen what happens during a launch gone awry? Might as well crop-dust the globe with fallout because if a vehicle full of nuclear waste goes CATO we are all oh-so fųçķed.

yeah that chernobyl is really safe, you should go live in that general area.

why not just burn the rocket fuel?

Methane digesters is god tier energy
washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/22/how-food-actually-gets-wasted-in-the-united-states/

It happened 30 years ago faggot. Safety, knowledge and technology has advanced

Stop fearmongering like a retarded liberal

>>less deaths then sola
care to explain?

>putting zalgos on "fucked"
What's wrong, why can't you say fuck?
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK, there doesn't that feel better?

Solar mega panels in space, and microwaving the energy down to earth for a future of flying cars and hoverboards for the warrior elite.

So with that logic we can blame nuclear power for every radiation death, ever?

Chernobyl killed only 60 people and ut was a misshandling by the soviets
fukushima had poor design and was old so the japs couldn't get power to the emergency systems
stop believing lefty memes

By watt produced, solar has more deaths inclyding mining, constructing and etc

No faggot, what I meant was that solar has produced so litle energy compared to nuclear that the number of dead people/watt produced would be way more similar compared to nuclear than what you think

>a bunch of russians decide to run an "experiment" on an active nuclear reactor
>disregard all safety protocols
>reactor jumps up to 10 times the normal output before all sensors become destroyed
>reactor probably reached 13-14 times normal output
>reactor gets SCRAMed
>fucking explodes
>cykas blyat for the next 30 years about MUH NUCLEAR

in short, youtube.com/watch?v=7Fo18raOX6M

>Chernobyl killed only 60 people and ut was a misshandling by the soviets
It was a shitty design that nobody but the soviets was stupid enough to use, and one of their PHBs wanted to do experiments to see how long it could go without cooling.

Chernobyl was unsafe even for the standards of those days.

Every single catastrophe that happened in nuclear power plants were because of people trying to safe money, cut corners and general oversight. A proper plant is extremely safe.

the reactor got SCRAMed and that lead to the massive spike in output sorry

So long asyou dont let the Belgians run it.

Belgium is on permanent brink of nuclear meltdown.

Right thank you.

STANDING

I have seen that picture so many times, and i chuckle every time, even though i dont even know what the first guy is saying. Care to translate?

>Nuclear is the safest way to make electricity
Unless you are Japanese. They have such a history of fuck ups they shoudnt be anywhere anything nuclear.

Or French, with Nuclear plants working on Bribe fuel and producing wealth for officials, while facilities are outdated and badly run.

Or Americans, who never heard of security standards and private capital would build anything regardless of how hazardaus it would be.

So correct way to say is 'Nuclear is the safest way for Rosatom to make money from the apes that cant into nuclear energy'

no it isn't simply because of nuclear waste

Thorium reactors do not exist. I'm assuming you are referring to Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) and those using Thorium as fuel do not exist either. A prototype of a MSR was build in the 60's using Uranium as fuel and funding was cut.

ON THE EDGE

You could have at least looked it up before saying something so incredibly pig ignorant
forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#10c73abd49d2

it's probably not a good idea to build them right next to the ocean next to active fault line and have the cooling pumps vulnerable to flooding. The only problem with nuclear power is people fuck it up

>A march on Washington of 65,000 anti-nuclear demonstrators on May 6, 1979, used the March 1979 incident at Three Mile Island to call for the shutdown of the nation’s then-operating 68 nuclear reactors
Fun fact.
No deaths occurred from three mile.
I believe it was between 3-10 deaths occurred from people fleeing from the area by car in a panic

I assume you would have no problem with nuclear reactors on your backyard.

Light and heavy water reactors (which are currently used today) are a very, very old and inefficient design for nuclear fission reactors.Less than 1 % of the solid Uranium used in the rods is converted into energy (the rest of the Uranium is discarded and sent into nuclear waste storage). And yet those nuclear reactors STILL are on par with a standard coal or natural gas plant working at full capacity (think about that for a second). A new design for highly efficient nuclear fission is required. A very promising desig are the so-called molten-salt reactors.

I agree, however there is very little room for private investors to do anything. Partly due to costs, but mainly because of state guidelines, thats the case here in Sweden atleast (we have 9 nuclear reactors)

Its Japanese. They are barbarians that cant into tech, despite what memes make people believe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_incidents

Lots of start-ups in Canada and the US. China is really advanced too.Here's one Canadian company that is claiming they will have working modular reactor ready for market in 2020 ish.terrestrialenergy.com/

it looks pretty cool when demolished youtube.com/watch?v=sD57lXyVUdQ the clip is at the end

I don't underestimate any corporate cost saving in any country. They will always try to save money. It is a problem that needs to be addressed when advocating Nuclear energy

I support nuclear power because with every accident come the chance for a new S.T.A.L.K.E.R

>it's probably not a good idea to build them right next to the ocean next to active fault line

Below seal level is fine though, right?
We haven't had a major flood in decades, and seal levels are only rising slowly.

Muslim explodes taking out a market.
"Don't stare honey, that's their culture."

Belgium has the same reaction designs we have.

They are just scaremongering by shutting them down after every minor incident.
Meanwhile we are doing the smart thing: change the safety standards so the reactors can keep operating.

Yes it is.

You don't bother trying to fix it because there can be no reasoning with the unreasonable.

>Below seal level is fine though, right?
Sure, a nuclear plant or uranium processing plant can be designed to withstand anything short of a direct hit by a meteorite but cosf vs mitigation of risk and human bean counters corrupt the process. Just address itis all I'm saying. It's like saying build the road before the town is built which can can only come from good credible government

You know of course who is to blame

Anyone not in promoting nuclear is retarded. Forget fission for the moment, the whole point is to learn enough to move on to deuterium tritium breeder fusion reactors.

For fucks sake we are right on the edge.

...

The best thing to do is use a reactor design where getting too hot causes the reaction to fail rather than having a runaway meltdown.

Fukushima was just the perfect storm hitting a 50s design reactor with shitty maintenance. The modern Onagawa reactor was closer to the epicenter and shut down just fine.

nuclear is the best we got atm

Recently talked with someone about this and he brought up the point that uranium is just a depletable resource as oil.

Is this really a problem, like is there so much uranium needed for nuclear power that we will 'run out of it' any time soon if we go full nuclear.

Never been to reddit, cocksucker, guess again. Sorry for trying to be polite but since you prefer obscenities, try this:

>> fuck you with the self-righteous herd of horses you rode into this conversation.

>> fuck u

>> fk ewe
Oh by the way...

>> fuck you

If we all massively switch to nuclear, yes.

Also, if your only counterpoint to my original post is to bitch about whatever the fucking fuckitty fuck-fuck you called the letters I chose to use to spell FUCK, you completely goddamn missed tge fucking point, you fucking fucktard.

It's genuinely retarded to waste resources on sending literal garbage into space.

There are other fissionable elements like Thorium.

Also if you lift non-proliferation restrictions, the fuel cycle becomes basically a closed loop.

In Canada we have to pull out fuel bundles before they become fissionable like Plutonium or high elements as per international law. That's a lot of potential energy being lost.

The barrier to getting rid of waste is 'muh atomic weapons' which shouldn't be a legitimate complaint in a 1st world country.

I don't like the hysteria about the topic everywhere.

The current state of nuclear power has flaws. Modern reactors are very safe but the slim chance anything happens can result in something apocalyptic -> bad.

What's worse in my book is the waste. Waste that will be toxic for longer than mankind probably exist -> really stupid.

But instead of seeing those things as flaws that need to be corrected with an otherwise perfect way to energy - people go full blown retard and want to throw it all away.

But maybe I'm just naive here. Like I have no clue about physic and shit. Don't know if it's actually possible to for example speed up the decay time on the toxic waste so it turns into lead within five years.

Nuclear fission is the best way to make energy

and minutes after you left them here, the gypsies come and steal them to sell the copper cables for scrap value.

The modern Japanese office still uses shit like fax machines. IDK if it's to keep people employed but they aren't as into modern technology as you think.

National security still uses fax to protect sensitive information ask illery how even that system can be corrupted to hide her corruption. People fuck it up every time

I nearly crashed when seeing one of those things on the way to Las Vegas. Less safe than nuclear power

True. But after Chernobyl no new power plants will be build here, no chance. After what happened, people will not listen to the arguments. So we are stuck with fucking coal.

we have plenty of failsafes to fix that problem

Molten Salt Reactors are the way to go. I live near ~30 from ORNL/Y-12 and I know a few researchers working on MSR. They mitigate a lot of the safety concerns of current reactors because most of the safety is passive. The fact that solid fuel is not being used is a big factor in this. I'm told that the only reason development was stopped for them is because they couldn't produced nuclear bomb fuel with them. Nowadays we don't care as much about building nukes so they might actually be able do some more research on them.

It's not. Where the hell are you supposed put the waste after years of it piling up?

>Hurr durr space!

>Nuclear is the safest way to make electricity
No, solar power is the safest way. Its literal just a flat panel that sits there. Then you have thermoelectric generator, pieces of metal with no moving parts = nothing that can go wrong.
Then you have coal power, no risk except fire spreading. Wind is also pretty safe but it might fall on some ones head.

There are a fuckton of things that can go wrong with nuclear power.

Greens get pissy when they have to actually confront facts. They got their political clout by appealing to peoples feelings rather than dealing with facts. All they have to do is hug trees, put in place the occasional socialist policy, and rack in the environmental vote that is slowly killing the nation's industry.

I want to know how you Germans feel about the EU mandate to up your renewable usage by 2025. I know the only way you can do it is by backing up any solar and wind facilities with coal/natural gas plants. Hell, because of their demands 23% of your energy comes from burning lignite instead of utilizing your nuclear fleet because it's "bad".

The waste honestly isn't that much of an issue. As was stated earlier in the thread, if we were to work out a different non proliferation agreement that would allow us to enrich old fuel again and test the transuranics, we'd be off to a great start.

Explain. That is just mirrors and water.

See
faggot
also the more failsaves and security the bigger chance ww have of stopping 60ish deaths that only happen if you fuck up in an unrealistic fashio

Sealed casks that can be placed just about anywhere in the ground without allowing the radionuclides spill out. Better yet, we could actually open up Yucca Mountain for use so the casks could eventually be crushed and the nuclides can sorb into the salt flats below it.

Fuck Reid and fuck Nevada (Las Vegas) for falling for the democrat meme.

There's another downside to nuclear energy, besides the waste and the diminished disaster risk.
What is it?

Look at the EROI, look at the cost of maintenance, look at how much energy is lost when moving to storage is big ass batteries and then how much more is lost when traveling over the power lines, and look at how radioactive the panels actually are

Why not just cut out the middle man and go nuclear and keep studying solar until it can actually provide people climates like yours with reliable energy?

Tell that to the Japs.
Fukushima is still Fuckishimaing everything up.
The sea around there is fucked.

I was so happy when that died and all the liberal arts majors stopped telling electrical engineers that it would totally work better than anything ever.

fukushima was an old reactor and the japs fucked up, read up you cunt

You can talk about what's safer or what's more cheaper and more efficient. Yes, face value, solar is safer. But it has so many drawbacks, in that there is this thing called night time, the fact that they degrade overtime, and they're hella expensive to set up. Not to mention you have to buy a new set of panels every few years due to the decreases in efficiency.
Nuclear is more expensive to set up at first, but once you do, the energy is very very cheap and it doesn't spray all kinds of shit into the atmosphere. There are all kinds of designs for safer, more efficient, and better reactors, but people are irrationally afraid of nuclear. In terms of safety, nobody has ever died as a direct result of a nuclear accident in the United States. In fact, nuclear power has a lower impact than coal.
Bottom line solar is cucked.

Get some sources faggot

janleenkloosterman.nl/reports/thesis_swaroop_2015.pdf

youtube.com/watch?v=M7j0N4wMDYc

If nuclear's so great, how come it costs three times as much as normal electricity?

Solar is more dangerous though, people die very often from setting it up and etc, meanwhile chernobyl killed only 60-ish people

>Fukushima is still Fuckishimaing everything up.
What on earth are you talking about? The Fukishima reactor wasn't maintained properly and it was subjected to an earthquake, and STILL the fallout was next to nothing.

If anything, Fukushima was proof that any semi-modern nuclear reactor is so much better and safer than back in the days of Chernobyl

Thunderfoot has some good videos about Fukushima and nuclear power - I recommend them

if solar were the only energy source it would cost your state anywhere between 10x to 28x as much to keep it running
and solar has a way shorter lifespan

>>it costs three times as much
Show me a source faggot

chernobyl is a bad example anyways. they disregarded so many safety considerations and had that disaster coming. many countries have had great success with safety

Sending 1 kilogram of payload to LEO costs a bit under 10000US$ [citation needed from nasa, try spacex for cheaper stuff]

Cheaper to dig a deep hole and cover the waste in concrerte, then just dump it in.

x to 28x as much
source that stat faggot

Agreed.

The downsides of nuclear energy are hilariously insignificant when compared to everything else.

Besides, who wouldn't want all the sandnigger gulf states to go broke overnight.

Solar isnt safer.

People put solar panels on roofs, Falling off a roof can kill you. For every person killed by Chernobyl, Windscale, Kyshtym and a few submarine accidents there have been many more electricians fall to their death off a one story roof.

Also with only Solar you'd have to fill an area the size of West virginia with plants to fill anericas energy needs btw

>gravitybattery.info/
This is the safest and most efficient way to make and store electricity, prove me wrong.
pro tip: You can't.

Because you've regulated the cost of construction to atmospheric heights. It's capital intensive at the start, yes, but fuck sake, it's real cheap once you get them running.

I don't know if this is a surprise to you, but the government likes to pick winners and losers in the energy market because it's a utility. They're stuck at the whim of the people and the people love to feel good about trees and shit, so they subsidize the fuck out of solar and put an enormous amount of regulation upon nuclear facilities.

Can you stop being a fucking retard? Nothing has to be "sent to space", so don't even talk to people who mention that bullshit.

Not only are there modern breeder reactors that produce no waste, there are reactors that run on spent fuel, and there are plenty of ways of disposing the material anyways. The only reason we dump fuel into deep holes, is because nuclear energy is nowhere near as subsidized. as oil and other shit, so they choose the cheap way out.

>a literal meme

I mean, LFTR is a meme right now too, but at least we've made a molten salt reactor before.

>solar
dropped

I'm pro nuclear but I'm realizing that nuclear advocates sound a lot like socialists.

>durr Fukushima doesn't count! They were negligent! We totally won't be negligent when we try it

More or less equates to

>Durrr socialism has never REALLY been tried! It'll be different this time!

Are you guys actually factoring in human nature here?

most efficient with acceptable safety

This is fucking stupid. How could this possibly be efficient? You won't even get back all the energy you put into lifting up the weights, unless you have a magic 100% efficient generator that doesn't exist.

...

Human nature doesn't matter that much as long as they do their jobs, they also have numerous failsafes that the japs didn't

>You won't even get back all the energy you put into lifting up the weights
this is how literally everything in the world works, including batteries

>Hungary still hasn't learned of the laws of thermodynamics

it didn't die.
it got implemented in belgium or the netherlands albeit differently and on a bike path.

And that's stupid because they could've put the panels on sticks and given the bikers shade.

>Because you've regulated the cost of construction to atmospheric heights.

Yeah why would we regulate the construction that could make half the country uninhabitable if it goes wrong? Holy fuck Americans are retarded.

>but fuck sake, it's real cheap once you get them running.

>it's cheap if you ignore most of the cost

Don't be so ignorant, just take off your nuclear googles, and you will see the bright green future.

4th generation nuclear reactors when?

> fukushima doesn't count

It literally doesn't. The fallout is 1000 times less radioactive than the shit Indians flush into the ocean every single day and nobody's protesting about banning indians from this planet (whichthey should)

No, I'm saying a lot of shit went wrong at Fukushima, and the resulting radiation was not comparable to flying on a commercial jet.

To compare it to socialism, people in Chile should be complaining that their brand new cars don't come in their favorite color

Yes, purely by conservation of energy you will, but that's not how the world works. You're not going to be able to make a generator efficient enough to get all that potential energy back.

Nuclear facilities cause cancer hotspots within a 50 mile radius. This is a proven fact. They say nothing escapes the facility, well nothing their instruments can DETECT maybe. But something is escaping and giving people cancer.

>>proven fact
Show me a source on your fact faggot

>muh Fukushima
Read a book nigger

I'm waiting for generation 4 power plants and electric cars.

This is a pretty efficient method of storing energy considering you have 0 chemicals to produce and they won't go bad after repeated use.

>It's genuinely retarded that we don't reuse the other 99% of the energy still contained in nuclear waste.
Finally, someone on this board that understands breeder reactors are a thing.

What studies have you read, m8?

I've seen nothing that can corroborate your claim. Sauce me bruh because nothing I've read from the RERF or any other research project has even been able to support that shit.

>nuclear power is literally the only safe and environmentaly friendly power source
>environmentalists shut it down
why are leftists so fucking stupid?

Never mind that there have only been three nuclear power plants that have ever killed people while thousands of people died falling off roofs. Never mind that Nuclear power has been generating commercially significant amounts of electricity since the sixties while solar has only made a small impact very recently. Never mind that despite anti nuclear campaigners preventing sensible waste disposal, forcing waste to be held in thousands of warehouses all over the world, no one has ever been harmed by it.

Noo, what matters is that nuclear sounds scary and makes the news, a man falling off a roof doesnt.

I am pretty sure batteries give back more than 50% of the energy you gave them.

Because radiation is scary green death magic

The most efficient way to store energy is to keep the energy in the way that you found it. Any time you start going from
solar -> potential kinetic energy -> battery -> generator etc.
you're inherently going to have a lot of losses in efficiency.

Dangerous area is limited.
It's possible to swim in Fukushima beach. I go to Fukushima often.
This is a picture that Prince William stayed in Fukushima last year.

How does it feel, ozzy man, that your nation got cucked so hard by the greens that it doesn't even want to use the shit ton of uranium out in abbo land to create jobs and go near 0 carbon?

I assume you're as pissed as I am that we weren't able to do what the French did in the 70s and 80s and just tell the hippies to go fuck off and build them because of their efficacy.

Sure, but it's not.

>chernobly and fukishima aren't typical
>#notallpowerplants

It's like arguing with a sand nigger muslim.

What would be great is if you could create chemical energy, like dihydrogen from water with the solar power.

Then you would have an easy to stock, easy to move energy that you can freely use when you want.

Go turn that desert in the new Saudi Arabia.

But it is. Your retardation doesn't undo science.

You should probably look at this:

forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#6aa996249d22

You can go be retarded somewhere else now, unless you think that facts don't matter just like the googles in Charlotte and will continue to argue your case.

>Use privatized rockets to mass haul waste
>Spacex Rocket explodes with waste on it
>Radioactive waste all over a large swath of land
>Who wouldve thought

You're cucked if you think that using a 2 edge cases for nuclear power plant disasters when there are literally hundreds of examples of nuclear power plants that have never killed anyone.

Well yeah he doesn't have to worry about becoming grotesquely mutated

>Chernobyl
Run by Russian retards. Look up what happened, they literally turned off the safety systems.

>Fukushima
The response was mostly precautionary. They also skirted safety regulations and failed to update the plant. Read up on that too.

Coal kills way more people anyway.

Sure, but as wind or photons or something else the energy isn't really that useful especially if you consider the situation where you don't have enough power to meet your demand at some time.

It just seems like a good idea. Maybe not useful for the grid, but still with its applications.

Chernobyl and Fukushima are in the same category because the worst possible category of a nuclear accident is "containment failure"
Fukushima is an example of what happens when a modern nuclear power plant is breached. Which is to say absolutely fucking nothing because nearly all of the dozens of redundant safety features still worked as intended despite being hit by a fucking major earthquake and tsunami.
Chernobyl is an example of astounding retardation and every single possible thing going wrong with what few safety features a 1960s-era Soviet reactor had being intentionally deactivated and the entire reactor essentially being converted into a pressure cooker.

Comparing the two is like equating a fender bender to 9/11 because they're both transportation incidents.

I wonder if all nuclear power plant disasters combined comes close to the amount of people who die in one year in the oilfield, coal mines and coal power plants...

Protip: black lung disease is a thing

>seeing one of those things on the way to Las Vegas
that's about the only thing you'll see if you traveling from ny to la. america is a fucking boredland. flat,spastic cesspit infected with niggaz,gooks and fat rednecks with their gunz.

Ignorant slav detected

>still worked as intended
You mean, while they were busy being broke and could not cool the residual heat, leading to a reactor fracture?

Slavic engineering bro.

That's just it, grid level solutions are the only thing that's going to be relevant. most people can't/won't pay thousands to equip their home with an energy source.

It would have been ten years ago now towards the end of the Howard government that they commissioned a report saying Australia should get into nuclear power. From memory it was $20B all up with the first of ten reactors starting up this year and the last in 15 years time.

At the time it was written off as too far in the future and we needed to act now.

So yeah im dirty about what happened back then (we should have got the bomb too) but it is the fucking retards from ten years ago that really piss me ff.

Too many moving parts. A far better gravity battery would be pumping water in through the bottom of the holes, then taking the water out though a turbine as you need power. Pumps and turbines have far better diagnostics and repair cycles than a variable speed or geared electric motors and those pullies. Not to mention the wattage that motor would draw if you actually wanted to store a reasonable amount of energy in your "batteries".

native american detected - not

How can Chernobyl be an example for a containment breach?
RBMK reactors like the one at Chernobyl HAVE NO CONTAINMENT!

No.
Atomic weapons were the meaning of this generator, but only a small part of the waste can be used as a military ressource.
We stuck with this technology because this is what we do since the beginning and now it has become a major lobby. Too much investment, we can't do otherwise.

I disagree. It's much safer to take the electricity straight from the wall socket without any of that nasty nuclear or fossil fuel pollution.

if you're resistant to fallout

japs weren't, which is why they are phasing out every single nuke plant

Lol, what is the water table?

>Japan is shutting down its nukes

No they arent. How about you look something up before you spout bullshit.

theenergycollective.com/todayinenergy/2387922/five-and-a-half-years-after-fukushima-3-of-japans-54-nuclear-reactors-are-operating

Geothermal

>same output as nuclear
>no waste
>less impact on environment unlike hydro
>available anytime unlike wind/solar

Geothermal is awesome and objectively the best choice if it's available. It's the white race of power generation.

Problem is it's not available in very many places.

It is but only if real pros are doing it(pretty much just rosatom at this point)

There's the little problem of needing a nearby volcano.

That ain't much of a problem for Flips.

i know this may be a retarded question, but why dont throw the nuclear waste into volcanos? im talking from ignorance

i found something popsci.com/why-dont-we-just-throw-all-our-garbage-into-volcanos

>but why dont throw the nuclear waste into volcanos?
If it's reprocessed, it can be used as fuel again. It has the potential to be very valuable.

Volcanoes are where stuff comes out of the Earth. You throw something in there and its just going to be spat out back at you eventually.

Unsure if it's a safe idea to dispose of radioactive waste in such a way but maybe it would work as plutonium has a lower boiling point than lava. Maybe we get radioactive eruptions? Who knows?

However, the waste might be useful in the future if we ever figure out Thorium reactors. Then all that waste is another source of energy.

unless it blows up its pretty safe :^)

Surely someone can build a scale model of this

popsci.com/science/article/2010-02/can-we-dispose-radioactive-waste-volcanoes if you are interested

>solar panel array
herewego.jpg

Get a working prototype of this as evidence that it's viable. Then, consider the costs associated with it and see if it's viable. But from this, it looks stupid.

Further evidence is required.

Great argument
Death toll from Chernobyl is covered up by the East and West alike.
>forbes
lol
rense.com/Datapages/japanquakedat.htm
rense.com/Datapages/radiationdat.htm

Unless you are a retard shill, Hydro electric is the best power source. The fish can be guided to swim through the ladders and having the large lake like bodies of water is helpful for farming in dry years and can be used to prevent flooding in very wet years.

Dams don't melt down, Dams don't pollute, and dams are very safe. They also produce a lot of power.

>oh no muh dam burst and 100s of people died
Go shill somewhere else faggot

dams are not going to just randomly break senpai

bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35351888

Nuclear power can't melt steel beams

I'm still waiting for that one faggot that comes on every nuclear thread that insists that nuclear power is a lie and was faked, the earth and moon are flat, and the earth is somehow hollow(while being flat)