because boomers who can operate critical infrastructure are about to retire and we are supposed to replace them with mongoloid zoomers and sòy slurping millennials who can barely operate an ipad

>>107908783
Remind me, who built/operated Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima?

>>107908770
Get that shit properly insured and figure out a way to deal with the waste, you know, like a grown-up, then we can talk.

>>107908770
>Why are people so afraid of nuclear energy?
it's a very, very low number of people
and it's because of their money sources that they will buy media to protect

deep down everyone is waiting for the israel "situation" to get resolved
until then all nuclear material is allocated to "self-defense"

>>107908770
It's free energy from rocks. Cheap as fuck to generate power and the so-called waste is the most valuable material on the planet (it's more free energy). The plants were also very cheap to build before the middle of the 1970s before massive Government over regulation made the costs to build and operate them sky rocket. The bureaucracy within them is insane. The fines and inspections are outrageous.

Some people didn't like the fact that it was so cheap so they fear mongered hard so the general population would continue wanting to use other forms of power generation. Which those same certain people just happen to make massive profiles off of. The whole energy sector is nuts when you really sit down and think about how it operates. We're all paying way too much for power.

Everyone knows about Galen Winsor. He worked for the US Government in a lot of early nuclear plants. He used to travel around the country back in the 1980s and talked about what happened and how they scared everyone.

You can find his presentation on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROAO1saHEvs

Watch it and make up your own mind.

File: 1768080694951.jpg (41 KB, 439x329)

41 KB JPG

>>107908770

The NPC script written up by big oil kikes with scary words like cancer and hiroshima and boom

>>107908802
I don't know about three mile whatever. But chernobyl it was commies and for Fukushima it doesn't even matter since it was a natural disaster and not a technical malfunction caused by human error.

>>107908802
>who built/operated Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima?
wow almost like cutting corners and having ill-equipped and untrained personnel could lead to a disaster like that in literally any other industry
hundreds of plants across the world and you can come up with 3 incidents? cars and planes kill more people every year and nobody is complaining

File: file.png (2.45 MB, 1382x2048)

2.45 MB PNG

>>107908770
partly because of a very popular anti-nuclear-propaganda hbo show

>>107908770
I'm not. It's just a meme that "too big to fail" projects like nuclear plants can not be built economically by western (((privatized))) industry, only state-owned corporations with the total backing of fairly authoritarian governments.
Then there's some meme tech that comes every decade or so that promises to be the future that will fix all the problems but it never does (PBR, LFTR, SMR etc). Stop listening to "I HECKING LOVE SCIENCE" corpo hypemen shills on youtube.
There's dozens of battery technologies that are primed to fix the energy storage problem. I'd have more faith in Chinese cheap sodium-ion or iron-air batteries then western AI obsessed software company techbros figuring out how to mass produce mini nuclear reactors cheaply, just give us a few trillion taxpayer dollars first, you know we're good for it bro... (how many SMR startups have gone bankrupt again?).

About the only legit reason is for muh plutonium production but the NPT takes most of the fun out of that.

>>107908836
There is speculation that Fukushima wasn't exactly a natural disaster. Check out who was doing security for the plant and what they were doing a week before that event happened.

Three Mile was also a bit...strange. A movie called China Syndrome came out just before that happened and for several reasons I won't go into it might have no been an accident either.

The Chernobyl happened during a test they admit they shouldn't have been running. Plus the surrounding area doesn't look as bad as they claim.

I'm not claiming radiation isn't harmful. But it's like this:
>>107908826
We should be able to easily manage what is basically rocks acting like a camp fire. It's pretty easy to handle the material and not get burned. Plus the way it works you get something even hotter out of the other end which you can use again. You can also store that material very safely.

We've got submarines we don't have to re-fuel for 40 years. Imagine if you had a small(er) reactor than that on say every city block. Or say 10 for a small town or something. Which don't have to be serviced for 30-50 years. I mean you'd check up on them of course but as far as major down time you could go that long.

Why not? We already have sub-stations in our backyards everywhere and those are just as dangerous to the people living around them. It would also be so useful to decentralize our grid and make it more stable.

>>107908846
Did you perceive the show as anti nuclear energy? I watched it and perceived it more as liberal but strongly anti-communist. (Liberal, because they had to include a female protagonist that literally didn't exist and most of the male characters were portrayed as blatantly ignorant and condescending towards the women)

>>107908863
>There is speculation that Fukushima wasn't exactly a natural disaster.
Was it jews with an earthquake machine?

>>107908770
Fukushima and Chernobyl, also the many restrictions and safety requirements made it too expensive

>>107908836
Fukushima does matter. The country regularly experiences such natural events, the plant should have been designed and operated in a way that could handle it.

>>107908837
> nobody is complaining
They are, actually, see Vision Zero.

Your post is literally the same cope as the spouters of Scrum:
> "We are using Scrum, but aspects A, B, C are not working at all and seem detrimental."
> "YOU ARE NOT DOING SCRUM CORRECTLY! IF YOU DID, EVERYTHING WOULD BE PERFECT!"

>>107908825
> Most valuable material on the planet
Great, I'm sure my government would like to sell you some. What? Nobody does that? But ... wHhHhHhy?

File: file.png (763 KB, 1831x791)

763 KB PNG

yeah. they made the burn victims look more gory because oooh scaryyy and overblown casualty stats at the end. apparently they even lied about how dangerous the aftermath was with the "poisoning the western countries" threat

>>107908770
>people

>>107908888
Checking your quads. Very nice.

Like I said a certain group of people were in the plant doing things a week before it happened. They were installing things. It was an outside contractor from another country.

The plant was designed to withstand what happened to it. It had to be to be built where it was in the first place. The speculation is the damage that was blamed on the earthquake/tsunami was really caused by something else. The actual course of the events that happened that day are strange. Systems failing that shouldn't have failed. Even the explosion was strange.

>>107908846
What a weird take. Everything in the movie was communicated to basically only happen in a communist Soviet bubble where everyone lies to everyone from top to bottom and pride pressure from above makes them do things they absolutely should not.
>"RBMK reactor cannot have a meltdown"
>Positive Void Coefficient at low power
>Graphite Control Rods (not actually containing graphite known by anyone relevant)
>"Only 15 roentgens"
>Was only discovered internationally because other countries detected radioactive material coming to them
>Germans sent a robot that can withstand the reported radiation but it was actually much higher so it fails because even after being known as a meltdown internationally they still lie and try to cover up the magnitude to their own chagrin
>No negative mention of nuclear power outside of Soviet
>Grunts sacrificed to shovel extremely radioactive material while told "they'll be alright"
>Every major character working with nuclear power was shown as competent scientists working under dire circumstances except the two "baddies"
>Something like 10 people died officially by the meltdown to this day

>>107908770
Nuclear technology has not made significant progress, it cannot be operated at home, and it must use company-level resources to make it.

File: hd2ruxob7de71.png (254 KB, 1139x719)

254 KB PNG

picrel, only with the argument that nuclear energy is hyperliberal and takes privatising profits and collectivising risks to where it includes the death of millions

>>107908988
Thanks for nuking Europe with niggers instead.

>>107908993
i fucking hate liberals if that wasnt clear from my post already

File: 33215.png (77 KB, 271x196)

77 KB PNG

>>107908770
Retardation. Everyone who fears nuclear energy can't read a graph.

The oil and gas industry spent a lot of money to scare people away from nuclear. Even though we could be using uranium to boil enough water to power all of society for the next 1000+ years without producing anything more than a couple barrels of waste, and basically no CO2 emissions. (Used fuel is only 4% used. If you reprocess used fuel to create new fuel, you get so much use out of it it's crazy)

>>107908846
>meltdown happened because of greed
>"anti-nuclear propaganda"
Why are you people so stupid? Is it something in the water?

>>107908995
But you love jews?

>Operate on almost solely renewables
>Almost the entire country of Spain has a blackout because of unstable power fluctuations between regions and very little on demand power to balance it before killing the power instead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Iberian_Peninsula_blackout

Meanwhile in Sweden:
>Cold months
>Water no flow
>Wind no blow
>Electricity costs skyrocket
>They start burning OIL to meet demand
>Politicians have the gall to call nuclear power bad for the environment (they all blame co2 for the climate crisis but apparently we're globally at greater risk to radioactive materials than having powerplants that produce virtually no CO2)
Maybe nuclear power wasn't the bad thing in countries with no nuclear incidents, no soviet communism and not built on a fucking fault line that cause tsunamis and earthquakes?

>>107909037
who the fuck do you think created liberalism

>>107909031
Also: No fracking for natural gas (causes tons of problems). No more strip mining (majority of coal mining now).

>>107909047
Well, right now liberals are the ones who are upset with jews and kikeservatives are the ones defending jews.
Are you stupid by any chance? Yes or no.

>>107909055
You have a very binary worldview it seems. I'm guessing you're American.

>>107909055
>>107909047
>>107909037
>>107908995
>>107908993
>>107908988
Samefag

>>107909060
So that's a yes.

>>107909046
i was in spain while this happened, total nothingburger
the cause for the outage was the same cause as the 2018 rome escalator accident, has nothing to do with renewables

>>107909055
conservatives are (neo)liberal, this has nothing to do with identity politics or the culture war

>>107909073
Ok, you didn't even read the first paragraphs in the link. Got it.

>>107909073
Wind and solar are not really renewables. They require plastic and batteries. They don't recycle the plastic either. Plastic is hard to recycle and it breaks down every time you do it. By the time it's almost worthless they make water bottles out of it and after that it's no longer any good. That's why they can only recycle the cap on a water bottle. Not that all of that matters because a lot of them just throw the wind mill blades directly in the nearest dump.

Coal is also not as bad to burn as they make it out to be. At least not now if you live in a western country. In China they still burn it in open pits. Guess who buys all the American coal we mine now? China gets the top stuff and we burn the absolute garbage in our own plants. That changed over around the late 90s early 2000s I think. I'd have to ask someone I know to find out the exact year.

it's white people magic

>>107909090
And yet every kike-lover is quick to say "fuck liberals" but never denounces conservatives.

>>107909060
>>107909063
>>107909090
>>107909102
Samefag

>>107909107
You're a retard.

>>107909095
>That's why they can only recycle the cap on a water bottle.
No shit. You be sayin the whole bottle goes to waste?

>>107909095
So, literally nothing is "renewable energy".

>>107909115
The fibers are no longer strong enough to be recycled again. Everything is discarded but the cap. I forget how many more times you can recycle the little bit of plastic contained in the cap but I think it's no more than twice.

Water bottles are barely even solid now. Take one of the thin ones and sit it near an open window sometime or in sunlight. Let it sit for a few hours. You'll start to see bubbles forming on the inside of the bottle. That's air getting through because the walls of the bottle are so thing.

Plastic is like recycling any other type of fiber. It breaks down each time you run it through the process. Eventually, it's too brittle to do anything with it.

>>107909095
of course theyre not "renewable"
that frame is absolutely misleading, similar to how recycling is industrial propaganda to justify consumer capitalism
because thats all liberals do, pathetic attempts at defending their holy capitalism

>>107909132
>Water bottles are barely even solid now.
Why are water bottles brittle pieces of shit but Coca-Cola can still make Big Bottled Coke?

>>107909118
In the way the media means: No. Think about this. Solar energy requires having large banks of batteries (solar farms). Lithium batteries. They don't have an unlimited life span and have to be replaced pretty often. To create them you have to do strip mining just like you have to do with coal. So you're still causing harm somewhere. Then factor in that by its very nature it can never be as reliable as coal/gas/nuclear fired plant. You can't start a solar farm or windmill on demand. You can't use it at all if it's night time or the wind isn't blowing.

The steam plants aren't like that. They're always ready to go or already running. Coal, gas and nuclear plants are all basically the same other than the heat source. All you're doing is boiling water and spinning turbines. They're really simple. Which is why nuclear is the "cleanest" of the three. You fuel it much less often than you have to fuel coal/gas plants (which is constantly).

>>107909158
It's a higher quality plastic. Eventually that coca-cola bottle will become a water bottle. Then it'll be garbage and thrown into the dump (ocean) with all the other plastic we've shit the place up with since the 1950s.

Nuclear plants leak toxic isotopes more often than reported.
They are hazards. Source of terrorist material, targets in war that leads to meltdown and toxic ruined areas for miles around. Potential sabotage.
The more you have the more likely bad actors will end up inside them. Then there is earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis.

Nuclear power is excellent as a nerd looking at stats when everything works as intended. But much worse than anything else when things go wrong.
The consequences of bad things can last lifetimes. I don't eat Japanese seaweed or food from their oceans anymore, and won't be eating any wine or cheese from France once they have an accident. Food from a region that has a problem won't be trusted much longer than the danger persists and the danger persists awhile.

>>107909160
>You can't start a solar farm or windmill on demand
neither can you a coal or nuclear plant, especially the latter
dispatchability is a massive propaganda point of the traditional energy industry lobby
in reality these plants take days to start up and get to full capacity, and when they run they only run at full capacity, meaning you absolutely cant just manage the output to match the demand
only gas turbines are designed for partial load operation

>>107909177
this is something thats far too often overlooked, nuclear energy is contingent on peacetime

>>107908770
massive propaganda campaign with the primary goal of maintaining a US and USSR monopoly on nuclear weapons

>>107908802
3MI was sabotage to boost the anti-nuke campaign

>>107909227
the ukraine is littered with NPPs

File: it would be better if the(...).png (198 KB, 500x685)

198 KB PNG

>>107909095
>wtf renewables don't reverse entropy!?

>>107908770
Jews

Why do normies hate solar and batteries so much?
It's the easiest way to go off-grid and become independant for the price of 2 gaming PCs.
>buys a shitty iPhone or Samsung S25+++ for $1500 every 2 years without question
>cries when you can get a 5KW solar system and 22KWh LFP battery for $4000 that will last 20 years
>wants to pay the extra taxes for the government to maybe approve and install nuclear

>>107909371
Solar is the worst for the environment, it takes up so much space that could be used for valuable farmland, not to mention all those nasty chemicals needed to create those panels, even coal is cleaner. Also all that slave labor digging up your lithium and cobalt for those batteries.
Liberals are so fucking retarded its not even funny.

File: chinese steel industry.png (17 KB, 442x302)

17 KB PNG

>>107909095
>Guess who buys all the American coal we mine now? China gets the top stuff and we burn the absolute garbage in our own plants. That changed over around the late 90s early 2000s I think. I'd have to ask someone I know to find out the exact year.
This is a little disingenuous. North America exports "metallurgical" coal which is used as a carbon source for steel production. China's domestic coal reserves have contaminants that make it less suitable for steel production.
The spike you are talking about is probably exactly what this graph shows. At some point their steel starts becoming cost-competitive on the world market, and their market share and production starts to climb. Wouldn't surprise me if American consumption of metallurgical coal also begins to drop around the same time, as local steel production is displaced by China.
They aren't importing "clean" American coal to just burn it for electricity. They have more than enough thermal-grade coal to burn domestically. It's only metallurgical coal that is cost-effective to transport between continents.

>>107909371
>solar
Good luck getting all that power when it's cloudy or at night...

>>107909385
>not to mention all those nasty chemicals needed to create those panels
name one

>>107908770
I think it's because radiation seems much more scary than conventional dangers, even if it's statistically less dangerous.
>>107908836
that's a dumb statement. the occurrence of natural disasters is a certainty.
the only question is when, not if. not being prepared for those events is a human failure.

File: 1750290520080190.png (91 KB, 535x415)

91 KB PNG

>>107908770

>>107909385
wind takes up even more, check property values around a wind park. you can't live there.

File: Musk hates fusion (but al(...).png (30 KB, 447x273)

30 KB PNG

>>107908770
Because nuclear is not compatible with a highly automated future. Labor is getting expensive even in China which means this expensive construction should be used to build Factories not individual power generation sites. Nuclear just can't scale as well as solar + storage. Of course nations with great power ambitions still need a nuclear workforce but for electricity generation? There's no chacne at this point.

>>107908802
I'll concede 3MI (though it was nowhere near as bad as the journalists made it out to be). Chernobyl had 100% the opposite of a safety culture where accidents were state secrets and voicing concerns got you arrested. Fukushima got butt fucked by two natural disasters at once and in excess of design parameters and legal requirements.

>>107909649
fukushima got buttfucked by the utterly retarded idea of placing the backup generators below sea level

>>107908770
magic spookums invisible radiashiuns gonna get ya!

>>107908770
I am afraid of nuclear energy because people inevitably fuck up. Yes a perfectly run fission plant is perfectly safe, but do you trust everyone to always run their plants perfectly? Chernobyl was one example, but if all random southern Europe or Asian shitholes run nuclear? Do you trust India to handle a fission power plant safely? To dispose of the waste properly? Hell do you trust America to store nuclear waste properly for 10000 years? Has any "secure facility" from 10000 years ago survived? from even 1000 years ago?

>>107908802
>Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima?
Everyone talks about those three, but I think the neglected one is the cluster fuck that happened around nuclear waste in Germany. Between the Asse II dump, and that waste disposal operator that just used false record keeping to "dispose of" nuclear waste they had sitting around random industrial sites.
I think nuclear is great and I agree the dangers of nuclear waste disposal are way overblown, but I can understand how popular sentiment for it is dead in Germany because of that shit, and how long it will take to rebuild trust there.

>>107908988
>high IQ
>fucking wind farms
nice try kike

>>107909371
>batteries
Charging and replacing them is a pain in the ass.

>>107909649
>>107909258
>>107908837
Are you people seriously too retarded to not see that THIS is exactly why people are afraid of nuclear? We don't care that the "tech" is "safe". We care about accidents, natural disasters, wars, incompetence, corruption, warfare, loss of vital skills from education, social decay etc.

We don't want to be left with nukes everywhere and no social stability to maintain them and no one to blame for it besides ourselves for allowing it to happen while foreign governments spend sleepless nights trying to blow us up from the inside, or "leak" enough deadly byproducts in our environment we all get cancer. Humans are the issue not the tech. The problem is sabotaging nuke reactors is significantly more dangerous than sabotaging most other things.
You always have to assume any facility can be infiltrated and sabotaged. It's the same reason we don't want high security biolabs anywhere. Leaks and sabotage WILL happen, it's a matter of time, because humans are fallible.

>>107908802
>Three Mile Island,
literal non-issue.
>Chernobyl
communists
>Fukushima
9.0 MMS quake 10km away and nobody died. 10k people washed into the sea. literally youre safer running straight into the nuclear powerplant than being outside and getting washed with the tsunami

>>107908988
renewables aren't cheaper than nuclear by any stretch. You need to be a 100IQ brainlet to look into cost per W/hour and assume that's it. Renewables are too intermittent and solid state batteries might or might not have a huge commercial breakthrough in 2026 (i'm betting they will). If the breakthrough happens we might actually come close to it, but still more nuclear plants will be needed over the next 20-30 years

>>107909029
>no one got nuked after 1945, which means atom bombs are the most humane weapons on earth!
This is how stupid you sound

>>107909364
That's wrong. Just watch a lion eat. The animal becomes numb from pain. The lion instead relishes every bait after his long hunger. Schopenhauer is wrong about everything.

>>107908836
>Fukushima it doesn't even matter since it was a natural disaster and not a technical malfunction caused by human error.
tell me how I know you are not an engineer without saying it (and probably are american as well)
that's akin to saying "you shouldn't consider earthquakes when build tall buildings" kek

>>107908928
>apparently they even lied about how dangerous the aftermath was with the "poisoning the western countries" threat
I haven't seen the show but that was a real concern back when it happened. The entire reason it became publicly known in the first place was because some measurement station in fucking Finland saw the giant radioactive cloud going their way and asked "wtf is going on?". Also consider that "western countries" in that context was everything west from the USSR; people were stocking up on iodine in Poland and Hungary.

>lithium ion battery bad
Literally who fucking cares. When you don't have to care for energy density, you can use whatever you want as a battery.
All those hydro dams you have? Just pump water up during peak generation and run them the regular way when demand requires it. There, gravity battery. Molten salt? Thermal battery. Flywheel? Centeifugal battery.

File: dyatlov report.png (187 KB, 876x591)

187 KB PNG

>>107908846

>>107909962
are you a schizoid of some kind that goes to sleep and is always worrying about random impossible events that could totally happen in two more weeks?
nobody cares about your shithole, nuclear plants are one of the 23904832723498743298 things that could be """sabotaged""" yet we keep buildling and relying on them, it's called critical infrastructure for a reason
>We care about accidents
accidents will always happen as long as humans operate it
>natural disasters,
can't prevent it, can prepare for it
>wars
can prevent it, can prepare for it, wars are a suicide if we talking peer conflict between nuclear powers
>corruption
can prevent it, this is human nature however
one thing is that there's definitely less of it, your current political overlords at least are not some big ass dynasty, can't remove it completely but we can mitigate and minimize the damage of the effects
>loss of vital skills from education
there will always be smart and dumb people, if you worry about education so much go on an protest for better working conditions, do a better job as a parent and so on
>social decay
the what now?

>>107908846
Do you think people weren't concerned about nuclear power before that show?

>>107909055
Yeah it's almost as if an entire generation trained to hate invading countries would not look kindly upon a certain middle eastern country invading another country.

Same with importing so many extremists into Europe from countries in the middle east that get regularly firebombed, and then wondering why extremism is on the rise.

Or have Microsoft try replacing all their programmers with H1B scammers and all code with AI rewrites and then Windows has major bugs every patch week, and by that I mean on THIS VERY DAY.

>>107909177
>won't be eating any wine or cheese from France once they have an accident.

cheese and other stuff that contains milk is filled with female growth hormones (to make the cows give more milk and increase production) so you should not eat them often to begin with.

>>107908988
Absolute retard take. "Renewable energy" is a total scam and results in extremely high energy bills for the consumer. "Rapidly shrinking cost", "renewables subsidising new nuclear projects". Absolutely laughable.

Both, wind- and solarpower are unreliable and only really work as substitutions for actual reliable energy production from coal, nuclear and gas.

You know you are talking to a subhuman propagandist when the term "decarbonise" is used. Never listen to these people.

Large scale storage of energy generated by wind/solar isn't solved AT ALL. What the propagandists for renewable energy won't tell you is their actual economic world view. They don't care if you can't store it. They believe that energy consumption should be regulated by availability, not by actual market demand. In other words: If the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing enough, people should adapt and simply live without energy during those periods.

File: 61pct from solar.png (455 KB, 877x593)

455 KB PNG

In fact I would go as far as to say China WANTS the US to massively expand into nuclear energy (because it's so unscalable). Meanwhile, picrel.
US has done well historically, roughly on par with China on per capita renewable rollout, slightly ahead of China between 2019-2023 but probably falling behind now.
China being so big and populous makes it hard to make simple comparisons.
US is still ahead of China as of 2024: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/renewable-electricity-per-capita?tab=line

>>107909977
>renewables aren't cheaper than nuclear by any stretch
except they are, nuclear energy costs are vastly underestimated
reactors when constructed are projected to run for decades, but in all cases have to be decommissioned before their projected lifetime because of compounding risks and costs
power plants are designed to be safe, but aging reactors are just not cost effective to maintain, causing operators to do only the bare minimum
the general population and therefore governments dont like these ticking time bombs, so they are forced into decommissioning
since licences are either for the full period, or even indefinite, it means the operators have to be bought out, with tax money
that includes buybacks and compensation for any equipment or resources previously acquired by the operator
the power plant is then decommissioned at the cost of around $400 million per reactor courtesy of the tax payer

this is extremely costly for society, and that is if everything goes "right"
must incidents occur or disaster strike, the full burden is carried by society and society alone
the risk is death and lifetimes of contamination

nuclear energy isnt worth the squeeze

>>107909035
>greed
worse, pride

>>107908770
Decades of propaganda and weapon proliferation fears.
Nuclear energy is the only path for post-industrialization civilization.

>>107909831
>Do you trust India to handle a fission power plant safely? To dispose of the waste properly?

Honestly I wouldn't mind if they had a nuclear accident, it would sterilize hundreds of millions of them and would be less poisonous to the rest of the planet than what they are right now.

hell, let's build a few more nuclear plants in key points of sub-saharan Africa, let them have "accidents" and watch as world hunger stops becoming a problem.

>>107910126
hubris*

>>107909977
>solid state batteries might or might not have a huge commercial breakthrough in 2026 (i'm betting they will)

batteries were said to have a huge breakthrough every fucking year for the past 25 years and we've yet to get anything new since lithium-ion.

>>107910016
>(and probably are american as well)
I'm from the state of Greenland

>>107909831
>Yes a perfectly run fission plant is perfectly safe, but do you trust everyone to always run their plants perfectly? Chernobyl was one example
chernobyl was ran 100% by the book, by trained operators, under strict supervision of highly qualified nuclear engineers

>>107908770
I dunno, creating a stockpile of health endengering material somewere for up to a few millenial seems like a rly rly bad idea. we cant even keep written knowledge for more than 100 years, what makes you think that having some sign on some spicy barrels will deter anyone in a few decades.
I fear the dirty bomb, for it can happen anywhere, not only near strategically targets or urban population centers, these dirty bombs could go off in sport stadiums, shoping malls, in your fucking backyard, effectivly ruining that area for thousands of years.
But hey, at least we could boil some water for a few years in comfort.

>>107910294
>dirty bomb
dirty bombs are not real

>>107910303
pipe bombs are real.
now replace the screws,nuts and bolts in it with radioactive concrete from chernobyl.

>>107910322
so you scatter mildly radioactive material in a 1meter redius. literally a non-issue. just vacuum it all up and go home.

>>107908770
Its incompatible with the way businesses like to run, requiring highly educated and intelligent (expensive) assets to design and run that can't be laid off when shareholders don't get their quarterly raise, coupled with extremely detrimental publicity when they do fuck up after laying off talent.

>>107908846
If anything, the show makes it clear that nuclear accidents would never happen if the Soviets were not too fucking retarded to boil water.

>>107910120
>In fact I would go as far as to say China WANTS the US to massively expand into nuclear energy (because it's so unscalable).
nuclear is way more scaleable than wind and solar are you retarded?

>>107908770
>hijack a plane
>crash it against a nuclear power plant
>???
>PROFIT!

>>107910453
most sensible post itt

File: rte-electrictite-record-e(...).jpg (51 KB, 830x440)

51 KB JPG

>>107908988
"renewable" is a fucking meme.
It's totally worthless without massive storage capacity that completely destroys the rentability.
The only reason it's "cheap" is because the storage and network cost of renewable isn't taken into account, therefore minimizing dramatically the real cost.
Also on the subject of France, Its massive nuclear fleet is literally the power house of Europe, without it the entire continent would crumble or suffocate with coal.
The Germans spent hundreds of billions to "decarbonize" with renewable while shutting down nuclear reactors, the result? insanely high electricity prices, geopolitical dependance to Russian/US gas and still polluting 10x more than France.

File: plane-vs-nukeplant.jpg (104 KB, 580x621)

104 KB JPG

>>107910463
>aluminum tubes can penetrate 1.5m of reinforced concrete then continue into the building to penetrate 30cm of steel of the pressure vessel
retard

File: file.png (78 KB, 1296x766)

78 KB PNG

>>107910120
China is the one expending the most its nuclear power plant you stupid retard.

>>107910485
in the same vein france's "power house" is only viable because it can load balance with the european super grid
nuclear energy is baseload capacity, it is inelastic which means systems either have to operate below demand or oversupply 84% of the time

>>107910539
>China's total installed nuclear capacity in 2024: 60GW
>China's total installed solar capacity in 2024: 900GW

>>107910562
Alright genius, why not even try to run let's say 50% of the energygrid on nuclear?

>>107908770
Because the lobbyists and propagandists of its competitors won. Simple as. You could live in a lot less cucked timeline if NPC cattle wasn't NPC cattle.

>>107910589
>nameplate capacity
yeah nah

>>107910599
1. nuclear energy doesnt scale rapidly, you cant deploy a reactor in a weeks time like you can with a solar farm
2. it would cannibalise from the transition to the superior combined cycle gas-turbines
3. refer to the entire thread for a list of valid general arguments against nuclear energy

it wont be until fusion or commercially viable molten salt reactors that nuclear energy would be viable again, and neither of those have any guarantee of happening

>tl;dr
fission is obsolete 50s technology

>>107910743
You said nothing, why can't we build it, retard?!
>you can't build it in weeks
I know
>something... superior
nothing said
>refer to
deflecting.
Fuck you,
you are AI

>>107908770
It was an actual psyop

>>107910743
>fission is obsolete 50s technology
You are wrong kiddo. We simply didn't embrace it because it threaten certain incumbents and their bottom line.
>1. nuclear energy doesnt scale rapidly, you cant deploy a reactor in a weeks time like you can with a solar farm
Solar energy requires just as much if not more. Energy storage is its massive hurdle for baseline load.

>>107910485
There is no such thing as "renewable" all energy is finite and has an opportunity cost.

>>107911034
what a useless statement

>>107909962
So if we kill off all the godless foreigners then the nuclear plants will be safe. I agree with you and we should be implementing global shitskin genocide at once.

>>107910743
>you cant deploy a reactor in a weeks time like you can with a solar farm
You're a lying piece of shit. You're not even bringing a ten acre solar unit online in a week. The concrete foundations wouldn't even be done in a week. And these solar installations they're doing in my area are hundreds of acres.

>>107910743
Everytime someone brings this shit up, I remind them that the US Navy has been operating nuclear reactors for 70+ years with zero incidents. If literal enlisted retards can run a fucking nuclear reactor, then a few SMRs should be fine. TRISO fuel testing at INL has been completed for a year, and it's basically impossible to meltdown.

>>107908770
i'm not against it in principle. i'm against crap where barely 1.2GW costs >20B€, takes 15 years build, won't solve shit in the grand scheme of things and will still be selling energy at 260€/MWh minimum

>>107908770
See Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island or Sellafield. Nuclear could however be the key to cheap clean energy if it is handled correctly. A better choice would be Thorium reactors, they have less chance of melting down. Still a cleaner source of power than Coal, Gas, Oil. Honestly though Hydro & Geothermal power is an under rated power source.

>>107908770
>Why are people so afraid of nuclear energy?
The failure mode is catastrophic and lasts for millennia.

>>107911142
Capitalism is why nuclear plants aren't safe. Killing foreigners won't fix capitalism.

>>107908770
There are a lot of retards out there. I am on the fence because I do not trust businesses running the plants or waste disposal to not cut corners. From a technology standpoint nuclear is great and will assuredly be a big part of meeting medium-term energy needs of humanity on this planet. The issues with waste disposal are all largely solveable but I expect cutting corners and cost on that front, too, will result in disaster.

>>107911610
Nuclear subs have very small nuclear reactors, compared to a nuclear power plant. The dangers of nuclear power don't scale linearly with the size of the plant. If a nuclear sub goes critical, it's out at sea, not next to my house. US Navy isn't subjected to the constraints of capitalism.

>>107911610
>literal enlisted retards can run a fucking nuclear reactor
Because they aren't. The best of the enlisted are running the reactor, not the retards.

>>107908770
the simpsons irreversibly damaged the reputation of nuclear power because matt groening is a dumb cunt

>>107912039
Kill foreigners and capitalists. Even better.

>>107908770
muh Chernobyl

>>107908770
Because leftists keep sabotaging it. Like it hasn't even been that long since Obama sabotaged and shut down Yucca Mountain for no reason, before funneling money into scams like Solyndra

>>107908770
Radioactive leakages are very common.

>>107908770
Richfags can't just air filter your home and live upwind from a radiation source like with coal or gas.
If radiation gets onto valuable resources then you can kiss that goodbye for the next hundred thousand years.

>>107912079
Considering it doesn't take a giant reactor to run a data center, and SMRs are around the same output as a naval reactor, it should be just fine. It almost physically impossible to have a criticality incident with TRISO fuel pellets.
>>107912109
Fair point, but you don't need to have a degree in nuclear physics to make it through reactor school is my point. Who is actually going to run these IF they are granted licensing? Is Microsoft actually going to run a nuclear reactor with an NRC license, or will they sub it out to someone like Bechtel or Westinghouse who operates the plant and carriers the license? A lot of the proliferation risk goes away with fuels like TRISO, so I would think the DoE MIGHT be game to loosen some of their proliferation-related restrictions on reactor build-outs.

>>107908770
Lack of education, anti-nuclear propaganda. People hear nuclear and associate it with weaponry and destruction, backed up by horror stories of nuclear meltdowns in our history. Its side effect, radiation, is also associated with cancer, one of our most devastating diseases.
Proponents of nuclear energy are right to ask everyone to apply these same standards to all forms of energy though. The horrors involved with combustion-based energy production are orders of magnitude worse than nuclear, and the horrors involved with renewables are more labor-oriented and aren't super fantastic either.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of capital behind combustibles, which means that the people in control of that capital can also command the creation of tons of propaganda and laws in their favor. This command of capital is by far the most important part of this equation.
>>107908825
If we find a way to address the labor and exploitation issues, a mix of renewables and nuclear are probably what are going to help us meet our energy needs and sustainability goals. Combustion has a place in the energy production and distribution problem, but it should be vanishing as we solve transmission and storage problems.

>>107908770
probably a psyop to hinder the proliferation of precursors for nuclear weapons.
could you imagine if the nato part of europe developed nukes? the united states as would become obsolete over night.

Soviet Union funded Greenpeace propaganda. Russia did it too.

>>107908770
"environmentalists" spent decades fear mongering to destroy the only viable source of clean energy we had

>>107912292
My brother in Christ, the French and UK both have loads of nuclear weapons. Not thousands, but hundreds for sure. We gave our designs to the British in exchange for Chevaline, and helped the French develop theirs by letting them play the guessing games with our nuclear weapons engineers. SMR fuel sources also have zero proliferation risk.

>>107908770
>why
manipulated in doing so.
oil doesn't like competitors in any way, even it's the best storage of energy. so you need to get about 100 people inside one room and blow it up to see any change.

>>107908770
the real psyop is the pro-nuclear astroturf campaign.
you can see in these threads how pro-nuclear energy have absolutely no knowledge of engineering or even basic physics, and they always use dumb arguments or post videos from youtube to support their position.

>>107911050
No, it is called living in reality. Nothing is 100% renewable. It is all about trouble-offs and opportunity costs.

>>107912204
>Don't understand how radiation works the post

>>107912338
Being anti-nuclear is a luddite stance. Reactor designs have advanced greatly since the 1960s but we can't build any of them because people have been fear mongered into thinking they'll start glowing green if they live within 30 miles of one, and that due to the absurd amount of regulations it costs so much to try and build one that you'll never recoup the initial investment over the lifetime of the plant.
Maybe once the scientists figure out how to build a nuclear plant for $20k in materials that can run with no human operators or maintenence for 30 years and transmutes the used fuel assemblies into 24k gold we'll be able to get new plants built.

>>107908770
If anybody wants to know why France, China, Finland, and UK are all having miserable time building the EPR reactor, here's a technical overview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_KbQEMFRkM

In short, they tried to check every box on safety measures to ease the certification processes in multiple countries, and that led to a bloated design with massively inflated civil engineering cost to house all that extra shit in radiation-proof steel concrete stuctures.

>>107908770
Only non-whites are afraid of nuclear power.

>>107910485
>mfw I'm a frog that pays almost as much as a germoid because all our NPP are selling electricity to our neighbours that fell for the green energy meme
*honk honk*

>>107912736
You almost got it. The main reasons are thus:
1. The oil and gas industry funded a LOT of propaganda to make people scared of it
2. This lowers property values in any area you build one - enough to make the overall loss of value greater than the cost of the plant
And so, no plant can ever be built.

>>107909385

Don't even look into what happens when a structure covered in solar panels burns down.

>>107908770
Commie incompetence.

File: file.jpg (1.01 MB, 2541x3000)

1.01 MB JPG

>>107910463
>9/11 happened, so no one ever built high-rises again

>>107912338
This.

Back when renewables were expensive novelties the coal and oil shills were anti-nuclear because that was the biggest threat to fossil fuels.
Now that renewables are the cheapest source of bulk power and economic energy storage is getting close fossil fuels are denigrating renewables and shilling pro-nuclear. The fact that any new western nuclear projects would take like 20+ years and go three to ten times over budget is a feature not a bug.

>>107910030
Sweden

>>107910016
Waves were considered then they got hit by wave+1
The problem wasn't waves themselves it was the >we can save money by putting these backup systems very close to the water don't worry they can survive waves up to X. X+1 is impossible we don't need to build this shit further inland think of the savings.

File: dGtYG.jpg (316 KB, 1278x949)

316 KB JPG

>>107908783
nah, they can operate nuclear plant, if they are based and educated enough, in fact they already do-picrel