Nuclear power is proof there is no hope for humanity

Everybody's always saying that humans are great and progressing and only if we just try hard enough our societies will eventually come around and things will be all hunky dory lovey dovey

Bullshit. Here's proof

Nuclear power is not only the safest form of known energy production, but it's the safest BY FAR. Even wind and solar are ecologically more destructive and have substantially higher death rates. Chernobyl was Bronze Age technology, and was fucking defunded yet still being operated because the Soviets didn't give a shit, yet the disaster still didn't compare to what has become standard with coal and oil. Three Mile Island was a partial meltdown, yet magically nobody died or was injured. And that was like Iron Age tech in the world of nuclear, and demonstrated how safe nuclear really is, but the hysteria was still massive

In Japan, they have the biggest earthquake in their history and a tsunami that causes more damage than anything post-WW2. Several nuclear reactors have been hit hard, but there has been no containment breach, and there won't be. A bunch of Japanese have been killed by the earthquake/tsunami causing breaches in safety at coal and oil plants, but we don't hear about those because they're not nukes. Again, these reactors are using 1970s tech, yet even the biggest disaster to hit virtually anywhere is proving that not only are they safe, they're fucking majorly awesomely colossally safe.

But that doesn't stop dumbfuck Germany from cutting off their reactors and Greenpeace from telling Spain to take theirs offline too.

Current nuke tech is so crazy good that there is zero danger of meltdown and virtually zero waste. In an attempt to quantify exactly how much less damage nuclear is for humans and the environment than fossil, we would be dealing with ridiculously high numbers like millions and millions. Fossil fuels are serial killers and literally destroying everything, yet they're magically safe in society's mind; while nuclear causes next to zero damage, yet it's the devil

People are fucking retards. Nothing is changing. Nuclear is continually being proven as awesome, yet reactions are antipodal. Don't let anybody tell you that humans are rational beings

Quote:

---

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - (world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

---

Since when has greenpeace cared about the truth and what's right and not about getting their name in print.

I took a college course that as I remember it was an intro to physics type class but for an entire semester the material related to nuclear power, energy, and the development of fission bombs in WWII. The professor struck me as a very bright guy (not something I would say lightly), and he was very adamant that we should be using more nuclear power and less of everything else.

That's all.

We'll use nuclear eventually out of necessity i reckon. Only thing that gets me annoyed is that our greens party (which is usually pretty sensible in australia) is anti-nuclear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mbiz

We'll use nuclear eventually out of necessity i reckon. Only thing that gets me annoyed is that our greens party (which is usually pretty sensible in australia) is anti-nuclear.

---

By that time, 80% of farmland will be desert, 30% of highly populated cities will be underwater, and oceanic anoxia will be banging on the door

Yes, I just pulled those stats out of my ass, but they're close enough to true

Where did you get those statistics in the OP? I sort of already knew this, but I didn't know the difference was that hudge. I mean coal power plants are basically giant death factories but dying of lung cancer or heart attacks isn't as interesting as dying of radiation poisoning.

The grass-roots opposition to nuclear power is obviously very frustrating but I'm a lot more optimistic because most (not all) of the people in charge seem smart enough to realize that a lot more nuclear power is needed

I just cut and pasted them from a science board I use. It looks like he compiled those from the EU report pdf linked therein

FRDB - View Single Post - Japanese Earthquake: The End of Nuclear Power?

Yeah, I have to agree with Op.
Penn&Teller Bullshit did a good show on it. I think its called Nukes, Hybrids Lesbians.
Its biased as hell but informative still.

The chernobyl reactor was apiece of shit and was def not during the soviet golden era.

Oh and Greenpeace??? they havent been too worried about environment issues for a while. Its more of an anti corporate/political thing they are in to. Ask the guy that started it...he left the group ages ago b/c of their political stances which overshadowed any real environmentalism concerns.

Have you ever held a popular opinion in your life lol :)

Anyways. I like to defend nuklear energy whenever, but there is an obvious problem with it, and that is halflife times of 200 000 - 2 Million years. No matter how good your waste management solution is, it can't account for whatever happens in that timespan.
So yah, I'm not demonizing it, but it's not like it's the best thing ever and we don't need to look any further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vinland

Yeah, I have to agree with Op.
Penn&Teller Bullshit did a good show on it. I think its called Nukes, Hybrids Lesbians.
Its biased as hell but informative still.

The chernobyl reactor was apiece of shit and was def not during the soviet golden era.

Oh and Greenpeace??? they havent been too worried about environment issues for a while. Its more of an anti corporate/political thing they are in to. Ask the guy that started it...he left the group ages ago b/c of their political stances which overshadowed any real environmentalism concerns.

---

I'm not sure I would call Penn and Teller's show biased. They have had a few things wrong that they corrected and a couple things that I think are probably wrong or not sure. But if it's bullshit it's bullshit, not bias

I haven't watched the show in a long time though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Have you ever held a popular opinion in your life lol :)

---

hmmmm

Good question

I used to hold all kinds, but now I have to actually think about it...

I like tasty food, hot women, and think Daniel Day-Lewis is a pimp. So I guess those count

Quote:

---

Anyways. I like to defend nuklear energy whenever, but there is an obvious problem with it, and that is halflife times of 200 000 - 2 Million years. No matter how good your waste management solution is, it can't account for whatever happens in that timespan.
So yah, I'm not demonizing it, but it's not like it's the best thing ever and we don't need to look any further.

---

This has changed. The latest tech is so advanced that they can burn waste over and over until the amount left over is tiny, which awesomely has a half life of like 50 years or something silly short.

But even if the waste was as bad as it was several decades ago, it wouldn't be neeeeearly as bad as the insane amounts of waste in fossil and garbage. There's way more "standard" waste we create every day that's gonna be polluting the world long after humans are no longer here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Current nuke tech is so crazy good that there is zero danger of meltdown

---

Completely agree with everything you said except this. Human error means that there is always a non zero chance of a meltdown even though it may be small.

I took an ethics in engineering class an we looked at these type of situations in depth. In many cases there were multiple layers of fail safes that had to fail at the same time in order for a major catastrophe to occur. Also, very often warning signs were ignored/safety systems were disabled that could have prevented the disaster.

So yea, the chance of a meltdown is very low, yet still possible. I saw a guy on the news this morning (I forget his name) who said we need a press conference at every nuclear facility in the US so they can explain what magnitude earthquake they can withstand and make all of their safety protocols transparent (WTF....)

Wow I never thought I'd be saying this but I 100% agree with Wuf. Everything I've been told is congruent with the idea that nuclear power is incredibly safe. It's sad that this Japan disaster may ruin it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfaess

Completely agree with everything you said except this. Human error means that there is always a non zero chance of a meltdown even though it may be small.

I took an ethics in engineering class an we looked at these type of situations in depth. In many cases there were multiple layers of fail safes that had to fail at the same time in order for a major catastrophe to occur. Also, very often warning signs were ignored/safety systems were disabled that could have prevented the disaster.

So yea, the chance of a meltdown is very low, yet still possible. I saw a guy on the news this morning (I forget his name) who said we need a press conference at every nuclear facility in the US so they can explain what magnitude earthquake they can withstand and make all of their safety protocols transparent (WTF....)

---

Maybe I should have worded it differently, because you're not wrong

There is pretty much a greater than zero probability of anything, and a much greater than that probability of a nuclear meltdown. However, when done correctly, the probability is several magnitudes lower and effects are less dangerous than any other sources of energy

I think it is also sad that the media is blowing the risks in Japan way out of proportion. I read a blog yesterday by an engineer on the ground in Japan, who is an American who has been there for years. He spoke about the defense forces, the emergency preparedness, and the true facts about the reactors... it was pretty interesting how advanced they are with preparing for these things...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

I think it is also sad that the media is blowing the risks in Japan way out of proportion. I read a blog yesterday by an engineer on the ground in Japan, who is an American who has been there for years. He spoke about the defense forces, the emergency preparedness, and the true facts about the reactors... it was pretty interesting how advanced they are with preparing for these things...

---

Yeah there is an enormous discrepancy between what I'm hearing from the media vs what people who are educated and employed in the industry say

Buying opportunity imo...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Wow I never thought I'd be saying this but I 100% agree with Wuf. Everything I've been told is congruent with the idea that nuclear power is incredibly safe. It's sad that this Japan disaster may ruin it.

---

Scary innit? Your brother said the same a few months ago. Welcome to the Dark Side

Actually, I think we would agree on much more than expected. Debate and politics has a potent way of bringing out contrariness where ideologies and policy really aren't that contrary once you get down to the nitty gritty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

The professor struck me as a very bright guy

---

fo sho

I'm all for nuclear power but what do we do with the waste? It's not like it's going to go away or disappear.

From wiki.

A typical 1000-MWe nuclear reactor produces approximately 20 cubic meters (about 27 tonnes) of spent nuclear fuel each year (but only 3 cubic meters of vitrified volume if reprocessed).[81][82] ....

Permanent storage underground in U.S. had been proposed at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, but that project has now been effectively cancelled - the permanent disposal of the U.S.'s high-level waste is an as-yet unresolved political problem.[85]

One the problems with the Fukushima accident was some of the radioactive waste was being stored on site even though the reactors were offline presumably because no one can decide where to put the stuff. How safely is that stored? How do we stop radiation leakage in the event the building housing it is damaged by an earthquake/meteorite/some natural disaster?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nakamura

I'm all for nuclear power but what do we do with the waste? It's not like it's going to go away or disappear.

From wiki.

A typical 1000-MWe nuclear reactor produces approximately 20 cubic meters (about 27 tonnes) of spent nuclear fuel each year (but only 3 cubic meters of vitrified volume if reprocessed).[81][82] ....

Permanent storage underground in U.S. had been proposed at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, but that project has now been effectively cancelled - the permanent disposal of the U.S.'s high-level waste is an as-yet unresolved political problem.[85]

One the problems with the Fukushima accident was some of the radioactive waste was being stored on site even though the reactors were offline presumably because no one can decide where to put the stuff. How safely is that stored? How do we stop radiation leakage in the event the building housing it is damaged by an earthquake/meteorite/some natural disaster?

---

We won't need waste storage with Gen IV reactors. Granted, those will not be commercially available for a decade or two, but that's largely a product of research funding. These reactors are mega advanced and I believe they would be able to burn old waste as well

The current Gen II and III we're using today still don't have the waste issues of coal and oil. The nuclear debate is not a fair debate by any means. Coal obliterates environments, incessantly spews long-living waste, kills hundreds of thousands like it's no thing, but we can't talk about that because we're busily freaking out because radiation levels are a few times higher than background during a gargantuan disaster