Why are people so anti-nuclear power?

[Deleted]

Because, quite simply, they're stupid.

[Theodarzna]

Building structure that holds nuclear waste long enough is possible and holds no issues. When the storage is properly built in deep solid rock on safe geological location it is safe. It just needs to hold for the time it takes to fill the storage space. We are not talking about thousands of years, after only a few decades (4-6) it produces so little radiation that it does not pose any threat to surroundings even after the shield between solid rock and waste start to deteriorate.

10,000 to 1,000,000 years is the estimation range I found. What was mankind doing 10,000 years ago? 1,000,000 years ago? Have we built a fullproof failsafe tested structure that can hold deadly radioactive material for even 6,000 years (History since the City-State of Ur of Sumer?). We need to have something both never fail, leak, be corroded or damaged for the time span of ALL of human history basically, AND never be found or dug up for any reason for that span of time.

10,000 years? Will there even be a living descendant of any current world language at that time? Will it even be recognizable enough? That is a time scale you can't just hand wave away.

[zenkai]

have you ever played fallout before?

that's why

This is why I am also against monkeys throwing barrels, plumbers eating mushrooms, and alien's invading earth.

[Rasulis]

All the argument here is pointless. The fact is that there is no demand for nuclear power plant in the US for several reasons.

US energy consumption is flat.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...united-states/

Per capita energy consumption is decreasing. A reflection of energy efficient construction.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-since-2000/

Horizontal directional fracking generates more natural gas than crude, which drives the price of natural gas down. Not to mention that you can build 10 natural gas power plants for the cost of building one nuclear power plant. You are also less likely to have to fight a protracted court battle with environmental forces.

Also the US is not the only country in the world that is doing horizontal fracking anymore. On top of that, we are on the verge of developing technology to economically extract natural gas from methane-bearing gas hydrates (flammable ice).

Bottom line, the technology will not become economically viable until you can copy and paste the same design, and it will work under 90% of circumstances. Nuclear Power has a long way to go to reach that point, and there is no economic drive to bring the technology to that point. The same market force that is killing coal, is also killing Nuclear Power.

[Elim Garak]

So your assumption is "Future people will solve it, so we don't have to worry." That is the most polyannish and irresponsible thing ever.

Fuck future people, seriously , do you even know any of them? Do you think people a hundred years ago cared about us? Are we struggling because of it? No. Do you know what issues they had? I doubt it, there was no internet back then and you don't go to a library anymore. Do we have the same issues now? No. We solved them. Some solutions take time to solve , A LOT OF TIME. We cannot solve everything in our life time. It's a truth of the short human life. Stop trying to. It's silly and infantile. There's no nuclear waste problem to begin with. Ask the nuclear scientists. Not tabloids.

None of Egypts structures are airtight, nor did they avoid being opened up multiple times. Nor were they completely sealed to avoid radiation leaks.

Shifting goalposts. The initial argument was about structures surviving for thousands of years. We can build air tight facilities, not that it is required for nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is not stored as a pile of unpacked mass. it is air-tightly sealed in the air-tight packaging.

English is neither simple, nor guaranteed to exist even in the future. We also don't know what those symbols might mean in a thousand years.

It is the simplest language, when all you need to write is "DANGER ZONE", also most such signs will be written in different languages. And the only way for people of the future to not understand our current languages is if our civilization is totally destroyed. I don't give a fuck what happens with nuclear waste in that scenario. No sane person should.

Why would they remain undisturbed? Because future people will use some WoWGeeWiz super invention? OH! and language and symbol meanings will remain static for thousands of years AND also these structures will be made of unobtanium so they never break!

Read above.

So finally your answer is "Its not your problem, so don't worry!" Well I have a child now, theoretically she will have children and so on. How incredibly irresponsible of you to just kick the can down the road.

You don't care about children of your children's children. If you gonna say you do, that will be a lie. You are just playing the "what about children" card? Well what about them? Let me go Full Carlin here: fuck the children.

[Jeezy911]

What could possibly be more terrifying than an object that can kill you just by looking at it? See Elephants foot:




Well maybe a Magnetar, actually definitely a magnetar star but still.

[Theodarzna]

Fuck future people, seriously , do you even know any of them?

So, you speak of moving the goal post; lets recap.

First we need nuclear power because its cleaner energy than coal and coal will destroy the planet! I.E. Think of the Future People!

Now, its "Fuck the future people!"

Dude, pick a lane.

[Elim Garak]

So, you speak of moving the goal post; lets recap.

First we need nuclear power because its cleaner energy than coal and coal will destroy the planet! I.E. Think of the Future People!

Now, its "Fuck the future people!"

Dude, pick a lane.

Lol, coal destroys the environment RIGHT NOW. Like in my lifetime. Not in a thousand of years like you insensate about nuclear waste, nuclear waste won't destroy the environment at all.

[Theodarzna]

Lol, coal destroys the environment RIGHT NOW. Like in my lifetime. Not in a thousand of years like you insensate about nuclear waste, nuclear waste won't destroy the environment at all.

Coal won't noticeably destroy the environment all that much in my lifetime. And you know, Fuck future people Am I right?

[chazus]

I honestly gave up on replying in this thread because people are so stuck on the "B-b-but 10,000 years!" and ignoring all the actual real world implications.

[Elim Garak]

Coal won't noticeably destroy the environment all that much in my lifetime. And you know, Fuck future people Am I right?

Are you denying global warming now? It is happening right now and coal is one of the major contributors. If you don't care about yourself, think of your children! They will get sick in your life time and might die of cancer, in your lifetime. If not drown first, as you are a coast dweller. California will go underwater in the top 5.

[Youn]

So, amusingly, you didn't appear to read the rest of my response.

Actually, I did. What you didn't tell them is what the actual effects are of being exposed to radiation that comes from those plants. In reality, a perfectly running plant is a wonderous thing. But, people don't understand the basics of what happens when things go wrong.

I am not saying that I object to nuclear power. What I object to is stupidity that occurs when humans are involved.

[Shalcker]

What could possibly be more terrifying than an object that can kill you just by looking at it? See Elephants foot:


Well maybe a Magnetar, actually definitely a magnetar star but still.

In that vein check out botulinum toxin (botox).

Deadliest known chemical on Earth.

The LD50 for it in humans is estimated at about 2 nanograms/kilo i.v., 10 nanograms/kilo by inhalation.

...and we use variations of it for human cosmetic operations (and other medical uses).

[Wikiy]

I honestly gave up on replying in this thread because people are so stuck on the "B-b-but 10,000 years!" and ignoring all the actual real world implications.

I gave up somewhere before p10.

[l33t]

I wonder why people never actually considered throwing nuclear waste into space. Specifically, let computer-piloted spaceships drive containers to fucking Mars and just slam them on the Mars ground with all that waste. Win/win...

I think we all know the answer. Fat cats who own fossil market don't want to suddenly become powerless dumbasses with no yachts, luxuries and awesome $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in banks. That's why we, people of earth, can't have cheap and highly effective nuclear energy. Because who cares about efficiency, when there is even more cash to rip from nations, right? Right.

[Mafic]

Building structure that holds nuclear waste long enough is possible and holds no issues. When the storage is properly built in deep solid rock on safe geological location it is safe. It just needs to hold for the time it takes to fill the storage space. We are not talking about thousands of years, after only a few decades (4-6) it produces so little radiation that it does not pose any threat to surroundings even after the shield between solid rock and waste start to deteriorate.

There is no point on earth that is "geologically safe" over the one thousand year mark.

If it was so simple the US government would have started the Yucca Mountain project long ago. But at Yucca mountain they found Chlorine-36 which is a result of the US nuclear testing of the 1950s. So, rainwater infiltration was a lot faster than they anticipated (50 years or less) as the site had to hold up from rain water infiltration for about a thousand years.

The other bigger obstacles to nuclear is cost and politics (not in my back yard). Similar how coal is a dying industry.

- - - Updated - - -

All the argument here is pointless. The fact is that there is no demand for nuclear power plant in the US for several reasons.

US energy consumption is flat.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...united-states/

Per capita energy consumption is decreasing. A reflection of energy efficient construction.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-since-2000/

Horizontal directional fracking generates more natural gas than crude, which drives the price of natural gas down. Not to mention that you can build 10 natural gas power plants for the cost of building one nuclear power plant. You are also less likely to have to fight a protracted court battle with environmental forces.

Also the US is not the only country in the world that is doing horizontal fracking anymore. On top of that, we are on the verge of developing technology to economically extract natural gas from methane-bearing gas hydrates (flammable ice).

Bottom line, the technology will not become economically viable until you can copy and paste the same design, and it will work under 90% of circumstances. Nuclear Power has a long way to go to reach that point, and there is no economic drive to bring the technology to that point. The same market force that is killing coal, is also killing Nuclear Power.

This is all true.

The big hurdle with fracking is over stressing the cavity when operations are completed (micro earthquakes) and filling the cavity properly. However, the fracking fluid they pour into these cavities are not disclosed and thus we may be polluting multiple water supplies far worse than having nuclear stored at a centralized location.

We will know for sure in a thousand years!

[Rasulis]

I wonder why people never actually considered throwing nuclear waste into space. Specifically, let computer-piloted spaceships drive containers to fucking Mars and just slam them on the Mars ground with all that waste. Win/win...

I think we all know the answer. Fat cats who own fossil market don't want to suddenly become powerless dumbasses with no yachts, luxuries and awesome $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in banks. That's why we, people of earth, can't have cheap and highly effective nuclear energy. Because who cares about efficiency, when there is even more cash to rip from nations, right? Right.

A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. The US nuclear industry alone generates a total of about 2,000 - 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year. Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced 76,430 metric tons of used nuclear fuel.

Here is a nice article on how much it costs (currently) to launch stuff into space.

You can do the math yourself.

http://www.businessinsider.com/space...-weight-2016-6

- - - Updated - - -

There is no point on earth that is "geologically safe" over the one thousand year mark.

If it was so simple the US government would have started the Yucca Mountain project long ago. But at Yucca mountain they found Chlorine-36 which is a result of the US nuclear testing of the 1950s. So, rainwater infiltration was a lot faster than they anticipated (50 years or less) as the site had to hold up from rain water infiltration for about a thousand years.

The other bigger obstacles to nuclear is cost and politics (not in my back yard). Similar how coal is a dying industry.

- - - Updated - - -



This is all true.

The big hurdle with fracking is over stressing the cavity when operations are completed (micro earthquakes) and filling the cavity properly. However, the fracking fluid they pour into these cavities are not disclosed and thus we may be polluting multiple water supplies far worse than having nuclear stored at a centralized location.

We will know for sure in a thousand years!

Those are the hidden costs of horizontal fracking (increased seismic activity and contaminated GW) that the oil industry refused to acknowledged.

[Theodarzna]

Are you denying global warming now? It is happening right now and coal is one of the major contributors. If you don't care about yourself, think of your children! They will get sick in your life time and might die of cancer, in your lifetime. If not drown first, as you are a coast dweller. California will go underwater in the top 5.

Nope, just that it won't matter in my life, and Fuck Future People am I right?

[Elim Garak]

Nope, just that it won't matter in my life, and Fuck Future People am I right?

Coal does matter right now. Future people are thousands of years in the future -as per your definition, not tomorrow.
You have failed in your argumentation attempt.

[Jeezy911]

I wonder why people never actually considered throwing nuclear waste into space. Specifically, let computer-piloted spaceships drive containers to fucking Mars and just slam them on the Mars ground with all that waste. Win/win...

I think we all know the answer. Fat cats who own fossil market don't want to suddenly become powerless dumbasses with no yachts, luxuries and awesome $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in banks. That's why we, people of earth, can't have cheap and highly effective nuclear energy. Because who cares about efficiency, when there is even more cash to rip from nations, right? Right.

Well that would take care of the problem, but no need to pollute Mars since we may be living there soon. So we have a couple tons of Nuclear Waste ready to go into outer space, cool if we launch it next to your house, you know because rocket have a 0% fail rate.