Nuclear energy vs Paris Accord

It shows that the left doesn't give two shits about the environment, it's just an excuse to use bullying tactics to force their socialist ideals.

Modern nuclear technology is safer, doesn't pollute, and is cheaper than any other form of power. Yeah you have nuclear waste, but Japan just stuffs it into waterproof containers that can withstand the pressure of the deep sea for thousands of years and drop it into the bottem of the ocean.

Do these people even understand how big the bottom of the ocean is?

bump

So how exactly do you respond to these arguments?

If they used Thorium wouldn't degrade to inert levels within like 30 years instead of 500?

Who gives a shit? It's harmless, free, plant food.
Anyone who inhaled or ingested a hot particle from it (and fuel rods were blown 200 feet into the fucking air, so they're certainly around) will get aggressive cancer unless something else kills them first.
That's because you're a know-nothing fucking zombie.
The dominance of the fossil fuel economy is the free market solution you mongoloid.
He's not the founder of Greenpiss you stupid cunt. He's the former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and an autistic communist garbage merchant.
Christ you're so stupid dumb and ignorant. No wonder you believe in glowbull warming.

Unfortunately there is no easy answer.
You actually have to know more than your opponent.
But this becomes easy when you realize that liberals are retarded/brainwashed and even easier (online) when you get some good infographics.
Nuclear waste:
-point out to opponent that Jimmy Carter outlawed reprocessing in 1977 which makes our waste problem over >1000% greater. France and Sweden reprocess their fuel and have very, very little waste.
-also point out that the best designs of reactor actually recycle their own fuel, which means the transuranics (this term makes you sound smart) are about 3% of what you would get from most reactors in operation today.

and as points out, in those reactors, the half life of the actinides is quite brief comparatively, although I wouldn't say 30 years.

the issue with thorium is that the liquid salt used during operations is so insanely corrosive that a large section of the reactor will rot away after a couple of years of use. it isnt ready for large-scale use due to glaring issues like that. that, and the chemical byproducts are super soluble in water, meaning that if a fukushima-type meltdown occured, all this waste would instantly be gobbled up into the ocean and spread everywhere

carbon isnt the issue, as it is eaten by plant-life. methane isnt an issue, as microscopic bacteria in the atmosphere eats it. water vapour could potentially be an issue, but there isnt much to do about it, and water has shown to have a dampening effect rather than an amplifying effect.

currently, the third world is actually some of the "greenest" on the planet, if only because they havent developed enough to pollute as much as the first world. believe it or not, but china is making large strides into stopping their rape of the environment. south america/africa/asia isnt as big of a deal as one would think, since a large chunk of it is completely rural and doesnt have the capability to pollute. a few thousand villagers shitting in a river is in no way comparable to an industrial plate-glass manufacturing facility in china dumping their production runoff into the ocean.

actual environmental issues facing the world currently:
acidification of the ocean
soil erosion
xenoestrogen leeching
jungle deforestation
turning farmland barren
destruction/disrepair of infrastructure
overfishing
heavy metal runoff in water tables
air/water pollution

secondary issues:
light/noise pollution
overmedicating food sources
urban congestion
proliferation of drug use
proliferation of STI's
normalcy of processed foods

the third world either needs to be given money/resources to ensure their systems are environmentally friendly as they begin to transform into industrialized/consumer economies, or be quelled

the first world needs to reign in their frenzied industries running rampant with their disregard for nature, while also protecting themselves from being toppled by countries who purposefully violate agreements in hopes of gaining an economic edge. the paris agreement is a kike shakedown, not a realistic goal for achieving viable+long term solutions

t. forester

"hot particle" that's a pretty edgy buzzword there

yeah, you would get fucked up if you inhaled a "piece of radioactive dust" but since the Japanese are not Soviet niggers, they evacuated everyone before they were inhaling radioactive particles. The rest blew into the ocean to be diluted into the vastness of the depths, and yet Alex Jonestein, who you undoubtedly hold allegiance to, got all the conspiritards in a frenzy thinking that all of California was getting cancer and sea life was dying out from radiation. Jesus I hate that controlled-opposition cunt.

A lot of people give a shit, and that's the point. Whether there is or is not global warming, it is a major talking point in the narrative. I'm giving you instructions on how to break the narrative that will lead to Communist hyper-bullshit.

You really are some kind of summerfag arent you. Here's an amazing insight: if something is cheaper than something else and just as good, then it will win out in the free market. Nuclear energy actually is cheaper, thus it's the free market solution to the false dichotomy of "global warming←or→renewable energy"

Sorry got James Hansen mixed up with Roger Moore.

who the fuck made that third infographic, plentiful and obvious spelling errors, doesn't use mols, but rather shorthand of Avogadro's number, which is the numerical expression of the number of atoms per mol of a substance ( ~6.022e23)

No you're not you fucking twat.
Right or wrong the population is scared as fuck of radioactivity.
Conceding that the obvious climate change hoax is true and offering a solution nobody wants is fucking retarded.
Go hug a tree and/or hang yourself from it.

This is the only legitimate concern I've ever heard about the molten salt reactor design. And yet they successfully tested a working reactor for 20,000 hours at Oak Ridge National Laboratories in the 50s/60s. I don't see how it would be that difficult to come up with an alloy to surmount this minor engineering difficulty. China probably has already done it.

If I can burden you with proving your source on the molten salt being soluble, I'd appreciate that because I was explicitly told by an engineer in the movement that the liquid fuel medium was NOT water soluble and therefore would make cleanup from a spill facile.

also, going to have to say that bacteria do not thrive in earth's atmosphere. Ultraviolet light is extremely effective in killing microorganisms.
But that is a very worthy list of environmental problems, the first of which (ocean acidification) is significantly more undeniable than climate change, and can be used to silence Alex Jones's and David Koch's army of disinformed.

holy shit, you know what Avogadro's number is? And you can identify spelling errors?!

I hope (you) have a nice night.

Nuclear power is great. You're absolutely right about everything. Used to work on nuclear reactors, can confirm they are clean and safe.

When designed properly.

The problem we face with the public is shit like China Syndrome, Chernobyl, and Fukushima Daiichi. Protip: a reactor going critical is a good thing. The childish media will just use hysterics and paranoia to push public opinion their way, because muh nuclear power.

To be fair, if it's not designed or maintained properly, you really do wind up with problems like Three Mile Island, but every nuclear accident in history has been a direct result of a combination of design flaws and human error/maintenance issues.

I've asked you every fucking time I see you post this shit for the name of your magic atmospheric methane eating bacteria and you never give it to me. I google for it and all I see is you spamming it across the internet. Personally I think your a fucking dissinfo cuck trying to make us all out to be retards if you can get us to buy this bullshit. I will apologies if and only if you give me some actual sauce on your methane eating atmospheric bacteria.

I want to use a phillips head screwdriver on her left nipple.

Holy fuck this summer is going to be shit.

The free market only works when there are no artificial barriers to entry, which nuclear has up to its armpits. You cant expect the free market to solve energy with nuclear when you have billions of dollars worth of special interests fighting against it politically. Even the producers of nuclear power plants are rigging the system fighting against any competing forms of nuclear.

the liquid salt is not soluble, but the chemical goo resulting from the reactions IS water soluble. It isn't a very large amount at all, very tame. Except when it isn't, a few cups of horrendously radioactive sludge isn't something to fuck around with if it gets into a lake or bay. Most of the problem comes from fluorides, CsF etc.

there is a small amount in the atmosphere, but most do live in the ocean, some in swamps and rice paddies and the like

ocean acidification is going to be a more problematic issue than anything in the air for most of the world, as fish and ocean products are incredibly important as a primary food source for a majority of Earth. The Chinese/Japanese sea, for example, is rapidly losing its fish populations due to overfishing, with the remainder dying off due to the waters becoming poisoned. Coral reefs, etc.

excellent and valuable post, user
I couldn't agree more. Old reactors should be phased out and replaced with new, safer, cheaper, more efficient, more standardized reactors.

This is why I think nuclear energy is a Holla Forumsitical issue. (((Our enemies))) will stop at nothing to fool the public into rejecting this brilliant technology.

really activates your almonds

How the fuck would you even determine that

sorry man, professor talked about it when I was taking upper division bio classes. did some cursory research just now, and while the air is filled with bacteria, it doesnt seem like much, if any, are mathanogens. ocean is still crawling with them, sphagnum moss fields in canada, etc.

methane and CO2 continue to remain memes

You want to know the real reason?
The materials needed for construction of LFTR reactors aren't certified for use in those conditions.
Those same materials have been show to work in the conditions they aren't certified for.
No white engineer will sign off on a design that uses the aforementioned materials because of civil and criminal liability.
Certifying the materials for use in a reactor is nearly as expensive as building a reactor.
And then there's the huge hurtles of gaining authorization to build a new reactor in the US because of environmental and health regulations.
Regulations that were passed because of anti-nuclear proliferation campaigns inspired by Oppenheimer.
That's right folks, the Jews are behind our current power, pollution, and energy submissiveness problems.
They ban nuclear reactors.
They vilify nuclear reactors.
And then they use legal tricks to retard progress.

This logic works with anything kikes touch.

And let's not forget about GE's monopoly on fuel production.

I didn't go into this in the op, but this is absolutely a crucial point. Trump actually reduced the amount of pointless regulations around nuclear in the first few weeks of office, which I hoped would be a trend but has not turned out to be.

People that don't want advanced nuclear technology:
-the entirety of fossil fuel interests (i.e. the sum total of the bought and sold Republican party)
-existing uranium-based reactor owners and fuel manufacturers
-the entire mind-controlled environmental movement
-Communists and people who hate America and human prosperity

People who DO want advanced nuclear:
-consumers who are too blinded by (((media forces))) to see their own plight
-informed environmentalists who are not shells of human beings
-National Socialists who desire human achievement and prosperity

I would have an inkling of hope if major scientific publications presented nuclear energy as a viable solution, but they absolutely do not. I fear that 4th gen nuclear is one in a long list of suppressed technologies…
HOWEVER, it is a suppressed technology that we know for a fact exists and is viable and throws a monkey wrench in the global warming narrative.
We as National Socialists must carry the flame of nuclear energy as a monument to European achievement that would benefit humanity if allowed to blossom.

Man-made climate change is bullshit.

It seems you're right user. Do you have a source for the info? That is some very technical knowledge.
These are the obstacles it faces, but because we know it's been tested and verified we can still dangle it in front of the faces of pro-carbon credit Jews because they are ignoring what should SEEMINGLY be their best ally in the fight against climate change, and yet they vilify it for non-logical reasons.

Alright, op out for now.

I don't want niggers to have nuclear tech. Even if you have someone build plants for them and run it, they will find a way to fuck it up. They always find a way.

You never give them tech.
You sell them the power in AA, AAA, C, and D batteries.

All that came from first hand experience with engineering, environmental impact studies, and a bunch of LFTR info that's floating around.

I dont either, but you know what I want even less? More niggers here.

Depends upon how you're delivering that nuclear tech to them.

...

mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2016/05/rare_white-faced_fawn_rejected.html

Am I only one who finds the green party rhetoric and Greenpeace's arguements hilarious?

Coal plants
CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS SHUT IT DOWN!!!
Nuclear Energy
OH MY GAWD MY NUCLEAR WASTE AND DEPLETED URANIUM, MUH RADIATION. SHUT IT DOWN!

Environment friendly energy that fills needs of major population centers isn't really viable and it's expensive as all hell. What's next: power plants that run on unicorn feces and fairy farts?

I lik to compare reactors to airliners. Aeroplanes break down all the time and when they do, hundreds of people are garunted to die even on modern aricraft, but we have no problem with having thousands of them flying over us at all times. Yet when nuclear reactors that are several decades break down, almost nobody dies. All the paranoia over nuclear energy could be solvd overnight if we had govrnments that actually wanted to inform people about how this tech work, but that hasn't happened so obviously all governments do not want nuclear tech to proliferate. I wonder (((why)))

I know reprocessing is now legal, but I thought there was an entirely new can of legal worms as to actually using it in a reactor.

Quit shitposting at work, nigger.

You remember that Cesium-137 accident that happened in Brazil? Some scrappers stole a radiotherapy source, scrapped it, and the scrap yard owner boke the canister open to get the source out of it. He thought the source would make a bitchin' rock for a ring for his wife. The thing was glowing fucking blue. On its own. Him, the scrappers, this wife, his daughter, dead from radiation poisoning.

Take a chunk of Cesium-137, hand it to those brain dead niggers at that university that said magic is to be the basis of their nigger science, and watch the fun unfold.

My favorite part is that they also oppose research into nuclear fusion because it's money that isn't being spent on windmills.

The guy survived, he died of unrelated cirrhosis caused by binge drinking 7 years later

>But what the fuck are you posting porn for? at least spoiler that or go back to >>>Holla Forums asswipe.
CUCK!

Only because of the many ridiculous restrictions placed on the nuclear industry. Not allowing recycling basically makes it 2% fuel efficient.
Says you. Even besides the climate change shit, which I suggest we leave for a different thread, CO2 is causing things like ocean acidification, and not providing ANY benefit. Plants are pretty much never carbon-limited in their growth.

THEN NAME THE FUCKING BACTERIUM YOU TWAT

The easiest way to tell these people are full of shit is to ask about immigration. Do they support immigration to NA, Europe, Australia and NZ? If so, do they also defend that these continents population is growing year after year because of said immigration. How exactly are we going to be greener and do less damage to the environment when we keep bringing people to our countries? We will need more housing, schools, hospitals, the energy for said housing, schools and hospitals, vehicles, both public and private so they can get around, more food needs to be grown and/or shipped over to our countries, which means less green belt land and more boats, planes and trucks to transport the food. More devastation to the fishing waters as there is more demand because of immigration, more waste produced and sent into the ocean, more rubbish in heaps.

Its all a big con to convince the goyim to pay more for energy, to ship jobs off overseas and to generally degrade their own quality of life.

Why?

You idiot, you'd strip it. That's a JIS nipple.

Do you have a source for that? I'm unfamiliar with Japan dropping sealed waste into the ocean.

Regardless, one of the problems with appealing to Japan's practices is Japan's nuclear industry has a bad reputation, and not just because of Fukishima. Japanese industry has a serious cultural problem where nobody feels empowered to make decisions. They all defer to those higher up in the hierarchy, and even then there is an emphasis placed on "saving face". One infamous example of this cultural problem being tackled was in Toyota. Their quality control was suffering because employees on the assembly line didn't feel empowered to call out problems they saw. A welder didn't feel it was his place to delay the line, so he'd ignore the problems he saw. To combat this problem, Honda created an "Andon System". It worked thusly:
>A-Amerikun, you c-can't just stop the production line like that for no reason!
>Like hell I can't! *fires six shooters into the air*
And thus the japanese workers were instructed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andon_(manufacturing)

TMI is a fucking joke, I grew up only a few miles away. I'm fine, everybody there is fine. The reactor got trashed but as far as a hazard to the surrounding population goes, it's fucking nothing. TMI is an argument in favor of nuclear energy in America, if nothing else.

Statistics.

This happens every year in Mexico. Some truck carrying a radioactive medical device gets hijacked and the criminals all get heavily irradiated when they break open the containers.

2013: thebulletin.org/lessons-mexican-theft
2014: nypost.com/2014/07/04/mexico-issues-alert-after-radioactive-material-is-stolen/
2015: bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32332271
2016: cnn.com/2016/03/09/us/mexico-radioactive-device-recovered/
2017: telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/24/mexico-says-vehicle-carrying-radioactive-material-stolen/

Noice.

It would be like the Ebola thing where roving bands of niggers would break in to ebola clinics, drive out all the patients and steal their shitty bedsheets and matresses. Thus spreading ebola even further.

If someone opposes all nuclear power because they don't like nuclear waste, then tell them LFTR produces 97% less waste, and that waste only needs 200 years of storage instead of 10000 years.

If they are worried about safety, then explain that LFTR contains no flammable metals (zironium is mostly what makes solid fuel reactor designs so problematic), the fuel is already liquid, and no forced cooling is necessary after shutdown. If anything goes wrong, the reactor shuts down and the fuel cools down on its own until it freezes into an inert solid.

If they are worried about proliferation, tell them that a single fluid design LFTR contaminates the U-233 it breeds with U-232 so that it's useless for anything except electricity production.

If they are worried about the integrated reprocessing because they've heard Manhattan Project horror stories, explain that solid fuel reprocessing is absolutely nothing like liquid fuel reprocessing. In-situ reprocessing in LFTR just means adding a fractional distillation column and a bit of extra plumbing to the existing piping.

If they are worried fuel availability, then LFTR is the ultimate solution because it's a "flex fuel" design. Because the fuel is liquid, you can mix and match different fuel sources in real time by just pumping them into the reactor in the correct proportions.

To keep your reactor going, you need to keep the percentage of thermal fuel (expensive, rare) at about 5%-25%, and the rest can be fast fuels.

Sources of thermal fuel:

U-235 (traditional enrichment methods, decommissioned nuclear weapons)
U-233 (bred from thorium)

Sources of fast fuel:

Natural uranium (directly out of the ground)
Depleted uranium
Spent fuel from traditional reactors
Plutonium from decommissioned nuclear weapons

If they say we can't possibly scale up LFTR very quickly because the breeding ratio is too low and so it'd take too long to produce enough U-233 to bring more reactors online, then they are being disingenous because it'd be stupid to power LFTR reactors on 100% U-233.

If we utilize our existing stocks of spent fuel, natural uranium, etc. as much as possible then you probably only need to run the reactors on about 5% U-233. This means one reactor operating for a year will breed enough U-233 to startup 19 more reactors.

shit son, this is the last comment we need in the thread.

Also, we can scale up nuclear stupid fast. pic related

Hey I need 2 million to fund my nuclear reactor startup. Totally legit, I already have a customer and can make you a 10x return in 3-5 years.

Actually molten salt reactors will be needed in maybe 25 years AFTER we finally deploy light water reactor technology worldwide. There just isint enough nuclear waste to actually constitute a problem which motivates us to switch to a different nuclear fuel cycle.

Guys just FYI multiple members from my nuclear power company read this website and i've redpilled all of them. We need help raising money if you know any billionaires who want to help change the world.

Too bad we can't get a rumor going that ebola sheets cure STDs and HIV.

user, please come on and help me raise Thule :]
We can build an island in the north Atlantic on the Doggerbank that supplies totally clean energy to all of Europe for the next 3 centuries. This will rapidly cease the rape and murder of German and other countrysides for coal. I have designs of offshore structures, siting systems, manufacturers, and one customer. We need money to expand into more markets to prove to vendors in our supply chain we have traction. Lets start a company powered by the fires of the schwarzesonne.

Eurobro, I would love to help you, but I have the wrong order of magnitude of funds to begin the process.

The best I can do is tell my people to stay woke on the subject, and counterdebate the bullshit.

Imagine building agricultural-industrial complexes on the shores of Africa, each 50km^2 site feeding a some millions of people (1-20 perhaps). You can encourage the immigrants who have left their countries to move back to their originating culture, salvaging their own identity and OUR own identity. It is the truly humane solution, enabled by the kindly divine muse, which we should straight away pursue!

Why are we always returning to the past. Our future lies half a decade ago or more. The dead dreams of cold war children, twisted away by the manipulations of bankers and fossil fuel industries they profit from… nuclear energy, having a ubiquitous fuel source, represents a true independence among peoples. The proper reactor designs can avoid concerns of weaponization and at the same time leverage the methods of automated factory assembly. Yes, mass production even of large structures is possible to design with our systems and models.

The crazy thing is that we are NOT allowed to use RUSSIAN, CHINESE, or INDIAN nuclear reactor designs in our products. The sad fact is that many of the BRICS countries nuclear engineering is exactly within the limits of what developing countries want to consume. Consider, a customer wants to expand their capacity in small chunks so the financiers don't rape the growing economy with billion dollar loans for years. Our approach actually helps small countries, as the shipyard finances the construction and the customer only pays for the nuclear plant on delivery. It is the only way to save our planet from POLLUTION in a reasonable timescale.
Climate change is a chmera, it blows my mind how they use this mother fucking MEME to deny my fellow humans access to the mental processing time to consider what actually is damaging to the environment. The absolute peak of frustration results when one realizes how EASILY ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION IS ACCOMPLISHED. With only a fraction of what our ZoGs waste on their "environmental" schemes, we could manage oceanic food chains, clean up plastic contamination, and improve sewage treatment & water recycling. We are denied the proper infrastructure to be proper stewards of our environment, yet inside each our souls we know that WE ARE CAPABLE OF SO MUCH MORE. This is my saturday night rage.

Have a bump. This is the first time in a while that I'm actually learning something new on Holla Forums.

Fuuuuuuuck you user. Just fuck.

There's no reason at all to continue to deploy light water reactors.

Those things are barely-safe bomb material factories that produce electricity as a byproduct.

If climate change alarmism was actually about saving the earth, then they'd be talking about things that would actually fucking reduce our emissions and so forth.

In other words, they'd be talking about
1) using nuclear energy
2) population control in the 3rd world.

To address point 1, these people claim that nuclear is scary because they think it means Homer Simpson and green goo. Complete bullshit. And even if that were true, these people are talking about global warming like it's the fucking end times. If you ACTUALLY believe that shit, then the possibility of nuclear meltdowns in power plants is fucking nothing compared to such a catastrophe.

To address point 2, I'm not just talking about fucking sex education and providing condoms/pills. If they were serious, they'd talk about mass sterilization of the 3rd world. More people means more industrialization and pollution and deforestation and all of these other things that contribute supposedly to global warming. Again, if you actually believed that it was this apocalyptic scenario, then sterilizing dindus who would otherwise explode from a population of 1 billion in africa today to 4 billion in in 100 years would be a small fucking price to pay. Or at the very least, they'd stop sending them fucktons of aid that just serves to balloon their population.

Liberals don't want nuclear wast reprocessing to happen because it would destroy one of their corner stone arguments against the technology.

Go back and ask that professor if necessary user!
Don't spout BS unless you can back it up.

just like they want to end the Mars mission because it defeats the argument that Republicans are anti-science

On that note, while I am still a huge proponent of nuclear energy, it's interesting to think about what would happen if incompetent shitskin nations used nuclear energy. AFAIK only a tiny handful of them are in shitskin countries like india/pakistan, and even then, they have that whole caste system so there are some smart ones or whatever the fuck, but you get my point.

So let's say demographic replacement continues to happen until a place like the US is nothing but retarded beaners, muzzies, and niggers. We all see what happens when niggers end up taking over a city. Look at places like Detroit that were once thriving and are now literally falling apart. So what would happen if we have all these nuclear reactors that were built when the country was completely white, and over time it comes to pass that they're being controlled and operated by dumb shitskins who can't maintain anything? As they naturally go into piss-poor maintenance, would they start going into total meltdowns?

What you have to worry about is the spent fuel pools.

...

I didn't even bother bringing that up, because if the shitskins ever fully gain control over America, South Africa style, we'll have much worse problems.

Namely, we have fucking nuclear weapons. A metric fuckton of them. And we have all sorts of delivery systems and ICBMs and all this state-of-the-art shit. So what happens when shitskins gain control over our nuclear arsenal after we're all dead, if that happens?

There is one major problem with reactors, which is niggers. Or brown races in general. It's perfectly fine to have a nuclear powered France if it is populated by white French people, but completely different if they go full retard, as they have in recent years, and decide to replace their population with niggers and hajis who will have no chance of maintaining the reactors.

It won't even be after we're dead. It will be within the next 30-40 years at this rate. Unless Trump declares martial law or something, and purges the people who are cock blocking his immigration policies, then it is inevitable that we will be majority brown in a coupe of decades. Which means our politicians and bureaucracy will be brown (because browns will vote for more affirmative action so eventually whites will not even be allowed to work in government).

Not to minimize the severity of becoming a minority, but even when that occurs, it'll still be some time before we loose such a total grip on the nation that the niggers are literally in control of the nukes and power plants.

But when that does happen, that's when nuclear armageddon goes off.

I believe it will go quickly. Once whites become unelectable in the executive, which will probably be within 15 years (hell, Trump may be the last white president we see in the USA), then gerrymandering and strategic relocation of refugees/section-8/spics to white areas will quickly make the congress majority brown as well. At that point they will simply block whites from power completely.

Nuclear weapons are counterintuitively less dangerous because the warheads and their delivery systems require constant maintenance to remain viable.

You need to consistently exercise agency in order to keep nuclear weapons dangerous.

You need to consistently exercise agency in order to keep spent fuel pools safe.

The pools are the larger danger.

What the fuck happened to all of the prototype Thorium plants in India and China, I can't find any articles on if the projects fell through, the reactors didn't work or what.

Nuclear fission is outdated tech.
Once fusion becomes feasible, there'd be virtually no waste radioactivity issues.
It'd be financial suicide to start a new fission energy industry in countries that still don't have it.

Fusion is a pipe dream.

The power density of a star is approximately the same as the power density of an average compost pile.

The only downside is spent nucler material is had to throw away, store. Theres not much you can do with it after.

There was a guy that came up how to use the nuclear waste and make batteries out of it. The amount of power it could produce would power our needs for 1000 years. That vould be a nice alternative, but fuck it we arr owned and someones interests have way more power there is nothing we can do but moan

No, instead you trade non-existent waste issues for containment issues.
Nuclear meltdown? Not too bad. With new reactor tech, that's unlikely to happen.
Fission containment breach? At the very minimum, you've got giant streams of plasma shooting out of a massive facility.

Definitely one of the articles I had saved got removed last year. I don't know if The Independent just culls its old articles or if this was something more nefarious. The last viable archive snapshot is in March 2016:

web.archive.org/web/20160315152346/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100026863/china-going-for-broke-on-thorium-nuclear-power-and-good-luck-to-them/
from
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100026863/china-going-for-broke-on-thorium-nuclear-power-and-good-luck-to-them/

also of note:
gppreview.com/2014/11/06/nuclear-options-explains-u-s-china-cooperation-thorium/

can someone PLEASE tell me how to make the small archive urls??

For calcium, obviously.

If we are replaced in our own countries, the shitskins end up nuking themselves.

I don't see a problem here.

literally embed related

But then where will we get out massive machinery memes from?

It's okay, when we achieve the fourth reich you can breed albino fauna to your heart's content.

LOL

Climate change is real insofar that it has always been occurring. That being a micro level from day to day and a macro level over 1000's of years.

The Lynch pin of the HCCC theory is that the measly .03% or .04% of CO2 that we produce that makes up the .2 percent of the CO2 in our atmosphere is what's causing climate change. This of course has given skeptics reason to question the validity of HCCC.

Personally I think it's a red herring. Perhaps china or some other third world shithole is pumping out some kind of turbo pollution that's sparking an increase in temperatures that they're simply not reporting. That's more believable to me than CO2 causing it at this point.

Nice story. Can't find it. I call bullshit.

Here's another PoV from a worried EE:
Do you know what sort of problems the rapid increase in renewables means for the electrical grid?
It means there's going to be moments when production can't keep up with the demand. Say, a hot summer day suddenly becomes stormy. Power from solar suddenly drops to near zero. So what happens currently? Gas, coal, oil and hydroelectric power plants increase their production while additional backup plants come online to make up for the lost solar power. So what will happen when the gas, coal and oil plants aren't there because they're too polluting?
Well, the #1 solution offered is "smart" consumption. Let's take a dishwasher as an example: it connects to the grid and asks "is there spare power for me?" If it's sunny, there is and the machine starts. If it's not but a change in weather is predicted, it may wait a few hours before starting. Of course, domestic appliances can only do this for so much, the hopes are that various industrial processes could be turned off during either peak load or when renewables aren't producing.
The industry, of course, wants to have most of its processes at full power at all times to maximize production and profit.
In other words, it'll mean either an increase in costs or a decrease in production, in addition to there being (((some authority))) who controls when people's appliances work and when they'll wait.
Nuclear, of course, doesn't care about the weather. It also has some neat technical features that help guard against rapid fluctuations in power quality, both actively and passively, that renewables lack. And it's actually cheap despite people always going on about "muh costly power plants" because they are incapable of understanding that the metric that should matter is $/MWh averaged over the plant's lifetime. I could continue ranting about how ignorant the environmentalists are about some technical and power quality issues the renewables cause but I'll leave it to someone else.

The problem is we will never run out of these two things. People will never think of nuclear power and the risks in a rational way. It has a near religious level of cognitive dissonance associated with it among the average citizenry. Too many Jews, Arabs and other fossil fuel tycoons have paid top dollar to create that fear.

...

and those easily swayed can be easily swayed again

The cost of nuclear power plants is 99.9% regulatory compliance and legal battles. You could build one for pennies on the dollar without all the bureaucrats and environmental nutjobs.

I'm thinking that might be a bit of a dramatization, but I would be absolutely NOT surprised if it was really 90%

I've been saying the same thing for years, and the only counterarguments I ever get are "MUH CHERNOBYL". When I point out that Chernobyl only happened due to societs cutting corners during construction and due to the retard in charge deciding to run experiments outside safe parametres, they go "you don't know if it can't happen again somewhere else! It's not theoretically impossible!" And then they switch to "MUH NUCLEAR WASTE" and similar shit.

Nuclear waste is a fucking joke. It's stored in containers that can take simultaneous crash of two trains driving at full speed against each other and that have an absolute zero chance of ever spilling their contents. The only reason why there even is any controversy are retarded ecofags fearmongering ignorant normalfags. Shit, I'd be partial to burying that shit in my garden if the government offered me some shekels for storing it.

Nuclear is shit. its a wheeze to get you to pollute your land and people by the jews.

from niehls bohr to jean bernard levy, most of nuclear's "white" proponents are ashkenazi jews who aim to and already make millions off of storing the waste for all time.

we have to store this waste for 300 years goyim pay me!

nuclear radiation is fine goyim! it does not count as co2 therefore this is green. ignore the cows with two heads. pay me my subsidy for clean energy!

Oy Vey goyim buy this expensive new reactor design instead of using your fine and tested model!

Its a scam cold fusion is shit nuclear power too and will never come, also it still produces waste that needs to be stored.

Coal,Oil,Gas have been around for hundreds of years and are safe as are renewables, jewcular energy is of the jew,

there has been huge lies around the technology that they were unable to suppress quickly enough once the Zionists began to heavily occupy our government after world war II.

the first being nuclear is safe. it works but it is not exactly safe, the jews don't care neither do their elite pals.

that's why you will find only very few reactors or even none in some countries which are very developed such as israel, switzerland,austria and most of bavaria because the elites understand that this is a test like abortion which leaves women infertile alot of the time or drugs which can make people insane amongst other things.

THEY want us to take the risk:

Eat insects,kill our kids,get radiated.

get fucked schlomo and your freemason buddies.

This is the white man's trusted source of energy,not big oil or jewcular.

burning wood, trusted for thousands of years and fine today.

what do you trust this which has worked for milennia with no problems or something a band of jewish scientists came up with in the 40s based on something given to einstein using people (((fleeing nazi per-se-cuuu-tion))).

The paris accord is not anti but pro nuclear power.

Designed to make money for the jewish french nuclear industry being the standard for the world.

they already control the design of reactors in the eu with the european pressurized reactor being mandatory in most new nuclear projects around the eu. they are funded by rothschild.

macron used to even work for rothschild before becoming president of france, jimmy carter was elected by rigged ballot in the same way in the 1970s (see jon todd revelations on the illuminati on youtube it was the rothschilds again).

they want you to believe nuclear fission byproducts are safer than smoke from wood or even coal you are a retard who believes nuclear stats from the nuclear industry.

You must have a sub-100 IQ if you genuinely took your time to type out something so hollow. Why not try using rational arguments instead of characterizing nuclear energy as Jewish? Am I a shill because I want you to use evidence to argue? If nuclear energy is really not safe, then why did "(((they)))" position all their "risky" reactors upwind from Bavaria, Switzerland and Austria in France?
Many times more radioactivity comes out of a coal plant than a nuclear plant (even with the scrubber smoke stacks) due to the heavy elements in coal deposits.
then why exactly does it account for a double-digit percentage of worldwide electricity production?

You have truly got to be fucking kidding me, lol. What are you a shill for the logging agencies? Burning wood is what they are doing in Europe, and it barely makes a dent in their power needs. You know what else was trusted for thousands of years? Flint arrowheads, why aren't we using flint arrowheads in our slaughterhouses? What a demonstrably retarded idea.

If Macron was anti-nuclear then why is one of his campaign promises to reduce France's dependence on nuclear power from 75% to 50%? Shaking my fucking head at your retardation.

To be very specific, the radioactivity in coal smoke is mostly due to trace thorium.

The energy content of that thorium is more than an order of magnitude higher than the energey content of the coal it came from.