Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)

Mote

alt-right troll acc
@Commune
 
True, it’s much better to invest one billion in safe power, and thousands of solar panels or turbines rather than one powerplant.
 
Also Germany is also giving up nuclear. It’s not safe, unless you follow that fiction from HBO, such a power should be tolerant to accidents and human mistakes.
 
Chernobyl happened because nuclear energy is never stable and can not be stable.
 
@lonewolf  
Fake news.
byte[]
Solar Supporter - Fought against the New Lunar Republic rebellion on the side of the Solar Deity (April Fools 2023).
Non-Fungible Trixie -
Verified Pegasus - Show us your gorgeous wings!
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
An Artist Who Rocks - 100+ images under their artist tag
Artist -

Philomena Contributor
It’s not safe, unless you follow that fiction from HBO, such a power should be tolerant to accidents and human mistakes.
There absolutely are such safe technologies – ones that are not weaponizable and tolerant to even being bombed and having planes flown into them. But reactors have a much bigger problem, which is disposal of highly radioactive waste. It totally dominates the safety concerns of running the reactor.
Mote

alt-right troll acc
@byte[]  
Yes but what if an accident happens? It’s no more safe, people die then.
 
Nuclear waste are a problem.
 
It’s not green, it’s a huge business. We can live without nuclear perfectly well, just use low emission lightbulbs, prefer a tablet over a desktop comuter to work with, get your government to limit the use of public lights and use alternatives.
 
We don’t need so many power. This is a very capitalist thing, it is mass production of energy.
 
We have an overload, we should use less, we produce so many we think we can, and that’s wrong.
 
Electricity is the fuel of capitalism in the 21st century and the world can’t keep up.
Ereiam
Betrayal! - Betrayed their team for a badge. Shame forever!
Solar Guardian - Refused to surrender in the face of the Lunar rebellion and showed utmost loyalty to the Solar Empire (April Fools 2023).
Fine Arts - Two hundred uploads with a score of over a hundred (Safe/Suggestive)
Perfect Pony Plot Provider - Uploader of 10+ images with 350 upvotes or more (Questionable/Explicit)
Notoriously Divine Tagger - Consistently uploads images above and beyond the minimum tag requirements. And/or additionally, bringing over the original description from the source if the image has one. Does NOT apply to the uploader adding several to a dozen tags after originally uploading with minimum to bare tagging.
Cool Crow - "Caw!" An awesome tagger
Magnificent Metadata Maniac - Organization is important.
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

Monde de merde
@byte[]  
France tried to develop one some 40 years ago. The project turned out to be a mess, got incredibly bad PR (especially after a series of malfunctions which happened around the same time as Chernobyl), and eventually got scrapped, leaving a 12 billion euros hole in the ground. And since French nuclear industrials can’t seem to learn their lesson, we’re currently in the process of digging an even bigger hole with the EPR…
byte[]
Solar Supporter - Fought against the New Lunar Republic rebellion on the side of the Solar Deity (April Fools 2023).
Non-Fungible Trixie -
Verified Pegasus - Show us your gorgeous wings!
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
An Artist Who Rocks - 100+ images under their artist tag
Artist -

Philomena Contributor
@Mote  
I think you missed the point of my original post, which is that there are safe reactor designs, and they are so safe they can be abandoned or bombed or become the victim of a plane crash, and the fuel they use is not weaponizable because it isn’t directly fissile.
 
The technology isn’t specifically relevant to this argument, but instead of using water as the heat exchange material, molten salts like sodium chloride are used instead. These salts immediately solidify in the event the reactor power is lost to contain the radioactive material, instead of bursting into the atmosphere and spreading a radioactive cloud like a light water reactor when the pressure vessel is breached. In addition, since the fission material is not actually fissile and only fertile, it requires neutron input to maintain the reaction. That energy is recovered from the reaction, otherwise the process wouldn’t make sense.
 
Everything about the inner workings of these reactors is incredibly safe and not susceptible to bean counters.
Mote

alt-right troll acc
@byte[]  
Comrade, I wouldn’t trust this kind of technology. We must change and adapt, we must focus on the well being of all people, and have technology to serve us, not to put anyone at risk.
 
 
@Ereiam  
And they are repeating the same with building of ITER. Billions that should have been invested in sustainable development, stolen by corporations to keep people dependent of them.
 
This is late stage capitalism. A bloody joke. We deserve a government that cares for the people.
Derpy Whooves
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
Artist -
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
Artistic Detective - For awesome dedication to sleuthing out and maintaining artist tags and links
Economist -
Not a Llama - Happy April Fools Day!

Looking For My Doctor
@Mote  
Your personal inability to trust has nothing to do with the actual facts of the technology. It’s fine that you will never trust it, but the hard facts of reactor design are reproducible and not subject to the whims of politics.
Mote

alt-right troll acc
@Derpy Whooves  
You’re right you’re right, we should leave science to scientists and keep politics separated. My point is, overproduction leads to overconsumption, this is the capitalist system’s logic.
 
But on a lot of points, scientists oppose nuclear. Scientists say evolution is real, climate change is real, and manmade, and vaccine works.
 
Those are facts.
 
Even if it’s perfectly safe, there are better sources of energy we must use.
 
@Lord Goku  
Even more than TheMagpulPole and his beloved Ford truck?
Latecomer

I think nuclear creeps people out because you can receive a deadly exposure without even knowing until it’s too late.
 
Of course, other forms of pollution disperse invisibly far beyond the obvious smoke clouds - and pollute though normal operation instead of just when thing go wrong. But their damage to health is usually slow and distributed, so they don’t scare people quite as much.
Dustcan
Magnificent Metadata Maniac - #1 Assistant
Lunar Supporter - Helped forge New Lunar Republic's freedom in the face of the Solar Empire's oppressive tyrannical regime (April Fools 2023).
Non-Fungible Trixie -
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
Twinkling Balloon - Took part in the 2021 community collab.
Friendship, Art, and Magic (2020) - Took part in the 2020 Community Collab
Wallet After Summer Sale -
Condensed Milk - State-Approved Compensation

Dogs
In random right wing propaganda news, Rush Limbaugh is denying Kashoggi was murdered and is saying that the Great Recession from the last decade didn’t happen. He stated the former in defense of Saudi Arabia and somehow slandering Clinton, and said the latter out of nowhere because… he felt like being a contrarian?
 
How did this guy become popular.
Derpy Whooves
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
Artist -
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
Artistic Detective - For awesome dedication to sleuthing out and maintaining artist tags and links
Economist -
Not a Llama - Happy April Fools Day!

Looking For My Doctor
But on a lot of points, scientists oppose nuclear
 
People can disagree, but all nuclear reactors are not the same, and most scientists agree that some of the examples that have been used here are examples of reactors that never should have been built.
 
And scientists are also are in favor of research into safe nuclear reactors such as the molten salt reactor and fusion.
 
Even if it’s perfectly safe, there are better sources of energy we must use.
 
What energy sources are “better” is debatable, and right now thanks to the roll-back in nuclear we’ve got Germany ramping up Lignite mining and consumption to levels that have made it the largest consumer of brown coal on the planet. Plus that means Hambach is still running, which is a man-made disaster of epic proportions.
 
The only thing worse than lignite for CO2 emissions is anthracite, and personally I would have rather had them continue to rely on Nuclear than to turn all their coal plants up to 11.
 
That’s personal taste - people can disagree, as we clearly do.
 
But denying the science behind an energy source because you personally don’t like it, or because of the politics of it … that’s not science.
Mote

alt-right troll acc
@Dustcan  
Get them out. Really.
 
I feel bad for what Americans are going through, you are not all bad people, you really need a real change.
 
He’s popular because the right wingers are stupid and don’t take a few minutes to think.
 
@Derpy Whooves  
Bro, let’s not fight over that, I’m just saying what I heard by ecologists who are highly concerned by what’s going on in the world.
 
People who studied and analyzed seriously and neutrally the situation, not like nuclear scientists who will tell you “atoms are safe”
 
 
Science is a thing, politics is something else, the problems we have today are essentially economics and politics, societal even.
 
Science can help us making the society better, like it always did.
 
Understanding ourselves, reducing the importance of religion, gender, communication, climate… but also bad things like nuclear bombs, genetic selection or wasting money on space races.
Derpy Whooves
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
Artist -
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
Artistic Detective - For awesome dedication to sleuthing out and maintaining artist tags and links
Economist -
Not a Llama - Happy April Fools Day!

Looking For My Doctor
@Mote  
I’m talking about what you are saying, not what they said. And you seem to be ignoring what I’m saying.
 
If it’s perfectly safe, then we should look to it as a possible solution, however short term, rather than doubling down on burning coal - which is what is happening right now.
 
Also I don’t see how we will be able to explore outer planets without the ability to fuel RTGs. Eliminating nuclear completely is the wrong option, and costs us too much. It ramps up our dependance on coal, it “saves” coal industries that we had almost put in our past, and it severely hampers our ability to explore space.
 
I’m all in favor of looking for alternative energy. But when you eliminate one choice entirely, in favor of coal of all things, then I think your political goals are diametrically opposed to your ecological, environmental, economical, and exploration goals.
 
wasting money on space races
 
The original space race won us an enormous boon in technological improvements. And there is no space race today so please stop using 1960’s thinking to solve 2020’s problems.
Kazapsky
Lunar Supporter - Helped forge New Lunar Republic's freedom in the face of the Solar Empire's oppressive tyrannical regime (April Fools 2023).

Five scoops of ice cream
One thing is for certain, nuclear power doesn’t pollute as much as say…coal.
 
That’s not a high bar to clear. There’s quite a few industries that can and do pull off the “pollute less than the coal plant down the road” trick by accident.
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
My Little Ties crafts shop

Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!

Syntax quick reference: **bold** *italic* ||hide text|| `code` __underline__ ~~strike~~ ^sup^ %sub%

Detailed syntax guide