NUCLEAR IS GREENEST TECHNOLOGY CLAIM 65 TOP BIOLOGISTS

[Balthazar]

By the way, all RBMK reactors went through modernization after 1986 disaster happened. This resolved all known safety issues, so now these reactors are considered safe. On the other hand, export of this technology is forbidden due to international regulations because RBMK series can be modified to generate weapons grade plutonium. That's why there are no working RBMK reactors outside of exUSSR.

[Harry Hood]

This isn't news. It's been widely known for decades that nuclear energy is very, very green. The problem with nuclear energy is not the exhaust or output, it's with the damage that could be caused if the nuclear reactor leaks (like what happened in Japan a few years back.)

If the nuclear reactor leaks it makes the area surrounding the plant toxic...that's why this source of energy isn't used as widely as it could.

[bryant.coleman]

This isn't news. It's been widely known for decades that nuclear energy is very, very green. The problem with nuclear energy is not the exhaust or output, it's with the damage that could be caused if the nuclear reactor leaks (like what happened in Japan a few years back.)

If the nuclear reactor leaks it makes the area surrounding the plant toxic...that's why this source of energy isn't used as widely as it could.

I agree that nuclear plants are not 100.0000% safe. Once in a decade or two, an accident can occur (such as Fukushima) and there is a chance of human casualties occurring as a result of it. But what about the other forms of energy? Every year hundreds of thousands of people die as a result of the atmospheric pollution caused by the coal-fired thermal power plants. And for comparison, how many people have lost their lives in nuclear accidents during the past 20 years?

[subSTRATA]

This isn't news. It's been widely known for decades that nuclear energy is very, very green. The problem with nuclear energy is not the exhaust or output, it's with the damage that could be caused if the nuclear reactor leaks (like what happened in Japan a few years back.)

If the nuclear reactor leaks it makes the area surrounding the plant toxic...that's why this source of energy isn't used as widely as it could.

I agree that nuclear plants are not 100.0000% safe. Once in a decade or two, an accident can occur (such as Fukushima) and there is a chance of human casualties occurring as a result of it. But what about the other forms of energy? Every year hundreds of thousands of people die as a result of the atmospheric pollution caused by the coal-fired thermal power plants. And for comparison, how many people have lost their lives in nuclear accidents during the past 20 years?

people in general fail to look at the bigger picture, and are instead only look at the big events related to an idea that is the determining factor for their opinion on their matter. a nice comparison: how many people doe from smoking every year? a quick google search shows its in the millions, annually. so why arent we paying more attention to that? because nothing "big" happens from smoking. theres no explosions, gunshots, whatever. just cancer. compare that to a hypothetical airplane that had an engine malfunction and crashed, resulting in the flashy death of maybe 100 people. suddenly, x manufacturer of those engines are literally the harbinger of death on earth.

[bryant.coleman]

people in general fail to look at the bigger picture, and are instead only look at the big events related to an idea that is the determining factor for their opinion on their matter. a nice comparison: how many people doe from smoking every year? a quick google search shows its in the millions, annually. so why arent we paying more attention to that? because nothing "big" happens from smoking. theres no explosions, gunshots, whatever. just cancer. compare that to a hypothetical airplane that had an engine malfunction and crashed, resulting in the flashy death of maybe 100 people. suddenly, x manufacturer of those engines are literally the harbinger of death on earth.

Not only that. There is a lot of propaganda going on in the mainstream media, against the nuclear energy. If we thoroughly investigate about the groups which are indulging in these propaganda campaigns, then it will become clear that many of them are funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other nations which are opposed to green energy.

[subSTRATA]

people in general fail to look at the bigger picture, and are instead only look at the big events related to an idea that is the determining factor for their opinion on their matter. a nice comparison: how many people doe from smoking every year? a quick google search shows its in the millions, annually. so why arent we paying more attention to that? because nothing "big" happens from smoking. theres no explosions, gunshots, whatever. just cancer. compare that to a hypothetical airplane that had an engine malfunction and crashed, resulting in the flashy death of maybe 100 people. suddenly, x manufacturer of those engines are literally the harbinger of death on earth.

Not only that. There is a lot of propaganda going on in the mainstream media, against the nuclear energy. If we thoroughly investigate about the groups which are indulging in these propaganda campaigns, then it will become clear that many of them are funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other nations which are opposed to green energy.

oil and all that, makes sense.

that aside, this is happening: http://inhabitat.com/worlds-largest-nuclear-fusion-reactor-set-to-go-online-later-this-month/
after 19 years of construction, the W7-X fusion reactor is set to be powered on later this month.
although this reactor wont be meant to be a reliable and sustainable source of energy, it will be testing a new design that will surpass the current limitations of nuclear fusion reactors. if this test proves successful in proving the theories behind the device, we should be looking at drastic changes in nuclear reactor design over the next 3 - 4 decades to make a model that will provide clean, consistent energy.

[pitham1]

people in general fail to look at the bigger picture, and are instead only look at the big events related to an idea that is the determining factor for their opinion on their matter. a nice comparison: how many people doe from smoking every year? a quick google search shows its in the millions, annually. so why arent we paying more attention to that? because nothing "big" happens from smoking. theres no explosions, gunshots, whatever. just cancer. compare that to a hypothetical airplane that had an engine malfunction and crashed, resulting in the flashy death of maybe 100 people. suddenly, x manufacturer of those engines are literally the harbinger of death on earth.

Not only that. There is a lot of propaganda going on in the mainstream media, against the nuclear energy. If we thoroughly investigate about the groups which are indulging in these propaganda campaigns, then it will become clear that many of them are funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other nations which are opposed to green energy.

This propaganda won't work in China. They are steaming ahead with nuclear power plants.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/china-poised-speed-nuclear-power-investment

The development of nuclear power in China is set to gain momentum in the next five years as the country prepares to inject hundreds of billions of yuan into building nuclear plants.

More than 100 nuclear power plants will be put into operation by 2020, with a nationwide capacity tripling that of 2014 to reach 58 million kilowatts, the China Times reported, citing a draft for the 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-20).

[Balthazar]

This propaganda won't work in China.

Of course it won't work when people are suffocating from gases and unable to see the sunlight.

http://inhabitat.com/new-fake-sun-photo-shows-how-bad-beijings-pollution-problem-is/

[Wilikon]

people in general fail to look at the bigger picture, and are instead only look at the big events related to an idea that is the determining factor for their opinion on their matter. a nice comparison: how many people doe from smoking every year? a quick google search shows its in the millions, annually. so why arent we paying more attention to that? because nothing "big" happens from smoking. theres no explosions, gunshots, whatever. just cancer. compare that to a hypothetical airplane that had an engine malfunction and crashed, resulting in the flashy death of maybe 100 people. suddenly, x manufacturer of those engines are literally the harbinger of death on earth.

Not only that. There is a lot of propaganda going on in the mainstream media, against the nuclear energy. If we thoroughly investigate about the groups which are indulging in these propaganda campaigns, then it will become clear that many of them are funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other nations which are opposed to green energy.

A reminder (not directly linked to nuclear energy but...)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2012/09/28/new-matt-damon-movie-funded-by-opec-member-country-trashes-american-oil-companies/

Useful idiot.

[bryant.coleman]

This propaganda won't work in China. They are steaming ahead with nuclear power plants.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/china-poised-speed-nuclear-power-investment

The development of nuclear power in China is set to gain momentum in the next five years as the country prepares to inject hundreds of billions of yuan into building nuclear plants.

More than 100 nuclear power plants will be put into operation by 2020, with a nationwide capacity tripling that of 2014 to reach 58 million kilowatts, the China Times reported, citing a draft for the 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-20).

One of the advantages in having a military dictatorship running the country. At least the Chinese should shut down their ultra-polluting coal fired power plants, and replace them with the nuclear energy plants. The only negative is that the Chinese doesn't have significant amount of Uranium reserves (unlike the case with coal).

[criptix]

people in general fail to look at the bigger picture, and are instead only look at the big events related to an idea that is the determining factor for their opinion on their matter. a nice comparison: how many people doe from smoking every year? a quick google search shows its in the millions, annually. so why arent we paying more attention to that? because nothing "big" happens from smoking. theres no explosions, gunshots, whatever. just cancer. compare that to a hypothetical airplane that had an engine malfunction and crashed, resulting in the flashy death of maybe 100 people. suddenly, x manufacturer of those engines are literally the harbinger of death on earth.

Not only that. There is a lot of propaganda going on in the mainstream media, against the nuclear energy. If we thoroughly investigate about the groups which are indulging in these propaganda campaigns, then it will become clear that many of them are funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other nations which are opposed to green energy.

oil and all that, makes sense.

that aside, this is happening: http://inhabitat.com/worlds-largest-nuclear-fusion-reactor-set-to-go-online-later-this-month/
after 19 years of construction, the W7-X fusion reactor is set to be powered on later this month.
although this reactor wont be meant to be a reliable and sustainable source of energy, it will be testing a new design that will surpass the current limitations of nuclear fusion reactors. if this test proves successful in proving the theories behind the device, we should be looking at drastic changes in nuclear reactor design over the next 3 - 4 decades to make a model that will provide clean, consistent energy.

It is possible that we will see fusion reactors a lot faster.
http://news.mit.edu/2015/small-modular-efficient-fusion-plant-0810

Lockheed&martin are also saying something similiar.