/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12486879
Ignorant piece of shit

>>11789330
>>11789691
>>11789367
Stop posting this
This chart counted the price of energy with the payback time.

1mw Nuclear Power plants spends only $64M for fuel
Natural Gas spends over $450M for the same amount of power

Shortly after Nuclear Power have fulfilled its payback time, it overtakes the profit made by both Natural Gas and Coal in just 5 more years.

>Renewables are a meme and will never be cost competitive against fossil fuels*

>>10635607
>uses land or sea that is otherwise deserted, can also be put on rooftops (solar) or on farmland (wind)
Patently false.
Joule effect prohibits these from being built far away from urban centers. The land isn't otherwise deserted and needs to be in relatively close proximity to where the power is going to be delivered.
> can also be put on rooftops
Landowners are going to want compensation, raising the cost.
>or on farmland (wind)
Farmers want compensation and even if allowed, most prohibit people near them, as they're liability concerns.
>no you don't really need batteries, there are way to get useful energy out of them without storage
You proved yourself to be an electrical illiterate.
I should stop discussing.
>nothing compared to mining uranium
Concentrated ore at remote sites. A few pellets of uranium can power a block for a lifetime. The sum total of the batteries to components to PV cells, to turbine fabrication, is much, much, much more intensive.
>'photovotaic is toxic'>>> not true at all
It's incredibly toxic and has specific disposable protocols which nobody follows.
>every power source needs backup
Nuclear doesn't.
>Literally free fucking energy.
"Literally" isn't. "Literally" is expensive shit-tier energy actively is hostile to the only viable competition against fossil fuels (ie nuclear). Renewables are controlled opposition, and will never be viable against.

What does America have to do with anything you seething brainlet? France is 90% Nuclear and adopted the technology rapidly over the course of a decade. We don't need a balanced energy mix which results in fossil fuel domination every time. We need near total transition to nuclear. If you want renewables for yourself fine, but don't go around thinking they're capable of meeting the power demands of society. That's pure delusion.

>>10635649
Seething.
You're mentally ill. See a psychiatrist.

>>10614423
Yet it's cheaper than all other sources of power. It's almost like you're intentionally being dishonest.

>>10593517
It's been getting WORSE since the move away from nuclear power not better. Large wind and solar farms require coal or gas backup plants for intermittency.

>>10564009
Here is the real cost of nuclear power and why oil and coal oppose it at every step. Unlike renewable which they either ignore or even shill for like here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Jj2wD3GjE

>>10536553
t. controlled opposition.
The only viable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear. Renewables are a meme.

>>10522871
Solar is a meme. Photovotiacs have a short longevity (10-20 years) and, in point of fact, are incredibly polluting, and require millions of acres. They are plagued by intermittency, which means there will always be a gas or even worse, coal fired back up.
It will never be a viable alternative against nuclear. This is why oil companies could care less about it. The only green energy source is nuclear fission. Only brainlets are opposed to it.

>>10512992
Based