/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12605174
The interest rate of a loan depends on the perceived risk, and nuclear power plants have a high perceived risk because of popular opposition, large cost overruns on many power plants and increasing competition from gas and renewables.

>>12602178
Its costly if your intended output is small its very cheap for large quantities of energy but it requires a bigger initial investment. Nevertheless, companies are beginning to create smaller nuclear reactors prototypes.

Nuclear is only viable when a nation makes a concentrated effort. Such as France in the 90s. As it requires a nationalized infrastructure to handle all the dangerously energetic bits.

Solar can be made in child labor sweat shops in the third world. Then packaged in western brands and sold at a profit for the rich elite.

>>12604703
They sure would. Except somehow they don't. They know that nuclear has no future.

>>12602080
We have 3 other infinite sources of energies without risking nuclear fallout.

>>12605723
>Infinite
In theory, good luck making a reliable grid out of solar and wind.

>>12602080
High initial cost and fear mongering

>>12602080
Because everyone thinks every single reactor is Chernobyl, despite that reactor being outdated by the time it was being built, and the people running the reactor were idiots

>>12605723
Until it's cloudy/rains or the wind stops blowing or you need more than the river can provide

>>12602080
The problem is that in it's current iterations it is extremely inefficient.
Immediate innovation to more efficient Fission, and eventually, even more efficient fusion designs must and will be needed in order for Nuclear to truly become mainstream.
However insufficient funding and lack of interest in such clean and efficient technologies and lack of patience for developing the research and building such designs over a few years or even couple decades has left nuclear energy to stagnate as a reliable and common energy source overall.
Really is a shame.

>>12606314
So a modern reactor maintained by literal japanese engineers could never have a problem right?

>>12607709
Triple meltdown and comparatively tiny amounts of contamination even though it's from the 50's and it got hit by a 9.0 quake and an enormous tsunami. Not too bad desu

OP doesn't know about fat tail risk

>the brits once tried to put out a uranium fire with a giant fan

>>12607719
Only melted down because back generators were flooded, and the fire truck pumped water went into the heat exchanger instead if the core.

If they just left the truck pump running and added water constantly. It would have been fine. Get insufficient instruments and disaster recovery combined with complacency. Caused the meltdow.

>>12602080
the word "nuclear" scares normies. see NMR vs MRI

>>12602105
Your dad's a fag and just wants his tesla stock to go up.

>Nuclear is heavily regulated by feds
>oil and gas, coal, and now green energy lobbies fight nuclear because it's cheaper, and limitless
>Gen iV molten salt reactors would literally be free energy (cheap af, almost zero per month)
>elitists can't make money off free energy, so you daddy cucks for the lobbyists.

>>12608075
There is also the whole
>backup generators for reactor cooling pumps placed below sea level
this is so fucking retarded when your country gets pummeled by tsunamis 24/7

>>12608127
The seawall was thought sufficient. 9.0 earthquakes and their tsunamis are once in 1000 year event.

But yeah. Should have been up high, just in case

>>12608132
Sure, it's extremely rare for a tsunami to breach the seawall. It just seems like blind hope to trust the structural integrity of the wall and mother nature as part of your reactor safety design.
But the containment vessels did their job, unlike Chernobyl which was an abomination in nuclear engineering that didn't even have containment vessels.

>>12608140
Rmbk reactors do not explode!

>>12608150
>reactor is safe comrade!
>we just add pulse reactor feature to emergency shutdown button
they build an abomination and handed it's keys to a bunch of jaded bureaucrats, shit was doomed from the start

>>12608140
Everything has a price, it makes no sense to invest millions or billions to protect the 5 dudes who die from radiation to cover for a 9.0+ earthquake when the earthquake itself will cause tens of thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions of damages

>Nuclear is 10% of world power
>Massive disaster every 30 years on average
>Make nuclear power for everything
>Fukushima or Chernobyl every 3 years

>>12609085
You realise how retarded that statement is, right? Literally just look at the total output of nuclear reactors Vs risk, it isn't linear.

>>12609085
>Massive disaster every 30 years on average
There has been a single "massive disaster" ever.

>>12609085
t. Doesn't know about Gen 4 nuclear plants and bases his knowledge off plants designed before the computer.

>>12609147
>>12609187
>>12609459
HAHA! Seethe more, faggots!

>>12602123
can you explain how nuclear energy would be safe in a daily basis? how do you transform it to fit it in a daily basis? how do you provide and sell such thing? who would distribute it? if sold by private companies, how do you make it appealing to normalfags?

>>12609187
What was Chernobyl?

>>12610041
A massive disaster.

>>12602080
Because microbes have learned to survive in them, and people don't want to see Corona adapt similar properties.

>>12602240
My country gets 80% of energy from two nuclear power plants. I think it's worth it.

Nuclear chemist here. It's easy to post lazard lcoe analysis, but in reality, it's much more complicated. One thing, research slowed in the 70's, and only lately do we see real advancements. Second, interest rates highly define the costs - you can make it cheap, you can make it hellishly expensive. Third, there is public perception. Even in commie China, there is an anti-nuclear movement slowing things down. Forth, we have build times. On average, a plant takes 7.5 years to start giving us power. Wind can be 2-3 years, similarely with solar. Yes, nuclear takes longer to build, but that can change - the Chinese and Japanese built modern plants in 5 years, China also got better at pumping out solar. There are also more issues, but nuclear is not a silver bullet - neither is solar and wind. Solar and wind are both 100+ year old technologies that still did not solve their intermittancy ( batteries are still way too small and expensive). Nuclear stagnates due to multiple issues. But those issues can be solved. Also, nuclear is far from dead, as there are 15 new reactors coming online this year, and 2020 was the 7th year in a row that we have grown in production

>>12610044
It was watchable, tbqh.

>>12603272
>>12604813
>>12603283
>>12603455
>Thorium
Forget Thorium reactors. If they were doing R&D on that before Chernobyl and Three mile island we may have seen them. Today, the money and manpower would be better better spend on fusion reactors since we are much closer to achieving those and they are better in virtually every way

>t. MS in Nuclear Chemistry

>>12602080
nuclear energy and nuclear bombs are bullshit psyops based on conventional energy generation and explosive techniques. The image of plausibility of a nuclear age is not sustainable to maintain above a certain number of power plants and nuclear tests have ceased decades ago.

>>12612020
Tokamaks are a dead end, talked to a few guys involved in ITER, they made their simulations. Those things are gonna be expensive and long to build

>>12602080
Because oil and coal companies funnel a fortune into anti-nuclear lobbies and activist groups.

Because it wouldn't make billionaires richer and would put many of their scams out of business. Just look at this thread, we face an existential threat yet its nothing but mewling about economics. Ironic they dismiss pro nuclear sentiment as shilling when they spend the rest of the thread showing how there's no money in it. If you're lucky you'll see people parrot oil industry propaganda and misinformation on the dangers of nuclear power, always ignoring the millions that die every year from fossil fuels (and the billions sickened by it). These threads are nothing but shilling and popsci regurgitation.

>>12603679
Why do you think oil companies invest in "renewables"?

>>12609085
Nuclear is 10% of world power
But 28% of first world nation's power supply

Which is saying a lot considering that there's only 50 countries with nuclear plants (400)
There's about 60,500 coal and gas plants

From that, we can conclude that it takes only 2000 nuclear plants to power all first world nations

Also
>Fukushima
>massive
Retard

>>12612570
>ITER
That's like asking NASA about spaceflight and then thinking all big rockets are going to take billions and decades to build because of SLS.
ITER wasn't even intended to do anything but a demonstration, no shit it's a waste of money.

>>12613155
Iter is not the only tokamak, they all have the same issues

>>12612233
OK, schizo.

>>12613505
Fusion is promising, but tokamaks are a bad way of doing it. I hope i am wrong about them, as we research them the most.

>>12602123
>the most iconic element, the cooling towers, look like smokestacks

See the Tall narrow chimney?

i wonder what its purpose is. maybe its dispersing radioactive particles in high altitude so they get carried away with the wind?

>>12602105
your progenitor might be a closeted homosexual anon

>>12602080
>Why isn't nuclear energy more popular?
decades of anti-nuclear propaganda and the hippie movement against nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, of course, there is also the belief that an accident like the one at Chernobyl will happen.It's not too late for Nuclear , but building hundreds of reactors around the world will take at least a few decades and you need to fight oil shills/hippies/SJW and politics.
>>12609085
look at France, more than 50% of the energy produced comes from nuclear power plants, and nothing happened and the price of electricity is almost half that of Germany, and Germany is more about muh solar and wind, but the prices for electricity still goes up, i know it because i live in Germany

>>12602221
Building reactors under budget and ahead of schedule was possible 60 years ago, and possible in China today
But somehow the west can’t do it
Makes you think