/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10416643
because 80% of humans are subhuman NPCs that thinks nuclear = radiation = bad

Why is terribly unreliable green energy such as solar and wind being pushed when there's an emissions free alternative that is nearly twice as reliable as oil/coal/natural gas(nuclear fission)?

Somebody put a bullet into the heads of the average conservative and liberal constituency who can't see past their emotions.

>>10416643
Well it's good you called it pipe dream, because it's literally a... pipe... dream...
I'll escort myself out.

>>10416643
Can you imagine how much pollution there would be if we switched to fission?

>>10416770
yeah, carbon emissions at close to zero, and energy prices so low that you could justify electric cars

If you follow plasma physics and thr private fusuon ventures, you know the whole always 30 years away thing is a meme now. Read tae techs latest papers. We may have aneutronic within 10 years.

>>10417171
jesus christ fix your spelling you fucking physicist

>>10416643
>fission
It's dead jim

>>10416690
Fukishima = nuclear radiation = bad

Yes 80% would be right

>>10417194
even the nuclear industry says nuclear can not compete and is pretty much dead
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY20/20150513/103447/HHRG-114-SY20-Wstate-ParmentolaJ-20150513.pdf

>>10417876
It's not dead. It's just been put on the backburner because of what happened in 2011.

>>10417623
Accidents and collateral damage, shit happen mate. Statisticaly fission power is the safest and cleanest power source rn.

And beside that, a few asiats dead is only a benefit to the world.

>>10417623
there has yet to be a single death from the entire Fukishima clusterfuck
not even one

>>10417886
No, it's dead. It's simply not profitable. Running plants can't compete on price and new plants can't justify the investment.

It's the reason pro-nuclear shills have been on overdrive lately.

>strangle it with red tape
>spread unending propaganda against it
>costs go through the roof as a result, completely independent of the merits of the technology itself
>HA HA BTFO
you don't get a (You), because (You) know the real story and pointedly ignore it

>>10418657
oh noes, reality

>>10416643
Because people got all retarded about fission. You know it's bad when people post wave height maps as proof of MUH FUKUSHIMA CONTAMINATION OMFGDDHDGSHS

>>10416643
Fusion is basically the holy grail of energy production. It turns the smallest int into pure energy. Hydrogen is abundant everywhere in the universe. If we mastered hydrogen fusion we would basically have the energy source of the stars in our hands. Fusion could power starships for exploring the outer solar system.

>>10418246
Wind, hydro and solar I would rate cleaner. Much much cleaner. And safer.

>>10418585
>yet to be a single death
Yet... the problem since the nuclear radiation is out the area is fucked and the radiation will stay for ages. None of this would be a problem if they didn't have nuclear.

>>10418709
you would rate incorrectly
Solar pollutes a fuckton during the manufacturing process
Wind is a bird holocaust
and both get tons of people killed during installation and maintenance

Hydro is the only power source that is genuinely clean and mostly good, yet hydro is extremely limited in where you can put it

>>10416643
>fusion is a pipe dream
What?

>>10416643

The nuclear industry didn't miniaturize because it didn't think it needed to. By the time they realized it, it was 2000 and solar panels were the hot new thing. This didn't stop the US government from funding SMR development though, which will start fielding reactors in the 2020s.

More broadly US nuclear companies didn't want to figure out gas-core reactors due to containment concerns, even though it's the only type of reactor that could plausibly be miniaturized into a car or man portable device. This happened because anyone studying gas core fission reactors realized they were studying concepts that better applied to fusion anyway.

>>10418758
yeah let's just forget the digging up uranium part.
and storing the waste for 100k years, so easy because c'mon has anything unwieldy ever happened in the last 2k years?

>>10418851
You don't have any knowledge of nuclear science whatsoever
the longer something's half life is, the less hazardous it is
also, here's a fun little thing, Anything that is radioactive enough to be a hazard can be used as a fuel source
if we really wanted to be good to the environment, we could just design reactors to continuously cycle that fuel until it is done for
the stuff we can't use is the stuff that is damn near inert

>>10418851
I guess we're also ignoring the many other ways to do fission and store waste too

>>10416643
Because nuclear power generation now costs more than renewable energy sources. Nuclear is now a technology reserved for specific situations that require them. Fission is new, shiny and interesting until they conclude that it's not feasible.

>>10418864
>the longer something's half life is, the less hazardous it is
ok, grind up the radioactive bit in your smoke detector, mix it in a glass of water, and drink it.
please

It wasn't one thing that killed fission. It was three things very close together.

>fukushima meltdown
>cheap natural gas and alternatives

Both of the above most people know, but the third one is the worst.

>Westinghouse nuclear plant design failure
They spent billions of private and gov money to develop a new modular reactor, which was supposed to be cheap and made in pieces. Quickly put together on site like Legos is what they said. In reality because the parts were sourced world wide with limited quality control the modular pieces didn't even fit together without extensive modification. This made the costs balloon where it was cheaper to make a non modular reactor. Then Westinghouse went bankrupt.

>meanwhile solar laughs intensify

>>10418867

It's incredibly misleading to say that. Nuclear is controllable, baseload power without requiring geographic anomalies or batteries. It can be used almost anywhere, without needing long transmission wires.

Further, nuclear is subject to all kinds of retarded legislation, specifically designed to make it appear safe, when it's already the safest power source on the planet.

Remove the exceptionally disadvantageous circumstances and nuclear is a far superior energy source.

>>10418915
>>10418679

10418919
dank shitpost

>>10418915
>nuclear can be used almost anywhere

What does this even mean? Obviously it disregards where nuclear plants are actually at. Remote areas with lots of water.

>>10418915
Nuclear is retarded and waste of time, completely unnatural and undisposable. It is a past technology.

If the money that was wasted on nuclear energy had been spent on solar, there would be no energy issues ever again.

>>10419124
What is unnatural about it?

>>10418711
would you rather they used fossil fuels?

>>10416643
Possibly due to the fact that fission creates “scary” nuclear waste. The general public is pretty uninformed when it comes to science and especially nuclear physics/chem. They don’t understand that nuclear waste, when stored and contained correctly has very little ionizing radiation outputted.

>>10418874
>comparing 100k (100'000) years to 432 years
bruh

>>10419124
> fission
> unnatural

Are you retarded?

>>10418962
hmmmmmmmmmm

>>10419130
>If the money that was wasted on nuclear energy had been spent on solar, there would be no energy issues ever again.
and yet solar panels didn't become energy neutral, meaning they make more power in their lifetime than they require to make, before 2010

>>10419901
Even then, the energy of the radiation can outway the radioactivity of the element. U238 produces relatively few high energy particle compared to Am147, so even if their radioactivity was equal, Am147 would still be orders of magnitude more dangerous than U238

>>10416643
>>fusion being followed
is someone stalking nuclear fusion?

>>10419924
>the energy of the radiation can outway the radioactivity of the element.
??????????????????????

>>10417057
>>energy prices so low you could justify electric cars
nuclear electricity is more expensive though. Electricity is still cheaper than gasoline, cost of energy is not why people don't switch to electric cars.

>>10419941
>Electricity is still cheaper than gasoline
>cost of energy is not why people don't switch to electric cars.
no, taxes and tariffs are why

>>10416770
imagine never hearing about a LFTR

>>10418874
what the fuck that's literally like comparing holding a burning piece of wood and holding a rusting piece of iron

>>10418874
why don't you eat a solar panel

>>10418595
>It's the reason pro-nuclear shills have been on overdrive lately.
You sound like an anti-nuclear shill to me. You realize that countries like France are wholly dependent on nuclear energy? It's very much alive, and research is still being done on it. From what I've learned from my local university, is that there's a very deep interest in the proceeds of fusion research.

>>10420402
You could eat a solar cell if you ground up the glass fine enough. There are solar cells based on edible materials
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2015/august/edible-antenna.html
You'd probably be fine eating americium from a smoke detector as most will be excreted anyway.

>>10418246
>safest and cleanest

In an ideal world I’d agree with you: when everything is done right, nuclear’s very safe and very clean.

I don’t care about everything going right. I care about what everything going wrong means for me.

If you fuck up a wind turbine, somebody’s car and family gets chopped in half. Tragic, but you’re more likely to win the lottery than be that car.

If you fuck up oil, some gets into the ocean and groundwater, a lot of animals die in the short term, and environmentap and public health take a hit in an area. Shitty, and ideally we phase it out, but electric cars will need some time to stop being garbage first, so that’s the price.

If you fuck up nuclear, damage is somewhere between 20 to 1000+++ people dying of cancer, 300++ square miled(often in major cities) becoming uninhabitable waste zones for the next 50-1000 years, the groundwater in the area being made irreparably and unfilterably toxic for generations, and wind/additional explosions spreading it across the nation.

Just like plane crashes DO occasionally happen regardless of the aviation industry taking strong efforts to prevent them, nuclear’s gonna be fucked up occasionally, and the cost of those fuckups is too high while alternatives are still making progress on cleanliness and price.

>>10420444
>You'd probably be fine eating americium
>Americium-241 decays mainly via alpha decay

>>10420458
>some gets into the ocean and groundwater
ayy lmao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_L._Kielland_(platform)

0.17.1 RELEASED
0.17.1 RELEASED
0.17.1 RELEASED
pls remember to post some server details this time

>>10420608
the amount in a smoke detector at least. Once. According to wikipedia, only 0.05% is absorbed in the blood if ingested, with about 10% of that being excreted soon after. I mean it's certainly not good, but probably not enough to kill you like a russian dissident. It will certainly increase your risk of cancer, by how much I'm not willing to calculate.

>>10420406
>You realize that countries like France are wholly dependent on nuclear energy?
On 20 year old plants. They're only building one new one. Meanwhile they plan to build more solar and wind.

>>10420732
>only 0.05% is absorbed in the blood if ingested
oh you think heavy metal poisoning is what's gonna kill you if you eat an alfa emitter

>>10420763
You talk like red tape is some fundamental limitation of physics.

making fission sustainable is more of a pipe dream than making fusion possible

>>10416643
>>10416690
>>10416705
Unfortunately this is true. By purely looking at the IQ distribution curve, over half the population is likely under the impression that nuclear explosions are happening in a Nuclear Power Plant, and that fear alone will turn people away from it, along with the unfortunate few disasters scattered through recent history in the US, USSR, and now Japan. (None in France or Germany though).

Hell, people probably think the water vapor from the cooling towers is somehow radioactive when in fact that and the water from heat exchanging pipes for plants near lakes is actually more isotope free than tap water.

>>10422093
you know that most asian countries do not properly dispose of nuclear waste.

just recenty saw a documentary of a little island in asia where (because of corruption and lack of control) nuclear waste gets handled without proper safety standards (people handling the barrells directly are not wearing a shirt because of the tropical heat, most of them die of cancer obviously)

I wont support a technology that does not have a concept for recycling