/sci/ - Science & Math

>muh chernobyl
>muh fukushima

that’s why

>>10432148
>Isn't that just the logical way to go to combat climate change?
Yes, but leftists want to increase tax, not combat climate change. Similarly they push for abortions instead of morning-after pills because they want to make people disposable and not help rape victims.

>>10432156

There's always a way to advertise it in a positive light.

>>10432162
Liberals and conservatives are both pro abortion since it reduces crime by aborting places in inner cities. You stop that process and you just fucked yourself.

>>10432148
You still need to dispose hazarous nuclear waste so...

>>10432173

Just make a big hole bro.

>>10432148
hey kid, let me help u out here. no one actually cares about preventing climate change.

>>10432180
Essentially yes but you must have enough hole space and also you need to put in insulating and fail check systems so it doesn't seep into aquifers.

>>10432162
/thread

>>10432166
maybe, but for anti-nuclear greentards:
potential risk of cancer >>>>>>>>>> clean and efficient energy

>>10432196

Just make the hole really deep.

>>10432173
Already taken care of. Also a lot better than spewing hazardous waste into the atmosphere or storing it in ponds that eventually seep into ground water or overflow into local waterways.

>>10432148
It's way more expensive than nuclear lobbies want you to believe.

>>10432210
Deep holes cost money, and if you would upscale nuclear energy production significantly you would need a lot of deep holes.

>>10434014

Just use nuclear energy to dig deep holes.

>>10434014
>and if you would upscale nuclear energy production significantly you would need a lot of deep holes.
Not necessarily. If I remember correctly (and I could be remembering incorrectly), when they were looking into deep borehole disposal they calculated that around 12 deep boreholes would store the entire current nuclear fuel waste buildup in the US. All of it. The whole thing. And it'd all be stored miles beneath the water line, using equipment we actually have to dig the holes.

>>10434014
Just store it in abandoned salt mines.

It's too expensive.

>>10432162
What the fuck are you talking about, liberals push for morning after pills being covered by workplace insurance. What do you think the whole Hobby Lobby fiasco was about?
Get off of /pol/ it's rotting your brain

>>10432148
>logical
It is but muh feefees.

>>10432173
4th generation reactors will be capable of using that waste and further use it to make energy.

>>10434011
It's true that designing and building one is hugely expensive. Just take a look at Finland, it's over twice its budget and a decade late. However there is one way to sharply decrease the cost and time. That's building the same one over and over again.

There are basically 4 countries who are good a building them cheaply and on time. China, Russia, South Korea and France.
Obviously you wouldn't want to ask China or Russia but you could ask SK or France.
It'll still be a 3rd generation reactor, but waiting for 4th generation reactors is not an option if you want to address climate change.

>>10434063
Every nuclear power plant is unique because it has to incorporate the unique environmental factors of the region where it is built. So you can't build the same exact nuclear power plant over and over again. That's actually exactly what makes them expensive. Also, ones the "sweet spots" are taken, where builiding one is relaitvely cheap, it gets more and more expensive for every plant you add.

>>10434125
>Every nuclear power plant is unique
>So you can't build the same exact nuclear power plant over and over again
The reactor itself stays the same. The materials needed, the suppliers of special parts, the experience of actually building it, ect..
All the important, not-off-the-shelf parts stay the same. Only the layout changes a bit but that's fucking nothing.

If you ask the people who've been through the process and problems of building one before you'll save a lot.
And don't forget. It's not like renewables are free or cheap.

>sweet spots
The same can be said about renewables, they require more space than a nuclear power plant for the same amount of energy. Just look at those giant solar parks.

The only advantage they have is that people can put them on their roofs, but that alone isn't gonna be sufficient. The majority of them hardly ever get properly recycled, they get shipped to poor countries, the few valuables in them get extracted but the toxic metals remain. Creating one giant toxic waste pile. In contrast nuclear waste gets properly handled and has resulted in exactly 0 deaths so far.

Wind energy also requires lots of space and kills birds by the thousands. You can't build them close to where people live either because they make a lot of noise.

And that's not even the biggest problem with renewables. They're simply unreliable. No practical, cheap grid level storage exists. A lot of methods are geographically constraint and batteries won't cut it, no mater what Elon claims. As a result in literally every country where nuclear gets replaced with renewables they have to build natural gas power plants, which actually increases the country's CO2 emissions. That's the most ironic part about it, renewables worsen climate change.

>>10432173

Woah... How will we ever overcome such a challenge?

>>10432148
Stop making shill threads ffs

Everytime I show this graph to people it absolutely blows their mind.

Everyone always assume Chernobyl to be some horrific accident that increased radiation and gave cancer to millions of people or something. In reality the damage it did is negligible and there has been 0 prove of it impacting even a single person.

That doesn't stop pseudo-science people from claiming it causes mutants because they saw it on the Simpsons, though.

>>10432173

Yucca Mountain hmmmmmmm.

>>10434257
>>>/x/

SMRs
M
R
s

Unfortunately nuclear remains a bit of a dirty, taboo word for the uninitiated.

Not as profitable as fossil fuel

>>10434239
>As a result in literally every country where nuclear gets replaced with renewables they have to build natural gas power plants

Or be Deutschland and increase coal power production as a result.
Goddamnit Krauts.

>>10434270
Every daily thread is exactly the same

>"y don't we nucularpower?"
>"dem niggas be afraid n shiet of muh SCIENCE!"

>>10434260
>of it impacting even a single person
sure bud

>>10434284
e c h o c h a m b e r
>let's have a circlejerk conversation where we applaud each other for being above the median IQ in society

>>10434260
That's a table not a graph retard

>>10434248
None of it is truly waste either

>>10434284
See >>10434270

>>10434014
This is where OP's mom comes into the picture

A bit off topic but still nuclear, but where could I find more pdfs on declassified nuclear reactors like the XNJ140E?

>>10432148
Politics. Nobody wants to talk to the people of their town/city/county/state about nuclear waste or deal with the concerns or possibility of "muh Chernobyl 2.0"
Radiation is scary especially if you're the common man who thinks radiation is some spooky science fiction death wave that can kill you in your sleep.
Unfortunately, nuclear power has an awful reputation that coal and oil don't. People don't give a shit if the ocean gets fucked, if the environment gets fucked, nor if the miners get fucked in a cave-in. Those events don't affect their day to day life. But the possibility of a scary death ray that you can't sense kills you and/or forces you to leave your town which is now inhabitable for decades to come? They're not interested. Nuclear disasters can affect people whereas coal/oil disasters (to my understanding) don't have as much collateral damage, except the environment, but again, nobody cares.
All I can hope is that more research is done to make the nuclear waste problem more appealing and that we gradually become more open to the idea of nuclear energy.

>>10432162
/thread

and reminder that liberals are just NPCs ready to serve, someone even remembers occupy ws?

>>10432173
Recycle spent fuel and bury the depleted uranium waste.

>>10432148

Because it makes renewables pointless as well as annihilating the case for cap and trade. The people saying "there is nowhere to put the waste" are the same people who blocked the opening of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility. They create the problem so they can pitch their political wishlist as the only solution, and keep the dimwits who smell a rat under control by tricking them into attacking the science supporting AGW rather than the false dichotomy that it is either fake, or cap and trade+renewables is the only solution.

We could have robust nuclear power and use the excess to geoengineer our way out of thise whole fucking problem but they need the problem to persist in order to bring about the sociopolitical changes they want

>>10432148
1. The current focus is on renewable resources
2.The anti-climate change movement mostly consists of socialists, vegans, and environmentalists. They don't like nuclear energy because it isn't natural and it isn't a resource that can be commonly shared with everyone.

>>10432148
It's how you know climate change isn't real, or at least not a serious concern to any global leaders.
If it was we would be pouring everything into developing LFTR and other 4th gen reactors.

>>10434048
>liberals push for morning after pills being covered by workplace insurance
It's gonna be hard if they pretend it doesn't exist.

>>10434239
The reactors vary greatly in size and so does the whole layout. France wanted to "mass produce" nuclear reactors but it didn't work out.

The issue for nuclear reactors is very different. There are only so many nuclear reactors you can cool with a river, so if those spots are taken it is difficult to build new ones. Renewables take up a lot of area but have 0 conditions. You can place solar panels and wind turbines practically everywhere. For grid storage you can also use pumped hydro and power2gas. Also batteries for grid storage dont need to be small and light (like for smartphones and cars) but can be big and bulky. So really it is not such a big issue.

>>10434260
*breaths deeply*

>>10434260
>>10434289
It's shit like this that makes me skeptical of nuclear shills. Yes, nuclear plants havn't had the general, global impact that many people think they do, but the accidents that have occurred have been fucking disasters for their local area and require ongoing maintenance to contain the fuckup. Naturally people don't want this shit near them.

>>10436600
Yeah and the real bad accidents have been a combination of ancient shitty plants and/or retarded placement of them.

I don't want a huge fucking wind farm near me holocausting all the local bird life but yet that doesn't get the same weighting as a nuclear reactor that has only had 2 major incidents out of all the fucking reactors on the planet.

>>10436602
>>10436600
You guys sound a lot like "socialism really works, it was just never done properly" people. Also bird deaths from wind turbines are irrelevant.

>>10436623
What a fucking strawman, nuclear deaths are such a tiny amount compared to even people falling off roofs installing solar panels it's fucking laughable.

>bird deaths from wind turbines are irrelevant

No they aren't, it's a serious fucking problem.

>>10436628
lol you are a hilarious nuclear shill. bird deaths from wind turbines are a tiny fraction of the bird mass murderers called WINDOWS.

>>10436630
Wind turbines account for a tiny amount of our energy generation, fucking durr.

>U r shill

Back to /pol/ paranoid schizo

>>10436631
wrong, in some us states and some european countries they are the biggest electricity producer.

>>10436634
>No source

How convenient

>>10436634
>Produce wind turbines
>Produce more CO2 to make than they will offset making electricity

Go shill for your shit tier technology on Reddit faggot. Nuclear and solar molten salt are the only viable options for reducing emissions.

>>10436638
lol imagine actually being this retarded

>>10436635
google is your friend

>>10436623
>You guys sound a lot like "socialism really works

Wut? I'm arguing against the nuclear shills, because accidents can occur and are devastating and there's still the issue of making sure waste is actually properly disposed of for ridiculous amounts of time.

>>10436670
Wow look at all these arguments, to be expected from a greentard who can't comprehend the basic faults in muh magic save the planet technology. Again, please show me the US states and EU countries who have more than 50% of power generated through wind turbines, muh Google is not an answer, provide a source. You will also want to provide one to show how wind is carbon negative, oh wait you can't because it's fucking not.

>>10436672
He literally cannot even read kek, you are retarded also though.

>Muh waste disposal time

Yeah if only you understood how half lives actually worked, protip, the worst shit is only badly radioactive for like 30-50 years, the stuff that takes 50k years to degrade might as well not even be radioactive and you could go for a swim in it with literally 0 negative effects. Read a fucking book instead of this bullshit scaremongering about muh glowing green exploding waste.

>>10436672
yeah wanted to anser to you first but didnt and forgot to delet the thing.

>>10436315
>Nuclear disasters can affect people whereas coal/oil disasters (to my understanding) don't have as much collateral damage, except the environment, but again, nobody cares.
The death toll, even on a per plant basis considering both Chernobyl and Fukushima, is almost 100x as high for coal / oil plants than it is for nuclear. The difference is that coal / oil plants have conventional accidents - explosions, collapses, etc - whereas nuclear has unconventional accidents, and you can guess which of those two get news coverage.

>>10436676
>muh magic save the planet technology

the one who advocates that is you, you idiot. greens dont deny clean energy costs money, the retards who think le perfect energy source without downsides is le nuclear are you shills.

if you cant google basic facts that are very easy to find you are a literal brainlet anyways. no wonder you believe in le nuclear fairy.

>>10436721
>Ignores valid points
>Calls me a shill

Wew lad

>>10436600
>>10436623
You were saying?

>>10436523
>Renewables take up a lot of area but have 0 conditions.
>You can place solar panels and wind turbines practically everywhere
What on earth gave you that idea.

>>10434260
Doesn't stop contaminated fish from Fukushima reaching their way to California.

>>10436834
Wind turbines are up to 200 metres tall. You can get 1kW/m2 almost anywhere at that height.

>>10436628
>No they aren't, it's a serious fucking problem

This bullshit reminds of some other retarded anon who claimed you can't go full wind because the global wind streams would stop because of the wind turbines.

>>10436315
Considering the fallout from Chernobyl won't be habitable for humans untill after the sun burns out doesn't help your point. Then add the fact that leaves aren't composting in the ground around certain areas so all you need is a fire and you're fucked.

>>10436858
That's including wingspan.

The same applies.

>>10432148
>Logical
This was your first mistake.
Normalfags are not logical.
The maintain a pretence of being logical until the "logical" conclusion is something they don't like.

>>10432148
doesn't matter the source of electrical energy, batteries can't compete with oil

Holy fuck this thread has some retards in it.

Bird deaths in turbines is fucking irrelevant.
Nuclear waste is either very dangerous for a short amount of time, or not very dangerous for an incredibly long time.
Nuclear disasters still fuck shit up though, but this isn't really a valid concern, given that these disasters only occur when someone does something retarded.

I've literally read the actual list of events that took place in Chernobyl, it was retards ignoring literally all safety protocols including COMMON FUCKING SENSE in order to try and get their jobs done quicker.

Fukushima was a retarded design in a retarded place. Of course, put the aerobic backup diesel generator below fucking sea level, that'll never go wrong. Build it in on the coast of Japan, an area well known for tectonic activity causing tsunamis. Genius.

>>10432148
Because in reality it's very expensive.

>>10432148
Why can't we put nuclear waste back into the ground where it came from?

>>10434260
>there has been 0 prove of it impacting even a single person

>what are "liquidators"
I'm all for nuclear power but lying doesn't help anyone.

I think nuclear energy shill one this one.

NUCLEAR = BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NUCLEAR = BAD !

NO NUKES

NO BAD BAD THOUGHTS


NICE SUNNY SOLAR PANELS

NICE WINDMILLS


LIKE LIKE LIKE

FUN IN SUN

WIND WIRLING


GREEN ENERGY SOUNDS PLEASANT

NUCLEAR ENERGY SOUNDS BAD

WORSE THAN BAD

NUCLEAR IS EVIL


EVIL

EVIL

EVIL


EVIL


FUKOSHIMA
CHERNOBYL
NEVER FORGET THREE MILLION ISLAND!!!! EVER

DEATH TOLL IS BEYOND BILLIONS


FUN SUN SHINE SOLAR PANELS MAKE ME SMILE, WIND BLOWN TURBINES IS THE FUTURE. WAY OF THE FUTURE. ITS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE. ITS. THE WAY. OF THE FUTURE. WAY. OF. THE FUTURE. ERRRRRRORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————[BEEEP BEEP BEEP DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO] TING**********

>>10432162
Reminder that only retarded christcucks are against abortion. Abortion is a postitive thing for the society because it's usually shitskins/white trash who use it.

>>10436963
Abortion is a day late and a dollar short. If anyone complains about abortion but isn't railing against fornication too, they are hypocrites.

Pic related are wind turbines that are currently under construction in germany. These wind turbines are 180m high (260m including the blades) and each can power 5.000 homes. The "thick" part at the bottom and the pool underneath are a water battery, e.g. when the electricity isnt being used it pumps water up and stores the energy this way. Each cost around 40 million dollars to build, and can generate electricity for 20 years with minimal maintenance cost. For 5.000 homes, that boils down to 400$ electricity cost for each home per year, plus some maintenance cost. You could place turbines like that practically everywhere and they would generate clean, reliable, cheap energy.

>>10436981
Wind is extremely location dependent and if you read the specs I suspect you will find that "5,000 homes" is peak output power rather than an average.

>>10436981
Wind isn't an unlimited resource. These have drastic effects on weather patterns and may spell drought and severe weather events elsewhere.

>>10436986
No, that's the average energy output over the year vs. the average energy consumption of german homes. American homes do consume almost twice as much though, so you can cut the number roughly in half for american homes.

>>10436968
Low IQ people would not listen anyway, so abortion is the best possible solution we have right now.

>>10437001
Link to stats?

>>10437001
>>10436986
Oh yes, and this is also being build in a wind-poor location within germany. That's why it's so big.

>>10436981
>For 5.000 homes, that boils down to 400$ electricity cost for each home per year, plus some maintenance cost
You didn't factor the cost of everything else.
Nuclear could feasibly power homes for under $20/year.

>>10437007
>Oh yes, and this is also being build in a wind-poor location within germany. That's why it's so big.
That's why it's so stupid*

>>10432148
because we are not done milking fossil fuels and other ways of making alot of money.

If we actually wanted more energy this would be made already, nuclear energy is literal magic and works perfectly fine, the waste is minimal and can be stored either in earth or just shot into fucking space they claim is so big and infinite, so why not just catapult that shit out into space? Just build a giant ass railgun/tube thing that pushes that shit into space lmfao, or use all the remaininc shit fuel to rocket it away, the thech is their, its almost like its all about money and flying outside the sky is actually impossible and has never been done and walways just shown on a tv screen :)

>>10434018
>in the US
US is not the whole world retard.

>>10437005
The german wiki article

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturstromspeicher_Gaildorf#Windpark

It's all in german but the numbers that are relevant are the whole wind park will produce 42Gwh and the biggest tower almost 15Gwh.

>>10437008
Grid costs are a small percentage of your electricity bill. And if you go down that road, you also need to calculate in all the extra taxes by investing into your own economy and creating jobs instead of giving money to 3rd world dictatorships.

>>10437026
Honestly better than I expected, could be a decent option but you wouldn't want your whole grid dependent on the wind.

>>10436998
source?

>>10436981
Great so we'll only need 400 of those to power common households in Berlin.

Or a single nuclear power plant. Either works.

Plant is probably going to be cutting down a lot less trees and require a lot less infrastructure than the supporting reservoirs and maintenance of 400 of those.

Why would you invest in nuclear when you can invest in wind or solar?
Doesn't make sense from a financial perspective.

>>10437026
>And if you go down that road, you also need to calculate in all the extra taxes by investing into your own economy and creating jobs
Why do windshills always do this? The jobs green energy create suck and pay nothing compared to nuclear.
Nuclear energy is infinitely better than windshit.

>>10437073
>Why would you invest in nuclear when you can invest in wind or solar?
t. some NPC tier retard who doesn't understand shit about nuclear energy.

>To produce 1,200 megawatts of energy like Wolf Creek — a nuclear power plant in Burlington — you would need 120 square miles of land devoted to wind turbines.

Why would anyone want a more consistent, completely predictable form of energy than can be built most anywhere instead of a windfarm that is complex, highly contingent on weather conditions and location?

You're a fucking retard.

>>10437079
I'm a postgrad in physics. You are what exactly? A smartass Redditor.
Answer my question dumbfuck. Why would a banker with $300m invest in nuclear instead of wind or solar.

>>10437079
>Why would anyone want a more consistent, completely predictable form of energy than can be built most anywhere instead of a windfarm that is complex, highly contingent on weather conditions and location?

You didn't even understand his question. He is asking why an investor would want to invest in a market that is insanely risky long term investment when they can instead invest in a market that is very well behaved and predictable and a very short term investment.

>>10437069
>a single nuclear power plant to power Berlin

>>10437008
>20$ to power a home for a year

>>10437075
>nuclear creates more jobs than green energy

nuclear shill anon is unironically the scientifically most illiterate, biggest retard this board has ever seen.

>>10437082
>I'm a postgrad in physics
Doubt.
>Answer my question dumbfuck. Why would a banker with $300m invest in nuclear instead of wind or solar.
Bankers are morons who should not be making energy decisions. A banker would chose none of those as coal fired plants make the most financial sense.

>>10437088
The only person you managed to make look retarded in this entire post is yourself.

>>10437073
Green energy is only a profitable investment currently because governments are pouring billions of taxes into them.
Nuclear gets none of those and is still competing.

How the fuck is the profit of the investor relevant to me as a taxpayer.

>>10437087
>why an investor would want to invest in a market that is insanely risky long term investment when they can instead invest in a market that is very well behaved and predictable and a very short term investment.
Why would an investor want to invest in green energy which is insanely risky unproven long term investment when they can invest in a market that is very well behaved and predictable?

>>10437096
>Nuclear gets none of those and is still competing

you should stop talking nuclear shill, your stupidity is starting to hurt

if the governments wouldnt want plutonium farms for nuclear arms there wouldn't be a single nuclear power plant in operation.

>>10437098
Because coal is going to get outlawed, you dumb nigger.

>>10437098
That graph is a giant ass-pull. There is no country on this planet that invests as much as China into renewables.

>>10437091
STFU you low IQ brainlet. Don't you think we don't see what you are doing?
Get this. Reddit is wrong and you are not intellectual superior to "those libshits".

>>10437105
Speculation at this point. Your the one who thinks energy decisions should be made by bankers, not me.
>>10437108
>he fell for PRC propaganda
They certainly profit off selling turbines and garbage photovoltaic that only last a decade. However, the Changs are smart enough to rely on other forms of energy. If they're transitioning to anything, it's nuclear.
>>10437110
Seething.
Your entire post is ad hominem. This outburst is a sign of a low IQ or mental problems.

>>10437104
Yes. You are correct. We have nuclear power because we need nuclear power.

Did you remember to take your pills today?

>>10437096
This windpark in germany is being build privately by a german construction firm (Max Bögl) in cooperation with GE. They invested 75 million € of their own money and expect making 6 million a year selling the electricity to the grid for the next 20 years. German government subsidised it with 7,5 million, so not a relevant sum compared to what the privat investor is investing.

>>10437117
>If they're transitioning to anything, it's nuclear

no, they're not. this is just the fantasy world of the nuclear shill. china doesn't care about nuclear like the rest of the sane world.

>>10437119

no, we have nuclear power plants because governments wanted to build nuclear bombs. there is 0 other reason why they were built.

>>10437122
>10% subsidy and tax preferences
>so not a relevant sum compared to what the privat investor is investing.
You're genuinely retarded.

>>10437125
>china doesn't care about nuclear

>>10437130
>some meaningless graph without context

kys nuclear shill. china is the fastest growing economy in the world so of course they add a lot of everything. it is however among the countries with the lowest share of nuclear electricity and it is staying that way. what they are transitioning to is wind and solar.

>>10437127
If a private firm invests 70 million expecting to make 120 million selling the electricity on the free market it is not investing that money because of government subsidy.

>>10432148
Nuclear energy has the potential to ruin the oil industry with the advent of electric cars. This would piss off every major super power willing to invade a sovereign country and commit genocide over oil so that they can have more self proclaimed ownership over the world. Nuclear energy would get rid of peoples needs too much, making them more difficult for others to control who try to use the needs of people to get what they want.

>>10437122
That's direct. They also have massive benefits in electricity sales.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariffs_in_Germany
Now moved on to auction, because the market has developed.

So yes, highly profitable, because the people are paying out of the ass to make it profitable.

>>10437137
>moving the goal posts, the post.
>>10437138
10% subsidy + tax is not immaterial.

>>10437125
>we have nuclear power plants because governments wanted to build nuclear bombs
>we have because we need
I highly doubt you've summed it up properly but even in your partial picture it makes perfect sense to have nuclear power.

>>10437141
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariffs_in_Germany

Those are for privately built solar roof tops. Those have nothing to do with the wind park. They don't get any tariffs, you barely get any nowadays for your solar roof top. If they produce 42GWh a year and expect to gross 6 million a year that also pretty much means they are selling it at 15 cents per KWh.

>>10437148
yeah if you want to build nuclear bombs you retard

>>10437143
you should look up what any other energy plant gets.

>>10437153
>straw man
>moving the goal posts
>whataboutisms
Yikes, low IQ and lost argument tier

>>10437159
projecting this hard lol mabe you should post some more meaningless graphs where china allegedely is moving to nuclear you retarded redditor

>>10437149
>Those are for privately built solar roof tops.
No. They cover green energy in general. That's just the main focus of wikipedia's article for some reason.
They still get feed-in, but it's via auction, as in corporations compete to offer lower feed-in support rates. Additional costs are still moved on to consumer, resulting in the second highest energy cost on the planet.
Very much covers that wind park.

>>10437153
>we need enriched plutonium for bombs
>construct mines, infrastructure and plants to produce it
>k got what we need deconstruct the mines and plants we're done here

>>10437161
Not projecting. Your post literally said:
>yeah if you want to build nuclear bombs you retard
This was a straw man.
>you should look up what any other energy plant gets.
This was a deflection (whataboutism).
As for your current post
>lol mabe you should post some more meaningless graphs where china allegedely is moving to nuclear you retarded redditor
You are the one who first posited that "There is no country on this planet that invests as much as China into renewables." and provided no evidence for your claim. China is very dirty and heavily reliant on fossil fuels. The transitioning to wind and solar is propaganda. They are changing their energy mixture and the largest GW shift is nuclear. Even a simple search shows China is building more nuclear plants, you initially denied completely. And it makes sense. A nuclear plant lasts decades, feasibly centuries, occupies less than a square kilometer and really is the best bang for the buck if you're central planner in CPC. You need to be a moron to waste thousands of square miles for wind and solar farms, with terrible longevity.

> According to the World Nuclear Association, the majority of reactors under construction in 2013 can be found in Asia where rapid economic growth has fuelled demand for electricity. This is particularly evident in China and India where 28 and 7 reactors are under construction respectively. In China, these will deliver 27,790 MWe (net) while India’s 7 will generate 4,824 MWe (net) of electricity.Russia has 9 reactors under construction in 2013, the second highest total worldwide. India rounds off the top three. South Korea has 5 reactors under construction while the United States has 3, completing the top five.

Anyone who doesn't realize how these things would be the first targets to get blown the fuck out is beyond me.

>>10437185
The same applies to any power plant or source of industry, brainlet.

>>10437177
by god you are retarded

now you can make meaningless graphs showing how china is doubling its nuclear electricity share until 2040 (wow so much they are doubling wow). but dont forget to conceal it is going from 2% to 4% while wind and solar are going from 14% to 40%.

>>10437187
by god you are retarded

>>10437187
My graphs weren't hypotheticals, unlike yours, you fucking retard.

we should just get rid of licences and let everyone have one's own power plant
t. ron paul

>>10437191
you are right, it's actually 16% already lol

>>10437198
>he believes the PRC statistics

>>10437201
>he doesn't because he is a redditor who was told by his fellow redditors that nuclear is really awesome

>>10437198
>generating capacity
And renewables represent an even higher portion of "generating capacity" in the US, smooth brain, which contradicts your initial point of China leading the world in green energy.

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/renewables-now-represent-20-of-u.s.-generating-capacity-up-from-15-in-2012

Generating capacity is a fucking meme. Yeah, they have the "capacity" to run 24/7 and have constant wind but such a scenario is impossible. Even solar, you would need to, in addition to controlling weather patterns, stop the rotation of the earth to realize its full capacity.
>>10437202
reddit hates nuclear.

>>10437207
>he still wants to make people believe china cares about nuclear

>>10437207
Reddit loves nuclear. That is literally where this meme came from.

>>10437223
>builds 28 nuclear power plants in 2013, more than the US built in an entire decade
>they don't care about nuclear bro, trust me

>>10437231
>more meaningless numbers without context

go back to read-it

>>10437236
Reading comprehension, 0/10

>>10437229
>reddit is literally where nuclear power came from.

>>10437229
It's mainly because there are a couple startups getting DOD funding for their vapourware, and Bill Gates asking the Federal Government to give him money so that he can build nuclear plant.
And fucking Reddit gladly jumps on the bandwagon like the useful idiots they are.

Nobody is stopping people from building nuke plants.
It's not like they are outlawed or anything.

>>10437223
>most of their energy comes from coal
>lmao why would they want nuclear u shill look at this they love coal obviously they'll replace it with windmills
Denser than a diamond.

>>10437282
They effectively are. The barriers to entry is immense and are regulated to such a point that they might as well be considered outlawed in most jurisdictions.

>>10437299
It's a fucking nuke plant. You want fucking Cleetus McRetard to build it? Nuke plants need to adhere to stringent regulations. Shit is serious business.

>>10437303
Pre-Nixon and especially pre-threemile regulations would be best.

>>10432148
>Why aren't people pushing for nuclear energy?

Nuclear is associated with bomb.

>>10437299
No one wants to live near the potential next 3 mile island or Chernobyl, despite the fact that a bunch of people already do, and nuclear designs have gotten even safer over the years. Fucking bizarre really. They’re fine living downwind of a coal fired plant actively making their health worse, but a perfectly safe nuclear facility is a no-no.

>>10437624
>

>>10432166
>There's always a way to advertise it in a positive light


>be in Fukushima
>qt waifus there literally glowing

>>10434528
>>10432173

>be US
>makes depleted uranium munitions out of the waste
>proceeds to dispose nuclear waste into the hearts of enemies

Why isn't this option on the drawing board?

>>10436981
better hope those Germans engineered a solution for over-spin, otherwise those things will turn into pic related in a big storm.

These wind turbine designs always hit the shitter when the wind starts to spin them too fast; generating too much friction, turning into a giant Tiki-torch

>>10437941
>nuclear plant
>lasts centuries
>wind farm
>last two decades at best
Really makes you think.

>>10437624

Let's change its name to Common Sense Energy.

>>10437327
Let them just dump the nuclear waste into the river for extra cheap electricity.

>>10432148
Very expensive.

>>10437950
>nuclear plant
>super expensive to build
>creates energy through a complex and delicately balanced reaction
>only really worth it at a large scale, meaning if anything happens a large number of homes can go without power
>full failure causes catastrophic damage
>wind
>a big pole with a big fan hooked up to an alternator
>cheap
>worth it when powering small town, so failure won't leave many houses without power
failure either does nothing or just makes a bunch of smoke, maybe damages some land.

nuclear still is kind of better though, but the initial investment is very high and people are fucking terrified of it failing.

>>10438177
Only because of brainlets imposing drastic regulatory demands.

>>10436963
I would rather abort those blacks and all stupid people.

Late-term (after birth) abortions should be legal, safe and mandatory for certain groups of people.

>>10438262
Ahh yes, lets lower the safety standards for our nuclear sites. Brilliant.

>>10438359
The regulations imposed on nuclear since the 1970s have nothing to do with safety.

>>10434014
Just dump it in Africa.

>>10438395
Lying on the internet doesn't help your argument. the 70s+ regulation were crafted exactly for safety reasons. The core meltdowns of Three Mile island, multiple cooltant failures of various other Nuclear plants, the contamination of radioactive in the underground waters, the lack of proper earthquake protection, and so on.

The cost of repairs alone put enormous strains on their profitability and bankrupted many.

>>10436981
>For 20 years with minimal maintenance cost
Unless it catches on fire and kills the two engineers that were working on it.

>>10437137
>what they are transitioning to is wind and solar.
They are abandoning the one child policy and are going to generate enough power for their booming population with unreliable energy sources ? Is this the next Cultural Revolution ?

>>10436981
$400 per home each year

That's cheap electricity. $33 per month of electricity on average.

Tesla had the answers

>>10438419
Bill Gates said in one of his talks that Nuclear is not profitable in the US at all by 4-5 factors but its clean energy security. He's also said the in China, Nuclear is cheaper than coal.

>>10437861
[spoiler]Implying it's not

>>10434260
I support nuclear power to the fullest extent, but you're dishonest and wrong about a lot of stuff.

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

Those averages are derived from modern data, after most of the radionuclides released from Chernobyl have already decayed and with the containment dome in place. The environmental and societal damage caused by the event in its wake was massive.

>>10432156
>>muh fukushima
Did you know that not one person died through this?

>>10437026
Germany's energy prices increased more than 50% in the last 10 years anon!

>>10438072
Let's call it "we really don't have idea what to do with burned uranium"

>>10432162
>this entire political movement is set up just to spite me!
based schizo poster

>>10438700
>Did you know that not one person died through this?

This is such bullshit. The thing still isn't properly contained and we don't know all the after-effects it might have, and it could have easily been far worse. Stop trying to write off actual problems like they're nothing.

>>10437941
This happened once among thousands of wind turbines and guess what, unlike with nuclear power plants a catastrophic failure did not cause a catastrophe of historic proportions with costs in the hundreds of billions.

>>10439403
Chernobyl wasn't due to design. It was the result of incompetence.

>>10439403
Windmills break down all the time.

It may be actually safer than big wind, but I would go for solar.

I don't like nuclear, but neither I like big stick closing thermal gap of above and near ground temperature.

Because we live in a society that is largely scientifically illiterate and when some morons hear nuclear they think of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Cold War.

>>10439493
You know you can just go on and build a nuclear power plant and sell the electricity to customers. It isn't outlawed. Morons aren't stopping you, and neither are politicians.

>inb4 muh overregulated security standards making it too expensive

>>10439508
Well that's not true, you need a license from the government to build and they don't give them out anymore.

What is true though is that nuclear power plants weren't build that much decades ago when politics was more favorable of them. The only country that build a lot of them was France and that was the government pushing for it to make France more energy-independent, not free markets.

>>10439508
The free market doesn't make the best solutions. High IQ scientists should be able to force people to do what is best.

>>10439415
Chernobyl was due to both design and incompetence. Due to a design flaw the power shutdown procedure caused a temporary spike in power output before shutting the reactor down - and it's that spike in output that led to the reactor going supercritical for a instant and exploding when they tried to shut it down because they'd incompetently pushed it into an unstable state.

>>10432162
>leftists want to increase tax, not combat climate change
Bullshit. They might want to do both, but most leftists seem to want to decrease tax for the poor an increase it for the rich and for businesses. Really the typical leftist wants to give more people tax breaks than they want to give people tax hikes.
>they push for abortions instead of morning-after pills
Again, most leftists want both -- contraception, morning-after pills and abortions are all separate services.
>because they want to make people disposable and not help rape victims
Leftists want to help rape victims TOO MUCH: they're willing to believe the "victim" over the "perpetrator" every time, when they should be taking a balanced approach.

people just dont like logics

>>10432148
>Why aren't people pushing for nuclear energy?
>Isn't that just the logical way to go to combat climate change?
Yes it is but MYOPIC NERVOUS-NELLIE NIMBYs.