/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10800671

Nuclear, as we should have 73 years ago.

Or fusion 20-30 years from now.

>>10800672
How many nuclear power plants would it take to power the Earth, anon?

>>10800677
Not a lot, as you can imagine. Even non-fusion uranium nuclear powerplants output a lot of energy, argueably more than coal and oil dare i say.

you can use nuclear energy to directly synthesise hydrocarbon fuels out of the air

>>10800671

Europe is actively working to get off of fossils. Its only America who are keen to stay on oil. They have a history of coalburning so it's genetic.

>>10800672
>20-30 years from now

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
look at this faggot

>>10800735
renewables are a meme
Germany is only a third powered by them

>>10800744
>only a third

>>10800759

The rest being fossil fuels after they closed their nuclear plants because Greens and Fukushima.

They were on track to reducing emissions like France who kept theirs open.

>Coal and oil is not going to be realistically replaced by anything, is it?
>Scientifically speaking, what happens after that?

Scientifically speaking? After we don't replace it, we'll replace it.
/thread

>>10800771
>After we don't replace it, we'll replace it.
With what?

>>10800791
speaking purely logically, something that's not coal or oil

>>10800808
yeah, like subsistence agriculture lmao you dumb faggot, get ready

>>10800815
>subsistence agriculture
what, like straw?

Are you trying to use figurative straw man to argue literal straw man is bad.

>>10800677
Well, last year the world used ~162,000 terawatt-hours of power. That includes all electrical production, all oil used for transport, all natural gas used for heating/cement making, and so on. That works out to needing ~18.5 terawatts of power production running throughout the year.

Now a South Korean energy company is building a nuclear plant (with 4 reactors) in the UAE that will output 5.6 gigawatts. So you would need ~3,300 of such plants to replace all other energy on Earth. They are charging $20 billion for this project. So replacing all power with similar plants would cost $66 trillion. Spread that out over 30 years and you end up with $2.2 trillion per year. Which isn't too bad; the figures I found from the IEA show that world investments in energy last year were already $1.85 trillion dollars.

>>10800831
Fuck that. Solar would be way cheaper, batteries included.

>>10800744

Early days

>>10800855
Care to run the numbers on setting up enough solar panels, and the needed batteries? Also factor in that nuclear power works fine anywhere, while solar power's performance varies based on latitude & cloud cover. Countries like Russia might not want to import power from more southerly lands.

Also note that the UAE is in a nearly perfect spot for solar, yet they chose to have the guks build a big-ass nuclear plant for them. Granted Arabs with money don't always make the most wise fiscal decisions.

>>10800855
Solar is extremely inefficient for usage of land, you would need to cover far larger swathes of land with panels compared to fission plants. It's certainly an option for a solid chunk of the world's energy needs, just not all of it.

>>10800959
>usage of land
try to think outside the box
https://news.energysage.com/tesla-solar-panel-roof-the-next-solar-shingles/

>>10800672
>fusion 20-30 years from now
Where are my flying cars, faggot? 19 years overdue.

>>10800963
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1035WJzPTM

>>10800855
>>>10800831
>Fuck that. Solar would be way cheaper, batteries included.

Citation needed.

>The Ivanpah solar plant has a capacity of almost 400 megawatts (MW)
This is one of the biggest solar plant in california and you would need 14 of these to produce the same as the south korean nuclear plant.

The korean nuclear plant cost $20 billion to build.
Ivanpah solar plant cost $2.2 billion to build. Since you need 14 solar plants to match the same energy it would cost $30.8 billion. But you would need way too much land and nuclear runs 24/7 and solar doesnt. In the end nuclear wins in cost, environmental impact and energy output per land usage.

Tell me how solar is so cheap and great again.

>>10800968
>land usage
>>10800963

>>10800963
>>10800967
>DUDE
>SOLAR
>FREAKING
>SHINGLES

niggas forgetting about plastics and shipping/airplanes. there are also no nuclear planes/shipping boats and definitely no electric planes and boats.

>>10801015
All the more reason to switch over to nuclear and electric cars so we can conserve oil for industries and transportation that actually need it.

Similarly to how gold jewelry is retarded and it could be better to better use as electronic components.

>>10800968
>>10800959
>>10800918
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Regional_and_historical_studies

Nuclear is more costly than solar in every study on this list and solar continues to get cheaper. As for land use the earth receives millions of times more energy from the sun than humans use in all forms so at current efficiencies we would need to cover less than five millionths of the earth and the land can be multipurposed in synergistic ways. Adding energy storage does run the cost slightly higher than nuclear, but nuclear isn't very responsive to load changes so you need some energy storage anyways. Plus it can't fail catastrophically.

>>10800831

I'd imagine the marginal cost of mining Uranium would climb as we start depleting the most readily available reserves

>>10801015
There is actually a solar powered plane. It's not very big and it only flies at about 60 mph, but it exists.

>>10801032
There has been some interesting work done with extracting uranium from seawater. Not quite as cheap as conventionally mined uranium, but it puts a hard cap on how much the price could rise - when you figure in continental erosion there is enough uranium to last tens of millions of years. And the cost of fuel itself is only a tiny portion of the costs of running a nuclear reactor; even tripling or quadrupling the price would barely effect the end cost of the electricity.

https://cen.acs.org/materials/Fishing-uranium-ocean-spider-silk/97/web/2019/07
https://newatlas.com/nuclear-uranium-seawater-fibers/55033/

>>10801028
If solar is so cheap and great why does the cost of energy for the population increases when renewables are integrated?

And why is the cost of energy cheaper in places like France or Illinois?

www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/

>>10801028
>Nuclear is more costly than solar
Nice red herring. This is per energy produced, not per land use or any other form of environmental impact. Nuke still wins by a landslide on this one.

>we would need to cover less than five millionths of the earth
102.02 square kilometers of solar panels to fuel the whole Earth? The Cestas solar farm in France is 2.5 square kilometers and is estimated to produce 350 GWh per year. 102.02 square kilometers of solar panels would produce 14 TWh per year. The world energy consumption is above 9,000 Mtoe i.e. 105 PWh per year[1]. Your AOC-tier idea wouldn't even cover 0.1% of world energy needs.

[1] https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

>Adding energy storage does run the cost slightly higher than nuclear, but nuclear isn't very responsive to load changes so you need some energy storage anyways. Plus it can't fail catastrophically.
It can and will fail catastrophically since it will make us depend even more on lithium which will peak within a century. Not to mention all the batteries that will miserably catch fire and waste all energy stored.

>>10801118
>Imagine being this retarded
1. The primary point was the cost. Solar wind
2. You're using the land area of Earth, not the total area
3. Lithium is not the only type of battery and it certainly isn't the cheapest
4. Running out of lithium is not a catastrophic failure of solar installations. They don't explode and spread a lack of lithium over several miles

Why did you even bother to post?

>>10801520
>wind
Wins

>>10800671
Who the fuck knows, instead of making new thread to ask retard question study physics, engineering, chemistry and invent sustainable cold fusion reaction and build a reactor.

>>10801103
Probably because of net metering laws. Power companies are corrupt as fuck and we shouldn't allow them absolute control of the grid

>>10800744
>Germany is only a third powered by them

Nope, only 4.6% of German energy consumption in 2018 came from wind and solar. This is the relevant number, and it is pathetic.

Common ways to inflate artificially inflate share of renewables is to count wood burning or big hydropower among them (which are technically renewable, but with no hype and not growing), or to only take into account electricity instead of energy.

4.6%. This is where one of the most developed countries is right now, after spending hundreds of billions of euros.

We are fucked without nuclear.

>>10801520
>1. The primary point was the cost. Solar wins
Price isn't enough to win at all. And by your own admission it fails even at price if it uses batteries which it absolutely needs because only wimps would accept running out of power in the winter.

>2. You're using the land area of Earth, not the total area
So less than 34 square kilometers? Do you want me to try again and see how much energy that'll produce and what percentage of global needs it will cover?

>4. Running out of lithium is not a catastrophic failure of solar installations.
... yes they are, in the same way as running out of oil is a catastrophic failure of overusing fossil fuels.

>They don't explode and spread a lack of lithium over several miles
I don't know what that's about. Either you think the wasted energy in case a battery catches fire is in the lithium, or you think nuclear plants are remotely as likely to meltdown as batteries are to catch fire, or you think nuclear plants spread lack of radioactive materials when they meltdown. In all cases, you did an excellent job at showing who's the retard in here.

Moscovium isotopic gravitation reactors will work quite nicely for the next eternity.

>>10801573
You clearly don't understand what a "catastrophic failure" is. Here, read this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophic_failure

Besides that your back of the envelope calculations are largely garbage because of all the assumptions built into them. Take the total energy received by Earth from the sun, multiply it by collector efficiency, divide by the total energy consumption of the world, then you take the reciprocal of that figure multiplied by the area of the earth to yield the collector area that you need.

I'm pretty sure you're just entrenched in some partisan bullshit

>>10800963
The actual person you replied to, it's an option I considered and it's not a bad idea but here's my point.
>land needed for nuclear
440 sq km
>solar
470,000 sq km
>total urbanized land
1.1-1.3 million sq km

And I'm sure solar shingles are ideal in certain parts of the world, but I doubt all 1.3 million sq km of roofs is adequate. The same holds true for solar plants, and then you still have to transmit that power to less ideal locations. It's just more efficient to use nuclear in some areas, just like with geothermal. Now if you flip this to going all nuclear, there are some areas that aren't ideal for a plant but it's much less restrictive than solar and each plant isn't very large in the first place. I'm not saying all nuclear is the best option, I'm just saying it's more efficient than going all solar.

>>10801564
As a side note, for a 100 billion euro investment, they could have built 5.6 of those (coincidentally) 5.6 gigawatt plants the UAE is having built. That's 31.36 gigawatts of power, or 261 terawatt-hours (assuming 95% uptime) Over a year. That works out to 940 petajoules, which as you can see from the chart more than a third higher than the amount of energy produced by their wind & solar. And I am pretty sure that the Germans have spend well over that 100 billion Euro amount to install their existing wind & solar. They have an extra tax on electricity that goes to support renewable power that brings in $25 billion Euro a year by itself, plus other government spending.

>>10801610
So with a one trillion investment in nuclear they could almost completely stop using coal and gas. One trillion is of course a lot of money but is it alot for germany spread over 5-10 years with a guaranteed return?

>>10801604
>all the assumptions built into them
That energy production is proportional to area covered by solar panels? No, I don't think I'm wrong about this one.

>>10800671
Pyrolysis of organic matter using solar concentrators.
If you don't want to use solar concentrators you could just bury the organic matter deep in the ground near geothermal hot-spots.

>>10801652
You'd be surprised. For one thing you're not using collector area, you're using installation area. This kind of assumption takes the ~33% efficiency of combined cycle thermal solar plants down to ~0.5% efficiency. For another you're assuming that this one installation is representative of all solar installations which hides factors like local solar insolation, collector efficiency, and other factors like tracking. Feel free to maintain your denial, though.

>>10801667
why would you burn shit using geothermal heat rather than just the geothermal heat itself

>>10801694
Yes, the relevant metric is power per land use, and the Cestas farm is very thinly packed. It's not one panel per acre. Also the region is almost as sunny as California. If you want to put your panels in Mexico or in Nigeria, that's fine, but not with my money. I want stuff that will last.

>>10800671
There is no equally efficient replacement no
>>10800672
EROI isn’t better for nuclear over a long timescale than it is for coal, nat gas and crude oil sorry.

>>10801520
not understanding when and when not to use meme arrows is probably the easiest way to spot newfags (read: shills)

>>10801726
shouldn’t have invited them to your image board then idiot

>>10800672
fusion has been 20-30 years ahead since 1945

>>10801698
It's not burning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis
>The process is used heavily in the chemical industry, for example, to produce ethylene, many forms of carbon, and other chemicals from petroleum, coal, and even wood, to produce coke from coal. Aspirational applications of pyrolysis would convert biomass into syngas and biochar, waste plastics back into usable oil, or waste into safely disposable substances.

>>10801717
>2.0-2.9 hours of insolation is almost 3.0-3.9
Wew, lad. If you need to break a hundo I've got like three twenties for you. That's about the same, right?

One thing about solar that no one talks about is the effiency lost over time. Its estimated that solar panels lose about 1% of effiency per year. So in 30 years you get 70% efficiency.

Meanwhile nuclear plants last longer and can be upgraded when new technology is discovered.

>>10801821

Not just that.

All the massive quantities of panels require replacement every 20-30 years, best case. So you either have to deal with dumping all that cadmium and lead into the environment (as we currently do) every year, or deal with cleanup, storage, and recycling which then KILLS your cost competitiveness.

Not to mention replacement when birds dive bomb panels mistaking them for water.

>>10801726
>Implying
What a newfag

>>10801667
lol Ted Kaczinsky literally talks hypothetically about power generation from organic matter and it's not even fully a meme
We are fucked rip everything on Earth

>>10801667
wait a sec buddy doesn't this basically amount to turning all available biomass on land into oil?

>>10801721
you are the one person in this thread to mention EROI.
do people kick the bucket with lower EROI?

>>10800671
Gigantic Stirling Engines in Antarctica, using the coldness of the surface in contrast with the heat of underground volcanic activity to produce energy.

>>10801762
Do you want me to take those 34 square kilometers of solar panels and cross-product their production from 2 hours to 4 hours and see what percentage of global needs it will cover?

>>10802088
>biomass on land into oil?
yes
>all available
Who said use all of it?

There is a lot of waste biomass from farming/landscaping and you could probably use plastic waste too.

>>10801742
Based

>>10802378
And you don't think this will eventually slippery slope into using forests and everything else organic on land because the industrial-technological system has to sustain itself as its grows? Are you retarded? That is if this even works economically, what's the energy return on investment for doing this?

>>10800968
>In the end nuclear wins in cost, environmental impact and energy output per land usage.

>>10802378

>>10801103
>www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/
Huh? If anything, prices are lower than they've ever been.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20372
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32172

>>10801742
Fusion might be less than 10 now.

>>10801564

>>10802406
/thread

>>10800744
Wait a minute... that is a doctored image !

>>10800671
It will realistically be replaced for most centralized power and maybe automobiles, but obviously there are circumstances where petroleum still needs to be used. For instance, the vast majority of plastics.

Coal is worthless though. Should go the way of whale oil within the next 150 years if all goes as planned.

>>10802406
>filename
What a retard. How about over those parking lots and on those roofs?

>>10802186
4.0-4.9 would be nearer the mark and again, your built in assumptions make your calculations all but useless

>>10802790
he's ignoring it
shills will shill

>>10802441
in the lab at most, and that's pushing it.
making 50% of a county's energy won't happen in 50y

>>10800968
>ivanpah cherrypicking solar thermal which is the most expensive form of solar
Nice try shill, how about you compare it to Mount Signal which is 460 megawatts for 365 mil, you could build 54 of those for the cost of one nuke plant, that's a whole lot of fucking power, and it wouldn't take fucking 20 years to plan and build. So you could probably have all 54 plants operational by the time they break ground on one reactor.

>>10802971
You are right, solar is cheaper to build. Im gonna debunk solar as a good alternative right here in this post, ready?

Why is California energy cost increasing the more renewables they add?

Because solar is unreliable and cant run 24/7. The capacity of solar plants is not the same as the energy output. The real capacity factor of CSP solar in California is about 33%, that is with the best case scenario.
Nuclear has the best capacity factor, about 92%.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b

This is why the energy cost is cheaper in Illinois where 88% of the energy comes from nuclear.

>>10800671
>>10801015
ok ican see grid electricity getting replaced by sources other than fossil fuels
but as this anon mentions shipping and global transfers in general are all but impossible without fossil fuels.
Without global trade economies will crash.
There are already incidents in marine transport for example were sharp raises in oil prices led to serious problems as the cost of transfer became greater than any profit.
I fail to see how this is not gonna bring huge problems bordering catastrophe especially after what happened in 2008 and thew dozens of countries into serious trouble

>>10802623
I honestly can't tell what's sadder about that graph. The fact that after over 450 billion dollars invested so far, renewables only make up 35% of Germany's energy, the fact that even though nuclear is being phased out in Germany, it's still manages to make up 12% of their energy production, or the fact that fossil fuel energy usage has jumped over 15% to pick up the slack.

a lot of people will say "nuclear" because "wow cool nuclear", but nuclear has the caveat of unlimited expense

>>10802395
>slippery slope into using forests and everything else organic on land because the industrial-technological system has to sustain itself
No. If anything, it will create an incentive to keep planting more stuff.
>Humans eat food
>OMG humans are gonna eat all of the food
Good thing we plant crops every year.

On the plus side, if the CO2 boogyman becomes a problem, we will have all of the infrastructure in place for carbon capture.

>>10801118
>AOC-tier idea
Heh fuckin stealin' that

>>10803407
Its worse than that; renewables make up 35% of Germany's electrical production, but as >>10801564 shows, they also use large amounts of natural gas (for stuff like heating & cement production) and oil (for transportation). So only about 14% of Germany's total energy use.

Now, if they had taken that $450 billion USD equivalent, and bought the same reactors the UAE is buying at the same price, that works out to 22.5 plants, which would put out 126 gigawatts of power, or ~1,000 terawatt-hours (assuming 92% uptime)

That is enough to completely replace all of their fossil fuels & wind/solar used in electrical production, and would also make a nice dent in the amount of natural gas used for heating. Or replace a bunch of oil via electric cars.

>>10803416
If nuclear power had "unlimited expense" than why does France, which gets 80% its electricity from nuclear, have perfectly reasonable electrical prices?

>>10803451
France could get 100% of its energy from nuclear if they wanted. They instead export their excess energy to european countries. https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=fr&v=82

>>10801721
Economics is a pseudoscience. Fuck off.

>>10801579
Jeremy Corbel, please go!

Just burn niggers.

>>10803211
>CSP
Into the trash it goes

>>10802435

Reduction in fossil fuel prices.

Hence why every time nuclear is not utilized fossil fuel consumption goes up.

>>10802623
That is electric power production only, not all energy. This is the relevant graph, 4.6% renewable. >>10801564

>>10801721
EROI of nuclear is comparable to fossil fuels, and BETTER than fossil fuels for nuclear breeders

>>10804198
4.6% solar and wind power, sorry

>>10804198
If you're comparing to nuclear power production is the relevant graph as you're comparing non electric energy consumption that can't magically be replaced by electricity.

>>10804210
nuclear can be used to generate heat for heating of buildings, industrial processes or hydrocarbon synthesis

I dont think talking about electric power consumption is ever relevant, non-electric energy consumption emits CO2 as well

talking about electricity only is one of those dishonest tricks to make wind and solar look better than they really are

4.6% for wind and solar in Germany in 2018 is where we truly are at

>>10804219
The fact that France consumes just as much oil as Germany undermines you point.

>>10800671
>Scientifically speaking, what happens after that?
Society literally fucking collapses and 80% of people starve to death

>>10804239
in a shocking turn of events, it is revealed that french people drive cars

>>10800671
5G destroying all terrestrial life via ecological collapse.

>>10800671
That cat was not clamped or circumcised. But vaccinated.

>>10804239
Not really - while both countries get around the same amount of energy from oil, France's use of natural gas & coal is much lower. And widescale nuclear power puts France in a good position to switch to electric cars, without worrying about burning more fossil fuels to charge them. Right now French reactors are actually underutilized at night, which is exactly when most EVs would be charged. The French could transition a large hunk of their vehicle fleet to electric without having to build a single new reactor. They would just have to encourage people to set their cars on timers to charge at night.

Honestly this shows that electric cars & nuclear power have genuine synergies. EV owners want cheap, reliable power every night to charge, while nuclear plants are most cost effective when being run nearly full out, and EVs provide the demand at night.

>>10800671
>Nuclear
>Wind
>Solar
>Hydro

Replacing oil and coal could have happened decades ago

>>10807103
EV's have even greater synergy with renewables due to much greater overproduction, in Germany during certain times of day power meters actually run backwards, combining this with Vehicle to grid and you solve intermittency, and and oil consumption together.

are thorium reactors a meme?

>>10800671
War

>>10807263
They were clamped.

>>10807251

Just so long as it's sunny, we cover 80% of the country in solar panels and hyper expensive batteries, and dump lead and cadmium equal to 80% of the country into the environment.

>>10807497
>80% of the country
No

>hyper expensive batteries
No

>dump lead and cadmium equal to 80% of the country into the environment.
No

You are bad at math and anon is talking about using EV batteries as grid storage.

>>10807600

Installed capacity of solar and wind and other memetier renewables is not the amount of power you get out.

In order to make enough power for a society requires building in several times the capacity factor that society needs and then an expensive battery network to capture all that energy when the getting is good.

These are facts.

>>10807953
Especially with chemtrails causing global dimming.

>>10807953
And they're still cheaper than nuclear, crazy how that works.

Utility scale PV+storage is still cheaper than nuclear

>>10800671
captured hydrocarbons made by wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, burning OP's mother's fat

>>10808124
This is such a terrible fucking idea, why would you lose efficiency with all those extra steps when you can just use an EV?

>>10805781
This

>>10802101
>do people kick the bucket with lower EROI?
In theory, yes, but in practice, no. The disparity between rich and poor increases, as the rich need relatively more "poor people" to live like animals and work producing the things they like to consume.

The most realistic scenario is that we bio-engineer solutions for our problems. In the future, we'll have giant facilities where massive vats of bacteria eat plastic products and shit out raw hydrocarbons.

Old landfills will become big money as we rush to excavate the plastic and metals; I imagine even the dirt itself would end up being sifted for valuable metals like mercury and the end byproduct will get shipped off as top quality organic fertilizer.

>>10800671
Renewables are going to take greater market share due to competitive economics. Natural gas will replace coal. desu coal is stupid and the only reason to use it is because we already have the legacy system built for it. Over time when coal plants reach the end of their operational lifetime, they’ll be replaced by natural gas. Coal just isn’t financially competitive anymore.

>>10801721
I for one, am fine with lesser returns. Of course, the true cost of our current regime isn’t all accounted for in the price anyways, although I understand that you’re only talking energy.

>>10808153
You cant power a jet engine with EV, but you can make it carbon neutral with electrofuels.
The same reasoning applies with all the other aspects of our transport economy that cannot transition away from fossil fuels like freight shipping and railways.

>>10800671
Deep sea wind/solar + battery storage power station.

>>10803211
>Because solar is unreliable and cant run 24/7.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_storage_power_station

>>10807953
>building in several times the capacity factor that society needs
No

>expensive battery network to capture all that energy when the getting is good.
No

Wow, you're bad at reading too. You just need the difference between what is used immediately and what is stored as energy storage capacity and the "expensive battery network" would be made up of electric vehicles (I didn't use the abbreviation this time because I don't think you know what it means) and cheap energy storage like saltwater batteries.

faster than previously thought

>>10808254
>freight shipping and railways
>He's never heard of electric trains

Loving all the boomers here talk about costs. How does it matter that the prices for electricity rise a little if you avoid big time enviromental damages in the future. And I am just talking about damages that the burning of fossil fuels create. And how is noone mentioning the costs of storing nuclear waste? Is the general assumption just that we'll find a way to recycle them in a cost efficient way?

>>10808907
>And how is noone mentioning the costs of storing nuclear waste?
The cost is trivial.

>>10808921
It's not

>>10804239
>The fact that France consumes just as much oil as Germany undermines you point.

It does not.

France: GDP (PPP) $5,153 per ton of CO2
Germany: GDP (PPP) $3,318 per ton of CO2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions

France is over 1.5 times more carbon efficient than Germany. You can thank nuclear for that.

>>10808922
Yes it is, storing a few crates deep underground is incredibly cheap per actual TWh produced.

>>10808921
Nuclear energy is the only energy whose cost is rising, if you didn't noticed.
It was the only solution before the unexpected low cost of wind/solar and cheap battery storage power station. Now it's over for a few decades. Perhaps in half a century they will at last create a good design, safe and efficient.
Sometime the most success comes from easy to understand and to deploy concepts. An average third world engineer can deploy a solar power station and battery storage. He cannot play with nuclear and radioactive fuel.
It's like hydrogen fuel cell and battery EVs.
Hydrogen has way more potential. However, li-ion is winning because it's very easy to operate and doesn't need costly infrastructures.

>>10808937
Those facilities are massively expensive and most of the radioactive material is left over without expensive chemical processing. Do you have any evidence that these costs are miniscule per TWh?

>>10808937
I am pretty sure that it is not cheap and you also have to maintain these storages for thousands of years unless you find a way to recycle it.

>>10800671
Death throes of China, US and its proxies as they scramble over the last scraps. If there is enough industrialization left after the nuclear exchange, fission and renewables will be used where possible as humans at large revert back to 1800's level energy usage with slightly more advanced metallurgy. There will be some large cities left but they will be scrambling to feed themselves. I suspect the loss of hydrocarbons will set humans back about 500 years while they get their shit together.

>>10808944
>>10808962
Nuclear waste storage facilities are not cheap in absolute cost. They are extremely cheap when you take into account how little storage space you need per energy produced, tough. On the order of a tenth of a cent per KWh.

>>10808943
>It was the only solution before the unexpected low cost of wind/solar and cheap battery storage power station.


Too little, too late. Reminder that as of 2018, only 4.6% of German energy consumption was covered by solar/wind, despite hundreds of billions of euros of investment. If we rely on solar/wind only, we are not going to significantly decarbonize the global economy until the second half of the century. By which point we can look forward to multiple Celsius temperature rise.

>>10808969
Can't believe someone can be this iliterate in history and still dare to share their rancid opinion. Sudoku is your destiny my friend.

>>10808997
Ok

>>10808995
Ahhh, I can't be arsed to look for it at the moment but supposedly there is lots of reliable studies that show a quick and rather affordable way to change to a majority of power production by renewable energies. It was all mentioned by the scientists at the press conference of Science for Future in spring this year. On a sidenote to that and people talking about Germany only doing 4.6%. Germany could invest much more into this technology but is rather pouring money into coal subsidization likely due to lowkey corruption in the governing parties. It has been mentioned in the thread before the price for major change in the energy sector is steep but doable at least for wealthy countries.

>>10808995
You say too little, too late, when the reason why i stopped supporting nuclear energy is because it is super slow, and super late.

>>10809533

>>10800671
No because people are too busy worrying how we are all going to die. For example environmental contamination that is passed on via fluid exchanges but weakens from person to person. And if it still exists even after 200 or so exchanges is because there is an open vector of usage. Patient zero passes it to person 1,2,3,4,5...however it only gets weaker as less and less of the contaminant is passed from hand to hand. As less and less is passed on. If it’s still around is because the contaminant is still in usage. So people worry that there are a lot of alternatives but are they as safe?

>>10809883
Personally I don’t believe in studies as a lot of the subcontractors are publishing house personnel. Alright, don’t panic.

>>10801057
>extracting uranium from seawater.
oh, you're that guy again....
opinion completely disregarded

>>10809883
Contagious amoebiosis. Where the body can’t eliminate strange compounds so it forms sheaths around it so as not to let it destroy healthy tissue. Meanwhile your body’s immune cells begin to attack it but sees itself being defeated by the compounds physical properties. Since it can’t break tissue it can’t be sweat out or urinated. So it needs other forms to remove it from the blood stream. And yet it is able to pick up another host. And continue the same passage. Until its expiration in the food chain with last person to host very little of it that cannot pass it on. That’s the problem with strange chemicals. You never know the effect in the public or how it will react with the environment when the body absorbs it. Magnetic properties etc.

>>10809926
Magnetic properties? What?

>>10800671
They continue to clamp children's umbilical cords early.

>>10800671
They can be replaced as energy source, in chemistry it's possible it is going to be replaced much later.

>>10808863

>people will just charge their batteries at work and companies will eat effectively buying their employees gas, all while charging in 8 hours instead of 16.

Being ignorant of issues is not an argument. It's not a crime to be ignorant, but it is looked down on to be that AND opinionated.

>>10809910
Just curious, but what is your argument against extracting uranium from seawater? Several research groups have successfully done it, and there doesn't appear to be any reason why the processes these groups used couldn't be scaled up, if the price of uranium increased enough to make it commercially viable. Do you have some other studies showing that the price of this extraction would not be worth considering?

>>10812705

Hell. We could extract uranium and thorium from fly ash released into the environment from being produced in the plants that burn fossil fuels NOW.

>>10812705
energy and time investments for seawater uranium extraction and construction of nuclear plants does not come close to breaking even with the energy yields when leaching off of existing grids and the implied chains of energy resources, extraction processes and construction/maintenance costs for those grids are considered. Also generally speaking when there is a new highly profitable and politically attractive "energy solution" or extraction process a large amount of very sloppy, dead end, costly projects are invested in which all have the same associated costs which propagate across the entire system as they all require leaching off mostly fossil fuel powered grids.

>>10800671
I see what you did there, but she's mixed, even by 4chan standards that's fine.