/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11002250
>Subsidies don’t real
>Muh money

Don’t care about money. Go worship the economy on the bottom of the sea.

>>11002253
It's less efficient than renewables. If you don't want to sink, use the most efficient countermeasure.

>>11002270
Efficient in terms of what? Land used? Steel used? Rare minerals used? Labour?

Physics speak in favour of nucleus, since the forces there are far more intense than mechanical energy of atmospheric currents or solar radiation.

>>11002270
>It's less efficient than renewables

No it isn’t. The TVA has seven nuclear reactors, standard high pressure water ones, and they produce more energy than the TVA’s 29 hydroelectric dams do by four times over in addition to making fissile material for warheads.

>>11002279
>Physics speak in favour of nucleus, since the forces there are far more intense than mechanical energy of atmospheric currents or solar radiation.

>>11002287
How's that wrong? Find me a source that produces more energy in a volume of nuclear reactor.

>>11002290
The sun. Also, the energy density in LHC is even higher. But it's not about compact solutions it's about the impact we can have with a finite amount of resources (money) in a finite amount of time.
Feel free to read the report which I forgot to link in the first post:
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/WNISR2019-Assesses-Climate-Change-and-the-Nuclear-Power-Option.html

>>11002298
Sun is nuclear reactor. We receive only fraction of it's energy that is less intensive than nuclear energy.

>finite amount of resources (money)
Money is NOT resources. Money is human meme.

>https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/WNISR2019-Assesses-Climate-Change-and-the-Nuclear-Power-Option.html
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycle_Schneider
Insufficient analysis with blatant bias. Do you have anything better?

>>11002298
The report makes too many assumptions. Nuclear plants can be constructed in less than four years. The long delays are due to shit like licensing.
Subsidize it as much as solar is subsidized and try looking at it again.

>>11002305
Money is human meme, but it expresses how many humans you get to mine minerals, refine them, build shit etc. Even in a world without money, our capabilities would be limited.

>Insufficient analysis with blatant bias. Do you have anything better?
According to the Swiss Energy Foundation, it's the only report that's independent of the IAEA.
https://www.energiestiftung.ch/medienmitteilung/world-nuclear-industry-status-report-2019-neue-akw-zu-teuer-und-zu-spaet.html

>>11002318
>how many humans you get to mine minerals, refine them, build shit etc
And it's affected by political situation and over-all wealth of a country (Russian engineer needs less pay for labour equal to an American engineer). That's why I would prefer direct measure from resources.

>https://www.energiestiftung.ch
>The Swiss Energy Foundation (SES) works for an ecological, equitable and sustainable energy policy. Its strategy — "2000 watt society" — promotes better energy efficiency and use of renewable energy resources other than fossile fuels or nuclear power. Based in Zurich, SES is entirely financed by private donations.
>Because of lack of capacity, our website is unfortunately only in German. But please don’t hesitate to contact us. We will be pleased to answer your questions
Another meme-tier organization. Don't you have anything respectable?

>>11002349
>Don't you have anything respectable?
It's the only report that doesn't shill nuclear to be able to produce nuclear weapons. Remember, we need energy, also in the 186 countries of the world without nuclear weapons.

>>11002352
>It's the only report that doesn't shill nuclear to be able to produce nuclear weapons.
Yet it's worthless. Doesn't UN or IPCC have anything related?

>Remember, we need energy, also in the 186 countries of the world without nuclear weapons
My state has 2 nuclear plants and 0 nuclear waepons.

>>11002357
>My state has 2 nuclear plants and 0 nuclear waepons.
I feel sorry for your state. Had you invested in renewables, you would have more bang for the buck now.

France and Russia have it fine and don't emit much.
You're either too regulated or too retarded (probably both) to figure it how nuclear energy works.

>>11002364
>Russia
12.3 tons per capita
>Germany
9.3 tons per capita

(2017, https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2018&sort=des9))
Sure, praise the atom

>doesnt account for batteries when dealing with intermittents

Literally worthless analysis

>>11002283
So you agree?

>>11002363
>Had you invested in renewables, you would have more bang for the buck now.
We actually made quite an investment into solar energy. Second worst decision after privatization of national assets after commies were removed.

Faggot solar barons ruined perfectly fertile land and the state has to sponsor them with huge amounts of money to this day. The nuclear plants are profitable and we get to sell our energy to our retarded neigbors who have unreliable electrical networks due to their reliance on water, sun and wind. This unreliability of renewables is one of the major factors Mycle conveniently forgets about to shill his point btw.

>>11002394
Totally meaningless measure. Use emission per unit of energy if you want to make a point.

>>11002250
yes, but a carbon tax could make coal and gas more expensive and save nuclear power

>>11002900
Why save something that's more expensive than wind and solar?

>>11002909
The science is not settled on profitable large scale solar farms, goyim. If you think you know better, build your own and get rich for free.

>>11002909
because we cannot leave all our eggs in one basket

>>11002250
>Don't research X
>X IS LAGGING BEHIND IN DEVELOPMENT
thanks

>>11002909
Security. Nuclear power is energy security, in all conditions. Solar works fine in sunny days. Wind works fine with windy conditions. Together they work quite well along with industrial battery banks. However nuclear is still readily available for every scenario in case global warming, war happens where the sun is blocked off or the wind is too erratic.

The issue with nuclear, is expenses due to heavy regulations (well deserved). But nuclear needs to be modularized and made for small/medium scale while cutting the cost and increasing safety. That's the real revolution for nuclear power. Nuclear power needs an "Elon Musk" type of guy who is willing to innovate in cutting cost by 1/10th, scaling up production, and increasing safety margins.

>>11002250
"Scientists" once again get paid significant amounts of money to "prove" what anyone with 2 brain cells intuitively knew all along.

>>11003011
>I believe everyone who agrees with me!
Thats the intelectual integrity I expect from crossboarding cancer.

Nuclear denialism should be punishable by public sodomization with a graphite control rod

>>11002250
You'd think by now they'd figure out ways to innovate around all the "oppressive government regulations" and make it work. You'd think that if nuclear was all that great. Seems like nuclear just wasn't meant to be, and that nuclear shills are literal drooling retards.

>>11002979
How quickly can you start the chain reaction? The only technology I hear about as a backup for dark, windless days is gas.

>>11003056
>Ugh nuclear bad cuz TV told me so
>Let´s ban nuclear and replace it with renewables! Yay, that makes me feel warm, when we shut down perfectly functional reactors!
>Wtf, why are we burning lignite all of sudden? I was told it´ll be alles gutte!

Go be Grüne somewhere else.

>>11003110
You people believe in the market to innovate around every problem faced by humanity, and a destiny in the galaxy or whatever, right?

So why hasn't the nuclear industry simply innovated around the "oppressive government regulations"?

>>11003257
Fuck the market and fuck the petite bourgeiose whine-rebels. The situation in Deutshland is empirical evidence that renewables are not the solution atm.

btw France has some of the lowest energy cost in Europe and guess where does most of their electricity come from?

>>11003273
lol France is so unfathomably fucked long term, even moreso than the rest of the world which is really saying something. I laugh at the drooling retards.

>>11003282
They are fucked in many ways. But the electricity is fine.

>>11003273
>The situation in Deutshland is empirical evidence that renewables are not the solution atm.
The situation in Germany is evidence that corruption works.

>>11003356
>The situation in Germany is evidence that corruption works.
Coal barons and anti nuclear activists are two sides of the same coin, yes.

>>11003367
ya no.
oil barons and nuclear barons are 2 sides of the same coin.
CEOs jump from industry to industry like its nothing, making millions selling whatever kind of crap they have to

>>11003367
>>11003380
Honestly I would not be the least bit surprised if the most anti-oil pro-nuc shills on this board literally worked for oil companies in the past.

They'll say whatever they have to - anything really even if they don't believe it. Do not underestimate how literally spineless these people really are.

>>11003380
Do you understand how much money did the companies lost when they were forced to close functional nuclear plants? You aren´t very smart person, anon.

>>11002922
even residential solar is profitable

>>11003650
>with state incentives
You aren´t fooling anyone.

>>11003273
>France has some of the lowest energy cost in Europe and guess where does most of their electricity come from?

German coal plants. really, no joke, it's just cheaper.

>>11003664
France is net exporter of energy.

>>11003660
you can try it at home,put panels on your roof and earn money

>>11003670
not true any more

>>11003670
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-power-analysis-idUSKBN16K1CX

>>11003716
>Politicians are expected to enforce reduction of nuclear energy
>France is predicted to reach it´s status as exporter
Sorta proving my point there.

>>11003703
Whatever I do or won´t earn money doesn´t matter here. What matters is how much resources are spend on production of the panels and how much energy will the panels produce over their lifetime.

>>11002298
Yeah, something that's pretty similar to a nuclear reactor but has a lifespan about 8 orders of magnitude longer definitely produces more power per volume than a nuclear reactor.

>>11003766
in this capitalist world it's all about money, make a profit or stay poor

>nuclear gets castrated economically, politically and scientifically after g*rmans and their "Atomkraft Nein Dake" autism
>OP is surprised that it didn't develop much after the face

>>11005261
>*after the face

>>11005263
>>*after the face
What the fuck

>>11005264
>>>*after the fact
Am I having a stroke?

>>11005265
Yes. Doctors are a scam btw you should just lay down until it's over.

>>11005261
>
The Smiling Sun logo was designed in 1975 by Danish activist Anne Lund who was part of the Danish organization OOA (Organisationen til Oplysning om Atomkraft [dk]/ Organization for Information on Nuclear Power).
That's 44 years ago. Sure took the "Germans" a while

>>11003766
Panels are made of glass, an aluminium frame and a thin layer of silicon some plastic backing and copper wiring. You also need some electronics to connect it to the grid. Producing a a concrete wall or a piece of road of the same size needs much more resources. Are you opposed to build roads and walls because you worry about resources? Really?
In a sunny region (all of the US except Alaska) energy used is earned back in less then a year.
Solar panels got a guaranteed lifetime of 30 years. Some solar panels are in use even longer and still at 90% capacity. If a panel is not destroyed by force it might last a century and still produce energy.

Large scale grid power storage is not even close to being a thing-without it, renewables are just a situationally useful secondary energy source.

Personally, i think fission is fucked. Fusion, if its something like what TAE or Helion Energy predicts, could work.