/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11108167
No tidal, no biogas?

>>11108167
Also:
High Voltage Direct Current can transfer electricity efficiently across countries and even continent. Pic related is a map of lines already in place or planned in Europe. China has one reaching over 1700 kilometers, and planning a 5000 kilometers line.
North Africa can produce and sell electricity to Europe and sub-Saharan Africa in this manner.
>>11108191
Memes as well.

>>11108167
And:
We can store energy somewhat efficiently as Ammonia, using Hydrogen produced by electrolysis of water. Ammonia can be used to fuel ships, is easier to transport in pipes and tanks, and is easier to store.

>>11108167
Thorium is fission though

>>11108218
>somewhat efficiently as Ammonia
Still not ideal given the energy density requirements for vehicles.

The real solution is natural gas through Allam cycle.
>plentiful and cheap sweet natural gas
>all CO2 produced is captured, bottled and can be sold for industrial use
>net zero carbon emissions
>gets pussies wet

>>11108226
Yeah I'm we will land on Mars before those become operational.
>>11108232
Electric vehicles are already a thing, and they become cheaper and their range keeps growing. Japanese car manufacturers are balls deep into Hydrogen though so it will be interesting. The only real issue will be airplanes.

>>11108240
An fully operational one was created in the 60s though.

>>11108167
>meme
>Memes
Grow up, kid.

>>11108241
Did it produce a net output of energy for a long period of time?
>>11108292
>"Grow up, kid." he said, on a west pacific adolescent animation enthusiasts' messaging board.

>>11108313
>adolescent animation
you should know that anime touches very deep thematics like cunny

>>11108313
>Did it produce a net output of energy for a long period of time?
This is about 20 years in the future

>>11108205
Based and HVDCpilled

Forget nuclear. My bet is on synthetic natural gas (and to a lesser extend butanol). Most of the industrial infrastructure is already there, so we don't have to invest in a new one. And the big plus: it actually turns co2 into a resource instead of a waste.
The main issue with wind and solar is energy storage. Synthetic natural gas can be part of the solution.

>>11108167
nuclear is dead, since Chernobyl, almost new pant has been build since, and almost no plants are being build or planned, old plants are retiring and being replaced by natural gas, wind and solar, it's over, it's over man, over, over, over. don't you get it?

>>11108389
Maybe in the Poonited States. France is strong in the Nuclear game, China is investing and developing smaller and safer reactors. Nuclear power generates 10% of the world's electricity, and while it is experiencing a halt in growth, it will eventually take off again.
>>11108368
It is very complicated and expensive to capture/store CO2. Better to just go with the Hydrogen/Ammonia autism I mentioned.

>>11108167
>thorium is a meme
Thorium is nuclear power you raging faggot.
It's literally the better version of Uranium, in every way.

>>11108408
>France is strong in the Nuclear game, China is investing

it's the same in France, almost all plants there are very old and will retire in the next decades, no new plants will be build and France will switch to wind and solar, China was late in the nuclear game, so plants will run longer. But China is building way more wind, solar and hydro and stopped all nuclear projects. Also China and safer? Are you kidding?

>>11108408
>It is very complicated and expensive to capture/store CO2
breh...

>>11108205
But at what cost to the world's elephant population?

>>11108444
How much you you think one of those costs? Take that price, multiply it by 10, multiply it by every watt of power you used last month, and add that onto your electricity bill.
>Nah bro, CO2 capture is nothing, no biggy

>>11108620
Next to 0 compared to the cost that global warming will have

>>11108629
I don't multiply shit, breh. You's literally exhaling co2, you's farting methane. Yo goin' straight to the power plant, stick a tube on yo big mouth, stick a tube on yo big ass, an' energize da future, man.

>>11108417
> dude this miracle energy source which would bring literally infinite money to the first person to build totally exists!

uh no one's built it yet because.... uhhhh uhhhhh uhhhhh

>>11108205
HVDV is fucking expensive. Running links across the ocean isn't something that will happen if it can be avoided. You'd one need to do such insane shit if you decided to not use any nuclear. At that point, running HVDC around the world to avoid building massive batteries would start to make sense. It's still crazy though. Just build some goddamn nuclear.

>>11108715
>trying to skirt around the issue this hard
Coal is literally killing us, it deserves to be phased out, it needs to be.

Reminder fission is literally the most dangerous energy source (second to antimatter) and after Chernobyl will and should never gain wide acceptance.

We only need fossil fuels because most economies are based on endless growth contingent upon an ever-increasing population. We don't need nuclear or any other fossil fuel alternative, green energy sources are fine if we just cut down on energy consumption.

Short term thinking is embedded in first-world culture, and it's far too late to stop the environmental collapse caused by climate change. Our energy needs will drop substantially as billions of people die of starvation, exposure, disease, and in the coming global resource-based wars.

That said, fusion could replace fossil fuels no problem if we had been able to implement it 8- years ago. Fixing things isn't impossible, we've just run out of time.

>>11108873
>Energy density equals danger
Post proof of fission killing millions. That's how many fossil fuels have killed.

>>11108902
*80 years ago

>>11108167
Fusion is only viable in certain places that can bid high for nuclear plants.

>>11108629
Carbon capture should be required by law.

>>11108922
It should, but unfortunately it acts as an excuse for power companies to rev up the coal furnaces more than ever.
>They capture 1% of their emissions
>"See, coal isn't bad, look! Just let us burn more, just a few more tons, we'll capture it I promise"

>Nuclear is perfectly safe trust us!
Ya okay nerd. Not even joking. No one will every accept Nuclear in the West. Maybe go to China.

>>11108313

Yes, but we wanted couldnt' make nukes with them. We really wanted those nukes.

>>11108167
>>fusion is a meme

Fusion is the future.
But I agree fission, wind, and solar are the present best energy sources.

>>11109233
>Fusion is the future.
And will always be the future :^)

>>11109609

The future is now.

>>11108431

>china
>stopped all nuclear projects

No they fucking didn't, where are you getting your (mis)info?

>>11108167
Wind and solar energy are actually fusion driven.

>>11108873

>dangerous
>by any measure except number of deaths per unit of energy produced

>>11108368
several areas in the us are planning for solar/wind with minimal storage and small scale natural gas as a backup, they could far their natural gas running in about 5-10 minutes so it would be effective to only use it as needed unlike coal.

>>11111169
Standby gas plants are disgustingly dirty and expensive. Getting a plant going from cold requires wasting a shitload of fuel, and thermal cycling the components increases wear to an unacceptable degree on advanced multi-stage turbines, so shittier ones with looser tolerances are used since they don't give as much of a fuck about being abused.
You are so much better off just adding more wind+solar generation and battery, hoping for the best, and tying into an external source with a peaking contract for the inevitable day when you're flat out of juice.

>>11109051
URANIUM
---------------------------------------------
Uranium fuel rod
U-235 5%
U-238 95%

when rod is used
U-235 breaks up
U-238 --> U-239 --> Np-239 --> Pu-239

after U-235 portion drops to 0.3%
the rod is used up

waste storage: 10,000 years

Pu-239 can be used to build nuclear weapons

THORIUM
---------------------------------------------
Th-232 --> Th-233 --> Pa-233 --> U-233

U-233 is then used to make pellets

when pellets are used
no U-238 in pellets => no Pu-239 is created
U-233 --> U-232 --> Tl-208

waste storage: 300 years

U-233 can be used to build nuclear weapons,
but only after the U-232 is separated from the mix


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_plutonium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_thorium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_thallium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-232

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

>>11108313
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle#List_of_thorium-fueled_reactors

>>11111111

>>11108167
hydro is actually still the best. most of china is powered by a single gigantronigger dam that cost a gorillion dollars to make, but is still 10000% cheaper per delivered kilowatt than solar or wind.

nuclear produces nuclear waste which, if you think plastic wastes fuck up the world, then wew...

are you being a realist or just implying that fusion is a bad idea to seek?

>>11108785
>because
no bombs, no pork for the 1%

>>11111693

>a solid metal that can stay in the sealed reactor after decom will destroy the world worse than plastic free released to the ocean.

>>11111693

Funny story.

A single damn break in China has killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

>>11112306
damn...

>>11112304
nigga do you not know what nuclear waste is. they put it in drums and stick the drums underground generally. the shit is still active and it creates passive radiation. it's like plastic in the sense it doesn't decompose, but worse because it generates radiation.

>>11112981

Time-Distance-Shielding

2 inches of lead reduces radiation by a factor of 10.
4 inches of steel also does this.

For a point source, which waste would be, radiation drops by the square of the distance.

Not to mention the actually damaging high energy radiation dissipates quickly. Candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long. So the long term storage concerns are for low energy radiation to begin with.

I have stood atop actual reactors after shutdown because of this issue alone.

Storage is a complete non-issue, especially since the actual volume of waste is a solid metal of which the last 70 years of operation produced waste (that is still 99% useable fuel) that can fit in a single walmart or the 1st floor of the empire state building.

>>11108191
Tidal doesn't work for large scale energy generation. As far as we know, it can only power small communities with specific coastal conditions