/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11408813
ARPA-E says that we need nuclear power to fight climate change. But the era of big baseload is coming to a close

does every left wing candidate want to ban nuclear?

>>11408846
>ARPA-E says that we need nuclear power to fight climate change.
So what? You're not going to change these people's minds.

>>11408875
>implying Trump will lose
The only one who could beat him is Bloomberg, and most democrats are too stupidly caught up with comments he made decades ago.

>>11408875
at best, they just don't say anything about it

>>11408893
Trump won't win in 2024

>>11408893
i don't understand. are you saying trump dislikes nuclear?

>Feb 10, 2020 - Donald Trump’s budget proposal for 2021 earmarks $1.2 billion for nuclear energy research and development and related programs. That’s significantly more than the $824 million Trump proposed in his budget the previous year. Even with the sizable increase in requested funds, the ...
>Oct 1, 2018 - The Trump administration has made shoring up existing nuclear power plants a key — and controversial — component of its energy agenda. But it's also looking ahead to the next generation of nuclear reactor technology. On Friday, President Trump signed the Nuclear Energy Innovation ...

heat from rocks is more of a gimmick really

>>11408910
SMRs will be far closer to reality in 2024.

>>11408920
>makes a space force
>pro-nuclear
Absolutely BASED

Laughs in fusion.

>>11408937
fusion will get cucked even harder

>tfw the west is literally sucking chinese dicks for energy

>>11408931
Yes but democrats will win 2024 for sure because by then people are going to be sick of Republicans. And then nuclear is killed off in america.
It's already killed off in europe.

Trump is delaying the inevitable.
Even commies want trump to win now they can win for sure in 2024

>>11408936
nuclear has always been america's key to energy independence. nuclear physicists are literally all nerds so they are out-competed in the slimy tricks and high-charisma category of strategic lobbying and handshaking.

>>11408973
>its a big conspiracy why my soicuck soience isn't more popular
>i don't have any evidence, but i know its true
>I FUCKING LOVE SOIENCE!

>>11408973
>im a nerd, when g-g-grow up i will be the one that is laughing!

20 years later...

Chad, halting the nerds attempts progressing society, for the sweet kick backs and political favours.

based chad.

>>11408971
I'm just hopeful that some of these kooks will have died off by 2024.

>>11408975
if you don't believe that the oil industry has more effective lobbyists than the nuclear energy industry then you may want to upgrade your butt brain.

>>11408971
Bush won after eight years of Reagan so 2024 isn't a slam-dunk for Democrats especially if they're still running on a platform of identity politics. Most likely whoever runs a Millennial for president in 2024 will win.

>>11409016
A bernielike could definitely win 2024

I'm hoping Helion Energy gets fusion energy working ASAP.

if you had to chose between telecommunications and nuclear engineering, which would you say has the biggest potential for good employability in the future? I was orginially going to join nuclear but the general trend seems to be "nuclear bad, ban nuclear" in most countries. is telecom a safest bet?

how much better is nuclear vs petroleum? aside from climate change is there any serious reason to change to nuclear? considering the fact of nuclear waste etc.

>>11408813
Imagine forcing a nuclear engineer to go back 4-6 years and in debt just to go from making 220k to 60k a year.

How about Thorium?

>>11409265
A meme.

>>11409272
How so?

>>11408971

>Yes but democrats will win 2024 for sure because by then people are going to be sick of Republicans. And then nuclear is killed off in america.

Booker among others will prevent that from happening. You're a retard if you think Hollywood directs the Dem party, states like Illiinois and New York who are dependent on nuclear power aren't going to give it up and they are far more corrupt than limp wristed faggots like Newsom or /pol/ tier retards like Abbot who want to run CA and TX exclusively off gas.

Seriously, just stop and think about this for a minute. The only candidate that actually wants to ban nuclear energy (as officially stated policy) is Sanders anyway, and Sanders himself knows he lacks the votes for it.

>>11409072
Dems might be able to win in 2024 with a Che Guevara type running. Young Hispanic socialist checks so many of their boxes. Maybe a female version but I think lots of leftist women secretly hate other women so a guy with the right rhetoric could win.

>>11409199
Depends on what telecom. The technology changes very rapidly. LEO internet might rapidly wipe out most of the incumbents and make worthless hundreds of billions of infrastructure. Nuclear by contrast moves very slowly. The size of the industry might dwindle but you won't be left in the dust. You'll see changes coming from a long distance and have time to react.

>>11409372

>Young Hispanic socialist

Against Cruz/Rubio? Fuck no, and more importantly julian castro has less pull than Newsom or Cuomo who will make their own attempts with Bloomberg again. The GOP have far stronger POTUS candidates and will be able to contest the Senate well into the future, Dems can win the house but not resolutely so. As it pertains to nuclear energy, anti-nuclear Dems don't have a majority and won't have a friend in the White House like they did with Obama. It's worth noting that the most powerful anti-nuclear Senator, Harry Ried of Nevada, retired and his successor lacks the power he had. The anti-nuclear age is over, regardless of what that actually means.

>>11408813
Nuclear power was a failure anyway.

>>11408813
>Ban nuclear power.
>US runs out of electricity
>Automated security systems run out of power
>Show owners have to start guarding their property 24/7.
>Bang bang wild west
>Gonna see me getting rid of this bandits body in dark of the night when street lights don't work?
>Gonna call cops with an empty phone battery?
>Enough windmills and solar panels can't be produced fast enough.
>Have to burn coal and oil for electricity.
>Air pollution reaches levels of nuclear winter.

>>11408846
>ARPA-E says
The Consuuuuuuuumers say all kinds of delusional crap that rationalizes their anti-science, illogical, and flat-out downright retarded fantasies of infinite economic/population growth.

>>11408879
The current president want's to not only kill ARPA-E, but have them payback their previous year's budget, because they weren't able to kill them last year. ARPA-E and the nuclear research they do won't get killed because congress like them.
>>11409648
without nuclear firm low carbon electricity sources, the cost of fighting climate change doubles.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2542435118303866

>>11409009
if you believe in some crazy conspiracy theory that imaginary boogeymen are out to get you even though you have no evidence to show anyone then why would you even bother making such a stupid claim? why waste our time with your vapid stupidity and childish paranoia?
>>>/x/

>>11408813
banning is not even necessary, almost no new plant has been build for decades, many plants will retire within the next decades
nuclear is not competitive anyway so there is no reason to stick with it

>>11409286
Thorium has been the miracle to save us for 50 years now, kinda like Fusion. Except Fusion actually makes progress.

>>11410148
would the illinous energy prof lie to me?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY
there are various things that make nukes undesirable for investors and law makers but there far from impractical

>>11410184
>Except Fusion actually makes progress.
the "progress" of Fusion requires many material technologies that simply cannot be produced in high enough quantities yet to build a working proof of concept.

>>11409698
found the big oil shill

>>11410364
That's true of every new technology.

>>11410364
the construction is already underway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

>>11408875
Any candidate who says anything good about it gets snubbed by the MSM. But thinking hundred billion dollar international oil companies have anything to do with it is obviously conspiracy theory. Also if anyone complains about our conflicts in the middle east they're unamerican.

>>11410148
Imagine if someone said solar power is non-viable because solar panel designs from 60 years ago aren't competitive.

>>11409698
Conspiracies aren't something 'crazy' as you seem to believe. There is ample evidence for the light bulb conspiracy for example. I think that Internet/media consumption rotted your brain.

>>11410664
when were the new units at Vogtle designed? The Obama administration should be in prison for wasting taxdollars on that disaster. How about the new reactors in france? all billions overbudget and years behind schedule. France is phasing out Nuclear for a reason.

>>11411000
you mean the cheap LED bulbs we use today which last forever and consume virtually no energy? sounds like a conspiracy to me.

>>11408813
> what are you nuclearcucks going to do for a job?
How are you going to deal with power shortage?
Buy more solar panels from China? Cuck.

>>11411404
certainly not waste more money after Vogtle.

>>11411398
Sadly LED bulbs don't last forever. But I meant the conspiracy of all the big light bulb manufacturers in the early XX century.

>>11412014
So the evil conspiracy that was quickly ended when a better technology appeared?

>>11412030
It was ended by a world war, bucko.
But yeah, nothing lasts forever. A really deep insight.

>>11411398
They don’t last forever, the ones in the bathroom die like every year

>>11409376
Nuclear would change rapidly too if you didn’t have to wait 8 years from filing permit to first shovel full of dirt moved
Or 15 years to get a new reactor design approved

>>11412318
Either you're buying shit bulbs or your electrical system is garbage, an ok bulb is rated for 50,000 hours which should last around 10 years.

so is petroleum engineering or nuclear engineering the better choice for graduating in 2023 ?

People used to associate nuclear reactors with the manufacture of weapons grade plutonium. When the LFTR type reactors get more mature I dont think they will be as hard to sell to the public. They could produce far less dangerous materials with a shorter half life. Also no high pressures and dangers of hydrogen explosions.

>>11411395
>France is phasing out Nuclear for a reason
They are?

The american nuclear industry has been dead for years. They have to buy a most of the nuclear material from britain or france and actually have to buy all of their plutonium from the russians. To my mind it's better to have all fissile material remove from the united states because they are not trustworthy

>>11408846
I used to work for ARPA-E strange cult like place. Not bad just strange.

>>11412859
Erm or Australia who has the worlds largest uranium deposits.

>>11409206
The problem with nuclear waste in america is the way they run their reactors. They are too scared of terrorists getting hold of hi-grade materials so why do not use breeder reactors in a close loop system, therefore they only extract a tiny percentage of the power from the fuel. It is this half burnt fuel they consider waste. It's the new play equivalent of rolling coal, but much less fun

>>11412851
People think that them not having public plans for future plants to replace the quite old ones means they're leaving nuclear. With modern designs they could just about replace every two plants they currently have with a single new one. Not building replacements would be totally moronic, so until they publicly say they're backing out, it's more likely that they just aren't committed on breaking ground on a new site yet.

>>11408893
>most democrats are too stupidly caught up with comments he made decades ago.
Comments that had the goal of raising awareness of issues and directing people towards a solution, but in today's world you're not allowed to solve problems if those problems are being caused by non-whites

>>11410364
Helion Energy will debut a net energy gain prototype within the next 2 years.

Nuclear has to go.
Solar and wind is enough to provide power if we reduce consumption to reasonable levels.

>dude just reduce consumption lol
>prices? What’s that?

>>11412993
>halve consumption
>double the price
>still pay the same to satisfy the rich pigs you love so much but the environment is spared

Personally I won't pay twice as much but feel free to do so.

>>11412987
Consumption is not going to be reduced. Electric vehicle proliferation will assure that.

>>11409376
>LEO internet might rapidly wipe out most of the incumbents and make worthless hundreds of billions of infrastructure.
Absolutely not, there's simply not enough per person bandwidth that a LEO sat can provide.
Starlink is going to be wonderful for rural places, boats, airplanes, undeveloped countries, etc. It simply cannot compete with optical fiber/LTE, but it's not intended to. Its goal is to bring low-latency high speed broadband to anywhere that doesn't have infrastructure.

>>11409698
>Fukushima (1950s reactor) gets rekt by a mega-tsunami
>Nobody dies from acute radiation, small number of people are exposed to more radiation than is OK
>Deaths are from elderly people having to evacuate
>Entire world denounces nuclear power and starts phasing it out

>Deepwater Horizion oil drilling platform fucking explodes
>11 people immediately die
>massive ecological disaster, millions of creatures are killed
>massive economic disaster as fishing is fucked and the whole coast has to essentially shut down
>World says "wow that's awful" and continues to suck down oil at an ever increasing rate

hmmmm

>>11408813
Who's next president?

>>11413158
3house Sanders

>>11413165
>Appeal to hypocrisy fallacy

>>11413165
Bernie is a Democrat, he has to deal with black voters all day. I don't blame him for having a walled off house surrounded by water

>>11413072
>Fukushima (1950s reactor) gets rekt by a mega-tsunami
It's not even that, they were literally warned that the seawall needed to be made larger and refused to spend the money to expand it.

>>11413189
It's hardly even hypocrisy unless you assume he has a bunch of views that he obviously doesn't.

>>11412604
neither they're both dead industries

>>11409359
>wants to ban nuclear
>wants to gut NASA and Artemis

man, FUCK SANDERS

>>11408813
Jokes on you my uni doesn't have a nuke eng program it's embedded in the ECE program.

>>11413072
Literally every fucking time.

Let's not forget about tianjin the refinery that nuked a whole city and killed hundreds. This is a regular occurrence, people are so hypocritical.

As for renewables, now they want to make panels from cadmium telluride. It's freaking cadmium. That's really not good for you, much less the thorium waste from making rare earth metals.

>>11413791
Really? Petroleum too? Surely the so called renowable energies wont replace oil and gas in the foreseeable future? Any specific idea on the oil market in argentina?

>>11409536
The main conservative base is religious boomers.
Millennials are overwhelmingly democrat and love bernie.
It's funny how you say that republicans will keep winning forever from here on out.

>>11413165
lmao that's not any of his houses. pic rel is his biggest

Bernie Sanders seems like the kind of candidate who will listen to reasonable arguments, such as those by competent environmentalists who know nuclear is part of any viable plan for 100% clean and renewable energy before 2030-something (fuck the wimpy limpdick Paris accord).

Now we just need to impress upon him not to sabotage the JWST and Mars programmes. Get to writing those letters burgers, even if you're not a supporter or a democrat any true /sci/entia will want to hedge their bets.

>>11408937
More like "laughs at fusion" amirite? Lmao
~This post was made by the thorium fission gang

>>11414677
Unlike Bloomberg, who has a hard-on for fracking, as well as being HEAVILY invested in it:
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/24/mike-bloomberg-investment-portfolio/

>>11414677
He supports the green new deal which is explicitly anti nuclear and he was constantly bitching about VY when it was still open

>>11408813
oh anon, sweatty summer child

>>11412987
>Just freeze and starve to death bro
2/3rd of our petroleum usage goes to heat, ag, transportation, and plastics. The rest goes to electricity. Germany can't even get to supplying half their electric before more than doubling the cost per kWh. You think we're going to be able to synthesize fertilizers, plastics and aircraft fuel from atmospheric CO2 and nitrogen at industrial scales with solar and wind?

>>11412851
>They are?
France will shut down 14 of its 58 nuclear reactors by 2035 as well its remaining four coal power plants by 2022.Starting with their oldest reactor in Fessenheim a few days ago.