/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11757067
You do realise that the E10 option at the petrol station is 15% Ethanol and 85% Gasoline. In some countries you can get up to 85% Ethanol. Constant use and high % of ethanol can damage your car engine, it's useless in cold climates, constant use will damage your car, and it's not rated for a lot of cars post 2004. Also the average fuel economy for E85 vehicles was 25% lower than unleaded gasoline - making it more expensive in the long run.

>>11757067
IMHO water power is alright if you accept the extinction of hundreds of species and are aware that it's only temporary.
Wind and solar are retarded.

>>11757067
Only a delusional fuckwit would think that humans can grow their energy use and somehow stop using the same source that has enabled that growth for the last 2 centuries.

That's exactly the kind of bullshit that liberal pro carbon tax politicians and megalomaniac billionaires like musk, bezos, and branson believe in.

>>11757300
Sure reeks of oil in this thread.

The Earth receives as much energy in a single hour as humanity uses in all forms over an entire year. Capture 1/1000th of it and you have eight times what every human on Earth needs. Just add batteries.

>>11757423
>The Earth receives as much energy in a single hour
From the sun. I should have proofread better

>>11757300
Do tell me HOW it's delusional to stop using fossil fuels while building non-fossil energy sources.

Simple name calling and being stupid doesn't get you very far.

>>11757300
>That's exactly the kind of bullshit that liberal pro carbon tax politicians and megalomaniac billionaires like musk, bezos, and branson believe in.

ah it’s another poltard thread

I advocate for Nuclear Energy.
Everything else is inferior

>>11758336

This.

Turns out it's pretty hard to work around the law of thermodynamics.

>>11758347
Hold it right there.
Thorium is a meme

Our future is in Nuclear Fusion reactors.
Nuclear Fusion bombs exists but not the reactors yet, just like nuclear fission.

>>11757300
you retards do realize oil is not infinite right?

>>11758370
Of course. And used up well over half already.

>>11757570
>Do tell me HOW it's delusional to stop using fossil fuels while building non-fossil energy sources.
It's not. It's delusional to think the "growth" can continue without them.

>>11757423
Concepts like efficiency, logistics, and practicality are a things you seem unfamiliar with.

>>11758379
If it can't then humanity is doomed retard. We have a couple hundred years at best before the oil dries up if we keep using at ever increasing rates.

>>11758379
>>11758387
The Sun does not run on oil.
It runs on nuclear reactors

Oil tycoons have demonized Nuclear because it would kill them shut and you're eating their propaganda like skittles

>>11758388
>If it can't then humanity is doomed retard.
Oh I see the problem here. You must be confusing "humanity" with a bunch of market worshipping delusional religious fanatics that believe in fairy tales like infinite growth on a finite planet.

LOL

>>11758394
>Bro just die
Space is right there to harvest
Harvest for uranium, methane, and hydrogen (for fusion reactors)

>>11758400
>So sayeth the Good Book of Economics
>Thou shalt Comsumeth
>And thou shalt be rewarded with infinite feasting for thy bloatedness

>Economies of scale 13:17:(2b)

>>11758410
Economics of scale and everything in the old Physicsment was rewritten by Einsus who said

"For you must girls of prime exoticness amidst the stars"
Thou shall built a star to propagate your seeds
Do not be tricked by their lies.
My gift of eternity is eternal

Specicus Relativinews 19:84 King Feynman version

>>11758336
The only acceptable stance.

Plenty of hydrocarbons on foreign planets. Space-oil tycoons inbound! The resurgence of the gasoline powered vehicle...brought to you by *ahem* Musk's own Spacex, whos rockets take us to resevoirs across the galaxy

>>11758425
Wat?
Feynman said we should jizz on the sun
and the solar wind would seed the universe with our jizz?

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

>>11758441
it makes about 0 sense to ship hydrocarbon fuels around for the use of power. They do make for interesting industrial possibilities such as terraforming or even just plain old manufacturing. The first quadrillionaire is probably going to be the guy who first sets up automated manufacturing in Titan, the cold thick atmosphere provides incredibly efficient processes, cooling and the hydrocarbon seas provide raw materials for massive production and convenient rocket fuel to ship the products across the system. Well at least if monetary system isn't obsolete by then.

>>11758387
>efficiency
Solar panels have an efficiency of about 20% and it's about 80% for batteries. 20% of 800% is still 160%, and even if we needed to store all of that energy 80% of that is 128%. 1/1000th of the area of the Earth is all we need with current technology.

>logistics
Typically grid efficiencies provide about a 1% drop every 100 miles. High voltage supergrids that have much greater efficiencies can be constructed to transfer energy between countries.

>practicality
It is more practical to switch away from fossil fuels as soon as possible to limit the economic repercussions of climate change. The alternative is that we keep burning fossil fuels, which compounds the economic cost, and then when we'll still need to switch to renewables anyways.

Stop listening to shills.

>>11758457
Ya or the lack of oxygen on Titan...

God you popular science fuckwits have thought of everything!!! oh wait, I meant... you've thought of practically nothing.

>>11758465
Titan is like 50% water by weight and the other moons are even more water heavy.

everything follows this rule

>>11758486
Bro, we are going to need water for space colonies. ALOT of fluids to keep the nuclear engine running, plants growing, and people hydrated.

Recyling is never perfect. A percentage would always be lost and must be replaced by collecting ice from asteroids and moons

>>11757067
People make the wrong distinctions. It's not fossil fuels vs. renewables that's the issue, it's polluting fules vs. carbon neutral.

Nuclear power is technically a fossil fuel, yet it has practically zero emissions and provides way more energy per area than any other source of power we have. Thorium is the future. Windmills are wack.

>>11758574
Are you autistic by any chance?

>>11758601
I just read the reply chain
Hold on, I would just off myself

>>11758457
Well the drone swarm war between Microsoft and China left citizens of earth pretty destitute and vaporized 90% of the bitcoin keys so those who had "cash" put folks to work in the extra terrestrial oilfields, been breddy good since desu

>>11757067
well, there's nothing that can match the output per dollar of investment or the overall output of fossil fuels

the research may lead to something good enough to replace fossil fuels in the long run, but the projects that are being funded in its name are just another way for the billionaire class to rob the government

>>11758599
gotta dispose of the waste though
it's not just an environmental issue either
all it takes is one religious group blowing up one nuclear reactor and suddenly we have a couple uninhabitable states full of refugees
wanna fuck up a water table? bomb a waste containment facility

any country that only uses fossil fuels is so much less vulnerable to this
we're lucky the nutters are obsessed with symbolic victories like the two towers

I think we ought to develop super-high energy solar cells, then shoot them up into low orbit equipped with a high energy laser to send energy back down
might fuck up the ozone or something

maybe some kind of catalytic breakdown of fossil fuels rather than just combusting them?
using the energy to make hydrogen fuel which could be used like gas?

>>11757067
Dyson sphere is the ultimate outcome of renewable if we ditch fusion and fission all together

>>11758347
>Thorium
Dead 2016 meme. No one invested a single penny since. For Thorium to become viable you would have to pour hundreds of billions into research through at least two decades.

>>11758667
For the umpteenth time, Nuclear Reactors are not Nuclear Bombs. They do NOT explode.
They suffer a meltdown that releases a radiation and chances of that happening is absolutely impossible without shutting down all dozens of failsafes

The power of an atom in your own backyard is being removed because of fearmongering bastards shilling for oil tycoons and naive folks who knows nothing.

Chernobyl was a deliberate mishap caused by Sov-idiots
Fukushima was the first real accident. It killed 1 and injured 4. Coal plants kill 800k a year

>>11758716
>They suffer a meltdown that releases a radiation and chances of that happening is absolutely impossible without shutting down all dozens of failsafes

Chernobyl and Fukushima were both "impossible" too. Anywhere you have failsafes, you'll have some conservative whining about burdensome regulations and excessive costs.

>>11758811
Chernobyl's failsafes were literally shut down because they wanted to know what happens if it was bombed by Allies

Fukushima was the FIRST real incident and it took the 4'th most powerful earthquake in Japan's history to do it.
And guess what?
All it's damages are nothing compared to the average oil spill that happened 44 times now with nothing but human error being the cause

>>11758716
>Coal plants kill 800k a year
If you're gonna make that comparison then you also need to figure out how much all the meltdowns/nuclear testing raised the ambient radiation levels of earth, and how much ambient and raised radiation levels cause cancer.

But you won't because you're a dishonest shill.

>>11758866
>nuclear testing raised the ambient radiation levels of earth
That's for nuclear bombs, duffus

>raised radiation levels cause cancer.
Coal Ash is MORE radioactive than a nuclear power plant.

I am not a shill. You are just uneducated

>>11758866
Just to be more detailed:
It was measured that all the radiation in a nuclear powerplant could hardly compare to potasium used in fetilizers.

However, the Coal Ash was discovered to be 100x more radioactive than nuclear plants because nuclear waste are sealed and contained. But the uranium and thorium in a coal power plant is being dispersed into the atmosphere.
Noticed how nuclear plants have no qualms growing plants near or inside the station?
Coal plants however are always a blackened landscape with a highly polluted river

>>11758881
>>11758895
Can you even read?
I said you need to figure out how much the meltdowns have raised the ambient radiation levels.
Do it, or just post more shill bullshit obfuscation. I don't care.

>>11758906
>Radiation exposure and fallout beyond the plant site. On 4 April 2011, radiation levels of 0.06 mSv/day were recorded in Fukushima city, 65 km northwest of the plant, about 60 times higher than normal but posing no health risk according to authorities.
Now leave

>>11758916
Are you trying to say that nuclear accidents don't raise earths ambient radiation level, or that radiation doesn't cause cancer and death? Either way you're being dishonest.

>>11758706
The Chinks and the poos are actually investing in it.

>>11758971
Keyword: accidents
It took 70 years for one real nuclear accident to happen and killed just 1.

Why not do your research and figure out how much safer and efficient the other energy sources are. Also count how much they kill a year.

See you in a hour or so.

>>11758971
>Are you trying to say that nuclear accidents don't raise earths ambient radiation leve
They basically don't, you can detect them from the special isotopes they generate and the radiation amount is absolutely minuscule, like in the eating a banana tier of radiation.

>or that radiation doesn't cause cancer and death?
Fukushima killed 1 guy, the total deaths from all nuclear accidents combined (including cancer) is in the ballpark of around 10000, you are posting as if these numbers weren't somehow known. Well I suppose they aren't known to you but you are obviously very unedicated or just shilling.

Depends on the application, electric cars will probably replace fossil fuels for personal transport / leisure. Renewable energy is already being used for generating power off-grid and has gradually been improving in terms of storage, capacity and cost. If solar gets cheap enough it could help city dwellers offset peak hour costs. I think Quebec already generates almost all its power from hydroelectric.

Nuclear energy receives more Federal subsidies than any other source. There are efforts to deal with on-going challenges like disposal, safety and cost. At any rate it's good we are diversifying generation to maintain carbon balance.

>>11758829
>Chernobyl's failsafes were literally shut down because they wanted to know what happens if it was bombed by Allies
>Fukushima was the FIRST real incident and it took the 4'th most powerful earthquake in Japan's history to do it.

And when the next disaster wipes stars off the American flag, there will be some similarly lame excuse. Nuclear will be safe when there is a fix for humans like you.

>>11759398
Name your alternative energy source and let's see if it is safer, more efficient, and feasable for future generations including space mining and colonies

>>11759398
That physically can't happen

>Not using concentrated solar thermal energy to power hydrothermal liquefaction of abundant waste biomass (shit, food scraps, etc.) into biocrude petroleum and remaining biomass into biodigesters to produce methane and upgrade said methane using solar catalysts
You're just thinking about this the wrong way

>>11759419
>>>11759398 (You)
>Name your alternative energy source and let's see if it is safer, more efficient, and feasable for future generations including space mining and colonies

Whom should I try to convince?

>>11757300
>2 centuries
How cute.

Meanwhile, the sun has been providing heat for the last 4.6 billion years.

>>11758829
>Fukushima
Even with the earthquake, there was still human error with one of the failsafes (the emergency coolant hoses weren't available)

>>11759769
One out of 13
11 were destroyed by the Tsunami iirc

>>11758393
>demonized Nuclear
well if you park them 50 million miles away, I'm fine with them.
Otherwise gtfo

>>11759846
Sorry, can't hear you over my electricity too cheap to count

>>11757067
It's as much of a scam as fossil fuels.

>>11757423
and how does your plan intend to maintain grid stability, Einstein?
>Just add batteries.
lol

>>11759003
>They basically don't
Dude I bet I could fucking CALCULATE the amount that chernobyl raised earth's average ambient radiation levels. You just take the exclusion zone radiation levels and some ambient and divide by the area of the exclusion zone over the area of earth. I don't want to do that. Someone else can if they want.
Same for fukushima, for which your wet dream is to dilute pollution solution retarded.
And due to those we can calculate how much earth average ambient radiation level has been raised. It's simple calculation and the result is not zero.
But that you say "they basically don't" just shows you don't have even the tinniest amount of intuition for physics or even basic math for that matter and are absolutely full of shit and also how much of retarded fuckwit you are who is probably some fat acne covered nerd in high school who reads internet popsci futurismo fantasy. aka

LOL

>>11758336
This, we don't even have a good reason for not using tons of uranium power right now, all you need to have a safe uranium plant is to not be a lazy piece of shit and build a proper containment shell.

>>11760409
>Dude I bet I could fucking CALCULATE the amount that chernobyl raised earth's average ambient radiation levels.

do it faget

>>11760435
Valid reasons are:
Expensive
Require LOTS of water
More expensive in quake-prone areas

>>11760409
You are not convincing anyone :^)

>>11760463
Coal pollution is VERY expensive. It's just people aren't as cognizant of the cost because you don't pay it up front.

>>11760467
I know but the capital invested and upkeep can destroy an unprepared economy
Not to mention the licenses needed for the world to trust your disposal methods. The process of enriching uranium can be weaponized

>>11758700
actually a dyson sphere is harvesting fusion power from the sun, same with solar power

>>11760473
Yeah niggers shouldn't be fucking about with uranium, that goes without saying. But the advanced countries of the world have no excuse for using coal when safe nuclear power has been around for so long. You have all these Jews and faggots going on about global warming, yet the solution to it has existed for fucking decades.

>>11760485
Nuclear Plants are not just expensive as hell, they also have a payback of 15 years
Coal plants have a payback time of just 5 years.
Solar Panels and Wind Turbines are at 8 years & 8 months. (Realistically double due to climate and evening.)

Don't get me wrong, I am seriously advocating for nuclear but in an economic standpoint, it is understable why you cannot just switch.

The entire selling point of nuclear is that
it is incomparably safer than coal plants
it can provide more energy than hundred miles of solar panels,
completely immune to weather issues
And can be used for space programs as it does not oxygen and uranium can be mined in asteroids

Downside is it's a massive monetary and societal responsibility.

But yeah, it's BS why people are advocating for Renewables when nuclear is right there.

>>11760569
You're a man after my own heart, anon. What really grind my gears is economists think they can predict what world demographics and gdp will look like in 50 years, but they're completely fucking incapable of understanding the inevitable consequences of runaway population growth, and have no interest in spending that doesn't immediately increase their quarterly profits. Fuck I'm mad.

More than anything else, societal progress up to this point has been predicated on people's ability to appreciate the long term consequences of their actions, which means modern civilization is completely screwed. I wouldn't mind that much if it just meant Bronze Age collapse all over again, but before it happens a gigantic blow will be dealt to this world's biodiversity. In addition to the massive losses that have already been sustained, I mean.

>>11758336
based

>>11758366
If Uri Shumlak and Zap Energy keep up what they're doing,this could happen.

>>11760409
Yes the result is non zero, it's in the same region as eating a banana which means it has no effect on anything. Or put it another way "they basically don't"

>>11760393
>How do you intend to solve a non-issue?
The answer is in your post

>>11760798
> Mad that economists try to predict future
> Proceeds to predict apocalyptic future

>>11761539
I don't mean humanity is gonna go extinct or something like that, we're just gonna overload the carrying capacity of this planet, and since by that point 90% of the population is gonna be niggers, and culture is gonna be weak as shit, it's gonna stress economies to a breaking point. All it would require at that point would something a little crazy, like a nuclear shootout, and there goes the neighborhood.

>>11757067
Area you need to get ethanol, if we mind that sea garbage don't exist is larger than land we've got to live to power bullshit we don't need.

Off course renewable energy isn't scam, but petrol keeps funding it to suspend it.

>>11759398
Wiping out parts of America is literally a good thing. If we get more good energy at the expense of a few yanks then who cares?

>>11758667
>output per dollar of investment
price is a social function. economy is not science and is not relevant to sci-fi speculation threads.

>>11757604
Since when is pol anti industry?
Oh right I forgot the /sci/ go to
>everyone I disagree with is from pol

>>11763853
Look at the mirror and see how everyone knows where you're from