/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11818837
It gives off lethal radiation. Either find a way to perform cold fusion or gtfo

>>11818843
That sound like quitter talk.

>>11818837
NOOOOO NUCLEAR BAD! NIMBY!!!! REEEE MUH FUKUSHIMA!!!1 SOLAR ABD WIND WORK SO GOOD REEEE

>>11818843
You bumbling fucking idiot, fusion would still give off lethal neutron radiation

>>11819379
Space exploration is a vain and wasteful pursuit

>>11818925
The real quitters are the ones who stop forming novel hypotheses.

>>11818837
Radioactive materials in space travel are technically banned because if anything goes wrong you've either A) detonated a dirty bomb or B) eradicated any possible alien life on another planet.

I say 'technically' because NASA are fucking hypocrites and still use nuclear batteries despite telling everyone else not to

>>11820025
do “novel hypotheses” still exist in the physics that pertains to nuclear energy?

my impression was that nuclear energy is a proven technology and has also been proven to be safe (e.g. the US Navy and their many nuclear subs and carriers)

as far as i can tell, the objections to nuclear energy are either oil shills or misguided eco-nuts. no?

>>11820016
Do you know how much metal and mineral there is in a single asteroid?
Enough to make a gaming computer cheaper by 75%. In a single asteroid

>>11819901
Yeah but it wouldn't explode like chernobyl dumbass

>>11820044
>Radioactive materials in space travel are technically banned
Seriously, nigga?
The Sun is radioactive.
You're referring to the convention banning weaponization of space but NASA had actual blueprints for spacecrafts that uses nukes for propulsion

>>11820049
>the objections
Neither anon nor I said no to nuclear energy. You wanted to battle a strawman that didn't show up.

>>11818837
Don't talk about it and push for a carbon tax. Once a carbon tax gets pushed through the normies will be more accepting of it.

>>11820073
So wouldn't any other reactor ever made except MAYBE CANDU if you intentionally tried to asplode it and disabled as many safety systems as you could

>>11818837
Obviously the best hope for sustainable energy
Unfortunately, the geologists at Yucca mountain made too many mistakes and lost everyone's confidence so now people are scared of the waste piling up
Deep bore disposal looked promising but was defunded for (what I suspect to be) political purposes

>>11820049
There's still a lot of hypothesizing going on about exactly how efficient we could make feeder reactors.
The technology has been banned for decades because of nonproliferation

>>11820370
*breeder

>>11820362
>deep bore disposal
>dropping nuclear waste straight into the water table

>>11820073
Chernobyl didn't explode. It melted

>>11820049
>the objections to nuclear energy are either oil shills or misguided eco-nuts. no?
Yup. To be fair, power supply companies fucked up the trust in them due to some mismanaged nuclear power plants, like Tiange in Belgium.

It's one of the most expensive forms of power. Bring down the costs and more reactors will go up.

>>11820522
Deep bores are well below the water table. In fact, oil wells cannot develop if they are not separated from the surface by some impermeable layer.

>>11820832
>Deep bores are well below the water table
That's the issue, genius

>>11820016
You're vain and wasteful too.

>>11820841
He is talking about a level that is literally barren of oxygen. Nothing but pressurized rock

>>11820073
Holy shit you stupid motherfucker

>>11820691
explain how it blew the roof off?

>>11820852
Right up until you drill a big ass hole down to it through porous rock. Then it's the new bottom of your water table.

>>11820879
Bro, it isn't like just drilling through rock with a power drill.

You need to it drill through a pressurized and water proof tube or else the structure would collapse. The deepest hole dug in Russia is still there as a tube that is protected with nothing else but a locked lid

>>11820975
You have to drill ahead of the tube, breh. Besides that, leave the tube and it will be damaged in the first big earthquake creating a pipe straight from the water table to the waste material. Now go ahead and tell me how concrete makes it all work like it's not porous garbage.

>>11821070
Then don't bore through in an Earthquake zone.
Entire Europe, Middle East, Africa, Artic and Antartic don't experience that.

>>11821081
>Only faults move and shift during an earthquake
Nice one there, buddy. This is an 18+ website though

>>11821083
Only they experience the quake, yeah?
Iirc, Finland already dug a vault kilometer underground to seal some nuclear wastes

Deep Bore drilling would be in an even deeper vault completely inacccessible to humans

>>11821098
>Only they experience the quake, yeah?
No. The entire plate moves and the vibrations are felt across the entire world. Let me try this in a way you'll understand: Big shake-shake make tube go bendy and split. Big shake-shake almost guaranteed because reactor poo poo stays for so long.

>>11821107
None of those vibrations are powerful enough to break a pressurized tube that is faaaaar away from the fault.

We have dug a huge amount of holes for fracking purposes. None of which collapsed because of some Earthquake that happened 3 countries away.

>>11818837
>Redpill me on nuclear power, /sci/.
10 times more expensive than any other option according to its biggest supporter Bill Gates. Plants are shutting down from being uneconomical and construction abandoned. 'i fukin luv science' crowd is desperately doing damage control as blindly supporting nuclear power is one of the few ways they can signal that they are 'scientifically minded'™.

>>11821133
Oh shut the fuck up

Building cost of a 1MV power plant:
Nuclear Plant: $6B
Natural Gas Plant: $1B
Solar Farm: $900K

Payback Time:
Nuclear: 15 years (6 years in construction)
Natural Gas: 5 years
Solar Plant: 8 years

Fuel Cost per year:
Nuclear: $64M
Natural Gas: $450M

Yearly Earnings (fuel cost included)
Nuclear: $150M
Natural Gas: $20M
Solar Farm: $200k

Did I mention that Nuclear is the only one that could pave way into space exploration?

>>11821114
>Imagine being this retarded
Go learn about earthquake magnitudes and geologic timescales. Nobody with half a brain is impressed that fracking tunnels haven't collapsed since they haven't even existed for a century.

>>11821133
>MAGA hat wearer thinks nuclear is too expensive to pursue and trolls about that on /sci/
>switches boards to /pol/ and complains about how MUH REGULATIONS ARE SO BAD THEY HOLD THE ECONOMY BACK FOR BANKERS AND PHARMA

>>11821154
Uranium rods decay in 10,000 years anon.
That's too fast for any geologic event to catch up.
If are that worried, Antartica is right over there.

>>11821167
And what do they decay into genius? Hazardous radioactive waste persists for a quarter of a million years. Plenty of time to ensure disaster.

>>11821174
You know what?
You are right
They certainly ARE dangerous.

Thus, instead of burying them, let us just REUSE them via Nuclear reprocessing.

Fair enough?

>>11821174
Also, they decay into more stable forms
U235 used in yellow cake decays into thorium-231

>>11821149
The only thing I'm seeing here is that solar is literally 6000 times cheaper to build. Why the fuck would you ever build a nuclear power plant in the modern day and age when solar is already that much cheaper and will get even cheaper over the next decade? Inb4 muh baseload power, by the time you're finished building a nuclear powerplant solar+battery story will still be cheaper.
>muh space exploration
Gag. Thin film solar delivers like 40kW per kg in Earth orbit. A 10kW nuclear reactor literally weighs multiple tons and costs millions to build. Solar delivers better power to weight than nuclear all the way out to Pluto with current tech. Also, nuclear is practically useless for self-sustaining colonies because Uranium only occurs in any appreciable quantities on Earth, where it's brought to the surface by highly complex tectonic processes. You can literally spray some shit on a metal foil and get a solar panel. Solar is the future of the human race you dumb NEET.

>>11818837
Once built, easily outclasses any other source of energy. Emphasis on "once built". Nuclear reactors can take upwards of a decade to erect, and the costs of actually constructing a a reactor is wild. They sound like the perfect choice in theory, but in reality the financial risks involved in actually building one is so high no investor in their right mind would do it. It's just so much cheaper and financially safer to build coal plant or some other source of energy. The only way nuclear is ever going to be viable is if technology is developed that somehow greately reduce the time and money it takes to build a nuclear reactor. For the longest time reactors have been largely Uranium-based due to the capacity for making bombs out of it, but if we manage to somehow get the funding to erect a Thorium-based facility, that might break the chain and allow cheap and efficient reactors to be built, not to mention that Thorium reactors are much much safer than Uranium ones, Chernobyl could never happen in a Thorium reactor.

>>11821193
Solar Panels struggle against weather just to capture 20% of the energy produced by the Sun....which is a giant nuclear reactor.

There was never a Solar Power
It's a nuNuclear Power

>>11820878
>What is a steam boiler, Alex

>>11821183
Sounds good, but since that's not feasible right now you'll have to keep idiots from disposing of the waste in short-sighted and irrecoverable ways in the mean time.

>>11821193
> Inb4 muh baseload power
clouds and night time block your path anon

>>11821210
It's feasable, it's just cheaper to just refine a new one instead of recycling the old ones

>>11820072
don't respond to it

>>11821213
Oh, sorry, "economically feasible". As a matter of fact, make the whole industry economically feasible while you're at it. Should only take until the next generation of reactors, right?

>>11821193
Uranium can be mined in asteroids

Assuming we finally unlock fusion reaction, ice in asteroids and moons can be use as a fuel source that is 100x greater than uranium

>>11821226
the economics are dictated by the political regulations. all that is needed is to elect non-retards/non-corrupt people to congress

look, the navy does nuclear boats all the time and they work great

>>11821212
Since when do clouds and night time disable batteries?
>>11821230
Uranium concentration is asteroids is like a few parts per billion. You have to go through a million tonnes of rock just to get a measly kg of Uranium, 99% of which will be U-238.
>>11821193
>40kW per kg
Sorry, that was wrong, it's 4kW. So my statement needs to be amended to "beyond Uranus" instead of "beyond Pluto".

>>11821255
>Since when do clouds and night time disable batteries?
using batteries disables batteries

>>11821236
>economics
>the navy
Wew, lad

>>11821281
the point is that the navy gets an exception to the normal red tape and they make it work safely all the time. the normal red tape is what makes things so expensive for everyone else, because the idea behind the red tape is “sooooo unsafe” which is demonstrably untrue

>>11821255
Actually, analyzing of Martian soil have already revealed pretty high amount of hot spots to mine uranium ores

It's a water soluble metal
Ancient Martian Sea dug them all up
Now that it has dried, the Uranium, gold, and platinum are all on the surface to pick up easily

>>11821193
>>11821255
To produce 1MW of power, a solar farm need to destroy 4 hectares of land. 8 hectares to make up for the evening.

It is laughable if you think that you can have a spaceship with hectares worth of solar panels behind its back,

A single nuclear submarine generates over 165MW.
A
SINGLE
NUCLEAR
ENGINE

>>11818837
- mining for uranium is a fucking mess
- storing the waste is a fucking mess

They must be included in the price of it all, no way is nuclear nothing more than a dinosaur living off the government tit.


Nuclear power is dead and no amount of paid spam here will change that.

>>11818837
- mining for uranium is a fucking mess
- storing the waste is a fucking mess

They must be included in the price of it all, no way is nuclear nothing more than a dinosaur living off the government tit.
Nuclear power is dead and no amount of paid spam here will change that.

>>11821321
oh so oil and gas companies should pay to fix climate change now? good idea

>>11821329
for you >>11821327

>>11821327
Uranium is 40x more common than silver
Uranium waste can be reprocessed

Nuclear is the only power source than can get us out of this planet

>>11820016
anything beyond survival and reproduction could be labled as 'vain' and 'wasteful'

Why is everyone in this thread limiting themselves to uranium instead of including thorium reactors?
Far more abundant and easier to mine isn't it?
Australia has tons of the stuff

>>11821284
This is true

>>11821309
that spaceship would need equal amount of radiators

>>11821208
To be fair, steam boilers do explode.

>>11821334
It's not about the amount, it's about safely handling it.
>Nuclear is the only power source than can get us out of this planet
Oh, you're one of those people who thinks there's anything interesting within travel distance in space. Stop watching sci-fi.

>>11821844
>anything interesting
What are asteroids with high precious metal quantities, Alex?

>>11821334
Brainlet here. If it’s so common why aren’t people finding it all the time and getting sick as fuck? People go looking for rocks all the time.

>>11821149
>Yearly Earnings (fuel cost included)
>Nuclear: $150M
>Natural Gas: $20M
>Solar Farm: $200k

Huh? How are the earnings so different despite the plants outputting the same amount of power? (I assume you meant 1 MW instead of 1 MV)

>>11821946
He just pulled em out of his ass. Technically speaking the gas power is the most valuable seeing as it can easily be used for peak production but at the same time it won't run continuously while solar being the least valuable since it can't be turned off but without a fuel cost it wouldn't matter much. You should expect the earnings before fuel to be similar for nuclear and natural gas and about a third for the solar plant (since it doesn't operate during the night) and then just subtract fuel costs.

What about nuclear power using thorium?

>>11821970
What about shutting the fuck up?

>>11821909
Uranium is actually just as radioactive as potasium
It becomes radioactive due to uranium refining that turns them into yellow cakes

>>11821909
Can anyone answer this I don’t want to start googling how to source uranium and get on more lists. I just don’t understand how if it’s common like silver how people dont find it in their backyard and have little Timmy play with it and he dies of radiation poisoning. Anyone remember that story where those looters got some cesium or some shit from an old hospital and the kids played with it? Why is that not happening.

>>11822016
Thanks mate, guess I jumped the gun
>>11822017
That’s interesting actually. I’d like to learn about it but as I said, I’m quite certain googling that kind of thing isn’t good for our social score for the nsa.

>>11821844
A single 10 meter asteroid holds as much as 100tons of gold, iron, silver, copper, and platinum.

Our mines dig up entire mountains just to obtain that much

>magical orb with unlimited energy
yeah this guy is a retard. nuclear energy suffers from all the problems other forms of energy suffer from + some extra problems.
first nuclear reactors have similar inefficiency as fossil fuel (around 30%) and RTGs have a efficiency of 1-5%. second problem is that nuclear energy also suffers from entropy just like all energy. but unlike nuclear bio and sun based energy are all endless (but limited) as long as the sun is around. nuclear spent fuel is lost forever and can never be used for energy again unless you use way more energy than you are going to get
>inb4 muh billions of years of energy
only source that says this is 1983 article and that article includes all the uranium on earth (like inaccessible uranium reserves, seawater uranium and non enriched uranium) in its calculations plus it doesn't take into account that energy use is increasing

>>11822131
Generation IV nuclear reactors are being made to be at 45% efficiency
THere is such as thing as nuclear reprocess that turns nuclear waste back into fuel lines.

Nuclear waste are not waste. They are just uranium that has become too diluted for further use. Hence why you can recycle them

>>11821946
They make the same amount of money but natural gas fuel cost a lot

Solar Farms do not operate at night and very susceptible to weather. It does not help that they are all located in far regions. Transfer of energy through wires causes a huge portion of their power to leach out due to resistance.

This reduces their efficiency by a huge margin hence why they make just $200k a year

>>11820044
>B) eradicated any possible alien life on another planet.
We absolutely have not the power to do so even if we tried with all the combined might of the human race.

Thorium reactor. Nuff said.

LFTR

>>11822154
>THere is such as thing as nuclear reprocess that turns nuclear waste back into fuel lines.
>Nuclear waste are not waste. They are just uranium that has become too diluted for further use. Hence why you can recycle them
that's physically impossible and it violates the laws of thermodynamics. you need to use more energy than you are going to get

>>11822116
>30 feet
not buying that

>>11822245
Dumbass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

>>11822245
anon, that’s not the point. of course recycling spent nuclear fuel costs some energy, but the idea here is you spend a little energy to reduce the waste. look up a breeder reactor

>>11822246
>S-type asteroids carry little water but look more attractive because they contain numerous metals including: nickel, cobalt and more valuable metals such as gold, platinum and rhodium. A small 10-meter S-type asteroid contains about 650,000 kg (1,433,000 lb) of metal with 50 kg (110 lb) in the form of rare metals like platinum and gold.[24]
>M-type asteroids are rare but contain up to 10 times more metal than S-types[24]

>>11822263
Damn. Rich people bout to get even richer. Who'll be first to a trillion? Bezos? Musk?

>>11822284
Don't look at what others would recieve
Look instead at what it would do to you

Computers, robots, and prostethics would be so much cheaper.

>>11822245
>>11822131
Retard. We use U-235, which only makes up a percent of natural Uranium in reactors to create chain reactions. Thing is, you can turn Uranium-238 into Plutonium in breeder reactors. So your reactor basically creates its own fuel from cheap and otherwise useless Uranium. There's only two breeder reactors for commercial power generation in the world, but that's because they shit out nuclear bomb cores and people are deservedly worried about that. This is where the billions of years figure comes from and it's a fact.

That said, nuclear power generation still isn't commercially viable in this day and age.

>>11822250
>>11822252
>>11822299
>breeder reactors
ohnononono
http://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf

>>11821309
>Solar destroys land
Are you 12?

>>11821284
>The navy agrees to buy toilet seats at 3 million dollars a piece
>Somehow you think they can build a reactor cheaper than the private sector
WEW, LAD

>>11818843
>lethal radiation.
only to living beings, loser faggot

>>11820016
Wrong
it just currently holds no purpose.
I've ranked important issues the human race should solve
it's ordered in things to solve first
first being
>reproduction
we should solve reproduction so it's 100% safe and professionals are able to maintain study of the fetus throughout its development.
Artificial wombs would achieve this best. This way also sex would become totally obsolete and finally stop clouding the male brain
>eugenics
We should produce optimal humans with enhanced intelligence, health, and strength.
To do that we'll need to develop the field of genetics greatly
this way everyone is born with the capacity of being a super genius
>aging
we must defeat death. Yes it makes the last too obsolete since reproduction is completely obsolete. But they were important at the time.
Now having a lot of people is totally useless. The reason we have so many people is to reproduce greatly and generate information that can be shared.
So we should make an optimal group of enhanced and immortal people. Say a few million. And then kill every single other civilized human. I think we should keep primitive people because it might be interesting how they develop, and they should be preserved as a different species.
The next great human purpose is
>immunity to all things/total immortality
this way we'll be immune to dying by injury
>understanding completely consciousness and other questions of the human body
this will be important for the next one
>creating a god
the immortal humans should have the objective of creating a perfect human. thus, by definition no other need to exists.
After that we really couldn't speculate the important goals anymore because ourself right now are so fucking stupid and limited we'd never be able to understand what such a thing should do.

>>11820044
>Radioactive materials in space travel are technically banned

no retard testing nukes in orbit is banned.

>>11822647
It's pretty lethal to computer chips too.

>>11824413
But the solution for that is easier than for living beings.

>>11824417
Nice goalpost shift

>>11818837
The fact that normalfags reee about it is all you need to know. Based as fuck energy source.

>>11818843
You know what else has lots of lethal radiation?
Space.

>>11821174
There's no tubes, they literally just dig miles into the ground and dump a cask in.
The radiation permeation is only significant for like a few meters and the vast majority of the remaining radioactivity is spent in a decade or two.
If you're still paranoid, consider that all the world's waste could be stored in a few dozen sites that could be constantly monitored.

I think we should just reprocess that shit, but the waste buildup concern is a meme

>fuel
Seawater, uranium naturally leeches into the oceans creating a steady state saturation. If you extract it, the natural processes release more until the previous concentration is reached. Double the cost of mining, but fuel makes up a tiny portion of the end price, less than a dollar
>waste
The best solutions are obviously modern reactors which reuse waste, but traditional storage is still feasible in stable reasonably uncorrupt nations. This is more of a geopolitical problem, in terms of space and cost even old outdated reactors produce relatively little waste. Coal power, for example, produces proportionaly more radioactive waste. The ramifications of proliferation are legitimate concerns however, but this precludes only some nations.
>disasters
Even the worst reactor designs and startling incompetence could only provide accidents that pale in comparison to what nations tolerate yearly from traditional power plants, in terms of deaths and long term ecological impact. The severity of these incidents its greatly exaggerated, I guess the nuclear plant disaster that killed one person makes for better news than a natural gas explosion killing dozens, or a coal seam making entire towns uninhabitable for longer than Pripyat
>Cost
Legitimate concern, primarily in the expertise required to operate as well as the infrastructure. It's nothing that would be unsustainable economically, and I would argue its an existential neccesity. After all, agriculture is among the most subsidied industries and is rather unprofitable outside cash crops, yet no one would complain its too expensive since it sustains civilization
>encourages irresponsible infinite growth mentality
I got nothing other than good luck avoiding this outside extinction

>>11820879
You're a fucking idiot. You don't drill through drinking water to make a waste disposal hole in the first place, and you backfill with rock. Pressure takes care of the rest. Do this in a geologically stable area and it will be a million years before that shit is either dredged up or dumped into the mantle. There is no reason why we shouldn't at least drill test holes without even dumping waste in them, but the fucking retard greenies stopped exactly that. The utter cunts.

>>11822245
No he doesn't mean reforming U-235
There is still a shit ton of energy in spent fuel rods, they have to swap them out prematurely for efficiency

>>11820072
You can just print out -75% coupons made of paper. No need for metals or minerals.

>>11822231
>be Australia
>sitting on treasure trove of thorium and uranium
>geologically stable, no risk of natural disasters damaging reactors
>some of the most expensive electricity in the world (up to AUD$0.50/kWh)
>no nuclear energy to speak of
Fuck everything.

>>11818837
>yvn have a comfy post scarcity life because some washed up Lidl scientist decided to run a nuclear steam boiler without water as an experiment
Worst timeline

>>11822245
All energy is, ultimately, conserved. We just take it out of the uranium bindings and put it into lightbulbs. It’s impossible to use all the uranium in a fuel rod, you can enrich it afterwards. Or if you are worried about u238, just use raw uranium in a heavy water reactor, it works just fine.

>>11820077
Project Orion for those interested

>>11818843
>cold fusion
leprechauns

>>11821327
>storing the waste is a fucking mess
dry cask storage is cheap, safe and convenient

B-bu-but muhh dangerous radioactive waste...ok Nancy your fruits give you more radiation than nuclear energy ever did

>>11824759
What happens when all the shiny energy rocks run out of energy?

>>11824869
Fusion reactors or space-based solar power.

proportional to the power it produces, it has caused the least deaths of any energy source, even if you include Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters

proportional to the energy it produces, it has the lowest carbon footprint, even lower than wind, solar etc

I swear that the oil industry astroturfer the environmentalist movement. No sane environmentalist should be against nuclear power

>>11820016
Tits or gtfo f*moid

>>11821161
>MAGA hat wearer
Anon seek help, this is borderline obsessive

>>11822634
Are you?

Sounds fucking stupid

>>11824727
call me back when you have a load of those in your back yard

>>11820879
Man you must be so goddamned stupid. You do realise the interior of the planet is also radioactive, right?

>>11825143
the NIMBYtardation is strong with this one

>>11825167
Not very much. It's hot largely because of the square-cube law -- there's a lot of volume for the surface area.

>>11825143
If they paid me money, I'd happily have them in my backyard.

>>11820818
I think its not so much the cost as it is the construction time. I think it was a real engineering video on youtube made a comparison between nuclear and a coal(?) power plant. The coal power plant can come online in two years and costs much less, whereas the nuclear plant comes online after ten years and costs much more. The accrued interest over the years the plant spends non-operational is one of the most significant costs.

>>11825195
Volcanoes eject an enormous amount of radioactive material every time they erupt, yet this doesn't bother anyone.

But if said millions of tons of magma interacts with a few hundred tons of nuclear waste 20km down because of an earthquake, and brings it to the surface, suddenly it becomes a big deal.

>>11825143
>you have a load of those in your back yard
There's not enough spent fuel caskets to go around to fill more than one or two back yards.

It's innocuous unless the facility is prone to natural disasters. The only real issue worth talking about is how you dispose of the waste.

>>11819901
>> Neutron radiation
Half-life of neutron is 10.2 min.

Your mother wanted a girl, didn't she?

>>11825327
this

>>11819901
Neutrons are easily blocked. In fact, you use lithium walls to absorb and create tritium, one of the fuels of proposed fusion reactors.

>>11818843
You'll need shielding anyway in space.
As unpractical as nuclear power is on earth the more sense it makes in space.

Any long trip in space would require shielding to protect against cosmic radiation.

In Space nuclear materials or explosions would have negligible eniviromental impact

You could make space ships so big in zero gravity that the dfistance from front to engine would actually protect you even if the engine is a continuous stream of nuclear explosions.

>>11822223
based

>>11825143
Those things can withstand explosions and train collisions, i would be happy to have one of these bad boys in my yard

>>11825333
Beta decay, and very easy to block the radiation

>>11825490
cringe

>>11821107
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/zhao1/
Shit moves underground, yes. Unless you live in california or japan, shit doesn't move that far.

This is a 2 BILLION year old chunk of uranium that did achieve criticality for over a thousand years.
It's still underground. The uranium is not in some precious container or some super alloy whatever. It was just underground then, and it's still underground now.

So stop being a little bitch, and stop crying every time you hear 'radiation'

>>11819379
Is it actually cleaner though? I've read there is a ton of energy used and co2 produced in refining uranium from ore, almost as much as burning the same amount of fossil fuels per Mw produced

>>11826116
Refine the ore using energy from nuclear power.

Checkmate atheists

>>11826116
Whatever co2 were released on the manufacture of fuel rods would be incomparably smaller that gas and coal based on energy carbon ratio

>>11821208
>What is realizing I'm wrong in my smug but incorrect answer, Alex

>>11821909
its mostly U-238

>>11818837
> Fukushima
>> How could we have expected the forth largest earthquake in Japan's history?

Well, the three previous earthquakes that were larger should have been a hint.

>>11825143
I have 2 storage sites within a half hour of me
They have armed guards 24/7

>>11826280
The problem with Nuclear power isn't the technology. It is the people. You guys agonize about how stupid the anti-nuclear crowd is. But the people building and running the reactors are human too.

Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl were all caused by human errors that look downright stupid in hindsight, but still happened.

And every reactor running today is still run by humans. They will make new errors, and new disasters will keep occurring. The cause will be different, the results will be the same.

>>11825696
cope

>>11826310
Chernobyl was no error. It was deliberate bullcrap made because they wanted to know what would happen if it was bombed by Allies. Fucks literally shut down all failsafes

Fukushima was the first REAL nuclear disaster. It killed 1 and injured 4.
Only 1 incident in 80+ years since the first nuclear reactor was made

Coal plants kill 800k people a year

>>11826246
Chernobyl was a steam explosion you donut.
The coolant water got superheated, turned to steam, blew off the 1000 ton reactor lid like a cork and collapsed the roof.
There was no nuclear explosion involved.
Reactor fuel is too diluted and has completely wrong physical arrangement to cause violent enough chain reaction to actually go off.

>>11826310
Chernobyl was basically intentional and the government covered it up
Fukushima and Three Mile Island were literally nothing

>>11826323
>>11826331
Chernobyl was a wet fart in terms of confirmed casualties

>>11826334
>Chernobyl was a wet fart in terms of confirmed casualties
In terms of what the Communist party will admit to.

>>11826323
>Fukushima was the first REAL nuclear disaster. It killed 1 and injured 4.
100 thousand people were forced to leave their homes. Billions of dollars went to programs to help and clean up the contaminated area. Fukushima is still dangerous today. But it didn't hurt YOU, so no problem.
http://chernobylplace.com/fukushima-today/

>>11826323
>Chernobyl was no error. It was deliberate bullcrap made...
...made by humans. Have you fixed humanity so that stupid doesn't happen any more? As long as there are humans running reactors, there will be humans screwing them up.

>>11826394
>In terms of what the Communist party will admit to.
you are fucking moron, the world at large has been keeping tabs on the whole thing for 36 years, because it obviously wasn't confined to Ukraine
15 deaths during the accident
160 deaths from thyroid cancer over next 25 years (this is beginning 2008, so estimated deaths until 2033, you know, people who will be mainly in their fucking 70's and 80's)

>>11824467
>>11822299
ok so what you are basically saying is that the whole process of nuclear energy from mining uranium to "spent" nuclear fuel is actually significantly less efficient than the "around 30%" that's constantly thrown around. this makes nuclear energy sound even shittier since all the statistics and studies on the sustainability of nuclear energy don't take this into consideration. they just calculate it like this 1kg of uranium = 24 000 MWh, there is 40 trillion tons of uranium on earth so there should be energy for billions of years.
>inb4 it can be much more efficient
after more than 60 years of research and billions of dollars spent, this hypothetical efficiency still hasn't happened. it's almost as if all these solutions are unfeasibly complex.

>>11826394
>100 thousand people were forced to leave their homes. Billions of dollars went to programs to help and clean up the contaminated area. Fukushima is still dangerous today
There have been 8 oil spills just last year
Coal mining is the most dangerous job in the world
Coal plants produces more radiation than nuclear plants

It took 80 years and one of the most power earthquakes to cause Fukushima.
It is completely incomparable to coal plants that are killing people while working properly.

Not even counting the sheer amount of energy a single nuke plant can produce.

Point is, Nuclear disasters are always threated like an end-of the world scenario but every day casualties from coal were treated like a normal day.

>>11826175
Kek

>>11826448
> If you ignore all the problems, then there are no problems.

To realistically compare the results of those technologies, you need to measure what actually happens, including the inevitable errors that we get every 20 years or so. If they can't get it right after 60 years, they never will.

Oil-or-nuclear is a false dichotomy, there is plenty of safe energy out there, if we can make our mind up to use it. (Despite what disinformation the oil and nuclear industry have paid for.). I'd even be willing to give Thorium a try - but if they stupid out too, that's the end of it.

>>11826502
Point is. ALL energy sources have its dangers.
But as far as results are concerned, Nuclear is the greatest energy source in all aspects.

Know the best part?
Nuclear Fusion lab is going to be ready by 2025.
If successful, the first nuclear fusion reactor can be made by 2050.

Bear in mind that nuclear fusion is 100x more powerful than fission and costs what? Hydrogen

>>11826394
>100 thousand people were forced to leave their homes.

They could have stayed, the radiation levels in virtually all of the evacuated areas are less than what a nuclear worker is allowed yearly.

More people died from the evacuation procedures than the radiation.

You know nothing about radiation and everything about fear mongering.

>>11826518
>in all aspects
except the most important one. Cost.

>>11826518
Environmentalists will find a reason to protest and obstruct nuclear fusion too.

We'll throw all the forests of the worlds into biomass plants before they realize their mistakes.

>>11826542
>They could have stayed, the radiation levels in virtually all of the evacuated areas

Don't be an idiot. They had to evacuate because nobody knew what was going to happen or how much radiation was going to escape. The fact that years later they measured low levels doesn't justify anything.

>>11826551
>Environmentalists will find a reason to protest and obstruct nuclear fusion too.

Will? Everyone knows what the i/o of fusion will be. If there was a problem, environmentalists would be speaking up now. Blind cynicism is worse then blind obedience.

>>11826553
There's this fancy tool called a geiger counter. It measures radiation in realtime. You can go out there and get readings in realtime while you assemble evacuation readiness and assess the situation.

The problem here is YOU that are irrationally afraid of radiation and spreads lies and sells fear to make people lose their fucking mind as soon as radiation anything is mentioned. Taking every opportunity to demand stupid actions and undermines everything. So they panicked, rushed an evacuation, and people died and turned homeless, for nothing. Just to feed your fucking propaganda machine.

The ones who died in the evacuation, their blood is on your hands. The air pollution victims in china? The blood is on your hands? Every solar and win installation worker who falls off something and dies, blood on your hands.

You're a fucking butcher wading through a sea of corpses produced through your suppression of the only sensible form of energy we have. But you're so fucking full of yourself that you say " oh look at all these people"[that I just murdered]"they died due to radiation from chernobyl and fukushima.

You are the enemy of civilization

>>11826557
https://www.nas.org/storage/app/media/Reports/InsideDivestment/NAS_insideDivestment_forum.pdf

>According to energy thought-leader Amory Lovins: “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” Paul Ehrlich said allowing human beings to have so much energy would be “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”

Paul Ehrlich is a celebrated cult figure in environmentalist, repeatedly saying we will die due to overpopulation, having been 100% every time he have done this prediction(first time in the 60s), yet still says the same thing. And is still celebrated in environmentalist circles.

They are not rational people. Do no ever think that they are rational and thinking human beings. They operate purely by blind ideology, their goal is to undermine everything, and see the exctinction of mankind. Extinction rebellion belongs to these people too, they don't rebel against extinction. They rebel for extinction.

>>11826603
>having been 100% wrong
accidentally a word

>>11826544
Cost and politics actually.

The process of enriching uranium for nuclear plants can be used to create bombs. Hence, building one can cause international concern if the country is not politically stable

Other than those 2, nuclear wins against all energy sources. Except Hydro.

>>11820016
Your mom was vain and wasteful by giving birth to a nigger.

>>11821149
>Building cost of a 1MV power plant:
>Nuclear Plant: $6B
that's utter bullshit and also it doesn't mean building a 50 times more powerful plant than that costs $300Bn you retarded motherfucker

>>11822131
The absolute state of American "education."

>>11822131
>first nuclear reactors have similar inefficiency as fossil fuel (around 30%)
they just heat water by doing nothing you fucking oxygen thief
steam turbines- the thing in nuclear powerplants which actually produces electricity - have almost 100% efficiency

>>11826603
>>11826611

Conservatives have Flat Earthists, moon hoaxers, and creationists. Liberals have this guy. But I haven't accused anyone of thinking that the Earth is flat, just because they are conservative.

>>11822698
>After that we really couldn't speculate the important goals anymore because ourself right now are so fucking stupid and limited we'd never be able to understand what such a thing should do.
Get high, fuck catgirl waifus, make memes.

>>11826423
No you mong the rods are considered depleted when they are changed because they can't power the turbine effectively enough
If you could reprocess them you could get much much higher than 30%.
It hasn't happened because it has been illegal

>>11826581
Dude, what do you not understand about a 9.1 magnitude earthquake

>>11821149
>Nuclear Plant: $6B
>Solar Farm: $900K
kek
>Did I mention that Nuclear is the only one that could pave way into space exploration?
So you think the space force's Pluto base nuclear plant will be lonely if we don't have a nuclear planet on every street corner on earth or something?

Nuclear power is the power source of last resort. Most commercial nuclear operations are going to die and many already have.

>>11826502
luv seeing chinese getting merked because they keep making fake building materials

>>11826796
>https://www.controlglobal.com/assets/Media/0809/CG0809_LLtable1.pdf
That's for the entire plant and not just the nuclear generator
Steam engine, control rods, worker's area, office, power grids, warehouses, cooling towers, etc.

The price won't double for a 2MW plant because you just changed the generator. Don't know how much they cost but a nuclear submarine produces 150-300mv and costs just $130B

>>11827397

>nuclear plant 6bil
>burdensome regulations, years of dealing with hippies, inefficiencies everywhere due to government meddling and unnecessary builshit.

>>11827574
>muh hippies
cope

>>11827397
Nuclear Plant: 60-100 years design life
Solar Plant: 20 years design life

Nuclear Plant: 1400 MW gets you 11 TWh
Solar Plant: 1400 MW gets you 3.5 TWh

Nuclear Plant: Can follow load
Solar Plant: Cannot follow load

Nuclear Plant: Doesn't require storage
Solar Plant: Requires storage

Nuclear Plant: Kills just about no one
Solar Plant: Kills more people than nuclear

Even if we assume you were not lying about $900K vs $6B, we would need to build the 3 solar plants to get the same amount of elecitrity. We would also need to build storage or gas power or whatever for when it doesn't shine. Then we need to keep building new solar plants every 20 years. Solar could be a bit cheaper if you only consider the first 20 years and think the world ends after that.

>>11822131
>Energy Density of Natural Gas
0.0364 MJ/L
>Energy Density of Uranium
1,539,842,000

You know, I don't think the efficiency is whats relevant here, even if it were nuclear reactors use steam turbines, which can match and exceed 80% efficiency. The only retard is yourself.

>>11826394
>100 thousand people were forced to leave their homes.
by their government, which was being pretty responsible. But you may be shocked to learn that they are only responsible when it comes to nuclear disasters, the world tolerates environmental pollution from fossil fuel sources which are just as if not more dangerous to people. Apparently it's okay to die of lung disease or heavy metal poisoning, but heaven forbid you die of thyroid cancer, we got to get those people out of there. The issue here is that you assume what we use freely now is any safer for us than nuclear, and quite frankly its much more dangerous even if you have a Chernobyl tier disaster every 20 fucking years no matter what. Look at the deaths proportional to the power, look at the long term ecological ramifications. And fossil fuels can and have made miles and miles of land uninhabitable for just as long as any meltdown has.
>>11826502
You talk about this Nuclear industry greasing the wheel, which by all rights is in command of a failing and dying energy sector that is hated by default in most of the western world due to what people see on the news, and I shit you not what they see in movies.

>>11822131
Who the fuck gives a shit about "efficiency"? Even if we only had a 1 % efficient nuclear power plant we should still use it if the electricity produced is cheap and safe. Efficiency in itself doesn't mean shit.

The fact that we get lots of extra heat while making electricity from uranium is not a huge issue. The extra heat could easily be used in district heating for example. Here in Finland we use some of it for fish farming and there's been talk about heating pretty much the entire capital city with that excess heat and it would super cheap.

>>11822698
>make an optimal group of enhanced and immortal people. Say a few million. And then kill every single other civilized human
>immunity to all things/total immortality
>creating a god
the fuck are you talking about?

>>11827620
>there's been talk about heating pretty much the entire capital city with that excess heat
lol, someone still believes in the tooth fairy

>>11818843
>>11824724
muons

>>11821133
it's actually very profitable, just not immediately

its biggest crime is that it doesn't see any profits within the term of an elected official that could make political gains off of it

>>11827542
>a nuclear submarine produces 150-300mv and costs just $130B
are you on drugs?
The entire fleet of dozen Columbia class boomers will cost 110 Billion

>>11827702
What tooth fairy?

The study by Pöyry made it very clear that nuclear district heating would be a lot cheaper than the coal and natural gas plants that are currently used for district heating. And emissions free.

>>11827830
I was making a point that a 100mv nuclear engine won't cost $600B.
Instead, it costed just...i don't know. Entire sub was $130B so I guess the engine was $80B?

What is this mv shit? Millivolts?

Megawatt is MW

>>11826518
>nuclear fusion will be here in the next 20 years!

I'd like to believe it, but people have been saying that every year for the last 50 years. I wouldn't be surprised if it was still over 100 years away.

>>11824482
holy based

>>11828277
You're a retard who has no idea how fusion reactors works or what advances have been made in the field over the last decade.

>>11828531
Which made only 20 years away.

>>11820072
Isn't the price of most minerals the mining and refining, rather than the mineral itself? Silicon, iron or aluminium are so abundant there is basically no way of exhausting them without dismantling the planet, yet they are not free.

>>11828553
Yes, but the thing is, a 10 meter asteroid contains as much as 500,000 kg of metals and minerals. Some of which are gold and platinum.

Every asteroid is a giant ore.
We dig entire mountains to find a decent ore and most of them are just small deposits

>>11828850
>Yes, but the thing is, a 10 meter asteroid contains as much as 500,000 kg of metals and minerals. Some of which are gold and platinum.
Yeah it sounds impressive when you write it that way, but 500,000kg are two truckloads of ore.

>>11820016
Social welfare is a vain and wasteful endeavor.

>>11829206
>For every 1 ton of iron ore concentrate produced approximately 2.5–3.0 tons of iron ore tailings will be discharged. Statistics show that there are 130 million tons of iron ore discharged every year.
Every year, the world mines just 2/5 of what you can find in a single asteroid.
M-type asteroids hold 10x more metals

>>11829275
500000kg is just 500 tons, a tiny fraction of what is mined in a year

>>11829206
1 kg of gold is worth over $50,000

>>11829314
I honestly made a mistake on that.
Still, that is just a 10meter asteroid.
Asteroid belt has near 2M asteroids 1km in diameter.

Assuming we mined even just 1% of that, precious metals like gold, platinum, and titanium would be as worthless as spices.

>>11818837
((they)) are just building self suficient turbines, and use uranium for secret space program.

>>11827723
>it's actually very profitable, just not immediately
Then why are all the established planets shutting down after getting government gibs to construct them?

Because they won't be profitable in the plant's lifetime.

>>11820016
the advances on computer technology alone are one of the main reasons you are even sitting here and posting shit on a computer you dumb gorilla

>>11829206
>>11829314
True, but 50kg of that 10 meter asteroid will be gold, platinum and other valuable metals. There's not a mine left on Earth that gets that much gold or platinum from two truckloads of ore.

>>11829622
That's still only some $3 million.

>>11829641
Yes, but the concentration is over three times higher than that of our best gold mines and the supply of M-type asteroids is practically infinite for all intents and purposes. Even just in near-Earth orbits there's almost a thousand asteroids over a kilometre in size. At some not too distant point in the future, asteroid mining will become viable as our demand for Gold and Platinum grows and more and more mines get exhausted.

It is not viable right now. It might not even be viable if Starship delivers on all the promises.

>>11829687
>It is not viable right now
NASA is currently planning to send a ship to push an asteroid just to see if it can be done.

If successful, we can actually start making plans to crashland precious asteroids on the moon and mine them there. Or we could go retro and crash them on the Antartic.
Should turn Antartica into a massive economic hub instead of a place just for scientists

>>11827620
that's not the point. the point is that all the claims that nuclear can last for billions of years consider that 100% of the energy of the 40 trillions tons of uranium on earth is used when in reality it's much much less because you only use 1% of this uranium then you trash it even though it still has most of its energy left.
it doesn't matter what fucking hypothetically can be achieved. nuclear research has costed hundreds of billions and none of these models fulfilled what they promised (look what breeder reactors were promised to do in the 60s and what they are actually now).
if you took all of this consideration, nuclear will probably last for like 200-400 years tops then it will become what oil will be in few decades.

>>11830004
Minus the environmental damages and health risk part?

Yeah, your words didn't make it any less impressive.

Everything on Earth is finite.
It's space or extinction. And the only way to reach the stars is to harness a star.

It's Nuclear Fusion or get out

>ctrl+f
>No "electric sun"
>No SAFIRE project

You fools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBInhPFFVog

>>11822698
t. Jewish New World Order agent

>>11830004
>you only use 1% of this uranium then you trash it even though it still has most of its energy left.
Currently, yes. But economic pressures would eventually increase prices so much that Plutonium breeder reactors become profitable, and then we're suddenly no longer using one percent of its energy, but fifty, sixty or more.