/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11992983
>the answer
lolno, at best it's a small piece of the puzzle.
in practice it's dead.

>>11992983
Carbon capture, transportation, and agriculture would still need to be sorted out.

>>11992983
Stupidly expensive and only viable if entirely subsidies by the taxpayer, meaning you're paying your power bills effectively twice, takes decades for reactors to go online, massively centralised, if the entire world used nuclear, only have enough fuel for a few decades. Still no decent way of dealing with waste for the thousands of years it lasts. (Remember, you're having to plan forward for people literally in the year 3000 to be able to realise a radioactive waste site is a fucking deathtrap)

>>11993154
>if the entire world used nuclear, only have enough fuel for a few decades
Is this actually true?

>>11993169

It's false, along with almost all of >>11993154s other assertions.

What people call 'waste' typically refers to semi-spent fuels which can be recycled through processing, then re-inserted into another reaction life cycle, or converted into other industrially useful isotopes, or used in 'breeder' designs to net-create more fuel. R&D into the use of Thorium in reactors, and the extraction of Uranium from sea water also looks promising, though frankly there'll be no shortage of fissionable fuels and other REMs by the time space programs like Starship are extracting resources from the moon and asteroids.

>takes decades for reactors to go online

Is a problem unique to the US and a couple of western European countries (plagued with bureaucracy and monopolies), meanwhile China can currently churn out a dozen online reactors every year on average.

>subsidies

Are used to prop up EVERY form of power generation, particularly the production of meme panels. The same money if spent instead on nuclear would produce a whole order of magnitude more power, and consume/process an order of magnitude less materials.

>>11993190
Yeah, I had heard from experts that thorium was abundant, and i looked up thorium and uranium abundance, and it's 6ppm versus 2.8ppm, which is why I wanted to check if he had an actual source on uraniums limits; though i suspected he was parroting some anti-nuclear things he'd seen other people spout mindlessly

>>11993190
>meanwhile China can currently churn out a dozen online reactors every year on average.
China's first reactor took 9 years from construction to commercial operation, and they are nowhere near to churning out dozens of reactors a year, and haven't been doing anything close since they realised using Generation II reactors is a fucking bad idea

>>11992983
Jane Fonda disapproves.

>>11992983
Fucking love nuclear, but sadly it's just not economically viable. Takes too long to build and never stays on budget.

My biggest fear is that we get fusion to work in the next decade, but then no one is going to build fusion plants because they're not cheap enough either. Can you imagine that? Fucking hell.

>>11993375
>but sadly it's just not economically viable.
I don't know about that, France seems to have done pretty well with its nuclear plants. Meanwhile a certain neighbor is spending tens of billions each year on green energy that can't even replace the nuclear plants going offline, much less the coal power plants that are keeping the lights on.

>>11993398
why isn't nuclear gaining traction in America?
Why the hell are they doing that meme solutions like the Green New Deal gains attention but a pragmatic nuclear energy program doesn't?

>>11993401
imagine thinking that any of this has anything to do with pragmatism. the sole purpose of (green) politics is to create problems that "need" to be "solved" by (red) communism

>>11993375
>economically viable
I think you mean politically viable. Economically they're fine as long as you have someone with deep pockets and a long timeline funding them.
The problem is the risk that comes from the political nature of nuclear. No one wants to invest in something that takes 20 years for a decent return when it's a touchy subject and you could have someone banning your project any day (like what happened to the Zwentdorf nuclear power plant in Austria).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Plant

>>11993402
I am literally an auntie fa and support nuclear energy. I wish the DNC was as cool irl as they are in neocuckservative fantasies

>>11992983
One word : Ecologism.

>>11993375
>economically viable
Extented nuclear reactor: 62€/MWh
"Green" electricity projects: 95€/MWh

Hmm....

>>11993417
Part of the problem is the start-up cost. Higher start-up cost makes risk more undesirable and you need larger actors to fund it.
You end up with
>>11993409

>>11993206

>using Generation II reactors is a fucking bad idea
>haven't been doing anything close since

Both false, China's Tianwan-5 just achieved criticality at the end of last month, and once connected to the grid this Generation II design will produce as much power (1000MW) as the worlds most powerful solar farm for a fraction of the cost and an even smaller fraction of the materials/processing. Combining all 5 reactors, the Tianwan plant produces about 5,000MW and still consumes less land and materials than the aforementioned solar plant.

I can point to other Chinese reactors which have gone critical and commissioned within the past year if you'd like, it's good to know that the world's biggest country is taking the energy crisis seriously.

>>11993401

They're too busy weaponizing their nuclear capacity in the form of bombs and submarines, leaves no fuel left for power generation.

>>11993203
http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2016/7301-uranium-2016.pdf
>Conclusion
As documented in this volume, sufficient uranium resources exist to support continued use of nuclear power and significant growth in nuclear capacity for electricity generation and other uses in the long term. Identified resources,
8 including reasonably assured resources and inferred resources, are sufficient for over 135 years, considering uranium
requirements of about 56 600 tU (data as of 1 January 2015). If estimates of current rates of uranium consumption in power reactors9 are used, the identified resource base would be sufficient for over 160 years of reactor supply. Exploitation of the entire conventional
resource10 base would increase this to well over 240 years

Another source tells me we can expect 1000 years of supply, if we take into account undiscovered resources, at our current rate of consumption.

Besides that
>there are also considerable unconventional resources, including phosphate deposits and black schists/shales that could be used to significantly lengthen the time that nuclear energy could supply energy demand using current technologies. However, more effort and investment would need to be devoted to better
defining the extent of this potentially significant source of uranium and developing cost-effective extraction techniques. Deployment of advanced reactor and fuel cycle technologies could also significantly add to world energy supply in the long term. Moving to advanced technology reactors and recycling fuel could increase the long-term availability of nuclear energy from
hundreds to thousands of years. In addition, thorium, which is more abundant than uranium in the earth’s crust, is also a potential source of nuclear fuel, if alternative fuel cycles are developed and successfully introduced in a cost-effective manner. Thorium-
fuelled reactors have been demonstrated and operated commercially in the past.

>>11992983
>Traveling back in time and actually starting before it's too late?
>not having 50 year old psychopaths in leading positions, who couldn't give a fuck about anything but their power and that pile of money of theirs growing?
Global 1 child policy reducing population growth, starting in the 90s?
Last one would fix basically all of our problems.

>>11993203 #
http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2016/7301-uranium-2016.pdf
>Conclusion
>As documented in this volume, sufficient uranium resources exist to support continued use of nuclear power and significant growth in nuclear capacity for electricity generation and other uses in the long term. Identified resources,8 including reasonably assured resources and inferred resources, are sufficient for over 135 years, considering uranium requirements of about 56 600 tU (data as of 1 January 2015). If estimates of current rates of uranium consumption in power reactors9 are used, the identified resource base would be sufficient for over 160 years of reactor supply. Exploitation of the entire conventional resource10 base would increase this to well over 240 years

Another source tells me we can expect 1000 years of supply, if we take into account undiscovered resources, at our current rate of consumption.

Besides that
>there are also considerable unconventional resources, including phosphate deposits and black schists/shales that could be used to significantly lengthen the time that nuclear energy could supply energy demand using current technologies. However, more effort and investment would need to be devoted to better defining the extent of this potentially significant source of uranium and developing cost-effective extraction techniques. Deployment of advanced reactor and fuel cycle technologies could also significantly add to world energy supply in the long term. Moving to advanced technology reactors and recycling fuel could increase the long-term availability of nuclear energy from hundreds to thousands of years. In addition, thorium, which is more abundant than uranium in the earth’s crust, is also a potential source of nuclear fuel, if alternative fuel cycles are developed and successfully introduced in a cost-effective manner. Thorium-fuelled reactors have been demonstrated and operated commercially in the past

>>11993481

>135 years

More than enough time to begin extracting unprecedented amounts of fissile material and other REEs from outer space. SpaceX will likely be doing this within 2-3 decades.

>>11992983
because muh feels

>>11993411
See, even retarded people can support and understand the need for nuclear energy.

>>11992983
It costs too much in resoureces/money/poltical capital to be effective.

There's a limited number of geographic locations to safely build reactors. Then there's even less politcally stable countries that are safe to maintain a reactor.

Then in America there's getting regulatory approval and politcal push by congress/president. Which is a waste in place of other things to spend politcal capital on.

Let's say they do decide to go that route. Now you're talking 10-15 years between the idea of building a new reactor and it maybe possibly being turned on and generating electricty. We don't have 10-15 years to wait.

10-15 years is an opitimistic estimate. I expect just finding a state/community okay with a nuclear plant in their back yard to be rather costly. Then there's the issue that nuclear plants take years and years of service returning a profit so you've got to find willing investors on something kind of risky.

Then okay you got all that shit together. Now you've got ot design the reactor, hire a shit ton of engineers, build it, etc which takes like 7 years minimum if they rushed.

Actually cheap gas (fracking) and wind/ solar killed coal and nuclear. It's cheaper, faster to build and much more popular,

>>11993894
...And much worse for the environment.

>>11992983
https://youtu.be/UC_BCz0pzMw
Its expensive to maintain over the short term but can be profitable over the long term. For obvious reasons, companies want to maximize profits each quarter and oil and natural gas is cheaper. You might make a lot money money 30+ years from now but companies and people don't really think that far ahead.

Nuclear threatens the financial interests of the entrenched oil, coal and natural gas industries. These industries have extensive lobbying power and propaganda capabilities. Wouldn't surprise me if they've funded anti-nuclear environmentalist groups as useful idiots.

>>11994537
Yet another argument for public investments.

Capitalism does not work for everything.

push presidential and/or parliamentarian terms to 10 years and the world goes nuclear in less than 3 terms.

>>11993401
Two new units are being added to Plant Vogtle in Georgia. This will more than double the electric production capacity of the existing units. The original budget was $14 billion but has ballooned to somewhere between $25 and $30 billion. At least that's only a doubling. The original units had a budget of $660 million which ballooned to $8.87 billion ($16.5 in current dollars) when completed.

> We already have the answer to global warming. Why don't we use it?

What could go wrong with Trump building a few. Heard he's real smart on the nuclear. smartest even. his uncle was an expert on the nuclear. probably in the genes

>>11992983
Wishful thinking from a market worshipper cultist / bloated CONSUUUUUUUUUMER

>>11992983
No answer to nuclear waste... You don't want to live near readioactive ready insects...

>>11994994
just make a lead lined hole in the ground. Then dump the waste in it. Then dump salt/sea water on it. then cover it in lead. or have recyling reactors like they have in europe and elsewhere outside of the u.s. (thanks Carter)

>>11993154
Green energy is subsidized heavily, but it's still meme power. Improving nuclear would be more beneficial for the same tax payer money.

>>11992983
Yes, it called winter

>>11995150
all green energy are retarded. They just swipe the waste under the rug to make the illusion of "green" while at the same time being funded by the same oil oligarch

>>11993402
Nah. Just some science ignorant fools draft up an idea, and the entire community rallies behind it. They form a group and anyone that questions it gets dunked on twitter so they show everyone not to question an idea. The create a problem for socialism isn't some straightforward pipeline like youre suggesting.

>>11992983
modular reactors is the answer, but there's tons of regulation involved that halts innovation

Greens.

We need LFTR to rebrand nuclear.

>>11994874

This is because Americans are greedy and lazy, more culturally cohesive nations complete their nuclear projects on schedule and within reasonable budget.

>>11996859

>Thorium

Protactinium-233 problem, we need to implement MSR and other GEN IV technologies with working fuels like Uranium and Plutonium and we need to start yesterday.

Can solar and wind ever truly surpass fossil fuels in terms of efficiency? An environmental scientist told me the technology isn't as efficient because the oil companies are preventing it's development. Is this true or is there nuance to the viability of green energy?

>>11996859
what a load of horseshit
Thorium isn't used because it's shit fission material
the waste products are MUCH more dangerous to handle and you need more enriched uranium (U-235) mixed in with Th-232 to get the reaction going compared to U-238
While bit more rare in total, uranium is more concentrated as ore and there were several uranium mines opened even before nuclear research stared (it was used for staining glass)
it has nothing to do with evil jingoistic generals who wanted to make nukes out of spend fuel rods
and they even made nukes out of thorium - for example first Soviet hydrogen bomb used U-233

my point is, you can build uranium MSR and it would work better than a thorium one

>>11992983
No. Muh bomb.

>>11993154
>Stupidly expensive and only viable if entirely subsidies by the taxpayer, meaning you're paying your power bills effectively twice.
>Implying there are no industrial energy consumers.
>takes decades for reactors to go online, massively centralised, if the entire world used nuclear,
OK. But you know you must not put all your eggs in one basket
>only have enough fuel for a few decades. Still no decent way of dealing with waste for the thousands of years it lasts.
That's not how Radioactive decay works.
>(Remember, you're having to plan forward for people literally in the year 3000 to be able to realise a radioactive waste site is a fucking deathtrap)
I prefer that than burning coal.

>>11992983
Too expensive now compared to solar/wind/hydro/geo.

>but you can't have sun after dark
Batteries/wind

>but you can't have wind all the time
Batteries/hydro

>but you can't have hydro everywhere
Batteries

Until price/safety of nuclear falls enough that we don't need to evacuate 50 mile radius of people and doesn't cost dozens of billions and decades to build 1, nuclear is fiction.

>>11992983
people are stupid and guided by irrational fear

>>11994994
all of the world's "nuclear waste" can fit inside an amazon warehouse. not to mention that 98 PERCENT of that waste can be reconverted back into fuel.
>>11998789
so you plan on strip mining the entirety of chile for your lithium?
jesus, anti nuclear faggots claim to care about the environment but really all they are about is muh feefees

RE Ginna nuclear power plant cost half as much to build as a recent pV solar project in Nevada.

>>11992983
People are too pussy to use it. You're right it would work but they're too soft to let it happen in action.

>>11998804
>so you plan on strip mining the entirety of chile for your lithium?
Low IQ.

>>11998944
namecalling, got anything else?

>>11993494
Yeah dude it's so cheap to send fucking rockets into space to get a few tons of uranium fuel vs sticking a windmill in the ground. Get a grip.

>>11998995
You are low IQ if you think the future of grid storage is lithium ion batteries.

NEA shill thread

>>11998995
1) Lithium is in abundance and not an issue
2) Lithium isn't the only battery storage for utility.
3) You're a faggot

>>11999017
Nuclear energy is many orders of magnitude more dense than chemical energy and especially wind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Tables_of_energy_content

The ratio of energy returned on energy invested is highest for nuclear reactors. Though offshore wind is a good investment as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment#EROEI_and_payback_periods_of_some_types_of_power_plants

>>11999052
I'm specifically talking about your idiotic theory that sending rockets into space to collect uranium is more efficient than windmills but go off. Maybe don't take so much Adderall next time.

>>11999075
Wasn't the same guy, just pointing out nuclear is a good investment. Uranium can also be extracted from seawater, and proven reserves will grow if there's market demand for exploration.

>>11999028
well i don't know much regarding battery technology so instead of calling me a faggot please enlighten me
>>11999036
i realize lithium is a common element, but the places where the most mining is undertaken is chile and peru. if that continues to be the most economical option then expect the andes to be given the appalachians treatment

Renewables are scam by the disposable manufacturing industry complex.

Pv solar degrades and needs replacing ever 20 years.

Wind mill blades are trash that can't be recycled.

Batteries wear out and need replacing.

Keynsian snake oil. A window that breaks itself. So you can keep buying and installing more windows.

>>11992983

Nuclear power is archeotech. In the Dark Age of Technology (1960s and 1970s), miraculous feats of management and engineering capacity resulted in unimaginable feats: manned space travel to the moon, cheap nuclear energy and supersonic commercial air travel.

But the Age of Technology is over, we now live in the Age of Administration. The marvels of a more advanced time are beyond our power to construct. Vast resources are spent on trivial projects like high speed rail and road infrastructure: feats the ancients could've accomplished with ease. There are distant rumors that the Far East has retained the legendary managerial capacity of the Age of Technology, that the empires of Indus, Xian and Koree can operate high speed rail and cheap nuclear plants. But there can be no lessons learnt from those countries, sneered upon as 'less developed' by the great ruling houses of the Western Realms.

In the grim darkness of the second millenium, there is only substandard and ever-declining project management.

>>11992983
The oil industry shills the solar/wind meme to keep nuclear down.

>>11999329
>Wind mill blades are trash that can't be recycled
aren't they made of metal, though? Metal is easily one of the most recycled materials.

>>11992983
The Simpsons. Not even joking, look it up.

>>11999672
India, land of legendary managerial capacity?
You mean land of corruption, absence of organization and order?

>>11999751
Composites.

They get left to rot in fields or put in landfills.

>>11999329
>Pv solar degrades and needs replacing ever 20 years.

Maybe if you buy cheap crap, some panels are there for more then 30 years and run at almost original capacity.

>>11993190
Because communist states have such a good track record with human rights. What reactor designs are they using? I doubt they're anywhere near safe.

>>11993398
France are being alarmist fags and pledged to denuckearize its grid.

>>12000149
I can't wait to see a tornado, blizzard, or hurricane destroy a major solar farm.

>>11999751
They are just resin and fiberglass, you "could" recycle them but there's no point since they are basically as inert as sand and just making a new one is easier.

>>11993009

>>12000250
Shame really. Maybe someone realized it was bad optics to have a nation successfully use nuclear power as it's main source of energy while certain other nations are spending massive amounts of tax money on "green energy". This is of course all just conspiracy thinking.

>>11999751

*Composites, and the rest of the turbine, like solar panels and the batteries that people want to mass-produce for both, is made of finite and costly, pollution-intensive REEs which would produce exponentially more power as components for a fission reactor.

>>12000149

>cheap crap

more than 90% of solar panels

>>11999102
we can use sodium-ion batteries for grid storage and low-end electric cars
they are less energy dense, but are sturdier, have better cycling stability and I don't think we're running out of saltwater any time soon

Because greens are so retarded that somehow they think hydroelectrick is more environmentally friendly than nuclear.

Which pisses me really off.

>>12000324
largest solar farms are in sunny deserts where you don't get these, in a worst case scenario you have to replace some broken panels any your insurance will pay for it, a solar farm is a licence to print money with no risk at all

>>12000784
dams are usually multi-purpose
water-management, recreation, drinking water, tourism, etc.
a nuclear plant will just decrease value of properties, this is not popular. If you are planning one don't act surprised if all home-owners in this area suddenly become environmentalists and fight your project.

>>12000822
*stop being environmentalists

>>11992983
Only useful as baseload power plants because it's difficult to change output, more expensive than other power sources (including subsidies), there is the threat they pose and making them safer costs even more money, takes a long time to build. Even currently running nuclear power plants are getting closed down because retrofiting them with new safety measures isn't worth it, and that is done by power companies in America whose entire purpose is to make money.

>>11992983
>answer to global warming
>outputs water vapour

>>11993398
Your info on both is totlly wrong. France is shutitng down some reactors because they are so old. Germany' green energy is actually doing pretty well and it often sells energy to other nations while buying cheap one from the east

>>11994565
That means the government has to waste moeny on it which leads to inefficiencies down the line.

>>12000903
Are you the same guy who posted >>12000822?

>>11994537
>You might make a lot money money 30+ years from now but companies and people don't really think that far ahead.
They do though. in 30 years lot of shit can happen. Uranium supplies may cost a lot more because one area has reduced output of it, solar and wind improve more, new nuclear plant tech or discoveries renders your plant outdated and other factors.

Uranium prices are also factor. If it's too cheap the mines will close because profit is too low, if costs are too high then that will make the cost of operation high. Also whre one gts it's uanium matter. France gets 32% of it from a little mess called Niger so that kinda means that ORANO which mines Niger's uranium leads to France basically being tied to the hip with Niger and all the fun that comes with it.

>>12001259
and in the case of Niger's mines, Areva (now Orano)and it's subsidiaries has really fucked up the people and environment.

>>12001199
Stop drinking the renewable coolaid, I live in Germany and we have among the highest electricity costs in the world, which are only projected to rise, while France's are considerably lower. To add insult to injury, we're still polluting considerably more than France, even adjusted for more people/industry, because the only thing renewables is replacing here is nuclear power, not coal or other fossil fuels. And it's the other way around, we're selling our green energy at a loss (which has to be made up by the consumers here in Germany) because peak production doesn't correlate with peak demand, but we have to get rid of the excess energy. Conversely, during peak demand energy has to be imported.

The funniest part in all of this is Canada, specifically Ontario (Represent!) has some of the greenest power in the world thanks to nuclear, we are not a commie block country, we can build power plants cheaply and quickly, we extended the length of our plants and embraced SMRs. And we have relatively cheap power which is only slightly bad because our former provincial PM wanted solar panels for no reason.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generating_Station

7.8B$ to build the whole facility with upgrades, generates 48'000GWh a year, or like 2-4B$ in electricity, uranium is 35$/ib...

Haha nuclear reactor go Vrrr. Seeth harder faggots.

>>11999779
The Simpsons should really be viewed as an advertisement for nuclear power. SNPP keeps running despite Homer's incompetence and Burns' greed.

>>12000903
>don't want multiple ecosystems destroyed
>not an environmental concern

>>12001627
nuclear is the cleanest power production form we have right now with least environmental damage, even dams cause more harm than nuclear plants

>>12001659
Uranium mines say hi.

>>12001598
Lol completely omitting hydro. Also our Nuclear plants and hydro dams are pretty dated in terms of not being maintained or upgraded as well as they should be

>>12001678
Like in general there is no such thing as completelt clean energy.

>>12001678
And? Uranium mines ruin significantly less land than dam reservoirs.

>>12000822
>Kills you river ecosystem and migrant fishes from multiple bodies of water

>>12001678
there is uranium for all of 100 years maybe, its only an interim solution

>>11993454
>will produce as much power (1000MW) as the worlds most powerful solar farm
That doesn't even scratch it. Since solar does, at best, a 50% capacity factor since the sun doesn't shine at night, the matchup is entirely lopsided. The nuclear plant's reliable output of baseload power is far more valuable than the output of a solar array which will contribute heavily to duck curve problems unless paired with enough battery to double the cost of the installation. And the nuclear plant can also provide low grade industrial heat for municipal heating, desalination, or chemical processing. Nuclear plants are severely underrated and under utilized. And why? Fossil fuel companies spend millions on marketing every year to make the public think nuclear is dangerous. That's why. Fucking sociopaths.

>>11993398
>France
Uhh anon...
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a33499619/france-nuclear-reactor-epr-expensive-mess/

Turns out nuclear is expensive for consumers when it isn't subsidized by the military.

>>11993894
gas + wind + solar is not much cheaper than gas.
The only reason solar got cheaper is because panels are now made in China with energy from.... coal!
You are somewhat correct about popularity and fracking but you misrepresent solar and wind.

>>12002006
>New experimental technology costs more than an established design
I'm so very shocked.

my thoughts...
if nuclear power isn't developed in the US, it will be developed somewhere else and likely as it gets better (maybe standardized or modularized, I guess) it will be used in the US in some time

>>11993401
Not a murrican, so can't really give a solid answer
But public backlash is probably one.
The moment you drop the word 'nuclear', the first thing people will think about is the Chernobyl accident. And then there's nothing you can say to change people's mind. All they can think about is 'dangerous'

It doesn't matter Chernobyl accident was 30+ years ago and nuclear reactors today are tens of times safer than RBMK.
It doesn't matter that countries like France have solid proof that nuclear is very much doable.
It doesn't matter if you state the downside of green energy (if the wind isn't blowing you aren't generating energy, same goes for solar power)

>>12001259
>Uranium prices are also factor, if costs are too high then that will make the cost of operation high.
Uranium fuel is like 2% of the costs of opetating a nuclear reactor.

>>12001598
>we are not a commie block country
I like that you're actually using based energy, but please gut Trudeau and his jewish masters before saying that.

>>11993190
>China can currently churn out a dozen online reactors every year on average.
Yeah because that doesn't sound ominous at all

>>12000577
It’s actually worth looking into the numbers. Nuclear is not cheap at all and even France pays an higher energy cost than comparable European countries (if you count construction, maintenance etc.) Nuclear is worth it if you plan to develop nuclear reactors, since you can use the same infrastructure for developing bombs and power plants. Historically it was mostly a nice side effect from developing nuclear weapons. If you’d take a purely civilian approach to nuclear mayyybe it could be cheaper or safer

>>11993154
>people in the year 3000
Unless humanity goes extinct, I'm pretty sure there will be enough accumulated knowledge that people will always know about radioactive material
>but what about muh societal collapse
Lmao there is no collapse, the internet will archive all of our history, and there will at any point be people maintaining hard drives and servers no matter how bad shit gets, unless we outright go extinct, shit will be fine

>>11992983
This is a picture of a coal power plant. You can see the long, skinny towers in the distance. Those are smoke stacks for coal burning furnaces.

Solar is a meme, useless in the northern hemisphere during the winter, especially without innovations in battery tech (which we won't have for 10 years and would cost billions on billions to implement per city)
And the panels are expensive, inefficient, and degrade over time
Wind is a meme, it's not windy all the time, and some area's are never windy enough lel
Hydro is maxed out, and not all cities are built near a fucking river valley where a damn could be build
Any tech required to make them functional is further off then fucking Fusion

>>12002006
Ah yes, much better to spend a projected 520 billion euros over 25 years just to replace the power output of the few nuclear reactors still in service. Meanwhile base-load power remains coal fueled.

>>12004290
>even France pays an higher energy cost than comparable European countries (if you count construction, maintenance etc.)
Source ?

>>12004347
You can repeat your nonsense as much as you like, but why? Investors spend money on wind and solar for years. Because it's cheap, fast to build and profitable. wake up

>>12004290
The only nonsense is the picture you posted. Have you actually looked at the source for that graph? There's absolutely no way you could accurately conclude these numbers from the cited study. It's also completely at odds with real world energy costs shown here >>12004387, where states with vast renewable energy investments are paying considerably more for electricity than countries relying on fossil or nuclear. The reason why investors spend money on renewables is because governments are spending a lot of money on them. Massive government subsidies give investors an incentive because they pretty much guarantee an ROI over a certain amount of time.

Since these threads will just keep popping up I'm just going to post this in hopes that some of these retarded arguments are finally sorted out and we stop spamming them after the 1357th iteration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8

It's not a problem of technology or any sort of similar claim that people make nowadays. In fact people 200 years ago had a very clear understanding of this but the convoluted complexity of modernity has made our thought process deviate to some abstract bullshit reasoning and emotional alarmism. It's a simple Malthusian problem and the expected collapse due to complexity and administrative requirements that we're not yet developed enough to handle. This is a symptom of overpopulation, not of technological advancement and not of evil top hat porkie shitting out pollutants for profit. Remove half of humanity and you remove most of the downsides of modern society, specifically those that the modern left is campaigning against up to real estate prices. But of course this is hard to utter in front of an audience so no one will ever do so and the issues will be blamed on other irrelevant bullshit, while the symptoms will just turn into the cause because the true cause and its solution are too harsh to simply mention casually like that.

>>12004632
Expanding nuclear faster than population would increase energy per capita, and by extension increasing wealth and living standards.

>>12004387
Posting that graph without showing the tax is being dishonest.

>>12001436
Kek, didn't you guys shut down most of your nuclear after Fukushima, and now have to build new coal plants?

>>12004329
oooh! oooh! someone is wrong on the internet!
OP's pic is the Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant in Slovakia.

>>12004632
How do we resolve the problem? Every time someone is born it automatically stacks humanity more and more against population reduction ironically. Our only hope is Eugenics: castrate half the population. Of course, we wouldn't want to castrate "useful" people, college educated, so it'd likely have to happen to the lower half of the bell curve.

Think about it, we solve overpopulation, climate change, human dysgenics and scientific stagnation all in one fell swoop. All we need is just a little snippy snippy of the gonads, people already care more about their pets (and pets becoming overpopulated and invasive to the environment) than humans, why can't we redefine low IQ humans as an invasive species?

>>11992983
To hell with global warmining, some of my friends work at coal mines and it disgusts me that they might face infinitely more immediate issues just because bunch of jerks wants the world to be green (and inside it will be still rotting with greed and other human trash).

>>12006094
>To hell with automobiles, some of my friends work as carriage drivers and it disgusts me that they might face infinitely more immediate issues just because bunch of jerks wants the world to be able to move more freely
You make a good point.

>>12005350
Because then the western world would have to face up to the fact that nearly all minorities sit on that lower half.

>>12005350
>redefine low IQ humans as an invasive species
Not how a species works, guess you're invasive. Let me get my scissors...

>>11993894
Fracking is only "cheap" because of corruption and hyperoptimistic investment.

>>11999672
Nice. Got any more?

>>11993412
YES FUUUUUUUCK YES THANK YOU

>>12001948
>fishes
no one cares about fishes, are they even real? just grow them in a tank haha, three gorges strong btw

>>12006123
To me it is and I dont give a fuck that you want progress, I would be first for it if that energy worked for people, but it wont, its going to work for bunch of rich shitheads anyway, just with less workplaces

>>11992983
Because global warming will just be replaced by global irradiation

>>12000784
In Australia, there has been lots of protests to stop dams.

>>12004632
A very effective solution that can't be applied is not a solution at all.
There's no realistic scenario where we can voluntarily reduce the population. So we have to work with it.

>>12006748
Pay people to be sterilized.

Imagine how many dinduus would line up for 50k(men) and 75k(women) a year for the rest of their lives.

>>12006748
>reduce the population
The solution presented itself in the west through low fertility rates, but growth mongering psychopaths like you found a convenient "solution" for that now didn't you?

>>12006146
maybe, but cheap '"natural" gas is what really killed coal and nuclear