/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12264327
It's very good for baseline power production where you don't need to change the amount of power production.
Normies are afraid of it because of chernobyl and because they don't really understand how it works. Making them understand coal power plants is easy since it's just like burning wood at home. Nuclear fission on the other hand isn't that simple to explain to the average person

Its extremely efficient and doesn't take much space. There's huge misconceptions regarding how dangerous they are, especially now days. Meltdowns are the worst thing that could happen. Its like when Cars had no safety measures back when they were invented. Shit evolves over time to the point where it becomes extremely safe to use

>>12264327
Nuclear power uses non renewables, and pollutes the earth with radioactive waste that stays radioactive for millions of years, look at chernobyl or fukushima, we can't handle using it without giving millions of people cancer

>>12264443
retard

>>12264443
this is how you know he's american

>>12264443
Petroleum and coal is far more likely to give you cancer, that nice "gasoline smell" at the pump when you fill? Benzene, a giga carcinogen active in ppm amounts.

Radiation is everywhere and if something is radioactive for "millions of years" it's very mildly radioactive. Only short term activity isotopes are dangerous to your body, and only then when you're exposed to them. And all this assumes nuclear plants leak radiation which even Chernobyl was a joke compared to the emissions from coal or flying in an airliner unless you walked into the plant itself the year of the disaster. Not that we build reactors that badly anymore anyway.

Think for yourself and understand what you criticize

>>12264381
But it is. Radioactivity heats water, makes steam, turns turbines, generates electricity. The same as coal except for the energy source

>>12264443
Yeah, shut the hell up.
Chernobyl was deliberate
Fukushima was the first real Nuclear incident in 70 years. It killed 1 and injured 4.

Coal kills 800k a year

>>12264486
>Chernobyl was deliberate
>>>/x/

>>12264493
Yes it fucking is.
They shut down all fail safes to figure out what would happen if it got bombed by allies

>>12264486
Chernobyl was just neglect
the plant was awful when it comes to safety

>>12264504
Yeah, but it was handled by pros. Then came the politicians who have no idea what they are doing

>>12264493
You fucking retard

Even in the TV show they explained it was a deliberate test where they overloaded the reactor and attempted to use residual power from the steam to keep systems online while generators kicked in. The staff literally were ordered to move outside multiple design parameters to "simulate" a massive accident.
Go look it at Wikipedia, YouTube, HBO, literally anywhere if you don't believe me.

>>12264509
>Even in the TV
a yes TV
known for posting only the most factual info

>>12264481
>Radioactivity
But radioactivity bad??? How do good?

>>12264327
We don't have a safe long therm storage facility for radioactive waste and many existing powerplants are still unsafe boiling water reactors.

>>12264504
Unfortunately the Soviets put Plutonium production for nuclear weapons ahead of safety. Their choice of water cooled-graphite moderated was one of maximizing plutonium in minimal time or cost. This was followed by lack of new reactors and overextended lifespans and undertrained staff operating under communism. It's a shame it happened but the lack of accidents like it since are a testament to the nuclear industries responsibility for the issue.

>>12264477
>if something is radioactive for "millions of years" it's very mildly radioactive.
This.
Most people just seem unable to grasp that the LONGER the half-life, the SMALLER the radioactivity. Like natural Uranium which has half-lives in the millions of years. Guess where it comes from? The ground.

>>12264512
My mistake, I figured you must've gotten your understanding of nuclear physics from the Simpsons.

What issue do you take with the RBMK reactor? Is it the Doppler broadening coefficient, the void coefficient, the rod points, the enrichment of the rods or would you prefer to debate the reprocessing and disposal strategy for Western reactors? Do you think all reactors are unsafe or just RBMKs? Because if it's meltdowns you're afraid of we can go over the MSR and the freeze plug system.

>>12264531
I'm with you but that's...quite misleading and actually dangerous analogy

We have 2 types of naturally ocurring uranium isotopes
99% are U-238 which are stable
1% are U-235 which is not
Both cases goes under alpha decay

We have 3 different types of decay emissions. Gamma, Beta, and Alpha
Gamma is the weakest but it can penetrate though solid lead
Alpha radiation is the strongest at 1000x of gamma but can be shielded by a sheet of paper. However, if you breathe dust with alpha radiation, you are as good as fucked.

Point is, your analogy could use something better

You should instead say
>the Sun has been spilling radiation for billions of years using deutrium and tritium which are even more radioactive than uranium

>>12264552
U-238 is not stable, you moron. It decays with a half-life of around 4 billion years.

>>12264557
Uhh, yeah and U235 is at 700million.

>>12264557
Listen, don't play that game
Any radioative particle is not stable.
All of them shall someday decay into iron or lead

>>12264327
Nuclear power is by far the single best source of energy we have. Fission is cheaper than fusion even if fusion worked due to the energy cost of making heavy water. It's the power of the future and that's why oil hates it. The Sierra club is taking money from natural gas lobbyists to make licensing harder and more expensive while indigenous and mom groups get paid to block site builds raising costs to be less economical. This is all due to a culture from the DOE started when Rockefellers son was the energy minister at the time and insisted there's "no safe dose" of radiation against scientific evidence and complicated plant evaluation procedures. Chernobyl didn't kill nuclear, we stopped building plants in the early 70s when new NRC legislation passed. China, India, Russia are going nuclear and it's costing them nothing and taking no time to build. It's quite likely we will simply lose the race for more power as oil gets scarce and renewables leave our grid anemic.

>>12264552
This all only applies to contamination not radiation, beta and alpha particles don't really travel more than a cm in air. So we can basically ignore all radioactivity that isn't gamma in normal operations and beta if there's a massive accident. In any case, longer lived isotopes emitting easier to shield particles not a bad thing but I agree we should probably dilute waste to reduce the inhalation and ingestion risks.

>>12264512
You didn't see graphite on the roof.
YOU DIDNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE ITS NOT THERE!!!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>12264327
People are afraid of nuclear because its proponents keep defending obsolete reactor designs. HUGE mistake. If you don't acknowledge the safety problems of old reactors, nobody will listen when you tell them that modern reactors are safe.

>>12264327
>Fukushima
>Chernobyl
>Three Mile Island
Good fucking luck getting ANYONE to want a nuclear plant anywhere near their backyard. You can blab all you want about "muh modern safety protocols", but nuclear power will never, never live down its failures. It's political suicide to even bring up nuclear power; you'll notice nobody even winked at it during last night's U.S. presidential debate. We don't even have to bring up the subject of nuclear waste, because no discussion on the topic will even get that far.

nah just use algae bros eventually we will get there

>>12265119
People will definitely start looking more favorably at nuclear power once the prices of fossil fuels start to go significantly up. Which won't happen within the next 20 years. There's still a metric shitton of coal left to be burned.

>>12265079
molten salt reactors when!?

>>12264327
If you want nuclear you’re going to have to designate an area for it. Nobody wants a nuclear reactor near them.

>>12264481
>radioactivity heats water
Yeah okay sure thing.

>>12265281
that's fine because we have the technology to transport electricity for hundred of miles with just a few percentage of loss

>>12265119
>>12265281
>>12265778

To match the power of a Nuclear power, you need to have as much as 3 acres of solar panels.
Per 1 MW

A nuclear plant produces as much as 1000MW. The largest produces 8000MW

To match that, your solar farm have to clear out as much as 30000 acres of land,
And it would only generate electricity for half a day

What's more is that electricity is lost in the resistance in the wires. Britain claims that 60% of their energy are lost on the wires. The greater the distance the greater the loss and solar farms are located faaaaar away from the city.

Batteries are no good either as energy tends to leak out

And as a final nail on the coffin, solar panels have a lifespan of 20 years whereas Nuclear Plants are 80.

Opinions on Nuclear Power reveals whether you are stupid or smart

>>12264327
It's mostly el ogro americans and oil shilling why they have a bad rep.

>>12265823
Nuclear reactors are further away from consumers than solar panels pretty much everywhere and there is no shortage of land either. The only figure that really matters is the cost per kwh

>>12265852
Dumbass.
I recalculated it.

A typical solar panel has an area of 5.3 meter squared
It takes as much as 5000 solar panels to make 1MW
That's as much as 26746.2 meter squared
27 kilometers worth of land just to produce 1MW for half a fucking day

New York alone uses 11,000 MW
Shortage of land my fucking ass
You are going to cause a massive environmental disaster as you have clear down entire forests, destroy habitats, and literally burn down birds that flew above your meme cells.

And may I remind you that Solar Cells are the biggest consumers of rare Earth minerals?

Once the solar panels died, it would instantly result into a massive pollution issue and a shortage in rare minerals because you fucks are idiots who think that nuclear is bad.

>>12265079
Even the obsolete reactors had the best safety record of any energy source, hardly a mistake to defend that

>>12265079
>1982:
>Several rockets were fired at the Superphenix breeder reactor at Creys-Malville (Isere) by extreme-left militants, armed by the Carlos group.
This radgreen chad single handedly defeated the nuclear industry and got away with it.

>>12265887
And?
At the end of the day solar is still cheaper than nuclear in lot of places of the world which is why it's being built.
You can smoke memes as much as you like, but it doesn't mean what you post has relevance to reality.

Also your numbers are totally out of whack, just to take an example solar farm like Topaz farm which has a capacity of 550 MW with an area of 19 square kilometers. That's almost 3 orders of magnitude mistake which is likely from lack of meds. Even accounting for the capacity factor (e.g not producing during the night) you still end up with 140 MW on 19 square kilometes which is still leaves your error out in the range of 200 times.

>>12264443
I still am surprised at how easy it is to catch people with such bait

>>12265930
Solar energy is fucking trash. It's a scam

Light water nuclear reactors cost billions of dollars and they only run for a few decades. I don't care about carbon emissions, I care about economics. Even if there had been no environmental movement we would have stopped building nuclear reactors because they kept having awful cost overruns.

Even the world nuclear association admits that fracking is more cost-effective than nuclear power plants
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

>>12265957
Everything is a scam when you are off by a factor of 200 on basic math.
>Loaf of bread for 150 buckaroos, what a steal!

>>12264540
I feel that the freeze plug system is imperfect and not redundant enough...
>leaks etc

>>12265907
You have to consider the effects of defending them. When you defend the record of gen2 reactors, it makes people think that their safety profile (including incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima) is similar to the new reactors we want to build. You don't have the ability to make that look acceptable. Nobody alive has the persuasion chops to defend old nuclear without making people afraid of new nuclear.

>>12265142
As soon as people like >>12265907 stop causing normies to associate them with Chernobyl.

>>12264327
fusion is better
but it doesn't exist in viable form

>>12265930
>At the end of the day solar is still cheaper than nuclear
Yet more expensive in the long term

>>12265907
>>12265079
>>12265978
Nuclear proponents don't understand how the normy mind works. People think in associations.You can make the most true and perfect argument about why Chernobyl doesn't mean nuclear as a whole is dangerous, and literally all they will get from it is "Nuclear = Chernobyl", and Chernobyl is inseparably associated in their minds with scariness. The only way to get them on board with nuclear is to disassociate it from the type of reactor that scares them.

>>12265978
>it makes people think that their safety profile (including incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima) is similar to the new reactors we want to build.

And if you start talking about improved modern reactors without explaining that old reactors were comparatively safer to begin with, they think you are talking about fixing the "high risk" nuclear reactors, and if you failed to improve them as promised, they would be still be dangerous and they tell you to fuck off

nuclear was fucked in the ass by the cold war (bombs bad), the petroleum and coal industry, and chernobyl.
even outside of the social aspects, setting up a reactor is very fucking expensive and they have to be decommissioned. a reactor runs for 50-80 years or whatever and has to be shut down. when you compare the capital investment in a nuclear reactor, versus a coal power plant, the coal plant is much cheaper up front and will pay itself off sooner.
nuclear is better, but why use it if you can burn coal?

>>12265930
Eat my fucking black ass

Yearly Earnings (fuel cost included)
Nuclear: $150M
Natural Gas: $20M
Solar Farm: $200k
And Solar Farms work for just 12 hours, loses efficiency fast, and breaks down in just 20 years

Also, pic related.
My calculations are completely on point
Your Topaz 500MW is its yearly energy revenue and not its MW-h

>>12265930
Anyone who claims that Solar Power is better than nuclear is not just a fool. They are an enemy of civilization.

>>12266309
Do you live off embarrassment or what?
The capacity is 550 MW
Year has 8760 hours multiply those and divide the actual production with the theoretical max and you get a capacity factor. The wikipedia article makes this calculation for you and you can see the factor comes out at 26% as in it produces 145 MW real power from the 19 square kilometers instead of what you thought the production was e.g. 1 MW from 27 square kilometers which is 200 or 700 times off.

Again simply take your meds if you can't perform even the most rudimentary calculations.

>>12266324
Oh, I see

Then, under that same calculation, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant is producing a capacity of 8,000MW.

My previous calculation simply counted the amount of energy harvested from a single solar panel, its size, and then multipled till it got 1MW.
But whatever,

Also, you calculation is misleading. It works only for 12 hours a day. Reaches peak capacity at 6 hours, prone to weather issues and over heating, and has problems transporting electriticy elsewhere.

The largest nuke plant is ltierally beside 2 towns

>>12266363
>My previous calculation simply counted the amount of energy harvested from a single solar panel, its size, and then multipled till it got 1MW.
And you were wrong by a factor of 700, pretty embarassing

>Also, you calculation is misleading.
550 MW is the nameplate capacity, 700 times greater than what you thought
145 MW is the capacity when accounting for all losses, 200 times greater than what you thought

Take your meds.

>>12266376
Alright, my mistake for using community solar cells.

Can you go back to defending solar so I can beat your ass a new?

>>12266397
Have you taken your meds yet?

>>12266407
Ok, so I did a bit of digging and revised the calculation.
So, there are many different pv cells of varying efficiency
India's Solar Farm has a net capacity of 2000MW at 50km^2
China's largest Solar Far is 2250MW at 100km^2
Topaz is at 550MW at 19km^2

India used more efficient solar cells and costed them $1.5B
China used inefficient and costed them $500M
Topaz costed $2.4B

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant costed $7B but produces 8000MW.

Thus, if we used their techs, it would cost India $6B and 200km^2 to match it
China would need $2B and 400km^2
USA would need $34.8B and 275km^2

All of which would die in 20 years

By all accounts this is absurdly more expensive than Nuclear which can survive for 80 years before the radiation in the facility becomes too high

>>12264481
>radioactivity heads water
I think you mean fission, but either way normies would STILL get freaked out and think your poisoning the water supply with radiation

>>12264327
>Is nuclear power by far the best way to generate electricity?
That would be fusion. It can do everything fission can do but better, safe and renewable. We may see the first commerical fusion reactors in 2040 if everything works out with SPARC. I do prefer fission over fossile energy as nuclear does not produce emission and nuclear waste has been reduced considerably thanks to modern fission tech. The risk of a meltdown may be quite low but if it happens a region dies, thus I understand the worry of the public about it.

>>12264327
Imagine everyone panicked the first time a couple hundred people died in a plane crash and we practically banned air travel.
That's what happened with nuclear, but it was really the fossil fuel companies spending millions on fud marketing which got the "nuclear bad" idea engraved in stone.

>>12264327
No, the main reason I don't want nuclear is because there exist physical structure, in which you extract heat from sea water in sufficient quantities to operate a power plant.

Just heat engine between two heatpumps, one from enviroment, and one from the end that preheats the enviroment.

Then you power heat pumps by heat engine, and you get over 200% left over power that you can use for whatever you fucking want.

>>12267091
>It can do everything fission can do but better,
Can it exist in the present?

>>12267304
Wait 5 to 10 years, SPARC seems very promising especially in regards to the latest news with room-temperature superconductors. If you are for fission or renewable energy you should be for fusion.

>>12264327
All other energy technologies are cheaper and much faster to build. Also there is no need in saturated energy markets of western nations.

>>12264443
>Look at Chernobyl; poor organization
>Look at Fukushima; non-human related issue
>Look muh radioactive waste that stays so for millions of years, in spite of not knowing how does radioactivity works
>Look muh pollution that is difficult to fuck up (unless you are a retard and do not follow the fucking protocols)
Basically, you are a retard

>>12264520
You absolute cuck

>>12264564
Please, spread this fucking message

>>12265909
Firing rockets?
This massive cunt could have fucked up in his shitty ecocircus and blown up the central.

>>12267311
>Wait 5 to 10 years, SPARC seems very promising especially in regards to the latest news with room-temperature superconductors. If you are for fission or renewable energy you should be for fusion.
Think about this.

you have two sons

one owns a prosperous company, he's not bill gates but he has a big house, two cars, a vacation house takes care of everyone in his family and still has ample spending money and savings.

the other one is saying he'll be dirty rich, much richer than bill gates in the next 3-5 years since he was 15 years old. He's now 34. Until now all he did was cost you thousands upon thousand of dolars on investments for his company, so far he never earned a single cent.

Trusting fusion power over nuclear is even stupider than trusting the second son over the first.

>>12264481
Have you tried using iceberg as source of excessive energy compared to solid configurtion of gas in looped system?

>>12267556
The first electric motors were built in 1740s but only became practical for work in 1832.
The first photovoltaics were developed back in 1839, but only thanks to space money in the 60s they became viable technology to get energy.
The idea of Fusion Reactors was developped in 1946, in the 90s we made the first viable fusion reactions. We are expecting net-gain fusion reactions in 2025-2030, the timescale is nothing to sneer at.

We also developed room temparatur superconductors in this month. Technology does not stagnate.

>>12264443
more die every year from worldwide coal mining then ever died, even of questionable later cancers, in all nuclear accidents ever
idiot

>>12266098
Do you know what 'pacing and leading' is? Peoples minds are already irreversibly made up on old reactors. Your persuasion abilities cannot compete with the fear of Chernobyl. You are sabotaging efforts to build new plants, and for what? The autistic desire to be right about something that doesn't matter? You aren't helping anybody by making people think that nuclear technology is still where it was in 1986.

really the only valid complaint I've heard about nuclear from PSOs is that it has long ramp up and down times, so in situations where you need to scale your power output quickly soley relying on nuclear can cause problems. However, if your grid and demand are stable it can be a great option.

>>12264327
People are intimidated by the fearmongering, that is by far the biggest reason
>it's going to blow up and kill us all, it is literally a nuke but even worse than that
>all that smoke is going to irradiate the planet
>hear about chernobyl and fukushima? yeah, that is going to happen because there are no failsafes to stop it from happening
>people might get nukes since nuclear power stations have radioactive material and nukes need radioactive material, no power stations means no nukes
>if you have a nuclear power station within a hundred mile radius from you, you will die from radiation poisoning
>you know the byproducts with the longest half-life? yeah, those ones are the ONLY byproducts, you are creating permanent death and those byproducts have no practical use whatsoever for anything other than making nukes
>it creates radioactive material, please ignore the fact that the radioactive material also came from the ground where it was radioactive to begin with
>you know how nuclear power competes against petroleum? yeah, well it competing against petroleum is actually a ploy by the oil tycoons

>>12265978
Defending old nuclear is easy. Just compare deaths per TWh between coal and nuke, explain that the reason for the scare was basically fear mongering by fossil fuel companies in the same way cigarette companies managed to convince everyone that their products were healthy.
Then say that the Chernobyl was due to to soviet union insanity and Fukushima was far more of an economic disaster than a health disaster. Old nuclear was very safe, but also very expensive. New nuclear is still safer and less expensive, simply because we learned that passive safety in the design is far more useful than complex (expensive) active safety which depends on pumps, valves, and people all working correctly during an emergency. Engineering lessons learned have made failures less likely, and also far less destructive when one does happen.
One person, a plant worker, died from radiation in Fukushima, a 40 year old plant which failed after a natural disaster destroyed equipment critical for it's active safety design. Modern passive designs simply would not fail in the same way.

>>12264327
Even if it was not good because "radiation bad radiation scary" it's still the only way to eliminate carbon emissions without the whole world going full authoritarian and destroying the economy.

>>12265281
Which is hilarious because a coal plant causes more cancer and lung problems than all nuclear plants together including the ones that blew up.

>>12267326
That's just retarded. Nuclear is regulated into oblivion and the others are often subsidized. Also renewables are all retarded and can't keep up with demand if the sun is not out or there is no wind. Useless.

>>12265930
Oh no, a cloud, oh no, it's night. Turn off the factories or mine all the led in the world to make batteries.
This>>12266319

>>12266504
Also the nuclear while more expensive takes less space and material and doesn't turn off at night.

>>12264481
>Radioactivity heats water
So you're saying that the water from my tap will irradiate me and give me cancer if my power comes from a nuclear plant?!
This is the level of intelligence and reactivity you have to remember that you're dealing with.

Coal plants are shutting down. Natural gas is the transition energy. Fusion is the destination, with a carbon tax to make it go faster.

>>12269599
>Your persuasion abilities cannot compete with the fear of Chernobyl.

Talking about "new and improved" reactors won't do this either. Even panicktards hung up on chernobyl know it's old as fuck. If you can't convince people the whole history of nuclear power is safe because its a measurable fact, they won't give a shit about your hypothetical new and improved reactors, full stop.

>You aren't helping anybody by making people think that nuclear technology is still where it was in 1986.

Interesting because I'm not and it's your strawman.

I hope you guys realize how jarring the post-fusion world will be, when the problem will not be, how do I create energy, but how to wisely use the limitless, nearly free energy suddenly available. Just think about it. If the price of energy was no object.

>>12269852
Bro, you can say the same to spices, good food, aluminum, mass production, and high speed communication

People would take it for granted completely oblivious to the fact that technology and knowledge is moving at alarming rates

>>12269852
>Just think about it. If the price of energy was no object.
One fewer reason to go to war.

>>12269852
Call me an unimaginative brainlet but I can't think of anything

Where energy cost most matters to the average person by far is heating and cooling buildings, then after that, transportation costs.

So you could have really exotic architecture that no longer concedes every point of design and price to insulation, and you don't pay at the pump. That's basically it. It's not like "argh I want to run a quantum computer in my house but the power bill is too high".

>>12269877
The average person won't notice much but holy shit.
Space Mining and planetary conquest here we come

>>12265887
Solar should be used in already built up areas to augment the grid during the daytime

>>12270002
Shut the fuck up.
It's nothing more than a short-term solution with disastrous effects in the long run as it is inefficient, highly polluting, demands too much rare minerals, and lives for just 20 years.

Just fucking go nuclear you fucking idiots
All you are doing is risking the lives of many because you entertain your delusion and fear mongering by oil tycoons

>>12270048
Meh, I was just thinking of all of those darn parking lots doing nothing besides being an eyesore that contributes to the heat island

>>12264327
nuclear power is statistically the safest (if done properly with containment and the right nuclear reactions), cleanest, and most cost-effective way to produce large amounts of power en masse given our current tech. people conflate it with other "dirty power" (oil and coal) even more so than natural gas (lol) because of fuku and chernobyl and also with nuclear weapons tho so it's politically doomed <3

>>12270073
Here's a better idea:
Plant vines and turn the place greener

>>12270103
That is a better idea, but the seas of parking lots in places like Phoenix, Vegas, etc aren't going to bloom. I'm all for nuclear power. I work part time in a nuclear lab at the moment. However, I think picking the low hanging fruit to improve grid efficiency and reduce environmental damage are worth pursuing. Covering parking lots in the desert isn't going to save the world or anything like that, but they're there and can be put to use, so they should.

>>12270048
Its too late for that. previous generations made different choices that can't be reversed. Stop pretending like there aren't other reasons nuclear is impractical.

If there were leadership... if they could sell the idea... it is possible.They are going to have a hard time convincing people to switch from natural gas or even coal. Unless- a comprehensive carbon tax makes nuclear more attractive. Again, you have to sell the idea, not bash your debate opponents like its their sole responsibility. Anons with solar panels can reach efficiency, and they aren't convinced by your harangues that their efforts are pointless. Its a tricky issue, at the heart of it is convincing people to sacrifice now, for intangible benefits later.

The problem for nuclear is partly PR. The only states that want to go nuclear are sketchy rogue states. You had Chernobyl, then Fukushima, and now Armenia's in a shooting war while operating a soviet-built reactor- on a fault line in the mountains. China is continuing to build nuclear weapons. North Korea is buidling nuclear weapons. Terrorists still would love to make a dirty bomb. India and Pakistan, India and China, small skirmishes.

At any given time nuclear powered submarines are underwater, ready to fire nuclear tipped multiply targetted warheads. We are 100 seconds to midnight according to the atomic bulletin. Literally any given day there is a tiny but disturbingly real chance you're going to see a flash that melts your eyeballs and light everything on fire around you, because some dogma or some protocol or some mistake or natural disaster will occur. There are something like 800 reactors globally of the same type as the one in Fukushima. Seismic activity is a constant... what do you think the risks are? We die by radiation, as easily as carbon dioxide.

>>12270073
Its not just that. We now know asphalt itself is releasing CO2 as well as other volatiles that turn into poisonous ground level ozone in the presence of sunlight.

>>12269833
>Interesting because I'm not and it's your strawman.

It's not what you mean to say, but it is what people hear when you say it. People think nuclear is still dangerous because retards like you keep associating it with Chernobyl. The one and only thing that comes from defending the Chernobyl-era safety record is that it makes people think you want to more Chernobyls. It doesn't matter what the details are or how technically correct you are, it all literally just translates in their minds to "Let's make more Chernobyls". Do you not understand how counterproductive it is to unwittingly make people think you want more Chernobyls?

>>12270225
>People think nuclear is still dangerous because retards like you keep associating it with Chernobyl.
>The one and only thing that comes from defending the Chernobyl-era safety record is that it makes people think you want to more Chernobyls.

My point requires that chernobyl is an outlier incident that wasnt enough to tarnish the entire track record of nuclear power. Also I'm not defending the chernobyl era, if you stopped counting metrics there, nuclear power really would be a disaster.

>It doesn't matter what the details are or how technically correct you are

Deaths per kilowatt hour is not detailed or technical retard. It's one number.

>it all literally just translates in their minds to "Let's make more Chernobyls". Do you not understand how counterproductive it is to unwittingly make people think you want more Chernobyls?

If your point is that people deliberately misunderstand you to absurd degrees your persuasion isn't any better. Any form of energy, there is a group of people who irrationally propose it. It's no better than saying "better solar panels" or "better wind turbines", and my favorite, "clean coal". It's all imaginary to them and they just expect your proposal to fail or that it's snake oil from the start.

>>12270002
I agree with that. Solar has is place as a way to augment the grid. The NYC metro area has rolling brown out almost every year when everyone turns on their AC. Solar would help to mitigate that greatly. Solar also has its place in decentralized grids.

>>12264504
the soviets were using reactor designs that had fatal flaws in them

im playing factorio and this thread has convinced me to switch off of coal to nuclear power and to not bother with solar at all. thanks frens

>>12270002
>>12270271
local solar is horribly inefficient and expensive, its farms or nothing

>>12270293
Based. Be the change, anon.

>>12268053
"room temperature superconductor"
You forgot to mention that the material is only superconducting at 40 million psi, you pop-sci reading fuck.

>>12266504
Looks like you btfo'd the take meds faggot.

>>12264486
>Fukushima
IT ISN'T OVER. For 9 years Japan has been running water over the melted-down nuclear fuel somewhere under the plants that blew. Even with recycling the amount of tritium-contaminated water is huge. They've been storing it since 2011, and expect to run out of space in 2022.
Now they want to dump it in the sea. Thanks Fukushima.

>>12270373
>psi
Lmao

>>12270442

And dumping it into the sea will have no effect on anything, because it's tritium and they're diluting it. Tritium has never been demonstrated to have any medical effects, and even if it was horrible the level of dilution puts the activity of the water they're releasing into the ocean below the ambient radiation levels of seawater.

>>12270167
Lol Doomsday clock. Fuck off retard.

>>12270448
Reactionary uneducated faggots BTFO. Nuclear wins again.

>>12270442
It would have absolutely no impact on animal, plant, or human life if it was allowed to just spew into the ocean. Perhaps only life in very close proximity to the source would see any effects.

>>12265119
People don't have and shouldn't the power to dictate what the big daddy government want

Why does the nuclear lobby shill so hard on this board?
>Just dump it in the ocean she'll be right
Lmao

>>12270722
>but muh evil green glow
Completely diluted it would unironically do fuck all.

>>12270448
So you're saying they'll net-reduce the irradiation of our oceans? Why haven't they released it sooner!?

We should send the radioactive waste with a rocket into space desu when it's economical

Just throw the nuclear waste in Middle East and Afghanistan, Pakistan

>>12270752
>risk a massive nuclear waste spill of epic proportion
Just bury it deep underground, you don't need to do anything else.

>>12264327
there is oil lobby and also "green"/renewable lobby, both of them using FUD to scare people. This is why even if fusion ever if happens it will not be allowed to go public until israel and arabs allow it

>>12269753
Also people tend to be reluctant to invest into nuclear since it frequently has the tendency to get shut down before it is even finished, which is a bit of a problem since you can't simply pack the whole thing up in bags and move it two miles down the road.


>>12270752
>throwing away valuable byproducts simply because you got scared shitless by a bit of radiation


>>12270771
Arabs would definitely want it, it is just that Israel doesn't want to let Arabs get it. They claim it's because of nuclear proliferation reasons, but the main thing is that having Arabs go away from oil-dependency means that they will prosper economically.

>>12264520
>capeshit

>>12270722
Because that is true, dumbass
Water is the most cost-effective radiation shield
When water absorbs radiation, it turns into Heavy water of deuterium

Heavy water does absolutely nothing to your body. You can literally drink it and it would do nothing but to be a fluid that you cannot digest.

Deuterium does not expel alpha partcles which is what makes Uranium-235 dangerous

But I guess you are too brainlet for this topic
Anyone who does not support nuclear is a brainlet by default

Is it true that fusion "only" generates 4-5 times more energy than fission?
If it is then I'm super pissed that nuclear fission isn't more widespread and perfected, our best energy source just left like that.

>>12271040
>Abundant energy: Fusing atoms together in a controlled way releases nearly four million times more energy than a chemical reaction such as the burning of coal, oil or gas and four times as much as nuclear fission reactions (at equal mass).

>>12271040
Is this what you were referring to?

>>12271040
>it true that fusion "only" generates 4-5 times more energy than fission
LMAO
No
Splitting a U-236 would result into a Ba and Kr which is lighter than the original by .08% because that mass was converted into energy
When you fuse 4H, the resulting He has a mass difference of .7% because said mass was also converted into energy

That's a massive 10x more efficiency

Now compare that to chemical reactions from coal and natural gas that converts less than 5.0x10^-11 into energy. Or .00000001% efficiency

It's absolutely impossible to study physics without feeling a strong sense of rage as you realize that the full potential of technology is being held back by ignorance and fear mongering from politicians and oil tycoons

And it is not difficult to find people who are far too brainwashed by propaganda. My own circle of friends entertain the idea despite the fact that I personally taught them how it works

Environmentalists are mentally ill.
They're pushing hard for defunding our nuclear programs just so they can shit out inefficient windfarms and solar panels all over the countryside.
Not only they shill for garbage alternatives but they shit up the only remaining good part of the country with their ideology.

>>12271105
Environmentalists are commies and the hopeless uphill battle of trying to go solar/wind only is what allows them to try to impose restrictions on people to control them.
They propose this method of power generation as a solution and then when it doesn't work out, they push restrictions on the way people live, which people accept thinking that this breach of their rights is a small price to pay to save nature. Of course, it doesn't save nature because this encroachment did not solve anything, so they go ahead with new energy proposals (spoiler alert: it's the exact same fucking thing) and new restrictions. And through this they grab power, make a bit of money on the side from the green lobby and expand the government's control over people's lives.

>heard the other day that combustion engines are maybe only 20% efficient
>mfw all that wasted energy, every day for 100 years

France is +90% nuclear powered and has only had a handful of minor accidents during all those decades.
Why is france never mentioned as nuclear power working?

Its the safest per TWh.

>>12271143
Well then you will be happy to hear that batteries are only around 50% efficient (ignoring the efficiency of the energy source it was charged up using, of course) and for solar cells the highest reached so far is 40%. Of course that is for special ones made in a laboratory that specifically built it for efficiency, which you won't have access to, and for ones available to you the efficiency is right around the same as for combution engines at 17%. The most expensive ones you can buy in the store will have a whopping 23% efficiency.

>>12266032
Fortunately what normies think has little to do with really gets done. The reason nuclear gets suppressed is the power of the coal industry. If the elites changed their minds on nuclear power, then the industry would grow.

>>12271165
Hydro looks safer on your graph.

>>12271211
Georgia has the largest and the fourth largest coal plants in the US. Georgia is also expanding Plant Vogtle, which will become the largest nuclear plant in the US when completed. Both are owned by Southern Company.

No, it's a good way of generating heat. The best way to generate electricity is with fuel cells, since
the electromotive force is derived directly from the atoms binding to each other and there are no moving parts involved.

>>12271237

Hydro is limited by available locations.

>>12271248
True but that doesn't make >>12271165 correct.

>>12270048
>It's nothing more than a short-term solution with disastrous effects in the long run as it is inefficient, highly polluting, demands too much rare minerals, and lives for just 20 years.
I know you. You can buy a PV panel and microinverter from Aliexpress right now and it will work. Nuclear? Too many bribes and briefcases involved.

We need LFTRs.

>>12271258
Vaporware. Not going to happen in US.

>>12265079
>Asking the public and government permission to build my reactor

>>12269877
>transportation
>a huge cost in every product
>heating
>the main cost in producing any metal or plastic and many chemical compounds
I'm sure it would be mostly meaningless.

>>12271086
>>12271040
It makes more energy but making the fusion process is still very impractical

>>12265887
Actually another good one is those fags in the spaceflight general always sucking musk's dick. Did you know that man intends to use solar panels (on Mars no less, further from the sun) to supposedly refuel his rocket to get home? This is done by electrolysis of water en-mass and then the Sabatier process to make methane. I remember doing the math for this and it isn't happening kek humanity isn't getting spaceflight until we get nuclear power in space.

>>12267091
It doesn't exist and even if it did.
Uranium- 200MEv/reaction about 4 mols per kilo (30$/kg)
Deuterium- 4MEv/ and you need two of them (4g/mol) (heavy water is 1000$/L)

But muh waste, that "waste" sells for 30k/g on the open market when reprocessed.

But other fusion, it's all more expensive than deterium. And your plants still become radioactive like fission does and with Ocean extracted uranium we have an infinite supply of that too. Fusions a meme and the money should be spent building fission reactors.

>>12265887
>it would instantly result into a massive pollution
Just like it happens when cars stop being used?

>>12269112
This

>>12270167
People will never understand that Edward teller was right. That "disturbingly real minute chance" is what stopped the boomers getting thrown into another meat grinder with the Soviets and keeps us civil with modern Russia, China, and vice versa. Heck even north Korea and syria was about to become a new place for Americas kids to die until they got protected by nukes. (Syria through Russian occupation) I don't give a fuck about soros's money making schemes or Exxons profits. We should leave other people alone. Now north Korea officially ended the Korean war and tensions are at an all time low.

The fact is I'll take weapons that sit in their silos being so horrific nobody ever uses them over a hot war any day of the week. I'm convinced that the antinuclear weapons movement is funded by warmongers.

>>12271331
This.
It's nice to think about how amazing it would be to harness all that energy, but until plasma physics progresses enough to do it at lower temperatures, you will continue have the problem of having to jump through a shitload of hoops just to ensure that it doesn't melt the walls of the reactor.


>>12271333
Musk in general is a fag that makes massive unrealistic promises and then does the absolute bare minimum to even do one percent of that. And then retards soak it up because to them that means he did what he said he would, continuing to praise him as the quirky meme science man.
>lol let's just throw teslas into a tunnel system and say we can shove 4000 teslas through them at 150 mph in a tunnel system where you can have only one car per tube, nobody will give enough of a damn to calculate whether that is even possible lmao
>oh yeah and we'll add teslas to it for the poorfags and the rides will cost $1 per trip
>only tunnel that is complete is the test tunnel and according to the website
>"Can I go in the tunnel?"
>"Due to unbelievably high demand, tours through the Hawthorne Test Tunnel are by invitation only."
>clearly, this will cost only $1 as promised if people can only enter by invitation


>>12271391
>I'm convinced that the antinuclear weapons movement is funded by warmongers.
That is because it is.
It is also by pushed by really any country that has nukes. Politicians claiming to be anti-nuclear are more than happy to announce that they will decomission maybe one or two ancient ones and then start talking about treaties everyone else has to sign too, but they never decomission all of them at once, even though they would absolutely have that power in their own country. Anti-nuke systems are also used as a weapon with how US tried to move its systems to Romania to ensure that the US can strike Russia without being struck back.

>>12267326

lol at using LOCE

some arguments which will jack up the initial CAPEX and OPEX and responses from normies

argument: Stability/Intermittence.
Response to this: Storage and Smart Grid

Argument after that: Economic cost of land and lost opportunity costs
Response: Use of wasteland, Solar+Argi, and Floating solar

Argument after that: Non-ecofriendly manufacturing and disposal processes
Response: Current processes far more eco-friendly than conventional energy sources (coal, oil, gas, nuclear). Improvements underway to make it more eco-friendly.

>>12267422
He did it while Superphenix was still in construction

>>12271105
Yeah, they are hypocrites who will never atone for their sins. They are responsible for several nuke plant construction closures which were replaced by coal fired plants.

>>12270722
I agree it's a dumb plan. Why waste all of that valuable tritium?

>>12271255
Yes, we get it.
Solar power allows you to be independent but by all means, the disadvantages are too high

>>12269662
> Just compare deaths per TWh between coal and nuke
Nobody cares about the death count. People are afraid of the potential for a single accident to cause large-scale environmental contamination. That is a legitimate problem with old nuclear. You cannot minimize that because it is real, and it is not comparable to coal because coal's environmental impact is gradual, not 0 to 100 in one day. When you talk about death count, it makes people think that the problem they actually care about hasn't been addressed, even though it has through passive safety.

>>12272100
70 years.
Nuclear Plants have run for 70 years without any deliberate incident.
The first incident killed only 1 person

Yet humanity suppresses its true potential out of fear and ignorance

>>12270255
Already responded to the other guy, but it bears repeating that nobody cares about death count. That is not the thing that scares people. And I have actually changed peoples minds in favor of nuclear because unlike you, I avoid making the completely unwinnable (by anybody, not just me or you) argument that Chernobyl or Fukushima are acceptable in any way. The reason nuclear is viable now is because modern plants can't do that.

>>12272100
>Nobody cares about the death count.
All that talk about nukes and radiation causing cancer? Nope, nothing to do with death, all to do with economics. Clearly nuke mcnukeface has some sort of bloodlust if all he can think about is death. Nobody ever said anything about death.

>>12272139
The fact that nuclear hasn't killed many people does absolutely nothing to mitigate the fears people have that a single accident can make a huge area toxic.

>>12272144
It's not even a single accident, but rather a fairly large cascade of accidents. Not even Chernobyl was "just a single accident".

>>12272151
People (correctly) don't view Chernobyl or Fukushima as worst-case scenarios, just a taste of what can go wrong. The problem with old plants is the *potential* for large-scale disasters.

>>12272132
>And I have actually changed peoples minds in favor of nuclear because unlike you

Whenever I talk to someone who is scared of nuclear power and I tell them that pollution from non nuclear energy kills way more people than accidents, they believe me. Then I tell them that france is 70% nuclear and they had no idea because they've never heard of a nuclear disaster in france. You're trying to convince me of your personally fantasy. People aren't like that, people are scared of nuclear power because they don't know any numbers or sense of proportion, they just know events. It's like if people only knew about accidents like the tenerlife airport disaster but had no figures on how safe air travel really is.

If you tell people modern plants will be accident free and they don't hear "new and improved chernobyl", good for you. But like air travel, there will be more unpredictable accidents because plants are complex systems. Notice how perception of nuclear power got way worse after fukushima after sentiment was improving? What's going to stop that from happening again? Notice how perception of air travel doesn't get worse after accidents? It's because people know their odds. If they didn't know their odds it wouldn't be much comfort to just tell them accidents don't happen to modern and future planes. That's not realistic.

The only time I'd convince someone of complete safety of nuclear power is molten salt reactors or fusion. But if we built a plant tomorrow that's not what they could build.

>>12272144
Just operating normally, fossil fuel plants make an even bigger area slightly toxic enough to kill way more people

>>12272226
That's very different from a single plant making a huge area uninhabitable over night.

>>12272396
Right, it's way more insidious because it happens over a long period of time and poisons the unsuspecting population over many generations.

>burning inefficient fossil fuels for power
>slowly poison the whole planet
>nah it's fine haha

>splitting goddamn atoms for power
>all waste is handled and processed
>NO THAT'S DANGEROUS

>>12265983
Yet. SPARC seems very promising.

>>12272396
Which is basically saying that sometimes, nuclear power steals a lot of land and costs a lot of money. Bad but hardly scary.

>>12272444
The only thing worse than anti nuclear fags is anti nuclear waste fags

Isn't it true that no one, literally no one, has ever been killed by the storage and transport of nuclear waste?

>>12272515
>Isn't it true that no one, literally no one, has ever been killed by the storage and transport of nuclear waste?
The thing with nuclear waste is that you will have to built and look after it for the next 10.000 years.

>>12272515
>>12272559
What's the likelihood of finding functional ways to reuse nuclear waste without the need to just bury/store it forever?

>>12272559
Most nuclear waste is unburned fuel. Nuclear fuel is basically ceramic uranium hockeypucks. As it's burned, these pucks get brittle and have to be replaced. This happens after just a few percent of the uranium in it has actually been burned. The vast majority of high level waste is fuel that had to be discarded because it went bad, basically. There are modern reactor designs that use liquid fuel, so you can burn all of it rather than throwing +90% away. These were dreamed up way back in the 60's or so, but they never actually got built because they couldn't be used to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. And now NIMBY faggots bitch and moan any time they hear the word nuclear.

Already exists
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
We just don't do it because it's cheaper to just make a new one than recycle

Other method is a Breeder Reactor that can use U-238 as fuel instead of U-235. The premise of it implies that nuclear power would turn into a real renewable energy.
Unfortunately, because common reactor is good enough, they gave up on it. China and India are the only ones still pursuing Breeder Reacts

>>12272590
meant for >>12272566

>>12272559
>The thing with nuclear waste is that you will have to built and look after it for the next 10.000 years.

Aren't we still talking about football field scales of waste currently? We could bury it in a mountain but state senators say no

Also if you believe climate change is an economic threat let alone a life endangering threat or an existential threat this becomes as controversial as a landfill

>>12272590
Well goddamn... I really wish the US would get our shit together with politicians who actively support nuclear and things like this.

>>12272396
What is a containment building?

>>12271333
mars has barely any protection from the sun so you actually get more energy. Solar is fine in space because the energy requirements are small enough but it's not adequate to power massive demands like cities.

>>12271391
The korean war turns into ww3 100% without nukes. Without nukes Russia doesn't distance themselves, China doesn't try to downplay its involvement, America decalres war on China and Russia declares war on Usa in return because of treaties.

>>12272590
don't we have enough u-235 on earth to power the planet for a million years? why would we need breeder reactors if it's not more economical.

>>12274163
Because the less we mine, the better for the environment
Because 99% of metal on Earth sank to the core.
Because unlocking humanity's true potential isn't fueled by "Why's" but by "Why not"s.

If we have breeder reactors, nuclear power would be so much easier to harvest than it already is. Imagine space colonies just mining asteroids for uranium without any need to enrich them

>>12274163
I don't know shit about shit but I heard with current sources at current consumption uranium is supposed to last something over 200 years

Of course it's like oil, where there's a deadline to "run out" but we just get the higher hanging fruit when prices go up

>>12274178
as far as i know we already have breeder reactors we just don't use them to make nuclear fuel because its more expensive then simply using the u-235 we have. Once that changes then we will do it but it's stupid to throw away money for no reason.

>>12274204
>200 years
Yeah, I'm gonna call BS on that.
Uranium is literally more common than silver

200 years with all the mines we got, sure. But unlike oil, this is literally everywhere. Including asteroids

>>12274204
i think that 200 year figure is specifically for cheap to mine uranium, once you factor in more expensive methods that will probably become cheaper with tech and time, that figure jumps by orders of magnitude. ie we arn't running out of uranium any time soon.

>>12264327
Partly fear of a nuclear accident, partly the fact that it has an industrial aesthetic instead of feeling "green" or "clean."

>>12274207
Nope.
It is possible to split U-238 but there exists no way to do it in a self-sufficient way. Especially not in an industrial scale

>>12264443
If you're going to call nuclear non-renewable you may as well call wind and solar non-renewable because the sun won't last forever.

>>12274219
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Fast_breeder_reactor

>Theoretical models of breeders with liquid sodium coolant flowing through tubes inside fuel elements ("tube-in-shell" construction) suggest breeding ratios of at least 1.8 are possible on an industrial scale.

>>12274228
wind and solar aren't even renewable and natural gas knows this, they pick up the slack. Even with both a windless night fucks you, batteries on a massive scale competing with EVs would be horrible for the environment.

>>12274243
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth_fairy

>>12274250
tooth fairy paid and so will fast breeders

>>12264327
>Is nuclear power by far the best way to generate electricity?
Yeah but only when its happening really far from us, like in the sun for example

>>12274250
? this isn't a theoretical fantasy, that's what we could currently achieve if we decided to do it on an industrial scale. There are already reactors in operation right now that have breeder ratios over 1.0.

>>12274219
What? CanDu reactors use unenriched fuel

>>12264327
Nuclear fission and fusion is the future

i love nuclear i want to cuddle a nuclear reactor lol

>>12274259
What about far our in the desert, like in Arizona?

>>12271361
>Ocean extracted uranium we have an infinite supply of that too
and explain me how at maybe 2 ppb it isn't a meme?

my city uses like 500k m3 of water/day and water treatment plant is roughly square kilometer and needs like 30MW

do you even imagine you would need to process ungodly amount of water to get even several tons.

>>12274178
>If we have breeder reactors
noooo, you can't advance technology, we must level up all those mountains to extract glowing rock, and use it as a heat source in outdated subcritical steam turbines

>>12264327
Fission, as it is now, has some unfortunate side effects we cant deal with correctly at the moment. like the waste. and yes, I know thorium-reactors produce little to zero waste with short half-lifes. but its still waste noone wants to have around.
fusion, yes. there is nothing better. the universe agrees with that.

>>12274756
If its on our planet then it's too close

>>12264443
The U.S. Navy has never had a nuclear accident, only commies have problems with nuke power.

>>12274259
Retard, the closer to the generator you are the better. Which is why solar is straight garbage.

>>12275270
>fusion, yes. there is nothing better.
Anti-Matter reactors, black holes radiators, vaccum energy constructions and other unknown might be better than fusion but for the next centuries it will be fusion until we might set anti-matter reactors on Mercury and the Gas planets. A few centuries after that we might see us developing black holes for energy storage/creation but for the sensible, realistic purposes fusion is indeed the best we have.

>>12275270
>has some unfortunate side effects we cant deal with correctly at the moment. like the waste.

What is your metric for correctly? What bad things have happened from this "incorrect" dealing with waste?

>>12265281
No one wants a wind farm in their backyard either

>>12275602
Or a hydroelectric dam to flood the entire valley in which you built your house in.

Apparently (according to a /sci/ poster) a company called Helion has developed an aneutronic reactor that produces its own He3 in the process and they've gone radio silent for a launch "soon".
Anyone else heard of this, or is it a Peter Thiel scam?

>>12275453
Some tabloids got really wound up?

>>12275452
>fusion is indeed the best we have.
the best we can currently hope for
we don't have it yet
ITER is at least started, though.

>>12264381
You can blame it on past government actions, instead they calm down the peoples they stimulated dread and fear before such accidents.

>>12275801
also an almost perfect lack of education on even the basics of nuclear reactors.

>>12264327
Reactor designs stuck in the 50's navy and covered in so much paperwork you could use it as a radiation shield in case of a meltdown and surrounded by quasi spiritual fear of the devil.

Dead on arrival.

>>12275913
Well, looks some governments think the nuclear fission energy sounds like an prototype of a little value and dangerous.

>>12264443
>>12265939
>t.

>>12264443
>giving millions of people cancer
this has to be Bait

>>12275735
Looks alot like Z-pinch fusion unless I'm completely mistaken. Conversion of linear motion energy into electricity is very nice. I believe Z-pinch works with deuterium only fusion, and is thus infinitely better than deuterium tritium fusion.

>>12275928
Well as long as the democrats don't win this election the deregulation and funding support that nuclear has received the past couple of years in this administration, all hope might not be lost.

>>12271320
RIP

>>12274789
We don't actually need to process the water, we have an aldoximine resin that can selectively and reversibly bind to Uranium yielding about 6g/kg of resin fibers per run at a cost of about 500$/kg. This is super expensive but shows we can basically consider nuclear power a renewable now.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149197017300914

>>12277347
I miss David Hahn so fucking much. I idolized him as a kid growing up and deeply regret not writing him a letter when I had the chance.

This thread seems to be going very well, before we hit the bump limit would a Nuclear physics/power general be worth starting?

>>12277421
I would participate

>>12277421
Hopefully it'll be more about reactor tech and nuclear science, rather than the same old arguments back and forth "is nook gud??? "

>>12265488
Are you saying radioactive cool waters?.!
is?

As far as I can tell it is a good source of energy but it is not the silver bullet for climate change, not least because only 25% or so of our GHG emissions come from the electricity grid. I think a lot of nuclearbros are fetishizing it right now because 1) there's a thrill in feeling one to be ahead of the curve of normie opinion and 2) there's a perception (false) that it will solve climate change without anyone having to make any tough decisions or compromises. Point 2 is also what population fetishists do, somehow framing 'dont breed' or 'dont exist' as being more ""realistic"" than 'dont eat burger' when in reality an American citizen changing their diet could have more impact on GHG emissions than a sub-Saharan African ceasing to exist outright.

This video makes a good case for using both renewables and nuclear, as opposed to just one or the other:
https://youtu.be/k13jZ9qHJ5U

>>12277509
>>12277421
Same.


>>12277606
>rather than the same old arguments back and forth "is nook gud??? "
It would most likely still have a fair amount of that, but undoubtedly there will be discussion about tech.

>>12278141
>an American citizen changing their diet could have more impact on GHG emissions than a sub-Saharan African ceasing to exist outright.
I think the last part is more in the vein of killing two birds with one stone.

>>12270373
>pressurized tube with cable that can go for god fucking knows how long if made thick
Vs
>active nitrogen cooling costy shit that'll probably break when thawed from power cuts

>>12270373
>Pressurized 10cm thick steeltube that can hold room temp supraconductor
vs
>Active nitrogen cooled shitty regular pressure supraconductor that breaks and dies from being unthawed during a power cut

>>12278184
>>12278190
Fuck, posted twice

>>12278184
>>12278190
>tube made from a material that can withstand a minimum of 260 GPa pressure
or
>literally just fucking cool it down with liquid nitrogen

>>12277421
I would be there sine I am trapped on this site anyways

>>12278141
That video is full of inaccuracies
>only 25% or so of our GHG emissions come from the electricity grid
While that might be true, its still a very dumb argument against nuclear
-district heating
-industrial production: steel, fertilizer, recycling, water desalination
Both can be electrified or use high temperature reactors. Transportation can be electrified, or switched to synthetic fuels or hydrogen.
So saying it's not a silver bullet is simply the last argument solar and wind fags have left against nuclear

>>12279346
It is true that additional sectors can be partially electrified but vehicles, buildings, infrastructure, manufacturing, etc are made out of physical materials other than pure energy. Transport for example involves taking every non-electric vehicle off the road which is a lot harder than the grid situation where you just change the source and the end user doesn't notice. There is also food which accounts for 25% of global GHGs and this is largely to do with the biological properties of food production rather than the technology used to make and transport it.

I am pro nuclear but the problem is enormously more complicated than just setting up some new power stations.

Why not solar?
>t. Panel installer

Why not solar?
>t. Panel installer

>>12280651
Solar is okay for small scales like individual homes, but the efficiency is not there for powering entire cities.

Can't nuclear ships diveet their power to cities? Why not just have floating plants servicing coastal cities?

>>12264504
>>12264519
>>12270273
Wrong. Chernobyl happened because they literally caused it through incompetence. It wasn't caused by the out dated design or any technical fault. They literally put the reactor onto meltdown when they were doing routine safety checks by pressing the wrong buttons...

>>12280673
Positive void coefficient

>>12280808

>>12280813

>>12280817

>>12280820

>>12280825
TL;DR

Solar completely and utterly btfo

>>12280667
Sucks for both. Solar is less efficient when used on individual houses, and the grid isn't really design to feed surplus power back right now.

Would work great on cities, if the city is next to an area with a lot of open land with clear weather.

>>12280672
I don't know shit about shit but I just read we don't worry about loss of nuclear subs/ships because they have the infinite cooling of the ocean + they sink to the bottom so it's not like material is carried by surface currents

So I guess it begs the question why not build your reactor submerged in a lake. I'm sure people smarter than me thought of that and realized why it's a bad idea or not necessary..

>>12280673
>It wasn't caused by the out dated design or any technical fault.

Let's build a reactor with no containment structure. Then let's use a moderator that accelerates the reaction before it decelerates it.

Hey guess what, humans are literally a component and part of the design of your power plant. It can't work without them. Saying it was just a human error and nothing needs to be done except use better humans next time is no different from having bad software and using better software next time.

>>12280878
>I'm sure people smarter than me thought of that and realized why it's a bad idea or not necessary..
Building nuclear reactors is already hideously expensive, building them submerged (or submerging them after the fact) would be even more so. Also the other benefit (e.g. nuclear material not escaping where people actually live) isn't true with lakes where water does go into the ground water, local rivers and surface water for fish and shit

>>12280954
But on that second part, if you had a submerged reactor + containment, and you can get water to the core and spent rods with just gravity and no pumps, how would the containment get damaged to contaminate the water?

Assuming water doesn't get irradiated when used as a coolant right? Does it have to be processed or is it just released back into the water source?

>>12281008
Well when I hit submit I remembered terrorism

>>12281008
If you are assuming nothing will go wrong then you don't need to put them into a lake in the first place.

>>12281020
I was asking because they couldn't get water at fukushima because all their sources of electricity got fucked. Frustrating that they are right there by an ocean that just had a tsunami come through

>>12281048
I know why you were asking and I explained why it was a dumb idea.

>>12281060
cool

God i love being French

>>12264327

Because thorium exists.

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/thorium-a-solution-for-nuclear-power-thorium_TK6NRIovQrbTCgh.html

>>12282610
>people who are against nuclear power even know what thorium is

>>12264552
U233 is also naturally occurring in tiny amounts. U235 is more like 0.4%.
Half-life is inversely related to emission, yea, but that doesn't tell the whole story. A large (relative) amount of something with a long half life can still kill you.

>>12283904
>A large (relative) amount of something with a long half life can still kill you.
Also, isotopes with long half lives often transform into things with short half lives, and vice versa through the decay process.

Anyway good luck arguing with these guys. They're financially invested in nuclear so they'll continually tell half-truths or even outright lie to get what they need.

>>12282610
Thorium is shit tier for fusion reactions vs uranium with vastly lower power yields. The waste generated is a non issue. Thoriumtards do the bidding of antinuclear advocates for them by conceding falsehoods.

>>12283958
>fusion
fission*

Autocorrect

>>12272587
>>12272590
Thanks for informing people, I expected to be posting this once I finished reading the thread.
>t. nuke
>>12274219
wrong
>>12274789
>>12275270
Uninformed. Look into PUREX and it's derivatives if you're that concerned over sourcing fissionable isotopes, or waste. Post-reprocessing, all that's left are minor Actinides and some other fission products, none of which have a halflife anywhere NEAR that of Pu or U in the fuel.
>>12275735
I wouldn't doubt at all that design principle working to produce fusion. Fortunately, we have had fusion for decades. The issue is harnessing any of the energy it produces. Currently I think the best result has been about 50% efficiency of input to output with one of ITER's systems.

>>12283958
But what about the pressure and cooling and space requirements?

>>12283958
I wouldn't call it shit tier, in a fast spectrum reactor it is quite useful. When you aren't dealing with the complications of filtering process like with thermal MSR thorium can be just as good as uranium. Also if the cost of uranium ends up getting too high.

https://youtu.be/vxdqtAcz8hQ

>>12270749
Reread the post again carefully anon