/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12639927
>nuclear is too dangerous
no

>>12639930
yes, nuclear contains gluten

>>12639927
>>nuclear is too dangerous
Oh no... it's retarded

>>12639930
>>12639939
>produces nuclear waste
>obvious target during wartime
>becomes exponentially dangerous if there's a societal collapse and no one to maintain them

>>12639949
Bury it under a mountain of concrete, stone and gravel in the mirror nowhere.

Problem solved.

>>12639949
>>produces nuclear waste
Very easy to store safely, unlike emissions from natural gas.

>>obvious target during wartime
So obvious that no one has targeted them during war.

>>becomes exponentially dangerous if there's a societal collapse and no one to maintain them
Not modern reactors.

>>12639974
>Very easy to store safely
Until someone in the future gets curious and decides to dig nuclear waste up.

>unlike emissions from natural gas.
Emissions that will totally end the world any day now.

>So obvious that no one has targeted them during war.
No country with nuclear reactors has been in a large conventional war recently, with the exception of Armenia, which if it had its reactors targeted by Azerbaijan then Azerbaijan would also have to deal with the effects of a destroyed reactor.

>Not modern reactors.

>>12639974
>>12640002
>Not modern reactors.
What about the ancient reactors still in use.

>>12640007
what are you going to do about them now, fag

>>12640002
>Until someone in the future gets curious and decides to dig nuclear waste up.
By your logic we should ban solid waste landfills and burn all of our trash

Take the thermosolar pill

>>12639939
>Solar (rooftop)
LMAO.

>>12639949
Bitch. You can bomb a nuclear plant all you want and it won't explode because that's not how it works
It's uranium rods are at 5-20% enrichment.

Can you make a biobomb using your fecal matter? That's the level we are talking about

>>12641824
There are very real problems with nuclear.
If you don't have thorium reactors (we don't), you have to deal with the consequences of potential nuclear proliferation.
And it's just not feasible to run the entire world on nuclear, considering the great time and cost required to build and decommission nuclear plants. You would need about 15k plants worldwide and you would need to build a new one every other day.
That's not to say that we shouldn't have more nuclear reactors, but it's not the final solution to energy.

>>12641864
Nah it is.
10% of the world electricity comes from nuclear
There are only 400 nuclear plants
You need only 4000 to power the entire earth

For comparison: All the world's energy plants are at 65,000
That's a HUGE savings at both expenses and carbon emission

>>12639927
At the current moment you may be correct but that isn't a reason to not improve the other methods to be superior to NG or at least compliment it.

>>12641876
Your average nuclear plant makes ~1gw. The world uses about 15 terawatts. That's 15k plants.

>>12641898
Source bitch

>>12641898
Well ok, but it still depends on the size of the plant.
Fukushima was at 4.5gw

>>12641906
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%20has%20been%20powering,power%20per%20plant%20on%20average.

nuclear fusion or bust

>>12639927
>Earth braps are the only way to go
No. Geothermal.

>>12642254
In 20 years

Since 1950

>>12642267
No!
Deep geo have caused quite a LOT of Earthquakes and destabilized plenty of lands

It's only good if it's on shallow and easy access like hotsprings and geysers

>>12639939
/thread
nuclear is objectively the safest form of power. the problem with it is the massive startup costs. that can be ameliorated with state subsidies but short-sighted government western governments won't act in the best interest of the world because of 'muh radiation'.
>>12639949
if there's social collapse who fucking cares what happens? we're all going to die in that scenario anyway, regardless of what happens with nuclear power plants.

>>12642284
Problem is that nuclear is still nonrenewable.

1. Hydropower

>>12639949
>>obvious target during wartime
as opposed to, you know, a massive hydro dam or natural gas pipes/plants or coal plants?

>>12642292
2. Geothermal

>>12642289
>Problem is that nuclear is still nonrenewable.
the sun is not renewable either

>>12642289
It is, actually
It's called Nuclear Reprocessing which allows spent fuel to be recycled.

The reason they don't do it is because it's cheaper to just make new ones

>>12642292
>>12642298
Ya'll both danger to nature.

Once Fusion arrives, all forms of energy source goes bye bye

The solution is either nuclear or reducing the population by half.

>>12639949
The amount of waste is pretty negligeable.
In 2010 we had 250k tonnes of nuclear waste.
For comparison the Empire State Building is 365k tonnes.
Even if it's 5 times this amount in 2020,It's still pretty fucking manageable to bury in a remote location somewhere..

>>12642401
I suggest we start a global pandemic and not really lock people up, and just let the most retarded and poorest die.
They statistically have the lowest probability of creating someone who would benefit humanity.
Between every bright mind and another, there is a million criminals, beggers, druggies, and other degens.

>>12642289
It is. You can still produce energy with nuclear waste.

>>12642411
I would assume that those nuclear waste are 70 years old?

>>12642418
Yes, but you can't really reuse the same waste infinitely many times, and there is also the processing part to really use nuclear waste.

>>12642598
You can, actually
We do it with tritium vials which has a half life of 10 years
Uranium has over 100k years

Basically, create a glass vial, line it with phosphorus
Fill it with tritium gas
Radiation from tritium causes phosphorus to glow. Since Tritium is beta radioactive, it can be contained in the glass
Enjoy your glowing glass that can produce light for solar panels nonstop

Uranium is alpha (easier to contain) but depleted uranium has too many impurities that maybe gamma radioactive (can penetrate a meter of lead)
But given the option, you can do the same with it

Inuclear waste aren't real waste
They are nuclear fuel that became too diluted for safe and predictable results

>>12642619
So refuel the waste with tritium gas? That still doesn't solve the core issue. Doesn't it? You're just taking the issue one layer higher.

>>12642878
It ain't infinite but it would outlive human civilization.
Really inefficient and worth only for lab experiments but improvements can be made

>>12639949
>societal collapse
Let me guess. Trump won by a landslide too?

>>12642969
It's something, but we need to figure it out faster, because the current deposits of uranium would not even last us a 100 years if we started powering the entire world with it..

>>12643002
*Current deposits located.
Uranium is more abundant than silver.

It ain't running out soon. If you want more security, you can mine it on asteroids. Or do fusion

>>12639927
Burning used plastics and waxes in an industrial incinerator with a modern filtration system for exhaust fumes is a good source of power.

>>12644820
That's literaly the entire pont of water treatment plants

70% of their power comes from incinerated garbage + the filtered crap are sold to industrial factories

>>12642979
Not the guy who posted that but go back to red*it please. Nigger

>>12639953
Just tow it outside the environment.

>>12639927
Nuclear kills the least amount of people per kilowatt hour.

>>12645005
Assmad that your daddy didn't accomplished his promises, little hillbilly?

>>12639927
>nuclear
>too dangerous
Lol retard, just kill yourself.

>>12642302
That's not what that means. You remove the spent fuel from the unspent fuel so you can use more than 1% of it. It doesn't make more fuel.

The energy in fossil fuels and renewables ultimately comes from the sun. The Earth receives more energy in an hour than humans use in all forms over a year so clearly the sun is robust enough to power human civilization until our power needs are thousands of times what they are now.

Over the last few years I've been excited about optical rectennas which have been demonstrated to convert sunlight to electricity with ~90% efficiency, but the biggest issue with solar panels isn't the efficiency it's the energy storage. To that end I've been becoming more interested in transradiative devices which beam energy out into space in order to generate usable power. They work better at night, but generate power constantly. Devices have been built that can generate an average of 50W per square meter which means that their daily power generation is already on par with PV.

>>12639949
Ah, yes, lets fire our nuclear weapons at the nuclear facility.

>>12642411
Fun fact, coal releases more radioactive isotopes into the environment (due to the trace amounts in coal) by far than nuclear power ever has, including Chernobyl etc.

>>12642979
>>12646174
Why would you think a Trump supporter would be anti-nuclear? You're the only one here talking about Orange Man. Fuck off.

>>12642979
>societies have never collapsed before

>>12639927
Coal but it must be improved

>>12647809
No!

>>12647809
The worst possible answer.