/sci/ - Science & Math

like bro its really bad for the environment if we keep using nuclear energy my children and your children will glow like those damn cia niggers

>>12648245
Come back and notify us when it's financially viable

>>12648245
Do me a favor and obey the 1 million meters social distancing rule for giant fucks.

i only support nuclear fusion

I don't want you fags blowing through all of our space fuel for the same shit we get en masse from the sun.

>>12648252
so it's supposedly financially inviable but we built multiple plants that work to produce power? Power that is given a price? Gtfo

E=mc^2

If you do not know how to use this equation, then you know nuclear only based on Simpsons

Nuclear is the foundation of energy production and humanity is bound to use it if it plans to escape and propagate

>>12648245
I don't have a choice in supporting it. There's an extra charge on my power bill each month for the construction of new reactors at Plant Vogtle.

>>12648320
If it's so profitable then why aren't there more reactors being built?

Expensive and obsolete

>>12648320
>During Vogtle's first two units construction, capital investment required jumped from an estimated $660 million to $8.87 billion.[1] ($16.2 billion in 2019 dollars[2])
>The certified construction & capital costs incurred by Georgia Power for new units 3 & 4 were originally $14 billion but have risen to $26 billion.

>>12648346
There are 50 announced ready in the next 5 years

>>12648357
In shitholes, sure.
But this thread is about why *we* aren't supporting nuclear and I assume none of us are posting from China.

FUSION WHEN

>>12648370
>https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
Out of 50, I counted 9 new in UK, Findland, Russia, USA, Korea, and France.

Bear in mind that it takes only 1 nuclear reactor to do the workload of dozen coal plants. Finland is 20% nuclear = 2 nuclear plants

>>12648378
If your country is building nuclear power plants then good for you but it will never be viable to build a nuclear power plant in my country due to politics and social stigma. The amount of time and money needed to un-brainwash the population is unfeasible.

>>12648252

>>12648378
>Bear in mind that it takes only 1 nuclear reactor to do the workload of dozen coal plants.

>>12648393
Look at the capacity factor
Also, no. The average nuclear plant produces 1GW. Average coal is 500MW

>>12648390
>Ebola
Ride the tiger amirite my fellow enlightened spaghetti-dick Luigi?

>>12648245
Might as well skip the temporary solution, and start investing in the long-term solutions. 10tn invested in fission, is 10tn not invested in battery/solar/wind/fusion tech.

>>12648405
Fusion, sure.
Solar and wind? Nah.

>>12648252
Hey anon. Remember when you told me to come back when nuclear was financially viable? Well, the wait is over.

>>12648405
Solar and wind are wastes of resources and will litter the landscape at a net loss.

>>12648401
No i think hes a retarded fag but he is 100% right in that excerpt. DA ECONOMY is the new religion of you idiots

Don't know if you guys are interested but
We are making a physics-based webcomic in an attempt to educate people about it and hopefully make them aware of the fear mongering that is being fed to them

Fusion-chan was posted here
>>>12642308

>>12648422
You can daydream about different ideologies but you have to face reality and swallow the fact that the economy is the only thing universally understood in modern society
If you don't like it then go build your own society, anon

>>12648433
Right, which is why we must be stuck with coal and oil, because it is so damn cheap, right?

Kindly fuck off, brainlet

>>12648441
Yes. If it's so vital to wean off coal and gas then there should be financial incentive to do so. Industry will always go down the most profitable path.

>>12648446
Long term benefit of nuclear faaaaaaaaaaar surpasses whatever economic gain you have in mind

>>12648411
>yeah man, they'll feel pretty stupid when they run out of air and sunlight, causing those things to be a waste of unrecyclable material

>>12648398
>500 * 12 = 1000
Nice math you have there. By any chance does your skin reflect less light than most Fins?

>>12648455
Do you have any idea how much maintenance they require

>>12648446
>>12648433
lmao yup, new religion. Can't even fathom something outside of its axioms

>>12648457
Add in the capacity factor

>>12648461
>Do you have any idea how many things require maintenance? (hint: all of them)

>>12648468
Acres of land
Dozens of 100m towers
vs
1 plant

>>12648468
Yeah the millions upon millions of these complex engineering marvels we'll need for partial power coverage is totally worth it instead of getting fusion up

>>12648472
The towers require less maintenance and provide cheaper power, just because big numbers scare you doesn't mean big number bad.

>>12648446
Nuclear is the most profitable by far. It's just has heavy upfront costs due to red tape, plus everyone starts wanting a piece of the pie and suddenly building a wall is a $30 million project. You more or less need a dictatorship to get nuclear to a good state where it can support large civilizations.

>>12648476
Looooooooool

Look at the amount of towers here>>12648474

They seriously found those turbines super susceptible to damage from dust and ice. Every 2 weeks, they climb and patch it. Each

For 20 years

>>12648477
>You more or less need a dictatorship
Kind of a big ask in non-shithole countries.

>>12648492
France is 70% nuclear

>>12648499
I said non-shithole countries

>perfect fusion
>use up all molecular hydrogen in atmosphere after 5 years
>start splitting water
>time goes by
>running out of water
>O fugggg

>>12648502
The Sun would go supernova before you even uses up half the water of the world for energy

>>12648499
Paid for by the military

>>12648500
haha
you so funny exdee

>>12648480
Why do you lie?
Annual maintenance of a modern wind turbine is 1.5-2% of the initial cost btw.

>>12648536
The hell you mean lie?
This is literally a common knowledge in engineering, especially aerodynamics.

And that's not all
A wind turbine slows down wind by as much as 40%
Which means that after the first turbine, the next turbine would perform less, causing a domino effect where on hogs all the energy source.

Which makes large wind farms completely idiotic. Which makes sustainable energy production impossible
Which makes coal and gas necessary just to supplement its abundance of failures

LOOOOOOOOOOOL
Green energy is a fucking meme
You don't know shit about energy, bitch


P. Fucking S
A wind turbine costs the SAME as an oil well but produces 1/4 the annual energy

>>12648555
Lay of the facebook you fucking moron.

>>12648329
>E=mc^2
the implications are big but most reactors aren't efficient at all (30-40%) and nuclear fuel is thrown away before it's completely depleted. you also spend a good amount of energy for enrichment and all the things associated with nuclear reactors and the process.
also don't forget that most uranium on earth is inaccessible (trace and ions in ocean). people read that there is 40 tons of uranium which gives something zetta joules and get excited when in reality it's much much less than that

>>12648590
Wow. So cool. So smart
Amazing

>>12648599
Yeah, whatever. Do you know how to use the equation?

>>12648245
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>12648604
mass defect * (3E8)^2 = energy in joules
mass defect = fission products mass - fission reactants mass
or you can just calculate the difference in binding energy per nucleus and use it instead of the mass defect, same result

>>12648630
Took you 20 mins to research that?

You simply googled how to calculate the energy source. You have no idea of the true nature of energy, what it is, how it equates to mass, and how E=mc^2 came to be

Face it. You are a fool

The future of mankind lies to the power that utilizes the fundamental core of physics

>>12648647
>20 minutes
i am not wasting my entire day waiting for some faggot to responds
>You simply googled how to calculate the energy source. You have no idea of the true nature of energy
bro i literally learned this in high school, it's not forbidden or difficult or deep knowledge. it's literally just atoms have different mass per nucleon because of binding energy and this mass is released on fusion/fission

>>12648663
>bro i literally learned this in high school
read:
>bro i am literally in high school and learning this stuff rn

>>12648245
Its not needed yet

>>12648252

>>12648693
try 2nd year undergrad. just lmaoing at you for thinking that the mass-energy equation is difficult or impressive.
just wondering, are you american?

>>12648663
>bro i literally learned this in high school, it's not forbidden or difficult or deep knowledge.
confirm, Yr11 age 16.

>>12648663
>bro i literally learned this in high school, it's not forbidden or difficult or deep knowledge.
confirmed.
Yr11 age 16.

>>12648245
>implying i dont

>>12648506
So, never?

>>12648506
>implying energy use isn't going to exponentially increase after humans figure fusion
life in general goes against the arrow of time and laws of physics. it's just a matter of time before entropy ends us all

>>12648423
Sounds interesting. Where can I view it when it is done?

>>12648423
>We?
are you ECHS?

>>12648423
>We?
are you HIVE?

>>12648599
>30% not efficient
Guess we should stop using solar panels too because of their poor efficiency as well, same with wind turbines and actually any energy production
>nuclear fuel is completely depleted
Not at all, in countries not the US they reprocess their fuel and reuse it. The only reason the US doesn't is because of retarded fears of weaponizing it.
>most uranium is inaccessible
Ahh so your small brain also doesn't understand the economics of mineral extraction. That bullshit about how were going to run out of uranium is the same bullshit of how we were going to run out of oil 30 years ago. As the price of uranium goes up, then it becomes more viable to search for more uranium, then new technology is developed for that extraction, then, surprise, more uranium becomes accessible

>>12649186
>>30% not efficient
>>nuclear fuel is completely depleted
this is just to point out that uranium isn't as great as raw numbers would suggest
>Ahh so your small brain also doesn't understand the economics of mineral extraction. That bullshit about how were going to run out of uranium is the same bullshit of how we were going to run out of oil 30 years ago. As the price of uranium goes up, then it becomes more viable to search for more uranium, then new technology is developed for that extraction, then, surprise, more uranium becomes accessible
are you fucking retarded? trace uranium and uranium ions in ocean can't be viably extracted under any circumstances.

>>12649186
The fag was lying
Nuclear Plants have an efficiency rating of 90%
And Uranium is mad cheap and on the level of Tin in terms of being common

>>12648663
>it's literally just atoms have different mass per nucleon because of binding energy
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
What a fool

>>12649063
Search for "Quantum Festival" after 3 weeks, I think

We should be uploading them per week on meme sites and webcomic sites like Tapastic

>>12648245
Where do we put them all? They're super noisy and smelly. I don't want to live near one.
>Not in my backyard

>>12648378
It also only takes one meltdown to poison a whole city.

>>12649302
There's only 2 incidents in 70 years
1 was deliberate

There's been 200 oil spills just last year

>>12649302
Based retard.

>>12648245
I support literally anything that doesn't involve increasing our greenhouse gas output. Including putting prisoners on wheels to generate electricity

i have never seen anyone with more hard opinions and lack of knowledge in everything except what they are advocating for than nuclearfags. it's almost as if they are paid shills but that's probably not the case because the nuclear sector barely has any funds haha

>>12649368
You don't even know what energy is.

>>12649336
What about all the methane that would create?

>>12648245
solar and windfags seething

>>12648663
>it's literally just atoms have different mass per nucleon because of binding energy and this mass is released on fusion/fission

You could have been less hilarious if you just said "God particle"

>>12648398
you realize that capacity factor is a bad thing right?
NG and coal are lower because they can actually spin up and spin down to meet demand. Nuclear is high because they literally can't change their output whatsover.

>>12649368
even if they had money there's no way they would actually do something as smart as buy shills. The nuclear industry's incompetence is legendary

>>12650630
Stop replying to yourself

>>12650606
>Capacity factors allow energy buffs to examine the reliability of various power plants. It basically measures how often a plant is running at maximum power. A plant with a capacity factor of 100% means it’s producing power all of the time.

>Nuclear has the highest capacity factor of any other energy source—producing reliable, carbon-free power more than 92% of the time in 2016. That’s nearly twice as reliable as a coal (48%) or natural gas (57%) plant and almost 3 times more often than wind (35%) and solar (25%) plants.

>>12650636
>NO ITS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE THAT TWO PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME EXIST!!! THIS NUCLEAR HATING DEVIL MUST BE REPLYING TO HIMSELF!!!!!!
grow up

>>12650606
>Nuclear power plants had a 9% share of the total U.S. generation capacity in 2019 but actually produced 20% of the country’s electricity due to its high capacity factor.
Get it now?

>>12649368
The irony of this post is palpable.

>>12650641
Says literally nothing because in that page it tells you how it's calculated earlier. NG and coal don't spend half the year under maintenance that's fucking retarded. They just spin up and spin down to meet demand, and save fuel. Nuclear literally can't do that and will give away electricity/ dump it into the ground If it has to.

>>12650658
Nuclear Plants are just steam engines that does not use coal, you retarded shit

>>12650662
Do you understand that electrical demand isn't static? If you build enough plants to supply peak, then you're literally lighting all that money on fire for the other 90% of the day. Which is especially bad considering how expensive nuclear plants are.

>>12648245
I’m not familiar with new advents in nuclear engineering. How are we disposing of nuclear waste nowadays?

>>12650674
Yeah, whatever.
Coal, natural gas, and nuclear all has the same principle. And you say that Nuclear can't do what they can?

Shut the fuck up

>>12650682
>Dude just add more fuel rods it works for coal!
Funniest shit I've seen in this entire thread

>>12650689
You don't even know what a fuel rod is

>>12650682
There is less demand for electricity this very moment. I don't want to waste fuel. Let me just turn off physics (ie: nuclear decay) within all these expensive fuel rods until demand increases. That's how it works right?

>>12650693
Apparently you definitely don't if you think you can just pull half of them out to maintain half the reaction like a coal plant.

>>12650674
You realise there's control rods for that reason? I'll let you guess what these control rods control.

>>12650710
Easy dude just stick them in half way and you get half the heat right! Damn so easy

>>12650703
>>12650706
Fuel rods are controleld by control rods made of graphene, xenon, and berilium which absorbs neutrons and shut down nuclear reactions

If demand is low, they lower the fuel rods like a lid on an open flame.. If demand is high, they lift it

Shut the fuck up, dumbass

>>12650714
Yes, precisely how it works

>>12650714
Yes.

>>12650710
kek
*sorry for butting in, had to laugh.

>pointing out the obvious

I'm scared of the reactor smoke, wind is superior.

As you can see. The only ones who hate nuclear are those who don't know nuclear

>>12650732
You mean the people who don't want to pay five times as much for power.

>>12650737
France electric grid is 76% lower than Germany
Guess why

>>12648245
>he made another nuclear shill thread

>>12648346
Because America is a corporatist hellhole. The DoE should directly build and run nuclear plants, private companies never will because it's not profitable.

>>12650715
>>12650717
>>12650720
now explain to the class how this saves you money

>>12650715
Ah yes, upon introducing inert rods to absorb radiation, the sources of radiation stop emitting radiation. There's no reaction happening within the fuel rods themselves to emit radiation in the first place, none whatsoever. Fuel rods become inert themselves after being around inert control rods.

>>12650748
>He thinks subsidies don't cost money
Everyone point and laugh

>>12650758
Yes. No chain reaction. No reaction

>>12650760
You don't even know what subsidies are

>>12650758
>Ah yes, upon introducing frictional elements to absorb kinetic energy, the sources of kinetic energy stop combusting. There's no combustion happening within the combustion chambers themselves to rotate the shafts in the first place, none whatsoever. Combustion chambers become inert themselves after being around inert frictional elements.
So we should just cut off the engine instead of stepping on the brake if you're trying to slow down a car, is that what you're saying?

Imagine telling a kid that the shadow is not a monster.
This is how this thread reads like

>>12650758
You want to stop something. You jam it with a piece of wood.
You want to stop a nuclear reaction. You jam it with a neutron absorber

>>12650779
Cutting off the engine isn't an option, and using the breaks still uses gas (so costs money).

>>12650800
Wait, you're pretending to be a retard for (you)s aren't you you little fuckhead

>>12650800
Control rods are literally kept floating through electromagnets. It costs to keep it floating
.
If the electricity fails, the control rods fall and shut down everything

>>12650792
Good to know. You just solved the nuclear waste problem! You absolute genius! Why didn't anyone think of just turning off the radioactive elements?!

>>12650768
Tax exemptions. Next?

>>12650804
No he's totally right, you can operate a nuclear plant at lower capacity, but it doesn't actually save you money. In fact it actually costs more as cooling off and heating up causes thermal stresses in the reactor, and doesn't actually make your fuel last longer.

>Load following is the potential for a power plant to adjust its power output as demand and price for electricity fl uctuates throughout the day. In nuclear power plants, this is done by inserting control rods into the reactor pressure vessel. This operation is very inefficient as nuclear power generation is composed almost entirely of fixed and sunk costs; therefore, lowering the power output significantly does not reduce generating costs and the plant is thermo-mechanical stressed.

>The economic consequences of load-following are mainly related to the reduction of the load factor. In the case of nuclear, fuel costs represent a small fraction of the electricity generating cost, if compared with fissile sources. Thus, operating at higherload factors is profitable for nuclear power plants, since they cannot make savings on the fuel cost while not producing electricity. In France, the impact of load-following on the average unit capability factor is sometimes estimated as about 1.2%.

>>12650808
You don't even understand radiation

>>12650812
Tax exemptions are not subsidies, idiot

>>12648245
>>he calls himself a nuclear supporter, but doesn't support a carbon tax or other regulations on carbon emissions
Explain yourself, faggot

>>12650869
Can we not just skip the bullshit and make everything nuclear powered?

>>12650872
why would we do that when natural gas is so cheap? BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>12650858
Today I learned; if you surround a radioactive substance with control rods, that radioactive substance stops being radioactive entirely, as if that substance were never radioactive in the first place. I guess I now know everything about radiation now.

>>12650872
That would require complete state control of the energy sector, which is kind of a hard sell to most Americans, but if you think you can pull it off go for it.

>>12650882
Yes. A lid on a pot

>>12650883
Not really?
Nuclear batteries and tritium are available for retailers

>>12650890
man why even call it a half life when you can just shove control rods next to something?

>>12650890
What is the nuclear weak force for 500?

>>12650899
why would they adopt them?

>>12650861
>Imagine being this retarded
That's true, but subsidies are exemptions. Kinda like how a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square.

>>12650903
>A battery that would outlive you
You're right
Why would a vendor sell something that cannot break

>>12650918
yeah there's very very few applications that actually benefit from an insanely expensive battery that lasts that long. and I'd say most of them already use them, so there isn't exactly much room for growth.

>>12650932
The growth would be on more efficient machinery that uses more battery to do more jobs, I suppose

Litium ion is explosive.

>>12650938
>lithium ion is explosive.
so?

>>12650901
>>12650902
Radioactive substance coated in lead would stop its radiation from leaking out of the lead

If 2 nuclear rods enriched at subcritical were right beside together, their radiation would cause them to reach critical.

If you jam them with a control rod, they stop exchanginging radiation and they return to subcritical which also slows down their radioactive decay

>>12650918
>100 μW tritium-powered device weighing 20 grams
>costs several grand lasts 20 years not 100
gee I wonder why we don't use them everywhere

>>12650882
*different anon
sorry for butting in
control-rods are used to absorb the neutrons which are ejected out when fission occurs; its this chain-reaction which is controlled by slowing it down to manageable levels;

thus preventing the whole thing from going critical, becoming super-heated and melt its way down to the water-table ionizing water into separate hydrogen & oxygen that goes "BANG" thus erupting radio-active clouds of steam into the atmosphere.

Control rods don't absorb gamma-ray, x-rays nor any other radiation.
The Uranium fuel & by-products in the reactor chamber themselves are all still radio-active.

>>12650966
Tritium that uses phosphorus as a radiant energy
Unlock fusion and it would release 16MeV per fusion reaction.

>>12650975
Oh shit you're right just unlock fusion why didn't I think of that

>>12648245
The big nuclear reactor in the sky

>>12648630
That's not Einstein's equation

>>12648663
That's the most pretentious take on quantum mechanics I have ever seen!

God, I the cringe!

>>12651062
*diff anon
>credits the entire Manhattan project?
about bloody time.

>>12651073
I know what it is.
But that anon definitely avoided the most famous equation because he don't know what it is

I felt a smackdown of second-hand embarrassment from that guy

>>12651077
>having fun with others
gotta do what ya gotta do, I suppose.
he's obviously not online, keep bumping until he returns.
*Trolling is also a spectator sport.

>>12648615
Calm down, faggot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PL32ea0MqM

Thoughts?

i'm not a memeing idiot whose guiding principle is that "atoms r kool"

>>12648320
>what is nuclear weapons development

>>12651661
*diff anon
>England felt sorry for India being so poor.
>England gave India an old nuclear-reactor.
>time passes.....
>India has nuclear weapons.
>Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
>designate next poor-country to be helped.
>Repeat.
inevitable

>>12650060
no?

I do though

>>12651706
>wind %’d about as much as nuclear yesterday of an unspecified date in an unspecified place
whoa