/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15467386
Nuclear is the best option, but most societies don't want to use it because they either don't want to pay the associated costs, deal with nuclear materials, or are set with the fear and ignorance of over 70 years of anti-nuclear coal-industry propaganda (The incredible hulk, textbooks with steam stacks as infographics for acid rain, etc.)

>>15467393
The majority of anti-nuclear propaganda comes from "green" outlets who also despise beneficial coal energy and the plant food it creates.

It would be stupid to do so, it doesn't add any CO2 to the atmosphere. Nuclear is a great power source for large boats because of it's compact size, oil tankers could deliver 10% more crude if they were nuclear powered and they could travel at higher velocities too, but otherwise nuclear is an unnecessary and overly complicated solution for power sources. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, the global warming narrative is a big lie

>>15467386
France produces 70% of its electricity from nuclear fission.
It produces 5.13 tons of CO2 annually per capita, while the nearby Germany produces 9.44 tons of CO2 per capita.
Germany specifically has a strong anti-nuclear movement and decommissioned its last nuclear fission plants this year. Germany has one of the most engaged renewable energy programs and in 2022 46% of its energy was produced from renewables (wind, hydro, biogas).

Fission was clearly the best choice for a bridge technology until we figure out fusion. But fear mongering and lobbying from the fossil fuel interest groups made people opt for other technologies.

>>15467423
>Fission was clearly the best choice for a bridge technology until we figure out fusion. But fear mongering and lobbying from the fossil fuel interest groups made people opt for other technologies.
The Green Party is a fossil fuel interest group?

>>15467428
>Fear mongering
^

>>15467431
Fear mongering and lobbying from fossil fuel interest groups, like the Green Party, which is the main source of all anti-nuclear and anti-fossil-fuel sentiment?

>>15467386
No. Oil is absolutely necessary for long distance transportation and polymers etc. Electricity can't replace everything, at least not without similar levels of pollution

>>15467418
Nuclear is great for boats if you ignore the human element. Countries don't like other countries bringing in nuclear stuff, too many hurdles there. Imagine a Somalian pirate hijacks a nuclear boat, half the ocean would have to deal with the fallout.

>>15467437
There is no fallout in the ocean because water doesn't become radioactive when it blocks neutrons. Heavy water is completely inert and not harmful at all.

>>15467434
>Oil is absolutely necessary for long distance transportation
That's why you use the heat from the nuclear reactors to synthesize oil from carbon dioxide and water. You use the synthetic oil as a storage medium for nuclear energy. The trucks and planes still run on oil but they are nuclear powered.

>>15467386
Better question: "Is it possible to run a society on fossil fuel?" The answer is yes, up until the point where your economy hits a brick wall because there's so little energy in that greasy black shit and you can only pull it out of the ground so fast. This is where we are now.

Once you transition to nuclear energy, your society will have orders of magnitude more energy at its disposal and all kinds of new things become possible.

>>15467386
Contruction and agriculture vehicles can't work on grid energy but if your electricity is cheap enough it might be economicly viable to make some sort of synthetic fuel.

>>15467443
Right now, an oil cartel has to purposefully throttle production in order to keep oil's abundance from tanking the cost of energy. Since oil is abiotic and renewable if the cartel was disbanded there would no longer be such issues.

>>15467432
The german green party harbors many representatives from the anti-nuclear movement which got its biggest influx of members post-tschernobyl and the green party specifically ran on the promise to stop nuclear power. They did their hardest stop the establishment of a permanent nuclear waste storage facility, so people keep being concerned about the lack of a proper storage strategy.
They are part of the fear mongers.

Meanwhile gas lobbyists got germany to opt for a bridge strategy using natural gas in the last decades, which also led to Germanys over-reliance on russian gas prior to the Ukraine crisis. The same lobbyists got the EU to accept natural gas a "green" technology in 2022. Besides electricity production, German industry relies heavily on natural gas for steel production and other high energy processes. Many German houses opted for central heating using natural gas, which will take forever to be replaced.

This was just germany. Similar things happen in the US and elsewhere.

>>15467448
Why do you use green in quotes? Natural gas is a green technology by definition because its only exhausts are CO2 (plant food) and water (plant food). The more you rely on it, the greener the planet gets.

>>15467451
Okay, I get it, you are a climate change denialist. But "green" energy usually refers to energy from renewable energy sources. Which naturally gas clearly is not. So lobbyists blurred the definitions for their self-interest, which is the point.

>>15467456
Natural gas is completely renewable. Methane is produced abiotically by natural geologic processes.

>>15467440
Do you have any resources or papers you'd recommend for this topic?

https://www.seaborg.com/
make power plants on boats

>>15467460
It is a fossil fuel, produced from trapped layers of organic matter decompose under anaerobic conditions under intense heat and pressure underground over millions of years.
Similar to oil and therefore not renewable.

>>15467470
And that's why it appears on almost every other planet in the solar system, such as Titan which is renowned for its fossils.

>>15467386
Nuclear waste is the biggest non-problem there ever was.

First of all, you've probably hear people argue against coal power for a lot of reasons, but have you ever once heard someone say "We can't use coal power because we don't know what to do with the coal ash? No, you haven't, and it's pretty stupid because not only is coal ash radioactive, every coal plant there ever was has a giant mountain of the stuff just piled up next to it out in the open air with the rain falling down on it. Every once in a while these coal ash piles have a landslide into a river, but you've never heard about that either. If nobody ever gave a fuck about the waste from coal plants then the idea that we should be concerned about nuclear waste is a goddamn joke.

Second, the reason nuclear energy is so great is because it makes cosmic amounts of power from absolutely tiny amounts of fuel. This means that the amount of waste it generates per unit energy produced is the lowest of any method of generating energy. If you are concerned about waste then nuclear is the only sensible option.

Third, storing nuclear waste is simple. The fuel is in the form of ceramic pellets in long zirconium tubes. You take the tubes and put them in a steel can, and you put the steel can in a concrete cylinder, and then you just line the concrete cylinders up on a concrete slab and leave them there. That's it. There's nothing else to do. It just sits there being harmless and releasing nothing into the environment, basically forever, except for the final point:

The nuclear waste from the shitty old reactors we use today is actually fuel for the nuclear reactors of tomorrow If the environmentalists ever get out of our way, we're going to need all the nuclear waste we can get our hands on to fuel our plutonium breeder reactors which will burn up most of it.

>>15467475
Why would you waste coal ash? It's literally plant food, full of all the nutrients locked away in ancient soil strata.

>>15467456
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it does not cause the greenhouse effect on Mars, so it cannot cause that effect here on Earth. The average surface temperature of Mars is almost exactly at it's calculated planetary equilibrium temperature, the temperature it would be at if it had no atmosphere at all and Mars has over 2000% more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth does. That proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and does not cause the greenhouse effect.

>>15467434
>Oil is absolutely necessary for long distance transportation
You will ride ze train and you will be happy.
As for polymers there we are drowning in so much plastic we can't get rid off you can pyrolyticly break down and resequence it to your liking. After that any volatile or solid carbohydrid will do. Tho we use so much plastic shit that almost immediatelly ends up in trash that we should replace with cleaner and more easily recyclables like glass or aluminium alloys anyway.

>>15467465
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1889873

Here's an abstract from a paper that came out of Argonne National Laboratory.
I just found that paper after a quick search. Honestly I learned about this watching presentations on Youtube from nuclear experts at the annual Thorium Energy Alliance conferences.
Yes, I know thorium nuclear reactors aren't technically feasible. The point is, they are a nuclear energy advocacy organization. Plutonium reactors are proven tech and will give us plenty of energy without need for thorium.

>>15467474
There are other processes that can produce methane, but the methane we use as natural gas energy source is produced as I described above. The pockets of natural gas we drill into do not replenish once exhausted.

>>15467478
CO2 being a greenhouse gas has been experimentally proven.

>>15467488
>The pockets of natural gas we drill into do not replenish once exhausted.
This is patently false information, and you would know as much if you were in a relevant discipline.

>>15467491
Okay let me be more specific. Maybe over millions of years more natural gas will be created from the organic matter. But it will not replenish to such a degree that we could keep using it for energy production.

>>15467474
To be fair to other anon while there is buttload of HC volatiles especially in and around gas giants and bunch of solid carbon found in inner system there are no known deposit of coal or oil as we mine on Earth.

>>15467498
He specifically stated that natural gas (methane) is a fossil fuel, which is retarded. Everyone knows it's created by geologic processing of carbon-containing minerals. You can find out that much without looking at outer space just by studying deep ocean vents.

>>15467475
Don't forget acid rains damaging buildings and killing trees.
>>15467477
Your ancient soil contained crapload of sulfur and heavy metals dude.

>>15467485
>Yes, I know thorium nuclear reactors aren't technically feasible
>When we had working molten salt reactors build in fucking 50' and 60'

>>15467439
what about the ground? If a boat sinks into spaghetti pasta trench how would we clean up nuclear waste spilling into the ground? It may not have much of an impact on us, but there are animals on the ocean floor.

>>15467500
And you should ponder why such phenomena falls under "organic" chemistry. Tho everyone ITT should familiarise themselves with story and how umbrella term "fossil fuel" came to be.

>>15467500
It is a fossil fuel. It just is also created by other processes. But the natural gas we use for energy production is produced as a fossil fuel from ancient plant matter.

>>15467446
you'll never talk the doomers out of their catastrophizing, its part of their personalities, they learned early in life, as babies, that they could get their way by lying and exaggerating about how nothing is ever quite good enough for princess. we live on the most perfect planet imaginable, literal paradise, and in the most sophisticated age that humanity has ever experienced and all they will ever do is moan about how its all terrible and how it needs to change immediately to suit their short term emotional needs. there was a thread about the science behind it all a few weeks ago, but sjw political jannie nuked it presumably because he is one of them
>>/sci/thread/S15414851

>>15467507
>If a boat sinks into spaghetti pasta trench
You must mean the *Marinara* trench.

>nuclear waste could impact animals on the ocean floor
The japanese film industry already documented this extensively in the Mid-20th Century.

Seriously though, a ruined nautical nuclear reactor at the bottom of the ocean is not such a problem. First of all, the fuel doesn't leak. It's solid. It stays right were it is, in the core of the reactor. Second, water is fabulously good at blocking radiation, so everything except that which is in the immediate vicinity is protected.

Something related to this is the fact that the most geologically sound method of disposing of and sequestering nuclear waste is actually to fuse it into glass, put it into streamlined metal casings and drop it into the deep ocean. It plummets to the bottom and by kinetic energy, buries itself deep in the muck. The muck seals it away and there it stays forever removed from the biosphere.

>>15467396
You stupid nigger, who do you think fills their pockets?

>>15467443
The fucktard clown who replied to you and the one that replied to him don't even know they're on your side.
Growth mongers and their useful idiot CONSUUUUUUMERS are exceptionally stupid and delusional people

>>15467506
>>Yes, I know thorium nuclear reactors aren't technically feasible
>>When we had working molten salt reactors build in fucking 50' and 60'
Very true, but you are forgetting one very important detail:
The Molten Salt Reactor experiment to which you refer, the one at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, was not a thorium breeder reactor. It was a uranium reactor using molten salt. Several problems crucial to making a working thorium breeder have not been solved to this day:
1) How to cope with the protactinium phase of the breeding cycle, both in terms of its radioactivity and its potential as a neutron absorber
2) What material to use for the bulkhead separating the fuel salt at the core from the breeding salt around the core. All candidate materials are either not strong enough, can't withstand the neutron flux, or absorb too many neutrons.

>>15467538
Considering thorium R&D competed for budget with uranium, which is more easily weaponised, and lost it's no wonder those problems were never resolved. Now, as in last two decades or so, i expext someone finds a way eventually seeing that fusion is and always has supposedly just around the corner for last 60 year's. I'll dive into this but can't promise i'll be back

>>15467527
Communists and other globalists who hate clean carbon.

>>15467437
Why don't we kill all the Somalians? What do those worthless apes contribute anyways?

nuclear reactors are a liability the second an actual war happens.
>people won't bomb nuclear sites
but they will bomb industrial infrastructure.

>>15467428
yes. particularly euro ones as they received well documented large scale funding from hostile interest groups like Russia. Starting since the soviet union era

>>15467507
what if I told you there are multiple sunken nuclear reactors still deep in the waters for decades and the world has not ended yet

>>15468337
What if I told you an expedition was done to temporarily fix the k-278 because it was leaking plutonium. What happens if a sub or boat sinks in a place we can't get to?

>>15467526
I am aware it doesnt impact anything but the area around it, sorry if it didn't come across that way. That is my issue though, the marine life in the area around the sub.

>>15467485
Thanks Anon

>>15467428
Yes. Gas flows from russia > germany > rest of europe. This is why green shit is funded by russia and germany allows it. Both take a cut.

>>15467437
>Somalian pirate hijacks boat
>boat sinks, containment fails
>all Somalians die from reactor leak
If only reactors were that dangerous.

>>15467507
>but there are animals on the ocean floor.
Yes, and? Animals that are useful to humans wont be allowed to go extinct.
Bet you think there's a climate crisis too.

>>15468427
>What happens if a sub or boat sinks in a place we can't get to?
Let it leak. Not my problem, not paying for it.

If you care about a couple of starfish growing an 8th arm, you fund the hundred million dollar expedition to save them.

Unironically reactor waste should be dumped in the ocean as it is, assuming you even bother to take it out of the pond it's stored in.

>>15467580
Based brainlet
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energy-crisis

>>15468788
>Muh humans will colonize da galaxy
>Meanwhile has no formal education in any science, believes oil is "abiotic", and viruses don't exist

There's definitely a crisis of psychotard fuckwits who like inhaling their own anal gasses

>>15468427
and how long is the fix going to hold? or boats that already are in places you cant get to since too deep. Or those that imploded to pieces on their way down, shattering the reactor room like a empty can.

Nothing is going to happen other then nuclear waste inside rusted through hulls in such deeps there is barely any life around, if at all

It is definitely better than coal.

>>15467428
Funded by fossil fuel groups in an enemy-of-my-enemy fashion, but sure.

>>15468957
Sanest climate cultist.

>>15469537
Why would fossil fuel groups fund the people who hate them more than anyone else? This is the most idiotic conspiracy theory ever.

>>15467386
>Nuclear Energy
It's not the best form of energy humans have harnessed, but not the worst either.

It's mostly a meme now, same as solar and wind.

>>15469577
>Why would fossil fuel groups fund the people who hate them more than anyone else? This is the most idiotic conspiracy theory ever.
NTA but seriously, do you not understand how advertising scams and fake-competition work with each other to drive up each other's prices.

Just like fake wrestling, the "bad guys" and the "good guys" act like they hate each other, but are working together behind the scenes.

Meme is appropriate, just replace the blue hair and maga hats with "wind/geo-thermal/solar/nuclear energy" and "petrol/gas/etc." energy.

Create "good guys" and "bad boys" and profit. Same old Jewish 1% left-wing elite move.

>>15469587
So what you're saying is that the "climate crisis" is fraudulently created by paid shills to help gain a monopoly on energy production?

>>15469595
>the "climate crisis" is fraudulently created by paid shills to help gain a monopoly on energy production?
Exactly. I could not have stated it better.

>>15469577
there is no such thing as "oil companies" that phase ended in the 20th century, they are now "energy companies" and they make more money selling fake green energy at a massive premium than they do on conventional energy

>>15469605
>>15469657
Extremely accurate posts.

>>15469657
It's going to be hilarious when those off shore windfarms disrupt the global trade winds and actually cause massive climate change.

>>15469577
>Why would fossil fuel groups fund the people who hate them more than anyone else
Because nuclear power is an existential threat to fossil fuel power production while wind/solar will keep them as part of the solution. Wind and solar suffer from (sometimes extreme) intermittency problems because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. Sometimes both can happen at the same time. As a result, we will need an on demand power source which oil & gas will be happy to fulfill.
From the green's point of view, both fossil fuels and nuclear are bad (nuclear probably gets an edge because "muh Nagasaki/Hiroshima"). While the rank and file are primarily fueled by ideology, the organization still has to be able to get funding and as you get up the org, politics and practicality trumps ideology. Who happens to have a lot of money? Oil and gas companies. Who also dislikes nuclear? Oil and gas companies. And thus the they make a deal with the devil.

>>15467393
This

>>15468957
>Muh humans will colonize da galaxy
Suppose they do, does nature care? No.
Suppose they don't, does nature care? No.
If we kill 99% of all species on earth, not only does nature not care, but they will all just evolve back in a few million years after we leave/die.

You environmentalists are fags.

>>15467554
desu, "more easily weaponized" is a meme, as are most of the benefits of thorium over uranium. just take whichever comes first already.

>>15468096
bombing nuclear sites doesn't result in meltdowns. the eternal up-hill battle of nuclear is undoing the fearmongering of dumb hippies from the 80s.