/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15537830
No, you're going to die because of the one in your country, you need to destroy it to save everybody

>>15537830
Funny, I live less than 10km away from that power plant.
They're so safe the government gave me iodine tablets when I moved here.

>>15537841
You must campaign against it. Get it shut down. Slash the tires of cars parked in it's parking

yes

>>15537830
Yes, especially in terms of deaths per kWh. of electricity.

No bigot. We need to stop building nuclear plants right now and send money to Ukraine instead

>>15537830
Yes.
Only a faggot would say otherwise

>>15537830
Why don't they sell hot water to the community rather than sending it up the cooling tower? Danish power plants do something like that.

>>15537867
Isn't that in France?

>>15537995
It's in Switzerland. And since it's so safe, they built it right at the German border, just like the other nuclear power plants.

Well they do kill less people than any other power plant.

>>15537830
>Are nuclear power plants that safe?
Look at all the ones that have blown up and melted down. Idaho, Pennsylvania, Ukraine, Japan, etc. Pretty high ratio.

Making the most toxic substances known to mankind is an act of vanity.

>>15538010
based. everyone hates krauts, even crypto-krauts.

>>15538338
and how many casualties as a result

>>15537830
As safe as communism.

>>15538326
What about hydro power is so lethal?

>>15537841
the iodine tablets are just incase things go bad
you can never be too safe

>>15538326
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
Classifying the dam as a power plant and not as a dam to control flooding, its main function, and then taking one of the highest estimates, shows how dishonest this table is.

>>15538833
The water.

>>15538356
And how many permanently displaced?

>>15538338
>Making the most toxic substances known to mankind
>the dissemination of said substances create a natural park teeming with life

>>15538833
dam go SPPLOOSSHH

>>15538970
>life

>>15537830
Yes, especially the new designs like small modular reactors. Even if there were a Chernobyl every 20 years, nuclear would still be worth it. Cheap, clean energy enables far greater global health gains from economic growth and low air pollution. And if you think climate change is going to be cataclysmic, we're going to need reliable baseload power like nuclear.

The other solution is deep geothermal. New drilling technologies with lasers and electro pulse boring would enable clean, reliable goethermal energy virtually anywhere on earth. Such an abundant source of baseload power would create vast amounts of wealth and improved standards of living.

The energy density of solar and wind are too similar to farming to achieve significant gains in energy per capita and have not reduced electricity prices where implemented.

>>15539248
If there were a Chernobyl every 20 years it wouldn't find a region where the population would allow them to be built. Also, it's neither cheap, nor particularly clean if it produces waste that's virtually impossible to store.
Also, what are you gonna do when we run out of uranium?

>>15537867
>Slash the tires of cars parked in it's parking
Kek good luck getting into the parking lot antifa faggot

>>15539265
Where did antifa come into this? I don't remember any attempted attacks on a nuclear site, could you explain?

>>15539257
>waste that's virtually impossible to store.
The only obstacle to nuclear waste storage is antinuclear militants.

>>15537830
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmJN-LMPnX0

>>15539287
>antinuclear militants
Why would militants be an obstacle when it's about storing safe garbage? Sure, with radioactive waste, antinuclear militants could steal the waste and spread it in big cities, but nuclear waste is harmless, right? No reason to worry about militants.

>>15539268
>Where did antifa come into this?
It just sounds like something those faggots would try and do. The same reddit tier mentality that thinks they can even get into the parking lot of a nuclear facility

>>15539324
So you're just inventing a person to get mad at?

>>15539324
>The same reddit tier mentality that thinks they can even get into the parking lot of a nuclear facility
What kind of mentality thinks the opposite? The parking lot is not gated, you fucking retard: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5989117,8.1813452,105m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
You can even reach it by public transport (see the bus stop north of it)

>>15538966
very skillful moving of the goalpost

>>15538966
I for one, PREFER dying a horrifying nuclear death than moving somewhere where I can keep being alive.

>>15539288
>nuclear weapons =/= nuclear power

>>15539329
Yes
>>15539346
The ones in America are all gated. Rip euro nuke workers

>>15539362
Seems like a healthy and normal state of mind to live in

>>15539352
I didn't move the goalpost, you have the stats of the dead in a pic above.
>>15539355
Very Japanese of you.

>>15537830
These things had notable failures in countries run by white people and asians.
Now imagine the future of nuclear power with these countries controlled by the brown hordes.

>>15539316
>Why would militants be an obstacle when it's about storing safe garbage?
It's because they have voting rights; and vote and campaign against storage solutions so that they can continue campaigning against nuclear power with the "no solution for waste" argument

>>15538326
This is stupid. Only nuclear power has catastrophic failure modes that involves the desolation of continents.

>>15539564
>most retarded take ITT
Switzerland is pretty big on voting rights, they can basically force amendments to the constitution whenever and veto every law. Much more than any EU country. Yet they managed to find a storage while the EU (except Finland I think?) hasn't managed to do the same:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/swiss-confirm-favoured-location-21-billion-nuclear-waste-store-2022-09-12/

>>15539248
>The energy density of solar and wind are too similar to farming
What? Commercial solar power is approaching 20 percent, or 200 W per square metre. Last I heard, photosynthesis was just one single percent.

>>15539287
>The only obstacle to nuclear waste storage is antinuclear militants.
Solution: store the nuclear waste inside antinuclear militants. Problem solved.

>>15539588
lol retard
the militants are the obstacle

>>15538849
It makes power, thus a power plant

>>15539593

>>15539805
they should cover every surface of the nuclear plant in solar panels. What's stopping them?

>>15539588
>Switzerland confirmed on Monday that its favoured location for a 20 billion Swiss franc ($20.94 billion) underground nuclear waste storage site was an area north of Zurich, close to the German border.
>close to the German border.
Heh.

>>15537830
Yes until there is major war happening in that country.

>>15539964
So just stop war lmao, why hasn't anyone else thought of this, are they stupid?

>>15539805
That's a big-ass nuclear power plant (average of 3 GW, but the calculation is pretty retarded. In Europe you get about 1000 kWh per year and square meter. How do they get >525 km^2 when a more realistic estimate would be 26 km^2? I mean, take a factor 2 for the land use with dead zones and overhead, but 20? That's just cheap.

>>15539990
I'm not going to even bother checking that math. I just know it's shit

>>15540262
>t. can't check the math himself

>>15537841
You dumb cunt. Everyone in Switzerland gets these. Also everyone gets a bunker. Do you understand the mentality? Go back to your shithole country (Germany).

>>15537841
You get iodine tablets because of a cold war era civil defense policy.

>>15538326
>Well they do kill less people than any other power plant.
Kryptonia crystal power booths kill even less, know why?
Cause only one exists on the planet Krypton.

If there were hundreds of thousands of nuclear plant like other plants, the world would be totally poisoned like a post apocalpyic wasteland.

>>15537830
>Are nuclear power plants that safe?
theyre a lot safer than coal stations thats for sure
the retards here shilling against nuclear energy are the same breed of morons who have literally caused hundreds of thousands of otherwise preventable deaths across the developed world by preventing wider switches to nuclear energy

>>15540887
What issues does clean coal cause? Mining waste?

>>15537830
I’d love to be the Kyle Hill shill fag for nukism, but I just can’t bring myself to do it. People are too retarded, too complacent to use nuclear energy right. They *never* will! You have to weigh the consequences here.
>One fuck up with engineering? MELTDOWN.
>One Fuck up with a test?
MELTDOWN.

If we can’t even have ability to build proper infrastructure, we can’t handle the power of the nuke. Plain and simple. Too retarded for a powerful thing.

Does this mean coal shill? No. Just don’t know what other alternative we have to keep the lights on.

>>15537830
They are safe until the environment or the russians decide to blow it up

>>15537830
what happened to the fusion shills??

>>15541072
2 more decades

>>15540889
Coal contains a lot of other elements, many heavy metals, of which a fair bit of uranium.

>>15540487
These are numbers per kwh, they wouldn't change with more plants... oh, but you can't be that dumb, sorry.

>>15539581
chernobyl managed to eject about 10% of the entire core into the atmosphere but the area it rendered unusable fucking tiny compared to even 1% of europe, this meme needs to die

>>15540901
one nuclear meltdown isnt going to be the end of the world, in terms of destruction they are somewhere between major plane crash and dam breach. We can live just fine with dams and airplanes though because every accident makes future accidents rarer, and ultimately the world can move on if something fucks up

>>15537830
>>15538326
Many of the civilian nuclear power stations were in reality used for making plutonium for weapons use. Therefore any accident would be covered up by military secrecy rules.And there were quite a few. The Irish Sea is about as radioactive as the Kara Sea where the Soviets admitted to having used as nuclear core graveyard. The British explanation is that it is merely the result from graphite mining. And if you believe that, please let me know. I have a bridge I want to sell you.

>>15537830
they are as safe as the weakest link
which is usually humans or some "unpreventable, unpredictable, once in 100 year" natural disaster.
fukushima happened because the humans who built it were stupid and didnt listen to the experts telling them it was built in a shit place with shit design and shit back up generator location.
no one died from fukushima tho.
3 mile island is kinda the same, also no one died
chernobyl was the same because russians are so cheap they shaved off a few dollars on the most important safety feature of the reactor. if they hadn't then no one would even know the power plant exists because it wouldn't have exploded.
solar, wind and hydro have probably killed more than nuclear ever has, and obviously coal, oil and gas kill more than all green power has in history every year.

>>15540889
>clean coal

>>15539990
Let me check:
Space used for Leibstadt NPP: 0.3km^2 = 300,000m^2
Power: 1.2 GW

Space used for Charanka solar power park: 2000 hectares = 200,000m^2
Power (nominal): 0.615 MW
Now for actual power production you take roughly 20%.

For nominal power we are talking about the same order of magnitude. For actual power production we are one order of magnitude below that.
I have not accounted for uranium mining (but neither have I accounted for solar cell manufacturing).

>>15543726
My bad. I forgot a conversion factor of 100 in space-usage by charanka, so actually we are 2-3 orders of magnitude as bad.

Also let me check by using another SPP: Bhadla.
Space: 5,700ha = 57.000.000m^2
Power: 2.2 GW
Power/Space = 38 MW/km^2

Leibstadt: 4000 MW/km^2
Charanka: 30 MW/km^2

>>15539238
is this a dog?

>>15543726
>Power (nominal): 0.615 MW
GW. Not MW.
Also, power per area is a weird metric. You can slap solar cells on your roof, but not a few micr nuclear power plants

>uhhh nuclear stations can le 'meltdown' therefore they are........BAD
even with retarded slavs running them and causing problems nuclear is still a safer and less environmentally destructive per kwh than most sources of energy. literally just bury the waste in mountains

>>15545519
>literally just bury the waste in mountains
Why does Switzerland bury it near the German border and not in the mountains? Are they stupid or are you?

>>15537830
yes

>>15544234
Rooftop solar may be able to offset a suburban home's energy consumption if well positioned and properly sized. Yet panels degrade, people will require charging their vehicles at night, and families may grow their consumption. The energy returned on energy invested of rooftop solar is the lowest of the proposed energy technologies, around 5 compared to nuclear which is on the order of 100 or more. The simple fact is that solar will not be able to significantly increase humanity's energy production per capita, which will be required if we want futuristic standards of living.

As for the concerns about nuclear, they are wildly overblown by fearful and ignorant laymen. The most recent scare was Fukushima, which was caused by an epic earthquake and tsunami that destroyed a million homes and killed 20,000 people. The nuclear emergency was small in comparison, and would not have happened using modern designs.

Waste can also be reprocessed in breeder reactors, or simply stored deep in mountains like the Yucca repository. Though that was shut down by politicians trying to appease retarded environmentalist. Anti-nuclear activists basically act as useful idiots for the fossil fuel industry who use them to hamstring their most clear competitor for reliable baseload power. It's yet another example of the Baptists and Bootleggers phenomenon.

>>15545887
>Yet panels degrade
Insignificantly for any reasonable quality panel. We had a report here that people operate 40 year old panels still with little loss of efficiency since the start.

Remember that many "environmentalists" are deep into Shirkey's Principle, don't believe what they claim without checking yourself.

>>15545887
>people will require charging their vehicles at night
Power around moon is often free or has a negative price on the spot market. I imagine this will increase with more solar, so unless they want to waste a ton of money, people will try to charge during the day. It might even be worth paying extra for the infrastructure close to your workplace.

>>15545927
> 40 year old panels
> exposed to direct sunlight, wind, rain, and hail
> undergoing an ionization reaction by design
> little loss of efficiency

doubt.jpg

>>15545959
>ionization reaction by design
What?
I couldn't find the two original links, but here is one from Switzerland:
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/07/02/exploring-the-depths-of-europes-oldest-grid-connected-pv-system/

>>15546086
Photovoltaic panels work by ionization of a semiconductor.

>>15546095
Photovoltaic cells work with the photovoltaic effect, not with ionisation. The ionisation energy of silicon is around 8eV, while the band gap of intrinsic silicon is 1.14V. Photovoltaic cells have band gaps in the same region, since that maximises efficiency. You'd need VUV light to ionise silicon.

>>15545525
Mountain = two plates colliding

What you ideally want is one of those two:
1. granite that will not move over the next million years and is so huge that nothing will get there.
2. clay that will bind any nucleides which could escape with intruding water.

>>15541072
They're in a bind rn because they're trying to escape the branding of "nuclear" and its negative side effects despite the fact that their current technology is literally called "nuclear fusion".

t.dumbass who is tired of fusion shills being stupid

>>15546438
Is anyone testing subduction zones for dumping the waste into the already radioactive core of the planet?

>>15546886
I think it's been considered, although it would make nuclear power even more expensive than it already is.
Also, what happens if it goes wrong and the stuff lands in the ocean?
a) it's bad: then maybe we shouldn't risk it
b) it's not bad: why don't we just throw it in the ocean in the first place?

>>15546918
Actually there are some places where nuclear waste was thrown in the ocean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste

>>15546937
It's generally frowned upon.

>>15546918
nuclear power should be pursued regardless of the cost which would also go down with scale and time

>>15545525
>Why does Switzerland bury it near the German border and not in the mountains? Are they stupid or are you?
The Swiss do that because Germany sucks

>>15545525
Why wouldn't you put the trash near the trashheap?

>>15547283
Why couldn't you move the heap 100km through your tiny country once if it's for eternal storage?

>>15547061
>pay more for ideology
Nah thanks, I'll stick to cheap, renewable and clean hydro power

>>15547453
I'll also be keeping my cheap, renewable, clean coal.

>>15547454
Where does the clean coal meme even come from?

>>15547453
m80 there aren't more major river left to dam up

>>15547460
I remember seeing it thrown around during the 2010 midterms. That being said improved coal mining techniques in recent decades have got the EROI of coal to up to 80, so it has become less energy intensive to mine and process.

>>15547462
>there aren't more major river left to dam up
then start slapping solar cells on your roof.
>renewable
>keeps your house cool in summer
>still cheaper than nuclear

>>15547460
Meme?

>>15547469
>Solar panels
>need almost 1 ton of coal and oil to make 1 ton metallurgical grade silicon
>energy from solar doesn't even go into making more solar panels
>renewable

>>15547474
>need almost 1 ton of coal and oil to make 1 ton metallurgical grade silicon
>energy from solar doesn't even go into making
Well, then maybe... don't use coal and oil? But also, over its lifetime, a ton of solar cells will generate much more power than burning a ton of coal would, so even if you were right, solar would make sense.

>>15547470
Yeah, like "the miners dig up the coal and clean it" kind of stuff. I mean, it's still coal. There's nothing clean about it.

>>15547475
You need coal and oil as a a raw material to make silicon, even if you have some non-hydrocarbon source of energy. The only alternative I can think of is hydrogen, but not only would you have to get it from a lossy process of electrolysis, storing hydrogen is a massive pain in the dick.

>>15547453
you arent paying more for ideology, you're paying more to move the nuclear industry out of its permanent 25 year lag and to prevent the deaths of millions worldwide from coal and oil pollution

>>15547476
I bet you think that smoke is what comes out of cooling towers.

>>15547478
>You need coal and oil as a a raw material to make silicon
Pls explain

>>15547485
Its used as a reducing agent

>>15547487
I see, thanks.

>>15537830
The new super expensive designs are.
But you have to think about relative risk. Getting meltdowns once in a while is better than burning coal.

>>15547516
How do you convince municipalities to accept a nuclear power plant under this premise?

not the water based nuclear no. becuase of hydrogen expansion and hyrogen gas tends to carry radioactive isotopes.

but the salt nuclear reactor is by far safer.
water nuclear should be banned.
no matter how safve you have a nuclear plant you get one very close and big earthquake and its the end for you.

accients and at worse explosion.

but in salt reactor nno such faults.
so it depends on the reactance.
what it uses to cause nuclear reaction.

but nuclear it self is safe.
there is a enough regulation so keep them from randomly blowing up.

but they would not be built on lay lines.
aws they carries nuclear isotopes.
the problem is the containment of nuclear isotopes.

not the nuclear it self.
nuclear uses boiling and turbines not much different form geothermal.

geothermal is far dangerous because its safety depends on either gas or thermal output being constant.

but nuclear is not over all safe.
anything that involes watger usually is never safe

water when seperated into H1 and H20 become an explosive mix
that is whay smoking is never allowed qat nuclear plants

given most nuclear is water based its by far not safe at all.
but again not all nuclear is unsafe
salt and fusion reactors are quite safe and last for a long time.

just not the current nuclear reactions.

TLDR
water nuclear bad.
Everything else okay and safe.

why doyou fools build near water ways are you looking to get mutant pbabies when that plant start leaking and gets old.

idoits.

>>15547623
>why doyou fools build near water ways are you looking to get mutant pbabies when that plant start leaking and gets old.
I feel safe ignoring everything else you wrote, because you're clearly retarded.

>>15545848
now show the radiation chart science.
and cancer rate in those regions.
and brith defects per 1000 people.

:^)

then tell me its "safe"
do you people messure isotopes permillion?
or is that too old school for you.

btw nuclear radation should be coincided air pollution as it damages health.
in just the sam way coal does but coul causes cancer.

and other things kill animals dam's being the big one.
they are both valuable to earthquakes and obstuction to nature.

this effects farming and fisheries big time by denying minerials geting into the sea.
while this looks small it does damage to the eco system.

that said nuclear is just boiled water so yes its rather safe.
the turbine only needs presure and friction to work + water flow.

any damn can do that and so can geothermal.
so its hardly unique in that regard.
as many have said as long as the rods are cool and under water the steam cannot be created and therefore no explosion.

but i would not call it safe.
water based anything is never safe.

heck even tidial generators are safer.
and that got memory holed real fast because it upset big oil.

it seem alot of tech gets suppressed by big oil these days. Not that i complain.

say hypothetically like a bunch of all people just disappear/get wiped from some cataclysm/even/virus whatever. is there any risk for any of the existing and active nuclear plants to like pop off? or absolutely all of them have like a dead mean switch? defaulting to a safe state with no input. safe as in for thousands of years safe state.

>>15547520
>convince municipalities
Well, you could
- employ people locally
- use cooling circuit to remotely heat local homes and facilities such as hot houses, for free (you need to cool anyway)
- make sure locals get cheap electricity
- make sure the area does not look like a dystopic wasteland, try greenery for once
- make sure you do something meaningful for the local community and make sure it is also seen.

>>15547760
>employ people locally
Most people already have a job
>- use cooling circuit to remotely heat local homes and facilities such as hot houses, for free (you need to cool anyway)
You gotta decide, do you want to generate electricity or heat? Thermodynamics hits you pretty hard if you try to do both. Also, you need other ways of cooling in summer anyway. It would drive the cost up, but appease the population, you're right.
I don't think the other two things will help before the plant is actually there. Usually, the area is already green. "We're gonna plant 50 trees after cutting 5000 trees" is a poor trade. So is "we can give you a kindergarten"

>>15547516
>The new super expensive
Nuclear always had high upfront capital costs, Gen III/III+/IV reactors aren't that much more expensive than the ones being built in the 70s and 80s, that's actually been one of its big hurdles even though they're not costly to operate. Furthermore the new Small Modular reactors are still a few years away.

>>15547483
The stuff that actually comes out of them isn't that good either. Also H2O is a potent greenhouse gas.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk_Schwarze_Pumpe#Emissionen
1 year
367kg arsenic
10.6Mt CO2

>>15547666
They need active cooling. When the grid fails, diesel generators will start. They usually have enough diesel for a few days. After that the plant dies by overheating. The water will boil off and not be replaced. Today's reactors have a negative steam-vapor-coefficient (as opposed to tchernobyls rbmk-1000). So the water boiling off should cool everything down in principle, however there will still be heat generation (I guess?) which will not be cooled. Thus your fuel rods will melt and you will get a slug. Possibly the containment has already died at this point due to the steam pressure. I am afraid without human support some generators will not start up, so we could get the same process that will start in a few days in most reactors in a few hours in some. This all only happens should the grid fail *and* humans disappear.

>>15547666
The reactors would automatically shut off after a few days

>>15547843
>Also H2O is a potent greenhouse gas
With a lifetime of a few days in the atmosphere.

>>15547774
>Most people already have a job
I am happy fo ryou, anon, but where I live the inflation bites hard and people are losing their jobs in larger number than the government really wants to admit.

>You gotta decide, do you want to generate electricity or heat?
In Denmark they are able to do both. Once the cooling water has left the recuperator you want to get rid of as much heat as possible, so that means cooling towers or use of lake/river/ocean for cooling. Yet before you do that, you can use that water for heating buildings. This water is at 30 - 60 C, plenty for heating and also pre-heating water for the hot water tank.
>Thermodynamics hits you pretty hard if you try to do both.
Feel free to provide details.
>Also, you need other ways of cooling in summer anyway.
And people also want hot water in summer. Here the hot water tanks take a lot of the electricity bdget in homes, so pre-heating the intake water goes a long way.
>It would drive the cost up, but appease the population, you're right.
Staying on good terms withou your neighbours goes a long way.
>I don't think the other two things will help before the plant is actually there. Usually, the area is already green.
I had a look at Dounreay. It looks like Mordor. It is handily located as far away from London as i practically possible.
>"We're gonna plant 50 trees after cutting 5000 trees" is a poor trade. So is "we can give you a kindergarten"
I know they have to have fences. It would be nice with some trees to camouflage it so that it doesn't look like a gulag.

>>15548029
>where I live the inflation bites hard and people are losing their jobs in larger number than the government really wants to admit.
I know, we're at 1.7%, it's terrible.
>Feel free to provide details.
The colder your cold side, the higher the efficiency. According to Wikipedia you lose about 25% electrical output if you want to use the heat otherwise.
>I had a look at Dounreay. It looks like Mordor. It is handily located as far away from London as i practically possible.
Yeah that looks pretty deserted. But you might have to make power plants attractive in environments like OP's picture. No matter how much green they put there, it will be worse than without the power plant.

>>15548064
>The colder your cold side, the higher the efficiency.
There is no doubt about that.
>According to Wikipedia you lose about 25% electrical output if you want to use the heat otherwise.
Does it explain why a series connection where giving away the heat before you cool down further in a cooling tower or river would cost that much? Rather, the more you can pre-cool before using a river, the less environmental impact there would be.

>>15537830
I flew past this npp

>>15537995
Infrastructure to keep the water cooled as it travelled would be needed. Also the hot water is being boiled away to power a generator.

>>15537830
Why do you call it actually core energy if its rim energy?

>>15538833
People swim too close and get sucked in. It is actually very common. The damn makes a large basin that people enjoy swimming in. Usually why they have a fuck ton of signage anywhere close to the damn to fuck off.
Where I am from they even have pictographs of people getting sucked in to make the point clear of what will happen

>>15548975
geometry wise a Lichtenberg figure is more likely to emerge from an local core. While plutonium is probably resonant with rim energy ultra long waves.

>>15548975
>>15548983
this is why its rim energy.

>>15548987
well and also the geometry is much more important if you jump into an other system you might have to deal with different forms of energy. but knowing the geometry of how it works will enable you to harvest energy in an other system

>>15549007
you might fly to an low mass star and the elecictiy emerging from it is much more viscous and slow.

>>15537830
Only issues are:
1. Credibility of the government and regulators (see chernobyl)
2. Waste

Waste is manageable, and so if someone opposes nuclear energy - they're revealing skepticism about trusting their government.

>>15549033

>>15548880
Hello fellow Swissanon

>>15539268
This is the only attack i know of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atucha_Nuclear_Power_Plant

that and the current russian ukranian war in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant

>>15537830
>Are nuclear power plants that safe?

The newer ones are but only china is building those despite being designed in the usa and canada.

>>15550768
Nah Rosatom has been building Gen III+/Gen IV reactors as of late, and on top of that they've cornered most of the international reactor market.

>>15552297
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsrussia-completes-preliminary-design-for-molten-salt-reactor-10486601
Looks like in a decade they'll have MSRs, crazy to think those google tech talks were 20 years early

yes

>>15552332
I assume there will be some teething problems as always, but its certainly promising. Also I remember coming across an article discussing their experiments with mixed uranium-plutonium fuel