/sci/ - Science & Math

Environmentalists are basically the zealots of pseudo-science. Very similar to dogmatic religion.

They want to stop all "evil power machines." Yet instead of progressing in nuclear energy and fusion, they want to go for oil/gas.

It's mind numbing, but a very effective ploy by traditional power companies. Nuclear energy is still the cleanest PRACTICAL energy we have atm.

By comparing nuclear related incidents like Chernobyl, to the literally hundreds of thousand incidents with oil/gas/coal, I'd go with nuclear.

It stems from an (not so) irrational fear of radiation. Many of the big critics have been around in the 60s and 70s with the threat of nuclear war just inches away at times.

The notion that something that can be an insidious, silent killer and symbol of utter destruction can be harnessed for clean 'energy is unthinkable to them.

So they go about it the way all other idiot lobby groups do and kick up a fuss and tell people about Chernobyl.

Another situation of ignorant pricks fucking something else up.

Hardcore environmentalism is a religion.

Is your country Germany by any chance? Greens in Germany have been traditionally funded and directed by KGB and later the connections have been utilized by FSB.

Now Germans don't have nuclear power plants and are dependent on Russian gas and Schröder, who's government closed the plants, is getting big bucks sitting in Gazprom board.

>>2089548
>Is their stance on the issue of nuclear power justified?
If they make an economic argument, yes. If they make a radiological one, or even a waste one, no.

In 2008 we digged up about 50000t of uranium, which leaves us (at that rate) with about 35 years until it's gone. Even if we find more reserves, a bunch of reactors are being built right now, increasing the need for uranium.

Whether the reserves hold for 35 years or for 100 years is fucking nitpicking and doesn't help us.

Investing into nuclear power right now is more than dull.

>>2089548
Don't be an idiot. Nuclear energy has the possibility of killing thousands and is prone to terrorist attacks. The fact that you fell for this propaganda that Nuclear energy is effective, clean or even safe just shows how easily gullible you are. Wind, Solar and Tidal energy is more effective and this support for Nuclear energy indicates corporate interests.

>>2089580
>Wind, Solar and Tidal energy is more effective and this support for Nuclear energy indicates corporate interests.

DURRRR

You do realize those aren't even fucking practical applications yet, right? Nuclear energy is the cleanest so far. Then again, DURR NUCLEAR POWAA EVILLL NUKES KEEL ALL

>>2089579
We don't want to dig up uranium, we want thorium for starters. It's a much more efficient process, the only reason uranium was used is it can be used to make plutonium for bombs.

Also, we can use the waste plutonium for our old uranium reactors in fast breed reactors, another stable technology that lobbyist protest using the antiquated Mile Island story.

Renewable energy (with the exception of large hydro dams) produces just 3 % of world power supply. Powering the world on tidal, solar, wind energy alone is a joke. Nuclear and fusion is the future.

There is enough uranium and thorium to power humanity for thousands of years. The price of uranium is low.

>>2089580
Well, by the environmentalists logic, fossile fuels will kill millions because of rising water levels in the wake of global warming. Also, they like to endorse biofuel which is a real killer since it raises the food prices for those in the most need.

>>2089574
My country is Sweden

>>2089594
The Thorium reserves are somewhat between 1.5 to 3 times the amount of Uranium reserves. Considering exponential population growth .. that's just a spit in the bucket.

Humanity would be better of creating sustainable energy with a concept that would still work in 1000 years.

>>2089580
>Nuclear energy has the possibility of killing thousands

Nope. I live in a town with an older design nuclear plant, one of the last ones built in America before Three Mile Island scared us off. The whole thing is build to absurd tolerances, there are seven or eight lines of defense, and and if they all happen to fail, do you know what happens? The whole shield building is flooded with lake water, and the nearby population is evacuated.

My country (Italy) had a plebiscite to shut down every nuclear plant we had, in the years following Chernobyl. Of course the dimwits voted to shut them down, and now there is untold resistance to opening more.

This made us dependent on imported energy and cost us a good deal of money, since the plants were basically brand new and barely used.

And this is why I hate democracy, and every kind of "power to the people" bullshit. The people is not qualified to make decisions, they will only screw shit up with their utter lack of knowledge.

>>2089604
Population growth is predicted to plan out at around 10 billion, and the only way we could have chance at planning out at an even lower number is if the western world's reliance on fossil fuels would lower so that the developing countries could use fossil fuels in their industrialisation. Their industrialisation is key for making their now high birth rates lower.

>>2089579
Thorium solves that problem.

>>2089608
It's up to the government to educate them, but the media has a powerful influence on not only changing peoples views but also discrediting education with its wonderful Brave New World appeal.

iainteventinhatting.jpg

>>2089604
Rubbia states that a ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nu
clear-dash-for-thorium.html

>>2089594

>>2089621
They don't want to be educated. Your average guy doesn't give a fuck about scientific knowledge and will do his best to resist every attempt at making him a bit less of a retard.

>>2089597
Food prices is the least of it. The problem with 'Big ethanol' is that they are consuming so much fossil fuels to grow the corn that it almost negates any benefits of growing biofuel. I don't believe we would ever be able to grow enough biofuels to power all the vehicles in the world, even if we use genetically modified algae. I think using biofuels for aircraft and ships is a good idea, but nuclear/lithium batteries is the way to go for cars.

>>2089580
Fossil fuels are causing millions of deaths each year through air pollution.

>>2089604
>Humanity would be better of creating sustainable energy with a concept that would still work in 1000 years.
Breeder reactors drop fuel requirements to about 2-3%... And if we now have reserves for 35 years, with breeder reactors they'll last for 1500 years.

>>2089625

>"Once you start looking more closely, it blows your mind away. You can run civilisation on thorium for hundreds of thousands of years, and it’s essentially free. You don’t have to deal with uranium cartels," he said.

How the fuck can a goddamn nobel laureate spew such utter bullshit? In the end it's a fucking finite resource, estimates for thorium reserves are between 1.3M and 2M tons. Sure, it may be a nice short-time addition to the current energy mix, nevertheless .. I think in 2010 it's about fucking time to seriously think about ending our dependence on these finite resources.

I mean, once it's gone, we don't have any other choice than to be creativa anyway, why bother waiting? Oh yes, I forgot the money..

>>2089631
What's the difference between you and 'an average guy'. Most likely your upbringing, you were instilled with some love or science and desired to be less ignorant, he decided to see what was on TV.

Yes, parents have an effect on this, but so do media outlets.

>>2089640
That number is is for our current energy need. You know that shit will hit the fan, once Africa and China will have a similar per capita need for electric energy as the west ..

>>2089646
Can thorium be found in asteroids? If so, that solves that problem right there.

>>2089646
Hurr durr, the production of solar panels and windmills is also bound to the law of physics. Minerals like silver and heavy rare earth minerals are absolutely necessary for green energy production.

Thorium will be able to serve us for hundreds of years. If we cant find another source of energy in that time we're fucked anyway.

>>2089646

Do you even realize what amount of time thousands of years represent? Dont be ridiculouos, if thorium can power humanity for thousands of years, the problem is solved. No need to bother with renewables.

>>2089649
No, I don't know. What's the problem with thorium and breeder reactors? We'll have plenty of energy for hundreds of years, and fusion power should become commercially viable by the end of the century.

Bioethanol replaces food crops in 3rd world countrys, it also encourages the destruction of rainforrests ect.
Bioethanol is not a solution, it's as bad as fossil fuels but with immediate damage in places that are not under terrorist or islamic rule.

>>2089663
There is no problem with them. But they're only mid-term solutions. Fusion would be a nice thing, but counting on that to work at some point in the future is not a good strategy.

>>2089671

Using algae for bioethanol does not increase destruction of rainforests and food prices. But can it be practical?

>>2089680
Eh.. I'm not saying it's never going to work. But neither you nor anyone else does now the timeframe in which fusion reactors will be built commercially. 50 years? 150 years?

Planning our energy strategy on something that might happen in 50 to 150 years is just plain stupid.

>>2089694
We'll have enough thorium for the next thousand years. If we can't solve the fusion conundrum in that time, we might as well an hero now.

>>2089694
Fact is, we only need enough energy to last the next hundred years, tops.

>>2089694
Are you seriously suggesting fusion power (mostly a problem with materials) won't be available before we run out of thorium and other fissionably elements some 1000 years in the future? Seriously?

>>2089680

I am all for renewable energy research, as long as nuclear gets its fair share, too. That is not currently happening, IMHO.

When fossil fuel supply will get tighter and renewables will not keep up with our energy needs, we will no longer be able to afford the luxury of pseudo-green eco-terrorism.

>>2089707
Ah come on now. We both know it probably will.

Also, the number "thorium and uranium will last as for 1000 years" ... is just pulled out of your asses. You don't know what you're talking about.

>>2089726
>there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1000 years
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/

>>2089740
inb4 the Big Thorium is funding the site

>>2089726
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nu
clear-dash-for-thorium.html

Read the thread or do some research before you start spouting nonsense.

>>2089740
Do you know what "current" means when you calculate how much time you have left until reserves are gone?

It means that RIGHT NOW you will halt your population growth and halt your energy needs AT THE CURRENT LEVEL.

In 2050 .. there will be 400 mil. living in the US.

>>2089781
>In 2050 .. there will be 400 mil. living in the US.

Immigration? Nobody I know is having kids and I'm in my early twenties when they should've started already.

We have even less of a hangup about birth control/abortion than the last generation did. There really isn't any reason to have kids anymore. Especially considering there is a chance, however slim, that this recent generation could live for hundreds of years.

>>2089726
>>2089781
You... do know what the core of the Earth is made of, right?

We're pretty much sitting on a huge pile of decaying heavy elements. Shit, we don't even need to be really reacting it ourselves, we could just run a few taps into the mantle and we'd have all the energy we would need for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.

>>2089796
You guys are roughly at 1% per year, do the calculation yourself. Again, I'm not saying that thorium fission isn't a neat technology, but: 1000 years is bullshit at current growth rates.

>>2089807
Go visit Iceland sometime, they're doing that right now. Granted, they have the volcanos .. but so will you once San Francisco will become one.

>>2089825
Because there's roughly 3 times as much thorium available, and it produces 100 to 200 times as much energy as usable uranium, it would be physically impossible for the reserves NOT to last at least a thousand years, regardless of growth. That's 10,000-20,000 years of fission power without the growth factored in, and it disregards unconventional, more expensive uranium gathering methods and better reactor types that add thousands of years' worth of energy to use.
I agree the 1000 years figure is complete bullshit; in reality, it's vastly more.

>>2089911
>and it produces 100 to 200 times as much energy as usable uranium

citation needed

.. and I'm not saying that to be a dick, but I can't find any info on that.

>>2089949
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionG.htm#uranium_supply
Thorium and breeder reactors commonly archieve energy outputs 100 times as efficient as regular uranium reactors. Here's one of the more pessimistic estimates on nuclear fuel.

Euh, why nobody mentioned ITER?
>Fusion would be a nice thing, but counting on that to work at some point in the future is not a good strategy.
"At some point in the future", i understand this that way: a shitton of decade. Quoi?

>>2089807

It's called geothermal energy.

Coal produces emits more harmful radioactive material than, say, thorium-based nuclear plants.

People who are against nuclear power are essentially retarded. There's no evidence-supported reasoning to oppose it.

>>2089960
Interesting, thanks. Seems that the biggest obstacle is upgrading current reactors..

The sun provides an infinite source of (free) power. Why not use the source of power for all of biology as a power source for civilization? Sure photovoltaics aren't nearly efficient enough today for this to be realistic, but the ability to engineer at the nano-scale will provide far more efficient solar cells. If the increase of solar power follows the current trend, most of our power will be provided by the sun within ten years. Nuclear energy produces radioactive materials, some of which won't decay for thousands of years.

Also, the first post in this thread said that environmentalists promote oil/gas, and I'd just like to point out how retarded that is.

>>2090028
That's due to the lack of funding and interest, thanks to the efforts hostile to nuclear energy by Greens worldwide.

>>2090078
.. and because reactor manufacturers make most of their money using the re-fueling ..

>>2090015
Very good, now tell the class the proper name for your sexual orientation, faggot.

I know people are already exploiting it, as they should be and as we should continue to do so.

Reporting from a massive earthquake zone.

We are too scared to build one and we don't have nuclear energy even the Ruskies and Americans insist on selling their own reactors since 1960s

I think the worst problem about nuclear power still is the nuclear waste.

Thinking you could safely store this stuff for thousands of years is absolutely illusionary. So I think that's where a lot of research should be made, in addition to renewable energy.

>>2090152
Throw it into the mantle.

>>2090170
Thing is: if we can dig holes that deep .. future generations will probably be able to do so too. Don't count on knowledge being archived, theres always the risk of shit being forgotten - it happened in the past too.

>>2090200
If we can throw it in the mantle we could just use the mantle for power.... What the hell.....

We could shoot it into the sun, but if the rocket/shuttle explodes in our atmosphere were pretty fucked.

>>I think the worst problem about nuclear power still is the nuclear waste.

Breeder reactors work by recycling the waste, that's how they get that 100x efficiency. It's very much not a problem any more.

Have we run the gamut of uninformed fearmongering yet?

>>2090213
You'd need about 100.000 rocket starts for that to get rid of all the present nuclear waste.

>>2090220
*checks watch* Nnnnope, still got eighty years to go.

>>2090228
or the Orion drive and just a launch or two

>>2090239
>or the Orion drive and just a launch or two
yes get rid of nuclear waste by detonating many nuclear weapons in the atmosphere

>>2090262
I'm just offering alternatives, instead of just complaining about everything.

besides, lrn2currentdevelopments

>>2089640
>...with breeder reactors they'll last for 1500 years.
>implying energy demands wont increase with population growth.

I'll just leave this here, you just might learn something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Nuclear waste is one of the easiest wastes to take care of. Compared to the waste produced by a coal plant, it is laughable. Put it in a drum, bury it in a disused mine, wait for future civilisations to figure out a use for it. Worst case scenario, it sits at the bottom of the mine until the sun dies.

>>2089579
You are dull. In 35 years we should have working fusion ( Unless another retard with messiah complex won't protest research to death. ) that uses water and H3 ( Easily obtained from moon. Space exploration is a must. ) and those won't run out for a long time.

>>2090262
Orion drive is meant for orbit to orbit vessels that don't go into atmosphere. To do orbit<> surface transports you can use orbital lift.

>>2091464
>mfw it contaminates the local soil and water

>>2091464
>Nuclear waste is one of the easiest wastes to take care of.

Enough of this crap. Biofuels are the way to go. Instead of trying to capture the energy of the sun ourselves, let the plants do it and it gets much easier. Fuel cells can work with ethanol, millions of cars are powered by it in the streets of my country, and most Otto cycle engines can be converted. Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to grow, so the total carbon emissions are very low. The cane bagasse can be burnt to produce steam and electricity.

Sugarcane is much superior to corn when it comes to ethanol production.

Now I want to hear why you faggots don't think it would work.

>>2091674
Because we don't have much unused farm land. It is quickly becoming a scarce resource. Not to mention the fresh water cost. At least with solar, we can have massive farms beaming energy from space in the future.

Pretty much, we're fucked in the long term without fusion.

>>2091724
>mfw the government pays people not to farm things

solar panels cost indium and gallium to produce, very scarce minerals which are EXTREMELY POLLUTIVE to get out of the ground.

wind turbines kill anything that flies.

water energy... well... there's not many dams and they sure as hell can't produce energy for enough people.

green energy is but a fleeting dream, fusion power / nuclear energy is where it's gonna be at.

>>2091740
>implying that farm land would even make a dent in our energy needs

>>2091611
>>2091586

Quit being retards. The poster you are ridiculing is right.

>>2091757
>wind turbines kill anything that flies.

Not this shit.

>>2091768

>>2091768

>>2091724
>we don't have much unused farm land
We do.
Not talking about rainforests that can be chopped down, or food crops that can be converted to produce ethanol. No, I'm talking about unused land, just sitting there. Brazil has the most arable land in the world, and the climate is great for cane crops. 200 million ha of unused farm land.

>>2091786

I don't fucking get it, you want to use biofuels while atleast a third of the worlds population is malnourished?

>>2091757

cars and trucks wipe out millions of birds each year, while 100 million to 1 billion birds collide with windows. According to the National Wind Coordinating Committee study, “Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States," these non-wind mortalities compare with 2.19 bird deaths per turbine per year.

That's a long way from the sum mortality caused by the other sources, so let's get rid of them too.

>>2091798

did you take into account that if you want to go 100% green the amount of wind turbines in the country/world would have to increase by atleast a margin of 5000?

and that the most popular areas to place them are coastal?

that's not gonna be a pretty sight

>>2091793
There is enough land to grow food for all these people AND produce ethanol.
Do you know why those people are starving? Because they can't fucking pay for the food.

And another thing, there's so much waste here in Brazil, food enough to feed millions of people. Estimatives show that around 40% of all the food we produce is discarded.

>>2091798
Bird deaths from wind concern primarily large birds. You know eagles and stuff, species that generally are threatened already.

When was that last time you ever saw a large bird get hit by a car?

This has been an informative thread, thank you /sci/.
Y'know, sometimes if you weed away all the troll religion threads, this place isn't so bad.

>>2091806
>that's not gonna be a pretty site
>implying aesthetic will matter in water and oil wars of the next 50 years.

>>2090200
Uh you forgot that the Mantle is very very hot, Nuclear waste will melt into separate components.

And wind power is moronic.

>>2091793
>you want to use biofuels while atleast a third of the worlds population is malnourished?

This is the current state of things RIGHT NOW. The post you linked is simply refuting a point using facts.

>>2091806

sure. but turbines can be installed with an eye for design too.

....in the eye of the beholder though i guess...

pros outweigh the cons in the short run

>>2091837

sink it into subduction zones then

>>2091851

well, you need wind for them to work, and there's nowhere as much as wind as there is at sea.

>>2091824
i don't exactly keep a look out for such things, but the last one i saw was here...

http://norman.kfor.com/content/bald-eagle-hit-semi-truck

I think all the problems with the politics and bad rep of nuclear energy can be summed up quite nicely: Old people.

The internet has given us young people (80's and later) an explosion of information, and with this comes a better understanding of the issue. Pretty much all people my age I've talked to are in favor of nuclear energy, and those that aren't atleast accept that it is necessary.
When we turn into the old people who run the world, it might be the perfect world that we imagine today. Then we'll have new technology that could revolutionize society, we will hold it back for the same retarded goddamn reasons, and we will become the very same people that we once despised, hated by the young people of the future.

>>2091877

good point. thankfully they can work in water too and not just above it.

and easily designed to avoid chopping up fish an otters to boot

>>2091724
> with solar, we can have massive farms beaming energy from space

Space-based solar is the stupidest idea ever. We would have to improve the output per kilogram by several orders of magnitude before they would be able to produce more energy than it takes to put them up there in the first place.

>mfw in the future, wind turbines will be considered a sign of modernization, and fossil fuels, subdevelopment.

Because uranium is abundant.

/sarcasm

IRON FUSION REACTION FUUUUUUUUUUU

>>2091885

people ruling the world today were the hippies of yesterday

look at the state of the planet

fucking hippies

and those of tommorow will be hipsters

I fear for the future, I fear.

My school just bought a £20,000 wind turbine to power a new building. On a good day it has an output of 300W. Fuck wind power, nuclear energy is the way to go.

>>2091970
Our school just paid a million to cover the entire parking lot (this is CA so the lot is pretty big since everyone drives) with solar panels.

Apparently it will pay for itself in 10 years at the current output. It also saves more energy because the cars don't get as hot because they aren't exposed to direct sunlight, requiring less AC.

Well the reason behind the nuts going ZOMG it gonna kill it all. When you think of Nuclear Energy what do you think of? Most likely you tie the word Nuclear to Nuclear Weapons. It just invokes the fear of nuclear weapons into people to much. I bet if it was called cute bunny power people would build like crazy.

What about that MIT grad that has the giant kite in the winds of the upper atmosphere attached to a ground based generator acting as a yo-yo effect to produce power?

>>2091885
>hated by the young people of the future.

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities.
It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.
- Heretics of Dune

Hey, here's such a fucking crazy idea that I just had, that I must be completely fucking retarded for having even considered it, but here it goes anyway: Why not use multiple different power sources in tandem, instead of just blowing the horn of one single source?

Solar power can be responsible for alot of the energy in daytime in good conditions, nuclear power can be used to keep a required power output at night or when the sun otherwise doesn't shine as well as it needs to, when the sun shines brightly and solar panels in an area are producing more energy than required, the excess energy can go to producing silicon for more solar panels (hence, ultimately free solar panels since the near-entirety of the cost of solar cells is the energy to extract the silicon from sand), wind and hydroelectric and geothermal where they are viable (coasts, large rivers with habitats that we can afford to damn, volcanic regions like Iceland). Am I a fucking idiot, or what, /sci/?

The problem with fission energy is the fuel, it's a long-term problem and the economics of storing the waste are a hidden cost that is often not fully accounted for since it's usally the government that carries a large fraction of the waste management cost. So the arguments of environmentalists have at least some merit, even if they are overzealous.

Anyone who argues against fusion for safety reasons needs to be shot on the spot though. It produces only short-lived nuclear waste, there is no risk of a criticality accident and there's enough fuel (water) to last us millions of years.

Once we get a Q > 5 at least.


>>2091970
that must be one really crappy wind turbine.

>>2091984

Most people believe that you can use the material in a nuclear reactor to make a nuclear bomb.

Fucking hell, sometimes I think that maybe we deserve extinction. Meh, we could still solve our sustainable, non-climate-changing energy woes, but we'll ultimately get what we deserve. If our inability to be collectively intelligent enough to find a solution results in societal collapse, or even extinction, then I will welcome those punishments.

>>2092206
efficient energy storage/buffering such as supercapacitors, hydrolysis/fuel cells, high-tech flywheels and what not would alleviate the need for such baseline power output.

>>2092222

lithium will last 32000 years

http://www.solarroadways.com/main.html

Anyone have opinions on switching to this?

>>2092252
we can breed deuterium and tritium from hydrogen with the neutron radiation from a fusion reactor, no need for lithium. At least not after the initial generation of comercially viable fusion reactions (which are still far off in the future).

>>2091757
how is nuclear energy not a green energy with it high output and and even re-use the waste

>>2092310
the problem is that the waste cannot be reused to 100%. For each kg you recycle you get another kg of contaminated processing stuff of neutron poisons (stuff that absorbs neutrons and thus would kill chain reactions), non-fissile but radioactive decay products and what not.

>>2092317
Why can't we just dump the waste which we are absolutely sure we can't recycle and won't in the future need into a subduction zone? Send that shit back into the deep belly of mother Gaia where it belongs. Yeah.

>>2092222
>The problem with fission energy is the fuel, it's a long-term problem and the economics of storing the waste are a hidden cost

It's more of a problem when you're doing it wrong, as the US and Russia do with their enriched uranium reactors.

It's less of a problem when you have breeder reactors that can re-process the fuel until it's practically inert, or if you just use a cleaner thorium cycle in the first place.

Waste storage for hundreds of thousands of years is a serious problem, but a couple decades for your reprocessing waste to go inert isn't such a big hurdle.

>>2091982
how the hell does your school use 100,000 dollars of power a year?
how big is this car park?

>>2092345
because subduction zones are geologically active by definition, think of all the volcanic activity and earthquakes at subduction zones.

We also can't just drill a small hole and then pump the stuff down there. We would need a geologically /stable/ cavern to store that tons of it and then wait hundred-thousands of years for it to slowly move below the other plate.

Not to mention that you have to drill really deep to reach the layers that actually move below the other plate.

We basically don't have the technology, and even if we did it would be even more risky than just storing it in a salt dome, due to the geological activity.

>>2092371
Well in that case, why not outsource storage to India or China? They already have nukes so no proliferation concern. :D

>>2092348
neutron poisons are still a problem, we can't just stick everything into a breeder reactor, there will always be some waste that would require some insane (read: impractical) neutron flux to break down

>>2092381
Fortunately the decay time to background for these products is measured in years or decades instead of millenia.

>>2092398
the problem is that fission can create any combination of lighter elements, so you get a myriad of possibly decay chains as side products. I doubt that all of them will have high decay rates.

>>2089646
>>2089634
>>2089631
>>2089625
>>2089575
>>2089558
>>2089548

>>2092381
>>2092351
>>2092263
>>2092206
>>2091982
>>2091768
>>2091757
>>2091740
>>2091724
>>2091611
>>2091568
>>2091346
>>2090262
>>2090239
>>2090228
>>2090213
>>2090208
>>2090200
>>2090104
>>2090078
>>2090064
>>2090028
>>2089575
>>2089571
>>2089568
>>2089558
>>2089548
so much goddamn samefag

>>2092351

According to the district all the high schools (there are 6) use 1.5 million dollars of electricity a year. The solar panels are also heavily subsidized by the state, and the car park is fairly large, pic related

If you want a link to the financial analysis I can give you that too.

>>2092438

Actually, i was wrong, the capital costs were 36 million (for the entire district) that pays for itself in 20 years, and pulls a 10 million profit in 25.

The districts utility bill is 1.5 million per anum and the system offset 1 million dollars per year, When spread across all the schools (there are 6). Since this is california, there are plenty of sunny days, and PG&E rates are highest at peak hours, precisely when the system works the best.

The analysis includes the cost of maintenance.