/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2566277
Most nuclear plants worldwide have suffered significant delays, contributing to cost overruns endemic to the industry. As a result, the financial uncertainty of NP is so severe almost all projects require extensive government backing in terms of loan guarantees and subsidies. Wall Street has made it clear that nuclear projects cannot be funded in capital markets.

A comprehensive study by the University of California, Berkeley, revealed that EE and RE in the form of solar photo-voltaics (PV or solar panels), solar thermal, wind and geothermal will yield, on average, 2.7 times more jobs than nuclear. Clearly, investing in NP is not the best way to create jobs.

The fuel used in NP plants, uranium, is the same material or the precursor to that used in nuclear bombs. As more NP plants are operated, more materials for nuclear bombs become available. Even the pro-nuclear MIT study concedes proliferation is a grave consequence of a worldwide expansion of NP, saying “with modest nuclear infrastructure, any nation could acquire material needed for several (nuclear) weapons”.

>>2566282
Environmental costs

NP violates the sustainability principle that civilisation needs to embrace for its continued survival. The mining of uranium fuel causes severe damage to land often inhabited by indigenous people whose lives are closely entwined with their environment. Communities like the Navajo Indians in the US and Malaysians in Perak's Bukit Merah-Papan continue to suffer from hazardous waste from mining of radioactive minerals.

The problem of discarding spent nuclear fuel has dogged every nation employing NP. There is yet no long term solution. Proponents of NP might cite Finland's Onkalo, the world's first permanent geologic repository, as the answer. But a repository like Onkalo costs RM12.5bil to build, nuclear waste must be isolated for at least 100,000 years, and we have to tell an extremely distant future generation to monitor the said repository a feat the US Academy of Science deems impossible.

Humanity has never handled such mind-bending timelines as we know very little beyond even 100 years. So-called permanent repositories are really a leap into the unknown.The long timeline 10 years at least to bring NP on stream and the inevitable channelling of resources away from swifter yet more long term and more effective low carbon power solutions such as RE, will mean climate change remains inadequately addressed in the interim.

The scientific journal Nature put it this way in 2007: “To avert catastrophic global warming, why pick the slowest, most expensive, most limited, most inflexible and riskiest option? nuclear generation is just an impediment to sustainable electricity.”

>>2566289
EE and RE, on the other hand, do not suffer the safety, waste and weapons proliferation woes that plague NP. In addition, the cost of electricity from some forms of RE, like concentrating solar thermal, could be as cheap as RM0.15/kWh by 2020.

Finally, a Stanford University study last year found that 100% renewable energy can be achieved globally by 2030 with the only obstacle being political will. Contrast that with a 2009 report commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety, which concludes “there is as yet no obvious sign that the international nuclear industry could eventually turn the empirically evident decline into a promising future”.

algae

problem solved, thread over
anything below this line is trolling:
-------------------------------------------------

they have been delayed because you hippie faggots are against them

Well, some of us still hope some day we'll use fusion.

Fusion will be the next logical choice.
But hey we have not yet acquired those forms of technology!

SOLAR, WIND, WATER, NUCLEAR. Do whatever just don't burn stuff.

Source, please.

>>2566277

There are other potential sources of nuclear power than uranium, overlooking this is like saying oil is the only fossil fuel that we're using right now.

no one owns the sun, this means it is hard to make a profit off of solar power, no company would invest in something with little pay off

You fail to realize that nuclear power is the only option capable of meeting current and future energy demands, aside from oil.

Solar, wind, tidal, etc power simply cannot collect enough energy to be viable. They could be secondary energy sources, but there is no way at all that any of these methods, even all combined could meet out energy demands.

Biomass is more viable, but lack of space is a problem. There is almost certainly not enough land unless we drastically change the way we are living and growing in population.

Nuclear fission until we can perform viable nuclear fusion. If we can never viably perform fusion, then we're fucked as even fissionable material will run out.

>>2566399

Wait, what? Enough solar energy hits the Sahara desert to power the entire world 5-6 times over. Where the fuck do you get your stats?

>>2566397

algae

its true, republicans like the science that fits a very narrow world view(but this is true of dems too, really politicians in general)

>>2566391
You're not selling the sun, you're selling the power. Fucking /sci/ and the fucking economic illiterates

>>2566399
>Solar, wind, tidal, etc power simply cannot collect enough energy to be viable.
>implying Earth doesn't receive 90 petawatts of power from the Sun
>implying that isn't enough to power civilization
Renewables constitute all the power currently being received from the Sun. There is plenty of power.

>>2566416

What would it cost to set up and maintain such a solar array though?

>>2566432
It is only an example of how much power the surface of the Earth receives form the Sun. In reality many energy production methods would be used (like wind, wave, and solar) that all amount to harnessing the power of the Sun.

Nuclear is reliable and consistent making it great for baseload power. Solar and wind are just too dependent on environmental conditions to supply the commercial and industrial needs of a nation.

Plus, Generation IV reactors can use thorium and uranium waste from older nuclear plants. Fuel would be very cheap, while only making a hundredth of the waste compared to Light Water Reactors.

At the short term we should focus to replace our current power generating methods that use fossil fuels. This can be done with renewable energy but in their current state they are not cost effective so capitalist countries cant use them. Countries like China could start to build solar power in massive scales to fuel domestic energy demand. Currently only viable opion for western countries is nuclear energy because it has low levels of pollution and it has realtively cheap costs.

In medium term we should focus getting fusion power working and to commercial use. Fusion power is great because it generates huge amounts of power with almost none pollution. Only problem for fusion is that it requires high tech facilities that may be out of reach to poorer countries. To compensate this we should also mass produce solar power to compensate for fusion powers weaknesses.

In the long run only sufficient power source if the sun and its power output.

when were all these studies done? sounds like they almost completely ignore new research done into nuclear energy and much cleaner new methods...

>>2566296
>>Finally, a Stanford University study last year found that 100% renewable energy can be achieved globally by 2030 with the only obstacle being political will.

bullshiiit
what does this mean, if every government in every nation suddenly turned all their attention to renewable energy then we could do it? yeah maybe...

look I love renewable energy too
but it's just not practical at the moment
doable, yes, but not remotely feasible

>>2566483
Source: http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/2/19/business/8040105&sec=business

>The problem of discarding spent nuclear fuel has dogged every nation employing NP. There is yet no long term solution. Proponents of NP might cite Finland's Onkalo, the world's first permanent geologic repository, as the answer. But a repository like Onkalo costs RM12.5bil to build, nuclear waste must be isolated for at least 100,000 years, and we have to tell an extremely distant future generation to monitor the said repository a feat the US Academy of Science deems impossible.

nuclear waste is a non-problem, as long as civilization continues, temp. storage is perfectly adequate(better then long term storage, actually, as it allows easy recycling in the future) If civilization does fall, temp. storage is still adequate as in that cause who gives a shit?

>waah-waah indigenous people
fuck their shit

>delays
caused by politics, not tech

>The fuel used in NP plants, uranium, is the same material or the precursor to that used in nuclear bombs. As more NP plants are operated, more materials for nuclear bombs become available. Even the pro-nuclear MIT study concedes proliferation is a grave consequence of a worldwide expansion of NP, saying “with modest nuclear infrastructure, any nation could acquire material needed for several (nuclear) weapons”.

a non-issues for First World counties


You complain about cost (mostly caused by using 50 year old tech, and anti-nuke politics) but champion renewables, conveniently failing to mention the obscene cost of powering the world on them. You complain about the environmental damage, while insuring continued reliance on the infinitely more polluting coal and oil.

You are not arguing with logic or science, but with Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

>A comprehensive study by the University of California, Berkeley, revealed that EE and RE in the form of solar photo-voltaics (PV or solar panels), solar thermal, wind and geothermal will yield, on average, 2.7 times more jobs than nuclear. Clearly, investing in NP is not the best way to create jobs.

This is a shitty argument.

ITT: physifags who can't accept that NP will be a distant and barely visible second tier fuel in the near future

algae is the future, NP is going nowhere but into submarines (and maybe long distance space craft)

>>2566450
The price of fruit and vegetables varies depending on the productiveness of the growing season. Does that mean we should stop growing fruits and vegetables? Your argument is invalid because the same logic leads to absurd conclusions.

You know what always gets me? When people say stuff like "We can meet all our needs with solar power!" and then forget that at any given time half of the world isn't getting sunlight. Do they plan on developing room-temperature superconductors to transmit power halfway around the world? Giant batteries to store electricity (which will require huge amounts of mining and toxic materials)? Not to mention they never mention the lost cost-effectiveness of solar panels away from government subsidies, the environmental impact of having to create so many, and so forth.

Irrational anti-nuclear people amaze me. Are they environmentalists?

>>2566616
1) Demeaning physics tells me that you likely have no idea what the difference between energy and power is let alone an informed opinion of future energy production.
2) Remind me how algae produces electricity again?

>>2566620
I don't believe you have ever heard anyone say that exact sentence before.

>>2566645

you're a pile of fail surrounding shit pretending to be brains

algae makes diesel, any coal plant can be cheaply retrofitted to burn diesel

uses existing infrastructure=million times cheaper than any bullshit NP

>nuclear waste must be isolated for at least 100,000 years
I have no face at this nonsense.

>>2566658
>burning coal = burning deisel
HAHAHA! OH WOW!

>>2566661
It remains deadly for longer than that.

>>2566658
Is this the same stuff that almost killed all plant life on the earth?

>>2566669
>It remains deadly for longer than that.
No, it doesn't. At that time it is no worse for you than background.

>>2566658
since this guy just wants to act smug about his SUPERIOR ALGAES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

so it's another form of biodiesel... fine, good
we do have a few of those already
and that stuff still pollutes the shit out of the air

>>2566277

No, you're a retard.

Manufacture some affordable photovoltaic cells....
Mass produce....
PUT ON EVERY FUCKING ROOF.....
Less dependence on oil and people of color....
Pick up bitches in my electric car

>>2566696
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product#Long-lived_fission_products
Educate yourself.

ITT:

TOTAL NUCLEAR PROPAGANDA

TOTAL IGNORANCE OF SCIENCE

ADVERTISING FOR POLITICIANS SUPPORTING NUCLEAR POWER

>>2566694
murkuns are terrified of Diesel, any idea relating too it will NEVER work

Go on /o/, create Diesel thread, trolling deluxe

Shit like this is why we still use fossil fuels. The fucking anti-nuclear lobby is hellbent on impeding progress.

>>2566677
You are mistaken. You probably read somewhere that nuclear waste reaches a radioactivity of its unrefined form before 100,000 years. But that doesn't make it harmless.

>Because some radioactive species have half-lives longer than one million years, even very low container leakage and radionuclide migration rates must be taken into account.[40] Moreover, it may require more than one half-life until some nuclear materials lose enough radioactivity to cease being lethal to living things. A 1983 review of the Swedish radioactive waste disposal program by the National Academy of Sciences found that country’s estimate of several hundred thousand years—perhaps up to one million years—being necessary for waste isolation “fully justified.”[41]
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Geologic_disposal

>>2566620

>Giant batteries to store electricity

There are, of course, much smarter ways to go about that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage#Molten_salt_technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid

However, I don't think that renewables can, with our present commercially available technology, cover all our energy needs. I disagree with OP: nuclear (along with natural gas) are the only energy sources that can rapidly replace coal-fired plants. Natural gas can be a stopgap measure until we can phase out fossil fuels entirely. We're going to need a mix of all these energy sources, and that we can cover their weaknesses.

>>2566728
>A 1983 review
Oh, come on!

>>2566662
Difference is that you take at least same amount(actually more) of carbon from the atmosphere.
CO2+energy=>algae=>diesel=>CO2
Coal=>CO2

>>2566735

bullshit...algae diesel can directly refuel coal plants FAR faster than NP and at the same speed as NG(requires similar retrofit)

>>2566620

>Giant batteries to store electricity

There are, of course, much smarter ways to go about that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage#Molten_salt_technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid

However, I don't think that renewables can, with our present commercially available technology, cover all our energy needs. I disagree with OP: nuclear (along with natural gas) are the only energy sources that can rapidly replace coal-fired plants. Natural gas can be a stopgap measure until we can phase out fossil fuels entirely. We're going to need a mix of all these energy sources, and with that we can cover their weaknesses.

>>2566716
You are implying that after the things OP listed one should still consider nuclear fuel a viable option. I'd sooner deal with rising sea levels than dumping nuclear waste over the surface of the Earth for humanity to deal with the next million years. Nuclear energy is only remotely economically viable if one doesn't consider waste containment costs. How much do you think it costs to store nuclear waste for one million years? About a trillion US dollars per metric tonne? Two trillion?

>>2566735
I don't get why we can't just try a comprehensive approach involving RE and NP.

I firmly believe we will never leave this planet unless, among other things, we harness the natural power of the stars: Fusion. Researching fission should assist us in that endeavor.

>Most nuclear plants worldwide have suffered significant delays, contributing to cost overruns endemic to the industry. As a result, the financial uncertainty of NP is so severe almost all projects require extensive government backing in terms of loan guarantees and subsidies.

only because hippie assholes use constant lawsuits and enviro-studies every year for the express purpose of blowing up budgets, then using those same budgets as reasons not to go nuke.

its the same shit with capital punishment, the only reason it costs more to execute someone is because hippie fucks and greedy lawyers file appeal after appeal after appeal.

I consider myself a liberal but people like OP make me fucking sick and embarrassed to tell anyone.

>>2566694

Algae is actually a great idea, because it's carbon neutral

The algae that produces the biofuel will suck up the same amount of carbon from the air as the amount that comes out of the tailpipe. Net zero emissions.

The problem is getting algae to produce massive quantities of fuel, which is challenging to say the least.

>>2566738
Are you seriously implying the radioactive properties of elements changes over time?

>>2566760
That's not what I meant. Where are the latest estimates? Has no one else bothered investigating this since then?

>>2566758
It's just solar energy dude. I'd get better efficiency from some mirrors, water, and tubes.

>>2566772
You are still implying the same gawdam thing! Half-lives don't fucking change!

>>2566747
Procedure for long-term storage of unrecyclable nuclear waste:

1. Seal in concrete container
2. Bury in geologically inactive area, preferably in a desert region some distance from surface or subsurface water
*2. Alternatively, bury inside mountain
3. Leave

BAM! Problem solved.

>>2566758

hardly, it has been done, the market manipulations benefiting petro either need to be removed or extended equally to algae, and it would take over in a year

they obfuscate the issue by showing these reactor plants and high tech shit, when in reality the stuff can be grown in the ocean, on municipal waste, in agricultural runoff ponds and lots of other places very easily with very crude technology

>>2566782
No. Is the study of this so irrelevant that we have ONE Swedish estimate from the 80s? That's depressing. I'd think we'd be a little more interested in investigating stuff like this.

>>2566728
>You are mistaken. You probably read somewhere that nuclear waste reaches a radioactivity of its unrefined form before 100,000 years. But that doesn't make it harmless.
I guess you don't know anything about vitrification.

>>2566756

That's a bit of a myth

Nuclear power has always been extremely expensive, even before hippies and shit became a political force (lol). In places where they really took off, like in Ontario and France, they relied heavily on government subsidy and support.

In the US, private investment in nuclear sank like a stone in the early 1970s, before Chernobyl and before Three Mile Island. If nuclear were really profitable, they could have rammed through any political opposition by buying off Senators and Congressmen. But that didn't happen. And everyone (not just hippies) were afraid of nuclear proliferation, which explains why the regulations are so heavy. Would you want a loosely regulated nuclear industry?

This is not to say nuclear does not have a role in a future energy infrastructure. Gen III+ and Gen IV plants will be safer and less expensive than previous kinds, and I think a reasonable amount of deregulation and greater government investment could lead to some real breakthroughs.

>>2566782
The word is "goddamn," son. It's okay, you can swear on the Internet.

The algae fag is probably using research grants from Mobil.

>Most nuclear plants worldwide have suffered significant delays, contributing to cost overruns endemic to the industry. As a result, the financial uncertainty of NP is so severe almost all projects require extensive government backing in terms of loan guarantees and subsidies.
No one ever talks about the cost of stagflation when all these plants were being built.

This proves that economics is a good major.

>>2566796
>Gen III+ and Gen IV plants will be safer and less expensive than previous kinds
Have you seen how over budget the EPR in Finland is? They aren't going to be any cheaper; if anything, they are going to be more expensive.

>>2566788

Problem: uranium is too fucking cheap

No investor will touch thorium until we hit motherfucking peak uranium

>>2566790
Not that guy, but, for just the estimates on half-lives, there have been other studies. Nothing has changed there.

I take it you mean waste disposal. That, truthfully, has been a criminally neglected area for some time, mainly because we can't get past the bickering stage depicted in this thread.

>>2566797
Maybe I'm a pretentious atheist who doesn't like riddling his speech with as obvious theological artifacts. Come at me bro.

>>2566816

Here's where I kind of agree with the Libertarians: deregulation would probably help with the costs. But I'm not too familiar with the case of the EPR, so I can't tell for sure whether it's because of excessive regulation or because the inescapable construction costs. In any case, once in operation the $ per KwH would be unbeatable.

>>2566828

Gen IV plants can use nuclear waste as fuel. Problem solved

Or we could do this:
http://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of-honor

>>2566830
I'd rather not. You'd probably get grease on me.

>>2566790
1) There have been other studies.
2) You are implying atomic physics hasn't been researched into the fucking ground.
3) You are implying that measuring the half-life of elements isn't so simple that and undergraduates can and do do it all the time. Your question amounts to "they haven't measured density of water for 20 years?".

>>2566844
I didn't put any products in my hair today after showering. Even if I did, it's just mousse and a little bit of gel. Why would you be playing with my hair though?

>>2566828
Thanks. I gathered as much, but it just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I guess waste disposal is irrelevant if there is no waste to dispose. I guess it goes to show how influential renewable energy has become.

Our current economic system is based on infinite exponential growth. That requires exponentially growing energy production. If we choose to remain on this planet, and yet maintain the current economic paradigm, eventually we'll have to tap into all the energy sources mentioned in this thread. Even that won't be enough for the energy hungry humanity. Eventually all the fossil fuels, fissionable material and even fusion fuel on this planet will run out. Of course we can harvest the moon for more of the He3 fusion goodness, but that'll renew relatively slowly. There is only so much solar (including algae), wind, tidal, wave and geothermal energy per year to be harvested. The only question is: which energy source first?

Simple truth is simple.

>>2566796
I wont deny that the current tech is expensive but when nothing can get past planning stages because every community/county/parish/whatever gets all NIMBY with just about every eco-lobby shitting 10lbs. bricks.... fuuuu

it just grinds my gears, ya know?

>>2566864
I was referring to the grease on your skin. I meant to imply that you are a disgusting neckbeard who neglects personal hygiene in favor of arguing over nothing on the Internet.

>>2566835
>Gen IV plants can use nuclear waste as fuel. Problem solved
Lucky us, now we only have to pay for even more expensive facilities using a less cost effective technology that is out preformed by renewables, and only have to pay for several hundred years of waste storage instead of several hundred thousand.

Nuclear energy should only be used as a VERY last resort, where there isn't a cost effective renewable source for miles. And we have tax nuclear plants for the fuel they produce because that is the only way of making the real pressures of storing nuclear waste a real economic pressure. Businesses never look past the quarter, let alone centuries down the line.

>>2566880
Have you ever thought that the people opposing nuclear do it for the stated reasons in this thread and not because they are environmentalist hippies? If someone opposes cutting up the wooden from of their house for firewood I don't assume it is because they don't want to anger the wooden frame gods. I assume it's because they don't want their fucking house cut up.

>>2566296
>the cost of electricity from some forms of RE, like concentrating solar thermal, could be as cheap as RM0.15/kWh by 2020.
>by 2020

nice one, comparing projected future results to real world results. completely fair and balanced

>>2566879
That actually sounds more like a gross oversimplification of energy potential than anything else.

>>2566835
>Gen IV plants can use nuclear waste as fuel. Problem solved
Lucky us, now we only have to pay for even more expensive facilities using a less cost effective technology that is out preformed by renewables, and only have to pay for several hundred years of waste storage instead of several hundred thousand.

Nuclear energy should only be used as a VERY last resort, where there isn't a cost effective renewable source for miles. And we have to tax nuclear plants for the waste they produce because that is the only way of making the real costs of storing nuclear waste a real economic pressure. Businesses never look past the quarter, let alone centuries down the line.

>>2566880

Well that's understandable, but remember that there are many prominent climate scientists (James Hansen and Kerry Emanuel for example) who disagree with the UCS/Greenpeace/CAP/etc. position on nuclear.

Also, NIMBY affects EVERYONE, not just environmentalists. The only solution is to tell people about fun facts like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

>>2566894

By all means, I never meant to say that nuclear is BETTER than any other fossil fuel replacement. But I believe it is a necessary one, especially to replace the baseload capacity from coal plants. Renewable energy cannot be a baseload on its own without an incredible expansion that has HVDC lines stretching across the whole continent and a pumped water hydroelectric reservoir at every wind farm. One day renewables could supply 100% of our electricity needs, but not on the timescales we have to work with. Stabilization wedges are the way to go.

Nuclear Engineer grad student here.

OP is a faggot for a lot of reasons I'm not even going to bother explaining. Everyone who responded, including me, got trolled.

backslash fucking thread.

>>2566956
>Renewable energy cannot be a baseload on its own
You are assuming we have to have the ability to produce the same amount of energy at every moment of the day. When there isn't much wind or solar energy to be had then prices will go up for that period of time. We do the same for food production. We have been spoiled by fossil fuels. Industry having to go by peak energy production hours instead of whenever they feel like it won't be the end of the world.

>>2566985
U mad because YOU'RE (not YOUR, YOU'RE) field is lolirrelevant?

>>2566985
You are just defending your job prospects. Don't get mad at us that you made a bad career choice. I was thinking about becoming a nuclear engineer too, but I knew the determents of the technology back then and thus decided against it. Maybe you should have looked into it more.

>>2566992

It's all fine and dandy to tell people "get used to it fag," but rolling blackouts or at least severely curtailed energy usage are going to make people pissed. In the interests of societal order, we need to continue providing continuous baseload electricity.

Maybe one day, people will have a culture shift and realize what needs to be done. But that sort of thing takes decades that we do not have.

algae solves all of the problems of NP, and has none of the limits of solar or wind

if you think any next-gen fuel, renewable, or not, will even come close to the role of algae, you're in delusional fantasy world

>>2567027
Where can I learn more about algae?

>>2566618
I think everyone would agree that fruits constantly grown year round using hydroponics and controlled lighting would be more reliable, in terms of quality and yield consistency, than conventional farming methods. Just as electricity which is constantly produced from nuclear reactors is more reliable than sun and wind energy which is dependent on light and weather conditions.

That said, sun and wind should still be pursued as viable energy sources.

>>2567078
NO! Organic only! My homeopathy magazine said so!

>algae is the furture
>>Dmitrov[53] examined the GreenFuels photobioreactor and estimated that algae oil would only be competitive at an oil price of $800 per barrel
>$800 per barrel
>$800 per barrel
>$800 per barrel
>$800 per barrel

>>2567012
There will be black outs in areas that aren't willing to pay as much, same way you don't buy strawberries if you think the prices are too high because of a poor crop. People will alter their energy consumption habits because energy production companies will charge a buttload for the power they provide when there isn't much power to give. During peak production hours though energy will be dirt cheap. You are just arguing about the realities of economics, not renewables.

Then again, if I'm not mistaken Nixon is behind the food market shifting from regular sugar to high fructose corn syrup to make food prices more steady, thus ensuring food was no longer a factor for voters, despite high fructose corn syrup being horrible for people. You may very well be right and some asshole politician might prop up nuclear energy simply because voters are angry over an especially cloudy autumn.

>>2567094
ALGAE JUST GOT TOLD!

>>2567078
So build thousands of square miles of greenhouses bro. No one is topping you beside the realities of economics. But then again, maybe people are so sick of that extra dollar added onto their oranges once a year that they are willing to pay $15 per orange. Good luck with that.

Nuclear needs to be one of our power sources, if only because we need all the power we can get for the next 30 years.

>>2567088
>baby's first straw man
Isn't that cute.

>>2567101

>You are just arguing about the realities of economics

Well yeah

You can't escape the dismal science. These things need to be considered.

>simply because voters are angry over an especially cloudy autumn.

But that's the crux of the matter isn't it? Ultimately the state responds to the voters wishes. We can tell them "you should not care so much energy usage," but they'll demand their right to massive energy consumption and boot out any politician that says otherwise.

>>2567094

bioreactors are total PROPAGANDA bullshit

algae grows fucking anywhere there is water, from the ocean to municipal waste, you're full of shit

>>2567145
Organic food is good. It's healthier, lol. OMG I'm sucha cute girl ;)

This thread is a joke.

Greenpeace is funded by oil companies.

Nuclear power > All current solar extractors (including algae)

Also enjoy the toxic waste from producing solar panels are only effective for 20-25 years.

Longer the half life the less dangerous it is.
If it last for centuries the radon in your basement is more of a threat.

>>2567171

bullshit

algae replaces the food, fertilizer and medicine from petrol too

produces zero waste, and requires near zero infrastructure

but yeah, millions and millions in infrastructure and loads of the most toxic waste known to man, plus no food or fertilizer, yeah thats far superior

>>2567148
>But that's the crux of the matter isn't it? Ultimately the state responds to the voters wishes. We can tell them "you should not care so much energy usage," but they'll demand their right to massive energy consumption and boot out any politician that says otherwise.
1) I thought this was /sci/? The board that is unswayed by the wants of the idiot masses who don't know what is good for them?
2) It won't be politicians telling them. It will be their energy bills. When people realize they are paying 10 times the cost for power during dim and low wind periods of the day they will tell their kids to turn their fucking lights off during those periods of the day.

Using it to produce diesel before electric or fuel cell cars take over is one thing. Using it to produce electricity is quite another.

>>2567153

Shit ain't that simple

You've got to be able to have all the algae grow in a harvestable location, and not just floating in the sea. Then you have to protect it from disease, because it's like a huge monoculture crop. And the energy density is very low, since it produces energy through photosynthesis, so you'll need vast tracts of land with the equipment in place and sealed off from pathogens.

Algae fuels could potentially develop into a promising technology, but it just isn't ready for primetime yet

A well developed pluonium or thorium economy can and eventually will reduce costs of production to even lower fees than today's

>>2567204
Listen if you think algae can work back it up with statistics.

Meanwhile I have nuclear heavy countries like France and Belgium as hard evidence that nuclear power can safely supply a first world country's power needs.

>>2567204
>requires near zero infrastructure
That sure sounds like a lie. Algae efficiency for converting light energy into fuels that are then combusted to do mechanical work or create electrical energy is retardedly inefficient. To create sufficient amounts of fuel one would needs absurdly large facilities spanning thousands of square miles?

>>2567214

bullshit

its not monoculture, co-cultivation techniques have already been developed

and this load of crap about "location" is bullshit EXXON PROPAGANDA

all the fuck you have to do is go vacuum it up, using all the advanced technology of a fucking POOL SKIMMER

go fuck yourselves PROPAGANDISTS

>>2567242

its called the ocean ass-hat

>>2567280
And when you fuck up it's ecology then what?

>>2567280
Fine, I'll fucking bite. Explain to me how the algae is produced and harvested.

>>2567291

did your homeopathy journal tell you how algae already grows in the ocean?

>>2567313
So taking a shittonne out is going to be good for the environment?

>>2567313
Yeah and it can cause a massive mess when it blooms.

>>2567327

that mess would be fuel and fertilizer if we took the time to harvest it

>>2567304

you may be unaware of this, but all around the country(USA) there are man made drainage lakes filled with municipal waste water

all that need be done is seed these lakes with algae and then harvest said algae at a later date

many other techniques are possible, such as harvesting existing ocean algae blooms, or cultivating our own, as well

I'm so butthurt by this algae guy. If this is so great, why aren't we doing it? Also, why does exxonmobil have so many algae commercials?

>>2567379

>>2567153
>>2567204
>>2567272
>>2567362
800 US DOLLARS A BARREL

>>2567362
For fuck's sake, you sound like you have never heard a single word about or seen a single image of the facilities they create algae biofuel in. The facilities consist of greenhouses with algae filled being slowly bumped through clear plastic tubes exposed to sunlight. By the time the algae reaches the end of the tubes it has reached the desirable harvest density. Where did you hear about them harvesting naturally occurring algae? That sounds fucking absurd.

>>2567388
It would have been better if you said dorrars a barrer.

>>2567388

bioreactors are nonsense EXXON PROPAGANDA

see this>>2567362

>>2567396

those facilities are EXXON FUNDED BULLSHIT

see >>2567362

>hurrdurr collect ocean algae

way to gloss over the INSANE cost of such a project

do you realize just how much fucking OCEAN there is? I'll give you a hint, it's a lot. Fuck I doubt you could even collect enough oceanic algae to power the fucking harvesting vessels.

>>2567396
he's talking about harvesting natural algae to avoid the fact that bio-reactor algae-oil costs 800 US DOLLARS A BARREL

lol wild algae
enjoy your energy density

>>2567483
But the costs would be even higher! Farming too inefficient for him? He proposes that we fucking hunt for it?!

you may be unaware of this, but all around the country(USA) there are man made drainage lakes filled with municipal waste water

all that need be done is seed these lakes with algae and then harvest said algae at a later date

ITT: Exxon/pro NUKE PROPAGANDISTS that give up because of this simple fact :

ALGAE

>>2567513

ITT: No-capitalization guy strikes again, continuing the longstanding tradition of giving each "sentence" (unpunctuated, of course) its own line. The English language could not be reached for comment.

>>2567584

does your boss let you off the hook for failure, if you show him it was no capitalization guy that pwned your ass?

>>2567644
I have no stake in this thread. However, I have come to enjoy watching you make an ass of yourself on /sci/.

>>2567513
Look at this crazy son of a bitch. Next he'll tell us we should just put corn in fields and come back for it, or put chickens in a shed so we can harvest their eggs.

STOP TRYING TO PLAY GOD.

>>2567718
Quit being such a faggot and actually make good arguments instead of propping yourself up with sarcastic yet nonsensically implied relation samefaggotry.

Saging despite the OP making a good point because of this retarded tangent.

>>2567752
>op making a good point
>mf
>>2566556
>>2566556
>>2566556

you may be unaware of this, but all around the country(USA) there are man made drainage lakes filled with municipal waste water

all that need be done is seed these lakes with algae and then harvest said algae at a later date

ITT: Exxon/pro NUKE PROPAGANDISTS that give up because of this simple fact :

ALGAE

>>2567850

>>2567834
That post is ridiculous. He can't even form proper sentences let alone muster a defensible position. His argument amounts to "dur hur, future generations will solve all of the problems!".

>>2567850
I don't know if this is the same idiot poster, another troll, or someone trying to mock the original poster.

>>2567850
Unless you provide a reputable source saying it's practical and economical to do this, your post is about as useful to me as a glass of my own piss.

Can't we just stick with oil?

make some co2 scrubbers, pull the carbon out of the air, turn it into oil, burn the oil. etc etc.

you may be unaware of this, but all around the country(USA) there are man made drainage lakes filled with municipal and agricultural waste water

all that need be done is seed these lakes with algae and then harvest said algae at a later date

http://works.bepress.com/tlundqui/2/

>>2567922
You could have posted this four hours ago. Why didn't you?

>>2567945

balls


thats why

>>2567953
I've seen better.

>>2567272
>>2567280

>implying you can grow a culture of fuel producing algae free in the ocean
>implying creating entire infrastructures to process the algae is cheap
>implying just because it grows anywhere it can be harvested without problems
>implying there aren't residues and contaminants that can either kill the algae or ruin its fuel properties
>implying you don't have to extract the fuel from algae and leave the dry algae behind in the process

I only trust economic studies posted in Malaysian Ringgit. Fuck dollars / euros / yen / RMB / GBP .

>>2568085
Hell yes. Why would you use anything else?

double fart

>>2566277

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2010/07/here-at-the-crossover-solar-beats-nuclear

you're right. it's about double the price per kwh compared to coal, but it has the benefit of a) not being a pipe dream like wind and b) not spewing CO2 as though it gets absorbed up by the Wind God. I'm in support of nuclear because of anthropogenic climate change, but i only think we should have to use nuclear until physicists have refined (hot) nuclear fusion power to be viable. It would be non-radioactive and almost as importantly, sustainable for thousands of years.

How about trying something like this?
Build a flying-wing kite with wind turbines and solar panels and fly it over low clouds. Obviously wouldn't work in regions with severe storms.

Well, nuclear could be used to replace fossils. But nuclear should also be replaced, since we have too keep the waste away from all humans for a couple of million years. So it will not be sustainable.

>>2571930
>implying there is such a thing as cold fusion.
>I really have no face.

>>2572022

True, nuclear is not sustainable. We will hit peak uranium sometime or another, at which point we'll have to start feverishly filtering seawater for uranium. The waste is an issue. HOWEVER, climate change is more of a threat than a few Yucca Mountain facilities, which are far from where any human lives.

>>2572056
reported

>>2572056
May God have mercy on your soul, because I don't.

I got an idea... how bout we just shoot that nuclear waste shit into space??? It's not like we're gonna need it anyways... send that shit to an alien life form's place that might take over our planet. Problem solved.

>>2572207
>I got an idea... how bout we just shoot that nuclear waste shit into space???
Nuclear waste is valuable and there is only a 98.3% success rate getting into orbit.

>>2566817

>Problem: uranium is too fucking cheap

Actually Uranium is kind of expensive due to the low percentage of Fissel material found in the ore. The current business model is to supply the plant for close to cost in order to lock in a customer. Money is made from the sale of fuel


Thorium is a by product of the rare earth minerals mining and actually costs the mine to dispose of it. China is the largest miner of rare earth minerals (something crazy like 90%) and it is believed that rather than dispose of their thorium, they've been stock piling it. This makes China's recent announcement of a molten thorium reactor program very interesting.

Anyone yet mention that the new reactor in Finland is late because the french contractor hired hungarian and polish subcontractors to purposefully fuck up and disobey every regulation in the book? Areva's CEO got the sack for using fukken sovietretards and slavic monkeys for building more than Ladas.