/sci/ - Science & Math

>Are the eco nuts trolling the world by preventing us from building modern nuclear reactors?
No, just stupid.

But still, GEOOOTHEEEERMAAAAAAAL

>Does Geothermal Power Cause Earthquakes? | Popular Science
>Mar 23, 2010 ... A new energy method could trigger a risky side effect

Brilliant! Lets put geothermal plants next to every nuclear facility, so we can guarantee no reactors will ever be built again.

Picture related: its the Canadian's bro's (the french) doing it right

No, they really are trolling the world

"Stop building nuclear reactors!"
And so the reactors that already exist can't be decommissioned without blackouts
>one of these really old reactors gets hit by a huge earthquake
"See, told you that nuclear was bad"
FFFFFFFFF-

How does Germany react in 20 years when they find themselves stuck with inefficient and expensive renewable technology while relying on dirty coal plants and dwindling supplies of Russian natural gas to provide their base power load because they decided to abandon nuclear?

rage reaching critical mass.

>>2723733
I don't understand how Germany can be so fucking retarded.

Don't they engineer and manufacture quite a bit of every goddamn reactor out there? Shouldn't they know better by now?

maybe they do know better.....

>>2723734
>600-1000 deaths per million people every year

>>2723741
After all of their stupid citizens crash on the autobahn and die, the nazi agenda will rise again, crushing those that stand in the way of their volkswagens and leopard tanks.

Mother of god.

>>2723733

The truth will hit them in the face when general population has had enough of ever rising cost of electrical bills and huge city covering smogs.

In the end, nuclear is the only way to go, as tokamak fusion reactors will NEVER be feasible. Well, we could wait and hope, the laser fusion or inertial electrostatic confinement fusion will bring the necessary breakthroughs, which we should see within couple of years (for the laser fusion) and a few for the IEC (until the team working for it gets it's 200,000$ funding to produce it's largest prototype which is supposed to give 100 megawatts of net power).

>>2723734
D'oh!

>>2723872
Laser inertial confinement fusion was developed for basic research in weapons technology. Electrostatic confinement fusion is only used in small laboratory settings for basic scientific studies.

My guess is if fusion is ever used for power it will be done with stellarators or tandem mirror reactors.

>>2723886
>solar power
Already in use!

>>2723690
We need dat fusion.
Also technocracy as obligated for me to bring up in threads where you post, as per usual.

Polywell confinement fusion looks also interesting..

But until fusion is achieved, advanced nuclear is obviously the best way to go.

>>2723733
How do you react when in 20 years you find yourself running out of Uranium?

>>2723911
go get Urdickium and Urcuntium.

>>2723911
we nuke everybody

>>2723911

Breeder reactors, thorium fuel cycle, seawater uranium extraction.

"Vast amounts of uranium, roughly 800 times the known reserves of mined uranium, are contained in dilute concentrations in seawater.
Introduction of fast neutron reactors, combined with seawater uranium extraction, will make the uranium supply virtually inexhaustible. Fast reactors are already operating at the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Plant in Russia and at the Monju Nuclear Power Plant in Japan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_depletion#Limits_to_the_impact_of_uranium_depletion

>>2723925
There are still no Thorium reactors in construction, I doubt they'll be ready in 20 years.

>Are the eco nuts trolling the world by preventing us from building modern nuclear reactors?
Civil? Probably. Military Use? Good fucking luck with this
>Are we too broke to invest in proper infrastructure?
Hell no, even a third world country like Argentina have CANDU Reactors. It's a matter of responsability.
>Do we lack enough experts in the industry to sustain more nuclear projects?
I don't know any figures but I do belive we have enough.
>Are we just waiting for the next gen reactors?
No base for this claim. Currently are 60 reactors under construction (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html))
>Is the human race prepared for the responsibility of maintaining a safe, complete nuclear fuel cycle?
As a whole? No (I'd never give nuclear technology to a country like, idk, Yemen). A few countries? Yes.
>Are we even responsible enough to build a campfire?
...
>In your opinion, What are primary problems and their solutions?
Goverments giving contracts to those who bring the cheapest alternative / project and people being uterly uninformed for whatever reason you choose.
>Picture related: its our Canadian bros doing it better than most.
I like Canadians.

>>2723719
Jesus, looks like in France you kick a rock and pops ups a nuclear plant.

Props to them

>>2723886
Polywell is looking pretty promising. And Unlike Tokamak it has the potential to be mounted in vehicles.

i guess you are the kind of dumbass who thinks he gan get rich if he filters all the gold from the ocean.

It is not really possible to build fail-safe reactors, at least on Earth. in weightless space, might be possible

the problem is that if the fuel overheats, it melts out of the containing pieces and into a puddle on the floor... then the puddle of fuel reacts even more--starts burning a hole in the floor///// and then all the molten fuel runs down into the hole, and then the fuel is even more concentrated in one spot, so it burns even hotter.

so after the shit melts and all runs into a hole in the floor, it's game over. you let it burn out and spew radioactive smoke into the sky until it stops on its own, because there's no way at all to separate it, and anything you dump on top of it will just get partly vaporized also and contaminated and carry off even more fallout

------

in [weightless] space if it overheated it would tend to vaporize itself and drift apart,,,,, so in space you could have a safe reactor

>>2723973
except that we already have built fail safe reactors

>>2723988
Which suddenly are no longer failsafe.

>>2723995
comparing fukushima to modern reactors is like comparing radio to smart phones

>>2724008
there's 23 of these fukushima reactors in the US that are still operating. we have no desire to retire them any time soon.

>>2724013
>Oyster Creek
2019

>>2724013
they also won't experience nowhere near as many quakes as fukushima has

>>2724025
a quake or tsunami isn't the only thing that can knock out backup systems. use your imagination.

>>2724038

>>2723988
>fail safe

there is no such thing

>>2724008
How do you know that what happened at Fukushima won't happen in newer reactors? I'm not trusting Ahmadinejad's claims.

>>2723936
And current and planned breeder reactors aren't nowhere near enough to guarantee supply either.

>>2724056
Then plan more reactors and energy sources, or make electricity more expensive.

>>2724055
> mfw we attack iran and it gets less shitstorm than this

It was german scientists that brought the world nuclear power. And now it is german scientists that see the folly of this. In 300 years, germany will be an utopia run on renewable energy mainly.

>>2723733
>implying germany can't handle it

they aren't retards and think about their future. Good for them.They are resourceful and will make up for nuclear power, with improved energy efficiency and regenerative energy

The problem with our world is democracy. People are idiots.
Most people don't know what's good for them and are afraid of things they don't know.

>>2723733

If there is one people I'm not worried about it's the Germans. They are like the masters of engineering.

>>2724068
they will make up for it with russian gas
which is a good thing
because russia's economy will strengthen
and russia will be strong enough to protect EU against NATO
also all future nuclear plants will be russian built

>>2723936
India is actually building a Molten-salt reactor this year

yeah. sending water cannons and choppers in to cool it really looks like control

>>2724078
germany is currently selling energy, they can shut down some of their npp immediately without worrying about their power supply

>>2724093
But that would harm their economy.

No, wait. Japan was the number 1 producer of Machine tools world wide with over 25%, Germany is second with about 20% in 2010.

>>2723973
You clearly don't understand negative reactivity coefficients. Thats shit that reacts less and less as it gets hotter, till it stops heating up. You also don't understand that we can make fuel mixtures that don't burn in air or water.

>>2723686
Waiting for next gen reactors? We could build them NOW, if we wanted to. Theres no new science needed - its just an engineering problem of building them 1GW sized instead of ~10MW sized. And all the tough problems have already been solved.

>>2724084
India is the only country I know of thats got their heads screwed on straight about this.

>>2724142
Fuck energy science. We need more apple products, reality television, military defense spending and we also need to increase healthcare costs incase fgts sue doctors for taking care of them (gods forbid)

>>2724157
Because India isn't inhabited by amerifats.

>>2724093
Germany has an excess electricity of 15 GW. Nuclear power currently has an installed capacity of 20 GW.

>>2724188
As I said, some of them.

>>2724188
So that's why they are planning to build 26 new coal fired plants? Gotta replace the plants which near the end of their life.

There isn't a single "clean coal" plant in operation. No proof of concept plant operational. The whole concept is borderline retarded.

I don't get how they manage to appear concerned about CO2 with all this bullshitting going around.

>>2724225
What the people don't know won't piss them off ;)
Energy companies man. Fucking bullshit.

>>2724225
mainly improvements in energy efficiency and regenerative energy

>>2724225
German (and EU) energy politics is fucking idiotic. Nobody has a clear plan and the energy corps just go for money in the end. Add a lot of greens with half knowledge and so called "experts" who really know nothing in to the mix and you understand the situation.

>>2724225
They're WHAT?

The last I heard, I thought it was just some retarded proposal that got thrown RIGHT OUT.

Fuck germany!

>>2724225
Because Germany produces coal and not uranium.

>>2724225
Those coal plants are intended to be converted at some point.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=de&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en&u=http
://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/0,1518,751293,00.html&rurl=translate.google
.de&usg=ALkJrhgPOhLetgJV2M3c27xlddblsc1hkg

It will cost Germany at least 230 billion euros if they shut down nuclear plants.

>>2724410
>at least
No. Their estimate costs 230 billion but it could possibly be less if the consumption goes further down than they predict.

>>2724357
German coal is incredibly expensive. They aren't even mining much of the coal they still have because it's still cheaper to import it from Poland and other Eastern European countries.

>>2724506
Makes me sad to be an Australian because of coal. We have so much of the stuff, its so cheap, and the anti-nuclear movement here so retarded, that it still supplies 80+% of our electricity.

>>2724556
I thought you got 80% out of hydro?
Germany needs more hydro.

>China has suspended approval for new nuclear power stations following the accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant.

>>2724751
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Australia
Nope. As of 2003, it was 77.2% coal, 13.8% natural gas, 7.0% hydro, 1.0% oil, 0.6% biomass, 0.3% solar/wind. I understand wind has gone up a bit since then. Perhaps you're thinking of Canada?

Hydro isn't too environmentally friendly. Interrupted river systems and whatnot. You want moar nuclear.

>>2724972
We are shutting off nuclear plants for good reason.
Who cares about rivers? Most of them are already regulated. They just need to add turbines on existing dams.

>>2724972
I'd imagine coal companies have so much buying power in our politics. Who knows what kind of bullshit they spout and it wouldn't even surprise me if they secretly pay some corrupt greenies under the table. People here say that they wouldn't dare live next to a nuclear power plant, but I don't see many residents around coal plants.

Aussies are just in general, pants on head retarded. Fickle as hell when it comes to elections, and don't give a shit about most policies, but hey wait, the footy is on.

>>2724972
>Austraillia has huge deposits of uranium
>they don't have any nuclear power plants
WAT

Though maybe the money is in exporting the ore to the world. Using any at home would hurt the bottom line.

Nuclear power is inefficient, costly, creates extremely toxic waste, and has an ever present threat of destroying large parts of the planet.
Fundamentally it isnt even modern technology, being just a steam-driven generator hooked up to something that gets "really fucking hot".. I mean really, is this the best science can do?

>>2725029
>good reason

Australians are too stupid to be trusted operate a reactor, even a modern one. They'd probably try to glass it in the face. That's the only good reason I could understand.

Australians; morals of a criminal, intelligence of a abbo.

>>2725117
inb4 300 replies

>>2725117
As opposed to every other form of power generation which has worse problems associated with it.

>>2725117

0/10, you come up with a better way of generating electricity other than turning a huge electromagnet wrapped in coils.

>>2725142

And don't say solar, that shit doesn't fly. Not yet, anyway.

>>2725125
but why are you angry?

If scientists know for a fact that solar and wind doesn't work, then why do they continue to support it? They already know that nuclear power works, and yet they tell us to use solar and wind.

>>2725144
Right because the research is continuously hampered by various external interests, including the nuclear industry.

>>2725169
Its scientific fact that solar will never be able to provide the output at the price or efficiency of nuclear. Nuclear is 5 times cheaper per kWh than solar power, and trying to convert our entire power infrastructure to this unproven renewable technologies will ultimately ruin our economy hugely slowing down any future advancement.

>>2725165
Because our energy comes from a variety of sources. It's not a question of simply wind OR nuclear, which is better?

>>2725169
No, the research is hampered by reality, and the toxins required to produce solar cells.

I understand your desire to affix blame on something, however you need to understand that desire does not increase the rate of research, education does.

If you did poorly in school, you are part of the problem causers.

>>2723936

India is planning to build lots of thorium reactors (look up Advanced Heavy Water Reactor), because India has some of the largest thorium reserves in the world. And like China, they have a severe energy deficit because of growing population and industry.

India's nuclear tech was learned from Canada's CANDU reactors. (Though Canada later retracted their cooperation after India used it to test their first atomic bomb.)

>>2725029
>good reason
nope.jpg
Let me guess, you actually believe all the anti-nuclear hysteria?

>>2725125
Australia has multiple reactors. They are used for research. Maybe even by "abbos"

>>2725212
>intelligence = pro nuclear
keep trying.

>>2725261
Research? Who's doing the research, Indians or Chinese?

>>2725251
Germany and Europe in general has little uranium resources left. If we want to wage another long war we need to be independent from Australia and Canada.
Unlike the US we have no nuclear weapons that could be converted to fuel.

>>2725104
Argentina built and sold a nuclear reactor to Australia.
Source: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/argentina_expor_1.php

It reached critical, shut down and now went full operational again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPAL#July_2007_shutdown

The wikipedia article you're citing is outdated.

taking the idea that nuclear reactors can be made proof of environmental accidents for granted, can they be made proof of accidents caused by incompetence?

and what about war? what happens if a nuclear plant is bombed? what if it's taken over by idiots who don't know how to run it but want to use it anyways? and then what about terrorism?

i'm assuming i'm going to be told that even if a major disaster happens at a nuclear plant due to incompetence that no problems would come about, or that it's impossible and could only happen at chernobyl. or that it's inconceivable that terrorists could cause an accident at a nuclear reactor which would be devastating to the environment around it on a scale which could not possibly occur with other types of energy sources.

i think the accidental humanitarian possibilities are the most realistic concerns over nuclear energy, but perhaps i'm just utterly misinformed and nuclear energy is incomprehensibly(to me) perfect despite my limited understanding of its nature.

>>2725392
>incompetence
Should be impossible without mass gross incompetence. Something to consider: Would you want to be responsible for Chernobyl II?

>War/Bombing
Assuming you mean light bombing that breaks the cooling systems that lead to a meltdown: Who conquers places to make them into uninhabitable radiological wastelands? Assuming massive bombing that intentionally breaks the core open: Well, it would be bad, but again it relies on the enemy being a) strong enough to invade a nation with a nuclear plant and b) dumb enough to shoot themselves.

>Captured and incompetent
See above about incompetence. It would be a significantly higher probability, but presumably they would be smart enough to not want what is now their land being turned into an uninhabitable wasteland and get some competent people running the facility.

>Terrorism
Give me some attack vectors. Plane? breaks the surrounding structure, but can't break the outer containment walls (thin aluminum vs meter thick concrete).

>i think the accidental humanitarian possibilities are the most realistic concerns over nuclear energy
The what? the accidental events which help humanity?

We could make nuclear reactors 300% safer if we would stop with the government subsidies that go into solar and wind and put that into nuclear plant research and development instead.

Nuclear power is the cleanest, cheapest, safest and most sustainable form of energy that is available to us TODAY. Anyone saying anything else is a motherfucking retard and have no basis in fact.

Considering the ratio between power plant size and energy output, nuclear wins by a huge fucking leap.

Nuclear power plants almost never break and require the least amount of money and material in repairs and upkeep.

The only waste produced by a nuclear power plant is spent fuel rods, which can either be rehashed into new fuel rods or terminally stored which has been solved and is perfectly safe.

Nuclear power kills the least amount of people. It really is that simple.

>>2725581
well, don't worry about it. i have no confidence in my capability to convince anyone here that things unforeseen can happen, nor do i really want to scare people of the idea of nuclear power or consider its relative risks to other power sources if something does, by an off chance, happen to go wrong. i have my own misgivings about nuclear power, but that's about the extent of it; i'm not going to make a judgment due to my ignorance.

your last line was especially off-putting. i'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but by "accidents" i was including the idea of the other things i'd written above it such as war and terrorism. i should have considered the word better. however, i detect that you were just trying to smugly state "i win," though, which is fine. you win, i suppose.

in the end i think most of the nuclear debates are a great deal like political debates. neither side is interested in getting to the truth and weighing the risks vs rewards(or, concerns vs benefits); instead, both pro and anti nuclear simply want to praove their view/desire to be right, and are dead set on making it seem like there are only risks or only rewards. i suppose that's the only way anything gets done, though, so please carry on.

ever since the quake happened, i have yet to see a single concession of anything or the value weighing that should be accompanied with it(from either side), but again, i suppose that's not how debate works. some people are rabidly for it, some people are rabidly against it; if there is anyone on the sidelines wondering how either side can possibly ignore certain points of both sides, they're not speaking up.

>doing anything good
>Canada

pick one


Capthcha: That's poopp

>>2725675
I don't know what world you live in but last I checked Canada is doing everything right. They have huuge untapped resources and will basically be the next super power after china (USA is already doomed).

And I'm not even Canadian.

>>2725581
>Well, it would be bad, but again it relies on the enemy being a) strong enough to invade a nation with a nuclear plant and b) dumb enough to shoot themselves.

New national defense strategy:

Reactors. Reactors Everywhere.

Although most nuclear power states already nuclear powers of another kind...

>>2725689
dude, what are you smoking and where can i get some? BC?

i'm catching a plane to vancouver TODAY.

>>2725689
and we're good at hockey

>>2724055

Well, something like a LFTR can't explode (no water involvement with the fuel) so that's one difference. Since the fuel is a liquid it can also be processed in-situ, which means no buildup of secondary decay products and thus you don't need tons of cooling even after it has shut down.

It's quite literally impossible for what happened at Fukushima to happen to a LFTR. It doesn't have the flaws necessary.

Further safety features include the fact that it's self-moderating (too much heat = slower reaction) and uses a freeze plug that will automatically dump the fuel into a drain tank if it gets too hot. Once in the tank it'll cool on its own and solidify. When you're ready to start the reactor back up, you melt the fuel back down and pump it back into the moderator vessel.

>>2725390
Didn't know the argies were good at nuclear or everything if that matters...

>>2725704

Invest in small, specialized drilling and oil extraction companies in alberta and saskatchewan if you want to make easy money in the next 10 years.

yes, ecolofags are dumb. i wonder why noone rages much when they took over japan's disaster to bring their antinuclear bullshit

OMG IT IS DANGEROUS THE TOXIC RADIATIONS WILL KILL US FASTER THAN THE CO2 IT MAKES AAAAH !

>>2725666

>neither side is interested in getting to the truth and weighing the risks vs rewards(or, concerns vs benefits); instead, both pro and anti nuclear simply want to praove their view/desire to be right, and are dead set on making it seem like there are only risks or only rewards

It's usually the pro-nuclear side getting scientific data (be it statistics or raw experiments/observation) AND delivering reasonable facts against anti-nuclear's arguments while those just keep on arguing unscientifically and on almost-impossible scenarios or just go 'IT'S BAD CAUSE RADIATION YOU SEE? RADIATION KILLS PEOPLE EVERYWHERE!'

Now tell me which side is to be preferred.

>>2725666
>i detect that you were just trying to smugly state "i win,"
I tend to play the Devil's Advocate. My apologies if I came off smug. What I think it really comes down to is: If you want debate/argument, ask anyone. If you want facts, do some research or ask an expert. As for unforeseen complications, I would point out that these exist with any form of power: Mass Solar carries with it the problem that the photoelectric materials are toxic; any large scale facility being poorly maintained could lead to significant toxic contamination of the site. Coal contains trace amounts of radioactive material, a fair portion of which goes into the atmosphere.

>I have yet to see a single concession of anything or the value weighing that should be accompanied with it(from either side)
Well, here you run into the problem of asking for concessions before we really know what's happened and what the final results will be from the incident. Further, you'll run into the fact that the Fukushima plant is a Generation II reactor that was built over 40 years ago and lacks many of the design elements and safety considerations that have been made with Gen III, III+, and IV reactor plans. So there's a fair possibility that even if it comes out that the problems were caused by design flaws that they have already been fixed in more modern designs.

I'm certainly not here claiming I'm and expert, but I try to help people better understand what little I do know as best I can.

>>2725833
maybe I don't like your odds, gambler.

i know little about nuclear power but I hope they build more just to not associate the retards that are against it

Generation 4 reactors:
* Nuclear waste that lasts decades instead of millennia
* 100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel
* The ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity
* Improved operating safety

Also it can use other uranium isotopes so we will have enough uranium for the next 10000years.

>>2725926

>statistics
>gamble

>implying I'm pro-nuclear and not just rating both sides from the outside

>>2725945
who makes?

>>2725950
yes.

>>2725926
Nuclear power kills the least people you fucking retard.

>>2725958

The coal and petrochemical plants as well as the oil refineries exploded instantly when the tsunami came through, throwing ash, coal, benzene, toulene, and zylene into the environment. They then set on fire, dumping more damaging smoke and co2 than any of the 6 reactors in question. Because of the chemicals listed previously, the coal and petrochemical factories already poisoned the groundwater and because of that benzene and coal the water may be flammable in some places. Those nuclear reactors would have to go into full meltdown (not possible now) then boil through the ground (probably also not going to happen. Did not happen even in Three Mile Island) all the way to the ground water. If anything, nuclear power just had a competition with our current coal and oil infrastructure and came out 4 to 5 days superior in stability and cleanliness. The reactors may be worsening, but they are still not critical. Coal plants, oil refineries, and petrochemical factories were shot the moment they were even damaged.

>>2726011
this
there are huge fires going on due to this right now
but noooo
news wont cover that because it isnt "SCARY"

>>2726011

'What did you say? An oil plant on fire polluting the environment? Man... we've seen that alrea- OH LOOK A NUKULAR PLANT IS GOING TO MELTDOWN OMG ATOMS EVERYWHERE KILLING US'

http://www.icis.com/Articles/2011/03/15/9443816/summary-of-japans-petrochemical-plants-status-after-
earthquake.html

1.21 giggawatts!

Numbers dont lie, fags.
Nuclear power.
Energy Dense. Safe. Clean.

>>2726080
hey remember when people would still believe that?

yea, me neither. trololololollollll

>>2726116
Remember when the general public was educated and rational? Me neither.

i_has_sad.jpg