/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3673724
One of the worst things I hate about environmentalists is they ignore that nuclear energy is cleaner and safer than all other forms of energy production. Ok, maybe not cleaner, but safer. And still pretty clean.

>>3673734
Definitely cleaner, too. What's unclean about it?

>>3673743
Well, there is that whole 'radiation' thing.

>>3673743

HURR DURR NUKLAR WAEST WILL DETROY ENVIOMANT

That.

Remember when nuclear powerplants didn't release radiation into the surrounding environments after "isolated incidents"?

Me neither.

>>3673743
nuclear waste. I took out cleaner because other power sources CAN be cleaner, depending on how they are made. But maybe not. Then you have the issue with transporting nuclear waste, not necessarily storing it. And then, good luck trying to get the public behind it.

Nuculars cause global warming and stuff.

In other news, Germany gets 20% electricity production from renewable sources.

Apparently, when germans are polled asking whether they thinks its alright that they pay more for their electricity because of the renewable efforts, nearly as much as 80% said it was good or wouldn't mind paying more.

>>3673784

The best part is that Germany plans to phase out nuclear and make it up by buying power from France.

Who are getting the power they are selling Germany from their Nuclear power plants.

So really, it's just a net win for the French.

>>3673784
germany's demand of coal is increasing pretty badly as well though
>>3673734
I would say the worst part is the damage incurred by the construction (and eventual dismantlement) of the reactor itself, though I don't know how much better thorium reactors would be for that.

>>3673807
>implying we'll be able to supply two countries during winter.
I'm serious. We already had problems last winter.

>>3673820

It's cool, you can just build new nuclear power plants.

I hear Germany is about to have a sale.

it's still a lot better than coal/oil

>>3673807
Decreases political pressure, though.
>>3673814
whose demand for coal is easing?

>>3673831

I really think modern governments need to create a Department of Memes, just to infect the populace with some better ideas than the standard media-Facebook-internet blitz seems wont to do.

Also, would be an awesome job.

>>3673760
Coal waste is more radioactive than long term nuclear waste. Also,
>>3673755
Coal powerplants release more radioactivity into the atmosphere than nuclear plants do. Especially on a day to day basis.

>>3673842
I like this idea

>>3673853

It sounds better than 'Ministry of Propaganda too.

>>3673843

I have yet to see any other form of "clean energy" cause trillion-dollar eco-disasters that cause the land to be uninhabitable for hundreds of years.

Have you?

>>3673885

How about eco-disasters that DON'T get paid treatment and steadily poison entire communities without even warning? *coughcoalcough*

>>3673905

I never said I supported coal.

>>3673885

Well, not 'clean energy', but also less exaggerated.

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

Also, Chernobyl cost less than 1/4th of 1 trillion dollars, nice try though.

>Economic cost

>While it is difficult to establish the total economic cost of the disaster, in Belarus the total cost over 30 years is estimated at US$235 billion (in 2005 dollars).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Economic_cost

As to Fukushima, Maybe 1.2 billion.

http://media.swissre.com/documents/pr_20110321_japan_en.pdf

So, now that we've established you're exaggerating by between 4 (over thirty years) and 1000 times, anything else?

>>3673915
win

>>3673910

Only one nuclear "eco-disaster that causes the land to be uninhabitable" has ever occurred once, Chernobyl.

Long Island, Fukushima, both dealt absolutely NO damage and are perfectly safe places to live. It's just people getting scared because of emotions remaining from Chernobyl (because the media at large is in the oil companies' collective pockets).
Chernobyl was a human error caused by foolishness, and modern reactors cannot even replicate such an error.

As an absolute whole, nuclear power is ten thousand times cleaner than coal and oil, and the only competitor that CAN support humanity's energy requirements long-term.

If you don't support coal, you at least should fight battles that can be won. Solar has merit, fusion has big merit. Neither can hold humanity up for the next 50-100 years.
Coal and oil are both inefficient and severely dirty, in addition to finite. Sufficient for now, but not even for the next century.
Hydro and wind have their own massive flaws that simply cannot be worked out, most notably wind turbines are downright TOXIC to create, all in addition to being insufficient.

The only option left is geothermal. Fight for that all you please, I beg you, but at the moment it's not widespread enough.

I'm pleased with this thrad

>>3673928

I try, thanks.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of current reactors are shit as demonstrated by Fukushima (Who the fuck designs a disaster readiness system that assumes external power will never be cut?) but that is in part because of the fuckhuge fearmongering people like Fagotron do, which leads to incredibly insular government organizations having control over new designs and taking decades to approve even small fixes.

One of the many things that grinds my gears.

>>3673949

>a lot of current reactors are shit as demonstrated by Fukushima (Who the fuck designs a disaster readiness system that assumes external power will never be cut?)

Two of Fukushima's reactors were Generation 1s. Two of them were Generation 2s.

We are in generation 4 of nuclear reactors.

Fukushima was in for a safety upgrade within the year of the disaster.

>>3673959

>We are in generation 4 of nuclear reactors.

Oh, and by this, I mean if all 4 reactors were truly modern, <span class="math">the[/spoiler] <span class="math">disaster[/spoiler] <span class="math">would[/spoiler] <span class="math">not[/spoiler] <span class="math">have[/spoiler] <span class="math">happened[/spoiler].

>>3673929
>wind turbines are toxic to create
You should get a tripcode, you're clearly retarded.

>>3673949
>>3673959
>>3673967
The bigger fuckup is having a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT in a location known for EARTHQUAKES AND TSUNAMIS. In my opinion.

>>3673982
so Japan shouldn't have any nuclear reactors?

Great job, you just cut off the penis of one of Americas greatest trading partners. Now they can't produce SHIT.

>>3673959
>>3673967
>>3673982

Yeah, that's the problem, and one of the things that I find annoying about this whole thing. That was a 1/10000 year earthquake and tsunami, and it STILL wouldn't have caused the plant to fail if it had been built properly.

And as a result we get OMG NUKLEAR IS BAD GUYZ.

>>3673973

I like these wind turbines:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9Wlwno2wc&feature=player_embedded#!

"It is estimated that a single system can produce as much power as 500 normal wind turbines."

China is mass producing em. They use magnetic levitation to basically reduce friction to 0. More power.

>>3673994
Put them underground or some shit. Or at least not at the coast.

>>3673996
wind turbines are perhaps one of the deadlist forms of renewable energy. Ice coming off the blades, they freeze up in winter, are expensive to maintain.

>>3674000
Japan is a coast. And in case you didn't know, you need a constant supply of water to cool the reactor.

>>3674009
THEN PUT IT UNDERWATER. That way, the tsunami waves just go over it.

There, I just fixed Japan.

>>3674002
they also enrage our avian friends

college student here. I was in a presentation today for an engineering class. The speaker was talking about alternative fuel sources, but he said that nuclear power is dangerous/bad for the environment and expensive. He also mentioned that the nuclear waste produced by nuclear reactors is radioactive for millions of years. I know /sci/ usually advocates nuclear power, but is actually this true?

>>3674019
radioactive for millions of years? Yes, it was radioactive to begin with.
bad for the environment, expensive?
no

>>3674002

Did, uh, you even watch the video?

Also: put them in open fields in areas that get no winter. There are lots of those. Solar is great for deserts as well. And these specific turbines don't have blades persay, and certainly not ones that rotate as fast as the normal versions. They are huge, and relatively slow.

>>3674019
The longer the half-life of a radioactive material, the less radiation it produces at any given time. The most dangerous radioactive materials (radiation-wise) have the shortest half-lives. Those that are radioactive for millions of years are much, much less dangerous.

>>3674024
in soviet uk, we put wind turbines out at sea

>>3674029

Or even beneficial, microwaves, medical tech, etc.

>>3674032

Exactly. That's good use of space.

>>3673996
cool video

I usually skip over youtube links

>>3674029
Came in here to say this but you beat me to it, bastard. But yeah, you could have those radioactive pellets in your lap and it'd only give you sterile junk if it were there for a thousand years.

>>3674021
Interesting. I figured this guy was talking out of his ass, anyway

Nuclear is only bad for the environment when radiaion leaks out, which (contrary to what NUKE BABY NUKE people will tell you, happens more frequently than you would think)

I fully believe our power needs can be taken care of by solar (for landlocked areas) and tidal for coastal areas. The sun has enough fuel for millions of years of operations, how many more years of oil do we have? how many years of nuclear? Maybe 100 if we are lucky.

>>3674420
>nuclear fuel
>100 years

Pleeassseeee be trollin'

RADIOACTIVE WASTE IS BAD

DERAIL THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE TRAIN

The enviornmental movement is basically an arm of the oil/fossil fuel lobby.

They only push energy alternatives that are far more costly than thermo power by burning of fossil fuels.

It only takes $100M-$300M to get a workable LFTR NPP proof of concept... All you need is one billionaire with venture capital.

-While US Solar companies have gone out of buisness because Kyocera already owns the solar market.

-German nuclear program too buttfucking retarded to change the discussion in Germany and ask for a 'redo' of German Uranium NPPs to LFTR. Instead of outright phase out.

The only countries phasing out Nuclear are countries that are next to Russia (Big Nat Gas/Oil/Coal)

>>3675939
BUT THORIUM IS SAFE TO DRINK

I'm from a eastern european country and there are plans to build a nuke plant near where I live

We all actively take part in protests and when it moves forward we'll start lying on the street in the way of construction trucks and whatever it takes

ain't no way in hell I'm letting them build this thing

well, /sci/, you all talk about how much you want nuclear power, but what would your plan be for actually dealing with nuclear waste?

woah, nuclear thread without me? come on /sci/

are people still praising LFTR as the second coming without realistically addressing the downsides again? that's never fun

>>3676163
>PhD in Nuclear Fusion
>Any amount of power I want
>300kW and starting

>>3673929
>Chernobyl was a human error caused by foolishness,
more like a series of errors compounding over and over again, errors that and competent plant manager would have immediately called quits on instead of going further.

also, RMBKs are _fucking_stupid_

>>3676155
Obviously by building an unknown thorium plant. >>3676155

>>3673959
>Fukushima was in for a safety upgrade within the year of the disaster.
daichi 1 was due for decommissioning about two weeks after the disaster occurred
two fucking weeks

>>3676178
thorium reactors still produce waste. about 10000 times less waste than past reactors, but still waste. what do you intend to do with it?

>>3673996
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9Wlwno2wc&feature=player_embedded#!
the very high production value of that video has me worried as to their claims
but it seems kind of legit.
500 traditional windmills? i'd put money on it being more like 20

>>3676190
we have tons of viable waste storage sites.
i've never heard a legitimate complaint against yucca mountain. what the fuck are you worried about? ground water contamination though fucking 6 feet of glass and steel around EACH fuel rod cask?

What are the serious disadvantages of an LFTR?

>>3676190
the waste is highly radioactive and has to be stored for 300 years apparently, which is very manageable compared to the thousands of years of conventional plants' waste.

>>3676208
it's mechanically unproven. most of the fundamentals have been worked out and documented by MRSE, but we haven't really made a commercial power generation model yet.
also the active fuel reprocessing could turn out to be a real bitch to make work.

it's pretty damn safe, but the actual fuel running through it WILL be intensely radioactive due to u232 contamination that builds up over time. a good secondary containment almost eliminates this problem, but it's still a thing to keep in mind

aside from that.....uh....i got nothing

Why do you think leftists almost always oppose to nuclear power? A lot of them anyway.

In my own country, this socialist group label nuclear power as an "expensive hobby" (don't get me started on space exploration).

>>3676221
you can't use them to supply your nuclear weapons program.

>>3676221
That sounds quite.. alright, actually.

Down the line, we'll have experimental LFTRs springing up in China and whatnot, but then a completely unexpected problem comes out of nowhere and nobody will attempt to use it again.

Imagine an LFTR exploding somehow in its first year of operation.

Atleast Thorium waste is in small (would be) amounts. Put inna caste. Done.

You do realize the US had to build JACAD for chemcial weapons.

A huge facility 1,500 miles south of Hawaii on Johnston Atoll just to dispose of VX Nerve gas as well as other chem agents.

Sure, we might have to design a bunker for waste. Lah dee fricken da. That can be built on site at a NPP. And that's the case for most anyway.

Atleast it doesn't corrode alloys and needs to be dealt with 1,500 miles from any human where the workers need to be in a air seal command room with emergency incenerators in the VX gas holding room.

>>3676225
i've been wondering this too, but it's not exclusive to the left.

i think it's the same reason people have a subconscious fear of flying in an airplane, but will get in their car every day to go to work. Statistically, the car is orders of magnitude more likely to get you killed than the plane ride.

I think it's something to do with a human tendency to focus on exceptions or rarities. Exotic or rare threats are terrifying. common threats are almost ignored.

going ONLY by this, nuclear power is probably the safest power production method ever.

>>3676233
i can't imagine it exploding very much
there's nothing to explode inside secondary containment since nothing is under pressure or particularly flammable.

now, uranium hexafluoride could be pretty nasty shit, but there are pretty standard safety systems to deal with that, and it's easy to keep fuel reprocessing systems isolated from eachother.

Is there hope for having an LFT reactor in the future? Are there any active developments?

>>3676278
chin's putting 2 billion per year into lftr alone, and forcing mining companies to filter out and isolate any thorium in their metals.

it's going to happen

i'm just terrified we (the us) will not get there first, foreign nuclear dependence and all that.
then again it'd be fun to do what they're done to every intellectual property ever. fucking steal it

>>3676155
Well, LFRT reactor waste? Why, I'd sell it for a profit. After 10 years, most of the dangerous stuff has decayed away, and you can get some rare minerals out of the waste that you could sell for lots of money.

>>3676190
Again, I'd sell it. For the stuff you couldn't sell, I'd store in some barrels somewhere for ~300 years, until it's back down to background levels, then stuff it in a cave or landfill. Whatever.

In all the diagrams I've seen of LFTR they employ control rods to keep the fluid under control. Why not just start out with a low temp fuel-salt mix and stick fuel rods into to bring it up? And why go from fuel salt to cooling salt to helium? Why not just go from fuel salt to coolant fluid and use that to drive the turbines? If you used oil it could even lubricate the components as it turns the rotors. And why limit yourself to thorium? There's a shitton of Pu rich waste, can't that be used too?

I love the idea of a LFTR but there's room for improvement.

>>3675939
>>3675939
>DERAIL THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE TRAIN

Meanwhile, in the 1980s

youtube.com/watch?v=ZY446h4pZdc

>>3673724

the sun is powered by fusion, but there's no fusion practically available today.. fission is dirty as shit.. then.. it's a very legitimate opinion.

>>3676352
It's quite possible that commercial fusion will produce more nasty waste than LFTR. Please get your facts straight.

The sun provides all our present energy requirements.

>>3676352
> fission is dirty as shit
It generates a few kg of long term radioactive waste, in a solid fucking lump.

Solar on the other hand is superclean(not), because the cheapest energy form around(when agressively subsidized way beyond nuclear), and because the chinese makes the cheapest solar everyone buy from them.

And they can have it so cheap because the chinese are immune to the compounds used in solar panel manufacturing (or have no (enforced) enviromental regulations allowing them to spew highly carcinogenic shit into the air and waterways. )

But hey, who the fuck cares about the chinese or the economy, or baseload electricity, hell i'd love to spend a winter without electricity.

>>3676356

whatever... I'm just saying that the fission power is not that great deal in my opinion.

A step-by-step increasing investment and research in green energies is the best solution today.

>>3676365
You fucker. LFTR is green energy. It's more environmentally friendly than any kind of solar or wind or tidal or dam. Seriously.

>>3676363

You know what's the best thing about green energies apart the clean fact?

That YOU can produce energy in your own home.
No fear of huge bills, no blackouts, you are the only real owner.

For me, that's enough.

>>3676376
Hahaha, no. You can coat your entire house with solar panels, and you won't generate enough electricity for an average family.

>>3676370

Honestly I'm not very informed about it.

Btw most of the recent governments plans for new nuclear plants do not involve it. Here in Italy they wanted to do 3rd generations plants. Fucking no. That's why that green movements cannot be considered that bad imho.

>>3676379
Houses built for energy conservation is capable of producing more energy than they need. Some houses are built that way where I'm from.

>>3676386
I'm sure they can (source). But people want to live in normal houses.

>>3676386
No. You do not have a sufficient battery to power it at night.

>>3676376
>No fear of huge bills
Panels+installation+inverter+storage = $30k for a moderate installation.

>no blackouts
only that the earths rotation means you'll have to live on stored energy each night(and batteries degrade over time). Which instantly cuts your production capacity in half. And then it could be you know, clouds which cuts it further in half. and depending on where you live, snow, which pretty much zeroes the production until you get it off the panels.

You know there's a reason why solar output in germany only on average reached 1% of total capacity over last year.

If nuclear wasn't heavily regulated you could produce energy in your home from it.
If you own forest you can chop down a few trees and burn them as "energy production in your own home", you can buy a diesel generator and produce energy with it too.

Now of course you'll probably pull some idealized example out of your ass about how you live in a half-desert with constant winds allowing you to enjoy 20kW around the clock guaranteed energy, but for 99,999% that won't work for economy and/or enviromental reasons.

That said, yes i know that solar will be cheap as motherfucking dirt in ten years, but now it's excessively expensive still

>>3676392
>surplus doing the day
>divert it the the power net
>get power free doing the night

>>3676393
>That said, yes i know that solar will be cheap as motherfucking dirt in ten years, but now it's excessively expensive still
Citations? A curiousity if true. It still does nothing without an energy storage solution.

>>3676393
You do know that you can still be connected to the power network, right?

>>3676396
>surplus during the day
What parallel universe do you live in?
Assuming you could even get 100% coverage during the day (let alone a surplus), what are you going to do on a cloudy day?

>>3676396
Yep, free power from LFTR, which will be cheaper than your solar, so you won't actually get free electricity at night because they can make it during the day cheaper than what you can sell it back.

>renewable sources
>windmills

>mfw they rob atmosphere's angular momentum >mfw thus robbing earth's angular momentum
>mfw thus bringing the planet to a complete halt
idontwanttoliveonthisplanetanymore.png

>>3676383
> Here in Italy they wanted to do 3rd generations plants. Fucking no. That's why that green movements cannot be considered that bad imho.

So you'll probably either import energy from neighbouring countries(coal probably), which certainly is great for your already rickety economy. Or you'll go with coal/oil which releases more radioactive compounds into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant.

Oh, and you know that gen3 plants are a shitload better than say fukushima? no, because its nukulaaer enerji!!111

>2011
>still acting like a bunch of nirvana fallacy worshipping hippies

Most environmentalists are retards, covering your house in solar panels is a retarded way to produce renewable energy, ideally every population center should have it's own centralized substations and economy of scale sized solar, geo, wind and hydro plants. If they want to "change the world" they're goint to have to embrace reality at some point. Until then we'll just burn coals to preserve industrial civilization.

Oh and industrial civilization is a good thing. Do you think sapient (hurr sentient/conscious/soul/spirit) life should remain naturally evolved and eat vegan until the sun expands into a red giant and consumes the earth? Haha! Fuck you.

>>3676398
>Citations? A curiousity if true. It still does nothing without an energy storage solution.

PV panel construction uses semiconductor technology, meaning it enjoys benefits from the billions of dollars in research money spent from companies building computer chips and whatnot and as such it is estimated to follow a similar moores law curve. Even if not, well the computer chip industry replaces their equipment regularly meaning that a lot of highly advanced instruments are up for sale 2nd hand sale, and these can be repurposed for solar manufacturing.

I can't bother to find specific citations, but you've probably heard about Solyndra(the now bankrupt friend-of-obama run company that burned through 0.5billion USD stimulus money in two years), they started selling panels at $2.0 per Watt, and in the beginning that was good and average market price. But in these two years the chinese competition have dumped their prices by 40%+ so that solar runs for $1.2W now.

Then of course, panel price per wattage is misleading as installation and whatnot adds to the price.

>>3676390

what if the government impose to build new houses only under certain energy conservation standards?

>>3676408

know what? we have not that faith in our administrations, wastes would be surely stored by mafias like they do with the garbage (in fact there's a city, Naples, where there's a cholera risk since they don't give a fuck about citizens health).

Better a economy collapse.

>>3676438
>"better an economy collapse" than potential mismanagement.

Fuck you.

It seems clear to me that LFTR is the way to go. I'm just saddened that no socialist party in my country embraces nuclear power, only one crazy liberal party does, and the next election is in a couple of weeks.

>>3676450


potential mismanagement: radiation leaks, disease, malformations, destruction of the environment and shit of any kind paid by future generations.

Economic collapse: they'll pay all for their not giving a fuck about corruptions, mafias, shitty politics and administrations like they DESERVE to, but the future generations and the environment will not.

>>3676438
>>3676450
More specifically, fuck you and your hippy stupidity.

What the fuck do you think will happen if the global economy collapses? The worldwied human population is not sustainable right now without it. Millions if not billions would die without modern fertilizer and such.

You are worried about chlorea? Fuck you. What happens when there is no economy? You think that's going to result in better sanitation and health? God damn your stupidity.

And yes, I may have just been trolled.

>>3676460
>troll pic
Yep, I've been trolled. 10/10

Regardless if trolling or not, Scientist is absolutely correct and Lukas is a fucking idiot.

>>3676474

the economy will be fixed a way or another, this there's not the first economic crisis in history, obviously there will a price to pay, but , as I said, I prefer the current generations to pay for their shitty behavior instead of the future ones.

Also, Germany did the same choice regarding abandoning of fission and improvement of green energy investments, are you going to call them stupid too?

>>3676494
The Germans abandoned a promising technology which is likely cleaner for the environment, cheaper, is also renewable, less bad waste, in favor of entirely unproven and unknown set of technologies.

So yes, I'm calling them retarded.

>>3676505

>summarized: anyone but me is fucking retarded

>>3676509

No, only anti-nuclear greens are retarded. Such as in Germany.

There will be a time when the same people will beg for nuclear, you can count on that. Future civilization will not be powered by renewables, electricity demand will continue to rise fast.

>>3676505
>thorium is renewable
Sorry, that's wrong. I was just throwing out buzzwords at that point, being pissed at all.

>>3676509

Stop using those reaction images, you are digging your own grave, exposing your /b/tard tendencies (which at the same time reinforces our opinions that you are an inferior human being(intellectually AND morally). You even said at one point that you hadn't really read anything about LFTR and yet you continue to argue that millions of people suffering and dying (economic collapse) is better than that. You truly are a horrible person, and you should feel horrible.

>>3676509
That guy looks like a chick.

I forgot to reply to some people.. well:
>>3676393
>nuclear plants in houses
seriously? Are you so cool to give such a thing to the average joe, criminals, psychopaths, terrorists, ecoterrorists, people who just does not give a fuck about environment throwing waste away etc?

Different opinions man.

>>3676379

mfw in Austria there's a entire town working on green energy
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/business/worldbusiness/28iht-carbon.4.7290268.html

>>3676392

what if you store it as air pressure?

>>3676509
>summarized: you are a retard

>>3676532
>what if you store it as air pressure?
You... you think air pressure is a more efficient means of storing electricity than batteries?
Get the fuck out. This is a science board.

>>3676532

You sure are retarded. Have you even read about the problems with storing energy as air pressure? No you haven't

When something goes from high pressure to lower pressure the temperature drops to very low temperatures, so you need energy to heat the air up again, and the maintenance costs will be huge, because the materials you use to store it in will be exposed to very high temperatures and very low temperatures often and the temperature shifts will happen very quickly, which is something that will break EVERY MATERIAL IN A VERY SHORT TIME EXCEPT FUCKING DIAMONDS.

>>3676539

sorry I was not so clear.

I didn't say to use it as an alternative, but as a plus when batteries aren't enough.

In alternative, what about thermal energy? (I mean in a house designed for it, not in a normal one)

>implying battery technology for renewable energies are anywhere near ready for real use
Energies such as solar and wind simply aren't ready for large-scale metropolitan use, and batteries aren't mature enough for large-scale power-smoothing. Nuclear will still be the best large-scale 'green' source until at least 2035.
Fact is, Gen III+ and Gen IV plants are prepared for a Fukusima-based disaster.

>>3676552

ok, but how could we expect to see green energy read by that time if then we don't invest (so buying) on it?

>>3676559
ready*

>>3676559
I'm not denying that investments should be made, but I don't believe that countries such as Germany should completely kill their nuclear portfolio.
Also, Germany is probably the worst place to look at for their change in energy production. They're having a severe engineer shortage, and have been attempting to woo American engineers over there. See: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/policy/germanys-green-energy-gap

>>3676527

like it or not, this is a imageboard, and I bet you lurked on /b/ too in the past, like almost anyone on here.

btw, I'll take a look, you should do the same about green energis.

>>3676565
whoops, I meant: http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/germany-faces-a-shortage-of-engineers

>>3676551
If batteries aren't enough, then air pressure would still be even worse.
Thermal energy? You mean geothermal? There's only a very small amount of places (like Iceland) on Earth where that is a viable alternative.

>>3676567

I'm a physics major (not in the US).

I do several projects a year on alternative (green) energy sources and possible ways of storing it. Air pressure is one of the worst ways though.

Fact is, Japan has no choice BUT Nuclear. They have very few natural resources (and even fewer oil and coal plants), and they waste vast amounts of money just to create/import LNG for their natural gas plants. That's their only choices, so nuclear is the easiest way to go for them.

>>3676565

wat.. that's very strange, since Germany have a great history and culture of engineering.

In that case, I would lower the University fees for Engineering studies to incentivize people to choose that studies.

>>3676577

oh good for you then.
btwregarding your previous post, I was not talking about million of people dying, we do not know how an eventual economic collapse scenario would evolve.
In the case of the country where I live (Italy), I think that a economic collapse could stimulate future generations to be more diligent and to give up that "idontgiveashit" behavior that's sadly characteristic of this country today.

And btw thats a little bit hypocritical since there are actually millions of people dying right now.

>>3676590
millions*

>>3676590

please explain how it's hypocritical? Nuclear energy is not what is killing them. I don't think you know what hypocritical means.

And how is green energy going to save people from starving? The millions dying right now has nothing to do with the energy situation.

So when will we see LFTRs

>>3676598

within the next 5 years probably.

>>3676595

you said to me that I'm a bad person because I'm supposed to be ok with people dying because of the collapse, but economic collapse or not, there are still millions of people dying in the world, for many other reason, (including the persecuted one in China, a nation grown on investments of the entire western world, or the one killed in wars in Africa financed by... guess who?)

>>3676610

But how is that related to nuclear energy? Green energy won't save them, but nuclear energy can save future citizens.

>>3676610

Yes, you are a bad person if you are OK with millions of people dying, no matter the cause. One wrong does not make another wrong allright.

And you seem to be underestimating the death toll such a collapse of industrial civilization would cause. Industrial civilization is the reason why there is 7 billion of humans on this planet instead of 2-3 max. Death toll would be in the billions, all over the world.

>>3676631
ironically correct

If you don't solve any problems but use green energy, you get praise.

If you solve problems but use nuclear energy to do it, you get no thanks.

>>3676614

that's just how the discussion evolved.

btw, I don't think so.

Think about Central Africa, most of them doesn't have any resources, water, energy, food, nothing. But still they are invested by A LOT of Sun energy.

Think about what they could do if they will be able to use that energy. They could transport water, sanitize it, use it for artificial cooled environments where to make vegetables grow.
But they can't, because no one gives a fuck about really helping them apart charity organization that are most of the time just fucking scavengers.

>>3676615
The point is that I never said to be cool with it. I'm not ok with million of people dying.

But I'm ok to see the system that droved us to this situation punished. I'm ok to see that fucking idiots who put that bastards in government and administrations in the country where I live without a fucking cent in their wallet, because it's also their fault if this country is ruined.

And no mister, I'm not ok to make future generations to pay instead of them.

>>3676638
>system that droved us to this situation punished
If a collapse happens, the people responsible will be the last to suffer.

Your 'punishment' will instead kill billions of innocent people.

>>3676638

But.. But.. Nuclear energy will solve ALL THESE FUCKING PROBLEMS GREEN ENERGY WILL NOT!

Get it through your thick skull, there is no dangers in modern nuclear plants, and even just replacing all coal power plants with nuclear would only be a plus for the human race. How the hell can you be against that? No future generations are going to pay, but with coal and running our economy into the ground like you think we should, is going to make the future generations pay.

The superior moral standpoint is with nuclear power, and I know that you are obsessed with being morally correct.

>>3676646

maybe I'm just ignorant, but please tell me, how a not-renewable form of energy could be considered more reliable than a green renewable one in a very long term?

If you are talking about thorium well.. I didn't say nothing about it because I know about it very little, we'll see about it in the future..

Also, I do not understand why you are so skeptical about green energies.
Read more about Dr. Nocera (MIT professor) studies.

>>3676665
>maybe I'm just ignorant, but please tell me, how a not-renewable form of energy could be considered more reliable than a green renewable one in a very long term?

Call me short sighted, but I'm more concerned about the next 1,000 years and preventing human death than worrying about nearly abstract problems 10,000 years from now. Hopefully the human population will go down quite a bit, and then our thorium supplies will last.

Protip: even your "renewables" are exhaustible at some point. Eventually the sun will go out. It's possible that we have sufficient thorium reserves that the sun will go out before we run out of thorium.

>>3676665

green energy is nothing more than a tool for politicians to get votes from retards.

>>3676595
>And how is green energy going to save people from starving? The millions dying right now has nothing to do with the energy situation.
That's arguable. It's political, but if they had access to cheaper energy, then the political situation might improve for the better.

>>3676705

I almost put "at least not directly" in parenthesis, but I decided against it because I thought it was trivial. I guess I should have done that.

>>3676706
I think it's an important point. So many of the world's political problems could be solved with cheaper energy. For the US:
- Could stop invading random countries for oil.
- Could get out of the whole Israel hell-hole situation.
- Could be a little more isolationist again, or at least less "Team America - World Police".

For other countries, cheap energy could also let them become independent, and greatly help out their local farming and such. In modern farming IIRC, the fertilizer is crazy expensive to make, relatively speaking. Cheap electricity would go a long way.

The hope for the future I have is to raise everyone out of poverty, which will hopefully lead to lowered birth rates, and a shrinking of the human population to more manageable levels.

>>3676691
By the time the sun goes out we should have been already imported resources from outside the Earth. Like Titan, that thing has oceans of petroleum doesn't it?

>>3676715

I hope that will be the case, also more educated = less children. But unless something drastically happens within the next 100 years, then the human race will be in a rot it will not be able to get it self out of, and we will go extinct (civilization will).

>>3676715

>- Could stop invading random countries for oil.

But it's not about acquiring oil, it's about keeping the prices within a stable range so the US can sell at a profit. I'd imagine that there would still be enough money in oil even with efficient energy production to still warrant this anyway.

>- Could get out of the whole Israel hell-hole situation.

Haha oh wow if the US ever backs down from that mess I highly doubt it will because of energy production.

>- Could be a little more isolationist again, or at least less "Team America - World Police".

Again, oil/energy is a pretty big issue but by no means is it the sole economic/geopolitical force behind American foreign policy so it will still pretty much just be the same shit, different smell anyway. Unless, of course, you consider coups in order to control fruit prices somehow better than ones involving oil.

>>3676408
>here in Italy
>>3676383
>your already rickety economy.
>>3676438
>Better a economy collapse.
>>3676462
>if the global economy collapses

ITALY IS THE GLOBE.

>>3676868

Someday...

hey, quit hatin' on solar power.

it has more potential than LFTR in the very long run
it's just that focusing all efforts on it right now in the hopes of some major breakthrough is a fucking stupid idea.

>>3676509
i was wondering who would break down first in that argument.
sorry lucas, you're the idiot here.

>>3676578
the fact is, nuclear is politically incorrect in japan now.
every other day some new radiation scare pops up in the tokyo newspapers
>new study finds tap water ten times more radioactive than normal! is it safe to drink!? are our governments lying to us!?
this is to somehow imply "ten times normal" = "anything even close to what your body would respond to"

>radioactive beef from the fukushima area! it could be anywhere!
There was an actual mixup here. some cows were contaminated by the disaster and had to be killed, in addition to the wheat that got a very fine sprinkling with shit.
i believe some wheat got through the quarantine and some cows ate it, and became very mildly contaminated themselves because of it. not THAT much but still outside safety limits. This resulted in a huge stink about in competent health and safety people.

and then every other week the papers run a new story
>is [X] radioactive!? more on page 11

it's basically political suicide to anything other than bash nuclear power. thanks mass media you're a real pal

>>3677515

it was referred to him, I don't think that was so difficult to understand.

>>3676278
China announced a research program, and it was recently leaked that there is a private research effort in the UK. There is grassroots lobbying for LFTR as one of the US 4G nuclear research efforts, but so far it has only received token funding.

>>3678656
>token funding
it got funding AT ALL?
wow, that's more love than i expected from congress over a decade

>>3673929

Words cannot express how much of a stupid motherfucker you are.

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/how-it-works.htm

This is the future.

Nuclear energy is just the same as fossil fuels; shit will run out in just a few decades.

Add to that the fact that, in order to replace fossil fuels within the next 20 years, we would have to build a new nuclear power plant on the order of every other day. This is impossible.

also,

>most notably wind turbines are downright TOXIC to create

FUCK YOU FOREVER

>>3679423
Just need to add, radioactivity is far less of a problem than the public think. Humans (well, life on Earth) is far more tolerant of radiation than is commonly believed.

My objection to nuclear is that economically and logically, it makes no sense. The environment can go fuck itself as far as I care.

>>3679423
>shit will run out in just a few decades.

You've already proven you don't know science, why are you still posting?

>build a new nuclear power plant on the order of every other day. This is impossible.

No, it isn't. Even if this wasn't hyperbolic bullshit it would be entirely possible with the right resource allocation

>>3676421
>>3676379
>>3676285
>>3676278

Look at this image.

>>3679423

>>3679448
>>3679423
>implying building enough solar panels to cover an area the size of Spain and developing the needed infrastructure is even remotely realistic.

>>3679467

Less realistic than

>a new nuclear power plant on the order of every other day

The stirling technology has been proven reliable and workable. It doesn't need exotic materials and would completely end any dependence the US has on any other nation, for good.
What more could you fucking ask for?

>area the size of Spain

dohoho.

That would be for the entire globe. The US only needs a tiny area, and the sites could be spread around.

If you'd looked at the image properly, you'd know that.

>>3679481
what's unrealistic is saying
>a new nuclear power plant on the order of every other day

Well, I have to hand it to you that it's not exactly unrealistic to say it.

It's a lie.

A vile falsehood.

If I was your mother and heard you talk out of your ass like that, I'd cram a tonne of soap down your throat.

>>3679423
>shit will run out in just a few decades
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

everything else you said might be completely factual, but that one statement just...i don't know man. can you BE that dumb?

What happened?

Suddenly /sci/ is flooded by people who think nuclear power is the great satan or something.

Is this a subtle /b/ raid or do people really have so much trouble with rational thinking?

Not to poo on everyones parade here, but isn't the nuclear material just heating water to produce energy from the steam running through a turbine?

Are you really telling me there aren't better designs that don't use radioactive material to spin a f*cking generator?

I say keep the radioactive materials used for more interesting science projects.

>>3679677
It's leftist pussies from Reddit.

its funny when people say that the west is soo much more civilized than the west. they dont even have that many plants, and they are all very recent!

>>3679745
the ladder should be the east.*

>>3679423
Fossil fuels will not run out in a few decades. We have sufficient thorium to last millenia, if not longer.

The map is grossly misleading. AFAIK, it does not include power transmission losses, which are significant. That's also assuming a pretty high quality solar panel setup. Last time I did the calculations myself was a while ago. Perhaps I should look at the current state of the art and redo it.

Also, how does nuclear make no economic sense. LFTR has the potential to produce energy as cheap as coal, which is the cheapest source of power around.

Also, those cost estimates did not specifically call out their energy storage solution. I wonder if they even took that into account. That can drastically raise the price and area required. Unlike LFTR, which can be turned on and off on need, and is follows the load quite nicely.

>>3679732
Excepting photo-voltaic, you are correct that all forms of modern large scale energy production involve spinning a turbine to create electricity.

Dude, spinning is awesome. What's your problem with spinning?

>>3679732

Turning out spinning a generator at a sufficient velocity is pretty hard, that energy has to, you know, come from somewhere.

And it turns out radiation is highly energetic.

I just said, by the way, "energy is highly energetic".

>>3679774
>the ladder

>>3679784
forget thorium, uranium will last a couple centuries at least on its own

It is a matter of national and international circumstances - not whether you think it is better than other sources of energy. Dumb thread is dumb and I see it FAR too often.

>>3679941
as in; it's politics and the needs of the people are vastly outweighed by the perceived fears of the people.

yes, we know, and damn does it suck

I've seen some interesting reportage on the French tv.

Some engineers are creating some kind of storage center for nuclear waste. Underground.

And one of the questions they were asking themselves was: how do we make sure in a thousand years when those nuclear wastes will still be active and potent, people do not simply forget about them?

Should we build some kind of gigantic sculpture on top of the site?

It was a rather mindblowing thought.
Just like thinking some dudes (astronomers) get to name whole planets or galaxies.

Maybe in centuries people will live on those planets...

>>3679745
>>3679745
>west is soo much more civilized than the west
>west
>west

>>3680117

>what I'm talking about:

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

The concept itself is crazy.

>>3680117
best bet is some kind of heavily armored underground installation so it's difficult to accidentally get into. one main entrance has a very well built, geometric statue marking it, something that will withstand 10 thousand years of erosion, then carve on a stainless steel plaque, very deeply, the same message in about 5-20 standard languages.

if anything it'd be a great Rosetta stone for later civilizations, in case ours...doesn't work out...or long term records prove to be unreliable

>>3680162
also, from that same link
>The ability of natural geologic barriers to isolate radioactive waste is demonstrated by the natural nuclear fission reactors at Oklo, Africa. During their long reaction period about 5.4 tonnes of fission products as well as 1.5 tonnes of plutonium together with other transuranic elements were generated in the uranium ore body. This plutonium and the other transuranics remained immobile until the present day, a span of almost 2 billion years.[19] This is quite remarkable in view of the fact that ground water had ready access to the deposits and they were not in a chemically inert form, such as glass

woah shit! that's pretty damn cool. 2 billion years underground, completely unenclosed, and close to ground water without any natural contamination? very nice

what if for disposal of the spent fuel and other nuclear wastes, we were to just load up some sort of containment vessels and put them on a rocket with a trajectory that culminates in the sun? last time i checked, sun has essentially all the mass of the solar system, is quite warm, and is a big source of nuclear activity already. i fail to see how we could do anything to the sun that it wouldn't already be doing to itself.

>>3680199
>>3680162
At some point, ironically, it was suggested to set up a religion to keep the message of the deadly place.

See, languages change over time, but legends and religions stay.

English-speakers today would be hard-pressed to understand one from four hundred years ago.

But we still know of the Epic of Gilgamesh and others.

>>3680238
Because that's unbelievably expensive? Mostly that.

>>3680215
Add to that the fact that vitrification has been studied and used for storing nuclear waste.

Oh god that hippy arguement...

>20,000 YEARS FROM NOW IF SHTF... HOW WILL OUR OFFSPRING KNOW WHAT RADIOACTIVE WASTE IS?

If 20,000 years from now, SHTF and humanity loses all it's technolog. all it's accumulated sci progress... and is shunted into the stone age..

The last thing I have to worry about is some knuckle dragger picking his way into a plutonium caste. Who gives a shit humanity would be in a fucked position anyway.

If Humanity has tech and info continuity it shouldn't be a problem. There will be the information availble.

>>3680238
Or shoot it all into Del Rey crater on the moon.

Lets not lose it in case we might one day use it.

itt: wizards playing with fire and raging when warned

oh and having a huge chunk of the human population die would be a net positive unless you expect us to start packing people off to other planets or moons before we start reaching the 8,9,10billion line.

>>3680328
You want to ban fire now too?

>>3680358
~brofist~
lmao
Nicely done sir.

>>3680249
one falcon 9 can launch a little over 4500 kg to gto and over 10000 kg to leo. (not that we want that stuff flying around the earth but it could be a holding position then a second stage can send it on with the journey.) that is with modern technology, but as the cost to launch continues to trend lower over time, it would be come more viable. as it is, 4500kg should be able to get the entire year's worth of waste that simply cannot be reprocessed from several plants into the sky at a time.

>>3680358
funny guy.
0/10
i hate your pic also.

>>3680368
Sorry, non-biting sarcasm hasn't yet been invented.

>>3680256
>implying Data wouldn't figure it out and get rid of all the radioactive shit.

>>3680406
Data has a positronic brain(invented by Asimov).
That means he's a lot more vulnerable to all kinds of radiation than humans.

>>3680393
it'd mean more had you not jumped to a conclusion.
i'm not against the use of nuclear power as a temporary solution.

>>3680451
This thread has been full of "NOT ONE DROP OF DANGEROUS NUKULAR RADIOACTIVE ELECTRICITY, ONLY WIND UND SOLAR", so I was assuming you were continuing along the same line.

Can you blame me?

Besides, nuclear energy is conveniently compact unlike just about any renewables I can think of with my tired brain. I don't see wind/solar replacing nuclear except near the equator and a few other places where the power/volume ratio can be gotten high enough.

>promoting nukes in modern political climate

You might as well advocate eugenics in Germany.

Nuclear * has become an icon for everything that was wrong with the world since the mid Cold War. TMI, Chernobyl, and pop culture has sealed its image.

It doesn't matter what your arguments, until the last generation that had to deal with almost any nuclear incident die off, nuclear will not be accepted.

Not that it matters, there are better options out there.

>>3680521
i remember watching a vid about some experiment where they made a light appear via sound and the temp they measured was ridicilously high.

>>3680573

>Not that it matters, there are better options out there.

There WILL be better options out there.

Right now, and for the next 50 years MINIMUM, there are no better short term options.

>>3680611
You're probably talking about sonoluminescence.
Google or wiki it if you want to learn more about it.

It was a proposed system to produce cold fusion, the so-called "bubble fusion system".
No fusion was ever reliably detected.

>>3680611
found it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWO93G-zLZ0

lets talk drastic.
let's say we simply absolutely had to have more power. fossil fuels ran out and nuclear fuel magically disappeared.
we could just build shit loads of geothermal plants.

>>3680573
Yeah, the recent incident in Japan have people screaming against the idea of using nuclear power. Didn't they just can cancel two nuclear power plants in Europe because of it?

Why are people still feeding the trolls in this thread?

>>3680756
And why do people still advocate geothermal like its some kind of perfect energy source? Shit can cause earthquakes if its not handled properly.

If Nuclear Power is safe, then:

Why are repository for extremely dangerous waste needed?
Why a malfunction/unforseen contingency normally means that the land will be poisoned by generations?
People working in those plants are normally asked "to take a break" due to long exposure to rads?

I ask of you: is it really worth the risk? imagine that a nuclear plant is right behind your house/neighborhood. Would you feel safe?

>>3680884
*for generations.

Whoops.

>>3680884

None of those things happen with LFTR's

>>3680884
trolololololololololol

>Need to shut off American during winter and when clouds come every other day

>Solar power

>Future

Nope

>>3680917

Oh, Solar power is the future.

The far, far future.

To all trolls taking note right now, advocating against nuclear energy is a great way to troll /sci/. Mind boggling ignorance on this topic is very common and believable.

The NIMBY bullshit squad acts like splitting a bunch of uranium atoms in half is like opening the necronomicon after midnight. lol.

Nuclear Engineering student, btw.

>>3680907
And you fell for it. Those questions were all either non-sequiturs or strawmen.

>>3680884
i'm falling head over heels for this troll

>Why are repository for extremely dangerous waste needed?
because it's extremely dangerous waste, but produced in very small very contained packets that can be totally enclosed, instead of slowly spewed into the air over decades (all fossil fuels) or produced in the tons by substandard production methods (solar)

>Why a malfunction/unforseen contingency normally means that the land will be poisoned by generations?
pretty much all contingencies are forseen. almost all nuclear disasters to date have been due to incompetence on the part of the staff, tremendously bad timing on the part of equipment failures. It's a miracle there are any disasters at all, and if you look at the accident reports for TMI, chernobyl, and fukushima, you'll see they were all perfect storm scenarios instead of run-of-the-mill problems. Let me tell you, you can never prepare for perfect storms, but luckily they're hideously rare and their effects can be mitigated greatly.

>People working in those plants are normally asked "to take a break" due to long exposure to rads?
the yearly accepted dose in microsieverts for NPP workers is equivalent to a few transcontinental plane flights or a couple chest x-rays. the NRC is ridiculously cautious, which mass media latches onto unfortunately.

>I ask of you: is it really worth the risk? imagine that a nuclear plant is right behind your house/neighborhood. Would you feel safe?

i'd feel incredibly safe. a lot safer than most other grid-scale power plants that's for sure. Solar's ok i guess, but noisy ass blinking wind turbines can fuck right off.