/sci/ - Science & Math

Nuclear power uses shit loads of water, so it is not appropriate for every situation, but overall it is one of our best choices.

The whole spent fuel storage is a non-issue because you can recycle spent fuel rods. The only reason we don't do it in the US is because it is illegal here, and it shouldn't be. Sure the process is pretty much exactly the same as refining fuel for an atom bomb, but that secret is already out.

>>3734854
it doesnt use any water since anything that goes in becomes steam which rains back down

>>3734877
But sometimes you just can't get the water there in the first place.

>>3734885
Which then means you use molten salt thorium reactors.

>>3734897
lol at comic parody

>>3734897
comic made my eyes give out tears... MANLY FUCKING TEARS.

>>3734938
Lol that was awesome

>>3734955
Last comic

>>3734821
For as long as I've been on /sci/, the majority has supported nuclear power. The support got drastically stronger (or at least more vocal) when LFTRs became popular here. (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors)

Though many still advocate alternatives such as photovoltaics, solar thermal towers, some wind and tidal and geothermal.
Personally I'm a LFTR and space-based solar fan.

> The only reason we don't do it in the US is because it is illegal here, and it shouldn't be.
> and it shouldn't be.

This so much

It's not so much that we are for nuclear power, but yeah. As long as it follows the necessary procedures, it's fine. Not perfect, but it'll do for now. A necessary evil, if you will.

Roll on thorium etc etc.

>>3734966

radical

Nope.

Do you know how nuclear power plants create electricity? Turbines. What turns those turbines? Steam. Steam from boiling hot water. What happens to that boiling hot water on cycle? It's re-entered into nearby streams and water supplies. That damages local ecosystems and creates pollution.

And what are you going to do with that radioactive waste filling barrels?

No. Nuclear power is not the solution. Solar and Wind are the clean power solutions.

>>3734992

Lower output, broseph

>>3734992

>>3734992

Cooling towers, how do they work?

>>3735005

Not efficiently.

>>3735000

Facts are facts.

>>3734999

Build bigger solar and wind farms to compensate. Build them in the ocean where they won't disturb wildlife.

>>3735000

Cool mixture of Ad Hominem and False Dillema jackass.

>>3735000
trrips

You mean if we lived in a candy land world?

Sure. I'd also fuck super models and play the lottery.

>>3735017

>Not efficiently.

They reintroduce the water into the ecosystem with little or no harm to the environment. What does efficiency have to do with it?

>Build bigger solar and wind farms to compensate

Base load man. What to do when the sun doesn't shine or wind doesn't blow?

>>3735017
While I do agree with your sentiments, your solution sounds incredibly black and white. JUST MAKE EM BIGGER AND PUT THEM IN THE OCEAN.
Firstly, how big do they have to be to generate the same amount of power as a nuclear reactor?
Secondly, what new issues will arise from this solution, and how much will it cost to mitigate them?
Etc etc.
Again, like the sentiment, but it's much easier said than done.
Though tbh I think there's a good chance something similar to what you've described will be feasible in the near future (near being the next 30 years or so, if I'm being hopeful).

>>3735017
- BASE LOAD
- TRANSMISSION LOSSES OVER GREAT DISTANCES
- MASSIVE SOLAR AND WIND FARMS IN OCEAN ARE PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE
- AND ONCE AGAIN, BASE LOAD

I'm not pro-nuclear as such, but I intensely dislike the rebuttal of WE WILL POWER CIVILIZATION WITH SUNSHINE AND HAPPINESS while disregarding that we could've done that this entire time and the reason it hasn't been done is because it's 1) less profitable and 2) has big problems with it before it can become a viable source of energy capable of supplying 100% of our energy needs.

>>3735017

Build bigger ones to compensate, so you mean stripping forests and shit? Hmm, wouldn't that also"damage local ecosystems"

>>3735029

The studies I've seen state otherwise. They've shown before and after shots of the local ecosystems and the results are pretty bad.

>base load

So build them in the ocean. In several locations. Up and down the coast.

>>3735081

So you are complaining about the harm of cooling towers on local ecosystems, yet you think putting things in the ocean wont harm anything?

>>3735075
Build them in the ocean. Or in wide open spaces in the heartland (they exist). Finding a place for them isn't a problem.

>>3735074
It hasn't been done because the most powerful companyn in the US is Exxon Mobile. They are the world leader in profits the last five years. They don't want clean energy to succeed.

>>3735054
I don't know what the numbers are. But it can be done. There will be upfront costs, but those are offset by gov subsidies.

>>3735095

Not the same thing at all. One deposits harmful pollution into the rivers/streams; the other creates local reefs for fish to make their home. We actually sink large ships in the ocean to give coral a place to cling to and start a coral reef.

Not at all the same thing.

>>3735112

>TRANSMISSION LOSSES OVER GREAT DISTANCES

>>3735112
>They don't want clean energy to succeed.
I don't think you understand how shit solar power is in its current form for supplying electricity for all of modern civilization. While I have no doubt there are Big Oil interests meddling constantly in clean energy research the fact is both the overall effectiveness of solar as well as corporate interests are holding it back. I'm not against solar, just the terrestrial version as it has to combat against reduced solar radiation from the atmosphere, clouds, and the whole day/night thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

And have you checked out LFTRs yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

>>3735126

>One deposits harmful pollution into the rivers/streams

citation needed

>the other creates local reefs for fish to make their home. We actually sink large ships in the ocean to give coral a place to cling to and start a coral reef.

The process of building and placing them there would certainly not be beneficial to the local environment

>>3735143
Actually I have a citation for what he said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43475479/ns/us_news-environment/t/radioactive-tritium-leaks-found-us-nuk
e-sites/#.TnAv19Qfg4c

>>3735135

So we rebuild our power infrastructure. We invent new technology to allow for long-distance transmission.

>>3735139

Seems a bit myopic to think big oil isn't knee deep in keeping solar and wind from being profitable. Name a single company with virtually unlimited resources that wouldn't stomp out competition at its earliest stages. Just look at Apple with the iPad. They're suing everybody they can find. The Samsung Galaxy Tab was just banned in Germany because of Apple. And Exxon is ten times more powerful.

There are many improvements that can be made to the current systems, but focusing on nuclear doesn't help get the economy there faster.

>>3735112
>They don't want clean energy to succeed.
I can't even respond to this.

>I don't know what the numbers are. But it can be done. There will be upfront costs, but those are offset by gov subsidies.
>admitting you don't know, but still making a claim.

Sure it CAN be done, but does that mean it is the best method?

>>3735154

I've read this as well, and while these issues need to be dealt with:

1) The tritium levels detected are not high enough to be a real concern
2) There is no evidence it has had an adverse affect on local ecosystems

>>3735143

The process of getting the material there is no less harmful to the environment than the building of off shore oil drills. In fact it's less so since they don't have to drill into bedrock more than 50ft deep.

>>3735166
I can't be bothered to respond with a consise argument so I'm just going to LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs LFTRs

>>3735173

We're not comparing to oil. We're comparing to nuclear

>>3735166

>rebuild our power infrastructure

Seems quick and cheap.

>>3735178

>>3735167
>does that mean it is the best method?

Not right now, but it will be once we focus our national resources to that end. Just like the space race of the 60's.

>>3735178
Man. You are awesome. It's dudes like you who offset the amount of shitposters all up in here.
Ironic that I am posting this compliment in response to a spammed acronym, but you've proven yourself awesome otherwise.

>>3735196
>>3735189
Thanks, my day just got a little brighter

>>3735193
Firstly, this is the whole point. YES! It would be wonderful if we could shut down nuclear reactors in favour of something cleaner, cheaper, just as if not more efficient. But NO! We can't do it yet. Right now you are refuting your own argument.

Besides, don't make that comparison. If you don't know why that is a terrible comparison, you should do some reading up on current events.

ITT: don't do solar and wind because it's not good right now. do nuclear instead because i'm a hipster.

Bunch of fags.

>>3735244

Good addition to this discussion. Also, I'm pretty sure hipsters would hate nuclear

>>3735244
3/10

Solar and wind are not efficient nor economical. Nuclear really is better. It's not anti-mainstream. Even the fucking liberal President of America says there should be moar nuclear.

>>3735244
4/10

Adding to your other two responses, hipsters are pseudo-intellectual, not bothering to check facts or learn how to distinguish a priori, misguided judgement from scientific fact.
We (or at least some of us) actually know what we're talking about, and don't expect to have our arguments taken at face value without citation/concurrence.

>>3735338

anti-sage, let's see some new responses

>>3735357
your a butthole hows that for a response

>>3735362

not the troll I just wanted some other opinions

>>3735364
All good man, I'm just messing about now.
This is pretty much how these threads play out, nobody is really for nuclear power but we understand the need, most of us are looking forward to new alternatives that will change the world someday soon, and of course, there are a couple of bleeding hearts who don't really get it and are just pissed that we're not 100% green yet.

I only saged earlier because I didn't want to revive a dead thread, but if someone's getting something out of it I'll give it a bump. Power to you, hombre.

Not fission. The longer we operate fission plants, the greater the chance we will have a disaster. This is unavoidable. The amount of money we save on fission energy versus conventional sources is not worth making a relatively large region uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years.

>>3735391
nice job killing the thread

>>3735391

>relatively large region uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years
>tens of thousands of years

whatthefuckamIreading.jpg