/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5631140

>safe

Only if things are done properly. Most nuclear incidents are due to bad design or human fuck up.

>clean

Low CO2 yes. Mining and processing fuel as well as building the plants eat into that credential.

>cheap

Nope. Only if done on a large, country wide, scale does it become cost effective. This is why the world doesn't believe Iran wants reactors for electricity, it doesn't make economic sense. Nuclear plants are, currently, fucking expensive.

>>5631140
The only problem with nuclear power is that it is very very dirty. fissionable materials stay radioactive long after they are used up.

in the case of catastrophic incident fallout makes land unlivable and radioactive for at least half a century.

plus, dealing with nuclear power intrinsically is associated with nuclear weapons. dealing with anyone who buys uranium is delicate work.

>>5631150

Iran's nuclear program is planned to be country-wide.

>>5631154
implying people say what they mean

>>5631156
s/people/politicians

>>5631140
we don't have a place to put the waste

>>5631165
What about your mom's basement?

>safe
yes, unless fucked up design (chernobyl) or fucked up location (fukushima)

>clean
yes, no co2 or other pollutants. spent fuel can be reused in future reactors.

>cheap
no, but cheaper than other clean energies (solar, wind…)

>>5631140
It is , but the mass media spreads fear because its funded oil and mining companies.

Its the same why reason everybody bitches about muh 6 millions jews dead in ww2 and nobody gives a fuck about the 30 million that Stalin killed, etc.

Just use our oil drilling technology, drill a 1 m wide hole about 5 km deep, fill bottom 2 km with nuclear waste, fill the rest back up with soil.

There, I've solved the waste problem.

You can't just dump nuclear waste in a hole like you would throw shit in a latrine. It contaminates pretty much anything it touches, i.e the water you drink the food you eat the shit you touch. Even 5 km deep it'd have widespread ecological effects.

>>5631140
>Isn't it safe, clean, & cheap?

No, no, no.

It is relatively safe from accidents in number, but not in potential size.
It is relatively clean to operate, but the fuel, cooling, and resultant droppings are all hazardous to handle, transport, and store.
It is very cheap -if- you assume you need to provide large-scale power over a very large area. That is how we have done it for a long time, but there are massive costs and inefficiencies doing it that way.

>>5631248
Seal it in lead or something. Its proven that building , running and cleaning a nuclear plant is cheaper than other alternatives.

But thanks to naive motherfuckers like you that are so fucking afraid of muh radioactivity we now have irreversible climate change that will fuck the world 10x worse than a bit of plutonium in water would do.

>>5631256

Relative to what?

Did someone bring up LFTR? If not, can we talk about LFTR? I've seen a video floating around on youtube about a lobbyist saying all of these wonderful things about it and I've been wondering for a while how much of it is valid. Anyone know what I'm talking about/have an opinion?

Also, the majority of power production in my state is nuclear so...Jersey REPRESENTIN'

>>5631267
Its pretty valid. LFTR is based on molten salt reactors built in the 60's. LFTR uses thorium as fuel which is much more common than uranium. Do some more research its pretty interesting.

>>5631267
Yes I have an opinion. It is a travesty that we let the LFTR technology languish since the '60s. Entrenched interests (fuel rod manufacturers) have suppressed it. And now China and India have plundered the Oak Ridge archives and are set for energy independence via LFTR technology in five years, while the US becomes a coal-choked declining empire.

The only independent nuclear interest with any funding is the traveling wave reactor, backed by Bill Gates. Promising, but not as efficient as LFTR.

>>5631151
Yes, we wouldn't want America to get its hands on nuclear weapons!

Seriously, what a complete non-issue.

>mfw i work on the nuclear weapons complex and i don't know anything about lftrs or anything like that

I need to study up. But here's my Thorium 230.

Read this interview and weep

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

How sad that the promise of nuclear power is being rejected due to fear and misinformation. It is a defeat for science.

>>5631248
>>widespread ecological effects
like what? Too deep to contaminate usable water table, water that low has an extremely low lateral movement. I'm not seeing the ecological problems. And the radiation from it isn't going to just penetrate through 3km of dirt and still have any real effect.

>>5631140
Irrational fear based on high profile accidents.

It's gonna be hard to get people to change their attitudes especially when they have very little knowledge of nuclear science but still feel like their opinion is worth merit. This is one of the problems of democracy, sure everyone is free but progress is slow and inefficient because everyone gets to have a say regardless of level of education.

>>5631150
>This is why the world doesn't believe Iran wants reactors for electricity

Also because if Iran really wanted nuclear reactors for civil purposes only, it would use natural uranium technology (since that wouldn't cause international uproar)

>>5631291
>>5631301

>Do some more research

Yeah see, the more research I did the more I started to think that LFTRs are too perfect a solution to the energy crisis. It seems that the only reason we are not pursuing implementation of the technology is because of ignorance in the government and fear of nuclear power in the public. That seemed like too conspiracy theory to actually be real...

>>5631150
>cheap

YES, compared to coal. Over the lifetime of even an LWR, fuel costs (compared to coal) make nuclear cheaper than coal. Yes, the initial investment capital is HUGE for nuclear (and is arguably one of the only reasons coal is favored over nuclear). But lifetime coal costs add up and make nuclear the cheaper option.

>safe
You're only about half right. Chernobyl was a horrible design that had a positive reactivity coefficient (the moderator was separate from the coolant, so when the coolant, water, boiled off there was no negative effect on moderation to thermal energy). Fukushima was a freak accident that should, statistically, never have happened. The reactor shut down as designed, but the 9m tsunami was taller than the 6m retaining wall, thus washing out the generators. All other incidents are more or less human error.

>>5631301

That image is biased: the "uranium plant are big" is caused by the cooling towers, which are there to cool the secondary (as in: nothing to do with the core) water down: you always need them, uranium, thorium or coal if you plan on producing electricity (assuming you do not use another cold source)

>>5631150
Also,
>clean

Low CO2 OR anything nasty that comes out of any exhaust. Coal (mined in the amount needed) contributes more than the mining of Uranium, AND coal slag, kilo for kilo contains more radioactive contaminants than spent fuel by the time it moves out of the cooling pools.

>>5631259
pic related

also how viable is MOX as a fuel source

>>5631376
Actually, no.

LFTRs are dramatically different from the technology found in LWRs (mostly a difference in energy spectrum of neutrons used). Though this does offer some benefit in use of more exotic (and abundant) fuels, it necessitates the retraining of almost everyone involved from the design of nuclear plants to ROs.

Also, the big hurdles are actually material problems. To create a single-phase cycle (based only on molten metals or salts) requires sophisticated piping to withstand not only heat tolerances, but also corrosion tolerance (particularly in molten salt applications). Last I checked, the only alloy capable of this is rather exotic itself and not even manufactured anymore.

>>5631376
Yeah. Its really sad how public ignorance and fear has halted new nuclear technologies. Not just LFTRs, but for example there is another molten salt reactor called WAMSR that burns high grade nuclear fuel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAFWeIp8JT0&feature=player_embedded).).

>>5631394
It's more or less as viable as traditional fuels, but the real reason MOX (and many other alternative fuels) are used are to "burn" the longer lived, more energetic actinides. By and large the more exotic actinides are burned by fast spectrum neutrons that aren't as common in light water reactors and would usually require neutrons of a MUCH higher energy. I had a research group senior year that proposed a neutron source with neutron energies of 14.3 MeV be used to transmute the real nasty ones.

>>5631395
But a Molten Salt Reactor was built and operated in the 60's on Oak Ridge. It would be nice to know what they used for the pipes there.

There's been a dedicated marketing campaign to label nuclear power as horrifically unsafe and ecologically unclean. Ironically, while nuclear power is very safe and considerably cleaner than coal or even natural gas, nuclear power is at present extremely expensive.

>>5631406
I'm aware of this, but keep in mind that it was only a research reactor (run and designed by almost exclusively Ph.D.s) and was rather small (i.e., to be viable in the current market would have to be scaled considerably). The alloy I spoke of is the EXACT one that was used in that research reactor, but the name of it's evading me.

>>5631406
>>5631395
>>5631413
Hastelloy-N!

>>5631420
Cool. I'll look for more info.

>>5631140
>Isn't it safe,
Hell no. (Inb4 retards claim humans are incapable of mistakes from now on)
>clean,
Creating shit that cannot go away for millions of years is not clean
>cheap
Only after the government fully pays for you to design it, buy the materials, build it, and run it. And after the government stop checking that your are running it up to code or any other such regulation

>east of honshu earthquake in 2011 at 9.1 magnitude was 4th largest earthquake recorded in history
>no meltdown, minor radiation damage
>"GUYS FUKUSHIMA! NUCLEAR POWER IS UNSAFE!"

Loop launch, aim that shit into the sun - problem solved.

>>5631461
trolololo

No sage, because I want to bring attention to this thread and how much of a tard you are.

>>5631165
australia. no joke.

>>5631461
> Creating shit that cannot go away for millions of years

Better than coal plants that create shit that never goes away at all, no?

Nukes are safer, cleaner, and cheaper than coal or oil. Coal and oil are, obviously, safe/clean/cheap enough for people to be willing to use them widely.

Most anti-nuke arguments are basically superstition.

Now countries like Germany are shutting down their reactors because of ignorance and fear.

>>5631490
The ironic part is that they're going to have to buy electricity from (largely) France...which is 80% nuclear.

>>5631461
Liquid floride thorium reactors.

>Hell no.
They are safe because they aren't made out of the same stuff that nuclear bombs are. So worst case scenario... the power goes out. No explosions, no meltdowns.

>Creating shit
They do not create 'shit.' In matter of fact they create non-reactive rocket fuel that NASA desperately needs to travel the stars. The leftover by-product of LFTR reactors is something you can use for the advancement of science. Where is the product that cannot go away for millions of years? In matter of fact they can USE the plutonium that the current reactors use as a fuel source and get rid it of safely. Environment FTW.

>To build one that can plug into the grid would be about a billion dollars, yes, but how much do we spend on coal/oil for the exact same energy yield? That's right bitch, far more. Thus making LFTR reactors the cheaper option.

tldr;

>Liquid floride thorium reactors are safe because they aren't bombs and COULDN'T be used to make a bomb

>LFTR reactors take currently existing nuclear waste and turn them into energy, and produce no waste on their own.

>Yield to cost ratio it is cheaper, dumb ass.

>>5631482
>Better than coal plants that create shit that never goes away at all, no?
>CO2+water+light+trees=no CO2

Fucking magic trees, how do they work?!

>>5631497
Whoops. Ah well, you make a tiny mistake and your entire point turns green. UNLIKE LFTR REACTORS, safe as fuck, motherfucker.

>>5631497
>They are safe because they aren't made out of the same stuff that nuclear bombs are. So worst case scenario... the power goes out. No explosions, no meltdowns.
Just because plants can't blow doesn't make them safe. A containment failure anywhere in a long chain is all you need for an incident.

the "failure condition" is a fucking huge spectrum from "nothing happens" to "worse than chernobyl"
being humans, we assume the worst of all things while ignoring actual statistics. so naturally we assume the worst of nuclear power unless we're properly educated on the subject.

also there's a bit of confirmation bias. never hear about the <lots> of NPPs around the world humming along just fine for DECADES, just the one which fails. same reason people are fearful of flying. the opposite is why people are NOT fearful of driving.

so the key is education

>>5631500
>global warming, hoe does it work?

>>5631307
>Yes, we wouldn't want America to get its hands on nuclear weapons!
>Seriously, what a complete non-issue.

You assume the only relevance of the whole topic is application in America?

>>5631500
Again, coal slag is more radioactive than spent fuel after being removed from cold storage. Also, coal smoke actually aerosolizes some radioactive contaminants. And, point 3, coal smoke releases sulfur-based gases that are far more responsible for smog/acid rain than anything nuclear can produce.

>>5631497
Again, the problem with LFTRs isn't with safety. There are far more issues that need to be addressed before liquid flouride/metal thorium (or other fuel) based reactor can be used practically. See,
>>5631395

>Isn't it safe, clean, & cheap

It literally isn't any of those things.

>>5631516
Sup Nuka, long time-no see.

>>5631376
>It seems that the only reason we are not pursuing implementation of the technology is because of ignorance in the government and fear of nuclear power in the public
well, uh....

either way china will beat us to the punch at this rate, and we'll be buying their reactors, which they built using research from oakridge national labs. Research which we abandoned in the late 50s because liquid metal fast breeders just looked so good. To date i don't think a single liquid metal fast breeder reactor is in continuous operation. anywhere. oops.

>>5631522
Jesus Christ, read through the replies before posting the same inane garbage that has been debunked time and time again.

>>5631465
actually it was a total meltdown (fuel rods completely melted inside primary containment. froze as soon as it hit the steel pot), and aside from the immediate site the surrounding area's totally fine, no real signs of ecological damage either aside from some butterflies. the plant did exactly what it was supposed to do in this situation

>>5631465
Panic response and emergency response to the situation counts, of course, but that doesn't mean the Fukushima incident was without consequences.

Huge amounts of pollution dumped into the ocean (completely unaccounted), at least 70 people received far too much radiation dose -- you don't just count the people who died the same day. The plant was lost, the plant still is a hazard. People died because of the lost power and delay in compensating. Presumably, people died because of the number of people who had to respond to the plant, because emergency workers and every other able body were needed urgently.

No sane person would consider the Fukushima disaster anything but a disaster; minimizing the consequences the way you did was horrific.

>>5631524
If I'm not mistaken, India's at the forefront of liquid thorium reactors. But the Chinese have probably already copied the tech. All the LWR technology China has (which has made up the bulk of their industrial power production) is US-designed. The odd thing is, the Chinese are altering the designs to have higher thermal outputs and sort of keeping them as intellectual property of the Chinese governments. Companies like Areva are sort of retaining the initial designs.

>>5631481
What?
You understand other countries don't have to accept the massively hazardous waste, right?

America (if that is who you are thinking about) doesn't own Australia. That isn't even one of the possibilities.

At least the UK is building a new nuclear power plant.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_UK_new_nuclear_ready_to_go_1903131.html

>>5631523
hello...you?

by the way LFTRs are not the be-all end-all you might think they are. it's a damn good solution but there are some kinks

>hastelloy-N is basically the only known material that can survive a traditional lftr configuration (heat, fluorine reactivity, intense neutron flux). it's a fucking nightmare to work with, but not impossible.

>the design hinges upon online refueling and reprocessing, which isn't trivial. it's more of a chemical plant than a nuclear plant, and requires mostly materials research

>the core is the perfect neutron breeding environment for weapon material. tons of neutron flux, all nicely moderated. you could make some plutonium without much fuss by simply reconfiguring the core. it'd be difficult to conceal though

>>5631536
india works with solid thorium fuel. i don't really consider it a valid use but it's a decent stepping stone from boiling water reactor to lftr. I'm terrified of chinese built boiling water reactors, they're in an even worse situation than an RMBK like chernobyl.

>>5631540
which is nice

>>5631526

I have, but I don't need to read through three pages equivalent of internet replies to know that nuclear energy is messy (by-products are extremely toxic thus not clean), dangerous (if one process in a long list of procedures goes awry the entire system fails and leads to enormous radiation leaks) and expensive (it takes billions to start a plant and once operational costs hundreds of thousands to keep running annually). This is all even worse when you consider they are completely vulnerable to natural disasters.

>>5631509
At which point it drains into its safety containment concrete bunker built underneath it. Show me in the diagram the great safety flaw in them and I'll either stand down or point out why that's bullshit.

>>5631535
>at least 70 people received far too much radiation dose
[citation needed]

And the shit that was dumped in the ocean disperses. That is why it was dumped IN THE OCEAN and not buried. The vast majority of actinide contaminants it came into contact with are short lived, with some having a half life of around a few months. This relatively short decay scheme combined with dispersion and dilution of seawater makes the "pollution" more or less negligible in the timeline that would affect humans (or anything else, for that matter).

While Fukushima was a disaster, it was more or less handled fairly well and even though it is classified as being the same magnitude as Chernobyl, had a much SMALLER negative effect. While that particular core is still a hazard (minimized by eventual immersion in a sarcophagus), none of the other reactors really are.

The bottom line is that the Fukushima accident occurred because of a natural event that the plant was designed AGAINST, and by and large worked as designed. Keep in mind this sort of freak of nature statistically happens maybe three times in the entirety of human existence. STILL, nuclear has the least amount of human deaths per terrawatt hour compared to ANY power source, including renewables.

>>5631544
OK, I will:
they ran out of water.

They pumped local water through it, which was not contained, and which went out into the ocean.
They didn't want to talk about it much, and the damage to the ocean is unaccountable, but they knew they didn't have nearly enough coolant in the first hours (and their need for it was many days).

>>5631542
>by-products are extremely toxic thus not clean
true, but it's all kept in a nice bottle. coal plants have to dump it out a chimney

>if one process in a long list of procedures goes awry....
the system shuts itself down without fuss. the entire design is built around shutting everything down if anything is amiss.

>it takes billions to start a plant and once operational costs hundreds of thousands to keep running annually
not too big of an issue if you make millions in profit annually from the electricity produced. it still takes about 15 years (i think) to pay down the plant. good thing they usually run for like, 60+

>This is all even worse when you consider they are completely vulnerable to natural disasters.
every single one of the nuclear reactors in japan (including fukushima) went into immediate cold shutdown and "brace mode" once the earthquake was detected. the only think which crippled fukushima was a one-in-5000-year tsunami, and generators in basements without any kind of water proofing. a big oversight.
it was also built IN FUCKING '71

>>5631535
Was it a disaster? Sure. Did that disaster have anything to do with it being a nuclear plant?
Point is, Fukushima being a nuclear plant had no affect on the situation. Every point you made there, save the radiation dose, would apply just as much to a fossil fuel-based plant.
Might also add Fukusima was almost 50 years old, originally designed to be shut down in the 90's, but had it's life extended with upgrades since no new nuclear plants were being built. It was scheduled to be permanent closed less than a month after the earthquake anyways.

>>5631554
>It was scheduled to be permanent closed less than a month after the earthquake anyways.
the following tuesday, actually.
fate is a fickle bitch

>>5631542
What do you suggest, using wind or solar?
http://www.americandailyherald.com/world-news/europe/item/two-year-study-in-uk-finds-wind-power-unreliable-and-inefficient

>>5631556
Oh that soon? I just knew it wasn't too far off. Makes it even funnier.

>>5631557

If we can ever get a decent output from solar I think that would be the best bet. Wind power is as big a joke as nuclear just in the opposite direction. Obviously the biggest leap forward would be fusion but I don't see that happening outside of 90's thriller movies anytime soon. I think nuclear is a much better alternative to fossil fuels, but that isn't what I responded to. I quoted that specific sentence for a reason. Nuclear power isn't clean, cheap, or safe.

>>5631541
I haven't been around forever, but I recommended Dudderstadt wayyyy back when you were designing your own reactor.

I'm also with you on the LFTR front, as I've spoken about most of your points before.

From what I understand, China is using canned (and by that I mean pre-approved, more or less modular, US) pressurized water reactor designs and modifying them for higher thermal output (which is not that dangerous), including the AP1000 and CPR-1000. Pretty straight forward stuff and nowhere NEAR RBMK design flaws.

>>5631542
The same re-hashed bullshit with nothing to back it up.
>toxic
So are the chemicals that go into photovoltaic cells.
>dangerous
Don't lecture me, I have a degree in nuclear engineering. Even then, most emergency procedures are (1) not that complicated and (2) incredibly redundant. Combine that with the fact that new reactor designs rely more on passively safe features (gravity driven coolant pumping and natural circulation for heat removal) and this just proves your ignorance.
>natural disasters
For the THIRD time, in THIS thread alone...Fukushima was a FREAK OF NATURE which, statistically never should have happened within the lifetime of humans.

>>5631563
No renewables are energy-dense enough to be used by humans. Nuclear is the only one that is.

>b-but muh batteries

Doesn't work, bro.

>>5631565
>From what I understand, China is using canned (and by that I mean pre-approved, more or less modular, US) pressurized water reactor designs and modifying them for higher thermal output (which is not that dangerous), including the AP1000 and CPR-1000. Pretty straight forward stuff and nowhere NEAR RBMK design flaws.
i'm still really nervous! most of the reason US reactors are so rock solid is because the NRC is a very very restrictive agency. maybe too restrictive but that's another issue
China doesn't really have a nuclear oversight of any kind. and if they do, they're probably paid off. it's fucking bad over there

>>5631565

>don't lecture me, I have a degree
>rehashed bullshit

lel

Also, you can bicker all you want. I prefer nuclear energy to fossil fuels but pretending like it is clean, safe, and cheap is just a fools errand.

>>5631563
The only way I see solar working is in small scale. For example where the weather is suitable, some solar panels on the roof of a house of a business can help cut energy costs. Other than that, a stable and reliable energy source is needed, be it nuclear of fossil.

>>5631571
Eh, oversight on the company (Areva/Westinghouse) installing them is good enough for me. It's the operating there-of that is a bit scary to me. But again, the training is performed by Areva/Westinghouse.

It won't take much to whip Chinese oversight into shape.

>>5631573
Still, no rebuttal to my reply. In fact, you're just ignoring everything I said. Were you dropped on your head as a child?

>>5631548
http://fukushima.ans.org/report/health-physics

Critical facts that explain why it isn't rated as damaging as expected:

they raised the 'maximum' permitted dose (x2.5) "to allow workers to respond to this serious accident"
No kidding! "Well, yesterday it was unhealthy for you to get 100, but today, because of the disaster, you can get dosed more than twice as much!"

They also minimize the reported doses, ignore maximums in favor of averages, and play down the fact that many of the effects are long-term.

clipping bits:
"The maximum external dose recorded is 199 mSv
maximum internal dose that has been calculated is 590 mSv
maximum total dose recorded to one worker was 670 mSv
six workers have received doses in excess of the emergency dose limits established.
408 workers have received doses above the normal annual limit of 50 mSv
average total accumulated dose is 22.4 mSv
total collective dose for all emergency workers is estimated to be 115 person-Sv
In addition to whole-body doses, two male employees received ... estimated skin dose was ~2 to 3 Sv."

(I could have sworn it was Wikipedia where I read the emergency worker count, I checked right before the anniversary, but the whole page is different now.)

>>5631579
or*

>>5631579
i'm actually quite excited for solar power being a commercial-scale thing you integrate into your roof shingles, and it cuts your power bill in half. a SUBSIDIARY system, not primary.

nuclear energy would be used as grid baseload and for the crazy industrial manufacturing and processing shit

>>5631585
oh, didn't realize westinghouse had that much authority, they make some good reactors. i'm slightly less worried now

>>5631586
you know that's -actually- not that bad. 2 or 3 Sv is scary on paper. spread over short bursts over a year or so? not that bad.
i'd be much more worried if he got some of that shit in his system (he most likely did not, the suits they use are very well made). radio-toxicity is much worse than just open air exposure

>>5631548
>And the shit that was dumped in the ocean disperses.

Sure it does. Same happened in the Gulf of Mexico and where Exxon Valdez rested.
It's the damage it does when it is dumped that is the first concern, and I expect no one put a lot of effort into surveying that.

But, I don't want you to think I'm arguing that nuclear sources are unsafe; I'm arguing that their problems, when there are some, are major -- not that they are as common as the many problems other types have.

My problem with nuclear isn't the power source, but the management and scale of application.

>>5631554
>Fukushima being a nuclear plant had no affect on the situation.

Sure it did; it took hundreds of emergency workers away from helping the people during a massive emergency.

It wasn't the causes that we were discussing, but the scale (and potential scale) of damage.
We are agreeing that major accidents are less common than other production types.

Anyone know the exact reason why the Yucca mountain waste storage project was canned?

>>5631601
FUD in congress.

>>5631592
Ya, Areva was the one that made an agreement about the modified Chinese CPR-1000s. They would retain all intellectual property designs (and would have to be approved). Westinghouse didn't require that as part of their contract agreement, but are still overseeing the Chinese design (and ultimately give certification to) with the bump in power.

>>5631586
Fair enough, I will give you that. But the other thing that has to be evaluated is how these standards are evaluated. IIRC, most are based on the linear-threshold model which assumes that human reaction to a specified does increases linearly to linear-increase in dose (a very conservative estimate). This is not usually the case as the threshold is actually much higher and negative effects only appear with exponential increases of dose. Even then, exceeding regulatory dose is not that uncommon and does not necessarily mean there will be a non-negligible increase in negative (even long-term) effects. Though the 2 to 3 Sv dose does sound rather high, skin is surprisingly resilient, and a lot of dose relies on the type of radiation encountered.

>>5631595
>you know that's -actually- not that bad. 2 or 3 Sv is scary on paper. spread over short bursts over a year or so? not that bad.
>i'd be much more worried if he got some of that shit in his system (he most likely did not, the suits they use are very well made). radio-toxicity is much worse than just open air exposure


This is true, and they had people rotating personnel and limiting time so that dosage would be spread out.
The ~70 people I referred to earlier were the ones right in the shit, the early folk who were working so hard in the first hours.
I can't find dosage numbers for them now.

The two guys that had that 2-3Sv exposure were direct-skin contact, so I guess they weren't in those outfits. They were laying electrical cable while standing in the water.

>>5631540
the sad part is that north of the border the SNP have a deep distrust of anything nuclear and thus are stopping the building of new nuclear power plants and are planning to phase out current NPP's

>mfw

>>5631604
>Though the 2 to 3 Sv dose does sound rather high, skin is surprisingly resilient, and a lot of dose relies on the type of radiation encountered.

I didn't finish that report, but I was surprised only two people had direct exposure.
It would have been easy to think people would be... distracted enough to make more mistakes.

>>5631596
Fair enough. But I'm still fairly certain that the amount of coolant pumped out of the pressure vessel >> amount of water in the Pacific ocean (or the amount of oil spilled in either incident, for that matter). Keep in mind that most of the danger of radioactivity is time-dependent (where-as the toxicity of oil is not).

And I more or less agree with your second point. But like every technology, there is a learning curve. Due to the safeguards inherent in most of these systems, it takes a HUGE accident to bring attention to what problems do exist. So in that respect, I think it's harder to flush out the flaws of nuclear systems. It'd be much easier if the whole nuclear design process wasn't as bureaucratic as it is.

>>5631612
whoops, pressure vessel coolant << amount of water in the Pacific ocean.

>>5631605
oh! those guys!
they didn't realize the water was beta-ray active and just wore rubber boots with tight seals. beta went straight through the boots and gave them some not-small radiation burns on their ankles

they got IMMEDIATELY rushed to the hospital, were fed extremely healthy meals and tended to every minute of the next two days.
they probably had a rough night, some pukin' i bet
but after two days they were fit as a fiddle and walked out the front door having been cleared.
of course they were not allowed back on site to continue cleanup (they still wanted to help, but the rest of the team was like "holy shit you did your part, YOU'RE COOL"

>>5631616
>whoops, pressure vessel coolant << amount of water in the Pacific ocean.

Well, it is many times the volume of the vessel, because it had to be run through many times.
Also, it isn't dispersed into the entire ocean. It's dispersed from a few pipes into a square kilometer or so.

Your response sounds like that of a politician.

>>5631618
>they didn't realize the water was beta-ray active and just wore rubber boots with tight seals. beta went straight through the boots and gave them some not-small radiation burns on their ankles
Is that what happened? Thanks; didn't read anything more specific than that bit I quoted.

>they got IMMEDIATELY rushed to the hospital, were fed extremely healthy meals and tended to every minute of the next two days.
Yes, there is something good about being the guy to step up when something is dangerous -- everybody else loves you for it.

>>5631618
>they still wanted to help, but the rest of the team was like "holy shit you did your part, YOU'RE COOL"

I love that kind of attitude, on both sides.
I've had a few opportunities, myself; 4 or 5 good emergencies.
But I missed out on the one that would make a great story; I was a couple minutes too late to a small-plane crash, someone else helped first. Fortunately, he also knew the plane and what to turn off, which I did not.

>>5631140
They sure are beautiful

relevant:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.abstract

>>5631395

M-M-M-M-Monster post! Thanks for the info.

Doesn't Germany power most of it's country with wind and solar energy? Seriously. I read (although a long time ago) That Germany was on the move to making every government owned building and hopefully civilian, solar and wind powered

ok

its time for russia to take lead in this economic sector!

>>5631668
no, they run on majority coal power located in neighbouring jurisdictions
they are the platonic ideal of NIMBY assholedom

people are not scientifically literate enough to realize the truth. the world nuclear itself scares them

>>5631668
Germany's use of renewable sources demonstrates that those can be contributors to the whole grid.

Essentially, they are saying you don't have to pick a side, and that other methods help to provide power.

>>5631725
>people are not scientifically literate enough to realize the truth. the world nuclear itself scares them

Maybe, but there are other good reasons to avoid large-scale systems that need expert attention and maintenance:
I am not confident in the ability of corporations and government to handle and manage both efficiently.
I am absolutely certain (because it is happening) that large-scale power production adds costs and deals that take money from customers to go into higher-ups hands.

>>5631150
>Only if things are done properly. Most nuclear incidents are due to bad design or human fuck up.

You make it sound like there have been lots of incidents.

Three Mile Island - Ultimately human error. Minor incident.

Chernobyl - Dangerous design, human error. One town abandoned, disputed numbers of actual deaths. Ultimately not that bad.

Fukushima - Aged design and the people were ill prepared for emergency of such a scale. If half of Japan wasn't busy floating out to sea, I think power could have been restored much quicker and a lot of it wouldn't of happened.

All of these incidents have been learned from. The designs are decades old and have vastly been improved in every respect. Old concerns are misguided and no longer relevant. The biggest problem facing nuclear is the fact people make it so difficult to replace the old plants.

The good news is USA has permitted and begun the construction of a new plant for the first time in 35 years, and the UK has very recently granted planning permission to build two new reactors - pending agreements on costs.

>cheap

It's arguably cheap when you consider the future. A single multibillion investment gives you a defined level of energy security for 40 years, prices are less likely to fluctuate or spike immensely as is the case with oil.

Love it when people say nuclear power is bad, and cite Chernobyl and Fukushima. Congrats, there have been 2 damaging mistakes in the entire history of nuclear power. Now check the other main sources of power (oil spills, coal miners getting caved in and getting black lung, pollution, etc) and see how they stack up.

The only victim of Three Mile Island was the nuclear industry, so I don't count that.

Nuclear is cheap and safe.
I think Nuclear plants is more safe if it is state-owned and not ruled by private companies because they would most likely not report environmental problems and they would keep their mouth shut just to not lose their job.

>>5631963
Thank you.

People seem to forget that the coal/oil industries have several mishaps each year around the world and kill many.

The nuclear industry has literally had two relevant ones in 50 or 60 years.

One was due to a shit decision and human error. The other was due to a freak earthquake and tsunami.

The question is Why would you consider nuclear when there is so much energy from the earths emfs, the sun, the tides, wind, ect. guess what happens when a wind turbine fails? thats right, jack shit

>>5632045
Wind power has problems in that you can't put wind farms anywhere they may be needed, since you need both a constant source of strong enough wind AND huge tracts of land. Plust, the largest wind farms in the world have an output six times lesser than your average big nuclear power stations. Solar power is even less reilable since you can generate power only half a day, and you better not get some annoying clouds fucking shit up. Same with ridal power, you simply can't put those generators everywhere.

>>5631668
>>5631902
You two are grossly misinformed. Germany's power generation comes mostly from burning coal and nuclear plants. IIRC, only 20% of their power comes from alternative sources, which IS a nice figure but far from being " most of it's country"

>>5631375
The japanese media and government insisted that fukushima was a freak accident, but in the end it did come down to human fuck up

look up some of the writings on the fukushima meltdown by takasi hirose

The cost of nuclear is too high once you require companies to pay for the storage of nuclear waste over thousands of years upfront.

inb4 breeder reactors
They also increase cost, and the predicted duration of storage can't be judged using the assumption that a yet viable technology will become viable in the future. What if we spend 100 years building up nuclear waste and right before we start getting rid of that waste society collapses? Nuclear waste will taint groundwater around the previously most desirable human population centers, making it all the less likely humanity will ever ascend from it's slump.

>>5631535
>operate old plant because MUH FEELINGZ don't allow you to build new plants
>old plant fails because old design and tech
>SEE NUKULAR BAD
Are you also into psychoanalysis and dialectic logic or you just love this one particular logic?

NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFE. SHUT UP AND DON'T THINK.

Nuclear power is safe! Shut up and don't think!

Saying nuclear power is safe apart from a few bad designs is like telling your insurance that you're a safe driver apart from the times you drove drunk and that time you crashed into a school, killing 8 children.

>>5631385
No, LFTRs are indeed more compact because they are designed to use different coolants and turbines, which don't require water cooling. That was one of the reasons they made a resurgence recently: a NASA scientist was looking for waterless reactor designs for use in space. When he found the LFTR research, he thought "well, if this would work so well on the moon, why not make it work here on earth?" And thus, FliBe Energy was born.

>>5631385
the other thing which makes water-cooled reactors large is the containment dome, because the core and coolant loops work at such high pressure. LFTR works at ambient pressure, so containment structures and safety zones can be much smaller.

>>5632202
>>5632188
It's like the JIDF, but protecting BP and Exxon instead.

>>5632221
Yes, because the sane, rational individual pointing out that we are dealing with a force we simply can't expect to safely control MUST be a shill. I guess, when you have no logical arguments at all, all you can do is claim that your opponent has ulterior motives.

Pathetic.

>>5631601
local politics (NIMBY)

>>5632202

You obviously don't know what you're talking about

>nuclear power
>safe

Pick one

Accidents will happen, always, and when they do...

Nuclear fission power is good, but not as safe, as clean and as efficient as nuclear fusion power.
I eagerly wait the time when the ITER project will publish positive results, and that every country in the world switch to that alternative.

>>5632410
And when they do we get cancer. But coal doesnt cause cancer......right? Cancer research time: young chimney sweeps were found to have cancer cuz of Carbon before smokers.

People only call nuclear unsafe because of irrational fear. Meanwhile, fossil fuels cause fossil Chernobyl every week or so. Estimates for Fukushima are somewhere around few hundred deaths at worst.

Statistically speaking, nuclear is so safe and produces so much energy that more people would die due to renewables if scaled at comparable capacity. Modern reactors even more so.

Nuclear power is just steam power. We just call it nuclear and people think its some next level magical power generation.

Human beings have to carefully maintain and service these things and what are humans good at? Fucking things up.

Would Denmark ever benefit from nuclear power?
I've always imagined a powerplant on Fyn, the central island, to distribute the power from.

>>5632485
> Automobiles are just vehicles. People call them automobiles and think they're some kind of next level nonsense.

I pity your lack of perspective. Seriously, I don't know how you can be a scientist if you can spew such nonsense just because it disparages the Enemy.

>>5631519
Not the guy who said that, but the US consumes as of 2009, about 20% of the world's total energy, so it would be a huge difference in CO2 emissions even if we were just talking about the US in this thread.

>>5632499
http://www.jydskatomkraft.dk/

>>5631140
When it comes to Nuclear engergy most people think the fuel rods are the only source of waste. Everything that goes into the reactor room and is exposed to a certain level of radiation has to be put in 55 gallon drums and buried. There are hundreds of entire trucks, forklifts and millions of pounds of PPE equipment stored this way.

>>5632633
Why can't we just reuse this stuff at other nuclear plants?

>>5631150
>This is why the world doesn't believe Iran wants reactors for electricity, it doesn't make economic sense.

Iran's nuclear programme was started with the encouragement and support of the US and Europe because they agreed it made sense economically for Iran to produce nuclear power.

"But Iran has lots of oil bla bla bla"

Iran consumes about 40% of its oil domestically when it could be exporting it for large profits. You are a clueless moron.

>>5631150
>This is why the world doesn't believe Iran wants reactors for electricity, it doesn't make economic sense.

Of course there's a myriad of reasons why nuclear energy makes as much sense for oil roich naitons as much as any other.

Mostly, because oil runs out. When there's no more oil this century, how do you propose the middle east power itself?
Nuclear energy is as natural an alternative to fossil fuels for the middle east as any other part of the world. Not to mention, it's a lot more lucrative to sell all the oil than use it domestically.

And of course Iran wants nukes.
You'd have to be daft to live in that region and not want nukes. It's why Israel, China, Russia, Pakistan, and India want nukes.
Why shouldn't Iranians want the same measures of WMD deterrence that all their neighbors enjoy in such a violent region.
Iran has no interest in being annihilated or threatened like its neighbors have been.

>>5631140
Combine a nation wide network of nuclear power plants combined with desalination facilities and you'd have a wonderful system.

You'd just have to make sure the waste was stores deep inside some mountain complex, make sure none of the nuclear power plants are built on a fault line, and make sure there is strong security at all locations. And of course it would be incredibly expensive in the short term to build such a system. There are problems with this idea, but it's probably the best anyway.

>>5632514
That is what it is thought.

Einstein looked at the nuclear reactor and said "That's a hell of a way to boil water."

To transcend to the next age of civilization energy will have to be created without means of slow decay of an element to make steam. I believe it is possible.

And a car is a 100 year technology that has scarcely been changed due to politics in the industry and with oil. Im sure our mode of transportation could have evolved a long time ago if it wasn't for those interests.

A+ thread.

EDUCATE YOURSELF

>>5631140
>safe
>clean
>cheap

LEL

>problem of radioactive waste because of short sighted, greedy industry
>risk of an accident might be low, but if something happens the consequences are mostly unforeseeable (see chernobyl).
>those things get more and more public attention, cold war ended (nuclear weapons not as important as before).
>as a consequence the industry has to double down on security and gets less governmental support. So the economic balance is not as appealing as it was 40 years ago.
In fact I live in an area with a nuclear power plant that needed to be shut down after protests from the public (earthquake dangers). The plant was online for mere 13 months. I don't think the operating company was particularly happy about this, as the financial loss was gigantic.

>>5633180
Everything is dangerous if you aren't smart about it.

Japan is so seismically active I can't imagine why they thought that was a bright idea. Didn't they learn that lesson as children playing with blocks?

America should just have a bunch of nuclear power plants in Kansas to power the country.

>>5632202
>Saying nuclear power is safe apart from a few bad designs is like telling your insurance that you're a safe driver apart from the time that guy in chicago got inhumanly drunk and drove a custom car of his own design that had a jet engine strapped to a go cart chassis clear off an overpass into a truck filled with neurotoxin that then crashed into a truck containing large volumes of gasoline and the guy remained alive just long enough to wait for the gasoline from the ruptured fuel tanker to reach a magical fuel/air mixture and lit a match at precisely the right time for it to create a fuel air bomb which dispersed the neurotoxin over a fifty mile radius.
>and also somehow all the cats in america died

better analogy

>>5633268
see
>>5631553
>every single one of the nuclear reactors in japan (including fukushima) went into immediate cold shutdown and "brace mode" once the earthquake was detected.
every single one except fukushima (obviously) was cleared for duty, and started to power back up within a month

>>5633414
Fucking WIN.

>>5632250
>entire thread is full of logical reasons why nuclear is best
>someone shitposts wiothout actually adding anything
>but I'm pathetic
fuck off Exxon shill. Solar power will never be good for grid level power.

>>5631333
You're missing the fact that deep holes remove support from the surrounding walls of said deep hole. This is turn means that you have to have an extremely strong force against the walls of the hole to prevent them from caving in.

I'm sure if it was a good idea, it wouldve been done. I tend to think the same of LFTR.

>>5631154

iran is fucking tiny.

Hay guys stop the bickering, fusion masterrace reporting in yall jelly, gonna be a reality in 10yrs

>>5633457
solar power may well be good enough for grid power if a method can be found for cheap organic cells. Someone proposed making them transparent and putting them on windows.

>>5633931
>making something that's supposed to capture light transparent

That seems like that would work horribly.

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

>>5633920
lol

Because french toast

Because it's not a solution.

>>5632207
Most effective coolants are gaseous Brayton cycles...which can work on natural Uranium. And despite what you think, you NEED heat rejection in any effective cycle. Usually, the deciding factor in maximizing efficiency is maximizing heat rejection, which needs to be done with some convective heat transfer (water, usually) and in space the most efficient method of heat transfer is radiative heat transfer (because of lack of any bulk motion).

>>5632437
It'll be awhile.

>>5632485
>>5632514
Actually, he's quite right. The only difference between current nuclear and coal plants is the fact that nuclear plants are going to constantly produce heat that needs to be cooled.

>>5633920
>18th largest country in the world
>"it's fucking tiny"

>>5635262
>what is Gen4 ?

Because of the Communists.
In 1959, Freeman Dyson and other awesome scientists came up with Project Orion: the most awesome and most powerful space ship human could build with off shelf technologies.
Kennedy said it would freak the russians and shelved it! That should be the only rememberance of JFK until he is completely forgotten from history what a complete traitor to mankind and USA.
Because of nuclear explosives extreme leverage over raw materials, the communists ALWAYS used it as a propaganda/counter-intelligence tool. Most americans were too naive and the leftists too willing to believe that the USSR were of great concern, militarily, technologically, culturally. They were not, and nuclear advancement was deterred by that silly fear. Robert Conquest was ridiculed for pointing the obvious failure of communism in 1968.

>>5636304
>hurr durr

>>5636304
Actually, that project was shelved by JFK because it majorly violated treaties over the militarization of space.

Do you think anyone gave a fuck about the environment in the 60s?

>>5636320
>militarization of space
==
>>5636304
>freak the russians

>>5636379
Heh, JFK was all about taking the moral high ground. To him, avoiding breaking international law took a higher priority than provoking the Russians.

>>5636320
Besides, only the military proposed military uses, not General Atomics nor any of the scientists involved in the design. JFK was AFFRAID or SUBMISSIVE with russians implying it was military, because the russians were taught from tender age to despise, hate and suspect all capitalist devious machinations.

>>5636391
>space treaties dont allow nuclear powered vessels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
>"Among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space."

>"However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit."

Yes NUCLEAR CIVILIAN VESSELS
Yes ORBITAL CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS
No TOXIC GAS, NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, BOMBS, DEVICES
No FORTRESSES, MILITARY

The Government purposefully stalled space exploration on its fear of violent retaliation, not international treaties.

>>5631140

Nuclear power is way too expensive to be viable at this point. It's only really cheap if there is a massive scale-up (like in France) and even then the costs of new plants actually go up, not down. Unless there is a massive change there is no way nuclear can compete with the plummeting prices of solar and wind.

>>5636415

If you de-subsidize solar and wind, perhaps it will.

>>5636419

Everything is subsidized, even coal. I seriously doubt that Nuclear would survive without subsidies because the free government insurance is quite significant.

>>5631322
In their defense, when nuclear accidents are bad, they are a complete fucking disaster.

Personally I wouldn't like to lose my home, get sick or lose friends/family because of a nuclear accident. Most people agree.

>>5636391
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/opinion/sunday/Douthat-The-Enduring-Cult-of-Kennedy.html
"THE cult of John F. Kennedy has the resilience of a horror-movie villain. No matter how many times the myths of Camelot are seemingly interred by history, they always come shambling back to life — in another television special, another Vanity Fair cover story, another hardcover hagiography. "

>>5636415
>no way nuclear can compete with the plummeting prices of solar and wind
but wind is the objectively worse alternative fuel ever to exists...not cheap, destructive, inefficient, most deaths per kw of any other source, etc. surely no one seriously recommends wind.

>>5631394
I like how the American government disposes of dangerous nuclear waste.

They call it "depleted uranium", make it into a weapon and spray it everywhere. They claim it's "safe" based on nothing other than they are using it and claiming it's safe.

>>5636430

>destructive,

Wat

>most deaths per kw of any other source,

Wat??

I'll give you it's not as cheap as coal, gas or solar, but at least to cost is going down, unlike Nuclear.

If you ignore the overreactions and hype and just look at the pure statistics, nuclear has, by far, the lowest amount of casualties per unit of power.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Fukushima is a demonstration on why nuclear power is safe.

>One of the most powerful earthquakes in Japanese history
>Nuclear plant enters into automatic shutdown, switches to on-site power, cooling still online
>Nuclear plant survives the earthquake without any damage done, despite being built before the invention of color television
>Tsunami comes
>Exceeds the flood walls around the plant, floods the basement with the on-site power generators, which are all diesel
>Fried
>Cooling system fails

If you can't see how insanely avoidable this problem was...

>>5636430

>most deaths per kw of any other source

Retard. See: >>5636438

>>5636443

Come again?

>But an energy’s deathprint, as it is called, is rarely discussed. The deathprint is the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kWhr produced and, like the carbon footprint, coal is the worst and wind and nuclear are the best.

>>5636426
>Only one nuclear accident in the United States directly caused human deaths.

>>5636433
But the WHO even said that depleted uranium has negligible effect on the human populace, EVEN when it's aerosolized.

>>5636435
When generators on wind farms overheat, they have a tendency to catch, and spread, fire over long distances. So when you combine the EXTREMELY low energy output of wind and the amount of deaths it has caused, you have the HIGHEST number of deaths per kw-h than any other modern source of electricity.

>>5636435
>Wat
it kills birds and fucks up wind patterns. they take up a lot of land too, compared to even solar. also, have you ever been near one? you can't house people to live anywhere near a wind farm.
>Wat??
actually i spoke too soon on that one.. i remember them being shown to be the worst at something on a similar thread a while back, i thought it was deaths. i'll try to remember what it was.

>>5636449

Did I misinterpret the derp-tier phrasing in >>5636430?

>>5636454

Again, see: >>5636438

>>5636435
Its every mixed-economy entrepreneur dream to have massive government subsidies for his business. He would even risk his money and invest before the subsidies start/increase.

>>5636455

>it kills birds

Everything kills birds dude. Gotta have priorities.

>>5636464

see

>>5636424

>>5636462
I was agreeing with this, dipshit. Can you into reading comprehension?

>>5636465
well it doesn't really make sense to employ them when solar would do a better job cost wise, doesn't affect the weather, doesn't take up a shit ton of farming space, can actually be employed near civilization, and isn't loud as shit, does it? the fact that it doesn't kill the pretty birds and mess with habitats as well is just an added bonus.

>>5636465
what is that a chart of? bird deaths by cause? scientist need better shit to do...

>>5636478

>doesn't take up a shit ton of farming space, can actually be employed near civilization,

You obviously have no idea how wind power works, please study the subject a bit before spouting nonsense.

>>5636485

>what is that a chart of? bird deaths by cause?

What do you think?

>>5636475

Can you into math?

Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

>>5636492
>Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
NIGGA WHAT

>>5636495

People falling from the roofs, I guess. In fact, I'm kinda surprised the number isn't higher.

>>5636486
and how much are those 11 turbines spread over a couple square miles generating? about enough to power my flashlight? how much area do we have that we can spread them out so far apart and produce any meaningful amount of electricity? how many crop fires are they going to start? you know placing them over crops can hinder their growth too right? no, you go study. studying wind is like studying latin, it's dead.

>>5636510

Oh, I see, this is what they call a "ruseman" these days, right?

>>5631307
which America?
north: Canada, USA, Mexico
central: Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala
South: Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Columbia

i just want to make a point.
every thread ever made is not based in the United States of `Murrica

what we wouldn't want is a country like Iran to have nuclear weapons, under the guise of nuclear power.

>>5636510
No amount of reason can argue with taxpayer dollars.

>>5632568
but radioactive materials are rare and expensive in comparison. we could effectively disarm our nuclear missiles for fissionable material, but we will eventually run out of fuel, quicker than intended.

>>5636486
the average wind turbine can produce 4.7m to 6m kwh per year. the average nuclear power plant can produce 12.2b kwh per year. you'd need about 2000-2600 of those little things to make up for just one plant...

>>5632836
there are different types of radiation:
alpha, beta, and gamma.

Alpha radiation is when a proton is released from the atom. this is the type of radiation used by nuclear power facilities.

after the fuel rods are spent of most of their alpha radiation, they emit beta radiation, and then gamma.

beta radiation is high energy, but consists of electrons.

gamma radiation is wht kills people.
many forms of electromagnetic radiation, from x-rays to radio waves, are emitted from uranium.

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

>>5636515
fuck the city?

>>5636530

Think it can't be done? Shit is growing fast, yo.

>>5636530
a yes, but the upkeep for a wind turbine is signifigantly less than maintaining a sterile nuclear power plant, and buying uranium

>>5636547
>but the upkeep for a wind turbine is signifigantly less than maintaining a sterile nuclear power
but it's not, why lie when contradictions to your claim have been posted over and over again in this thread?
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
how often do those little turbines break down? they might as well be made of gasoline. and how much land do they fuck up when they do fuck up?

>>5636560
i want you to compare a wind turbine breaking down, and a three man team fixing it.

i now want you to think about what happens when a nuclear reactor breaks down.

while these numbers do make sense. they do not account for anything other than initial cost, nor availability of fuel source. wind wont stop blowing; uranium will run dry.

>>5636574
and running cost*

>>5636560

>nuclearfissionary

Oh come on man, don't just put in the first random link you google up that agrees with your opinion.

>>5636492
Dipshit, my point was that nuclear accounts for the LEAST amount of deaths/kwh. Which I KNOW, your article POINTS OUT, and so does the fucking chart. Are you fucking dumb?!

>>5636540
All radiation can kill. There are more than three modes of decay and decay only accounts for about 10% of heat generation of nuclear power plants. The main mode of heat generation is fission product migration through fuel lattices.

>>5636582
>Are you fucking dumb?!

If I'm dumb, what are you, when you can't ever read your own posts?

>>5636454
>When generators on wind farms overheat, they have a tendency to catch, and spread, fire over long distances. So when you combine the EXTREMELY low energy output of wind and the amount of deaths it has caused, you have the HIGHEST number of deaths per kw-h than any other modern source of electricity.

>>5636542
>ignorance.
Ok you asked so you deserve an answer. The greek polis was not just a "city", but a full-fledged sovereign government, like the USA, England or Monaco are today.
Socrates contended that speculation about the state religion was not only allowed but good for the mind. Government laws stated anyone going against its religion should be killed. He accepted his sentence.

Nuclear power use and development is stalled by government laws, based on government 'science', advisors, employees. Instead of the private individual having the freedom to explore and grow, he is shackled and reproached.
I thought the similarities were fitting.
Read about Grigori Yakovlevich Perelman, then you compare the Mathematics Academic Institutions to government, except government actually kidnaps, rapes and kills.

>>5636587
Fine, then my point was misrepresented. And not to start arguing semantics here, but the solar number only accounts for rooftop solar and doesn't account for the massive solar farms that are being built in regions with high amounts of sunlight.

Even so, if you'd read through my other posts, I could give a shit-less about alternative energy sources. My concern is that alternative sources cannot reach the energy density to sustain human need.

>>5636574
>now want you to think about what happens when a nuclear reactor breaks down
because they happen with the same frequency right? seriously, these scare tactics with "omg meltdowns!" have been disputed over and over again in this very thread.
>and a three man team fixing it
for 1 turbine. like previously stated, it takes 2000-2600 of them to make up for 1 plant. if you allow for a failure rate of even just 10% over a year that's still 600 people driving out to repair these things. (and i highly doubt this 3 man claim to begin with, they can fail pretty spectacularly. sometimes sending parts up to a mile away)
>uranium will run dry
it can be extracted from ocean water, so yea..it won't. besides, how many centuries away from fusion do you think we are?
>wind wont stop blowing
it will where these things are running.
>>5636580
>don't just put in the first random link
it literally doesn't matter where you go, the numbers are all pretty close. they're just statistics, not studies. you're welcome to find something contradicting me though.

>>5636590
>Nuclear power use and development is stalled by government laws

Funny, the countries with greatest percentage of nuclear power use (France, Slovakia etc.) did it with large government involvement. Heck, in Slovakia, the plants were built by the communists. And even in the "free market" countries like USA nuclear gets subsidized. So much for evil gubbermnet, huh?

>people saying it makes sense for iran to produce nuclear power
WHY? They live by one of the most seismically active parts of the planet..

>>5636599

>My concern is that alternative sources cannot reach the energy density to sustain human need.

Why not? If the costs decrease enough (and they will, the way things are going). You'll be able to put solar panels pretty much everywhere, store the energy etc.

>>5636609

>it literally doesn't matter where you go, the numbers are all pretty close.

No, they are NOT. There are huge differences depending on who does the study and in what region. You'd know this if you actually bothered to look. Just compare the different studies:

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

>>5636619
>(and they will, the way things are going)
Why?

>>5636611
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can't just ignore the fact that Germany and Japan pandered to fear-mongering hippies and soccer moms.

>>5636611
>illiterate
Oh, yes, in the beginning France was capitalist, and then there was no electricity, right. Then they had to prohibit anyone not throughly inspected, licensed, connected and obedient to government to possess, use or trade uranium. That solved the problem.
Not quite. After WWII, most french industry was in shambles, but the US nuclear industry, which was a military lackey, secured government credit lines for foreign governments to deal with them. The very US government wanted those countries to develop such military technologies.
Few french even believe free enterprise can make any good toys or food, since the French Revolution 1789.
No way really?! Government invented civilization? You must be kidding.

>>5636633
>Why?

Because it's an emerging technology with lot of room for improvement, easy scaling etc.

>>5636631
>accuses me of bad sources
>uses wikipedia
>uses a wikipedia article in which most of those charts have (citation needed) marks
>wind still loosing in just about all of them except 2017 ESTIMATES
ok guy.

>>5636635

You write like someone under the influence of psychoactive substances.

>>5636582
right, the heat energy is released by the kinetic energy of U239 splitting into lighter elements. these lighter elements travel through a lattice structure and impart their energy.
correct?
>>5636590
> unknowing ignorance is preferred to informed stupidity
>>5636609
no, they don't happen with the same frequency.
but if a turbine breaks, the local populace doesn't become irradiated, the government doesn't have to pay billions for cleanup, evacuation, decontamination, and medical care for survivors. plus lawsuits, the stock market crash because of such an event, etc.

i admit, i made the number up, but it was to emphasize a point. 10-20 sounds more reasonable, and they don't have to be highly trained in physics to fix it.
arguing human error in logistics is moot, ie: shipping fuel rods.

to what quantity?, how much uranium is really in our ocean? 1ppm? 1ppb? 1ppt?
we can get more He3 or tritium from the ocean, just from the distribution of periodic elements.
we can't be to far off. we can simulate the sun using a single laser, and plasma reactors run on He3 are the latest research.

>every object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon.. etc.
yes it will affect wind patterns, but the sheer mass of airflow moving will never be overcome by some hard to move fans.
forests don't stop the wind and jet streams are unaffected by ground level applications

>>5636646

Can you read? My point was the different analyses give different results. If you disagree, feel free to read the studies linked in the article.

>>5636619
Actually, no. Cost is not the issue(s). The issues are efficiency, density, and availability. Modern solar panels are pushing maybe 20% (and by that I mean, easily available and widespread solar technology). Combine that with the fact output per usable space (about 0.2MW/acre) is abysmal and there is NO way that solar energy can support the human populace while still leaving enough arable land.

The third issue is also availability. The obvious fact is that the sun is not always shining, and you brought up the issue of storage. Well, battery storage is even less efficient than solar itself and at some point it becomes pointless to rely on a jerry-rigged system of active electricity and stored potential electricity that may not last.

>>5636611
No, the US is the outlier in that there is complete bureaucracy regarding what can be built, with what design, for how long, etc. Most cost run-offs occur as a result of potential plants being in governmental licensing limbo. The other countries you listed don't have those problems.

The US even has a law that dictates a maximum burn-time of fuel that ends up being about half a year before it has to be replaced. This puts an unnecessary burden on power plants because they're forced to spend MORE money on fuel when they have stock piles that aren't completely burnt. Even with these asinine laws, subsidies for nuclear are MUCH lower than those for coal or alternative energy.

>>5636657
>NO way that solar energy can support the human populace while still leaving enough arable land.

Have you done the calculation yourself, or are you just pulling these statements out of your ass?

>Well, battery storage is even less efficient than solar itself and at some point it becomes pointless to rely on a jerry-rigged system of active electricity and stored potential electricity that may not last.

Actually, it's exactly the opposite. At "some point" renewable energy will become so cheap there will be no reason not to put it everywhere. There are already some places where solar is competitive without subsidies.

>>5636657
>The other countries you listed don't have those problems.

Yes, because the government does most/all of the work on its own.

>>5636657
are you talking about photovoltaic cells, heat pipe reflectors, or liquid salt generators?

Pic is shows that solar power investment growth is a government subsidy pyramid scheme.
>>5636648
You are the one implying that ignorance is bad. I was just trying to state curiosity is better and that guy could have searched wikipedia which would be a much better use of his time than having me explain it to him.
How is it stupid to be sarcastic about a guy that says goverment did everything in France and Slovakia if both those countries never had a free unhampered economy to begin with?
Its like saying in prison the guards are the best armed folks.

>>5636673
>both those countries never had a free unhampered economy to begin with?

And what country does? You think France is some kind of communist hell-hole?

>>5636673

>pic
>no source

nice try

>>5636648
I actually want to reply to this entire post.

Yes, the vast majority of energy is released as kinetic energy of the fission products (and fission neutrons which are hard to stop) that are stopped relatively quickly in the lattice because of friction, imparting their energy as heat.

Also, turbines don't actually break that often and they're usually inspected/repaired about every 1.5 years (whenever that particular reactor goes offline for seasonal refueling). Also, in the vast majority of reactor cores (which are pressurized water reactors), there are two-loop systems. 99.9% there is negligible radiation in the second, turbine loop. The only reason there would be is if there was a rupture in the steam generator, releasing low-level irradiated water into the secondary line. The exception to this rule are boiling water reactors, which are single-loop system. But again, water in reactor cores actually isn't that irradiated. Usually you'll have a build up of tritium (a low-level beta emitter) and Nitrogen-17 (which has a really energetic gamma, but has a half-life of six or seven seconds...less time than it takes for coolant to move from the core to the turbine). Hell, even my local utility company bought the turbines at the defunct 3 mile island plant because they were radiation-free (no fuel contaminated water made it to the turbine) and it was cheaper than buying a new one. Speaking of 3 mile island, there were no cases of radiation poisoning (because it was a pressurized water reactor with a primary and secondary coolant side) and negligible increase to local cancers.

And there's a surprisingly huge amount of uranium in our oceans. Fusion's going to be hard to pull off (again, it's a materials issue and to an extent a thermal-hydraulics issue). Our world supply of ALL helium is actually really low, to the point where it's becoming more rare than Uranium.

cont'd.

>>5636673
ignorance IS bad.
being taught falshoods IS worse.

we all know the government is corrupt.

but are you implying that the inmates should have weapons?

>>5636648
>but if a turbine breaks, the local populace doesn't become irradiated
again, this has been mentioned over and over again. these kinds of things are rare, it's just that the media flips out whenever a single one happens. nuclear power has one of the least, if not the least, deaths per kwh of any energy source. and no, your turbines don't irradiate the local populace. they just set fire to all their crops and forests.
> but it was to emphasize a point. 10-20 sounds more reasonable
it sure didn't help emphasize it... now that number is up to 2300 to 4600 (i averaged 2000 and 2600 turbines/plant) workers per year for upkeep. you didn't even have a case when you said 3 people, this is just ridiculous
>and they don't have to be highly trained in physics to fix it
physicist don't fix the reactors silly, at best they are part of design. i doubt the ones fixing a wall in a reactor need much more training than the ones fixing burning turbines.
>to what quantity?, how much uranium is really in our ocean? 1ppm? 1ppb? 1ppt?
i'm not sure, look it up. but it was around enough for 1500 years or so. and how long do we have before we even have to tap into that?
>we can't be to far off
exactly, so the question about how much uranium we have left is pointless. we'd be on fusion long before fuel source became a problem with fission.
>>every object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon.. etc
err..what is friction?
the concern is not that the wind will stop flowing where these turbines are. it's that the change in wind patterns can cause environmental problems. also, they can dry up the areas around them and there are studies that found they can contribute to climate change (just google wind turbines climate change).

>>5636652
>y point was the different analyses give different results
>my point was the different analyses give different results
i guess we differ on what different results mean. i don't care if one study says twice the cost per kwh for nuclear as another. the issue was which costs less, and there was mostly a consensus.
>If you disagree, feel free to read the studies linked in the article.
what links? again, half of them have (citation needed) remarks. besides, why would i argue against them in the first place? they agree with what i'm saying. my only problem was with 2017 estimates, how much weight do you really put on those though?

>>5636691

>my only problem was with 2017 estimates, how much weight do you really put on those though?

Well, let's see. The cost of wind power is going down, while the cost of nuclear power is going up >>5636415

They have to meet at some point.

>>5636700
>what are diseconomies of scale
as they take up more of the available land, the benefit for each additional one decreases since the optimum areas are used up first. only reason for reducing costs is improvements in technology and that fact that it is used so little that they can be used in the best areas still.

>>5636708

>only reason for reducing costs is improvements in technology and that fact that it is used so little that they can be used in the best areas still.

Yup. And as the technology improves, it becomes viable to put them into less favorable areas as well.

>>5636685
Im implying the government treats us as inmates and then some smartass comes along saying the government is the one that provides all the good food, beds and cells for us to be comfortable. I didnt want to sound corny but watch Color Purple or something and watch the slave being told how good he got from master.

>>5636676
France is as socialist as it gets on those parts. Although there is no unhampered market anywhere there are ways to estimate it:
>>blog openleft article "just-how-socialist-a-survey-of-major-countries"
>>anepigone on blogspot
>1. Iraq 87.3
>2. Cuba 81.4
>3. Slovakia 66.2
...
>7. France 61.1
...
~57. United States: 44.7% (2009)

>>5636678
institute for energy research website
"eia-releases-new-subsidy-report-subsidies-for renewables increase 186 percent"

>>5636682
cont'd

Not to mention that France recycles most of their fuel (which is more or less illegal in the US) to the point where it extends our LWR fuel for something absurd (not going to throw out a number there). This is completely ignoring all the fuels that can be fissioned in a fast-spectrum reactor.

>>5636661
More or less. Show me something (with numbers) that definitively states that with solar technology within 20 years can support the entirety of the human population (including increase of energy use within emerging second and third world countries). And yes, it is profitable without subsidies in only the most arid places with 0 cloud cover.

>>5636665
Exactly, but we DON'T have those subsidies. Instead, we have coal subsidies that dwarf that of nuclear in the US. Private corporations have designed the reactors and power companies can front the money with private investors. Money is not the issue...it's the Department of Energy and the NRC for requiring ridiculous regulations on power plants within the US. You're comparing apples and oranges, bro.

>>5636670
Active photovoltaic cells. I've never heard of the other two.

I was going to discuss this but bleh look the picture and figure it out.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/subsidy-absurdity-china-throws-more-161548096.html

>>5636718

>France is as socialist as it gets on those parts. Although there is no unhampered market anywhere there are ways to estimate it

So what's your point, then? How come a "socialist" country can get most of its power from nukes, while so other many countries can not?

>>5636711
>And as the technology improves
technological advances won't continue to occur at the same rate forever. there's only so many big issues you can fix before you get down to the minor things with only minimal improvements in efficiency. it's a damn turbines for gods sake, how advanced do you think we can make them? there is also no way that technological advances can counter the efficiency loss of having to place the turbines in poor areas. wind makes up what? 2% of the energy in the US? if they replaced. you think if it completely replaced nuclear it wouldn't take a massive hit to efficiency?

>>5636730
ignore the first "if they replaced"

>>5636721

>More or less. Show me something

You did no calculation. Do not lie.

>that definitively states that with solar technology within 20 years can support the entirety of the human population

Strawman. Why 20 years? Why only solar?

>And yes, it is profitable without subsidies in only the most arid places with 0 cloud cover.

Nope. Another fact-free statement from you. And again, it doesn't really matter, because soon it will be competitive pretty much everywhere.

>>5636730
>technological advances won't continue to occur at the same rate forever.

True. But there's still a lot of upcoming ideas.

>if they replaced. you think if it completely replaced nuclear it wouldn't take a massive hit to efficiency?

The efficiency would go down, but so would the overall price, because of the massive scale of the production.

>>5636741
>True. But there's still a lot of upcoming ideas
yes, but again, there's only so much you can do technology wise with something that simply gets spun by air. these are simple machines. the peak is not that high.
>but so would the overall price, because of the massive scale of the production
did you not understand anything i said? things like wind and solar cost more as you scale them up. what reason do have to think scale would help in any way? does that reason outweigh the decrease in quality of the areas as you scale up?

>>5636735
And you didn't do shit for calculation anyway. You made a blanket statement about how it would be more profitable than nuclear...you prove it. The reason I said within the next 20 years is because you're the one that saying it becomes more profitable in the future. I'm setting just as much of an arbitrary timeline as you are. And you're the one that made the original claim about solar being profitable with subsidies already in some region. What region? Tell me, because you've been making blanket statements without backing anything up. And you attack me for lack of anything? Rich stuff, bro.

And while we're at it...
>>5636741
Show some statistics that back up the claim that your economies of scale with solar will be enough to combat the MASSIVE loss in efficiency because of the absence of nuclear. You're making MORE blanket claims than I am WITHOUT evidence.

>>5636753
>things like wind and solar cost more as you scale them up.

No, they cost LESS. It's nuclear that scales badly because it's so complex and expensive.

>>5636726
My point is those countries are socialist.
Russia did make all the ICBMs it wanted. It just lacked bread.
The ruling bureaucracies on those countries happen to like nuclear plants and so its citizens are ordered to build them.

>>5636755

>And you didn't do shit for calculation anyway.

I never said I did. But at least I'm basing my predictions on something tangible. You have nothing.

>And you're the one that made the original claim about solar being profitable with subsidies already in some region. What region? Tell me, because you've been making blanket statements without backing anything up. And you attack me for lack of anything? Rich stuff, bro.

Because I can back my statements when asked, unlike you.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/solar-industry-celebrates-grid-parity/2875592

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/01/sustainable-global-solar-market-in-2014-deutsche-bank-predicts/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2012/12/26/solar-grid-parity-comes-to-spain/

Grid parity in Australia, Italy, India, Spain...I'm sure there's now more, or will be pretty soon.

>because of the absence of nuclear

Who said anything about the absence of Nuclear? The industry is stagnating, but it won't disappear overnight.

>>5636762

>The ruling bureaucracies on those countries happen to like nuclear plants and so its citizens are ordered to build them.

And it worked. So?

>>5636759
again, solar and wind are still not a big source of energy so the projects are still really small, even the biggest ones, so they can still benefit from bigger systems since it costs less to have one group design a large one than it does 5 groups designing small ones. Also, they are not suffering from placement degradation yet, all those systems can still be placed in optimum areas. Even with all of that, the economy of scale is still minor. Not only that, but look at your graph. it is system size in kW, with the highest being 1MW. that is laughably small. by comparison, the first portable nuclear reactor in 1960 was 2MW. Again, this is all before the optimum areas have even been used up.
>It's nuclear that scales badly because it's so complex and expensive.
nuclear doesn't scale either way. not because of technical aspects at least. But either way, the other factors are positive in scale. look at the efficiency of reactors in countries with a large percent of power by nuclear vs others.

>>5636780
also, i was so concerned with correcting your errors i forgot that i wasn't even arguing against solar, so it's pointless to bring it up. we were talking about wind, don't change the subject.

>>5636783

>did you not understand anything i said? things like wind and solar cost more as you scale them up.

>we were talking about wind,

>also, i was so concerned with correcting your errors

You can barely hold a coherent thought and you're "correcting" my errors? Please.

>>5636786
>You can barely hold a coherent thought
the issue was wind. just because i mentioned solar does not make it the main topic specially considering i had barely mentioned it throughout the whole thread. regardless, my statement was true.
>You can barely hold a coherent thought
so now that you can't come up with anything else to defend your position you're just going to basically insult me? not even going to TRY to address anything i actually said in that post? whatever helps you sleep tonight.

>>5636790

>not even going to TRY to address anything i actually said in that post?

Why should I even try when you don't even listen? I showed that you are wrong about the scaling of solar, and you just ignored it.

>>5636795
>Why should I even try
funny how they always resort to a "it's not even worth my time" esque argument when losing despite the fact they've been arguing for a considerable amount of time.
>and you just ignored it
no i didn't. this whole post is solely addressing that >>5636780 you're just ignoring me when i address your points.

Why is this thread so long?

Here, let me summarize this fucking thread for any newcomers.

NUCLEAR IS THE MOST EFFICIENT, EASIEST, LARGE-SCALE WAY TO ENSURE YOU CAN TYPE ON THIS WEBSITE WITHOUT BROWN OUTS OR BLACK OUTS AND THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE THAT IS GREATER.

There. Discussion solved.

Invent anti-matter matter or graviton-based energy or STFU with your false sense of fear and ignorance. There's nothing wrong with Nuclear, you oil company supporting shills.

>>5636805

You never addressed anything. Handwaving isn't an argument. I mean:

>Also, they are not suffering from placement degradation yet, all those systems can still be placed in optimum areas.

How many solar panels are placed in optimum areas today? How many optimum areas are there left? How much will performance degrade in sub-optimum areas? You have no numbers, nothing. And this is supposed to be "worth my time"?

You were wrong about the scaling of nuclear, too
>>5636415 But I don't think you care much.

>>5636810
but the TV told me that muh dik is at risk from nukeyaler cancer. What do you mean that your new reactor is safer than a 40+ year old one built when safety wasn't a big issue?

seriously though, shitposters please save your bleeding hearts and crocodile tears for somewhere else, just because your feelings tell you something doesn't make it true

>>5636825

I don't care about bleeding hearts, I care about the money Lebowski.

>>5636773
So those countries probably wouldnt need those plants. They might been better with agricultural implements or better clothing.
In any country government regulates or monopolizes an economic or political activity those are made at large expense of peoples needs and wants. In a badly wasteful way compared with the unhampered market.
But nuclear energy is so much efficient and powerful the government can make quite the poor job and fuel tariffs don't need to be too high to stop competition.
Government prohibiting free nuclear technology use by the citizenry today would be like government prohibiting use of gasoline during the 20s-60s. Or the king prohibiting anyone from being a blacksmith on the middle ages. Its a major stall of progress and society.
With the Orion Project we would have already traveled to Saturn with a 100-people Nuclear Pulse Propulsion ship. The moon would have thousands of people on it. Would would be mining ore tens of kilometers deep in the Earths crust. There would be major canals going through every continental landmass. Cities could be built and powered completely underground, inside caves excavated with nuclear explosives, while the surface could be a natural preserve or the most attractive park. Nuclear power desalinization could increase 10x the agricultural output of the poorest countries, besides providing drinking water, saving lives doubly. Cheap electrical power or steam can increase the productivity, development and exploration of all human activities. Take art for example. Would Mount Rushmore be built if the US government banished gunpowder as it does with nuclear materials? Yet gunpowder killed a tens of millions times more people.

>>5636836

You are really on drugs.

>>5636842
nootropics. Have you ever talked to someone 20-30 IQ points ahead of you? While they still think you are as smart as them, that is. Because they are good at not making themselves outlandish or 'weird' when they need to.

>>5636814
>How many solar panels are placed in optimum areas today
all of them...again, what percentage of US power comes from solar? do you really think the areas they can be placed in wouldn't degrade if you extended it 10x what it is right now? this is a much bigger deal with wind, as it is only a very small percent and still takes up considerable space.
>You have no numbers, nothing
and you do? if you don't have any data it is logic against logic, and you clearly have given up trying to make any of those points. the only data you have presented is a chart that says nothing about what would happen if solar took over as a primary source. you can't even read your own graphs, you're just randomly pointing at shit without even reading it. the graph you are pointing at says nothing in your favor about the cost of scale at nuclear power. it is simply cost per kw over the years, and over time we have shut down more and more plants because of fear mongering. if anything it is in favor of nuclear power scale, since the french can produce it much cheaper than us and that's because they're not afraid to use nuclear power. the EOS graph you gave for solar had a max 1MW system. How you think this would mean anything in mass production is beyond me. the graph is basically extremely small system to really small system. nuclear power plant systems are usually around 2 x 500 MW or so. stop throwing links like a child, try actually thinking things through.

>>5636842

The problem is that there are lots of anti nuclear shills out there who will spew absurd shit, and other dumbshits will believe it. Weird seeing it from the other side though

>>5636852
>all of them

Bullshit. You think that everyone who puts a solar panel on their roof just happens to live in an optimum area? Please.

>and you do? if you don't have any data it is logic against logic, and you clearly have given up trying to make any of those points.

Now you're telling me what I'm arguing?

>you can't even read your own graphs

No, you can't read graphs. What the graph shows is that as you build more powerplants, their cost increases. France did not " shut down more and more plants because of fear mongering" and yet even their costs go up, government backing and all.

>the EOS graph you gave for solar had a max 1MW system. How you think this would mean anything in mass production is beyond me.

Well, you can lead a horse to water...

>>5636857
>weird seeing it from the other side
What do you mean? You think I was spewing absurd shit IN FAVOR of nuclear power? Go read George Dyson's book, Michio Kaku, Stanislaw Lem, Olaf Stapledon's "Star Maker", Allen Steele's Coyote Series, Alastair Reynolds "Revelation Space" and let yourself wonder.

>>5636871
>Bullshit. You think that everyone who puts a solar panel on their roof just happens to live in an optimum area
you think the 1MW systems are from people putting solar panels in their roofs? that's like $5 million. systems like those would be built almost exclusively by power generating companies who would no doubt find the most efficient areas they could. is it any wonder then that it is more efficient that the lay person's 2 kw system who has no choice but to simply stick it on top of their roof? please
>Now you're telling me what I'm arguing?
that statement is saying what you're not arguing, complete opposite..
>What the graph shows is that as you build more powerplants
the graph says nothing about the number of plants in those periods. if you're arguing EOS, the only comparable scales are from the same time period. explain why France continuously had lower costs of production than we did. could it be..EOS?
>Well, you can lead a horse to water.
you're using faulty logic. i stated a problem that would arise if it became a primary energy source. you tried to rebut it with a something that takes none of that problem into account. there is no degradation between a 2kw system and a 1mw system, they are both extremely small. you're trying to apply this to increasing the system 1000x higher than anything on that chart? or increasing the total size of the project 10x nationwide (and that's just to replace nuclear, let alone be a primary source). you have no sense of scale. Think about how small a 1MW system is on a power production scale.

i'm going to sleep.

>>5636891

Next time, learn the difference between an *argument* and *handwaving*. Your entire point is based on speculation about degradation which is backed by no data. And when I called you on that, you responded by more handwaving. You either know nothing about the subject or you can't communicate well enough to make a coherent point. Good bye.