/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5728797
lf we paint smiley faces on it l see no problem.

they look happy, why are hippies such buzzkills?

>>5728797
Pretty enthusiastic, especially for promising next-gen reactor designs.

It's fine. Just keep the plants away from water.

>>5728797
>Radioactive Waste
>health effects
>reactor accidents
find a at least a minimal solution to these and I will feel much better about it.

> muh thorium thread
here we fucking go again

>>5728797
Feels good man

>>5728831
>cabron dioxide waste
>health effects
>car accidents
find at least a minimal solution to these and I will feel much better about it

>>5728849
we can find alternatives to nuclear power. i want you to try walking from say california to new york. go ahead and try.

>>5728853
>we can find alternatives to nuclear power. i want you to try walking from say california to new york. go ahead and try.

We should also have solar and hydro energy, maybe wind.

But in terms of compact, high power generation, nuclear is where its at. Can't get around it unless fusion ever becomes viable.

>>5728853
was talking more about fossil fuel power stations in general which would be the real alternative to nuclear right now.

>>5728858
ehhh. I have hope in thorium nuclear reactors.

>2012+1
>not having geothermal plants.

>>5728862
agreed. but these oil company's aren't going to budge anytime soon anon.

relevant

nuclear << chemical

>>5728879

*nuclear >> chemical

>>5728865
Thats a myth.

>>5728869
Not him. That has nothing to do with his direct counter to the 'nuclear is bad' post.

>>5728864

>4chan
>still putting year
>not killing youself

The U.S. has about 70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel sitting above ground in pools and casks, spread around ~37 states.

We spent 30 years and $15,000,000,000 studying and developing Yucca Mountain for permanent disposal of it all, but Senator Reid is a fag and had it killed by getting his man appointed to the chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I feel a bit disappointed I guess.

>>5728884

No YOU'RE a myth. We just don't have LFTR's.

>>5728903

>70,000 metric tons

But don't we start with more than that tonnage of radioactive isotopes that we dug out of the ground? Why don't we just bury it back where it came from?

>>5728908

Because the waste is highly radiotoxic and has to be sealed from the environment for a period of about 1000 centuries. You can't just dump that shit anywhere.

>>5728903
Seems like a lot of money goes into the storage of nuclear waste.

>>5728921

>highly radiotoxic

Yeah, but it must have a lower alpha decay rate than the starting material otherwise we'd be using it in a reactor. Isn't it only waste when it absorbs more neutrons than it releases? I know nothing about neutron economy.

Just put that shit in tanks in Nevada. No one lives there. It's a fucking desert.

>>5728937
We spent a thousand times that bailing out jews.

>>5728921
They seem pretty safe in those containers. Maybe we should just put them somewhere that won't erode them so fast and then check on them every once in awhile. The public will know where we put them and I bet they'll hold enough of a grudge to remind us when it's been thousands of years.

Within the same minute too.

>>5728797

Too expensive. Could compete with fossil fuels if externalizes were accounted for, but would lose to renewables anyway.

>>5728833
Came into this thread making a bet with myself for how long until thorium was mentioned, was not disappointed

>>5728921
>as to be sealed from the environment for a period of about 1000 centuries
except the waste is less radioactive than what comes out of coal plants, you retard

>believing greenpeace

>>5728963
the prices could be brought down to nothing especially if we develop thorium. and no, renewables wont be competitive for a few decades still.

>boiling water reactors constructed with proper permits, authorization, and built to acceptable NRC safety standards
love it, rock solid, shit loads of juice, almost no waste outside of a concrete cask ten feet long. great shit

>boiling water reactors build to poor standards (see, China)
I CANNOT BITE MY KNUCKLES HARDER
although westinghouse is doing most of the construction of the 150+ chinese reactors, WH makes very good product, so i probably shouldn't worry as much.

>experimental reactor designs like LFTR, once through modular-core style molten salt, high temperature pebble bed
STOP SOAKING UP ALL THE FUNDING, TOKAMAK, YOU WORTHLESS FUCK

>>5729018

Renewables are already becoming competitive in many countries.

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-german-bank-solar-power-india.html

>>5729027
if they were competitive they would generate %50+ of energy consumption, because capitalism :DD also germany is the most retarded country when it comes to these matters, so never listen to them

>>5729031
>if they were competitive they would generate %50+ of energy consumption

They can, on a good day (e.g. Spain). And by the way "capitalism :DD" has little to do with the energy market.

>>5729054
>full retard
thats real compelling :D lel not

>>5729018
>[thorium] prices could be brought down to nothing
what the fuck are you talking about

>renewables wont be competitive for a few decades still.
It's like really still the year 2002.

>>5729063
>now remove the subsidies
and yeah nuclear would be cheap ass fuck if it wasnt for all the bureaucracy which will be even more superfluous with thorium

>>5729063
>>[thorium] prices could be brought down to nothing
>what the fuck are you talking about

The new reactors will be built by thorium pixies.

>>5729027
>competitive

Oh sure, if you nuke (pun intended) the competition with legislation and fear to artificially drive up it's costs you can make anything competitive.

Nuclear for the base load and renewables for as much as they can muster.

>>5729071

>now remove the subsidies

I wish

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-09/fossil-fuels-got-more-aid-than-clean-energy-iea.html

>>5729071
>>5729075

I hope nobody ITT is implying that Nuclear Power is not subsidized.

>>5729078
yeah, but thats in america. in germoney and other europe they tried thier hardest the other way and all they got is high gas prices and ppl whore not fat

>>5729094
I mean the array is fully guaranteed for 25 years.

>>5729075
>nuke (pun intended) the competition with legislation
I like how you ignore how oil and natural gas compete with solar.

>>5729071
>now remove the subsidies
I actually have the numbers for a solar array my college just installed. The array is fully adventured by the manufacturer for 25 years. Even pretending we paid for the subsides (a total cost of 6.4 million) the array will be paid for in 24 years. Have you ever heard of the phrase "guaranteed cash returns?"

>>5729092

No, that's world-wide.

>>5729095
yeah, but not europe wide where it didnts happen, though i gauss theres more to the world than just europe and america.

>>5729086

>>5729075
Had nothing to do with subsidies and everything to do with excessive regulation.

>>5729103

Everything has to do with subsidies. There would be no nuclear power without subsidies.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

>>5729094
>believing that renewables r so good energy prices will just keep dropping
>but this array will totally pay itself cos the prices will stay the same!
ur narrative is just so ridiculous :DD

>>5729116
See, I'm doing this thing where I separate the prices of renewable and nonrenewable.

>the price of oil per barrel has been going up
>the price of solar has been going down

That wasnt too hard to understand, was it? :)

>>5729121

I think what the retard is trying to say that renewables will not be profitable because the success of renewables will bring energy prices down.

>>5729110
>believing greenpeace that much
it's amazing what kind of bullshit people are ready to eat
>ucusa
>union of concerned scientist
lel :D

>>5729121
but the price of nuclear is stable, and there has been no almost no development been done on the many fronts that are totally ripe for picking :DD so even then your just overly confident

>>5729126
>but the price of nuclear is stable

Nope.

>>5729123
no im just pointing ppl being dumb :DD so u can disregard them. no need to thenks me

>>5729130
>still posting greenpeace
loogs :DD i have a graph too

>>5729133
>people still use oil

>>5729133

You're mixing up energy productions costs with reactor building costs. Read your own graph.

>>5729076
this
i don't really understand the all or nothing approach here. keep solar chugging along getting more efficient, but DO NOT EVER use it as baseload power. put it on your roof with a grid tie for 70 cents a peak watt.

nuclear power for baseload

>>5729136
>theres maybe a few nuclear construction projects going because of greenpeace retardation
>by bad luck one of them happens to overrun more than usual
oh noes :DD we are doomed

>>5729145
>>by bad luck one of them happens to overrun more than usual

And what is the "usual" cost overrun?

>>5729110
>http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html
>they diminish or delay support for more economical and less risky alternatives like energy efficiency and renewable energy.
>"renewables have no inherent risk so subsidies are ok for them"
>ignoring nuclear energy stability, and that a sizable fraction of npp construction costs is paying for lawyers to keep the ninbys away

oh christ it's THOSE people

>>5729150
well big selection bias but i cant think of a single US engineering project where government is involved and schedule is maintained :DD

>>5729151
>>"renewables have no inherent risk so subsidies are ok for them"

This seems like a sensible policy to me.

>>5729155
financial risk (not health risk, which is probably what you're confusing it with), which renewables still have a lot of. see various green energy upstarts going under because they cannot compete and such. i just find the double standard hilarious

>>5729150

Just measly 100-300 percent. What's not to like?

>>5729165

What double standard? The idea of subsidies is to support a fledgling industry. It's not the fault of renewables that the existing energy industry keeps gobbling them up decades after.

>>5729175
i'm saying they're bashing subsidies of volatile markets, claiming that nuclear is volatile and renewables are solid, when it's basically the opposite

>>5729169
sounds about right, i'd like to see that correlated to number of court cases opened to sue the construction company
i'd also like to see dollars per MW averaged over the entire lifetime of the plant, since that seems to cover ONLY construction, which is ALWAYS much more expensive than operating costs for nuclear power plants....but they run for fucking 60 years generating revenue

>>5729180
>when it's basically the opposite

Not true at all. Nuclear reactors are fine once they're built up and running. But when it comes to construction, the volatility is enormous. Nobody wants to waste billions of dollars on unfinished reactors.

>>5728816
LOL Cook Nuclear Plant - Sitting on shore of Lake Michigan

Daily reminder that nuclear is the best and HTGRs (in combination with hybrid Rankine-Brayton cycle PWR/BWRs) are better than thorium. Will explain later when not posting from phone

>>5729180
Also you have to include storage costs for nuclear waste.

>>5729192
but isn't that sort of a self fulfilling prophecy?
>NPPs cost too much! and are dangerous! i better sew that construction company for millions to keep it out of my town!
>cost of construction goes up because of court cases
>see! NPPs cost too much!

>>5729193
do you have any idea how sensitive the radiation detectors on their water coolant outlet tubes are? don't walk in there with a cigarette.
in addition, do you know how incredibly precise they need to be with the outlet water temperature? nature conservatories often pop up around NPPs because of how incredibly non-intrusive they are

>>5729196
i rather like high temp reactors, they seem to require more exotic types of materials though, more of a headache, also pressure issues. i'd prefer a high temp gas cooled once-through salt design m'self. don't gotta worry about it for a long ass time

>>5729205
>NPPs cost too much! and are dangerous! i better sew that construction company for millions to keep it out of my town!
>cost of construction goes up because of court cases

How much did the power plant cost go up because of court cases?

>>5729199
but isn't that sort of a self fulfilling prophecy?
>Nuclear waste is really dangerous! where are they trying to store it? "yuck-ah mountain?" where's that? OH MY GOD it's in the middle of nowhere! i must sue them to stop this madness it'll kill us all!
>cost of storage goes up because of court cases, and the eventual shut down of yucca mountain
>see! waste storage costs too much

really, you can store it in a giant concrete dry cask on the back lot of the power plant and it'll stay put until the sun explodes

>>5729212
>How much did the power plant cost go up because of court cases?
i am not certain about that, and have no sources. it seems quite difficult to find, possibly due to legal restrictions or the company just doesn't publish stuff like that

>>5729205
its "sue"

People sue because if the health risks, not the monetary costs. Solar is nearing the price of nuclear and still manages gives people that "warm and fuzzy" feeling.

>>5729215
Surely if we are spending excess money, we should have top notch nuclear storage facilities that dont leak millions of gallons of nuclear sludge into the Hudson river?

>>5729218

>i am not certain about that, and have no sources.

You can't be serious. So the basis of your entire argument is...nothing? Do you at least know how many court cases there were?

>>5729224
There were exactly 53 court cases. Trust me, I'm an insider.

>>5729205
It comes down to a materials problem for everything really (HTGRs, LFTRs, he'll even magnetically confined fusion), but we've both had this conversation before. I don't really think pressure's a problem as current rector vessels average about 2000psi water, with HTGRs it's a temp problem at ~2000F. For LFTRs, you're not only going to have to up thorium mining and start manufacturing Hastalloy again where with HTGRs you just need something that can withstand hot helium and continue mining uranium with no enrichment needed. Shit, I'm even for adapting fossil fuel plants with Brayton cycles for a 33% increase in efficiency.

>>5729205
>don't walk in there with a cigarette
lol they dont let anyone in but schools

>>5729224
ironically enough westinghouse sued the construction company for complying with safety standards
http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2012/11/third-lawsuit-filed-over-vogtle-nuclear-construction-costs.html
although to be fair those safety standards are tending to get a little silly

but there is this
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/02/17/environmental-groups-sue-to-stop-construction-of-nuclear-power-plants-at-vogtle/
which is basically just the post fukushima scare

Also one of japan's nuclear plants is leaking into groundwater.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/power-plant-stricken-tsunami-leaking-radioactive-water-article-1.1332275

>>5729237
heck, this group even flat out says it
http://www.ncwarn.org/2012/12/nuclear-construction-project-in-free-fall-duke-at-risk-too-news-release-from-nc-warn/
>Another lawsuit by watchdog groups including NC WARN is making its way through a federal appeals court, and is intended to stop Vogtle and other AP1000s until utilities incorporate lessons from the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
>it's not that we want the plant to be safer, it's just too expensive and we have NPPs so let's sue the bitch

>>5729241

From those statements it seems to me that the main reason for the cost overruns is the incompetence of the manufacturers.

>>5729238
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/power-plant-stricken-tsunami-leaking-radioactive-water-article-1.1332275
yeah, sounds about right. the plant was quite old.
the lack of a cited source for anything in the article is a little weird though

>Even so, the farmer said that it is "impossible" to continue his work because of the radiation levels. “Our community will disappear. It's going to become like Chernobyl,” he said. “Children will never return."
unfortunately the japanese media has really bee running with all this. the area around the plant (more than about 5 miles away) is mostly fine. but there have been several radiation scares that never panned out. like a tapwater radiation hazard scare that ended up being literally nothing

>>5729251
i suspect they're going slowly and carefully with construction to avoid the NRC coming in and saying "wait no that's wrong tear it down". mixed with incompetence

>>5729238
>Fears have also emerged that the Dai-ichi plant could break apart during cleaning, NBC News reports. The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency said the plant may need longer than their original estimate of 40 years to clean the site.

top lel