/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9962825
The biggest issue is that of waste. Since it's incredibly long lived, and typically rather penetrative special housing needs to be allocated for it.

Still better than coal plants that burns radioactive material into the air so it can be inhaled and destroy your organs from the inside.

>>9962825
Nuclear power plants are a PR nightmare once they go kaboom despite the very small chance of that event ever occurring.

Kinda like how some people are still wary of traveling by plane despite the fact that it is much more likely for them to die in a car crash.

Conventional choices are probably good enough for now even though they may be more polluting.

If power grids and batteries evolve enough this will become obsolete in favor of solar which is probably what will happen in the future, climate change will probably not be that serious that we need to make a change to nuclear

>>9962848
Nuclear plants literally cannot "go kaboom"
Outright not possible

>>9962825
because oil companies are richer than nuke companies

>>9962899
Well, that was a hyperbole for a meltdown followed by a steam explosion. Although, it could be argued that the Chernobyl accident could come pretty close to that if its corium managed to reach underground water deposits.

>>9962899
Yes they can, just not nuclear kaboom. The heat transport system uses superheated high enthalpy steam which will cause a violent explosion if the containment fails. Said steam is radioactive af and will definitely kill everyone exposed to it. The worst case is your nuclear station is filled with the steam which irradiates and kills everyone and renders the building useless for a few centuries.

>>9962915
Is the steam itself radioactive? I mean, if water molecules were to undergo neutron activation you would just have heavy water which is relatively harmless.

If so, the danger would lie mostly in activated debris and radioisotopes generated in the runaway chain reaction being scattered around.

>>9962842
Probably one of the biggest reasons. Also, you can't just "shut down" a nuclear power plant, and they aren't viable outside of highly populated areas because you'll end up wasting excess power if demand is met. I may be mistaken, but you can't really throttle the amount of power you get from nuclear once you start a reaction.

>>9962825
Haven't you see "Dark"? Nukes are evil.

>>9963210
Where have you read that? Reactors can be throttled by moving the moderator around AFAIK. The issue is that it takes a long time for it to adjust.

>>>/wsg/2343848

>>9963244
What is considered a long time? Few hours? That's really the issue I've heard is that it can be hard to shift from the peak hours to dead hours

>>9963210
Where have you read that? Reactors can be throttled by moving the moderator around AFAIK. The issue is that it takes a long time for it to adjust to the required load.

>>>/wsg/2343848

>>9963247
Well, yeah, nuclear power plants aren't exactly know for their flexibility. But then again, power companies still struggle with being able to meet demand throughout the day even with more traditional power generation technologies.

>>9963250
You remove excess neutron by inserting control rod. Less neutron means less fission. And yes the problem is the low rate of change, and therefore they are usually built with pumped-storage hydroelectricity.

>>9962899

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium_alloy

See the Zircaloy water reaction. Enough hydrogen gets to go kaboom

Biggest problem about it is they can't do surge power, nuclear waste is a bitch to deal with, and they aren't exactly cheap. However, they do make excellent base load power plants. While a lot of people like shitting on renewable, they might actually be the cheapest method of generating power in the future. Right now, the generation is cheap, however there just isn't a way to store enough of it to take over.

>>9962825

Like the others said, waste management is a big problem, and if the core melt it can be very bad.

Why we don't use as a primary method of power generation?

First the fuel is costly to make: not only you have to mine the uranium, but you also have to enrich it, so you need complex facilities and big centrifuges and this process cost a LOT of energy. Recycling is also hard and complex, and Plutonium (Mox) presents a whole new array of problems because it's fucking dangerous. Breeders are not there yet so no point talking about them.

Secondly, nuclear fission isn't cheap nowadays, there were many many incidents besides Fukushima or Chernobyl, so the new gen reactors are made to be safe and thus very complex. The industry struggle to build them: for example: the EPR at Flamanville in France, should have been built 10 years ago and it will not be there before a long time. Consequently there's no point having nuclear as first method of generation since its kWh will be expensive compared to a renewable one.

There's really no magic way to make or recycle fuel, nor there is to make a cheap and safe reactor. In conclusion, Nuclear power is not preferable to existing methods of generation, and even as support it's not that great. Imho the best one is hydro power, followed by solar thermal energy. Low tech cheap and reliable.

>>9962825
>Can someone give me some good arguments against fission nuclear power
It's uneconomical, period. No company wants to invest in it. Companies already in it are bailing out.

>Is the fear of the word "nuclear" that was ingrained in us by the cold war
lel stale ad hominem is stale.

>>9962825
Solar+Batteries cuts out the expensive middleman of transporting electricity and maintaining the lines. Nuclear, coal, and other stone age forms of electricity are dead and dying. Go shill somewhere else.

>>9962825
>the only reason we aren't using nuclear power as the primary method of power generatio
Over-regulation in the west, the NRC will fuck you in the ass if you try to build one. In Korea, China and Russia, Gen II+ and Gen III reactors are built on time and on budget.

>>9963451
First, energy shouldnt be the sole domain of private enterprise. Second, financial cost isnt the only or even necessarily the principle factor when choosing large scale energy sources. Third, that guy is right, people are afraid of the word nuclear and have absolutely no idea what it means.

>>9963444
>Imho the best one is hydro power, followed by solar thermal energy.

Much as I hate to disagree with trips, that is simply uninformed. Sure, hydro is great where you can do it -- but the ecological ramification of the concomitant flooding make it ever-less-viable in a world where ecology-based lawsuits are present, and the number of sites where hydro dams can be installed is limited, and mostly already have dams. The ability to add more hydro capacity is extremely limited.

As for solar, show me the necessary storage capacity to make it practical on a large scale, and then we can talk about the problems large-scale solar will create -- but no point in worrying about that until you have the storage capacity.

>>9963451
It is uneconomical to the extent that fear-based legal issues and NIMBY have made it so.

>>9963460
Cool, show me the batteries.

>>9964111
C8H18 is excellent for energy storage, up to 42 MJ/kg. Dense C has enough energy to melt iron oxides.

>>9964172
Jokes aside, a small solar+wind plant connected to a deep cycle battery bank would be an interesting DIY project.

The best argument against it is that uranium based fission power plants can lead to the development of nuclear weapons, which leads to the fear of letting countries without nukes build nuclear power plants since the US doesn't want countries like Iran getting nukes.

>>9962825
>Can someone give me some good arguments against fission nuclear power?
We still don't know how to eliminate the nuclear waste and they can remain dangerous for thousand of years, which means that no mean of stocking can be guaranteed safe.

I hadn't been on /sci/ for several years, now, but I am glad the discussion about Nuclear is finally balanced an nuanced.

Back then, eveyrtime someone mentioned Nuclear waste, some chills couldn't help but post that article about out Nuclear plant are less radioactive than coal plants, acting as if they didn't miss the point at all.

Let's say you are an investor and can choose between financing a wind-park or a nuclear plant. It's your money and you would like to make a profit as fast as possible.

A wind-park can be planned and build in 2-3 years. It will start to earn money the day your first wind-turbine is installed.

Planning and building a nuclear plant will at least take a decade. The project might even be stopped before completion. For political reasons or because you run out of money.

What would you pick?

>>9963444
>the best one is hydro power
You forgot your brainlet wojak.

>>9964273
I heard some reactors can use that nuclear waste as fuel, is that any true?

>>9964299
>100 (probably less) wind turbines generating 2 MW each when active for 200 MW (conditions have to be right, so this is not constant), total cost around 300 million USD
>1-2 nuclear plants generating 1000/2000 MW when active, total cost 2.5/5 billion USD
entrepreneurs don't get rich off of safe bets

>>9964570
They get rich off of stupid taxpayers.

>>9964550
It is true, and has been true ever since EBR I was built in the 50s

>>9963444
Uranium fuel is cost-effective compared to fossil fuels, though. The process of mining and enriching it is less destructive to the environment than coal or oil.
>there were many many incidents besides Fukushima or Chernobyl
not really, not serious ones anyway
>Consequently there's no point having nuclear as first method of generation since its kWh will be expensive compared to a renewable one.
Renewables so far are not capable of providing reliable baseload due to varying local conditions of wind and sun. Your choices for that are fossil fuels or nuclear. Price would also become the cheapest if the externalities of fossil fuels were affixed to their market prices.
>so the new gen reactors are made to be safe and thus very complex.
>There's really no magic way to make or recycle fuel, nor there is to make a cheap and safe reactor.
So they're very complex and expensive because of safety design, but still not safe? I'm not sure you're even willing to entertain the benefits of this energy source when compared to others, especially fossil fuels. Sounds like your mind is made up, and you've found plenty of poor reasoning to back it up.

>>9962825
OP do you know what a NIMBY is? That's most of the problem right there.

>>9964731
this

>>9964731
>So they're very complex and expensive because of safety design, but still not safe?
Being disingenuous, much? Not the anon you are quoting, but it's rather clear that when he talk about safety issues, he talk about the older plants still in activity his point about about the more complex and safer nuclear plant is about why there is reluctance to build new ones.

>>9964854
>Being disingenuous, much?
Did you forget to read the last paragraph?
>There's really no magic way to make or recycle fuel, nor there is to make a cheap and safe reactor. In conclusion, Nuclear power is not preferable to existing methods of generation, and even as support it's not that great.
Hard to interpret this as anything other than "I hate all nuclear and I think none of it can be made safe to use."

>>9964890
>Did you forget to read the last paragraph?
I did.
>Hard to interpret this as anything other than "I hate all nuclear and I think none of it can be made safe to use."
No not really, as a latter of fact, reading it as "old :not so safe as we might think, new expensive if we want them safe"is the straightforward interpretation. I think almost everyone in this thread got it as such.

>>9964903
I knew this was going to come up; "no way to build a cheap and safe reactor" is a cop-out, not a mention of two separate but equally valid lines of consideration. My interpretation is straightforward: his conclusion is foregone and the rest is just some scaffolding to make it seem legitimate. I already addressed the shortcomings in his reasoning, so I'll leave it at that.

>>9964927
>My interpretation is straightforward: his conclusion is foregone and the rest is just some scaffolding to make it seem legitimate.
that's not straightforward, You are taking the assumption his mind is already made, while at the same time misunderstanding what he say.

>>9964931
I didn't misunderstand: "no way to build a cheap and safe reactor" is a cop-out and a lie, and he erroneously concludes nuclear is less worthwhile than other energy sources like fossil fuels.

>>9964956
>I didn't misunderstand: "no way to build a cheap and safe reactor" is a cop-out and a lie
I mean in your first post.
> is a cop-out and a lie
What is the actual price for a new nuclear plant?

>>9964956
>nd he erroneously concludes nuclear is less worthwhile than other energy sources like fossil fuels.
>other energy sources like fossil fuels.
>>9963444
>Imho the best one is hydro power, followed by solar thermal energy. Low tech cheap and reliable.
It's like you don't even read what he wrote. He doesn't even mention fossil fuel in his conclusion.

>>9964972
"other energy sources"

The only energy sources other than nuclear that can provide reliable baseline power are fossil fuels. Nuclear should be a stopgap to other innovations, so that at least we are not emitting massive quantities of CO2. Dismissing nuclear as less worthwhile ignores the realities of the power grid and power usage, and relies on arguments about lack of profitability that are not set in stone, or harping on the waste bogeyman that we've never been better equipped to deal with and that still kills fewer people than coal.

>>9965077
excuse me, "existing methods of generation"

>>9963210
what the hell are you talking about ??
this is the reason we have a Grid... the power is delivered to where it is needed ...I lived next to a nuclear plant and they shut down the reactors every year in rotation ,it's called an outage and about 5000 outage specialists show up to do maintenance on them...

where ever you are getting your information is suspect.. or you are very naïve and should be checking your facts for accuracy

>>9965077
hydro-electric is very reliable

>>9965129
Hydroelectric has other issues as someone else described. There are only so many locations suitable for a dam, and artificial lakes have serious, negative effects on local ecosystems that is much more widespread than the effect of uranium mines.

>>9965154
To add to this, I think hydroelectric is part of the solution, but even solar/wind/hydro cannot meet total demand without a lot more solar and wind power plants. Nuclear is an attractive stopgap that should be utilized.

>>9965154
>local ecosystems
Irrelevant when the global ecosystem is at stake. Or is AGW not that bad yet?

>>9964731
Nuclear is cheapest per kwh

>>9962825
How is it that the US Navy can run dozens of reactors with a staff of teenage brainlets and not cause an accident in over 50 years? What are they doing right? Is it just an example of “This side toward enemy” engineering?

>>9965202
>Nuclear is cheapest per kwh
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, no.

>>9964082
>>9964108
Nuke shills are even worse than commie shill

>>9965221
Who comprises the anti-nuclear movement? Dirty ignorant hippy nutcases and the fossil fuel lobby.

>>9965204
Nuclear isn't the super dangerous powderkeg big coal and big coal funded hippie propagandists claim it is

Someone needs to get their ass into gear and sort out a decent fucking battery chemistry. If capacity was 2-3x the current available ones and around the same price then residential power suppliers can kiss their ass goodbye.

>>9965465
Someone needs to get their ass out of fear and start building cheap nuclear power plants again.

>>9965551
Fuck that I want batteries, you can shove those utility bills right up your ass.

>>9962825
I don't think a fear of nuclear reactors was ingrained from the cold war, more like a fear of communism.

The problem with nuclear reactors is that statistically, you can't keep creating them without at least one or 2 in the world having problems like meltdowns. If a big enough problem happens in a nuclear power plant, it can cause the area around it to be uninhabitable until it's dealt with, which isn't THAT much of a problem until you start building them near the ocean - like Japan. There just isn't currently a way to cleanup a nuclear spill in the ocean, and when it happens, it limits our ability to eat and trade fish in a large portion of the earth's ocean..

>>9965593
Fukushima fish are now fine to eat though, fish get rid of the gamma emitters very quickly. Also, much of the Fukushima exclusion zone isn't that radioactive anymore.

Anti-nuke shills have the worst "arguments"

>>9965551
It still doesn't solve the nuclear wastes issue.

>>9962825
A natural gas power plant of equivalent capacity can be built in 1/10th the time and for 1/10th the cost.

What about fusion? Isn't Lockheed Martin supposed to have a prototype some time in the near future?

>>9965668
And it emits just as many GHGs as a coal plant when you factor in fugitive methane emissions from harvesting. Nuclear costs only about 10-15% GHG emissions for the same amount of power.

>>9965598
Not extremely radioactive, but only because the radiation has spread out through a large section of the ocean. If another few reactors melted down next to the ocean, it wouldn't be long before all ocean fish were too radioactive to eat.

>>9965637
What issue exactly?

There was a natural nuclear reactor (Oklo) and all its waste was simply left where it was formed. Obviously no encapsulation, no planning whatsoever. The waste didn't even move much during the past 2 billion years.

Why would the same waste from a nuclear power plant be any different?

Nuclear power is the safest option when you look at deaths per TWh:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-terawatt-hour-by.html

Cost of nuclear depends heavily on the reactor type and country. Here in Finland nuclear power is the cheapest form of electricity we can build but this requires taking into account all the hidden costs of wind power. Wind power is the second cheapest. Hydro would be cheapest but we can't build it any more here and it's pretty limited worldwide.

I bet nuclear would become way cheaper than anything else if we just kept the economy of scale going and didn't stop building new reactors for decades.

Since wind and solar require balancing and backup they cannot really compete long term. Eventually it's going to be either nuclear or fossil fuels unless battery prices get slashed by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

>>9965668
You forget you will be paying a heavy price in fuel costs for the next 60-80 years (lifetime of the nuke plant).

You can get 15-20 $/MWh electricity from a nuke plant after amortization. Nothing can compete with that. Renewables appear cheaper in the short term but you will need to replace them 15-30 years later so I'm guessing there will be electricity price hikes in the 2030s-2050s since we will lose most of the truly cheap production by then.

>>9964570
New turbines typically generate 6 MW. Off shore up to 9.5 MW. Construction cost is about 1 million per MW, way below atomic power. So for your 5 billions you would get about 5 GW. To be fair, wind turbines will not always run on full power. But atomic reactors have to be shut down for maintenance and can not generate power at this time.

A typical investor in energy business is an pension fund. They like safe bet's.

>>9962842
while it's true that proper waste disposal is an issue, it is honestly almost not much compared to the costs involved in other energy. Currently all nuclear plants in the world combined (which produce about 14% of worldwide power) add 12,000 metric tons of waste a year, or the volume of a two-story structure with a footprint the size of a basketball court (from Wikipedia)

With as small a volume as it is, it is simple enough to bury it deep enough for safe and essentially indefinite disposal, and the cost of this disposal is significantly less than comparable upkeep for other energy methods, for example maintaining the amount of windmills (often thought of as a cleaner alternative) which would amount to the same power output

>>9965936
Cost per 1 MW is completely irrelevant. Cost per 1 MWh would be relevant.

1 MWh of nuclear is more valuable than 1 MWh of wind/solar because it's baseload supply vs. intermittent supply. You will need to factor in external hidden costs to those numbers if you really want apples to apples comparison.

Nuclear reactors can provide 90-95 % of the nameplate capacity while wind turbines only manage around 20-40 %. That's the main reason why you throw "cost per MW" out the window.

And the thing with maintenance is that it's performed when you have the least need for electricity. Carefully selecting maintenance times can be used to balance seasonal variations in electricity demand.

>>9965941
If it's this simple, why nobody ever did it? We produce highly radioactive waste for 80 years and there is still no such safe deep core waste disposal.

>>9966052
>Cost per 1 MW is completely irrelevant. Cost per 1 MWh would be relevant.

are you actually serious
you're judging a machine
no one cares how long you run the machine for
comparison in MW is fine

>>9964251
Having nuclear power plants does not lead to the development of nuclear weapons. Plenty of countries have nuclear power plants without nuclear weapons. It may make it a bit easier but not by much. If you are about to make weapons, you can make a "research" reactor and use that instead.

Also depends on the power plant type. The U.S. offered North Korea light water reactors in 1994 because they are the most difficult type to use for making weapons material.

>>9966062
Comparison in MW is not fine.

Would you rather buy a 1 MW power plant for 1 million that gives you 2 GWh per year or a 1 MW power plant for 1 million that gives you 8 GWh per year?

>>9966055
There is no huge incentive in burying nuclear waste because there's very little of it by weight/volume and it's no biggie to store it in "temporary" storage anyway. It's also potentially valuable because you can use it as a fuel in some reactor types. And someone might figure out how to process the waste cheaply at some point in the near future anyway so why rush.

You could simply dig a hole and dump it there. It's just that the environmentalists and other ignorant folks would lose their shit because they think nuclear material can dig itself up against the pull of the gravity and find its way somewhere we don't want it. Just put it anywhere that's dry and rocky and you'll be fine.

No need to dig deep either because 2.5 meters (8.2 feet) of water is enough for the radioactivity of fuel rods to be indistinguishable from background radiation. Concrete and rock and most other things work just about as well too.

>>9966062

>>9966072
comparing 2 GWh per year to 8GWh per year
>"GWh per year"
>"gigawatt-hours per year"
>"hours per year"
>so you're equivalently comparing MW

>>9966052
Value of 1MWh varies greatly, depending on demand. This is bad for atomic power plants. They can not be quickly shut down if there is low demand. As a result value becomes negative. You have to pay customers to buy your energy. A wind farm can be shut down quickly if needed. So they will never make a loss.
Wind is for free, so after pay off construction a wind turbine becomes some kind of magic money printing machine. Well, almost. There is still maintenance.

Your 95% for nuclear is super optimistic. In reality atomic reactors are often shut down for several weeks, older plants even months. If there is a drought and not enough water for cooling power output has to be reduced. As a result you get more like 50%. This is still more then on shore wind, but less then off shore.

>>9966094
Or maybe it's harder to do then you believe?

>>9966101
see
>>9966109

>>9966117
No, it's very easy, where do you think waste is currently stored? The US could have stored all its nuclear waste inside a mountain but this plan was shut down by idiots like you.

>>9966112
>As a result you get more like 50%.
0.5/.95 = .53

LOL so you are claiming nuclear reactors are shut down for more than half their lifetime? Why are you making shit up?

>>9966154
*a little less than half their lifetime

>>9966109
You do understand that 1 MW of wind power might produce 2 GWh while 1 MW of nuclear might produce 8 GWh?

That is exactly why you don't give a shit about "cost per MW". Nuclear and wind have very different capacity factors.

>>9966112
Nuclear power plants do not need to be quickly shutdown because the cost of fuel and operation is insignificant compared to the cost of capital investment. Also negative prices are so rare it doesn't even begin to matter. There are also load-following nuclear power plants in the world so that's an option too.

Wind operating costs are 15-20 % of the cost of their electricity. So don't talk about "free". For comparison nuclear power plants O&M costs are 38 %.

In the US, capacity factor for nuclear was 92.2 % in 2017 and the record was 96.1 % in 2012. So how do you think 95 % is super optimistic? Especially when I did say 90-95 %.

What shithole country gets 50 %? The world average is above 80 %.

>>9966184
No. 1 GWh/year is 0.1142 MW. 1 MW is 8.76 GWh/year.

>>9966258
You are under the impression that power plants operate at 100 % capacity factor.

That can be the case with nuclear power (it's not even uncommon for NPPs to get over 100 %). However that is not the case with wind power where the capacity factor can vary wildly.

A wind power plant of 1 MW at 30 % capacity factor will produce 2.628 GWh per year.

>>9966198
If it's rare or not really depends on where your plant is located. In China it never happens because demand is growing faster then production. In Germany capacity is exceeding demand so it happens frequently (145 hours in 2017).
I don't know where you get your percentages but I am sure they are rigged. An atomic power plant needs refuelling every 18 months. You need to shut down for 3-4 weeks at least. So only in a year without refuelling you could theoretically get more then 90%. Atomic power plants are ageing. Incidents and longer shut-down becomes more likely every year. But of course this happens to every kind of power plant.

>>9966341
You can see the statistics here:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191201/capacity-factor-of-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-us-since-1975/

You do realize that 3-4 weeks per 1,5 years gives a capacity factor of 0.95-0.96 if there are no other outages?

145 hours out of 8760 is not a lot (1,6 % of the time). Certainly not something that would affect the overall profitability of a plant.

>>9966258
>>9966120
>>9966109
>>9966062

>what is a capacity factor

just stop commenting you retard, you are embarrassing yourself

>>9966064
I'm not saying that nuclear power is bad or that we should stop using it, I'm saying that the nuclear weapons argument is one of the few actual arguments against nuclear power since a majority of them that the public knows about are mainly just fearmongering tactics and not actual counterarguments to nuclear power.

>>9966385
rekt

>>9966403
Could always go thorium
It's an absolute pain in the ass to make weapons with it, which could cut down on the propaganda

What if use an other radioactive element besides uranium? Like thorium thats more abundant and less hazardous.

>>9966385
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor

How about you tell me how anything I said was incorrect.

>>9962825
Is quite frustrating that having a theory that relates EM physics and electro-weak force, there is no sing of any intend of engineering over it, I mean a device or machine that through EM energy would catalize decaying over radioactive materials, this would be the key for the nuclear waste storage issue.

>>9966517
We already did, you imbecile

>>9966517

energy produced by 1MW nameplate energy source can vary widely depending on what the capacity factor of the source is

if you want to judge the cost of different energy sources, you must use $ per actual energy produced (measured in GWh, TWh..), not $ per MW

>>9962848
Don't forget le economic costs

Three Mile Island didn't even kill anyone but it cost over a billion dollars in economic damages
https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:30022174

Also all our nuclear plants are crumbling pieces of shit with fucking tritium water spewing out of leaky pipes
https://www.thenation.com/article/zombie-nuke-plants/

>>9965637
We can just burn it in fast reactors.

>>9966574
>economic damages
Payed for by the utility, not the taxpayer.
>all our nuclear plants are crumbling pieces of shit
You didn't post any real evidence of this. Most tritium leaks are contained inside the plant and do not escape to the outside environment.

>>9964731
>less destructive than coal or oil
Very much disagree. Coal mines are almost always reclaimed noawadays, that is restored to their more or less natural state. Pic very much related, that used to be a strip mine in Pennsylvania.

But that's a bit of a moot point anyway because in PA at least, most coal mining is done underground. And underground mines can be plugged and used to sequester CO2 gas into.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180203175117/http://teachcoal.org/coal-mining-and-the-environment
https://theconversation.com/carbon-capture-and-storage-a-vital-part-of-our-climate-change-response-3972

Also, coal fly ash (basically the waste product from coal plants) has a host of uses, like in highway construction, dam repair, graphene computer chips, structural fill, ceramic tiles, stucco, auto bodies, ship hulls, railroad ties, scaffolding, etc... in 1942 for example the Hoover Dam was repaired with coal ash.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080408023227/https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/c2p2/pubs/greenbk508.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20160305032911/http://www.tonsperhour.com/tailings-beneficial-use/

Meanwhile as multiple other people in this thread have pointed out, the only thing you can do with nuclear waste is shove it in a mountain somewhere and hope no one ever finds it, ever.

>>9966586
Nigger did you even glance at the articles lmfao

>the economical effect to Metropolitan Edison Co., the circumstantial payment of the insurance and the lawsuit for the compensation for damages, etc. have been estimated at dollar 90 million for the manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industry, dollar 5 million for the tourist industry and dollar 50,000 for agriculture. The total loss for the state and country governments is about dollar 90,000. Metropolitan Edison Co. expended also dollar 111 million for the substitute energy and dollar 760 million for the decontamination cost. Since the lawsuit for the compensation for damages is still continuing, the total impacts cost is calculated more than a billion dollars

>>9966591
Metropolitan Edison Co. is not a government entity numbnuts, it's a private utility.
>Metropolitan Edison Co. expended also dollar 111 million for the substitute energy and dollar 760 million for the decontamination cost
That's literally most of the billion dollar cost, the rest was covered by the Price-Anderson act, which is also funded by utilities.

>>9966602
>stuffing words in my mouth
>completely ignoring all the other costs to Pennsylvania government & industries
Nukeshill just admit you dumb

>>9966605
>the rest was covered by the Price-Anderson act, which is also funded by utilities.
You can't read.

>>9966611
Nothing to do with the price of beer brainlet.

There were a) astronomically huge economic damages that b) the company had to pay almost all of them out

Three Mile Island wasn't even a big incident, relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, but it cost this utility over a billion dollars to smooth things over. Also, now Three Mile Island is closing down expressly because of high operating costs.

How you can defend nuclear power as economically viable after seeing this is beyond me. Unless you're being paid by Edison lmaoooo

>>9965204
Because nuclear reactors were designed originally for naval applications. Not too hard to keep the plant cool when you are floating on a ocean of coolant.

But we and others have had accidents at sea.

You can reprocess (recycle) nuclear waste, which reduces it's size, lowers the required storage time for the residual, etc. You don't need a whole mountain to store the waste, a building is literally enough.

>>9966574
1 billion dollars is literally nothing.

Especially since it's a one time cost. Energy investments worldwide are 1800 billion per year. Don't know what US investments are but it's gotta be at least a hundred billion per year.

A single nuclear power plant can generate dozens of billions of dollars worth of electricity during its lifetime. US reactors alone are generating around 100 billion dollars per year combined.

>>9966588
Why would you need to hope that no one ever finds it? So what if they find it? If they have tech to dig it up, they will also have tech to know it's unsafe.

In the worst possible scenario imaginable, some future cavemen build a shrine in the nuclear waste cave spreading deadly cancers to millions of pilgrims over centuries. Well, so what if that happens? The only real alternative to nuclear is coal/gas/oil that kill millions of people every year and that's not some theoretical risk but certainty and reality. No nuclear waste dump can ever achieve anything close to that.

>>9966718
Imagine some primitive caveman of the future thinking the universal radiation symbol is an angel and that the place is a holy site perfect to build a temple on, or just some dumbfuck wannabe tomb raider thinking it's a really well hidden burial ground.

>>9966704
>1 billion dollars is literally nothing
pic related

>>9966491
Nuclear power already kills way fewer people than any other type of production. Sure, it's always good to minimize dying but let's stop pretending there's some big problem with nuclear being unsafe.

>>9966727
I'm imagining it. Let's save that imaginary Tomb Raider wannabe's life by sacrificing literally hundreds of millions of real lives by choosing non-scary but deadly fossil fuel pollution over very-scary non-deadly nuclear waste that is not even pollution but contained waste.

>>9966727
Are you seriously suggesting that 1 billion is a lot of money when it comes to energy or even electricity sector? You might need a new brain, better order one today.

>>9966627
If you squeeze all highly radioactive nuclear waste in a small space you don't have to worry about anything. Because this will start a chain reaction.

>>9966796
Most radioisotopes aren't fissionable, my friend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLzMPy1XC9s

its a hoax.
when the coal fired plants go offline, the otto hahn/lisa mietner science inspired powered plants then stop until the coal plant comes back on.

otto hahn said that his experiment can not be tested by other scientists because they illegalized it based on radiation causing cancer.

otto hahn lived into his 80's without cancer. marie curie lived till 67 with no cancer until her final year, the cancer she got is also hereditary which doesn't prove a connection. if radiation from special rocks caused cancer, marie curie would have died much younger, in her 40's given her exposure level.

otto hahn had to go along with the hoax because he was a war criminal in world war 1.
he made chemical wmd's for fritz haber, and used them in battle for the german army. lisa mietner was an ashekenazi who worked for the nazis, so there was leverage against her as well.
oppenhiemer had tried to murder his tutor and got off of attempted murder by participating in another related hoax.

>>9966814
Are radiotherapy, PET scanners and all other technologies based on radioactivity false as well? How would you explain those Tritium lights if radioactive decay isn't real?

>>9966741
>using the term "literally" unironically
>nuclear waste non-deadly
Anon I...

>>9966990
Nuclear waste in a cask isn't deadly. Are you dense or something? 90% of the gamma emitters decay after 300 years, what's left is an ingestion hazard.

>>9966588
You know that uranium mines are also reclaimed, right? And none of the different mining techniques or technology you mentioned undo the deaths or soil and water pollution coal still causes, more than uranium. On top of that, coal has the worst GHG emissions of anything. Coal should be phased out completely in 20 years.

>>9967110
>uranium mines are also reclaimed
Yes, most mines in general are, I mention coal mines in specific because the popular impression seems to be that they're just left as scabs on the landscape when they're abandoned, when the opposite is true. They aren't intrinsically worse than uranium mines...

>soil and water pollution by coal
It's honestly not that bad desu. Mining laws require careful monitoring of the groundwater table near mines and the restoration of proper drainage and fertility to farmland after they're done.

If you wanna talk about fly ash, yes that is definitely a problem, but one that can be addressed by relatively simple things like... lining the retention ponds to prevent leakages. The reason we don't do this already is because until recently, nobody really cared about fly ash. Now we do, and there are measures we can take to make it safer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/climate/tennessee-coal-ash-disposal-lawsuits.html?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Climate&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

Also as I mentioned above fly ash can be used for a ton of other stuff and there's really no need for it to just sit in retention ponds in the first place. We can use coal dust to make graphene computer chips, for instance, or even to fertilize soil (although there are risks with that proposal which still need to be ironed out)

The only places where water and soil pollution by coal plants still kill anyone in large numbers are festering garbage dumps like India and China, which we can't do anything about anyway.

>ghgs
Scrubbers. Capturing & sequestering emissions in abandoned coal mines. There's technology we can use to reduce coal emissions by a LOT. Pennsylvania, for example, just recently slashed coal emissions in half without closing a single coal fired power plant.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-pennsylvania-slashed-coal-emissions-without-alienating-industry-1521633601

tl;dr coal isn't that bad, stop being an alarmist

>>9967188
There's no scrubbing all of the carbon out of the emitted gasses. That isn't how thermodynamics work. Sequestering gasses underground is a bad idea, because all it takes is that mine becoming unsealed to release it into the atmosphere in the long run anyway. Any kind of collapse within the structure would force CO2 out.

That article is about nitrogen oxides. While they are significant GHGs, they are minor in amount compared to the CO2 released, which you can never get rid of with coal.

>>9965224
Who comprises the pro-nuclear movement? Dirty ignorant lelddit fedoras and the nuclear lobby.

>>9967212
I wouldn't suggest scrub EVERY SINGLE ATOM of carbon out of the air lol, the point is you can capture and store a significant portion of it, enough to scale back your country's carbon emissions into the atmosphere dramatically.

There's already lots of methane in abandoned coal beds already, so I don't see any issue with adding more. Or if you'd prefer we could use depleted oil and gas reserves, or saline aquifers (although that would require more drilling so idk about that one), or the ocean (which already stores most of Earth's methane) via iron fertilization. I don't have the source handy unfortunately but if memory serves sequesting CO2 in abandoned mines and oil reserves actually serves to stabilize the ground a bit, since there would otherwise be nothing there preventing a cave-in or sinkhole from forming- as I said tho I don't have the source handy and I'm willing to admit I could be in error in that regard.

Or, again, as I stated, you could use carbon from coal plants to make graphene computer chips which will be IMMENSELY valuable in the coming years.
https://www.nationalgrapheneassociation.com/news/turning-co2-graphene-products/

There's a use for everything, CO2 is no exception, it's not some supernatural evil.

>>9964550
There are reactor designs that can do that, but to my knowledge very few have been built, although they would inevitably be something you'd want if your society was pushing quickly into replacing it's coal and gas powerplants with nuclear ones.

>>9967241
The only people against nuclear are either profiting from fossil fuels, or are ignorant about the facts when nuclear is compared to other sources. Fossil fuels have unacceptable GHG emissions. If you want any power at all, the remaining options are renewables and nuclear.
>>9967246
You are refusing to address the basic points I brought up. What good does it do to sequester this gas underground when a mine collapse could happen 100 years from now and release most of it to the atmosphere anyway? Carbon sequestration is more lies from the fossil fuel lobby. It's not a viable solution, but even then I would prefer it's tried compared to nothing. It's not an excuse to keep using coal. It must be phased out.

>>9967304
It would be much better if you could store that carbon in a less volatile form, like biomass. Does that ring any bells?

>>9967304
Well like I said, you don't necessarily have to put it in an abandoned mine- the ocean works just as well- I only suggest that because it would stabilize the mines and make a collapse LESS likely, and because the mines are already conveniently dug for us just waiting for a new purpose. There's also the other things, again, like graphene computer chips made from carbon captured right out of CO2.

You're just being a negative nancy atomshill climate alarmist lol, hurrr let's not do anything about the carbon emissions at all durrrrrr close all coal plants now and make atoms duhhr

>>9967310
Biochar comes to mind.

>>9967313
you're literally a fossil fuel shill, faggot

I've already given reasons why this is a foolish idea that won't work. It's a fossil fuel industry lie. And you dismiss those reasons as "climate alarmism." Putting the CO2 in the ocean is not viable because of acidification.

>>9967321
I think fossil fuels are adequate at what they do yeah, I don't see any pressing need to immediately phase them out and switch to largely unviable nuclear technology.
Ocean acidification could be mitigated by iron fertilization... stimulating photosynthesis in phytoplankton to dissolve CO2 into carbohydrates and oxygen.

Nigga just give up lmao. Your reasons are dumb and you should reconsider.

>>9967329
And how will we power these large vessels loaded with iron compounds that are combing the ocean? Geoengineering is at best a secondary strategy that cannot be relied on without mitigation. Carbon sequestration is not a viable mitigation option.
>Your reasons are dumb and you should reconsider.
These reasons are sensible concerns, that you refuse to confront or address except by continuing to shill coal and nonviable geoengineering as a pretext to keep using it.

>>9967345
>what are ships powered with
Your concerns aren't remotely "sensible" lmfao you've been reduced to bickering over what kind of fuel the fucking ships are gonna use.

Geoengineering is a viable form of mitigating carbon emissions and you're just choosing not to see that because you've fallen head over heels for der atom.

>>9965682
If Sim City 2000 is in anyway accurate, not until 2050.

>>9967350
>Your concerns aren't remotely "sensible" lmfao you've been reduced to bickering over what kind of fuel the fucking ships are gonna use.
A cute way to ignore the point completely, a point that again cuts into your ludicrous argument, and throw in an insult at the same time.
>Geoengineering is a viable form of mitigating carbon emissions and you're just choosing not to see that because you've fallen head over heels for der atom.
Go ahead and present your evidence then that geoengineering is viable and scaleable to completely address current and future emissions without also requiring mitigation by curbing fossil fuel use. You won't be able to do this, of course, because these studies don't exist.
>inb4 my previous posts are evidence
They're not. I want research that explicitly addresses the viability of geoengineering at the largest scale and does a reasonable risk assessment of all relevant factors.

>>9966575
>in fast reactors.
That haven't been developed yet.

>>9967640
Fast reactors have existed since the 50s, dumbass.

Would be fun to compare pic's numbers with total concrete and steel production.

>>9967345
>Carbon sequestration is not a viable mitigation option.
It's pretty much the only viable mitigation option we have. Planting trees is a good idea too, but won't do enough and has a similar flaw, forests burn and when in severe drought emit carbon. Mechanically taking the carbon out of the air and either trapping it or using it is the only viable way to draw down emissions and reach a carbon negative position. And we need to be carbon negative to avoid worst case scenarios come 2090-2100.

There's no silver bullet answer to global warming, we need to use everything at our disposal, both getting off fossil fuels and carbon capture.

We don't need more power, we need to use less.
Nuclear and fusion are the wrong way to solve the problem and just make things worse.

>>9966553
ah, cringy /sci/

>>9968295
Only 1/3 of CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere. Rest are sucked into carbon sinks (forests, oceans).

Doesn't really help the coral reefs (acidification) if we only get that 1/3 off but it does help to combat warming.

I don't know how much would go to atmo vs sink if we dropped emissions 1/3 down. But we could do that simply by replacing coal with nuclear and doing nothing else.

>>9968300
Use less power? You do realize that there are billions of people who use next to none energy currently? Why should we use less when we need more big time? Just build nukes and you get both the power and the cooler climate.

>>9968300
Yes, you're clearly all on in on using less power. You need to save that power for important things, like posting on 4chan, right?

>>9965219
Isnt the cost of the nuclear power inflated by a lot of overregulation?

I thought that technologically speaking nuclear power is among the cheapest ones.

>>9968355
There's that and there's also the fact that western countries haven't been building NPPs for a long time. Any new reactor type needs a lot of licencing, testing, developing that is very costly. You could push costs down by a lot by building reactors often and in larger numbers. Economies of scale are important here.

Cheap capital is also important. We should build NPPs when interest rates are low.

Then there's the fact that "expensive" is always relative. Renewables hide some of their costs and appear cheaper than they really are. Building wind and solar requires you to have enough hydro or fossil to balance the variations. They also require expensive grid investments that are usually not taken into account. Balancing is not a big problem until they hit bigger percentages of the country's electricity mix.

Then there's long term price that is rarely even talked about. NPPs that have paid amortization costs after a few decades can then produce electricity at around a third of their original cost. That's super cheap electricity that you will never get from a wind power plant that needs to be rebuilt after only 15-25 years. Price of renewables will need to drop significantly still for them to be truly competitive with nuclear when this is taken into consideration.

>>9962904
This.
Fossil fuel and coal manufacturers are literally funding propaganda for "renewable energy" because they know that fossil fuels can never be fully replaced by wind, solar, and hydro, but they'd be easily put out of business if nuclear got a better reputation among the public. So they advertise the clean energy that always needs to be supplemented with fossil fuels.
If public opinion welcomed nuclear power NOW than we could see big countries going mostly nuclear within our lifetimes. Instead the public is getting swayed by the lie of renewable energy as a viable alternative, so nobody calls out the politicians that are also being payed off by fossil fuel manufacturers.
What should be a purely scientific debate is of course ruined by politics, as all things are.

>>9962825
Nuclear power is the best and the 2nd cleanest (the first being eolian). Also, no other source of energy can generate power 24/7 for 6 to 8 months. Also, the nuclear material inside the power plants doesn't explode, what happens there is that hydrogen gas is formed and being lighter than air, goes to the top of the silo and after enough is being generated, a spark can make it explode, causing a chain reaction. This can be avoided pretty easily with today's technology, you can detect hydrogen and other gases accumulation and send alerts to a team of engineers or even to automatically shutdown the facility.

>>9962825
>Can someone give me some good arguments against fission nuclear power?

Chernobyl and Fukushima

>>9964550
yes, the problem with recycling nuclear fuel is proliferation, that is the reason it is not done in europe at least.

>>9968416
So you're saying that because Cherno and Fuku happened, even though hardly anyone died because of them, we should kill millions of people with fossil fuels?

>>9966055
there is one in sweden but neclear waste transport in prohibited

>>9965200
fuck off retard

>>9965204
It's because the light water reactor is 100% safe at the scales at which it is built for use in naval applications.

For larger scale reactors for power generation the go-to design was a breeder, because while being more complex it was many many times more efficient and far more scalable, and was 100% safe even at gigawatt power ratings. Unfortunately the public spook factor for nuclear power skyrocketed and breeders were cancelled and shut down all over the place, with larger light-water reactors built instead, which are not 100% safe at those much larger scales, and are much less efficient. Still far safer and far more efficient than literally anything else of course.

>>9967350
>implying coal and gas power plants don't release literally millions of times more radioactive material every year than nuclear even if you include the two major nuclear power accidents and all nuclear bomb tests combined as an annual average

>>9969218
t. NIMBY

What's with that 'coal and gas powerplants release radioactive material' thing? Never heard of anything like that. What's the concentration of radioisotopes in both coal and gas? How much of that is light enough to be carried with the exhaust fumes?

>>9969365
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

https://ohsonline.com/articles/2012/10/01/radiation-sources-in-natural-gas-well-activities.aspx

>>9962928
he's saying that the steam would be a vector for actually radioactive particles to spread around. Like a small dirty bomb.

>>9966553
>if you want to judge the cost of different energy sources, you must use $ per actual energy produced (measured in GWh, TWh..), not $ per MW
Nuclear still loses to renewables.

>>9966520
>blast it with neutrons
yes

>>9962825
Nuke plants generate a lot of waste heat that gets dumped into rivers and can hurt the river ecosystem by changing the river temperature.

>>9971107
How about you go learn the difference between baseload supply and intermittent supply. Also look up what hidden costs wind power comes with. Nuclear is cheapest by far when you take these into account.

Wind costs 20 times more than nuclear if you want to replace fossil fuels with it because you need storage. And storage is expensive as hell.

You also forget that wind turbines last only 20-25 years before you need new ones. Nuclear power plants can go 60-80 years. Wind power will never provide cheap long-term electricity like nukes do.

>>9971219
But that isn't a problem with nuclear plants per se. All heat engines that use an open loop cooling system will reject heat to the environment, unless steps are taken to cool it before it's discharged.

>>9962825
>Can someone give me some good arguments against fission nuclear power?

Fission requires fossil fuels to maintain (facilities, backup, plants, etc.) It is costly to mine, process, ship, store, and handle fission nuclear fuels.

The big problem is radiation contamination (with radioisotopes). There is no real 100% protection that current technology can give you. Once in the environment it will persist for its half-life, in some cases this can continue for a thousand years or more. It bioaccumulates, its destructive of DNA, it can penetrate protective layers.... There is no safe nuclear power and the question is moot since there are well over 800 reactors currently operating like the one in Fukushima.

If an event like nuclear blast from intentional detonation, or an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) went off, from the sun, or military strike, the cooling system for the cores could be disabled as in Fukushima, leading to a meltdown where the temperature of the core exceeds the surface of the sun and melts downward into the earth, releasing a toxic cloud of radioactive smoke which will produce "fallout" all over the world, damaging living things continually

In the context of this happening from an intentional terrorist strike or act of war... makes the only sane response to never build the capability in the first place. If you think nuclear power is "good", you are brain-fucking-washed.

>>9971244
You won't have a nuclear blast from a NPP meltdown, the fuel isn't enriched enough for that.

>>9971244
>temperature of the core exceeds the surface of the sun

>>9971302

I'm trying to make the argument relatable. Still, pretty good eh?

>>9969365
Radon is a thing and drilling for oil, fracking for gas, and mining coal all release it. Radon is extremely radioactive, which is why it's called radon.

>>9971244
>Fission requires fossil fuels to maintain (facilities, backup, plants, etc.) It is costly to mine, process, ship, store, and handle fission nuclear fuels.

You can use excess nuclear power to produce hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 via the Sabatier process to store energy when the grid isn't drawing it. Also you'd produce hydrocarbon fuels anyway to power heavy machinery and things like container ships.

The cost per kilogram of dealing with nuclear fuels is much higher than extracting and transporting fossil fuels, but the total kilograms of fossil fuels needed to replace the energy content of a single kilogram of nuclear fuel is millions of times greater, which means nuclear fuel is actually the cheaper option.

>The big problem is radiation contamination

Radiation already exists in the world naturally and is entirely unavoidable. Oil and gas production releases thousands of tons of radon gas that is otherwise trapped underground, which becomes a direct health hazard and affects millions of people in the United States alone. This is why houses and most buildings anywhere near oil and gas extraction facilities have radon detectors installed in their basements.

Also, the chemical pollution and water contamination caused by the use of fossil fuels worldwide is already far worse and contributes to many thousands of times more deaths annually than the radiological contamination. Even if everything you just said about radiation were true, and it isn't, it would still be a healthier and safer option to go 100% nuclear.

>>9971220
Wind energy can be managed by more than just storage. Thermal storage is already an option, but high capacity batteries are a grail of course. Wind energy distribution can be improved with grid upgrades, which is currently the preferred strategy.

>>9965204
Combination of this side towards enemy engineering and training. Everything is relatively extremely easy to use, for a mobile underwater nuclear reactor. There are so many redundancies it's nearly impossible to fail- to open a valve takes three people and a written procedure.

We've steamed over 180 million miles and over 3000 combined years, without the release of a single REM.

>>9971244
>>9971526
(cont)
If an event like nuclear blast from intentional detonation, or an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) went off, from the sun, or military strike, the cooling system for the cores could be disabled as in Fukushima
You can just say 'disaster'. If you're implying a nuclear reactor core can detonate, you're stupid. If you're just talking about an actual nuclear bomb, then a conventional bomb could potentially knock out a nuclear reactor's systems, so why take a nuke as an example?
>leading to a meltdown where the temperature of the core exceeds the surface of the sun and melts downward into the earth
If the core material were actually that hot it would be a cloud of rapidly expanding gas that would rise up into the atmosphere and disperse. In reality the core temperature can never exceed a temperature far beyond its melting point, because the instant the meltdown occurs the nuclear reaction, which is extremely delicate, stops happening. If only a small portion of the core melts, it freezes in place and requires technicians to conduct repairs. In a very serious meltdown enough materials can melt that it could take hours to cool enough to solidify, but even a few minutes after meltdown the decay heat of the isotopes produced from the now dead nuclear reaction wouldn't be able to keep the mass hot enough to stay liquid, so it hardens.
>releasing a toxic cloud of radioactive smoke which will produce "fallout" all over the world
Chernobyl produced a lot of contaminated smoke because the reactor control rods were on fire. We know that carbon rods are a bad idea precisely for this reason, and do not use them in any modern reactors. If for example a CANDU reactor melted down catastrophically somehow, there would be no radioactive fire because there's nothing to burn.
>makes the only sane response to never build the capability in the first place.
If you actually believe the massive amounts of misinformation about how nuclear is so scary, you're retarded.

>>9963460
>>9964111
>>9964172
>>9964177

Show me both the batteries AND the solar colelctor. a city of average density requires around 100.000 times its surface of the MOST EFFICIENT solar panel to meet its demand.

So good luck "not transporting it", also yeah, batteries are not there yet by a long shot.

>>9971970
>Show me both the batteries AND the solar colelctor. a city of average density requires around 100.000 times its surface of the MOST EFFICIENT solar panel to meet its demand.

NYC has 304.6 mi^2 of land area
NYC uses 11GWh per day
so that's 1.2954 Wh/ft^2

A Panasonic solar panel is 325W at 18ft^2 and has 3/5 hours of peak sun in the winter/summer so on average that's ~72Wh/ft^2. So NYC needs only 1.8% of it's surface area to meet its energy needs in perfect weather. Since it's sunny 60.6% of daylight hours in NYC on average, you realistically need 2.9% of its surface area to meet its energy needs.

Shill harder, paid nukefag.

>>9962825
Why don't you post how much power it takes just to build and get one running

>>9971994
So you're saying that if the central park was made of solar panels then that would be it? the most energy intensive city in the world could be off the grid? HA, BIG FUCKING HA, youre implying solar is miracle technology.

>>9972006
New York needs a massive offshore wind farm, which they're already planning to build. It won't be enough without efficiency improvements and solar energy as well, though.

>>9971994

That's bullshit

>>9972017
Not an argument

>>9972033
>New York City only needs 6 square miles of solar panels in direct sunlight to be completely energy independent you shill!

Please tell me where to fit six square miles of solar panels inside nyc

>>9971994
>https://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/media_room/publications_presentations/Power_Trends/Power_Trends/2017_Power_Trends.pdf
>53,653GWh per year

That's 146.9GWh per day and 38.7% of its surface area needed in solar panels. Still way off the "100.000 times its surface" claim.

>>9972065
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/science/earth/16solar.html

You could put half of the nuclear plants serving NYC out of business by just using the suitable rooftops.

>>9972065
>>9972073
just cover 100% of its rooftop surface in panels and you have energy to spare for everything, consumption cars and whatever you can think. Free energy forever, just do that and you have the biggest city in the world WITHOUT FUEL OR ELECTRICITY COSTS

>>9972085
What do you do when it snows

>>9972087
use the extreme energy aviavable for snow melters. Also you could use the oil in one oil tanker to power new york trough every rainy day snowy day and whatever elser bad weather event for like 100 years

>>9972087
you can store enough power for weeks in batteries

>>9972085
>fox tells me it's a meme so solar must be a meme
>strawman hard

>>>/pol/boomer

>>9972092
What do you do when it hails and all your solar panels get destroyed

Or when you need to change the shingles on your roof because it's leaking

>>9972065
SOLAR
FUCKING
ROADWAYS

>>9972095
1st) learn to read, i already said, you can store weeks of energy in batteries, that means you have plenty of time to replace the broken panels.

2)It's trivial to add a layer of reinforced glass on top of a solar panel. making it 100% inmune to any projectile that nature can throw at it short of a meteorite falling directly on top of it

3)Were talking about a city, theres no shingles, its the flat ceiling of a 156 stories high building, probably its sides too

>>9972099
>Can easily replace two square miles of solar panels in two weeks
>Cant repave a road in less than a month

>Make it immune to projectiles
>Hurricane winds blow thousands of half ton projectiles across the city

>Flat roofs don't leak and never need work done to them
>Leave billions of dollars of your electrical grid just lying around wherever on whomevers property

What you're suggesting is a logistical nightmare.

>Two thousand solar panels on the skyscraper wired in parallel
>One goes on the fritz
>Inverter blows
>Twenty million to fix your solar farm

>>9972109
on le contraire mou friend cherry of le mine.

its a logistical paradise, off the grid, the city is divided into very small autonomous perfect communities. Any problem you have you can solve by the excess trillions of dollars you have from sudden free enregy

>>9972109
>>Two thousand solar panels on the skyscraper wired in parallel
>>One goes on the fritz
>>Inverter blows
>>Twenty million to fix your solar farm

Get a load of this retard.

SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS

Little off topic but I would like to know. What has happened to Fusion One Corporation? They are the guy's making the magneto electrostatic fusion reactor, which is based off of the polywell design. Are they even still a thing?

>>9971514
People underestimate how dangerous Radon is. It's causing lung cancer and is as bad as smoking. Every year Radon kills more people then gun violence. And lung cancer is not a pleasant death.

>>9972082
>Two-thirds of New York City’s rooftops are suitable for solar panels and could jointly generate enough energy to meet half the city’s demand for electricity at peak periods, according to a new, highly detailed interactive map to be made public on Thursday.
>at peak periods

>>9972386
And 14-16% of their total energy usage.