/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10138153]

Why hasn't there been more efforts to educate normies and liberals about the massive upsides of nuclear power?

It's literally are only way out

[Anonymous No.10138154]

*our only way

[Anonymous No.10138170]

>>10138153
>liberals
huh? I'm a liberal, like nuclear energy, and most of my liberal friends think nuclear is good too

[Anonymous No.10138176]

Because soviet disarmament propaganda that was adopted readily by hippies and misanthropes feedbacked in on itself over the decades turned into a pop culture monster that cannot be stopped.
Nuclear power is dead and nothing short of nuclear war can save it.

[Anonymous No.10138179]

>>10138170
Every liberal/environmentalist I've discussed it with was horrified of the prospect of nuclear waste and potential meltdowns. Even the word "nuclear" seems to make them uncomfortable. The prevailing opinion I've encountered is that solar and wind are godsends that we need to make a 100% pivot towards.

[Anonymous No.10138180]

>>10138153
Because most people have made up their mind no matter how much they are spoonfed

[Anonymous No.10138182]

Because its unprofitable for other energy industries, 90% of /sci/ are geophysicists who'd lose their job and the other 10% are paid solar shills

[Anonymous No.10138193]

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2018/ee/c8ee01011k

Solar energy use might boom thanks to the discovery of link related. This liquid can store solar energy efficiently and for long periods and release the energy in the form of heat when needed. All you need is sunlight and the liquid, no need for expensive batteries anymore. How does this change the game?

[Anonymous No.10138195]

>>10138153
>about the massive upsides of nuclear power

HA HA HA, no. Nuclear power is shutting down and construction is being abandon everywhere for a reason. It's not competitive with cheap solar and wind power.

[Anonymous No.10138198]

>>10138153

[Anonymous No.10138203]

>>10138179
>look at this ridiculous fairytale i'm telling of my opponents
>you wouldn't want to be on their side now would you

[Anonymous No.10138205]

>>10138198
>If the free market alone decided these things-

We would not be discussing alternative fuels at all.

[Anonymous No.10138207]

>>10138203
>look at this ridiculous deflection I'm making because I'm too lazy to actually contribute to the discussion
>you wouldn't want to be a semen slurping brainlet with nothing better to do like me, now would you?

[Anonymous No.10138219]

No lobbyists want nuclear power right now. Solar and wind are a meme that gets easy money so investors are just following the latest flavor of the month trend. Once it's shown that solar and wind won't even be able to reliably do peak load shaving, all support for it will collapse, and we will go back to gas turbines and coal. Once the natural gas, oil and coal run out, we revert back to pre industrial society.

[Anonymous No.10138223]

>>10138153
Who the fuck cares what they think? What really matters is that we start taxing carbon. Nuclear becomes a heck of a lot more appealing when you have carbon taxes. They might be a lot more open to nuclear power if they start paying the true costs of carbon.
>>10138193
>>thermal storage with photoswitches
is a fucking meme. I've worked with people who work on using photoswitches to do this and the consensus is that it's a fucking meme.
>>heat
anon, heat's not that fucking useful.
>>how's this change the game
not much at all. This idea has been around for a while and hasn't found any traction. As far as energy storage goes, flow batteries are shaking things up and could get much cheaper.

[Anonymous No.10138547]

>>10138153
The dangers outweigh the benefits

[Anonymous No.10138580]

>>10138153
But the waste? How do you handle the nuclear waste?

[Anonymous No.10138589]

Because a solar farm the size of several counties is more feasabile

[Anonymous No.10138594]

>>10138580
Use the depleted fuel in projectiles to blast fags like u

[Anonymous No.10138627]

>>10138153
>nuclear power is literally are only way out
>nuclear meltdowns aren't possible
>radiation isn't dangerous
>infinite economic/population growth powered by non-renewable resources is our only way out

you people are mentally ill

[Anonymous No.10138630]

>>10138627
Everything you quoted is correct besides
>radiation isnt dangerous
and thats a non issue

[Anonymous No.10138663]

>>10138630
you are literally cancer
you are the reason humanity's extinction is inevitable

[Anonymous No.10138677]

>>10138630
pic related is you.
you and these hotdog eating contestants believe in more or less the same thing.
however, the hotdog eating contestants philosophy isn't really a long term threat

[Anonymous No.10138686]

one day the world will be at rest when stupid juveniles stop farting on the internet

FUKUSHIMA

you are so hopelessly plugged in to your smartphones u not only fail to have an original thought, u are directly controlled and here we are

with you

defending nuclear power when the sun blazes in the sky with the force of a trillion power plants

please cease and desist from causing any further damage to common sense.

[Anonymous No.10138692]

>>10138677
>>10138663
>>10138630
>>10138627
Can you both agree on one thing? That we need to stop emitting CO2 and that assigning a price to carbon emissions would be a good step in the right direction? Look, we still have fucking coal plants running that need to be shut down.

[Anonymous No.10138699]

>>10138153
>Why hasn't there been more efforts to educate normies and liberals about the massive upsides of nuclear power?

because climate change isn't actually that bad and its mostly just a bunch of hyperbole to scare people into giving up shekels. any kind of real implementable solution to climate change will never come about because there isn't any money in that.

[Anonymous No.10138704]

>>10138686

[Anonymous No.10138718]

>>10138699
stupid /pol/ meme. pic related

[Anonymous No.10138743]

>>10138692
>assigning a price to carbon emissions would be a good step in the right direction?
i am sure the nuclear shill agrees with you, but I do not.
only limiting population growth and therefore immigration from high birth rate/low footprint areas to low birth rate/high footprint areas will have any effect.

[Anonymous No.10138745]

>>10138718
oh look. more """""predictions""""". shit son, i'm scared now. better start forking over money for carbon bux huh?

[Anonymous No.10138758]

>>10138745
the map just shows where land below 5 feet is. it's not a prediction, just showing a fact of topography.

if you think 5 feet is somehow ridiculous, then you need to say why YOU'VE made that prediction, because common sense says that if you thaw all the ice sheets in greenland and antarctica and the sea ice at the north pole, for sure sea level goes up

[Anonymous No.10138760]

>>10138743
>only limiting population growth and therefore immigration from high birth rate/low footprint areas to low birth rate/high footprint areas will have any effect.
other reasons to do this include preserving biodiversity, limiting non-carbon pollution, limiting deforestation, limiting farming intensity.
like it or not is the only viable long term solution for humanity given its dependence on non-renewable resources.
unfortunately too many in the west depend on population growth for their paychecks, so famine, war, and probably eventual extinction is unavoidable.

[Anonymous No.10138766]

>>10138743
>>assigning a price to carbon emissions would be a good step in the right direction?
>i am sure the nuclear shill agrees with you, but I do not.
>only limiting population growth and therefore immigration from high birth rate/low footprint areas to low birth rate/high footprint areas will have any effect.
it does not follow

[Anonymous No.10138785]

>>10138766
why?
are you saying that immigration does not lead to population increase?
are you saying that higher first world population does not cause higher firstworld carbon footprint?
or are you saying more people do not consume more resources?
or maybe you're someone with ulterior motives.
or maybe you're dumb or mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.10138795]

>>10138785
and what about the world as a whole? Immigration does not increase the world population as a whole.

[Anonymous No.10138804]

>>10138795
>Immigration does not increase the world population as a whole.
it actually does. obviously in the country where immigrants arrive, but also in their home countries as when they leave the occupations they once had become available and new people quickly fill their old niche.

this doesnt even take into account the fact that immigration has been almost entirely from low footprint areas to high footprint areas where the new arrivals immediately adopt the consumption habits of their new country.

[Anonymous No.10138806]

>>10138785
i argue that if we encourage immigration from the third world and brain-drain their young professionals and academics, then that gives the 1st world a very effective entry point with which to promulgate the messages of contraception and reproductive responsibility that have become dominant in the wealthier parts of the world. educating women is key, and encouraging emigration for the intellectual elite to the 1st world will feed back hard on the population growth centers

[Anonymous No.10138807]

>>10138153
Its too expensive to mantain and costs more power than it produces. They’re not economically feasible, as things stand fossil fuels are the best we have, which is unfortunate

[Anonymous No.10138821]

>>10138806
its also super convenient for corporations that operate mainly in the west and rely on perpetual economic/population growth too!
additionally, brain draining 3rd world countries obviously deprives them of the talent they need to modernize.
I dont buy that argument, not even for a second.

[Anonymous No.10138829]

>>10138198
>Giving a shit if it is competetive or not
>Placing economy and well being of rich shitheads and people over a energy crisis.
The fact that nuclear power plants are so anti-competitive is what makes them more based. Killing big companies and promoting small ones is more benefic for us. Power plants dont promote small companies, but kills and starves big ones from making a monopoly over shit and making us their slaves.

[Anonymous No.10138841]

>>10138804
>>they leave the occupations they once had become available
and that increases the population how?
>>low foot print areas to high footprint areas
you have not provided anything to support this argument. What about people moving from out in the country to big cities? Also decreasing the population size may not necessarily decrease emissions. Automation could allow less people to consume more.

[Anonymous No.10138865]

>>10138821
>additionally, brain draining 3rd world countries obviously deprives them of the talent they need to modernize.
why, so they can go to Sheik Abdullah College and become professors there? i'd rather they go to Princeton and then write back home to Mom about how condoms aren't that bad

[Anonymous No.10138875]

>>10138547
>The dangers
MRS and LFTR are impossible to have meltdowns.
Thorium is even a better fuel since it exists in larger concentrations and quantities on the ground, doesnt polute and spread radiation to the air in the mines, releases 90% less toxic waste compared to uranium, smaller nations cant make nukes out of it and their systems are even more safe and harmless than ever before.
Green energies take up a lot more space, produce also toxic waste, require more maintainance, and are very easily damaged by weather conditions. It also costs a lot more to produce.
There have only been 3 major incidents with nuclear power plants, where they were still a new thing and with that people got forever scared. Those acidents didnt happen because of 1 mistake, but rather several, starting right from the drawing board to workers not following instructions. But now since the risk of meltdown is 0% it is even harder to try to fuck up with the thing.

[Anonymous No.10138878]

>>10138841
>and that increases the population how?
when they leave the occupations they once had become available and new people quickly fill their old niche.
This is written in the English language. I cannot really simplify it any more.

immigration has been mainly from 3rd to 1st world over hte last decades. the numbers are on the internet.

I'm presenting facts. You are trying to misdirect attention to support an agenda.

[Anonymous No.10138891]

>>10138865
> Sheik Abdullah College
ahh, and the racism/hypocrisy of the left makes itself apparent
>i'd rather they go to Princeton and then write back home to Mom about how condoms aren't that bad
thats because while they're here they're consuming the products you sell. obviously. no matter about the added pollution you/they produce.

[Anonymous No.10138903]

>>10138865
>>10138841

You people want to call me a racist for being against immigration
But in reality you are the racists for believing these people incapable of moderizing without western help.

[Anonymous No.10138910]

>>10138878
>>new people quickly fill their old niche
so people spontaneously generate to fill the job vacuum?

[Anonymous No.10138911]

>>10138903
*modernizing

[Anonymous No.10138912]

>>10138627
>non-renewable
Our deposit of thorium is as un-renewable as the sun is.
Investing in nuclear power doesnt mean dropping everything else nigga. But producing solar panels and turbines to supply a nation simply makes more polution, takes more space and they will need high cost maintenance. Not to mention that things like storms can easily kill a solar panel camp.

>infinite economic/population growth
That is also another of the worlds problems. The population growth and excess of organization are real dangers. But the solution to that doesnt evolve around on how the power is drawn from.

[Anonymous No.10138916]

>>10138910
>so people spontaneously generate
its called being born, and yes, people will fill any available niche, just like any other creature in the animal kingdom.

[Anonymous No.10138995]

>>10138903
well if they modernize wouldn't that increase emissions?
>>10138916
So you're telling me that if some one leaves their job, suddenly it's immediately filled by a baby?
>>just like any other creature in the animal kingdom
do you have any evidence that this is actually the case?

[Anonymous No.10139032]

If you're planning on powering an entire country on just nuclear alone that seems like more trouble than i'ts worth. Not to mention geographic issues with places being prone to tornadoes and the sheer amount of waste they'll all produce. Might work for a smaller country but they could just go all in on solar/hydro/wind/etc.

[Anonymous No.10139174]

>>10138547
No. Just don’t build nuclear reactors in danger zones like California or Florida and it’ll be fine. There’s no reason the mostly empty Midwest that avoids most natural disasters couldn’t be filled with nuclear power plants.

[Anonymous No.10139183]

>>10138995
>do you have any evidence that this is actually the case?
abstract thinking is difficult for some. This is a concept. Do you know what a concept is?
Do you understand the concept of the ecological niche? Google ecological niche. Or vacant niche.

Let me try explaining it this way then.

An employee at a corporation gets a promotion. Does the corporation leave his position vacant, or does it put out an employment ad to fill it. It either promotes someone below him to the position or hires someone new. Essentially keeping the niche filled.

This is really simple.
If you still don't understand then nothing can be done for you.

[Anonymous No.10139195]

>>10138995
or google social niche.

[Anonymous No.10139341]

>>10139183
you have not provided any evidence to support this
>>ecological niche
so plumber, farmer, machinist, mechanic, aircraft pilot, banker, and so forth and so on are ecological niches? So why should we expect ecological niches to apply to humans. So lets say our one and only airplane pilot just up and leaves taking their plane with them. There's no plane so the niche can't be filled. Well now we don't need airplane mechanics, nor do we need machinist to make airplane parts, so those are gone. We have less need for a plumber because our airplane pilot isn't shitting in their house, nor a farmer because they aren't eating there, nor a banker, cause they took all their money with them. So there you go, a niche that can't only not be filled, but one that takes some other niches with it! We can also completely solve your supposed problem of niches getting filled, by importing everyone from whatever country this is. If there aren't any people there to fill the niche, then it won't get filled no? And of course you have yet to elaborate as to how a niche being empty leads to more people being born.

[Anonymous No.10139349]

>>10138219
you're an idiot and your reasoning is laughable

[Anonymous No.10139888]

>>10138686
>defending nuclear power when the sun blazes in the sky with the force of a trillion power plants
For half a day (or less) if there isn't any cloud cover and not directly above the panels unless you stick them on a gimbal.
Eat pant.

[Anonymous No.10139889]

>>10138718
>South Florida floods and kills all the old people
What's the problem with this?

[Anonymous No.10139900]

>>10138627
>"renewable"
Retard.

[Anonymous No.10140479]

>>10138153
I don’t know, but I watched the documentary “Pandora’s box” and basically I’m in love with nuclear energy now

[Anonymous No.10140486]

>>10138153
Nuclear power is efficient and doesn’t pollute, but is expensive and reduces the aura in your city. Place these far away from your sims.

[Anonymous No.10140756]

bla bla bla yadda yadda

[Anonymous No.10140769]

>>10139341
>so plumber, farmer, machinist, mechanic, aircraft pilot, banker, and so forth and so on are ecological niches?
yes. or more precisely, social niches

[Anonymous No.10140772]

>>10139341
>so plumber, farmer, machinist, mechanic, aircraft pilot, banker, and so forth and so on are ecological niches?
yes. or more precisely, social niches
google social niches
It's a new area of study, but obviously deserves more work
>So why should we expect ecological niches to apply to humans.
because just like animals, humans require food/energy to survive, and these things are not unlimited. therefore humans/animals will exploit any available niche.
>So lets say our one and only airplane pilot just up and leaves taking their plane with them. There's no plane so the niche can't be filled.
Unrealistic scenario. A person who would have otherwise been a bus driver would train and fill the that niche instead.
>We can also completely solve your supposed problem of niches getting filled, by importing everyone from whatever country this is.
That is exactly what is happening. People are beginning to exploit available niches to survive. It's perfectly natural.
>If there aren't any people there to fill the niche, then it won't get filled no?
There are always people who want a promotion
>And of course you have yet to elaborate as to how a niche being empty leads to more people being born.
It's a matter of food/energy availability. An empty niche implies unused food/energy. In the case of an empty farmer's field, his neighbor will not be competing anymore and so he will have the energy necessary to produce surplus offpsring that will then start using that field, and it won't be empty for long.
just like rabbits in a mostly empty meadow. They will multiply to the point where the entire field is being eaten by rabbits. What makes you think humans are so much different from animals?

[Anonymous No.10140908]

>>10138223
>anon, heat's not that fucking useful.
Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.10141321]

>>10140908
read the supplementary info. Highest possible energy storage efficiency is 0.51%, highest measured in outdoor tests 0.03%. Switches ain't efficient. The energy density they measure is of the pure form, in reality it will have to be dissolved in something, which will decrease energy density. A home in a mild climate uses ~108 gigajoules a year for space heating, solar irradience is about 9 gigajoules/m^2 year. So best case we need 108GJ/(0.51*9GJ/m2)~=24 meters^2, which could work, but if we plug in the actual numbers we need around 400 meter^2 which could exceed typical area. These calculations don't take into account the 30 day half life of the activated switches.

[Anonymous No.10141343]

>>10140772
You have yet to provide any evidence that this actually happens with humans
>>unrealistic scenario
why? when people leave they can take capital with them
>>there are always people who want a promotion
and if there aren't any, what then? If this is really the case why don't homeless people just go out and start subsistence farming?
>>empty farmers field
you are assuming the farmer actually has the capacity to farm that extra land.

[Anonymous No.10141354]

>>10141343
>You have yet to provide any evidence that this actually happens with humans
Ok so according to you when someone closes up shop and leaves for better opportunity, the area remains vacant for ever after.
Fuck off. It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand the concept of ecological niche and how human occupations are analagous. Kids are constantly growing up and looking for opportunity, and they will fill empty niches almost as soon as they become available.

[Anonymous No.10141434]

>>10138153
Chinese are claiming 100,000 degrees celcius in their fusion reactor. Nuclear itself will have to adapt if true. This essentially btfo of everything.
Letter agencies are reporting it.

Big if true.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-15/china-attempts-to-create-an-artificial-sun/10495536

[Anonymous No.10141437]

>>10141434
1,000,000***

[Anonymous No.10141498]

>>10138153
ITT: pseuds

[Anonymous No.10141509]

We are not making it off of this rock if we don't develop and capture the power of nuclear fusion

Solar and windfags are hippy retards

[Anonymous No.10141564]

>>10141354
You insist that this niche idea is true yet you are incapable of providing any evidence for it.
>>analagous
just because it is analagous doesn't make it the same thing. In addition, we don't find bartering or use of currency in ecology.

[Anonymous No.10141610]

>>10141509
We're not making it off of this rock. Climate denialtards and technofuturists are hopeless morons who will surely destroy much of the natural world.

[Anonymous No.10141611]

>>10141564
I've posted plenty of evidence supporting the idea that immigration helps bolster long term population growth. Your neoliberal ideology, and your consumerist lifestyle prevents your from considering it. This is your problem, not mine.
Additionally, you believe that when someone quits, retires, or moves on to better opportunities their former occupation no longer exists.
Your opinion on everything is therefore meaningless.

[Anonymous No.10141623]

>>10141564
Here is an article which supports my claim:
>immigration helps bolster long term population growth
https://fullfact.org/immigration/population-growth-migration/

[Anonymous No.10141631]

>>10141564
there is literally no way to help you if you can't understand how migration helps increase a population.
you're probably one of those people who believes the earth can support 36 trillion people in vertically stacked domes in texas or something...

[Anonymous No.10141787]

>>10141631
>>10141611
>>I've posted plenty of evidence supporting the idea that immigration helps bolster long term population growth
you have not, you have posted hearsay. I think I may need to elaborate what I mean by evidence. Can you provide me with some peer reviewed articles that empirically demonstrate this is the case? 'Google this thing' is not evidence, worse yet it can't even be considered a citation.
>>long term
in the long term we have clean infinite nuclear fusion, or fission is perfectly safe, or solar cells and energy storage are as cheap as dirt, or the sun's covered in a dyson sphere or some bullshit. Long term is not the problem here, it's the next 30-40 years. Reducing the population may decrease carbon emissions in the long term, provided we don't increase consumption as could be the case with automation, but that doesn't decrease carbon emissions yesterday, which is when we need to start reducing emissions. A lot of our infrastructure still uses fossil fuels and even if the population remains constant that infrastructure will still be in place and be utilized. Worse yet, not only do we need to decrease CO2 emissions to zero, but we also need to find a way to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8958
I just don't believe your premise that population control through restriction of immigration will have enough of an impact on CO2 emissions soon enough to matter.

[Anonymous No.10141876]

>>10138153
>why haven’t (((they))) prompted cheap energy for all at a reduced cost

Gee, I wonder (((why))).

[Anonymous No.10143259]

>>10141787
>in the long term we have clean infinite nuclear fusion
oh... I see now.
I've been arguing with a lunatic...
figures.

[Anonymous No.10143297]

>>10138580
You put it right back from where you dug it up from?