/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10509104]

Are you for or against nuclear power generation? And why?

[Anonymous No.10509122]

for of course

[Anonymous No.10509127]

>>10509104
You'd have to be dumb as a sack of rocks to be against nuclear power generation.

>Statistically proven to be the safest form of energy generation known to man
>Produces 10,000x less waste than coal for the same power output
>Requires less than 2 square miles of land
>Solar requires 32 square miles for the same output, wind requires almost 400 square miles

[Anonymous No.10509131]

>>10509104
Kind of in the middle. I do believe they are a better option than fossil fuels. And I don‘t believe issues like possibility of meltdowns and nuclear trash are impossible to overcome with modern designs.
However Nuclear is terrible in terms of economics and only gets worse when you actually want to make sure it won‘t blow up and when you actually want to secure the trash properly.
So ultimately I don‘t really believe Nuclear is really part of the solution to climate change in the big picture anymore.
It‘s probably useful for space missions though even though making effective shielding light enough is an issue there.

[Anonymous No.10509181]

Pro in Kansas
Against in California

Avoid oceans and earthquakes, and Japan

[Anonymous No.10509189]

>>10509127
well, I was against it but since you called me dumb as a sack of rocks, now I'm for it.

Oh wait, no I'm not.

[Anonymous No.10509195]

Too risky in my opinion. Also the sooner the world gets off fossil fuels and stops giving money to dirty arabs the better so renewables is the way to go.

[Anonymous No.10509199]

>>10509127
you forgot

>costs 10 billion to build
>will suck up all your local fresh water ressources
>no idea what to do with the nuclear waste
>if bad things happen your whole region is gone

[Anonymous No.10509200]

>>10509189
t. glows in the dark

[Anonymous No.10509204]

>>10509199
However you forgot
>after built cheapest per kilowatt out
>better and newer designs greatly reduce the nuclear waste produced and increase efficiency

[Anonymous No.10509207]

>>10509204

However you don't effectively answer

>the remaining problem of nuclear waste
>the remaining problem of an error being catastrophic

[Anonymous No.10509209]

>>10509104
we can do better

[Anonymous No.10509210]

>>10509204
If ignoring building costs wind, hydro and solar are without a doubt the cheapest. Those new designs are even more expensive to build.

[Anonymous No.10509214]

>>10509104
Only retards and fear-mongers are against nuclear power.

[Anonymous No.10509216]

>>10509104
Nuclear is just another means for The Consumers to extract every last available microJoule of energy to power their malignant growth.

[Anonymous No.10509220]

>>10509209
Man, fuck those ayys and their neural interface horns.

[Anonymous No.10509244]

The only way we could have nuclear power is through socialism.
The market does not want it.
The market does not want to invest in plans that are more than 5 years in the future.
The only way you could convince private investors to build nuke plants is if you give them ridiculous government concessions, at which point it is better if you just let the government build it.

[Anonymous No.10509257]

>>10509127
Those are the pros but there are also cons. Without passing judgement, the cons aren't trivial:
1. it's centralized; private concentrate energy production is part of the problem that caused this mess
2. radioactive waste is one of the biggest problems; it is not a solved problem, you are basically creating a deposit of easily accessible radioactive material that had to be guarded for thousands of years
3. it is fine to image trusting nuclear power generation in developed countries, but what about the majority of the world which is neither developed nor stable enough to run nuke plants
4. and of course it is going to be a huge money sink that the government needs to fund

[Anonymous No.10509272]

>>10509210
Plus wind and solar are incremental in a way that allows for small players to get into the market.
Nuke plants are the worst because they cost the most to build, take the longest time, and you need 100% of the capital up front.
Also I imagine insurance for running a nuke plant is huge whereas for solar and wind it is minimal.

As long as there is capacity for solar and wind, it makes sense to build them. Then of course build nukes when you absolutely must.

[Anonymous No.10509275]

>>10509199
>if bad things happen your whole region is gone
>if bad things happen
>literally safer than every other form of energy generation
>bad things

>problem of nuclear waste
fallacy of presupposition. you haven't established that a problem actually exists, you've just presupposed it.


what you do with it is what we are already doing with it. we put it somewhere, same as coal (except it takes up 10,000x less space for the same power output). the majority of nuclear waste actually contains useable fuel but uranium is to plentiful relative to the cost it takes to reprocess it.

since coal waste takes up 10,000 times more space yet no one is complaining, obviously the argument is 110% just "durr its super crazy dangerous omg what do we do with this moderately radioactive stuff omg" .. you just use a small fraction of the space that coal would have taken up to store nuclear waste. what's the ""problem"" again? that we are going to eventually run out of space? lmao what?

>>10509210
>If ignoring building costs wind, hydro and solar are without a doubt the cheapest
[citation needed]

maintaining and supervising over 20,000 acres of solar panels to produce what a single nuclear plant can produce is "cheaper" after building costs?

[Anonymous No.10509283]

>>10509275
The nuclear waste problem has been studied for over 40 years. How about this: don't talk out of your ass about things that you don't understand.

[Anonymous No.10509309]

>>10509257
>it's centralized
no shit, energy production is going to be centralized. just because you can put solar panels on your rooftops doesnt mean solar wouldnt be centralized if the government actually adopted it as the main form of power output

>has to be guarded for thousands of years
only because the majority of nuclear waste is still useable and can be reprocessed in the future. you can securely store something without actively guarding it, or you actually think someone's going to break into an underground nuclear waste facility and somehow manage to carry out a massive crate of waste to steal spent, literally useless, moderately radioactive fuel that homogenously has too high of a binding energy to be useful for anything dangerous other than "dont stand by it for too long"? what are you imagining here? some guy steals it and builds a bomb? its literally fucking useless

>what about the majority of the world which is neither developed nor stable enough to run nuke plants
i dont even understand the issue here? if they arent developed enough to use nuclear, then they wont use nuclear. also undeveloped nations are just always going to use coal regardless of anything
>of course it is going to be a huge money sink that the government needs to fund
startup and development costs are high but basically every nuclear power plant is out-of-date tech from the 80s that is still working flawlessly. energy is a commodity and nuclear plants last decades upon decades, require little space, and consistently produce the same power output season after season

[Anonymous No.10509326]

>>10509244
>The only way we could have nuclear power is through socialism.
If you say so.... But let me compare it with the following argument:

>>10509216
>Nuclear is just another means for The Consumers to extract every last available microJoule of energy to power their malignant growth.
So, there is no nuclear power through socialism either.

[Anonymous No.10509354]

>>10509326
how did you convince yourself that you're smart, anyway? Did you earn yourself a geology diploma at the local community college or something?

Honest question: what's the highest level math course you've taken?

[Anonymous No.10509361]

>>10509275
>maintaining and supervising over 20,000 acres of solar panels to produce what a single nuclear plant can produce is "cheaper" after building costs?

What's there to supervise? Literally one dude with a mop is all you need to keep a solar farm clean.

[Anonymous No.10509362]

>>10509275
>since coal waste takes up 10,000 times more space yet no one is complaining

Maybe because coal waste doesn't need to be locked up deep in some abandonded salt mines because it so fucking toxic you utter brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10509368]

>>10509104
I don't want my power bill to go up over 500% so against.

[Anonymous No.10509373]

>>10509326
>what's the highest level math course you've taken?

why are you taking so long to answer my question? contemplating whether to outright lie or not?

[Anonymous No.10509388]

>>10509216
t. cringe Kaczynski fanboy

[Anonymous No.10509395]

>>10509388
t. delusional infinite economic/population growth ponzi fanboy

[Anonymous No.10509400]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpoPnrAc9qw
http://thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf

[Anonymous No.10509472]

>>10509368
It would lower your power bill, brainlet. Nuclear has the lowest cost per KW/h

[Anonymous No.10509529]

>>10509362
>coal waste doesn't need to be locked up deep in some abandonded salt mines because it so fucking toxic you utter brainlet
you clearly cant read, i addressed this argument in advance twice now

>>10509361
>what's there to supervise
potentially millions of acres of solar panels each with a lifespan of about 25 years on average.. and you are asking what there is to supervise? also leaving millions of acres of expensive equipment and land completely unattended?

>>10509283
are you going to make an argument? i already addressed both of the most common """"""nuclear waste problem durrr""""""" arguments.

the biggest security risk to leaving nuclear waste unattended isn't the low levels of radioactivity (the longer the half-life technically the less the radioactivity), the biggest security risk is that nuclear waste isn't just "waste". it's MOSTLY unspent uranium that can be reused

[Anonymous No.10509571]

>>10509207
Actually look into new reactor designs please. These are solved problems and there exist reactors today that have a closed fuel cycle or can recycle waste and weapons grade plutonium and are cooled in such a way that the beginning of a meltdown would cause the structure to thermically expand and let in more coolant.
They are not the most efficient since the russian one can only produce 800MW of power compared to 1.5 to 2 GW for traditional wasteful and "unsafe" designs but its not like anyone is actually putting that much effort into research currently so there most likely is room for improvement.

[Anonymous No.10509701]

>>10509104
limited use is fine, but we should focus more on sun, wind, water type things

[Anonymous No.10509715]

>>10509701
Complete opposite is the case.

[Anonymous No.10509728]

>>10509216
Duh mi negro. What do you think literally everything int he universe is doing? Using energy to do things.

[Anonymous No.10509972]

>>10509204
WATER, YOU FUCKING RETARD, YOU KNOW THAT BULLSHIT THING WE NEED TO SURVIVE?

Slap yourself right now, idiot.

[Anonymous No.10510008]

>>10509131
>Nuclear is terrible in terms of economics
France energy is almost twice as cheap as Germany's. Nuclear energy is not viable in a free market system, but a state company that dedicates exclusively to it benefits everyone directly supplying cheaper energy,in fewer space and without spewing pollutants to the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.10510018]

>>10509195
>renewables
How are renewables viable? The amount of land,iron,aluminum and cement that you need to build a solar or eolic power plant is enormous,and after 35 years they become totally obsolete which would just lead to more waste. On top of that storage units are unreliable and too expensive making renewables(except hidroelectric and geothermal) unreliable on their own as they can keep constant demand. Unless you are blessed with plenty of water for dams (the great lakes,Venezuela,Brazil,Argentina or Colombia) or live in a volcanoe island like Iceland renewables are totally unreliable on their own.
The future of mankind has to be nuclear or it just won't be

[Anonymous No.10510021]

>>10509207
>nuclear waste
It will probably be useful fuel in a couple of decades. Until them you store it in an stable region with nice containers that would occupy 1/100th of what a solar power plant would occupy

[Anonymous No.10510032]

>>10509272
Wind and solar local production is totally inviable. Solar and wind power plants are much more efficient.
You are forgetting two basic things
1. Solar and wind depend on the weather. They produce energies in spikes. They can't supply energy constantly like a power plant,hidroplant or nuclear plant could. This makes them purely complementary
2. Solar and wind power plants are extremelly harmful to the environment. Solar plants need A LOT of land and a lot of resources to be made and with a life span of 35 years. The same goes for wind but on top of that is making a lot of bird species go extinct.

[Anonymous No.10510040]

>>10509972
Water is going scarce in most of the planet. You cannot expect to use it as a viable source of energy outside of a couple of countries like Venezuela or Colombia

[Anonymous No.10510055]

>>10509972
It doesn't "suck up" enough water to make it warrant any sort of concern, you seething brainlet who needs to be put down or lobotomized if this is how you approach debate—it takes a minute fraction of water from surrounding watercourses and whatever water is used, is heated into steam, driving the turbines, and afterwards makes its way into the local atmosphere where it eventually turns into some form of precipitation invariably returning to the environment.

[Anonymous No.10510063]

>>10509104
>nuclear gang winning the debate again
every time. how can renewable cunts even compete?

[Anonymous No.10510093]

>>10509257
Guard what?

Bury the materials deep in the ground from where they came.

[Anonymous No.10510160]

>>10510063
they can't.

[Anonymous No.10510162]

>>10509104
what's gonna replace nuclear? I guess we could just shoot the waste into space

[Anonymous No.10510174]

>>10510162
The amount of waste is minuscule and can be safely secured in vessels and deposited underground in their own sarcophagus at secure sites in barren environments. It also can be further processed, reducing the radioactive half-life of the isotopes generated. Shooting it in space would be extremely costly and would generate more pollution than utilizing preexisting storage solutions.

[Anonymous No.10510596]

>>10509104
I'm conflicted. In theiry this tech is great. It was allready mentioned how effective it is. But I have witnessed the ability of humans to mess up even the most basic tasks. And greedy corporations are the best at that. And so I fear that we will mess up over and over again with it.

[Anonymous No.10510666]

>>10510008
It‘s just because Germany does weird shit where they directly put subsidies for green energy on top of private houshold electricity prices as taxes.
It‘s a really stupid system that both turns public opinion against green energy and distributes wealth from households to factories who don‘t have to pay this tax. This also means that the companies consuming the most electricity in Germany also have the least incentive to become more efficient.
The whole thing is a mess and should‘ve gotten reforms years ago. But that would take work and so instead, politicians just reduce the amount of renewables they subsidise and just slow this whole process down.

[Anonymous No.10510713]

>>10509127
>Statistically proven to be the safest form of energy generation known to man
Except when there’s an accident and then no one can set foot within a 100 mile radius of the location for 5000 years roflmao!

[Anonymous No.10510722]

>>10510713
>arguing from hypotheticals that have never happened
>saying "when there is" instead of saying "if there ever is", to be intellectual dishonest to hope people think Chernobyl was a precedent for the scenario you've described

[Anonymous No.10510725]

>>10510063
Fuck renewables.

[Anonymous No.10510762]

>>10509529
>you clearly cant read, i addressed this argument in advance twice now

You are a deluded idiot, you can't just dig a hole and throw the waste in.

>potentially millions of acres of solar panels each with a lifespan of about 25 years on average.. and you are asking what there is to supervise? also leaving millions of acres of expensive equipment and land completely unattended?

A dude with a mop and some nightguards. Great, that's like 5 people. You will need more than that to guard the nuclear waste deposits alone.

[Anonymous No.10511175]

>>10510160
BASED


>>10510762
>you cant just dig a hole and throw waste in
never said that dumb fucking retard, nice strawman though

>A dude with a mop and some nightguards. Great, that's like 5 people. You will need more than that to guard the nuclear waste deposits alone.
>millions of acres of solar panels, each lasting only 25-35 years on average requires 5 people
holy fuck ive never talked to someone more brain-dead than you

[Anonymous No.10511182]

>>10510666
I am guessing Germany' distribution lines are subsidized, so if you dump energy in the distribution system you get a fee. This happens in a lot of countries that went hard with renewables like Spain. Still since Germany has dropped nuclear its carbon emissions have sky rocketed and the price of its energy too. Solar and wind are unviable on their own and without nuclear you would need to use combined cycle (gas) or traditional power plants (coal)

[Anonymous No.10511186]

>>10510725
Don't forget that the windmills are killing all the big birds on the planet at an alarming rate and when they get outphased in 25 years they will just dump them in an African shithole. Ecofriendly my ass

[Anonymous No.10511189]

>>10509127
THIS.

[Anonymous No.10511196]

>>10511175
Maybe just drive to a solar park and see how many people are around you fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.10511199]

>>10511186
It's that retard again. Why are you nuclear shills all literal 80IQ brainlets?

[Anonymous No.10511204]

>>10511175
1.Producing solar panels has a considerable ecological footprint
2. Its life-cycle is 25 years
3. It needs to aggresively occupy land. This means fewer land for agriculture and less forested area (fewer forests means that there would be fewer rain which leads to desertification)
4. It is a very aggresive source of energy against the ecosystem (look up what happened with desert turtles in California
5. Panels are expensive and not very hard to steal so you need constant security
6. Solar panels produce energy intermitently so they are unreliable a good chunk of the day while creating massive energy spikes. This means that at some point the system would get overflown with energy and the country would be forced to export energy on the pennies while importing expensive energy when the production is low.

[Anonymous No.10511209]

>>10511199
Can you disprove that windmills are killing big birds and that when their life cycle is over they get just dumped in a giant megashithole in Africa or ASEAN?

[Anonymous No.10511215]

Happily been pro-nuclear forever no matter what

[Anonymous No.10511235]

>>10509181
Kansan here, wind is already more viable in our state.

[Anonymous No.10511237]

>>10511196
>just look around dude
jesus christ you are retarded. even if there were only one person per 10,000 acres you would still be wrong as fuck but that's not even the case. the fact that solar panels last only 25-35 years and means that there will always be hundreds of people around any 1000 megawatt solar farm for maintanence and replacement

also see >>10511204

[Anonymous No.10511244]

>>10510032
Cats kill exponentially more birds every year than wind. As for solar, just find a desert or something and set them up there.

[Anonymous No.10511256]

>>10511244
Cats kill small birds like pidgeons which are a plague in a lot of cities. You will never see a cat killing a hawk,owls or an eagle while windmills kill their small populations all the time. I specially said BIG BIRDS

[Anonymous No.10511268]

>>10511244
>As for solar, just find a desert or something and set them up there.
and what do you do with millions of acres of solar panels once they need to be replaced after 25 years? also people dont realize that producing crystalline silicon is fucking terrible for the environment, the amount of waste produced just from making a solar panel is ridiculous; its the same issue we have with producing silicon wafers for chips in our phones/computers

that scrap silicon doesnt have a half-life, there is no hope for it EVER to be useful again. scrap wafers are literally worthless junk

people act like nuclear waste which not only can be reprocessed, but eventually will be harmless and end up back where it came from, is bad but purified silicon is much worse

>The production of every single six-inch silicon wafer uses the following resources: 3,200 cubic feet of bulk gases, 22 cubic feet of hazardous gases, 2,275 gallons of deionized water, 20 pounds of chemicals, and 285 kilowatt hours of electrical power.

>And for every single six-inch silicon wafer manufactured, the following wastes are produced: 25 pounds of sodium hydroxide, 2,840 gallons of waste water, and 7 pounds of miscellaneous hazardous wastes.

>When you consider that a standard facility can process 5,000 eight-inch silicon wafers in
a single week, the environmental costs are enormous.

[Anonymous No.10511295]

>>10511256
I wpuld also like to mention that big birds are the main predator of some ecosystem. At the rate that windmills are killing them we will start seeing plagues of hervivores that reproduce at an alarming rate in some ecosystems with everything that it entails

[Anonymous No.10511296]

>>10511196
jesus you are fucking retarded? solar panels have to be constantly built at factories in a way which is destroying the environment even ignoring the fact that they have to be replaced constantly and immediately turn into absolutely useless junk for an eternity. see: >>10511268


YEP THIS ONLY REQUIRES 5 PEOPLE THOUGH LMAO

[Anonymous No.10511310]

>>10509362
>it so fucking toxic
>brainlet
Youre retarded, Dry storage nuclear waste is not immediately dangerous. The dose outside of a standard container is at or below ambient dose from the planet. Read a book sometime.

[Anonymous No.10511318]

>>10509361
>What's there to supervise?
Lets see:
Security
Maintenance
Environmental Impact
Geology
Performance
Control

Please tell me you arent old enough to vote.

[Anonymous No.10511329]

>>10510762
>you can't just dig a hole and throw the waste in.
Yes you can, thats in fact exactly what you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
There are plenty of genuine problems with nuclear power that you could have raised but since you didnt I would say its quite clear you have done no research on the topic, probably have a weak at best understanding of nuclear physics, and form your opinions with your (incorrect) intuition.

[Anonymous No.10511337]

>>10511244
>Cats kill exponentially more birds every year than wind
Somehow this means that the impact is irrelevant? This implies people should keep their house cats indoors.
>just find a desert or something and set them up there.
>there is no life in the desert

[Anonymous No.10511339]

>>10511296
Maintenance is dirt cheap. High installation cost is actually good, because this means you are putting your money towards putting a lot of unqualified workers into jobs that in today's world are hard to get by, instead of giving it to some 3rd world dictator to supply you ressources. This is also why China has such a hard-on for renewables, it's a nice combination of jobs motor for your own economy while at the same time strengthening the autonomy of your own nation by becoming less depended from other nations.

[Anonymous No.10511346]

>>10511339
>Maintenance is dirt cheap
assume you aren't the guy i was replying to becaue the discussion wasn't over price

[Anonymous No.10511373]

>>10511256
lmao no, cats are the real problem in the countryside. They're decimating songbird populations. Also, you build windmills in flat plains, far away from the woody forests that hawks and owls reside in. The only bird that would even come into contact with windmills is migratory songbirds.

[Anonymous No.10511380]

>>10511337
Cats are an invasive species, efficient predators, they are infinitely more of a problem for bird populations than some windmills.

[Anonymous No.10511389]

>>10511373
There is plenty of evidence that wind turbines make a huge toll on eagles,hawks and vulture. Those animals don't just live in forests don't be silly. A lot of big birds like hawks and vulture had adapted themselves to the plains. That is why they hunt the way they do.

[Anonymous No.10511391]

>>10509199

We do know where to put all that nuclear waste: Deep Borehole Disposal. Drill a 3 miles or so deep hole and nothing will come up for millions of years. It doesn’t matter where you put it in the country. At that depth, you’re so deep in the crust that the overlying rocks don’t matter. The water table doesn’t matter. The climate doesn’t matter. Human activities don’t matter. By the time they pop up to the surface they will be no trace of radiation left.

[Anonymous No.10511398]

>>10511339
They will never accept it from a leftist.
Some retard in 2040 will come up with the same idea but he will be a Republican and they will praise his RedNewDeal.

[Anonymous No.10511478]

>>10511391
Transporting and depositing nuclear waste is still expensive, but what really is going to end nuclear energy is water shortages becoming more and more of a proble. In fact, the main reason France is exiting from nuclear again is that in the summers, the plants in its south are running short on water to cool, which is why they need to reduce their capacity or turn them off completely in hot summers. They are also taking away water ressources from local farmers and inhabitants, which leads to more and more french people calling for a reduction of the number of nuclear plants.

[Anonymous No.10511484]

>>10511310
This.

[Anonymous No.10511550]

>>10511478
>Transporting and depositing nuclear waste is still expensive
not really to either of those. transportation isn't expensive and nobody complains about this with coal plants yet the difference is so extraordinary that a switch to nuclear would "save" so much cost on transportation it's unbelievable
>These large mass differences in fuel requirements [between coal and nuclear] account for differences in supply patterns. The coal plant requires a train of 100 or more large coal cars arriving each day to keep it operating. The nuclear power plant does not require a continual supply of fuel. Instead, after its initial loading, it is shut down for refueling once every 12 to 24 months and then only one-fifth to one-fourth of its fuel is replaced.
> If reprocessing is used to separate the unused uranium from the spent nuclear fuel, then the amount of highly radioactive waste remaining from the 1000-MW(e) nuclear plant amounts to substantially less than 10 tons per year. In contrast, 5% or more of the coal burned becomes ash that must be removed and stored in a landfill or elsewhere at the rate of more than five 100-ton-capacity railroad cars per day.

and when it comes to depositing waste, a nuclear plant will produce what 150 cubic meters of waste a year? and, straight from a wikipedia,
>The disposal of low level waste reportedly costs around £2,000/m3 in the UK. High level waste costs somewhere between £67,000/m3 and £201,000/m3.[79] General division is 80%/20% of low level/high level waste,[80] and one reactor produces roughly 12 m3 of high level waste annually.[81]

[Anonymous No.10511744]

I support nuclear as a means of transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Getting off of fossil fuels is definitely a goal for just about anyone, but renewable ain't ready to take on the load as its replacement just yet.

[Anonymous No.10511766]

>>10511744
CONGRATS, YOU SINGLEHANDEDLY JUST SOLVED THE PROBLEM OF NUCLEAR WASTE

YOUR HEAD IS A BOTTOMLESS BOREHOLE WE CAN JUST THROW THE WASTE DOWN

[Anonymous No.10511769]

>>10511766
thanks

[Anonymous No.10511782]

>>10511744
Inferior to existing renewables with the exception of geothermal.

[Anonymous No.10511814]

>>10509104
Ask yourself why there's not a single insurance company in the world willing to insure the entirety of risks of operating a nuclear power plant.
Case closed.

[Anonymous No.10511837]

>>10511814
oh yeah? can you tell me why that is please or do you just plan on begging the question? ill wait here, take all the time you need

[Anonymous No.10511855]

>>10511389
This is still completely ridiculous, millions and possibly billions of birds die each year from colliding with human made buildings, are you going to have us tear down major cities? We know how to place wind farms so they pose a minimal impact on bird populations, you're arguing a non-factor.

[Anonymous No.10511863]

>>10511744
Nuclear is superior to existing renewables. The only long term transition should be from uranium to thorium.

[Anonymous No.10511865]

>>10511814
>dude insurance companies and bankers won't insure it therefore it's stupid
Imagine being this much of a brainlet to think this is an argument.

[Anonymous No.10511869]

>>10509104
i want all nuclear power plants to be decommissioned. WHY?! Because when the pole shift happens and theres earthquakes everywhere we're gonna have power plants completely disheveled and every single nuclear site is going to become a radioactive wasteland.

You see people dont think ahead. The poles are moving 34 miles every year and its accelerating, it could happen at any time. The whole planet is going to be contaminated. Just look at a map of all the nuclear plants all around the world. THAT is a lot of radiation, and any coastal plant is going straight into the ocean. Its going to be chaos.

/x/ OUT

[Anonymous No.10511872]

>>10511837
>oh yeah?
yeah

use your brain

[Anonymous No.10511913]

>>10511869
Earth quakes aren't of much concern. They don't suddenly go kaboom because the ground shakes. There are measures in place and shut down procedures to eliminate the chance of a meltdown in a matter of minutes. Able to be controlled remotely even.

[Anonymous No.10511915]

>>10509104
For.
All other forms of renewable energy require the power output from civilization to match natural processes such as water flow rates, wind speeds, and ambient sunlight.
Nuclear provides a constant, predictable amount of power, which suits the needs and structure of current civilization much better.
In either case fossil fuel plants will be needed for the sake of load matching, but much less will be needed in the case of nuclear power plants.

[Anonymous No.10511939]

>>10511872
>it's so obvious that everyone should know it yet im too full of shit and retarded to explain it
lmaoo typical sci

[Anonymous No.10511942]

>>10511913
>pole shift
>electromagnetic storms
>frying all electronics

those computers inside the nuclear plant will be useless and nothing will make it work again. you wouldnt even be able to operate it manually.

[Anonymous No.10511963]

>>10511869
>>10511942
this is a high iq poster

[Anonymous No.10511971]

>>10511963
Samefag poster who doesn't understand how nuclear plants work or solar storms or magnetic pole shifts.

[Anonymous No.10511981]

>>10511869
>>10511913
>be me
>absolute genius that understands the ins and outs of nuclear power plants and backup procedures and how the electronics involved operate
>see unprecedented catastrophe on the horizon that nobody is paying attention to because ive done the calculations and understand all the implications and exact values
>try to tell people
>nobody listens
>they call me a schizoposter
>millions die in a nuclear holocaust
>i get to tell everyone i told you so
>wikipedia page gets made about me and i live on as a cautionary tale until the end of time
is this what your daydreams are like?

[Anonymous No.10512001]

>>10511971
a samefag is someone who replies the same post or his own post without identifying that hes the same individual but its glaringly obvious.
also
power plants when there is a risk of meltdown will automatically go into standby to keep the rods cool. this automatic process will not be possible if the electronics that operate the plant are fried from intense solar radiation and geomagnetic storms. the magnetosphere isnt just going to immediately come back when the pole resets. It could take up to weeks and months. and by the time the magnetosphere does come back the damage will have already been done.

>>10511981
lolol no. i just want the planet not to be radioactive. because to suggest that YOU know all potential outcomes of events that have no transpired and have never before been experienced would seem a bit ..whats the word? Dumb.

[Anonymous No.10512019]

>>10509104
It's the one form of waste that people produce over which they exhibit, in large numbers, an actual conscientiousness about the consequences of their own existence. So yes, I'm pro-nuclear power, just because it's so hazardous that people would actually live with an appreciable sense of fear.

[Anonymous No.10512024]

>>10511855
High buildings are placed in urban areas. It is nothing alike wind turbines that invade entire ecosystems to produce an inconsistent supply of energy

[Anonymous No.10512027]

>>10511865
>>10511939
Because what do entire armies of finance mathematicians who do this for a fucking living know about risk and cost, hehe, right guys? Hehe, right? Guise?

[Anonymous No.10512038]

>>10512027
Yet there is no history of nuclear accidents or and they lack the knowledge of it. They also are invested in oil, gas and coal industries which represents a conflict of interest. I'm going to say they don't know shit and have a pretty good incentive not to insure them in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10512053]

>>10512027
NAH MAN ITS DA JOOISH LIBSHIT CONSPIRACY

[Anonymous No.10512105]

>>10512001
>lolol no
yes, it's either one or the other.
>because to suggest that YOU know all potential outcomes of events that have no transpired and have never before been experienced would seem a bit
im not suggesting anything other than the fact that you need to prove your extraordinary claims dumbass


>>10512027
>risk
safest form of energy production known to man

oop guess you're wrong dumbass, try again

[Anonymous No.10512131]

>>10509728
You and the rest of The Consumers want to use the energy to convert living, biodiverse ecosystems into giagantic heaps of steaming shit because: ['muh shiny things', 'muh cool vacation', 'muh instagram', 'muh economic growth''], whether you see it that way or not.

[Anonymous No.10512142]

>>10512105
>your empirical observation is invalid because i claim so
ok, bb

[Anonymous No.10512158]

>>10509104
for because I'm not a faggot

[Anonymous No.10512160]

>>10512053
>no argument so you set up a straw man against your perceived opponent
Ironic considering anti-nuclear nuts are often the most conspiratorial of all.

[Anonymous No.10512166]

>>10511380
Yes, ie we should keep our cats inside and also considering the impact of windmills. Not dismiss it because there is a bigger factor. Thats like saying you shouldnt use sunscreen if you smoke because cigarettes are more carcinogenic to you than sunlight.

[Anonymous No.10512172]

>>10511814
>profit is or should be the only factor in any decision
Its dipshits like you that make Americans look like hot garbage.

[Anonymous No.10512174]

>>10509181
Unfortunately, and active volcanoes. Tidal energy is pretty fucking cool on the coast though.

[Anonymous No.10512205]

>>10512166
Sunlight is not proven to be carcinogenic unless actual radiation (UV-A/UV-B) burn occurs. The idea that sun exposure causes cancer is not based on any evidence but fear mongering by the sunscreen industry, which is unregulated and does not require any FDA approval despite being transdermal drugs (especially alarming with the non-mineral based formulas). Melanin pigmentation in the skin is perfectly capable of providing adequate UV protection for most people, it being tantamount to actual mineral based sunscreens. Vitamin D deficiency, born mostly from a lack of sun, is more statistically associated with cancer instances and hence risk than sun exposure.
You have a point but the analogy is faulty.

[Anonymous No.10512210]

>>10512142
is not even the anon you >>10512105 replied to. just sayin.

and honestly i dont want to prove it because I dont want to see it happen. you want proof you'd have to build a nuclear power plant without any fuel, and somehow overload the entire system with electromagnetic pulses. And since thats not possible the only way to know for sure is to wait for the real thing to happen.

But i wont be saying "see i told you". ill be saying "oh shit we fucked up", because we'd be fucked.
So advocate for putting an end to nuclear power! or in the very least not having so many of them, damn.

[Anonymous No.10512254]

>>10512172
This isn't about plusminus x% profits but about the entire economic viability per se.

[Anonymous No.10512368]

>>10512142
yet another brain-dead retard refusing to show his imaginary "empirical observation". this is what renewable fags have resorted to

>>10512210
>"the only way to prove it is to do something i have never done"
so you don't have proof then?

[Anonymous No.10512375]

>>10511310
this is /sci/
education and reading are verboten

[Anonymous No.10512424]

>>10512368
Take a trip to fukushiima daichi. Take a good look around. just a little bit of water on the electronics made the whole place go BOOM. now just imagine EMF fucking with another nuclear plant. BOOM.

[Anonymous No.10512427]

>>10510596
bring back public executions for cunts that decide to jew it and cut corners
require high standards for anyone responsible for things of critical importance, with annual re-certification
this would probably raise costs, but it is probably necessary with modern culture glorifying mediocrity and laziness

[Anonymous No.10512432]

>>10511209
No, he can't, because admitting his thing has problems would shatter his mind and soul

[Anonymous No.10512455]

>>10512424
>flooding a room with diesel generators is the same thing as flooding it with ""intense solar radiation""
moreover you still havent provided any evidence of your schizo poleshift theory or the em storms or the how exactly em radiation will break a diesel generator or literally anything

you are just vapidly claiming
>poleshift will happen
>poleshift will cause big em storms
>earthquakes will destroy nuclear plants
>they wont be able to powerdown in time because the exact second the pole shift causes earthquakes em storms will happen and break the electronics
>this will cause a meltdown

[Anonymous No.10512459]

>>10512131
>posted from my Iphone

[Anonymous No.10512470]

>>10512455
>muh nuclear power

what happens when that back up generator runs out of fuel?

[Anonymous No.10512484]

>>10512470
it stops generatoring power.. ? where are you going with this?

[Anonymous No.10512487]

>>10509104
Amongst the many downsides nuclear power has that has been mentioned in this thread, there is one more: You can't let any government have nuclear power plants unsupervised, as they can be used to produce weapon-grade plutonium. So in terms of solving climate change, they don't work, because there are a lot of governments in the world which will never be allowed to have nuclear power plants. These countries will still need an energy source that is carbon-free. Wind turbines and solar panels can't be turned into weapons, so they will have to stick with that.

[Anonymous No.10512495]

>>10512487
So? In the hands of an actual state, preferably not a democracy, it gives them even more power. The world will only ever have peace once global conquest is achieved. Your Kumbaya outlook is idealistic, naive and childish, which is why you want little windmills, solar panels and peace on earth. Pacifism is a mental disorder.

[Anonymous No.10512501]

>>10512487
>Amongst the many downsides nuclear power has that has been mentioned in this thread
other than yours, there have been none so far other than "muh high startup cost"

yours makes no sense because basically all the biggest countries in the world already have dozens of operational nuclear reactors. they're already "allowed". the countries that can, will. the countries that can't will just use coal obviously unless we can somehow literally force them to use renewables

[Anonymous No.10512502]

>>10512455
Modern reactors are hardened against EM interference and on top of that almost all final fail safe measures are passive in activation, so even if all the electronics and mechanical fail safes went down at the same time no meltdown will occur.

[Anonymous No.10512505]

>>10512470
>what happens when that back up generator runs out of fuel?
it will have cooled down the reactor long before it has run out of fuel dumbass. what is your argument even? i think you should stick with your list of baseless claims, it makes more ""sense""

[Anonymous No.10512506]

>>10512455
>>10512502
>>10512470
My bad meant to reply to the schizo

[Anonymous No.10512507]

>>10512484
Then if the generator stops working what is going to keep the rods cool in the non-functioning plant?

[Anonymous No.10512508]

>>10512502
ok why are you replying this to me, not the guy claiming that "em storms will destroy backup generators to prevent the meltdown from being prevented"?

[Anonymous No.10512523]

>>10512506
ok gotchya

>>10512507
see >>10512505
so what are you even claiming? that a backup generator will be running for days but not cool down the reactor? backup generators start solely to cool down the reactor and can function for literally days

there is no situation in which the backup generator would be just using up fuel and not cooling down the reactor

[Anonymous No.10512530]

>>10512523
yes but when the generator runs out of diesel, rather why wouldnt the back up generator just STOP once the fuel rods are cooled? Why would it need to keep running?

[Anonymous No.10512544]

>>10512530
once it has done its job powering the pumps to cool down the reactor, what difference does it make?

[Anonymous No.10512584]

>>10512424
>EMF
Somehow I get the feeling you're an ultra brainlet and not talking abut electric motors or inductors.

[Anonymous No.10512609]

>>10512584
im talking about geomagnetic storms fucking the whole planet up.

[Anonymous No.10512664]

>>10512609
That'll never happen.

t. MBA CEO

[Anonymous No.10512672]

>>10512664
yes it will
t. /x/ janny schizoposter

[Anonymous No.10512690]

>>10512672
this is not the legit schiz. stop pretending to be me.

>>10512664
you think that NASA would lie about the integrity of our magnetosphere? Its weakining every passing year. We are very vulnerable to CMEs. it could be worse, but if the poles were to flip it could very likely happen.

[Anonymous No.10512698]

>>10509104
against, no reason to have it under normal circumstances

[Anonymous No.10512826]

>>10512698
t. Brainlet

[Anonymous No.10512828]

>>10512698
this does not spark joy

[Anonymous No.10512857]

>>10512690
>>10512672
you people would be smart to listen to your betters.

I am literally a CEO a major corporation and I have an MBA and I say that it will never happen. Seriously don't fuck with me or else.

[Anonymous No.10512860]

>>10512828
yes it does. The more opposition to my insane plans the better, to brutally crush them.

[Anonymous No.10512863]

>>10512860
huh?

[Anonymous No.10512865]

>>10509104
For, because it's the only viable power source for industrialized, modern economies that doesn't generate a bunch of co2, and it's much safer than other types of generation plants.

[Anonymous No.10512866]

>>10512857
ok dude calm down ill stop

[Anonymous No.10512872]

>>10512866
you're not me silly.

[Anonymous No.10512874]

>>10512863
The more opposition to my insane plans the better (for me to brutally crush the opposition. I like crushing the opposition.)

[Anonymous No.10512875]

>>10512866
excellent

[Anonymous No.10512876]

>>10512874
me liky solaor enerby

[Anonymous No.10512889]

>>10512876
then I shall have to end u

[Anonymous No.10512911]

>>10511196
I actually looked it up.

According to Google the state of Utah employs 6000 people in solar power production and has 1.6 GW of solar capacity. That comes out to 3750 people needed to produce one Gigawatt of solar power. That is of course only capacity.

A nuke plant takes "400 to 700 workers" and most produce over 1GW

[Anonymous No.10512934]

>>10509104
The problem with nuclear energy is that saddly , with each new generation, you ustaters are becoming more and more crazy, so to mass producing nuclear energy will need a huge infrastructure for nuclear fuel, something that somehow would escape from the controlling institutes ending in a nuking of a school or something like that...seriously.

So leave nuclear power to the french....they are decadent, but on this issue, is better to be decadent that a wako...

Regarding the technological issues, for the nuclear industry, at great scale, you will need a nuclear waste recycling industry, this has not been implemented yet, because nuclear power still represents a small fraction of our produced energy, nuclear wastes contaminates everything that is contact with...so you can imagine how dirty and nasty things would become...

The only way I would see nuclear power feasible is if you build a megahuge fast breeder nuclear power plant for all the USA, and all the process would be contained inside that power plant.

Otherwise, I think renewable energy is a better idea.

BTW, how much nuclear waste fast breeders reactors produce?

[Anonymous No.10512958]

>>10512934
>its another anti-nuclear schizoposter

>mass producing nuclear energy
>you will need a nuclear waste recycling industry
>escape from the controlling institutes ending in a nuking of a school
>all the process would be contained inside that power plant
>megahuge fast breeder nuclear power plant for all the USA

[Anonymous No.10512972]

>>10512889
lebs to dis

[Anonymous No.10512992]

>>10510063
>nuclear gang for life
fossilfags and renewablefags BTFO

[Anonymous No.10513460]

>>10512992
Based

[Anonymous No.10513465]

>>10512958
its energetically inefficient and expensive it doesn’t pay for itself and the materials needed for it require a massive supply chain and expensive storage

[Anonymous No.10513472]

100 likes and nuclear fusion is solved

[Anonymous No.10513487]

>>10513465
>expensive and doesnt pay for itself
see >>10513460
>requires a massive supply chain and expensive storage
see >>10511550
>nuclear fusion is energetically inefficent
e=mc^2 would like to have a word with you, dumbfuck


jesus christ you are brain-dead beyond repair. how can someone talk from so far inside their own ass?

[Anonymous No.10513506]

>>10513487
>requires a massive supply chain and expensive storage
Patently false.
>With a complete combustion or fission, approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235.
That's a lower supply chain than solar and wind meme which needs constantly replaced and maintained; often sourced from China where they are shipped over on polluting ships. Renewables are a SCUM industry too, they pay their workers beans, and rape consumers for the privilege of their "green" energy that destroys millions of acres of land for shit tier pieces of shit that have a lifespan of 15 years.

[Anonymous No.10513508]

>>10513506
replied 2 the wrong person buddy

[Anonymous No.10513514]

>>10513465
>requires a massive supply chain and expensive storage
Patently false.
>With a complete combustion or fission, approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235.
Anyone with half a brain can see how mining and transport included, that would be a lower supply chain than solar and wind meme which needs constantly replaced and maintained; often sourced from China where they are shipped over on polluting ships, and also initially mined to get the construction material. Renewables are a SCUM industry too, they pay their workers beans, and rape consumers for the privilege of their "green" energy that destroys millions of acres of land for shit tier pieces of shit that have a lifespan of 15 years.

[Anonymous No.10513516]

>>10513508
It has been corrected. Nuclear gang for life.

[Anonymous No.10513532]

>>10513514
also solar panels are made in the same environmentally atroctious way to the way silicon wafers are made. one of the main areas of research at my university is finding an alternative to silicon because wafer production is so fucking bad for the environment

i posted it earlier but
>And for every single six-inch silicon wafer manufactured, the following wastes are produced: 25 pounds of sodium hydroxide, 2,840 gallons of waste water, and 7 pounds of miscellaneous hazardous wastes.

Solar panels are unironically awful for the environment. Nuclear is unequivocally better. Nuclear waste can just be throw into a cheap bore hole never to be seen again and that's the main source of "waste" while solar panels dont last long, have low power output and produce ridiculous amounts of waste to process

[Anonymous No.10513536]

>>10509104
for obviously

[Anonymous No.10513541]

smiley

[Anonymous No.10513542]

>>10513532

[Anonymous No.10513547]

>>10513532
inb4 PV module recycling. i cant wait for the next schizo renewablefag to come

[Anonymous No.10513551]

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/solar/the-mounting-solar-panel-waste-problem/

THIS POST HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY NUCLEAR GANG

[Anonymous No.10513553]

>>10513532
Even conventional disposal of the waste is much safer and than it is made out to be. They are safely immobilized under several layers of materials, with longevity long exceeding the half-lives of isotopes. They are placed in the middle of nowhere at secure facilities. Super deep borehole is a good idea and probably the best solution but nuclear waste isn't the problem brainlets make it out to be in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10513584]

>b-but muh three mile island

[Anonymous No.10513830]

>>10513487
>nuclear fusion
oops I meant to say fission, how did nobody call me out on that?

[Anonymous No.10513854]

OOOGA BOOOGA!
NO nuclear. NUKE BAD. storytime of go-kaboom!!!
no understand. no talk. MUST DESTROY!

[Anonymous No.10513975]

>>10509104
If you have to transport fuel, it sux.

[Anonymous No.10514011]

>>10513975
this is a high iq poster

[Anonymous No.10514219]

>>10513584
>a single x-ray
>over hours and hours
>what is an alpha particle?

[Anonymous No.10514236]

Im for it in Europe and against it in Africa

[Anonymous No.10514241]

>>10514219
retard
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects

[Anonymous No.10514250]

>>10514241
>believing wikipedia
>ever

and you say IM the retard.

[Anonymous No.10514303]

>>10512001
>just want the planet not to be radioactive
Well that's an exercise in futility.

[Anonymous No.10514325]

>>10510160
kek saved

[Anonymous No.10514327]

>>10512001
The lockout systems are required to be passive/mechanically actuated. Gravity will cause the shielding to drop over the fuel rods. This is the American standard. If anything trips a safety it causes this fail safe to actuate. All critical systems have an alpha and a bravo counterpart for immediate up time if the alpha equipment fails. American power plants do not melt down.

[Anonymous No.10514357]

>>10514219
The totality of the incident, retard.

[Anonymous No.10514560]

>>10514250
Every day I find out just exactly how retarded someone can get. What year do you live in that you don't understand how Wikipedia works?

[Anonymous No.10514674]

>>10514560
i know that wikipedia is no better than CNN and always caters to the liberal agenda by means of altering information to propagate that agenda. Whether it be a large corporation, a famous individual, or government they will always censor the true information in favor of the information that suits the public.

[Anonymous No.10514693]

>>10514674
where do you even begin with someone this fucking retarded? you do understand that wikipedia cites claims right with legitimate sources (particularly the chest x-ray one in question)?

you do understand that that you are empirically wrong on this right? there are multiple sources on that wiki page.

if you think it output more radiation i'd be glad to see your sources, dumbass

[Anonymous No.10514710]

>>10514674
>it cites sources for its information, bit that information doesn't line up with what I'd like to be true so it must be the liberal agenda and it's definitely not just my agenda conflicting with reliable evidence that's been established through thorough investigation and decades of scrutiny

[Anonymous No.10514716]

>>10514674
>the liberal agenda of nuclear physics
now I've heard it all.

[Anonymous No.10514796]

>>10512205
It wasnt intended to be rigorous, the point is that x being worse than y is an irrelevant point to this conversation. Additionally when I used sunlight as an example it was simply because its the most common form of radiation people are familiar with.

[Anonymous No.10514800]

>>10512254
The discussion of economic viability is a complete non starter because your choice is between the following
1) use less energy
2) fossil fuels
3) Nuclear
Given that no society will accept option 1 and option 2 is significantly worse by the majority of metrics nuclear becomes the default answer. Hopefully advances in battery technology will one day solve the intermittency issues of renewables.

[Anonymous No.10514805]

>>10513465
>doesn’t pay for itself
Holy shit you are beyond retarded, the cost of power production is largely irrelevant because our society doesnt exist without it. This point is like saying because all food now costs 3x as much to make we are going to stop eating.

[Anonymous No.10514812]

>>10514674
>i know that wikipedia is no better than CNN
Nope, the citations are at the bottom of every article. Not reading them doesnt make wikipedia bad, it makes you a retarded dishonest pseud.
>liberal agenda
Oh youre mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.10514838]

>>10513460
>tfw you realize big oil and big coal were behind the renewable meme this entire time.

[Anonymous No.10515281]

>>10510063
>>10510160
>>10512992
>>10513584
WANT TO SEE MORE NUCLEAR GANG MEMES. NUCLEAR GANG OR BUST.

[Anonymous No.10515308]

against, but not because of nuclear power itself, because of corruption that makes all basic structures fall in my cunt

[Anonymous No.10515354]

>>10509275
>10,000
10000 years, sure why not, the last 2000 have been so predictable

[Anonymous No.10515362]

>>10512427
sure, that's how CCCP worked like a dream

[Anonymous No.10515430]

>>10515308
cringe

[Anonymous No.10515487]

>>10514800
They'll be forced to accept option 1, once options 2 and 3 are used up. That's when the fun begins.

To think, if it weren't for growth mongers such as yourself over the decades, renewables (ethanol, hydro, and others) would have been plenty and there'd be no need for either option 2 or 3.

[Anonymous No.10515494]

>>10515487
I don't think the real threat is climate change or pollution or nuclear or anything like that. I think it's growth mongers.

[Anonymous No.10515720]

>>10514674

[Anonymous No.10515732]

>>10515487
>>10515494
>just use less electricity in your houses, morans

[Anonymous No.10515771]

>>10509104
It's dead, get over it.

[Anonymous No.10515781]

>>10509207
IMHO the big problem of nuclear power is that research was stopped in the middle of last century and we are left with flawed designs. Molten salt reactors can solve both problems- nuclear wastes can be consumed by actinide burning, and meltdowns are avoided when the reactor is designed to run in a molten state. Molten salts were not developed to a commerci a l level because of the research moratorium, and as such we are in a much worse place now with regards to climate change.

[Anonymous No.10515905]

>>10515781
http://thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

[Anonymous No.10515937]

>>10509209
>Photoshopped image of aliens endorsing the "artist's" viewpoint by appealing to people's insecurities about being mocked and laughed at by those they perceived to be "superior" a.k.a. an appeal to ridicule

The absolute state of the solar and wind cult.

[Anonymous No.10515944]

>>10510725
You should probably make that 780 square miles since those things only generate a third of their peak capacity on average.

[Anonymous No.10515948]

>>10514838
So you watched Pandora's Promise too. It was an eye opener when they showed that ad for solar power/against nuclear in that 1970's newspaper that paid by the oil companies.

[Anonymous No.10515957]

>>10509104
Nuclear power is much better:
- lower waste production
- we can store waste in box not in air
- Its cheap in comparing to coal energy
- cost of building nuclear reactor are low - in comparing to $/energy produced
Its much more dangerous than coal energy but new versions of reactors are safe enought in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.10516471]

>>10515905
The IFR you mentioned is not the same as the reactor im describing. Im referring to the molten salts, where the fuel exists as a chloride or fluoride (uranium chloride, plutonium chloride, thorium fluoride). The fuel is not solid in cladding, the fuel itself melts and is dissolved within the coolant, a carrier salt.

To be honest, im not impressed with IFR, its just another fast breeder, the sodium cooled LMFBR already exists, and i believe powers the seawolf class nuclear submarine. The neutron spectrum is too fast for efficiently breeding u 233 from thorium in that design, the liquid sodium coolant is so heavy that the neutrons just bounce off the sodium nuclei without losing much energy, rarely slowing down enough to transmute thorium. In the molten salt, we can switch out chloride salt for fluoride salts to slow the neutrons down to the right cross section. The sodium itself is problematic, it catches fire upon exposure to air, as does the heterogenous fuel- its solid, allowing for the possibility of a runaway meltdown. Chloride salt fuel is also very competitive with the LMFBR if you wanted to breed plutonium from u238. The molten salt also has significant advantages in actinide burning-

https://www.academia.edu/27209647/MOLTEN_SALT_REACTORS_MSRs_COUPLING_SPENT_FUEL_PROCESSING_AND_ACTINIDE_BURNING

Yeah, i get that the concept sounds similar with the IFR (which is not really a new reactor at all, again, its just the LMFBR), but the two really are nothing alike. Think of the molten salt as just a big pool of nuclear lava that can drive a turbine to make electricity. The IFR is more of a standard set of nuclear fuel elements with molten metal coolant; if you take out the rods the molten metal will solidify. In the molten salt, there is literally no fuel rods to remove, its all just in the lava, if that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.10516479]

>>10515957
>Its much more dangerous than coal energy but new versions of reactors are safe enought in my opinion.
i agree with everything you said except this. nuclear is the safest form of energy production, safer than solar, safer than wind. it's not a debate

[Anonymous No.10516485]

>>10515354
can you read? what are you even talking about

>>10514838
>>10515948
DOPE

>>10515487
>>10515494
smooth brains in the building

[Anonymous No.10516594]

epic meme inc

[Anonymous No.10516670]

>>10509104
Third party maintenance is killing it tho. We need a more efficient organisation no matter the cost.
Nuclear is theorically better but the tendency we have to screw up things is concerning.
Anyway stirling engines are more efficient, you can build them for cheap and use the temperature difference between the surface of the ocean and the deep to power it. Or anything that produces heat. We could even use depleted uranium to power stirling engines.

[Anonymous No.10516751]

yes, we don't have a choice to exclude nuclear ar this point. In the US at least we really, really need waste storage. Harry Reid can go suck a dick.
>>10516670
>>stirling engines are more efficient
no. supercritical rankine is where it's at
>>ocean
OTEC is a meme until we make corrosion resistant pipes that sea life can't grow on. The energy is there it's just hard to harness because you need to move lots of seawater and ocean life loves that.
>>depleted uranium
impractical unless you want to breed fuel and breeding is just too much trouble right nowl

[Anonymous No.10516769]

Why don't we just build a nuclear power plant on the moon and ship the power to earth? Can't hurt the environment when there isn't one...

[Anonymous No.10516774]

>>10516769
too expensive

[Anonymous No.10516779]

Unironically best 4th Generation Reactor Design coming through

[Anonymous No.10516781]

>>10516774
In the near future spaceflight will cost peanuts. Only low iq tards will think this is a bad idea

[Anonymous No.10516783]

>>10516769
Power beaming requires either a huge microwave antenna or a laser. A microwave power transmitter must be absolutely MASSIVE to beam power from the moon, a laser can be smaller, but now it can be stopped by clouds.

[Anonymous No.10516786]

[Anonymous No.10516789]

>>10516783
Nah fuck that, fly batteries to and from the moon.

[Anonymous No.10516796]

>>10516769
Nuclear power impacts the enviroment less than any other source. Even the waste is disposed of so securely that it cannot leach out. Building it on the moon is entirely unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.10516851]

>>10515487
How could you possibly label me a "growth monger" based on less than a paragraph of text which is factually true regardless of personal views? Our economic system is only functional with constant growth, like it or not that is a demonstrable truth.

You also seem to not understand anything vis a vis power production, transmission, and consumption because the issue with renewable sources is availability not generation. Simply having more doesnt solve that issue, which I already addressed.

[Anonymous No.10516882]

>>10514800
>The discussion of economic viability is a complete non starter because your choice is between the following
>1) use less energy
>2) fossil fuels
>3) Nuclear

Erm, nope. You're presenting a false trichotomy.

There have been extensive studies on this topic for the case of Germany. 60% renewables is easily achievable without the need of storage with manageable investments in infrastructure like 1. a fully digital grid, which Germany already achieved, 2. several more cross country power lines to connect centers of supply with centers of demand, which Germany is right in the process of achieving, and 3. widespread use of smart meters, which Germany is beginning to use.

The next major step would be 80% renewables. This requires already some form of storage, but would, in the case of Germany, still be compatible with affordable energy prices, if one opts for the cheapest solution here, which is utilizing the abundance of old salt mines as stores for pressurized air.

The last 20% would have to come from more reliable, adjustable power sources. Obviously natural gas is the preferred solution here. Nuclear power plants are the worst in this department, which is btw the reason why France isn't 100% nuclear. But there's also a good chance that on the way to 80% renewables there will be enough efficiency and cost saving gains so that power-to-gas and/or power-to-liquid methods become competitive so that the last 20% can be climate neutral, too. Currently they're too expensive.

[Anonymous No.10516918]

>>10509104
Yes but we need to develop gen IV reactors pronto.

[Anonymous No.10516922]

>>10516471
I know the IFR is not a molten salt reactor, I was replying to >>10515781
>IMHO the big problem of nuclear power is that research was stopped in the middle of last century and we are left with flawed designs.
the IFR is very real and very good, the design phase was already over when the project was scrapped, and most of the problems you mentioned were solved.
I know thorium is ideal, but we're decades away from a commercial ready molten salt thorium reactor. the IFR is the best we have right now.

[Anonymous No.10516953]

>>10510040
>water going scarce
If you didn't know, we have entire fucking oceans worth of water. If you have no idea what an ocean is, imagine a normal country, but like 7x deeper.

[Anonymous No.10516957]

>>10510713
Its like using a plane and driving a car, people die from car crashes daily. Planes don't fall from the sky as often, but if there happens a mistake (and the pilots fail to control it) lots of people die. Then they learn from the mistake, fix it and even less people die.

[Anonymous No.10517155]

Good thread
We need to go nuclear.

[Anonymous No.10517172]

>>10514800
>The discussion of economic viability is a complete non starter because your choice is between the following

You don't understand.
If I'm an investor in the energy supply market. I very likely am capable to build a solar or wind farm but not a nuclear power plant, the latter being much more expensive; and having higher technical and regulatory demands.
Plus the solar and wind farms can be built incrementally and be online in months.

And if I was the government my option would be
4) maximize wind and solar capacity; then sure build or maintain nuclear if you cannot make it otherwise.

[Anonymous No.10517485]

>>10516882
>saying "we need more renewables" without presenting a single reason why
t. smooth brain

[Anonymous No.10517493]

>>10517172
>if im a government my option would be doing something that needs to be constantly maintained and replaced that takes up 1000x+ more land and requires ramping up silicon wafer production separately which is also awful for the environment which is the whole point of moving to renewables in the first place rather than just building a nuclear plant that doesnt have to worry about intermittency or anything else listed here

[Anonymous No.10517514]

man, nuclear gang is raping the renewable fags here.

[Anonymous No.10517526]

FUCK coal and FUCK rewnewables (controlled opposition).

[Anonymous No.10517557]

>>10517493

[Anonymous No.10517587]

>>10517557
Not an argument, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10517593]

NUKE GANG

[Anonymous No.10518250]

>>10509104
For.

Climate change is going to kill us. Nuclear waste is at least not going to literally fuck up the atmosphere and destabilize ecosystems. Worst case reprocessing can be legalized in 50 years.

[Anonymous No.10518259]

>>10509131
This, for the most part, though I'm not conversant with the economics.

[Anonymous No.10518405]

>>10509104
I'm for, but I know jackshit about physics so why should my opinion matter?

[Anonymous No.10518415]

>>10518405
The processes are quite easy to understand as long as you aren’t designing the reactors yourself

Fission is just shooting neutrons at big unstable chunguses which will start a chain reaction that can be sustained as long as you’ve got the fuel and e=mc^2 is the SHIT and the waste is so god damn irrelevant

the issue I guess isn’t that nuclear isn’t bad for the environment as a whole or anything, it’s just that startup costs are high and governments can produce weapons grade plutonium (but they would do this anyway) with many reactors, and on the exteme offchance something does go wrong nobody will die probably but it would make the whole surrounding area not habitable for a long time

[Anonymous No.10518497]

So, do people not know that there is more than just the Light Water design? LFTRs need more attention.

[Anonymous No.10518499]

>>10509104
Against.
Easy = Fukishima, Chernobyl.
You like nuclear, you are a moron who should go live in a quarantine site.

[Anonymous No.10518500]

>>10518415
>waste is so god damn irrelevant
that's where you are wrong and plutonium has some of the longest lasting waste products
besides, nuclear power plants are known for costings way to much money and barely making ends meet on their own, and if things went wrong many people could die since they are built around cities and then you have to deal with gene mutations in the population, people keep saying how renewable options take up so much land, but much of that land is also used for crops or animals, i guess nuclear gang seems to miss that

[Anonymous No.10518503]

>>10518499
>{Easy = Fukishima, Chernobyl}~~~~therefore nuclear power BAD!

[Anonymous No.10518508]

>>10518500
>that's where you are wrong and plutonium has some of the longest lasting waste products
Non issue because the quantity of it is minute and it can be safely immobilized in containers that exceed the half-lives of the isotopes.
>besides, nuclear power plants are known for costings way to much money and barely making ends meet on their own, and if things went wrong many people could die since they are built around cities and then you have to deal with gene mutations in the population,
Absolutely baseless hypothetical.
>people keep saying how renewable options take up so much land, but much of that land is also used for crops or animals,
Not really. It's a liability to lease large wind/solar farms. They aren't going to do that so farmers with tractors and shit are going to make lives even more complicated.

[Anonymous No.10518509]

>>10518503
It is bad, moron, the consequences aren't worth it in a worse case scenario, especially when you have side effect free alternatives like solar or tidal or geothermal, or less harmful, like wind. Dead birds are better than a completely irradiated quarantine zone.
nuclear is the tard npc theory, which requires no brain whatsoever
Coal is shit, gasoline destroyed the environment, stop advocating for literally the most dangerous, unpredictable and uncontrollable form of energy out there
None of you would be willing to live in a nuclear fallout zone, so all of your points are moot and hypocritical

[Anonymous No.10518514]

>>10518503

You have no argument.

[Anonymous No.10518523]

>>10518509
>Dead birds are better than a completely irradiated quarantine zone

Birds and mammal populations are growing and even flourishing inside the Chernobyl exclusion zone meanwhile wind turbines are clobering eagles as we speak

[Anonymous No.10518525]

>>10518509
>It is bad, moron, the consequences aren't worth it in a worse case scenario
To which if you understood how nuclear plants operate and failures in place, is extremely, extremely unlikely. You don't and have a sci-fi doomsday scenario understanding of it, because you're a brainlet.
>especially when you have side effect free alternatives like solar
Photovoltaics are not "side effect free"—their production and waste is very polluting, and they occupy hundreds of square miles to generate anything close to the output of a nuclear plant. Wind is shit tier and also occupies immense space. Geothermal is geographically limited.
>Dead birds are better than a completely irradiated quarantine zone.
I don't care about dead birds; the detriments of wind power have been expounded upon ad infinitum. The alternative you mention is not an inevitability, or design flaw, or even remote possibility with modern designs.
>stop advocating for literally the most dangerous, unpredictable and uncontrollable form of energy out there
It's actually the statistically the safest. It's controllable, hence why it is able to be used. Do you even understand what fission is?
>None of you would be willing to live in a nuclear fallout zone, so all of your points are moot and hypocritical
Imagine having this smooth of a brain. Apply this to any other scenario and see how insane it sounds.
>Coal is shit, gasoline destroyed the environment
And ironically, you advocate for the controlled opposition of renewables.

[Anonymous No.10518526]

>>10518508
>quantity of it is minute
whats better than minute? none at all.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYLzss58CLs
here is a video where a nuclear power plant employee is talking about how nuclear power plants are only economical when run constantly and that solar power is fucking that up.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRrBU2rF-2s
this video has pictures and some text about the children who were born after the Chernobyl incident.
>pic related
to show that they are already using "wind farms" for crops as well.

[Anonymous No.10518545]

>>10518526
>whats better than minute? none at all.
It's a non-issue, brianlet. It's not in the enviroment. It's not hurting anyone or anything.
But wasting millions of acres of land for shit wind farm plagued by intermittency absolutely is an issue though.
>muh only economical when run constantly
AND THAT'S A GOOD THING.
Windmills, cannot run constantly, neither can solar. Nuclear plants are refueled once every 18 months on average so it's not even a problem.
>this video has pictures and some text about the children who were born after the Chernobyl incident.
Not a systemic flaw of nuclear reactor, you fucking retard. Did you read the thread?
>to show that they are already using "wind farms" for crops as well.
Mr. Double Digit has introduced, exhibit A, a PR photograph, capable of producing enough electricity for a few blocks. A 1000 MW wind farm occupies hundreds of acres of land.

[Anonymous No.10518551]

>We don't need nuclear guys, it's REALLY BAD AND SCARY, let's use some nice pleasant windmills, look at this nice picture!
The ABSOLUTE state of BP shills.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Jj2wD3GjE

[Anonymous No.10518631]

>>10518545
Hey thank you I woke up and didn’t have to dab on any renewable faggots cos someone else did it for me feels good

[Anonymous No.10518642]

>>10509104
It has some of the most dangerous waste and it is a very fragile source of energy(on top of very adverse effects on organic material in case of handling fail) but other than that it is perfectly okay for the environment and provides a shit-ton of energy. It is also re-usable which is good.

[Anonymous No.10518643]

>>10509127
Hang on I found your enemy it's in the pic

[Anonymous No.10518757]

>>10518415
Yeah, I know the basics. But I can't say how much polution there is and how much the reactors are efficient, but common sense tells me it's way better than fucking burning coal.
>>10518499
Chernobyl was human mistake and Fukushima was in a fucking active seismic zone.

[Anonymous No.10518788]

>>10518757
yeah, but how bout them failsafes amirite?! fukushima was fucked from the start, and im glad to see those backup generators got put to good use.

[Anonymous No.10518793]

>>10518788
It's a good thing you can conflate tsunami deaths with the nuclear accident at fukushima, otherwise anti-nuclearists would have to deal with the case of a nuclear accident where nobody died

[Anonymous No.10518795]

>>10518793
deaths? i wasnt talking about anyone dying. I was referring to how well the backup systems worked to maintain the integrity of the plant itself. Im glad those fuel rods are safe and cool thanks to the backup generators.

[Anonymous No.10518799]

>>10518642
>some of the most dangerous waste
unless you're skinny dipping in it it has some of the least dangerous waste in comparison to the viable alternatives. nuclear emissions = water vapor and every year we can literally take the miniscule 10-20 tons of waste (if this were coal there would be roughly 200,000 tons of waste for the same power output, for comparison) and CHEAPLY chuck it into a hole. it's very cheap to deal with low/medium radiation waste which is about 99% of all the waste produced

now let's take solar. how do you think those panels are made, my friend? do you think they just materialize them out of nowhere? nope, CTRL-F "wafer" on this page for more info. to create them creates tons of emissions and waste water, and they dont last very long and they need to be constantly mass produced by these factories that are awful for the environment. i don't even need to explain why nuclear is worse than coal and such.and there's nobody arguing for wind in this thread for a reason.

>fragile
what do you mean? it's statistically the safest form of energy known to man and provides an extremely consistent throughput.. you've just been brain-washed unless im misunderstanding you bigtime.

it sounds like you are just saying
>muh fukushima

[Anonymous No.10518800]

>>10518799
why coal is worse than nuclear** i meant obv

>>10518643
yep npcs are the enemy

[Anonymous No.10518809]

>>10518799
>doesnt know the difference between alpha and beta particles

>>10518800
when burned, coal releases polonium into the air. and we've been burning coal for a loooong time, so overall technically coal is worse than nuclear to (((them))). in reality coal doesnt have nuclear waste that needs hundreds of thousands of years to become safe again, and if theres a coal accident there is just fire unlike nuclear when shit melts through the ground and contaminating the entire area for, again, hundreds of thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.10518853]

>>10518809
>doesnt know the difference between alpha and beta particles
the go-to NPC non-argument retort haha goteem

>in reality coal doesnt have nuclear waste that needs hundreds of thousands of years to become safe again
yep confirmed. it produces about 10,000x more waste that also is toxic but instead of being thrown safely into a hole in containers that will last longer than the halflife of the waste itself it's just thrown into landfills, same as solar.

>if theres a coal accident there is just fire unlike nuclear when shit melts through the ground and contaminating the entire area for, again, hundreds of thousands of years
this guy was spot on >>10518503

what's the argument you're even making here? meltdowns are bad? 3k-20k years is still a lot, so why would you say "contaminted for hundreds of thousands of years" when, technically that's true, but chernobyl's going to be habitable much, much sooner than that. the three mile island event """contaminated the surrounding area""" for years in spite of releasing the radiation equivalent of a single chest xray, and the vast majority of the fukushima region will be inhabitable for a couple decades

[Anonymous No.10518862]

>>10518809
not to mention brainlet keep in mind we're talking about 3 separate incidents, the average amount of time past between these incidents is about 25 years which is why nuclear is considered the safest form of energy production known to man

[Anonymous No.10518865]

>>10516882
First, my proposition only applies to current infrastructure, not what could be designed. Second, its from the pov of NA where geography heavily limits how you can transmit power.
Finally
> 60% renewables is easily achievable without the need of storage
I dont know what this is supposed to mean. The % of your total output that is renewable doesnt solve intermittency problems.
.
>>10517172
Investors care about RoI and stability, nuclear is extremely effective in both. If you were the government you dont actually care about renewables because once again the intermittency problem.

Possibly (probably) in the future through a complete redesign of our infrastructure, consumption, and advances in technology we could run our civ strictly on renewables. But such a future is literally 100s of years away particularly in larger more dispersed populations.

[Anonymous No.10518867]

>>10518853
138 days. 138 days is the half life of polonium. granted i wouldnt want to live near a coal plant but it only takes 2 years for the polonium to be clear of radioactivity. and of course it should be disposed of properly. but still id take 138 days over 20,000 years.

[Anonymous No.10518881]

>>10518500
>that's where you are wrong
No he isnt
https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html
>plutonium
Plutonium itself is a byproduct of commercial generation, present in very low quantities.
>besides, nuclear power plants are known for costings way to much money
according to who
>options take up so much land, but much of that land is also used for crops or animals
Grass takes up a bunch of land as well, what is your point?

[Anonymous No.10518891]

>>10509214
There are quite a lot of them in the world however

[Anonymous No.10518897]

>>10512487
>Amongst the many downsides nuclear power has that has been mentioned in this thread, there is one more: You can't let any government have nuclear power plants unsupervised, as they can be used to produce weapon-grade plutonium.
Holy actual shit you absolute cretin. This is the equivalent of me saying its possible to reconstruct my carolla into a ferrari.
>there are a lot of governments in the world which will never be allowed to have nuclear power plants.
Good luck with that, youre just unaware Iran exists then? Or how about any nation that isnt the US?

Comments like yours are a strong commentary on why unlimited democracy was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.10518915]

The reason the Germans are able to run at >65% non synchronous penetration (renewables) is because they have generators in Poland and Czech Republic picking up the slack for them in times of oversupply. The Irish can do it because their demand is 5GW and they have 20% of their overall demand as capacity on their interconnectors which is a very unique situation.

Nuclear is the way forward and everyone in industry knows this. The problem is in a world where government run projects constantly go twice over budget (and this is for basic stuff like hospitals and schools) nobody (read: political party because they make the policies) wants to take the risk on something requiring so much funding, external consultants, outsourced knowledge, and to top it all off goes against public demand. Hinkley in the UK been a disaster and EDF have been bailed out by the French state multiple times, everyone is waiting for the technology to mature before taking the plunge but it'll take decades at this rate.

Fukushima set us back about 20 years.

[Anonymous No.10519030]

>>10509104
It does not matter what I think. it's over for atomic power for one simple reason. It's not economically viable. Solar, wind, natural gas is much cheaper.

[Anonymous No.10519061]

>>10518867
i dont really even understand what you are saying here. i never brought up polonium

[Anonymous No.10519064]

>>10519061
i was comparing nuclear to coal power.

[Anonymous No.10519069]

>>10519030
>such observation does not take into account environmental consequences of certain conventional generation technologies or intermittency-related considerations or reliability

that's very convenient for solar power lmao, do you not realize how retarded that picture is for trying to prove your point?

[Anonymous No.10519084]

>>10519064
yes i know, but are you talking about polonium in coal waste water? like i dont understand, coal waste is toxic regardless of the polonium

[Anonymous No.10519113]

>>10519084
nuclear waste is toxic regardless of your energy gainz

[Anonymous No.10519163]

>>10518788
The guy who invented and patented the design used in Fukushima warned them not to use too large of reactors due to difficulties controlling it but they did anyway. You're also a complete fucking idiot if you don't think reactors have advanced at all since then.

[Anonymous No.10519206]

*dabs on this thread*

this post was brought to you by the wind power gang

[Anonymous No.10519279]

>>10519113
not an argument. When did I ever deny this?

[Anonymous No.10519281]

>>10519206
>400 acres to do something that could be done in 2
i agree though, fuck the birds

[Anonymous No.10519429]

>>10509131
Meltdowns are a thing of the past. Dont even count chernobyl. Just read about the events and staff that caused it. TMI led to massive changes in how staff are trained to prevent such an event from ever happening again.

[Anonymous No.10519432]

I work at a nuke plant. AMA

[Anonymous No.10519468]

>>10518915
>Fukushima* set us back about 20 years.
Brainlets and democracy* set us back about 20 years.

[Anonymous No.10519471]

>>10519206
>100s of square miles instead of 1
>lifespan of 10 to 15 years instead of potentially centuries
>requires batteries for intermitency
>raises the price of housing and electricity (25 cents a kWh instead of 6)

[Anonymous No.10519473]

>>10519206
t. controlled opposition >>10518551

[Anonymous No.10519865]

>>10513830
You overestimate this board.

[Anonymous No.10519909]

>>10509209
>retarded lmaos laugh at completely harmless water vapor coming from cooling tower
They aren't sending their best, folks.

[Anonymous No.10519946]

>>10509257
>it's centralized;
Decentralized power production sounds like a meme with no benefits that could only work in low-density areas.
>private concentrate energy production is part of the problem that caused this mess
Yeah, if there had been a small coal plant on every corner instead of a few big ones here and there then there would be no climate change because everyone would have died from lung cancer a long time ago.
>radioactive waste is one of the biggest problems; it is not a solved problem
Only because of political circlejerk. Any faggot politician can gain support from retarded normies by making sure the new mega storage site doesn't get built in their state.
>it is going to be a huge money sink that the government needs to fund
Unlike renewables, which were funded purely by entrepreneurs.
>inb4 solar/wind/whatever is cheaper
It's easy to provide cheap power when you don't have to worry about energy storage because existing traditional plants can take over when the Sun's not shining.