/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10784520]

Daily reminder that nuclear power is the safest, greenest and most efficient power source we have today, even accounting for nuclear waste.

only smoothbrains cucks hate on nuclear power

[Anonymous No.10784594]

>>10784520
What about solar and wind?

[Anonymous No.10784606]

>>10784520
deaths are not a proper measure of the impact something has.

[Anonymous No.10784615]

>>10784520
ok

[Anonymous No.10784731]

Wrong, EROI puts biogas at the best

[Anonymous No.10784736]

>>10784731
That just sounds like solar with extra steps

[Anonymous No.10784739]

>Nuclear
>Deaths from accidents: 0
>Deaths from air pollution: 0

[Anonymous No.10784740]

>>10784594
I have seen figures showing wind & roof-top solar as slightly more dangerous than nuclear, while ground level solar ends up being slightly safer.

[Anonymous No.10784751]

>>10784606
It's most definitely a relevant metric.

What else would you recommend tracking?

[Anonymous No.10784754]

>>10784739
I don't think it's supposed to be zero, I think it's supposed to be so low compared to coal that it appears to round to zero.

We'd have to see a source to confirm the numbers though

[Anonymous No.10784758]

>>10784740
>roof-top solar as slightly more dangerous
>while ground level solar ends up being slightly safer
Is this literally just people falling off roofs?

[Anonymous No.10784774]

>>10784739
>per terawatt hour
In a big enough sample size all the people who died as a result of nuclear disasters, are well within the margin for error.

[Anonymous No.10784776]

>>10784739
Two of those men are still alive today.

[Anonymous No.10784778]

>>10784751
environmental impact, including construction of facility, exploitation, fuel extraction and processing, pollutants that are emitted (greenhouse gases or others), waste disposal with its risks(virtually no place is safe for 10k-20k years for instance), corporate malpractice factored in (regulations don't matter if no one follows them or can just take the fines), decommission, increased risk of conflict, reserves that are remaining etc

Also include wind and solar.


people who die are tiny part of the equation, used to distract from the real sustainability issues.

[Anonymous No.10784782]

>>10784758
Probably, also probably includes shit falling off the roof, either from improper instalation or weather, and structure fires.

[Anonymous No.10784904]

too bad it's a incompetent utterly failed industry, Vogtle alone has ensured no private investment in nuclear will happen in the US any time soon. It could be an option with a socialized grid, but probably less cost effective than just going all in on renewables.

[Anonymous No.10784923]

>>10784520
It's because we've been culturally indoctrinated into thinking that nuclear power plants will just randomly and spontaniously explode leaving everything around it uninhabitable for centuries. People constantly point out Chernobyl as though that was just a perfectly normal occurance and not the result of a terribly regulated operation with faulty rutines and bad construction, all being handeled by a goverment on the verge of total collapse. Not to mention that the power plants of today are mostly Thorium based, making them much safer than what Chernobyl was, even if something goes wrong.

[Anonymous No.10784929]

Wish we could build several smaller power plants instead of a few big ones.

[Anonymous No.10784958]

>>10784923
>Not to mention that the power plants of today are mostly Thorium based
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10785123]

>>10784778
Lifetime GHG emissions from nuclear are much less than solar and equivalent to wind.

>waste disposal with its risks(virtually no place is safe for 10k-20k years for instance
Nuclear waste is not that dangerous. It can easily be reused, buried or placed in a mountain if not for irrational NIMBYism and fearmongering.

>corporate malpractice factored in (regulations don't matter if no one follows them or can just take the fines)
So if the normal operation of a power source causes millions of people to die every year, this is OK as long as there is no regulation against it? LOL your priorities make no sense.

>Also include wind and solar.
This is not even a comparison since they cannot provide baseload power without batteries. Once you factor in all the costs of batteries, nuclear looks even better.

>people who die are tiny part of the equation, used to distract from the real sustainability issues.
There are no sustainability issues with nuclear, and your downplay of deaths is despicable.

[Anonymous No.10785177]

>>10784929
We can, they're called small module reactors and are actually much cheaper overall to build.

[Anonymous No.10785568]

>>10784520
Nuclear power plants are too expensive and take decades to pay themselves.

[Anonymous No.10785569]

>>10785123
>It can easily be reused, buried or placed in a mountain if not for irrational NIMBYism and fearmongering.
it can be placed but human activity and geological activity isn't inexistant anywhere over thousands of years.

>So if the normal operation of a power source causes millions of people to die every year, this is OK as long as there is no regulation against it? LOL your priorities make no sense.
you're fucking retarded. Nuclear power has the most potential for disaster in the hands of corporations. Big corporations already abuse their size to break the law gleefully and just pay the fines. I'm saying regulations aren't enough of a protection against corporations.

>This is not even a comparison since they cannot provide baseload power without batteries. Once you factor in all the costs of batteries, nuclear looks even better.
I don't care about cost. I care about environmental impact. Cost of energy almost doesn't correlate with growth.

>There are no sustainability issues with nuclear, and your downplay of deaths is despicable.
We have 230years left of uranium at the current rate.
Do you just pretend to be sub 80 IQ or are you a corporate nuclear shill?

[Anonymous No.10785980]

>>10784929
Already happening.

[Anonymous No.10785981]

>>10785569
>it can be placed but human activity and geological activity isn't inexistant anywhere over thousands of years.
And?

>you're fucking retarded. Nuclear power has the most potential for disaster in the hands of corporations.
So millions of people dying every year from air pollution is not a disaster? You're an idiot.

>I don't care about cost. I care about environmental impact.
I said all the costs, that includes environmental impact.

>We have 230years left of uranium at the current rate.
Incorrect, we have essentially an unlimited supply of uranium in seawater.

[Anonymous No.10785991]

>>10785981
>we have essentially an unlimited supply of uranium in seawater.
Explain.