/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11013464]

Redpill me on nuclear power

[Anonymous No.11013469]

wouldn't work without neutrons
so call it neutron power

[Anonymous No.11013476]

>>11013464
Insane initial capital costs making it insanely expensive, with a very high LCoE

[Anonymous No.11013489]

fusion is the future. fission tards will hang on the day of the rope.

[Anonymous No.11013543]

>>11013489
Are we actually going to achieve fusion on an industrial scale though

[Anonymous No.11013552]

>>11013464
it could have saved the environment, if not for the political smear campaigns of the oil industry (in particular the Kochs and the Saudi royal family)

instead now we're on the edge of disaster because "muh nuclear waste so bad, muh chernobyl so bad, muh fukushima so bad, like 50 people died, therefore keep burning oil and coal and natural gas because when millions of people die that doesn't matter bros"

[Anonymous No.11013565]

>>11013464
a power plant got hit by a tsunami and only one person died

[Anonymous No.11013571]

>>11013552
the kochs were anti-nuclear?

[Anonymous No.11013572]

>>11013543
yes. ITER is happening in 2025. DEMO in 2040 but it can be reduced if more people know that ITER is gonna happen. The technology exists, just needs to make it cheaper now.

[Anonymous No.11013574]

>>11013476
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.11013577]

>>11013571
>oil titans were anti-nuclear???? whaaaaaaa???

[Anonymous No.11013580]

>>11013571
>heavily invested in big coal and big oil
>wtf why would they be anti-nuclear?????
Imagine being this braindead.

[Anonymous No.11013581]

It's essential for decarbonisation but as mentioned above, ridiculously expensive.

If people actually want to make a difference they'll stop wasting time going vegan and buying electric vehicles, a fraction of that money going towards nuclear subsidies would solve everything.

[Anonymous No.11013586]

>>11013577
>>11013580
why so triggered, anon?

Is it because the kochs were pro-nuclear?

[Anonymous No.11013587]

>>11013581
>tfw we could have had Thorium reactors and modern Uranium reactors back in the 60's if Nixon hadn't fucked everything up

[Anonymous No.11013589]

>>11013571
I think they're pro nuclear. It'like die hard capitalists are pro energy exploitation growth, any kind of energy.

[Anonymous No.11013592]

>>11013574
it's probably the only argument that matters

[Anonymous No.11013599]

>>11013586
>kochs were pro-nuclear

[Anonymous No.11013607]

>>11013577
>>11013589
>>11013580
human behaviour is not solely determined by economic self-interest,
i sincerely don't know the answer to the question hence why i asked
no need to act run to your fainting couches ladies.

[Anonymous No.11013609]

>>11013589
>yeah bro, I'm fine with my competitors with superior technology cause my oil investments to become worthless because like die hard capitalism n sheeeit

[Anonymous No.11013611]

>>11013599
you're an idiot. instead of posting this shill garbage you could gave googled: koch nuclear

The first 3 links suggest they're very much in favor of nuclear.

[Anonymous No.11013613]

>>11013607
Remarkable specimen to have wandered here and post its little quips like it does. Very amusing to say the least.

[Anonymous No.11013618]

>>11013611
yeah, and Exxon and Shell and Texaco are "very much in favor of renewables" if you google them.

just think for a second. do you really believe them?

[Anonymous No.11013627]

>>11013611
>you're an idiot.
>y-your argument is shill garbage
>you could have googled the first three which "suggest"

[Anonymous No.11013630]

>>11013618
yes. unless your mentally substituting "pro-renewable" for "anti-petrol" it makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous No.11013632]

>>11013618
>google is bullshit everythings a conspiracy to suppress muh nucular!!! its da WAYS of da foochur!! believes me
>why don't people believe me?!?!?! im not a moron

moron

[Anonymous No.11013633]

>>11013464
We can't build nuclear fast enough to make much of a difference.

[Anonymous No.11013637]

>>11013632
Embarssing.

[Anonymous No.11013638]

You: X!
Us: really? any evidence for X?
You: HOW COULD YOU NOT BELIEVE X??? HOW ARE YOU SUCH A SNIVELING MORONG X IS SO OBVIOUSLY CORRECT WHY ARE YOU SO RETARDEDAEA

[Anonymous No.11013639]

>>11013633
>fast enough
bullshit, if there was the political will we could begin replacing Coal plants around the world tomorrow, the issue is that half the world has no issue with fossil fuel use, and the other half has been lied to for 60 years about the dangers of the atom and are too retarded to budge on the issue regardless of the science

[Anonymous No.11013640]

>>11013630
Stop smoking weed.

[Anonymous No.11013643]

>>11013633
France transitioned from 0% to nearly 100% nuclear in a little over a decade.

[Anonymous No.11013647]

>>11013632
that isnt what hes saying at all brainlet
hes saying "these companies are playing lip service to the environmental crowd by saying we totally support green energy nshit" while not actually changing their business model

[Anonymous No.11013649]

>>11013630
>>11013632
wow guys, way to rationalize your bizarre support for oil companies. i didn't know anybody did that pro-bono any more.

anyhow, this is a common thing for corporations to do. like Google and Facebook being like "oh yeah we support privacy and free speech" when their industry is based on data mining people's personal info and "curating" what people see on their platforms. or insurance companies being like "we want to give you all the care regardless of pricetag" even though their industry is based on denying treatments and underpaying providers

PR folks; every corporation employs a "Public Relations" team to basically present a good message to obscure what is really happening

[Anonymous No.11013676]

>>11013647
you expect oil companies to just unilaterally stop selling oil?

[Anonymous No.11013681]

>>11013649
>>11013647

well if nuclear really is all great then you don't have to worry.
climate change + desperation will force people to use it.

so stop shilling please.

[Anonymous No.11013682]

>>11013649
you still haven't provided one speck of evidence that the Kochs were anti-nuclear

[Anonymous No.11013685]

>>11013464
The real question is how to get more educated on nuclear power? The reason it's so difficult to convince others to convert is because nuclear power is so unknown. How does any of it work?
>fission man just break apart molecules or put them together for fusion
What does that even mean to the common man?

[Anonymous No.11013690]

>>11013682
did you even bother googling "koch nuclear"?

if you dont want to have an honest converstaion then just fuck off please

[Anonymous No.11013693]

>>11013676
Imagine being this low IQ and trying to adopt the satire and rehtoric of more inteligent people, all the mean while overlooking the utter stupidty of the statment you are making. Just wow.

[Anonymous No.11013701]

>>11013681
nuclear has always ALWAYS been the most tightly regulated thing out there. for example, remember that place called "iran"? they were always like "well come on guys, we're just researching nuclear power, that should be allowed right?" (of course you can't trust them though)

>>11013682
it's obvious. i don't think it deserves researching. all you said you did was looked at the first 3 google hits. if you aren't willing to do any research beyond that then i shouldn't be required. anyhow let me find my first google hit:
http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2016/5/31/fossil-enviro-alliance-wins-anti-nuclear-victory-in-illinois

[Anonymous No.11013712]

Oil companies are already buying up all of the renewable generation that they can get their hands on, regulators are failing to keep up.

Worst case scenario one of them goes down ala Lehmann Brothers in 2008 but otherwise they are literally too big to fail.

[Anonymous No.11013715]

>>11013701
you need to prove the kochs are anti nuclear because the idea of not immediately finding a way to profit from an exploitable resource would be totally out of character for a fanatical capitalists like them.

[Anonymous No.11013732]

>>11013647
see>>11013712

[Anonymous No.11013735]

>>11013712
>oil companies are buying up all the wind and solar stuff that congress has decided they need to hand out subsidies for, since in the eyes of politicos, subsidies work
>instead it promotes oil companies absorbing all the renewables into their mostly oil energy portfolios, and preserves the oil companies as the top dawgs in the energy market
>and solar and wind are still like 6%

just another handout to the oil companies, which ends up stifling innovation in renewables

the whole thing is broken. if it were less broken there would be many solutions, nuclear being one. but no, big money owns everything. average voters in all democracies across the world control less than 1% of the wealth in this world and are powerless to combat the disinformation campaigns run by the corporations that hold all the wealth. greed ruined the whole system, and the greed of humans got disembodied into the greed of impersonal corporations. and even so, the supreme court says that "corporations are people" and "money is speech".

it's not hopeless though. it can be fixed. i just don't know how

[Anonymous No.11013751]

>>11013735
your understanding of law, economics, and political science is as empty and dry as the sahara

[Anonymous No.11013814]

>>11013751
thanks for the content-free feedback, very helpful

[Anonymous No.11013828]

>>11013814
please explain how companies *literally investing in renewables* stifles innovation in such energy sources

[Anonymous No.11013840]

>>11013828
are you really this dense?

[Anonymous No.11013853]

>>11013828
*oil* companies who buy up subsidized pre-existing renewable energy farms doesn't help the renewable industry. it simply siphons the subsidies away from the companies that actually are innovating in new renewable technologies into oil companies, because economically there is a risk-reward game at work where renewables need quick infusions of cash whereas for oil companies, buying a solar farm and milking its tiny energy outputs for subsidies over decades is a sound investment.

the problem is that solar and wind can't really be a reliable energy source. that's why nuclear (and maybe fusion) are the real answer, unless a miracle happens in the science related to batteries (because of this thing known as "night time")

[Anonymous No.11013871]

>>11013715
I mean they probably are anti nuclear considering there's no money to be made. It's pure garbage from an investment standpoint.

[Anonymous No.11013896]

>>11013871
>It's pure garbage from an investment standpoint.
>However, keep upgrading nuclear weapons because it's incontrovertible that they are massively more powerful than any other kind of weapon.
>Yes, I admit they can deliver unheard of amounts of energy, but that's not economical.
>Why not? Because nuclear has regulations.
>I usually hate regulations, but regulations that make nuclear uneconomical are good, t. Repooblishit

[Anonymous No.11013919]

>>11013896
kochs aside most people on the intellectual right are pro-nuclear

[Anonymous No.11013970]

>>11013919
well then republicans can start trying to save the economy. dems are too far gone into renewables at this point. if the repooblicans ran a pro-nuclear candidate i would have a good probability of changing sides.

it is sad that science matters so little to either side except when it is a political weapon. there have been scientists, even in government roles, promoting nuclear for years, to no avail. because for --some reason-- (i.e. oil corporations and the kochs and saudis and frackers and etc etc) it never gets the limelight

[Anonymous No.11013979]

>>11013970
oops i meant "save the environment" not "save the economy"

[Anonymous No.11013980]

>>11013919
pro nuclear but against the level of subsidies required for it to be viable.

[Anonymous No.11013993]

>>11013970
>>11013980
i was talking about the people who write for National Review and so forth. politicians on both sides are interested in posturing for cable news. sorry to disappoint

[Anonymous No.11014067]

>>11013980
this is a good point. it is true that nuclear requires a very large up-front cost to get plants running. and investing in "infrastructure" of that sort is controversial. most repooblishits in the past hated the idea of investing in "infrastructure" but surprisingly trump did say some stuff about liking investing in infrastructure (however he hasn't followed up)

it's not hard to argue for though, logically. invest X today and then you get Y much greater than X back in the future. that's a sure thing for nuclear. it's common sense in addition to saving the environment.

the real problem are the shills who go all alarmist about Chernobyl and Fukushima. no shit, don't make giant human errors and don't build your reactor on the coast over a fault line. hurr durr

either way, the whole dialogue in the political sphere is ignoring nuclear. for bad reasons. they should consider it. because IT JUST WERKS

[Anonymous No.11014158]

I'm still banking muon fusion

[Anonymous No.11014179]

>>11013476
Costs are largely due to excessive taxes and regulations on nuclear power by green lobbies.

[Anonymous No.11014203]

>>11013572
Expectations for ITER have already been massively downgraded and will only continue to drop as ignition approaches.

[Anonymous No.11014220]

>>11014179
could you post a source?

[Anonymous No.11015637]

>>11013476

Yet every country that cuts out nuclear increases energy costs and suffers rolling brown outs while increasing carbon emissions.

Germany spent 220 billion to switch to wind and solar and now has the 3rd highest cost electricity in Europe.

The UAE, an OPEC nation, spent 24 billion on nuclear to power giant indoor ski resorts in a desert.

[Anonymous No.11015646]

>>11013489
>>11013543
It's only 50 years out!

[Anonymous No.11015652]

>>11013633
We did back when we first started building them.

[Anonymous No.11015698]

>>11013489

I do not understand nuclear fusion energy

In order to achieve fusion, we need to generate massive amount of heat, and once we get there it's gonna return us with energy in form of... more heat? sounds like perpetual motion machine

[Anonymous No.11015709]

>>11015698

You know how you need to burn fossil fuel to make energy?

Kinda like that.

[Anonymous No.11015732]

>>11015709
but that's like fission, not fusion

[Anonymous No.11015738]

>>11013489
>fusion
why haven't we made this a major push like going to the moon? is it actually impossible or is the status quo energy lody just that powerful?

[Anonymous No.11015746]

>>11013609
>huur, capitalists are locked into one industry for life

[Anonymous No.11015797]

>>11015738
energy lobby is just that possible
go review the long sustained propaganda campaign against nuclear power in any form
it started in the 60s and continues till this very day

[Anonymous No.11016184]

>>11013701
The Iran nuclear hoohah is just a politically convenient way to antagonise Iran, so that the USA can eventually invade it. They want to invade it since it's the only strong and stable political structure in the Middle East, and stands in the way of American/Israeli/Saudi domination of the oil fields.

[Anonymous No.11016202]

>>11015738
development is incredibly expensive and technically challenging

[Anonymous No.11016261]

>>11015738
Not impossible but hard, and also simultaneously lobbied against.

[Pausanias No.11016274]

>>11013464
Is possible to use the nuclear waste produced by them to generate more electricity.
But because it's cheaper the first step (fision and not fusion), they keep hoarding nuclear waste.
If they used the second part, they could get rid of all the waste, then becoming renewable energy.

[Anonymous No.11016275]

>>11013464
anti-nuclear protests are orchestrated by other nations for a pseudo "Mutually Assured Destruction" offshoot tactic.

"convince the people to get rid of their nuclear science, and thus nuclear weapons"

[Anonymous No.11016283]

>>11013464
1. Expensive to setup but cheap to run.
2. Most disasters occur due to stupid human actions like cost cutting and coverups, yet humans are still stupid until you solve this problem you run the risk of fucking up a nuclear plant
3. There is no credible long term waste storage solution other than burying spent rods underground.

[Anonymous No.11016305]

>>11013464
>nuclear power
is very expensive and just not viable

[Anonymous No.11016362]

>>11016305

Hence why closing plants always leads to higher energy costs...

Wait-

[Anonymous No.11016368]

>>11016305
>he he he
>if we dump obscene regulations, red tape, and licensing fees, and taxes on something, and it suddenly starts being expensive
>we can then decry it as not viable
>coal 5ever

[Anonymous No.11016393]

>>11016305
Is there a graph that accounts for subsidies and taxes?

[Anonymous No.11016677]

>>11016393
without subsidies and with costs for decommissioning and nuclear waste disposal nuclear would be even more expensive
Also most nuclear plants are old and maintenance is becoming more costly with age.

This graph also seems to present average costs for these energies. Energy from many nuclear plants is still cheaper then coal. Other plants are just a money sink now.

Solar, wind and gas can out-compete everything else. No investor would start to build coal or nuclear today.

[Anonymous No.11017115]

>>11015738
You could help advertise fusion energy anon..

[Anonymous No.11017261]

>>11016677

Nuclear is already forced to cover and pay for decommissioning and storage of fuel as part of their up-front cost.

Get fucked.

And after being built, a nuke plant is like a hydroelectric damn, the maintenance and other costs are abysmally low and the plants effectively print money.

Nuclear's only problem is political will and front-loaded cost structures.

It has always been those two things.

[Anonymous No.11017275]

>>11016677
China, India, and many developing countries are massively expanding nuclear though.

[Anonymous No.11017640]

>>11013970

>muh ebil frackers

Hey m80 im pro nuke as well, but thats no reason to denigrate cheap shale gas. Petrochemicals are pretty much the only manufacturing industry left in US, and the shale gas boom is probably singlehandly responsible for pulling us out of the 08' recession.

[Anonymous No.11017647]

>>11017640
>muh economy much more important than the environment hurr durr

[Anonymous No.11017661]

>>11017647
I guarantee you couldn't survive a single day without a petrochemical product.

Polymers make the world go round

[Anonymous No.11017670]

>>11017275
there is only one reason why these nations build nuclear reactors, it's to breed plutonium and build nuclear weapons, And they got rockets to drop these nuke on Europe or the US and if they do it's the end of the world.

[Anonymous No.11017684]

>>11017261
nuclear is over because nobody wants to dump money in a bottomless pit, not even government

[Anonymous No.11017776]

>>11017684

>governments make smart decisions, not knee jerk reactions based off of emotions from a rowdy crowd of plebs

This is the entire reason we are dealing with emissions based climate change despite splitting the atom 75 years ago.

ALL the evidence, both studies and real life examples, as well as the recommendation TO these ignorant governments say we can do this now with nuclear.

[Anonymous No.11017779]

>>11017684
nuclear is all we've got bud.
prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.11017832]

>>11014179
>Costs are largely due to excessive taxes and regulations
They've had 30+ years to find a way to make it cost effective despite this, and yet they haven't, meaning it's technically impossible to make nuclear both safe and cost effective. Are you saying it should be literally jury rigged - and jury rigged in developing countries at that?

[Anonymous No.11017845]

LFTR

[Anonymous No.11017994]

>>11013489
>science by vote
where are these hot fusion proponents now

[Anonymous No.11018263]

>>11013633
Unfortunately, this anon is right. Just look at the mess going on with the new nuclear reactors here in Georgia. They were suppose to running two years ago in 2017, but all these delays have pushed the date two years ahead in 2021.
No utility will want to experience it unless they get substantial assistance.

[Anonymous No.11018285]

>>11013464
ALL YOU RETARDS OUT THERE
SEARCH
galon windsor nuclear scare scam

[Anonymous No.11019143]

>>11015698

Two atoms can contain more energy than one larger atom. When two atoms fuse they lose the energy it can no longer contain, sheds it.

[Anonymous No.11019421]

>>11017779

[Anonymous No.11020046]

>>11019143
so it would be impossible to have net energy gain by splitting that same atom?

[Anonymous No.11020117]

>>11018263
even France which is a socialized grid is on the strugglebus when it comes to nuclear.

>In April 2015, Areva informed the French nuclear regulator ASN that anomalies had been detected in the reactor vessel steel, causing "lower than expected mechanical toughness values". Further tests are underway.[68] In July 2015 The Daily Telegraph reported that Areva had been aware of this problem since 2006.[69] In June 2015, multiple faults in cooling system safety valves were discovered by ASN.[70] In September 2015, EDF announced that the estimated costs had escalated to €10.5 billion, and the start-up of the reactor was delayed to the fourth quarter of 2018.[71] In April 2016, ASN announced that additional weak spots had been found in the reactor steel, and Areva and EDF responded that new tests would be conducted, though construction work would continue.[72] In February 2017, the Financial Times stated the project was six years late, and €7.2 billion over budget,[73] while renewed delays in the construction of the EPR-reactors at Taishan Nuclear Power Plant prompted EDF to state that Flamanville 3 remains on schedule to start operations by the end of 2018, assuming it receives regulatory approval.[74] In June 2017, the French regulator issued a provisional ruling that Flamanville 3 is safe to start.[75] The discovery of quality deviations in the welding led to a further revision of the schedule in July 2018. Fuel loading has been delayed until the end of 2019 (with regular electricity generation starting in 2020 at the earliest), and the costs have increased from €10.5 billion to €10.9 billion.[55] In June 2019 the regulator ASN determined that eight welds in steam transfer pipes passing through the two wall containment, that EDF had hoped to repair after startup, must be repaired before the reactor is commissioned. The impact on schedule and cost is being evaluated.[76]

[Anonymous No.11020184]

>>11013572
>Just to make it cheaper now
No hahaha. Dude. What's going on with you? ITER and DEMO both have shitty superconducting coils. There was no self sufficient fusion reaction with net positive output ever (and they both probably won't change that). And since we still have no really good high T superconductors this will take some more time.

SPARC is promising tho, since they use YBCO Coils

[Anonymous No.11020204]

DENTAL PLAN

[Anonymous No.11020212]

We need to educate a lot of nuclear power plant personnel.

[Anonymous No.11020225]

>>11019421
I cant wait for the looming environment disaster that solar panel waste is gonna be.

Clench you anus for the cadmium leakage, by the time its over you're gonna wish its transuranics

[Anonymous No.11020235]

>>11020225
>cadmium leakage
Woah, in english, doc.

[Anonymous No.11020276]

>>11019421
Now make one for power density and deaths per TWh

[Anonymous No.11020278]

It could have saved the world if a bunch of larpers weren't convinced that it was evil

[Anonymous No.11020326]

>>11020235
Cadmium telluride is among the most common commercial semiconductors in solar panels. Its also stupid toxic, and rainwater can leech it out of discarded panels, which have a lifetime of only ~20 years.

Not to mention solar panels are pretty much unrecyclable, because they mostly consist of glass you cant melt down due to impurities. Its sort of analogous to the problem with carbon fiber.

Were in for some "fun" anyhooo

[Anonymous No.11020349]

>tfw no thorium fission
fuck nukes and fuck the military industrial complex

[Anonymous No.11020484]

>>11020326
>https://www.veolia.com/en/newsroom/news/recycling-photovoltaic-panels-circular-economy-france

currently we're achieving 95% recovery rate of materials, it'll probably go up in the future as techniques improve. In any first world nation with environmental regulations absolutely nothing you mentioned is even an issue, you require panels to be recycled and disposed of properly at the end of their life cycle. And the 5% of waste that can't be recovered is disposed of properly.

[Anonymous No.11020554]

>>11013464
Nnnnnyoooooommmm*kkkchshshcckkkschhh*nyyoooooooom (repeat)

[Anonymous No.11020835]

"No Nukes!" liberals are shooting themselves in the foot.

[Anonymous No.11020872]

>>11020835
>nuclear good
>socialism bad
what did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11021630]

>>11015698
You use energy to initiate a fusion reaction which you then focus until it's putting out more energy than it costs to sustain. It isn't 100% efficient, you're not breaking any of the rules, just that in the short term you can squeeze a lot more energy out than what you put in until you're out of fuel, luckily fuel is enormously abundant in the universe compared to a lot of other energy generating solutions.

[Anonymous No.11021641]

>>11015738
It's hard, but the status quo doesn't even have to collude to make it hard, people prefer the status quo because it's familiar and to uproot the status quo does cause some suffering. There will be significant harm to individual people in any major shift in the energy industry because a lot of the jobs are specialized and thus people can't just re-train on a dime which will leave them struggling to employ themselves. The lobby isn't even powerful in the conventional sense, right now it's literally necessary to sustain the growth and stability of society, the energy industry doesn't ever have to lobby hard because without them there wouldn't be a modern world to live in in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11021691]

>>11013464
Chernobyl is a wildlife reserve. Nuclear energy is clean and highly effective. The pic related is lying to you because all that comes out those towers is steam and steam is white.

Thats why there is so much regulation around nuclear power.

Look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmJN-LMPnX0

[Anonymous No.11021802]

>>11021691
what isotope though?

[Anonymous No.11021930]

I work at a nuke plant. ama

[Anonymous No.11021938]

>>11021930
What soil do they use to grow the nukes?

[Anonymous No.11023468]

it contains a lot of atoms, and too much atoms are bad for the environment. atoms pollute the air and contribute to further global warming, just like the oil industry.

[Anonymous No.11023471]

>>11021930
Have you grown a tumor yet?

[Anonymous No.11024664]

>>11023471
>>11021938
yeah

[Anonymous No.11025089]

>>11020225
More then 90% of all cells are made of silicon. That in every computer and very phone and every TV. Fortunately this is not harmful at all.
Also recycling of panels is mandatory in almost every nation. Only exception is the US.

[Anonymous No.11025162]

Wind and solar are fine sources of power,but are unreliable and the infrastructure of store their excess power for later doesn't exist. It's not even close to existing-you can check, all the current power storage stuff that's being worked on is a drop in the bucket compared to what you'd need,especially on the timescale that everyone seems to be operating on. Building a true city-scale grid storage facility isn't easy on a very large scale-imagine trying ot set up a battery backup for Los Angeles. The permits,the zoning, the the taxes-not many do it. There's way more money to be made throwing up solar panels! and so grid storage is lagging vastly behind.

[Anonymous No.11026828]

>>11021930
Get me a job

[Anonymous No.11026833]

>>11023468
nice to see that your village finally has electricity and internet

[Anonymous No.11027627]

>>11013489
>le day of the rope
crosboarders go home

[Anonymous No.11027684]

>>11025089
third world countries don't count

[Anonymous No.11027697]

>>11013469
wouldn't work without steam
so call it steam power

[Anonymous No.11028013]

>>11020046
The way that it was explained to me was that atoms at either end of the periodic table have, for some reason, the tiniest bit more mass than atoms in the middle of the periodic table. When you fuse light atoms, or split heavy ones, that tiny bit of mass gets converted into energy.

So, there has to be a point somewhere in the middle where there's no way to make energy by fission or fusion, right? Where the atom has its lowest potential for releasing power?

Here's the spooky part. It's Fe. Cold Iron.

[Anonymous No.11028014]

>>11028013
err, I should clarify, the protons and neutrons of atoms at either end of the periodic table have more mass than protons and neutrons in the middle. Sorry for the obvious confusion.

[Anonymous No.11028020]

>>11027697
DING DING DING

All nuclear power does is turn a turbine. no diffrerent from hydro electric or coal. Only with this waste you bury it in the ground so it doesn't radiate anything except it radiates everything.

[Anonymous No.11029508]

>>11027697
fusion doesn't use steam

i asked my practicing nuclear scientist professor how it works without steam and he said "ummm..... ooooh, there was a way i just cant remember"

[Anonymous No.11030161]

>>11020835
>>11020872
Because marxist washed pea brains demand idiotic things like landscapes filled with ugly, animal-killing windmills or miles upon miles of solar panels with 17% efficiency. When prior to politicization and self-destruction this country was steadily moving towards nuclear power, which is the most efficient, cleanest and land-preserving energy production.

[Anonymous No.11030176]

>>11030161
did you learn all this valuable wisdom in the Navy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmGuy0jievs

[Anonymous No.11030184]

>>11027697
>>11028020
cringe
neutron power is the source
idgaf what else you convert it to

[Anonymous No.11030234]

What do you guys think of this theory.
Koch brothers use their immense power and influence to discourage nuclear power as an option because they are invested in fossil fuels.
I was reading something about Fukushima that was weird. Apparently after Chernobyl there was a global treaty ban on nuclear reactors that were "active" meaning energy had to be added to the reactor to slow the reaction ,
Rather than "passive" a reactor where anergy is added to keep the reaction going.
The primary difference between these reactor types is in the event of an accident in a passive reactor, the core can't reach meltdown.

So the Fukushima meltdown was really suspicious because it was a relatively new reactor built illegally, set to meltdown in the event of an accident, built near a fault line, ocean front, with diesal generators that flooded in the event of a tsunami....

And it was built by general electric.
Anyway I think that was a planned meltdown, orchestrated in some way by general electric, for the political direction that people like the Koch brothers are trying to achieve, primarily anti-solar.

[Anonymous No.11031611]

>>11013633
can't or won't?

[Anonymous No.11031626]

>>11030234
A conspiracy isn't even necessary as long as our energy grid is privatized nuclear will never be able to compete with virtually any other source. There's a reason even existing nuclear plants close as soon as they don't get their subsidies. I guess you could argue that political opposition of a state owned energy grid in the US is entirely due to big oil's influence though. Which isn't entirely unreasonable.

[Anonymous No.11031644]

>>11016283
like how I bury my rod in your mom