/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11098361]

I want a sincerely good reason to believe we shouldn't transition virtually all of our grid energy sources into nuclear power. It results in fewer deaths per KwH than all but hydropower, produces far less waste that is easy to manage that solar, wind, coal, and gas, and produces significantly more power than them all

(((Are we going to talk about the real reason why nobody is talking about it?)))

[Anonymous No.11098367]

We only get fewer deaths because there's so few nuclear plants. Put them on every corner and the accidents will skyrocket

[Anonymous No.11098369]

We need to develop 4th gen reactors first so meltdowns are no longer a risk.

Also there is an argument to made for waiting on commercial fusion at this point, though it is a gamble.

[Anonymous No.11098370]

Nuclear takes fucking ages to implement, with all the red tape I'm not sure if we can build enough power plants in time to properly fight climate change. If we somehow got the political will to immediately invest billions into building hundreds of power plants then maybe it'll work but that's never going to happen.

[Anonymous No.11098405]

>>11098361

>produces far less waste that is easy to manage

lmfao

[Anonymous No.11098476]

>>11098370
>I'm not sure if we can build enough power plants in time to properly fight climate change. If

"climate change" will be completely reversible when fusion comes online and there are plenty of geoengineering techniques, stratospheric aerosol injection, that can be relied on if the worst case really true (its not)

https://youtu.be/9kdDkYfaNMQ

[Anonymous No.11098479]

>>11098370
giving corrupt governments even more power and implementing a carbon trading scheme based on ENRON isn't "Properly" fighting climate change

[Anonymous No.11100326]

>>11098367
True but only to a limited extent. The mortality rate I am referencing is per kilowatt hour, and will be less affected by the number of operating plants than many may think.

[Anonymous No.11100424]

I have funny story for you.

>Be teen and like smoking pot
>Hear about cannabis march in nearby city
>Sleep late on day of march
>Hurry to city with friend and find people marching
>Join them
>Listen to what people are shouting and look at banners
>Anti nuclear power signs every where
>Realise you are at wrong march
>Leave and go to right place
>Everyone is leaving and some people with slurred talking style comes to ask for any medication I might have
>Never again to weed march

[Anonymous No.11100491]

Chernobyl

[Anonymous No.11100525]

>>11100491
shut the fuck up you degnerate troglodyte, you know nothing about how badly chernobyl was kept under the soviet union; it wasnt supposed to be run and it was not a good model

[Anonymous No.11100541]

>>11098361
>less waste than solar wind and hydro
Please explain
The two main problem are saftey and waste. I believe we can do it safely, how do we deal with the waste?

[Anonymous No.11100559]

>>11098361
Nuclear waste
Accidents and vulnerability to attack
Nuclear weapons
Too slow and too expensive
Better alternatives

[Anonymous No.11100571]

>>11100525
Nuclear fission is completely safe even though it isn't.

[Anonymous No.11100600]

>>11100424
>Never again to weed march
ur gay

[Anonymous No.11100604]

>>11100559
>Too slow and too expensive
only because government intervention in the free market

[Anonymous No.11101579]

>>11100571

Actually it is on a kwh basis, even over renewables and especially over baseload providers like fossil fuels or even hydro.

Waste and safety are literal nonarguments espoused by brainlets over evidence. Because the goal isn't to find a solution, the goal is to find a solution that isn't nuclear power.

[Anonymous No.11101583]

>>11098361
Because we’re going to run out of fissile material in only a few centuries at CURRENT usage rates. Using it to run the whole electrical grid would use it all up in the blink of an eye.
Then what?

[Anonymous No.11101586]

>>11098479
Uh oh it’s the schizo boomer again.

[Anonymous No.11101611]

>>11101579
Chernobyl

[Anonymous No.11101616]

>>11101583

We dig for more uranium, start using plutonium from breeder reactors, reprocess spent fuel for gen 4 fast reactors, or heaven forbid start dismantling nuclear weapons and collecting uranium from the ocean while using thorium until fusion gets all of its bugs ironed out.

[Anonymous No.11101623]

>>11101611
Chernobyl killed less people than die from coal pollution annually in the US.

[Anonymous No.11101625]

>>11101611
Even included nuclear comes out ahead.

And all estimates are downshifting Chernobyl's effects since there has been no noticeable change in thyroid cancer rates in exposed countries.

All told, the world's worst case nuclear incident will only be responsible for a few thousand direct AND indirect deaths over a period of 50 years.

[Anonymous No.11101628]

>>11101623

Chernobyl killed fewer people than falls from wind power stations over a 3 year period at current usage.

[Anonymous No.11101630]

Economics, it's just not profitable in any remotely private energy sector, and very few nations have the political will to fully socialize their energy sector and have the taxpayer pay trillions to convert to nuclear.

[Anonymous No.11101635]

>>11101630

Hence why France has some of the cheapest energy in Europe.

Or why an OPEC nation like the UAE spent 24 billion on nuclear plants to power giant indoor ski resorts in the middle of a desert.

Because nuclear just can't compete.

[Anonymous No.11101649]

>>11101635
Both completely socialized grids, proving my point.

[Anonymous No.11101661]

>>11101649

Except Germany is also a socialized grid and has the 3rd highest cost of electricity in Europe ONTOP of a 50 cents/kwh subsidy.

The only thing preventing nuclear adoption is NIMBY and greenpeace getting cheerlead by oil. It is purely a political problem masquerading as a financial and engineering problem.

[Anonymous No.11101664]

If a war starts all those plants will become a liability worse than any destroyed dam or wind turbine.

[Anonymous No.11101667]

>>11101661
German power is expensive because they wasted billions on nuclear power plants they shut down before they even got close to paying them off, they've had buy insane amounts of infrastructure virtually overnight. You're missing the point, Nuclear power is not competitive in any non state controlled grid on the planet. It is not competitive for private companies period.

[Anonymous No.11101671]

>>11101635
Funny you mention UAE as they're aggressively pursuing solar. Dubai is mandating solar panels on every building, and their solar faculties under construction far exceed the 5GWH of nuclear they're building.

[Anonymous No.11101733]

sure: https://www.ft.com/content/fc6a8610-ea5e-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55

It's not competitive with renewables.

[Anonymous No.11101765]

>>11101667
>It is not competitive for private companies period.

Who cares? Nationalize the power industry. Never should have been private.

[Anonymous No.11101797]

>>11098361
1. Uranium supplies are limited. Meeting the worlds energy demand with 100% nuclear would last us to 2080. We may want to keep the highest energy density fuel source for applications that need to save space.
2. Expensive as shit. At best, it costs a fortune for a single plant with no safety features that could go Fukushima and cost 100x the safety feature cost in cleanup. At worst you have so many redundant systems that construction takes decades and it costs several billion, thanks to red tape and reasonable fear of disaster. Alternatively, you buy a ship of oil and burn it near a steam engine for a fraction of the cost.
3. Fusion will eventually make all other energy sources irrelevant. Until then, we can do just fine with a mixture of renewables and fossil fuels. Give it a century.

[Anonymous No.11101999]

>>11101765
why should I pay more for nuclear energy if I can use cheaper sunlight and wind?

[Anonymous No.11102053]

>>11101765
>Never should have been private.
bootlicker

https://mises.org/library/europes-nationalized-industries
>The magnitude of this phenomenon is revealed in the figures for the public sector's share of national investment: from 65% in Austria to 55% in France to 25% in Britain and 20% in West Germany.

>Sales per employee are lower for nationalized firms.

>The incentives associated with private property and competitive markets generate a superior performance because private survival is dependent on producing products whose value exceeds the cost of production.

>Nationalization and the shift away from the basic values of private ownership of enterprises in Europe are resulting in the economic malaise and decline. And this is leading firms in the U.S., which heretofore concentrated on Europe, to build new trading relationships.

[Anonymous No.11102074]

>>11101797
Uranium from seawater would last billions of years. Also look up fast reactors and breeder reactors. And don't forget thorium.

Nuclear is not expensive when you do it properly. Look at China for example. You simply need to build multiple reactors all the time to get economies of scale going.

[Anonymous No.11102076]

>>11102053
>An actual libertarian

Yikes

[Anonymous No.11102087]

>>11098361
It's the economy. Nuclear is more expensive then anything else and building nuclear plants takes decades. Natural gas, wind and solar is much cheaper and can be build much faster.

[Anonymous No.11102121]

>>11101797
>uranium is the only fissile material

[Anonymous No.11102196]

>>11100491
Chernobyl scores pro nuclear points.
Basically a worst case collaboration of bad design and incompetence that ultimately managed to melt only half a dozen people. Proves nuclear is harmless even when it goes disastrously wrong.

[Anonymous No.11102340]

Meanwhile in India
twitter.com/RungRage/status/1188853620541775872

[Anonymous No.11102346]

what we need is a smaller population. there is no better way to reduce our environmental footprint. a one-child policy does more for the environment than any other policy decision ever could. not that we need one in the west, but the chinese have the right idea (for once). other overpopulated nations should follow suit.

[Anonymous No.11102359]

nobody wants a Fukushima disaster in his town, and no investor want to spend billions tu build an unsafe plant

[Anonymous No.11103332]

>>11102359
We haven't been building nuclear plants to avoid the 1 in 100PWh disaster that costs a few billion dollars to fix with a few deaths.
This policy has lead to us building fossil fuel plants. These cause continuous, unavoidable disasters which will cost trillions to fix while causing hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths.

But at least we avoided having to cordon off a few dozen acres of land once very forty years!

[Anonymous No.11104586]

>>11103332
look at iit like an investor, you want to earn your money back as fast as possible, nuclear can not do this because it takes forever to build and maybe it never becomes operational because of some policy change.
Gas, solar and wind can be build much faster. Solar and wind can also be expanded gradually. So you don't need billions, a few millions are enough to start with.

[Anonymous No.11104684]

>>11101671

And again. Right now they have the ability to run giant indoor ski resorts in a desert while having the ability to pump oil at $4/barrel while Germany deals with rolling brown outs and increased emissions.

[Anonymous No.11104704]

Coal, natural gas, and oil literally subsidize solar and wind because they know they can never take over as baseline load. Nuclear's competition is not with solar and wind. Every country that tries it either has to turn back on their coal and gas plants (US, India) or basically buy their nuclear power from somewhere else (germany with france).
And once a plant is build no one wants to retire the damn things because their profitability increases over time. Its why the US fleet is 60+ years old and newer designs don't even bother with the uranium fuel that is a concern with weapons.
Meanwhile:
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
Natural gas, oil, and coal kill a "chernobyl" worth of people every day with their air, water, and waste pollution. And its worse if you scaled the power grid to be only those forms of energy.
But see, those are boring everyday deaths that won't get an HBO series to meme about on /tv/.

To be a country that somehow doesn't have oil, gas, coal, and nuclear requires a densely packed (but not too large) population and being blessed with geology (geothermal) or geography (hydro). So far only Iceland has managed to actually pull it off.
Oh and also Solar and Wind are toxic themselves. Not in the energy production but in the manufacturing (and later disposal) of panels or turbines. Sometimes you will hear memes about recycling but that refers always to the non-toxic components. There is going to be an explosion of solar/wind waste once the first batch of panels begins to retire especially in China.

[Anonymous No.11104845]

>>11100604

[Anonymous No.11105115]

>>11098367
Demonstrably no, the USN has been operating nuclear reactors which are more dangerous and maintenance heavy that any commercial variant for decades across hundreds of ships at sea with a flawless safety record.

[Anonymous No.11105121]

>>11101667
You realize there are dozens of nuclear stations in the states right, all privately owned.

[Anonymous No.11106552]

>>11104586
Critical infrastructure should not be looked at with those greedy MBA vulture eyes, which want to extract maximum value on the short term, consequences be damned if you don't have to deal with then.
Wind and solar get a reasonable return on investment because their low percentage of overall generation means their pathetic and random capacity factor doesn't cause huge problems. The gas plants can cover their ass. If they had to cover 50% of generation continuously, you'd need to overbuild by nearly a factor of two AND add several hours of battery. Now it costs 3-6x more and is no longer viable. The price scale is not linear.
Gas has a good return on investment because operators are not required to pay the entire cost of their operation. Instead, virtual loans for each kilogram of CO2 generated are taken out, for someone else to pay in the future.
Nuclear is expensive because it's an all costs included technology, China is managing to build them in four years, saying "policy change" is a problem is like saying hitting yourself in the face is a problem, France already fucking did it, and anti-nukes keep giving the same exact bullshit arguments again and again with no evidence to support their claims.

[Anonymous No.11106835]

>>11098361
The real question is why aren't we installing more hydropower, as you've said its the safest form of power generation by far, and also the cleanest. Fresh pure water flowing downhill to turn a turbine to generate electricity is a utopia-level solution to what is otherwise a very dirty problem

[Anonymous No.11106968]

>>11106835
Because there is a limit to how much hydro power you can get. Only so many large waterways with large differences in height. All the low hanging fruit on hydro has been tapped in technologically modern countries. The stuff left is either too expensive to consider, or would harm the environment too badly.

[Anonymous No.11106979]

>>11098361
Because it's dramatized by the media and entertainment as scary and dangerous. In reality it's almost impossible to play up a modern nuclear power plant. They're safe, and produce lots of energy. Not terribly efficient because they waste cooling rods down instead of combining them in another containment to make more power but hey I'm not a nuclear physicist

[Anonymous No.11107010]

>>11106835

Hydropower is not safest.

A single chinese damn break wiped out a village of 300,000 people in the 70s.

[Anonymous No.11107015]

>>11105121
They were heavily subsidized initially especially during construction. They're also been closing citing the fact they aren't profitable compared to building an entirely new NG plant without subsidies.

[Anonymous No.11107040]

>>11107015

Wind and solar have received more money in subsidies in the last 10 years than nuclear had in the last 70.

Again, nuclear adoption is a political problem masquerading as a financial and engineering problem.

[Anonymous No.11107049]

>>11107040
https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/nuclear-power-subsidies/

Even existing plants built on the taxpayers dime can't stay open without more subsidies.
>https://www.powermag.com/pseg-nuclear-plants-will-soon-close-without-subsidies
>/https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/04/29/ohio-nuclear-plant-bailout/3519840002/
>https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/19/us/nuclear-three-mile-island-closing/index.html

Truly the largest industry of welfare queens the country has ever seen.

[Anonymous No.11107055]

Again the meme that gas, coal, and oil want you to fall for is that its nuclear vs. renewables. Renewables will literally never ever be able to do baseline load except with some 31st century battery technology.

[Anonymous No.11107062]

>>11107055
storage is already more affordable than nuclear, it can also be deployed incredibly quickly compared to 18+ years a nuclear reactor takes to go from planning to actually producing power, if current trends continue, storage could be another 100% cheaper per MWH.

[Anonymous No.11107063]

>>11098361
>I want a sincerely good reason to believe we shouldn't transition virtually all of our grid energy sources into nuclear power

1) Your electricity bill will be 10 times higher.
2) Your taxes will be higher to make up for the construction costs.
3) Nobody is investing money nor time into R&D'ing the only good design for nuclear power.
4) We don't have enough easily/cheaply accessible uranium. (InB4 we'll fish it out atom by atom from ze oceans meme)

Solar is the new hotness, nuclear is old and busted. Get over it. Go back to college and get a new degree now that your NukeE is worthless. That's what the blacksmiths did. Accept it.

[Anonymous No.11107067]

>>11107062

[Anonymous No.11107068]

>>11098361
Nobody is talking about it because they are busy doing it. You want to talk go to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.11107093]

Solar and wind despite super heavy subsidies haven't picked up the slack whenever nuclear power plants shut down for a very simple reason, you need god damn square miles of solar panels to compensate for 1 nuclear reactor going offline. And even with the memest of battery technology you will still always have fossil fuel plants as backup. Energy production is not literally flipping a switch somewhere on your meme batteries.
And the panels themselves basically generate an enormous amount of waste over their lifetime and basically frontload the carbon footprint. Meme recycling plans typically only focus on the non toxic components and to replace the massive numbers of panels you will need over the lifetime of these plants will create an explosion of pollution which we aren't going to see for only a few more years as the first wave of panels has to be disposed of/replaced.
Solar is perfect though for the Ted Talk crowd that know nothing of how energy grids works but are "very concerned" about climate change after reading an article on Forbes once.
Solar and wind are perfect to deal with peak demand. Suggesting anything else means you are either incompetent or literally paid for by fossil fuel lobbying groups.

[Anonymous No.11107143]

>>11107093
land isn't an issue, especially in the US, there's more than enough unused land to completely power our country off renewables, it's simple if there wasn't they wouldn't be so affordable.
As for your other point it's complete nonsense. It's simply a matter of having sufficient overcapacity and sufficient storage, combined with proper transmissions infrastructure. Concerns about waste are also completely overblown current plants are recycling 95%+ of panels with toxic elements making up a tiny fraction of a percent of which are non recoverable, which due to the extreme low volume can be easily and safely stored. Much much better than nuclear by every metric when it comes to waste. Nuclear just doesn't make sense from an economic perspective, it's been a meme relying on government handouts it's entire existence and will continue to do so.

[Anonymous No.11107197]

>>11107049

Except all those plants expire on their NRC license and aren't being extended, as they should because they are bleeding edge 1960s technology.

And again, more money has been tossed at renewables in the past 10 years than has been spent on nuclear in 70 as far as subsidies.

[Anonymous No.11107198]

>>11107067

Even that source doesn't consider wind and solar viable for baseload applications. Stop talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.11107199]

ahem, FUCK ((renewables))

[Anonymous No.11107201]

>>11107143

>more than enough land

Not even remotely true, especially if we were to utilize renewables on a scale to replace fissile fuels and nuclear.

And meme batteries only eat up more land.

To out it in perspective. If EVERY ounce of lithium mined in 2016 was turned into energy grid storage, we could build enough storage to run the grid for an hour of latency.

Renewables are a meme for brainlets.

[Anonymous No.11107259]

>>11098361
>KwH
my sides

[Anonymous No.11107284]

>>11100541
There are multiple kinds of waste. The maintenance contamination waste that gets bagged, sealed, out of caution alone, then eventually run over with a detector and released once it reports levels indistinguishable from background.

This kind of waste is bullshit and the methods are inane. It makes the assumption that contamination is magical invisible dust that multiplies on anything it touches especially in water. This infuriating over zealous method of handling contamination unreasonably limits waste management.

The other kind of waste is spent nuclear fuel. Putting it to safe use requires stone engineering but it can be done.

[Anonymous No.11107291]

>>11101583

That's not how it works. Nobody bothers surveying for Uranium because it's cheap. If it becomes expensive, people will look for more.

Don't you remember peak oil?

[Anonymous No.11107296]

>>11107063
>1
France is doing alright.
Areas of the US with a high % nuke baseload are doing alright.
>2
Nuclear plants don't need to be more than gas plant TCO for the same capacity. Most of the cost is artificial because of cunts like you.
>3
Plenty of research has gone into gen III+ reactors, which aren't optimal, but they're well proven.
>4
Uranium is cheap as fuck because it's everywhere. Its ubiquitous presence makes basement radon gas a concern in many areas. We have current identified deposits only suitable for decades of usage, but that's just because you don't survey for shit you don't need until 30 years from now. We also only have a small amount of identified reserves for nearly everything else. Even if it became scarce, we literally can pull it from the oceans, at a higher cost. The thing is, even at 10x the price, the actual uranium used in a reactor is a rounding error on the total cost for the plant. Uranium is fucking cheap.
>Solar is the new hotness
Solar is not useful at scale without storage. Needing to charge the storage while the sun shines means you need far greater than your desired capacity in panels. As in double, for a 50% duty cycle. We know panels rarely make their rated capacity though, so count on building 2.5-3x your desired capacity, then enough battery to cover nights and a few overcast days. You're probably looking at 12-24 hours of storage. Nobody does this, because it isn't necessary and it's obscenely expensive. Batteries are hitting the end of the lone for major improvements. Don't expect them to magically get twice as good. It isn't happening.

[Anonymous No.11107299]

>>11107143
Transmission lines are expensive and there isn't any land in the places which use the most power: Cities. Also most of the US is used for crops. If you want Cletus's land, you have to pay him for more than he'd make on corn, which is actually quite a bit of money per acre.

[Anonymous No.11107463]

>>11107296
>France is doing alright.
It's not. Plants are getting old. France can not meet demand on cold winter days so German coal plants, British wind turbines and Swiss hydro have to help out. France is now adding new wind and solar power. Simply because it's much cheaper then nuclear.

[Anonymous No.11107570]

>>11107063

1) Once the plant is complete it'll be the cheapest power production by far, nothing even comes close to the fuel's energy density
2) It will be less than the taxation spent subsidising oil/gas/solar/etc. once the plant is up and running it pays for itself, you're only paying for the principle construction costs
3) The designs already exist, with various private firms working and innovating across countries with common sense, e.g. Japan, India, Russia, to name three
4) There's enough Uranium in known reserves to power the planet on Uranium fission for centuries, provided the correct combination of reactor designs are used in order to maximise the recycling of spent fuel, i.e. a mixture of breeder and non-breeder reactors. This isn't even factoring in Thorium reserves, once the Thorium technology is finally working (The Chinese want their Thorium plants working by the 2030s).

>solar

Is a good way to waste Lithium and high-purity Silicon, and a good way to produce phosphine gas and other useless toxic wastes.

>>11107463

>France
Is exporting much more nuclear power to Germany than the other way round, Germany has spent 600 billion Euros on meme panels and still needs ageing French nukes to meet baseload and make up for the intermittent problems that meme panels will never solve.

[Anonymous No.11107840]

>>11107463
It objectively is though. Nuclear is for baseload, not peaking. It's good for covering 60-90% of your average day. For everything else, there's hydro, wind and solar. Dams and pumped hydro are great for peaking. Batteries are excellent for grid stabilizing.
But those three renewable sources do not scale well. They can't cover 100% together for most regions without extreme overbuilding and lots of battery. It's uneconomical, especially considering we're going to have to start synthesizing hydrocarbons using atmospheric CO2 for shit like aircraft. Do you know how energy intensive that is?

[Anonymous No.11108271]

>>11098361
Glowing rocks bad

[Anonymous No.11108482]

>>11108271
based and grugpilled

[Anonymous No.11108526]

>>11098361
>I want a sincerely good reason to believe we shouldn't transition virtually all of our grid energy sources into nuclear power
It's always a dipshit idea to put ALL of your eggs in ONE basket.
The best and most robust power grid is going to be a well integrated system of different systems.
Definitely tell the oil lobby to go fuck themselves and use more nuclear, but hydroelectric and tidal power is great if you're in an area where you can use it. Geothermal is free real estate. In the south west you might as well put some solar panels on your roofs and parking lots because even if they're not super efficient and lossy its still an energy offset.

[Anonymous No.11108573]

>>11098361
It because money

[Anonymous No.11108975]

>>11107201
where did you get your numbers for this? my super lazy computation is, 85,000,000 KG mined in 2018 (not including US sources) a 80KWh Tesla battery uses about 7 KG of lithium. Round to about 85 KG per MWh. that gives us 1,000,000 MWh worth of batteries or 1000 GWh. Total installed electricity generation capacity in the US is 1,072.46 GWh. So you could run the entire country off of nothing but batteries manufactured from lithium mined in one year. from this we can conclude lithium supplies aren't even close to being a bottleneck for existing storage technology.

[Anonymous No.11108983]

>>11098367
Couldn't we just build them all in northern canada or something?

[Anonymous No.11108987]

>>11108983
then you need to build thousands of miles of HVDC transmission line, which just adds to the bill, nuclear is already the least cost effective energy source by a pretty wide margin, that would just be ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.11109012]

>>11108975
You are arguing with a chat bot bro ;)
This information will be ignored, and when you are offline the same argument template will be reused in one of the most "I'm stuck in an argument with a broken AI" style argument templates that 4chan will has ever seen lol

OP "gimme one reason we shouldn't go full nuclear"
Anon "cost"
OP "nah"
Anon "accidents and meltdowns"
OP "nah"
Anon "impossible industry regulations"
OP "nah"
Anon "far superior, safer, cheaper, more reliable technology that gets better exponentially"
OP "nah"

[Anonymous No.11109117]

China is building them at a breakneck pace and for a fraction of the cost in tandem with solar/wind. Ironically Western countries are hoping to use those reactors as models to get through regulatory garbage here.

It is literally only the west that inflates the "costs" associated with nuclear energy. And also only the west that seems to think that wind and solar can do it alone (which they can't, haven't, and won't). But that might be because China can't afford coddling techbro culture as they literally choke to death on coal and gas emissions.

[Anonymous No.11109176]

>>11109117


>Following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, China froze new plant approvals,[27] followed by a slow down in the programme. No new approvals were made during 2014.[38] In 2015 the EPR and AP1000 builds were reported to be running over two years late, mainly due to key component delays and project management issues.[38] However these delays do not necessarily put the overall programme to 2030 in doubt.[38]

>However, from 2016 to 2018 there was a further hiatus in the new build programme, with no new approvals for at least two years, causing the programme to slow sharply. Delays in the Chinese builds of AP1000 and EPR reactors, together with the bankruptcy in the U.S. of Westinghouse, the designer of the AP1000, have created uncertainties about the future direction. Also some regions of China now have excess generation capacity, and it has become less certain to what extent electricity prices can economically sustain nuclear new build while the Chinese government is gradually liberalising the generation sector.[49][60]

lel

[Anonymous No.11109243]

Sane energy grids need to be diversified and you use whatever you can wherever it makes sense. Geo, hydro, nuclear, tidal, whatever you can to take base power coal plants offline for the densely populated areas and solar or wind for sparsely or remotely populated areas to take off peak power "backup" coal plants.

That said, the perceived risks of nuclear are incredibly mismatched with the actual risks of radiation. "Indirect effects" from fear and relocation certainly killed way more Japanese than exposure ever would. This inflates regulatory burden and NIMBY which drives a lot of the costs. Would it be cheaper if this did not exist? That is the wrong question. If you are a country like Japan you really don't have any other option. Gas and coal are actually expensive because of its geography (which they still had to boat in anyway when they shut the fleet there down), and the population is too dense for solar and wind to take the slack. An argument could actually be made that geothermal would make perfect sense there but politics more than technology interferes with such plans (hot springs business lobby is actually quite powerful there).

Iceland is making it worth with geo. Russia will likely never be able to make it work with solar. Etc. There will not be one size fits all solutions for all countries in the world. And if you are serious about stopping emissions for good you try everything. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

[Anonymous No.11109802]

>>11098370
>I'm not sure if we can build enough power plants in time to properly fight climate change
In the meantime use gas instead of coal, build other non shitty power plants

[Anonymous No.11109823]

maybe over reliance on nuclear power is somehow a strategic risk from a military perspective

[Anonymous No.11110216]

>>11108975
You're off by a LOT.
The US has 1,072 GW installed CAPACITY. That's power generation, not energy. Energy is power over time. The US energy generation in 2017 was 4PWh. That's four million gigawatt hours. That über battery* could power the US for 1/4,000th of a year, or around 2.2 hours**, assuming 100% efficiency***.

*Which is absurd since we use lithium for lots of shit, you can't just take all of it for a year to make a battery
**You'll need something like 12-24 hours of storage to make a generation infrastructure composed of low CF sources like wind and solar work. Also this is JUST for the US. If you want to power the world, this battery would be totally worthless 21 minutes of power.
***It would be more like 70% with battery and grid losses.

>>11109823
A high % nuclear grid is strategically valuable. Defending mining fields, refineries, pipelines and trains is difficult. A small organized group of bombers can take out large sections of critical oil and gas pipelines, starving plants of fuel. You can run a nuclear plant for months on a single fuel load. You can stockpile years of fuel on-site if needed. You can't do this with coal, oil or gas. The fuel is too voluminous.
Solar and wind are also sabotage resistant because they're so easy to put anywhere, but their low capacity factor limits their applicability without additional vulnerable support infrastructure (HVDC, lots of large batteries).

[Anonymous No.11110921]

>>11101583
Literally just thorium breeders you numbskull

[Anonymous No.11112504]

>>11098361
people are going to build nuclear plants when will be too fucking late, until then, they will put money in memes like solar and wind and hope that will fix the problems. The only solution in the future for mankind are Fusion, fission and maybe a space elevator and build solar panels in space.

[Anonymous No.11112768]

>>11112504
Space solar is only useful for synthesizing fuel in space for use in space, or running ion drives.
Otherwise, just build them on earth.

[Anonymous No.11112784]

>>11102196
It made a whole city uninhabitable.

[Anonymous No.11112814]

>>11112784
>MUST INHABIT EVERY CORNER OF THE EARTH

[Anonymous No.11112880]

>>11101671
So you're telling me rich desert people have discovered that solar is viable for them 40 years after the rest of us figured that out?

[Anonymous No.11112881]

>>11112880
sitting on insane oil reserves kind of causes tunnel vision

[Anonymous No.11112917]

>>11104704
Did you know that all of those environmentalist dearh figures are based on not a shred of direct evidence?

Well you do now.

[Anonymous No.11112934]

>>11098367

> I don't know what deaths per kilowatt means. I don't understand how ratios work.

[Anonymous No.11113859]

>>11101664
Yes but while we're discussing worst case war scenarios, the same thing * 10000 will happen if any country blows a nuke on your soil.

War is war and there are risks but when your entire energy infrastructure can be vastly, vastly improved and economy thereby benefitted, the what if's about war are easily outweighed. The theory is that your reactors are behind protected lines and/or secured in such a way that wouldn't turn all desired land into radioactive goop.

[Anonymous No.11113916]

>>11107062
>>11107055

remember, when anti nukes cite long construction times they are citing US projects that are marred in red tape and continually attacked by anti nuclear green parties

[Anonymous No.11113922]

>>11107063
The amount of lies in this post is nothing but deserving of contempt, in fact all i have seen pro-renewables advocates do in this thread is lie and lie, i'm not sure if it's out of ignorance or maliciousness

1) Your electricity bill will be 10 times higher.
2) Your taxes will be higher to make up for the construction costs.

Oh really? Lets look at the statistics.
This is Germany's power prices, note the increase of price with the introduction of 'renewables surcharge' which was implemented to fund Germany's transition to renewable energy has added substantial cost to power prices, once more it has forced Germany into a dependence on Coal to prop up floundering renewables. Meanwhile France is wholesale exporting Nuclear generated electricity to Germany to keep their industry running, and having the cheapest electricity in Europe behind Eastern euro nations using fossil fuels.

3) Nobody is investing money nor time into R&D'ing the only good design for nuclear power.

what good design?


4) We don't have enough easily/cheaply accessible uranium. (InB4 we'll fish it out atom by atom from ze oceans meme)
That's because there has been little to no exploration for Uranium reserves

>Solar is the new hotness, nuclear is old and busted. Get over it.

Ahh, the old "YOU'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY" denouncement, if only you would realize that when ever a group/movement takes on this mantra it most of the time means they are deathly afraid of failing.

[Anonymous No.11113923]

[Anonymous No.11113936]

>>11101664
Any real war in the modern era between powerful nation states will be over in less than 30 minutes. Say they are a terrorist target or something. Terrorism scares people almost as much as nuclear power plants and at least that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.11113970]

>>11100525
Now think about how bad nuclear power plants would be treated in Brazil, sub-Saharan Africa, middle eastern dictatorships, earthquake prone countries like Turkey, south east Asian shitholes, Mexico..
I know this is 4chan where non-whites don't matter, but another Chernobyl happening in the middle east will affect not just them. We share the same atmosphere after all.
We need those promised "foolproof" gen 4 reactors before we even think about going mostly nuclear.
>>11101583
There is a technique for capturing Uranium from seawater, which apparently hosts enough of it for thousands of years of usage.

[Anonymous No.11114075]

>>11098367
>put that on every corner
lol, that's the whole purpose of nuclear--to NOT have a million plants.
Also, what
>>11112934
he said

[Anonymous No.11114152]

>>11102087
this is a misleading graph.
Consider prices at night, then solar will obviously exceed all other sources.
If you then adjust for the cost caused by CO2 emmision fossil fuels are out of the question as well.
There is your economic incentive for nuclear. One of the only CO2 neutral baseload power sources.

[Anonymous No.11114272]

not enough sand anymore to build nuclear plants

[Anonymous No.11114284]

>>11114272

Based schizoposter.
Explain yourself.

[Anonymous No.11114293]

>>11114284
The sahara desert is almost empty.

[Anonymous No.11114300]

>>11114293

...and?

[Anonymous No.11114354]

>>11112814
Not at all the point, brainlet.
He said the only thing wrong with Chernobyl is that it killed half a dozen people.

[Anonymous No.11114372]

>>11114354
thanks for this
It will be evidence of nukenut lying idiocy

https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated

[Anonymous No.11114436]

>>11108987
It is more expensive atm. Fossils are heavily subsidized by war, investment and industry from your taxes. Most figures on renewables don't including the price of storage up scaling, base loading and regional suitability.

[Anonymous No.11114451]

>>11109823
Yes, nuclear power plants are nearly always the targets of nuclear weapons in strike planning and a large component of the potential fallout from a nuclear war but if your engaging in radiological warfare to the point of knocking out power plants for maximum collateral then your already past the point. I guess a distributed non logistics dependent and compact grid would be preferable for defense but you can get the best of that with potential small portable nuclear reactors housed in trains, trucks or boats.

[Anonymous No.11114509]

>>11098361
The core issue with nuclear power as I understand it is nuclear proliferation, even if it is very difficult to produce fissile material in a power reactor. You still have ready access to material for radiologic weapons.
And there's no real solution to this either.

[Anonymous No.11114541]

>>11098361
Because there are actually free and clean alternatives. Can you not do a few google searches for free energy to learn what nitonol and rodin coils are?

This board is pleebitt tier cancer

http://esotericawakening.com/applications-of-the-torus-anti-gravity

[Anonymous No.11114595]

>>11114372

>uses older reports refuted by the 2005 results then sham papers that use approximations only if the linear no-threshold model (effectively repeats of the pre-2005 reports)

I'd say I'm suprised, but that would be a lie. It is known that anti-nuclear shills hate reading.

[Anonymous No.11114610]

>>11114509

That was back in the day from greenpeave and carries over until today.

In truth, there are plenty of places with nuclear weapons but no power (Norks, poos, Pakis, Israel, arguably Saudi Arabia) and plenty of pmaces with power but no weapons (Germany, Japan, Sorks, Australia, UAE.)

On top of this nuclear weapons have a stabilizing effect since it makes war (especially regime change types) unthinkable. This is why we are 30 years over due for the third world war and now lapsing the time frame for the fourth.

If the 85 IQPakis and the 80 IQ Indians haven't nuked each other since 1998, or even got into a major war (like they did on 3 seperate occasions since 1960) then NO ONE is using the bomb.

Nuclear proliferation is a meme that only neocons and neolibs fear because it makes their plans for dictating other's policy unthinkable.

[Anonymous No.11114633]

>>11112784
To be fair, Ukraine has always been uninhabitable.

[Anonymous No.11114637]

>>11113922
>InB4 we'll fish it out atom by atom from ze oceans meme
I love when anti-nukes say this like it's a total fantasy. We can already do it for a couple hundred dollars per pound of uranium, which is super fucking cheap considering the energy we can extract from it.
It's fun when they torpedo their own arguments.

[Anonymous No.11114866]

>>11109012
Not even one reply eh? Here's a (you).

[Anonymous No.11114883]

>>11114610
The thing isn't necessarily actual atom bombs, those are too difficult to make. The problem are the bombs where you just put in some radioactive shit and call it a day. I'm mostly concerned with this kind of proliferation.

[Anonymous No.11114892]

>>11114883

>atom bombs are difficult to make
>so difficult that sub 100 IQ Pajeets and Mohammeds can make it, as can a literal starving hermit kingdom eating grass and their own children.

The reason most people don't make a bomb is because it makes you a pariah.

[Anonymous No.11115420]

Even assuming modern reactors are as unsafe as older designs, which they aren't, and that old designs are as unsafe as people think they are, which they aren't, wouldn't the local devastation of a couple Chernobyls be more than offset by the reduction in greenhouse gasses, especially if you built the reactors somewhere nobody lives like Wyoming?

[Anonymous No.11115449]

>>11098361
>ᛋᛋ wind power ᛋᛋ
Wind power kills insects and drives animals away from their natural habitats. Wind power is a scam, solar power and Gas are way better. the main problem with solar energy is that batteries are terribad (which is why electric cars are a scam, too!)

[Anonymous No.11115464]

>>11101797
use thorium instead
problem solved
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
Why haven't we done this yet /sci/?

[Anonymous No.11115485]

>>11115464
Among other reasons, the nuclear proliferation argument.
U-233 can be used in nuclear weapons and is far easier and cheaper to get to than Pu-239 and U-235. Pretty much all the important details are about it are classified for that reason too.

Thorium is also hell to work with.

[Anonymous No.11115490]

what would the nuclear industry be like in ancapistan?

[Anonymous No.11115491]

>>11101586
Is he not correct though? Carbon trading seems like a scam and not helpful to actually address climate change.

[Anonymous No.11115494]

>>11115485
>Nuclear proliferation

>It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[13]:11[19] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser techniques could facilitate that process.

[Anonymous No.11115497]

>>11115494
I never said it made good bombs, it just was just a relatively easy way to get to them, as opposed to centrifuging Uranium for a few years or figuring out how to build a Pu bomb.

[Anonymous No.11115502]

>>11115497
It might be easier to get the U-233, but right there it says it's hard to separate from 232 which makes it difficult to use in practice
I doubt thorium would contribute to nuclear proliferation any more than regular uranium reactor, and that's as if we didn't already have enough bombs to wipe out the planet

[Anonymous No.11115508]

>>11115497
>figuring out how to build a Pu bomb
not that hard with computers

[Anonymous No.11115510]

>>11115502
There's probably a relatively low-cost/effort way to make it work and the people who decided to limit access to Thorium and information pertaining to U-233 probably figured it out, which is why they made these decisions.

Keep in mind that this is one of the few areas in science where conspiracy theories probably have some merit, due to the enormous legacy of the atom bomb.

[Anonymous No.11115520]

>>11098361
#1 reason is SCARCITY

nuclear, renewables, etc. the green issues are smoke screens, they dont matter. why they are essentially banned, is that oil and coal, is a FINITE resource which you can retain a constant price for.
renewable are essentially infinite resources, they can power thousandfold the energy we use at the moment, but that also means the costs fall hundreds fold.

once renewables eventually become widespread enough (renewable energy powers the manufacturing and resource processing that produces the renewable energy harvesters) there will be a cycle that is constantly slashing the cost and increasing the energy output capacity.

the fossil fuel industry and it's associated industries (military manufacturers, government fuel tax) at that point will be shit canned, their industry will be reduced to producing niche products for "hobbies" like combustion engines go karts and steam trains.
that's why it's vital, as for as long as oil companies prevent renewables getting into that cycle of accelerating decreasing costs, is going to be the time that oil companies as we know them are allowed to exist. they're dead if they don't stop renewables taking off.

and safety is always a BS issue, look at car deaths, no one gives fuck about deaths once they get used to them.

[Anonymous No.11115523]

>>11115520
biofuels have better energy density than batteries.. can store solar power indefinitely, and can be used with fuel cells and electric motors for cheap transportation

[Anonymous No.11115528]

all the best solar panels are PATENTED by the energy cartel

algae based biofuel can be made by niggers with 2 liter bottles

biofuel is a tiny fraction of the cost of producing solar panels which requires various forms of deposition or even crystal growing

a tiny fraction of the surface of the earth could capture 1 percent of the solar power that hits it and with just clear plastic 3d printed tubes we could produce enough algae biofuel to power the world

take pic related and multiply the area by about 100 to be ultra conservative

[Anonymous No.11115538]

Nuclear requires a public/private partnership to be economical.

Which is untenable in the modern West. As the left prefers power sources that look green and can be mass produced in another country. While the right denies government can do anything and actively sabotages government abilities to do good. While also protecting established carbon energy concerns because of donor interests.

The dirty secret of windmills. Is their blades cannot be recycled. Once the windmill farm is decommissioned and stripped for metals. The fiberglass and other composites go to landfills. if they even leave the windmill site. As the huye blades are too large to transport and break down. So they'll just sit in a field. Causing the utility to pay rent to the field's owner for years or decades.

PV solar needs replacing and recycling every twenty to thirty years.

[Anonymous No.11115553]

>>11115490

There wouldn't be one

[Anonymous No.11115556]

>>11115553
prove it fgt

[Anonymous No.11115559]

>>11115523
Hydrocarbons break down. Gasoline and diesel only last a few years with out preservatives. Biofuels would be no different.

>>11115520
Oil and gas aren't going anywhere. They have non fuel uses and critical fuel uses.

[Anonymous No.11115565]

>>11115490
Uneconomical.

Safety and insurance against contaminating other people's property and causing harm to people, would be prohibitive. Otherwise you're always fighting claims and paying out. When someone tests their air, soil, and water. Finding elevated radioactive elements.

[Anonymous No.11115571]

>>11115565

Except coal and other fossil fuel plants release several times more radioactivity than nuclear plants by a wide margin.

Nuclear safety is all dataless NIMBY that stops nuclear.

And the same issues with insurance effect hydroelectric use.

[Anonymous No.11115580]

>>11115571
Without govt to use force on the population. Pollution of any kind becomes an extreme expense of business.

[Anonymous No.11115590]

>>11115580
>>11115571
that's why socialist govs are the only solution, to implement forced global nuclear energy: planned economy & authoritarian measures are the way to go. free market capitalism is irredeemable obstacle.

[Anonymous No.11115606]

>>11115590

Except mismanagement by a socialist government is what literally causwd and exacerbated chernobyl.

Meanwhile the US's directly overseen nuclear propulsion program has 6,200 reactor years of accident free operation.

All the data shows that a open democracy initially financing, then strictly overseeing nuclear operation prevents problems.

[Anonymous No.11116256]

>>11101583
Bruh current reverses meme. No one is prospecting for fissile materials or developing economic extraction methods for marginal deposits because the market need is not there. I think you would be supriesed at how small known reserves are for other commodities because they trust they will find more deposits as their needed.

[Anonymous No.11116258]

>>11115490
non existent

[Anonymous No.11116300]

>>11098361
I dont like how risky it is. fucking tsunami, earthquake on japan that fucked with that nuclear plant made japan radioactive again.

[Anonymous No.11116405]

>>11116300
The Japs were warned that their setup was not proof against tsunami by the AEC but did nothing. There are also far safer places to build reactors at elevation and secured against natural disaster in japan and globally as well as passively safe reactor designs. After the earthquake-tsunami combo which killed thousands the accident relay wasn't that bad of a release especially compared to the radiation, particulate and rising CO2 released by coal daily, killing thousands passively.

[Anonymous No.11116417]

>>11116300
>>11116405
Literally all they had to do was put the emergency generators on the roof and not in the fucking basement.

[Anonymous No.11116517]

>>11115606
>All the data shows that a open democracy initially financing, then strictly overseeing nuclear operation prevents problems.

Okay let's take a look at the data...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
Hmm really makes you think.

[Anonymous No.11116627]

>>11115494
>quoting wikipedia
use better sources or gtfo
paid shills are known to edit wikipedia

>>11115523
this

>>11115590
lmao

the socialists want faux ""green"" energy and electric cars that aren't even ""green"", in reality. but as long as it sounds ""green"" the socialists and Greens are happy cuz they don't know shit.

[Anonymous No.11117848]

>>11116517

>non-socialist countries
>oil leak and demineralized water leak, release of heavy water equalling .1% of monthly allowance

>socialist countries
>prompt critical events during refueling

[Anonymous No.11117991]

>>11107015
What is your point? You said they are completely non competitive which is self evidently untrue otherwise there would be no private entities invested in the industry. This might be shocking to you, but every public utility is subsidized because 1) they are generally ridiculously expensive 2) the state wants to have some control over them
3) its in the interest of the state to fund them.
>bbut they are closing
Canada, France, China, and the US among others all have active nuclear programs that are not going anywhere any time soon and are actively being funded for the future including new reactor designs.