/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11139901]

Give me ONE valid reason for why nuclear is better than renewable.

>it's cheaper!!!
Have you checked the prices recently for renewables?
>but thorium
Still R&D
>number of kills!
Yeah renewables have low kill number too but you don't have to evacuate everyone when the generator melts
>you can't store the energy
Gigafactories
>breeder reactor
Still pretty shit

There's no actual reason to abandon renewables for atomic shit

[Anonymous No.11139908]

its cheaper and extremely reliable, unlike wind or solar energy. no destruction of ecosystems like with water power.
nuclear power isnt perfect but imho the benefits far outweigh any risks. we dont have the time or resources to worry about chickenshit like nuclear waste when our entire planet is at stake.

[Anonymous No.11139919]

>>11139908
>cheaper
on what planet?
>reliable
reliability isn't a concern with long range transmission and storage. Nuclear just doesn't have a reason to exist right now and the market is the proof.

[Anonymous No.11139932]

>>11139919
the market is warped to a very high degree by government intervention and is therefore not a fair indicator of the true value of any particular energy source.

in addition to all my other points which still stand I also forgot to mention that nobody wants to stop using renewables completely in favor of nuclear power. we almost certainly have a place for both.

[Anonymous No.11139941]

Not this fucking thread again. I'm pretty sure the guy who keeps making these has a fetish for getting btfo or something.

[Anonymous No.11139946]

>>11139908
>cheaper
Source?
>ecosystems
No one cares
>nuclear power isnt perfect but imho the benefits far outweigh any risks.
No argument was made to support this conclusion
> we dont have the time
Alarmism

[Anonymous No.11139957]

>>11139941
>no arguments
Every time

[Anonymous No.11139961]

>>11139946
>ecosystems
>No one cares
if you dont care about survival of the human species then why care about fucking renewable energy?

[Anonymous No.11139971]

>>11139957
>>11139946
>>11139919
>>no arguments
>can't refute arguments himself and says retarded shit like "no one cares" "on what planet?"
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.11139976]

>>11139932
High cost of nuclear around the planet strongly suggests it's a problem with technology not a single government.

[Anonymous No.11139984]

>>11139976
all western government control the electrical power market and you havent provided any data for the third world

[Anonymous No.11139987]

>>11139961
>>11139971
Come with an actual argument other than a vague "muh ecosystems" bs. What ecosystems? What damage will they have? How costly is it? If you haven't noticed, corals adapted.

[Anonymous No.11139990]

>>11139984
You haven't provided any data for anything

[Anonymous No.11139991]

>>11139957
I've destroyed you several times before. Review the archived nuclear threads and come up with a new argument. I won't reply to anti-nuke pasta arguments, but I promise to be honest about it. If you come up with some good shit then I'll engage. After all, the only thing I'm truly for is lowering environmental pollution in the most effective ways.

[Anonymous No.11139994]

>>11139901
ahem, FUCK renewables

[Anonymous No.11139995]

>>11139991
>Review the archived
Warosu link to your arguments?

[Anonymous No.11140014]

>>11139995
I am not putting any effort into this thread until an original argument is made. As it is, this thread is no better than homework question baiting. You can feel smug like you've won if you want. I don't care.

[Anonymous No.11140031]

>>11139994
>electricity is expensive in germany therefore nuclear is better than renewables
You need to try harder

[Anonymous No.11140033]

>>11140014
>until an original argument is made.
There's no need for a new argument if the others haven't been refuted.

[Anonymous No.11140037]

>>11139901
>ONE valid reason
you can breed plutonium, build a nuke and drop it on Israel, that's why Iran and every Arab nation would build nuclear plants if they could

[Anonymous No.11140044]

>Gigafactories

Still ridiculously underpowered for needs of serious grid storage.

[Anonymous No.11140049]

Nuclear doesn't take up vast swathes of real estate that can be used for things we actually need

[Anonymous No.11140050]

>>11139976

>High cost of nuclear around the planet

Its not high in China and Russia. Was not high in most western countries in the past (like France).

[Anonymous No.11140072]

>>11140044
Not true https://youtu.be/ahxBbEwhIE0

[Anonymous No.11140078]

>>11140037
No one would nuke a nuclear state

[Anonymous No.11140099]

>>11140049
>what is offshore wind power

[Anonymous No.11140100]

>>11139919
>Levelized costs
>doesn't read the disclaimer
Retard detected.

[Anonymous No.11140140]

>>11139901
Private organisations building nuclear powerplants having access to weapon grade uranium?

[Anonymous No.11140203]

>>11140140
That's a good thing?

[Anonymous No.11140228]

>>11140140
You have no idea how power producing plants work. They don't produce materials useful for anything but a dirty bomb.

[Anonymous No.11140229]

>>11140099
Expensive as fuck.

[Anonymous No.11140257]

>>11139901
>Give me ONE valid reason for why nuclear is better than renewable.
It's not.
We will still need some Gen IV inherently safe, fast neutron reactor to deal with the nuclear waste in realistic timeframes though.

[Anonymous No.11140303]

>>11140072
>18.5 gigafactories over 33 years
>Merely 3 trillion dollars
And the estimate is WILDLY conservative, scaling a microgrid in Hawaii to the Earth, and it totally ignores that most heating is fossil fuel based, and we'll also need to synthesize hydrocarbons to replace aircraft fuel and industrial feedstock. Just electricity is only about a quarter of our energy usage. So right out the gate, you're looking at 12 trillion dollars. But wait, that scale up was full retard mode. I wouldn't be surprised if it was off by a factor of more than 2. This shit could cost 20+ trillion.
Then there's the practicality of mining. Right now, a quarter of our lithium mined is used in batteries, and we're not making a lot of batteries compared to what we need. Lithium is mostly harvested through ocean water evaporation, and we're going to have to scale that shit by a factor of ten or more. Think flooding the Sahara level scaling. Guess what this demand does to the price? Yeah, it's not going to be this cheap for lithium. Also energy demands have risen on average 2% a year as more humans get decent infrastructure around the world. This will probably slow down, but expect an additional demand of 40-50% by the end of the 33 year run in the video. And this is just the cost for battery, nevermind the cost for the actual generation. How many trillions are talking? Too many.

It's just fucked. Totally fucked. A basic back of the envelope can tell you easily that renewable CANNOT replace fossil fuels and meet a good capacity factor on a global scale by using battery. The cost goes up dramatically the more baseload you try to replace. Going beyond 30-40% is just cost ineffective.

[Anonymous No.11140311]

>>11140033
So go find some

[Anonymous No.11142188]

>>11139901
>thorium
>R&D
A working one was built in the 60s, it wouldn't be all that much more to finish up the R&D and start making them. Also renewable require a lot more materials and land.

[Anonymous No.11142225]

>>11139919

>uses a source that doesn't consider renewables viable for baseload...again

[Anonymous No.11142228]

>>11140140

>implying fuel grade uranium is "weapons grade" in order to continue 70's/80's Greenpeace anti-nuclear propaganda

[Anonymous No.11142270]

>>11140303
>Merely 3 trillion dollars
It strange how we can always find money for wars and tax cuts, but never for the environment.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary/iraq-war-costs-u-s-more-than-2-trillion-study-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
>Going beyond 30-40% is just cost ineffective.
???
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-power-renewables/renewables-overtake-coal-as-germanys-main-energy-source-idUSKCN1OX0U2?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews
Theorycraft and FUD has to give way where it has been disproven bu experiment.

[Anonymous No.11142286]

>>11142270

A war involving moving people to the other side of the world and back cost 2/3 over 16 years what it would cost to upgrade the energy grid with zimbabwe tier renewables in one year.

[Anonymous No.11142321]

>>11140078
Iran would bomb Israel the same day they got a nuke. Trust me.

[Anonymous No.11142324]

>>11142321

Except nuckear weapons tends to have a calming effect, forcing both sides to deal via diplomacy.

Like when N. Korea got the bomb, or the fact that Pakistan and India dought three major wars on the 20th century then dropped to single day skirmishes after 1998.

[Anonymous No.11142342]

>>11142270
Merely 3T for a totally unrealistic "we promise bros" tier budget. Did you miss the part where I kept stapling on problem after problem which makes that number complete horse shit?
>Germany
lmao 32 cents per kWh at "40%". Remember, they're only covering electricity with that. Electric is about a quarter of all energy consumption. Even so, Germany as it is is only possible because they DON'T have all the battery they need. Otherwise the German people would be rioting over a dollar per kWh. They're using standby fossil fuel plants and clever international power purchase agreements to cover holes in generation at a feasible rate.

[Anonymous No.11142772]

>>11139994
Good. Energy must be expensive in order to not to waste it.

[Anonymous No.11142795]

>>11139901
>Give me ONE valid reason for why nuclear is better than renewable.
No one is going to make an award winning mini-series about the time solar panels got some dirt on them.

[Anonymous No.11142796]

>>11142324
Earlier this year when India and Pakistan almost started a nuclear exchange?

[Anonymous No.11142823]

>>11139901
>abandon renewables
That shit's so subsidised and underdeveloped you could confuse it for a 3rd world country.

[Anonymous No.11142825]

>>11139901
Here's a big hint why green movements are not interested in actually solving climate change but rather promoting Alternative Energy Industries but it becomes billion dollar Industries extracting money from idiots. They don't want to go to the obvious solution that puts them out of business.

[Anonymous No.11142857]

>>11139901
>There's no actual reason to abandon renewables for atomic shit
Why not just fucking use both

[Anonymous No.11142917]

>>11142321
If they did they would also disappear.
Israel has enough nukes to wipe out Iran from the map.

[Anonymous No.11142930]

>>11142857
not OP and I most certainly dont agree with him but I guess every bit of resource we spend to develop and maintain nuclear power is lost on the development and maintenance of renewable energies and therefore, presuming nuclear power has no place whatsoever in our energy portfolio because theres nothing it can do that some renewable source doesn't do better, we should not be wasting our time and money.
OP thinks that because he found this one graph >>11139919 he has somehow proven that renewable energy is 100% superior to nuclear power in every way. he also doesnt know how toxic and energy intensive the production of batteries is so he thinks the only problem with renewable energy is not enough batteries.

tl;dr: OP is gay

[Anonymous No.11142936]

I've been posting this for days and received no replies. So either nobody is reading it or nobody has a response.
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

Main points.
1. It would take 15,000 nuclear plants to meet the world's energy needs.
2. All the world's supply of uranium would be gone in 5 years
3. Extracting uranium from seawater will have limited returns. The more you extract the harder it is to extract more, this is not a viable long term solution
4. Nuclear power plants have a limited lifespan due to the constant bombardment of high energy nuclear radiation and must be continually rebuilt every 50 years at great expense.
5. Also a brand new nuclear power plant must be built EVERY SINGLE DAY for the rest of eternity to supply the world with the necessary 15,000 nuclear plants
6. At the rate of accidents which have happened with the fewer nuclear power plants already in existence we expect an accident each month with 15,000 plants working continuously worldwide.

Nuclear is not viable as a source for the world's power needs.

[Anonymous No.11142944]

>>11142936
thats 15k REACTORS, not power plants. one plant can have multiple reactors.

[Anonymous No.11142952]

>>11142936

Small modular breeder reactors solve all those problems.

[Anonymous No.11142973]

>>11142952
Where you gonna get the uranium for all that? This doesn't solve the problem you think it does.

[Anonymous No.11143020]

>>11142944
nitpicking, problem is still the same

[Anonymous No.11143024]

>>11143020
just correcting you, not attempting to refute you

[Anonymous No.11143025]

>>11142973

Breeder reactors are so efficient with fuel that even seawater uranium extraction becomes feasible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

>Breeder reactors could, in principle, extract almost all of the energy contained in uranium or thorium, decreasing fuel requirements by a factor of 100 compared to widely used once-through light water reactors, which extract less than 1% of the energy in the uranium mined from the earth.[8] The high fuel-efficiency of breeder reactors could greatly reduce concerns about fuel supply or energy used in mining. Adherents claim that with seawater uranium extraction, there would be enough fuel for breeder reactors to satisfy our energy needs for 5 billion years at 1983's total energy consumption rate, thus making nuclear energy effectively a renewable energy.[9][10]

[Anonymous No.11143030]

LFTR

[Anonymous No.11143041]

>batteries

Do you have any idea how many batteries would it take to ensure a pure renewable grid functions despite the intermittency of solar and wind? The cost of multi-GWh batteries would be massive, and they wear out.

[Anonymous No.11143061]

>>11142936
The uranium shortage is a myth that only accounts for current discovered economic reserves. If you looked at that for any other commodity you would find it is also very small, yet we don't run out. Thing is no one prospects for uranium or works how to utilize it because the market price is low and economically uncertain. Screw your brain in. I know its a meme but also thorium, forget the future tech its still a abundant source of fissile material. Furthermore, the US, China and France have all had periods were they completed reactors on a monthly basis, not all power has to be all nuclear immediately but it has a central place base loading in a low cost, low carbon energy future. Te alternative is to build a whole lot more unreliable renewable plus storage which is simply far more resource and land intensive as well as globally ill suited. You can run that many reactors safely with containment vessels and water moderation even without gen 3 tech, you could never have another Chernobyl. The US navy alone has operated 500 reactors for 5400 total years without accident and these are moving battle stations using weapons grade material. Also estimating future reactor accidents from past occurrences is foolish in not accounting for technology, Its like comparing Crimean war casualty rates with the US in Afghanistan.

[Anonymous No.11143510]

>>11142952
>Small modular breeder reactors
Point me to an existing working commercial solution of this to prove it's not just a physicist fantasy

[Anonymous No.11143517]

>>11142936
>Nuclear power plants have a limited lifespan due to the constant bombardment of high energy nuclear radiation
Make more resilient plants? If people were about to build 15k nuclear reactors I promise you there would be a fuckton more research into it as opposed to virtually 0 that is today

[Anonymous No.11143518]

>>11142936
>At the rate of accidents which have happened with the fewer nuclear power plants already in existence we expect an accident each month with 15,000 plants working continuously worldwide.
Retarded extrapolation from unsafe reactors built more than half a century ago

[Anonymous No.11143522]

>>11143041
>The cost of multi-GWh batteries would be massive
How much do you imagine it is?

[Anonymous No.11143763]

>>11142796

>almost nuclear exchange
>over a Mig-21 and a pilot who was returned

Lol

[Anonymous No.11143801]

>>11139908
>>11139961
>>11139987
Just a few forests, no big deal really. I'm not sure what the optimal power source distribution is, but I'm certain that includes using hydro power wherever it's possible.

[Anonymous No.11145064]

>>11142936
The 50 year reactor lifespan is not a problem. Conventional power plants only last that long and you certainly want to refit anyway after that time. Over that time nuclear also becomes far more economic than even the most optimistic of renewable due to low fuel costs. Many plants have already operated multiple reactors for that time and you can replace them incrementally without building new power stations or reducing production. Far more practical than thousands of decentralized renewable sources and power storage especially batteries that will be well shot before 50 years.

[Anonymous No.11145682]

>>11143517
>Make more resilient plants?
This means more safety equipment and more concrete for protection and makes these plants even more expensive and less competitive.