/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11140651]

>lol let's use nuclear fission to generate all our energyz XD

[Anonymous No.11140656]

>OP

[Anonymous No.11140668]

>>11140656
>ha ha i promise proliferation can't happen lul check out this thorium experiment XD

[Anonymous No.11140813]

>>11140668
I don't know what you're saying but Thorium can't be used in nuclear weapons
Nuclear energy is also our only future

[Anonymous No.11140846]

>>11140813
>Nuclear energy is also our only future
Ok boomer

[Anonymous No.11140863]

>>11140813
>Thorium can't be used in nuclear weapons
Th-232 -> Th-233 -> protactinium-233 -> uranium-233
Ooops we can make nuclear weapons now

[Anonymous No.11140909]

>>11140846
I was about to argue but actually wind is just good enough, though I don't know if this accounts for storage which fucks renewables in general

>>11140863
U-233 is real hard to handle because of all the U-232 you get which is highly radioactive and shits out gamma rays that spy satellites will see straight away
Thorium would be best used in a molten salt reactor which is impractical to extract fissile material from

[Anonymous No.11141298]

>>11140846
>4%

[Anonymous No.11141304]

Based

[Anonymous No.11141314]

>>11141298
Of course your tiny brain can’t comprehend how much that really is.

[Anonymous No.11141348]

>>11141314
>FOUR
>FUCKING
>PERCENT

[Anonymous No.11141356]

>>11141348
Yep.

[Anonymous No.11141374]

>>11140863
You need U235 to make bombs moron.

[Anonymous No.11142080]

>>11140668

Nuclear weapons are stupid simple. Everyone who wants then has them.

There are tons of countries with weapons but no power. And even more with power but no weapons.

[Anonymous No.11142100]

>>11140651
SHUT UP FAGGOT IT'S THE BEST OPTION WE HAVE RIGHT NOW

[chorizo rick No.11142939]

>>11141374
fucj you faggot kys.

[Anonymous No.11142958]

>>11140651

>Would you imagine a civilization rejecting the only energy source that is independent from the weather and has enough energy density to power cities for decades?
>How could they be so retarded?

[Anonymous No.11142970]

>>11141374
you can also use U238 via Pl

[Anonymous No.11142983]

OP too tarded to understand uranium enrichment over 5% is a complex and very expensive process

[Anonymous No.11142998]

>>11140668
We are past the point of proliferation. Pakistan and Nt Korea can build that shit using 1940s tech, the Nth Country experiment shows any physics PhD can design a weapon. The restriction is the industrial capacity needed to separate isotopes or commission reactors on a state level. The danger of proliferation now lies in rouge elements attaining whole weapons or already enriched material which they could probably get from sunken subs or shadowy Soviet warehouses in Siberia.

[Anonymous No.11143003]

>>11140651
I prefer to harvest fusion energy.

[Anonymous No.11143040]

>>11142983
So expensive Pakistan can do it.

[Anonymous No.11143051]

>>11141304
based

[Anonymous No.11143062]

>>11140846
>>11141298
It's worse than that. Electricity is only a quarter of energy usage. So really just 1% of carbon energy has been offset through extreme effort.
Meanwhile: France.

[Anonymous No.11143077]

>>11143040
Not him but being so easy 'anyone' can do it makes it pointless to try and stop, like gun control but you have no jurisdiction and the other guys a terrorist making his own guns out of scraps in a cave.

[Anonymous No.11143115]

Nuclear Fusion technology ist still in its infantil steps and probably not possible. Coal burning ist desastrous in the Long run.
If people weren't that easily scared by a few catastrophics and scary pictures in the media, we wouldn't even have a climate Change Prävention discussion.

[Anonymous No.11143125]

Nuclear energy is Kang
only smart guy Kangz support it.

[Anonymous No.11143238]

>>11141374
You don't

[Anonymous No.11143242]

>>11142080
>Everyone who wants then has them.
Not at all. Iran has wanted them for very long

[Anonymous No.11143249]

>>11143062
It's not just 4% if you bothered to read further

[Anonymous No.11143399]

>>11143249
Offshore wind is absurdly expensive and they're wasting economic output on it, if you bothered to read into real evidence.

[Anonymous No.11143403]

>>11140846
>ok boomer

[Anonymous No.11143443]

>>11143399
>Offshore wind is absurdly expensive
Yeah so is everything. Show me hard evidence that nuclear is cheaper

[Anonymous No.11144003]

>>11143443
The fact that my local nuclear plant has provided me with 40% of my electricity through my whole life, and my electricity as-billed has always been 9-14¢/kWh. This is despite the plant going massively overbudget due to countless frivolous lawsuits holding up construction and causing the second reactor to be canceled.
I swear to god anti-nukes are actually oil shills. They know that without a strong baseload capacity, current renewable technology will fail completely.

[Anonymous No.11144056]

>>11143040
its sadly impossible for the individual to do it because those centrifuges cost like 5 mil a piece and you need like 400 of them but very doable for a corporation or government.

[Anonymous No.11144067]

>>11142970
no to make fucking nuclear bomb you need plutonium-239 or uranium 235 fucking idiot subhumans. For thermonuclear weapons you need a secondary stage of deuterium and tritium

[Anonymous No.11144122]

>>11144003
https://pastebin.com/qscQE3su
(can't post link directly cause it's detected as spam)

[Anonymous No.11144352]

>>11144122
That link has no new information. The fact that wind and solar can provide baseload is not up for debate; it absolutely can. The question is of cost. The point that the capacity factor can be only kind of pathetic instead of completely pathetic if you average the production over a huge area was always known, but never helpful. You still need to overbuilt capacity by a factor of 2-4 just to meet what you want to get, and by the way you'll still have days with little or no wind. Nice of the article to skim over that fact by claiming that gas can take the slack. You'll essentially need to keep enough gas to meet the entire demand of your desired wind capacity to do this, and standby gas plants are very expensive because you always need to keep them warm, since cold start is several hours to days. How much is this costing? How much carbon is your "wind" producing now? I personally totally discard the option of keeping gas around for this, which means you need battery, which is expensive like you can't believe.
There's a reason why off-shore is still built even though it's 3x the cost of land turbines. Getting a 70% capacity factor from wind on land is actually more expensive, and still, 70% capacity factor is merely kind of tolerable when the source isn't the majority of your grid.

[Anonymous No.11144365]

Anybody who doesn't support nuclear can suck a fat dick in my book

[Anonymous No.11144387]

>>11143242
But Israel keeps telling me that they already have them. Why would they lie?

[Anonymous No.11144842]

>>11144365
Or we can suck a fat nuke.

[Anonymous No.11144859]

>>11143003
Wicked

[Anonymous No.11144872]

>>11144387

israel is a nuclear armed terrorist apartheid state