/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11232387]

Redpill me on nuclear, is it more economically viable than renewables?

[Anonymous No.11232391]

the redpill is that power generation isn't aome gay contest between nuclear and renewables. both are good, both have pros and cons. we need both.

[Anonymous No.11232402]

>>11232387
no

[Anonymous No.11232403]

>>11232387
The redpill is that oil and coal is the cheapest and easiest way to make energy and you'll be long dead before climate change becomes a big issue

[Anonymous No.11232405]

>>11232387
nope, it's a dinosaur sucking on the government's tit

[Anonymous No.11232408]

why is /sci/ even worse than shithole boards like /g/ when it comes to repeat bait topics

[Anonymous No.11232417]

>>11232387
the ultimate redpill is building massive geothermic reactors over the tops of active volcanoes and harnessing the heart to make huge engines that will generate electricity.

[Anonymous No.11232421]

>>11232387
Dead and economically destroyed by renewables. No amount of shilling will save your job.

[Anonymous No.11232461]

>>11232387

Pros:
>Reliable power
>24/7 use
>no carbon emissions
>cheapest form of energy when the plant is complete

Cons:
>high capital cost
>takes 5-10 years to build and often suffers from cost overruns

A bunch of companies are trying to make Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) to make it less expensive to construct a nuclear plant

>>11232405
Not really, the ones that are up and running are very cheap to operate. The problem is they are expensive to build

[Anonymous No.11232466]

>>11232391
Sensible answer

[Anonymous No.11232484]

>>11232403
that's not true, not at all

[Anonymous No.11232491]

>>11232421

[Anonymous No.11232560]

>>11232461
High capital usage, not necessarily high cost of capital. Interest rates are at all-time lows, making it a fantastic time to build a shitload of nuclear facilities. You could fund it with bonds you sell in euros at ~2% interest.

[Anonymous No.11232565]

>>11232387
It doesn’t matter. Oil companies literally own policy makers so much so that being off the grid is illegal.

[Anonymous No.11232842]

>>11232484
The only reason "renewable" forms of energy are becoming cheaper is because of fossil fuel. You cannot move freight in an economically viable way without fossil fuel.

[Anonymous No.11232860]

Nuclear is good.
Renewables are shit:
-wind and solar require a big infrastructure but only work when there is wind or sun, so you need to have a backup plant with the full capacity and keep turning it on and off. So basically you have double the infrastructure, high maintenance costs because its not ideal at all to keep turning a gas/coal plant on and off, and slight fuel savings. Very inefficient.l and expensive, causes people to be poorer.
- Biofuels are terrible because they use farmland, so they raise the price of food, again making people poorer.

The comparison you should do is with coal, oil, gas. Nuclear is cheaper but as is we cannot realistically replace all coal/oil/gas with nuclear power.

[Anonymous No.11232870]

>>11232387
Nuclear is pushed by all the retarded right-wing politicians/media and all religions.

this must be a hint.

[Anonymous No.11232876]

>>11232387
Is fusion a nuclear power or a renewable energy power?

[Anonymous No.11232877]

>>11232461
existing nuclear plants in the US are getting shut down because they can't stay open without subsidies.

[Anonymous No.11232880]

>>11232842
hardly, trains are far more cost effective. Not to mention electric semis are here and in many use cases better than ICEs

[Anonymous No.11232885]

>>11232387
paying a nigger to use a firestick spindle to heat a sterling generator from the friction alone is more economical than wind and solar. nuclear is the only economically viable renewable energy source and its 100% environmentally neutral

[Anonymous No.11232944]

>>11232885
>nuclear is renewable
ok then

[Anonymous No.11232948]

>>11232860
Nuclear Solar Thermal plants are an interesting concept I've seen. Shared set of turbines, use the panels during the day and the nuke at night or in weather.

[Anonymous No.11232951]

>>11232484
This is only becuase nuclear costs so much red tape though. It’s not a true measure

[Anonymous No.11232961]

>>11232387
All these things are a tangent of THE ONLY REAL LONG TERM SOLUTION
which is population control, all of these issues would go away imedicitly if we just stabilized the population.

[Anonymous No.11233007]

>>11232951
>oh noes, reality

[Anonymous No.11233019]

Ever since 3mile and Chernobyl. They've been sabotaging nuclear.

USA nuclear prices are because of a 40 year lack of investment. So now a bunch of plants at the end of their lives are running, and spent fuel is stacking up.

[Anonymous No.11233048]

>>11232961
space colonization is better than population control

[Anonymous No.11233051]

>>11232387
it is close to impossible today to build a nuclear power plant through private enterprise in a developed country, because the amount of regulations is obscene, and they constantly change, so there is no guarantee you'll ever get it running after gazillions of investment.

therefore, private investment has gone towards other energy sources, and the nuclear power plants that still run in developed countries are outdated technologically and depend on subsidies.

[Anonymous No.11233060]

>>11232484
No new reactors have been built in decades.

[Anonymous No.11233111]

>>11232484
>In the U.S. alone in 2016, $18.4 billion was spent on energy subsidies; $11 billion of that went to renewable energy and $3 billion to energy efficiency
>when you put more subsidies in X, it become more cheaper
i bet your IQ is around 1000 faggot with the garbage stats.

[Anonymous No.11233185]

Can the world run on poo?

[Anonymous No.11233389]

>>11232417
Based. No more supervolcanos.

[Anonymous No.11233900]

>>11233185
kind of, people use poo as fuel for cooking.

running a car on poo? get Musk on it

[Anonymous No.11234148]

>>11232461
the big issue is bureaucracy and institutional inertia making it expensive

[Anonymous No.11234155]

>>11232876
nuclear, if you apply the same regulations to fusion as you do to fission they will generate similar amounts of "nuclear waste"

[Anonymous No.11234180]

>>11234155
Helium fusion reaction would produce no nuclear waste at all, deuterium-tritum fusion reactors produce nuclear waste but only a hundred thousandth of a fission reactor. The half-life of the waste would also just be around 100 years instead of the thousand years nuclear wastes needs. Personally I do consider fusion nuclear power, just to mess with the green. It is also as renewable as things can be in this universe, solar/wind also depend on fusion energy after all.

[Anonymous No.11234183]

>>11234180
everything that could even potentially have been neutron activated or come in contact with heavy water will be classified as waste

[Anonymous No.11234233]

>>11233111
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.11235362]

>>11232870
>I make science-related conclusions based on my political views
please leave this board

[Anonymous No.11235426]

>>11235362
>I ignore correlations based on my political views
fuck off back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11235442]

Nuclear is great at filtering out the "solar good, coal bad muh nature" people from the ones that actually care about the environment and bother to read up on the pros and cons of each energy source

>inb4 climatechange isnt real hurr
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11235447]

>>11232877
That has more to do with they were built with a fix lifespan in mind and have run well beyond that so safety and maintenance are run out of control, thus need much more money.

Plan was originally to build and use one for a fixed window, this was done ironically to keep costs lower as it was calculated that it was far better to run plant for a few decades then replace with newer and better plant, as they expected technology to improve with time so they didn't built it complete maintenance in mind. But things changed and now we are burning money to keep these out dated 'disposable'* plants alive.

'disposable'* = over decades time-span is still relatively disposable when other plans were centuries or with 100% replaceable maintenance in mind allowing for rolling rebuilding so planet runs indefinably.

[Anonymous No.11235453]

>>11232405
I think you meant to say coal

[Anonymous No.11235462]

>>11234233
I can help but notice that those figure don't have solar and they cover 2002 to 2008. With 2008 being when the US kicked the wind and solar programs into high gear. If you want it to look like solar gets more subzites then oil, you want to use data that from when the US was pushing solar hardest and cutting oil, I would guess that would likely be 2009 or 2010. I mean at least cherry pick data that helps your case if you are going to do that.

[Anonymous No.11235501]

>>11232387
It's even more economically viable for the Corporations when they don't actually bother follow all those pesky regulations about storing and handling the nuclear waste.

[Anonymous No.11235556]

>>11232870

The nuclear push came from conservative media in tandem with the 'blame 3rd world countries for the pollution our companies/consumers do over there' whataboutism. It's a response to the troves and troves of climate data which has finally been analysed, that has rendered flat-out denial simply ignorant &/or dishonest.

That being said, Gen III+ and IV reactor technologies are literally the silver bullet to the climate/energy crisis, and there's no good reason that advanced, responsible nations shouldn't be constructing them.

[Anonymous No.11235569]

>>11232387
nuclear is better until it isn't. it's more expensive to setup, high chance of catastrophe of stupendous proportions, and what nobody talks about, nuclear waste that will pollute the earth till the end of humanity. all those used cores are disposed somewhere anon. right at this very moment there is a glowing cockroach somewhere growing a pair of human balls saying "right on dude.."

[Anonymous No.11235604]

>>11235569
I disagree to some of these
While there will always be risk and the upper limit of catastrophic is much higher, the risk is what we want it to be. We have a well established history of sound and safe protocols that can cover all know and and many unknown risks. We can make systems with error rates in so low they don't even statically register till the trillions place, because in those settings that is what we expect and pay for. Physics is sound, the weak point is humans, proven mitigation it to use better humans with good training.

And there are newer classes of reactors that use their own waste as fuel, dramatically reducing radioactive waste to a very manageable amount. But those are illegal because there is the side effects produce weapons grade stuff. Which is silly because they can use weapon stock as fuel thus could reduce number of nukes.

It is twisted how the military manipulated the market to help their goals originally, now leaving us a terrible power generation legacy. Small high density submarines reactor should not be scaled up for city power, even the lead engineer said that was a bad idea. But what would we do? Design a better reactor form the ground up, or give bigger side contracts to military suppliers?

[Anonymous No.11235611]

>>11235604
>the risk is what we want it to be
chernobil disagrees anon. did you know that the new containment is built to last only for the next 100 years? we literally have no fucking clue how to deal with this beast, but the arrogance of people prevails as usual.

[Anonymous No.11235628]

>>11232387
>>11235604
earth is 3/4 water. why do we even debate what our power source should be..

[Anonymous No.11235636]

>>11232387
Yes. It outcosts every other energy source. It's also safe and secure. Fision and fusion are the future.

[Anonymous No.11235651]

>>11235611
Exactly, in Chernobyl they did things that were against their own safety protocols which were poorly crafted to start with. The fact they only contaminated as much as they did is basically a miracle.
The new 100 year deigns are compromises, they had others that could do full rolling replacement for all parts allowing indefinite life span but they cost way more.
I agree arrogance is a huge risk, but like all risks there are mitigation methods. Many have been well established with decades of study and decades more of real world application. It is the same idea for any high risk facility, look at oil or chemical plants and study why they don't blow up every week. The reason safety scientists seem arrogant is because they had not been prove wrong in so long it is creepy, but have talked with many of them I can tell you they are not arrogant they constantly fear of something going wrong to the point of borderline insanity.

>>11235628
Which one are you talking about?

If you mean fusion it is because we can't make it a net gain yet, so no money can be made.

If you mean tidal it is because ocean tide are very abusive to the equipment. Constant high energy intensive repair make it less helpful then people know, but they are working on it.

As for traditional hydro you need the right topography, and we have used nearly all the ones we can. I don't know of any major data on how effective it is to built an artificial elevated lake to make more to hold water. Also break flooding is very dangerous, but we know where it would happen which is also where every idiot wants to built their house. Although at this point building a massive artificial lake and banning construction down elevation from it may be easier then nuclear politically speaking.

[Anonymous No.11235652]

>>11232387
Yes & no. The real problem here is that there is as yet a proper design to harness energy create from nuclear power. What we have thus far is excessively inefficient. First of all, large centralized power plants are the wrong direction to take.

[Anonymous No.11235653]

>>11232387
>>11235651
How about off-coast wind farms? Do they deteriorate fast as fuck too?

[Anonymous No.11235679]

>>11235653
Not as bad, but still get more abuse.

One big problem that is easy to fix but nobody wants is how wind farms are made, regardless of where you put them.
We use very high tech stuff to make the most effective wind turbines we can. Sound great till you figure how much energy went into building them and how much energy they are expected to make over their life. They are a net gain, so they do help. But could do far better if we just made cheaper ones from lower energy things (like wood) and constantly replaced them.

Many renewable have this problem. We can make net gain solar, but don't because it cost too much for most. Well to clarify the common bad solar is net positive energy, but makes a lot of toxic chemical waste, so net environmental gain depends on how you count things.

It would go a long way if we just built thing to last longer with less intensive materials. And also not constantly converting everything to electric and back again. Many of these are old ideas we used when energy was expensive, a modern update to them with our better understanding could be very effective, but would likely involve more physical activities on the part of the user.
e.i. We have complex computer controlled drying machine that last a few years, when hung clothes basically dry themselves.

[Anonymous No.11235689]

>>11235679
Interesting, thanks for the reply

[Anonymous No.11235914]

>>11235611
Chernobyl killed like... 100 people tops

[Anonymous No.11236021]

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

Why have we dug up a hole in Finland again if we can recycle nuclear waste, aka, the only downside of Nuclear Energy?

[Anonymous No.11236040]

>>11236021
the fission daughter products are the real nuclear waste, and the reason why it's just garbage that will never go away
breeder reactors allow you to more efficiently isolate just the garbage that you need to deal with forever

[Anonymous No.11236042]

>>11232387
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY
Look at this and consider

[Anonymous No.11236096]

>>11235611
The plan is to dismantle everything under the containment before the NSC needs to be replaced. Are you incapable of reading? Must you opine on subjects you have a layman's understanding of at best?
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.11237292]

Kirk will save us

[Anonymous No.11238066]

>>11237292
Spock, those people down there think I am going to save them. ... Chekov, fire phasers at any ship trying to flee the planet. We can't let them harm any more worlds then they already have. Hopefully they can solve it themselves before they all die.

[Anonymous No.11238100]

>>11232944
I'm not him, but nuclear is more renewable than renewables themselves. Wind and solar stop when the sun eventually dies, while seawater has enough uranium to keep nukes running just about forever. Especially with breeders.

[Anonymous No.11238104]

>>11236021
Because plenty of finns are too stupid to consider exporting waste to some bigger country that has breeder reactors (such as Russia).

[Anonymous No.11238112]

>>11235569
Those "stupendous proportions" have killed less people per watthour than wind or solar do.

Would you rather have a safer energy system that makes big headlines or a deadly system that doesn't?

[Anonymous No.11238179]

>>11235914
thanks for writing this, your idiocy, and nuclear idiocy in general will now spread far

[Anonymous No.11238630]

The average penis size might shift to be bigger in the next centuries. Having a small dick is the most undesirable trait that a man can have. Shaming or mocking less endowed men is completely acceptable. In mass media, a small penis is presented as a death sentence and it will always be the butt of a joke. There is no part in the body positive movement to fight against the humiliation that these men face. The vast majority of women outright reject guys with a small junk and therefore also reject this gene. It seems that this behavior starts at an early age. Kids are already capable of shaming the boy with the small pepe, leaving him with livelong anxiety and confidence issues going into dating.
I wanted to take this topic to /sci/ because I do not know whether the reason a small penis is seen as the worst trait is a biological one and rooted in our instinct or comes from our environment. There must be a cause why people choose to shame the small penis. I wonder what it is. Maybe you guys can answer my question. I appreciate every comment.

[Anonymous No.11238746]

>>11232417
I legit wish some cunt would do this to Yellowstone.
I heard cunts at there were whining that it would "ruin the landscape and attractions".
Fucking make it underground then.
Why would it ruin the attractions?
You are literally ripping heat out of the Earth to make power, make the damn geysers artificial. Literally nobody gives a shit outside of worthless retards. Just don't tell anyone, done.
Not to mention potentially saving the American continent from getting assblasted back to the stone-age in a few days, which includes their shit park.
OH NO, LOGIC, I AM FRIGHTEN.
Fuck I hate nature-tards so much.

[Anonymous No.11238748]

>>11232461
They've been trying to make modular, small reactors for decades.
These will die just like the rest did.
Red-tape stops it, not the idea.

[Anonymous No.11238954]

>>11238630
As someone who got mercilessly ridiculed in middle school for have too big of a dick. I can tell you it is whatever people are told. I am still very self conscious of my size, but can't really talk to people because of the common image that big penis is good and people take it as some kind of bragging. Also fit and reach are what matter biologically for reproduction, and that is requires both male and female. So if males need to be bigger so should females for proper matching. Also most pleasure nerves are less then 2 inches deep so even a small penis or finger is good enough for sexual gratification, in those that area technique has a larger impact.
I suspect that the a slightly larger penis can put more pressure on the pleasure nerves so people start saying it was better, then it spun out of control. Also too much pressure is damaging and painful.
6.12 in Length 4.71 in Circumference, according to data I am just above average and not some freak like my peers made me think years ago, but anxiety remains.

Also this is the wrong place for this, not blue board, not tech

[Anonymous No.11238990]

>>11235569
The chance of disaster is practically zero compared to even the safest fossil fuel plants. When one of these disasters happen the short and long term damage is also far less than fossil fuel plants. The thing is, extremely rare nuclear accidents make for huge headlines, the countless fossil fuel plant accidents that happen every day don't. Look at the actual numbers, both raw and proportionally it is safer and cleaner than any fossil fuel plant by a gigantic margin. Hell, coal alone produces more radioactive waste per year than nuclear plants have since their invention. The real problem is that only stable and responsible nations can realistically operate nuclear plants, whereas something like solar is harder to use maliciously.

[Anonymous No.11239592]

>>11232387
Nuclear is one of the most viable sources of power that is corrupted by design. Most nuclear tech is in the 70s compared to anything else, because muh scary radiation. People dont realise that the processed food they eat has many more times the radiation than a nuclear plant.

[Anonymous No.11239601]

>>11233060
*Cough, *cough, molten salt, *cough breeder reactors.

[Anonymous No.11239963]

>>11235651
>Exactly, in Chernobyl they did things that were against their own safety protocols which we
that doesnt matter, power will be run by humans in the foreseable future.

>nuclear is safe
>3 mile island, chernobyl, fukuyima
>ohhh but those were mistakes, just dont make those

nigga bitch please the whole point is that humans will make mistake, can you guarantee that 100% of all the people that will work in nuclear reactors will be 100% foolproof in 100% of cultures and countries during 100% of economic and political crises while producing 100% of energy of the world.


no you cant, as a matter of fact as capacity increases its almost guaranteed to be a failure

so yes, nuclear will never ever beberver sever lever be a good idea, no matter what you say, even if 0.00000000000000000000000000001% of humanity is extremely stupid then thats enough to get a nuke to work.

the price of dealing with one nuclear accident negates the gain from worldwide power electricty in a year, and at that scale its guaranteed to happen.


And before you go "le huuurrdddiurtyi, le guuurdurti bhhhttt huhut annoonn in cheerneboyl only 1 people died is really small"

yes, firts of all only few people directly died because around 200 billion us dollars were invested in containment measures, you think were gonna be able to pull that? even tough now that 0.0001% of the worlds power is generated with nuclear and theres a catastrophe firmly every 30 years? you think were gonna be able to pay 200 billion when theres one each year?


And evne the chernobyl/fukuyima/3 mile island disasters with all the containment measures held more most of its dead and will be helding because of cancer increasing rates.
cancer increasing rates have been elevate dat hte time of around 1% in all of the world and 10 % in europe so around 1% of cancers deaths from here towards eternity is fault of chernobyl/3island/fushulima style destroyer of status events, imagine multiplying that times all the power plants.

[Anonymous No.11240014]

>>11235914
clean-up death toll of 6000

[Anonymous No.11240778]

>>11239963
I do have two questions.
Who would replace humans running power stations in the future as your opening line suggests?
How do you deal with panic attacks?

The rest of this discussion as follows is null, as you are 100% correct.
You have clearly researched Chernobil and Fukuyima far more than I picked up merely hanging out with nuclear engineers and global facility safety specialist for a few years. Plus we can skip 3 Mile Island from any talk given it actually followed expected unknown worst case failure patters of a reactor never originally intended to be used for public power. And I would rather not hear you cite how many died from it both directly and slowly from cancer from it. Nor do I want to question your deep well your deep knowledge of fail safe system design.

[Anonymous No.11241201]

>>11232484
complete horseshit
I don't know where are getting those numbers

If anything from that was true, how come energy in France (80% of all energy comes from nukes) costs 12 cents/kWh while in Germany after Energiewende is costs 30 cents and if weren't able to import it the Krauts couldn't even see at night because they import OVER 60% of their electricity (we're talking totally, not peak, when the sun is down and it's not windy, at those times it can go over 80% or even 90%) and they get it from France (nukes), Czech Republic (nukes/coal) and Poland (coal).
You can very easily look up those numbers btw.

[Anonymous No.11241630]

>>11240778
>hanging out for a few years with...

lol, retarded janitor who cleants the turds of important people thinks he has anything to do with his knowlodge

i, on the other side AM A FUCKING NUCLEAR ENIGNEER, so dont fucking want to belong to the club kiddy boy
the knowledge is mine, ours, the ones that studied have it, you dont speak for us neverwill

[Anonymous No.11242721]

>>11235569
Nuclear energy is only dangerous if you’re retarded

[Anonymous No.11242742]

>>11232387
Plutonium is one of the most toxic materials.

[Anonymous No.11242747]

>>11232403
>We'll be dead so it doesn't matter!
Ahh yes, the typical myopic sociopath

[Anonymous No.11242756]

>>11242721
seems they all are then

[Anonymous No.11242760]

>>11235569
Name one nuclear power plant built in the last 50 years that killed anyone.

[Anonymous No.11242777]

Memebatteries will allow us to use entire continents of solar panels for green energy

EXPONENTIAL STORAGE

[Anonymous No.11242784]

China will build them. Those countries without them will buy from countries that do if they want to swear off fossil fuels. Call it the "Germany-France" model.

[Anonymous No.11242884]

>>11232417
>>11238746
the real problem with geothermal is, that it can't really provide all that much power without huge efforts. if you do the math you will see
the total geothermal power disscipated through geothermal energy is about twice as much as the world currently consumes. so even at 100% efficiency, you would need to put heat pipes below half the planets crust to get that energy.
'but what about high energy sources like volcanos?' you ask? well those don't output nearly as much energy as we need, i mean even the entire planet only produces twice as much.
and if you account for losses and for groth of our civ and energy needs, you will find that wou will soon need to put heat pipes under the ENTIRE surface to get that power. and then there would be no mr space for growth. you see what the problem is? there is simply not enough energy for the long run in geothermal

[Anonymous No.11242904]

>>11241201
this is partly because we have higher taxes and our grid providers cost more. one of the most significant cost is the so called EEG Umlage, wich is essentially a price all germans pay extra to subsidise the developement of renewables. since those are going down year after year, it is expected that the EEG Umlage will alos fall in the coming decade or so.
but most importantly if you look at the marketprice of electricity, wich is a better indicator of production cost, then you will find, that it is actully slightly higher in france than in germany

[Anonymous No.11242920]

>>11235604
even if the safety could be guaranteed, how do you find building sites for all the reactors you need that satisfy all the conditions? you need large bodies of water, enoug distance to densly populated areas. and also how do you deal with the waste? there will always be some and if you massively scale up it will only become a lot more. also what about the aditional cost? they cost more to build and decomission than other energy sources. They also require a lot of reare metals for specific purposes. and of course there is the problem of getting all that fuel. sure there is a lot of uranium and thorium and whatnot but it is fairly diluted in the eaths crust. and large scale thorium reactors have to be fully researched first, much luke fusion. and at this point i wonder why not ditch the idea of fission and just try to go for fusion directly and just try to bridge the gap until we get that done with renewables and efficiency guidelines and lower fossil fuel consumption?

[Anonymous No.11242951]

>>11238990
>extremely rare nuclear accidents make for huge headlines

And also cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are very hard to manage, can potentially ruin entire economic regions etc... If there is an accident of the scale of Fukushima or Chernobyl at a plant near Paris for example it would purely and simply bankrupt France. Now that would be a big headline and I bet your kind would still defend fission.

[Anonymous No.11242955]

>>11242951
Muh accident meme. They only cost that much if you evacuate and house hundreds of thousands of people you retard. If everyone stayed where they were during fukashima, no one would have died and it would have cost millions to clean up

[Anonymous No.11242959]

>>11232870
You're just as retarded as them for basing your own beliefs on what retards say. You're even dumber for thinking "since this guy said this and he's stupid, I'm gonna believe the opposite"

[Anonymous No.11242963]

>>11235426
>Correlation =/= causality

[Anonymous No.11242976]

>>11242955

Oh okay so for the next accident let's just hope it will retards like you saying "no worries guys" advising for contingency policies and not actual scientists so it will be cheap.

[Anonymous No.11242979]

>>11242976
I have a Master's in health physics, you imbicile.

[Anonymous No.11242992]

>>11242951
>And also cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are very hard to manage, can potentially ruin entire economic regions etc... If there is an accident of the scale of Fukushima or Chernobyl at a plant near Paris for example it would purely and simply bankrupt France. Now that would be a big headline and I bet your kind would still defend fission.
Fossil fuel plants currently kill several hundred Chernobyls worth of people every year and that is every day of every year 24/7. And that is when fully functioning BY DESIGN.
It doesn't make for good meme tv on HBO because those are boring deaths.

[Anonymous No.11242998]

>>11242992
Forgot my link lel
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy

[Anonymous No.11243001]

>>11242979
>imbicile
I doubt that.

[Anonymous No.11243002]

If fossil fules were not a possibility, the nuclear should be the cheapest energy source during nights (assuming wind and hydro cant sustain night demand alone so not counting them)

[Anonymous No.11243589]

>>11242955
Plus, the bigger issue is cheaply designed plants.
A properly designed plant cannot fail.
The shitty Fukushima one was plagued with cheapass cunts and cost-cutting all over.
No wonder it fucking died so hard.
Hey let's cheap out on a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT on an unstable landscape that could be flooded easily. Good job, ya idiots.
Forward thinking saves money.
The failure of said plant, the craptastrophe in costs in cleaning it up, and their sudden termination of using nuclear for fossil fuels has likely cost them an ungodly higher number than the original costs of making the fucking plant properly would have.