/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11773022]

Redpill me on nuclear energy.
On paper it seems ideal, but all the pseud (Reddit) support it has makes me think there's a catch.

[Anonymous No.11773087]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yInNecEQjeg
Australian guy a few bit of memes in it but got some good stuff

[Anonymous No.11773148]

>>11773022
The catch is, its super expensive to set up and you also must deactivate it. So no profits forever

[Anonymous No.11773163]

>>11773022
Lmao imagine being unable to think for yourself

[Anonymous No.11773166]

>>11773022
The construction and decommissioning costs make it economically untenable compared to natural gas or most other sources. The environmental impact is a non-issue, and there are promising concepts for new reactor designs, fuel recycling, and other features that unfortunately will never be adopted. Solar and wind are actually worse for the environment, but have much better marketing.

[Anonymous No.11773175]

>>11773022
Reddit just supports whatever the Chinese government is in favor of. I don’t think the fact that China is in favor of nuclear power really tells you anything in this case. Try simple.wikipedia.org

[Anonymous No.11773177]

>>11773166
Pretty much this, the only major argument against it is you can't make a quick buck on it.

[Anonymous No.11773182]

The problem with nuclear is that people think it's expensive. They think it's expensive because NPPs are not built in large numbers in western countries. It's quite cheap in Asia where economies of scale push the price down by a lot.

For example, look at Barakah nuclear power plant in United Arab Emirates. That's 4 reactors (APR-1400, South Korean model) for $24.4 billion USD.

Assuming 90 % capacity factor, 1345 MW output per reactor, 1 % interest rate, 40 year economic life (technical life is 60+ years), $20/MWh operating + fuel + decommissioning + waste disposal cost, the cost of electricity would only be $37.52/MWh.

That is not expensive, especially when you consider it's base load and the plants can do load-following as well.

[Anonymous No.11773204]

Nukes would be optimal for lowering CO2 emissions fast.

[Anonymous No.11773208]

Nukes would be optimal for saving lives.

[Anonymous No.11773214]

>>11773208
Intellectual dishonesty

[Anonymous No.11773215]

Nukes would be optimal for land use.

[Anonymous No.11773221]

>>11773214
Try using big boy arguments next time so you wouldn't be laughed at.

[Anonymous No.11773224]

Nukes would be optimal for minimizing mining.

[Anonymous No.11773225]

>>11773221
Stop playing dumb

[Anonymous No.11773229]

>>11773208
redpill me on peat, why does it kill so many?

[Anonymous No.11773232]

Nukes would be optimal choice for CO2-free electricity production.

[Anonymous No.11773237]

>>11773229
Seeing how death rate is pretty similar for bio and oil, I'd guess mostly due to the PM 2.5 emissions it causes when burned.

[Anonymous No.11773243]

>>11773225
How am I playing dumb? It's not news that nuclear energy kills the least amount of people per Wh produced.

[Anonymous No.11773258]

>>11773022
Super expensive. The elements that may have better uses than fuel in the future are irrecoverably destroyed.

[Anonymous No.11773285]

>>11773258
It's not super expensive when economies of scale and cheap capital (goverment loan interest rates are often zero) are utilized.

For example, a Finnish university found nuclear to be the cheapest source of electricity in Finland when all costs were calculated (cost of renewables almost never includes grid-related costs).

[Anonymous No.11773290]

>>11773285
What does economies of scale and cheap capital mean?
There is a basic cost of any power source in relation to others regardless of that isn't there?

[Anonymous No.11773296]

>>11773290
No, there is no "basic cost". Go look up Wright's law.

Nuclear is heavy on CAPEX so having a lower interest rate for that makes a huge difference.

[Anonymous No.11773715]

fission bad fusion good

[Anonymous No.11773728]

fusion is the ultimate goal of technology, it would give us infinite cheap energy. Fission is meh

[Anonymous No.11773736]

>>11773022
gen II worked but was unsafe (TMI fukushima chernobyl)
gen III is safe and modernized but expensive and challenging to build due to long investment times and hard regulation
gen IV is all about making new designs that will make nuclear powerplants easier to build (most important factor) but also run at higher temperatures (more efficient) and produce less waste (alternative fuel cycles)

Nuclear is based but the current economics and regulation is to poor for companies and politicians to peruse

[Anonymous No.11775409]

>>11773285
It may well have a very cheap $ per MWH once up and running but it's still so expensive and time consuming to get going that nobody is willing to invest in it. Nuclear is a huge financial risk compared to the emerging renewable markets

[Anonymous No.11775607]

>>11773728
How long until fusion is viable? There’s the “always 30 years away” meme, but how is it really?

[Anonymous No.11775674]

>>11775607
at our current pace, infinity years away

[Anonymous No.11775704]

>>11773182
>That is not expensive,

Don't forget to add the cost of the inevitable Chernobyl-sized dead spot in your country. Which totally won't be the fault of Nuclear, just one guy's fault for making a human error.

[Anonymous No.11775718]

>>11773736
>gen II worked but was unsafe (TMI fukushima chernobyl)

Everyone said Fukushima and Chernobyl were perfectly safe, right up until the day they weren't. Then is was some obvious error that no one would ever make, never mind that they just did.

If gen IV reactors are idiot proof, some suit will start trading safety for profit until it explodes.

[Anonymous No.11775804]

>>11775607
25 years away now, it will be 20 years away in about 30 years.

[Anonymous No.11777021]

>>11775704
Since when have Chernobyl-sized "dead" spots been inevitable? Are you maybe stupid?

Also, it's not a dead spot. Nature is thriving in the exclusion zone due to fewer humans being around. I would say it's a natural park if anything.

I will choose an extra natural park any day over extra human deaths. Nuclear kills less people than even wind or solar (Chernobyl statistics included) so why would you choose anything else?

[Anonymous No.11777024]

>>11775718
Who the hell ever said Chernobyl and Fukushima wrere safe?

There were a lot of safety complaint against Fukushima over the years.

Dumbass.

[Anonymous No.11777030]

>>11775704
Every place with a winter season looks like a desolate wasteland at some point of the year. Post pics from the middle of summer and stop the propaganda.

[Anonymous No.11777034]

If all the elecitrity generated by nuclear power plants was made with solar instead, we would need 4.5 exclusion zones for the panels.

[Anonymous No.11777605]

>>11773166
what about the thorium reactor concept?
could that make it more economical?
is there a way to reduce construction cost?

[Anonymous No.11777641]

>>11777605
The easiest way to make nuclear cheaper is to simply build more of it. Even a piece of shit Lada-car costs as much as a Ferrari if you only build one of each.

Asian reactors are cheap because multiple are being built all the time.

[Anonymous No.11777681]

>>11777641
You're not wrong.
But it's initial investment, vs how long it takes for it to be profitable.
Also the investment required for state owned entities will mean a temporary increase in power bills to offset this which is not a good way to win elections.

[Anonymous No.11777689]

>>11777681
also nuclear plant projects always overrun in costs and time.

my country wants to build 2 new reactors and the project has been stalled for 2 years now cause allegedly the rooskies can't manage EU regulations