/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12055404]

Why are we seeing less and less nuclear power while everyone is simultaneously up in arms about reducing carbon emissions?

[Anonymous No.12055426]

>>12055404
Because normies know fucking nothing and are scared of nuclear plants existing in their general area just because few disasters happened over last century that most likely did less total damage than USA dropping two nukes on Japan.

[Anonymous No.12055431]

>>12055404
Nuclear power isn’t a good investment

[Anonymous No.12055441]

>>12055404
People think that nuclear reactors can go off like nuclear bombs.

[Anonymous No.12055452]

>>12055441
And that sucks because modern reactors use thorium that also can be pulled out trivially at any time, shutting down an already barely volatile reaction completely.

We also know not to build nuclear plants in places where earthquakes can split them in half.

[Anonymous No.12055471]

>>12055452
Are you aware that most of the world lives in places where earthquakes can split them in half.

Besides, Don't you know a better method to make energy than heating water?

[Anonymous No.12055483]

>>12055452
I mean you can explain the science, the engineering, and the safety mechanics in place to anti-nuclear people and they will just dismiss as a coon or a fossil fuel agent trying to derail "clean" energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-7GyVLKE6A

[Anonymous No.12055493]

>>12055404
Because we still have no good way of dealing with high level radioactive waste

[Anonymous No.12055497]

Unironically the oil industry and environmentalists who don't understand the environment.

[Anonymous No.12055499]

>>12055471
There's a difference between an earthquake and earthquake splitting a building in half.

>Don't you know a better method to make energy than heating water?
I don't, but trolling isn't one of them.

[Anonymous No.12055526]

because an efficient energy source is not profitable in regards to taxing the shit out of poor and middle class people.

[Anonymous No.12055571]

>>12055499
>NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST OFFER ME A REASONABLE SOLUTION!!! I WANT TO SEE SOLAR PANELERINOS

[Anonymous No.12055582]

>>12055571
>unironically implying that solar panels can compete with nuclear power

[Anonymous No.12055583]

What about the fact that nuclear facilities have to be subsidized by the government to be profitable

[Anonymous No.12055589]

>>12055583
Here in the US power companies have natural monopolies, so they don't really have to be profitable.

[Anonymous No.12055592]

>>12055589
What about the rest of the world tho

[Anonymous No.12055593]

>>12055582
That was the joke...

[Anonymous No.12055598]

>>12055571
>>12055582
I thought solar panels were our best hope for truly renewable power?

[Anonymous No.12055610]

>>12055598
There exist natural nanomachines that convert solar rays into fuel that can be burned by humans already. They are called trees and plants. Solar panels produce nothing during the night

[Anonymous No.12055617]

>>12055610
except the rate of conversion is a bit slow m8

[Anonymous No.12055618]

>>12055592
Not all countries can afford nuclear.

[Anonymous No.12055635]

>>12055598
completely useless except in flat places where nobody lives (like desert). Their lifespan is also shit and they as investment barely pay off, if even that.

Maybe in next 200 years they will become useful, but now they aren't, and if we want to last next 200 years, we probably should stop burning fossils that resemble what we all will look like at this rate.

[Anonymous No.12055643]

>>12055598
We haven't solved the "store energy when produced to use it when needed" problem (aka the bathtub problem). Solar panels are also produce unfortunate amounts of pollution to produce.

[Anonymous No.12055693]

Idiots who are terrified of the word "nuclear" and stupid environmentalists who unironically believe that wind/solar power can run the whole planet.

[Anonymous No.12055697]

>>12055693
>>12055635
How ironic that some of the places with the least sun has so many people promoting a technology that requires sunlight.
That shit's going to power North Africa, if anything, not a fucking climate with overcast skies half of the year.

[Anonymous No.12055710]

>>12055693
pretending like nuclear is the end all be all of energy solutions is just as stupid.
there are still major problems that need to be overcome if we want to adopt this technology on a wider scale

[Anonymous No.12055761]

>>12055404
its really simple

leftists push nuclear -> co2 problem solved -> no more messiah complex
leftists push against nuclear -> co2 problem perpetually extended -> infinite messiah complex

[Anonymous No.12055768]

>>12055710
Nobody claimed that, the difference is that we're not retards claiming that its better to go extinct earlier than use nuclear energy and then use extra time to come up with a better idea.

[Anonymous No.12055940]

>>12055404
Natural gas is extremely cheap right now, and by happy coincidence it's also very low in emissions.

[Anonymous No.12057079]

>>12055404
Because CO2 emissions reduction is a scam.
There are many real problems like mercury or lead or particles, but CO2 is a great way to raise taxes on westerners and flat-out prevent poor countries from developing at all.
nuclear power would achieve neither of these 2 goals.

[Anonymous No.12057500]

>>12055404
The best solution to green energy is concentrated solar power. It's efficient and has little effect on the environment.

[Anonymous No.12057792]

>>12057500
The best solution is to eradicate this god awful species from this earth.

Far too stupid, ignorant, easily distracted, to even survive a small energy crisis. Ends up destroying their own resources instead.

They aren't destroying planet. They are destroying a habitable planet.

[Anonymous No.12057810]

>>12057792
>They are destroying a habitable planet.
Not even that, humans are one of the most pathetic lifeforms that survived only because evolution took place in actually relevant ones.

Plants, fungi and bacteria plus most insects like ants and cockroaches would survive even a nuclear winter.

[Anonymous No.12057815]

>>12057079
This is your brain on tinfoil.

[Anonymous No.12058080]

>>12055598
They are from an energy perspective because of
i) the suns longevity
ii) the actual power that hits the earth from the sun - enough sunlight hits earth in 1 hour than all the energy consumed by humans in one year (not just electrical).
That is not to say it is the solution to
i) limmiting carbon emissions
ii) providing a cheap/ more secure resource for the 21st century

However in the long run...yes definitely solar.
We can bump up the efficiency of solar panels by increasing the number of photons that successfully promote charge transfer.

Lots of chemists are working on this issue as it bridges academic and engineering interests.

eg Dye-sensitised solar cells (academics love this as getting a good dye is basically transition metal chemistry)
Organic solar cells (beauty about this is lack of pollution) which essentially incorporate main group inorganic cluster and electrochemistry. This surpasses the 'solar cells pollute lots' argument as the small organic materials are readily synthesised.

>>12055643
You can just direct solar power to fill up a reservoir and use it at peak time...exactly the same thing we do with fossil fuels!

Also chemical pollution is a really bad argument- everything pollutes its just about management, which can just as easily be applied to solar cells.

[Anonymous No.12058226]

>>12055598
I like the concept of solar panels and think they have tons of cool applications, but don't forget that they require a lot of rare earth minerals harvested for you by low-key slaves.

[Anonymous No.12058658]

>>12055404
The pictures one sees when websearching "chernobyl children" leave a stronger impression than environmentalist marketing.