Why doso many "environmentalists" hate nuclear power?

File: 143 KB, 971x593, nuclear power plant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Why doso many "environmentalists" hate nuclear power? Anonymous Sat Dec 19 09:25:21 2020 No.12483842 [Reply] [Original]

Are they fucking retarded or something? It is common knowledige that fission power, if managed correctly, is currently the cheapest way to create green energy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 09:27:08 2020 No.12483846 >if managed correctly

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 09:31:09 2020 No.12483854 Brainwashed by Big Oil. They literally fund anti-nuclear propaganda.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 09:36:04 2020 No.12483865 Retards think it's smoke coming out those towers

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 09:37:38 2020 No.12483867

there are certain topics where the population tends to have this huge blind spot. Nuclear Power is one of them. Climate change is another. So is the influence of Postmodernism. the Covid response is another example. Once you get so far up the societal ladder, science becomes indistinguishable from politics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 09:38:09 2020 No.12483869 File: 682 KB, 430x288, 0edd53dd2110147b786329c2e24fb1d0.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12483846

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 09:39:08 2020 No.12483872 Nuclear seems like the only true way to make wind/solar viable, at least in getting it off the ground. It’s funny when oil-baron bootlicker fags pull the muh environment card when talking nukes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 09:40:54 2020 No.12483876 >>12483869 It’s a trade off game, baby. Power ain’t free

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 09:41:46 2020 No.12483879 >>12483867 >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 09:51:14 2020 No.12483898 >>12483867 >facts that are politically inconvenient for me aren't science, they're politics See >>12483879

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:23:45 2020 No.12483947
File: 163 KB, 1024x768, us-new-power-plant-capacity-2003-2019Q1-chart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12483842
not even remotely environmentalist, but nuclear is dead. it's just a waste of time, effort and money,

nobody is building this shit, for good reason

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:28:53 2020 No.12483959 >>12483947 The French are, and they have really cheap energy

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:31:13 2020 No.12483963 >>12483898 Yes, what you wrote is an observable piece of behavior in many people

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:31:27 2020 No.12483964 >>12483947 >nuclear is dead because it's a waste of time, effort and money >why is it a waste of time, effort and money? >because it's dead

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:32:28 2020 No.12483965 >>12483963 Like you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:32:42 2020 No.12483966 >>12483854 This - orgs like Greenpeace get about 90% of their big donations from coal and oil companies. Whether they know and just don't care, or have convinced themselves it's not the case is unclear.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:35:30 2020 No.12483977 >>12483965 You are a fucking idiot

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:36:57 2020 No.12483981 The green movement was originally a soviet plot to cause problems and oppose western nuclear anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:38:13 2020 No.12483986 >>12483977 That's just politics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:40:07 2020 No.12483995 >>12483966 >orgs like Greenpeace get about 90% of their big donations from coal and oil companies Source?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:41:07 2020 No.12483998 >>12483966 Yes. These anti-nuke environmentalist are grifters, they would be against fusion energy because it would mean that they would have to get a job.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:41:26 2020 No.12484000 >>12483966 >The global organization does not accept funding from governments, corporations, or political parties, relying on three million individual supporters and foundation grants.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:43:17 2020 No.12484004

>>12483986
Jesus Christ. I'm not even the guy you were originally responding to. Science is routinely politicized and manipulated for political ends. A quick skimming of the history the 20th century will demonstrate this. Screaming /pol/ when this is pointed out is fucking stupid, especially when discussing nuclear power

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:44:09 2020 No.12484006

>>12483842
>Are they fucking retarded or something?
Straight to the point. Yes.
They are retards with a guilt complex. To them it's not about maintaining a high tech industrial civilization with cheap and abundant power.

To them it's about punishing humanity for overstepping our bonds and not being monkee anymore. They are against nuclear, they believe in population reduction schemes, they are against modern era materials such as plastics, they are against moderna agricultural practices, they are against anything that can be labeled chemical(greenpeace literally wanted to ban the element chlorine in everything, yes, including table salt).

In short, they are against civilization in the modern era and everything we have that supports it, yet somehow they believe they would survive the collapse if they got to implement all their antihuman fetishishisms.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:44:24 2020 No.12484007 We have a bunch of drunk vodkaniggers to thank for the current sad state of nuclear power

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:46:59 2020 No.12484015
File: 51 KB, 600x467, 001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12484004
>science has been politicized in the past
>therefore any I don't like is politicized
>oh and by the way, me rejecting science for political reasons is not politicization
This endless stream of /pol/ fueled conspiracy garbage is getting exceedingly tiresome. It's just so fucking boring, monotonous, and unimaginative. At least put some fucking effort into your trolling you lazy cunts. Trolling is supposed to be an art, but all you fuckers do is flood this board with bottom of the barrel regurgitated and steaming horse shit. It's not even entertaining. No wonder m00t created that containment board. But unfortunately all it did was create a safe space for you mongoloids to get each other all riled up so that you build up the courage to shit all over the other boards too. Just fucking die in a nice, warm, and cozy house fire already. At least that would give us some respite from the cancer that you're spreading.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:47:26 2020 No.12484019
File: 28 KB, 500x376, Snrub.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12484000
>Hello, my name is Mr. Ydobeap, and I made my fortune from, uh... something environmentally friendly and cruelty free! (Yes, that will do.) Anyway, I'd like to give Greenpeace a twenty million dollar grant to continue its noble fight against the evils of clean, efficient, safe nuclear fission power!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:47:34 2020 No.12484020 Don't we need a consistent supply of uranium ore in order to make nuclear energy practical long term? Isn't that just another finite resource?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:47:39 2020 No.12484021 >>12484006 I'm just fucking imagining some upper middle class sociology major trying to start a fire and starving after a few weeks

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:49:51 2020 No.12484027 >>12484015 >>therefore any I don't like is politicized >>oh and by the way, me rejecting science for political reasons is not politicization I never said any of this. You are arguing with someone who exists in your own head

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:50:04 2020 No.12484028 >>12484020 There are technologies like thorium reactors and (maybe in the near future) hydrogen fusion, so there would be plenty of fuel for nuclear power, at least in the foreseeable future

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:53:50 2020 No.12484040 >>12484019 No, actually it was a leprechaun that gave Greenpeace all of its money. Ironic since it got all of its gold from strip mining.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:54:46 2020 No.12484042

>>12484020
Yes, but there's enough to cheaply, safely, and efficiently bridge the gap between where we're at now and whatever better technologies will be developed over the next century.

>>12484028
>muh thorium! muh fusion!
Even if we crack the designs of a practical, sustainable, economically feasible thorium or fusion reactor TOMORROW, there's enough bureaucratic red tape to ensure it'd be 30-40 years before we see the first functional civilian plant open. Uranium fission is available NOW and there is absolutely no reason we shouldn't be building more uranium plants NOW.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:55:06 2020 No.12484045 >>12484020 Uranium can be harvested from seawater, which is a practically unlimited supply since it continually replenishes itself from the ocean floor.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:56:15 2020 No.12484048 >>12484027 I didn't say you said any of it. Learn how to read.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:57:04 2020 No.12484050 >>12484045 Hey buddy, here's a "not an argument" for ya You're an absolutely retarded fucking moron. LOL. LIke seriously unfathomably stoooopid. Just Shut The Fuck Up. That is all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 10:59:02 2020 No.12484052 File: 371 KB, 596x432, 1604974483884.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12484050

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:01:40 2020 No.12484056

>>12484052
Buddy.
You are an actual moron.
You'll never figure out why "uranium in seawater" is literally one of the stupidest ideas anyone has ever come up with.
I'm sure that's just one of a great deal of retarded things that you believe, and that's what makes you a mongoloid fucking idiot.
Please kill your self, and have a nice day.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:02:02 2020 No.12484058

>>12483995
In the 70s and 80s several oil and coal companies got caught directly funding environmental movements with strong anti-nuclear messaging. The oil company ARCO, for example, was donating hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to groups like 'Friends of the Earth'.

The companies stopped donating (at least with names and accounts that could be traced back to them), but you're kidding yourself if you believe they ever actually stopped the practice.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:03:03 2020 No.12484061 >>12484056 He's not your buddy, guy.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:05:40 2020 No.12484066

>>12484052
I'd try an analogy to help you understand why "uranium in seawater" is fucking stupid, but analogies (ANALOGIES, LOL) are literally too complex for your wretched, stinking fucking dog turd of a brain.

Drool more, retard. Oh and also kill your self, and have a wonderful day.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:05:59 2020 No.12484067

>>12484056
>You'll never figure out why "uranium in seawater" is literally one of the stupidest ideas anyone has ever come up with.
I'll never figure it out because the reason doesn't exist. Which is why you can only dance around the issue and whine like a child.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:08:07 2020 No.12484070

>>12484067
LOL
People with greater than room temperature IQ are literally laughing their asses off at you right now.
If I were a nuclear shill, I'd be embarrassed having you on my side. And I'd probably tell you "thanks for the help, Timmy, but we'll take it from here now."

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:08:15 2020 No.12484071 >>12484042 >bridge the gap between where we're at now and whatever better technologies will be developed over the next century. ah, so it is cope. are these massive mining operations any better or worse than drilling for oil?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:09:45 2020 No.12484074 >>12484067 Run along timmy, you've been a great help for the cause, but you'd be a bigger help if you'd go home and help mom out around the house Good job little Timmy. You've done good work here, now run along.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:11:23 2020 No.12484077 >>12483959 Even the French are passing out nuclear. Shit is too expensive.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:12:35 2020 No.12484079

>>12484058
>In the 70s and 80s
You said orgs get about 90% of their big donations from coal and oil companies. Do you have any recent data to back that up or are you just making up percentages?

>several oil and coal companies got caught directly funding environmental movements with strong anti-nuclear messaging.
Yes, but organizations like Greenpeace are not primarily anti-nuclear. Greenpeace spends as much, if not more time criticizing those companies and demanding an end to fossil fuels. This is not because they are paid to be anti-nuclear, it's because they don't understand it.

>The companies stopped donating (at least with names and accounts that could be traced back to them)
So where did 90% come from?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:13:36 2020 No.12484081 >>12484066 See >>12484067

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:15:21 2020 No.12484085
File: 226 KB, 391x426, IMHALPIGN.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12484045
>Uranium can be harvested from seawater, which is a practically unlimited supply since it continually replenishes itself from the ocean floor.

Good job Timmy. Thanks for helping. Now you'd be an even bigger help if you went home and help mom out around the house.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:16:26 2020 No.12484089 >>12484081 Honestly, I'd be inclined to take some nuclear shills more seriously if one of them told you to shut the fuck up. That's how fucking stupid you are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:22:34 2020 No.12484111 >>12484071 Better - you get substantially more bang for your buck, as it were.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:23:07 2020 No.12484115 >>12484020 Nuclear power is not easily renewable, but it will last a long time. Nonrenewability is not the primary reason why people are rejecting it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:33:12 2020 No.12484136 File: 42 KB, 562x437, haha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12484050 >>12484056 >>12484066 >>12484070 >>12484074 >>12484085 >>12484089 Nice shitposting, schizo.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:33:25 2020 No.12484138

>>12484079
>organizations like Greenpeace are not primarily anti-nuclear
It's not their primary schtick, but they have no problem funding and putting out a ton of anti-nuclear messages, reports, protests, etc. Every time someone wants to build a new plant they trot out their bullshit claims about Chernobyl causing 200K deaths in Europe, they were one of the most vocal NPOs opposing Yucca Mountain, Greenpeace is literally protesting a new nuclear plant in Suffolk as we speak..

Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and other groups like them may not be dedicated anti-nuclear groups, but they do frequently go out of their way to oppose nuclear power.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:39:55 2020 No.12484152 >>12484085 Why can't it be harvested from seawater? I'm not him, I don't know why not, and your retarded smugposting is getting annoying. Put up or shut up

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:45:33 2020 No.12484163 >>12484152 Ok. Maybe you're smart enough for an analogy. He certainly isn't. Why can't you grow a crop by having one plant spread out every 10 kilometers?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:48:20 2020 No.12484173 >>12484163 I get it now. I'm guessing it's the same deal harvesting carbon from seawater for renewable petrol fuels?

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:50:44 2020 No.12484180

>>12484173
>harvesting carbon from seawater
i dont know about that, but probably
in general it takes energy to make things high enough concentration to be useful if they aren't already high enough concentration, generally more energy than you get out of them when used, so it all becomes pointless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:51:24 2020 No.12484183 >>12484163 Retarded analogy. Harvesting crops can't be done passively, seawater harvesting can because it's constantly moving.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:52:53 2020 No.12484189

>>12484138
>'s not their primary schtick, but they have no problem funding and putting out a ton of anti-nuclear messages, reports, protests, etc.
So oil companies will fund mostly anti-oil messaging? And you can't track it but you know it's 90% of large donations? LOL.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:53:03 2020 No.12484192 >>12484183 you seriously need to just fuck off and die, man you're too fucking stupid for this board don't even talk to me.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:55:33 2020 No.12484203

>>12484180
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200715123120.htm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235101583_The_Feasibility_and_Current_Estimated_Capital_Costs_of_Producing_Jet_Fuel_at_Sea_Using_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Hydrogen
Why should I trust your opinion on extracting uranium from the sea when I can't trust it on extracting hydrocarbons?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:56:38 2020 No.12484209 File: 50 KB, 645x729, 1515194851321.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12484192 >Can't even come up with an analogy >you're too fucking stupid

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 11:59:38 2020 No.12484216 >>12484203 Are you a scientologist or something? Is the the big scientologist "gotcha"? You feel really smart now? LOL @ The smug optimism of the delusional growth monger cultist. again and again and again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:00:18 2020 No.12484220 >>12484180 >in general it takes energy to make things high enough concentration to be useful Yes, ocean currents have a lot of energy. Dunce.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:00:47 2020 No.12484221 >>12484203 EROEI is ceoncept I suggest looking into it.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:02:24 2020 No.12484231

>>12484216
My only posts in this thread are asking you to clarify your position, asking you a question to which I already know the answer to gauge your willingness to opine on topics you're uninformed about, and then giving you the answer to my question. You know nothing about me or any of my positions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:02:56 2020 No.12484232 seems like the entire team of nuclear shills assigned /sci/ are retards. Explains >>12484089

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:03:21 2020 No.12484235

>>12484189
>So oil companies will fund mostly anti-oil messaging?
They don't give a shit about the anti-oil messaging because it's barely a blip on Big Oil's radar... but their anti-nuclear messaging has a comparatively massive impact on nuclear power.

Greenpeace protests a new oil platform? The oil company has a thousand bureaucrats who will push it through. Greenpeace protests a nuclear plant? Who's coming to bat for it? Nobody.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:04:25 2020 No.12484241 File: 108 KB, 1024x768, tumblr_o16n2kBlpX1ta3qyvo1_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12484232 Keep posting schizo. This is hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:04:52 2020 No.12484244 >>12484152 Try harvesting gold from seawater and see how renewable and efficient it is

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:06:14 2020 No.12484250 >>12484244 Harvesting gold from seawater? Science fiction, can't ever happen.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:06:22 2020 No.12484251
File: 185 KB, 805x453, 1530551709528.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12483842
well, decades of anti nuclear propaganda made by Oil corporations and now green energy like Solar/Wind, so is not a surprise people are against it. They somehow think we will go green by 2050 in term of energy, only Green energy and batteries(they come from the space by the way) , Even if it was the only good alternative until Fusion

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:06:51 2020 No.12484254 >>12484232 >supporting the most efficient power source currently available makes you a shill >now, let me tell you again about how we can power all of Europe with a meager 30M acre solar farm in the Sahara

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:07:15 2020 No.12484255

>>12484244
Don't bother with analogies on these people. They're all delusional growth monger cultists. It's like convincing fanatical evangelicals that christ didn't return from the grave. If it weren't online, they'd probably just kill you for saying so.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:12:14 2020 No.12484271 >>12484235 >They don't give a shit about the anti-oil messaging because it's barely a blip on Big Oil's radar... but their anti-nuclear messaging has a comparatively massive impact on nuclear power. Then why aren't they funding Greenpeace?

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:14:14 2020 No.12484282

>>12484015
Christ I didn't mean to upset you with my post. Nuclear Power is just one of those subjects where truth has been clouded. I think a reasonable look at history and the relevant science shows this. Nuclear accidents have been made to look much worse than they are; health effects of radiation have been grossly exaggerated. You cannot deny that Nuclear Power is a deeply political issue. Those of us in the industry are facing an issue disseminating correct info to the wider public, as I assume professionals from other hot topics like epidemiology are finding out.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:15:21 2020 No.12484293

>>12483966
Greenpeace was started to mess with French nuclear weapons testing.

They're funded by the Sierra club who invest heavy into natural gas (formerly coal and oil).

OP is asking the question the wrong way.
They should be asking "why was the green movement started in response to nuclear power?" Because the truth is they only started caring about fossil fuels in the last 40 years or so.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:25:40 2020 No.12484316
File: 74 KB, 1280x720, turtlewater.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If you calculate current cost efficiency all of the renewable are still complete unusable trash and get trounced by gas/oil. The renewables have been perpetually 20 years from profitable output for 60 years, you will just not beat the BTU for hydrocarbons. Nuclear manages to compete but the nuclear age made everyone treat it with religious levels of retardation, with the sheer amount of technologies we have now we easily put nuclear plant expected malfunction damage orders of magnitude below just coal and oil plants exploding or causing environmental leaks which is common.

You can calculate it all yourself, the energy per cost ratios of everything and the average damages of each energy production plant failing or background damage to the environment and there is no reason we shouldn't be using Nuclear.

>But muh fukushima!

Yeah anyone is retarded for building a nuclear power plant on a coastline in a tsunami prone volcano wasteland. It's like people whining about hurricanes hitting their houses it is just especially retarded to locate a nuke plant there.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:33:18 2020 No.12484334

>>12484045
It cost money to harvest WATER from seawater...
What do you think it costs to harvest something that is measured in parts per billion from sea water?

It actually takes effort to be as stupid as you are, and only seriously delusional religious fanatics manage to brainwash themselves into believing such nonsense. Very impressive.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:35:56 2020 No.12484342

>>12484316

Not this guy but you can read "Sustainable Energy – without the hot air" where some UK madlad has done the calculations for you. Renewables don't even come close.

BTW fukushima radiation never killed anyone. The steam/zircaloy reaction which blew the reactors have been studied extensively over the last decade and are being rectified with new robust fuel designs.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:38:22 2020 No.12484352

>>12484342
I took a good college course where we basically just did that all semester, calculating the returns on every single energy source yields from different heights of dams and spreads of solar panels. It's a big dumb joke renewables. The only civilization level energy sources we have are oil and nuclear, the green idiot's dream of everyone having little renewable scattered generators everywhere never ran the numbers and is completely delusional.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:40:41 2020 No.12484362 >>12484334 >What do you think it costs to harvest something that is measured in parts per billion from sea water? About $200/lb. This adds less than a cent to the cost per kWh of nuclear. Dunce. The cost of uranium is irrelevant.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:46:48 2020 No.12484377

>>12484362
Oh wow so I can have uranium for basically nothing when the cost on the open market is literally millions per pound?
Geeze it's a miracle!! Praise be to Jebus!! Wow you're a genius. Go do it. Harvest uranium from seawater. Go get rich ya fucking retard!! LOL

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:49:17 2020 No.12484391 >>12484377 Anon are you fucking mentally ill? Uranium is very common and costs 30 dollars a pound.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:50:58 2020 No.12484397 >>12484391 Go get rich harvesting uranium from seawater then if it's so easy. Also, go fuck yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:51:14 2020 No.12484400 >>12484391 I think he's retarded and thinking of enriched uranium.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:52:26 2020 No.12484405 File: 76 KB, 1464x715, uranium.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12484397 I'm not the sea water anon, but anon I... I think you've had too much to think.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 12:58:42 2020 No.12484428 >>12484400 He is not only retarded but mentally ill. Best just to ignore him.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 13:03:37 2020 No.12484440 >>12484428 >EROEI isn't a thing >the smug optimism of the delusional growth monger cultists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 13:08:34 2020 No.12484454 >>12484440 It is indeed a thing. Are you going to use your words like a big boy or throw another schizo tantrum?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 13:09:22 2020 No.12484455 File: 2.46 MB, 938x4167, 1311010641509.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] They dont know about LFTRs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 13:14:06 2020 No.12484467 >>12484454 Don't you have some uranium to harvest out of your moms gaping vagina?

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 13:14:46 2020 No.12484469

>>12484455
>MUH THORIUM!!!!
Yes yes, it'll be wonderful if they ever come up with a workable reactor design that incorporates an in-situ fuel cycle. Until then let's make a bargain, you back uranium fission and we'll back thorium as a replacement when it becomes viable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 13:15:59 2020 No.12484473 >>12484467 OK, back in the timeout corner you go.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 13:17:03 2020 No.12484477 >>12484473 But uranium is literally EVERYWHERE right? So harvest it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 13:21:47 2020 No.12484488 >>12483842 >Are they fucking retarded or something? Yes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 13:22:05 2020 No.12484491 >>12484469 Aren't CANDU reactors already able to use it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 13:29:40 2020 No.12484510 >>12484469 There is a veritable buffet of promising thorium reactor designs. The problem is regulation and getting a reactor approved for testing

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 13:34:52 2020 No.12484520

>>12484510
Large part of the problem being that politicians are not scientists.
Often their Environment and Research cabinet members are also not scientists.
They may consult with scientists when it comes to approving/regulating nuclear power but at the end of the day they are always going to follow public opinion and biases ingrained by the fossil fuel industry and act against scary nuclear bomb power.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 13:54:44 2020 No.12484572

>>12484152
It's so hideously expensive that it hurts, pretty sure you just straight up lose more energy doing that than you gain from the nuclear energy. It's the same reason you don't harvest gold from there despite there being lot in there, you could just buy gold for cheaper.

And yes you are retarded for not understanding that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 13:55:04 2020 No.12484573 >>12483842 >heating water Why do you chuds are so obsessed with what makes some jew more money or not? You don't even need that power, otherwise how do you live right now?

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 14:05:11 2020 No.12484598

>>12484077
Lol no we are passing out nuclear because the population has been brainwashed into thinking nuclear is the devil and wind turbines are green angels that will save the world from pollution while producing none of their own. Then it becomes necessary to be against nuclear for politicians to get elected. It's all very convenient to destroy state owned nuclear and replace it by privately made and owned wind turbines. All the dumb leftists fall for it, it is very effective since 90% of leftists are braindead

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 14:07:55 2020 No.12484611

>>12484598
You know this is true because China a self interested ethnostate that doesn't care about western moral pretensions has doubled their nuclear grid contribution in 5 years to 5 percent and will push it even higher as their main environmental strategy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 14:12:02 2020 No.12484621 >>12484598 everyone you hate is a "leftist", huh?

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 14:14:11 2020 No.12484628
File: 166 KB, 2294x1074, Cost_of_electricity_by_source.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12483842
>it is common knowledge
People arguing on the basis what they believe to be "common knowledge" shouldn't be paid attention to.
Here are 3 analysis saying otherwise and they probably ignore lots of external costs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 14:23:43 2020 No.12484669 >>12484352 but what about every neighborhood having one or two people with safire-style reactors who sell power directly to their neighbors?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 14:24:23 2020 No.12484672 >>12484628 >Lazard, International Renewable Energy Agency and Bloomberg New Energy Finance Limited Truly the worlds most unbiased sources for energy production cost. What's next, Greenpeace?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 14:30:59 2020 No.12484703 >>12484669 I don't doubt fusion will eventually be solved but I don't really have any faith the current methods tested will work it would have to rely on some huge materials breakthrough or something else in physics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 14:35:52 2020 No.12484725 File: 40 KB, 800x450, 1555841259522.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12483865 oh no that is not smoke it is steam

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 14:52:19 2020 No.12484797 >>12483865 it's probably this, smoke = bad

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 14:55:21 2020 No.12484810
File: 330 KB, 600x887, 20130109.0[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12484015
>your politically rationalized scientific opinions are wrong
>my politically rationalized scientific opinions are right

fact of the matter is, once a topic becomes heavily political, the pertinent information, and the studies involving the topics, become skewed and biased along political lines to the point that logical discourse is impossible. both groups become distasteful of information or studies that skew towards the opposing opinion, even if just partially, which initially is just a marginal effect; "these numbers add up 2% differently than what I believe they should". however, this bias slowly adds up over years and years, until a factual rift forms between the viewpoints; virtually no beliefs are shared and meaningful discourse becomes impossible. the reality hasn't changed, it's just now considered "wrong" by both groups for being "biased" towards the other, and the topic is now impossible to talk about it beyond "we are all going to die" from group A and "absolutely everything is fine" from group B.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 15:03:50 2020 No.12484843 >>12484628 https://www.iea.org/articles/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator the LCOE method is being changed to include some more backend stuff for wind/solar, which will make things look more realistic

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 15:24:53 2020 No.12484928 >>12484725 From the steamed rods they're preparing?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 15:50:37 2020 No.12485033 >>12484843 How do they evaluate costs for incidents, future accidents, potential for future misuse/risks and waste disposal and storage?

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 15:53:07 2020 No.12485049

>>12484572
>It's so hideously expensive that it hurts
Who?

>pretty sure you just straight up lose more energy doing that than you gain from the nuclear energy.
Bullshit.

>It's the same reason you don't harvest gold from there despite there being lot in there, you could just buy gold for cheaper.
This would only be used when we ran out of conventional uranium. You are a complete moron who can't grasp the simplest concepts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 15:58:54 2020 No.12485080 File: 321 KB, 546x697, backtox.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12484669 >safire Oh for fuck's sake.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 16:04:08 2020 No.12485108

>>12484810
>my politically rationalized scientific opinions
Such as?

>fact of the matter is, once a topic becomes heavily political, the pertinent information, and the studies involving the topics, become skewed and biased along political lines to the point that logical discourse is impossible.
How convenient to be able to immediately dismiss all evidence immediately. Especially convenient considering if you have no evidence.

You're pathetic.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 16:09:56 2020 No.12485137

>>12483842
Environmentalists are smart enough to know that humans, especially the arrogant and greedy ones, tend to fuck up constantly. So they can't really be trusted with technology that can render areas the size of large city uninhabitable.
Nothing personal. nuclear shills. People just don't think you're up to the task.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 16:15:14 2020 No.12485166

>>12483842
After we got all the plutonium we ever needed for the nukes we judge the technology like any other investment, which is why the only instances these things are built are because of
a) direct state subsidies like in China
b) some outsider paying for it like the French paying for the Finnish Olkiluoto
c) some price guarantee like with the British Hinkley point

Economically they're just shit. They can't compete. And that's even though they don't include all their costs in the price. Long term waste storage is paid for by the taxpayer. And no insurance company is willing to insure these things. They're simply shit.

Some people like to attribute some kind of sinister force suppressing a magical wonder machine. But the reality of much more banal. Your "common knowledge" is nothing more than a religious dogma of your cabal.

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 16:19:20 2020 No.12485179

>>12485137
Is that why nuclear has one of the cleanest track records of any energy production method, both ecologically and human life?

>>12485166
>a) direct state subsidies like in China
>b) some outsider paying for it like the French
paying for the Finnish Olkiluoto
>c) some price guarantee like with the British Hinkley point
I think you mistook nuclear for "renewable" energy.
>Your "common knowledge" is nothing more than a religious dogma of your cabal.
Now you're definitely talking about renewables.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 16:23:09 2020 No.12485201 >>12485179 >Is that why nuclear has one of the cleanest track records of any energy production method, both ecologically and human life? That's just plain wrong. LOL

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 16:40:48 2020 No.12485291 File: 69 KB, 728x475, btfo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12485201

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 16:46:56 2020 No.12485329 >>12485291 That's just some stupid jpg you just came up with now so you wouldn't look like such a retard. Stop lying.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 16:49:43 2020 No.12485337 >>12485329 Read for yourself then, moron. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272406182_Why_nuclear_energy_is_sustainable_and_has_to_be_part_of_the_energy_mix

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 16:51:49 2020 No.12485354 >>12485179 You know you can look things up if you don't believe them, right? It's also a better use of time than just plain contracticiting without reasoning or evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 16:52:06 2020 No.12485356 >>12485337 ya its bullshit. they didn't even bother trying to quantify the effects of increasing ambient radiation on cancer rates.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 16:58:59 2020 No.12485390 >>12485356 Okay asshat, how about you cite some sources then instead of just writing your useless opinions then?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 17:05:09 2020 No.12485411 >>12485390 you're the one making claims here that nuclear is so great. so post some sources that aren't bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 17:10:44 2020 No.12485438 File: 119 KB, 640x488, 1595773989771.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12485411 Ok retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 17:14:19 2020 No.12485445 File: 256 KB, 1296x1458, 1560274599116.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12485438

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 17:25:46 2020 No.12485474 >>12485179 >What is Tchernobyl

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 17:50:06 2020 No.12485583 >>12485356 >it doesn't matter that it kills less people >OK well it doesn't matter that it makes less people sick >OK well it hurts my feelings that's why we can't have nuclear

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 17:52:23 2020 No.12485592 >>12484282 >>12484027 >>12484810 Y'all are responding to pasta. That anon took maybe a second to paste that rant. He's been posting it all over /sci/ for days. Don't take the bait.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 18:09:53 2020 No.12485653 File: 53 KB, 403x448, cvbbmwwe4rzz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12485592 >He

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 18:10:42 2020 No.12485656
File: 124 KB, 800x600, 800px-Surface_Mining_Hambach_200800806.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12485137
> nuclear can render areas the size of a city uninhabitable in case of accident t
> therefore let's faze out nuclear and use coal instead, which render areas the size of a city uninhabitable during normal operations !

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 18:14:08 2020 No.12485668 >>12485656 mmmm, i just love the smell of all that economic growth

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 18:17:24 2020 No.12485672 >>12485592 I recognized the pasta, but that idiot seems to actually believe some of their own bullshit

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 18:49:47 2020 No.12485750 >>12483842 Nuclear power is dead and no amount of paid spam here will change that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 18:59:27 2020 No.12485772 >>12484000 >what is money laundering

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 19:06:46 2020 No.12485792 >>12485656 >pic absolutely degenerate

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 20:41:26 2020 No.12486045 >>12485772 >what is no evidence

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 22:52:59 2020 No.12486304 >>12483865 Its smoke and CO2 and radiation. Nuclear is worse than coal and I say this as the biggest environmentalist around. Solar and wind are the future, not dirty shit tier tech from the 1940s.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 23:09:18 2020 No.12486362 >>12486304 Go back to /pol/, retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 23:13:01 2020 No.12486374 File: 84 KB, 1055x815, LazardDt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] expensive meme

Anonymous Sat Dec 19 23:13:56 2020 No.12486379

>>12483842
Because it's fucking guaranteed that it won't be managed correctly.
Autistic shut-ins look at the tech and say "this is perfectly functional if managed properly."
Regular well-adjusted people look at the world and say "wow, there's corruption and incompetence everywhere, that's going to spell disaster when combined with nuclear power plants."
Corners will be cut, margins will be on everyone's minds, and over time everything will just deteriorate more and more, assuming it was even built and operated properly in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 23:28:06 2020 No.12486426 File: 660 KB, 1620x1080, Rössing uranium mine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12485656 Wow that's horrible, I'm glad those clean uranium mines are nothing alike

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 19 23:40:33 2020 No.12486467 >>12486379 Wow somehow the majority of countries that have nuclear power have defied your guarantee so far.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 00:11:53 2020 No.12486537 People are afraid of a second chernobyl, as unlikely as it is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:06:12 2020 No.12486726 >>12486426 You think that's bad? Wait till you learn how much land gets cleared just to make enough space for Solar Farms. An entire hundred mile square just to provide enough energy comparable to an average powerplant

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:09:49 2020 No.12486734 >>12486379 There are over 440 nuclear plants in the world. You can only name 2 incidents One of which was deliberate

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:10:50 2020 No.12486735 >>12486426 Also, Solar Panels are the BIGGEST consumer of rare-earth minerals. Go fuck yourself

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:22:05 2020 No.12486766 >>12486735 Those are used for doping. That means it's about 1 kilo of rare earths per ton of solar panels. Literally nothing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:24:53 2020 No.12486771 File: 44 KB, 584x451, Mining requirement.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12486766 Shut the fuck up

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:29:54 2020 No.12486775 >>12486771 Are you aware that iron, copper, aluminum, and glass are not rare earths and that concrete, which is half of your energy cost, is not an essential part of solar installation?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:37:19 2020 No.12486791
File: 34 KB, 685x282, 41598_2013_Article_BFsrep02727_Fig1_HTML.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12486775
Uranium is more common than silver and you have the gall to accuse its mining requirements when your fucking solar lies are not even worth shit

Kill yourself, fucknut.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:38:27 2020 No.12486796 >>12486791 Your reading comprehension is garbage. Are you posting from a troll farm?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:41:24 2020 No.12486807 >>12486791 >Carbon nanotubes >Titanium oxide Are you implying this is the typical construction method for solar panels?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:45:00 2020 No.12486817 >>12486775 does it really matter when all are acquired by open pit mining? open pit mining is basically lights out for the environment in that area for the next 10,000 years.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:46:12 2020 No.12486822 >>12486817 It does because mining for uranium also contaminates the surrounding area for centuries. Do you like cancer with your morning hike?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:48:01 2020 No.12486827 >>12486822 You think that chemicals are used only for mining uranium?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:48:57 2020 No.12486831 >>12486827 No, I think uranium is only present in uranium rich ores. You are aware that the runoff from uranium mines is radioactive, right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:50:23 2020 No.12486834 >>12486831 Let me guess, you don't even know what radiation is, do you? You fucking popsci retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:52:09 2020 No.12486835 >>12486834 You sound like you're projecting. Are you really asserting that uranium isn't radioactive or that the runoff from uranium mines is radioactive?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:53:38 2020 No.12486837

>>12486726
land usage is self correcting because if it's too valuable it's too expensive to buy, it's not some virgin national forest being turned into a solar farm, it's some asshole's empty lot that hasn't been farmed in 50 years and the most interesting wildlife living there is a family of possums.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:53:39 2020 No.12486838 >>12486835 >the runoff from uranium mines is radioactive maybe you should post a source for this

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:56:34 2020 No.12486840

>>12486838
Besides common sense? Okay. Take your pick.

https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste-uranium-mining-and-milling#:~:text=The%20Uranium%20Mill%20Tailings%20Radiation,under%20the%20Clean%20Water%20Act.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/environmental-aspects-of-uranium-mining.aspx

https://www.nap.edu/read/13266/chapter/9

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/uranium-mines

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 02:58:32 2020 No.12486843 >>12486837 This

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:03:05 2020 No.12486852
File: 78 KB, 1200x848, Serval.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12486835
Here's some REAL lesson about radiation for your ignorant ass

We have 3 types of radiation: alpha, beta, and gamma
Alpha is the strongest but cannot penetrate through skin and reacts strongly with water
Gamma is the weakest at 1/1000 of Alpha but can penetrate meters of lead

Atoms come in different isotopes (extra or less neutrons) which affects whether they are stable or radioactive.

Uranium is Alpha radioactive which means that they are deadly but simply wearing a dust mask makes them useless. And dropping uranium waste on water is the BEST solution because alpha particles react with Hydrogen atoms to create Deuterium/Tritum which are gamma radioactive and near useless.

The only time deuterium becomes deadly is when you drank over 50% of your body weight with it.

So shut the fuck up over radiation leak. Radiation and poison are 2 different things. Radioactive water is far from deadly and actually precious and can be sold for $1-$1000 a gram.

Instead of complaining about radioactive water, why not collect it and sell it?

Know what you always forget? The production of PV cells are highly poisonous and damages the Ozone like you won't believe. The Solar panel has to work for 10+ years just to break even the damages it has brought on manufacturing alone and it has a lifespan of 30 years

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:06:54 2020 No.12486862 >>12486840 All types of mining create waste. Heavy metals mainly. Just because it might be slight more radioactive than other types of mining doesn't make it worse.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:11:26 2020 No.12486871 >>12486852 >>12486862 Uranium is by far the most polluting resource to mine for, except possibly coal. Cope harder and beg for bigger subsidies.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:13:27 2020 No.12486876 >>12486871 Can't hear you over the sound of energy too cheap to meter

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:14:23 2020 No.12486877 >>12486871 >Uranium is by far the most polluting resource to mine for you have a source for that?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:14:27 2020 No.12486879 >>12486876 I think you mean so expensive, even existing plants can't stay open without begging for subsidies.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:15:27 2020 No.12486882 File: 5 KB, 418x260, 2013-electricity-price-per-KWh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12486879 Ignorant piece of shit

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:16:30 2020 No.12486884 >>12486882 Hell yeah i've seen this one before, can you tell me where this is specifically?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:18:55 2020 No.12486889 >>12486877 How about google? I've already provided you with plenty of sources and all you've done is speak out of your ass.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:19:56 2020 No.12486893 >>12486882 Then why are there more closing down than opening up?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:19:58 2020 No.12486894 File: 95 KB, 580x578, Death per energy produced.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12486884 Wikipedia and research gate. Sites too intelligent for you. >>12486889 >A metal as common as tin is polluting to mine RETARD

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:21:06 2020 No.12486896 >>12486893 There are 50 reactors being built right now How many reactors closed down?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:23:41 2020 No.12486901 >>12486896 Sixty in the last ten years with many more to follow.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:25:03 2020 No.12486904 >>12486894 >A metal as common as tin is polluting to mine Who are you quoting?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:25:07 2020 No.12486905

>>12486894
Sorry you fail, that meme graph is exclusively for Ontario in 2013. >>12486374
is actually accurate which show it as one of the most expensive sources of electricity by a large margin.
>https://www.njspotlight.com/2018/10/18-10-04-pseg-affirms-it-will-shut-down-nuclear-plants-unless-it-gets-big-subsidies/
>https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/exelon-threatens-to-close-two-nuclear-plants-as-battle-over-state-subsidies-looms
Even existing plants can't stay open without begging for subsidies.
Can we talk about how virtually every current project is billions over budget and years late?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:25:54 2020 No.12486908 >>12486901 Why do you have to lie? Are you that desperate?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:27:32 2020 No.12486910 >>12486908 >He doesn't know how to use google Don't worry, baby bird, I'll feed you. https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:31:35 2020 No.12486919

>>12486905
Wow
Shut down 3 nuclear plants built since the 60's.
There are 2 planned for 2022 at 1250MW

>>12486910
>no names of the plant sites
Really? For all we know, they are all form the Cold War

This are the planned sites for Nuclear
>https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx#:~:text=About%2050%20power%20reactors%20are,and%20the%20United%20Arab%20Emirates.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:36:17 2020 No.12486924 >>12486919 >For all we know, they are all form the Cold War And? If more are shutting down than are opening there are fewer plants. That's like second grade math. If you want the total capacity over time you can see it's been flat for about 20 years.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:37:19 2020 No.12486926 File: 25 KB, 592x294, main.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12486919 >>12486924

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:37:31 2020 No.12486928

>>12486919
it's not about the number it's why they were shut down. They couldn't stay open without subsidies. So they shut down. There's a whole lot more that shut down as well as well as others that managed to get their subsidies. Neither paints the picture you want.
>There are 2 planned for 2022 at 1250MW
you mean vogtle 3 and 4? remind me what was the original budget, and what is the cost now? Oh and when were they first supposed to open?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:39:46 2020 No.12486934
File: 159 KB, 1020x807, 1564707114005.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Yo, mister Solar Guy
Your Solar Farm got shut down in less than 5 years because it consumes too much land and was too inefficient
>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-06/a-1-billion-solar-plant-was-obsolete-before-it-ever-went-online

>>12486924
>>12486928
They are shutting them down because they are OLD. It is unknown how much those old models produces
But a single modern nuclear plant produces 1000MW+

Guess how much a solar farm produces

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:40:06 2020 No.12486936 File: 84 KB, 800x533, 1564308099540.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12486304 >radiation comes out of the cooling towers

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:40:51 2020 No.12486940 Started as cold war disarmament psyops and then turned into convenient Sin to be used by various ideologies feigning interest in the environment/gaia. The best energy source is dead. Enjoy your coal.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:40:52 2020 No.12486939 >>12486928 >>12486934 Again, nuclear has no growth. The capacity is flat over time and has been forever. Do you know what energy sources aren't flat? Literally all of them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:41:25 2020 No.12486943 >>12486939 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA Dumbass

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:42:48 2020 No.12486946 >>12486943 Cope harder, bro. Nobody wants nuclear. That's why it's failing to grow even with the massive subsidies it receives. Too many better options.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:44:14 2020 No.12486951 >>12486946 Says the guy who do not understand even the basics of physics

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:45:00 2020 No.12486952 >>12486951 Project harder, kid

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:45:43 2020 No.12486955

>>12486934
>By the time the plant opened in 2015, the increased efficiency of cheap solar panels had already surpassed its technology, and today it’s obsolete—the latest panels can pump out power at a fraction of the cost for decades with just an occasional hosing-down.
yeah solar thermal sucks, anyone could tell you this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:46:45 2020 No.12486957 >>12486951 >physics I can't help but notice you retards never bring up economics.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:47:12 2020 No.12486959
File: 21 KB, 700x313, nuclear-electricity-production-2020.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>nuclear plants are shutting down
>nuclear plants cannot live without subsidies
Nuclear power plants has continued operating for 80 years now. How many years to you think Solar meme can live?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:49:13 2020 No.12486964
File: 320 KB, 1280x1691, electricity_110.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12486957
>more efficient
>less resources
>runs 24/7
If the physics say it's better, economics have no other options
Now go read a physics book.
Here. Read this book for retarded people like you

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:50:09 2020 No.12486970 >>12486964 Good job outing yourself as a pseud

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:50:18 2020 No.12486971 >>12486959 imagine shilling for an industry that's been irrelevant for 90 years, and that's after taxpayers funded literally all the R&D

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:50:56 2020 No.12486973 >>12486426 Rossing mine : 4.5 km2 open pit in a desert hambach mine : 43 km2 of old forest destroyed. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:51:39 2020 No.12486975 File: 12 KB, 220x164, 220px-PV_cume_semi_log_chart_2014_estimate.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12486959 >TFW no exponential growth Get dabbed on

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:51:56 2020 No.12486977 File: 205 KB, 510x405, a31.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12486971 I am studying particle physics. What are you studying? Liberal arts?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:52:44 2020 No.12486982 >>12486977 You'll be flipping burgers while she/he manages your automation lmao.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:53:34 2020 No.12486984 >>12486977 >Anime poster I think you mean dropping out of a particle physics major

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:54:15 2020 No.12486987
File: 103 KB, 1020x797, fd1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12486975
>exponential growth
>20 years
OH MY FUCKING SIDES
Solar is going to platue at 40% efficiency because that is the physical limit of silicon

Nuclear went from 80 to 95%

>>12486982
As opposed to the guy who cannot even flip burgers?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:55:50 2020 No.12486989 >>12486987 Sure kid, we got a 2-3 year doubling period over here. When was the last time nuclear doubled it's capacity?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:56:50 2020 No.12486993

>>12486964
>more efficient
literally meaningless all that matters is cost
>less resources
again all that matters is cost of these resources. Which as we've covered nuclear is expensive as shit.
>runs 24/7
this is nice but renewables+ storage is already competing with fossil fuels let alone nuclear.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:57:16 2020 No.12486995 File: 527 KB, 680x680, f0c.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12486989 How do you improve from a perfect 95% efficiency?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:57:59 2020 No.12486996 >>12486987 >Solar is going to platue at 40% efficiency because that is the physical limit of silicon I didn't realize we were arguing about building a fucking dyson swarm, because that's literally the only situation where this matters.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:59:49 2020 No.12487004 >>12486995 >95% efficiency? Nuclear is 95% efficient in your dreams maybe. If we're talking about complete fantasies then why don't I cite carbon rectennas with 90%+ efficiencies?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 03:59:50 2020 No.12487003 >>12486982 pretty close considering I feel for the comp sci meme

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:02:39 2020 No.12487009
File: 340 KB, 680x778, f49.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12486993
A SINGLE uranium pellet costs just $100 but produces more power than 3 barrels of oil

You think that your solar can actually compete with that?

>>12487004
>Nuclear power is already one of the most efficient types of energy available today. An average capacity factor of 91 percent beats other energy forms by a substantial margin. Natural gas produces an average of 50 percent while coal produces energy at almost 59 percent

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:05:40 2020 No.12487012 File: 254 KB, 1536x1322, 1607248507776.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12483964 gas, wind, solar are becoming cheaper but nuclear is just becoming even more expensive, also it's not popular, most people dont't want one nearby

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:06:23 2020 No.12487015 >>12487009 Yeah because >>12486374 when all is said and done it takes almost 4 times more cash than solar to produce the same amount of energy. It's not competing its fucking destroying nuclear.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:07:04 2020 No.12487018

>>12487009
>99% of the fissionable mass is discarded
>95% efficiency
Did you mean that you collect 90% of the energy produced by the 1% of mass that's actually used? That an overall efficiency of 0.9%.

You still haven't addressed the fact that nuclear capacity has a logarithmic growth and took 35 years to double last time while solar has doubled every 2-3 years, maintaining it's exponential growth. How are you going to compete when you don't bring anything to the game?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:12:17 2020 No.12487030
File: 127 KB, 454x426, Qza3up9fuid11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12487012
>>12487015
Yeah, if you forget about the energy loss from the miles of cables due to the distance of the solar farm to the city
And the energy leakage from batteries
And the fact that it loses efficiency past 25C
kek
The final price would always be massively more expensive.

>>12487018
That's not the efficiency of the powerplant
That's the efficiency of the nuclear process itself which is universal

Solar energy is just the cucked out version of nuclear energy. Once it reaches 35% (currently at 25%), it's gameover. Reaching further makes it too sensitive for common use and limited to some cold wastelands

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:18:05 2020 No.12487040

>>12487030
>transmission losses
under 3% per 1000 KM for HVDC lines, pretty much negligible.
>The final price would always be massively more expensive.
LCOE is final price you dingus
>Once it reaches 35% (currently at 25%), it's gameover. Reaching further makes it too sensitive for common use and limited to some cold wastelands
so just put up another solar panel lol, it's not exactly hard or expensive.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:18:19 2020 No.12487041

>>12487030
>That's not the efficiency of the powerplant
>That's the efficiency of the nuclear process itself which is universal
Cope harder, bro. If you dump more than 90% of your fuel then you aren't collecting 90% of the energy. That's like me saying that solar has an efficiency of 100% because if you don't build it then you don't collect any energy at all.

>Solar energy is just the cucked out version of nuclear energy.
Is that why nuclear's growth is so cucked in comparison to literally any other power source?

>Once it reaches 35% (currently at 25%), it's gameover.
Sure, kid. Just like how nuclear achieves a 90% efficiency rating by pretending they don't dump the vast majority of their power.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:21:34 2020 No.12487044

>>12487041
>That's like me saying that solar has an efficiency of 100% because if you don't build it then you don't collect any energy at all.
I mean to be fair that's actually a more useful estimate than the the actual efficiency of the panel All that really matters is how much it costs to collect that 'free' energy

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:22:45 2020 No.12487046 >>12487044 Sure, but I like real numbers instead of doctored ones

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:26:07 2020 No.12487049
File: 249 KB, 800x720, hQrtSiW.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12487040
lel
3% for the wires alone. Not including the loses in transformers and converters
>The overall losses between the power plant and consumers is then in the range between 8 and 15%
And that's for the plant that is located near or within the city

Oh yes, put up another solar panel that has a payback time of 8 years at peak capacity. Dumbass

>>12487041
LMAO
You clearly understands not a single thing about particle physics

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:30:28 2020 No.12487060

>>12487049
>3% for the wires alone. Not including the loses in transformers and converters
You are pants on head retarded. That's after everything. Regular power lines also only lose abour 1% per 100 miles.

>Oh yes, put up another solar panel that has a payback time of 8 years at peak capacity
Compared to nuclear which will never pay itself off? Clear choice.

>You clearly understands not a single thing about particle physics
You are a LARPer or a freshman and have not been able to refute a single fact since you've started posting. Tell me more about how the numbers look great if you work backwards from the result you want.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:33:51 2020 No.12487066
File: 73 KB, 1020x797, 1563001853602.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12487060
You cannot even tell the difference between ordinary powerlines and high voltage ones. LMAO

I wrote books, my friend.
Books that are far too intelligent for you.
Anyone who does not like nuclear power is completely misinformed and clueless about physics.

Simple as

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:38:12 2020 No.12487078 >>12487066 I think we already established who's misinformed considering you can't even answer the simple question of why we should care about physics when it's so fucking uselessly expensive.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:38:13 2020 No.12487079

>>12487066
>You cannot even tell the difference between ordinary powerlines and high voltage ones. LMAO
Are you retarded? I presented you with another fact about power lines and at no point did I contradict myself.

>I wrote books, my friend
Fanfics on furaffinity are not "books", anon.

>Anyone who does not like nuclear power is completely misinformed and clueless about physics.
Cope harder, kid. Maybe the capacity of nuclear will double again in the next 70 years. Just ignore the fact that solar will double 35 times over the same period.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:40:49 2020 No.12487084
File: 60 KB, 628x628, 60622684_2435447466688682_8784953442866204669_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12487078
>>12487079
You don't even understand how a solar panel works.
You don't understand how electricity works

And you want to fight nuclear power that produces 1000MW at barely the fraction of solar panels?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
You are so pathetic

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:43:29 2020 No.12487093 File: 77 KB, 700x526, titan-design.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] A little spice: Nuclear Power paved way to sending a nuclear sub on Titan and would power a Moon Base What is solar supposed to do again?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:43:31 2020 No.12487095

>>12487084
>You don't even understand how a solar panel works.
Baseless assertion. That's a coping mechanism.

>You don't understand how electricity works
More assertions, more cope

>And you want to fight nuclear power that produces 1000MW at barely the fraction of solar panels?
Except that it's been repeatedly pointed out that EVERY other power source, including solar, is cheaper, and that nuclear is not growing at all.

Can you do anything besides cope?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:44:28 2020 No.12487097 >>12487084 >still can't answer why any of this matters when nuclear is almost 4 times more expensive than solar, and is such a pain in the ass it hasn't grown at all in 40 years yikes kind of cringe bro

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:44:39 2020 No.12487098 >>12487093 Congratulations! You've found nuclear's only use! Space exploration!

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:46:32 2020 No.12487101

>>12487097
>>12487095
>Bruce Nuclear Plant
>48,169 GW·h
Cost
>$1.8 billion CAD (A station)
>$6 billion CAD (B station)

>Longyangxia Dam Solar Park
>850 megawatts
>$679 million

>>12487098
Space exploration, space mining, and actual progress of humanity. You retard

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:46:35 2020 No.12487102

>>12487093
>>12487098
I mean solar is also way better for most space applications, as you don't have that pesky atmosphere stealing energy, and coolant becomes a huge fucking issue.
Nuclear subs are kind of cool though, kind of a niche application though.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:48:24 2020 No.12487110 >>12487102 >huge ass fuck and endangers space junk due to chances of asteroid Yeah, no

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:49:45 2020 No.12487118

>>12487101
>During the course of the refurbishment of Units 3–6 the price will be raised in steps to cover individual reactor refurbishment costs, with each increase starting 12 months prior to the start of each individual refurbishment (and lasting only until that unit's refurbishment costs (which are fixed prior to refurbishment start) have been recovered). The average price per MWh that will be paid to Bruce Power for all electricity generated from 2016–2064 (covering the entire refurbishment period for Units 3–6 plus the entire expected remaining post-refurbishment lifetimes of all eight Bruce Power reactors (including the two that were already refurbished)) was estimated to be approximately CA$80.6/MWh in 2017 dollars by the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.
That's really not that great >>12486374

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:50:01 2020 No.12487119 >>12487102 Depends on how close to the sun you are. I definitely prefer nuclear power for space craft, even just for the simplification of a constant power source versus the constant adjustments and power variations from solar.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:51:02 2020 No.12487123 File: 36 KB, 750x498, Elec Cost per country.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12487118 I can pull graphs too!

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:53:44 2020 No.12487131 >>12487101 >If I cherry pick specific installations, I can make nuclear look serviceable! Go to bed, kid. We've already looked at the levelized costs and seen that nuclear is the most expensive. Do you have any real arguments?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:54:52 2020 No.12487135 >>12487131 Up above you

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:55:30 2020 No.12487139 >>12487110 to be fair if you want a reasonable amount of power you need fucking huge radiators for your reactor.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:58:01 2020 No.12487144 >>12487139 >huge Mate, we have designs for a nuclear reactor small and light enough for a nuclear plane.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:58:56 2020 No.12487147

>>12487123
>World nuclear association
Totally not a biased source

>Discount factor
>Projected costs
Totally valid numbers

That's probably why it's so radically different from all of the other graphs of the LCOE of various power sources that have already been posted, right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:59:57 2020 No.12487150 >>12487135 Did you mean one of these? >>12487012 >>12486374

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 04:59:57 2020 No.12487151 File: 89 KB, 940x670, total-cost-electricity-production-per-kwh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12487147 kek You don't even know what energy is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:01:37 2020 No.12487157 >>12487151 All you have is projection and cope. Your source is literally Pinterest.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:02:17 2020 No.12487160 File: 129 KB, 1920x2157, 53699993_7.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12487150 kek Stick to your graph that you do not even understand

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:03:54 2020 No.12487164 >>12487157 YOU ARE AN ILITEREATE FUCK WHO UNDERSTAND NOTHING ABOUT EITHER SOLAR OR NUCLEAR AND THINKS THAT YOU HAVE ANYTHING WORTH TO SAY. COPE MY FUCKING ASS. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY 0 IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:05:41 2020 No.12487171

>>12487160
Are you aware that your graph shows nuclear as being three times as expensive as solar and twice as expensive as the second most expensive?

Asserting that I don't understand whatever random thing pops in your head is really just sad at this point.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:06:43 2020 No.12487176 >>12487164 >YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY 0 IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT Your source is Pinterest, bro. You are not qualified enough to give an opinion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:09:27 2020 No.12487187 File: 67 KB, 902x581, 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12487176 You don't understand the basics of physics. Get the fuck out. There. I posted your graphs and tell me why they all have different results for the same question

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:12:35 2020 No.12487197 >>12487187 maybe if you actually read the studies your charts from Pinterest were trying to reference you would know the answer to this.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:13:26 2020 No.12487198

>>12487187
>You don't understand the basics of physics
Sure, kid.

>There. I posted your graphs and tell me why they all have different results for the same question
Because of your obvious as fuck cherry picking. Germany gets less than half of the average solar insolation so solar will produce less than half the energy in Germany. Why can't you find any graph demonstrating that nuclear has a lower LCOE than ANY power source (that isn't Pinterest).

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:16:16 2020 No.12487203 File: 28 KB, 574x288, main.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12487198 You mean this?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:19:01 2020 No.12487212 >>12487203 At least you tried. That graph is nearly a decade old, uses projected data, and STILL shows that solar is competitive with nuclear.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:24:12 2020 No.12487227

>>12487212
Competitive?
In what department?
You keep on saying LCOE without any idea of what it even is.

Listen here, you ignorant child. The capital for nuclear power is high, that's a fact. But it earns so much and lives for so long that it's just plain incomparable to anything

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:26:22 2020 No.12487233

>>12487227
>You keep on saying LCOE without any idea of what it even is.
Are you saying that because you just googled what LCOE means?

>Listen here, you ignorant child. The capital for nuclear power is high, that's a fact. But it earns so much and lives for so long that it's just plain incomparable to anything
Which is why the LCOE is several times higher than any power source, right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:29:26 2020 No.12487244 File: 146 KB, 1098x807, Screenshot_2020-12-20 Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources - electricity_generation pdf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12487203 why not post the 2020 edition?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:33:52 2020 No.12487261
File: 515 KB, 216x118, But+lasts+longer+this+nigga+_d10de62c4a228eb8fc1f6b8d15bda38a.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12487233
LCOE does NOT calculate for dispatchability and assumes that the power source run at 24/7 at peak capacity all the time
It does not calculate for extra expenditures like energy storage and transport
And it does not calculate for improvements on the grid and equipment that may occur especially when you are computing for the LCOE of a nuclear plant constructed in the 60s and had so many upgrades and replacements

LCOE would favor renewables because it discards the main thing that limits it - weather and limited time of operation.

Does that give you a better understanding now?

>>12487244
That's nice. Look at the capacity.
That means that it is going to consume so MUCH land which would increase its price based on the price of the land lease by a massive margin and it would not appear on LCOE

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:38:47 2020 No.12487280

>>12487261
>and assumes that the power source run at 24/7 at peak capacity all the time
Oh no, it's retarded. LCOE is the LEVELIZED COST OF ENERGY. The capacity factor has already been accounted for.

>It does not calculate for extra expenditures like energy storage and transport
Then why do batteries and other forms of grid storage have an LCOE? *Big think*

>Does that give you a better understanding now?
Of your ignorance, maybe. Is this what your brain is like on copium?

>That means that it is going to consume so MUCH land
We would need less than 1% of the Earth's surface to provide all of the world's energy with solar. We can even multipurpose the land so we use it twice! Neat, huh?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:42:55 2020 No.12487297
File: 71 KB, 619x550, laughing megucas.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12487280
Why don't you read it's own wiki page, retard?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_energy#Limitations
It's literally right there

>1% of the Earth's surface
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH
That's 5Million km^2. You nutsack!

That's worth mountains after mountains of mining requirements just to create a farm for the most inefficient, most expensive, and shortest lived energy source

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:47:04 2020 No.12487312

>>12487297
damn all this cope, the wiki page literally backs up what he said.
>inefficient
already discussed why this is a meme number that doesn't actually matter
>most expensive
we already established it's much much cheaper than nuclear.
>shortest lived energy source
accounting for this it's still much cheaper.

anything we missed?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:48:14 2020 No.12487318

>>12487297
>It's literally right there
Nowhere on that page does it say that LCOE doesn't account for capacity factor and every power source needs to be transported to the consumer so they face the same losses. Did you want to reread that wikipedia page to form another argument, or are you satisfied with having outed yourself as a LARPing pseud again?

>That's 5Million km^2. You nutsack!
And? We live on significantly more than that and with multipurposing we don't even need extra land area.

>That's worth mountains after mountains of mining requirements just to create a farm for the most inefficient, most expensive, and shortest lived energy source
We're not talking about nuclear, bro.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:49:38 2020 No.12487324
File: 128 KB, 1000x666, laughing kemonos 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

For comparison of how big that solar farm out to be:

Texas is just 700K km^2
HAHAHHAHAHAAHHA

Yes, make the Earth go Solar. What could possibly go wrong

>>12487312
You don't understand how it works
You only know things based on graphs made using calculations you do not understand. LMAO

>>12487318
Really?
.Another limitations of the LCOE is that it does not consider indirect costs of generation.[9] These include environmental externalities or grid upgrades requirements. Intermittent power sources, such as wind and solar, may incur extra costs associated with needing to have storage or backup generation available

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:51:26 2020 No.12487329 File: 242 KB, 1152x932, laughing sluts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I am laughing right now. Laughing so hard. A person's opinion on Nuclear really show whether one is intelligent or not

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:52:10 2020 No.12487330 Is it true that fusion is only four time more effective than fission? If it is then I'm even more salty that we're not using more fission power right now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:53:40 2020 No.12487335 >>12487330 10x actually Fission turns .05% of mass into energy Fusion turns .7% of mass into energy

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:56:58 2020 No.12487341

>>12487324
>Texas is just 700K km^2
Texas is 7% of the US and it would provide 14% of the WORLD'S power, in ALL forms. And did you miss the part where multipurposing land allows us to generate solar energy while still using that land?

>You don't understand how it works
You only know things based on graphs made using calculations you do not understand. LMAO
This is pure projection and you have been BTFO'd this entire thread.

>Another limitations of the LCOE is that it does not consider indirect costs of generation.[9]
Pretty embarrassing to leave in the citation when you copy any paste your argument from wikipedia. Would you like to try to find a source that puts the indirect costs of nuclear at such a low cost that it makes up for the ridiculously high LCOE?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 05:58:27 2020 No.12487343

>>12487324
LCOE is still easily the most useful metric, even with the limitations you've mentioned. If you don't care about LCOE then the fact that nuclear has virtually no place in any competitive economy, and is being phased out far faster than it's being built, while also remaining virtually irrelevant for it's entire history should tell you everything you need to know.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:09:09 2020 No.12487367 >>12487335 Christ that's low, is antimatter the next step?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:09:27 2020 No.12487369 imagine the world goes nuclear and you have places like kashmir and somalia with nuclear facilities or even imagine the US in 50 years has a civil war.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:09:52 2020 No.12487371 >>12487012 How the fuck are you going to run an industrial economy on green energy alone?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:10:02 2020 No.12487372
File: 581 KB, 325x265, toppest of keks.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12487341
>>12487343
LMAO
Yes, flatten an area worth about 5 Texas and dig the entire Himalayas for ores to use for your meme energy source that would last only for 30 years
It would totally save the environment
OH MY FUCKING SIDES.

If you want to use LCOE for an argument, you make a division between rewables and non-renewables because it disregards the main disadvantages of renewables in the first lace.

>Nuclear
>virtually irrelevant for it's entire history
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:11:26 2020 No.12487375 >>12487372 >Yes, flatten an area worth about 5 Texas and dig the entire Himalayas for ores to use for your meme energy source that would last only for 30 years So you have literally no argument, then. Thanks for playing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:12:03 2020 No.12487379 >>12487367 Antimatters are not the next step. They are the LAST step. Blackhole rotational spin has about 40% efficiency

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:13:07 2020 No.12487384 >>12487367 Maybe for space travel or some such. The problem with antimatter is that you can't find it anywhere so you have to produce it making it a store of power rather than a source.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:13:08 2020 No.12487385 >>12487375 I am laughing so hard right now, anon. My sides are hurting

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:14:55 2020 No.12487389 >>12487385 That's nice. I always appreciated the giggles emanating from the special ed rooms.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:15:26 2020 No.12487390 >>12487371 industry is the easy part as it's mostly just a part of peak consumption, which is where solar really shines.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:15:33 2020 No.12487391 >>12487389 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:16:39 2020 No.12487393 >>12487390 Not if you have to flatten 5 Texas to do it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:17:23 2020 No.12487395 >>12487391 Make sure you have your helmet on so you don't fall and dent your soft spot

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:17:39 2020 No.12487396

>>12487385
>>12487391
I love this part of an argument where you know you've been completely owned and are just in complete cope mode, because for whatever reason you've made a shitty source of energy part of your identity, and admitting your wrong is just too painful.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:18:25 2020 No.12487399 >>12487393 You know that texas is tiny compared to the world, right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:19:44 2020 No.12487401 File: 295 KB, 700x704, Laughing Lain.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12487396 >>12487399 5 Texas We only need 5 Texas worth of solar panels and nothing would go wrong

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:21:55 2020 No.12487402 >>12487401 That's still nothing

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:23:58 2020 No.12487404 >>12487401 1% of earths surface to power the entire planet really is nothing considering we already use 33% just on agriculture.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:24:58 2020 No.12487408
File: 121 KB, 602x340, main-qimg-c63f758bcb0fec9fab6a100d88673c10.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12487404
>>12487402
2/3 of Australia flatten just to have your meme energy.
Not including the massive environmental damages both caused by its construction and its supplies.
Which would work for just 30 years.

You idiotic fuck!

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:27:25 2020 No.12487416 >>12487408 >Which would work for just 30 years. You're aware that solar panels can be recycled, right? You only need to mine the material once and ALL of Australia would be an acceptable trade to generate THE ENTIRE WORLD'S energy needs IN ALL FORMS.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:27:31 2020 No.12487417 >>12487404 Only 11% is used for agriculture. And agriculture only needed to till and fertilize soil. It is not comparable to a massive constructs of glass, iron, and concrete

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:29:15 2020 No.12487421 >>12487416 Good idea if you forget that recycling still spends a lot of energy. Nuclear power is so cheap that Nuclear Reprocessing is considered more expensive than just making new ones

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:29:55 2020 No.12487423 >>12487417 So you're saying if we put solar panels over the shade tolerant crops and you don't even need any rooftop solar or solar parking lots? Nifty!

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:31:09 2020 No.12487426

>>12487421
>Nuclear power is so cheap that Nuclear Reprocessing is considered more expensive than just making new ones
Except that it's not and your argument can be applied to solar panels as well. Are you being paid by the post or is it just that you can't stand to lose an argument online?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:31:30 2020 No.12487427 >>12487423 You don't even know how photosynthesis works? HAHAHAHAHHA

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:33:34 2020 No.12487429
File: 377 KB, 1000x706, Landuse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12487417
your math is way off because you keep confusing surface area with land area.
500,000km to power THE ENTIRE WORLD
vs 50 million km for agriculture.
we already addressed land usage is irrelevant in this thread. >>12486837

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:33:41 2020 No.12487430 >>12487426 >[2] The reprocessed uranium, also known as the spent fuel material, can in principle also be re-used as fuel, but that is only economical when uranium supply is low and prices are high

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:33:49 2020 No.12487431

>>12487427
Are you retarded? Shade tolerant crops are capable of gathering enough light from incidental sources and are the basis for "vertical farming". You will get the same growth from a head of lettuce under direct sunlight as you will from one growing under a solar panel.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:35:15 2020 No.12487432 >>12487430 So are you retarded, or just illiterate? Nuclear is the most expensive power source and the fact that reprocessing fuel is more expensive than digging up more is not a boon.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:38:53 2020 No.12487436
File: 338 KB, 538x572, Laughing paint.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12487429
You should have said so earlier then.
But still, 500K worth of land is still 1 CA
Guess how much you have to mine to supply that much amount of glass and silicon

>>12487431
>what is UV rays that is consumed by Solar Panels

>>12487432
We who study particle physics are still laughing
HAHAHAHAHAHHA

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:39:54 2020 No.12487440 >>12487436 do you not know what a fucking greenhouse is?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:40:00 2020 No.12487441 >>12483865 well you see the red and white narrow but high towers. oh yeah these are there to release isotopes in high altitude so they get carried and diluted by the wind.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:41:17 2020 No.12487444

>>12487436
>You should have said so earlier then.
We did

>But still, 500K worth of land is still 1 CA
Still nothing

>what is UV rays that is consumed by Solar Panels
What is incidental light and vertical farming?

>We who study particle physics are still laughing
Youtube videos do not qualify as "studying"

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:43:12 2020 No.12487446
File: 926 KB, 532x560, laughing girl.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12487444
>>12487440
Solar Panels are designed to consume both UV and IR rays and therefore cannot be used as roof for crops.
My fucking sides

Maybe try reading about those energy sources that you shill so much
My sides are hurting so bad at laughing

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:43:59 2020 No.12487447 >>12487436 >Guess how much you have to mine to supply that much amount of glass and silicon you mean fucking sand?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:46:00 2020 No.12487452 >>12487446 >solar panels are now black holes which absorb all light within a mile radius jesus Christ you keep getting dumber, how is this possible

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:46:55 2020 No.12487454

>>12487446
Buddy, this is embarrassing. Incidental light is light that's been reflected from other sources. In comes in UNDERNEATH the solar panels. Shade tolerant crops grow at the same rate under direct light as they do with just the incidental light. That's why vertical farming utilizes shade tolerant crops and a conveyor belt to expose as many crops to as little light as possible.

Could you at least google shit so I don't have to hold your hand through every post?

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:49:43 2020 No.12487461

>>12487447
You mean the thing that is literally so short in supply that there is now a black-market for it?
>https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand
tl;dr construction caused huge shortage of sand
Read studying something useful, idiot!

>>12487452
Yes!
No light passes through the Solar Panel but 40% still gets reflected

So shut the fuck up, you illiterate nutsack

>>12487454
It's called reflection. You plan to cover a crop with light absorbing material and wanted to make up to it by reflecting light from elsewhere.
Your design is inefficient, stupid, and completely laughable.

HAHAHAHHAHAAHA

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:49:59 2020 No.12487462

>>12486835
>>12486838
>the runnofs from mines is radioactive.

Urannium and other isotopes are everywhere in the ground.
when you burn gigatons of coal you release more radioactive material into the enviorement than mining uranium and keeping it inside a almost closed reactor.

even oil contains radium and polonium the pipes used in oil pumping get radioactive over time.
but unlike the strongly controled nuclear industry the oil company can do whatever they want with their radioactive pipes, eg. they give them to farmers for free for irrigation purposes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:50:47 2020 No.12487463 File: 83 KB, 300x200, I+can+hear+them+say+quot+marry+me+quot+_d0807b3bf9ddc285434883333be86e7d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Going to sleep now. Goodnight I am still laughing. See you at the next nuclear thread and make me laugh harder

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:52:34 2020 No.12487468 Chernobyl. Fukushima. Simple as.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:53:02 2020 No.12487469

>>12487461
>Sand shortage
Lol no.

>You plan to cover a crop with light absorbing material and wanted to make up to it by reflecting light from elsewhere.
That reflected light is referred to as "incidental". Can you please google anything before speaking out of your ass?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 06:54:07 2020 No.12487471 >>12487462 >when you burn gigatons of coal you release more radioactive material into the enviorement than mining uranium Good thing nobody's advocating coal. Also: >We're better than the absolute worst!!1 >Can we have a gold star now?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 07:27:04 2020 No.12487517 >>12487463 I accept your defeat.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 08:06:28 2020 No.12487616 why do you retards reply to the shill, he does this every day.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 08:20:31 2020 No.12487665 >>12487616 Easy target

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 10:13:55 2020 No.12487927

>>12487012
>gas, wind, solar are becoming cheaper but nuclear is just becoming even more expensive, also it's not popular, most people dont't want one nearby
More circular reasoning. Why are you so emotionally invested in hating nuclear? What is your agenda?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 11:03:21 2020 No.12488026 >>12486304 It's water vapor, you gibbering retard. Stop talking about things you OBVIOUSLY know nothing about.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 13:43:17 2020 No.12488528 >>12486987 Capacity factor isn't the same as efficiency

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 15:27:20 2020 No.12488998 File: 103 KB, 625x961, shutdown.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] > nuclear will save us from global warming nuclear power plants have to shut down in warm weather

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 15:31:18 2020 No.12489019 >>12488998 Solar power loses efficiency past 25C What kind of argument is that?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 15:42:21 2020 No.12489067 >>12483842 Because they want something with zero consequences even though that’s unreasonable.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 16:21:07 2020 No.12489220 God I love being French.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 19:03:48 2020 No.12489794

>>12484077
Wrong, we are building a new generation EPR as I talk.

+

https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/10/14/nucleaire-comment-le-gouvernement-travaille-en-catimini-a-la-construction-de-six-nouveaux-epr_6015478_3234.html

The government "secretly" sent plans to the CEO of EDF to prepare for the construction of 6 new EPR reactors (including the one being built at the Flamanville NPP) within the next 15 years.
Apparently they're trying to circumvent the greenshits by not telling them anything this time, which is a great move. Macron making a 180 towards nuclear energy as requested in the latest environmental reports is a ballsy move.

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 19:07:05 2020 No.12489802

>>12484621
He's right though, since the early 90s the left has been pushing for the anti-nuclear sentiment in France.

François Hollande was the one to bow down and shut down the Fessenheim NPP, because of German pressure (ironic considering they're reopening coal power plants, known to emit much more radiation than contained nuclear waste, and wasted over 200 billion euros on ineffective wind turbines)

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 19:12:46 2020 No.12489817

>>12483947
>nobody is building this shit

In what world are you living ?

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
>About 100 power reactors with a total gross capacity of about 110,000 MWe are on order or planned, and over 300 more are proposed. Most reactors currently planned are in Asia, with fast-growing economies and rapidly-rising electricity demand.

But yeah, sure, nuclear power is dead and everybody's closing their NPPs......

Anonymous Sun Dec 20 19:18:11 2020 No.12489835

>>12488998
This is not completely right.

This is true for power plants that take their cooling water from rivers. When the water level is too low, they reduce power output or shut down the reactors.

Power plants that take their cooling water from the sea are unaffected, the water temperature is not the key factor here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 21:41:45 2020 No.12490204 >>12483842 bump, you're not dying when I'm interested in this topic

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 21:49:27 2020 No.12490230 File: 297 KB, 1280x1786, 68405a58849203e172cb5678fa6503b4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12490204 why can't I bumb this, I didn't even post here until just now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 20 21:53:10 2020 No.12490243 >>12490230 ah, bump limit reached

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math