/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12698848]

>he doesn’t support nuclear
Explain yourself, faggot

[Anonymous No.12698854]

I don't believe in state controlled energy sectors.

[Anonymous No.12698855]

its environmentally destructive and unsustainable, as opposed to development in proper eco-friendly renewables

[Anonymous No.12698916]

>>12698855
Here’s a reply to your shitty bait.

[Anonymous No.12698923]

>>12698848
i am gay and i support nuclear hellfire

[Anonymous No.12698926]

>>12698854
Atlantis was cabaret

[Anonymous No.12698932]

>>12698848
>all those CO2 emissions
Do you need any other explanation?

[Anonymous No.12698956]

>>12698855
(((eco-friendly)))

[Anonymous No.12698962]

>>12698848
tell me why nuclear energy is good and i'll be sure to bring it up next time i meet with biden.

[Anonymous No.12699057]

>>12698962
you just have to explain how nuclear would fuck over white people

[Anonymous No.12699076]

governments have proven to be incapable of dealing with an accident if it were to happen. corruption doesn't help either.

[Anonymous No.12699103]

>>12698962
Nuclear energy is much safer than it was when chernobyl and 3 mile island happened. It can also produce a lot of energy from only a little material. Nuclear waste is a problem, but compared to the millions of deaths from pollution that fossil fuels cause they are much safer.

[Anonymous No.12699105]

>>12698848
I support it, ex-navy submarine officer. The actually operating of a nuclear reactor is boring as fuck though

[Anonymous No.12699224]

>>12698848
I am straight and white and believe in technology, and don't support nuclear power.
The reason is, if I want to build a breakaway civilization i would need the best energy storage system a viable, and that's plutonium and uran. I believe in the relative safety of nuclear power but not of the relative safety of the humans psyche.

[Anonymous No.12699246]

>>12698848
Geothermal will surpass nuclear in every way that counts. Nuclear is good for space, though

[Anonymous No.12699301]

>>12698848
Risk
Because the toxic radioactive waste gets buried underground after being transported around the country on rail through several metropolitan areas

[Anonymous No.12699312]

>>12699301
Well, 5 million people die every year from pollution from fossil fuels, and 5 thousand people die from radiation poisoning every year.

[Anonymous No.12699347]

>>12699312
Do you want three headed children and a
10,000 year nuclear wasteland drumpfkins?
Nuclear power is one hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood away from disaster

[Anonymous No.12699363]

>>12699103
>millions of deaths from pollution that fossil fuels
Yes, with completely anecdotal inconclusive evidence and no mention of the lives saved from having a reliable power supply.
You will save more lives by banning mcdonalds and keeping people from being fat

[Anonymous No.12699366]

>>12699312
Well 1,5 chinks burn unfiltered coal. Coal is also much more common you comparison is in no way fair if you dont show all the numbers.

[Anonymous No.12699381]

>>12699363
Fat is a completely lie, like smoking not so sugar.
Yes you can overdo on fat but not with out an mental illness.

[Anonymous No.12699392]

>>12699246
This
Also Fusion

Both future tech, but both will surpass fission

[Anonymous No.12699415]

>>12698848
But Anon, I do, and I'm even a Democrat and voted for Biden.
HOWEVER we need to not cut corners on construction and maintenance, and we need better designs for fission plants than the high pressure types we've used previously.
Note that fission is just a stop-gap before practical fusion, as is so-called 'renewables'.
Solar panels on peoples' roofs are fine, but hundred acre 'solar farms'/'wind farms'? Ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.12699418]

>>12698855
Factually, logically, rationally wrong, emotionally motivated, likely coming from a vegan.

[Anonymous No.12699422]

>>12699105
>The actually operating of a nuclear reactor is boring as fuck though
What you mean to say, is that it's a GOOD THING that it's boring, the LAST THING you need from a nuclear reactor is 'excitement'.

[Anonymous No.12699463]

Explain to me, why aren't we using thorium power plants rather than uranium? Yes, i know it's relatively new and most power plants are old, but even so if we need a new source of energy, shouldn't thorium power plants be the answer? Why is europe and other regions decommissioning their nuclear power plants rather than update them? Are humans that easy to be led by emotion?

[Anonymous No.12699519]

>>12699463
Yes people are fucking stupid and easily corrupted.

[Anonymous No.12699528]

>>12699347
As opposed to the continuous ongoing disaster that is fossil fuels?

[Anonymous No.12699534]

>>12699363
>Yes, with completely anecdotal inconclusive evidence
??? No one has an anecdote of dying from air pollution, it can only be measured epidemiologically.

[Anonymous No.12699543]

>>12699519
We really should return to monke, it's clear that we don't have the will to go further than hairless apes, so might as well go back.

[Anonymous No.12699571]

>>12699534
>>12699528
lmao whatta patsy
Consider it natural selection
Imagine being that much of a weakling you can't handle the smell of car exhaust
Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.12699598]

>>12699571
I dare you to start your car in your garage, and stay closed inside with no windows for 2 hours.

[Anonymous No.12699607]

>>12699422
No, Chief, I mean to say it's boring and tedious as fuck and so I no longer perform that job

[Anonymous No.12699663]

>>12699598
>Observe, he is so insecure on his position he splits hairs
In a wide open planet there is no risk to the end user with fossil fuel power unlike nuclear which produces toxic non degradable waste which must be stored for thousands of years.
Your google searched data is garbage, don't be so gullible and maybe you'll get somewhere.

[Anonymous No.12699683]

>>12698848
It's just too slow to get rolling. Solar is fast becoming the cheapest alternative source, the plants being built today will end up being shut down before their good shelf life is over.

[Anonymous No.12699684]

>>12699663
In a wide open planet there is no risk to the end user with nuclear power, because the waste is put in remote locations that you will never go.

[Anonymous No.12699811]

>>12699663
You are a retard. Fossil Fuels damage people much more than the spooky nuclear death rays. The shifting of the plates causing soil to be disturbed releases more radioactivity into the ocean and the environment than man produces, and has done so for much much longer than 50 years.

[Anonymous No.12700237]

>>12698932
actually inbred

[Anonymous No.12700253]

>>12699105
Not when you turn off the safeties to Got2gofast

[Anonymous No.12700268]

>>12698848
fucking scam of epic proportions. Sold as energy too cheap to meter. Well, if was going to be too cheap to meter how the fuck were you going to pay for the massive cost to build the plant? Humanoids have proven they cant run the thing without causing a meltdown. On a long enough timeline Homer is going to cause a meltdown.

[Anonymous No.12700316]

>>12700268
Isn't there like 140 nuclear power plants JUST in tr U.S? How many chernobyls have we seen in the years since the first power plant was built?

[Anonymous No.12700352]

>>12698848
Redpill me on thorium salt reactors. Sell me the idea

[Anonymous No.12700396]

>>12700352
>Safer during operation
Unlike uranium which requires control rods made of boro to prevent a runaway chain reaction, and need to have a constant stream of cold water, even when it's not being used, thorium is more stable which makes it easier to control the fission reaction, for it needs plutonium in order to keep the chain reaction going, without it, thorium "cools down" effectively shutting itself off. So even if shit hits the fan, you just take the water out, preventing the plutonium particles from interacting with the thorium and nothing like a meltdown could happen.
>Degrades faster
It takes roughly 300 years for thorium to naturally decay
>Its more safer to store the spent fuel
It produces, mainly, alpha and beta particles which are more safer and easier to contain than gamma radiation.
>it's easier and safer to mine
Unlike uranium, thorium will not kill you with toxic cancerous fumes when you go to mine it.
>It's cheaper
Literally everywhere and doesn't need to be "enriched" to be used. You just mine it, and send it to the power plant.
>More efficient
It has a larger operation life span than uranium 235, hence producing more energy at a lesser cost.

I think that's all.

[Anonymous No.12700401]

>>12698848
We can do basic economical/business analysis to see that it doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.12700402]

>>12700253
Oh god the number reads 99%, I'm getting a boner

[Anonymous No.12700409]

>>12700396
>made of boro
controls rods aren't all poisoned with boron.
>alpha and beta is safer
sort of. Yes, if stored correctly it is safer. However, if you store it improperly and it leeches into ground water, alphas are potentially much worse

[Anonymous No.12700418]

>>12698848
America no longer has the institutions to build and maintain nuclear reactors, we should leave it to competent countries

[Anonymous No.12700428]

you all are chuds. nuclear fusion will be the best

[Anonymous No.12700467]

>>12700409
Wasn't water a biological shield for radiation itself? Or am i thinking of heavy water

[Anonymous No.12700478]

>>12698855
Objectively wrong.

[Anonymous No.12700493]

>>12700467
Water does block radiation but I think he's saying if your shit leaks fission products into drinking water.

[Anonymous No.12700560]

>>12700493
I mean, most of the by-products of thorium is uranium 233, which is also naturally found, right?

[Anonymous No.12700568]

>>12700478
>Subjectively wrong

[Anonymous No.12700679]

>>12699301
build the nuclear plants in the mountain and have them shit the waste down a pit
ez

[Anonymous No.12701088]

E=mc^2 folks.
E=mc^2

If you do not know how to use this equation, then you only know nuclear based on simpsons and fallout.

End of story.

Nuclear Future is inevitable. Any attempts at alternatives is just hurting yourself.

[Anonymous No.12701167]

>>12698848
But I do support nuclear.
More specifically, one thousand nuclear bombs over america.

[Anonymous No.12701590]

When I'm in charge, I'd start a new renewed nuclear program with Los Angeles as the inaugural city. But I'd make sure to leave the hiring to the state, who will inevitably stock the project with the most diverse, pink-haired crew imaginable. When they inevitably screw up, I'll have gotten away with legally nuking California

[Anonymous No.12701601]

>>12698855
> ecofriendly
Explain to me again how lithium and cobalt extraction to store power from bird killers and Chinese made semiconductor sheets scattered over the countryside is ecofriendly. Centralized power generation and centralized solid state waste makes way more sense you feel-good dimwit

[Anonymous No.12702124]

>>12698855
Low tier bait

[Anonymous No.12702149]

>>12701088
>E=mc^2
So now earth will run out of mass and we'll float off into space if we use nuclear too much. gg

[Anonymous No.12702543]

>>12702149
No, that's when you use the E to create m and repeat the process

[Anonymous No.12702568]

>>12701590
Based

[Anonymous No.12702964]

>>12698848
because it will actually run out soon, all models that say "nuclear will last us billions of years" assume 100% efficiency and 100% of uranium on earth being used. first is impossible because heat fucking sucks and thermodynamics, and second is impossible because most uranium on earth is trace.
people that will tell you that we can do unlimited fission in breeder reactors are fucking retarded, once you get plutonium-239 or whatever fissile material is at the end, you won't get more fissile material

[Anonymous No.12703005]

>>12699418
Don't insult vegans

[Anonymous No.12703051]

>>12702964
>soon
Bitch.
Half of the earth's heat comes from radioactive decay and it is going to outlast the SUN

That's how much uranium, thorium, argon, and plutonium we are talking about here

[Anonymous No.12703088]

>>12699246
I have question, might be retarded.
Why don't we just drill really deep and pipe water down there and have a second hole through which the steam comes out and runs a turbine? Is it just not economically viable or is there a flaw in this idea?

[Anonymous No.12703202]

>>12702964
>checkmate nuke fags turns out we only have enough fissile material for a million years not a billion years

[Anonymous No.12703272]

>>12703088
You mean Geothermal?
The problem is that we don't really know how deep we have to dig + it can cause land instability. Around 5 deep drilling projects caused earthquakes

[Anonymous No.12703814]

>>12703272
I mean, couldnt we obtain the same results from a volcano? You know one of those chill volcanos. Just keep pouring water, use the gas to make work the turbines and then condense the vapor into water and repeat

[Anonymous No.12703861]

>>12700396
If it's so good why isn't it popular? Should I bother myself working in that field with a possibility to build those things in China (assuming the greens in the west won't let it happen)?

[Anonymous No.12703884]

>>12703861
Golly gee indeed.
Why is a $20B project that alerts the world that you are capable of encriching uranium and developing plutonium not popular?

[Anonymous No.12704021]

>>12698855
bait

[Anonymous No.12704275]

>>12703202
>Estimates of the amount concentrated into ores affordable to extract for under $130 per kg can be less than a millionth of that total.
>As of 2017, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 6.14 million tons (compared to 5.72 million tons in 2015). At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply. The identified reserves as of 2017 recoverable at US$260/kg are 7.99 million ton
i know those are mostly traditional U235 reactors that use 1% of the uranium but even with breeder reactors that would still be a lot less than "millions of years", especially when at the current consumption rate nuclear produces less than 5% of the energy used on earth

[Anonymous No.12704284]

>>12699381
English is kill

[Anonymous No.12704293]

>>12704275
>identified
Big emphasis on this word, bitch
Shale rocks (oil), phosphate rocks (potassium), and aluminum were all rare as hell once.

The reason why we have so little """identified""" uranium sites is simply because there is no need to search for more yet. Uranium is absurdly cheap already and any more would make it unprofitable.

So cheap that it's better to just make new uranium fuel rods than reprocess the waste

[Anonymous No.12704295]

>>12701088
>Implying mass is real

[Anonymous No.12704345]

>>12698848
No viable waste route

[Anonymous No.12704357]

>>12702964
>He doesn't know you can breed U-233 from Th-232

[Anonymous No.12704408]

>>12698848
I support the big nuclear reactor in the sky; the Sun!

[Anonymous No.12704729]

>>12704357
>He doesn't know that it comes together with U232 that is completely inseparable
Retard