/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2060503]

I figured I'd ask you /sci/ducks, since I'm on the fence about the whole thing and would like some info on the matter.

What's the deal with Nuclear energy production, and why is it better/worse than "Green" options like Wind/Solar/Wave/Geothermal power?

[Anonymous No.2060511]

It's actually capable of reliably generating power in large amounts

[Anonymous No.2060516]

Radioactive waste, but I say fuck it.

[GodofCider No.2060518]

Nuclear energy is quite good; in terms of current available energy sources. The problem comes in the form of the radioactive waste that is produced. This material is extremely dangerous and doesn't simply 'go away'.

[Anonymous No.2060535]

>>2060518
What's the waste production compared to, say, the Coal or Oil industries?

[Anonymous No.2060542]

>>2060503

wouldn't it be easier to say that Nuclear Energy provides a substantial amount of Energy than Wind/Solar and co. cannot? at least thats my understanding, of course having the con of the Radioactive Waste it produces

[econguy !!d2Pzyp675d3 No.2060545]

nuclear energy is an amazing and safe source of power. Fuck using coal and oil for electricity.

Wind has some complications but is relatively cheap. Solar energy has a strong future. Not sure about hydro or geothermal.

[The ThunderBird !!m4ANrdZXfVL No.2060556]

>>2060542
Basically yes. Nuclear Fission boasts an energy density no renewable power generation method is capable of even approaching, let alone matching.

Offsetting this is the problem of producing lethal waste that stays lethal for a long time to come.

[Anonymous No.2060559]

>>2060542
So basically:

Danger of radioactive waste is outweighed by the sheer amount of power that can be output by Nuclear Plants?

[Anonymous No.2060567]

It is actually extremely clean nowadays and they are working on ways to further recycle the waste and even using the waste to further power the plant, there is almost no co2 emissions and is extremely clean compared to oil/coal. It just has a stigma that nuclear=CHERNOBYL TERRIBLE CANCER CAUSING MELTDOWNS without realizing its actually very safe given proper safety procussions. Chernobyl was a joke when it came to safety, it has almost no cement casing around the core, in fact the plant tried to shut itself down 3 times but the operators overrode it. In short aside from the waste which recycling systems are being worked on it is safe, extremely clean and generates far more power than the average coal/oil plant.

[GodofCider No.2060568]

>>2060535
I don't know. Although with proper management, I suspect it would be still better to use nuclear than it would to use coal/oil, etc. That is of course, until we can progress far enough along in renewable energy, or simply cleaner energy.

As it stands though, that nuclear waste is the problem.

[Anonymous No.2060576]

Which produces more (as in quantity) dangerous waste, the Oil/Coal industries or Nuclear industry?

I'm assuming the Oil/Coal industries (merely because of sheer volume), but I was if there was more to it.

[Anonymous No.2060584]

>>2060576
Oil/coal generates far more on average, and the fact is we are able to store nuclear waste for now till we can further our research on recycling it compared to oil/coal where well it just goes into the air in massive quanities

[Anonymous No.2060594]

>>2060503

Well it could be viewed as being able to power your car for a year continuously w/o having to spend on gas, the con would be that you will have a few gallons of waste.

thats how much more money they are saving to put it in a simple way...that was an analogy I was given.....

but in a lighter note, research is being worked on as we speak on a way to recycle that waste :)

[Anonymous No.2060611]

>>2060518
seal it in caves and reinforced tunnels. even if some horrendous earthquake occurs, it won't leak, and even if, say, terrorists hit it with a nuke, the waste isn't going anywhere because it's fucking deep underground.

[GodofCider No.2060613]

>>2060594
Sunflowers aid in neutralizing radioactive waste; interestingly enough.

This could progress towards...bioengineering organic matter to break down radioactive waste? (shrugs)

[Anonymous No.2060622]

A large and often overlooked problem with nuclear power is that it's very slow. It takes a long time to start up and slow down a nuclear plant. This makes them fine as a continual source of power, but not much use during peak times, when you will need faster starting power sources such as hydro to cope with the sudden rise in demand.

[Anonymous No.2060627]

thanks for the discussion, /sci/; this, along with my own research into the matter, has got me thinking.

Now, on to silly questions: which mutants are more likely to occure from Nuclear radiation, X-Men mutants or OHGODKILLITWITHFIRE mutants?

[GodofCider No.2060630]

>>2060622
If I'm not mistaken, that's not a real problem though. As the spikes are predicted and accounted for in the production.

[GodofCider No.2060646]

>>2060627
Between the two? "Ohgodkillitwithfire" mutants.

[Anonymous No.2060647]

The real problem is the public's perception of it. Just last week we had protests here in Germany against a train carrying recycled nuclear waste from France to be used in reactors here. As soon as people hear the word nuclear they go mental.

[Anonymous No.2060650]

>>2060627
>implying this is a real question

Superpowers = no, kill it with fire = unlikely unless you exposed generations worth of people over a long period of time. Even then, they'd most likely be sterile.

[Anonymous No.2061522]

Nuclear energy sucks. Cold Fusion all the way, baby.

[Anonymous No.2061552]

>>2061522
While I agree with you in spirit, in practice I have to go with the form of energy that's actually, y'know, viable.

[Anonymous No.2061588]

>>2061552
Shut up. Cold Fusion 4 Life ;-;

[Anonymous No.2061613]

Just dump all the nuclear waste in new jersey.

problem solved

[Anonymous No.2061618]

>>2060613
Also a few extremophile bacteria actually break-down(?) nuclear waste.

[Anonymous No.2061711]

Not the waste, the fuel: only a few places have uranium to mine.

If we went all-out nukes, it'd be gone faster than coal. (Even if we extracted uranium from the sea).

That, and the 10 Terawatts of carbon-free energy needed to make a dent in global warming would require 10,000 or so plants. The US has...three?

I support nukes, go get 'em--but only because I don't think anyone has a realistic picture of what global warming means.

[Anonymous No.2061767]

>>2061711

lol, US has more than 3 nuclear generating stations.

[Anonymous No.2061785]

>>2061711

add 100 to your estimate

>cold fusion

[Anonymous No.2061797]

three mile island happened and my mom got scared.

[Anomynous No.2061802]

>>2061711
There are more radioactives useful for nuclear reactions than just Uranium. Thorium alone has 5 times the potential energy due to its significantly higher abundance.

[Anonymous No.2061804]

Biogas production from organic waste here.

All other energy sources are stupid. Enjoy sucking in one aspect or another. I'll just keep on keeping methane from being produced in landfills, creating soil and a steady supply of CHP for entire cities.

[Jennie !NSPcQQMvS. No.2061805]

>>2060503
Reliable
Has next to no carbon footprint compared to coal plants (building the plant shipping fuel and employee comute are the only carbon costs).

Plus the "waste" is reusable in bubble reactors (or whatever they're called. I have a headache tonight. fuck off /sci/) which can reliably produce electricity.

[Anonymous No.2061808]

>>2061797

and now you live with your Auntie and Uncle in Bel Air?

[Anonymous No.2061821]

>>2061767
OK 100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

Actually there seem to be 300,000 Mwe generated:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html

So to change global warming before 2100, we only need 30 times as many as currently exist! Lets go get em!

[Anonymous No.2061829]

Damn Diablo Canyon Two, why can't you be more like Diablo Canyon One!

[Anomynous No.2061834]

>>2061821
Nobody sane is suggesting we use only nuclear to correct for the problems of global warming

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2061859]

>>2061834
That is a lot of nuclear waste dude. I'm sure as hell not holding on to that stuff for the next million years.

And if you are going to suggest breeder reactors to reduce the amount of time we will have to hold on to the waste then that will increase the cost of nuclear to the point of making renewables more than cost effective.

[Anomynous No.2061869]

>>2061859
Did you read my post or were you just glazing by it and making assumptions? It certainly seems to be the latter.

[Jennie !NSPcQQMvS. No.2061888]

>>2061859
Nuclear waste is usable. And since its usable, it's cheaper to either A) sell it to france or some other country which produces power with breeder reactors, or B) use it in conjunction with other power sources.

There's no reason to completely forget any option. Why sit on good 'waste' while we get wind and solar going, when we can have Wind, Solar /and/ breeder reactors reducing the amount of waste, and producing electricity? As long as there's /some/ profit, there's no reason not to do it.

[RoboMendel !!BJTz0OTwQdf No.2061913]

>>2061859

Nuclear waste is absolutely a nonissue compared to the impact fossil fuels have on the environment.

[patachu !LULZISTwQI No.2061950]

>>2060518
we extract it from the ground. i say let's bring it back to the ground !
it's really by far the less problematic source of energy as long we're doing it right.

[Anonymous No.2062652]

There is still a 78 year supply of cheap oil(cheap meaning able to produce gasoline for less then 4.10 2001USD/gallon assuming a 5% increase in demand compounded yearly) based on known recoverable reserves. But even after the exhaustion of all hydrocarbon resources it would still be possible to make hydrogen to fuel internal combustion engines(methane engines are in common use today) using electrolysis. The only thing humanity really needs to continue industrial production is electricity. With enough electricity many things that are not currently economically viable become possible. And with nuclear breeder reactors U238 and Thorium can be breed into the nuclear fuels Pu239 and U237 respectfully. This will provide sufficient electrical generation capacity, assuming a 8.5% increase in the consumption of electricity compounded yearly for population of 10 billion for at least 30,000 years. Supplementing this with solar, wind, and water power will ensure our survival for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous No.2062661]

>>2062652
>samefag
The oil reserve estimations come from various AAPG Bulletin articles, I can find them if you want them.

For the breeder reactors my main source was: Progress and its Sustainability. Choen's Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source, American Journal of Physics, vol. 51, (1), Jan. 1983. Cohen give a good description of the potential of Breeder Reactors. However I must warn you that Cohen is the Edison/Tesla of nuclear power, he is a shameless self-promoter, although with good reason. He often words his sentences to play up is inventions, note that every statement is factual but worded in a way that may be misleading to those unfamiliar with nuclear reactors. Example: Cohen would state that there is a 5 billion year supply of fissionable uranium assuming that all the U238 in the lithosphere was recovered and used in breeder reactors. However given estimated recoverable U238 reserves, an increase in electrical consumption of 10% compounded yearly(his number instead of the 8.5% actual), and the halflife of U238 there is only a 23,000 year supply. Of course even that assumes that all the 10% yearly increase will come from nuclear energy.

[Anonymous No.2062673]

>>2061913
mfw
>Implying that we want the biosphere to endure indefinitely

[Anonymous No.2062747]

>>2062661
Can I have those stats, plox?

[Anonymous No.2062779]

>>2062652
I need to make this into copypasta so I can shove it in peoples' faces when they get all "PEAK OIL! HUMANITY IS DOOMED!" on me.

Science, bitches. It rises to the occasion.

[Anonymous No.2062814]

>>2062652
>>2062661

Finally, we have the fucking voice of reason in /sci/ for once. Bravo anon, tell these idiot pseudo-scientists how retarded they sound bitching about oil.

Oil will be here today, tomorrow, next week, next year, in ten years, even after everyone on /sci/ is probably dead.

[Anonymous No.2062824]

>>2062747
Still waiting on those statistics :<

[Anonymous No.2062843]

Nuclear Power

+++ Large, consistent power output
++ Cheap to run once it is constructed
+ Future designs will only get better
+ There is enough fissionable material to last thousands of years under worst case scenarios.

- - People are irrationally scared of it
- - High initial cost to construct
- Waste disposal issue

The pros outweight the cons. Nuclear waste disposal is not actually a big "problem". Most waste is low level, and the really nasty stuff is produced in tiny quantities, such that if you dumped it into a town's drinking supply it would be so diluted nobody would get sick from it. The waste issue is really overrated by anti-nuclear crowd.

Nuclear isn't a permanent solution, and should ideally only be used for 60-80 years as we build up the grid of other power sources (i.e. better solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, wind). But people expecting to be able to magically wean off coal and oil and just go straight to so called "renewables" are fucking insane.

There is an entire book on the subject focusing on facts, numbers and realism. It's called "Sustainable energy - Without the hot air". It is available for free online:

http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

(HTML format, or click PDF links to get it on your PC).

I STRONGLY advise people reading that if they haven't already.

[Anonymous No.2062851]

simply, nuclear energy produces many pollutants and by-products that the companies dont want to dispose of effectively and in a environmentally way. Green house gass though are clean and simply produce energy, no toxic by-products.

=D

[Douehud No.2062856]

>>2062843
Thanks for the link.

[Anonymous No.2062867]

As far as nuclear goes, our waste problems stem largely from the fact that our power stations aren't based on designs meant to be power stations, but instead weapon production facilities.

We have working designs for thorium molten salt and breeder reactors that can reprocess and reuse waste until it's broken down into substances that become inert in decades rather than eons. Also, you know all that shit we've already buried? We can dig that back up and use it in these reactors.

Most of the traction against nuclear is because people are absolutely terrified of it. These same people have no idea that coal contains radioactive isotopes.

Geothermal is fucking fantastic, but geographically limited.

Hydroelectric is okay, but also geographically limited.

Wind is pretty unimpressive and unreliable.

Solar is unreliable and downright terrible. It needs some extreme efficiency improvements not only in operation but also in manufacture. We scarcely even recover the energy used to manufacture the goddamn panels over their lifetime.

Burning coal and oil is fucking derp.

[Anonymous No.2062877]

>mfw Obama shut down Yukka mountain which already had $1 billion tax dollars invested in it and would have been the perfect storage facility for nuclear waste because Harry Reid is a dick and promised Obama his endorsement if he destroyed it.

[Anonymous No.2062881]

>>2062867
>Burning coal and oil is fucking derp.
This. There are so many awesome things you can make out of hydrocarbons. What do we do? BURN IT HERP DERP

[Anonymous No.2062883]

>>2062867
You are a wise man. Although you should elaborate on the derpiness of coal and oil, some people are resistant to change.

[Anonymous No.2062895]

>>2062877
>Yukka mountain
>Yukka

[Anonymous No.2062903]

>>2062867
Orbital solar power is the way to go for 50+ years in the future.

Fuck yeah orbital power!

[Anonymous No.2062904]

>>2062895
>>2062673
Looks like /sci/ gets all kinds here.

[Anonymous No.2062910]

>>2062904
I was skeptical because its spelled YUCCA mountain, not Yukka.

[Anonymous No.2062912]

It's the best.
Nuclear plants have no CO2 emissions. Thorium is fucking abundant. Nuclear waste from thorium nuclear plants isn't weapon grade and completely decays after a few years.

[Anonymous No.2062961]

>>2062851
Well the depleted Uranium that constitutes most of the waste can be reprocessed or used as kinetic penetrator ammunition.

The other main byproducts are Curium, Strontium, Cesium, and Radium. These are the main sources of the radioactivity in the waste but they have short half lives. Which allows them to be used in radioelecriric batteries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

All nuclear waste with the exception of the radioactive water or graphite can be reprocessed, used for batteries of lighthouses or interplanetary probes, used for ammunition, or has such a short half-life that long term storage is not an issue.

[Anonymous No.2062968]

>>2062903
Gundam 00 will happen.

[Anonymous No.2062984]

>>2062881
Actually since Dupont came up with a way to make all petrochemicals from currently available organic carbon sources we don't need to save up hydrocarbons for plastic production like we once thought we did. And it is possible to fix nitrogen directly from the air without the Habner Process, albeit at 140% the energetic expense.

And the hydrocarbons are already in an easily extractable and transferable state(particularly oil and natural gas) so there is no reason not to burn them. Unless you are so biophilic that you just can't stand that 0.8-1 C temperature increase by 2110 and its consequences.

[Anonymous No.2062995]

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/nuclear-terrorism/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/accidents/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/reactors/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/radiation/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/proliferation/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/

[Anonymous No.2063008]

>>2062995
Fucking hippies.

[Anonymous No.2063012]

>>2062995

[GodofCider No.2063288]

404? Not yet.

[Anonymous No.2063310]

>>2062867
>>2062867

This. Thorium reactor technology really needs to be pursued more aggressively.

[Inurdaes !O1lReNv8uc No.2063327]

Nuclear has potential is all I'll say. Wait for Generation IV power plants.

[Anonymous No.2063338]

Nuclear Power Pros:
>Zero air pollution
>Modern designs are safe with no risk of radioactive meltdown
>Creates a metric fuckton of energy

Cons
>Creates toxic waste that stays toxic for tens of thousands of years
>Expensive as fuck
>Retarded hippies will picket anything with the word "nuclear" in it

[Anonymous No.2064127]

>>2063338
>Retarded hippies will picket anything with the word "nuclear" in it

Intelligent hippies will picket anything with the word "nuclear" in it when it happens in a country which considers any kind of government regulation to be tantamount to communism.

Nuclear power is adequately safe, so long as you don't give the final say on safety issues to corporations for whom nothing is more important than the next set of quarterly results.

Because if you do, disposal is going to boil down to "dump it in the nearest creek and sue the shit out of anyone who complains".

[Anonymous No.2064153]

Goddamnit, I hate it when people disregard the fact that the uranium needed for nuclear fission in the power plants has to come from somewhere.
That's right kiddies, it comes from nuclear quarrys. Do you know how clean they are? Well they aren't. They devastate the local environment just as bad as the notorious nickel quarrys in the Kola Peninsula (which's state is also affected by nuclear quarries and nuclear tests). Uranium also isn't some cheap metal like iron which you dig and process from the Earth like it was nothing. It's a fairly complex mechanism of either neutron bombing to make U238 into Plutonium239 or segregating U234 from U238 by effusion. That mixed with it's rarity, it becomes quite an expensive and insufficient power source compared to solar power, if we'd only scale that shit up to it's potential.

[Anonymous No.2064156]

>>2064153
Yeah, Uranium sucks shit. I wish they'd get to work on those thorium reactors.

[Anonymous No.2064387]

>>2064153
Indeed Solar Power is the only solution there is left if you want to do it ''Green'' no polution and for other Green options it eventually has no potential compared to the equipment that is used like windmills.

[Anonymous No.2064473]

2013 ITER is going to fire up again and break all records in regards to fusion power.

Unfortunatly, 2035 is the estimated year when we will finally have viable power from fusion plants. Until then we're going to have to deal with the increasing scarcity and price of fuel for conventional nuclear power plants, aswell as coal and oil. The problem is, can the planet take using coal and oil until then?

Here's to travelling wave reactors, hopefully they will show up before 2030.

[Anomynous No.2064572]

>>2064473
>can the planet take using coal and oil until then?
The planet can take it just fine. The question is: can we take it?

</carlin>

//Yes, we can

[Lord of City Speak No.2064615]

repossessing spent uranium,and use what you normaly cant re use in breeders,

everyone forgets about thorium,let alone fusion...with out fusion we wont have solar,and wind,let alone that ye be dead.

I hear in one second the sun produces so much energy that i would power the USA for millions of years...

[Anomynous No.2064640]

>>2064615
Sun per second:
3.86×10^26 J

World power generation per year (2005)
6.25×10^19 J
or per second:
1.98x10^12 J
according to Wiki, though it's citation is broken.

So yeah, 14 orders of magnitude more per time unit, or 6.18 million years of our total energy production for every second.the sun burns. It's a nice bit of perspective.

[Anonymous No.2064780]

>>2064640
Even the energy that reaches Earth is far more than the amount of energy the entire world use.

Solar power is, along with fusion, the potential biggest source of energy. Too bad we don't have the technology to proper utilize either of these yet.

Nuclear is, at the moment, the most advanced source of energy. But where I'm from, nuclear is a big no-no. 25 years ago the government decided never to use nuclear power. Today, they won't bring it up to consideration, due to cost and fear of how the debate would develop.

[Anonymous No.2064793]

The key to Nuclear energy is not to think of it as a be-all, end-all. It is a TRANSITIONARY power source, until green power sources (i'm looking at you, Wave/Hydro/Geothermal) catch up in terms of power production, or until we get viable cold fusion running.

As a transitionary power source, Nuclear Breeder reactors/Thorium reactors are awesome, since they can re-use the waste that we've already produced. By the time we run out of those, we'll be running on lots of green energy and/or fusion anyway.

[Anonymous No.2064828]

>>2064793
Nope, nuclear power is the power method for exploring space. And is only transitory until we can get useful fusion and whatever is beyond that.

[Anonymous No.2064841]

What I find strange is the opposition to wind and solar power by many libertarians and small-government conservatives. Nothing would be better for living with as little interference from the government or big business than having very diffuse energy production, with thousands of small wind farms or billions of private solar panels rather than a handful of large gas or nuclear power plants that can the entire country depends upon.

[Anonymous No.2064847]

>>2064828
depends on what you mean by "exploring space". If you're talking about extrasolar travel, definitely. If you're talking about travel from Earth to other planets in our Solar System, solar energy works fine for powering the electronics, and matter-antimatter would be the best way to power propulsion

[Anonymous No.2064858]

>>2064847
Solar isn't worth much beyond Mars. If you want to live on the moons of Saturn, you'll need nuclear.

[Anonymous No.2064901]

>>2064153
They make you clean up the uranium tailings today. Uranium mining is no worse than copper or lead mining, and I don't see people bitching about those.

[Lord of City Speak No.2064918]

I'm a conservative(in money),and an Modern Whig.

I have no issues with solar,or even wind. Yet we need to invest right no in fusion,and once we get fusion going we need to start working on solar and wind.

we need 70 percent fusion/atomic energy and 30 percent alternative energy.

People say atomic energy is too expensive because it's earmarked by the government,well so is your solar and wind..

[Anonymous No.2065180]

Too much hurr-durr radiation ever since Chernobyl/Three Mile Island.

Which is just silly, considering how radioactive some of the stuff being pumped straight into the atmosphere from Coal plants is.

[Anonymous No.2065331]

The problem with "green" energy is that it just doesn't have the required energy output to make it feasible in our modern industrialized society. Trying to do a total switchover now would be like trying to run your car on your cellphone's battery.

Nuclear energy/Thorium is good as a transitionary energy source because it produces huge amounts of power, combined with producing less waste per capita than Coal Fired/Oil plants, along with most of the waste being re-usable in breeder reactors to produce MORE energy.

Is Nuclear energy the best we can do? No. Is it a reliable source of power while we research better ways? Yes.

[Anonymous No.2065544]

Bump from the grave

[Anonymous No.2065760]

How does it feel knowing that the world has been suckered in by Greenpeace, meaning it will only go into the Nuclear age kicking and screaming?

[Anonymous No.2065794]

>>2065760
Feels bad, man.

[Anonymous No.2065885]

Fuck nuclear fission
Solar power is the future

[Anonymous No.2065900]

>>2065885
fuck solar power
get sunburns on wang

[Anonymous No.2065919]

>>2060503

OP, when you get down to it, Nuclear power is just heating up some water to spin a turbine. Yeah, theres all that nuclear waste, but nuclear waste can be converted back into fuel if you put it through alpha or beta decay for long enough.

[Anonymous No.2066241]

>>2065919
It's totally not that simple. Nuclear waste consists of spent fuel, which is a mixture of unspent fuel, unspent fuel after decay, fission fragments, and any of these after neutron capture, and also reactor shielding, some of which has undergone neutron capture.

So you start out with a half-dozen different elements and a dozen different isotopes. And plenty of neutrons. Thereafter, each unstable isotope undergoes decay, fissionable isotopes undergo fission, all elements undergo neutron capture.

So now you have a dozen different elements and two dozen different isotopes. Wash, rinse, repeat, and you eventually end up with most of the periodic table in their somewhere. Predicting how all of this pans a hundred years down the road is anyone's guess.

[Lord of City Speak No.2066640]

>>2062867
Fly ash

Toxic constituents depend upon the specific coal bed makeup, but may include one or more of the following elements or substances in quantities from trace amounts to several percent:

arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with dioxins and PAH compounds
Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill

occurred just before 1 a.m. on Monday December 22, 2008, when an ash dike ruptured at an 84-acre (0.34 km2) solid waste containment area at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant in Roane County, Tennessee, USA.

1.1 billion gallons (4.2 million m³) of coal fly ash slurry was released.

vs deep water of 185 million gallons

So ya,I wonder why I don't hear environmentalist,bitch like grammar Nazis about this spill?

[Anonymous No.2066774]

Let's see some more linkage and proof, people

[Anonymous No.2066787]

>>2066640
Because Environmentalists don't live in Tennessee; they breed near the ocean.

[Anonymous No.2066924]

>>2062995
seriously, greenpeace is full of fucktards. How about you throw yourselves into an eco-friendly furnace to provide power while reducing the demand for electricity, food, and manufactured products all at the same time!

[Anonymous No.2066937]

what are the negative side effects of dropping nuclear waste into a volcano?

[Anonymous No.2067022]

>>2066937
the earth will explode

[Anonymous No.2067466]

this thread is over a day old! can't let it die now! also /r/ archiving this! seems to have a lot of good citation and opinions
Tyson-bump

[Anonymous No.2067840]

>>2067022
>>2066937
I'm sure if that were true, somebody would have blown up the world already.
The answer is that the hazerdous parts of nuclear energy would just come back out. It doesnt destroy it.

[Anonymous No.2068404]

Let's keep the discussion going for 3 days, /sci/ducks!

[Anonymous No.2068765]

How many IGCC coal plants are actually running the the U.S.?

[Anonymous No.2068798]

>>2062995

>result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. Perhaps most significantly, it will squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions

Wow...

[Anonymous No.2068861]

>>2062995
Wow, I for some reason have the urge to put my fist through my monitor after reading those.

[Anonymous No.2068881]

Geothermal is not clean.


it pollutes the ocean with lots of hot water.


in that sense it is identical to Nuclear, in which warmed 2ndary coolant (Which is completely safe, non-heavy, etc) is pumped back into lake/streams/ocean (Diablo canyon is well known for this problem, as is the "tits" nuclear power plant near San Diego).
people have lots of misconceptions about "nuclear" energy.


people mistakenly assume that nuclear power generation is dangerous because it can cause nuclear explosions.

this is false. no such reactors have been manufactured in decades.


the biggest danger with reactor failure is that the reactor containment fails and becomes so radioactive that noone can get there to contain it.


the other concerns have to do with storage of radioactive waste.
people mistakenly assume that "radioactive waste" are like big barrels full of glowing sludge.


radioactive waste are long metal rods that glow with radiation and heat.


they dont contaminate ground water. they dont contaminate the air. they just sit there and make heat and release ionizing radiation.


burrying it is totally safe.

[Anonymous No.2070000]

>Greenpeace

[Anonymous No.2070055]

>result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade.

Uh, no.

Just no.

[Anonymous No.2070201]

>Greenpeace implying Nuclear Energy disasters are common as fuck
>implying that Nuclear Safety standards are not fucking hardcore
>implying Coal/Oil standards are not shit-tier in comparison
>implying Nuclear =/= best transitionary power source until we either ramp up Green energy or achieve Fusion

Fucking Greenpeace. They prove that if you shout something loud enough people will believe you.

[Anonymous No.2070211]

>NuclearReactorWithSmoke.jpg

You guys realise that this thread was only posted to host this subtle troll, right?

[Anonymous No.2070225]

>>2070211
OP here (and astounded that this thread has lasted this long). I actually got it off of google after searching Nuclear Reactor. I didn't even look at the filename.

[Anonymous No.2070385]

>>2070211
That's just steam, obviously some fuckwit named the file

[Anonymous No.2070392]

the US has operated nuclear powered subs for decades without incident; sure would be nice to apply that to public and/or private transportation. a few banana peels into the Mr. Fusion and we're off to adventure!

[Anonymous No.2070425]

>>2066937
>>2067022
This anon:
>>2067840
speaks the truth

A volcano is an exit, not an entrance, anything you throw in will eventually just get blown or flown out when the volcano enters an active phase.

Now, if you could bury the waste deep into the ground near a subduction zone, then you could have a better chance of getting rid of it.

Also, there's a lot of active isotopes inside theaearth, so inserting more will definitely NOT harm the earth.

So cool down. Don't panic.

[Anonymous No.2071082]

>mfw this has been alive since monday

This must prove that Nuclear energy is the superior energy option!

[Anonymous No.2071102]

Nuclear power has virtually no c02 emissions, it's main byproduct is steam.
the only downside is the nuclear waste itself and the risk of a meltdown, and it's very expensive.
IMHO geothermal is the way of the future, since the source is constant and reliable, and all these god damn hippies are always blocking nuclear power.

[Anonymous No.2071112]

>>2071102
Heh, I've heard protests against GT power, owing to the fact that it weakens the earth's crust, which could lead to the crust sinking into the underlying magma.

I swear that is what one told me.
She didn't take it well that I first stared at her dumbstruck and then walked away, laughing so hard I staggered at every step and tears were streaming down my face.

[Anonymous No.2071151]

>>2071112
they're making a geothermal test plant up in paulina/the Newberry volcano in central Oregon, and the protesters where saying the same thing "OMG EARTHEQUAAAACKS HNNNNNNG"
Now that Newberry is potentially active, the new argument is that it will cause Newberry to erupt.

[Anonymous No.2071171]

ITT: nuke advocates ignoring the elephant in the room, the hazardous and contaminating process of extracting uranium and plutonium from the ground. That shit stays in the soil for generations.

[Anonymous No.2071183]

>>2071112
>I've heard protests against GT power, owing to the fact that it weakens the earth's crust, which could lead to the crust sinking into the underlying magma

[Anonymous No.2071195]

>>2071171
ITT: Somebody rushed through the thread
>>2064901
We're ripping shit out of the earth. OF COURSE THERE'S GONNA BE SOME COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

[Anonymous No.2071298]

>>2071171
ITT: UNDERCOVER GREENPEACE AGENT

[Anonymous No.2071854]

>>2071112
What about Wind energy? WHAT IF PUTTING UP WINDMILLS INTERFERES WITH THE EARTH'S WIND PATTERNS, CAUSING AN INCREASE IN PRECIPITATION IN AREAS WHICH WOULDN'T NORMALLY GET IT AND CAUSING DROUGHTS ELSEWHERE?

IT'S NOT WORTH THE RISK!

[Anonymous No.2071872]

>>2071854
I agree, at least we know the effects of coal, let's stick to what we know.

[Anonymous No.2071903]

Dirty energy like coal does make more waste than nuclear but that stuff can be cleaned up, with nuclear waste we can only bury it as it piles up, it'll be a long term problem. France is fucked.

[Anonymous No.2071928]

>>2071903
See
>>2062867

>We have working designs for thorium molten salt and breeder reactors that can reprocess and reuse waste until it's broken down into substances that become inert in decades rather than eons. Also, you know all that shit we've already buried? We can dig that back up and use it in these reactors.

[Anonymous No.2071950]

>>2071102
Geothermal is not reliable for the long term as the ground cools down and needs a long time to heat itself up again.

Nuclear is the way to go. Clean Energy, very little risk, waste materials can get fed into other reactors that wring out as much energy as they can from it.

[Anonymous No.2071966]

We should bounce a laser off the top of Earth's magnetosphere and recollect it on the surface once it has gathered more energy from the way back.

[Anonymous No.2072400]

Coal Firing plants produce more waste than Nuclear Energy by several orders of magnitude.

>the more you know.jpeg

[Anonymous No.2072600]

Lot of good posts in this thread. Allow me to throw my $0.02 in (a recap of sorts).

Power plants:
Solar - impossible to regulate, expensive, panel production has tons of toxic byproducts, expensive
Wind - impossible to regulate, produces little energy per plant, concrete turbine forests ruin landscapes, expensive
Geothermal - only possible to use in geologically active areas, somewhat expensive, otherwise great
Water - requires rivers/large tides, otherwise good
Coal/Oil - Easy to regulate, cheap to build, running them will either be expensive or harsh on the environment though
Nuclear - Expensive to build, dirt cheap to run, very little waste
Biomass - All the downsides of a coal power plant, but requires considerably more fuel
Natural gas - Dirt cheap to build, rather expensive to operate, easy on the environment and easy to regulate. Perfect for managing unexpected demand spikes.
Fusion - Nuclear on steroids, sadly still in development

[Anonymous No.2072611]

>concrete turbine forests make landscapes AWSOME
fixed bro, shits awsome

[/k/anaris No.2072636]

>>2072600

Hydroelectric power also has a negative impact on ecosystems and the landscape.

[Anonymous No.2072641]

>mfw this thread is still here

WHY. WON'T. YOU. DIE.

[Anonymous No.2072649]

>>2072636
>>2072600
Basically, whatever we do to produce energy, something is getting fucked up. Such is the cost of progress.

[Anonymous No.2072661]

it's a good idea.
Coal and other conventional generation methods may be better for now, but we'll kick ourselves in 1000 years when we're out of dinosaur remains because we were busy getting to and from work on exactly the same road as our neighbours but in a different car. Nuclear waste can be recycled, and applications for it are already being discovered.

The other upside to nuclear FISSION, in which heavy laggy particles split, is that increased funding for it leads to more research in nuclear FUSION, in which metric fucktons of energy can be generated with hardly any fallout and no pollutant byproduct. The results of an explosion in a nuclear fusion plant capable of powering 4 million homes would have dispersed enough by the time they reached the outer fence to be below safe levels

[Anonymous No.2072678]

>>2072611
yeah, most of the time the windmills are in the middle of nowhere. In Buttfuck, Wyoming, who cares if there are a shitload of windmills screwing up your view if no one lives there?

[Anonymous No.2072684]

>>2072678
>screwing up your view
only they aren't. If windmills were sculptures and had no practical benefit people would want them more than they do at the moment. I guarantee you.

[Anonymous No.2072689]

>>2072678
This is why environmentalists endorse wind energy.

They don't have to see it working, so why should they care where it is?

They all live on the coast anyway.

[Anonymous No.2072693]

>>2072661
Lack of radioactive byproducts in a fusion power plant will be heavily design-dependent.

The only fusion power plant you can build with 1970s tech would produce a lot of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_%28fusion%29

[Anonymous No.2072699]

>>2072693
whereas a farnsworth fusor would give off nothing at all

[Anonymous No.2072703]

>NuclearReactorWithSmoke.jpg

I can't believe none of you fell for this.

IT'S WATER VAPOR, JACKASS.

Also, any idea where the plant in OP's pic is? It looks like the one near my home.

[Anonymous No.2072708]

True/False
A function can only have one zero.

[Anonymous No.2072718]

this question should sum it all up ^^^^^

[Anonymous No.2072728]

>>2072708
POTATO

[Anonymous No.2072737]

extra potatoes

[Anonymous No.2072746]

>>2071151
>>2071112
>extracting heat from the crust weakens it instead of solidifying it

Learn something new every day...

>>2071171
>extracting uranium and plutonium

That's not how you spell thorium.

>>2071903
>but that stuff can be cleaned up

Not so much. It also just gets stored, only they don't even bother containing it properly.
Then this shit happens: >>2066640

>>2072661
>The results of an explosion in a nuclear fusion plant

...probably wouldn't even breach the facility. If you lose containment for any reason the reaction stops completely, leaving you with only the tiny amount of active plasma you have at any given moment to do any damage.

[Anonymous No.2073351]

53 hours and counting KEEP ON TRUCKING
WHY HASNT THIS BEEN ARCHIVED YET

[Anonymous No.2073389]

Now that anti-matter has been contained it doesn't really matter.

[Anonymous No.2073921]

>>2073351
ROLLIN' ROLLIN' ROLLIN', KEEP THAT REACTION GOIN'

[Anonymous No.2075214]

This thread (much like spent nuclear fuel) shall have a half-life spanning an astonishing amount of time!

[Anonymous No.2075233]

>>2073389
iseewhatyoudidthere.nef

[Anonymous No.2075292]

I've heard that fast breeder reactorscarry with them a higher risk of starting an uncontrolled fission reaction rather than our current and most common U-235/U-238 reactors.

The reason being that U-238 is capable of immediately absorbing and unmoderated neutrons released from the fission of U-235. SO basically if the U-235 ever became unmoderated, the U-238 would essentially stop the reaction immediately. I know breeder reactor get thier power from the fission of Pu-239, but I'm not sure if the same effect applies. I'm pretty sure theres U-238 in the fuel as it will eventually decay into Pu-239 after absorbing a neutron hence the name 'breeder'.

I'm just not sure theres enough U-238 in the fuel to stop an out of control reaction. Also, considerin how fucking expensive reprocessing plants are, we'd only likely build a handful of them which means if we went to breeder rectors, we would have to ship alot of radioactive waste and later weapons grade Plutonium over long distances.


>>2071171
Plutonium isn't a natural element you derp. Uranium isn't really that hard to mine at all.

[Anonymous No.2076397]

Fusion > Fission

However, until we get Fusion that is commercially viable, Nuclear > Coal/Oil/Green