[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 55 KB, 640x480, 1293386305298.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2263346 No.2263346 [Reply] [Original]

Nuclear power.

Good or bad?

>> No.2263359

Good, just given bad views due to the media.

inb4hippiessayingbad.

>> No.2263353

http://www.nuklearpower.com/8-bit-theater/
Very good.

>> No.2263361

Depends how you use it.
Nuclear bombs good.
Nuclear reactors to power homes bad.

>> No.2263365

Nuclear power is like intelligence: It can be used for good or evil ends, and you usually want to have lots of it.

>> No.2263366

Mediocre with the possibility of becoming very good.

>> No.2263370

Thorium is love.

>> No.2263371

It's difficult to get much better.

>> No.2263387

>>2263366

I don't understand the "mediocre" bit. It's competitive against coal. What greater standard are you using?

>> No.2263391

>>2263387
Coal doesn't typically produce residue that is difficult to sequester, very hazardous, and persistent on the century scale.

>> No.2263407

radiation poisoning, good or bad

>> No.2263406

>>2263391

It typically does.

>> No.2263405

Thorium really is love.

>> No.2263402

>>2263387
Solar is cheaper, and I don't like the idea of radioactive waste by any stretch of the imagination. I'm waiting for the round nuclear fuel pellets to be used.

I'm more of a geothermal/space-based solar man myself.

>> No.2263417

>>2263391
Doesn't actually know anything about nuclear power.

Good or bad?

>> No.2263424

>>2263391
It does. Coal ash is nasty toxic stuff that doesn't disappear over night.

>>2263402
It's not. Where coal and nuclear cost about the same, solar is still much more expensive.

Radioactive waste also isn't nearly as big a problem as people think it is. We know how to reliably and safely store it for thousands of years. The problem is politics that prevents reprocessing or the use of Yucca Mountain.

>> No.2263432
File: 20 KB, 300x400, 1293437260510.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2263432

>>2263406
>Coal doesn't typically produce residue that is difficult to sequester, very hazardous, and persistent on the century scale.
>difficult to sequester
>difficult to sequester
>difficult to sequester
>difficult to sequester

>> No.2263436

>>2263387

Wait.. are you actually implying that coal should be rated higher than mediocre? You can't really go much worse, so beeing competitive with coal should land you around mediocre at best.

>> No.2263437

solar all the way. cover like 20% of the earth's surface in reflective materials.

>> No.2263443
File: 56 KB, 500x412, 3qo437sQqlee1t54LL5mR7Qso1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2263443

>>2263437
>next ice age

>> No.2263444

>>2263402

While improving rapidly, solar has yet to reach grid parity in most places. As for geothermal. diminishing returns set in pretty quickly. We sit on the Ring of Fire in New Zealand, but it only accounts to some 10% of power generated. Space based solar, though? Really? Too much SC2k eh?

>> No.2263448

Nuclear power unfortunately has low net energy and is quite expensive to build the power plants for it.
TL;DR: Solar is the better alternative

>> No.2263453

>>2263436

What power stations is China building en masse? Coal? Where does the majority of America's power come from? Coal? Man, must be pretty shitty.

The only power source that consistently beats coal is hydro, but you don't always have handy rivers to dam up.

>> No.2263456

coal is not difficult or necessary to sequester, so please do the world a favor and die. if you want to tell some scientist that to make him feel special, then go for it. broadcasting your opinion publicly means you are the definition of failure.

>> No.2263455

>>2263436
Coal is also one of the cheapest ways to produce large amounts of energy. To be competitive with coal means it's pretty damn good.

>> No.2263457
File: 14 KB, 252x234, 1293438105304.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2263457

>>2263453
>is popular now
>must be good on an absolute scale
>not a fallacy

>> No.2263460

>>2263437
>has no idea how fucking expensive that is.

>> No.2263464

>>2263424
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/duke-study-finds-solar-power-cheaper-than-nuclear-coach-k-stron/

>> No.2263478

>>2263448
>Nuclear power unfortunately has low net energy
What bullshit is this?

>and is quite expensive to build the power plants for it.
Which is made up for by low production costs. A nuclear plant pays for itself long before it has to be decommissioned.

>> No.2263482

>>2263457

"Absolute scale"? It's an issue of cost. The fact that coal is still used is testament to the fact that coal is still cheaper than solar.

>> No.2263493

>>2263464

That's great, but outside of laboratory conditions solar tends to underperform. A study by the Department of Energy still finds Solar to be twice as expensive as Nuclear.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

>> No.2263497

coal is more likely to cause that i think. 20% total might not be too much. but the metal buildings everywhere... who knows...

>> No.2263499

It'll work for a bit when coal gets too expensive and the tech for renewable energy has yet to come around.

>> No.2263500
File: 45 KB, 400x623, 1293246042587.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2263500

>>2263493
SOLAR STILL BETTER

>> No.2263503

thanks for the mind opening post you useless fucking troll bot pile of shit. be useful and make yourself useless, then turn yourself off

>> No.2263514

If the entire earth were covered with solar panels you could not even produce a fraction of the energy you could produce with nuclear plants.

>> No.2263515

Nuclear power, fission specifically, is easy enough to control with decades old plants. Modern plants with better technology further minimize any risk to negligible levels. Containment, transportation, and disposal/storage of waste products requires caution and consideration but is hardly impossible or dangerous to any but the few people actually working with the material.

There are 441 power plants currently in operation around the world with another 60 on the way.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

Nuclear fusion produces, theoretically, almost not "pollution" while at the same time releasing massive amounts of energy. If properly controlled and contained the benefit could be revolutionary.

Coal produces pollution that is difficult to sequester and can become very toxic and destructive under the right conditions. Coal mining, especially in third world and otherwise unscrupulous countries, can be exceptionally dangerous for any worker. Accidents are more likely to happen at your average coal mine or coal plant than at any nuclear facility still in operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal

>> No.2263518

>>2263464
>16 cents/kWh
That's two or three times what nuclear costs.

>> No.2263543

>>2263444

>solar
>improving

I'm sorry, what? Solar tech is a dead-end

>> No.2263570

>>2263543
How is it a dead-end? Until mankind has literally exhausted every possible material for use in producing electrical energy from solar radiation it is hardly a "dead-end".

>> No.2263575

>>2263543

I can't comment on that, but it went from being a novelty to only two or three times too expensive for grid parity. That's an improvement in my book.

>> No.2263620

ITT: People that know next to nothing about nuclear energy act as if they know everything about nuclear energy. Aside from the high initial cost to build the plant nuclear energy is far better than coal/gas/oil/solar/wind/whateverthefuckelse at energy production, cost to continually operate the plant, Least damage to the environmental(with the exception of solar/wind/hydro/geothermal and thats only because of the waste and they are working on ways to use the waste to further power nuclear plants.) All in all, yes wind and solar are nice but there is no fucking way either will be able to sustain a major city. Nuclear is THE energy source of the future and the only reason it hasn't come into its own is retarded people who know nothing about it thinking events like chernobyl are the norm when infact modern nuclear plants are probably some of the safest power plants out there.

>> No.2263635

>>2263620

Replace
>whateverthefuckelse
With
>whateverthefuckelse\{Hydro}
And we can agree.

>> No.2263648

>>2263635
I knew I forgot something there, well I did mention hydro in the sentence after that though.

>> No.2263658

>>2263648

Yeah, but you didn't explicitly cede its superiority. For a country with waterways nuclear will remain the second best choice. Waterways it doesn't mind destroying, of course. Environmentally friendly hydro isn't.

>> No.2263667

its not good or bad. but its inevitable. eventually people will use it more and more as technology improves. but its still finite because eventually people will be talking about peak uranium or whatever. then there will still be the chance of meltdown but I think overall its more good than bad.

>> No.2263678

>>2263658
I suppose you are correct about that, issue being there aren't many areas where they could take full advantage of hydro so I still would say nuclear on average is better. And when I was saying its environmentally friendly I was more speaking about pollutants going into the air since thats what most people are implying when they say environmentally safe. You are completely correct about it fucking up the water ways.

>> No.2263688

funny this is right under the brain cancer thread