[ 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: 57 KB, 840x578, nuclearpower[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703904 No.2703904 [Reply] [Original]

Which is better for energy?

Oil or nuclear?

>> No.2703923

Which killed more?

Chernobyl disaster or gulf oil spill?
Which was more wide-reaching?
Which has more long-lasting effects?

I think you just answered your own question.

>> No.2703922

Oil wouldn't be so bad if we actually regulated it half as much as we do nuclear.

>> No.2703951
File: 5 KB, 245x173, chelyabinsk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703951

This is what nuclear power does.

>> No.2703960
File: 805 KB, 1716x1772, matthiasmann[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703960

nuclear: awesome, scary

oil: reliable, gay

>> No.2703979

nuclear

>> No.2703987

>everyone for oil ITT backs up their argument
>the only guy for nuclear doesn't provide and facts at all

>> No.2703995

nuclear doesn't have nearly the investment returns as oil does.

>> No.2703996

>>2703951
It posts thumbnails with no explanation?

>> No.2704002

>Implying any of those are good

>> No.2704029

>>2703995
this this this this this this this

OMG this.

>> No.2704043

I fill my car with heavy oil. Fully H3 and C14 substituted hydrocarbons. It's $23B/gal, but it's totally worth it.

>> No.2704047

To be honest, I think most people on /sci/ are too exhausted constantly debunking the fears against nuclear energy for the last few days. I will just offer a summary:

There are a few major factors to consider when looking at any energy source:

1) Efficiency
2) Renewability
3) Cleanliness
4) Safety

On every single one of these, nuclear energy is superior to petroleum.

>> No.2704075
File: 635 KB, 699x538, 1291729629185.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2704075

>>2703923
>Which killed more?
Pollution from coal and oil use results in major respiratory problems and kills hundreds of thousands of people a year worldwide. Thousands of people die in Shanghai each year alone from the widespread use of petroleum products - some of this is from coal, but vehicle traffic is beginning to play a larger role in the city's pollution index.

On a per yield basis the waste from nuclear fuel is more dangerous to humans, but nuclear plants produce magnitudes of order less waste for the same amount of energy than oil and coal plants. Nuclear waste is also easier to isolate, since it basically involves digging a big hole in a mountain and telling everyone to never go there again. Compare this to oil combustion byproducts which are simply vented into the atmosphere and cause illnesses and climate problems, both localized and global.

The real issue is finding an adequate replacement for the use of oil in small engines.

The point is moot because there's not going to be enough oil to supply our energy needs a decade or so anyway.

>> No.2704080

Moot point. The oil is going to run out within the century, as far as energy sources go. Nuclear won't.

>> No.2704101

Nuclear is better for energy.

A pellet of Uranium gives off more energy than a ton of coal.

>> No.2704097

Coal. The most polluting but approved by hippies.

>> No.2704108

Nuclear all the way!! As long as its nuclear fusion and none of this fission crap. As soon as they have fusion reactors working to an acceptable level, then all our energy problems will come to a standstill (At least until we run out of hydrogen, which won't be for a while yet :P)

>> No.2704110

Oil will likely soon become uneconomical via peak oil, is hugely polluting, and is largely controlled by assholes.

Nuclear is superior in every way.

>> No.2704119

>>2703904
/fit/ here,
I prefer OATZ for energy. Oil is just fatty acids, and nuclear just gives me a terminal case of death from radiation poisoning.

>> No.2704122

>>2704108
The emote ruined your entire argument.

>> No.2704123

they both have their uses and we'd be fucked if we just had one or the other

/reason

>> No.2704136

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
nuclear is safer than all other energy sources.

>> No.2704140

With an oil powered rocket we could not get to Mars in 30 days, so I say nuclear.

>> No.2704146

>>2704110
nuclear isn't controlled by assholes? Granted it will require tighter government regulation/financing but they're easily manipulated.

>> No.2704164
File: 43 KB, 400x300, einsteintux.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2704164

>>2704122

I suppose, but I got my point of view across so I couldn't care any less than I already do.

Incidentally :O (Because I can)

>> No.2704169

extend public transport routes by about >9000% and and get everyone everywhere to invest in renewables.

>> No.2704174

primativism

>> No.2704175

>>2704108
lol
u b trollin

>> No.2704185

primitivism

>> No.2704186

>>2704136
Saved. I was looking for this information.

Solar is also safer than coal. Coal is the deadliest source of power in major use.

>> No.2704201

>>2704185
You go do that.

>> No.2704202

>>2704175
I be trolling?
I think not.

>> No.2704206

>>2704108
Fusion isn't economical. Set up windfarms and solar panels in abundance while we pour the majority of funding into fusion research, then i can take over, then by the time hydrogen runs out we'll have discovered some other solution

>> No.2704211

>>2704186
let me check the last year that coal produced enough pollution to wipe life off the planet...hmmm, seems NEVER. nuke does it every year, but yea, its totally safe.

>> No.2704214

Neither is better they both suck.

The question is more about, what are you scared of more?

>> No.2704222

http://www.slate.com/id/2288212/

http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6861-comparing-risks.pdf

>The sole fatal nuclear power accident of the last 40 years, Chernobyl, directly killed 31 people. By comparison, Switzerland's Paul Scherrer Institute calculates that from 1969 to 2000, more than 20,000 people died in severe accidents in the oil supply chain. More than 15,000 people died in severe accidents in the coal supply chain—11,000 in China alone. The rate of direct fatalities per unit of energy production is 18 times worse for oil than it is for nuclear power.

>Even if you count all the deaths plausibly related to Chernobyl—9,000 to 33,000 over a 70-year period—that number is dwarfed by the death rate from burning fossil fuels. The OECD's 2008 Environmental Outlook calculates that fine-particle outdoor air pollution caused nearly 1 million premature deaths in the year 2000, and 30 percent of this was energy-related.

>> No.2704227

>>2704206
>fusion isn't economical
>build wind farms
Got some news for you pal...
>when hydrogen runs out
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe...

>> No.2704229

>>2704136
provide a reputable source and not a blog post and maybe people will take you seriously

>> No.2704232

>>2704211
> wipe life off the planet
Full retard.


Awww, dammit, I just fed the troll.

>> No.2704236

>>2704206
Hence why I said "As soon as they have fusion reactors working to an acceptable level".
Although I do like the windfarms and solarpanels suggestion, but we may as well throw in tidal power while we're at it. Just for good measure.

>> No.2704247

>>2704211
>enough pollution to wipe out the entire planet
>nuclear does this every year
Where did you hear that load of codswallop?

>> No.2704254

>>2704222
correct me if im wrong, but the issue with nuclear disasters isn't necessarily death but other health effects. no?

>> No.2704251

>>2704229

His may not be, but my sources are reliable.

>> No.2704267

I say we plough money into everything and anything that gives us power.

I want our planet to resemble Coruscant

>> No.2704270

>>2704254

"Other health effects" may be serious but unfortunately are difficult to measure unless they manifest themselves as death.

Coal is killing you slowly every day but may only manifest itself as heart disease later in life which is unattributable to coal.

>> No.2704278

>>2704254
Like what?

Coal emissions cause cancer deaths too. Coal is orders of magnitude more deadly, no matter how you slice it. And if you want to talk about NON-lethal detrimental effects, coal wins the "I fuck the up world" fight by an even LARGER margin.

>> No.2704344

>>2704254
Not really, it can increase cancer if you get exposed to to much radiation, but the amount of radiation needed to give you a 'good' chance of cancer would straight up kill you.

>> No.2704384

>>2704344
Besides, coal is worse than nuclear even as far as just total radiation exposure to humans, IIRC. Perhaps that's only because coal is more used.

But regardless of how much of it is due to radiation, coal kills way more people per TWh than nuclear.

>> No.2704413

>>2704222
> The sole fatal nuclear power accident
lolno. see: kyshtym disaster
people in chelyabinsk continue to have average life spans shorter than 50 years

>> No.2704442

You fucking niggers all need to read this.

http://www.riskworld.com/nreports/1999/jaworowski/NR99aa01.htm

http://www.riskworld.com/nreports/1999/jaworowski/NR99aa01.htm

http://www.riskworld.com/nreports/1999/jaworowski/NR99aa01.htm

Hopefully somebody smart enough to understand sees this post.

>> No.2704451

>>2704080
How much Uranium is left is unclear. Some pessimists predict that we'll run out in 30 years.

>> No.2704459

>>2704229
lookie here
>>2704222


and the blog itself provides links to reputable sources. See those phrases in blue that make the icon of your mouse change when you pass over them? Yes, those are links.

or you might want to read the UN report on the effects of the chernobyl disaster?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_the_disaster.27s_effects_on_human_health


it's less severe than what happens every year in any localiy close to a coal plant or oil refinery.


or how about this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/03/uknews.pollution
>Urban air pollution 'more dangerous than Chernobyl'
>Study rates risks of city life as greater than radiation
>Passive smoking worse than living in blast zone

>> No.2704534

Molten salt reactor everyone. Or basically any other Gen IV reactor is better than oil or coal. Deal with it

>> No.2704709

>>2704413

Nuclear fuel reprocessing != nuclear power plant.

>> No.2704779
File: 211 KB, 720x540, sci-iamdisappoint.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2704779

>Nobody has mention liquid-thorium reactors yet
>mfw

>> No.2704831

>>2704451
>30 years
lolno

If the world switched entirely to nuclear for power the deposits in Canada alone would be enough to power the us for 300+ years taking into account power consumption growth; let alone the rest of the worlds reserves.

That and we're probably around 20~ years from effective nuclear fusion reactors that we have almost unlimited fuel for.