Nuclear Power - Pros and Cons

[Neutron No.3749871]

Fellow /sci/entists, I am going to atend a debate on nuclear power tomorrow and I need pro nuclear arguments and points. Obviously I plan on going on about LFTRs, relative safety compared with other methods of generating electricity and that kind of stuff, but any extra points would be great.

Pro nuclear thread.

[Anonymous No.3749883]

>>3749871
I have yet to meet an anti-nuker that can explain how a reactor actually works. The leader of my college's campus anti-nuke group was genuinely shocked (and a little skeptical) that nuclear reactors involve steam turbines.

[Anonymous No.3749902]

>>3749883
I'm anti-nuclear and know how reactors work, so we are out there.

[Neutron No.3749903]

>>3749883
Urgh. I'm hoping we get at least a few workers from the local MOX reprocessing plant that know their shit turning up to school ignorant anti-nukers.

[Anonymous No.3749916]

>>3749902
You're a rarity.

I asked my (now educated) girlfriend about fusion. She said it's still nuclear, so no.

I rectified the situation. We both belong to a local rationalist group. I secretly invited a bunch of the old Oak Ridge nukers (we have a lot in the group) to a meet-up at a nearby beer garden. Once there, they ambushed her with trufax. She was mildly pissed, but she was grateful to hear the facts from true experts.

[Anonymous No.3749922]

>more people per unit of energy die due to coal, oil, solar and wind
>oil and coal energy plants release more radioactive particles per unit of energy than nuclear plants

Should do the trick.

[Anonymous No.3749924]

Aside from construction of plants and fabrication of fuel, nuclear power generation is CO2 free. Coal power plants emit more radiation in smoke and coal slag than nuclear plants do. I could go on and on, but I'll take questions on the first two points.

[Anonymous No.3749925]

Nuclear accidents always bring about design improvements.

You can't bring a reactor critical on the complete withdraw of a single rod because of SL-1.

Suggesting to use a moderator with a positive temperature coefficient will get you laughed out of the room because of Chernobyl.

I'm sure Fukishima will bring about safety concerns with backup power and disaster protection. We'll see on this one.

If you want a solid debate, bring up the growth of electric cars and the strain they'll put on the power grid. They have to be powered by something. Solar and Wind are good supplements to more reliable sources but ultimately fall short of the sustained power required for nighttime power generation. Coal is dirty no matter how clean you want claim it to be.

The only reasonable answer is Nuclear. Tear down these 1st and 2nd generation reactors and build some mother-fucking 4th Gens. Safety up the ass, high power output.

What they need to do because of NIMBY effect is to match the taxes generated by the plant and put them back into the community that supports the plant. Imagine all that tax revenue being pumped back into local schools and stuff.

[Anonymous No.3749926]

>>3749922
the more science involved, the safer it is?

[Anonymous No.3749930]

>>3749926
WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED

But srsly, non sequitur and what the fuck

[Anonymous No.3749931]

Proof that bourgeois don't care about the safety of anyone and want to kill us for greed and profit, nuclear should be banned.

[Anonymous No.3749933]

>>3749925
> The only reasonable answer is Nuclear.

Except that you nuketards keep being unreasonable about what exactly you intend to do with all the waste that keeps building up at each reactor site, combined with the horrid expenses incurred by each decommissioning and subsequent ETERNAL fucking monitoring of all that on-site stored waste.

[Anonymous No.3749936]

>>3749931
trololololol

[Neutron No.3749939]

>>3749924
>>3749922
More info or source on those? I don't doubt you, I'd just like to go into detail.

[Anonymous No.3749945]

>>3749939
I posted a whole bunch of scholarly articles about coal slag being massively radioactive a few weeks back, but I'm too lazy to repeat that. Most of the information I use from non-scholarly articles come from professors of nuclear engineering I've had in the past. Currently studying nuclear engineering too.

[Neutron No.3749962]

>>3749945
No worries, google is my friend.

[Anonymous No.3749964]

>>3749933

They need to do exactly what they wanted to do to begin with bury that shit in a mountain in the desert.

Its not even NIMBY effect any more, its fucking BANANA effect (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything/Anyone). Give the 100 or so people that it actually effects some money and tell them to get the fuck out. Its for the greater good.

[Anonymous No.3749968]

>>3749933

In the US, that's not an engineering problem, it's a government problem. We've had the technology for years to recycle fuel and rid it of more than 50% of long-lived actinides (which is actually a fuck-ton). Just look at France. They're required by law to reprocess and reuse fuel. The US, on the other hand, operates on a principle of mandated burn time. Fuel can only be used in a power reactor for 18 months before it is REQUIRED BY LAW to be removed, but it is still usable as fuel! In fact, burning past this mandated burn time would actually remove most of the long-lived actinides from the fuel.

On the one hand, it serves as a a sort of rainy day fund if and when uranium producing nations (i.e. Canada and Australia) either run out of mining capability or otherwise refuse to provide fissile material to the US. On the other hand, it leaves the fuel in its most dangerous state.

It's not the nukes that are preventing waste from being made safer, it's the very people anti-nuke's rely on for anti-nuke legislation.

[Anonymous No.3749985]

>>3749964
> They need to do exactly what they wanted to do to begin with bury that shit in a mountain in the desert.

Correct, but you just can't get anything DONE in the USA anymore. It's an empire in its Age of Decline. Anything that's useful is regulated out of existence, and politicians and their armies of directors and clerks swarm over everything and RUIN IT ALL in their attempt to justify their bureaucratic population.

[Neutron No.3750003]

>>3749985
I'm in the UK. We're actually sceduled to build some new gen plants, but that's delayed for time being because of fukushima

[Anonymous No.3750034]

>>3749968

France had its own problems with NIMBYs blocking waste-site selection.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12837958

However, they do seem to be moving forward. The US's Yucca Mtn project however is STONE DEAD.

[Anonymous No.3750040]

>>3749985

Hopefully as the 30 and under crowd begins to realize how fucked their future is if they continue down this path, they'll start to institute people that know what they are doing.

[Anonymous No.3750042]

>>3750003
Oh Jesus, I'm sorry. It seems that Western European nations seem to be the most fucktardish when it comes to "OH NOES! NUKLEAR POWER!" Especially after Fukushima. The irony of Germany shutting down all their plants is that they're just going to end up buying something like 70% (if not more) of the energy deficit from France (which is 80% nuclear). As an NE, I LOVE those numbers!

[Anonymous No.3750054]

>>3750034
Well, that's not to say that they don't have their own problems. What I mean to say is that the waste in France is significantly less than that in the US simply because of inherent bureaucracy in the DOE (and by extension the rest of the executive branch) and the legislature.

[Anonymous No.3750059]

One argument I never see is about how nuclear power reactors are good for nonproliferation, especially LWRs. One of the most successful nonproliferation programs in the US and Russia is taking weapons fuel and blending it down into fuel for power plants. It's basically killing two birds with one stone, getting rid of weapons fuel and providing cheap fuel for electricity.

[Anonymous No.3750095]

>>3750059
Oh yes! But that becomes another bureaucratic problem. There are only a few private energy corporations willing to do it in the US (Duke Energy for one). Also, not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but I think it's an issue that makes people willing to kill over.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/01/11/912367/utilitys-lobbyist-found-dead.html

[Neutron No.3750121]

>>3750059
That sounds like a good line to take. Aditional info or sources so I can read up? Thanks.

>>3750042
Yeah. At least here we haven't gone OMG SHUT DOWN NUCKLEARRR, and are planning for more, but due to NIMBY (I live about half an hour from a MOX reprocessing plant, which is the possible site for a new gen plant) there's a fair amount of opposition localy. It doesnt help that the local site has had acciedents before: The Windscales fire, and was originaly constructed for arms manufacture.

[Anonymous No.3750126]

>>3749968
>Fuel can only be used in a power reactor for 18 months before it is REQUIRED BY LAW to be removed
Where the hell did you hear this bullshit? Modern refueling cycles can be over two years in length. A fuel bundle will typically go through three or four cycles before it has to go into storage. That means fuel can be in the reactor for over six or eight years.

[Anonymous No.3750129]

It is good for the Fatherland.

[Anonymous No.3750142]

just a quetion (albeit a bad one), wouldn't it make sense to send the radioactive polluter byproduct of fission reactors into space? preferably at a black hole?

like save a whole bunch of it, and send as much as you can into space? maybe even the sun or somewhere?

[Anonymous No.3750155]

>>3750142

And if the rocket crashes?

[Anonymous No.3750158]

>>3750121
Here's a good place to start.

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

[Neutron No.3750166]

>>3750142
Too expensive. Risk factor. We're better off dealing with it on earth, lest we try and launch and it comes back down. It's not a big chance that that'd happen, but storage on earth is so much cheaper and safer if done correctly.

[Anonymous No.3750180]

>>3750142

This. If it crashes, it could get dispersed throughout the oceans, atmosphere, etc

[Anonymous No.3750193]

>>3750126
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle#Once-through_nuclear_fuel_cycle

May not be so in your country, but it's true in the US. I'm the NE from earlier.

[Anonymous No.3750198]

Here's an interesting argument. Thorium, being a good source of fuel, is found alongside rare earth metals. As we all know, these REMs are needed for modern electronics. If we started mining thorium for fuel we would get the added benefit of breaking China's monopoly on REMs.

[Anonymous No.3750226]

>>3750193
I'm from the US and an NE too. How the hell do you not know what a refueling cycle is or that fuel bundles go through several cycles before being placed in a spent fuel pool?

[Anonymous No.3750251]

The thing that makes me skiddish about nuclear power is that the waste remains dangerous for a period of time longer than any country has ever lasted. But I'm still probably pro because of the lack of CO2. Radiation isn't much of an issue for any power, including coal. I think we need more hydro R&D! Hydro produces like 97% of the renewable power and gets like 5% of the R&D money.

[Anonymous No.3750293]

>>3750193
>>3750226
Okay, I figured out the confusion. I meant operating cycle. I was somehow getting the term mixed up with refueling outage.

[NavalAnon !!jz5JQZ1dN2Q No.3750316]

I point out that when reactors are run with compentent operators, (my bosses), you can have years without accidents.

>>3749933
Reprocess that fuel, or keep it on our own military bases which will have watches
, and lower costs (not like anyone is breaking into the shipyards/casket storage in Washington).

>>3749925
To be honest, the generation of plant won't even matter if you run proper drills, and prepare properly (Big E is ... rather old, even with its rebuild, and it still has not had any accidents), and plants should have tougher exams, its much less hard to get a civilian plant to pass a full inspection!

>>3750095
I find it odd that there are new nuclear plants under construction in of all places the South, but they need the energy and are willing to future proof themselves, but I can see the status quo of keeping old plants with mid life rebuilds being with us for a LONG time.

[Anonymous No.3750319]

>>3750251
>The thing that makes me skiddish about nuclear power is that the waste remains dangerous for a period of time longer than any country has ever lasted.
Coal has the exact same problem. Coal ash is scary toxic stuff, and not all of it is contained. A lot of it gets into the atmosphere and causes all sorts of health and environmental problems.

>I think we need more hydro R&D!
In industrialized countries just about every source of hydro power has already been exploited.

[Anonymous No.3750338]

>>3750316
>I find it odd that there are new nuclear plants under construction in of all places the South
I don't find it odd at all. Just like conservatives, liberals have their own silly anti-science superstitions. One of them happens to be that nuclear power is inherently evil because of its connection to the bomb.

[Anonymous No.3750350]

>>3750319
I work at a coal plant, and yes, I agree with you. Coal costs incredible amounts of money every year in asthma, mercury releases, quality of life in general, etc. There's no free lunch, that's for sure.

>In industrialized countries just about every source of hydro power has already been exploited.
That's not true. For just one country as an example:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/04/canada-hydropower-liquid-cornerstone

According to a study commissioned by the Canadian Hydropower Association, Canada has 163,000 MW of untapped hydropower potential, more than twice the country's existing hydropower capacity.

[NavalAnon !!jz5JQZ1dN2Q No.3750363]

>>3750338
but the problem is there is simply no local base for workers besides US at the Schoolhouse, and we all leave fairly quickly, which the northern plants don't have the disadvantage of a terrible local school system!

(though it is odd watching a lot of states have to quibble on power issues since power generation is going to be a huge issue in 10-15 years when the oldest coal plants start suffering malfunctions/needing to be
).

>>3750350
And then you have to transport all of this power to major centers, which requires massive amounts of non carbon neutral concrete just for the dams AND then the HVDC/AC lines to move the energy, and the effects it will have on fisheries is unknown, and the moving... China can get away with unilateral damming of rivers, but the rest of the world can't!

[Anonymous No.3750382]

>>3750363
>but the problem is there is simply no local base for workers besides US at the Schoolhouse, and we all leave fairly quickly, which the northern plants don't have the disadvantage of a terrible local school system!
I'm going to have to ask you to rewrite this using understandable English grammar.

[Anonymous No.3750394]

>>3750363
Yeah, high costs for every form of energy, I just tend to think that hydro has the best pros/cons in terms of long-term/sustainability/etc.

[NavalAnon !!jz5JQZ1dN2Q No.3750401]

Ugh, shouldn't write using in house lingo. More or less.. South Carolina has the second worst educational system in America, unless things have changed. To operate a nuclear power plant, you need highly educated technical workers. The two don't seem to go together, however the Navy's Nuclear Power School is here, BUT, it is very unlikely to be keep here more than a year or so, not counting holds and wait periods, and I was confused as to where they would find workers for the New plant.

[Anonymous No.3750419]

>>3750401
Well, my school for one. We've kept a very strong focus on power generation. Of course I doubt we have anywhere near the numbers the Naval program has.

[Anonymous No.3750684]

Whats the job outlook for NEs? Is he knowledge applicable for upcoming fusion rectors, or is the profession overspecialised?

[Anonymous No.3750807]

>>3750684
>Whats the job outlook for NEs?
Extremely good. Getting a NE degree basically guarantees a job.

>Is he knowledge applicable for upcoming fusion rectors
Fusion power is 50 years away at the very least.

>or is the profession overspecialised?
It's one of the most interdisciplinary of the engineering fields.

[Anonymous No.3750819]

here is a tip know your audiance

[Anonymous No.3750855]

>>3750807
500MW tokamak in France starts up 2018

[Anonymous No.3750862]

>>3750855
ITER is a physics experiment.

[Anonymous No.3751079]

>>3750862
>>3750855

He might be talking about DEMO, which is a power producing tokamak.

[Anonymous No.3751101]

>>3751079
Even DEMO is 20 years away, and that's assuming ITER does solve the current instability issues.

[Neutron No.3753664]

OP here. I'm heading out to the debate now, back in a few hours, I'll let /sci/ know how it went.

[Anonymous No.3753798]

Quick question, I'm not anti-nuclear (Living in Illinois - 11 active nuclear power plants and we ship our nuclear waste to New Jersey lulz), but I still support the idea of huge wind farms before nuclear facilities.

I know that the Vestas ocean turbines corroded, had to be replaced, huge cost to the Danish. The are the problems with birds and the equations that show that not enough turbines can be built to support growing populations and replace our dependency on burnable fossil fuels. But those same equations have been applied to nuclear facilities with the same results.

The economic implications of building a new facility, the amount of construction materials involved, along with the huge costs of nuclear materials don't appear to be any more feasible in the long term than Wind Turbines.

tl;dr Convince a hardcore windy to jump nuclear.

[Anonymous No.3753821]

>>3749871
pro nuke: dirty bomb capabilities, helpful when we want to get rid of nuclear waste.

[Anonymous No.3753855]

Now that I see a Navy Nuke in here, how does it feel to have your education broken down to: Hot rock in water make steam, make boat go.

Then have no functional understanding of how that works?

[Anonymous No.3753896]

>>3753855
Different nuke here. We actually get a rundown of the physics of a nuclear reaction. We get an what would be two semesters of physics related to nuclear reactions.

In addition to learning the fundamentals in "power" school, there is continuous training in the fleet to maintain a high level of knowledge and competency.

[Anonymous No.3753902]

>>3753896

Had a bunch of Nuke friends, I just like to bust balls.

Also you're nothing but a mechanic, maybe a technician that watches gauges all day long.

[Anonymous No.3753913]

>>3753798
Most of the cost of nuclear isn't in the materials, it's in the licensing process and other regulatory costs. Going just by material cost nuclear energy is ludicrously cheap, but due to the need of strict safety regulations and spent fuel storage costs go up, but most of it is up front and gets completely paid off long before a plant is decommissioned. Even with these costs nuclear remains competitive even with cheap coal, and with most of the cost being directed to safety nuclear is arguably the most hazard free power source in the world.

I'm not going to say nuclear is superior to wind or solar. All of them have their use and present significant advantages depending on application.

[Anonymous No.3753919]

>>3753902

Tru nuf. At least we are well very well informed monkeys.

[Anonymous No.3753921]

>>3753902
Well that's their job. The navy doesn't need someone trying to do R&D on their submarines and aircraft carriers.

[Anonymous No.3753923]

I dont know if he published it or something, but a systems engineer that i know calculated the electricity and raw material needed to build, assemble, maintain and finally dispose of a wind turbine and found that it takes about 25% more energy than what the turbine will produce in its lifetime. so thanks to wind energy, we are actually using more fossil fuel that before. people just dont realize it because the parts (and thus the energy usage) comes from a different country such as china or whatever and so they look at their own (other) energy usage and see it went down, but globally it went up.

[Anonymous No.3753924]

>>3753921

You would think they would have an electrical engineer or two on board a submarine, just in case of emergency.

They don't.

But at the same time, any kind of serious shit will likely result in death of crew. So it makes sense.

[Anonymous No.3753925]

>>3749871

Pro thorium. Explain that and tell them how all reactors that have been problematic are from the fucking 70s.

[Anonymous No.3753959]

Here, show them what is the real result of antinuclear hysteria in practice.

http://depletedcranium.com/terrified-of-nuclear-energy-germany-goes-for-fossil-fuel/

Also this

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-today-safer-fukushima-expert.html

[Anonymous No.3753960]

>>3753923

I've seen read that too and while steel shipping costs and total cost of production may outweigh immediate gains of energy, the repair costs and the cost to maintain a wind turbine are surprisingly cheap.

I was looking into building a small 1kw wind turbine for fun, the cheapest cost of steel blades not manufactured by myself were chinese.

I decided to fashion it out of wood, worked fine, I lost some efficiency but nothing significant.

Again this is small scale stuff, but such macro views on wind turbines are unrealistic.

Almost every construction company prices their 1kws at around $5,000, that's outrageous. A turbine should be a 10 year investment. A 1kw will save you around $1,000 in 10 years.

A $5,000 cost per turbine means that thing must be a 50 year investment.

Outrageous.

Sustainable building materials and improvements in battery life, the current choke point of many devices will likely overcome the issues facing turbines consuming more power than they bring in before maintenance is needed.

[Anonymous No.3753988]

>>3753960

Let me clarify, not that article, but similar "true cost of production" predictions.

Keep in mind that the only reason that the blades are imported from China, is because of how screwed up the commodities market is currently.

They consume half the world's ores currently. Mainly for their shitty command economy projects.

Once the costs of materials are properly balanced again real solutions can be found that address the issue of true cost of production.

[Anonymous No.3753993]

Explain them that breeder reactors will burn nuclear waste. The point is that we alreadz have a lot of nuclear waste, so we will have to build breeders even if renewables prove sufficient for powering civilisation. Which wont happen ofc.

Regarding Fukushima, explain that it was old first generation BWR design, and modern plants are far safer.

[Neutron No.3754573]

OP here, back from the debate. I brought up thorium, megatonnes to megawatts (nonproliferation) and all sorts. The pro nuke speaker (Mark Lynas) raised some very sound points, including nonprofliferation, and I was able to back him up on it. The other speaker, Brian Wymmes talked too much about sociology and repeatedly cited outdated articles. I very near burst out laughing several times. Unfortunetley the ratio of pro nuke to anti nukers in the room was about 1:5, so some more points got shouted down, but overall the evening went fairly well. It seemed to be a cycle of the anti nukers dancing around irefutable facts with sociology.

[Anonymous No.3754617]

The last anti-nuke person I talked to insisted that the Fukushima fuel rods would burn through the core of the planet. Just remember that anti-nukers are not rational or informed and you'll be fine.


Also their only 'trump cards' are weapons proliferation and 'people get killed'. The easiest counters are that prohibiting nuclear power in developed nations does not reduce potential access to nuclear material in developing nations. Actually if the goal is to keep nuclear material out of 'terrorist' hands we should encourage burning it all up as fuel.

And remember nuclear power is the safest form of power in deaths per KW/h

[Anonymous No.3754637]

>>3749933
Ignoring the fact that anti-nuke sentiments slow down development of nuclear power and thus slow down the rate at which we find/implement a way to deal with the waste is good for your argument.

[Anonymous No.3754643]

>>3749871
Talk about how a gram of dirt is 90TJ. Not very scientific, but a nice sound byte to get people thinking.

[Anonymous No.3754670]

Put radiation exposure in context. Compare to x-ray exams, flights on airplanes, eating a banana(!), etc.
http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/

Also, show that the "evil" cooling towers often associated with nuclear power plants are present at other facilities, like geothermal power plants. Pic related, it's a geothermal facility in Larderello, Italy.

[Anonymous No.3754711]

>>3753924

This made me laugh. All the officers with the exception of the supply officer are nuclear trained. And the only way to get into the nuclear program as an officer is to have a degree in some kind of engineer/science field.

>Candidates must be graduates or students of an accredited college or university in the United States or in a United States territory pursuing a BS or MS (majoring in mathematics, engineering, physics, chemistry or other technical areas).

I went Nuke Enlisted as an ET. It was a blast for the most part. Now I'm out, living the dream on my GI Bill.. EE all the way.

[Anonymous No.3754754]

>>3749925 Imagine all that tax revenue being pumped back into local schools and stuff.

You might actually end up with a population smart enough to vote for nuclear power. Bit of a Catch-22 really...

[Anonymous No.3754954]

>>3754573
What sort of sociology arguments did he present?

[Anonymous No.3754967]

>>3749883
>steam turbines
>nuclear power
god damn you are retarded

[Nuka-Cola pocket edition No.3754981]

>>3749925
This guy right here
This guy knows what's up

Stop making nuclear energy threads without informing me sci, it hurts

[Nuka-Cola pocket edition No.3755000]

>>3754967
For the sake of all involved
I hope you are trolling

[Anonymous No.3755008]

>>3754617
>The last anti-nuke person I talked to insisted that the Fukushima fuel rods would burn through the core of the planet.

That

What?

I don't

What?

[Anonymous No.3755015]

>>3755000
no. what has a steam turbine to do with a nuclear plant? the energy comes directly from the reactor causing the fusion stuff between atoms and shit. it's not a fucking locomotive from 1800.

[Typical Idiot Fan !Z63j8csJyY No.3755025]

>>3749925

This. Also propose nuclear reprocessing / fuel recycling programs. The US doesn't have any for some dumb fucking reason.

[Anonymous No.3755026]

>>3755015
Nuclear power is just another way to boil water. Electricity in nuclear plants is generated when the reactor boils water and that drives steam turbines. This is common knowledge.

[Typical Idiot Fan !Z63j8csJyY No.3755029]

>>3755015

Stop trolling. Even an ignorant ass can use wikipedia to look up how a nuclear reactor works.

[Anonymous No.3755032]

>>3755015
Remarkable. Not one part of that was right.

[Anonymous No.3755038]

>>3755026
yeah right, and a windmill boils water too? common knowledge up your ass.

[Anonymous No.3755046]

>>3755029
>relying on wikipedia
>telling other people not to troll
oh god my head

[Anonymous No.3755050]

>>3755015
>fusion
>modern nuclear reactors
3/10
but /sci/'s easy to troll

[Anonymous No.3755053]

>>3755046
>>3755038

>look at me troll like it matters

[Typical Idiot Fan !Z63j8csJyY No.3755055]

>>3755046

Yeah yeah, quit being so obvious.

[Anonymous No.3755062]

>>3755055
you do realize that wikipedia gets paid for a lot of shit they have put up? to lie to people and make bad things look better? they sure did not remove anonymous editing without a reason.

[Anonymous No.3755070]

>>3755062

>oh shit, look at me, I'm fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.3755071]

>reads wikipedia
>tells people nuclear power plants work with steam turbines
>never seen an actual power plant from the inside
yeah right, believing stuff someone just told you, and raging like the other 99% of /sci/ vs any religion? makes perfect sense

[Anonymous No.3755073]

>>3755038
Look. Look at it. This is a diagram of a pressurized water reactor. Notice how it has a turbine. Notice how that turbine is driven by steam. Notice how that steam is generated by the nuclear reactor.

[Nuka-Cola pocket edition No.3755076]

>>3755008
That's pretty much exactly what I was thinking

[Anonymous No.3755079]

>>3755073
yeah, great diagram, with paint you could even make santa clause do all the electricity. flashy colours prove nothing really.

also, stop calling people trolls just cause they don't have the same opinion.

[Anonymous No.3755082]

>>3749871
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
http://www.lyndonlarouchereview.com/pebble-bed-reactors/
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/F-W_2008/HTR_1.pdf
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2007/landbridge_conf_ferreira.html
http://tarpley.net/five-point-program.pdf

[Anonymous No.3755094]

>>3755082
oh yeah, the internet ... tell me: why are there great books written by even greater people telling that we do not even understand nuclear power in it's whole as we use it today? it's sure easy to just say it's pushing water through a generator and then there's electricity. but can you prove that? i am certain you can't.

[Anonymous No.3755097]

>>3755082
>lyndonlarouchereview

wat

[Anonymous No.3755102]

>>3755079

>opinion
>not calling it what it is: pure bullshit trolling

[Anonymous No.3755104]

>>3755079
Good point. If only there were some relevant agency that could weigh in on the issue.

Oh my, what do I have here? Why, it appears to be a link:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/animated-pwr.html

Would you look at that, it's a link to the NRC, the agency responsible for nuclear power in the United States. And they even have a helpful diagram, to boot. But why does it look so familiar?

[Nuka-Cola pocket edition No.3755111]

>>3755079
Keep going man, this is hilarious
It's like trying to debate the merit of vaccines to a southern baptist

[Anonymous No.3755115]

>>3755104
probably because that's the propaganda bullshit site you got the diagram from? smartass

[Anonymous No.3755121]

>>3755111
well, i try to get some facts. i only get called a troll for not believing wikipedia and similar apparently.

[Anonymous No.3755122]

>>3755115

>propaganda
>US nuclear program

[Anonymous No.3755132]

>>3755115
Yes. The propaganda bullshit website that approves the very reactor designs we're talking about.

[Anonymous No.3755133]

>>3755115
The NRC is a regulatory body. They're perfectly happy to shut down a plant if it isn't up to their standards. It's the DOE that's suppose to promote nuclear power.

[Nuka-Cola pocket edition No.3755142]

>>3755133
I really wish the nrc would lighten up once in a while, they can get pretty dickish, far beyond is needed for safety

[Anonymous No.3755146]

yeah, whatever. live in your world full of believes. sigh, this is like a board full of religious fags. just that you beat people with wiki pages rather than bible books.

[Anonymous No.3755151]

>>3755142

In the current political environment, dickish is what we need so normal people feel safe. Maybe when these accidents stop happening, and scientists would speak the fuck up about LFTRs; we could get back to where we need to be.

[Anonymous No.3755152]

>>3755142
I'd much rather have regulators in all government agencies be a bunch of tightass dicks than lazy or greedy bozos. That way we could avoid something like another Deepwater Horizon.

[Anonymous No.3755154]

>>3755146

>troll defeated

[Anonymous No.3755158]

>>3755121
Well, to put it short, your initial post was wrong. You stated that the energy from a nuclear reactor comes from fusion. All current NPPs use fission. You stated that energy comes directly from the reaction. The energy released from the nuclear reaction is thermal, not electrical. You stated that NPPs do not use steam turbines. The thermal energy is converted into electrical energy by means of a steam turbine-driven generator.

[Nuka-Cola pocket edition No.3755161]

>>3755151
>>3755152
I am aware, but at times it seems like a pure hindrance rather than a necessity.

I'd be okay if they were more accepting of new reactor designs, not just lftr

[Anonymous No.3755175]

>>3755158

No, don't you know it's fucking magic? There are small leprechauns in there making nuclear cookies that provide power.

[Nuka-Cola pocket edition No.3755188]

>>3755175
>nuclear cookies
shit man I want some

[Anonymous No.3755190]

>>3755158
>create electricity
>boil water
>create electricity with water boiled by electricity
uh oh, we suddenly invented the ideal energy transformation?

[Anonymous No.3755195]

>>3755190

>The energy released from the nuclear reaction is thermal, not electrical.

[Anonymous No.3755206]

>>3755195
can you make up your mind? one time it's electricity, the next time it's thermal, then it's a steam turbine's kinetic energy, then it's boiling water ....

[Anonymous No.3755211]

>>3755190
We... sure, why not. Energy fuck transformation for everybody.

[Anonymous No.3755223]

>>3755195
>nuclear reaction is thermal, not electrical
we are talking about nuclear power here, not hiroshima or some shit

[Anonymous No.3755226]

>>3755206
It's interesting that you should mention kinetic energy, as in my post >>3755158 I did not include it. It seems to me that the only way that term would enter into the discussion is if you knew perfectly well how NPPs worked.

You have tipped your hand, my friend.

[Anonymous No.3755227]

>>3755206

I fear for the children you may one day rape.

[Anonymous No.3755228]

Cant tell if this guy is troll or not. How hard is it to understand?
>Rocks heat up water to steam.
>Steam spins turbines
Thats high school tier right there.

[GayEmoBetch !.pCLIFaWNg No.3755239]

I just watched a show about the Concord. The British pride and joy.

It showed how Americans were irrational and thought the Concord would destroy the Stratosphere.

However now 30 years later, its Europeans that are irrational and pussies. Riding Putin's oil cock like a German whore snatched after WWII to Kremlin, Moscow.

In the final decades of fossil fuel in the present to near future, petro chem companies will try to make infrastructure dependent on such sources of fuel to get maximum leveraging.

If we outfit cityscape with Kyocera solar panels and were to construct proof of concept LFTRs for commercial use. . .

[Neutron No.3755242]

>>3754954
A load of stuff concerning relationships between the experts, governments and general populus, outlining the need for more transparency when it comes to nuclear power. He also went on about cancer clusters a fair bit, the inertia effect (in response to stuff about climate change, with regards to consumption), and threw in a line about the GDP, "a measure of quality of life" going up because of decomissioning or accident clean up.

I think the worst bullshit I saw from him was when I mentioned thorium, and how it isnt dual purpose he started saying about how we had the technology in the 80's so why weren't we using it then. I just said the cold war and came so very close to laughing in his face. The guy didnt seem to understand the fact there was an arms race.

One of my fellow pro nukers afterwards said the man had built much of his career around nuclear power with a sociological spin on it, especialy in regards to the Sellafield nuclear sie.

[Anonymous No.3755243]

>>3755226
no, but i know that a turbine does rotate ... hence the kinetic energy. anyways, thanks for complimenting my competence and understanding.

[Anonymous No.3755254]

>>3755243
Interesting. You know what else rotates? A generator. Especially if it's driven by steam. Especially if that steam is generated by the heat of nuclear fission.

[Anonymous No.3755255]

>>3755223
funny how you all avoid this statement

to speak in >>3755154 words:
>smartasses defeated

[Anonymous No.3755264]

>>3755254
a generator is just a motor the other way around. one takes rotation and makes electricity, the other one takes electricity and makes rotation. so, where does the electricity come from? right, the reactor. now will you gently shut the hell up?

[Anonymous No.3755278]

>>3755264
Ah. I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from.

A question for you: how does a generator create electricity?

[Anonymous No.3755279]

>>3755264
>Wtfamireading.jpg
Seriously man. The steam spins the turbines, the turbines make electricity. Go back to school.

[Anonymous No.3755304]

>>3755278
a generator does not create electricity ... hell, even >>3755226 did agree on the kinetic energy output i mentioned

a motor creates electricity from energy. just look into your car. the fuel gets ignited and makes the motor rotate and create electricity ... by which your car is powered. that's the whole reason behind electric cars: to use the electricity directly and not wasting fuel for energy transformation at some laughable 40% or what we are at nowadays.

[Anonymous No.3755305]

>>3755255
That's because it was a worthless statement. Nuclear fission releases fast neutrons, which are slowed by the reactor moderator, which is itself heated.

[Neutron No.3755312]

Guys, dont feed the troll.

[Anonymous No.3755318]

>>3755304
Just fuck off. You have no idea about anything. That entire statement is wrong.

[Nuka-Cola pocket edition No.3755319]

>>3755239
The best buisnesses adapt to changing times instead of trying to pit a stake in the ground.
I would be completely unphased is a major oil giant pimped a fuck ton of money into lftr research in exchange for build rights

[Anonymous No.3755322]

>>3755304
Okay then. Another question: what is electricity?

[Anonymous No.3755335]

>>3755322
are you really that stupid?

[Anonymous No.3755341]

>>3755335
I want your definition of electricity. Energy as well.

[Anonymous No.3755345]

>>3755322
according to the majority of this thread electricity apparently equals to steam turbines

[Anonymous No.3755357]

>>3755341
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
you happy now? does posting wiki links conform to your believes?

[Anonymous No.3755358]

>http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-03/whats-happening-japans-nuclear-power-plants
>http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576200982857244782.html
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIxzVkS4Hrg
Now get lost.

[Anonymous No.3755365]

>>3755358

>http://online.wsj.com/

Fucking lawl.

[Anonymous No.3755378]

>>3755365
>Laughs at one link and ignores the rest of them.
Get bent high school idiot.

[Anonymous No.3755386]

>>3755378

>post shit like http://online.wsj.com/, and gets buttpounded when people ignore you

[Anonymous No.3755394]

I'm going to leave this thread. Have fun with the retarded troll.

[Anonymous No.3755546]

>>3755242
GDP isn't a measure of quality of life. China has the second highest GDP of any nation in the world, but most Chinese would love to have the living standards of lower GDP western countries.

[SMG !!7z5dNL7HEuS No.3755569]

>>3755546
This

[Neutron No.3755689]

>>3755546
>>3755569
Which is why it's in quotation marks. Direct quote from the supposed proffesor of sociology