[ 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, nuclear.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3771276 [Reply] [Original]

Nuclear power. Should we use more? Yes or no and reasoning for answer.

>> No.3771321

It's pretty expensive. It wouldn't be feasible if it weren't for huge government subsidies. And there's that risk of failure.

>> No.3771330

Yes, because nuclear power fucking awesome. Just the word nuclear gives me a nuclear boner.

>> No.3771335

Nuclear only makes sense if other modes of power production were priced on their true cost to society.

>> No.3771340

No, everything should be powered by sunshine and our own sense of self-satisfaction.

>> No.3771343

Yes for LFTR, no for normal uranium burners.

>> No.3771348

>>3771335
You think nuclear would be competitive then? I doubt it would be cheap to pay for the insurance costs of nuclear power if government didn't take the responsibility of cleaning up in case of a catastrophic failure.

>> No.3771350

>>3771340
What's wrong with powering things with sunshine? It's possible.

>> No.3771354

No, we still have coal left.

>> No.3771356

>>3771340
well you got the sunshine bit right at least.

>> No.3771368
File: 192 KB, 504x376, LFTRisAwesome.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Yes, simply because existing plants are aging and need to be replaced. Would you rather every existing plant is retired because of the inevitable disaster, or an orderly shutdown and replacement with tech that is 40 years newer?

Also we need to develop more economical power plants, like LFTR.

>> No.3771373

different landscapes/regions need (or can accomodate) different solutions at different prices and feasibilities.

Therefore, define "we" first.

>> No.3771379

>>3771348
Nuclear isn't killing 10,000 people a year in the US like coal is. There still isn't one directly attributable death to nuclear fuel and waste from commercial power production in the US.

>> No.3771384
File: 11 KB, 460x269, deathTWH.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Definately yes to modern nuclear - Generation III / III+ / IV reactors.

>> No.3771393

Nuclear power is the only thing that will save us because noone is prepared to sacrifice as much money and especially space to make a solar or wind power plant that would compete with a nuclear plant in power production

>> No.3771466

Insofar as you develop nuclear power in areas which aren't prone to violent attacks or natural disasters, nuclear power is probably the most available source of energy now except for tidal, and solar power -- all of which have the same drawback of only being useful in certain areas.

So basically if you don't live in a dangerous area, near the ocean, or anywhere with excessive sunshine nuclear power is clutch. Of course you have to worry about the "what if" of having a nuclear power plant around, but most countries don't need to worry about attacks on nuclear facilities.

>> No.3771469

>>3771350
replace it with 'bottled unicorn farts' in that sentence you responded to

>> No.3771749

>>3771276

Sure.

>> No.3771754

US electric grid should be 100% nuclear with some wind solar being added bit by bit

carbon neutral baby