/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3918879]

The inevitable embrace of nuclear energy - when will it come?

Between oil running out and the ambition of cutting green house gas emission there is a future immense gap in the world's energy supply. Some want this to be filled with "renewable" energy sources like wind, solar and hydro and sure, that might work for a few countries current energy demands, but there are billions of people today who in the coming decades also will take place among us high energy consumers and then it gets more tricky.

I think that how resistant the public may be today, there will come a point where there is a realization that nuclear energy has to be implemented and even to a such a degree that it is the backbone of our future energy supply. Some countries today do seem to have a nuanced view of nuclear energy and conduct research in more efficient reactor designs and I think they'll be seen as heroes when the moment of truth comes.

[Anonymous No.3918886]

> nuclear
> non-renewable
short term solution

[Anonymous No.3918893]

>>3918886
Along with energy efficiency optimization it'd be more of a medium term solution.

Also, fusion.

[Anonymous No.3918895]

>>3918886

>4000 years
>short term

Plenty of time to work out the kinks in fusion.

[Anonymous No.3918898]

How about.. never?

[FAGGATRON_3000 !!PEF7BVl3fW0 No.3918903]

After in about two or three generations.

Remember the shitstorm when barcodes were first introduced? Nuclear will probably take twice the time for a majority embrace.

[Anonymous No.3918904]

What is Ron Paul's position on nuclear energy?

[Anonymous No.3918912]

I stumbled upon LFTR a few days ago and since then watching the videos and researching it has made my jaw drop.
If fusion is holding a sun in a bottle, LFTR is a planet in a bottle. It's literally the same process that goes on in the core of the Earth going on in a tube of metal on the surface.
It would bring us up to a full Type I civilization, I have no doubt about that.

[Anonymous No.3918937]

We can't let the terruhsts get cheap nuuculr powah.

[Anonymous No.3918952]

>>3918904

He'd leave it up to the free market

[Anonymous No.3918964]

Thorium!

Each new nanomaterial we develop is a step closer to the kind of capacitor/battery technology we'll need to kill combustion engines once and for all. Once we're over that hill, we'll be able to supply almost all energy needs with generation V reactors. It will be more than enough to tide us over until the development of fusion power.

This is assuming we don't completely fuck ourselves with fossil fuels. It might be too late by the time we recognize they're becoming untenable.

[Anonymous No.3918967]

>>3918952

>implying Obambo won't do the same

Market fundamentalists are the enemies of scientific progress and rapidly becoming a danger to human survival. We really need to alter the status quo, but it's too profitable for them to consider it.

[Anonymous No.3918977]

>>3918967

I'm sure if Kirk Sorensen could get 10 minutes with Ron Paul he could secure funding for a LFTR

[Anonymous No.3918991]

>>3918967

First, few are for pure laissez-faire, unregulated capitalism. That leads to monopolies and therefore an end to market freedom the same way that anarchy inevitably results in some form of oligarchic/autocratic government and crushes the individual liberty briefly enjoyed in a state of anarchy.

Second, we don't currently have a free market. Bailouts, subsidies, allowing corporations to buy politicians through campaign donations and lobbying and get regulation that exempts them but hurt competitors/prevents competitors from emerging, rewarding political donors with loan guarantees, etc., does not equal a free market, or even a reasonably, minimally-regulated free market.

Third, the purpose of the government is to protect the people's lives, property, and rights, and do that which is necessary for society to function and which private enterprise cannot provide at all, or provide efficiently. No sane person, of any political alignment, would sugges the government should not participate in national crises, and we have a looming energy crises/economic crisis from peak oil/coal and a looming environmental/economic crisis from climate change. Yes, it would require government spending (gasp!), regulation (oh noes!), mandates, and coercion to switch us over to a non-fossil economy, but it's better we do it now, gradually, voluntarily, than try to do it when gas is $50 a gallon and 24/7 electricity becomes too expensive for the average family.

Maybe I'm oddity for those of my political stripe, but to me it's only common sense we have a program to transition to LFTRs/photovoltaic/solar thermal for grid power, and battery/capacitor ev's /hydrogen for vehicles.

[Anonymous No.3918992]

>>3918903
Correct.
The problem is that this timespan is a luxury we don't have anymore.
Maybe that faggot Carter was just right with the timing.

[Anonymous No.3918996]

>>3918991

I'm sure Ron Paul could see the value America could get out of LFTR's

[Anonymous No.3919019]

>>3918904

I'd rather know what he plans to do with NASA

[Anonymous No.3919030]

>>3918903
No, What shitstorm?

[Anonymous No.3919032]

>>3918879
As much as I love nuclear power, and hate greenies, I'd kill to see a future society using 100% solar power, its just so damned elegant. Obviously nuclear power is the more realistic solution.

[Anonymous No.3919036]

The United Stated does not want people building cheap nuclear power because of terrorism.

[Anonymous No.3919051]

>>3919036
you can't make thorium bombs.

[Anonymous No.3919052]

>>3919049
ps: communism is fine though

[Anonymous No.3919053]

>>3919019
let the states make their own NASA if they want to

[Anonymous No.3919049]

Nuclear reactors are earth polluting shit

im from eastern europe and they wanted to build one near where I lived but we protested the SHIT out of that

it's ridiculous you can't base your economy on something as dangerous as this

[Anonymous No.3919063]

>>3919051
The United States disagrees with your opinion.

Thorium reactors can make nuclear weapon grade uranium, even though that waste would normally be burnt as fuel.

[Anonymous No.3919065]

>>3919049
The french seem to do just fine.
(Also being able to export electicity to various suckers around them.)
And btw i'm from east europe too. And already have a nuclear reactor pretty close to where I live.
Looks like I'm still alive.

[Anonymous No.3919075]

>>3919063
>Rebuttal to claim that thorium is useless for nuclear weapons is that you can make them out of uranium

[Anonymous No.3919077]

LFTRs

my body is ready

[Anonymous No.3919084]

>>3919075

Thorium reactors DO produce uranium, dummy.

"Nuclear decay" doesn't mean plutonium stays plutonium.

[Anonymous No.3919098]

>>3919049
Yeah totes for defs. Base it on something safe like oil. No one dies for oil.

[Anonymous No.3919116]

>>3919019

Dont know about Paul, but Tea Party space policy is the most rational around.

[Anonymous No.3919129]

>>3919084

You can't harvest the uranium-233 (semi-stable bomb material) because it will inevitably be severely contaminated with uranium-232 (violently radioactive).

Separating the two is a hassle nobody would ever undertake.

[Anonymous No.3919146]

>>3919129
The U.S says it can be done chemically.

Personally, I don't know.

[Anonymous No.3919152]

>>3919146

It CAN be done, in the same way you CAN build a fully-functional airplane with materials bought at Wal-Mart.

It takes more time and more effort than anyone really ought to have.

[Anonymous No.3919178]

>>3919152
Yes, but the U.S. can kill you.

[Anonymous No.3919180]

>>3919178

Yes, but the U.S. can also learn.

It's not this easy, but it is still possible.

[Anonymous No.3919186]

>>3919180
The U.S. always does the right thing...

...as a last resort. The trick is, getting them to go through all the worse options as fast as possible.