/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4174872]

I'm not a /sci/entist, but I'm interested in the "renewable" energy vs nuclear energy debate. I usually vote green but I'm not exactly a fan of windmills, and I'm having a hard time accepting their, in my opinion, retarded fear of nuclear energy. It seems to be an issue that really splits green voters. That's why I come to /sci/, I'm sure there have been a million debates on this and thus you guys have the sources and opinion pieces at hand.
Is anyone able to provide me some pro and contra links to nuclear and "green" energy?


Thanks

[Anonymous No.4174883]

THOOOOOORIUUUUUMMMMM

[Anonymous No.4174882]

If corporations had ever, ever, ever demonstrated even a modicum of responsibility wrt externalities, probably most everyone would support nuclear without even nimbyism. But, they haven't.

[Anonymous No.4174919]

nuclear power certainly isnt dangerous, and plenty of greens have supported them but been completely austracized, unfortunately nuclear power isnt the most efficient power source. It certainly isnt worth getting rid of while we still have fully operational plants and getting rid of them would cause dependency on oil, on the other hand, they dont show much promise for future generations.
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/moore_qa

[Anonymous No.4174930]

>>4174883
>>4174883
>>4174883
>>4174883
>>4174883
>>4174883
FUCK YES

[Anonymous No.4174931]

>>4174919
> austracized
They were deported to Australia, the land of <span class="math">criminals[/spoiler]?!

[Anonymous No.4174935]

>>4174931
a truly terrible fate

[Anonymous No.4174940]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

[Anonymous No.4174941]

>>4174882
>externalities

Wut? Fossil fuels also have externalities. And they're worse than nuclear's. Which means you're going to have to deal with "corporations" and externalities either way. So saying there's some problem unique to nuclear because of externalities is extremely wrong.

[Anonymous No.4174952]

>>4174882
s'called goverment regulations bro

[Anonymous No.4174970]

>>4174941
They do indeed have enormous externalities. A great deal of legal and otherwise political effort has gone towards minimizing or otherwise accounting for their damage, which of course are constantly resisted by the right.

[Anonymous No.4175032]

any more actual sources

>>4174940
This gets posted everytime but even though it supports my pov, it looks extremely biased
>>4174919
Thanks

[Anonymous No.4175094]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508003030

[Anonymous No.4175100]

Nuclear Fusion. Look up "ITER" that's the future of clean nuclear energy.

[Anonymous No.4175131]

Why don't they just put the nuclear power plants deep underground? It would prevent the spread of radioactive shizzle in case of meltdown.

[Anonymous No.4175345]

bump

[Anonymous No.4175354]

>>4175131
>implying there's no water underground
>implying the world's supply of water isn't connected

[Anonymous No.4175431]

All energy is renewable, some is just not within the quantity or time frame for it to be usefull to us.

[Anonymous No.4175438]

>>4175100
>nuclear fusion energy
>feasible in the next 1,000 years

[Anonymous No.4175440]

>>4175431

And in a broader sense, no energy is renewable.

[Anonymous No.4175442]

The autists on /sci/ will tell you that liquid fluoride thorium reactors are the solution. Not sure about it, but here's a talk about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

[Anonymous No.4175444]

>>4175440
>mfw realize you are correct :(

[Anonymous No.4175445]

>>4175431
>mfw entropy

[Anonymous No.4175457]

>>4175431

Apart from nuclear, as once all the uranium/thorium on the planet's spent, it's not coming back.

[Anonymous No.4175843]

>>4175457

If we haven't started preparing for that a half a century ahead of peak "x"ium, then frankly we don't deserve to carry on.

[Anonymous No.4175875]

>>4175445
You can get all that energy back you know.
Only you would have spent more than that amount to do so.