/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5060199]

I have some friends who are all like "hurrr durrrr atomic energy is bad, we have to get green energy like solar going". I'm pretty tired of explaining (more trying to explain, they won't listen well) over and over, so I would like to get some infographics and good pro-nuclear images.

[Anonymous No.5060219]

[Anonymous No.5060229]

Radiation doses chart

[Anonymous No.5060235]

>>5060229
Too bad that was released only a few weeks after the Fukushima accident, long before they stopped the leaks and contained the damaged reactor.

[Anonymous No.5060237]

It's not either/or. Buying into that false dichotomy makes you equally irrational.

[Anonymous No.5060252]

So are we talking about Nuclear Fusion or Nuclear Fission because they are hugely different.

[Nuka-Cola No.5060561]

beep beep
http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html?quote=750

[Anonymous No.5060628]

How much pollutng shit, cost, and energy consumption comes from Solar? Wind? Nuclear? All three assuming today's widespread implementations and upkeep.

Answer these nine questions and then we'll talk.

[Nuka-Cola No.5060664]

>>5060628
>solar
>pollutng shit
depends on the type produced, mostly from the mining of the rare earth metals, but it's not that bad

>cost
solar panels are very expensive for baseload, but at 90 cents a peak watt they're a decent way to slash big chunks out of your electricity bill if you stick some on your roof. buying them pre made is more like $1.40 a peak watt though, better to build them yourself. maintenance costs are kind of a pain but not a dealbreaker

>energy consumption
i'm not too familiar with the mining and processing of materials for solar panels, but it's probably not that bad. not like aluminum processing or whatever

>wind
>pollutng shit
rare earth metals again. china's very good at dumping tons of processing waste into rivers and paying off officials to avoid fines. Also they need huge stretches of land to be baseload efficient, and even if you get a small turbine for your house its not great.

>cost
maintenance. lots of it. holy shit. better be willing to pay out the ass. your cost per watt is shit too since the wind doesn't blow that often in most places.

>energy consumption
lots of aluminum, lots and lots

[Anonymous No.5060670]

>>5060252
>nuclear fusion
>implying that's possible in a power plant today

[Nuka-Cola No.5060684]

>>5060628
>>5060664

>nuclear
>pollutng shit
after 4 years of solid gigawatt power in a plant, there is no waste aside from what's in the core. and you just stick that in a concrete dry cask and done. all the waste stays put.

>cost
the plants are extremely expensive upfront, and take a while to build MOSTLY because of licensing and waiting periods and legal battles with fucking retarded residents and NIMBYs. and the fuel rods might seem expensive at a few million a pop, but they produce solid juice for a LOOOOONG time, so they make a profit. quite a bit too.

>energy consumption
mining and refining U235 is somewhat expensive, and there is a good deal of juice used, but the output zero-emissions electricity from that is way, way bigger

[Anonymous No.5060694]

Solar energy efficiency is shit tier but the treatment of nuclear waste is a topic that rise a lot of eyebrows (including mine's) and end up putting undecided people against the need of nuclear power.

[Anonymous No.5060723]

>>5060628
I remembered reading the waste from coal burning power-plants, which the US still uses for much of its energy needs, that is deposited into the atmosphere, is more radioactive Watt-for-Watt than nuclear waste that is stored underground.
Sounds crazy, but whatever.

[Nuka-Cola No.5060737]

>>5060723
coal has moderately higher levels of various radioactive elements in it than the dirt around it. when you burn that stuff, a lot of it goes into the atmosphere (including mercury, lots of mercury). also the fly ash which is left over has decently high radioactivity because of this.

[Anonymous No.5060872]

The only sane way to compare power sources is deaths per TWh - if you increase the amount of energy from one source more people will die from it.

First off, fossil fuels:
Coal: 161
Coal(China) 278
Coal(US) 15
Oil: 36
Natural gas: 4

Renewables:
Biofuel: 12
Hydro: 1.4
Solar: 0.44
Wind: 0.15
Nuclear: 0.04
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

[Anonymous No.5060883]