Energy

[Anonymous No.5643837]

What do you think of nuclear energy?
Is it clean or dangerous? What are the (dis)advantages?

[Anonymous No.5643856]

It's safe, stop asking questions, just like I'm a safe driver except for all those times I drove drunk, or was tired, or couldn't stop in time. Totally safe.

[Anonymous No.5643870]

>>5643837

>advantages

Exclusion zones provide a perfect area for super secret experimentation!

[Anonymous No.5643881]

Yes it's statistically the safest power soure and it's comartively clean.

[Anonymous No.5643894]

>>5643837
Could it be used to safely power the world? Yes
Should it? No

It's way to short-sighted. How long do you think it will be before we can generate power in a way that completely outclasses anything we can do right now (e.g. fusion is the obvious one)?
Lets be really conservative with this guess and say 1,000 years. But human civilisation (assuming it still exists- and on Earth) will be stuck maintaining these facilities for millions of years. It would only make sense to adopt nuclear power if we had no alternative. We have loads of (practical and available) alternatives, it's just that they require more new infrastructure to be built than just replacing power stations with a different sort of power station. Therefore, the start up cost is much greater. But in the medium-long term it would save huge amounts of money.

[Anonymous No.5643991]

We have no right to leave such a letal legacy. We must collectively recognise that there are some forces that are simply impossible to control and put this dozing monster to bed.

[Nuka-Cola; Gamma Grape flavor No.5645139]

>>5643894
the whole point of long term nuclear waste repositories is that they're long term. there's no need to maintain them for tens of thousands of years

>insert LFTR plug here

[Anonymous No.5645157]

>>5645139
>>insert LFTR plug here

You mean how the fluoride salts develop highly corrosive and toxic gases to destroy their containment and contaminate everything?

[Anonymous No.5645158]

Someone should make another nuclear energy thread about fast breeder reactors.

[Nuka-Cola; Gamma Grape flavor No.5645160]

>>5645157
actually fluorine volatility isn't that much of a problem. the heat isn't much of one either, some ceramics can do that just fine
what fucking sucks is the intense neutron flux. the only thing which can take all these factors for multiple years without problems is hastelloy-n

[Anonymous No.5645164]

>nuclear fusion
'nuff said

[Nuka-Cola; Gamma Grape flavor No.5645167]

>>5645164
yaaay gen fusion
when does their prototype reactor do its first test firing? i wanna see some data

[Anonymous No.5645169]

>>5645160
>hastelloy-n
Except that in a reactor environment signs of corrosion were shown at <1000 hours.

Hastelloy-n may be the best option but it's still not good enough.

[Nuka-Cola; Gamma Grape flavor No.5645179]

>>5645169
wait, what?
you may be thinking of the polymerization of the lubricating fluid at oakridge, the hastelloy held up extremely well for over two years minus some microfractures at the surface.

[Anonymous No.5645191]

nuclear fission = bad
nuclear fusion= good

[Anonymous No.5645235]

>>5645191
Even in contrast, fission is not "bad".

[Anonymous No.5645244]

>>5645169
1000 hours is a pretty long time

[Anonymous No.5645248]

>>5645191
nuclear fission = works
nuclear fusion = doesn't works

There's a glitch in your matrix

[Nuka-Cola; Gamma Grape flavor No.5645252]

>>5645244
1000 hours, at 24/7 operation, is only 41 days. he is right to be concerned.
but i don't think it was the hastelloy that showed wear that quickly

[Anonymous No.5645254]

>>5645248
>nuclear fusion = doesn't works
What is the sun?

[Anonymous No.5645299]

>>5643856
>>5643870
>>5643894
>>5643991

Where did all this /b/ shit come from, it's not summer yet.

[Anonymous No.5645318]

>>5645299
What is your major malfunction, numbnuts?

[Anonymous No.5645334]

>>5645254
Something we cant recreate on Earth?

[Anonymous No.5645343]

>>5645334
U wot m8

[Anonymous No.5645346]

Take a look at this:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Or this if you like pretty pictures:
http://i.imgur.com/evcju.jpg

I'm not too sure about the economics - nuclear requires large subsidies - but anybody bleating on about health risks simply doesn't know what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.5645353]

>>5645346
>nuclear requires large subsidies
all energy requires subsidies, nuclear is just a notch worse than coal and oil, and a lot better than wind/solar

[Anonymous No.5645359]

>>5645343
That's not the sun. The main difference being the sun has a net output of energy, while break-even on Earth is and always will be "about 20 years away".

The main problem is, the temperatures necessary to fuse hydrogen are ridiculous. In fact, even the sun doesn't come anywhere close. The only reason stars work is because over the enormous number of hydrogen atoms they contain, quantum tunneling works its magic, letting some of the hydrogen fuse. As we're working with far less material on Earth, this effect is effectively non-existent, so we need to create far higher temperatures. So, in short, the fact the sun is an example of viable fusion does not necessarily mean Earth-based fusion is possible.

[Anonymous No.5645395]

>>5645359
>That's not the sun.
Point being?

>The main difference being the sun has a net output of energy
>implying there's an input of energy

>while break-even on Earth is and always will be "about 20 years away".
Who are you quoting

>The main problem is, the temperatures necessary to fuse hydrogen are ridiculous.
You don't *need* high temperature for fusion.

[Anonymous No.5645403]

>>5645359
im sure you're a nuclear physics and that you know what you are talking about

[Anonymous No.5645410]

your question pretty much sums up my dissertation chap.
answer: yeah its cool until we crack fusion

[Anonymous No.5645413]

>>5645359
>quantum tunneling works its magic
ok m8

[Anonymous No.5645416]

>>5645395
My point being, the sun is only capable of fusion because of quantum effects which are negligible here on Earth. So when discussing the feasibility of nuclear fusion, it's completely fallacious to say "oh, the sun can do it, so we can too".

I'm not quoting anybody. These things: "" aren't just used for quoting. You've already shown your physics is lackluster, maybe you should brush up on your English too.

You need some form of energy to put the atoms close enough to react. No, it doesn't have to be heat energy, I was simply using that as I was comparing with the sun. Oh, and just in case you're going where somebody ITT eventually will: no, sonofusion isn't viable.

[Anonymous No.5645420]

>>5645413
Fucking hell, I'm not a walking encyclopedia. I'm only telling you what you could learn yourself from readily-available poplar science books. If there's a term you don't understand, how about you look it up?

[Anonymous No.5645426]

>>5645403
Out of interest, why does a civil, on-topic post getting nothing but hate?

[Anonymous No.5645428]

We need nuclear power simply because there is no other way to cover our energy needs. We can't keep pulling stuff out of the ground forever, and windmills and fancy bulbs are only going to take us so far. Nuclear power is the only reasonable way to cover the immense energy needs of the worlds developing nations.

[Anonymous No.5645437]

>>5645416
You should stop living under a rock. There's a bright future out here.

[Anonymous No.5645454]

>>5645437
Neat diagram, call me when they break even.

[Anonymous No.5645468]

>>5645454
There's this thing called energy threshold for breakeven and it's very low for magnetized target reactors.

[Anonymous No.5645503]

>>5645426
because he doesnt understand fusion

its not that hes on task, its that hes stupid

[Nuka-Cola; Gamma Grape flavor No.5645642]

>>5645346
it's not quite that simple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Allocation_of_subsidies
however the wiki section on the subject reads like an edit war between greenpeace and the NRC.
especially that bit which pins nuclear energy as financially risky, when it's probably the most stable of any energy source......once the plant is actually constructed

[Anonymous No.5645676]

>Fukushima
>Hey, let's turn off the automatic control systems to try to generate a lot more electricity real quick
>Oh fuck, the core melted and we can't put the graphite rods into them anymore
>Whelp, meltdown

Take away all manual control unless automation destroys itself...

[Anonymous No.5645684]

>>5643837
nuclear energy is obviously very dangerous...look at all that smoke coming out of the top

[Anonymous No.5645698]

>>5645676
>confusing Chernobyl with Fukushima
ISHYGDDT

[Anonymous No.5645758]

>>5645642
I assume that refers to the possibility of the plant being canceled partway into its construction. At least, that's the only thing I can think of.

[Nuka-Cola; Gamma Grape flavor No.5645779]

>>5645758
no, it's probably referring to the ALMOST CERTAIN MELTDOWN GUISE ITS TOTALLY GOING TO BE CHERNOBYL AGAIN

but yeah, depending on how noisy the NIMBYs are, and how much their lawyers are paid, there's a severe risk of the plant not even starting construction. and even during construction it can continuously be bombarded with lawsuits.

so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

[Anonymous No.5645811]

I think we should use it in the short term as a cheap way to generate all the power the world needs for a few years, while focusing great effort into making fusion or a similar high-output clean energy a reality.

If we spend some serious effort into making our fission plants safe for the next few decades it'll be a relatively cheap and powerful method of power generation that'll allow us to break away from the current problems of power generation.

[Anonymous No.5645820]

>>5645642
>especially that bit which pins nuclear energy as financially risky, when it's probably the most stable of any energy source

Find data on kw/h (whatever units) prices for an area supplied by a nuclear plant for 40 years and compare it to an area supplied by coal/oil power plant for the same duration.

Plot a graph.

Find data on costs associated with building and maintaining the plants over 40 years of operation.

Plot a graph

Now you will have two very interesting graphs

[Anonymous No.5645821]

>>5645811
Also, thorium reactors.

[Anonymous No.5646189]

>>5645811
They already are quite safe.
The last generations i mean.
And with thorium around the corner, there is no energy issue in the short or long-term.

Unless fusion is literally impossible, which it isn't.