Honestly why are people against nuclear power?

File: 484 KB, 245x179, 1386409732648.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 04:48:26 2013 No.6208810 [Reply] [Original]

Honestly why are people against nuclear power?

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 04:52:56 2013 No.6208815

Honestly that's a stupid question.

Because a single person on the street doesn't see the difference between how the power he uses is made - nobody get's the economics and politics behind it. So apriori the question where the energy comes from is neutral.
And then, nuclear power plants can be a bigger danger if things go wrong.
Peolples conclusion --> go with the sae variant.
The end.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 04:52:56 2013 No.6208817 >>6208810 same reason they are against microwaves ovens.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 04:55:25 2013 No.6208819 >>6208815 This. Also, because japs can't into nuclear power.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 05:29:56 2013 No.6208850 and that's why democracy in its current form is never the best solution

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 06:07:37 2013 No.6208874

>high initial capital investment
>uncertainty over energy prices over the plant's long lifetime
>insurance
>constant PR battle
>red tape
>political environment may cause permanent shutdown
>due to decades of neglect lack of qualified workforce
>massive cost overruns
>produces toxic waste

Better question is, why would ANYONE build a nuclear powerplant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 06:17:07 2013 No.6208882 >>6208810 because they don't know what they are talking about

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 06:31:37 2013 No.6208896

>>6208874
-negligible emissions
-helps meet CO2 targets/appease climate change concerns
-very efficient
-reasonable resource stock
-resource that doesnt have many competing uses i.e oil
-safe (1 off complete incompetence or 100 year earthquake/tsunami doesnt make something inherently unsafe)
-waste can be disposed of safely deep in continental plates (where do you think the radioactive material comes from?)

Assessing something by its short term costs whilst ignoring its long term gains is just bad economics

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 06:33:07 2013 No.6208899 >>6208810 >Honestly why are people against nuclear power? Because most people equate Nuclear anything with the darkest of black magic

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 06:47:38 2013 No.6208910 >>6208899 whats wrong with black magic? i mean thats most of science isnt it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 06:54:37 2013 No.6208918 >>6208810 Because muh environment

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 07:05:07 2013 No.6208921 >>6208896 >Assessing something by its short term costs whilst ignoring its long term gains is just human FTFY

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 07:10:37 2013 No.6208925 >>6208815 It is more dangerous if it goes wrong. On the other hand, coal and oil is a persistent danger, which is invisible because we are habituated to the effects.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 07:16:08 2013 No.6208928 >>6208925 fukushima's plants were conceived on a base of a 1 in 1000 years high risk earthquake or tsunami. See how stupid they are compared to how safe we could actually be by using nuclear energy

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 07:16:37 2013 No.6208929

>>6208896
>-waste can be disposed of safely deep in continental plates (where do you think the radioactive material comes from?)

oh yes, that's right. I knew the government felt like building a nuclear waste repository in a mountain despite a state's constant resistance and disapproval for no reason. I'm glad to know my local nuclear plant will be disposing of its wastes in unguarded barrels, I mean, tectonic plates.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 07:31:37 2013 No.6208938 >>6208896 I'll rephrase my post: Perception of poor return on investment long term. That is, investors will rather put their money into something less risky and more profitable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 08:52:38 2013 No.6209028 >>6208928 Sarcasm is obscuring the point of your argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 09:06:37 2013 No.6209042 People are irrational when it comes to judging risks. Plus the average person on the street thinks there'd be a nuclear explosion if terrorists dropped a grenade into the core.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 09:15:07 2013 No.6209052 People has no idea how it works and hear about Fukushima & Chernobyl. My country Australia has said we will never go nuclear to please of all things, the greenies. This pisses me off as we have heaps of Uranium and old nuke test sites to use as dumps.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 09:25:08 2013 No.6209069 Probably because they don't believe that the nuclear waste could be safely disposed of and because they do not understand how nuclear power works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 09:30:07 2013 No.6209079 >>6208810 >Ignorance >Phobia Combination of the two

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 09:35:37 2013 No.6209087

>>6208810

The only people who are against it are the ones who don't know anything about it, and thank god don't have a saying in whether we use it or not.

Every expert in the field od energetics knows that Nuclear power is the best way to create energy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 09:41:07 2013 No.6209099 >>6209087 but they do because they vote. Angela merkel stopped the german use of nuclear energy to ensure another election.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 11:03:37 2013 No.6209218
File: 174 KB, 612x901, 1386432181094.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6208810
You can see things in two ways

Ignorance: Pollution from fossil fuel kills more people but they are familiar with it and think they can see and avoid it so they aren't as scared about fossil fuel burn as they are about radiation, something that they don't understand and they can't see or feel.

Political interest: nuclear power is a step to nuclear bombs and nuclear bombs give a country a lot of negotiation power. By spreading the idea that anything involving radioactivity is evil the countries that already have nuclear weapons turns the world population against the countries trying to develop nuclear tech.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 11:20:07 2013 No.6209251 Because people are stupid

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 11:23:37 2013 No.6209260 Last year nuclear power had effect on deaths of 25 people in full Europe, same time other ways of getting energy killed about 200k-400k humans (small particles that get in to your lungs). Which is more dangerous now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 11:25:37 2013 No.6209264 Don't bad things happen on a large scale?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 11:40:07 2013 No.6209292 >>6209260 This is what people don't realize. Fukishima was just a freak thing and a snowball of outrageous circumstances. Cherynobal was shit engineering and people running the plant that didn't know what to do in an emergency.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 11:46:37 2013 No.6209303
File: 195 KB, 2851x1900, 1386434817083.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6209264
Not really. Shit gets mildly more radioactive than usual for time periods varying from a few seconds to a few million years, but these effects are measurable and can be contained.

If you want really bad things related to pollution, take a look at how Shanghai or any other major city in China is doing these days.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 11:48:07 2013 No.6209305 File: 72 KB, 650x1024, 1386434922740.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6209303 But really, nuclear is totes dangerous guise

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 11:49:37 2013 No.6209307

Because old style large footprint reactors are scary and most people think "if this thing melts down, we're all gonna die!!!1!" But once SMRs (small modular reactors) become more popular, nuclear will start being as 'invisible' as oil. Hell, if the military likes them enough, that might speed up public adoption. They want to use them as power sources for remote bases, independent of energy grids. You could scatter 10, 15 SMRs around a city and power it with almost no emissions.

Another part of why people are afraid of nuclear is because they prefer renewables to nuclear and a lot of them think it is feasible to completely switch to wind and solar. What they don't know is that energy companies typically use wind farms on land that they're also fracking, using the natural gas to turn the turbines during off-peak. It's kind of hypocritical to be pro-wind and anti-fracking in that way, and really plays into energy companies' hands.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 11:51:07 2013 No.6209311 >>6209307 >using the natural gas to turn the turbines during off-peak. Source?

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 11:58:37 2013 No.6209326
File: 23 KB, 648x418, 1386435490524.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6209303
Meh, the basic problem is mining the Uranium itself, Australia, Canada and Russia have reasonable supplies but factor in initial investment into the nuke plant, you are talking millions of barrels of oil, this is why these things can no longer be predictably budgeted...we are already at peak or on the down slope, not to mention lifetime and maintenance costs...no one wants to touch them, they are slowly being decommissioned for the dark ages.

They only make juice, easier, cheaper and safer to built modern coal fired plants or hydro damns. Save the oil for transportation, when the transportation grid breaks down modern civilization will break down soon after. It's a lost cause for sure, too many top predators, I just hope it holds together for another 10 or 15 years.

All science is a means to an end, nuclear research went strictly into bombs because priests and politicians still run the world. End Days and 4 year plans sell, nuke plants and 30 year plans don't fly anymore because no one knows what is going to happen tomorrow.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:04:21 2013 No.6209866 >>6209326 You're assuming politicians to make long term informed decisions. How plausible do you think that is?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:17:51 2013 No.6209890 >>6209866 Not him but in my opinion corporations make long term informed decisions and pressure politicians to put them in action.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 17:20:22 2013 No.6209894

>cooling towers

>must be nuclear

fucking idiots like this are the reason people are "against" nuclear because those who aren't educated enough about the industry are against it from ignorance. and those that are within the industry have no energy to talk to the idiots because they know they'll just stay idiots by choice.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 18:26:59 2013 No.6209990 File: 1.38 MB, 200x150, 1386458778760.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6208896 >-waste can be disposed of safely deep in continental plates Thank you, Congressman Todd Akin.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 19:35:28 2013 No.6210113
File: 267 KB, 523x562, 1386462938633.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6208810
Here's a good reason:
No one has a long-term plan for nuclear waste.

Most of the nuclear waste is put in casks and then stored on an "open air" parking lot with a chain-link fence and a security guard.

The idea is we'll hire a fat security guard for the next 10,000 years until the waste isn't radioactive anymore.

>no yucca mountain :(

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 19:36:28 2013 No.6210116 >>6208819 >the japanese have more modern, efficient and safer nuclear power plants than America Okay.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 19:46:28 2013 No.6210135 >>6210116 Seriously, I know! It's almost as if poorly maintained backup generators after a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami led to Fukushima!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 19:55:28 2013 No.6210146 we need fusion power.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 20:01:58 2013 No.6210157 >>6210113 That's really a political problem. It's not as though it's insurmountable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 20:08:58 2013 No.6210164 >>6208810 Hurt feelings and bad experiences in the past because of earthquakes and soviet managment instead of nuclear power being inherently dangerous.

Anonymous Sat Dec 7 20:10:28 2013 No.6210168

Because sheeple can't see radiation, and to quote the great Batman Begins, people always fear what they can't see.

I read a study once that suggested that for every one person who dies from nuclear energy, over 4,000 die from the pollution/mining dangers of coal.

Also, there's a pretty widely circulated statement saying that there is more radiation from the granite in Grand Central Station than there is legally allowed at a nuclear power plant in America.

Nuclear energy is safe, low-emmision, and relatively cheap. It angers me that my state won't allow uranium mining.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 20:15:58 2013 No.6210179 >>6208810 Chernobyl

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 7 20:20:58 2013 No.6210183 >>6210157 Bu it's the fact that we are doing stupid things with dangerous waste TODAY. I know, and you know there are better solutions than the parking lot/fat security guard idea. But the problem is, it's what we're doing now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:58:06 2013 No.6212121 Because as the western world becomes less dependent on petroleum from my native land, I am less able to date large-bosomed blonde women and satisfy my urge to spawn with more advanced lifeforms than my own.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:07:55 2013 No.6212128

>>6208810
The sane, logic explanation for this would be that nuclear energy is still in development i.e. there are several security issues even in the most modern designs (thats what i have been thaught in my undergraduate study, at least). Also, people fear it because however small the risk may be, if it happens it will be one hell of a wildcard.
Also, there is no plan for the long term storage of nuclear waste beyond "lets dig it in an old salt mine"

I will not lose myself in theories of petrodollars and so on, as this would belong to /pol.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:14:25 2013 No.6212149 Posting this question in a nulcear thread: Is Thorium bullcrap?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 20:45:47 2013 No.6212415 >>6212149 A lot has been documented about Thorium, why fon't you start there?

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 01:06:17 2013 No.6212810

>>6210179
Because all nuclear power plants use nuclear power all the same way, right? Especially ones using current decade technology compared to 60 year old russian tech held together with gum and vodka.

Thats like saying diesel engines are dangerous because they use fire and steam engines use fire, when steam engines explode all the time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 01:29:47 2013 No.6212838 I start university next year, and the one I'm attending doesn't offer papers about nuclear power based on New Zealand's anti-nuclear policy. It really grinds my gears. Does anyone else live in a country like this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 02:02:17 2013 No.6212868 Why don't the cups ever come back down?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 02:10:17 2013 No.6212872 >>6212868 coolant towers throw cups at 11km/s

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 03:16:42 2013 No.6212926 >>6212838 I, for one, welcome our new liberal, anti-science overlords.

Nuka-Cola: Neutron Nectarine Mon Dec 9 03:26:43 2013 No.6212938

>>6208819
oh no, they did fine. daiichi was a fuckup in the sense that the tsunami was utterly unprecedented and they left the generators in the basement, as well as a slightly cracked reactor pot.
the rest of japan's plants shut down without so much as a cough

basically it's a reminder to think ahead more based on geography. china's quick-build reactors have a giant reservoir above the core that can drip-feed water by way of gravity during an emergency, and it'll keep dripping for three days straight, pretty clever shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 10:39:12 2013 No.6213270 File: 123 KB, 1103x905, 1386603588399.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:31:07 2013 No.6213504 >>6208810 beause people think that every nuclear plant is a potential hiroshima. and its not really an irrational fear if you know nothing about nuclear power. also people dont realize that it is also one the most environmental friendly source of energy

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:36:07 2013 No.6213511 >mfw people don't realise that coal plants release more radiation than nuclear power plants

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:36:37 2013 No.6213509 because coal plant energy is more profitable for the companies mining coal

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 13:49:07 2013 No.6213553 Because we are fucked if something happens.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 15:50:07 2013 No.6213836 A better question would be, why isn't anyone supporting thorium?

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:05:37 2013 No.6213847

>>6208810
Because the general public is retarded. They think nuclear=bomb

I live 20 miles away from a nuclear plant and I always here "If something bad happened there wed all be dead!" Implying a "meltdown" is the same thing as the fucking castle bravo test.

I might get a heafty dose of radiation that will elevate my chances of cancer, but no BOOM WE ALL IS DED

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:12:07 2013 No.6213858 >>6213847 Is this sarcasm

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:17:07 2013 No.6213866 >>6213858 No. wtf you saying? I'm not saying that radiation and cancer isn't bad. What I'm saying is no one even thinks about long term cancer effects. The public around here thinks nuclear plants explode violently when they malfunction.

6208810 Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:19:38 2013 No.6213874

Nuclear power stations seem like a great idea, they have many benefits, but there are two main problems. Firstly there is no room for error, it is a huge problem when they leak and the technology to safeguard this is simply not there yet. Secondly, is the problem with the waste, it can't be disposed of easily, it is very costly. What they do currently they take about 10 cm cubed of the spent thorium, that's like the size of a grapefruit, and mix it with about a tonne of concrete, then put that mix into vast concrete containers and then bury it about 20 meters into the ground.

While that is all very good and well, sooner or later we are going to run out of space for these concrete monsters and that time will come way before the first ever lot of radioactive material has become safe. Fine in our lifetime, not so hot for our children.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:21:07 2013 No.6213877 >>6208810 When you do something right people won't know you've done anything at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:24:37 2013 No.6213882 >>6213877 Funny how it's also true for consistently doing something wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:47:37 2013 No.6213922 >>6213882 Well, politics is a special case I think.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:52:37 2013 No.6213933 >>6213874 Thorium

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:01:07 2013 No.6213945 >>6213933 shut the fuck up about thorium already

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 01:03:07 2013 No.6214989 >>6212810 You mean Ukrainian, but the picture is the same.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 01:12:37 2013 No.6215008 We're gonna get space based energy soon. It's going to be cheeeeep and lots of it where you want it. Solar power is constant in space. All you have to do is get the power to earth. And building things in space is getting cheaper fast. I can go on.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 01:19:08 2013 No.6215020 >>6208896 >-waste can be disposed of safely deep in continental plates (where do you think the radioactive material comes from?) LOL

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 01:23:07 2013 No.6215031 Because if something does go wrong, and it will, the consequences are far worse for everything than the alternatives. A better solution to the energy crisis would be to lower the demand, by having less children.

>>	Сергей Tue Dec 10 01:24:08 2013 No.6215032 >>6214989 Nope, the RBMK was Russian (Soviet) technology. In fact, the only ones still operating are in Russia.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 01:30:07 2013 No.6215046 So how do you guys feel about thorium?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 01:32:37 2013 No.6215051 >>6215046 I feel like all the people advocating it are just people who heard other people talking about it on the internet.

Сергей Tue Dec 10 01:43:37 2013 No.6215069

>>6215046
>>6215051
This.

Thorium has way more hurdles that are surprisingly never covered in those shitty infographics. There have been maybe three actual reactors to have used the thorium fuel cycle and they're just ok. The big issues I usually bring up that need to be addressed are: 1. the almost non-existent reaction data for the thorium fuel cycle (mostly energy-dependent cross-sections and reactivity data) 2. corrosion and heat tolerance issues, and 3. the lack of infrastructure needed to sustain thorium mining operations and manufacture of the one corrosion resistant alloy that needs to be used in every thorium reactor (Hastalloy-N).

Compound those problems with the existing bureaucratic issues that plague proven uranium reactor technology and you have something that's probably never going to get built.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 01:50:37 2013 No.6215082

Nuclear Power plants are built close to water, when infrastructure fails it effects all of us.

Nuclear fission however...I'm down with that
>protip: lasers

My main issue is the fact that a few people see the profits while the damage is pawned off to everyone else. Mr burns own the power plant, and he's an asshole. Truth is energy is abundandant but that's the very reason renewable energy isn't being utilized because scarcity, like the kind nuclear power has, creates profit.

A horizontal approach to renewable resources is the only way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 02:06:07 2013 No.6215102 >>6215082 >Nuclear fission >Lasers

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 03:18:07 2013 No.6215150

>>6210113
Here's the thing most people don't get about the waste: the high level stuff is actually perfectly good fuel (much of it plutonium) that we could be using but don't because--
Because--
Shit, I got nothing. Really there is no reason not to separate out the useful stuff and blend it in with new fuel but it just isn't done here because our politicians would rather it just sit around slowly decaying. Nuculars are scary and all that.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 03:23:37 2013 No.6215155

>>6210113

Nuclear power plants already have insane security. I went to one on a field trip in high school and you couldn't walk ten feet without seeing a contractor fully decked out in winter camo with an M4 slung over his back.

That said, its still incredibly stupid that they abandoned Yucca Mountain.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:09:47 2013 No.6216016 >>6215150 because it's expensive using current techniques and fuel reprocessing isnt exactly a booming research field

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:43:46 2013 No.6216053 >>6215082 >Nuclear fission however...I'm down with that >protip: lasers what the shit!?

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 15:15:16 2013 No.6216096

Fission as an energy source is doomed guys.

We're going through another fossil fuel revolution, which will see their price stabilize to current levels or more probably even fall. There are absolutely massive amounts of natural gas. There will never, ever be peak oil due to shortage of supply.

Nuclear power simply can't compete. Even solar panels will undercut it in 5-10 years. And remember any plant built must work for 30-50 years.

Another thing working against investing heavily in nuclear plants is the lack of demand for electricity. As Europeans and Japanese are going extinct and USA becomes older, and even China transforms into consumption economy, the energy requirements won't grow as rapidly. This pushes down electricity prices and discourages large capital investments.

In 20 years our main energy sources are natural gas and solar. Nuclear will gradually be phased out.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 15:21:39 2013 No.6216101 >>6215082 YOU MEAN FUSION

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 15:26:39 2013 No.6216107
File: 858 KB, 240x228, 1386707170113.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Thorium
I would probably be in favour of thorium if I didn't learn about it through that jackass Kirk Sorensen. What kind of asshole gives a lecture about physics while drinking soda out of a fucking paper cup with a straw?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 15:31:09 2013 No.6216111 >>6209028 your noticing of sarcasm where there is none is quite intriguing

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 15:44:09 2013 No.6216125

I guess the risk even if its very small of it going wrong and destroying half your nation is too great. Just look at Ukraine and Japan.

If you want a nuclear plant you're going to have to make it earthquake proof, tsunami proof, flood proof, fire proof, terrorist proof, meteor proof, storm proof.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 15:54:39 2013 No.6216131 >>6216096 I think pretty much every point you made in that post is incorrect

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:00:39 2013 No.6216139 >>6216107 Who gives a shit? Why do lectures have so be serious all the time? The content is what matters, not what the guy who gives the lecture is doing.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:06:09 2013 No.6216145

>>6215069
1. Moar funding
2. Ceramics
3. There are disused rare earth metal mines across America full of accessible thorium. The reason those mines were shut down is because in recent years it became cheaper to buy rare earth metals from China than to mine it ourselves. The thorium (and rare earths) are still there waiting for somebody to get it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:09:39 2013 No.6216147 >>6216145 Ironically before we shut those mines down we were processing the rare earths out of the ore and since the thorium was considered useless we disposed of tons of the stuff, a real shame that is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:21:39 2013 No.6216160 >>6215082 I like where you're coming from, understanding that renewable energy sources are actually immense, but yes, you mean fusion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:22:09 2013 No.6216161 >>6216125 >destroying half your nation is too great. Just look at Ukraine and Japan. japan is bigger than 20km^2

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:22:09 2013 No.6216162 >>6216139 I don't need them to be serious; just not as odious as that cocksucker.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:23:09 2013 No.6216165 >>6216107 >Why should someone be comfortable when I expect serenity?! >My veneration of the field couldn't possibly be affecting my ideas about it >OF COURSE WE SHOULD NEVER CHANGE TRADITION! THATS WHAT IT'S THEIR FOR!!!

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:31:39 2013 No.6216183 File: 294 KB, 879x584, 1386711117933.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6216125 I hope you realise 13.000 people died in the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan - yet all people talk about is a minor nucleair accident.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:49:09 2013 No.6216214

>>6208810
Because there's a lot of misinformation, but mostly because Chernobyl was really really scary and humans are very bad about rationally responding to low probabilities. It's like how people are afraid of plane crashes, and expect to win lotteries.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:43:09 2013 No.6216335

Because the oil industry is bffs with the media

The media gives far too much attention to nuclear disasters and paints an incorrect, over dramatic picture, while ignoring the far, far, FAR more frequent fossil fuel disasters, underplaying the ones that do get reported on.

People listen to the talking box and use it to form their opinions, and the opinion tends to be that nuclear is dangerous.

Doesn't help that most apocalypse fiction is based around some sort of nuclear disaster, and video game/movie depictions of them tend to be overly explosive.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:02:10 2013 No.6216388 Nuclear power: - costs much more than conventional power - contributes to the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation and global thermonuclear war - carries an irreduceable risk of large-scale, long-term catastrophe

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:44:40 2013 No.6216466 >>6216214 A better comparison is how people are afraid of plane crashes but not about talking on the phone while driving. That's why people should learn statistics

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:57:10 2013 No.6216484 Because idiots insist on building them on places where they're exposed to a fuckton of natural disasters.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 19:01:10 2013 No.6216492 >>6216484 Actually there were other nuclear plants in japan that endured a much worse impact but they had no problems since they were of a more recent type. Modern nuclear plants had no problems.

Сергей Wed Dec 11 03:38:37 2013 No.6217681

>>6216145
1. Ya, ANY energy problem can be solved with "moar funding" including more efficient fast U-238 reactors with Brayton cycles (and, ironically, this is reaction data that is ABUNDANT compared to thorium), point is moot.
2. Ceramics are already used in reactors, but they become brittle in the presence of neutron radiation, ergo you couldn't make a pressure vessel out of them. Also, protip, it's been observed in high-heat areas (i.e. fuel rods in reactors) that sometimes, they melt.
2. I will concede this point, with the caveat that a. Thorium as a mineral may be more abundant than Uranium, but it's not as concentrated as Uranium and b. the infrastructure doesn't CURRENTLY exist to mine Thorium to the extent needed if Thorium reactors became popular (to the extent that the mining of Uranium is, at least).

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 04:11:06 2013 No.6217716 >>6215069 You forgot that you can't enrich thorium into depleted uranium rounds.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 04:14:36 2013 No.6217724 >>6217681 Plus, you can't make DU rounds without spending the uranium first somehow.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 10:17:06 2013 No.6218304 >>6217716 >enrich

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 10:45:36 2013 No.6218355

The fission technology of the future is some kind of fission fragment reactor, likely some variant of the dusty plasma reactor. This gives you a very high power output for a minimal critical mass of fuel, has extraordinarily high thermodynamic efficiency, and promptly separates the fission fragments from the fuel, eliminating issues with neutron poisoning and simplifying the problems of thermal management and waste disposal.

A dusty plasma reactor (unless it's a hybrid fission-fusion design, which is actually an area of active research and may turn out to be the best option) can't be a plutonium breeder, because a fast reactor would require an unreasonably large volume of low-density dusty plasma. For a moderated reactor, thorium is the better fertile material.

A particularly interesting design is the accelerator-driven subcritical dusty plasma reactor. This would bring two further advantages: promptly burning up its own (or pre-existing) long-lived or high-hazard waste, and highly responsive power output.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 12:02:36 2013 No.6218467 >>6208810 I pesonally am not against the use of nuclear power itself, but do not support it because the nuclear waste is a really nasty problem

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 15:21:18 2013 No.6218912 >>6213945 What are you gonna do about it, faggot? T H O R I U M

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 15:23:48 2013 No.6218914 >>6218912 Maybe he can use imploreium to get you to stop?

Сергей Wed Dec 11 17:43:48 2013 No.6219127

>>6217716
>>6217724

>implying it's not used in armor
>implying it's not used in civilian applications
>implying it's not more efficient than lead at doing much the same traditional things that lead does

I hate this whole "herp da derp the only reason thorium isn't popular is because of the military-industrial complex." While yes, in the 1960s, this may have been the case, the nuclear industry is much more largely dominated by the civilian sector now. This is particularly true in how I mentioned that existing infrastructure to practically begin steps toward thorium reactor production does not exist. Also, your argument gets #rekt when you take into consideration that LWR technology can burn repurposed weapons plutonium.

GTFO and don't forget your tinfoil hat.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 17:45:18 2013 No.6219134 >>6208810 The common understanding of the risks is way overblown, and the common understanding of the harm of alternatives is understated.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 17:53:19 2013 No.6219166

>>6219127
>the nuclear industry is much more largely dominated by the civilian sector now
You mean now that the nuclear industry no longer serves any sensible purpose (being more expensive than conventional power and posing an existential threat to society), it exists only as pork holdovers from the military age.

That's why there's no serious effort being put into applying a superior technology, it's just people with an old investment lobbying for government money.

You sure seem all fired up to get a job patching up the old trough.

LWR is a shit technology. There should definitely never be another LWR built, and we should be decommissioning the old ones as quickly as possible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 17:56:48 2013 No.6219175 >>6219166 Even though LWRs are shit they're still a lot better than coal plants, yet we build a lot of those.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:04:18 2013 No.6219201 >>6219175 Not anymore, US is mostly phasing out coal plants now in favor of natural gas.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:08:48 2013 No.6219213 >>6208810 Because i dont think theres a plant on the planet that makes more power than it takes,they make nukes,from the waste,caled enrichment 1Deplete Y235 2Enrich 3????

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:10:18 2013 No.6219223

>>6219175
Coal plants might be dirty (though the new ones really aren't bad, and there are designs for completely clean ones), but they're cheap without subsidies, and they pay off quickly. Plus you can let ordinary people and ordinary companies do them without watching them too closely, and be confident that they won't accidentally wipe out any cities. And you can put them just about wherever you like.

Coal's easier, cheaper, safer, and generally better than nuclear. It's certainly a better bridge than nuclear over the next few decades until solar becomes so cheap it's providing a surplus that'll take some creativity to soak up.

Anyway, the new hotness (in the USA) is natural gas, which is much cleaner than coal and a byproduct of profitable liquid petroleum extraction. Now that is the perfect bridge to the solar future.

Сергей Wed Dec 11 18:10:18 2013 No.6219224

>>6219175
This

>>6219166
If you took the time to read my other posts, you'd know I'm more fond of Brayton-based U-238 fast reactors because they 1. exist on established fuel technology, 2. are inherently more efficient through use of Brayton cycles than any Rankine cycle reactor could be (including your end-all, be-all Thorium) and 3. can be built with minimal modification of the existing nuclear infrastructure.

My main point aside, you seem to miss the point that LWRs are actually fairly safe and established technology. Unfortunately, the only LWRs in operation in the US is 40 year old technology (which, btw, cause less human deaths than any other power source) and LWRs have GREATLY improved since. They're inherently much more safe than those in operation today. A combination of government bureaucracy and, as discussed below, a refusal to move away from (initially) cheap coal is a detriment to the advancement of nuclear technology as a whole.

You also seem to be oblivious to the fact that the number 1 energy investment vied for by lobbying groups are coal plants which are cheaper to build, but suffer when it comes to long-term fuel costs. Let's not forget that coal is dirtier than your sister.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:11:18 2013 No.6219226 >>6219223 >clouds >night >winter days Where is your solar now?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:12:48 2013 No.6219228 Grün grün grün! Bio Bio Bio!

>>	Сергей Wed Dec 11 18:12:48 2013 No.6219229 >>6219223 >and be confident that they won't accidently wipe out any cities Ya, no, you don't know how nuclear actually works, do you?

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:13:18 2013 No.6219236

>>6219224
>If you took the time to read my other posts, you'd know I'm more fond of Brayton-based U-238 fast reactors because they 1. exist on established fuel technology, 2. are inherently more efficient through use of Brayton cycles than any Rankine cycle reactor could be (including your end-all, be-all Thorium) and 3. can be built with minimal modification of the existing nuclear infrastructure.
You're talking about the steam / CO2 turbine loop. AFAIK, that can be added to either a fast spectrum solid fuel reactor or a soft spectrum liquid fluoride reactor. You just need a high enough temp to make use of it. What am I missing?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:13:48 2013 No.6219235 >>6219224 >which, btw, cause less human deaths than any other power source You can't say that now. Call me in a few hundred thousand years when the waste isn't a threat to human life over many future generations any more.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:14:18 2013 No.6219242 >>6219235 No one is going to die from the waste. You know that radioactive ore occurs naturally, right? You know that right now you are radioactive? Carbon 14, that isolate of cobalt, etc.?

>>	Сергей Wed Dec 11 18:14:48 2013 No.6219239 >>6219235 Do you not know that kilo for kilo, coal slag is more radioactive than spent fuel?

Сергей Wed Dec 11 18:17:18 2013 No.6219253

>>6219236
Primary only helium-based solid fuel U-238 fast reactor. The main design I'm thinking of is the U-238 fuel ball tumbler. You're right that the main concern is only really temperature tolerances of piping in the presence of 2200F helium, but that's one of many problems that Throium still faces.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:20:19 2013 No.6219261

>>6219253
>Primary
Hmm? IIRC, we have solid materials like Hastelloy-N which go up to (?)700 C. There's some hope that some new untested materials might be able to take us higher, but you are right that the high temp liquid fluoride environment needs some work.

The large scale brayton turbines also need some work. You cannot buy any that size off the shelf right now AFAIK. There's some more R&D needed there.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:20:19 2013 No.6219264

>>6219229
I know that if the wind was blowing in a different direction when the safe, clean, well-run, first world reactor in Fukushima blew, like it was only supposed to be possible for dirty old Soviet reactors to do, it could have taken out a city or two.

To the degree that nuclear reactors can be considered safe, it's only through the most extraordinary measures to make it safe. It's inherently extremely dangerous, under normal operating conditions producing enough radioactive material to kill far more people than it provides electricity for.

Сергей Wed Dec 11 18:20:48 2013 No.6219260

>>6219236
>>6219253
Shit, forgot to mention that in the absence of a Rankine cycle (dropping steam altogether for just a single primary helium loop) your ideal efficiencies are boosted to something like 68%. While the steam to CO2 was a cool technology demonstrator, pure Braytons are the way to go.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:21:18 2013 No.6219267 >>6219260 Meh, 40% to 68% efficiency is not killer to me. You also need analysis of the plant capital costs. If the 40% efficient happens to cost 2x less, then it's the better deal.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:28:48 2013 No.6219285

>>6208899
this.

chances are 99% of people dont have a single clue how Nuclear Plants work, and they immediatly think that its bad for MUH ENVIRONMENT and MUH ATMOSPHERE
the number of retards who believe that the steam that comes out of the reactors are "nuclear waste" is fucking insane

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:33:19 2013 No.6219296

>>6219239
>Do you not know that kilo for kilo, coal slag is more radioactive than spent fuel?
So, everyone knows now not to listen to Сергей, right? He plays at being educated, but he parrots the most self-evidently absurd pro-nuclear myths without even stopping to think about how ludicrous they are.

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410

Coal slag contains small amounts of natural uranium and thorium, like many common rocks do. You could grab handfuls of it every day with bare hands, with no significant risk of cancer from radiation (though breathing the dust could slightly increase your cancer risk, again, as with many common rocks -- I will not comment on the potential chemical effects, which might be much nastier). Spent fuel is full of fission fragments, hot transuranics, and unburned fissile material. If you ever held a small sample once with your bare hands, you would die in a horrible way. Just being unprotected in the same room as an unshielded sample could easily kill you.

Сергей Wed Dec 11 18:33:19 2013 No.6219298

>>6219261
Eh, Hastelloy-N is more valuable for it's anti-corrosive properties and there may be more suitable alloys (material science isn't my thing).

>>6219264
Do you have any arguments other than alarmist bullshit? The plant was designed to a 1 in 5000 year event with a 6m tsunami retaining wall. The tsunami was more likely a 1 in 20000 year event with a height of 9m. The system was more reliant on active pumping to reduce residual waste heat because it was a 40 year old design. The tsunami washed out generators and the power infrastructure that in any other situation would prevent waste heat build-up. Look up the AP1000 or the EPR1000 designs, which DO NOT rely as heavily on active-pump systems. Also, compare the rate of technology approval between coal and nuclear and you see how it's not nuclear technology that's preventing safety measures to be approved.

>>6219267
But again, in that long-run, that 28% difference can recoup that 2x building cost in something like 10, 15 years. The bigger advantage in Braytons is being able to use them in water-poor regions or potentially in space.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:34:19 2013 No.6219300

>>6208810
People have a limited capacity to absorb information, I never went to medical school so I need to go to a doctor to diagnose health problems, however while our medical institutions provide honest experts to tell me about my health problems, there are no such institutions to educate people about political issues like this. It is open to abuse, for every honest expert, there are experts with an agenda and who know enough to dodge criticism.

For example if someone requires a year studying radiobiology to understand why the radiation released by a certain reactor is not dangerous, then the majority of the public will never understand why and a politician can lobby for more funding for excessive safety regulations, tugging on people's heart strings and fears of a meltdown.

Likewise if it requires a year studying toxicology to understand how pollutants released by coal power stations are responsible for a certain illness, a politician can lobby against pollution controls by claiming "oh there's no real evidence that this is a problem, coal is cheap and we need this good wholesome power source for our hot showers and video game consoles".

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:35:18 2013 No.6219303

>>6219298
>But again, in that long-run, that 28% difference can recoup that 2x building cost in something like 10, 15 years. The bigger advantage in Braytons is being able to use them in water-poor regions or potentially in space.
All depends on the numbers. If LFTR is 2x cheaper, but 2x less efficient, then it's a wash. It all depends on the capital costs (and the safety).

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:36:18 2013 No.6219306

>>6219298
>But again, in that long-run, that 28% difference can recoup that 2x building cost in something like 10, 15 years. The bigger advantage in Braytons is being able to use them in water-poor regions or potentially in space.
What? No. The numbers we need to look at are cost per W, which is dominated by the capital costs of the plant. The fuel costs are quite small relative to the plant costs, and at this first stage of analysis can be ignored.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:43:48 2013 No.6219321

>>6219298
>The plant was designed to a 1 in 5000 year event with a 6m tsunami retaining wall. The tsunami was more likely a 1 in 20000 year event
This is exactly the kind of excuse-making that shows why people like you can't be trusted.

>It can't happen!
>It can't happen!
>Well, it happened once, but that's because of sloppy, stupid Soviets. It can never happen in the first world.
>Well, it happened again, but it's not fair because nature did something the designers didn't expect. You can't expect us to keep it from happening when nature surprises us.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:47:49 2013 No.6219329 >>6219321 What happened ... exactly? No deaths from radiation poisoning yet, and likely no deaths from radiation poisoning from anyone outside the plant itself. Sounds like not that big of a deal to me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:49:18 2013 No.6219336 >>6209990 >-waste can be disposed of safely deep in continental plates (where do you think the radioactive material comes from?) LEL http://www.naturalnews.com/040192_hanford_nuclear_facility_radiation_leak_washington_state.html

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 18:57:49 2013 No.6219356

>>6219329
Two things happened:
1) they very promptly and efficiently evacuated a very wide area around the reactor, and more importantly
2) the wind consistently blew the leaked waste from this coastally-located reactor out to sea, in a direction where there is no land for a very long distance.

There was an amount of radioactive material released capable of wiping out a city. As it happened, nature and the authorities both did the best possible thing to minimize immediate human exposure to radiation. Luck provided an outcome far more acceptable than we should normally expect from such a bad breakdown of a nuclear reactor.

Mind you, quite a few people died in the evacuation. Pro-nuclear idiots will tell you that this is a consequence of irrational fear, rather than casualties of nuclear power, but these are the people who died so they could tell this story of "no deaths from radiation".

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:01:48 2013 No.6219362 >>6219356 Yeah, and if you compare that to any other power source, it's still less dangerous.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:02:48 2013 No.6219365

>>6219329
The Japanese government estimates the total amount of radioactivity released into the atmosphere was approximately one-tenth as much as was released during the Chernobyl disaster.

Japanese officials initially assessed the accident as Level 4 on the International Nuclear Event Scale. The level was later raised to 5 and eventually to 7, the maximum value.

Measurements 30–50 km from the plant showed caesium-137 levels high enough to cause concern, leading the government to ban the sale of food grown in the area.

Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima "guesstimate" of 1,000.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:03:18 2013 No.6219367 >>6219365 Those estimates are based on LNT, which is a fiction. Your numbers are bullshit.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:05:18 2013 No.6219370

>>6219365
Of some 300,000 people who evacuated the area, approximately 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures have occurred as of August 2013, a number comparable to the 1,599 deaths directly caused by the earthquake and tsunami.

In May 2012, TEPCO reported that at least 900 PBq had been released "into the atmosphere in March last year [2011] alone" although it has been said staff may have been told to lie, and give false readings to try and cover up true levels of radiation.

The government will spend at least 1 trillion yen ($13 billion) to clean up vast areas contaminated by radiation from the world's worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.

The wind measurably increased the radiation levels up to 100 miles away from the disaster site. Radioactive iodine, which can lead to increased risk of thyroid cancer if absorbed into the body, was released into the air along with other fission products.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:13:48 2013 No.6219378

>>6219362
>giant cloud of radioactive material got blown out to sea
>luckily, didn't get blown into a city and kill everyone
>safer than any other power source
Other energy sources cause routine deaths, mostly through small workplace accidents, people accepting a risk of death as part of their job, which is not more hazardous than many other desirable jobs. Coal causes some asthma deaths, particularly in the third world (where they can't even run a coal power plant properly -- if the same people tried to operate nuclear reactors, they'd routinely render large areas of their countries uninhabitable).

Nuclear can cause deaths that are very distantly separated in time and space, and are difficult to attribute to leakage of nuclear waste. So we really have no idea of what its death toll is. What we do know for certain is that there is leakage of nuclear waste, over and over, wherever they're doing nuclear power. Often the leakage happens away from the power plant itself, but it still happens.

Nuclear can also cause large-scale catastrophes with huge death tolls. The thing is, when we have one of these, we'll stop using nuclear. So this argument that nuclear is safe because we haven't had one yet is something that people would always be able to say as long as we're using nuclear -- it's not something with reasonable predictive power. Fukushima discredited the "it can't happen" crowd, so now the question is how long before it happens, and whether we'll stop using nuclear before it does.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:16:48 2013 No.6219387

>>6219378
Fukushima is about as bad as you can get. How many died from radiation? None. Your doomsday scenario is a fantasy by people who do not understand the actual dangers of radiation poisoning and the plausible and even implausible but realistic scenarios.

Сергей Wed Dec 11 19:17:18 2013 No.6219391

>>6219296
>“As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.”

Do you even read your own shit? The difference between radiation produced by nuclear reactors (and resultant waste) and the radiation from coal plants is how it is dispersed. Nuclear? It's not dispersed and is shielded. Coal? It's dispersed in exhaust (where alpha radiation from potential nuclear fuel can enter lungs, coincidentally the most efficient way for radiation to cause lung cancer) and is present in SLAG (not dispersed ash, ash that is left) which is disposed of haphazardly. The point is the major radiation dangers are shielded until they're no longer harmful (which, as you conveniently pointed out, fission products are the more powerful but shorter lived radiation emitters and the transuranics are longer lived but have lower intensity radiation). Also, the shielding of nuclear fuel itself over long periods of time is a bureaucratic issue that could have been solved long ago.

So yes, while I initially misspoke for the advantage of brevity and ridicule, it boils down to the fact that radiation is more widely dispersed through operation of coal plants than it will ever be by nuclear plants.

Also, for future reference, try not to get your information from some doctor of journalism and something actually reliable.

>>6219306
I would argue that fuel costs, at least in the US are impacted more than mandated burn-time before decommissioning. If it wasn't for that, increased in efficiency in burning would even further diminish fuel costs.

>>6219321
Again, any OTHER argument than alarmist bullshit? Nuclear plants are designed to a higher degree of probability not because nuclear is inherently safe, but because of people like you. Look at the numbers: even WITH these high profile incidents, there are more deaths to alternative forms of energy than there are from nuclear.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:18:48 2013 No.6219392 >>6219387 >if I plug my ears and ignore peer-revied statistics it will all go away The state of the nuclear industry, ladies and gentlemen.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:21:48 2013 No.6219398

>>6219387
>Fukushima is about as bad as you can get.
Fukushima is about as lucky as you can get. The wind blew it all out to sea, so now it's a global problem and we don't see who ends up with cancer from it.

>Your doomsday scenario is a fantasy by people who do not understand the actual dangers of radiation poisoning
Your denial is a fantasy by people who do not understand the actual dangers of radioactive material. OF COURSE a giant radioactive cloud released from a large nuclear reactor could kill a huge number of people if it was blown into a city rather than out to sea. Denying that is taking a completely crackpot position.

Сергей Wed Dec 11 19:27:48 2013 No.6219413

>>6219392
Except you're ignoring all the peer-review statistical evidence from Fukushima, TMI, and Chernobyl that show that the linear-no-threshold model IS bullshit.>>6219392

>>6219398
> OF COURSE a giant radioactive cloud released from a large coal reactor could kill a huge number of people if it was blown into a city rather than out to sea.

FTFY

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:35:48 2013 No.6219431

>>6219391
>I initially misspoke for the advantage of brevity and ridicule
You said something completely, ridiculously false as if it were not only true, but well-known. And now, when you're caught out, instead of apologizing for it, you're still trying to twist it so somehow you weren't *really* wrong.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, you're just throwing any bullshit you think you can get away with to win ignorant people around to your dishonest and unethical position.

You were very fucking specific. This is what you posted:
>Do you not know that kilo for kilo, coal slag is more radioactive than spent fuel?

Now you're saying:
>it boils down to the fact that radiation is more widely dispersed through operation of coal plants than it will ever be by nuclear plants.
...which is still blatantly false, but it's a lie you think is different enough to get away with.

The truth about the claim you're making is that burning coal stirs up an insignificant amount of natural radioactive material, in the same way that the wind blowing over dusty land does. This is material that has always been in our environment, and that we're evolved to live with at those levels. It doesn't easily accumulate in our bodies or concentrate in radiation-sensitive tissues, because for billions of years, organisms that did handle these natural radioactive materials that badly were selected against.

And the other side of it is that, if all goes perfectly forever, a nuclear reactor wouldn't release any radioactive material at all. However, it produces a great deal of unnatural radioisotopes that our bodies can't deal with, that are absorbed easily and accumulate in sensitive tissues. And they are never perfectly contained, and will threaten human life for a very long time after the power plant that made them stops being useful.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:37:48 2013 No.6219440

>>6219413
>> OF COURSE a giant radioactive cloud released from a large coal reactor could kill a huge number of people if it was blown into a city rather than out to sea.
>FTFY
Oh, how cute. Another lie you think you can get away with.

There are some kinds of chemical plants that could produce a cloud capable of killing many thousands of people, but a coal power plant isn't one of them.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:40:19 2013 No.6219449
File: 5 KB, 300x57, 1386808839495.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6219440
Indoor air pollution is estimated to cause approximately 2 million premature deaths mostly in developing countries. Almost half of these deaths are due to pneumonia in children under 5 years of age.
Urban outdoor air pollution is estimated to cause 1.3 million deaths worldwide per year. Those living in middle-income countries disproportionately experience this burden.
Exposure to air pollutants is largely beyond the control of individuals and requires action by public authorities at the national, regional and even international levels
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:41:48 2013 No.6219453

>>6219321

In old BWR plants, containment vessels were built to have a core damage frequency of 1 in 1000 reactor years.

Modern manufacturing techniques have improved that figure to 1 in 1,000,000 reactor years

Fukushima happened because reactionary environmentalists stifled the production of newer, safer reactors to replace the old ones.

See
>>6217341

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:48:48 2013 No.6219481

>>6219370
>approximately 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures have occurred as of August 2013, a number comparable to the 1,599 deaths directly caused by the earthquake and tsunami.

This is a disingenuous statement.and says more about the state of the country after the tsunami than it does about nuclear power.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:48:48 2013 No.6219482 >>6219392 What peer reviewed studies? LNT is shit. The evidence is overwhelmingly against it. Citations please.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:56:18 2013 No.6219494

>>6219481
Why the fuck do you think their government was afraid to tell people more about the accident? They know that the majority of any population are ignorant bastards that will cause more damage with their panic than the accident would cause in centuries.

The government knew that if they were 100% honest people would just hear "scary radiation" instead of how those levels are ridiculous. In fact some touristic areas in Brazil have more natural radiation than what we got in Fukushima.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 19:57:48 2013 No.6219495

>>6219481
>This is a disingenuous statement
?
> says more about the state of the country after the tsunami than it does about nuclear power
No, it shows that if Fukashima had been decommissioned or never built, the death toll of the earthquake and tsunami would have been cut in half. Is this the fault of the nuclear industry being greedy? probably.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:07:48 2013 No.6219528 >>6208810 Misinformation, fear, ignorance, and the synonymy of "nuclear power" with war, bombs, cancer, chernobyl, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:09:18 2013 No.6219536 File: 89 KB, 600x331, 1386810595459.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:20:18 2013 No.6219567 File: 167 KB, 1560x1230, 1386811259485.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] B-but radiiation guys!!!

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:28:19 2013 No.6219585

>>6219449
>Indoor air pollution is estimated to cause approximately 2 million premature deaths mostly in developing countries.
>Urban outdoor air pollution is estimated to cause 1.3 million deaths worldwide per year. Those living in middle-income countries disproportionately experience this burden.
If we stopped all coal power generation in the world, and reduced the latter death toll, we'd have more air pollution deaths of the former, already-larger category, due to the increase in poverty leading to more wood fires in the middle of shacks and huts without chimneys.

If we had all of these people try to replace coal power generation with nuclear, there'd be a huge increase in deaths. If you can't run a reasonably clean coal power plant, or a safe coal mine, do you think you have a hope in hell of running a nuclear power plant safely?

Coal is cheap. Coal is simple. The consequences for fucking it up are much more limited than with nuclear power. For these reasons, it's not going to be replaced by nuclear power in the places where it does the most harm. That comparison is just not worth making.

If you want to compare coal to nuclear, there are two comparisons worth making: old nuclear to new coal (replacing aging nuclear power plants with new coal power plants, rather than continuing to operate them), and new nuclear to new coal (replacing old power plants of any kind with either nuclear or coal). In either comparison, nuclear loses. A state-of-the-art coal power plant does not significantly pollute the atmosphere, and is much cheaper than nuclear. Even if you do carbon capture, it would be cheaper than nuclear, and the supplies of carbon-hungry minerals in the Earth are even less limited than the supplies of coal. Factor in proliferation and waste concerns, and nuclear can't win. Pretty much any argument you can make for nuclear, you could beat with advanced coal.

Сергей Wed Dec 11 20:31:18 2013 No.6219591

>>6219431
>I initially misspoke for the advantage of brevity and ridicule
Except that was my attempt at an apology. Moving on...

>which is still blatantly false, but it's a lie you think is different enough to get away with.

But it's not...?

Google anything about the average exposure to humans by radiation. You know what composes more than 50% of human exposure (more than ANY OTHER SOURCE combined)? Radon.

Radon is NOT a large by-product of nuclear reactor operation but IS dispersed in the burning of fossil fuels (and is present in fly ash AND slag) and the mining of fossil fuels to being with. This is the shit that is present in most fossil fuels (coal/oil/nat gas) and is most largely dispersed through burning of it. Granted, there is some terrestrial hazard inside the home, but it's largely magnified by dispersion.

To argue that dispersion from fossil fuel plants is insignificant to SHIELDED waste is a horrible misguided assumption (and you think that I'm parroting bullshit). And your comparison that it's no more harmful than wind blowing over dusty land is absurd at best. Fossil fuels are inherently radioactive and the mining and subsequent burning/dispersal over long distances of those radioactive substances are much worse than containing (underwater or in dry casks no less) high-activity waste.

If you're going to argue that a one-time radioactive release from Fukushima is thousands of times more harmful than a CONTINUAL release of radioactive material from hundreds of fossil fuel plants; I'm just going to ignore you because it highlights your incredible ignorance.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:34:18 2013 No.6219598

>>6219585
>If we had all of these people try to replace coal power generation with nuclear, there'd be a huge increase in deaths. If you can't run a reasonably clean coal power plant, or a safe coal mine, do you think you have a hope in hell of running a nuclear power plant safely?
>Coal is cheap. Coal is simple. The consequences for fucking it up are much more limited than with nuclear power. For these reasons, it's not going to be replaced by nuclear power in the places where it does the most harm. That comparison is just not worth making.
Were you dropped on your head as a baby? Coal produces massive amounts of pollution per watt. Nuclear does not. Thus nuclear is cleaner. Nuclear is also safer - look at the numbers. The number of deaths is broken down by watt.

Сергей Wed Dec 11 20:38:18 2013 No.6219602

>>6219585
Let's not forget that nuclear is only expensive because fossil fuel plants and their operation comprise an average of 70% of government energy subsidies every year. Your precious new coal plants are only cheap because the government pays for them and you STILL have to face ballooning fuel costs.

Effectively, non-subsidized dollar to non-subsidized dollar, nuclear is the smarter investment.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:45:48 2013 No.6219614

Fun-fact: linear no-threshold is a load of crap because areas with a higher amount of background radiation have lower cancer rates.

(Un)Fun-fact: More people died in the tsunami and earthquake causing the Fukushima accident then ever have and ever will die from radiation emitted by nuclear power plants.

Fun-fact: Claims regarding nuclear accidents 'destroying' countries are a load of crap. The safe zone for radiation in an accident like Chernobyl is a 50km radius at worst.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:51:49 2013 No.6219633

>>6219591
Yes, you mix misrepresentations to go with your outright falsehoods. I suppose you think it makes you more credible

>Granted, there is some terrestrial hazard inside the home
That is pretty much the ENTIRE source of radon exposure. Coal and petroleum contribute nothing significant. Occasionally a small amount comes into people's homes through natural gas heating, but it pretty much all goes out the chimney (if you've got furnace exhaust venting inside your house, you have much bigger worries than radon).

>Google anything about the average exposure to humans by radiation. You know what composes more than 50% of human exposure (more than ANY OTHER SOURCE combined)? Radon.
It's not about "exposure to radiation", it's about harm from radiation. Counting in simple physical measures is misleading, and you should know that.

Radon is a noble gas with a very short half-life. You have to live with a source of it in or connected to your house for it to have any potential to do you harm. Once it gets out diluted in the free air, it's not a significant hazard to anyone. It's not something that's absorbed into your body and settles somewhere like your bones or thyroid gland, like some fission fragments, transuranics, and transmuted reactor materials.

Naturally occurring radioisotopes just aren't anywhere near a comparable hazard to the products of nuclear reactors.

>To argue that dispersion from fossil fuel plants is insignificant to SHIELDED waste is a horrible misguided assumption
This is a strawman argument. My objection is that waste doesn't STAY shielded, it's certainly not going to for the required millennia. There are leaks, and the leaks are covered up and lied about. This has been established over and over. Nuclear industry lies, and the government lies to support them, just as it hides their costs and quietly subsidizes them.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 20:54:19 2013 No.6219642

>>6219602
>Effectively, non-subsidized dollar to non-subsidized dollar, nuclear is the smarter investment.
Of all the ridiculous lies you've told in this thread, this takes the cake.

Nuclear is so heavily subsidized, directly and indirectly, in so many ways, that it's hard to even calculate what it really costs, but it's a hell of a lot more than coal or natural gas. Oil's more expensive, but I don't think anyone has suggested that oil is good for grid power, and nuclear clearly isn't good for anything else.

Сергей Wed Dec 11 21:04:48 2013 No.6219670

>>6219633
>It's not about "exposure to radiation", it's about harm from radiation. Counting in simple physical measures is misleading, and you should know that.

As has been discussed numerous times in this thread, the linear no threshold model is horseshit. It takes a HUGE amount of exposure to correlate to any real negative effect. My argument is that exposure, though a poor metric for measuring severity of harm due to radiation, can readily indicate the source of some radiation (in this case, a much larger source of exposure being coal plant operation). Radon was being used as a much larger example of the myriad radioactive elements that comprise fossil fuels. While you are correct that they do not run that gamut of materials you will find in nuclear fuel, that does not mean they are any less harmful than terrestrial sources that are amplified by the dispersion of fossil fuel exhaust. Additionally, there is no way to chemically filter these radioactive elements that exist in exhaust or other ash. The ONLY way to prevent dispersal of these elements would be to physically hold/shield them in the fashion that spent nuclear fuel is.

>My objection is that waste doesn't STAY shielded, it's certainly not going to for the required millennia. There are leaks, and the leaks are covered up and lied about.

And what I've been trying to re-iterate is that 1. leaks are minimal compared to the complete shielding of the spent fuel and comprise a minimal source of radiation compared to coal exhaust and ash and 2. the very long term storage is waste is ONLY a bureaucratic problem that could have long been solved with the actual use of repositories like Yucca Mountain. It's honestly the government's fault for why there exists no adequate facilities to house long-term waste.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 21:13:18 2013 No.6219691 >>6219670 >Yucca Mountain I'm pretty sure Yucca Mountain was already filled to the brim before it ever even opened. You'd need a couple more of those.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 21:19:48 2013 No.6219706

>>6219670
Traces of natural uranium and thorium are ubiquitous in our environment. They're in every soil and uranium's all through the ocean. It has always been that way, and we've evolved to handle it.

The amount spread around by burning coal is utterly, utterly insignificant. You're telling fucking lies here.

Just for anyone who hasn't been following, and is still inclined to take Сергей seriously, he previously posted:
>Do you not know that kilo for kilo, coal slag is more radioactive than spent fuel?
...and he's still trying to push this absurd lie through, changing and rephrasing it, trying to make coal power look like it has a serious radioactivity problem, while also trying to claim that release of radioactive material isn't a problem, or even a reasonable concern, with nuclear power.

The point of the "coal is more radioactive than nuclear" meme, which you apparently have badly misunderstood, isn't that coal ash is radioactive, it's that a perfectly run nuclear power plant wouldn't release any radioactive material at all, and that would technically be less than the completely negligible release of radioactivity from burning coal.

Of course, nuclear industry isn't run perfectly. They pipe plutonium out with the wastewater into the ocean from fuel reprocessing plants. They have spills. They have accidents. They find leaking barrels. And that's only the shit they fail to cover up, since access to these sites is tightly controlled, and just about everyone with access has an interest in concealing mistakes.

Сергей Wed Dec 11 21:57:49 2013 No.6219764

>>6219706
Except my original point remains the same, and I will reiterate it verbatim from the original Oak Ridge National Lab report on the matter:

>"These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities."

http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Take a look at the original source material. Though the report is dated, the point remains the same. Even though incidents like you mentioned do occur, it doesn't mean that incidents that could potentially further disperse nuclear material do not occur coal plants. And the motivation for keeping those incidents and numbers quiet are much the same as they are in the nuclear industry. It's two sides of the same coin, but to imply that there is no long-term danger in coal use compared to nuclear, radioactive or otherwise, is an absurd presumption.

For that reason, I am no longer replying to you. You are not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 22:27:48 2013 No.6219821 >>6219691 >I'm pretty sure Yucca Mountain was already filled to the brim before it ever even opened. I'm pretty sure you're full of shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 22:34:18 2013 No.6219839 >>6209042 lol this. ITS REACHED CRITICAL MAZZ!

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 22:37:19 2013 No.6219846
File: 48 KB, 771x600, 1386819474959.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm French and I saw a TV documentary on the French industry.
In the 70s, some government officials decided to build (more) nuclear power plants.
What happened was that they built them, rather quickly, but they expected the domestic energy needs to grow with the population. Population didn't grow as expected so the energy company (EDF) with a monopoly tried to sell as much of it as possible. With ads such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIfyuDTWv64
As a result, electric heating is very very common. And paradoxically, French domestic energy bills are some of the highest in Europe.
Power is cheap but we're used to overusing it...
The monopoly is the issue here of course. It makes sense for French people to have such a big issue (heavily tied to the military from the start) in the hands of the state... Raison d'etat might not be the greatest thing ever for everyone involved.

Now the issue is that all those 70s powerplants are getting too old to use. And they are heavily contaminated structures.
They mentioned this power plant :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brennilis_Nuclear_Power_Plant
>In 1985 the reactor was shut down permanently. The cost of decommissioning is currently estimated to be 482 million euros, much greater than initial estimates.
It's still not done destroying and decontaminating. The story is complicated with much political drama, breaks in the decommissioning and so on, but still, that's rather unsettling.
Nuclear power might not be so cheap if decommissioning is taken into account.
Maybe these hundreds of millions and counting make it worthwhile to the MW, I don't know.

I think in France the distrust of nuclear power is tied with distrust with the state, and it's justified in the attitude of the officials.
Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At0SpzBaW-I
Asking Anne Lauvergeon (AREVA CEO at the time): Is it a nuclear disaster?
-no it is

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 22:39:18 2013 No.6219852

>>6219764
>my original point remains the same
So you stand by your original point that, kilogram for kilogram, used fuel rods are less radioactive than coal ash. Good god, what is wrong with your brain?

>http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
I've explained why this is blatantly dishonestly scare-mongering about coal, while simultaneously being a dishonest minimization of the hazards of leaked nuclear reactor waste.

Pointing to the already-egregious propaganda source which you further distorted and exaggerated to the point of absurdity doesn't make your position any stronger.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 22:40:49 2013 No.6219854 >>6208850 It's the least worst alternative, brah. Warts and all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 11 22:40:49 2013 No.6219855 >>6209079 phobiaignoramus

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 22:45:18 2013 No.6219862

>>6209069
>>6208929
>>6208896

Yeah, part of the problem with organized or centralized waste disposal is that it involves transport.

The unfortunate reality of transport is that there will inevitably be truck crashes, plane crashes, train derailments, etc.

And the consequences of that are pretty dire because the routes of transport must inevitably pass through and near populated areas. That is precisely why people objected to Yucca mountain; all those semis full of radioactive material, it's only a matter of time before there's a crash and a spill. If this happens in or near a town and it's bad or god forbid there's a serious fire involved, it's going to require evacuations and may render areas unsafe to return to.

So there's more to the problem than simply coming up with a safe place to dump it. Getting it there is a whole mess of other problems.

Anonymous Wed Dec 11 22:56:48 2013 No.6219887
File: 357 KB, 654x565, dem winds protecting french borders.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6219846
Another example of propaganda:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2g03mGMJeE
Otherwise there's the CRIIRAD, French NGO which provides independent radioactivity measurements and information to citizens...
I think the CNIC in Japan followed their example but I'm not aware of other independent groups.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:26:56 2013 No.6220265

>>6219862
http://youtu.be/1mHtOW-OBO4?t=1m4s
WOW, get FUCKED. Can you get any more rekt? Get the fuck out of here.

I'm a nuclear engineering sophomore, I don't even care about the industry, I was just too afraid of pure math and my chem teacher recommended I go into nuclear.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:32:26 2013 No.6220276

>>6219846
>What happened was that they built them, rather quickly, but they expected the domestic energy needs to grow with the population.

Funfact, our energy consumption (UK) has stayed relatively the same since the 1970s despite the growing population.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:32:56 2013 No.6220275

Because a few dozen people die in high profile accidents that get heavily publicized because of the inherent fear of anything associated with nuclear bombs and comic books and ignore all the much more numerous deaths involved in every other industry. Nuclear power is safer than all the alternatives.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:34:26 2013 No.6220278

>>6220265

the problem is unexpected disasters/consequences.

The risk nuclear energy poses is so high that private insurers don't offer insurance without government subsidy/backing.

Radiation can last thousands of years, it's really a no brainer that this type of energy is not worth the risk. Specially since it doesn't even provide much output worldwide, we could easily replace it.

But the nuclear lobby is pretty strong

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:37:26 2013 No.6220283

>>6220278
Why would the nuclear lobby be strong unless it was legitimate?
I doubt military cares because they have their own levers to pull. Energy industry doesn't need to care because there is already so much invested other forms of energy production, it's not like they are desperate for a new source. So who want nuclear power so much?

I'm gonna gamble and enjoy the ez mony as an engineer and still be part of science.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:45:56 2013 No.6220306

>>6220265
That's not particularly convincing testing. Too square-on and simple. Things break better when you hit them from odd angles and pinch them between things.

Anyway, it's all well and good to have a tough box for your nuclear waste, but then one day they drive off and forget to bolt the door on.

There's no such thing as consistently flawless operations. You have to plan for spills to happen. If that's unacceptable, you just can't do what you're trying to do.

What we're going to end up doing in the end is destroying all of this waste with particle accelerators at ridiculous expense, rather than having it sit around a million years and be a hazard that whole time. Nuclear power is spending energy our descendants will have to pay back a thousandfold. I'm sure they'll manage to afford it, but it's fucking rude.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:52:57 2013 No.6220315 >>6220306 >Things break better when you hit them from odd angles and pinch them between things. It was a fucking train

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:54:26 2013 No.6220318 >>6220306 > Things break better when you hit them from odd angles no they don't. l2physics

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:56:26 2013 No.6220321 >>6220306 >Too square-on and simple. Things break better when you hit them from odd angles and pinch them between things. Also note it was positioned so the train hit the square corner which would maximise the stress.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:56:56 2013 No.6220322

>>6220315
It was a single square-on impact, buffered by the prior impact with the flatbed trailer it was resting on, which knocked it clear of any further impacts.

It's more like a staged show of how wonderfully unbreakable their container was, than a serious attempt to determine whether a spill could be caused by a plausible traffic accident.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 01:57:57 2013 No.6220324 >>6220322 holyyyyy shit, watch the rest of the video, click on all the related video and get fucked.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 02:05:26 2013 No.6220340 >>6220324 If you think this is convincing evidence that spills are never going to happen, you aren't very familiar with human nature.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 02:18:27 2013 No.6220361

>>6220340
Obviously I can't tell you spills will never happen, but that's part of the human condition. There are always going to be risks, and the conventional forms of energy generation have their own risks. So the rational course of action is to develop each technique to maximize energy output and minimize risks.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 02:24:26 2013 No.6220370 >>6220340 Their transport system is so overengineered that it could undergo the worst possible crash imaginable and you could walk up next to it and read background radiation levels. how much do you get paid per post?

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 02:24:57 2013 No.6220371

>>6220361
...and therefore you're not allowed to drive your nuclear waste trucks past my house.

Would you expect people not to fight that? Do you think it's reasonable to expect people just to accept being exposed with their families to that danger? In return for no special personal gain?

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 02:28:56 2013 No.6220373

>>6220276
Yes, something like this.
In the 70s they thought we'd get flying cars and levitating trains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aérotrain) or some bullshit so they thought we'd really need more power.
Then they had too much power, too many investments and too much interests with the lobbies to backtrack and they had to sell their surplus.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 02:29:26 2013 No.6220374 >>6220371 Why I wouldn't expect people to fight that? Because they are already at risk from other forms of energy generation. Diversifying risk will minimize it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 02:31:26 2013 No.6220377 >>6220371 What danger? It's safer to live next to a nuke plant than most kinds of chemical plants.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 02:35:26 2013 No.6220382

>>6220370
That's not overengineered, that would be what is necessary. High-grade nuclear waste is dangerous almost beyond imagining. No leakage is acceptable. If it's transported in significant quantities by road, crashes are inevitable. Therefore it has to be this good.

But there's not much reason to believe they would actually achieve that level of safety in routine use. For one thing, the testing may not have been entirely honest. "Well, nobody driving a truck loaded with nuclear waste is actually going to be so negligent to actually get hit by a train, so it's okay if we cheat little. People are soooo unreasonable about nuclear safety, it's okay to put on a little show to convince them." Besides that, the production units may not be up the same standard as the test units, or they may lose integrity with repeated sealing and unsealing. And in actual operation, steps in the original specification may end up getting skipped, leading to the cargo being secured improperly.

It's easy to get together your best guys and put on a show of competence for the cameras. It's difficult to maintain the same level of competence for years while doing real work in the real world on a large scale.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 06:47:56 2013 No.6220617

>>6220382
>But there's not much reason to believe they would actually achieve that level of safety in routine use.

Why?

>Besides that, the production units may not be up the same standard as the test units

Why?

>hey may lose integrity with repeated sealing and unsealing

Why?

>And in actual operation, steps in the original specification may end up getting skipped, leading to the cargo being secured improperly.

It's a good thing it's built stronger than a tank then, isn't it?

I don't think you have a good grasp on engineering practices and place too much emphasis on paranoid speculation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 07:47:56 2013 No.6220682 >>6208810 Because it is very dangerous if things go wrong and they will because people are stupid and lazy.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 11:31:27 2013 No.6220914

>>6220617
>It's a good thing it's built stronger than a tank then, isn't it?
You think that would matter if they forgot to bolt it shut?

In the real world, shit happens. Surgeons train for ten years, get ten years experience, and forget a scalpel inside a patient.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 15:10:57 2013 No.6221252 oil is finished, dead.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 15:15:58 2013 No.6221256 >>6221252 Oil is booming thanks to new extraction technology. In any case, nuclear was never competition for oil. Oil is not practical for grid power, nuclear is not practical for anything other than grid power.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 15:33:57 2013 No.6221286

>>6220914
and yet those americunts still got to the moon and back a couple dozen times with 0 casualties

wanna bet if every surgery had 2 fully qualified surgeons as observers, this shit wouldn't happen?

what if an architect makes a mistake on a bridge the size of the golden gate? and after a couple years routine operation it will just collapse killing everyone on it?

is the answer to never build suspension bridges like it ever again? because that is what you are proposing...

sure, nuclear power is far more destructive if it goes wrong, but on our current standards it has been far far more reliable then suspension bridges are atm, and standards are always increasing

If your argument would be "the standards of safety are not high enough, but you would agree to nuclear if they were raised i would understand your logic, but you seem to think the standards will never be high enough... do we have to take into account when building a bridge that in 150 years of usage with regular maintenance the bridge will come to a point it is just so old it has to be replaced, and therefore we shouldn't build said bridge... because that's what i am getting from you...

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 15:48:27 2013 No.6221344

>>6221286
>those americunts still got to the moon and back a couple dozen times with 0 casualties
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17. That's a half-dozen times. And Apollo 13 was a failure which nearly resulted in crew loss.

>sure, nuclear power is far more destructive if it goes wrong
...and the rest of what you say suddenly becomes irrelevant.

Failure is unacceptable. Failure is inevitable. The technology is therefore unacceptable.

A nuclear technology which poses an acceptable risk would allow only a very limited inventory of waste, which is destroyed (not stored "hopefully safely forever", but actually destroyed) before more is generated, such that the limited inventory would cause limited, acceptable harm even if it was distributed directly into the highest populated area.

A nuclear technology which causes continuous accumulation of waste which must never be released simply can not be safely used.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 15:58:27 2013 No.6221382

>>6221344
>>sure, nuclear power is far more destructive if it goes wrong
>Failure is unacceptable.

Pretty acceptable if you ask me. Chernobyl, TMI, that jap shit, the world still goes round.
Far worse things have happened that caused greater casualties.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:06:57 2013 No.6221406 Solar Power is now cheaper and being rolled out fucking everywhere. Nuclear power cannot compete.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:07:57 2013 No.6221413 >>6221256 >booming Yea no. Theres nothing left.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:13:57 2013 No.6221436

>>6221406
You realize that solar power is limited by the energy output of the sun at the earth's surface per m^2? Right? You can't even get all of at because you can't get 100% efficiency.
clouds, winter, hail, rocks, fuck. Why am I even trying to convince you? You are obviously enchanted with you stupid shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:24:57 2013 No.6221468 >>6221436 Wow, are you seriously believing that bullshit because you were promised a resources job after you graduate? http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/07/breaking-germany-sets-solar-power-record-again-23-9-gw/

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:25:27 2013 No.6221470

People tend to overly exaggerate nuclear accidents. The consequences are extremely limited when you realise we've only had a handful of 'major' accidents in the last half a century. Statistically nuclear is the safest form of energy, and there really isn't anything else you can say about it. Any rationally thinking person would rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant/have solar panels on their roof.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:29:27 2013 No.6221478 >>6221470 Why would having solar panels on your roof be a threat to rational thinking?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:32:57 2013 No.6221483 >>6221436 >You realize that solar power is limited by the energy output of the sun at the earth's surface per m^2? Right? You realize that that's a really fucking big number, right?

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:33:27 2013 No.6221486

>>6221468
>Peak power during a sunny day

It's funny, because people in Germany actually use the least amount of power when the sun is shining the brightest. And since solar power can't be properly stored at those quantities you're only hindering other power sources. Solars main problems are that it doesn't work at night, isn't consistent and isn't user variable. This makes it an unreliable source for grid power.

Don't get me wrong; solar might be useful for individuals to reduce their grid power consumption during the day but at night you need a high energy consistent source, something that wind power isn't either so in the end you're always going to be dependent on a fossil fuel or nuclear plant.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:34:27 2013 No.6221487

>>6221483
The World Meteorological Organization uses the term "sunshine duration" to mean the cumulative time during which an area receives direct irradiance from the Sun of at least 120 watts per square meter.
My computer alone would need 4m^2, that's a meter per lightbulb.
>ASSUMING 100% EFFICIENCY
get fucked, sit down please.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:35:27 2013 No.6221489 >>6221478 They fall on your head and cause brain damage. Brain damage doesn't promote rational thinking.[1] [1]Source: my rational mind

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:35:27 2013 No.6221490 >>6221470 >Statistically nuclear is the safest form of energy The statistics won't be in until a million years or so of waste storage is complete.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:35:28 2013 No.6221492 >>6221487 source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:38:27 2013 No.6221499 >>6221490 >millions of years But civilization is only ~12.000 years old, I don't think we'll even last on earth for another 8.000 years.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:42:57 2013 No.6221509 >>6221487 Solar refraction? mirrors heating tubes of water.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:52:27 2013 No.6221529

>>6221487
>at least
Good job there with the reading comprehension.

The Earth's surface area is about half a million trillions of square meters. A typical home roof is about 200 square meters.
>zomg, it would take 2% of my roof to power my computer! solar sucks!

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:58:27 2013 No.6221535

nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of energy

in the long run, its safer than fossil fuels. and don't be deluded to think than solar panels could satisfy the energy demand from all the people on earth in 20 years or less

with that "it's too risky!" logic, the man would have never made it to the moon, nor sended the IST

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:58:27 2013 No.6221536 >>6221529 >about half a million trillions of square meters Ah, sorry, I have to correct myself here. The area of the Earth is about half a billion square kilometers, which are millions of square meters. How embarassing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 16:59:57 2013 No.6221538 >>6221535 sorry for bad english, kinda sleepy

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:01:27 2013 No.6221541 >>6221529 I swear, this shits /pol/s doing

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:03:57 2013 No.6221547 >>6221535 you know why men went to the moon? because it was only 5 people at risk.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:09:27 2013 No.6221558 File: 386 KB, 1000x706, solar power surface area required.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'll just leave this here.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:10:27 2013 No.6221561 ok but what about the nuclear thorium reactor less danger and cheaper

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:10:57 2013 No.6221563 >>6221547 but you can't deny that nuclear energy is the future. we're going to run out of petroleum deposits one day and then we are going to be forced into nuclear energy, so it's something unavoidable

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:12:21 2013 No.6221571 >>6221563 There are two energy technologies in the future: natural fusion power, and artificial fusion power. Fission is maybe going to see some niche deep space uses. Maybe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:15:21 2013 No.6221577 >>6221558 I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:16:22 2013 No.6221580 >>6221571 If we heavily invest into nuclear, not only do we get cheap energy, but enough free energy to synthesize rocket fuel and send that shit to space. problem solved.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:19:22 2013 No.6221589 >>6221580 Nuclear isn't cheap, and launching nuclear waste into space isn't a realistic disposal solution. It's probably the best way to guarantee major spills.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:26:22 2013 No.6221606 >>6212938 it was a generation 1+ reactor. In the US we only have generation 2 reactors.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:28:21 2013 No.6221609 File: 57 KB, 208x247, 1386887284538.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6221589 its cheaper

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:29:51 2013 No.6221611 >>6221589 we don't need to send it into space. All we need to do is send it to yucca mountain. Nuclear at one point supplied 80% of France's power and thus is the only form of power that is viable for a large economy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:29:51 2013 No.6221612 >>6221577 >>6221609 Is this the same guy, or are there two people in here who are basically incapable of written communication?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:32:21 2013 No.6221619 >>6220914 >forgot to bolt it shut? Who the fuck do you think you are dealing with?

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:32:21 2013 No.6221624

>>6221611
>Nuclear at one point supplied 80% of France's power and thus is the only form of power that is viable for a large economy.
Firewood at one point supplied 80% of France's power.

It is also the only form of power that is viable for a large economy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:34:52 2013 No.6221634 >>6221619 Human beings. Just ordinary human beings. We don't have anyone else to take care of our problems, and that's something that has to be kept in mind in any policy discussion.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:36:21 2013 No.6221637

>>6221561
>ok but what about the nuclear thorium reactor less danger and cheaper

LFTRfags over simplified it. It's less dangerous in the sense that it's not going to blow up but that's not saying modern uranium reactors will blow up either. The chemistry involved with LFTR is a materials nightmare. It's not right to say it's cheaper either, there are no developed reactors to play with. It's an interesting thought but it's not economical, not right now.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:39:52 2013 No.6221644

>>6221634

Human beings aren't created equally, we're not talking about unsupervised shelf stackers from the local walmart that will be responsible for this work. Critical engineering has a huge level of traceability.

Let's say a bolt on a modern fighter/commercial jet has been found to have been torqued up incorrectly and is loose. They will know exactly when, where and who is responsible for that particular fixture.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 17:47:21 2013 No.6221663

>>6221644
Oh, that's nice. So when the unthinkable happens, we'll be able to crucify someone for it.

I refer you again to the example of surgeons sewing patients up with surgical tools still inside them. It happens all the time.

The fact alone that you have to appeal to the notion of only employing superior people who won't make mistakes shows that nuclear power is unsuitable for wide deployment in the real world.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:00:21 2013 No.6221684 >>6221663 in 20 years, you're going to depend on nuclear energy and you're going to remember what you posted on here if the world is full of people like you, we're doomed

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:02:21 2013 No.6221688

>>6221663
>The fact alone that you have to appeal to the notion of only employing superior people

That's not what I'm saying. There are fuckloads of checklists and measures implemented to prevent retarded things from happening. The effort put into developing these measures is incredible, practically unmeasurable.

There can always be that /one/ incident that happens /somehow/. I don't live in fear.

Do you understand factor of safety? Aircraft are built with the absolute minimum factor of safety, for the sake of minimising mass. They consistently work right at the edge of failure.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:07:51 2013 No.6221702

>>6221688
>Aircraft are built with the absolute minimum factor of safety, for the sake of minimising mass. They consistently work right at the edge of failure.
You're thinking of orbital launchers. Commercial aircraft are built with substantial safety factors.

...and if you're taking the pro-nuclear side of the argument, do you really want to use phrases like "right at the edge of failure"?

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:12:21 2013 No.6221712

>>6221702
>Commercial aircraft are built with substantial safety factors

lol no

>and if you're taking the pro-nuclear side of the argument, do you really want to use phrases like "right at the edge of failure"?

The nuclear industry use ridiculous safety factors. They are NOT anywhere near the edge of failure.

The latest reactor cores are manufactured to have core damage at a frequency of 1 in 1,000,000 years.

See the slide in this post and watch the attached lecture if you're interested. The guy will explain what is meant by this much better than I ever could, but it's a significant improvement over reactors from 30-40 years ago.

>>6217341

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:19:51 2013 No.6221737

>>6221712
It's not the operational reactors that are the main problem. It's the waste, the waste disposal, the fuel reprocessing, the reactor decommissioning.

Show me a reactor that doesn't generate long-lived, ridiculously-dangerous waste, and I'll show you something that's fit to build on the surface of the Earth.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:22:51 2013 No.6221741

A lot of reasons.
1) Due to its complexity it is extremely difficult to understand. Most people are scared of the unknown.
2) It IS dangerous. A critical failure will be much more devastating to the world than a coal mine collapse. However,
3) Misinformation. People overestimate the dangers a nuclear plant presents. While underestimating the human casualties conventional energy sources cause.
4) Misinformation. Most people i've discussed the subject with and most online opinions i saw, are under the impression that nuclear power has a devastating effect on mother nature. However, a comparison between nuclear and conventional energy sources shows that nuclear is far more eco-friendly mainly because its byproducts can be contained (to a degree).
5) Misinformation. Most people i've discussed the subject with and most online opinions i saw, are under the impression that renewable energy sources are a viable and clean option for energy production. This is false and idiotic. With current technology, there is no way that renewable energy sources can be more efficient than nuclear based power production.
7) Previous accidents.

People believe that there is such a thing as completely safe, completely clean energy. You cannot cover the needs of our modern world without nuclear power or some degree of pollusion. Up until recently the energy cost for one solar panel was more than the energy it would produce. It is clear, that at some point, a renewable source based energy production system will be viable for worldwide application. The question is what is our plan until then.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:27:21 2013 No.6221753

>>6221737

You are an idiot. Commerical aircraft are built with a very low FOS. There are massive books on nuclear safety codes and entire organizations devoted to their safety. Solar and nuclear are the most renewable sources of energery.

I cannot speak for the waste nuclear generates create, but I would assume that they are not as terrible as you think, for why else would the plant be approved to be built if it generated a known terrible byproduct?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:32:51 2013 No.6221764 >>6221741 >devastating to the world CITATION NEEDED

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:34:51 2013 No.6221767

>>6221741
>5) Misinformation. Most people i've discussed the subject with and most online opinions i saw, are under the impression that renewable energy sources are a viable and clean option for energy production. This is false and idiotic. With current technology, there is no way that renewable energy sources can be more efficient than nuclear based power production.
"With current technology" isn't the right comparison, though.

Nuclear's too dangerous to experiment with much. There certainly can't be free competition of everyone who wants to try. So what we've got now is about as good as it's going to get. And what we've got now has turned out to be pretty disappointing. Decommissioning and long-term waste disposal are proving to be much greater costs than expected, to the point of making fission pretty much non-viable as a terrestrial power source.

Solar power technology, on the other hand, is taking off like computer technology did. There are no regulatory obstacles or other barriers to entry, no special safety or environmental concerns. So research is ticking along unimpeded and the energy per dollar is improving exponentially, with no end in sight.

If you approved construction of a new fission power plant now, there's a very good chance that solar power would be cheaper by the time construction was finished. It makes much more sense to bridge that gap with cheap coal and natural gas power plants until solar's cheaper than anything else.

But go on, tell us some more about how we'll always need buggy whips.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:36:51 2013 No.6221771 >>6221753 >I would assume that they are not as terrible as you think ...and here we have the rare example of the honest nuclear advocate, ignorant but confident.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:36:51 2013 No.6221772

>>6221737
>It's not the operational reactors that are the main problem. It's the waste, the waste disposal, the fuel reprocessing, the reactor decommissioning.

These are not impossible tasks and there is plenty of space available for storage.

Political bullshit and bureaucracy really get in the way. "Not in my back yard!" etc

I'm fine with people having grievances and being a stick in the mud for a while but we need to be realistic. There was no legitimate reason to cancel the Yucca Mountain facility.

"Waste" falls into two categories, spent fuel and contaminated equipment. The spent fuel can eventually be burned up in a variety of different reactors. I've no idea what to do with the other stuff but right now I don't really care what happens with it, melt it down and stick it into a large box. The overall scale of storing the waste pales in comparison to the landfills for domestic waste.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:40:51 2013 No.6221784 >>6221772 >The spent fuel can eventually be burned up in a variety of different reactors. ...which are never going to be built because they're too much of a proliferation risk, among other reasons.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:43:51 2013 No.6221791 >>6221772 >I've no idea what to do with the other stuff but right now I don't really care what happens with it Well, that certainly is a convincing case you've made that your opinion on nuclear policy should be taken seriously.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:49:51 2013 No.6221801

>>6221771
>...and here we have the rare example of the honest nuclear advocate, ignorant but confident.

Nuclear and radiation exposure limits are on the very conservative side. We still know very little about the effects of radiation exposure on life.

What we do know is, Chernobyl happened and the actual death toll is shockingly low, when you compare it to what the anti-nuclear folks have told us over the past 30 years. It's what I would describe as an 'acceptable (relative) loss of life'. I don't mean to be callous but for the scale of the incident I think the actual damage done is less than what we have been led to believe.

I don't think radiation is as bad as we originally thought, it's everywhere. We will have more concrete data over the next 50-100 years.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:53:51 2013 No.6221809

>>6221784
>Building Gen IV reactors for weapons proliferation

Gud1. The fact that an Iran can't even start up a nuclear energy program without every global organization digging up their ass to prevent proliferation proves that it's impossible for non-superpowers to effectively start a nuclear weapons program.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 18:54:21 2013 No.6221811
File: 28 KB, 508x400, 1386892493835.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6221791

It's not an area I have cared to think to much about. Perhaps I should focus more attention to it but it still strikes me as relatively low importance.

Just going by sheer volume of things nuclear waste doesn't come close to touching other industries. We could take all of the waste from across the globe and dump them into the tar sands in Canada with plenty of room to spare.

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 19:01:59 2013 No.6221819

>>6221767
i don't know how to cite specific parts, so you'll excuse me...

By no means am i suggesting that every country should be starting their own nuclear program.

However, your point that solar is a viable way of providing energy to a nation, is irrelevant with its ability to produce the power needed.

As you probably know, electricity is produced on demand. There is no way to "store" electricity for future use. All produced will be either consumed or wasted. (If you believe i am wrong, either correct me with links and citations or find out for yourself that i am right)
I own 3 solar panel production facilities, 2 domestic and 1 industrial. All give the produced electricity back to the national electricity provider. There are thousands of other owners like me, who sell the power they produce to the national electricity provider.
The huge problem that my national electricity provider faces now is this: they have commited to buying the energy i'll produce for a fixed price for the next 20 years. However, my energy production, as well as all energy production by solar, wind, etc isn't predictable. The national electricity provider can't say with certainty that solar panels will yield x watts two days from now. So they can't adjust their production and have to always produce more than needed, in fear of power outages. Thus, an unimaginable amount of incredibly expensive energy the national electricity provider bought, is being wasted daily, and will be wasted for the next 20 years...

My point is, that until there is an efficient way to store energy, solars won't be viable. Not because they can't produce enought energy, but because they are unpredictable and unstable in their production.
Please respond because i sense really constructive conversation

>>	Tacklebox Thu Dec 12 19:03:59 2013 No.6221820 File: 1.28 MB, 311x240, 1386893020852.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6218914

Nuka-Cola: Gamma Grape Thu Dec 12 19:05:30 2013 No.6221824

a fundamental problem here is that, even thought nuclear energy is great, few know why, and few care to research this stuff, whereas most pull out the old "muh fukushima", without realizing what that means

the trick will basically be getting a few quotes into cocktail parties.
that smartass you know who just reels off random sciency facts like "DO YOU NO Y DA SKY IZ BLU?"
unfortunately they're a big component of pop-sci distribution to the average joe.

what im saying is, make some 30 second smart-sounding-thing that promotes nuclear energy and spread it like aids

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 19:07:59 2013 No.6221828

>>6221801
>Chernobyl happened and the actual death toll is shockingly low
We will never know what the "actual death toll" really was, because it's very hard to pinpoint the causes of things like cancer or birth defects.

The clearly-attributable death toll is low because they evacuated a big area around the reactor and marked it as permanently uninhabitable.

"An area originally extending 30 kilometres (19 mi) in all directions from the plant is officially called the "zone of alienation". It is largely uninhabited ... Ukrainian officials estimate the area will not be safe for human life again for another 20,000 years."

Yeah, this is the sort of thing that's acceptable. Let's have lots more of that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 19:08:59 2013 No.6221835 >>6221819 >There is no way to "store" electricity for future use. I don't have a reaction image for this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 19:16:29 2013 No.6221851 >>6221835 You obviously believe that chemically storing energy (battery) is efficient. You can't store a nations energy supplies on batteries. Look up how energy is produced.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 19:19:30 2013 No.6221855 >>6221819 >Thus, an unimaginable amount of incredibly expensive energy the national electricity provider bought, is being wasted daily, and will be wasted for the next 20 years... Pro-tip: make hydrogen.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 19:21:29 2013 No.6221860 >>6221828 >Yeah, this is the sort of thing that's acceptable. Let's have lots more of that. Fuck off retard. >Yeah some guys died when a steam engine exploded. Let's stop making steam engines!

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 19:22:59 2013 No.6221863 >>6221855 how efficient is hydrolysis, and how efficiently can h be converted to grid power?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 19:25:29 2013 No.6221874 >>6221855 A protip would be to use the excess energy to elevate water and use it later on. However that still isn't efficient.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 19:27:00 2013 No.6221879 >>6221860 >Yeah some guys died when a steam engine exploded. Officials estimate the area will not be safe for human life again for another 20,000 years.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 19:34:00 2013 No.6221897 >>6221874 Efficiency is relative. If peak-hours solar electricity costs one tenth as much per kilowatt hour as the next cheapest option, then half of it going to conversion losses doesn't matter.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 19:39:29 2013 No.6221909 >>6221897 In the end it gets down to numbers. If you don't have precise costs, you can't determine the best course of action

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 19:41:59 2013 No.6221911 >>6221897 Roughly what is the cost/kwh for energy generated by solar panels?

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 19:46:00 2013 No.6221915

>>6221911
I don't think that any manufacturer will have the numbers we need here. We need the energy cost/kwh produced. In the energy cost are also included production cost of panels and all necessary equipment for connection to the grid and produced energy conversion cost

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 20:29:29 2013 No.6222000 >>6221911 LCOE is roughly 30c/kWh, I think. Haven't kept up with my reading

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 21:32:29 2013 No.6222098 >>6221851 thats wrong

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 21:40:59 2013 No.6222106

>>6221911
Panels are old tech now. Solar mirrors to heat water is much cheaper (not to mention storing that hot water).

In addition, scientists are currently in the process of developing things like paint with solar energy potential inside it.

Money talks,and I think somebody like Dupont will jump at the chance to fuck over BP and Shell.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 22:15:00 2013 No.6222170 >>6215150 I thought it was because people were scared terrorists would use the plutonium/uranium reprocessed shit for their snackbars

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 22:22:29 2013 No.6222181

>>6209292
>This is what people don't realize. Fukishima was just a freak thing and a snowball of outrageous circumstances.
>Cherynobal was shit engineering and people running the plant that didn't know what to do in an emergency.

>poor emergency prep was obvious in BOTH

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 22:23:29 2013 No.6222182

>>6221911
What it is right now isn't important. Solar power technology today is like computer technology was in the 70s. The fact that the number of watt-hours you can get for each dollar is going up exponentially is what matters.

The time will come when making decent-efficiency solar collectors is like printing sheets of paper or painting a wall.

From nature, we have the example of the leaf, which not only collects solar power but converts it into stored chemical energy. There's no reason for solar power to cost more than leaves, and we can improve on it, make it durable and have it go on working through drought and winter.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 22:25:29 2013 No.6222186 >>6213836 same reason they shut down Tesla... too much money mining coal and pumping oil, they been doing it, they are doing it and they very much intend to keep right on doing it until it runs out

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 22:29:59 2013 No.6222194

>>6222170
It's also because nuclear waste reprocessing tends to end up being messy and result in leakage.

They've got pipes in Britain and France that go from nuclear fuel reprocessing plants out into the deep ocean, and there's plutonium getting dumped into the ocean through those pipes.

This is the problem with all clever waste disposal ideas: as soon as you start doing stuff with the waste, the waste starts getting out into the environment. The least bad thing is to bring clean new fuel rods into the power plant, and once they're used up, move them the shortest distance possible to a containment system, and then leave them there forever, never take them out of the power plant.

Every power plant should have been planned as a permanent waste-disposal facility from the beginning. Or better yet, not built.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 22:30:59 2013 No.6222196 >>6219391 >so this is why everyone died or was horribly mutated in Victorian england

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 22:43:30 2013 No.6222212 >>6221344 >A nuclear technology which causes continuous accumulation of waste which must never be released simply can not be safely used. >high "total cost of ownership"

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 22:45:29 2013 No.6222217 >>6221535 >nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of energy not when you factor in mining, refining, enrichment and "disposal" costs and pollutions

>>	eternal samefig Thu Dec 12 22:45:59 2013 No.6222222 File: 17 KB, 210x184, 1386906339636.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] because of an ancient walruse by some activists

>>	Nodoka-Chan⌘ Thu Dec 12 22:46:59 2013 No.6222226 [a/jp] is here now don't worry

>>	None Thu Dec 12 22:46:59 2013 No.6222228 >>6222222 >222222 sweet walruse sexts!! i'm walrused alright! nice! :DDD

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 22:47:00 2013 No.6222232

>>6221634
>Just ordinary human beings.
>We don't have anyone else to take care of our problems, and that's something that has to be kept in mind in any policy discussion.

they always plan with the best and brightest in mind...
>but they forget the rabble and the mob

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 22:48:29 2013 No.6222233 >>6222226 do you want to be me waifu?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 22:53:00 2013 No.6222246 >>6222222 nice 2s, but what anime is this?

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 22:58:30 2013 No.6222260

>>62219 >>6221911
>Roughly what is the cost/kwh for energy generated by solar panels?

over what time span?

a 1 kW panel might cost $500 dolars and produce 10 kWhr of power per day (at 10¢ per kWhr) that means after 300 days production of power it is paid for and the energy is free until the thing breaks or wears out, since most are guaranteed for 20 yr or more...

the main problem is storing the excess energy

Anonymous Thu Dec 12 23:16:01 2013 No.6222304

>>6221819
>until there is an efficient way to store energy, solars won't be viable. Not because they can't produce enought energy, but because they are unpredictable and unstable in their production.

Right, so until we can predict weather, which dictates how much you're going to generate, we can't use solar. To predict weather we need one of two things, either the starting conditions of our planet or prove chaos theory.
Good luck doing that without nuclear power commitment.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 23:18:00 2013 No.6222308 File: 126 KB, 964x743, 1386908303126.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6222222

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 12 23:19:29 2013 No.6222309 >>6221863 regardless of the numbers, we can say for sure it's not 100% efficient which means there are still losses. If they are worth it is a value judgement.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 13 02:12:59 2013 No.6222555 >>6222304 What does weather have to do for it? Try night and extended cloud and rain.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 13 02:21:29 2013 No.6222560 >>6222555 cloud and extended rain is a function of weather. Are you this retarded?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 13 02:40:59 2013 No.6222575 >>6222560 And how does knowing that help us in any way? What does it matter if we know it will rain Tuesday or Wednesday in terms of powering the grid? Not a damn thing.

Anonymous Fri Dec 13 02:43:59 2013 No.6222577

>>6222560
>>6222575
For example, my uncle works at a glass manufacturing plant. They have the furnace with hot glass, and the pull it out over molten tin to form sheets. They're about to rebuild one of the furnaces. it will take 60 days just to heat the damn thing up again.

A lot of industrial processes you cannot just turn on or off, depending on the weather.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 13 02:50:00 2013 No.6222581 >>6222575 You can predict the energy output based on the weather and produce energy accordingly from other sources to make up.

Anonymous Fri Dec 13 03:24:30 2013 No.6222624

>>6222581
How does weather prediction help at all? IIRC, most dispatchable power sources can change their output measured in minutes or hours, not days.

What sources? Most of the cost of power production is the cost of the plant itself, not the fuel. Natural gas is an exception, and the fuel costs are much higher relative to the cost of the plant, which is why we use them for peaking.

If your goal is to produce enough peaking nat gas to cover the full load just to get solar, then meh. I'd rather go for an actual reliable non-polluting strategy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 13 05:01:03 2013 No.6222753 >>6222577 +1

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 13 14:21:09 2013 No.6223312 >>6222577 wow, I feel like that could be drastically improved

Anonymous Fri Dec 13 14:36:01 2013 No.6223336

>>6222260

if by "might", you mean "I didn't look it up so invented numbers to fit my argument", then I agree.

I couldn't find any 1kw panels with hookups, mounting materials, etc for less than $2000 (the real cost-none of this government incentives garbage). This is before installation costs. I've also read that at least in the US, any significantly sized array can cost more in legal paperwork than the entire unit (I'll have to find the source).
also, you're not going to get 1kw for 10 hours per day -the rating is peak output; many days you might not even hit this at midday. Add this up and your estimate may be too cheap by an order of magnitude or more

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 13 14:39:10 2013 No.6223344 >>6223336 this guy's the truth

Anonymous Fri Dec 13 16:33:07 2013 No.6223584

>>6223312
You could heat it up faster, but such drastic temperature change per time will cause uneven temperatures, which puts lots of stress on the furnace, which will can cause additional wear and tear, and if it's extreme enough, break it.

They don't just switch it on and leave it there for 60 days. They have the whole crew there doing normal shifts constantly monitoring all of the equipment watching for stress, adjusting the heating as necessary, etc.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 13 17:38:02 2013 No.6223710 >>6223584 that's pretty cool. I guess it makes sense if it's very large and also precise. where is this glassworks?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 13 22:18:01 2013 No.6224306 Solar and wind will never happen. carbohydrates are dead. Accept your fate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 02:08:01 2013 No.6224560 >>6221863 you will never turn a profit hydrolyzing water

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 03:58:02 2013 No.6224641 bumping

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 03:59:02 2013 No.6224643 >>6223710 Forget the name. My uncle says it's the last pull glass manufacturer in Michigan.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 04:00:02 2013 No.6224646 >>6224643 Err, the technical term is "float".

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 04:01:01 2013 No.6224647 >>6224646 I think it's this... not sure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Industries

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math