[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 110 KB, 1080x675, pe_blog-nuclear-1080x675[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12602080 No.12602080 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Why isn't nuclear energy more popular? It would literally solve all our problems

>> No.12602094

"Documentaries" on TV are used to scare people off and privatize the energy sector by printing trillions of dollars to give to China so that they build solar panels and windmills using coal power instead.

>> No.12602105

My dad is a nuclear engineer and still says solar power is the future... weirdo

>> No.12602123

the optics of nuclear energy are extremely bad, which is very unfortunate for trying to convince normalfaggots of anything

>the most iconic element, the cooling towers, look like smokestacks
>shows like the Simpsons caricaturizing filthy nuclear plants spewing out glowing toxic waste that mutates wildlife
>the media's obsession with dramatizing past nuclear accidents
>misunderstood implications that nuclear power is somehow related to nuclear weapons

>> No.12602178

it's too expensive atm

>> No.12602194

This. Exactly this.

>> No.12602200

Solar is nuclear fusion.

>> No.12602221

Read this and you'll understand

>> No.12602240

Is this true?

>> No.12602248

No. Countries like France gets a large majority of its energy production from Nuclear.

>> No.12602260

>green energy
people on one hand say its a waste of time that provides very little energy and as the technology is now it can't really solve the problem and on the other hand other people say it is the future and we should do it as it is possible to live of off green energy
i have no idea who to believe on this, I'd be happy if green energy worked but why people that support it always shit on people who say it's not gonna save us if they had no data to back them up

>> No.12602261

The construction of nuclear power plants is expensive, not running them.
The nuclear weapon program of France fronted the cost of many of the French nuclear power plants, so it's cheap for the customers.
New nuclear is incredible expensive and it's uninsurable to boot. That's why it's barely being build in the west, bot because of some green conspiracies against them.

>> No.12602268

I work as an I&C engineer on HPC project. You don’t know how bad things really are.
Also ama if you want

>> No.12602286

>Why isn't nuclear energy more popular
Because it's economically and engineeringly stupid and dying out as a result.
>It would literally solve all our problems

>> No.12602331

>"Documentaries" on TV are used to scare people off
You're ignoring the actual arguments and making belittling strawmen.
>and privatize the energy sector by printing trillions of dollars
Nuclear power is privatized but wouldn't exist without mass government welfare to the owner to fund it's construction (in exchange for kickbacks). Solar power would continue to take over even without any subsidies.

The optics of arctic drilling and the keystone pipeline are also bad but they're doing it anyway because money>hippies. There's no money in nuclear power. That's why the same shill thread is being made all the time.

He's right.

>> No.12602338


>> No.12602345

go on..

>> No.12602472

>There's no money in nuclear power.
Wrong, it's really effective for power generation, especially with a well developed prior infrastructure, and it's profitability is mostly offset by the enormous cost of construction and eventual decomission, but because no nation has the balls or cash that they are unwilling to take out their stuffed pockets as well as an excuse in the form of anti-nuclear tards no new ones are being built.
How do you think Ukraine managed to make 46% of their power from nuclear sources if it's not cost effective? Mind you it even has to pay a premium to sell the radioactive waste to Russia due to lack of infra.

>> No.12602574

Politics and lobbying from fossil fuel companies.
Nuclear is bar none the best energy source we currently have.

>> No.12602606
File: 123 KB, 592x900, the-pacifist-richard-hescox.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Government retards will run nuclear aground, if they continue this "green tariff" bullshit, that makes reactors run at suboptimal levels or even stop, so privite companies can sell subsidized "sustainable" energy at the market. Also, EnergoAtom mismanagement is absolutely criminal, as it has occurred even more debt, and makes whole industry look bad. Also, Chornobyl wasn't that good, desu. Still, paying 0.90 UAH per first 100 kW/h and 1.68 for any extra is pretty nice.

t. Ukrainian nuclear appreciator

>> No.12602637

In the US, the Three Mile Island accident happened almost simultaneously with the Jane Fonda movie 'The China Syndrome' and the two got conflated in the mind of the public. Also around this time people were legitimately frightened of nuclear war happening, which gave nuclear in general a negative connotation. Shows like the Simpsons combined with a propensity of issues like those at Browns Ferry made the public distrust those operating the plants.

>> No.12602709

>but because no nation has the balls or cash that they are unwilling to take out their stuffed pockets
Why can't private companies just take out loans and make bank :^)

It would save you the time of shilling for gov gibs on forums.

>> No.12602738

>run reactors at full tilt all the time
>sorry competitors, there's no capacity to let you in
why would da evbul government stop this?

>> No.12602762

>have shitty windmills or solar panels
>market prices for this energy are not competitive
>incure deficit, so they can sell their power at subsidized prices

I don't want EU energy prices with this economy plz

>> No.12602769

>Nuclear is also much more expensive, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) said.
>The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.
>Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs - which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output - for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%.
>For nuclear, they have increased by 23%, it said.
>Capital flows reflect that trend. In 2018, China invested $91 billion in renewables but just $6.5 billion in nuclear.
>In the United States, renewable capacity is expected to grow by 45 GW in the next three years, while nuclear and coal are set to retire a net 24 GW.
>China, still the world’s most aggressive nuclear builder, has added nearly 40 reactors to its grid over the last decade, but its nuclear output was still a third lower than its wind generation.
>Although several new nuclear plants are under construction, no new project has started in China since 2016.

It's dead, Jim.

>fossil fuel companies

Solar is cheaper than Coal too

>> No.12602801

Nuclear is great, but it isn't a silver bullet. It's not scalable to the size that we need to power the world.


As others have said, solar is probably the way unless a perfect fusion reactor falls into our lap. Thin film solar is really promising, we just need a good storage solution.

>> No.12602845

See >>12602606
and all thing similar.
Nuclear has increased in price due to government fucking around with it. And believe me, the government fucks around with ALL things nuclear hard as fuck.
Nuclear is the only thing that can actually replace fossil fuels as a power source, which is why they've lobbied against it just as much as environmentalists have. Though in actuality the environmentalists were the people being lobbied by fossil fuel companies.
And I wouldn't trust China numbers for much. They've built solar panels that are purely for decoration and wind turbines that are motors making the blades spin, so they do literally less than nothing. China is very big on coal.
>article about saving climate
Great super reliable non-biased pro-science source, bro, wish I could give you a gold for that one!
>solar is great
>if you ignore its crippling flaw
>nuclear reactors are terrible
>so long as you ignore any and all advancements that have been made and continue to have governments kneecap them
They can't be used for everything (until we get warm superconductors), that much is true, and it isn't a silver bullet, but everything else about that is served with a large portion of ignorance and bias.
I swear we could get a completely economic fusion reactor tomorrow and greenfags would still find a way to bitch about it not being as good as solar and wind and somehow less environmentally friendly.

>> No.12602944

>keystone pipeline... doing it anyway
lolno, read the news

>> No.12603065

>strawman strawman strawman strawman
Tell me, where did I say that nuclear is terrible?
In what way is the article I linked biased?
And how would government deregulation solve the issues outlined in the article?

>> No.12603228

alright let's see...
>takes at least 10 years to setup
>more expensive than coal/nat gas
>non-zero chance of wiping out everyone within 30km radius if we assume an avg 1250mw plant
>as long as there are more economical/safer alternatives, it can't catch on

>> No.12603230

>believing public positions

>> No.12603272

Nuclear will make a return when we discover how shit solar and wind is and after we realize fusion is going to be much harder than anticipated, governments will finally allow the beginning of the thorium era, where you can run a server farm in your basement for 10$ a month.

>> No.12603281

The mods haven't filtered your script yet?

>> No.12603283

gubmint will never allow nuclear if a viable thorium cycle is not created. The risk of nuclear proliferation is too great

>> No.12603290

No. They won't. The governments will never allow nuclear to reach even a fraction of its potential. They will keep it down by any means necessary.

>> No.12603305

Spreading FUD around nuclear and only allowing shitty alternatives to grow is a fucking master plan from big oil.

>> No.12603322

Hinkley Point?
Do tell.

>> No.12603351

For one optics are always bullshit and nuclear do great in fulfilling energy need without destroying rivers, taking up huge amounts of land or destroying nature with a bunch of ugly wind turbines that would have to be routinely maintained and are effective as being safe as long as noone sabotages it (nature being counted as someone as well in this instance)

Why not just educate people on it.

>misunderstood implications that nuclear power is somehow related to nuclear weapons

Hmm, how would that in any way be a misunderstanding..?

>> No.12603368

Wait what mad man would privatize nuclear?

It's government backed and runs by governments what more insurance would ever be needed?

Expensive in a sense yes but looking at what you get out of it well not really even if the initial costs can be high not to mention getting the expertise to be able to actually do it as well as protecting it from sabotage wether it be direct or by lobbying

>> No.12603373

So people are too cheap to care about the climate or think for the long term is that it because if you really cared you would be pro-nuclear

>> No.12603425
File: 3.98 MB, 600x415, fu.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

cope, retard

>> No.12603442

>I don't care if it's more expensive, I want people to think I science-y by supporting it

>> No.12603455

>this with thorium
Have you taken the prefab NPP pill yet, /sci/?

>> No.12603463

how much is an UAH? like $0.005 ?

>> No.12603488

The initial start up cost a bit yes but it's the long term benefit as well as it being good for the climate in the long run that's the deal here

>> No.12603665

same thing any other solution is popular or unpopular, people have no sense of the real numbers and they have strong opinions about them before looking them up

>> No.12603679

How long can oil companies realistically last though? Any long term plan must involve entering some other kind of energy production.

>> No.12603721

To artificially keep energy production low in order to keep energy companies draining our resources to keep people from having savings. Think of how housing/renting market is manipulated to take enough money from people in order to keep them from having excess money to save up and be competitive.

>> No.12603743
File: 119 KB, 1000x667, Thorium.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12603931
File: 720 KB, 776x948, image0-10-1-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It dosent generate as much $$$ for the elites and other rich/influencal people as gas/bio/solar/wind energy. Thats why there is a massive push against it.

>> No.12604016

i think it does generate quite a bit of profit but it takes a long time to do so
a natural gas plant might take 5 years or less i think to start generating profits, a nuclear plant might take 15 years

>> No.12604042

>It would literally solve all our problems
until the first tsunami / earthquake / 3.6 roentgen
ok if he meant fusion

>> No.12604045

>tsunami, earthquake
just build it in a place where those dont happen then lmao

>> No.12604121

>Nuclear power is privatized but wouldn't exist without mass government welfare to the owner to fund it's construction (in exchange for kickbacks).
Neither would highways, yet nobody will deny how useful they are.

>> No.12604140

energy transmission is an issue until superconductors are cheap

>> No.12604183

Meh. Most of the power loss happens in the transformers and local distribution lines. Long distance over high voltage lines doesn't lose much. Which is why there is a European power market for example.

>> No.12604188

yes but the distances are not that big and usually just neighbour countries trade energy

>> No.12604203

Every word you said is wrong. In France the nuclear reactors are state owned and they are replacing them by privately operated windmills and solar panels. Also there is no way solar would survive without subsidies, for the simple reason there is no sun in the night, and you can't control when there are clouds. You have been brainwashed

>> No.12604218

These shitty meme technologies will doom us to stagnation while the chinks build thorium reactors.

>> No.12604228

Well Earthquakes and tsunamis don't reach that far either.

>> No.12604229

Thorium reactors are nuclear and the same "environmentalist" will make "documentaries" with horror style music saying they will kill your children so that your government can buy either Chinese made solar panel for energy during the night or green gas(TM) during the day.

>> No.12604241

Some people really just want to feel guilty when they turn their lights on. At this point we should be able to use more and more electricity pr. unit money, but that isn't what's happening. We are content with shitty electricity and stagnation. Hopefully electric cars will use enough energy to force the hand of governments

>> No.12604242

The Chinese only know how to steal technology and make shitty flawed replicas from the blueprints because they don’t know why things are designed the way they are designed, only that they are.

>> No.12604248

Sure, but at least they're building them instead of killing the only real upgrade from fossil fuels.

>> No.12604253

fun fact: there are millions of tons of uranium in Uranus.

>> No.12604258

yea and we're never getting them

>> No.12604274

1$ ≈ 28₴

>> No.12604655

ITT: armchair nuclear scientists who somehow know everything better than all the people in the world who actually run nuclear reactors.
The Dunning-Kruger effect should be renamed the Imageboard effect

>> No.12604703

yeah and anyone who runs a nuclear reactor would tell you that nuclear is the future and that all these journalists and "scientists" saying muh nuclear energy dangerous are full of shit

>> No.12604813

What we need are breeder thorium reactors. Very safe, clean, for practical purposes unlimited energy, the radioactive waste decays after 300 years.

>> No.12605174

Interest rates are at historic lows. This shouldn't be much of a problem anymore

>> No.12605177

/Thread, this sums it up
Feel free to stop posting anytime.

>> No.12605182

The interest rate of a loan depends on the perceived risk, and nuclear power plants have a high perceived risk because of popular opposition, large cost overruns on many power plants and increasing competition from gas and renewables.

>> No.12605183

Its costly if your intended output is small its very cheap for large quantities of energy but it requires a bigger initial investment. Nevertheless, companies are beginning to create smaller nuclear reactors prototypes.

>> No.12605644

Nuclear is only viable when a nation makes a concentrated effort. Such as France in the 90s. As it requires a nationalized infrastructure to handle all the dangerously energetic bits.

Solar can be made in child labor sweat shops in the third world. Then packaged in western brands and sold at a profit for the rich elite.

>> No.12605708

They sure would. Except somehow they don't. They know that nuclear has no future.

>> No.12605723

We have 3 other infinite sources of energies without risking nuclear fallout.

>> No.12605965

In theory, good luck making a reliable grid out of solar and wind.

>> No.12605984

High initial cost and fear mongering

>> No.12606314

Because everyone thinks every single reactor is Chernobyl, despite that reactor being outdated by the time it was being built, and the people running the reactor were idiots

>> No.12606331

Until it's cloudy/rains or the wind stops blowing or you need more than the river can provide

>> No.12606478

The problem is that in it's current iterations it is extremely inefficient.
Immediate innovation to more efficient Fission, and eventually, even more efficient fusion designs must and will be needed in order for Nuclear to truly become mainstream.
However insufficient funding and lack of interest in such clean and efficient technologies and lack of patience for developing the research and building such designs over a few years or even couple decades has left nuclear energy to stagnate as a reliable and common energy source overall.
Really is a shame.

>> No.12607709

So a modern reactor maintained by literal japanese engineers could never have a problem right?

>> No.12607719

Triple meltdown and comparatively tiny amounts of contamination even though it's from the 50's and it got hit by a 9.0 quake and an enormous tsunami. Not too bad desu

>> No.12607722
File: 1.36 MB, 306x132, 56c.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

OP doesn't know about fat tail risk

>> No.12607761
File: 1.42 MB, 1611x1002, windscale.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>the brits once tried to put out a uranium fire with a giant fan

>> No.12608075

Only melted down because back generators were flooded, and the fire truck pumped water went into the heat exchanger instead if the core.

If they just left the truck pump running and added water constantly. It would have been fine. Get insufficient instruments and disaster recovery combined with complacency. Caused the meltdow.

>> No.12608115

the word "nuclear" scares normies. see NMR vs MRI

>> No.12608122

Your dad's a fag and just wants his tesla stock to go up.

>Nuclear is heavily regulated by feds
>oil and gas, coal, and now green energy lobbies fight nuclear because it's cheaper, and limitless
>Gen iV molten salt reactors would literally be free energy (cheap af, almost zero per month)
>elitists can't make money off free energy, so you daddy cucks for the lobbyists.

>> No.12608127

There is also the whole
>backup generators for reactor cooling pumps placed below sea level
this is so fucking retarded when your country gets pummeled by tsunamis 24/7

>> No.12608132

The seawall was thought sufficient. 9.0 earthquakes and their tsunamis are once in 1000 year event.

But yeah. Should have been up high, just in case

>> No.12608140

Sure, it's extremely rare for a tsunami to breach the seawall. It just seems like blind hope to trust the structural integrity of the wall and mother nature as part of your reactor safety design.
But the containment vessels did their job, unlike Chernobyl which was an abomination in nuclear engineering that didn't even have containment vessels.

>> No.12608150

Rmbk reactors do not explode!

>> No.12608159

>reactor is safe comrade!
>we just add pulse reactor feature to emergency shutdown button
they build an abomination and handed it's keys to a bunch of jaded bureaucrats, shit was doomed from the start

>> No.12608456

Everything has a price, it makes no sense to invest millions or billions to protect the 5 dudes who die from radiation to cover for a 9.0+ earthquake when the earthquake itself will cause tens of thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions of damages

>> No.12609085
File: 86 KB, 640x720, i am a genius oh no.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Nuclear is 10% of world power
>Massive disaster every 30 years on average
>Make nuclear power for everything
>Fukushima or Chernobyl every 3 years

>> No.12609147

You realise how retarded that statement is, right? Literally just look at the total output of nuclear reactors Vs risk, it isn't linear.

>> No.12609187

>Massive disaster every 30 years on average
There has been a single "massive disaster" ever.

>> No.12609459

t. Doesn't know about Gen 4 nuclear plants and bases his knowledge off plants designed before the computer.

>> No.12609464

HAHA! Seethe more, faggots!

>> No.12609487
File: 1.54 MB, 1000x563, 1611172289566.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

can you explain how nuclear energy would be safe in a daily basis? how do you transform it to fit it in a daily basis? how do you provide and sell such thing? who would distribute it? if sold by private companies, how do you make it appealing to normalfags?

>> No.12610041

What was Chernobyl?

>> No.12610044

A massive disaster.

>> No.12610046

Because microbes have learned to survive in them, and people don't want to see Corona adapt similar properties.

>> No.12610174

My country gets 80% of energy from two nuclear power plants. I think it's worth it.

>> No.12610174,1 [INTERNAL] 

Yes, in our time it is very important to get a good education. This is important for your own self-esteem as a person and for having a good job in the future. I'm currently a law student in College. I'm a paid full-time student. Unfortunately, I couldn't enroll in the budget. It was not easy, so I have to pay money for my training. I set a goal that I would definitely finish College and get a degree. I took out a small loan https://maybeloan.com/cash-advance to study here. Now I'm thinking about how to find a job and pay this money. Yes, it is not easy for me now, but then I will succeed. I believe it!

>> No.12611401

Nuclear chemist here. It's easy to post lazard lcoe analysis, but in reality, it's much more complicated. One thing, research slowed in the 70's, and only lately do we see real advancements. Second, interest rates highly define the costs - you can make it cheap, you can make it hellishly expensive. Third, there is public perception. Even in commie China, there is an anti-nuclear movement slowing things down. Forth, we have build times. On average, a plant takes 7.5 years to start giving us power. Wind can be 2-3 years, similarely with solar. Yes, nuclear takes longer to build, but that can change - the Chinese and Japanese built modern plants in 5 years, China also got better at pumping out solar. There are also more issues, but nuclear is not a silver bullet - neither is solar and wind. Solar and wind are both 100+ year old technologies that still did not solve their intermittancy ( batteries are still way too small and expensive). Nuclear stagnates due to multiple issues. But those issues can be solved. Also, nuclear is far from dead, as there are 15 new reactors coming online this year, and 2020 was the 7th year in a row that we have grown in production

>> No.12611732

It was watchable, tbqh.

>> No.12612020

Forget Thorium reactors. If they were doing R&D on that before Chernobyl and Three mile island we may have seen them. Today, the money and manpower would be better better spend on fusion reactors since we are much closer to achieving those and they are better in virtually every way

>t. MS in Nuclear Chemistry

>> No.12612233

nuclear energy and nuclear bombs are bullshit psyops based on conventional energy generation and explosive techniques. The image of plausibility of a nuclear age is not sustainable to maintain above a certain number of power plants and nuclear tests have ceased decades ago.

>> No.12612570

Tokamaks are a dead end, talked to a few guys involved in ITER, they made their simulations. Those things are gonna be expensive and long to build

>> No.12612577

Because oil and coal companies funnel a fortune into anti-nuclear lobbies and activist groups.

>> No.12612590

Because it wouldn't make billionaires richer and would put many of their scams out of business. Just look at this thread, we face an existential threat yet its nothing but mewling about economics. Ironic they dismiss pro nuclear sentiment as shilling when they spend the rest of the thread showing how there's no money in it. If you're lucky you'll see people parrot oil industry propaganda and misinformation on the dangers of nuclear power, always ignoring the millions that die every year from fossil fuels (and the billions sickened by it). These threads are nothing but shilling and popsci regurgitation.

>> No.12612612

Why do you think oil companies invest in "renewables"?

>> No.12612647
File: 72 KB, 800x800, 1409643440487.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Nuclear is 10% of world power
But 28% of first world nation's power supply

Which is saying a lot considering that there's only 50 countries with nuclear plants (400)
There's about 60,500 coal and gas plants

From that, we can conclude that it takes only 2000 nuclear plants to power all first world nations


>> No.12613155

That's like asking NASA about spaceflight and then thinking all big rockets are going to take billions and decades to build because of SLS.
ITER wasn't even intended to do anything but a demonstration, no shit it's a waste of money.

>> No.12613505

Iter is not the only tokamak, they all have the same issues

>> No.12613511

OK, schizo.

>> No.12613515

Fusion is promising, but tokamaks are a bad way of doing it. I hope i am wrong about them, as we research them the most.

>> No.12614157

>the most iconic element, the cooling towers, look like smokestacks

See the Tall narrow chimney?

i wonder what its purpose is. maybe its dispersing radioactive particles in high altitude so they get carried away with the wind?

>> No.12616326

your progenitor might be a closeted homosexual anon

>> No.12617110
File: 134 KB, 894x941, 083858.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Why isn't nuclear energy more popular?
decades of anti-nuclear propaganda and the hippie movement against nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, of course, there is also the belief that an accident like the one at Chernobyl will happen.It's not too late for Nuclear , but building hundreds of reactors around the world will take at least a few decades and you need to fight oil shills/hippies/SJW and politics.
look at France, more than 50% of the energy produced comes from nuclear power plants, and nothing happened and the price of electricity is almost half that of Germany, and Germany is more about muh solar and wind, but the prices for electricity still goes up, i know it because i live in Germany

>> No.12617152

Building reactors under budget and ahead of schedule was possible 60 years ago, and possible in China today
But somehow the west can’t do it
Makes you think

>> No.12617152,1 [INTERNAL] 

Go to McAfee activate and download the desired package to protect your Mac, PC, and mobile device against potential malware, viruses, spyware, etc.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.