/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10509104

166KiB, 2880x2880, nuclear energy.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 16:28:41 2019 No.10509104 View Reply Original Report

Are you for or against nuclear power generation? And why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 16:34:34 No.10509122 Report

Quoted By:

for of course

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 3xfto2jnb1g21.jpg, 320KiB, 1469x1102

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 16:38:53 No.10509127 Report

Quoted By: >>10509189 >>10509199 >>10509257 >>10510713 >>10511189 >>10518643

>>10509104
You'd have to be dumb as a sack of rocks to be against nuclear power generation.

>Statistically proven to be the safest form of energy generation known to man
>Produces 10,000x less waste than coal for the same power output
>Requires less than 2 square miles of land
>Solar requires 32 square miles for the same output, wind requires almost 400 square miles

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 16:42:44 No.10509131 Report

Quoted By: >>10510008 >>10518259 >>10519429

>>10509104
Kind of in the middle. I do believe they are a better option than fossil fuels. And I don‘t believe issues like possibility of meltdowns and nuclear trash are impossible to overcome with modern designs.
However Nuclear is terrible in terms of economics and only gets worse when you actually want to make sure it won‘t blow up and when you actually want to secure the trash properly.
So ultimately I don‘t really believe Nuclear is really part of the solution to climate change in the big picture anymore.
It‘s probably useful for space missions though even though making effective shielding light enough is an issue there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:08:45 No.10509181 Report

Quoted By: >>10511235 >>10512174

Pro in Kansas
Against in California

Avoid oceans and earthquakes, and Japan

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:12:47 No.10509189 Report

Quoted By: >>10509200

>>10509127
well, I was against it but since you called me dumb as a sack of rocks, now I'm for it.

Oh wait, no I'm not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:15:32 No.10509195 Report

Quoted By: >>10510018

Too risky in my opinion. Also the sooner the world gets off fossil fuels and stops giving money to dirty arabs the better so renewables is the way to go.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:17:04 No.10509199 Report

Quoted By: >>10509204 >>10509275 >>10511391

>>10509127
you forgot

>costs 10 billion to build
>will suck up all your local fresh water ressources
>no idea what to do with the nuclear waste
>if bad things happen your whole region is gone

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:18:14 No.10509200 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509189
t. glows in the dark

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:19:03 No.10509204 Report

Quoted By: >>10509207 >>10509210 >>10509972

>>10509199
However you forgot
>after built cheapest per kilowatt out
>better and newer designs greatly reduce the nuclear waste produced and increase efficiency

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:20:27 No.10509207 Report

Quoted By: >>10509571 >>10510021 >>10515781

>>10509204

However you don't effectively answer

>the remaining problem of nuclear waste
>the remaining problem of an error being catastrophic

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO plebs.jpg, 216KiB, 960x626

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:20:58 No.10509209 Report

Quoted By: >>10509220 >>10515937 >>10519909

>>10509104
we can do better

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:21:03 No.10509210 Report

Quoted By: >>10509272 >>10509275

>>10509204
If ignoring building costs wind, hydro and solar are without a doubt the cheapest. Those new designs are even more expensive to build.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:25:56 No.10509214 Report

Quoted By: >>10518891

>>10509104
Only retards and fear-mongers are against nuclear power.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO consumer2.png, 148KiB, 271x426

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:26:09 No.10509216 Report

Quoted By: >>10509326 >>10509388 >>10509728

>>10509104
Nuclear is just another means for The Consumers to extract every last available microJoule of energy to power their malignant growth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:28:16 No.10509220 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509209
Man, fuck those ayys and their neural interface horns.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:39:48 No.10509244 Report

Quoted By: >>10509326

The only way we could have nuclear power is through socialism.
The market does not want it.
The market does not want to invest in plans that are more than 5 years in the future.
The only way you could convince private investors to build nuke plants is if you give them ridiculous government concessions, at which point it is better if you just let the government build it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:45:21 No.10509257 Report

Quoted By: >>10509309 >>10510093 >>10519946

>>10509127
Those are the pros but there are also cons. Without passing judgement, the cons aren't trivial:
1. it's centralized; private concentrate energy production is part of the problem that caused this mess
2. radioactive waste is one of the biggest problems; it is not a solved problem, you are basically creating a deposit of easily accessible radioactive material that had to be guarded for thousands of years
3. it is fine to image trusting nuclear power generation in developed countries, but what about the majority of the world which is neither developed nor stable enough to run nuke plants
4. and of course it is going to be a huge money sink that the government needs to fund

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:52:20 No.10509272 Report

Quoted By: >>10510032

>>10509210
Plus wind and solar are incremental in a way that allows for small players to get into the market.
Nuke plants are the worst because they cost the most to build, take the longest time, and you need 100% of the capital up front.
Also I imagine insurance for running a nuke plant is huge whereas for solar and wind it is minimal.

As long as there is capacity for solar and wind, it makes sense to build them. Then of course build nukes when you absolutely must.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1553796841104.gif, 3MiB, 300x219

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:53:15 No.10509275 Report

Quoted By: >>10509283 >>10509361 >>10509362 >>10515354

>>10509199
>if bad things happen your whole region is gone
>if bad things happen
>literally safer than every other form of energy generation
>bad things

>problem of nuclear waste
fallacy of presupposition. you haven't established that a problem actually exists, you've just presupposed it.

what you do with it is what we are already doing with it. we put it somewhere, same as coal (except it takes up 10,000x less space for the same power output). the majority of nuclear waste actually contains useable fuel but uranium is to plentiful relative to the cost it takes to reprocess it.

since coal waste takes up 10,000 times more space yet no one is complaining, obviously the argument is 110% just "durr its super crazy dangerous omg what do we do with this moderately radioactive stuff omg" .. you just use a small fraction of the space that coal would have taken up to store nuclear waste. what's the ""problem"" again? that we are going to eventually run out of space? lmao what?

>>10509210
>If ignoring building costs wind, hydro and solar are without a doubt the cheapest
[citation needed]

maintaining and supervising over 20,000 acres of solar panels to produce what a single nuclear plant can produce is "cheaper" after building costs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 17:55:58 No.10509283 Report

Quoted By: >>10509529

>>10509275
The nuclear waste problem has been studied for over 40 years. How about this: don't talk out of your ass about things that you don't understand.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 18:07:20 No.10509309 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509257
>it's centralized
no shit, energy production is going to be centralized. just because you can put solar panels on your rooftops doesnt mean solar wouldnt be centralized if the government actually adopted it as the main form of power output

>has to be guarded for thousands of years
only because the majority of nuclear waste is still useable and can be reprocessed in the future. you can securely store something without actively guarding it, or you actually think someone's going to break into an underground nuclear waste facility and somehow manage to carry out a massive crate of waste to steal spent, literally useless, moderately radioactive fuel that homogenously has too high of a binding energy to be useful for anything dangerous other than "dont stand by it for too long"? what are you imagining here? some guy steals it and builds a bomb? its literally fucking useless

>what about the majority of the world which is neither developed nor stable enough to run nuke plants
i dont even understand the issue here? if they arent developed enough to use nuclear, then they wont use nuclear. also undeveloped nations are just always going to use coal regardless of anything
>of course it is going to be a huge money sink that the government needs to fund
startup and development costs are high but basically every nuclear power plant is out-of-date tech from the 80s that is still working flawlessly. energy is a commodity and nuclear plants last decades upon decades, require little space, and consistently produce the same power output season after season

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 18:14:41 No.10509326 Report

Quoted By: >>10509354 >>10509373

>>10509244
>The only way we could have nuclear power is through socialism.
If you say so.... But let me compare it with the following argument:

>>10509216
>Nuclear is just another means for The Consumers to extract every last available microJoule of energy to power their malignant growth.
So, there is no nuclear power through socialism either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 18:27:38 No.10509354 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509326
how did you convince yourself that you're smart, anyway? Did you earn yourself a geology diploma at the local community college or something?

Honest question: what's the highest level math course you've taken?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 18:29:36 No.10509361 Report

Quoted By: >>10509529 >>10511318

>>10509275
>maintaining and supervising over 20,000 acres of solar panels to produce what a single nuclear plant can produce is "cheaper" after building costs?

What's there to supervise? Literally one dude with a mop is all you need to keep a solar farm clean.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 18:30:54 No.10509362 Report

Quoted By: >>10509529 >>10511310

>>10509275
>since coal waste takes up 10,000 times more space yet no one is complaining

Maybe because coal waste doesn't need to be locked up deep in some abandonded salt mines because it so fucking toxic you utter brainlet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 18:32:33 No.10509368 Report

Quoted By: >>10509472

>>10509104
I don't want my power bill to go up over 500% so against.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 18:34:55 No.10509373 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509326
>what's the highest level math course you've taken?

why are you taking so long to answer my question? contemplating whether to outright lie or not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 18:40:38 No.10509388 Report

Quoted By: >>10509395

>>10509216
t. cringe Kaczynski fanboy

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 18:42:51 No.10509395 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509388
t. delusional infinite economic/population growth ponzi fanboy

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 18:45:19 No.10509400 Report

Quoted By:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpoPnrAc9qw
http://thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 19:36:08 No.10509472 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509368
It would lower your power bill, brainlet. Nuclear has the lowest cost per KW/h

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 20:01:05 No.10509529 Report

Quoted By: >>10510762

>>10509362
>coal waste doesn't need to be locked up deep in some abandonded salt mines because it so fucking toxic you utter brainlet
you clearly cant read, i addressed this argument in advance twice now

>>10509361
>what's there to supervise
potentially millions of acres of solar panels each with a lifespan of about 25 years on average.. and you are asking what there is to supervise? also leaving millions of acres of expensive equipment and land completely unattended?

>>10509283
are you going to make an argument? i already addressed both of the most common """"""nuclear waste problem durrr""""""" arguments.

the biggest security risk to leaving nuclear waste unattended isn't the low levels of radioactivity (the longer the half-life technically the less the radioactivity), the biggest security risk is that nuclear waste isn't just "waste". it's MOSTLY unspent uranium that can be reused

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 20:32:21 No.10509571 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509207
Actually look into new reactor designs please. These are solved problems and there exist reactors today that have a closed fuel cycle or can recycle waste and weapons grade plutonium and are cooled in such a way that the beginning of a meltdown would cause the structure to thermically expand and let in more coolant.
They are not the most efficient since the russian one can only produce 800MW of power compared to 1.5 to 2 GW for traditional wasteful and "unsafe" designs but its not like anyone is actually putting that much effort into research currently so there most likely is room for improvement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 21:44:35 No.10509701 Report

Quoted By: >>10509715

>>10509104
limited use is fine, but we should focus more on sun, wind, water type things

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 21:51:37 No.10509715 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509701
Complete opposite is the case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Mar 2019 21:57:33 No.10509728 Report

Quoted By: >>10512131

>>10509216
Duh mi negro. What do you think literally everything int he universe is doing? Using energy to do things.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 136106_Two-forms-of-water.jpg, 128KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 00:02:29 No.10509972 Report

Quoted By: >>10510040 >>10510055

>>10509204
WATER, YOU FUCKING RETARD, YOU KNOW THAT BULLSHIT THING WE NEED TO SURVIVE?

Slap yourself right now, idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 00:23:09 No.10510008 Report

Quoted By: >>10510666

>>10509131
>Nuclear is terrible in terms of economics
France energy is almost twice as cheap as Germany's. Nuclear energy is not viable in a free market system, but a state company that dedicates exclusively to it benefits everyone directly supplying cheaper energy,in fewer space and without spewing pollutants to the atmosphere

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 00:28:28 No.10510018 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509195
>renewables
How are renewables viable? The amount of land,iron,aluminum and cement that you need to build a solar or eolic power plant is enormous,and after 35 years they become totally obsolete which would just lead to more waste. On top of that storage units are unreliable and too expensive making renewables(except hidroelectric and geothermal) unreliable on their own as they can keep constant demand. Unless you are blessed with plenty of water for dams (the great lakes,Venezuela,Brazil,Argentina or Colombia) or live in a volcanoe island like Iceland renewables are totally unreliable on their own.
The future of mankind has to be nuclear or it just won't be

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 00:30:37 No.10510021 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509207
>nuclear waste
It will probably be useful fuel in a couple of decades. Until them you store it in an stable region with nice containers that would occupy 1/100th of what a solar power plant would occupy

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 00:36:47 No.10510032 Report

Quoted By: >>10511244

>>10509272
Wind and solar local production is totally inviable. Solar and wind power plants are much more efficient.
You are forgetting two basic things
1. Solar and wind depend on the weather. They produce energies in spikes. They can't supply energy constantly like a power plant,hidroplant or nuclear plant could. This makes them purely complementary
2. Solar and wind power plants are extremelly harmful to the environment. Solar plants need A LOT of land and a lot of resources to be made and with a life span of 35 years. The same goes for wind but on top of that is making a lot of bird species go extinct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 00:42:30 No.10510040 Report

Quoted By: >>10516953

>>10509972
Water is going scarce in most of the planet. You cannot expect to use it as a viable source of energy outside of a couple of countries like Venezuela or Colombia

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Water-Cycle-Art2A.png, 951KiB, 3023x1547

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 00:50:51 No.10510055 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509972
It doesn't "suck up" enough water to make it warrant any sort of concern, you seething brainlet who needs to be put down or lobotomized if this is how you approach debate—it takes a minute fraction of water from surrounding watercourses and whatever water is used, is heated into steam, driving the turbines, and afterwards makes its way into the local atmosphere where it eventually turns into some form of precipitation invariably returning to the environment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 00:57:08 No.10510063 Report

Quoted By: >>10510160 >>10510725 >>10512992 >>10515281

>>10509104
>nuclear gang winning the debate again
every time. how can renewable cunts even compete?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 01:09:46 No.10510093 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509257
Guard what?

Bury the materials deep in the ground from where they came.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 15234234235643564.jpg, 96KiB, 930x648

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 01:42:52 No.10510160 Report

Quoted By: >>10511175 >>10514325 >>10515281

>>10510063
they can't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 01:45:15 No.10510162 Report

Quoted By: >>10510174

>>10509104
what's gonna replace nuclear? I guess we could just shoot the waste into space

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 01:50:47 No.10510174 Report

Quoted By:

>>10510162
The amount of waste is minuscule and can be safely secured in vessels and deposited underground in their own sarcophagus at secure sites in barren environments. It also can be further processed, reducing the radioactive half-life of the isotopes generated. Shooting it in space would be extremely costly and would generate more pollution than utilizing preexisting storage solutions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 06:50:28 No.10510596 Report

Quoted By: >>10512427

>>10509104
I'm conflicted. In theiry this tech is great. It was allready mentioned how effective it is. But I have witnessed the ability of humans to mess up even the most basic tasks. And greedy corporations are the best at that. And so I fear that we will mess up over and over again with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 07:50:39 No.10510666 Report

Quoted By: >>10511182

>>10510008
It‘s just because Germany does weird shit where they directly put subsidies for green energy on top of private houshold electricity prices as taxes.
It‘s a really stupid system that both turns public opinion against green energy and distributes wealth from households to factories who don‘t have to pay this tax. This also means that the companies consuming the most electricity in Germany also have the least incentive to become more efficient.
The whole thing is a mess and should‘ve gotten reforms years ago. But that would take work and so instead, politicians just reduce the amount of renewables they subsidise and just slow this whole process down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 08:39:03 No.10510713 Report

Quoted By: >>10510722 >>10516957

>>10509127
>Statistically proven to be the safest form of energy generation known to man
Except when there’s an accident and then no one can set foot within a 100 mile radius of the location for 5000 years roflmao!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 08:44:10 No.10510722 Report

Quoted By:

>>10510713
>arguing from hypotheticals that have never happened
>saying "when there is" instead of saying "if there ever is", to be intellectual dishonest to hope people think Chernobyl was a precedent for the scenario you've described

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO NUKE GANG.jpg, 75KiB, 474x734

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 08:45:24 No.10510725 Report

Quoted By: >>10511186 >>10515944

>>10510063
Fuck renewables.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 09:19:19 No.10510762 Report

Quoted By: >>10511175 >>10511329

>>10509529
>you clearly cant read, i addressed this argument in advance twice now

You are a deluded idiot, you can't just dig a hole and throw the waste in.

>potentially millions of acres of solar panels each with a lifespan of about 25 years on average.. and you are asking what there is to supervise? also leaving millions of acres of expensive equipment and land completely unattended?

A dude with a mop and some nightguards. Great, that's like 5 people. You will need more than that to guard the nuclear waste deposits alone.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1536578116200.png, 840KiB, 600x900

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 13:53:10 No.10511175 Report

Quoted By: >>10511196 >>10511204

>>10510160
BASED

>>10510762
>you cant just dig a hole and throw waste in
never said that dumb fucking retard, nice strawman though

>A dude with a mop and some nightguards. Great, that's like 5 people. You will need more than that to guard the nuclear waste deposits alone.
>millions of acres of solar panels, each lasting only 25-35 years on average requires 5 people
holy fuck ive never talked to someone more brain-dead than you

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 13:55:52 No.10511182 Report

Quoted By:

>>10510666
I am guessing Germany' distribution lines are subsidized, so if you dump energy in the distribution system you get a fee. This happens in a lot of countries that went hard with renewables like Spain. Still since Germany has dropped nuclear its carbon emissions have sky rocketed and the price of its energy too. Solar and wind are unviable on their own and without nuclear you would need to use combined cycle (gas) or traditional power plants (coal)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 13:57:24 No.10511186 Report

Quoted By: >>10511199

>>10510725
Don't forget that the windmills are killing all the big birds on the planet at an alarming rate and when they get outphased in 25 years they will just dump them in an African shithole. Ecofriendly my ass

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 13:59:17 No.10511189 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509127
THIS.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:02:19 No.10511196 Report

Quoted By: >>10511237 >>10511296 >>10512911

>>10511175
Maybe just drive to a solar park and see how many people are around you fucking idiot

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:03:25 No.10511199 Report

Quoted By: >>10511209

>>10511186
It's that retard again. Why are you nuclear shills all literal 80IQ brainlets?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:06:47 No.10511204 Report

Quoted By: >>10511237

>>10511175
1.Producing solar panels has a considerable ecological footprint
2. Its life-cycle is 25 years
3. It needs to aggresively occupy land. This means fewer land for agriculture and less forested area (fewer forests means that there would be fewer rain which leads to desertification)
4. It is a very aggresive source of energy against the ecosystem (look up what happened with desert turtles in California
5. Panels are expensive and not very hard to steal so you need constant security
6. Solar panels produce energy intermitently so they are unreliable a good chunk of the day while creating massive energy spikes. This means that at some point the system would get overflown with energy and the country would be forced to export energy on the pennies while importing expensive energy when the production is low.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:08:15 No.10511209 Report

Quoted By: >>10512432

>>10511199
Can you disprove that windmills are killing big birds and that when their life cycle is over they get just dumped in a giant megashithole in Africa or ASEAN?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:11:13 No.10511215 Report

Quoted By:

Happily been pro-nuclear forever no matter what

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:21:34 No.10511235 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509181
Kansan here, wind is already more viable in our state.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:22:01 No.10511237 Report

Quoted By:

>>10511196
>just look around dude
jesus christ you are retarded. even if there were only one person per 10,000 acres you would still be wrong as fuck but that's not even the case. the fact that solar panels last only 25-35 years and means that there will always be hundreds of people around any 1000 megawatt solar farm for maintanence and replacement

also see >>10511204

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:25:39 No.10511244 Report

Quoted By: >>10511256 >>10511268 >>10511337

>>10510032
Cats kill exponentially more birds every year than wind. As for solar, just find a desert or something and set them up there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:31:17 No.10511256 Report

Quoted By: >>10511295 >>10511373

>>10511244
Cats kill small birds like pidgeons which are a plague in a lot of cities. You will never see a cat killing a hawk,owls or an eagle while windmills kill their small populations all the time. I specially said BIG BIRDS

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:34:17 No.10511268 Report

Quoted By: >>10511296

>>10511244
>As for solar, just find a desert or something and set them up there.
and what do you do with millions of acres of solar panels once they need to be replaced after 25 years? also people dont realize that producing crystalline silicon is fucking terrible for the environment, the amount of waste produced just from making a solar panel is ridiculous; its the same issue we have with producing silicon wafers for chips in our phones/computers

that scrap silicon doesnt have a half-life, there is no hope for it EVER to be useful again. scrap wafers are literally worthless junk

people act like nuclear waste which not only can be reprocessed, but eventually will be harmless and end up back where it came from, is bad but purified silicon is much worse

>The production of every single six-inch silicon wafer uses the following resources: 3,200 cubic feet of bulk gases, 22 cubic feet of hazardous gases, 2,275 gallons of deionized water, 20 pounds of chemicals, and 285 kilowatt hours of electrical power.

>And for every single six-inch silicon wafer manufactured, the following wastes are produced: 25 pounds of sodium hydroxide, 2,840 gallons of waste water, and 7 pounds of miscellaneous hazardous wastes.

>When you consider that a standard facility can process 5,000 eight-inch silicon wafers in
a single week, the environmental costs are enormous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:43:32 No.10511295 Report

Quoted By:

>>10511256
I wpuld also like to mention that big birds are the main predator of some ecosystem. At the rate that windmills are killing them we will start seeing plagues of hervivores that reproduce at an alarming rate in some ecosystems with everything that it entails

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:43:41 No.10511296 Report

Quoted By: >>10511339

>>10511196
jesus you are fucking retarded? solar panels have to be constantly built at factories in a way which is destroying the environment even ignoring the fact that they have to be replaced constantly and immediately turn into absolutely useless junk for an eternity. see: >>10511268

YEP THIS ONLY REQUIRES 5 PEOPLE THOUGH LMAO

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:47:30 No.10511310 Report

Quoted By: >>10511484 >>10512375

>>10509362
>it so fucking toxic
>brainlet
Youre retarded, Dry storage nuclear waste is not immediately dangerous. The dose outside of a standard container is at or below ambient dose from the planet. Read a book sometime.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:49:41 No.10511318 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509361
>What's there to supervise?
Lets see:
Security
Maintenance
Environmental Impact
Geology
Performance
Control

Please tell me you arent old enough to vote.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:53:40 No.10511329 Report

Quoted By:

>>10510762
>you can't just dig a hole and throw the waste in.
Yes you can, thats in fact exactly what you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
There are plenty of genuine problems with nuclear power that you could have raised but since you didnt I would say its quite clear you have done no research on the topic, probably have a weak at best understanding of nuclear physics, and form your opinions with your (incorrect) intuition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:57:51 No.10511337 Report

Quoted By: >>10511380

>>10511244
>Cats kill exponentially more birds every year than wind
Somehow this means that the impact is irrelevant? This implies people should keep their house cats indoors.
>just find a desert or something and set them up there.
>there is no life in the desert

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 14:58:49 No.10511339 Report

Quoted By: >>10511346 >>10511398

>>10511296
Maintenance is dirt cheap. High installation cost is actually good, because this means you are putting your money towards putting a lot of unqualified workers into jobs that in today's world are hard to get by, instead of giving it to some 3rd world dictator to supply you ressources. This is also why China has such a hard-on for renewables, it's a nice combination of jobs motor for your own economy while at the same time strengthening the autonomy of your own nation by becoming less depended from other nations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 15:02:52 No.10511346 Report

Quoted By:

>>10511339
>Maintenance is dirt cheap
assume you aren't the guy i was replying to becaue the discussion wasn't over price

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 15:10:30 No.10511373 Report

Quoted By: >>10511389

>>10511256
lmao no, cats are the real problem in the countryside. They're decimating songbird populations. Also, you build windmills in flat plains, far away from the woody forests that hawks and owls reside in. The only bird that would even come into contact with windmills is migratory songbirds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 15:12:05 No.10511380 Report

Quoted By: >>10512166

>>10511337
Cats are an invasive species, efficient predators, they are infinitely more of a problem for bird populations than some windmills.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 15:14:31 No.10511389 Report

Quoted By: >>10511855

>>10511373
There is plenty of evidence that wind turbines make a huge toll on eagles,hawks and vulture. Those animals don't just live in forests don't be silly. A lot of big birds like hawks and vulture had adapted themselves to the plains. That is why they hunt the way they do.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Deep_borehole_disposal.png, 18KiB, 720x960

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 15:14:58 No.10511391 Report

Quoted By: >>10511478

>>10509199

We do know where to put all that nuclear waste: Deep Borehole Disposal. Drill a 3 miles or so deep hole and nothing will come up for millions of years. It doesn’t matter where you put it in the country. At that depth, you’re so deep in the crust that the overlying rocks don’t matter. The water table doesn’t matter. The climate doesn’t matter. Human activities don’t matter. By the time they pop up to the surface they will be no trace of radiation left.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 15:16:31 No.10511398 Report

Quoted By:

>>10511339
They will never accept it from a leftist.
Some retard in 2040 will come up with the same idea but he will be a Republican and they will praise his RedNewDeal.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 15:44:39 No.10511478 Report

Quoted By: >>10511550

>>10511391
Transporting and depositing nuclear waste is still expensive, but what really is going to end nuclear energy is water shortages becoming more and more of a proble. In fact, the main reason France is exiting from nuclear again is that in the summers, the plants in its south are running short on water to cool, which is why they need to reduce their capacity or turn them off completely in hot summers. They are also taking away water ressources from local farmers and inhabitants, which leads to more and more french people calling for a reduction of the number of nuclear plants.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 15:46:29 No.10511484 Report

Quoted By:

>>10511310
This.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 16:07:42 No.10511550 Report

Quoted By: >>10513487

>>10511478
>Transporting and depositing nuclear waste is still expensive
not really to either of those. transportation isn't expensive and nobody complains about this with coal plants yet the difference is so extraordinary that a switch to nuclear would "save" so much cost on transportation it's unbelievable
>These large mass differences in fuel requirements [between coal and nuclear] account for differences in supply patterns. The coal plant requires a train of 100 or more large coal cars arriving each day to keep it operating. The nuclear power plant does not require a continual supply of fuel. Instead, after its initial loading, it is shut down for refueling once every 12 to 24 months and then only one-fifth to one-fourth of its fuel is replaced.
> If reprocessing is used to separate the unused uranium from the spent nuclear fuel, then the amount of highly radioactive waste remaining from the 1000-MW(e) nuclear plant amounts to substantially less than 10 tons per year. In contrast, 5% or more of the coal burned becomes ash that must be removed and stored in a landfill or elsewhere at the rate of more than five 100-ton-capacity railroad cars per day.

and when it comes to depositing waste, a nuclear plant will produce what 150 cubic meters of waste a year? and, straight from a wikipedia,
>The disposal of low level waste reportedly costs around £2,000/m3 in the UK. High level waste costs somewhere between £67,000/m3 and £201,000/m3.[79] General division is 80%/20% of low level/high level waste,[80] and one reactor produces roughly 12 m3 of high level waste annually.[81]

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 16:55:51 No.10511744 Report

Quoted By: >>10511766 >>10511782 >>10511863

I support nuclear as a means of transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Getting off of fossil fuels is definitely a goal for just about anyone, but renewable ain't ready to take on the load as its replacement just yet.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO DURRR.jpg, 57KiB, 645x729

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 17:01:44 No.10511766 Report

Quoted By: >>10511769

>>10511744
CONGRATS, YOU SINGLEHANDEDLY JUST SOLVED THE PROBLEM OF NUCLEAR WASTE

YOUR HEAD IS A BOTTOMLESS BOREHOLE WE CAN JUST THROW THE WASTE DOWN

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 17:03:14 No.10511769 Report

Quoted By:

>>10511766
thanks

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 17:07:05 No.10511782 Report

Quoted By:

>>10511744
Inferior to existing renewables with the exception of geothermal.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 17:21:52 No.10511814 Report

Quoted By: >>10511837 >>10511865 >>10512172

>>10509104
Ask yourself why there's not a single insurance company in the world willing to insure the entirety of risks of operating a nuclear power plant.
Case closed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 17:28:38 No.10511837 Report

Quoted By: >>10511872

>>10511814
oh yeah? can you tell me why that is please or do you just plan on begging the question? ill wait here, take all the time you need

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 17:33:27 No.10511855 Report

Quoted By: >>10512024

>>10511389
This is still completely ridiculous, millions and possibly billions of birds die each year from colliding with human made buildings, are you going to have us tear down major cities? We know how to place wind farms so they pose a minimal impact on bird populations, you're arguing a non-factor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 17:35:55 No.10511863 Report

Quoted By:

>>10511744
Nuclear is superior to existing renewables. The only long term transition should be from uranium to thorium.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 17:37:03 No.10511865 Report

Quoted By: >>10512027

>>10511814
>dude insurance companies and bankers won't insure it therefore it's stupid
Imagine being this much of a brainlet to think this is an argument.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO blood.jpg, 227KiB, 2400x1800

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 17:38:09 No.10511869 Report

Quoted By: >>10511913 >>10511963 >>10511981

>>10509104
i want all nuclear power plants to be decommissioned. WHY?! Because when the pole shift happens and theres earthquakes everywhere we're gonna have power plants completely disheveled and every single nuclear site is going to become a radioactive wasteland.

You see people dont think ahead. The poles are moving 34 miles every year and its accelerating, it could happen at any time. The whole planet is going to be contaminated. Just look at a map of all the nuclear plants all around the world. THAT is a lot of radiation, and any coastal plant is going straight into the ocean. Its going to be chaos.

/x/ OUT

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 17:39:21 No.10511872 Report

Quoted By: >>10511939

>>10511837
>oh yeah?
yeah

use your brain

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 17:50:48 No.10511913 Report

Quoted By: >>10511942 >>10511981

>>10511869
Earth quakes aren't of much concern. They don't suddenly go kaboom because the ground shakes. There are measures in place and shut down procedures to eliminate the chance of a meltdown in a matter of minutes. Able to be controlled remotely even.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1544330266083.png, 730KiB, 1155x650

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 17:51:51 No.10511915 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509104
For.
All other forms of renewable energy require the power output from civilization to match natural processes such as water flow rates, wind speeds, and ambient sunlight.
Nuclear provides a constant, predictable amount of power, which suits the needs and structure of current civilization much better.
In either case fossil fuel plants will be needed for the sake of load matching, but much less will be needed in the case of nuclear power plants.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 17:59:43 No.10511939 Report

Quoted By: >>10512027

>>10511872
>it's so obvious that everyone should know it yet im too full of shit and retarded to explain it
lmaoo typical sci

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 18:00:08 No.10511942 Report

Quoted By: >>10511963

>>10511913
>pole shift
>electromagnetic storms
>frying all electronics

those computers inside the nuclear plant will be useless and nothing will make it work again. you wouldnt even be able to operate it manually.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 18:05:58 No.10511963 Report

Quoted By: >>10511971

>>10511869
>>10511942
this is a high iq poster

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 18:08:09 No.10511971 Report

Quoted By: >>10512001

>>10511963
Samefag poster who doesn't understand how nuclear plants work or solar storms or magnetic pole shifts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 18:11:34 No.10511981 Report

Quoted By: >>10512001

>>10511869
>>10511913
>be me
>absolute genius that understands the ins and outs of nuclear power plants and backup procedures and how the electronics involved operate
>see unprecedented catastrophe on the horizon that nobody is paying attention to because ive done the calculations and understand all the implications and exact values
>try to tell people
>nobody listens
>they call me a schizoposter
>millions die in a nuclear holocaust
>i get to tell everyone i told you so
>wikipedia page gets made about me and i live on as a cautionary tale until the end of time
is this what your daydreams are like?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 18:17:37 No.10512001 Report

Quoted By: >>10512105 >>10514303 >>10514327

>>10511971
a samefag is someone who replies the same post or his own post without identifying that hes the same individual but its glaringly obvious.
also
power plants when there is a risk of meltdown will automatically go into standby to keep the rods cool. this automatic process will not be possible if the electronics that operate the plant are fried from intense solar radiation and geomagnetic storms. the magnetosphere isnt just going to immediately come back when the pole resets. It could take up to weeks and months. and by the time the magnetosphere does come back the damage will have already been done.

>>10511981
lolol no. i just want the planet not to be radioactive. because to suggest that YOU know all potential outcomes of events that have no transpired and have never before been experienced would seem a bit ..whats the word? Dumb.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 18:22:40 No.10512019 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509104
It's the one form of waste that people produce over which they exhibit, in large numbers, an actual conscientiousness about the consequences of their own existence. So yes, I'm pro-nuclear power, just because it's so hazardous that people would actually live with an appreciable sense of fear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 18:23:44 No.10512024 Report

Quoted By:

>>10511855
High buildings are placed in urban areas. It is nothing alike wind turbines that invade entire ecosystems to produce an inconsistent supply of energy

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 18:24:08 No.10512027 Report

Quoted By: >>10512038 >>10512053 >>10512105

>>10511865
>>10511939
Because what do entire armies of finance mathematicians who do this for a fucking living know about risk and cost, hehe, right guys? Hehe, right? Guise?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 18:27:05 No.10512038 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512027
Yet there is no history of nuclear accidents or and they lack the knowledge of it. They also are invested in oil, gas and coal industries which represents a conflict of interest. I'm going to say they don't know shit and have a pretty good incentive not to insure them in the first place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 18:32:15 No.10512053 Report

Quoted By: >>10512160

>>10512027
NAH MAN ITS DA JOOISH LIBSHIT CONSPIRACY

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 18:50:28 No.10512105 Report

Quoted By: >>10512142 >>10512210

>>10512001
>lolol no
yes, it's either one or the other.
>because to suggest that YOU know all potential outcomes of events that have no transpired and have never before been experienced would seem a bit
im not suggesting anything other than the fact that you need to prove your extraordinary claims dumbass

>>10512027
>risk
safest form of energy production known to man

oop guess you're wrong dumbass, try again

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO consumer4.png, 268KiB, 383x438

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 19:02:37 No.10512131 Report

Quoted By: >>10512459

>>10509728
You and the rest of The Consumers want to use the energy to convert living, biodiverse ecosystems into giagantic heaps of steaming shit because: ['muh shiny things', 'muh cool vacation', 'muh instagram', 'muh economic growth''], whether you see it that way or not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 19:08:35 No.10512142 Report

Quoted By: >>10512210 >>10512368

>>10512105
>your empirical observation is invalid because i claim so
ok, bb

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 19:14:44 No.10512158 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509104
for because I'm not a faggot

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 19:15:08 No.10512160 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512053
>no argument so you set up a straw man against your perceived opponent
Ironic considering anti-nuclear nuts are often the most conspiratorial of all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 19:15:50 No.10512166 Report

Quoted By: >>10512205

>>10511380
Yes, ie we should keep our cats inside and also considering the impact of windmills. Not dismiss it because there is a bigger factor. Thats like saying you shouldnt use sunscreen if you smoke because cigarettes are more carcinogenic to you than sunlight.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 19:18:07 No.10512172 Report

Quoted By: >>10512254

>>10511814
>profit is or should be the only factor in any decision
Its dipshits like you that make Americans look like hot garbage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 19:18:23 No.10512174 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509181
Unfortunately, and active volcanoes. Tidal energy is pretty fucking cool on the coast though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 19:27:54 No.10512205 Report

Quoted By: >>10514796

>>10512166
Sunlight is not proven to be carcinogenic unless actual radiation (UV-A/UV-B) burn occurs. The idea that sun exposure causes cancer is not based on any evidence but fear mongering by the sunscreen industry, which is unregulated and does not require any FDA approval despite being transdermal drugs (especially alarming with the non-mineral based formulas). Melanin pigmentation in the skin is perfectly capable of providing adequate UV protection for most people, it being tantamount to actual mineral based sunscreens. Vitamin D deficiency, born mostly from a lack of sun, is more statistically associated with cancer instances and hence risk than sun exposure.
You have a point but the analogy is faulty.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 19:29:32 No.10512210 Report

Quoted By: >>10512368

>>10512142
is not even the anon you >>10512105 replied to. just sayin.

and honestly i dont want to prove it because I dont want to see it happen. you want proof you'd have to build a nuclear power plant without any fuel, and somehow overload the entire system with electromagnetic pulses. And since thats not possible the only way to know for sure is to wait for the real thing to happen.

But i wont be saying "see i told you". ill be saying "oh shit we fucked up", because we'd be fucked.
So advocate for putting an end to nuclear power! or in the very least not having so many of them, damn.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 19:46:03 No.10512254 Report

Quoted By: >>10514800

>>10512172
This isn't about plusminus x% profits but about the entire economic viability per se.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 20:33:59 No.10512368 Report

Quoted By: >>10512424

>>10512142
yet another brain-dead retard refusing to show his imaginary "empirical observation". this is what renewable fags have resorted to

>>10512210
>"the only way to prove it is to do something i have never done"
so you don't have proof then?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 20:40:08 No.10512375 Report

Quoted By:

>>10511310
this is /sci/
education and reading are verboten

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:04:42 No.10512424 Report

Quoted By: >>10512455 >>10512584

>>10512368
Take a trip to fukushiima daichi. Take a good look around. just a little bit of water on the electronics made the whole place go BOOM. now just imagine EMF fucking with another nuclear plant. BOOM.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:06:13 No.10512427 Report

Quoted By: >>10515362

>>10510596
bring back public executions for cunts that decide to jew it and cut corners
require high standards for anyone responsible for things of critical importance, with annual re-certification
this would probably raise costs, but it is probably necessary with modern culture glorifying mediocrity and laziness

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:07:04 No.10512432 Report

Quoted By:

>>10511209
No, he can't, because admitting his thing has problems would shatter his mind and soul

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:13:58 No.10512455 Report

Quoted By: >>10512470 >>10512502 >>10512506

>>10512424
>flooding a room with diesel generators is the same thing as flooding it with ""intense solar radiation""
moreover you still havent provided any evidence of your schizo poleshift theory or the em storms or the how exactly em radiation will break a diesel generator or literally anything

you are just vapidly claiming
>poleshift will happen
>poleshift will cause big em storms
>earthquakes will destroy nuclear plants
>they wont be able to powerdown in time because the exact second the pole shift causes earthquakes em storms will happen and break the electronics
>this will cause a meltdown

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:15:45 No.10512459 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512131
>posted from my Iphone

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:20:37 No.10512470 Report

Quoted By: >>10512484 >>10512505 >>10512506

>>10512455
>muh nuclear power

what happens when that back up generator runs out of fuel?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:24:55 No.10512484 Report

Quoted By: >>10512507

>>10512470
it stops generatoring power.. ? where are you going with this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:25:43 No.10512487 Report

Quoted By: >>10512495 >>10512501 >>10518897

>>10509104
Amongst the many downsides nuclear power has that has been mentioned in this thread, there is one more: You can't let any government have nuclear power plants unsupervised, as they can be used to produce weapon-grade plutonium. So in terms of solving climate change, they don't work, because there are a lot of governments in the world which will never be allowed to have nuclear power plants. These countries will still need an energy source that is carbon-free. Wind turbines and solar panels can't be turned into weapons, so they will have to stick with that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:29:47 No.10512495 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512487
So? In the hands of an actual state, preferably not a democracy, it gives them even more power. The world will only ever have peace once global conquest is achieved. Your Kumbaya outlook is idealistic, naive and childish, which is why you want little windmills, solar panels and peace on earth. Pacifism is a mental disorder.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:31:34 No.10512501 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512487
>Amongst the many downsides nuclear power has that has been mentioned in this thread
other than yours, there have been none so far other than "muh high startup cost"

yours makes no sense because basically all the biggest countries in the world already have dozens of operational nuclear reactors. they're already "allowed". the countries that can, will. the countries that can't will just use coal obviously unless we can somehow literally force them to use renewables

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:32:08 No.10512502 Report

Quoted By: >>10512506 >>10512508

>>10512455
Modern reactors are hardened against EM interference and on top of that almost all final fail safe measures are passive in activation, so even if all the electronics and mechanical fail safes went down at the same time no meltdown will occur.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:33:05 No.10512505 Report

Quoted By: >>10512523

>>10512470
>what happens when that back up generator runs out of fuel?
it will have cooled down the reactor long before it has run out of fuel dumbass. what is your argument even? i think you should stick with your list of baseless claims, it makes more ""sense""

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:33:10 No.10512506 Report

Quoted By: >>10512523

>>10512455
>>10512502
>>10512470
My bad meant to reply to the schizo

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:33:39 No.10512507 Report

Quoted By: >>10512523

>>10512484
Then if the generator stops working what is going to keep the rods cool in the non-functioning plant?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:34:24 No.10512508 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512502
ok why are you replying this to me, not the guy claiming that "em storms will destroy backup generators to prevent the meltdown from being prevented"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:43:29 No.10512523 Report

Quoted By: >>10512530

>>10512506
ok gotchya

>>10512507
see >>10512505
so what are you even claiming? that a backup generator will be running for days but not cool down the reactor? backup generators start solely to cool down the reactor and can function for literally days

there is no situation in which the backup generator would be just using up fuel and not cooling down the reactor

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:47:59 No.10512530 Report

Quoted By: >>10512544

>>10512523
yes but when the generator runs out of diesel, rather why wouldnt the back up generator just STOP once the fuel rods are cooled? Why would it need to keep running?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 21:55:26 No.10512544 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512530
once it has done its job powering the pumps to cool down the reactor, what difference does it make?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO brainlet xray.png, 850KiB, 977x1218

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 22:12:59 No.10512584 Report

Quoted By: >>10512609

>>10512424
>EMF
Somehow I get the feeling you're an ultra brainlet and not talking abut electric motors or inductors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 22:26:29 No.10512609 Report

Quoted By: >>10512664

>>10512584
im talking about geomagnetic storms fucking the whole planet up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 22:48:33 No.10512664 Report

Quoted By: >>10512672 >>10512690

>>10512609
That'll never happen.

t. MBA CEO

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1551790863158.gif, 139KiB, 511x512

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 22:52:02 No.10512672 Report

Quoted By: >>10512690 >>10512857

>>10512664
yes it will
t. /x/ janny schizoposter

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 22:58:41 No.10512690 Report

Quoted By: >>10512857

>>10512672
this is not the legit schiz. stop pretending to be me.

>>10512664
you think that NASA would lie about the integrity of our magnetosphere? Its weakining every passing year. We are very vulnerable to CMEs. it could be worse, but if the poles were to flip it could very likely happen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Mar 2019 23:01:35 No.10512698 Report

Quoted By: >>10512826 >>10512828

>>10509104
against, no reason to have it under normal circumstances

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 00:09:55 No.10512826 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512698
t. Brainlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 00:11:00 No.10512828 Report

Quoted By: >>10512860

>>10512698
this does not spark joy

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 00:24:12 No.10512857 Report

Quoted By: >>10512866

>>10512690
>>10512672
you people would be smart to listen to your betters.

I am literally a CEO a major corporation and I have an MBA and I say that it will never happen. Seriously don't fuck with me or else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 00:25:15 No.10512860 Report

Quoted By: >>10512863

>>10512828
yes it does. The more opposition to my insane plans the better, to brutally crush them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 00:28:18 No.10512863 Report

Quoted By: >>10512874

>>10512860
huh?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 00:30:16 No.10512865 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509104
For, because it's the only viable power source for industrialized, modern economies that doesn't generate a bunch of co2, and it's much safer than other types of generation plants.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 54364758_593060231199303_3591048 (...).jpg, 12KiB, 299x374

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 00:31:15 No.10512866 Report

Quoted By: >>10512872 >>10512875

>>10512857
ok dude calm down ill stop

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 00:35:29 No.10512872 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512866
you're not me silly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 00:38:13 No.10512874 Report

Quoted By: >>10512876

>>10512863
The more opposition to my insane plans the better (for me to brutally crush the opposition. I like crushing the opposition.)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 00:39:15 No.10512875 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512866
excellent

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 00:40:13 No.10512876 Report

Quoted By: >>10512889

>>10512874
me liky solaor enerby

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 00:46:32 No.10512889 Report

Quoted By: >>10512972

>>10512876
then I shall have to end u

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 00:55:35 No.10512911 Report

Quoted By:

>>10511196
I actually looked it up.

According to Google the state of Utah employs 6000 people in solar power production and has 1.6 GW of solar capacity. That comes out to 3750 people needed to produce one Gigawatt of solar power. That is of course only capacity.

A nuke plant takes "400 to 700 workers" and most produce over 1GW

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 01:04:56 No.10512934 Report

Quoted By: >>10512958

>>10509104
The problem with nuclear energy is that saddly , with each new generation, you ustaters are becoming more and more crazy, so to mass producing nuclear energy will need a huge infrastructure for nuclear fuel, something that somehow would escape from the controlling institutes ending in a nuking of a school or something like that...seriously.

So leave nuclear power to the french....they are decadent, but on this issue, is better to be decadent that a wako...

Regarding the technological issues, for the nuclear industry, at great scale, you will need a nuclear waste recycling industry, this has not been implemented yet, because nuclear power still represents a small fraction of our produced energy, nuclear wastes contaminates everything that is contact with...so you can imagine how dirty and nasty things would become...

The only way I would see nuclear power feasible is if you build a megahuge fast breeder nuclear power plant for all the USA, and all the process would be contained inside that power plant.

Otherwise, I think renewable energy is a better idea.

BTW, how much nuclear waste fast breeders reactors produce?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 272d3f1985fbb13fd8701390fa2c8723.jpg, 40KiB, 640x628

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 01:18:19 No.10512958 Report

Quoted By: >>10513465

>>10512934
>its another anti-nuclear schizoposter

>mass producing nuclear energy
>you will need a nuclear waste recycling industry
>escape from the controlling institutes ending in a nuking of a school
>all the process would be contained inside that power plant
>megahuge fast breeder nuclear power plant for all the USA

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO insanely-cute-armor-batman-baby- (...).jpg, 68KiB, 600x633

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 01:20:31 No.10512972 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512889
lebs to dis

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 01:26:39 No.10512992 Report

Quoted By: >>10513460 >>10515281

>>10510063
>nuclear gang for life
fossilfags and renewablefags BTFO

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 2013-electricity-price-per-KWh.png, 5KiB, 418x260

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:05:54 No.10513460 Report

Quoted By: >>10513487 >>10514838

>>10512992
Based

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:07:04 No.10513465 Report

Quoted By: >>10513487 >>10513514 >>10514805

>>10512958
its energetically inefficient and expensive it doesn’t pay for itself and the materials needed for it require a massive supply chain and expensive storage

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images.jpg, 6KiB, 225x225

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:09:08 No.10513472 Report

Quoted By:

100 likes and nuclear fusion is solved

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:13:21 No.10513487 Report

Quoted By: >>10513506 >>10513830

>>10513465
>expensive and doesnt pay for itself
see >>10513460
>requires a massive supply chain and expensive storage
see >>10511550
>nuclear fusion is energetically inefficent
e=mc^2 would like to have a word with you, dumbfuck

jesus christ you are brain-dead beyond repair. how can someone talk from so far inside their own ass?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:21:57 No.10513506 Report

Quoted By: >>10513508

>>10513487
>requires a massive supply chain and expensive storage
Patently false.
>With a complete combustion or fission, approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235.
That's a lower supply chain than solar and wind meme which needs constantly replaced and maintained; often sourced from China where they are shipped over on polluting ships. Renewables are a SCUM industry too, they pay their workers beans, and rape consumers for the privilege of their "green" energy that destroys millions of acres of land for shit tier pieces of shit that have a lifespan of 15 years.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 8.jpg, 21KiB, 852x480

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:23:04 No.10513508 Report

Quoted By: >>10513516

>>10513506
replied 2 the wrong person buddy

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:24:21 No.10513514 Report

Quoted By: >>10513532

>>10513465
>requires a massive supply chain and expensive storage
Patently false.
>With a complete combustion or fission, approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235.
Anyone with half a brain can see how mining and transport included, that would be a lower supply chain than solar and wind meme which needs constantly replaced and maintained; often sourced from China where they are shipped over on polluting ships, and also initially mined to get the construction material. Renewables are a SCUM industry too, they pay their workers beans, and rape consumers for the privilege of their "green" energy that destroys millions of acres of land for shit tier pieces of shit that have a lifespan of 15 years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:25:30 No.10513516 Report

Quoted By:

>>10513508
It has been corrected. Nuclear gang for life.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:30:46 No.10513532 Report

Quoted By: >>10513542 >>10513547 >>10513553

>>10513514
also solar panels are made in the same environmentally atroctious way to the way silicon wafers are made. one of the main areas of research at my university is finding an alternative to silicon because wafer production is so fucking bad for the environment

i posted it earlier but
>And for every single six-inch silicon wafer manufactured, the following wastes are produced: 25 pounds of sodium hydroxide, 2,840 gallons of waste water, and 7 pounds of miscellaneous hazardous wastes.

Solar panels are unironically awful for the environment. Nuclear is unequivocally better. Nuclear waste can just be throw into a cheap bore hole never to be seen again and that's the main source of "waste" while solar panels dont last long, have low power output and produce ridiculous amounts of waste to process

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:32:00 No.10513536 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509104
for obviously

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:34:30 No.10513541 Report

Quoted By:

smiley

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:35:09 No.10513542 Report

Quoted By:

>>10513532

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1542468949892.jpg, 399KiB, 1280x963

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:36:20 No.10513547 Report

Quoted By:

>>10513532
inb4 PV module recycling. i cant wait for the next schizo renewablefag to come

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:37:41 No.10513551 Report

Quoted By:

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/solar/the-mounting-solar-panel-waste-problem/

THIS POST HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY NUCLEAR GANG

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:39:23 No.10513553 Report

Quoted By:

>>10513532
Even conventional disposal of the waste is much safer and than it is made out to be. They are safely immobilized under several layers of materials, with longevity long exceeding the half-lives of isotopes. They are placed in the middle of nowhere at secure facilities. Super deep borehole is a good idea and probably the best solution but nuclear waste isn't the problem brainlets make it out to be in the first place.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 152583559643.jpg, 175KiB, 720x440

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 05:53:53 No.10513584 Report

Quoted By: >>10514219 >>10515281

>b-but muh three mile island

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 09:44:11 No.10513830 Report

Quoted By: >>10519865

>>10513487
>nuclear fusion
oops I meant to say fission, how did nobody call me out on that?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Nuclear-Free-NZ.jpg.jpg, 77KiB, 640x480

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 09:59:53 No.10513854 Report

Quoted By:

OOOGA BOOOGA!
NO nuclear. NUKE BAD. storytime of go-kaboom!!!
no understand. no talk. MUST DESTROY!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 11:27:56 No.10513975 Report

Quoted By: >>10514011

>>10509104
If you have to transport fuel, it sux.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 11:54:15 No.10514011 Report

Quoted By:

>>10513975
this is a high iq poster

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 14:02:26 No.10514219 Report

Quoted By: >>10514241 >>10514357

>>10513584
>a single x-ray
>over hours and hours
>what is an alpha particle?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 14:14:40 No.10514236 Report

Quoted By:

Im for it in Europe and against it in Africa

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 14:16:55 No.10514241 Report

Quoted By: >>10514250

>>10514219
retard
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 14:21:57 No.10514250 Report

Quoted By: >>10514560

>>10514241
>believing wikipedia
>ever

and you say IM the retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 14:52:26 No.10514303 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512001
>just want the planet not to be radioactive
Well that's an exercise in futility.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1551737037377.jpg, 26KiB, 552x594

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 15:05:00 No.10514325 Report

Quoted By:

>>10510160
kek saved

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 15:08:10 No.10514327 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512001
The lockout systems are required to be passive/mechanically actuated. Gravity will cause the shielding to drop over the fuel rods. This is the American standard. If anything trips a safety it causes this fail safe to actuate. All critical systems have an alpha and a bravo counterpart for immediate up time if the alpha equipment fails. American power plants do not melt down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 15:27:43 No.10514357 Report

Quoted By:

>>10514219
The totality of the incident, retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 17:02:12 No.10514560 Report

Quoted By: >>10514674

>>10514250
Every day I find out just exactly how retarded someone can get. What year do you live in that you don't understand how Wikipedia works?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 17:52:33 No.10514674 Report

Quoted By: >>10514693 >>10514710 >>10514716 >>10514812 >>10515720

>>10514560
i know that wikipedia is no better than CNN and always caters to the liberal agenda by means of altering information to propagate that agenda. Whether it be a large corporation, a famous individual, or government they will always censor the true information in favor of the information that suits the public.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 18:04:14 No.10514693 Report

Quoted By:

>>10514674
where do you even begin with someone this fucking retarded? you do understand that wikipedia cites claims right with legitimate sources (particularly the chest x-ray one in question)?

you do understand that that you are empirically wrong on this right? there are multiple sources on that wiki page.

if you think it output more radiation i'd be glad to see your sources, dumbass

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 18:13:23 No.10514710 Report

Quoted By:

>>10514674
>it cites sources for its information, bit that information doesn't line up with what I'd like to be true so it must be the liberal agenda and it's definitely not just my agenda conflicting with reliable evidence that's been established through thorough investigation and decades of scrutiny

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 18:16:24 No.10514716 Report

Quoted By:

>>10514674
>the liberal agenda of nuclear physics
now I've heard it all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 18:53:20 No.10514796 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512205
It wasnt intended to be rigorous, the point is that x being worse than y is an irrelevant point to this conversation. Additionally when I used sunlight as an example it was simply because its the most common form of radiation people are familiar with.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 18:56:34 No.10514800 Report

Quoted By: >>10515487 >>10516882 >>10517172

>>10512254
The discussion of economic viability is a complete non starter because your choice is between the following
1) use less energy
2) fossil fuels
3) Nuclear
Given that no society will accept option 1 and option 2 is significantly worse by the majority of metrics nuclear becomes the default answer. Hopefully advances in battery technology will one day solve the intermittency issues of renewables.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 19:00:04 No.10514805 Report

Quoted By:

>>10513465
>doesn’t pay for itself
Holy shit you are beyond retarded, the cost of power production is largely irrelevant because our society doesnt exist without it. This point is like saying because all food now costs 3x as much to make we are going to stop eating.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 19:03:13 No.10514812 Report

Quoted By:

>>10514674
>i know that wikipedia is no better than CNN
Nope, the citations are at the bottom of every article. Not reading them doesnt make wikipedia bad, it makes you a retarded dishonest pseud.
>liberal agenda
Oh youre mentally ill.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 4290013.jpg, 26KiB, 288x288

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 19:19:26 No.10514838 Report

Quoted By: >>10515948 >>10516485

>>10513460
>tfw you realize big oil and big coal were behind the renewable meme this entire time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 22:37:10 No.10515281 Report

Quoted By:

>>10510063
>>10510160
>>10512992
>>10513584
WANT TO SEE MORE NUCLEAR GANG MEMES. NUCLEAR GANG OR BUST.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 22:46:31 No.10515308 Report

Quoted By: >>10515430

against, but not because of nuclear power itself, because of corruption that makes all basic structures fall in my cunt

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 23:13:27 No.10515354 Report

Quoted By: >>10516485

>>10509275
>10,000
10000 years, sure why not, the last 2000 have been so predictable

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Apr 2019 23:16:59 No.10515362 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512427
sure, that's how CCCP worked like a dream

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO c98rhqx8zyj21.jpg, 64KiB, 500x484

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 00:00:48 No.10515430 Report

Quoted By:

>>10515308
cringe

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 00:35:49 No.10515487 Report

Quoted By: >>10515494 >>10515732 >>10516485 >>10516851

>>10514800
They'll be forced to accept option 1, once options 2 and 3 are used up. That's when the fun begins.

To think, if it weren't for growth mongers such as yourself over the decades, renewables (ethanol, hydro, and others) would have been plenty and there'd be no need for either option 2 or 3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 00:37:43 No.10515494 Report

Quoted By: >>10515732 >>10516485

>>10515487
I don't think the real threat is climate change or pollution or nuclear or anything like that. I think it's growth mongers.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1444921328533.jpg, 40KiB, 624x628

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 03:06:10 No.10515720 Report

Quoted By:

>>10514674

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1507428132684.png, 37KiB, 586x578

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 03:15:14 No.10515732 Report

Quoted By:

>>10515487
>>10515494
>just use less electricity in your houses, morans

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 03:33:52 No.10515771 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509104
It's dead, get over it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 03:39:53 No.10515781 Report

Quoted By: >>10515905 >>10516922

>>10509207
IMHO the big problem of nuclear power is that research was stopped in the middle of last century and we are left with flawed designs. Molten salt reactors can solve both problems- nuclear wastes can be consumed by actinide burning, and meltdowns are avoided when the reactor is designed to run in a molten state. Molten salts were not developed to a commerci a l level because of the research moratorium, and as such we are in a much worse place now with regards to climate change.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 05:00:05 No.10515905 Report

Quoted By: >>10516471

>>10515781
http://thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 05:19:59 No.10515937 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509209
>Photoshopped image of aliens endorsing the "artist's" viewpoint by appealing to people's insecurities about being mocked and laughed at by those they perceived to be "superior" a.k.a. an appeal to ridicule

The absolute state of the solar and wind cult.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 05:21:43 No.10515944 Report

Quoted By:

>>10510725
You should probably make that 780 square miles since those things only generate a third of their peak capacity on average.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 05:23:52 No.10515948 Report

Quoted By: >>10516485

>>10514838
So you watched Pandora's Promise too. It was an eye opener when they showed that ad for solar power/against nuclear in that 1970's newspaper that paid by the oil companies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 05:28:29 No.10515957 Report

Quoted By: >>10516479

>>10509104
Nuclear power is much better:
- lower waste production
- we can store waste in box not in air
- Its cheap in comparing to coal energy
- cost of building nuclear reactor are low - in comparing to $/energy produced
Its much more dangerous than coal energy but new versions of reactors are safe enought in my opinion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 13:13:18 No.10516471 Report

Quoted By: >>10516922

>>10515905
The IFR you mentioned is not the same as the reactor im describing. Im referring to the molten salts, where the fuel exists as a chloride or fluoride (uranium chloride, plutonium chloride, thorium fluoride). The fuel is not solid in cladding, the fuel itself melts and is dissolved within the coolant, a carrier salt.

To be honest, im not impressed with IFR, its just another fast breeder, the sodium cooled LMFBR already exists, and i believe powers the seawolf class nuclear submarine. The neutron spectrum is too fast for efficiently breeding u 233 from thorium in that design, the liquid sodium coolant is so heavy that the neutrons just bounce off the sodium nuclei without losing much energy, rarely slowing down enough to transmute thorium. In the molten salt, we can switch out chloride salt for fluoride salts to slow the neutrons down to the right cross section. The sodium itself is problematic, it catches fire upon exposure to air, as does the heterogenous fuel- its solid, allowing for the possibility of a runaway meltdown. Chloride salt fuel is also very competitive with the LMFBR if you wanted to breed plutonium from u238. The molten salt also has significant advantages in actinide burning-

https://www.academia.edu/27209647/MOLTEN_SALT_REACTORS_MSRs_COUPLING_SPENT_FUEL_PROCESSING_AND_ACTINIDE_BURNING

Yeah, i get that the concept sounds similar with the IFR (which is not really a new reactor at all, again, its just the LMFBR), but the two really are nothing alike. Think of the molten salt as just a big pool of nuclear lava that can drive a turbine to make electricity. The IFR is more of a standard set of nuclear fuel elements with molten metal coolant; if you take out the rods the molten metal will solidify. In the molten salt, there is literally no fuel rods to remove, its all just in the lava, if that makes sense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 13:25:01 No.10516479 Report

Quoted By:

>>10515957
>Its much more dangerous than coal energy but new versions of reactors are safe enought in my opinion.
i agree with everything you said except this. nuclear is the safest form of energy production, safer than solar, safer than wind. it's not a debate

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 13:32:33 No.10516485 Report

Quoted By:

>>10515354
can you read? what are you even talking about

>>10514838
>>10515948
DOPE

>>10515487
>>10515494
smooth brains in the building

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 4EF4B737-F6B3-4595-99A3-90FF7F37 (...).jpg, 61KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 14:46:28 No.10516594 Report

Quoted By:

epic meme inc

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 15:22:01 No.10516670 Report

Quoted By: >>10516751

>>10509104
Third party maintenance is killing it tho. We need a more efficient organisation no matter the cost.
Nuclear is theorically better but the tendency we have to screw up things is concerning.
Anyway stirling engines are more efficient, you can build them for cheap and use the temperature difference between the surface of the ocean and the deep to power it. Or anything that produces heat. We could even use depleted uranium to power stirling engines.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 16:06:03 No.10516751 Report

Quoted By:

yes, we don't have a choice to exclude nuclear ar this point. In the US at least we really, really need waste storage. Harry Reid can go suck a dick.
>>10516670
>>stirling engines are more efficient
no. supercritical rankine is where it's at
>>ocean
OTEC is a meme until we make corrosion resistant pipes that sea life can't grow on. The energy is there it's just hard to harness because you need to move lots of seawater and ocean life loves that.
>>depleted uranium
impractical unless you want to breed fuel and breeding is just too much trouble right nowl

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 16:14:32 No.10516769 Report

Quoted By: >>10516774 >>10516783 >>10516796

Why don't we just build a nuclear power plant on the moon and ship the power to earth? Can't hurt the environment when there isn't one...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 16:16:52 No.10516774 Report

Quoted By: >>10516781

>>10516769
too expensive

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 800px-Supercritical-Water-Cooled (...).png, 82KiB, 800x815

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 16:19:03 No.10516779 Report

Quoted By:

Unironically best 4th Generation Reactor Design coming through

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 16:19:42 No.10516781 Report

Quoted By:

>>10516774
In the near future spaceflight will cost peanuts. Only low iq tards will think this is a bad idea

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 16:20:08 No.10516783 Report

Quoted By: >>10516789

>>10516769
Power beaming requires either a huge microwave antenna or a laser. A microwave power transmitter must be absolutely MASSIVE to beam power from the moon, a laser can be smaller, but now it can be stopped by clouds.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1311010641509small.jpg, 847KiB, 938x4167

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 16:21:38 No.10516786 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 16:22:08 No.10516789 Report

Quoted By:

>>10516783
Nah fuck that, fly batteries to and from the moon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 16:25:42 No.10516796 Report

Quoted By:

>>10516769
Nuclear power impacts the enviroment less than any other source. Even the waste is disposed of so securely that it cannot leach out. Building it on the moon is entirely unnecessary.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 16:52:20 No.10516851 Report

Quoted By:

>>10515487
How could you possibly label me a "growth monger" based on less than a paragraph of text which is factually true regardless of personal views? Our economic system is only functional with constant growth, like it or not that is a demonstrable truth.

You also seem to not understand anything vis a vis power production, transmission, and consumption because the issue with renewable sources is availability not generation. Simply having more doesnt solve that issue, which I already addressed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 17:12:08 No.10516882 Report

Quoted By: >>10517485 >>10518865

>>10514800
>The discussion of economic viability is a complete non starter because your choice is between the following
>1) use less energy
>2) fossil fuels
>3) Nuclear

Erm, nope. You're presenting a false trichotomy.

There have been extensive studies on this topic for the case of Germany. 60% renewables is easily achievable without the need of storage with manageable investments in infrastructure like 1. a fully digital grid, which Germany already achieved, 2. several more cross country power lines to connect centers of supply with centers of demand, which Germany is right in the process of achieving, and 3. widespread use of smart meters, which Germany is beginning to use.

The next major step would be 80% renewables. This requires already some form of storage, but would, in the case of Germany, still be compatible with affordable energy prices, if one opts for the cheapest solution here, which is utilizing the abundance of old salt mines as stores for pressurized air.

The last 20% would have to come from more reliable, adjustable power sources. Obviously natural gas is the preferred solution here. Nuclear power plants are the worst in this department, which is btw the reason why France isn't 100% nuclear. But there's also a good chance that on the way to 80% renewables there will be enough efficiency and cost saving gains so that power-to-gas and/or power-to-liquid methods become competitive so that the last 20% can be climate neutral, too. Currently they're too expensive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 17:34:04 No.10516918 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509104
Yes but we need to develop gen IV reactors pronto.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 17:36:14 No.10516922 Report

Quoted By:

>>10516471
I know the IFR is not a molten salt reactor, I was replying to >>10515781
>IMHO the big problem of nuclear power is that research was stopped in the middle of last century and we are left with flawed designs.
the IFR is very real and very good, the design phase was already over when the project was scrapped, and most of the problems you mentioned were solved.
I know thorium is ideal, but we're decades away from a commercial ready molten salt thorium reactor. the IFR is the best we have right now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 17:58:42 No.10516953 Report

Quoted By:

>>10510040
>water going scarce
If you didn't know, we have entire fucking oceans worth of water. If you have no idea what an ocean is, imagine a normal country, but like 7x deeper.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 18:00:54 No.10516957 Report

Quoted By:

>>10510713
Its like using a plane and driving a car, people die from car crashes daily. Planes don't fall from the sky as often, but if there happens a mistake (and the pilots fail to control it) lots of people die. Then they learn from the mistake, fix it and even less people die.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 19:28:18 No.10517155 Report

Quoted By:

Good thread
We need to go nuclear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 19:34:54 No.10517172 Report

Quoted By: >>10517493 >>10518865

>>10514800
>The discussion of economic viability is a complete non starter because your choice is between the following

You don't understand.
If I'm an investor in the energy supply market. I very likely am capable to build a solar or wind farm but not a nuclear power plant, the latter being much more expensive; and having higher technical and regulatory demands.
Plus the solar and wind farms can be built incrementally and be online in months.

And if I was the government my option would be
4) maximize wind and solar capacity; then sure build or maintain nuclear if you cannot make it otherwise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 22:08:51 No.10517485 Report

Quoted By:

>>10516882
>saying "we need more renewables" without presenting a single reason why
t. smooth brain

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg, 48KiB, 697x512

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 22:12:22 No.10517493 Report

Quoted By: >>10517557

>>10517172
>if im a government my option would be doing something that needs to be constantly maintained and replaced that takes up 1000x+ more land and requires ramping up silicon wafer production separately which is also awful for the environment which is the whole point of moving to renewables in the first place rather than just building a nuclear plant that doesnt have to worry about intermittency or anything else listed here

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 22:18:13 No.10517514 Report

Quoted By:

man, nuclear gang is raping the renewable fags here.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO cd5642f5111372723f9438d993bd4649.jpg, 40KiB, 598x441

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 22:25:48 No.10517526 Report

Quoted By:

FUCK coal and FUCK rewnewables (controlled opposition).

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO TIMESAND___Beep.jpg, 30KiB, 425x239

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 22:39:22 No.10517557 Report

Quoted By: >>10517587

>>10517493

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 22:49:34 No.10517587 Report

Quoted By:

>>10517557
Not an argument, brainlet.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO five-surprising-facts-about-nucl (...).jpg, 1MiB, 1200x1200

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2019 22:51:33 No.10517593 Report

Quoted By:

NUKE GANG

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 03:40:07 No.10518250 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509104
For.

Climate change is going to kill us. Nuclear waste is at least not going to literally fuck up the atmosphere and destabilize ecosystems. Worst case reprocessing can be legalized in 50 years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 03:48:06 No.10518259 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509131
This, for the most part, though I'm not conversant with the economics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 05:42:13 No.10518405 Report

Quoted By: >>10518415

>>10509104
I'm for, but I know jackshit about physics so why should my opinion matter?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 05:52:34 No.10518415 Report

Quoted By: >>10518500 >>10518757

>>10518405
The processes are quite easy to understand as long as you aren’t designing the reactors yourself

Fission is just shooting neutrons at big unstable chunguses which will start a chain reaction that can be sustained as long as you’ve got the fuel and e=mc^2 is the SHIT and the waste is so god damn irrelevant

the issue I guess isn’t that nuclear isn’t bad for the environment as a whole or anything, it’s just that startup costs are high and governments can produce weapons grade plutonium (but they would do this anyway) with many reactors, and on the exteme offchance something does go wrong nobody will die probably but it would make the whole surrounding area not habitable for a long time

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 21402282521256_254.jpg, 71KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 07:05:45 No.10518497 Report

Quoted By:

So, do people not know that there is more than just the Light Water design? LFTRs need more attention.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 07:07:40 No.10518499 Report

Quoted By: >>10518503 >>10518757

>>10509104
Against.
Easy = Fukishima, Chernobyl.
You like nuclear, you are a moron who should go live in a quarantine site.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 07:07:55 No.10518500 Report

Quoted By: >>10518508 >>10518881

>>10518415
>waste is so god damn irrelevant
that's where you are wrong and plutonium has some of the longest lasting waste products
besides, nuclear power plants are known for costings way to much money and barely making ends meet on their own, and if things went wrong many people could die since they are built around cities and then you have to deal with gene mutations in the population, people keep saying how renewable options take up so much land, but much of that land is also used for crops or animals, i guess nuclear gang seems to miss that

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1546614279183.gif, 67KiB, 385x349

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 07:08:36 No.10518503 Report

Quoted By: >>10518509 >>10518514 >>10518853

>>10518499
>{Easy = Fukishima, Chernobyl}~~~~therefore nuclear power BAD!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 07:14:21 No.10518508 Report

Quoted By: >>10518526

>>10518500
>that's where you are wrong and plutonium has some of the longest lasting waste products
Non issue because the quantity of it is minute and it can be safely immobilized in containers that exceed the half-lives of the isotopes.
>besides, nuclear power plants are known for costings way to much money and barely making ends meet on their own, and if things went wrong many people could die since they are built around cities and then you have to deal with gene mutations in the population,
Absolutely baseless hypothetical.
>people keep saying how renewable options take up so much land, but much of that land is also used for crops or animals,
Not really. It's a liability to lease large wind/solar farms. They aren't going to do that so farmers with tractors and shit are going to make lives even more complicated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 07:14:31 No.10518509 Report

Quoted By: >>10518523 >>10518525

>>10518503
It is bad, moron, the consequences aren't worth it in a worse case scenario, especially when you have side effect free alternatives like solar or tidal or geothermal, or less harmful, like wind. Dead birds are better than a completely irradiated quarantine zone.
nuclear is the tard npc theory, which requires no brain whatsoever
Coal is shit, gasoline destroyed the environment, stop advocating for literally the most dangerous, unpredictable and uncontrollable form of energy out there
None of you would be willing to live in a nuclear fallout zone, so all of your points are moot and hypocritical

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 07:16:01 No.10518514 Report

Quoted By:

>>10518503

You have no argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 07:28:32 No.10518523 Report

Quoted By:

>>10518509
>Dead birds are better than a completely irradiated quarantine zone

Birds and mammal populations are growing and even flourishing inside the Chernobyl exclusion zone meanwhile wind turbines are clobering eagles as we speak

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 07:30:25 No.10518525 Report

Quoted By:

>>10518509
>It is bad, moron, the consequences aren't worth it in a worse case scenario
To which if you understood how nuclear plants operate and failures in place, is extremely, extremely unlikely. You don't and have a sci-fi doomsday scenario understanding of it, because you're a brainlet.
>especially when you have side effect free alternatives like solar
Photovoltaics are not "side effect free"—their production and waste is very polluting, and they occupy hundreds of square miles to generate anything close to the output of a nuclear plant. Wind is shit tier and also occupies immense space. Geothermal is geographically limited.
>Dead birds are better than a completely irradiated quarantine zone.
I don't care about dead birds; the detriments of wind power have been expounded upon ad infinitum. The alternative you mention is not an inevitability, or design flaw, or even remote possibility with modern designs.
>stop advocating for literally the most dangerous, unpredictable and uncontrollable form of energy out there
It's actually the statistically the safest. It's controllable, hence why it is able to be used. Do you even understand what fission is?
>None of you would be willing to live in a nuclear fallout zone, so all of your points are moot and hypocritical
Imagine having this smooth of a brain. Apply this to any other scenario and see how insane it sounds.
>Coal is shit, gasoline destroyed the environment
And ironically, you advocate for the controlled opposition of renewables.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO afsic18050099isturbines_farmtrucks.jpg, 66KiB, 332x220

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 07:31:55 No.10518526 Report

Quoted By: >>10518545

>>10518508
>quantity of it is minute
whats better than minute? none at all.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYLzss58CLs
here is a video where a nuclear power plant employee is talking about how nuclear power plants are only economical when run constantly and that solar power is fucking that up.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRrBU2rF-2s
this video has pictures and some text about the children who were born after the Chernobyl incident.
>pic related
to show that they are already using "wind farms" for crops as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 07:52:55 No.10518545 Report

Quoted By: >>10518631

>>10518526
>whats better than minute? none at all.
It's a non-issue, brianlet. It's not in the enviroment. It's not hurting anyone or anything.
But wasting millions of acres of land for shit wind farm plagued by intermittency absolutely is an issue though.
>muh only economical when run constantly
AND THAT'S A GOOD THING.
Windmills, cannot run constantly, neither can solar. Nuclear plants are refueled once every 18 months on average so it's not even a problem.
>this video has pictures and some text about the children who were born after the Chernobyl incident.
Not a systemic flaw of nuclear reactor, you fucking retard. Did you read the thread?
>to show that they are already using "wind farms" for crops as well.
Mr. Double Digit has introduced, exhibit A, a PR photograph, capable of producing enough electricity for a few blocks. A 1000 MW wind farm occupies hundreds of acres of land.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO muh renewables. nuclear BAD!.jpg, 125KiB, 690x844

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 07:56:53 No.10518551 Report

Quoted By: >>10519473

>We don't need nuclear guys, it's REALLY BAD AND SCARY, let's use some nice pleasant windmills, look at this nice picture!
The ABSOLUTE state of BP shills.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Jj2wD3GjE

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 09:03:26 No.10518631 Report

Quoted By:

>>10518545
Hey thank you I woke up and didn’t have to dab on any renewable faggots cos someone else did it for me feels good

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 09:08:02 No.10518642 Report

Quoted By: >>10518799

>>10509104
It has some of the most dangerous waste and it is a very fragile source of energy(on top of very adverse effects on organic material in case of handling fail) but other than that it is perfectly okay for the environment and provides a shit-ton of energy. It is also re-usable which is good.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO download (3).jpg, 7KiB, 291x173

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 09:09:28 No.10518643 Report

Quoted By: >>10518800

>>10509127
Hang on I found your enemy it's in the pic

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 11:11:51 No.10518757 Report

Quoted By: >>10518788

>>10518415
Yeah, I know the basics. But I can't say how much polution there is and how much the reactors are efficient, but common sense tells me it's way better than fucking burning coal.
>>10518499
Chernobyl was human mistake and Fukushima was in a fucking active seismic zone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 11:46:21 No.10518788 Report

Quoted By: >>10518793 >>10519163

>>10518757
yeah, but how bout them failsafes amirite?! fukushima was fucked from the start, and im glad to see those backup generators got put to good use.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 11:53:03 No.10518793 Report

Quoted By: >>10518795

>>10518788
It's a good thing you can conflate tsunami deaths with the nuclear accident at fukushima, otherwise anti-nuclearists would have to deal with the case of a nuclear accident where nobody died

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 11:55:17 No.10518795 Report

Quoted By:

>>10518793
deaths? i wasnt talking about anyone dying. I was referring to how well the backup systems worked to maintain the integrity of the plant itself. Im glad those fuel rods are safe and cool thanks to the backup generators.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 11:57:31 No.10518799 Report

Quoted By: >>10518800 >>10518809

>>10518642
>some of the most dangerous waste
unless you're skinny dipping in it it has some of the least dangerous waste in comparison to the viable alternatives. nuclear emissions = water vapor and every year we can literally take the miniscule 10-20 tons of waste (if this were coal there would be roughly 200,000 tons of waste for the same power output, for comparison) and CHEAPLY chuck it into a hole. it's very cheap to deal with low/medium radiation waste which is about 99% of all the waste produced

now let's take solar. how do you think those panels are made, my friend? do you think they just materialize them out of nowhere? nope, CTRL-F "wafer" on this page for more info. to create them creates tons of emissions and waste water, and they dont last very long and they need to be constantly mass produced by these factories that are awful for the environment. i don't even need to explain why nuclear is worse than coal and such.and there's nobody arguing for wind in this thread for a reason.

>fragile
what do you mean? it's statistically the safest form of energy known to man and provides an extremely consistent throughput.. you've just been brain-washed unless im misunderstanding you bigtime.

it sounds like you are just saying
>muh fukushima

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 11:59:14 No.10518800 Report

Quoted By: >>10518809

>>10518799
why coal is worse than nuclear** i meant obv

>>10518643
yep npcs are the enemy

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 12:05:57 No.10518809 Report

Quoted By: >>10518853 >>10518862

>>10518799
>doesnt know the difference between alpha and beta particles

>>10518800
when burned, coal releases polonium into the air. and we've been burning coal for a loooong time, so overall technically coal is worse than nuclear to (((them))). in reality coal doesnt have nuclear waste that needs hundreds of thousands of years to become safe again, and if theres a coal accident there is just fire unlike nuclear when shit melts through the ground and contaminating the entire area for, again, hundreds of thousands of years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 12:44:16 No.10518853 Report

Quoted By: >>10518867

>>10518809
>doesnt know the difference between alpha and beta particles
the go-to NPC non-argument retort haha goteem

>in reality coal doesnt have nuclear waste that needs hundreds of thousands of years to become safe again
yep confirmed. it produces about 10,000x more waste that also is toxic but instead of being thrown safely into a hole in containers that will last longer than the halflife of the waste itself it's just thrown into landfills, same as solar.

>if theres a coal accident there is just fire unlike nuclear when shit melts through the ground and contaminating the entire area for, again, hundreds of thousands of years
this guy was spot on >>10518503

what's the argument you're even making here? meltdowns are bad? 3k-20k years is still a lot, so why would you say "contaminted for hundreds of thousands of years" when, technically that's true, but chernobyl's going to be habitable much, much sooner than that. the three mile island event """contaminated the surrounding area""" for years in spite of releasing the radiation equivalent of a single chest xray, and the vast majority of the fukushima region will be inhabitable for a couple decades

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 12:47:19 No.10518862 Report

Quoted By:

>>10518809
not to mention brainlet keep in mind we're talking about 3 separate incidents, the average amount of time past between these incidents is about 25 years which is why nuclear is considered the safest form of energy production known to man

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 12:49:14 No.10518865 Report

Quoted By:

>>10516882
First, my proposition only applies to current infrastructure, not what could be designed. Second, its from the pov of NA where geography heavily limits how you can transmit power.
Finally
> 60% renewables is easily achievable without the need of storage
I dont know what this is supposed to mean. The % of your total output that is renewable doesnt solve intermittency problems.
.
>>10517172
Investors care about RoI and stability, nuclear is extremely effective in both. If you were the government you dont actually care about renewables because once again the intermittency problem.

Possibly (probably) in the future through a complete redesign of our infrastructure, consumption, and advances in technology we could run our civ strictly on renewables. But such a future is literally 100s of years away particularly in larger more dispersed populations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 12:51:15 No.10518867 Report

Quoted By: >>10519061

>>10518853
138 days. 138 days is the half life of polonium. granted i wouldnt want to live near a coal plant but it only takes 2 years for the polonium to be clear of radioactivity. and of course it should be disposed of properly. but still id take 138 days over 20,000 years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 13:01:17 No.10518881 Report

Quoted By:

>>10518500
>that's where you are wrong
No he isnt
https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html
>plutonium
Plutonium itself is a byproduct of commercial generation, present in very low quantities.
>besides, nuclear power plants are known for costings way to much money
according to who
>options take up so much land, but much of that land is also used for crops or animals
Grass takes up a bunch of land as well, what is your point?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 13:07:02 No.10518891 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509214
There are quite a lot of them in the world however

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 13:13:24 No.10518897 Report

Quoted By:

>>10512487
>Amongst the many downsides nuclear power has that has been mentioned in this thread, there is one more: You can't let any government have nuclear power plants unsupervised, as they can be used to produce weapon-grade plutonium.
Holy actual shit you absolute cretin. This is the equivalent of me saying its possible to reconstruct my carolla into a ferrari.
>there are a lot of governments in the world which will never be allowed to have nuclear power plants.
Good luck with that, youre just unaware Iran exists then? Or how about any nation that isnt the US?

Comments like yours are a strong commentary on why unlimited democracy was a mistake.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 13:32:46 No.10518915 Report

Quoted By: >>10519468

The reason the Germans are able to run at >65% non synchronous penetration (renewables) is because they have generators in Poland and Czech Republic picking up the slack for them in times of oversupply. The Irish can do it because their demand is 5GW and they have 20% of their overall demand as capacity on their interconnectors which is a very unique situation.

Nuclear is the way forward and everyone in industry knows this. The problem is in a world where government run projects constantly go twice over budget (and this is for basic stuff like hospitals and schools) nobody (read: political party because they make the policies) wants to take the risk on something requiring so much funding, external consultants, outsourced knowledge, and to top it all off goes against public demand. Hinkley in the UK been a disaster and EDF have been bailed out by the French state multiple times, everyone is waiting for the technology to mature before taking the plunge but it'll take decades at this rate.

Fukushima set us back about 20 years.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO low-solar-energy-costs-wind-ener (...).png, 379KiB, 2154x1376

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 14:34:43 No.10519030 Report

Quoted By: >>10519069

>>10509104
It does not matter what I think. it's over for atomic power for one simple reason. It's not economically viable. Solar, wind, natural gas is much cheaper.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 14:49:50 No.10519061 Report

Quoted By: >>10519064

>>10518867
i dont really even understand what you are saying here. i never brought up polonium

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 14:51:21 No.10519064 Report

Quoted By: >>10519084

>>10519061
i was comparing nuclear to coal power.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 14:53:13 No.10519069 Report

Quoted By:

>>10519030
>such observation does not take into account environmental consequences of certain conventional generation technologies or intermittency-related considerations or reliability

that's very convenient for solar power lmao, do you not realize how retarded that picture is for trying to prove your point?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 14:59:26 No.10519084 Report

Quoted By: >>10519113

>>10519064
yes i know, but are you talking about polonium in coal waste water? like i dont understand, coal waste is toxic regardless of the polonium

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 15:12:59 No.10519113 Report

Quoted By: >>10519279

>>10519084
nuclear waste is toxic regardless of your energy gainz

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 15:37:54 No.10519163 Report

Quoted By:

>>10518788
The guy who invented and patented the design used in Fukushima warned them not to use too large of reactors due to difficulties controlling it but they did anyway. You're also a complete fucking idiot if you don't think reactors have advanced at all since then.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 15:56:04 No.10519206 Report

Quoted By: >>10519281 >>10519471 >>10519473

*dabs on this thread*

this post was brought to you by the wind power gang

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 16:35:25 No.10519279 Report

Quoted By:

>>10519113
not an argument. When did I ever deny this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 16:36:27 No.10519281 Report

Quoted By:

>>10519206
>400 acres to do something that could be done in 2
i agree though, fuck the birds

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 17:28:44 No.10519429 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509131
Meltdowns are a thing of the past. Dont even count chernobyl. Just read about the events and staff that caused it. TMI led to massive changes in how staff are trained to prevent such an event from ever happening again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 17:30:25 No.10519432 Report

Quoted By:

I work at a nuke plant. AMA

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 17:50:07 No.10519468 Report

Quoted By:

>>10518915
>Fukushima* set us back about 20 years.
Brainlets and democracy* set us back about 20 years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 17:52:59 No.10519471 Report

Quoted By:

>>10519206
>100s of square miles instead of 1
>lifespan of 10 to 15 years instead of potentially centuries
>requires batteries for intermitency
>raises the price of housing and electricity (25 cents a kWh instead of 6)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 17:54:00 No.10519473 Report

Quoted By:

>>10519206
t. controlled opposition >>10518551

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 21:53:41 No.10519865 Report

Quoted By:

>>10513830
You overestimate this board.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 22:25:21 No.10519909 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509209
>retarded lmaos laugh at completely harmless water vapor coming from cooling tower
They aren't sending their best, folks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Apr 2019 22:48:15 No.10519946 Report

Quoted By:

>>10509257
>it's centralized;
Decentralized power production sounds like a meme with no benefits that could only work in low-density areas.
>private concentrate energy production is part of the problem that caused this mess
Yeah, if there had been a small coal plant on every corner instead of a few big ones here and there then there would be no climate change because everyone would have died from lung cancer a long time ago.
>radioactive waste is one of the biggest problems; it is not a solved problem
Only because of political circlejerk. Any faggot politician can gain support from retarded normies by making sure the new mega storage site doesn't get built in their state.
>it is going to be a huge money sink that the government needs to fund
Unlike renewables, which were funded purely by entrepreneurs.
>inb4 solar/wind/whatever is cheaper
It's easy to provide cheap power when you don't have to worry about energy storage because existing traditional plants can take over when the Sun's not shining.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches