/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10992666

176KiB, 960x720, https___blogs-images.forbes.com_jamesconca_files_2019_09_TMI-unit1.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Three mile Island shuts down

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 03:14:30 2019 No.10992666 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10992722 >>10992754 >>10993514 >>10993620 >>10993720 >>10993738 >>10993902 >>10995928 >>10997203 >>10997208 >>10998520 >>10998618 >>10998692 >>10999423 >>10999719

Why do environmentalists so anti-science with regards to nuclear energy

>Three mile island generates more than 70 times the clean energy that all the solar panels in the entire state of pennslyvania
>If it was subsidized as much as solar or wind it would not have shut down
>It is being completely replaced by natural gas

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:17:05 No.10992674 Report

Quoted By: >>10992679

All political movements are non-rational. All politics are moved by emotions and rhetoric. The average person does not make a logical analysis of their wants and needs, nor do they attempt to take actions in order to further their goals. They simply act based on their current emotional states and thought patterns, mindlessly and without meaning. Sad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:18:56 No.10992679 Report

Quoted By: >>10992684

>>10992674
>Sad
Yet another post ruined by an excess sentiment.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO clump.jpg, 32KiB, 839x655

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:19:44 No.10992684 Report

Quoted By: >>10992692

>>10992679
I meant it in the way Trump says it, not actually expressing sentiment more of a mocking exclamation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:22:34 No.10992692 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992684
That's what ruined it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO but muh chernobyl.png, 37KiB, 850x601

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:24:49 No.10992696 Report

Quoted By: >>10992718 >>10999419

Blame HBO's Chernobyl.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:29:31 No.10992718 Report

Quoted By: >>10998511

>>10992696
Chernobyl didn't even kill anyone, just some wild hohol pigs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:31:50 No.10992722 Report

Quoted By: >>10992724 >>10992738 >>10998466 >>10998498

>>10992666
>>If it was subsidized as much as solar or wind it would not have shut down
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, nuclear power is the ultimate welfare queen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:32:43 No.10992724 Report

Quoted By: >>10998876 >>10999426

>>10992722
Unlike a welfare queen, it actually does shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:34:12 No.10992727 Report

Quoted By: >>10992731

>clean

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:36:12 No.10992731 Report

Quoted By: >>10992734

>>10992727
It is, you filthy HBO cuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:37:21 No.10992734 Report

Quoted By: >>10992743

>>10992731
How do?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:39:51 No.10992738 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992722
>t. Retard
Look at Germany brainlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:45:31 No.10992743 Report

Quoted By: >>10992748 >>10993182

>>10992734
You could literally condense that steam into liquid water and only drink that for a year and that would expose you to less radiation than spending one hour in an airplane.

Living near a nuclear plant exposes you to less uranium than living near a coal plant and maybe even than having a granite chimney in your house.

Death toll for Fukushima: 0.

Rate of acute radiation syndrome among Chernobyl liquidators: 2%.

Fucking literally fucking all the fucking memes about fucking nuclear fucking being fucking dirty fucking energy have fucking been fucking debunked fucking again and fucking again and fucking again. Fuck off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:47:36 No.10992748 Report

Quoted By: >>10992750 >>10992757 >>10992823 >>10994308 >>10998515

>>10992743
But what about the highly radioactive and nuclear waste that is essentially permanent? The only thing we can do with is bury it somewhere. Definitely not clean but it might work well depending on how much nuclear waste we produce.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:50:06 No.10992750 Report

Quoted By: >>10992753

>>10992748
>highly radioactive
lol no, also 4th gen reactors

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:51:19 No.10992753 Report

Quoted By: >>10992777 >>10992783 >>10992823 >>10999425

>>10992750
>not highly radioactive
This is news to me. I thought nuclear waste was dangerous shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:51:26 No.10992754 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992666
nuclear bad

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:52:19 No.10992757 Report

Quoted By: >>10992765 >>10998519

>>10992748
Bury until we find a use for it or can affordably yeet it into the Sun

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 03:57:51 No.10992765 Report

Quoted By: >>10993535 >>10994315

>>10992757
Still, other renewables are more convincing to me. They all have some crazy upside that nothing else has.
>Sheer amount of sunlight that hits the earth every second
>Carbon neutral fuel

We should find a way to make those things work

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 04:06:24 No.10992777 Report

Quoted By: >>10992787 >>10999432

>>10992753
it is, for 10000 years

URANIUM
---------------------------------------------
Uranium fuel rod
U-235 5%
U-238 95%

when rod is used
U-235 breaks up
U-238 --> U-239 --> Np-239 --> Pu-239

after U-235 portion drops to 0.3%
the rod is used up

waste storage: 10,000 years

Pu-239 can be used to build nuclear weapons

THORIUM
---------------------------------------------
Th-232 --> Th-233 --> Pa-233 --> U-233

U-233 is then used to make pellets

when pellets are used
no U-238 in pellets => no Pu-239 is created
U-233 --> U-232 --> Tl-208

waste storage: 300 years

U-233 can be used to build nuclear weapons,
but only after the U-232 is separated from the mix

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 04:09:51 No.10992783 Report

Quoted By: >>10992787

>>10992753
It's dangerous because only 4% of the fuel is burnt up before the fission products build up and become neutron poisons. our old reactors were designed to breed plutonium for nuclear weapons. MSRs have a much higher burnup rate because they can process fuel on the fly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 04:12:52 No.10992787 Report

Quoted By: >>10992790 >>10998539

>>10992777
>>10992783
Doesn't sound that good

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 04:15:28 No.10992790 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992787
It's much better than the alternative, those will be the reactors that power off world colonies and deep spacecraft, nuclear will really shine there. we got to test it here first beforehand

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 04:30:26 No.10992804 Report

Quoted By: >>10998551

Leftists still confuse it with nuclear weapons and rightists continue to literally be in the pocket of oil, coal, and natural gas.
Both also give welfare dollars to wind and solar despite those literally NEVER going to deal with baseline load.
Only geo and hydro work better. But you have to be blessed by geography or geology for that to work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 04:42:00 No.10992823 Report

Quoted By: >>10992845

>>10992748
>>10992753

The amount of chemicals that get shit out by literally every other industry is worse than nuclear waste. The dangerous nuclear waste is literally just a football field. Most of it is only slightly radioactive.

>The IAEA estimates that the disposal volume of the current solid HLW inventory is approximately 22,000m3.1 For context, this is a volume roughly equivalent to a three metre tall building covering an area the size of a soccer pitch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 04:49:50 No.10992845 Report

Quoted By: >>10993158

>>10992823
But is the soccer field glowing blue?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 08:31:55 No.10993158 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992845

Actually no.

Cherenkov radiation occurs when at power.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 08:49:46 No.10993182 Report

Quoted By: >>10994222

>>10992743
anon, you are absolutely correct. however thanks to the oil industry, republishit evangelicals teamed up with newage "ecological activists" (who in reality are "muh pandas" idiots without any idea of how to save the enviroment) to shoot down nuclear energy. because they were retards and their oil overlords knew they couldn't compete in a nuclear power economy. they CAN compete in a solar/wind power economy, however (since there is a much smaller barrier to entry, in terms of the investment before things are operational), so that's why we are stuck with this retarded "MUH SOLAR AND WIND" crap that will never work. that is, until ITER proves fusion does real. and even then there will probably be some oil-funded fictitious objection to it like fusion causes super cancer, you know like 5G or vaccines or something"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 13:28:46 No.10993514 Report

Quoted By: >>10993529

>>10992666
>If it was subsidized as much as solar or wind it would not have shut down
Natural gas gets more subsidies than all of them combined.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 13:37:00 No.10993529 Report

Quoted By:

>>10993514
>Renewable energy obtained 93% of federal energy fuel subsidies while generating 22% of total U.S. energy in fiscal year 2016, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Many states also waive tax payments for renewable energy or offer other deals for renewable energy production.

And that 22 percent is almost all nuclear

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 13:40:12 No.10993535 Report

Quoted By: >>10993559

>>10992765

>THE WORLD IS GONNA END IN 10 YEARS!!
>Dude we can just invent better solar panels just wait

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 14:03:03 No.10993559 Report

Quoted By: >>10998557

>>10993535
Well, yeah. The whole argument is to throw money at renewables to speed up development. (And it's not like nuclear plants are quick to build.)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 14:44:13 No.10993620 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992666

>A number of plants that were already in the pipeline prior to TMI's accident received licenses to operate after 1979. But plans for 39 others were canceled in the wake of the catastrophe, according to NRC documents, though factors such as high interest rates also contributed to the slowdown in new plants.

39 nuclear plants were cancelled because of this nonsense. And between restrictive regulations and old ladies in the township committee who think their neighborhood will get Hiroshima'd, it's almost impossible to build new ones. Although some of the southern states are working on it

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO worry.jpg, 10KiB, 192x245

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 15:29:55 No.10993720 Report

Quoted By: >>10993734 >>10993740 >>10998647

>>10992666
Where are we even getting energy in this century anymore? We keep shutting down nuclear reactors, oil supplies keep getting disrupted in middle east, coal plants get shut down left and right, and the answer is to just slap solar panels and random windmills everywhere as we build energy hog data centers left and right. This shits gotta be on purpose like the elite has some energy hoarding agenda while purposely creating an energy crisis.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1566513660831-1.jpg, 295KiB, 1063x633

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 15:38:30 No.10993734 Report

Quoted By:

>>10993720
gas

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO chart3.png, 20KiB, 573x285

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 15:39:11 No.10993738 Report

Quoted By: >>10993853 >>10994237 >>10997970

>>10992666
Many atomic power plants will be shut down over the next years. It's not because "muh environmentalists" It's because these aged plants are no longer competitive. Same for coal and oil fired plants. Natural gas, wind and solar is cheaper. That's capitalism.
There is a way to save atomic power, ironically it's something environmentalists demand. I's called carbon price. This would make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive. As a result atomic power would be competitive again. For decades.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO SlopedRoofMount-.jpg, 1020KiB, 2048x1536

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 15:43:38 No.10993740 Report

Quoted By: >>10996381 >>10998563 >>10998888

>>10993720
put solar panels on your roof, store power in a battery for overnight use and you may become energy independent

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO cc_mwprice.png, 90KiB, 1203x884

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 16:30:13 No.10993849 Report

Quoted By: >>10993878

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 16:31:33 No.10993853 Report

Quoted By: >>10993864

>>10993738

>no longer competitive

>93% uptime and have already mounted the hurdle of being made

This is like saying we should shutdown the Hoover Dam because there are no more places to build new dams.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 16:37:00 No.10993864 Report

Quoted By: >>10993888

>>10993853
Are you stupid or just trolling?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20190922-093932_Drive.jpg, 1MiB, 1080x2220

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 16:40:43 No.10993878 Report

Quoted By: >>10994136

>>10993849

Even your source doesn't consider wind and solar viable for baseload purposes.

Your graph is a meme.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 16:43:14 No.10993888 Report

Quoted By: >>10995729

>>10993864

The shits built, it stays up 93% of the time making power on demand, and all we have to do is refuel the bastard (at power) of which the fuel costs are minuscule compared to the initial construction costs which have already been paid.

And we see this all over the world. Germany closed their plants and INCREASED their carbon emissions, effectively unilaterally pulling out of Paris and Kyoto AS WELL as now having some of the highest priced energy in Europe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 16:48:01 No.10993902 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992666
Environmentalists are the controlled opposition that keeps big oil running. A televised appearance from Greta is enough to make the drugged millenial masses think that something is actually being done, so they can safely go back to vaping and drinking frappuccinos. Then nothing happens for 6 months, they start to wake up and then GRETA back again in TV, this time in a fucking solar boat or whatever. See, goyim! SOMETHING IS BEING DONE. PLEASE GO BACK TO DOING WEED GOYIM PLEASE. STOP LOOKING.

Meanwhile, the other side of environmentalists are the actual weaponized ones, meant to SHUT DOWN anything that could actually replace fossil, like nuclear. Environmentalists are the most KEKED people in the planet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 18:15:55 No.10994136 Report

Quoted By: >>10994172 >>10995906

>>10993878
they've been cheaper for only about 5 years, so of course the installed base NOW is small, but it tells where the investments are going from now on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 18:24:52 No.10994172 Report

Quoted By: >>10996354

>>10994136

No.

Your source categorically rules out wind and solar as a provider of base load, because they're not morons.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 18:38:26 No.10994222 Report

Quoted By:

>>10993182
I literally discussed nuke with college republican members and they shilled it even harder than I would. Republicans not getting nuclear is a boomer problem, not a political one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 18:44:46 No.10994237 Report

Quoted By: >>10994259

>>10993738

They are old and they have to go. That's obvious. But the reason new ones are not being built is not economics; it's politics. Normies hate nuclear plants and will do anything in their power to stop them, and politicians at the local to federal level agree with them. Countries without democracy like China, Russia, and India are rolling them out like crazy. If they weren't economically viable then why would that happen?

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 18:49:55 No.10994259 Report

Quoted By: >>10994301

>>10994237
>why would that happen
pork barrel for the 1%

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 19:04:14 No.10994301 Report

Quoted By:

>>10994259
>Nuclear energy companies or non-democratic countries don't have rich people

Okay tard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 19:06:53 No.10994308 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992748

All nuclear waste produced in the last 75 years can fit in a building the size of a single walmart.

The waste produced by a single person's life-time energy use would fit in a can of Coke.

Measuring nuclear waste by weight is useful, but is belied by how incredibly dense the material is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Sep 2019 19:10:20 No.10994315 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992765

>despite data from controlled studies and real life events, I still want to throw money at the renewable jew rather than actually fix any of the issues

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 05:28:04 No.10995729 Report

Quoted By: >>10995866

>>10993888
That's because solar power will not work in Germany because it does not get enough sun. It is not environmentally nor economically sound in most of Europe, but they keep pushing that nonsense, I assume to try and be less dependant on Russian gas.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1542215721906.jpg, 4MiB, 4500x3000

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 07:04:48 No.10995866 Report

Quoted By:

>>10995729
>That's because solar power will not work in Germany because it does not get enough sun

Germany is great for wind. But it's one of the worst possible places for solar power. But solar panels became so cheap it's viable everywhere. Even in Germany.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO main.png, 19KiB, 576x316

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 07:36:56 No.10995906 Report

Quoted By:

>>10994136
>it tells where the investments are going from now on
exactly

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 07:59:31 No.10995928 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992666
Because it explodes

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 14:19:14 No.10996354 Report

Quoted By: >>10997829 >>10998399

>>10994172
not yet, but change is fast coming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od5yWB5aE0c

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 14:37:28 No.10996381 Report

Quoted By: >>10997453 >>10998575

>>10993740
>implying energy independence is that easy
Every single person who attained it lives like a monk, doesn't have a desktop PC, showers with rain water and heats up with coal.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 19:45:59 No.10997203 Report

Quoted By: >>10998579

>>10992666
>Blames envirofags for closing 3 mile
The 40 year old plant losing money out the wazoo. These plants don't last forever without lots of maintenance costs. If Natural gas is cheaper and Pennsylvanians won't fight for a new nuclear plant instead who the fuck cares?
(Probably all those people who've lost their jerbs)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 19:48:55 No.10997208 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992666
I'll have you know that in the US there are indeed new reactors being built.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 19:52:52 No.10997220 Report

Quoted By:

Pls buy CANDU reactor.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO dni.jpg, 174KiB, 1463x789

Anonymous Mon 23 Sep 2019 21:46:24 No.10997453 Report

Quoted By: >>10997915 >>10999654

>>10996381
A single panel and a car battery is not enough.
To do it right you need to spend $30.000 but then you can be 100% energy independent in most of the US. With full comfort. Just with solar and batteries. Only 80% in Canada, Alaska or UK.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 800px-Energy_density.svg.png, 42KiB, 800x500

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 00:28:08 No.10997829 Report

Quoted By:

>>10996354
There is a huge problem with energy density and storage when it comes to anything that isn't gasoline.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 01:03:03 No.10997915 Report

Quoted By:

>>10997453
What the fuck are you going to do in January when it's snowing outside? How are you going to store energy when it isn't sunny?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 01:21:13 No.10997970 Report

Quoted By: >>10998389 >>10998583

>>10993738
capitalism is a garbage inefficient system that needs abolished

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 01:25:50 No.10997981 Report

Quoted By: >>10998280

I don't care about ethics.

I care about eating what humans are well adapted to eat, and what will make me strong.

The evolutionary biology points towards being primary carnivores. Big brains need calories. Early humand were nomadic hunters.

Read the book Sapiens by that jew you retards.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO great-lakes-showing-ice-feb12-20 (...).jpg, 973KiB, 2048x1369

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 03:22:56 No.10998275 Report

Quoted By: >>10998586

I don't see how pic related would be inhabitable without cheap natural gas or nuclear energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 03:25:22 No.10998280 Report

Quoted By:

>>10997981
Wrong thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:08:55 No.10998389 Report

Quoted By: >>10998470

>>10997970

Capitalism is the de facto state of humanity because everyone's wants are infinite yet resources are scarce.

Hence why any attempt to control the market with centralized control to any degree leads to the development of black markets that are by nature capitalistic.

Deal with it. Socialism is a political system masquerading as an economic system. Capitalism is nature that people mistake for a political system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:12:10 No.10998399 Report

Quoted By:

>>10996354

Windmills kill about 100 people a year due to falls. This is anticipated to increase if we scale up to meet the actual energy production capable by nuclear.

Solar panels and wind are literally more dangerous than nuclear on a lives/kw hour basis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:13:35 No.10998404 Report

Quoted By: >>10998483 >>10998593

Nuclear power plants are crazy expensive though, it costs a lot to build one, they don't last for that long and it costs even more to safely decomission them

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1559784163999.png, 105KiB, 720x540

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:33:09 No.10998466 Report

Quoted By: >>10999680

>>10992722
Whatever you say, faggot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:34:33 No.10998470 Report

Quoted By: >>10998477

>>10998389
Correct, it is human nature to consume, destroy and be greedy. However, human nature leads to the fallacy that resources are infinite. Any nature which is fallacious must necessarily be restrained, by force if you have to.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:36:50 No.10998477 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998470

>human nature leads to fallacy that resources are infinite

That's an incorrect assumption, not a fallacy.

And your argument assumes both A and Not A. That capitalism assumes scarce resources therefore assumes infinite resources.

Your ignorance of economics is not a problem. Your willingness to opine on the topic is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:37:53 No.10998483 Report

Quoted By: >>10998595

>>10998404

We can update power on reactors that are lasting well into 60 years of operation.

Solar panels are lucky to get 20 since all the cost savings come from Chinese manufacture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:39:55 No.10998490 Report

Quoted By:

I hope they don't try to remediate the site into some park. It should be the site on the next generation power plant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:42:14 No.10998498 Report

Quoted By: >>10998503

>>10992722
>literally everyone being subsidized except nuclear
>'if the playing field were fair nuclear would beat all non-fossil fuel options and most marginal oil and gas options in price immediately'
>LOL CLAMPED COPE COPE CLAMPED COPE NUCLEAR ON SUICIDE WATCH LMAO
okay

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:45:02 No.10998503 Report

Quoted By: >>10998676

>>10998498
I honestly have no idea how the meme about gorrillions of subsidies for nuclear even comes from. It's like the reasoning goes along the line of
>nuclear subsidies exist
>nuclear is evil
>ergo, nuclear cost taxpayers gorrillions in subsidies

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:48:56 No.10998511 Report

Quoted By: >>10998518 >>10998567 >>10998602 >>10998608

>>10992718
>Chernobyl didn't even kill anyone
this is why /sci/ needs more /hist/

30 men died in the explosion. radiation deaths are harder to calculate because soviet russia sucks and likes to sweep things like "death" under the rug.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:49:33 No.10998515 Report

Quoted By: >>10999397

>>10992748
>dude, this nuclear waste shit is dangerous for THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!!!!
>Oh, all that lead/cadmium/mercury/toxic metals in general discharged into the soil by garbage dumps literally everywhere? Yeah that'll just get 'washed away' lol don't worry
Nuclear waste is the only waste that literally takes care of itself if you just keep it in a warehouse for a while. Also all the 'spent fuel' we've made so far in every light or heavy water reactor still has more than 95% of the uranium energy content leftover, just waiting to be plunked into a breeder to extract the rest. A single contemporary light water reactor nuclear plant that provided enough energy to power a city for 30 years in the process bought and paid for enough fuel to power a breeder reactor for 600 years. It's all there, all free, just waiting to be used. This is why all ideas of drilling 2000 m down and building a vault in solid bedrock and packing it with copper (wtf as if we can afford to waste that much copper) drums full of 'spent' fuel then back-filling with a million cubic yards of concrete are stupid (among other reasons).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:50:14 No.10998518 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998511
You obviously didn't read or understood what he said.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:50:51 No.10998519 Report

Quoted By: >>10998528 >>10998530

>>10992757
Just let it sit on the ground behind a fence, why do people think having a tiny volume of nuclear waste just sitting there under guard going nowhere is a bad thing

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:50:55 No.10998520 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992666
replace with molten salt reactors. no more problem.

america's reactors are inefficient, but the tech was easily weaponized....

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:53:53 No.10998528 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998519
Because then a bunch of children might find the exact position of the waste and dig it up and use to bake cookies.
Shitlord.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:54:24 No.10998530 Report

Quoted By: >>10998607

>>10998519

Because radiation is death magic.

Never mind that 2 inches of lead decreases on contact exposure by a factor of 10 and distance makes the effect drop off significantly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 04:57:59 No.10998539 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992787
300 year decay curve means those fission products are very quickly decaying, which means two things; they don't stick around for long, and they throw off a lot of heat. I we wanted we could package these things as salts in what would look like a big fuel bundle made of good stainless steel, and immerse that big bundle in a water tank for free hot water for hundreds of years. No fission means no radiological activation of stuff in the water, so you could shower in that stuff and drink as much as you wanted with no ill effect. The amount of heat probably wouldn't be useful for generating power, but it would be useful for reducing total power costs. A big bus-sized bundle of fission products would be nice to have if you were a high altitude or high latitude village without access to a lot of electricity, because you can heat your homes for free and don't need to worry about replacing your hot water tower until it's your great great great great great great grandkids' problem. And no, there's no risk of melt down, the decay cannot be sped up or slowed down by any means, and the steel will not corrode.

Alternatively we can sift through that stuff while it's fresh and pull out a group of isotopes that work very well in radioisotope generators, and use them to power space probes for far cheaper than any current RTG design using plutonium. There's also a lot of useful radionuclides that could b used as a means of killing tumors and cancers if we had access to them, but sadly we don't have any way currently of pulling them out of spent solid fuel, we need liquid fuels before we can do that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:01:33 No.10998551 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992804
Geo runs out. You're effectively pumping water through a big block of rocks you can reach that are hot enough to boil water. However you're pulling heat out way faster than it's flowing up. In effect you're quenching the rock. Eventually your power output drops to the point that it's useless, you can't even power your water pumps to keep things circulating, Thank you, go home, come again in 10,000 years once the rocks have warmed back up. So not only do you need to be blessed with the right geology and a pocket of hot rocks very close tot he surface, you also need to only use it at a rate at which it can rejuvinate itself, otherwise you can just revert to a preindustrial feudal society between each hundred years of electrical supply I guess.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:04:40 No.10998557 Report

Quoted By:

>>10993559
Compared to how long it will take to build enough solar waste dumps and bird tenderizers to power the world you may as well just build 200 nuclear reactors at once in five years and fix the problem. You don't even need 5th gen or anything, just for god's sake build a shitload of boiling water reactors asap and we'll recycle the <5% used up fuel rods later once we get liquid fuel breeders operational and phased in.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:06:40 No.10998563 Report

Quoted By:

>>10993740
And when you solar panels break and your batteries corrode you go to the convenient hardware outlet of a massive fossil fuel powered industrial monster and buy replacements to keep up your environmentally friendly lifestyle

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:07:24 No.10998567 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998511

Radiation deaths are also hard to calculate because they were derived off of Romanians claiming exposure for muh gibs following the collapse of the USSR.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:11:09 No.10998575 Report

Quoted By:

>>10996381
This, and you can hear the cope when they explain that they don't """need""" so much electricity, then they turn around and say the whole world should do that because it'd be so much more healthy. Dude, if the whole world lived like African mud tribes but also had the ability to charge a cell phone or run a light bulb for 8 hours, they'd lose that ability in one generation because there'd be no industrial capacity left anymore and no new panels or batteries (or the electronics they're meant to power).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:12:12 No.10998579 Report

Quoted By:

>>10997203
>who the fuck cares?
It represents a large increase in emissions from keeping up the same grid supply without that nuclear plant's contribution. It's shitty, essentially.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:13:20 No.10998583 Report

Quoted By:

>>10997970
It's also the most efficient/effective one we've come up with so far.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:14:45 No.10998586 Report

Quoted By: >>10999399

>>10998275
Don't think about real world factors, just buy panels and then when you run out of power buy more panels

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:16:45 No.10998592 Report

Quoted By:

Nuke companies need to go on the marketing offensive and shit on other power sources. If you offer towns enough money they can cave. There was one plant in my state that funded a new school and many other things for the local town in exchange for building permission. If you pose the question, would you prefer and odorless, emissionless nuke plant or a coal plant that will give your children asthma and early lung disease.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:16:47 No.10998593 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998404
>they don't last for that long
is 50 years not enough for you people? That's 50+ years at >97% uptime producing thousands of megawatts constantly, ~30 terawatt-hours per year. Fuck off with the "they don't last long".

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:17:56 No.10998595 Report

Quoted By: >>10998605

>>10998483
Chinesium panels are lucky to go five years, it's the actual good quality panels that have a half life of around 20 years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:21:49 No.10998602 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998511
The same Russia that perpetuates the myth of the four megaton explosion risk if the corium had dropped into the flooded basement, riiiight. That's impossible if you couldn't tell by my tone, there were only a few thousand tons of water in that building maximum so for it to explode with that energy each kilo of water would need to absorb the same heat from the corium as the energy released by several thousand tons of tnt detonating, and in about the same amount of time. Ever see videos of lava in hawaii falling into the ocean? Yeah, that's about what would have happened in reality, a plop and a bit of steam as the corium was quenched from semiliquid to solid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:23:49 No.10998605 Report

Quoted By: >>10998611

>>10998595
How are you going to mine the raw material for all those panels? How are you going to transport all of it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:25:13 No.10998607 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998530
>2 inches of lead
Would 100% block all alpha and gamma rays and nearly all gamma rays too. You'd be getting a billion times fewer counts per second standing behind that lead wall. However, they don't use lead sheet metal, they actually mix steel shot into concrete and cast it into walls meters thick, a radiation vault which actually provides a much better shield by several orders of magnitude. Steel is obviously less dense than lead so it isn't as good at blocking gamma compared to lead, but it's also non toxic and they're not afraid to maximize shielding volume anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:26:55 No.10998608 Report

Quoted By: >>10998719

>>10998511
You're in shock, you're delusional. Nobody died at Chernobyl.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:27:56 No.10998611 Report

Quoted By: >>10998718

>>10998605
By raping the environment forever, strip mining and polluting with toxic runoff and paving over nature with solar farms that last two decades then get shredded and dumped in landfills. I'm not in favor of solar base load or even solar grid supplement either, really. It's a waste of time and energy and resources and money.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:32:19 No.10998618 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992666
Because all “green” energy that isn’t nuclear is a massive grift at the expense of the moronic public for the benefit of (((financial elites))).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:44:21 No.10998647 Report

Quoted By: >>10998678

>>10993720

Waste natural gas from oil fracking is basically replacing everything since it is essentially free to buy. The only thing that can compete is wind power in good locations as the turbines are large enough to scale with the economics. Everything else is a meme. Solar due to subsidies and nuclear due to high costs of construction for "safety" reasons.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:54:27 No.10998676 Report

Quoted By: >>10998690 >>10999764

>>10998503
Nuclear got huge subsidies in the early days when it was being developed hard for national security reasons (producing enough fissile material for bombs). O&G lobby, correctly identifying nuclear as the only actual alternative to fossils for mass electrification, dump millions into the anti nuke movement and keep the subsidy meme going.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 05:55:49 No.10998678 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998647

Except wind is a meme because latency.

Retards need to stop looking at rating plates and start actually using rubber-meet-road costs to consumers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 06:00:35 No.10998690 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998676
>O&G lobby, correctly identifying nuclear as the only actual alternative to fossils for mass electrification, dump millions into the anti nuke movement and keep the subsidy meme going.
I'm angry. Angry about shills.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 06:02:48 No.10998692 Report

Quoted By: >>10999386

>>10992666

Your trips.
Human beings have consistently demonstrated that they lack the requisite conscientiousness to safely manage nucelar energy (b-but muh successes, muh routine). Not an argument. All it takes is one fuckup, and there have been several.

The real management strategy is to cull humanity so as to require less energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 06:21:27 No.10998718 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998611
I like the way you think. Unfortunately this is considered heresy in the current scientific and political climate. What can we do about this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 06:21:54 No.10998719 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998608
ty for your contribution
it is powerful evidence why nuclear energy must be avoided at any cost

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 06:22:13 No.10998721 Report

Quoted By: >>10998751 >>10999397

Nuclear is for eggheads who forget that the waste takes thousands of years to not be an issue
Instead of using less power, they try to find a way to not have to give things up
Man will reap horrible consequences for the pathetic needs of the modern world

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 06:35:32 No.10998751 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998721
>the waste takes thousands of years to not be an issue
Whats the issue? You want to build apartments on top of that real estate Mr. Merchant?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO unsubsidized-analysis-certain-100.jpg, 177KiB, 1280x569

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 07:13:22 No.10998807 Report

Quoted By: >>10999403

solar and wind is cheaper and can be build much faster, just ask yourself, if you spend your money for a power plant, do you want to start earning back in a decade (nuclear) or in 2-3 years (wind, solar, gas)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 07:44:20 No.10998876 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992724
Then why is every other business in nuclear power shutting down? Why is all the new construction being abandoned? It's simply uneconomical. The fact that the shilling threads are now nearly daily shows just how desperate the nuclear industry is to get new welfare legislation passed by gaining support from the nasa shirt wearing poseur crowd.

>inb4 muh hippie boogie-children somehow magically being able to affect energy policy while failing at every other issue they fight for
>inb4 ThEy'Re AfRaId Of MuH SCIENCE!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 07:48:52 No.10998888 Report

Quoted By: >>10998893

>>10993740
>batteries

and any eco benefit went out the door with those batteries manufacture and disposal.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 07:51:28 No.10998893 Report

Quoted By: >>10998914

>>10998888
That's not true any way you slice it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 08:06:58 No.10998914 Report

Quoted By: >>10998955

>>10998893
It's fact.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 08:29:23 No.10998955 Report

Quoted By: >>10999409

>>10998914
Sure, in the sense that facts can be checked and not all are correct, but not by the more common usage.

Even ignoring eco-friendly batteries and battery recycling, the environmental damage done from mining and manufacturing is comparable to mining, drilling, and fracking for fossil fuels. Then you still have to refine and burn the fossil fuels causing even more ecological damage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:30:21 No.10999386 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998692
>All it takes is one fuckup, and there have been several.
If all it takes is one fuckup then how are we still here doing fine when there's been several? Fuck you.
>The real management strategy is to cull humanity so as to require less energy.
Based madman but you had your chance to woo me.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1569323847703.png, 359KiB, 583x635

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:35:54 No.10999393 Report

Quoted By: >>10999416

Apparently, the science is already settled

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:37:39 No.10999397 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998721
The waste takes zero time to not be an issue because it has never been an issue.
Waterheads think that a nuclear plant is chugging through millions of tons of fuel a year just like a coal plant, which is obviously wrong. See >>10998515 for the reason why we haven't 'permanently' got rid of spent fuel yet. It'd be throwing away free money, 20x as much energy as has ever been released by nuclear power so far, but already dug up and refined and on site even, assuming the replacement plants are built on the same site as the old ones, which I mean why not you already have that land partitioned off.
>Instead of using less power, they try to find a way to not have to give things up
Build more nuclear. It's literally the only option for supplying the entire world with electricity on a first world country's level without turning the planet into a toxic waste dump. Even if you buy into the idea of fusion, fusion is still nuclear, and in fact fusion reactors would have a serious issue with neutron activation of the inner meter or so thick layer of reactor hardware. You're going to have to deal with radiation no matter what if you want a functioning prosperous society, just like how we had to learn to control fire back in the day to have any hope of achieving civilization beyond hunter gatherers.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1567302673445.jpg, 66KiB, 723x563

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:38:24 No.10999399 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998586
lol, if it gets cold just burn witches for heat

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:39:53 No.10999403 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998807
>I can build a one watt solar panel in a day, therefore it's way faster than spending five years building a 20 gigawatt continuous nuclear power supply using five CANDUs
dude, just shut the fuck up, alright? SHUTUP

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:41:28 No.10999409 Report

Quoted By: >>10999525

>>10998955
We're comparing solar to nuclear here. Solar generates a bit less waste, all told, than fossil fuels, but several orders of magnitude more waste than nuclear, even per megawatt-hour.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:44:07 No.10999416 Report

Quoted By: >>10999570

>>10999393
>we made nuclear power incredibly slow to build because you have to go through a million regulatory hurdles that don't matter because this exact design has been built already a dozen times
>we also made it incredibly expensive both by making it slow to build and by making companies building these things pay their own regulatory fees
and then
>nuclear power is too expensive and slow to matter for climate change! Buy more solar, install more wind! Don't worry, we can always just burn gas to make up the base load at night :)
((((who)))) could have been behind this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:45:33 No.10999419 Report

Quoted By: >>10999428

>>10992696
Where's solar and wind on this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:47:32 No.10999423 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992666
It's not profitible. Sorry, butthurt capitalist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:48:04 No.10999425 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992753
It is. And 4th generation reactors are a castle in the sky. Boomers who felt comfy with nuclear power now try to sell this old crap to us but they don't exist yet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:48:04 No.10999426 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992724
Welfare queens never existed they’re a myth

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO electrons and shit.jpg, 37KiB, 602x437

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:48:37 No.10999428 Report

Quoted By: >>10999431

>>10999419
solar is 11 times worse and wind is wind is ~3.8 times worse
Only hydro beats nuclear, and that's if you ignore a certain Chinese dam collapse that killed over 170,000 people

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:49:25 No.10999431 Report

Quoted By: >>10999436

>>10999428
>per twh
Oh, it's fucking nothing

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:49:36 No.10999432 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992777
What about the other 186 countries in the world who don't build nuclear weapons?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:51:05 No.10999436 Report

Quoted By: >>10999442

>>10999431
literally this, nuclear has killed basically nobody and that's including during construction and shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:51:58 No.10999442 Report

Quoted By: >>10999606

>>10999436
but it has killed lots of people. That's per twh, as I just said. Get it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 14:54:29 No.10999447 Report

Quoted By:

unbounded cost

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 15:17:14 No.10999525 Report

Quoted By:

>>10999409
>We're comparing solar to nuclear here.
Great, solar is 1/3 the price of nuclear and the environment damage from collecting, refining, and disposing of fissionable material is significantly more detrimental than mining for silicon and lithium. Again, we're ignoring recycling and green technologies.

>Solar generates a bit less waste, all told, than fossil fuels
Significantly less, but you're being disingenuous.

>but several orders of magnitude more waste than nuclear, even per megawatt-hour.
Nope, nuclear produces more waste yearly and the nature of the waste makes it incomparable by kilowatt-hour. The waste produced by the solar industry is largely recyclable and is significantly less dangerous or environmentally damaging than the highly radioactive waste coming from every plant.

Why lie about things that you can look up so easily? Do you actually believe the crap you spout?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 15:41:08 No.10999570 Report

Quoted By: >>10999608

>>10999416
deregulate nuclear and i'll meltdown a reactor in DC just to prove a point. Bet I'll have nations lining up to fund me too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 15:47:17 No.10999577 Report

Quoted By: >>10999610

What about the sacrifice zones of nuclear fuel? You need to destroy lots of land to harvest a little bit of Uranium.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:02:30 No.10999606 Report

Quoted By: >>10999698

>>10999442
>Get it?
no.
>the environment damage from collecting, refining, and disposing of fissionable material is significantly more detrimental than mining for silicon and lithium
lol, no
>nuclear produces more waste yearly
No
>the nature of the waste makes it incomparable
Yes, because radioactive waste stops being toxic after a while whereas heavy metals are toxic until the heat death of the universe.
>The waste produced by the solar industry is largely recyclable
Yeah, but nobody recycles it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:03:37 No.10999608 Report

Quoted By:

>>10999570
We can make reactors that are impossible to melt down, anon. We have a better understanding of nuclear physics than we did when we designed and built most contemporary reactor designs 50 years ago.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:04:42 No.10999610 Report

Quoted By: >>10999663

>>10999577
>What about the sacrifice zones of nuclear fuel?
Not real. You dig up far less land to get all the uranium you need than you dig up to get the lithium or rare earths you need for renewables or the coal/tar you need for fossil fuels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:19:37 No.10999654 Report

Quoted By:

>>10997453
Is china's capacity so bad because of fucking emissions?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:21:13 No.10999663 Report

Quoted By:

>>10999610
>Not real.
Ok if you say so
https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/miningandpollutioninuppermidwest.pdf

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 2019.jpg, 106KiB, 960x720

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:26:09 No.10999680 Report

Quoted By: >>10999759 >>11000872

>>10998466
Solar subsidy has come down a ton and its now a tiny fraction of what it was in 2013, when the industry was just getting started and china was dumping their solar.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:30:59 No.10999698 Report

Quoted By: >>11000846 >>11000853

>>10999606
Learn how to quote posts

Mining materials for solar is significantly less impactful than mining fissionable materials. You don't need to mine as often compared to mining for fissionable materials and the mines don't leave heaps of radioactive dust everywhere.

>Yes, because radioactive waste stops being toxic after a while whereas heavy metals are toxic until the heat death of the universe.
It never stops being toxic, you moron. It decays into heavier, more toxic elements than anything produced by the solar industry, it simply isn't radioactive at that point.

>Yeah, but nobody recycles it.
They store the waste to be recycled in the future because there aren't currently many facilities that can recycle them. All of that waste will be gone way before half the nuclear waste decays.

You were right about the yearly waste, the figures I originally found was for waste stored rather than produced. Congratulations on being half as reliable as a broken clock.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:36:10 No.10999719 Report

Quoted By:

>>10992666
These threads are relentless and extremely annoying. Go away shill.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:39:17 No.10999730 Report

Quoted By:

To all the people that say Solar and Wind, you can't have those alone. They are cheap but they do not provide power 24/7. You need another clean energy source to do the heavy lifting. Which is either hydro or nuclear

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/landmark-100-percent-renewable-energy-study-flawed-say-21-leading-experts/

The plans that Bernie and co. use are made by this guy. He thinks that we can make 1000 GW of hydro power, which is like 100x the mississippi river. We do not have the geography for that

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:48:15 No.10999759 Report

Quoted By: >>10999768

>>10999680
And the electricity prices in California skyrocketed when they actually needed it while nuclear remained relatively cheap with nearly no subsidies.
Nuclear would probably be even cheaper if you could get a bunch of chink slaves to build the reactors for 1$ an hour just like for solar panels (but not their installations obviously, a relatively small portion of the labor).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:49:17 No.10999764 Report

Quoted By:

>>10998676
That does make sense, I see.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:49:58 No.10999768 Report

Quoted By: >>10999774

>>10999759

Nah the biggest expense for Nuclear is convincing city councils and residents to allow it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:51:52 No.10999774 Report

Quoted By: >>10999788

>>10999768
Fair enough.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 16:56:44 No.10999788 Report

Quoted By:

>>10999774
Normies are more unified in opposition to Nuclear than coal. Especially if they were told one was gonna go up in their backyard. That's why countries like China and Russia build them like crazy, because normies don't have a say in it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 23:32:35 No.11000846 Report

Quoted By: >>11001016

>>10999698
>It decays into heavier, more toxic elements
>decaying into a heavier element
anon . . .

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 23:35:01 No.11000853 Report

Quoted By: >>11001004

>>10999698
>They store the waste to be recycled in the future
They do with nuclear waste, since most of it is 'spent' fuel which still contains 95% of the total energy content of fresh fuel, because eventually we're gonna reuse that fuel in breeders to get 20X the total power output.
Solar and wind waste however is shipped to the coast in Africa and India and dumped in gigantic e-waste dumps where the locals rip it apart for scrap metal and let the rest rot into the ground.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Sep 2019 23:43:25 No.11000872 Report

Quoted By:

>>10999680
Source on this graph?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Sep 2019 00:24:25 No.11001004 Report

Quoted By:

>>11000853
>because eventually we're gonna reuse that fuel in breeders to get 20X the total power output.
And you'll still be left with a bunch of toxic heavy metals and radioactive material that isn't useful for energy generation anymore.

>dumped in gigantic e-waste dumps where the locals rip it apart for scrap metal and let the rest rot
That's storage, we know right where it is and it isn't going anywhere. As long as it doesn't go to a regular landfill it's a cheaper, cleaner source of materials than mining more and there's legislation being made to divert solar waste away from regular landfills for exactly that reason.

Again, the waste isn't even the main problem with nuclear, it's the expense. If it doesn't become significantly cheaper or aquire large subsidies then no reactors will be built. You might as well be debating the merits of fusion vs solar.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Sep 2019 00:27:02 No.11001016 Report

Quoted By:

>>11000846
>It decays into heavier, more toxic elements than anything produced by the solar industry
>heavier, more toxic elements than anything produced by the solar industry
>than anything produced by the solar industry
You need to work on your reading comprehension.

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