/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12384323

120KiB, 1200x675, nuclear.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 03:20:15 2020 No.12384323 View Reply Original Report

>not supporting nuclear
explain yourself, faggot

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:23:47 No.12384332 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
I don't want to drink more nuclear waste.
t. desal drinker.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:26:40 No.12384338 Report

Quoted By: >>12384349 >>12384412 >>12384477 >>12385343 >>12385534 >>12389904

IT ISN'T OVER.
For 9 years Japan has been running water over the melted-down nuclear fuel somewhere under the plants that blew.
Even with recycling the amount of tritium-contaminated water is huge.
They've been storing it since 2011, and expect to run out of space in 2022.
Now they want to dump it in the sea. Thanks Fukushima.

...and the Dumping won't solve anything, the melted-down nuclear fuel somewhere under the plants hasn't gone anywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Contaminated_water

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Timeline_of_contaminated_water_treatment

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:26:54 No.12384339 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
FUCK D2O
Even desal won't get rid of that shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:28:33 No.12384345 Report

Quoted By: >>12384456 >>12384473

Nuclear is the mother of all welfare queens. Literally all initial and most ongoing R&D was done on the taxpayer's dime and the industry has managed to go no where in 80 years. Expecting anything different is less sane than just taking your tax dollars and lighting them on fire to generate electricity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:29:59 No.12384349 Report

Quoted By: >>12384361 >>12384371

>>12384338
Fukushima was a good thing, it forced Japan to get its shit together and the difficult cleanup process has already lead to technological advancements.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:30:56 No.12384354 Report

Quoted By: >>12388949

>>12384323
Nuclear power is dead and no amount of paid spam here will change that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:31:51 No.12384358 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
Until it's cost effective to launch nuclear waste into the sun, it's not worth it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:32:21 No.12384360 Report

Quoted By: >>12384367

>>12384323
Who is paying you to make this thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:32:26 No.12384361 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384349
It made them dump nuclear so you aren't wring

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:33:30 No.12384367 Report

Quoted By: >>12384403

>>12384360
>Implying the nuclear industry is compitent enough to hire shills.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:34:05 No.12384371 Report

Quoted By: >>12384391 >>12384404

>>12384349
if dog dies in your bedroom, sweeping it under the carpet isn't a solution
>technological advancements
hurr durr new brown carpet wow we're all so impressed, dog still there

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:37:41 No.12384388 Report

Quoted By: >>12384392

nuclear is unironically the only realistic power option for the future

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO file.png, 1MiB, 1484x816

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:38:50 No.12384391 Report

Quoted By: >>12384405 >>12385887

>>12384371

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:39:15 No.12384392 Report

Quoted By: >>12384454 >>12385165

>>12384388
Hydroelectric.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:40:59 No.12384396 Report

Quoted By:

gates' terrapower reactor prototype was supposed to be built in china but drumpf's trade war fucked everything up. thank god biden won.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:42:12 No.12384401 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
Ambient heat chained by self sustaining heat pump.

On area of nuclear powerplant, you basically produce same amount of power, but safelier.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:42:14 No.12384403 Report

Quoted By: >>12386541

>>12384367
It's an oil shill actually, he alternates between creating pro nuclear and pro renewable threads and pits them against each other. Or even just some jew sewing general chaos I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO file.png, 533KiB, 950x663

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:42:21 No.12384404 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384371
most of these didn't exist before Fukushima

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:42:26 No.12384405 Report

Quoted By: >>12384434 >>12384442 >>12384452 >>12384476

>>12384391
none of those are moving the melted waste anywhere, Japan has no idea what to do with it except to spray water on it for the next 30,000 years and dump a shitload of polluted water in the sea every 10 years

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:45:07 No.12384412 Report

Quoted By: >>12384434

>>12384338
translation
>even if a core meltsdown you can just pour water over it and cycle it through the ocean for literally 0 sideeffects.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:52:16 No.12384434 Report

Quoted By: >>12385325

>>12384405
>>12384412
Why not just submerge it in the ocean then?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:55:43 No.12384442 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384405
fucking launch it into space
we really do not need more deuterium in the water that shit kills

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:58:03 No.12384452 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384405
>Since the fuel melted into a state called debris, it became difficult to apply conventional measures to remove it.
>To deal with this situation, we are planning to conduct the task in parallel with the development of tools and devices for removal, etc. during the decommissioning process, over the next 30 to 40 years.
what's the hurry?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 03:59:35 No.12384454 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384392
good, but obviously too geographically dependent

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 04:00:05 No.12384456 Report

Quoted By: >>12384461

>>12384345
Clamped
>>12384323
Don’t worry bro I’m with you on nuclear. Best combination of Cheap reliable power, while also being good for environment. If the next gen is as good as advertised, and we have the balls to invest, it will bring us into America’s 4th reich

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 04:01:59 No.12384461 Report

Quoted By: >>12384478 >>12385328

>>12384456
>cheap
in what universe?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 04:04:47 No.12384473 Report

Quoted By: >>12384569

>>12384345
Right... nuclear is the welfare queen... not wind and solar that *literally* need constant government subsidies to stay barely viable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 04:05:22 No.12384476 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384405
this is what they plan to use
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWNDxDINVsI&feature=emb_logo

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 04:05:27 No.12384477 Report

Quoted By: >>12384528

>>12384338
https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=For+9+years+Japan+has+been+running+water

/sci/ has a serious problem where cranks with no life refuse to let other people have a discussion free from their mental illness. Seek help pls

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 04:05:46 No.12384478 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384461
This one mr patel

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 04:23:58 No.12384528 Report

Quoted By: >>12385300

>>12384477
>i have no argument

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_2019-04-09 Lazard&rsq (...).png, 98KiB, 1202x929

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 04:45:27 No.12384569 Report

Quoted By: >>12385515 >>12385569 >>12385794 >>12389759 >>12394582

>>12384473
>https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/environment/ct-exelon-nuclear-plants-shut-down-20200828-qmk6z3d5mrgipeahb56vugq3za-story.html
>Without another bailout, Exelon plans to close two Illinois nuclear plants next year

>https://whyy.org/articles/critics-slam-psegs-notice-of-nuclear-shutdown-on-eve-of-subsidy-decision/
>Two days before it learns whether its nuclear plants will win lucrative subsidies, PSEG Nuclear filed notices with regulatory authorities to shut down the three units.
It's pretty much the same story everywhere in the country. Meanwhile renewables are beating fossil fuels without subsidies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 10:53:35 No.12385165 Report

Quoted By: >>12385186

>>12384392
>just destroy entire ecosystems bro
fuck off midwit

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 10:56:20 No.12385169 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323

>not nuclear fusion

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 11:06:43 No.12385186 Report

Quoted By: >>12390965

>>12385165
Yeah nuclear does such a better job of not destroying ecosystems.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 12:26:44 No.12385300 Report

Quoted By: >>12385330

>>12384528
fuck you faggot

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 760413A3-2732-445E-BB77-687B6684 (...).jpg, 61KiB, 633x356

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 12:39:05 No.12385322 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
I support it in theory but our culture/society is so retarded there are a 1000 provisos to that statement,
It needs to be publicly funded from birth to grave because that is the only way to make it at a scale that makes sense. But also, government work is all retarded and if you have ever worked with them you would hate this idea.
I sort of like the idea of the military running it, because they are the only ones with the sort of power and management practce to force people to work on cite in shifts if something goes bad. But that comes will all sorts of other problems.
The biggest thing is it should be built on huge scales, much bigger than we do now,

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 12:39:48 No.12385325 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384434
The ninnies will bitch about it even if they can't prove shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 12:40:42 No.12385328 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384461
In the universe where polluters don’t get to externalize pollution costs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 12:41:40 No.12385330 Report

Quoted By:

>>12385300
Impressive, did you quote that from your PhD?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO E18A62E9-D6E1-4407-BE6D-004F18A3 (...).jpg, 195KiB, 660x463

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 12:50:31 No.12385343 Report

Quoted By: >>12385350 >>12388577

>>12384338
>Currently, more than 1m tonnes of contaminated water is held in almost 1,000 tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi site, but the utility has warned that it will run out of tank space by the summer of 2022.
>>12384323
Op, this is why. Mitwits have problems conspeclising risks where the risk is super rare, but unbealively bad when it happens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 12:54:08 No.12385350 Report

Quoted By: >>12385415

>>12385343
>contaminated water
Scare tactic. The decay by 2022 will have been significant enough to just dump it into the ocean.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 13:59:42 No.12385415 Report

Quoted By: >>12385501 >>12385512

>>12385350
The retards will never understand this, that the gorillion years of radiation is borderline bullshit. After basic filtration and treatment to remove heavy elements, the only difficult contamination left is tritiated water, which is very hard to separate from water because it's actually chemically water. The tritium which makes it radioactive has a half life of 12 years, and the tritium level in the waste water is not particularly bad. The ocean already has a ton of tritium water because of natural radioactive sources. Tritiated water doesn't bioaccumulate. It doesn't have any negative effects other than the low level of radioactivity. Dumping it isn't a big deal. Yeah it should be stored for as long as practical, but they don't need to keep building tanks to store it forever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 14:32:58 No.12385482 Report

Quoted By:

i only support nuclear fusion. fission is for boomers and boomers should be euthanized. fusion is zoomertech

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 14:39:20 No.12385499 Report

Quoted By:

>Government and industry in charge of large infrastructure projects
>Centralised grids giving single points of delivery failure
>Cyclical industry with decades between orders where skills die off

Literally just support efficiency improvement and supergrids to avoid power being wasted at borders. Improving turd world powerlines alone would generate enormous saving.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 14:39:31 No.12385501 Report

Quoted By:

>>12385415
>implying this shitshow won't go on for thousands of years
life's so good sucking on the government tit, just put it on the taxpayers bill

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 14:42:29 No.12385512 Report

Quoted By: >>12390968

>>12385415
This will never sink into the public consciousness. There is a red thread of media-inflated risk illusions in the brain of the little loud man. Essentially risks that make for good movies are grossly inflated, whereas risks that are much bigger, but boring, are completely ignored.

The water should be dumped into the ocean, followed by the media apparatus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 14:44:44 No.12385515 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384569
Wow I cant wait for everyone to charge their electric cars from wind power. Surely we can just stop using gas and oil now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 14:54:32 No.12385534 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384338
>Now they want to dump it in the sea
not an issue

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 14:55:23 No.12385538 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
I support the big nuclear reactor in the sky

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ackc.png, 15KiB, 196x196

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 15:04:29 No.12385561 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
"in order to tackle the nuclear question i will put all my efforts into discussing a gen II reactor built in the 1960s that blew up when it got hit by an earthquake and a tsunami"

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 15:06:51 No.12385569 Report

Quoted By: >>12385729

>>12384569
well duh, of course capital costs for nuclear are insane when there's a risk of your investment getting shut down by misguided enviromentallists right after construction is done

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 15:16:41 No.12385583 Report

Quoted By: >>12385655

>>12384323

dont want another fukup or cherno'd.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 15:53:47 No.12385655 Report

Quoted By: >>12385719 >>12385739

>>12385583
We could have a Fukushima every 5 years and still be way better off than we are with fossil fuels. However, that won't happen. Modern designs are far more resistant to failure. The more reactors we stamp out, the more knowledge we get to build them better. I can guarantee this time will be looked back on in 200 years as a great age of absolute retardation and inability to do proper risk assessment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 16:20:50 No.12385707 Report

Quoted By: >>12385733

>fuck huge solar power plant in the vicinity of a dam and a hydro power plant
>use excess solar power in daytime to operate turbines in reverse, filling the reservoir
>use hydropower to provide power in the night
>spam these plants all over the country
>you now have cheap and renewable energy forever or until we figure out fusion
Hydroelectric turbines can be like, 95% efficient if run in optimal conditions. Same with electric motors. Tell me why this wouldn't work?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 16:26:21 No.12385719 Report

Quoted By: >>12385747

>>12385655
>can guarantee
come back when you've fixed fukushima,

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 16:30:27 No.12385729 Report

Quoted By: >>12385747 >>12385781 >>12390972

>>12385569
Can you read? Existing nuclear plants can't stay open without huge subsidies. As I said nuclear is the mother of all welfare queens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 16:32:43 No.12385733 Report

Quoted By: >>12385743

>>12385707
The turbines are 95% efficient between the input shaft and output contacts. The entire system with all losses is more like 70% round trip.
You can't put fuckoff big dams everywhere, they need a very specific geography to work.
There are not enough locations in the world to cover even remotely close to enough storage needs with pumped hydro. Battery is literally the only hope for solar, but unless it's basically free, the costs are too high. Solar is only barely competitive as it is without even taking capacity factor value into account.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 16:35:27 No.12385739 Report

Quoted By:

>>12385655
DESU judging by the scenarios environmentalists are propagating we could have a Chernobyl every three months and it would still be an improvement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 16:36:45 No.12385743 Report

Quoted By: >>12385810

>>12385733
>Solar is only barely competitive as it is
I distinctly remember seeing a table which compared the costs per kWh (or maybe MW of installed capacity) of various power plants. I think wind was the cheapest and then solar. Nuclear was the most expensive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 16:39:06 No.12385747 Report

Quoted By: >>12385788 >>12388368 >>12390972 >>12392313

>>12385719
Fukushima is a nothingburger that the media likes to talk about because saying nuclear excites normalfags. The path to decommissioning is already set and nobody has been killed by it since the one plant worker died.

>>12385729
Every single energy source gets a ton of subsidies because large plants are critical infrastructure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 16:52:07 No.12385781 Report

Quoted By: >>12385794

>>12385729
Modern nuclear power plants can last 60+ years, have the lowest operation costs, but high upfront capital cost. After amortization, nuclear is almost pure profit making it the most sensible long-term energy investment for governments. The problem is that many Western governments captured by the oil industry and succumb to fickle moods of the mob, making them unreliable in support of a nuclear energy portfolio.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 16:56:28 No.12385788 Report

Quoted By: >>12386459

>>12385747
Please provide an example of other plants threatening to shut down constantly if those sweet sweet subsidies aren't constantly renewed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 16:57:30 No.12385794 Report

Quoted By: >>12385818

>>12385781
>low operation costs
>>12384569
>OHNONONONONO

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1605577341658.jpg, 50KiB, 960x574

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 17:02:15 No.12385797 Report

Quoted By: >>12385823

>>12384323

How different are modern reactors compared to the first gen designs from 60 years ago?

More importantly, how "meltdown-proof" are they?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 17:08:20 No.12385810 Report

Quoted By:

>>12385743
you have no idea how the power grid works. stable power is much, much more desirable than anything else.
wind is inconsistent as fuck, and solar can't function solely on its own since it obviously decreases in power output as power usage rises each night.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 17:10:49 No.12385818 Report

Quoted By: >>12385822

>>12385794
A nuclear power plant's costs are primarily paying off the loan. After that, it's pretty much only fuel which is significantly cheaper compared to oil, coal and natural gas. Reactors also last much longer than renewables, making it the most profitable in the long run.

And in an era of rock bottom interest rates, it makes even more sense to do capital intensive infrastructure projects like nuclear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 17:12:24 No.12385822 Report

Quoted By: >>12385833 >>12390972

>>12385818
And yet back in the real world they can't even stay open without begging for subsidies. Damn what an incredible industry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 17:12:48 No.12385823 Report

Quoted By:

>>12385797
There's a number of clever designs like control rods held up by electromagnets, so if it loses power then automatically fall down, stopping the reaction.

Self-stabilizing fuels are interesting too. As they get hotter they expand, reducing the likelihood of further neutron collisions, preventing a runaway chain reaction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 17:16:17 No.12385833 Report

Quoted By: >>12390972

>>12385822
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist so public investment doesn't bother me. Large scale infrastructure tends to require subsidies and government support.

The main problem is that there's too much regulatory risk from panicky environmentalists, the useful idiots for the oil industry, so private investors don't want to have the rug pulled up from under them. China is building modern nuclear reactors at a far faster rate than the U.S. because they can actually plan long-term.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 17:17:02 No.12385836 Report

Quoted By:

while renewables are better than purely relying on fossil fuels, they will never full replace fossil fuels due to their limitations. nuclear is the only realistic option to outright replace fossil fuel power generation, wind and solar will just supplement it

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 17:31:06 No.12385887 Report

Quoted By: >>12388508

>>12384391
>waltz into chernobyl
>spiritually decompose and disintegrate into an esoteric plasma anomaly

>jump into Fukushima
>get eviscerated by the tentacles and claws of Japanese robots gone mad by radiation

Such is life in the zone

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 20:15:38 No.12386459 Report

Quoted By: >>12389439

>>12385788
Germany would not have built any of it's solar and wind without the government forcing it. Now they're left with very high energy costs and they're getting taxed to pay the builds back on top of it.
And they didn't even cover as much production as they wanted to.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 20:34:03 No.12386509 Report

Quoted By: >>12387721

>hurricane Harvey it's Houston
>nuclear plant there keeps running at peak efficiency
>all renewable plants shut down
Hmm... how do we make solar panels run during hurricanes?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 20:45:49 No.12386541 Report

Quoted By: >>12387785

>>12384403

Oil shills supports green energy to mess with nuclear as nuclear is their direct competitor, though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2020 20:48:23 No.12386550 Report

Quoted By: >>12388241

>>12384323
Thermo FTW.

Self sustained heatpump.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 02:00:37 No.12387615 Report

Quoted By:

bump

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 02:12:52 No.12387643 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
I invested heavily in pebble bed reactors and lost everything. Now I hate nuclear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 02:57:06 No.12387721 Report

Quoted By:

>>12386509
You don't. Solar and wind are memetech. They fuck off when you need them most every time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 03:25:31 No.12387785 Report

Quoted By:

>>12386541
this, renewmemes need fossil fuel to deal with erratic electricity supply and demand. Nuclear less so.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 06:55:35 No.12388166 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
Not economical viable

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 07:31:50 No.12388235 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
I dont care either way

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 07:34:18 No.12388241 Report

Quoted By: >>12388275 >>12391767

>>12386550
thermo and hydro power are some of the best solutions, but way to geographically dependent, obviously for thermo you need a hotspot and for hydro you need a place that doesn't destroy a gorillion km^2 of land. Nuclear can be put basically anywhere (except iran)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 07:47:30 No.12388275 Report

Quoted By:

>>12388241
Iranian nuclear energy is the opposite of cheap. Imagined struggling 50 years with a series of failures and training 2 generations of nuclear scientists just to get one measily GW plant. They struggle to reach fission like the rest of the world struggles with fusion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 08:33:49 No.12388368 Report

Quoted By: >>12388944

>>12385747
>nothingburger
melted cores nobody knows what to do with is a "nothingburger"
ty for this message, it provided a great soundbite.
no one sane wants shit like that around

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 10:01:06 No.12388508 Report

Quoted By:

>>12385887
To reddit back you must go

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 10:52:11 No.12388577 Report

Quoted By:

>>12385343
They should start selling jars of the water and calling it japanese gamer girl bathwater

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO The-MSRE-plant-diagram-9.png, 171KiB, 850x537

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 14:21:25 No.12388852 Report

Quoted By: >>12388857

>>12384323
If they could build non-pressurized reactors that don't need active cooling I would be all over that!
Today nuclear is an insane industry full of risks that don't make it worth deploying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 14:25:09 No.12388857 Report

Quoted By: >>12388869

>>12388852
Not going to happen, sweaty

Only ones to burn thorium will be pajeets and changs

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 14:32:55 No.12388869 Report

Quoted By: >>12388879

>>12388857
Great ass expulsion there, professor.
You obviously don't know about the environmental disadvantages with renewable. Wind and solar have been busted, the production and retirement of those generators have a humongous environmental impact.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 5bd11cf3a310eff3690285ee.jpg, 332KiB, 1024x683

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 14:44:25 No.12388879 Report

Quoted By: >>12388901

>>12388869
>You obviously don't know about the environmental disadvantages with renewable
What? I'm saying while the Chinese have dozens of thousands of engineers working on the concept, americans have dozens of thousands of people making excuses. Maybe you need a SpaceX of nuclear power.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 14:52:54 No.12388901 Report

Quoted By: >>12388913

>>12388879
Europe are developing MSR with thorium, USA have already done it, Asia are working on it or have settled on solid fuel pebble bed.
Fission is very very far from being obsolete.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 14:57:14 No.12388913 Report

Quoted By:

>>12388901
>USA have already done it
70 years ago and it went nowhere and will go nowhere because there are still big companies making money burning coal. Europe is a lost fucking case, don't count on anything coming from them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 15:14:29 No.12388933 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
muh Chernoville

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 15:23:40 No.12388944 Report

Quoted By: >>12389117

>>12388368
It's not hurting anyone. Might as well obsess over not being able to drink water out of a gas can because it's contaminated with carcinogenic hydrocarbons. Lmao just don't fucking do that. Don't go walking into the Fukushima core and you won't get hurt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 15:26:09 No.12388949 Report

Quoted By: >>12389044

>>12384354
Unironically true, my state has a total of three nuc plants and I can see one or more of them closing before they ever add a fourth

Steam turbines will eventually be replaced by something better

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 16:18:28 No.12389044 Report

Quoted By:

>>12388949
Get ready to see more open up in 30 years when we eventually realizes we need nuclear plants to synthesize hydrocarbons efficiently since batteries a shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 16:42:22 No.12389087 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
Left-wing anti-science loons keep fighting tooth and nail against anything nuclear related.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 16:51:01 No.12389117 Report

Quoted By:

>>12388944
ty, another snapshot. Good luck selling nuclear with that pitch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 18:24:09 No.12389439 Report

Quoted By: >>12389679 >>12390972

>>12386459
>Now they're left with very high energy costs
That's because the Renewable Energies Act was implemented 20 years ago and guarantees prices via feed-in tariffs for 20 years. But in the meantime technology advanced and the required price guarantees saw an exponential decay curve. The first and most expensive subsidies are just about to run out now. If you look at German energy prices right now you're looking at peak subsidy. From here on the prices will know only one way: down.

And the subsidies fulfilled their purpose to provide initial financing in order to put renwables on equal footing with older energy tech which enjoyed subsidies for many many decades already. Renewables needed less than two decades to become competitive.
Couple of years ago government auctions on how little feed-in tariffs applicants would accept in order to gain rights to build offshore wind parks saw competitors bid those down to zero, meaning they would not require any subsidies at all anymore. They are completely financially independent without feed-in tariffs. In contrast to old energy tech, I might add, which receives subsidies to this day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 19:53:23 No.12389679 Report

Quoted By: >>12389692 >>12389743

>>12389439
Someone told me this shit a few years ago and promised the deployments would keep going rapidly while prices fall, yet deployments are mostly stalled while these tariffs are still going. And yet you're saying offshore wind, the least cost effective renewable type there is, needs no subsidies. You're living in fantasy land. Germany's neighbors are going to cut them off if they keep drawing and backfeeding in a schizophrenic manner. That's why they're still maintaining their 30% coal infrastructure, and they just put the 1.1MW Datteln 4 online.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:01:17 No.12389689 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
faggot is your mom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEe76a9hZZA
at 1:05:30 he tells of some better reactors
at 1:35:45 he explains why modern nuclear reactors are shit-tier

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:04:09 No.12389692 Report

Quoted By: >>12389710 >>12389745

>>12389679
Germany is actually doing great, they're the largest exporter of electricity in Europe while they continue to phase out nuclear and fossil fuels.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Changes-in-Residential-Electrici (...).png, 54KiB, 961x674

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:11:22 No.12389710 Report

Quoted By: >>12389720

>>12389692
>Germany is actually doing great

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:18:11 No.12389720 Report

Quoted By: >>12389749 >>12389777

>>12389710
>https://knoema.com/atlas/Germany/CO2-emissions-per-capita?compareTo=US
congratulations posting the most useless comparison ever. The fact of the matter is Germany is reducing emissions while ditching nuclear. something the shills in this thread say is impossible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:23:23 No.12389734 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
Well, I just don't want to be dependent on the whims of the weather gods:
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/nuclear-reactor-in-france-shut-down-over-drought/1952943

I want something more reliable, like renewables:
https://www.reuters.com/article/europe-power-supply-idUSL5E8DD87020120214

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO offshore-wind.jpg, 64KiB, 650x450

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:26:42 No.12389743 Report

Quoted By:

>>12389679
stay mad

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:27:22 No.12389745 Report

Quoted By:

>>12389692
Largest exporter of low CF energy maybe. It's inconsistent, which is why other countries are getting pissed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:28:06 No.12389749 Report

Quoted By: >>12389786

>>12389720
Ignore the US and look at the 100% increase in electricity prices instead. German electricity is like canadian cheese.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:32:43 No.12389759 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384569
>Arguing with retards

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:39:17 No.12389777 Report

Quoted By: >>12389792

>>12389720
It doesn't matter if you have 100% renewable energy if it's not sustainable economically.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:41:01 No.12389786 Report

Quoted By: >>12389863

>>12389749
completely rebuilding infrastructure is expensive. It's actually had a huge positive impact on the German economy as a whole, creating thousands of good paying jobs. Expanding manufacturing and exports. Higher prices don't mean anything if German citizens and industry are doing considerably better than other nations with lower prices.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:42:03 No.12389792 Report

Quoted By: >>12389797

>>12389777
and the German economy is doing great

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:44:26 No.12389797 Report

Quoted By: >>12389830

>>12389792
But it could do even better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:50:50 No.12389814 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
I don't work in a /sci/ field I'm a programmer, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on it and have no intention to learn about it, if a bunch of scientists say it's good and a government does it I'm fine with it - I know a lot are informed on this but I think a big issue in society is people feel like they need an opinion on everything instead of being willing to say I don't know

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 20:56:23 No.12389830 Report

Quoted By: >>12389932

>>12389797
the fact it's been outperforming the nuclear industry poster child france, and experienced accelerated growth after starting the renewable transition strongly suggests it would be doing worse if they listened to nuclear shills.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 21:06:14 No.12389863 Report

Quoted By:

>>12389786
This is cope

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 21:21:43 No.12389904 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384338
>Uranium

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1311010641509.png, 2MiB, 938x4167

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 21:24:56 No.12389915 Report

Quoted By:

>muh thorium

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 21:30:44 No.12389932 Report

Quoted By: >>12390021

>>12389830
France is the biggest exporter of energy in the EU.
Electricity costs 80% more in Germany than in France.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 21:56:35 No.12390021 Report

Quoted By: >>12390052

>>12389932
>France is the biggest exporter of energy in the EU.
only barely beating germany so that clearly isn't a very interesting metric
>Electricity costs 80% more in Germany than in France.
and yet Germany has a higher GDP per capita, and has had more economic growth, and has much stronger manufacturing. Clearly those lower prices aren't actually doing anything for france.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Nov 2020 22:05:14 No.12390052 Report

Quoted By:

>>12390021
>only barely beating germany so that clearly isn't a very interesting metric
10% vs 5% so "barely" is debatable.

>and yet Germany has a higher GDP per capita, and has had more economic growth, and has much stronger manufacturing. Clearly those lower prices aren't actually doing anything for france.
What kind of retarded logic is this?
If Germany had the kind of money France has to spare electricity-wise, it would logically and irrefutably do better.
And France shitty industry would be even shittier if they had to deal with Germany electricity prices.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 04:34:53 No.12390965 Report

Quoted By:

>>12385186
Yes it unironically does.
> MUH TINY RISK AAAAAAAAAA
emotional dumbass, the ecosystem in fucking Chernobyl is healthier than the surrounding inhabited areas because turns out that massive nuclear fallout isn't as bad for wildlife as fucking farmers

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 04:36:31 No.12390968 Report

Quoted By:

>>12385512
Media agencies, along with their siblings in marketing and public relations, unironically all deserve to be pulped and washed into a sewer

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 04:38:21 No.12390972 Report

Quoted By: >>12391211 >>12391234 >>12391425

>>12385729
>>12385747
>>12385822
>>12385833
>>12389439
>MUH SUBSIDIES BAD
Can you explain this dipshit kneejerk reaction?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 05:39:06 No.12391130 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
I, for one, do support it *now*.
Back in the 80's I voted to shut down Rancho Seco. I wish now that I hadn't.
Of course there's been management problems with nuke plants, we need to fix that, and we also need to design newer better plants, and we need to permanently solve the waste disposal problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 06:10:20 No.12391211 Report

Quoted By: >>12391275

>>12390972
Try reading my fucking post before trying to say I'm the one who knee jerked. No I'm not telling you which one. Try not (you)ing five assholes at once next time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 06:25:16 No.12391234 Report

Quoted By: >>12394814

>>12390972

Renewables get more subsidies per TWh produced than nuclear.

>A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce (the estimate of fossil fuel subsidies applies only to consumer subsidies and only within non-OECD countries), nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and bio-fuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.[20]

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

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 06:44:52 No.12391275 Report

Quoted By: >>12392313

>>12391211
Every one of those posts has a basis in the caveman-tier argument of "subsidies bad". None of the five qualify the point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 08:14:30 No.12391425 Report

Quoted By:

>I'm not an anarcho-capitalist so public investment doesn't bother me. Large scale infrastructure tends to require subsidies and government support..
>>12390972
you are retarded

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 09:18:48 No.12391552 Report

Quoted By:

nuclear is the future

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 11:12:10 No.12391767 Report

Quoted By:

>>12388241
>Nuclear can be put basically anywhere (except iran)
Fuck all of you westerners.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 11:42:08 No.12391826 Report

Quoted By:

Current fission reactors are not the solution. We only have enough U235-enriched material to sustain them right now because of all the nuclear bombs made during the cold war, but that stuff is incredibly expensive and it's going to run out one day. Breeder reactors are where it's at. One day all the cool kids will be using breeder reactors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 15:48:32 No.12392313 Report

Quoted By:

>>12391275
Okay you fucking fail.
>>12385747
>Every single energy source gets a ton of subsidies because large plants are critical infrastructure.
Explain to the class why you think this is an anti-subsudy statement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 22:46:52 No.12393623 Report

Quoted By: >>12396378

>>12384323
The biggest counter-argument is that it's waste lasts for a long-ass time, not including the fact that the USA's solution to the problem is to let the stuff rot in reactor instead of burying the shit. Then there's rogue nations making nuclear weapons with it, like Iran and North Korea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Nov 2020 22:48:17 No.12393628 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384323
It's too expensive

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Nov 2020 03:50:30 No.12394582 Report

Quoted By:

>>12384569
Wind and solar don't produce VARs. No starty big motor thingies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Nov 2020 05:59:22 No.12394814 Report

Quoted By:

>>12391234
The U.S. spends $26 billion annually subsidizing fossil fuels.

... on top of that, the trillions of dollars wasted and thousands of lives lost in Iraq Wars I & II.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1602501308725.jpg, 144KiB, 1024x762

Anonymous Sat 28 Nov 2020 18:45:05 No.12396327 Report

Quoted By: >>12396395

Great minds have produced great technology but the harsh reality is that operation of that technology over the long term will be conducted by staggeringly normal minds within ordinary, flawed, ultimately unstable societies.

This is a rational basis on which to expect nuclear power to always lead to disaster.

Nuclear proponents are invariably naive morons that believe because their chosen cause is OMG PEAK SCIENCE any dissent must be ludditism.

Nope, we just understand more about human behavior than you autists.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Nov 2020 19:09:04 No.12396378 Report

Quoted By:

>>12393623
Sites like Yucca Mountain can store nuclear waste safely, and breeder reactors can re-use waste as fuel.

The hand wringing over long-term waste seems silly when it's extremely small relative to the amount of energy that can be produced. Furthermore, we're going to have unimaginable technologies in 100 years that will fundamentally change how we can solve problems. Fusion and AGI seem very likely in the near future, which will usher in an age of near limitless energy and intellectual power.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Nov 2020 19:18:39 No.12396395 Report

Quoted By:

>>12396327
That doesn't account for the hard reality of increasing energy needs, something like nuclear could put us on the next level of societal development. We'll come around, it just takes time. No use being all stupid about it

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