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

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 202 KB, 1162x956, navy-submarine-nuclear-reactor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
71280278 No.71280278 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

Why doesn't every home or large building have a small nuclear reactor like on submarines? It wouldn't need refueling for 25 years.

>> No.71280292

>small reactor

>> No.71280302

because you touch yourself at night

>> No.71280319

efficiencies of scale

>> No.71280324

In case someone turned it into a small nuclear weapon. A piece of radioactive material the size of an orange could level a city if used in a bomb

>> No.71280325

Because every home isnt submerged into liquid cooling

>> No.71280361

Dirty bomb? Sure. Nuclear bomb, no, it's too complicated.

>> No.71280362

Because people are retarded. I don't want someone who can't even figure out which end of the spatula is for burger flipping anywhere near a reactor of any kind.

>> No.71280366

>He doesn't know about cooling towers

>> No.71280383

Why would every home have a nuclear reactor when it's easier and cheaper to build a single large one to power a whole city?

Plus, the risks involved in speading highly radioactive material all over the place are significant. And then there's the issue of incredibly expensive and large security and cooling systems. And nuclear subs don't exactly have "small" reactors in the sense that you could just put one in your basement.

>> No.71280385

>He cant afford a pool

>> No.71280405

Tell me how an RBMK reactor explodes?

>> No.71280409

The process for creating enriched radioactive material for nuclear bombs is too complex and time consuming. It could still do a lot of damage, mainly through nuclear radiation, but not as a nuclear bomb.

>> No.71280413

Aren't they the size of a boiler?

>> No.71280419

>Hey kids, wanna take a dip in our nuclear reactor coolant water?

>> No.71280470

I don't know exactly how big the reactors are, but you wouldn't need just the reactor itself. You'd need all sorts of cooling equipment, water pipes, shielding, reduntant power and cooling, and so on in order to do it safely.

>> No.71280487

Friendly reminder that you could be paying cents on the dollar for electricity but retarded soccer moms can't stop crying about MUH CHURN O' BILL as if it was still relevant.

>> No.71280505

are you a single anon or is every pretentious brainlet suddenly into nuclear tech because of chernobyl

>> No.71280533

for the same reason why you're buying your steak at the supermarket or butcher instead of raising cows for yourself

economy of scale

it's much more efficient to build big reactors and power the grid instead of having decentralized small reactors all over the place

maintanance costs alone would kill that idea immediatly

a centralized approach is economicaly more viable in almost every case

>> No.71280553
File: 182 KB, 349x427, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]




>> No.71280568

Free market.
Let the people maintain them, not the government.
I believe in freedom of choice, and I want to be off the grid.

>> No.71280571

I don’t really care if it gets people to start supporting nuclear again. Greenies are already starting to embrace the idea.

>> No.71280576

>much more efficient

nobody is concerned with efficiency. nobody.

the only matter of concern is centralisation of power and the rockefeller jews monopolising energy supply to keep us all hooked like a bunch of addicted crackheads. fucking kikes.

>> No.71280578

What drives me up the wall is the way these people refuse any and all alternatives. They cry that fossil fuels are bad, so we use nuclear. But then they say that's bad too, so we use hydroelectric. But then that's bad too, so we have to use solar and wind, which doesn't even produce electricity reliably enough, so we end up having to use fossil fuels anyways. And then they say solar and wind is bad too because it killed a few birds. At some point we're going to have to start hiring college graduates with degrees in women's studies to pedal bikes to run a power plant, and then they're going to complain about fat shaming and how they deserve better jobs because they worked so hard for their useless, shitty degrees.

>> No.71280607

i'm not prepared to explain that right now

>> No.71280654

>due to an event that occurred multiple decades ago

>> No.71280669


>> No.71280672

If you seriously can't see the benefits of having fewer nuclear reactors powering multiple household, then you're the one who's retarded.

>> No.71280689

>sharing a reactor with other houses
sorry, i'm not a communist

my house, my reactor

>> No.71280704

I should have known there was some stupid daytime television root, my apologies.

>> No.71280706

Can you overclock a reactor?

>> No.71280719

If you aren't communist then you have no complaints against someone with a reactor charging to power multiple houses, and the free market fucking you over for being a retard.

>> No.71280743

>Why doesn't every home

>> No.71280784

The concept of overclocking doesn't really have any meaning as far as reactors go.

>> No.71280826
File: 79 KB, 325x346, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.71280832

Could you make a homemade reactor by putting uranium powder on a stove top in a pan, turning the heat on, and then essentially cooking the powder?
Then direct the near endless steam it produces through a tube that powers a steam engine thus powering your house with just a frying pan, some tubes and some uranium?

>> No.71280894
File: 118 KB, 455x285, 98842ec503d1b991f76215391f6a7d2e3f0b3e66fff810af7a4a0cbf3f4a3cd1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Are you having a laugh, mate?

>> No.71280918

steam explosion

>> No.71281681

absolutely based anon

>> No.71281702


>> No.71281727

How would uranium react if you just put it in on a frying pan or an oven?

>> No.71281730
File: 283 KB, 520x570, 935149.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

There's nothing wrong with nuclear power

>> No.71281751

Why not have one or several large nuclear reactors that provide power to the grid instead?

What is the advantage of hundreds/thousands of small nuclear reactors?

>> No.71281754

The problem is the smaller the cross section of the core, the higher the neutron count needs to be, which usually necessitates using particularly nasty things like Pu rather than U-235, and generally speaking it will be quite inefficient. You want it to be big enough to power a few hundred homes rather than one, as it simplifies the neutronics and operation.

>> No.71281769

>Why not have one or several large nuclear reactors that provide power to the grid instead?
It makes them priority targets, it means that any incident in one of them would bring down the entire power grid.
Smaller ones spread the risk and also mean you can have some out of order and still have a working power grid

>> No.71281777


>> No.71281807

But what stops a violent incel from exposing his core if the girl next door won't have sex with them?

>> No.71281814
File: 257 KB, 727x1083, 1558793736641.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The real solution is to stop listening to what women say, because it's all nonsensical drivel that matters fuckall. Anyone who reads this should also read this Wikipedia article. Even 2000+ years ago men knew that women were a bunch of shitters.

>> No.71281821

White heterosexual people are the real threat, incels are irrelevant

>> No.71281822

It wouldn't at all.

>> No.71281889

Radiation from uranium used as fuel in atomic plants, or the waste (yellow cake), is radioactive, but nonlethal, unless injected straight inside the body

Yeah, humans are strong

>> No.71281907

The biggest reactors (RBMK) are 12m in diameter and 7m tall, Typical PWRs are much smaller though, the newest EPR built in France has a vessel 14m tall and 6m in diameter (external value, takes in account the very thick steel walls)

>> No.71281919

[salil sawarim intensifies]

>> No.71281944


>> No.71282053

Because as we are seeing now with the baby boomer retirement, the VAST majority of the middle/lower class did a substandard upkeep and maintenance of their properties. Homes are coming on the market that basically haven't been touched since the 70s.

Nuclear power needs round the clock supervision and maintenance to avoid disaster.

>> No.71282074

What if you boil the powder?

>> No.71282101
File: 22 KB, 205x215, 444344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

best post

>> No.71282109
File: 26 KB, 500x500, installation_70dd17cb-548f-4f94-b4a2-4034cb9a8d95_grande[3].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Let the people maintain them, not the government.
I agree with you on the principal but this principal with nuclear energy? hell no.


>monopolising energy supply

i agree and like I said a while ago on /sci/:

solar is the way to go, some months ago I got a little 500 watt/hour "station" to experiment and get used to solar generation, it works really nice, I think the future will be one "solar power station" for every home, every one of us should own our own electricity production, it doesn't get more capitalist than this! and I love it.

>> No.71282120

Kill yourself

>> No.71282121

The fuel is expensive
The fuel is hard to get rid of
There needs to be a highly pressurised flow of water
There needs to be humans watching it at all times in case something goes wrong and the whole town is irradiated
There needs to be sufficient shielding
You also need a turbine making it fucking loud
All this equipment if fucking expensive and every single thing about a reactor makes it awful for domestic use

>> No.71282146

Bro I don't want that shit near me. KYS

>> No.71282157

>There needs to be a highly pressurised flow of water
Depends, you can get away with liquid sodium metal or NaCl/NaF but that introduces its own design constraints and concerns

>You also need a turbine making it fucking loud
Not if you go for thermoelectric generation but the efficiency goes down significantly

>> No.71282175

you might power you low energy cuckshed on 5kW peak
but seriously, that's not even enough to run a stove or heater or maybe it is enough
on a cloudless summer day

despite the main consumer is (heavy) industry that requires power round the clock (or suffer critical plant damage)
good luck powering all that on Unstable wind / solar

>> No.71282195

>humans cant even build reliable computers/phones/cars
>people mess up every day in every field of work
>sugeons slip, doctors misdiagnose, engineers misplace, electricians mismeasure.

The human is flawed and so is it's creation.
You expect a average human being to manage their own personal nuclear reactor when people can't even open a greasetrap on their sink?

>> No.71282214

Based libertarian-capitalist poster.

>> No.71282221

if you're using a thermocouple then the startup cost would be in the millions for the amount of fuel you'd need

Also my point was where are you going to get the water from, replacing it with sodium salts will just kill it

>> No.71282228

Survival of the fittest.

>> No.71282243

Russia only needs to target one of those and you have a chain reaction Hans.

>> No.71282273

Why isn't there a nuclear powered airliner that carries thousands of people? Think a cruise ship in the sky.

>> No.71282353

>map of France
>muh Russia

America : the post

>> No.71282396

But can every home afford to pay for 25 years worth of not-so-cheap power in advance?

>> No.71282428

Just like Chernobyl explosion wiped out half the USSR. Moron.

>> No.71282436

>implying hans doesn't run the NWO EU which will rely on nuclear energy backed socialism to send in more afrikangs

The only people who shill nuclear on /pol/ are germans.

>> No.71282450

Have you watched Hunt for Red October? Of course you can!

>> No.71282455
File: 150 KB, 1160x870, 011616_1958_Aderelictli6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


RTGs are but power output is like ~100W.

>> No.71282464

Germany shut down most of their nuclear plants and instead built a new gas pipeline with Vlad like the cucks they are

>> No.71282478

Hopefully Vlad shuts off the Brap pipe once they full remove dependencies on coal.

>> No.71282509


Positive void coefficient.

>> No.71282561

And the cost of power is 1000x the usual. That's why you only ever see these in locations where refueling is virtually impossible, such as bumfuck nowhere in siberia or in open space, which is pretty much equivalent.

>> No.71282678

this is great since i have a business plan for uranium paint to make nurseries glow in the dark

>> No.71283243

Perfect for that new Intel CPU.

>> No.71283378
File: 2.43 MB, 1920x1080, ad51b15d9a583bf50c54df84a39c39f2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

> instate proto-communist reforms that ban private wealth and enforce sexual equality for the old and unattractive
how could one man so accurately describe modern day?

>> No.71283464

>Tell me how an RBMK reactor explodes?

>> No.71283596

>size of an orange
Anon, you need about 15kg of U235 or 52kg of U237 to sustain a chain reaction, and logically you would need even more mass the lower is the law of the radiactive material.

>> No.71283713

Meanwhile the Chinese don't give two fucks where they take their power from.
Obviously you would expect people to learn to not make the same mistakes as Chernobyl and Fukushima and reinforce the security of the plants and protocols on what to do if something bad happens.

>> No.71283767

The peak electricity draw of a house is only ever going to be the AC + Washer&Dryer + Kitchen appliances + 1.1kilowatt (for lights, TVs, devices, etc.) And this should come in at about 5-7.5Kilowatt depending on the house size.

You could contain a 5 kilowatt reactor in a room the size of a small garage, in a sub-basement floor, and due to the small size of a 5Kw reactor, the worst that will happen is the heatsoak from the nuclear pile heats up the house a few degrees.

The only problem I have is the complexity for a self-maintaining, self-regulating reactor can't possibly be built mechanically sound. There's no way any reactor could work for 25+ years without the machinery that regulates the power output breaking/needing service, and I'm talking in statistical MTBF spread over 100 million homes.

>> No.71283921

>reinforce the security
Security in the physical sense has never been an issue. Security in any high tech industry is always about the technical side. See here > https://www.nti.org/analysis/tools/table/133/

Now, if by "security" your ESL-addled brain meant "how safe the reactor is built", Fukushima and Chernobyl are literally two examples of retarded people being retards.

Call it 10KiloWatt peak and we have an agreement.

>> No.71284472
File: 285 KB, 1200x1697, 1552290938179.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Because women haven't changed a bit. The only thing that changed is that men got weak and failed to put checks on the walking bags of emotion known as women. Making women "equal" is how you destroy a civilization. This was common sense until about 60 years ago. About a century ago, certain subversive elements got into financial and government institutions.

>> No.71284665

Ecclesiazusae isn't directly about women or communism, it's a comedy about weak men running the show while the strong men are dying off from excessive years of war.

If the line in wikipedia about women praying to Athena and men praying to Apollo didn't help you see then nothing will. You should have learned in history class - the Greek deities were prayed to by everyone for their respective area of god-governed life. A man would pray to Athena just as much as his wife would for the health of their baby in the womb.

The quips at the end of the wikipedia articles (the young, good looking man getting torn apart by multiple women and the middle-aged, successful man walking around with many girls) are a joke. It's a joke play. The women infiltrating the assembly are representing effeminate men ("an unprecedented turnout of shoe makers")

>> No.71284794

hypothetically speaking how hard is fission to start? dirty bombs are way scarier than nukes.

>> No.71284830

>hypothetically speaking
Good news!
People figured that math out over a hundred years ago!

>> No.71284845

it could've. the series is very close to what actually was happening, the scale of procedures is way smaller in a movie though
and people were asked to volunteer too politely, nobody asked that way if asked at all.

>> No.71284873

I'm not asking how to do that with help of professionals with tools for it, i'm asking if you can do that in a basement with no proper tools

>> No.71284931

>expects the proper outcome without the proper equipment
Are you retarded or....?

>> No.71284934

because chernobyl

>> No.71284972

>how hard is fission to start?

It's very easy to start but very hard to keep going long enough to cause a big explosion.

Once you have a chain reaction the heat generated quickly vaporizes the remaining fuel and drives it apart stopping the chain reaction again.

>> No.71284993

proper outcome in this case would be a dirty "bomb", making a city inhabitable would be quite scary

>> No.71285000

no there actually isn't.
I just don't like the idea of nuclear fallout.

>> No.71285039

They actually tried that but the shielding was too heavy.

>> No.71285555

Please don't bait that kind of crowd here (the feminist) or this board will go to shit just like the others.

>> No.71285593

It's impossible, this man is clearly delirious, get him to an infirmary

>> No.71285611

>nuclear fallout
You know that meme has been debunked a long time ago, right?

>> No.71285795

The commies that's why.

>> No.71285973
File: 414 KB, 600x450, D15D353104994502BABB29B0494D2B67.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

But the reactors can't explode

>> No.71286012

Indeed, if French engineering can create safe reactors it really says something.

>> No.71286026

nuclear proliferation

>> No.71286064

>they say
I'm quiet sure it isn't the same person saying all this. You are just listening to the loudest people at any given time. 99% of the population doesn't' give two shit about any of it when it comes right down to it. Most of the harping on about this shit are people being funded by the competition.

>> No.71286123

>Why can't we have nice things?
Because people are


>> No.71286134

unironically this, chernobyl only did the big kaboom because russia designed a bomb instead of a reactor

even modern RBMK reactors are safe-ish; and actual modern reactors are pretty much idiot proof

>> No.71286490

Based and KGB pilled

>> No.71288224

But its dangerous!

>> No.71288256

Those are not people, they are "pardos".

>> No.71288442

Based retard.

>> No.71288507

High pressure rips the pipes (looks like a small explosion), hydrogen is produced (hydrogen can explode). Though yeah, nuclear power plants are at no risk of becoming a nuclear bomb. Only a dirty bomb.

>> No.71288639

because it would need refueling in 25 years

>> No.71289077

Please give a short rundown of creating a nuclear weapon from a nuclear reactor, Einstein.

>> No.71289085


>> No.71289530

you are being delusional

>> No.71289664

Retard detected.

>> No.71289696

The Toshiba 4S was basically designed to be that.

>> No.71289798

Pretty sure it was the size of a tangerine.

>> No.71290274

China is the only nation actively pushing nuclear tech. Judging from their security and safely protocols they will do a good job providing their brainless bugmen works dont screw up.

>> No.71291401

Small nuclear reactors could be economically viable on large planes like jumbo jets.

>> No.71291472

that aint no submarine

>> No.71291743

>Why isn't there a nuclear powered airliner that carries thousands of people? Think a cruise ship in the sky.
>Small nuclear reactors could be economically viable on large planes like jumbo jets.
Nuclear reactors have a very low power density but a very high energy density. Basically for their size and weight they don't output much power but they output it for an extreme length of time. Combustion engines and batteries in comparison can output large amounts of power but the overall energy density is lower as they much be refueled or recharged after minutes or hours of use.

I forget the exact number but the average airliner needs about 20 or 30 megawatts of power to fly. The only real way to do it is bypass having a reactor and generator all together, you can use the nuclear fuel in a jet engine, the nuclear reaction heats the air in place of the jet fuel combustion. Problem is the nuclear fuel must be directly exposed to the airflow to heat it making your plane a flying nuclear holocaust that irradiates everything it flies over.

>> No.71291863


>> No.71291867

Alright anon here is the answer... You are fucking retarded.

>> No.71292850

I suggest you read up on the aircraft reactor experiment

>> No.71292887

>a small nuclear reactor
we could have cold fusion reactors already if energy jew didn't lobbying it.

>> No.71292926

Great plan! Fast-forward 25 years, now what?

The US didn’t even manage to seal nuclear waste in a god damn island. It takes 25.000 years + for this shit to be gone

>> No.71293155

protip: the ocean seafloor is literally covered in exposed radioactive rock if you go swimming you are swimming in radiation water

also protip the sun is constantly shining you with RADIATION it will even cause radiation burns and give you cancer

>> No.71293167

Where would you find the fuel for all those homes?

>> No.71293186

>And this should come in at about 5-7.5Kilowatt depending on the house size.
Yep. So lets put in there a "small submarine" 165000KW reactor.

>> No.71293190

People here have no idea about the differences between the small sized and submarine reactors.

>> No.71293198

>Fukushima and Chernobyl are literally two examples of retarded people being retards.
I don't understand why idiots don't realize this and fear what they don't understand.

>> No.71293213

You do know uranium is fucking heavy. Size of an orange is 15kg

>> No.71293231

So what? Why do you think africa exists?

>> No.71293237

There are small ones for like, town use. I saw it in a Nat Geo a few years ago. Like $300k or something.

>> No.71293242

>I suggest you read up on the aircraft reactor experiment
It didn't power the plane or anything. Nuclear jet or rocket engines are the only feasible options. A full reactor with steam turbines and shielding is just too heavy.

>> No.71293314

lol 300k
top kek

>> No.71293419
File: 972 KB, 480x270, 84769433.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

power companies have a monopoly and don't want other types of nuclear fission Technologies to be developed.
(like lite-water thorium reactors are easy to maintain, meltdown protection mechanisms can be analog)
current nuclear fission technology is hard to control and maintain you need Specialists to avert a meltdown.
the most dangerous Appliance or tool that we use right now is a automobile there's a 1 in 80 chance that any normal person can die from an automobile accident/Collision.
handling radioactive materials on a day-to-day basis is far more dangerous than that.

>> No.71293435

too expensive

>> No.71293466

Failing to follow standard security procedures
Disabling manually a lot of failsafe switches
Putting in charge a thermodynamics technician instead of a nuclear technician

>> No.71293469



>> No.71293472

Shouldn't be a problem in capitalism, the guberment isn't allowing people.

>> No.71293483

Free market, I'm fine with that.

>> No.71293510

Anon, your way of doing is no difference than heating iron and waiting it to change to other element.
To make uranium generate heat, you just need a lot of its, in the same place.

>> No.71293687

I hate you and everyone who replied to you before me. Fucking reddit tier human beings, all of you.

>> No.71293733

>Can you overclock a reactor?
People like this is why individual residents dont own their own reactor.

>> No.71293743

Actually, if your block of land can support grazing cattle, in Australia atleast, after all expenses involved with the cow purchase/meds/slaughter&mobile butcher, it works out to be around 3.5 aus dollars per kg of meat.
In the store here, shitty mince alone is around 9 dollars per kg.
Of course you will need a large freezer and will likley have far too much to eat for yourself from even one cow, the absolute prime cuts alone are more than covered for.

>> No.71293748
File: 15 KB, 229x220, images_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>What are dirty bombs
There's more security in nuclear power plants than some military bases.

>> No.71293759

Sure. And when something goes Fukushima, you just evacuate all your neighbours in a 150km radius.

>> No.71293786

>the nuclear fuel must be directly exposed to the airflow to heat it making your plane a flying nuclear holocaust that irradiates everything it flies over.
not entirely true, as while its entirely possible to do that, read up on project Pluto, but it requires an intentional modification to make it run dirty.

>> No.71294061

Free market, don't like it move.

>> No.71294115

because its soviet

>> No.71294117

"level a city"
this one always gets me

I have never seen a more successful piece of propaganda in all my life than this one

10 blocks will be destroyed at the absolute periphery, assuming a single point of detonation
you're perfectly healthy a single mile away, especially if you're behind a wall

>> No.71294318

Ever worked on a submarine? Didn't think so...

>> No.71294338

How many kilotons are basing that comment on, not to mention megatons? Airburst or surface burst? Explain yourself...

>> No.71294339

I worked at Subway.

>> No.71294369

Yeah, no...

>> No.71294394

That you're wrong about French engineering ?

>> No.71294436
File: 507 KB, 717x563, __clownpiece_touhou_drawn_by_mefomefo__1d2943bafefa57305458dd42cea37043.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>entrusting nuclear fission reaction to average amerifat
Chernobyl V.3.0

>> No.71294455

Why not use solar power?
Technically it's nuclear reaction form safe distance.

>> No.71294614

Because it's extremely expensive to do on scale and require professional oversight.

>> No.71294656

Inefficient, can't regulate production, can't produce at night, 1GW solar as expensive as 1GW nuclear, actually less green than nuclear power.

Yeah no.

>> No.71294665

america style!

hello john doe my name is prashant satpute and i will make all my effort in maintaining your power device today; you need no worry at all my and my team are highly trained technicians will make maintenance happy.

>> No.71294691

Solar power is efficient in the right places.

>> No.71294703

Then you've got to carry the power over thousands of kilometers, which will make it even less efficient due to power losses thus even more expensive + it doesn't fix all the other problems.

>> No.71294721

it's impossible.

>> No.71294733

Cause it's retartedly complicated. To build/monitor/service so many nuclear reactors. Why go to all these difficulties if we can just build one large nuclear reactor and supply power from it to the whole city? The costs and complexity would much, much less. And you can actually provide sufficient protection and servicing to the reactor in this case.

>> No.71294785
File: 410 KB, 900x676, 1557457750530.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.71294801
File: 1.39 MB, 452x306, 1559659001811.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.71294820

People make their gas equiped homes explode and that's bad enough. You must be a retard if you think handing the average Joe a nuclear reactor is a good idea.

>> No.71294837
File: 202 KB, 1274x1278, 1559661088221.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.71294907

None of that is correct, a house is not going to need megawatts of power.
It could get by on a much smaller scale the size of a desktop computer.
The smaller scale allows for sealed units that would just be replaced, like central heat and cooling unites are today.
Nuclear power plants are used to create plutonium not for creating electricity to they are inefficient by design.

>> No.71294926

What do you do with the nuclear waste?
Remember, it takes a few tenths of thousands of years for it to be not lethal.

>> No.71294953

What's that gif supposed to mean?

>> No.71294960

Put huge arrays of solar panels on the arctic and antartica, then use energy from both. Easy as fuck.

>> No.71294976


>> No.71294998

you'll get it if you've watched the show

>> No.71295015

Same poster

>> No.71295024

Reactors don't explosively melt down, but the yield from a reactor sized for a single house is technically enough to take out a few hundred people.

>> No.71295052
File: 33 KB, 750x396, David-Hahn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

If we can't trust people with smoke detectors containing americium, how are we gonna trust people with a reactor in their bedroom?

>> No.71295103

No, I'm suggesting using solar power in the right places.
In U.A.E, CSP can generate 100-megawatt.

>> No.71295166

When evil men like trump are in charge

>> No.71295228

Yes, but how do you power the places that don't have deserts, which is the majority of the world ?

>> No.71295308

Put solar panels on blimps and float them above the clouds with a giant power cord attached.

>> No.71295424

Fuck them, they have nice weather why do they need electricity for.

>> No.71295529

We would all be fucked in 25 years would create a fuck ton of nuclear waste.

>> No.71295555

You press the emergency stop buttom

>> No.71295680

nuclear reactors are about base load. they don't do sudden peaks very well.

>> No.71296175

Solar panels really don't perform well in hot areas. Just like the silicon in your computer, the silicon in solar panels perform poorly in very hot areas. Even here in Missouri Summers they perform poor even with 10 hours of direct sunlight. When the sun comes out in winter my solar panels produce like crazy. For it to work in the Middle East they would need to pump ocean water to cool the silicon.

>> No.71296203
File: 97 KB, 1024x683, concentrated-solar-power-tunur-tunisia-1024x683.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Solar panels
Are you an idiot?
I'm talking about CSP, like pic related.
Completely different things.

>> No.71296397

hello fukushima

>> No.71296425
File: 37 KB, 444x960, 1559306024514.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Are you an idiot?
>Uses the unheard of acronym CSP term instead of just out right saying Concentrated solar power.
kys, which is short for kill yourself

>> No.71296570

>unheard of acronym CSP
>Concentrated solar power (also called concentrating solar power, concentrated solar thermal, and CSP)

>> No.71296589

Building reactor on the shore of a country with constant seismic activity and tsunami risk.
What could go wrong?

>> No.71296758

that's fine, but putting the backup generators in the basement that gets easily flooded was the king of bad ideas

>> No.71297175

People can't even operate a smartphone, you want them to operate a nuclear reactor? Would you want a brainlet like >>71280324 running one?

>> No.71297272
File: 19 KB, 183x232, 1552032315235.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Oy vey goy do you know how much better the profit margins are on solar and wind? Do you know how much money we make building and selling those powerplants to dumbfuck goyim who then get tiny profit margins on the produced energy they sell? Nuclear has way lower profit margins goy it'd be like anudda holocaust for my wallet!

>> No.71297820

>Put huge arrays of solar panels on the part of the earth that gets the least insolation
This might be the most retarded thing I've read all day

>> No.71297974

>neglected 60s reactor
Drink some contaminated seawater idiot

>> No.71298003

Why not ask France, an entire country that has been on nuclear power exclusively for more than 25 years? Do some fucking research, kid.

>> No.71298033
File: 108 KB, 1024x594, 1024px-Nuclear_Energy_by_Year.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

built in the late 70s, just like the reactors in your neighbourhood, you cock nugget

>> No.71298144
File: 8 KB, 229x250, 1550776602420.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

So what happens in 30 years when US and Europe are stuck with cuck panels and windmills that can't come close to filling energy demands resulting in $1/kWh (or more) while China and Russia have almost free energy from 4th gen reactors?

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