/sci/ - Science & Math

The first use of nuclear power on a large scale was to blow up two cities.

why does /sci/ have the exact same threads EVERY FUCKING DAY!!

Most times these threads are worded exactly the same. If you can't figure it out, check the archive.

>>10563883
cos of chernobyl and fukushima. even though it's so unbelievably unlikely to happen, to the extent that nuclear power is technically safer than solar statistically, it's still extremely scary to live next to something that could turn everything you know and love into an uninhabitable wasteland for generations

>>10563883
you have people with the brain of a child in control of enough nuclear bombs to destroy the planet 100 times over.
its common sense, i dont get why people want nukes. but then i realize why and i think its retarded.

>>10563898
no no no. Its because people who shill nuclear literally nag constantly and its annoying af so people naturally drift into opposing literally everything they say.

>>10563883
longoing brainwashing by oil lobbyists

NUCLEAR = BAD !!!!! THIS >>10563962 THIS THIS THIS

NUCLEAR EVIL

DISLIKE
REJECT

>>10563962
>nuclear bomb bad, therefore nuclear power bad

>>10563942
OP said
>Why are the people in so many countries against nuclear power?
You reply:
>you have people with the brain of a child in control of enough nuclear bombs to destroy the planet 100 times over. its common sense, i dont get why people want nukes. but then i realize why and i think its retarded.
Congratulations. You proved yourself to be a CSF-leaking brainlet. It must hurt to be this retarded.

>>10563883
because they know that only people who worked on nuclear subs/carriers advocate for it, and they all have brain damage from years of being irradiated

>>10563985
>this group advocates for it, therefore i am against it
t. mind of a retard.

>>10563986
BWAHAHAHA thanks for responding to my troll, obviously not reading the entirety of my post, and confirming my theory about who a significant number of the people who shill nuclear really are

>>10563883
Tonnes of military/police/government people on this site (mostly unpaid) since "civies" are likely in general too afraid of being spied on by those types to come here.

nuclear power it only cost effective during it's power production lifespan if it's subsidized by the government. If you include the costs of building, decommissioning, and indefinite storage of nuclear material on site it doesn't break even. It's a money sink. A poison pill you sell to other countries that you want to bankrupt. that's why America is so keen on giving nuclear to other countries, and most countries are "no, we don't want your nuclear power." It's an old-school weapon of the economic war that's been going on since the last real wars ended.

>>10563947
this. people gotta pandora's promise, Big Oil shills solar because they know the math behind nuclear

>>10564003
>cost of storage
>that's why America is so keen on giving nuclear to other countries
wanna know how i know you're retarded?

>>10564003
This is patently false, and includes so much other bullshit constraints imposed by imbeciles like you and ignores the theoretical longevity of nuclear reactors, centuries, unlike your renewable shit. Nice editing the disclaimer because you keep getting blown the fuck out by nuclear gang last. Also, note this low IQ poster by his stylometry. The number of posters has remained at nine, and this guy keeps going on his anti-nuclear rave.

>>10564003
Is Hydroelectric objectively superior to nuclear power?

>>10564009
Here is the real cost of nuclear power and why oil and coal oppose it at every step. Unlike renewable which they either ignore or even shill for like here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Jj2wD3GjE

ive gotten two engi internships through the uni but both times they chose pajeet women instead

im trying so hard not to be racist boys the glow in the darks are trying to push me over the edge

>>10563883
Why is it that those who have them think that others shouldn't? I want one too.

>>10564023
*oh, wrong kind of power

Cold war disarmament psyops.

>>10564008
the US had promised nuclear companies a national nuclear waste storage site, but everybody objected to it being in their home state. Eventually they were forced to pay every nuclear site to house the nuclear material indefinitely. Now, those government subsides to store the nuclear material on site are the only thing keeping most nuclear plants in business.

>>10564012
I don't know where that graph came from, but it's p-hacked to hell. It's not levelized and probably includes subsidies. Most LCOE predictions have solar on par or beating nuclear power.

>>10564068
>p-hacked
Do you even know what that means?
You don't. You're some moron. There's nothing to p-hack when it comes to price averages. You on the other hand, are guilty of exactly this with biased subsidy metric, "levelized costs" analysis. You're such a fucking moron that you can't even see that it excludes intermittency, which means they assume 24/7 operation of Wind/Solar power under perfect conditions which is impossible. Every fucking thread, you keep getting blown the fuck out, and you never concede your point. It's literally as though you're a paid shill. I never insulted beyond perhaps a brainlet here and there but you, you're the worst fucking poster on /sci/. Fuck you and fuck your controlled opposition renewables.

>>10563883
Why do brainlets think supporting nuclear power makes them smarter?

>>10564144
>Why do brainlets think supporting [solar and wind shit] makes them smarter?
FTFY

>>10564144
They've convinced themselves that "humanity" is destined for technological omnipotence among the stars or some shit as a way to virtue signal to other morons.

>>10563883
It's shit.

>>10564172
>>10564178
This is you >>10563970

>>10564068
>Lazard
>not IEA
You're really trying.

>>10564183
doesn't make me wrong though

>>10564278
You weren't making a valid argument to begin with.

>>10563883
Oil industry shilling.

>>10564499
This is the only real answer.

>>10563883
They need climate change to get votes so they can destroy themselves with immigration

Oil corps keep shilling against it.

>>10563946
This

>>10564956
>Tfw I realized I'm just as bad as the MUH LEGAL WEED people
Well I guess I'll shut the fuck up.

>>10564985
It's the wind and solar shills that do this with impunity. They're just upset people are calling them out on their bullshit. /sci/ is a nuclear gang board.

>>10565082
based

>>10564012
oops

>>10565090
99 problems is sure right lmao

>>10565154
this graph tells a tale
>cost of nuclear goes up every year
This is because there's hidden costs with nuclear. They have to be actively maintained for an indefinite amount of time even after they stop producing electricity. Future costs are predicted under best case scenarios, but if 1 accident happens anywhere costs go up. One unpredicted scenario and costs can go sky high.

When Fukushima happened, they had to upgrade every nuclear plant in the world with new safety features. This adds new costs to all nuclear power. More hidden costs will be discovered in the future for the simple reason that nobody will EVER feel "safe enough" around nuclear power.

>solar PV goes down every year
Solar PV is paid all up front. There is no hidden cost that sneaks up on you 20 years down the road. Solar is literally set it up and forget about it. Solar technology gets better each year decreasing production costs and increasing solar efficiencies.

>>10565164
ye the first one is how we are gonna break it to the public that your fat ass mom was the key to starting the first controlled fusion reaction on earth

>>10565197
>set it up and forget about it
>thousands of acres of solar panels just to produce the same output as a single nuclear plant
>each panel lasting on average 25-35 years
>hundreds of panels need to be replaced each day
>they are too toxic to just be thrown in landfills and need to be carefully disposed of, similar to nuclear
>the cost of recycling them is higher than the cost of just making a new one, and this gap constantly widens with the "decreasing production costs"
>making a new one is awful for the environment as a single six-inch wafer produces produces literally thousands of gallons of toxic sludge [1] [2]
hahaya solar amirite

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378775316314161
[2] https://corpwatch.org/article/environmental-cost-computer-chips

Nuclear gang, out

>>10565259
>set it up and forget about it
Far less upkeep required than nuclear plants, costs prove this.
>thousands of acres of solar panels just to produce the same output as a single nuclear plant
Good thing the US has no shortage of useless land. It's a minimal part of the cost.
>each panel lasting on average 25-35 years.
Still cheaper to maintain than nuclear
>hundreds of panels need to be replaced each day
Better than replacing fuel rods
>they are too toxic to just be thrown in landfills and need to be carefully disposed of, similar to nuclear
Not even close to similar.
>the cost of recycling them is higher than the cost of just making a new one, and this gap constantly widens with the "decreasing production costs"
This is pretty standard for all recycling, recycling panels isn't even hard it's just there's little economic incentive currently it's not a hard problem to solve.
>making a new one is awful for the environment as a single six-inch wafer produces produces literally thousands of gallons of toxic sludge
At least it's better than constantly mining and refining uranium.
https://greentumble.com/environmental-impacts-of-uranium-mining/

>>10565259
Why didn't you read your sources before posting them?
>Through a green and simple procedure, a remarkable Si-MP embedded carbon-matrix with porous structure is established to achieve commercially high performance Si-MP/C composite anodes and also to resolve the issues of waste disposal.

>>10565292
>Far less upkeep required than nuclear plants, costs prove this.
Nuclear plants lasts for centuries.
Costs obscure this by making the small initial investment seem as though the life time makes sense. The costs also ignore intermittency in payback calculations.
>Good thing the US has no shortage of useless land. It's a minimal part of the cost.
t. Electrical illiterate that doesn't understand what the Joule effect is
You can't just build them in remote areas far away from society. You have incremental losses of efficiency with distance. They need to be built relatively close proximity to urban centers where losing millions of acres of land is a real concern.
>Still cheaper to maintain than nuclear
Fuel for nuclear reactors are loaded some 18 months in advance and will run continuously. It isn't cheaper to maintain which is why solar is the most expensive power source per KwH.
>Better than replacing fuel rods
No, it really isn't. The sum total of all nuclear waste produced in the US to date is the size of a football field, a few feet high. Nuclear waste is carefully disposed of, at secure facilities in the middle of nowhere. Meanwhile, your shit tier PV panels are thrown out wherever is convenient and causes much more damage to the actual enviroment.
>Not even close to similar.
You're right, it's even worse. At least spent waste is carefully disposed of as explained prior.
>At least it's better than constantly mining and refining uranium.
Patently false. Uranium mines are dense and in the middle of nowhere generally. A few pellets can power a suburban block for a lifetime.
There is constant mining of the components and batteries needed to maintain the renewable meme, at a far larger scale. You're just a stupid moron who fell for the controlled opposition renewable meme.

>>10563898
Is Chernobyl actually uninhabitable or is that antinuclear unscientific memery?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were literally nuked and people live in them still.

>>10564266
So how do the Koreans build it so cheap?

>>10563883
Because they are ignorant and/or uneducated.

>>10567542
>Nuclear plants lasts for centuries.
In the real world the average age of a decommissioned plant is 25 years.
>Costs obscure this by making the small initial investment seem as though the life time makes sense. The costs also ignore intermittency in payback calculations.
Prove it, all recent studies show nuclear as more expensive per KW/H than solar, and yes intermittency is included in these calculations. They don't magically shut down the meter when it's cloudy.
>They need to be built relatively close proximity to urban centers where losing millions of acres of land is a real concern.
If by relatively close you mean within 500 miles sure. Losses average about .8% per 100Mi
>It isn't cheaper to maintain which is why solar is the most expensive power source per KwH.
In 2002 maybe.
>Causes much more damage to the actual enviroment.
Wrong again, disposal of solar panels is regulated, thanks to this environmental impact is virtually non existent recycling is starting to become cost effective further improving this.
>Nuclear waste is carefully disposed of, at secure facilities in the middle of nowhere.
We haven't even agreed on a single long term storage facility, and you want to increase our waste output by 10x?
>Uranium mines are dense and in the middle of nowhere generally.
do some research idiot.

>>10567931
>>10564266

>hurr nuclear waste
wow, complaining about such dense waste

Imagine being such a brainlet your brain denies the fact that a solar PV panel doesn't even generate much more energy than is needed to build it.
>but it's from 2013
the eroie of solar hasnt gone up much and has hard limits

nuclear's limiter was it's enrichment process, which was historically gaseous diffusion, but with highly efficient modern centrifuges the number goes up dramatically.

https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf

oops forgot image

>>10568025
>solar PV panel doesn't even generate much more energy than is needed to build it.
>Energy pay-back time (EPBT) results for fixed-tilt ground mounted installations range from 0.5 years for CdTe PV at high-irradiation (2300 kWh/(m2·yr)) to 2.8 years for sc-Si
Do you ever get tired of lying?
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/9/8/622

>>10568016
Gee I wonder why an outdated graph from a nuclear power company shows different numbers than all recent LCOE analyses
>https://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2018/11/solar-and-wind-now-the-cheapest-power-source-says-bloombergnef.html
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/
https://www.ebrd.com/news/2018/ebrd-says-renewables-are-now-cheapest-energy-source-.html
https://www.irena.org/publications/2018/Jan/Renewable-power-generation-costs-in-2017

coal shills who cry about nuclear are in the same camp as flat earth tards and antivaxxers

>>10568192
>IEA analysis of global reactor costs is somehow worse than analysis of only American new nuclear
okay retard

>>10568216
No, they're worse. Flat Earthers are just morons. Antivaxxers threaten the public health with discredited junk science. Coal shills just want more welfare for Appalachian hillbillies

>>10568227
>talking about LCOE with multiple studies some global some US based
>retard for some reason brings up overnight construction costs.
what did he mean by this?

>>10563883
Austria here
We don't really need it

>>10568248
Because every study that you posted used new nuclear costs for new builds in the west, where they are far higher (due to taking longer times to construct) than in countries that have experience building newer generation reactors quickly and economically. How do you expect such studies to get the price of new nuclear correct if they don't use the best experience for nuclear builds but use the best experience for solar and wind builds?

>Broadly, the study finds:
>In developed countries, solar power has become cheaper than new nuclear power.
this literally means nothing useful, as most new builds are not in developed countries anyways, it means that developed countries cant get their shit together and build proper nuclear power plants

All your other studies just reverberate the same point.

>>10563883
they normies

>>10563962
define nuclear():
for nuclear present:
print(dangerous nuclear.jpg)
else
stop search()
return nuclear

>>10567931
>In the real world the average age of a decommissioned plant is 25 years.
A problem anti-nuclear imbeciles like you created in the first place. In the real real, there are still reactors from the 1960s and 70s still in operation.

>>10563883
In the US, it's because of Three Mile Island. Not one person died, but nuclear power is forever evil.

>>10568304
i-its not nuclear's fault it sucks it's the people!!!!!!!!!
sadly in the real world if no one can use something properly it means in all practical terms it sucks.

>>10568323
The Chinese and Koreans can use them properly, so I think you're retarded.

>>10568352
Which is why china is expanding renewable sources faster than nuclear.

>>10568306
Never forget the six million.

>>10568359
Which is why China is building 88 GW of nuclear power by 2020, because nameplate capacity does not equal available capacity.

>>10568444
>Because nameplate capacity does not equal available capacity.
True, good thing china is building up their renewable grid so fast. that 88GWH (total) by 2020 looks pretty pathetic compared to 184.26 GWH in 2018 (wind) 174.46 GWH (solar) 350 GWH GWH by 2020 (hydro)

>>10563883
Listen to my advice retard.

Use ambiental heat energy and save nuclear for metallurgy and space flight, we have "low" quantities of nuclear material on this planet if we think long term.

Space mining uranium is much more expensive.

>>10569035
We don't have low quantities. It could be harvested from the oceans if we really needed it that badly.

>>10569038
Really? Do you know how much Uranium do we need for a Death Star? Those rebels fooled you.

>>10565298
Can you read at all? Si-MP is a small recycled portion of the total mass of waste produced from silicon wafer processing, particularly from the slicing of the silicon wafers (which is a small step in the process). That source is referring to the "sawdust" being recycled from slicing the wafers, and you would know that if you read literally the first sentence in the highlight. Also, I posted two sources there buddy.

>>10567931
Not that guy but holy shit you are retarded and disingenuous.
>recycling is starting to become cost effective further improving this
No, it's the exact opposite and you conceded this point to me earlier here,
>this is pretty standard for all recycling, recycling panels isn't even hard it's just there's little economic incentive currently
Recycling is becoming LESS cost effective; you admit this yourself every time you retardedly mention solar panels getting cheaper. The difference in cost between creating new solar panels and recycling them is widening as solar panel technology gets cheaper making recycling the forever uneconomical option. MOREOVER,
>thanks to this environmental impact is virtually non existent
What? Are you fucking blind or just retarded? >>10565259 The environmental impact of solar panels is not even remotely close to "virtually non existent". Silicon wafer production is fucking terrible for the environment. It's bad enough just using silicon wafer production to create processors,
but millions of square miles of solar farms that need to be entirely replaced every 25 years? Yikes.
>disposal of solar panels is regulated
Nope, the majority of old solar panels end up in landfills. Not sure where in your ass you're pulling that retarded lie from. Not only that but old solar panels are unequivocally toxic and leach cadmium compounds, silicon tetrachloride, hexafluoroethane and lead.

Literally every line of what you say is so fucking retarded and wrong it's unbelievable. How can someone this fucking
retarded live with themselves?

>>10568464
>GWH = GW
mega brainlet

>>10563883
yet another thread with nuclear gang coming out on top. 7 for 7 this week, boys

nuclear gang, out