/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10766434
Because people are retarded and politicians are retarded and cowards.

>>10766440
The red tape isn't what makes it expensive. It is how complicated the physics is for it to remain efficient and safe. Just setting up the security to protect a nuclear power plant is an absurdly expensive and complicated thing.

>tfw airplanes that have to travel tens of millions of miles safely in vastly different environments and irregular and inconsistent maintenance have less regulation than something which sits still and does the exact same thing in one environment controlled by the exact same people for 30-50 years
It's clearly conspiratorial shit. Literally every nuclear plant incident has happened because of human error or grievous negligence. Chernobyl was gross negligence. Three Mile Island was caused by intentionally overriding safeties. Fukushima was just fucking built wrong.

>>10766475
It is inherently expensive, but it is *so* expensive because of red tape.

>>10766494
What red tape exactly? I know I could spend time on Google and find some answers, but I also want to hear opinions from here as well.

>>10766518
Getting land, permits from locals, often it takes years to convince locals to allow nuclear plant to be built, instead of just building it.
Once you have land them you have to deal with political oposition because usually nuclear isnt privately owned, after that its international pressure from various un and other retard organisations.
Then you have to do all that again when you finally start building it and implenting security and safety standards. Basically every nut and bolt has be approved not just by engineers and scientists, but by politicians, local representatives, international organisations and their fucking dog.
Each and every approval requires extensive investigation, comitee, research, counter proposals and so on..

In countries without red tape the process is much faster. I believe belarus and russia started construction of 2 reactors, total 2400mw in 2016, it should be build and operational in 2020 or 2021, china builds them even faster.
The cost is 10 billion usd, which is nothing, peanuts, compared to how much is spent protecting saudi arabia and israel, kek, didnt trump AND the liberals/democrats approve some kind of payment ( about 4 billion usd?) for israel just this year?

It's simple. We tax carbon.
>inb4 da joos

>>10766434

Heavy water and uranium enrichment is expensive. Much cheaper to use natural uranium and graphite.

The best possible way to have carbon free energy is to tax carbon instead of attempting to subsidize specific technologies.

Real talk now. Why is /sci/ so obsessed with nuclear?

>>10766593
>land permit for nuclear plant
Ofcourse it takes years. Everyone in the local community within 50 miles radius must be told about the risks of Nuclear plants. Yes, that's how much the area will be affected if it ever has an accident. The same isn't an issue for solar plants which just needs a slightly larger area for the plant itself, but if you live 50 feet next to the solar plant, you won't have to worry about meltdowns.

>>10767036

The average background radiation at Fukushima is lower than that in Colorado.

With modern (1960s) reactor design using Linear No-Threshold and As Low As Reasonably Achievable for shielding and cleanup, the amount of radioactivity released is dwarfed by the panic response as far as threat to the public.

TL;DR: we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to "clean up" Fukushima as part of decontamination theatre. More people have died from falls on windmills than have been killed by commercial nuclear power.

>>10767030

Uranium jew trying to destroy the white race with abundant clean energy that allows us to not care about the middle east.

>>10767030

People finally getting red pilled that the greenies from the 70s and 80s were the "I fucking love Gaia" facebook followers of their era and have delayed progress by 70 years needlessly.

>>10767284
>The average background radiation at Fukushima is lower than that in Colorado.
Wrong. Every hour you stay around Fukushima is equivalent to a CT scan. Imagine if you live there for 2 days, your exposure to radiation is similar to that of 48 CT scans in just 2 days.

And this is 1 year after the event itself. During the event itself, the radiation level must be much higher.

it was 114.6 degrees Fahrenheit in France today.
If this keeps up, they'll have trouble water cooling their nuclear reactors

>entire country switches to nuclear to prevent global warming
>other countries don't
>becomes too hot to keep nuclear reactors running
>forced to turn them off
>entire country has no power
>114.6°F outside and no AC in entire country
>entire country dies from heat stroke
Just as planned Komrad

>>10766434
Need workerbase and skilled folk, good location and having the money to run, maintain and supply it (can they buy the fuel if it's price goes high or low). Most places that want a nuclear plant already have them.

>>10767030
Generic 4chan 'tism.

>>10767304

Stop.

There is no more dangerous force than a little bit of knowledge.

46 people have died from commercial nuclear incidents.
Tens of thousands of people does from busted hydroelectric dams and about 99 people a year fall to their deaths on windmills.

But no one cares about living downstream of Hoover Dam so long as you drown vs have a .01% increases chance of being diagnosed with thyroid cancer at 80 after a reactor accident.

>>10767304
Here's another, just a month after. Per hour radiation level is similar to that of 10 CT Scans. If CT scan isn't a good image for you, an alternative dose of radiation = 6 month in ISS space station in just 1 hour. If you still can't comprehend the danger, it takes less than 2 days of exposure to this level of radiation to kill you within the next month. After 2 days, your body would have blisters all around and require 24/7 intense care in hospital for you to spend your next month. You're dead regardless, but the hospital simply extends your life.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Daghlian w

>>10767317
You're misleading here. The only reason nuclear meltdowns haven't happened so frequently is because of intense safety culture. People complain that safety is unnecessary to Nuclear power plant design are taking these safety measures for granted.

>>10767030
HBO made a docu-drama that was so intense the only way people can deal wit hit is with memes.
Nuclear power is being memed into the spotlight.

>>10767328

I don't disagree.

In fact, it's a credit to the amount of energy in uranium that it is still economically competitive with fossil fuels despite the fact that we treat radiation as magic and allow fossil fuels to spew into the environment because there is zero reasonable method to contain it all so no one tries.

>>10767308
>>10767308
>becomes too hot to keep nuclear reactors running

If a nuclear reactor is incapable of operating in less than 200 degrees then it's a shit design. Terrestrial temperature ranges are incredibly mild, any change in surrounding air temperature should be negligible

>>10767336
*incapable of operating in more than 120 degrees

>>10767336
they need water to cool them. The water is too hot to efficiently cool the reactors. This requires low power output and more water, but I suspect at one point they won't be able to pump enough water to keep it cooled even at it's lowest safe power outputs, which would require a reactor shutdown. I'm not sure what ambient and/or water temp causes a shutdown, but I do know it was of concern August last year.

>>10767343

>french concern in august

Considering the French take all of august off there was probably no one available to upshift pumps to raise cooling capacity.

Or we could bit draw water from surface rivers and go 10 feet lower where colder water always is.

>>10767343
Yes, I understand what happened. However, there are nuclear reactors in the world that are capable of operating perfectly fine in 120 degrees. Therefore, we can infer that the French either neglected this potentiality entirely or decided that it just wasn't likely enough to be worth considering. Either way, this is a fuck up on their part and says nothing about the viability of the strategy overall.

>>10767343
The reason they don't produce outright steam is because it tends to produce rain and it has a greenhouse effect. Since the greenhouse effect of water goes away rather quickly, it'd be better to build it in an area with a lot of freshwater rain, but people usually live there.

I'd be interested in any long-term studies on this, because although water has a very significant greenhouse effect, clouds also reflect sunlight.

>>10766434
>Why are nuclear power plants so expensive to develop?
Red tape and permits that take forever to get, and afford every single opportunity for the project to get shut down for any number of reasons.
Also, NIMBY's. Always NIMBY's.

>>10767317
The cost of the Fukushima cleanup exceeds the value of all nuclear power ever produced in japan.

>>10767413

And it's all decontamination jap kabuki theatre.

16,000 people died in the panic of the evacuation.

>>10766434
It's because people would flip their shit if they had to live near them, so they are way more out-of-way than other power plants. They are healthier to live near of than freeways, for instance.

>>10767321
Are you sure you didn't get those mixed up? The "month after" as a maximum more than twice greater than the "month before". Pretty sure the effect would get weaker with time rather than stronger.

>>10767611
You're confused. The first image is 1 year after the event. The second image is 1 month after the event.

>>10767614
Oh, the 1-year-after note lapsed from my mind.

>>10767328
No, the reason they haven't melted down is because they're designed to be fail safe. It has nothing to do with the self important insertion of busy bodies sucking up valuable resources from our nation. Useless eaters.

>>10767623
Hubris

The titanic was designed to be fail safe.
Maybe if they had some more self important insertion of busy bodies telling the captain not to drink while dodging ice bergs the damn thing wouldn't have sunk. But no, all the passengers were lulled into complacency because they bought into the advertising of "multi compartment hull" and "unsinkable ship."

>>10767623
open up reactors construction to the lowest bidder and we'll be melting down """"fail safe"""" reactors every week

>>10766434
>cutting back on regulations
>lower the costs and
>[lower the] time spent in construction

Your language tells me everything I need to know.

There is no risk assessment that can justify nuclear energy because there is no gain that is worth the destruction of any failure.

You see everything in capitalist terms and capitalism is about exploitation of profit opportunities, not management of physical risk.

There is no cost of failure that can be calculated.

There have been two major nuclear failures: Chernobyl and Fukushima, and neither has an upper limit on the cost. Both will require our attention for as long as we are susceptible to radiation poisoning.

There is an ongoing cost to storage of waste that also has no upper bound. It costs everything we have because we will never be rid of the waste.

Capitalist economics leaves most collective consumption off of the spreadsheet. They don't have to pay for resources, pollution, or the damage their enterprise causes. They are concerned with their profit, not society's well being. So unless you can factor in the "cost" of everything we've got, there is no risk assessment for nuclear energy.

The solution is not to build more power generation; the solution is to use less energy.

>>10767689

>the solution is to use less energy.

That's not profitable....

>>10766479
>Literally every nuclear plant incident has happened because of human error or grievous negligence. Chernobyl was gross negligence. Three Mile Island was caused by intentionally overriding safeties. Fukushima was just fucking built wrong.

And do you think that by doing nothing people will just suddenly stop being stupid? Even now what is OP asking for? Less regulations and more room for stupid! As long as conservatives exist, nuclear will never be safe.

>>10766434
>>10766434
There is a total of 450 NPP's on this planet, which means they're all unique. Every time a new one is planned, there are new and other unique elements that decision makers want. Which means that these new elements have to be again designed, certified, tested, yadda yadda. They have to be maintained for ages, and maintenace is expensive. Then there's obviously the political element which is unstable, hence they need to slap on a large sum for security. Then also the fact that there's not a lot of people that can operate these plants, so you need highly specialized and expensive personnel.

It all adds up.

>>10767694
You are failing to see that capitalists don't want all their buyers, people who buy energy a.k.a. everyone, to die due to an error in their powerplant that they could have prevented. They do in fact take into consideration human life as a cost because in the end, those people are the buyers. I'm not saying get rid of all regulation. I'm saying combine a gas tax with nuclear power plant subsidies so the private market can mass produce effective, efficient, and safe nuclear power.

>>10767689
>There is no risk assessment that can justify nuclear energy because there is no gain that is worth the destruction of any failure.
The gain is efficient clean energy. The risks are dealt with by corporate means through monetary subsidies gifted through gas taxes. everything can be solved by the private market take your (((emotions))) elsewhere.

>>10767740
Renewables are more cost effective, can be implemented faster, have no decommissioning waste or security issues. The nuclear industry can only exist through gibs

>>10767740
>The private market will do everything
>with trillions in subsidies
Is this bait?

>>10767802
I think they mean the subsidies will kick-start the private market?

>>10767807
The private market that's been failing for 70 years with massive subsidies?

>>10766434
Cutting back on regulations will not save money, it will just make it explode and destroy your investment.

>nuclear reactors exploding
Don't reply to the bait

>>10767981

but /pol/ told me regulations are bad!

>>10766434
If I wanted to build a nuclear power plant what would I need? What are the real material costs?
Uranium ore, mining, processing, storage.
Water and heat exchanger.
Stream turbine.
Reactor core. Presumably this is the hard bit but all it is is fuel rods put close to each other.

>>10767030
It ties well into the general right-wing narrative that libshits are too emotionally driven to make sound scientific/economic based choices.
Of course that's a simplistic just-so story, but it serves well as propaganda.
Usually you'll find that nuclear power is only brought up as opposition to renewable energy proposals, and never by itself as a proposal to replace fossil fuels. This alone unmasks the true motive of the propagandist.

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider it as a serious alternative to decarbonize. But I'm highlighting how it is used as propaganda for ulterior reasons.

>>10768270
The hard bit is building the fault proof safety systems. All you have there is the very basic stuff from half a century ago.

>>10768282

>nuclear is never brought up by itself to replace fossil fuels

You have not been paying attention. There exists no reality where you reduce fossil fuel consumption and not increase nuclear production.

>>10766518
the single biggest factor is insurance. in any other industry, you can find an insurance company to provide insurance. No one will do that for a nuclear power plant.

so not only do you have the cost of the plant and operations, but you will also require several times that to self insure, often on the order of $50 billion.

nobody has that kind of money just laying around. and it doesn't make sense. $20 billion capital for the plant, and twice that much more for insurance? who wants to do that?

bottom line is that regulation need to change so that plant operators can get insurance through the normal means.

>>10766434
>Why are nuclear power plants so expensive to develop?
>I think it's the best possible way to have carbon free energy

>so expensive
>the best

Top kek. Nuclear is dead and your comic book heroes are never becoming real.

>>10768437
I remember that image from like 2010. Blast from the past.

>>10767030
Because nuclear is the only kind of clean energy that physicists can take a part in the research. All other kinds are already taken by engineers.

>>10768270
precision engineering cores, maintaining reactor rates without any electronics, and like 10 layers of fail safes

>>10768451
>Nuclear's dead
If your little fossil feul companies keep eating resources like they are now than so will most other carbon taxing energy sources

>>10767689
>the solution is to use less power
If you want to live in a third world then you go right ahead

>>10766434
So what's the problem with MSRs that keeps them from being implemented? It seems like it fixes all the problems with current (i.e. 60's) designs used now, and Oak Ridge ran one for like five years or something like that. It all seems too good to be true to not be picked up by someone with the capital, so what am I missing here?

>>10767726
>You are failing to see that capitalists don't want all their buyers, people who buy energy a.k.a. everyone, to die due to an error in their powerplant that they could have prevented.

Look up ValuJet. The stock market loved them right up until people started dying. Capitalists are not long term thinkers. They are gamblers. They always think they can get out just before the trouble starts.

So there are legitimately people in this thread who think that the world is better off mining and burning coal, than utilising nuclear power?

>>10770676

Global warming could undo itself in 300 years. Chernobyl will be radioactive for 20,000.

>>10770676
There are legitimately people in this thread who think that the world is better off investing in solar/wind/renewable energy that is both more cost effective and safer for the environment than coal or nuclear.

Government regulations. We need to have a free market for nuclear reactors

>>10767623
There is no such thing as a fail safe reactor you idiot. If your emergency control systems fail to deploy the core will meltdown. The safety record has everything to do with meticulous procedure and training because of the inherent instability in the system. Its not a coincidence that every nuclear accident has has negligence or incompetence as the primary or large factor.

>>10767740
>everything can be solved by the private market
Holy shit you cant actually believe this. Corporate entities exist to exploit anything and everything for profit, that includes things we care about like public health and welfare.

>>10768270
>all it is is fuel rods put close to each other.
Misconception, reactor caladria geometry has a large impact on sustaining sub criticality, in fact there are many arrangements that simply wont maintain a reaction. Additionally they are pressurized and quite hot, fabrication of them is expensive and difficult.
>Water and heat exchanger.
Stream turbine.
This accounts for 39261398715639168731 miles of pipes, fittings, condensers, etc all of which are constantly degrading

>>10768451
Do you want to be able to turn the lights on whenever you want?
or
Do you want to not use nergy when the wind isnt blowing and the sun isnnt shining?

Choose one or invent a new battery technology that is many orders of magnitude superior to the absolute best we can create now and make it cheap.

>>10770708
>investing in solar/wind/renewable
those same people are cretins who know nothing about large scale power generation and distribution

>>10767740
dude just give billions more to companies lmao

The easy solution is to cut back on safety features. It's an objective fact they won't ever be needed in the vast majority of cases, therefore let it ride.

>>10770684
Global warming is sure to happen and is sure to have worldwide impact. The air pollution that will get us there is killing us already - many of those emissions are carcinogen.

Nuclear reactors have almost always been safe - hence why we always call back to the only two of them. The 20,000 year figure relates to the spot inside the reactor. The areas outside, though some will be still contaminated for hundreds of years, are a far cry from the post-apoc pictures we get from Mad Max and movies like that. Nature is harmed, but plants and animals still live there, some populations even grew - compare this to the expected loss of biodiversity from global warming. And compare the affected areas: 1000 square miles vs. the planet.

>>10770891
>Global warming is sure to happen
On a long enough time scale, sure. But I wouldn't put too much faith in the hyper-politicized short term prognostications.

>The air pollution that will get us there is killing us already - many of those emissions are carcinogen.
No. Most of the major greenhouse gases are fairly inert, and none of them are carcinogenic. Don't confuse different domains of eco-paranoia.

>>10770905
Liar, liar, pants on fire.

>>10767981
just load your save, mate. worked fine in simcity back in the days

>>10770684

People still work on the reactor comllex after Chernobyl.

As in. They still ran the other reactors to prodice power.

>>10770891
>Nuclear reactors have almost always been safe

What is a risk for one becomes inevitable for a thousand.

You can see on this board how many people don't give a crap about dumping risk on others. They will happily believe in any nonsense that tells them the can cut corners to make more profit:

> The risks are dealt with by corporate means through monetary subsidies gifted through gas taxes.

>>10770987
>People still work on the reactor comllex after Chernobyl.
Under a totalitarian government that had lying about health effects as established policy.

>>10770728
>Do you want to not use nergy when the wind isnt blowing and the sun isnnt shining?

Pretending power storage doesn't exist just makes you look like an idiot. Please stop. (See pic. The first blackout it prevented was when a coal plant failed!)

>>10770905
not all emissions are GHGs you fucking retard pollution from fossil fuels causes millions of premature deaths purely from pollution, and many million more illnesses.

>>10771184

>46 deaths over 60 years involving two worst case scenarios
>comparing that to 7,000,000 deaths and intold illnesses for co2 emitting sources
>if there WERE enough raw materials to produce storage stations to supply the demand when solar and wind do not put out you would need to use way more land and at higher cost than using nuclear which is why all pushes to denuclearize and "go green" has only raised the percentage of energy from pollutants

Because anti-nuclear ludditism comes first, giving a fuck about fixing the environmental mess we're in is a distant third.

>>10767799
>Renewables [...] have no decommissioning waste issues.
Retired solar panels and the toxic chemicals that are used in their creation disagree.

>>10770720
>There is no such thing as a fail safe reactor
>what are liquid fuel reactors

>>10771987
retired solar panels are almost entirely recyclable. and waste from production is considerably lower than any other source of power generation.

>>10771999
A meme that's still gone nowhere after 70+ years.

>>10772111
They literally ran one for 22000 hours in the 70s.

>>10772173
My bad, a meme that's gone nowhere after 50+ years.

>>10772175
It works and is walk-away safe. Wind and solar are the only memes.

>>10772109
>10% of massive m^2 of solar is acid washed lead, cadmium, etc being reliably dumped into the environment every 20 years and proper disposal only continuing to deive up prices more than making new panels

Totally not a recipe for disaster.

>>10772348
compared to fossil fuels, which constantly have massive oil spills GHG emissions and carcinogenic particulates causing millions of deaths and illnesses annually it's fantastic. Compared Uranium mining, a refining. Millions of tons of the most toxic hazardous waste on the planet. Combined with industrial waste from constructing reactors which statistically only last 25 years before being decommissioned. Solar just keeps looking better and better.

>>10772428
solar is useless

>>10772428
>statistically only last 25 years before being decommissioned
This is largely due politics/fossil fuel lobbying/NIMBYs, but you knew that.

>>10772444
It's reality, complaining about it doesn't change it. So in the real world a reactor has a shorter service life than a solar panel. Which do you think creates more waste?

>>10772428
>anti-nuclear scare tactics
Notice how he mentions weight instead of volume, which is actually very small and is nothing compared to even PV panel waste.
>Solar just keeps looking better and better.
Retard detected.

>>10772451
Begone shill, your failed industry isn't getting anymore gibs.

>>10772437
>At the end of 2017 the global nuclear capacity of the 448 operable reactors stood at 392 GW
Already producing more power than the welfare queen nuclear industry.

>>10772479

>capacity

Nameplates are not ratings.

>>10772448
>I'm scared of it because I've been force fed big oil propaganda since birth so it's real
>perceptions can't change
>willfully misinterpreting stats to push a narrative
You know reactors are much longer lived than that. Luckily boomers are dying off so we can move past the china syndrome bullshit and actually get somewhere.

>>10772512
The nuclear industry isn't scary, just stupid. They literally can't do anything right.

>>10772512

>90 years after Trinity, after the last Boomer has drawn their last breath, the younger generation that fought wars for the oil of illiterate goatherders can finally toil in the heat building zero emission energy.

>>10772517

>46 deaths on 60 years

>>10772521
Just ignore the fact the Fukushima evacuation killed 18000 people and the cost of the cleanup exceeds the value of all nuclear energy ever produced in japan. I guess we do owe them quite a bit for being a large contributor to the fall of the soviet union so there is that.

>>10772566

citations needed

>>10772479
>how much of that capacity is actually used
>what is peak usage

>>10772566

>18k deaths
>0 from radiation of heat from the core
>the literal overreaction by normies is several hundred times more dangerous than more than half a century of nuclear power itself.

>>10770607
Getting the NRC to approve it. The need for onsite reprocessing. NuScale has a pretty good chance of getting NRC approved though

>>10772566

Cleanup is Jap decontamination kabuki theatre. Billions of dollars being spent moving dirt with less background than Colorado.

>>10772596
Doesn't change the financial impact of nuclear on Japan. AKA one of the biggest wastes of money a country has ever seen.

>>10772428
How many of those reactors were non power producing research reactors and were ment for a short working life. You're just using those to make actual power producing reactors look bad
And hell even if you do use that bullshit number of 25 years that's still better than the 20 life of solar panels

>>10772590
Still deaths, as an evac would have never happened had the reactor not gone critical. The fact they aren't radiation related is meaningless. It's like saying falling off a wind turbine doesn't count because you were't electrocuted by it.

>>10772619
why don't you read the source and find out? And 25 years vs 30 under warranty is way worse than solar considering how insanely expensive and time consuming building a power plant is.

>>10772459
>yes goy use solar
>runs gas turbine for when sun isn't shining

>>10772596
>>10772566
>>10767462
>>10767413
I thought I was having a stroke, but you fags did have the same exchange twice.

>>10772648
dumb meme threads like this usually repeat at least once.

>>10766434
Look up how South Korea got the costs down.

>>10772642
crazy how even storage is more attractive to companies than nuclear.

>>10772663
Same story everywhere 100% reliant on a socialized grid it can't exist with competition.

>>10772624

>reactor not gone critical

I'm being trolled. There's no way I'm arguing on a "science" board of a hungarian skirt knitting imageboard against someone who thinks this.

>>10771999
There isnt a single extant liquid fuel reactor in the world, there is also no support for them at any stage of execution. What was your point again?

>>10771184
Storage on the scale necessary to completely rely on renewables doesnt exist. Tesla power packs are still lithium ion batteries, which means in addition to being an envrionmental trainwreck to produce and dispose of it is no where near being enough. That installation is rated 100MW, most power stations run multiple units each in the 4-800MW range. Forming conclusions without doing even cursory research makes you look like an idiot.

>>10770905
>short term prognostications
You realize AGW has been under study for the better part of a century right? It's only politicized now because people are finally confronting the fact that their lives arent sustainable under the current paradigm.

The left still confuses it with nuclear weapons and buys into the dank meme of solar (which itself is a toxic nightmare). The right is still in the literal pockets or oil, coal, and natural gas. Both have outsized fears of the risks of radiation.
Outside of being blessed by geology and geography so you can go geothermal or hydro there is no other sane option.

LFTR

>>10773011
The other option is to simply downsize society.

>>10773008
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510008645
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510008694
one of many papers on the topic it's a pretty interesting read.

>>10773016
Thorium reactors will be even more of a pipe dream than Fusion because of 233Pa. Workable reactors simply cannot have industrial grade amounts of Thorium because the 233Pa basically makes maintenance and operating costs astronomical.

>>10773001
>there's no such thing as a fail safe reactor
>there is
>t-that doesn't count
It's a proven concept and there are countries are starting to put more and more money into making it fully viable, not to mention the meme startups working on it. Get your head out the sand and big oil's dick out of your mouth.

>>10767036
One of the biggest paradigm shifts of the green energy movement is understanding the difference between local or short term effects and global and generational effects. I am sorry this is something you failed to understand.

>>10773024
Kill all niggrrs

>>10773092
Trying to be edgy to deflect doesnt make you look like any less of an idiot. You said reactors are designed to be fail safe, which is quite literally impossible for all current reactor designs. Liquid fuel reactors dont count because they are irrelevant to the discussion currently, they dont exist right now, and are many decades away from ever existing.
>funding liquid reactors in earnest
citation needed

>>10773153
>Liquid fuel reactors dont count because they are irrelevant to the discussion currently, they dont exist right now, and are many decades away from ever existing.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

>>10773186
and 50 years later it's still a meme

>>10773201
And that's a non-criticism. It is a proven, fail safe reactor design that got left behind due to the Cold War arms race.

>>10773045

This is literally just an engineering challenge - materials and configurations to handle the 233Pa while it decays, and perhaps enrichment acceleration processes.

The Chinese are working with the Dutch on these challenges, and are quite serious about it:

https://articles.thmsr.nl/petten-has-started-world-s-first-thorium-msr-specific-irradiation-experiments-in-45-years-ff8351fce5d2

>>10766434

>>10773753
>>10773212
once again call me when it actually goes somewhere. The Chinese and Indians were supposed to be powering their entire country on thorium by 2030. And it's still gone absolutely nowhere.

>>10773812
Thorium is realizable today with pebble bed reactors. Large scale pebble bed reactor was supposed to be operation in China since end of 2018.
That's the problem with nuclear. It's super slow. to my knowledge, the slowest industry on earth.

>>10770852
they arent needed until they're needed

>>10768282
lol

>>10768282
>REEEEEEEEEEEEE NUCLEAR ENERGY IS RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA REEEEEEEEEEEEE
Can you be any more pathetic?

>>10774464
Nah it's just probably the most incompetent industry on the planet. Used as a cheap GOTCHA by right wing politicians when actually utilizing nuclear is something they'll never do as they oppose the socialization of the grid. Which is required in any nuclear based grid.

>>10774403
>That's the problem with nuclear. It's super slow. to my knowledge, the slowest industry on earth.
Nuclear is similar to Rocket technology. They were developed in the 50s and stagnated since the 90s/00s due to series of events.

We need a Elon Musk for the Nuclear power. Some billionaire who's really into nuclear power and innovation. All that's needed is de-regulation/commercialization process to be open in the US.

>>10775155
open nuclear plant construction to the lowest bidder and I'll start a nuke company just to see how much American land I can turn into a wasteland in 10 years

>>10775155

We cannot lower standards due to the fact that we CAN contain all the waste effectively from a proper functioning plant.

What we CAN do is use government funding to cover the enormous upfront costs that all the red tape puts on the industry.

If the government is going to place large restrictions on building and operation, and doesn't want people to seek energy production with higher profit margins (coal, gas, oil) it needs to assume part of the costs it places on suppliers.

After that, nuke plants can be operated privately but with mandatory government up their ass to make sure they are operating within the requirements to maintain safety. If they fail, they can shutdown to be recertified or pay exorbitant one-time fees (the only way to maximize the supplier eating the cost over the consumer).

>>10774403
Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Plant
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/nuclear-safety-pebble-bed-reactors/

>>10773212
Stop trying to move the goal posts because you dont want to take the L, reactors that are relevant to the conversation are not and cannot be designed to fail.

>>10767689
>There is no risk assessment that can justify nuclear energy because there is no gain that is worth the destruction of any failure.
aaaaannnnddd youre retarded

>>10767036
You obviously don't live near Maryland. I live across the river in VA, and the radio head would not stop talking about how the new solar plant was going to kill us all. Not nuclear, but solar panels. They had to delay it for more public hearings, it is a mess. 30 miles out and still I get notices about how it will hurt me.

From the endless talk, I think they could have picked a better site as they are clearing good forest instead of other spots. Would have recommend more smaller ones to take old vacant lots for the same surface area. But deal was easier to just grab "unused" forest then other spots.

>>10771987
>solar panels and the toxic chemicals
why always the same stupid lie?
Solar panels are made of absolutely safe everyday materials. Glass, silicon, copper, some glue and an usually an aluminium frame.
Super safe, super easy to recycle.

Atomic power is producing lot's of radioactive and super toxic waste. you can not recycle and you have to safely bury it for millions of years. This is of course impossible.

>>10767623
Retard, what do you do in life that everyone else is such a useless eater?

>>10776033
You are completely missing the processing and refining part. For example gold is a safe noble metal, but mercury has historicity been used to refine gold. And high end solar panels may use gallium arsenide blends as they have much higher efficiencies.

Now we can correctly manage such waste. After all it happens in a fairly controlled environment so we can clean it up before it gets out there. But that adds to the cost considerably so many don't bother, more so now that China has dominated the market.

>>10776019
How is solar panel supposd to kill you?

>>10775441
I don't think private companies should be running nuclear plants at all. There are massive costs involved after a plant shuts down, which companies can avoid by just declaring bankruptcy. Just as they do in mining. The profits are privatized, the costs socialized - this is unethical and ineffective, and thus one of the areas where the free market utterly fails. Better to keep the market out all the way and let the state handle it from the start. That way, any profits made by selling the energy can go into funds to deal with the aftermath, rather than to investors.

>>10776082
The sun is hot! You don't want to live in the sun, do you? Build more coal plants.

>>10768822
LMAO THE MEME

>>10776404

There are already rules in nuclear power that the operating reactor needs to put up funds for decom while operating.

I understand the concern, but I disagree. The only part that the government should play is certification and putting up the costs they themselves imposed on the industry.

After that, I want as much private innovation as possible to prevent nuclear power from turning into the DMV.

>>10776082
Transformer nodes and new power lines will bath us in EMF
forest that cleans air is gone so air quality will drop allowing other poisons to kill us
something about birds falling form sky who carcasses will allow diseases
tax subsidizes will raise cost of living driving me out of my home
...

Those are the ones I remember. I am just pointing out that I think any new power plant make people go nuts.

>>10766479
Building a nuclear plant in a place like Japan is inviting disaster. It could have been a lot worse

>>10775994
lmao I'm not the one moving the goal posts here. Generation IV reactor designs are completely relevant, especially ones that were built and proven 50 years ago. Keep being a luddite though.

>>10770710
Fuuuuuuuuck thaaaaat!
The thought itself gave me goosebumbs.

>>10768476
It's from 2005

>>10772624
18k less retards taking up space kek
Another +1 for nuclear
Also I'm sure that the earthquake and tsunami didn't affect those numbers at all

>>10773024
Unfortunately nobody seems interested in wiping out China or Indi, so GL with that

>>10776033
Breeder reactors use nuclear waste as fuel

>>10767036
>a slightly larger area
lmao

>>10778297
hardly a concern in the US where there are millions of acres used for nothing. Considering how strict site selection for a nuclear plant is not having enough land is a bigger concern for the nuclear industry than renewables.

>>10777068
Kid, you made a demonstrably false claim (reactors havent failed because they are fail safe) then made an argument in bad faith about liquid fuel reactors, which are irrelevant to your original claim as they have never been running for commercial production. You are either retarded or schizo posting.

>>10777190
>when you are such a Bernie loving faggot that even the phrase free market scares you

>>10778865
Why stop at power? I want deregulation of thermonuclear warheads and ICBMs!

>>10776074
high end solar panels are only used in space-flight, on rooftops and even for commercial use it's silicon, and you only need a thin layer, processing mainly need energy for melting, the worst part is transport because ships and trucks burn oil

Where should I begin, if I'm interested in nuclear technology? Should I learn chemistry first?

>>10778865
If the phrase "free market" in conjunction with nuclear energy and "cut government regulations" doesnt scare you, youre either woefully uninformed or retarded. There is already a GIANT amount of missing fissile material in the world as is, nuclear proliferation is a HUGE problem. Its why trump blowing up decades of diplomacy by cutting the iran deal because he thinks irl is the dragons den was so astronomically retarded.

>>10767726
>You are failing to see that capitalists don't want all their buyers, people who buy energy a.k.a. everyone, to die due to an error in their powerplant that they could have prevented.
In what world or industry is this true?

>>10779519
Not that anon but what do you mean? Every industry considers its target demographic, in big enough organizations the human cost is even quantized and calculated.

>>10779530
>Pharma
Creates an addiction epidemic for profit.
Increases the price of drugs 2000 fold even when they are getting cheaper and cheaper to produce.
>Food
What's salmonella?
>Construction
What's asbestos?
>Finance
Literally stealing from their customers.
>Autos
Safety Shmafety our bottom line is king.

>>10779541
All those things you just listed are exactly inline with what that other anon and I said. Considering your demographic doesnt mean always doing the best or a single right thing for them. As I said in large organizations the human cost is quantized to better earn a profit. Sometime profit and altruism have a happy coincidence, most often not.

>>10779554
What if what is quantized as right for them is to have an unsafe nuclear power plant and then that plant ruins half of north america?

>>10766434
It all boils down to people's irrational fear of tumors.

>>10778595
>you said this, that, and the other thing
No, I corrected you when you said "There's no such thing as a fail safe reactor." This may surprise you but there's more than one person on this website. Please note the (You)s in the pic.
>Kid
I am an idiot, but for arguing with an actual teenager.

>>10779850
Notice
>>10767623
>"No, the reason they haven't melted down"
This only makes sense when speaking about the history of power generation on a large scale, which doesnt include liquid fuel reactors.

You made your fallacious comment about fail safe with respect to the reality of power generation. Not your fantasy of it.

Non sequitur, google it sometime. Maybe then you wont be such an insufferable child who is incapable of accepting they are wrong.

>>10779585
Then you are fucked, welcome to capitalism. This is why people screaming about muh freemarket are morons.

>>10767689
the gain from nuclear power is completely solving any and all energy problems for well beyond the foreseeable future, while making drastic cuts in emissions
cuts that if they are not made will be far worse than any dumb chernobyl circus

>>10766434
Haven't really been following these threads, but as an economist my impression from what I've skimmed of /sci/ posts is that it's uneconomical because nobody is willing to share their notes with others. Everyone wants everyone else to have unsafe nuclear power, so people end up having to invest in re-developing all the safety precautions themselves. Multiplicitous safety is safety denied, and this timeline will therefore never be able to claim that its administration chain was one that valued actual post-scarcity and sharing of knowledge.

Just use cold fusion, problem solved.

>>10780848

Not true.

We have the reactor designs and the overbearing administrative systen to monitor it.

Literally the only thing holding nuclear power back is scientific illiteracy and political will.

And it's not just nuclear power. Vaccination campaigns, DDT use, GMOs, all these things which have enormous proven benefits to people's health, wealth, and standard of living yet luddites with, arguably, good intentions continue to slowball, delay, or shutdown their use.

>>10772428
single digit IQ post.

>>10766475
>security
Just slap 1000 of them in some third world shithole in africa and create a wall around them to keep the africans away.

>>10781128
DDT is extremely toxic and should not be expected to be useful in any capacity, even with scientific oversight. GMOs have no demonstrated value, unless you can cite otherwise, and in that case it'll be one data point, not a representative sample. Futurists tend to be wrong.

>>10781142

See here.

DDT is considered moderately toxic if administered orally at 113mg/kg.

Indirect exposure is considered non-toxic and the best the medical literature can do is say it's not directly carcinogenic.

Yet despite this, people will push for it's non-use despite its absolute STELLAR track record at preventing malaria in developing countries.

No joke. With DDT use, countries knocked down rates of malaria infection to 28-17 cases a year (and then over a million deaths after discontinuing it's use.)

And why was it no longer used? A bitch wrote a book about how while they used it they couldn't hear birds chirping, people used dubious science saying it weakened eggs in their nest, and BAM the Gaiafags get to sleep soundly in their beds while the poor die from fever in theirs.

>>10781142

>round-up resistance in GMOs doesn't allow drastically more food production for a given area due to the ease of crop growth and efficiency

But let's just ignore about how it single handedly did more to save rainforests from thrash and burn than 2 decades of middle school donations.

>>10781156
Damaging the ecology is never a solution. You have no argument there.

>>10781182

Best part.

DDT doesn't harm the eggs.

But at that point the fear of DDT became part of the cultural zeitgeist and the world became worse off for it.

>damaging the ecology

So why don't we minimize it by raising more food with less land and generating electricity in small plants than large solar panels, wind turbines, AND global temperature effecting fossil fuels?

>>10781142

>futurists
>billions of people lifted out of abject poverty from merely 20 years ago, diseases eradicated like smallpox, polio, etc, thousands of reactor YEARS of safe operation with only 46 deaths.

These technologies HAVE already proven themselves. But the naturalists would rather someone starve, be crippled with polio, or burn camel shit for warmth.