/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10702302]

Nuclear energy is way too expensive to be relevant. Nuclear industry begs for gibs from the government, and produces barely anything of value to society. It might be more reliable, secure and green than other energy sources, but it is too expensive in the long run so we should disregard it. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.10702307]

>do literally no research
>provide literally no actual information or sources
>"prove my dumbfuck opinions wrong"

[Anonymous No.10702320]

>>10702307
nuclear plants are being decomissioned and nuclear energy is being abandoned in most countries of the world because of how cost-ineffective it is. That is enough proof. Even in France which pro-nuclears tout as proof that nuclear is viabe it is being replaced by renewables by based Macron.

[Anonymous No.10702325]

>>10702302
>literally one of the best renewable energy sources in both cost per kWh and kWh per square foot

>too expensive in the long run so we should disregard it

jesus fuck this board is retarded

[Anonymous No.10702328]

>>10702325
Explain to me why France, USA, Germany, Japan and many other countries are disregarding it then. I am not the president of any of those countries by the way

[Anonymous No.10702329]

>>10702328
Lobbying

[Anonymous No.10702331]

>>10702328
They are disregarding it because of brainlet alarmists like greenpeace whose arguments essentially boil down to "Chernobyl = nuclear, nuclear = bad", which is about as retarted as never flying because planes sometimes crash once every few million flights.

[Anonymous No.10702332]

>>10702329
sauce? You can't just blame lobbyism when there are obvious economic disadvantages.

[Anonymous No.10702334]

STOP FUCKING BUILDING GRAPHITE MODERATED LIGHT WATER REACTORS YOU FUCKING SLAV NIGGERS

[Anonymous No.10702366]

>>10702328
>>10702320
>>10702302

how old are the people here to not have lived the reason why nuclear went to hell?

after fukushima every government/country with nuclear plants decided to get out of it

how can you not remember this?... I was watching every day how this unfolded.

[Anonymous No.10702369]

>>10702328
To replace them with coal mines .

[Anonymous No.10702378]

>>10702366
But according to wikipedia only one person died as a direct result, although thousands lost their homes. 9/11 didn't cause any airports to shut down permanently, why would Fukushima be different?

[Anonymous No.10702400]

>>10702302
>Nuclear energy is way too expensive
You know what's more expensive? The end of the world. Nuclear energy is our only salvation.

Without power, no society. Without society, chaos. Right now we're burning a lot of fosil to create power, renewable cannot reach these levels by even 10%. Nuclear can, and already do.

[Anonymous No.10702409]

>>10702378
you must be really young... fukushima caused a political chain reaction... obviously japan was the first to reevaluate their use of nuclear and in parallel germany and france, like I said I remember how this all went down "live"... politically it was a huge event

>but just one person died directly.

politically this single event killed nuclear power (at least for now). all the resolutions about germany and france saying "good bye" to nuclear and dismantling their plants started because of fukushima.

I like nuclear energy so i'm not a ecodreamer....its wierd how this event got memory holed tho (the big japan earthquake)

[Anonymous No.10702412]

>>10702378
because Chernobyl. Chernobyl scared the fuck out of everyone but we rationalized it as Soviets being incompetent fuckups, which they were, so nuclear was still deemed safe.
Fukushima happened because a tidal wave hit the station. So people freaked out because this time no humans were involved in the accident. Except they forgot the part where dumb fucks decided to put a station on a coast line in a region subject to heavy tectonic activity in the first place.
In any case, the spectre of Chernobyl combined with the hyper exaggeration and fear mongering of modern media turned Fukushima into a massive anti nuclear sentiment worldwide

[Anonymous No.10702417]

>>10702409
my zoomzoom ass remembers the event clearly, what I don't understand is why it incentivized mass decommissions. it doesn't make any sense to me

[Anonymous No.10702421]

>>10702417
public opinion is one hell of a drug for decision makers

[Anonymous No.10702464]

>>10702325
Nuclear is not renewable. Fissionable material is just very energy-dense.

[Anonymous No.10702465]

>>10702328
>France
they get the vast majority of their power from nuclear, what are you on about.

[Anonymous No.10702474]

>>10702302
Nuclear is already cheaper per kilowatt hour than coal, it's the construction costs that are high. These high costs are due to the fact that most designs are for reactors rated at multiple gigawatts each, requiring large engineering effort to produce. A battery of smaller reactors, say in the 200 megawatts range, rather than monolithic large reactors would solve the high cost barrier of entry to nuclear power.

[Anonymous No.10702475]

>>10702464
yes my bad, wrong term

[Anonymous No.10702478]

>>10702417
Boomers who are still spooked from Chernobyl, combined with zoomers who don't pay attention to real life but think solar panels and wind are just great and that an entire family's whole energy budget can be satisfied by mounting solar panels to their roof.

[Anonymous No.10702479]

>>10702475
no worries. otherwise, you are right. the startup cost for nuclear is pretty high, but the returns are good. it should be a suitable stopgap between fossil fuels and renewables that scale up better with energy consumption needs in the best case. nuclear waste is still a concern, but it is currently the best solution to the energy crisis.

[Anonymous No.10702487]

Nuclear disaster:
Land lost for hundreds of years
Land which blood was spilled for
Land loss in Belarus is 25% of its territory, land for which literally millions died for
Fukushima, see map, area lost is bigger than Japans biggest territorial dispute, Kuril islands


Shill bananas you fucking nigger jew nuke shills

[Anonymous No.10702492]

>>10702302
Why do nuclear reactors use Uranium?
Why not use some other Isotope with shorter half life for safety?

[Anonymous No.10702505]

>>10702478
fuck off. zoomers are based. it is the millennial new hippies that ruin everything

[Anonymous No.10702507]

>>10702492
thorium reactors are promising. you can reuse more of it and the waste has a shorter half-life

[Anonymous No.10702546]

>>10702492
Focus during WWII was using reactors for bomb production. Research and designs were mostly there for using reactors for power production.

[Anonymous No.10702553]

>>10702302

>Nuclear energy is way too expensive to be relevant

Completely false.

[Anonymous No.10702572]

>>10702478
An entire families whole energy budget actually can very much be supplied by a decent sized solar array, the problem as always is storage.

[Anonymous No.10702627]

>Yes please build more nuclear powerplants. It's so much easier for us Jihadists to do maximum damage in your degenerate hellholes that way. Allahu Akbar!

[Anonymous No.10702632]

>>10702320
Let's say in a nuke plants you have two different PLCs, one regulates the air conditioning and one regulates some safeties in the reactor. In those PLCs you have I/o cards and fuses that are exactly the same. The fuse for the HVAC plc costs $1 dollar. The fuse for the safety equipment costs $10 dollars. They are the same fuse, but the price is artificially jacked up because of the hyperbolic safety paperwork and regulation associated with that fuse being a "reactor safety component". Nuclear isn't cost effective because it has been regulated into the ground by fearful luddites.

[Anonymous No.10702633]

>>10702302
molten salt thorium reactors are the future, prove me wrong!

[Anonymous No.10702651]

>>10702633
>prove me wrong
History

[Anonymous No.10702660]

>>10702651
>machine power is the future!
>nonsense, people have always used animal labor, machines are dangerous and too expensive

[Anonymous No.10702712]

>>10702572
I've done a fair bit of research into the viability of solar across the USA and found that it simply is worthless in most population centers. California, desert states, and some fringe south east areas are OK, but for most of the rest (containing >60% of the population) it just doesn't work.

The issue is latitude (minimally) and weather.
You're not going to get Cleveland, Ohio or Portland, Oregon to function on solar because about half of the nominal 13.2 hours of sunlight is covered up by clouds on average. This issue is similar across most forested areas, population centers by large bodies of water, anywhere that gets a decent rain cycle.

If solar was financially viable for any and every case people would have been installing systems on their houses for the last 15 years. As it stands, even in the most viable areas to put solar on houses it's a cost gamble that only pays itself through after 6+ years, and at that point you'll need to start putting the money saved back into the system to replace/repair/update it.

Most human beings look at a 5% ROI over 12 years and say "I have better things to do with 50 grand"

[Anonymous No.10702732]

Aller tous vous faire mettre ! Vous parlez de notre pays Impunément . Mais n’oubliez pas que le dix-huit vingt-cinq vous baise

[Anonymous No.10702742]

>>10702660
You clearly missed the point. Molten salt reactors have existed and failed. Try reading.

[Anonymous No.10702777]

>>10702742
And working machines were developed and abandoned or considered dead ends for hundreds of years.

[Anonymous No.10702783]

>>10702307
This

>>10702302
>Gov'ts actualyl throw money at oil, coal, natural gas and solar
>Gov'ts dont fund nuclear at all
>"Hey nuclear, why aren't you returning as much as these guys?"

[Anonymous No.10702824]

>>10702302
Is it green? Is it really? Why don't you go ahead and store some of that nuclear waste in your house or backyard. I would bet a million dollars that you would be opposed to someone storing nuclear waste in your town. Nuclear energy is "green" is propaganda and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.10702889]

>>10702824
Meanwhile your local hospital has a stockpile of nuclear waste it injects into patients for scans and curing cancer. Smoke alarms are powered by plutonium. Bananas are full of radioactive K40 and C14 isotopes.
>>10702302
Actual cost of nuclear power is literally cheap as dirt. We already have all the mining, smelting/refining and power infrastructure we need. It's only colossal amounts of human retardation that makes it expensive.

[Anonymous No.10702940]

>>10702302
>Nuclear energy is way too expensive to be relevant.
Is that true cost, or costs created by bureaucratic red tape?

[Anonymous No.10702946]

>>10702889
>Smoke alarms are powered by plutonium.
They use americium.

[Anonymous No.10702999]

>>10702487
>Fukashima
>land lost
The only thing responsible for why people can't use that land is the Japanese government's overreaction. The soil is double the normal background radiation at its worst, which is negligible and not harmful to long term health. It's similar to living in a high altitude city, not some nuclear hellscape.

[Anonymous No.10703007]

>>10702302

the cost can change

[Anonymous No.10703033]

>>10702712
The average solar insolation is around 6 hours nationally and the ROI based on that number is around 10% per year.

[Anonymous No.10703041]

>>10702627
Bitch please. Nuclear plants are one of the safest building in the world. The only reason that fukushima failed was because it received an earthquake and a tsunami back to back.

[Anonymous No.10703049]

>>10703041
>earthquake and a tsunami back to back.
but, tsunamis are caused by earthquakes. And japan is prone to tsunamis. Why would they not think it would happen back to back? Isn't that how they always happen?

[Anonymous No.10703055]

>>10703049
Fukushima was actually built with earthquake- and tsunami-proofing in mind. The mistake they made was that they shut it down improperly.

[Anonymous No.10703074]

>>10703055
the mistake was building it on a coast above sea level.

They could have just lowered the entire fucking building 50 feet, and should an accident occur they just blow up the retaining wall and let seawater flood the reactor.

[Anonymous No.10703086]

>>10703055
I thought they failed to follow the advice of the engineering firm that built it and put the backup diesel generators within the flood zone, which is what caused the improper shutdown.

[Anonymous No.10703096]

BEng student here (a newbie to the site). Technically speaking Nuclear Energy is expensive as fuck, but we don't have a choice. Nuclear power produces more energy than coal with lower emission, and after France kinda face energy crisis several decades ago. They went for Nuclear. So far they basically sold energy to basically a third world country (need to recheck my note for which one) for nifty profit (oh the might of capitalism).

My conclusion is a high barrier to entry and a profitable business model

[Anonymous No.10703099]

>>10703074
>implying this wasn't considered

people are as dumb as you think, but engineers rarely are

[Anonymous No.10703109]

>>10702332
>>10702328
Oil/fossil fuel interests are behind most of the nuclear paranoia

[Anonymous No.10703119]

>>10702572
Solar's implementation is best in decentralized applications. Rooftop solar panels in home and businesses to lower the load on the grid and large solar farms where the geography and weather is favorable. Other than that nuclear for the rest.

[Anonymous No.10703120]

>>10703099
engineers are people, therefore they are prone to being stupid.

[Anonymous No.10703123]

>>10703120
Sure, but they're stupid about their daily lives, not their jobs. Or at least they're not stupid about their jobs for long without being fired.

[Anonymous No.10703128]

>>10702320
>based Macron.
So basically you're saying is political and not economical reasons why it's being phased out in gay France.

[Anonymous No.10703133]

>>10703074
Truth is it seems unnecessary back then Fukushima was built with safeguard up to the specification. Twofold protection to be exact.

But the wave knocks down the electricity, wreck the plant own generator, and the cooling couldn't keep up forever. The rest is history.

[Anonymous No.10703156]

>>10703119
Having overcapacity of wind and solar with extreme range grid balancing with HVDC transmission lines and some storage is currently looking more cost effective than going full nuclear for base load. Socializing the grid might make nuclear an option similar to France but that seems unlikely.

[Anonymous No.10703163]

>>10703133
it has no passive cooling system except it was build directly on top the largest passive cooling system in the world. Most nuclear power plants are build near water while citing "safety reasons" like somehow it'll be more safe next to water but if they're all build like Fukushima then they're not making use of the advantage of being near water. What's the point of building plants next to water then?

[Anonymous No.10703201]

>>10703163
Cheaper than piping it in, the reason no one builds below water level is it makes it way more expensive to build and a maintenance nightmare as well.

[Anonymous No.10703230]

>>10702505
t. zoomer

[Anonymous No.10703232]

>>10703156
This. Fuck the power companies and the laws they put in place to maintain a monopoly of the power lines

[Anonymous No.10703269]

>>10703163
Refrigeration is not that easy. Plus the sea is a major problem...corrosion. Sat water is basically any industry biggest enemy.

This combined with the cost for the pumping system probably make original Fukushima set up the cheapest/optimize.

Until shit happens

[Anonymous No.10703298]

>>10703269
except, they ended up pumping in seawater anyway. But not till after the cores melted cause the generators had been off for too long. I'm not saying they should use seawater all the time. Just as a final option thing when everything else has failed. Filling it with corrosive salt water is obviously better no water at all, which is supported by the fact that's exactly what they ended up doing anyway. All I'm saying is make it passive gravity fed system.

All you'd need to do is build the facility under sealevel far away enough from the shore that it's not under constant threat of being flooded. Then have one giant pipe (or series of pipes) going from ocean to reactor. Because the water in the pipe flows downhill (from ocean to reactor) in the event that you have no options left to cool the core you simply open the pipes and it's gravity fed with an infinite supply of water. While operating normally the pipes remain dry. You can keep the pipes closed at all times so the ONLY corrosion you need to deal (under normal operating conditions) is where it opens up to the ocean. The risk of corrosion from salt water is minimal except in the case of an emergency in which case corrosion should be the least of your concerns.

[Anonymous No.10703365]

>>10703230
Tbh the first half of millennials consider themselves to be Gen x who probably more than anyone believe they have no fucking responsibility to anything

[Anonymous No.10703459]

>>10702999
You can go live there now, get a free house and land.
Go

[Anonymous No.10703469]

>>10702302
>Cripple the industry with overregulation
>Utterly refuse to build permanent storage anywhere, making nuclear waste an infinitely worse problem than it needs to be
>"Well, it's not an option to solve our major carbon emission problem because we made it too expensive and dangerous"

Is this the great filter?

[Anonymous No.10703471]

>>10702325
How in the fuck did you convince yourself that a source of energy that depends on a non-renewable resource is renewable?

>inb4 muh sea water contains uranium
>inb4 muh liquid thorium

if this board is retarded its because of people like you do not understand the definition of words

[Anonymous No.10703479]

>>10702400
>Nuclear energy is our only salvation.

lol this comment is great proof that nuclear is a big part of the infinite growth market worshiper new religion

[Anonymous No.10703484]

>>10703471
It was most likely a slip-up that happened because the media is constantly pushing the
>All good energy is renewable
narrative, and nuclear has a lot of the good properties of renewable energy, like being zero-emission.

[Anonymous No.10703816]

>>10703459
I would have no problem living there, if it was allowed by the government. The maximum estimated annual dose in the general Prefecture is between 1-10mSv for the first year, and each subsequent year dramatically reduces that dose due to decay and migration into the soil. To give you perspective, working 8 hours a day in an granite building for a year will give you an estimated .85-1mSv dose. If you received that dose every year for 20 years, your chance of cancer would increase by .1%. And as previously stated, the dose will dramatically reduce every year, so even starting at the worst case scenario of 10mSv you would end up with a lower average annual dose than working on that granite building and consequently less increased risk of cancer. Keep in mind that the far greater exposure of workers at Chernobyl failed to follow estimated dose and cancer risk projections, it was far lower than expected using the same predictive methods which produced the current dose values I've listed. Just to be fair, the absolute maximum dose someone living in Fukashima could have gotten was 68mSv, a little more than 2 CT scans. Tell me why this is a serious problem with Nuclear power when the worst nuclear disaster results in soil that is at worst equal to the acceptable yearly dose, no ecological damage, and a single worker death? Meanwhile "mundane" fossil fuel plants kill millions every year and poison the air, sea, and ground as a consequence of normal operations.

[Anonymous No.10703823]

>>10703816

[Anonymous No.10703848]

>>10703816
>>10703823
Fucked up and misclicked, anyway the only real problem with Nuclear is cost. Even if I take away the red tape, the cost of training and maintenance is high. But we were willing to advocate for other alternative fuel sources despite their high cost, and now they are being reduced in price with subsidies. Solar and wind alone can't replace fossil fuel needs, hydro is devastating ecologically and geothermal is only suitable for a handful of regions. Nuclear is statically safer and cleaner than what we currently rely on, even the worst disasters have less short and long term consequences. Why is it not a viable solution?

[Anonymous No.10703875]

OP is a faggot.

[Anonymous No.10704015]

>>10703041
What is Chernobyl

[Anonymous No.10704289]

>>10703848
>the only real problem with Nuclear is cost
>Why is it not a viable solution?
You answered your own question.

[Anonymous No.10704585]

>>10703033
Are you trying to tell me that the sun is only visible for 6 hours a day?

[Anonymous No.10704588]

>>10703033
Are you also trying to suggest that the "return on investment" in the first year of a solar installation is going to be (bare installation cost) $25,000 + 10%?

Is English your first language or are you just retarded?

[Anonymous No.10704608]

>>10704015
A unique result of the Soviet Union.

[Anonymous No.10704677]

>>10704015
>Air travel is the safest way to travel
>what is the HINDENBURG HUH
This is you right now

[Anonymous No.10704706]

>>10704677
nuke plants have much more environmental impact. comparing it to planes is not fair

[Anonymous No.10704726]

>>10702302
>Nuclear energy is way too expensive to be relevant.
Say this to my government. With all the units they're installing there will be something like fifty reactors in my state along.

[Anonymous No.10704733]

>>10704726
exactly it only makes sense for socialized grids which isn't possible in most of the world

[Anonymous No.10704739]

>>10704588
That would be an ROI of 110%

[Anonymous No.10704742]

>>10704585
6 hours at 1050 w/sq m, yes. Solar insolation is adjusted to the equivalent noon hours

[Anonymous No.10704808]

>>10704706
Not at all actually. Planes pollute way more and also have more deaths. Ain't that quacking cuhrazy?

[Anonymous No.10704814]

>>10704808
air pollution is much easier to take care of than radioactive waste.

[Anonymous No.10704820]

>>10704814
We can't clean air pollution. Nuclear waste is very easy to dispose of, infact you can dump it in any abandoned coal mine in the Tarim basin and just guard it and there wouldn't be no pollution of groundwater

[Anonymous No.10704885]

>>10704820
Fukushima still haven't finished decontaminating affected area after 8 years, and that's only for soil, pollutants in the ocean are still not taken account of yet.
What will happen if similar accident occurs at other places and the wind blow those pollutants to a more densely populated area?

[Anonymous No.10704899]

>>10704885
>sourcless claims
Also Chernobyl happend and the wind did blow it over and as you can see nothing happend outside the soviet state

[Anonymous No.10704923]

>>10702302
> Nuclear industry begs for gibs from the government

renewable need massive subsidies just to be competitive causing electricity prices to go up

[Anonymous No.10704951]

>>10704899
"Outside the Soviet state" is a pretty big distance, compare to distance between reactor and large cities in countries like Korea, Japan, Taiwan

[Anonymous No.10704966]

>>10704951
Outside Chernobyl then. It's really nothing and only made worse by incompetent safety workers

[Anonymous No.10705058]

>>10704966
What about the entirety of Belarus

[Anonymous No.10705104]

>>10705058
Doesn't exist same as Moldavia

[Anonymous No.10705221]

>>10703055
In mind and subsequently ignored because fixing it would cost money and cause downtime and the people suggesting they fixed it were on the bottom rung of the company

[Anonymous No.10705222]

>>10703074
The reactors were flooded with seawater until the prime minister decided to play nuclear engineer and called up demanding they inject freshwater into an already ruined reactor, which caused something like three hours of no coolant being injected.

[Anonymous No.10705231]

>>10704015
>Design a pretty neat research reactor
>Years later decide to build a power reactor
>Just scale AM-1 up massively lul
>Design it to be controlled with a void coefficient close to 1
>Build it with a void coefficient closer to five
>Make the reactor 20 meters tall so reactivity is all over the place
>Skimp on sensors and give it a typically soviet computer that takes 15 minutes to calculate operating reactivity and leaves other calculations to the operators
>Build this all as cheaply as possible because the soviet economy needs cheap electricity ASAP
>Don't build a containment because the containment adds another third to the construction cost
>Controls have intensely high operator workload that ensures someone will fuck up at some point
>Have meetings about how to make reactor safer where the guy in charge refuses to sign off on any recommendations and nothing is accomplished
>Frequent accidents are covered up so nobody can learn from others' mistakes
>Arab tier practice of keeping operators in the dark and only giving vital information to people in high positions at the plant
>Pressure said overworked reactor operators to complete a test because one of the only two turbine balancing teams in the USSR is there
tl;dr: Typical suicidal soviet shenanigans. There's a reason that the USSR is undisputed #1 at having nuclear accidents even if you ignore Chernobyl and Kyshtym

[Anonymous No.10705243]

>>10705231
And how could I forget
>Quality control during construction makes the big dig look like the apollo program post apollo 1
>After Chernobyl quietly inspect the rest of your plants including ones using VVER reactors and find that an enormous amount of safety paperwork is outright false and the welds on the main cooling pipelines are frequently RWB tier
>The control rods which presumably will drop reactivity actually are jihad rods that can increase reactivity from introducing a moderator and displacing your neutron absorber at the same time
>Rods are the perfect combination of long and agonizingly slow so you get several seconds of reactivity increase (a VERY long time)
>Void coefficient is not constant and massively fluctuates with power level
>Also don't tell operators this for some reason
>All these decisions to save money and cover up massive flaws in your reactor ended up being one of the most costly single events in human history and bring international attention to the minute details of your nuclear program
Chernobyl not happening sooner was a miracle

[Anonymous No.10706462]

>>10702417
>why it incentivized mass decommissions
Its not so much the nuclear power, or even the meltdowns and the radioactive fallout from them, it's the tumors that people are afraid of.

[Anonymous No.10707251]

>>10705243
>Chernobyl not happening sooner was a miracle
This. especially considering how many near-misses probably happened and were immediately covered up. Luckily there was enough of a gap between the oil crisis and chernobyl for a large number of reactors to be built, so its big enough to have its own place in the energy sector and not be some meme like CSP or Biofuel.

[Anonymous No.10707511]

https://www.thenation.com/article/zombie-nuke-plants/

Y'all mind if I spew radioactive tritium water all over the floor?

[Anonymous No.10708130]

>>10707511
Tritium aint shit but hydrogen and tricks so lick on my nuts and suck my dick

[Anonymous No.10708164]

>>10702302
every energy industry begs for gibs from government. Solar, wind, nuclear, coal, natural gas. All of them have government programs available to subsidize the cost.

Nuclear is our best chance. Solar is absolute shit for powering an electric grid. Wind and hydroelectric are better, but not enough to power the entire grid (due to specific locations required to build them). Nuclear is good, produces minimal waste, and is overall our most efficient option. Natural gas also produces minimal waste, but requires digging into the ground. Not the best long term solution. Coal requires digging into the ground and is bad for the environment. Oh also oil, but we're running out of brown people to kill in the middle east.

Conclusion: none of these should be subsidized. Nuclear is the most realistic and efficient way to power everyone on the grid.

[Anonymous No.10708854]

>>10708164
A diverse renewable grid with storage and extreme range load balancing through HVDC transmission lines is a much more effective solution than scaling up nuclear. Especially after the failure of the Votgle plant's recent project.

[Anonymous No.10708858]

>>10702302
Nuclear energy isn't expensive. Nuclear energy regulations are expensive.

[Anonymous No.10708863]

>>10702366
Fukushima had a grand total of 0 deaths from radiation.

[Anonymous No.10708865]

>>10708863
And how many homeless?

[Anonymous No.10708867]

>>10702474
But you have to really go all in to justify the regulatory burden.

[Anonymous No.10708868]

>>10708863
sadly people are worried much more about potential loss of property than loss of life. 160,000 people losing their homes is much scarier than 100 maintenance guys falling off a wind turbine

[Anonymous No.10708876]

>>10708867
https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/
>Annual ongoing regulatory costs range from $7.4 million to $15.5 million per plant
The vogtle plant received 8BN from the government to build two new reactors. the initial projected cost was 10BN. Current estimates are over 25BN for completing the project. I'm sure that 15Mn is what sunk them.

[Anonymous No.10708883]

>uses fuel we only have limited quantities of
>uses fuel that is toxic to life
>produces waste that is toxic to life for thousands of years
>can meltdown and fuck up entire countries
We need sustainable power and to get some fucking fusion going this side of 2100.

[Anonymous No.10709911]

Fusion when?

[Anonymous No.10710489]

>>10709911
In 20 years, tops.

[Anonymous No.10710706]

>>10702302

[Anonymous No.10710775]

>>10702417
Coal lobby propaganda
Greentards are precisely that, subhuman retards that eat up what ever they're fed, so long as it has a smear of potential for virtue signalling

because of this, they eat up the lies that nations can be powered by oh so pure and good wind and solar, while remaining proudly and staunchly ignorant of what the word "intermittent" means, and ravenously fighting any attempt to learn it
for those getting the bribes, they're fully aware that wind and solar, by there very nature, will require non intermittent power sources to back them up when they inevitably go offline, this power source, due to decades long propaganda campaigns, well poisoning, and more bribery than an african dictatorship, will forever be coal and gas
Nuclear is a threat, and so it must be strangled to death whenever possible

[Anonymous No.10710779]

>>10704814
incorrect, you fucking retard
nuclear waste is fucking tiny ass pellets that can be either
>sealed in a concrete box
or
>TOSSED BACK INTO A REACTOR AND USED FOR POWER
Fun fact, the ebul radioactivity is precisely why they generate power
Anything harmful to humans is useful for energy
the only shit that can't be used is the shit that can't harm anyone

[Anonymous No.10710820]

>>10702366
Big Eco and Big Petrol did Fukushima to make it look like nuclear is scawwy and unsafe.

[Anonymous No.10710898]

>>10710820
don't be an /x/tard and poison the well
the nips did it on their own because they wanted to cut corners like mongs

[Anonymous No.10710959]

>>10710898
>mfw big petrol shills on my board
This is the face when big petrol shills on my board

[Anonymous No.10710964]

Take the LFTR pill.

[Anonymous No.10710973]

>>10710959
>>>/x/
that is your home, not here
Fuck off back there

[Anonymous No.10711088]

>>10702507
thorium reactors use U-233


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

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

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

waste storage: 10,000 years

Pu-239 can be used to build nuclear weapons

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

U-233 is then used to make pellets

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

waste storage: 300 years

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

[Anonymous No.10711674]

>>10705231
>>10705243
>>10707251
>Chernobyl not happening sooner was a miracle
>This.
I second that this, just take a look at the nuclear and non nuclear shit that went down with just the Echo class SSGN's during their three decades of service in the soviet fleet and tell me with a straight face you would trust soviet engineering and safety culture with even larger reactors:

>24 September 1976
>K-47 (Echo II)
>While in the North Atlantic a fire broke out in compartment VIII (living quarters) due to short circuit. Three were killed by carbon monoxide poisoning.

>2 July 1979
>K-116 (Echo II) suffered a reactor accident (a leak of core coolant from the port reactor) in the Bay of Vladimir, Sea of Japan. Some of the crew received a large dose of radiation, but there were no fatalities.

>21 August 1980
>K-122 (Echo I) had a fire in compartment VII (turbo-electric) when 85 miles (137km) to the east of Okinawa. Fourteen dead due to carbon monoxide poisoning.

>18 June 1984
>K-131 (Echo II)
>A fire broke out in compartment VIII due to violation of safety methods by an electrician, while in the Barents Sea. Thirteen dead.

>10 August 1985
>K-431 (ex-K-31) (Echo II) h
>Had a reactor explosion while refueling in the shipyard at Chazhma Bay, Sea of Japan. Ten dead (300 men from rescue parties received various doses of radiation, several died later).

>November 1986
>K-175 (Echo II), while at its homebase (Pacific Fleet), suffered an explosion in the reactor compartment, causing radioactivity discharge and contamination of nearby territory. No fatalities.
1989

>26 June 1989
>K-192 (ex-K-172) (Echo II) had a reactor accident (a break in the first loop of the starboard reactor) while off Bear Island, Barents Sea. The crew received a dose of radiation, but there were no fatalities.

And the record of the November class, the first soviet nuclear subs, isn't even remotely better:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November-class_submarine#Units

[Anonymous No.10711691]

>>10702302

Source: Geographic locus of OP's anal cavity.

[Anonymous No.10711978]

>>10702302
Yeah sure whatever m8

[Anonymous No.10712369]

>>10708883
>uses fuel we only have limited quantities of
Of which a little bit goes a long long way
>produces waste that is toxic to life for thousands of years
All kept since and safe in a box in a secure hole under a mountain
>can meltdown and fuck up entire countries
No

Nuclear is the only decent stop-gap we have until something better comes along
>Solar/Wind/Hydro are fucking excellent but fall short beyond powering small areas, hamstrung by lagging energy storage technology
>Combined gas works fine and is less polluting than other fuels, but its still polluting
>Coal is fuck my shit up tier
>Oil, the literal wonder material of the earth which can make so many things, yeah lets just fucking burn it lol

[Anonymous No.10712616]

California had two nuclear power plants left.

Then one had a radiation leak
>shut down

Then there was one and nothing was wrong it, but it was a lot more expensive to run than natural gas plants.
>scheduled shutdown

Now the first one is justified and everything wrong with the nuclear industry. The second one is California being dumb and makes it a lot harder to end the use of fossil fuels in their power grid.

[Anonymous No.10712625]

>>10712616
Exactly why a carbon tax is necessary for nuclear to go anywhere.

[Anonymous No.10712632]

How do you make nukes without nuclear plants?

[Anonymous No.10712664]

>>10711978
>in 2013

we've paid more into nuclear power then we have ever gotten out of it

[Anonymous No.10712710]

>>10702334

Modern graphite moderated reactors have been modernised and the issue was fixed.

[Anonymous No.10712810]

>>10710898
Every time this comes up I wonder what the fuck they were thinking when building a reactor complex on a shoreline known to be among the most vulnerable in the world to tsunamis, then, building a sea wall carefully calculated to assure an inadequate margin of safety. Sometimes the stupidity of executive decision makers hurts so much that I wonder how anyone can go into engineering and stay sane.

[Anonymous No.10712876]

>>10712810
This is one legit fear about nuclear energy. Our financial and political leaders are literally too retarded to handle nuclear energy.
They fuck shit up on green energy or coal plant, money lost and some relatively minor local pollution, at worst workers dead.

[Anonymous No.10712944]

>>10702302

[Anonymous No.10712952]

>>10710779
I meant to say in case of accident at the end

[Anonymous No.10713000]

imagine nuke reactors being ran and maintained bt nigs and spics when whites are gone

Thats why they're shutting it down

[Anonymous No.10713041]

>>10702632
>an american free marketer retard
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.10714265]

>>10712664
>In the last 6 years the government subsidies for nuclear went up by more than a hundred fold
yeah sure m8

[Anonymous No.10714276]

>>10703041
Fukushima was vulnerable to things it should not have been vulnerable to - that is a serious design flaw. Gen 2 plants are bad and defending them makes nuclear look bad. The only way to get the unwashed masses onboard with nuclear is to highlight the contrast between good gen 3+ designs and the old shit designs.

[Anonymous No.10714287]

>>10702320
It is being phased out due to the general consensus of nuclear power being dangerous, not because of the cost efficiency.

[Anonymous No.10714346]

>>10714287
Power companies don't give a shit about general consensus around safety they care what makes them money, and buddy nuclear isn't it.

[Anonymous No.10714347]

>>10714276
The only reason nuclear is cost effective is using plants the government paid for 60 years ago if you decommission them nothing new will ever be built.

[Anonymous No.10714348]

>>10714265
the only new nuclear construction in 3 decades has been a massive waste of taxpayer and investor money they're 15Bn over budget and 5 years behind schedule.

[Anonymous No.10714355]

>>10711978
just think, all those government subsidized solar cells are going to be functional for 30 years with no further investments necessary

on the other-hand, 30 years after the government pays for all those nuclear power plants they will be decommissioned and the government will have to pay for it again. It's like buying a nuclear power plant twice, except the 2nd time you're paying to receive nothing at all.

Then the privately owned nuclear power plants can turn around and make a Dr. Evil dick move by saying "give us one-hundred million dollars every year to secure the used nuclear fuel, or we may release a dirty bomb on your town and call it an accident or an act of nature"

[Anonymous No.10714357]

Or, y'know, we can just transfer energy wirelessly like Tesla did 100+ years ago before J.P. Morgan fucked up his shit and sullied his name.

[Anonymous No.10714360]

>>10714357
ok let me know when you get it working
until then
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10714364]

No nuclear power will ever give up their nuclear plants. It is too convenient to make nukes.

[Anonymous No.10714367]

>>10714360
Just look up "wireless energy transfer" on google and see for yourself you cranial luddite.

[Anonymous No.10714368]

>>10712616
>The second one is California being dumb and makes it a lot harder to end the use of fossil fuels in their power grid.

Everyone is switching over to natural gas fired turbines because the ramp time is very small. This is important when you have a lot of renewable sources that vary throughout the day.

[Anonymous No.10714378]

>>10714367
I'd rather wait for your startup to hit it's first funding goal. After you showcase your working product.

[Anonymous No.10714459]

>>10714346
Genuinely wondering, what is it that makes nuclear energy so expensive? I was always under the general consensus that nuclear power plants produced such an immense amount of energy it greatly made up for what was needed to produce it

[Anonymous No.10714473]

>>10714459
Biggest problem is huge initial construction costs compared to any other source of generation. Nuclear plants are incredibly complicated and any construction or manufacturing errors have catastrophic consequences. Massive initial investment with a very slow return is enough to scare off most private investors. Though state utilities like France do fine. There are other issues once you're up and running that cut into profits. Actually having to pay armed security 24/7 is one such expense. Waste management is always a headache. Fuel is cheap but shipping it isn't once again thanks to security, and when your plant is old you can't just tear it down for free decommissioning is super expensive as well. Compared to NG emissions are the only thing nuclear does better and most power companies have no reason to care about that.

[Anonymous No.10714484]

>>10702331
There hasn't even been one million flights I bet.

[Anonymous No.10714643]

>>10702302
The only reason nuclear power is being removed is to clean up the uranium to build more weapons

[Anonymous No.10714719]

>>10714347
t. Viktor Bryukhanov

[Anonymous No.10714808]

>>10714378
What kind of a strawmanning, goal-post-moving non-argument is this bs? Use the internet to learn that wireless energy transfer works perfectly fine, Jesus help me.

[Anonymous No.10714967]

>>10714808
Oh, so no one can actually make anything useful out of it got it.

[Anonymous No.10714976]

>>10714967
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-transmitted-energy-wirelessly-across-55-metres

This was 4 years ago. Is your no true scotsmen argument up next?

[Anonymous No.10714987]

>>10714643
>I don't understand enrichment or plutonium breed at all. The post

[Anonymous No.10714989]

>>10714976
>no mention of effiecncy
I said something useful not a glorified phone charger.

[Anonymous No.10715130]

>>10702366
>after fukushima every government/country with nuclear plants decided to get out of it

Nope, Canada and China are actively expanding their nuclear output while also developing new nuclear technologies for international sale.

>how can you not remember this?
Because it didnt happen.

[Anonymous No.10715145]

>>10702332
The lobbyism is lying about the "obvious" economic disadvantages.

The obvious economic disadvantages are that once you take on the big upfront cost of establishing nuke plants, you'll have cheap, abundant energy for everyone with very little waste compared to coal or gas fired plants. That means they have to sell you energy cheaper, and that coal and gas will go down in value as they have less demand.

The obvious economic disadvantages are all to the business sector, and even then, only to the parts of the business sector that refuses to modernize. Coal and gas power plants tanking won't eliminate everyone's need for electricity - the established power is just butthurt that they'll be getting poor so someone else can be getting rich.

Of course, it'll be great for the consumer, both because energy will get cheaper and coal dust will be 0.000001% less abundant in the air you breathe.

[Anonymous No.10715152]

>>10715130
>Doesn't remember the huge scares perpetuated in the entire world press after Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima
>Wasn't old enough to remember the constant newspaper articles, opinion news pieces, 60 Minutes commentaries, so on, all saying that nuclear power was just going to lead to yet another meltdown and end all life on the planet
>But because I wasn't there it didn't happen!

Holy shit kid, I'm only 28 and I can still remember the tail end of the Three Mile Island propaganda wave. It had been 11 years since the accident when I was born and they still had PSAs on the dangers of nuclear power citing the TMI incident all over TV in the 90s.

You're too fucking young to be on this site. You need to go back.

[Anonymous No.10715259]

>>10715152
Nuclear "going to hell" never happened. "every government/country deciding to get out of it" never happened. Ergo it is impossible to remember it. Notice how I didnt comment on the propaganda and social conversation?

Reading comprehension, try it some time. PS im 27 kid.

[Anonymous No.10715285]

>SAVE THE PLANET FROM EMISSIONS
>NO COST IS TOO MUCH
>BUT NUCLEAR IS TOO EXPENSIVE
>HERE HAVE THESE RENEWABLES WHICH CANT POSSIBLY MATCH BASELOAD AND WE HAVE NO REALISTIC STORAGE METHODS FOR

[Anonymous No.10715393]

>>10702302
>everyone bites the hook for this shitty bait

[Anonymous No.10717370]

nuclear energy is currently expensive and annoying right now because governments have made it illegal for it to be cheap

[Anonymous No.10717747]

>>10702328
Becuase the German government has an interest in disassembling the state, in case you still didn't realize. Germany isn't supposed to exist anymore and that's what they put all their energy in. So you get rid of nuclear to throw the country into an energy crisis, which is what they are currently going through with the highest electricity costs on the planet. And once the Green party won the next general elections it's only gonna get worse. German people feel the need to kill their own country once every few decades, and it's time again.

[Anonymous No.10717765]

Current US nuclear is expensive because of all the legacy power plants, mountains of spent fuel sitting in pools, lack of will and capital to properly recycle and dispose of fuel, and insurers.

[Anonymous No.10718261]

>>10702302
At least in the US most nuclear plants will be shut down within the next few years. That's jut a fact. Since no new plants are being build nuclear power will almost vanish.

[Anonymous No.10718262]

[Anonymous No.10718269]

>>10702572
This only works with heavy government subsidy.
By the time the panels have paid for themselves they're generally at end of life.
You also need to have sunshine and batteries for night time (the time you need it most). Batteries are another toxic consumable with a destructive mining process

[Anonymous No.10718426]

The only problem we can't fix is people.

[Anonymous No.10718552]

>>10717765
It's only going to be more and more expensive.

[Anonymous No.10719121]

>>10702487
Stop using reactors designed by 1950s communists and stop putting them on the shore of a high earthquake area

[Anonymous No.10719295]

>>10708854
Vogtle ain’t dead yet, bitch.

[Anonymous No.10719303]

>>10719295
only like 15 billion over budget and 5 years behind schedule. Vogtle will get built, they've spent too much to give up, but it's the last time any investor is going to touch a nuclear project in the US any time soon.

[Anonymous No.10719381]

>>10712625
Jesus. You want to tax transient atoms. Clown world

[Anonymous No.10719390]

>>10719381

[Anonymous No.10719401]

>>10702302
>It might be more reliable, secure and green than other energy sources
>green
Literally the only thing that matters. You do still want to have a planet in 100 years, right?