Still haven't accepted Nuclear Power as the best form of electricity generation?
Oh sweet god pic is related
>2011, in college
>environmental studies course taught by some nutcase with a thick german accent
>he whines constantly the dangers of nuclear power
>everybody tells him he's dumb, we've learned since russians in the 80s
>mfw fukushima melts down the next week
So what? We lock it in a steel box hundreds of feet down and forget about it until we find a better solution? That sounds really fucking stupid.
Idealistic, yet impossibly hopeful. At this point, none of those are fiscally viable, let alone possible. Of those, solar is the only one that stands a chance against oil. Btw, nuclear is more commonly found as a popular energy solution by the libertarian populous, not the pseudo-democrat party.
Nuclear produces more in a smaller space
Also It uses an element that wouldnt really be used anywhere else except for bombs
And then theres thorium who can produce even more but with less fuel.
Uranium doesn't come from thin air. it's a naturally occuring element. We're just moving it from one place to another.
Also, the remaining isotopes have a much shorter half-life. So using nuclear power reduces the amount of highly radioactive materials in our planet in the long run.
Furthermore, newer reactors are being constructed to be more efficient, they can reuse spent radioactive fuel a few times over and over, until very little remains.
Solar is better as a supplementary source right now. Powering individual buildings and freeing up the grid.
All other ecologically-friendly sources (wind, wave, ego-thermal, etc) only work if in a region that can provide enough resources to tap. Some areas may only be suitable to have nuclear as it's primary energy source. That or go back to coal but seriously, fuck that. Coal is the most in-efficient and polluting energy source on the planet right now. That and Natural Gas.
>but what's your solution to all the nuclear waste?
It produces such ludicrously small amounts of waste (in a relative term) It can literally be stored on site for decades before needing to be moved elsewhere.
Like seriously, IIRC all the NW ever produced up to like 2011 would fit in a football field sized pit about a 100 yards deep.
Don't get me started on chernobyl.
- Idiot administration pressured for experiment results
- Idiot supervisors removed safeguards and authorized dangerous tests
- idiot workers shut off the alarms that were going off during experiments
- no one told the idiots of the next shift that the alarms were shut and safeguards removed.
This. All that radioactivity was in the crust in the first place, the only problem with nuclear waste is that it's concentrated. Mix a ton of nuclear waste with 10,000 tons of concrete (or whatever it takes to reach the same radioactivity as uranium ore), and pour that shit in an abandoned salt mine.
>implying that means we should create more
So we create oodles of waste that we can't efficiently store or remove until we have many of these football sized pits around the world, and each is basically a time bomb waiting to leak.
Or we could just keep going with the cheapest energy sources (oil and ng) which are hardly worse for the environment until we develop a way to make green energy cheaper (which solar is actually doing rather quickly).
WHAT IF FOR 1 DAY WE GET EVERYONE ON EARTH TO RUN ON TREADMILLS TO MAKE MORE THEN WE EVER NEED?!
>So we create oodles of waste that we can't efficiently store or remove until we have many of these football sized pits around the world, and each is basically a time bomb waiting to leak.
>Furthermore, newer reactors are being constructed to be more efficient, they can reuse spent radioactive fuel a few times over and over, until very little remains.
By the time there's enough to be an issue, we'll be able to reuse it. And probably have moved on to something better anyway.
>viable as a large scale source
>By the time
Heard that one a million times. Unfortunately we don't know when that time will come. We don't know IF it will come. By the time that does come, it could be too late.
Oil is cheap when your government shuts the hell up about "muh environment" and "muh clean air" and lets people drill.
Solar would be viable if it wasn't so expensive. Fortunately, prices appear to be dropping quickly as efficiency gradually increases.
>Solar would be viable if it wasn't so expensive.
More the fact it takes up ludicrous amounts of space to be able to power a single suburban home and is useless in large swaths of the world.
Except we don't have long term storage space yet, and we would be relying entirely on the hopes that someday we will. And thorium still produces nuclear waste, even if less than uranium.
>ludicrous amounts of space to be able to power a single suburban home
Actually, it doesn't. It takes 375 ft2 and the average US household's roof is 2000 ft2. They've also been developing ways to make a solar film that could be layed over windows on skyscrapers to power whole apartment complexes. And like I said and you seemed to pass over, efficiency is gradually becoming greater which means even less space will be needed in, say, 30 years.
Those predictions assumed fusion research would receive adequate funding. Senate Launch System costs more than ITER.
what happens when some horrible disaster strikes and the area is so fucked you can't even get outside support to contain the accident? What about after Yellowstone national park blows? we'll be so concerned with out personal survival there won't be anyone running the nuclear plant for months at least until things stabilize.
>Calculated out before. Would be extremely expensive and end up making the cost of nuclear even more inefficient.
I never meant it as a solution, I just want to see what happens.
Except for the deadly waste product that can't really be stored anywhere, and the fact that every nuclear plant is a few human errors away from meltdown.
Remember when the first flat screen was like 1000 dollars and now you can get a 52" for 300 dollars. Solar will keep getting more efficient and less expensive, so will other alternative technologies. I think the best thing we can do is keep diversifying until innovation catches up to our needs but we have to plan ahead and not just say oh everything isn't as easy as oil right now so why bother trying.
Why use nuclear fission and produce nuclear waste, when you can both eliminate waste and produce power?
It depends on one's definition of long-term. The longer the term, the more factors such as natural disasters become likely. At our current technological level, we still have nuclear plant breakdowns. How can we trust engineers to actually build something to contain nuclear waste for hundreds of years?
They are real.
China is currently building three of them.
Couldn't agree more.
Unfortunately, that is not a sustainable solution.
Most nuclear waste products do take hundreds of years to be considered safe,
even if they decay.
And even if nuclear did turn out to be safe under these disposal terms and efficiency. There's still the biggest speed bump that's stopped other forms of energy from becoming big. Cost. Nuclear is still way too expensive when alternatives such as oil and natural gas exist.
got an idea here, why don't we just store the radioactive waste for a period of 5 or 10 years somewhere safe, and then after the 5 or 10 years we just get the waste in a rocket and shoot it far in to space no one will ever reach, you may say: omg anon Dats so expensive, but the point is poeple need to stop care aboutoney so much.
>Like seriously, IIRC all the NW ever produced up to like 2011 would fit in a football field sized pit about a 100 yards deep.
Actually about half a yard deep. All the nuclear waste ever created would fill a football field to a half-yard deep. OBV storing it all in one place that compact would cause an instant meltdown, but just to give a general idea of volume.
Nuclear will be fine once we actually come up with a way to use or break down the waste material properly. The half life of that radioactive shit is waaaay too long and we'll fuck up the planet if we use it.
Current designs don't make any economic sense. Even the new gegeration ones end up costing 2-3 times what they were supposed to even though they were meant to be simpler, although they are safer.
There is some hope that thorium, molten salt and others like pebble beds might be both safer and genuinely less expensive.
We do still have natural disasters that destroy nuclear plants. This never has affected the wastes. Furthermore, these disasters all happened on old generation nuclear plants. First and second generation plants were brand new technology and they still have a surprising success rate (better than coal ever did). Gen 4 reactors are a whole different breed. They've had decades to iron out the technology, while 1st and 2nd were brand new uncharted territory. Gen 4 reactors are rated as by far the safest nuclear plants to date, as well as a greater diversity of plant options. This includes microreactors (a small meltdown is an unimportant one), thorium, and traditional. Get up to date on future nuclear. No one's gonna build em like they did in the 50s.
If money is pointless, then we might as well as go for wind energy.
And you're ignoring cost. I'm willing to say it's possible that if we throw the waste in a steel box for however so many years, it would be safe. That doesn't mean shit if it costs twice as much as natural gas after waste disposal, plant manufacture, etc.
>"muh clean air"
>I breath that shit
Depends. Lethal amounts? Obviously not. However, we've been using oil and coal for a while now, and even if global warming is man made and caused by that, we haven't experienced a sharp enough change to damage us as humans. Unless we dump a shit ton into the air at once in an apocalyptic manor, we will be forced to adapt or die.
>We do still have natural disasters that destroy nuclear plants. This never has affected the wastes.
What is Fukushima?
>Gen 4 reactors are rated as by far the safest nuclear plants to date
>implying that means we should use them
It's safer to jump off a 5 story skyscraper than a 20 story skyscraper too. Does that automatically mean it's safe to jump off a 5 story skyscraper?
Too expensive to be efficient.
why do we cool the water, as part of the process is heating water, would it not make sense to just reuse the hot water which would obviously cool a little during the process.
I';m guessing it's to do with cooling the reactor and not the water though.
Because splitting the H is so easy right? Let me guess, the reason all cars don't run on water is an oil comapy conspiracy. But why doesn't YOUR car run on water? Simple conversion apparently...
>What is Fukushima
Fukishima was a nuclear facility built in a tsunami zone on a volcanic island. Yeah, sounds stupid, doesn't it? I wouldn't advocate building nuclear reactors on the slopes of Mt. St. Helens either.
full retard here. good luck burning water to boil water to spin your turbines
planets already fucked, we'll bury it in nevada and call it a day
the true shame is that hippies and protesters prevented advances for nearly three decades
You want to fly it up there?
That's not the point. The point is that a natural disaster DID effect the waste.
Just a drop.
I agree in general, but the public is simply too ignorant, scientifically illiterate, irrational, and panicky to ever accept nuclear power as the solution to climate change.
Thus I support and invest in renewables which are a bit more expensive, but in 5-10 years they'll be the cheapest form of power there is (they already are in some locations). In any event I've already made 100% on my initial investments in 14 months. Why not take advantage of people's fear?
Except as stated before that newer designs produce less waste and also take most human influence out of the equation. We could build them and start the process of dismantaling the old ones, but anti nuclear retards keep screaming "Cherynobyl" or "Fukishima" like it's indicative of all nuclear power. Coal and oil have fucked up way more people than nuclear ever has, but anti nuclear fucktards have to keep on screaming "nuclear waste durrr".
Also thorium master race.
> being this dumb
The water in contact with the reactor is never released from the cooling tower. Sometimes small amounts of tritium gas need to be released, but it quickly dissipates to undetectable levels. That tritium is never released from the cooling tower.
That is not possible. If you split H2O through electrolysis, what you would get is H2 and O2 (Diatomic Hydrogen and Oxygen). If you combusted the H2, you would need to react it with O2 to convert it back into H2O. So the exhaust would be H2O. Interesting concept though. You put in water, and you get water out. You would need a battery to power the electrolysis..
Is there absolutely nothing useful we can do with the waste?
>5-10 years they'll be the cheapest form of power there is
It'll be longer than that probably, and only solar has potential to compete. Wind, water, and biomass will never be cheaper than non renewable sources. The only locations where renewable energy is cheaper are areas with insane levels of government regulation on certain sources, subsidies for other sources, or places where geothermal is abundant.
Affect is a noun. Effect is a verb. Learn 2 english.
To the unintelligible it sound stupid, and the worlds mistake is giving voices to the uninformed. The worst part is that if they group together and all agree with each other, no amount of reasoning will pierce their self reinforced idiocy. They're basically wrong with impunity through agreed upon viewpoints, thus forming an ideal that the group arbitrarily accepts and enforces.
your context of "effect" (to bring about) is wrong.. the reactor housed and "created" the waste, effecting it if you will.. the natural disaster destroyed the reactor's safety precautions, "effecting" a leak, not the waste. retard.
> nuclear is more commonly found as a popular energy solution by the libertarian populous, not the pseudo-democrat party.
Odd, since nuclear energy typically requires massive government support (when if no federal funding is used). You'd think small-scale, personal solar would be the libertarian solution of choice
The rock in the centre of Australia hasn't moved, shifted, been shaken or owned by anyone other than black drunks for over 2 million years... If Australia were to open up a storage facility buried underneath the ground there and the US, China, Russia etc. were to pay to store the waste there, it would solve Australia's economy, and also the issue of waste disposal.
inb4: I'm Australian but hate Australians that's why I live in china.
solar is the best. we could use the whole sahara and the middle-east for powering half of the world (i know that powerlines cant reach that far, but...we have science and science finds a way)
but noo, motherfucking sandniggers and niggers have to kill each other instead of providing energy fpr the rest of the world, making money and get out of their shithole-life.
sometimes i think, niggers and sandiggers like shitholes
Water/hydropower is easily the cheapest power source, provided it's built in the right place, in the right way, and you can live with the opportunity costs of losing your free-flowing river. Politicians megaprojects give dams a bad name.
It's a waste of money. Solar power is already seeing the tip of becoming competitive, and within a decade or so it will completely outclass every other form of energy. There's literaly no reason to have power plants when there is more energy than we could ever possibly need falling down on us every second. Plus, it would decentralize power corporations and put a large percentage of energy production in the hands of individual people.
tl;dr You're an idiot.
also being so geologicly stable its a pretty darn safe spot to put everything ive always said if people are worried about natural disasters fucking plants up go in the center of australia just get rid of the trees and your all good
Oh hell no.
In terms of energy density, nuclear fission outclasses everything but nuclear fusion. That is to say that you need a massive area of land with essentially non-stop exposure to the sun to even compare to what you get from a nuclear reactor. More things to mention is the massive carbon footprint of solar energy, as well as how toxic it is to make these things.
tfw the newest generations of FRR are incredibly efficient and can store their own waste which they use for fuel over and over until the remaining waste only has a half life of a couple hundred of years. they're also extremely small for a power plant so they're economically viable for pretty much anywhere in the world
tfw their development was smashed by the clinton administration because of fears of "muh nuclear weapunz" despite the nuclear waste of a FRR being extremely hard to handle and turn into nuclear weapons if not straight up impossible while depleted uranium from conventional reactors being a much more viable option (in fact its what rogue states tend to use now anyways)
>we have these football sized pits all around
You realize that he said >DAWN OF MANKIND TILL 2011.
One football sized pit every hundred years or so? sounds pretty damn good to me.
Industrial hydrogen is made from natural gas. Spay Sex is developing a methane rocket engine. It will have lower specific impulse than a hydrogen engine, but the smaller fuel tank, lower costs, storeability, and ISRU potential should make up for it.
392 megawatts, 3,5000 acres, killing endangered tortoises. This is the future of solar. The same 3,500 acre area, if installed with nuclear power, could produce 10 gigawatts. Solar has a bright future, but not as a significant portion of our power needs.
that's the price you pay for "MUH DEMOCRACY RETARDS WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND ENERGY OR PHYSICS DICTATE UTILITY POLICY," it's amazing that modern democracies haven't reverted back to aristocracies yet
I came to this thread to make sure someone posted this. Well done.
roads are rarely made with concrete, despite being a better option than asphalt all because there are so many roads that the cheapest option is what districts can only afford. and then these amazing scientists come forth and say the roads should be paved with diamonds? its completely unrealistic
Nice quads. And what I meant was that we don't have a safe way of disposing the depleted stuff. And I know you're thinking "Oh were just gonna scatter it all over the world, no one will notice." That shit won't work.
Because every 10 years they have to fix the roads. It only takes a couple of years before the top layer is worn completely off. If we had materials durable enough to make solar panels on roadways, why aren't we using them to make invincible, never-have-to-be-repaves roads now?
roads aren't made with the long-term in mind. 99% of the time roads are made with the idea that they need the cheapest option, now. it helps that asphalt or even concrete (as rare as it is to use that for roads) are local products and can be quickly put together as well as being extremely cheap. then of course any road crew knows how to use asphalt or concrete. but how viable is it to get these solar panels shipped in from who the fuck knows where, then installed in a timely manner? its completely retarded. its not as if its going to solve energy needs in any case
We do, recirc heat exchangers use the latent heat in the water post-condenser to raise the temp before it goes back into the reactor. Even with this, we still can't really get any steam based plant more than about 45% thermally efficient. All that extra heat has to go somewhere, so we shunt it out to the cooling tower so the reactor and turbine/generator buildings don't get ridiculously hot.
Solar updraft towers have made nuclear power obsolete
Yeah I liked that haha
Alright, so, I really don't think you get it yet.
These materials are something. They become other things, they can be manipulated through adding or subtracting materials, they can be reused as new fuel sources in most cases too.
Basically, nuclear waste isn't scary at all and it would be nearly impossible for us to destroy the planet or ourselves by it or the power generated by it.
Usually these plants are built near large supplies of water for the sake of emergency flooding of cores and, in the case of a catastrophic failure event, dissolution of radioactive materials into an ion rich substance like sea water.
People will have you believe that the ocean is somehow irreparably damaged and that the area around fukushima is an unlivable wasteland destroyed for many generations to come BUT it's not.
The immediate area surrounding the plants leak points will of course have increased levels of localized radio activity but radiation is sticky and weighty, it will stay in its spot very happily.
>its not as if its going to solve energy needs in any case
Whoa whoa whoa, back up there buddy. There's over 60,000 square miles (155,000 km^2) of roadway/parking lots in the US. The US, in total, uses about 450 GW of power at any given time. 155,000 km^2=155 billion square meters, and every square meter of sunlight is about a kilowatt of power, so 155 TRILLION watts of power. One needs only 0.3% efficiency of solar cells to produce enough electricity. We could probably just use the parking lots,which might actually work since they don't get the same wear and tear.
hypothetically lets say you had all this money to pave 60,000 square miles in expensive solar panels (your guess is as good as mine as to where this money comes from), don't you think there are better ways to produce cheap power with this vast sum of cash? even 60,000 square miles of solar plants that dont constantly get driven over, parked on, dirtied, damaged and are properly angled to get maximum sun in a day would be a better option
>40% loss in transmission used in regional transfer.
>3.5% per 1,000 km
You'd need 14,000 KM of transmission line to reach a 40% loss. That's larger than the diameter of the Earth, fuckwad.
As a nuclear physics major working towards a doctorate
Most of this thread makes me sad.
Luckily there are some who know about the thorium breeders and the benefits of nuclear in general :)
Obviously not the same anon, but it does mean shit if it costs twice as much but is many times more efficient and produces much more power. There's a whole balance system going on, and going nuclear has the best balance in terms of efficiency and cost.
Hey, I'm the guy who said it was a retarded idea. Just not because it wouldn't give us enough energy. I don't like seeing people spout nonsense on either side.
I'm sorry, what about my math don't you like?
See picture. I didn't IMPLY anything. I took apart a very specific part of his argument that was pure bullshit. Our roads absorb over 350 times more sunlight than we need to power the entire country. That's all that I said, and I think it's a pretty fucking impressive figure.
Solar updraft towers are actually wind power. They create high speed updraft currents 60mph that power multiple wind turbines at its base.
They even work at night, using residual heat from the surface of the earth.
>Our roads absorb over 350 times more sunlight than we need to power the entire country.
So? Doesn't mean putting solar cells in our roads is a good idea. Its just a useless statistic, nothing more.
Everyone talking about ways to use a heat gradient from different things to mechanically push a magnet and generate electricity.
Why not geothermal?
Great, so rather than harnessing the power of the sun directly, we're harnessing it indirectly, by a factor of two. So these are, what, ten times less efficient than actual solar stations? So they'd take up ten times more space than that monstrosity I posted?
>Great, so rather than harnessing the power of the sun directly, we're harnessing it indirectly, by a factor of two. So these are, what, ten times less efficient than actual solar stations? So they'd take up ten times more space than that monstrosity I posted?
A single solar tower can service 200,000 homes. ONE. You can build thousands of them in deserts and nobody would care, they're in the desert
HIs argument was there'd not be enough power. Are you implying that he is correct? Because you are arguing with me when all I said it there'd be over 300 times more power than ewe need. Are you disputing this?
Nuclear power kills millions of fish. The superheated water is dumped into rivers, raising the temperature and causing algae blooms which choke and kill fish en masse.
Cooling towers can only reduce the water from boiling to just plain hot.
Hot water is still a pollutant since it makes rivers impossible for many fish species to survive as they require a lower temperature.
>Why not geothermal?
Geothermal only works in specific areas. Geothermal energy also has problems with the mineral-laden waters clogging pipes often, forcing expensive repairs and refits.
>Model calculations estimate that a 100 MW plant would require a 1,000 m tower and a greenhouse of 20 square kilometres
>20 square kilometres
>That beastly solar plant here >>552334259 is 3,500 acres, or 14 square kilometers, and it is 392 megawatts
>This piece of shit you are advocating is literally 4 times less efficient than the already extremely inefficient piece of shit I showed you to earlier
>your math has no practical application to the topic at hand
That wasn't the fucking point?
You said "its not as if its going to solve energy needs in any case"
>in any case
>including the case of if we solved all the problems associated with this
>meaning it works and it's cheap enough to cover 100% of the roadways
>or even 10%
>You're a fucking idiot who has no concept of how much energy the sun actually puts out
You don't understand the difference between a reflective molten sodium tower and a solar updraft tower.
An updraft tower is very tall but the base is much smaller than the area needed for a molten sodium tower.
A Solar Updraft Tower is already being built in Arizona, slated for 2015.
oceanlinx wave/air power generation.
Ridiculously simple idea with large scale plant now being built.
Butthurt faggot that actually donated to "solar freakin roadways".
The Sun delivers 174 Petawatts of power to the upper atmosphere. If we're smart and don't fuck with the internal mechanisms of the planet maintaining our climate, then we'd find a way to only tap into the 30% of that power which is reflected into space.
So mankind needs to find a way to operate on 52 Petawatts of power if you want to stay away from nuclear power, especially because fossil fuels simply are not an option long-term.
Well lasers at the Livermore National Lab already reach power usage levels of 1.25 Petawatts. We're talking 2.5% usage of the hypothetical max power I stated.
Now the average power usage of the planet in 2006 was 16 Terawatts, or 0.016 Petawatts, and of course power storage will continue to improve, but in terms of long-term advancement... that 2% above bothers me.
What happens when we want to start building black holes (i.e. manipulate spacetime and build warp drives) so we can explore the stars? Simply, what happens when we want to be running 1000 Livermore lasers at once? Are we going to fly to the Sun and simply harvest its radiation directly, or do we try to be more efficient and start converting mass into energy?
It's not so much that fusion must be achieved. It's more the fact that in order to continue advancing as a species, we must continue to exponentially improve in our efficiency.
Then again, that's the technological advancement argument. Maybe we should instill population control and lead more modest, less energy consuming lives... lead a path of Zen.
Fuck if I know. I just had an epiphany for the collapse of Krypton.
>Maybe we should instill population control and lead more modest, less energy consuming lives
This is what the Liberals want. This is literally what they want. An end to all technological progress. It's enough to make me consider voting Republican.
>It really gets my panties in a bunch to think that retarded concepts like these get funding but yet we can't build any nuclear fast reaction reactors anywhere
Actually it was POLITICIANS that pushed for the breeder reactors. The scientists advised the white house that the FBRS were very dangerous and the safety margins too slim. Eventually common sense won out and breeders were all cancelled.
Thorium power is in limbo because of unresolved engineering challenges such as the requirement for extremely high temperature metals which are very expensive, and the lack of any good way to allow workers to do maintenance on a molten salt thorium reactor. They have to be sealed for efficency, but if you open them up they put out a lot of radiation which is lethal for workers. water is a great radioactivity shield in comparison.
I was going to link an e-book I was reading on the subject, but it doesn't exist anymore. But it was just as much both parties that tried to push for it and against it, but the people against it won out because of the publics misconception on the word nuclear
>some people have EMOTIONS on the subject
Holy fuck my sides
>I was going to link an e-book I was reading on the subject, but it doesn't exist anymore. But it was just as much both parties that tried to push for it and against it, but the people against it won out because of the publics misconception on the word nuclear
Scientists were largely against breeders, the proliferation problem was insurmountable, each reactor had to be inside a military compound because the nuclear materials inside were essentially bomb grade, and they were simply unsafe.
The big deal is a Soviet experiment that not surprisingly went wrong and a nuclear reactor built in the tsunami zone on a volcanic island not-so-surprisingly having issues when the tsunami came in.
Human retardation, basically. America's track record with nuclear is virtually flawless.
Supporting it... and it's really good fiction. If you read my post you can surely tell I've got a scientific background. I reference fiction when I need. Plus I love that webm I made.
Ahh! ok I can solve all the problems then. The US doesn't make nuclear power. We just buy it from the japs. I think we're on good terms with them now ever sense superman stopped telling us to slap them.
fallacy. the end product was not good for nuclear weapons because they were far too radioactive. you would have had to handled them completely remotely, off site. to speak nothing of trying transport them. in comparison, waste from conventional reactors is already being used quite readily to make weapons. then theres the fact that the left over waste from old reactors that can be used to make weapons can instead be used as fuel in these reactors, lowering nuclear proliferation
You mean the light dusting compared to how much they get every decade from coal? Oh yeah, that. The estimated ZERO people who will get cancer from it. I'm so worried for them. I hope they don't eat a banana and double their radiation.
>You mean the light dusting compared to how much they get every decade from coal? Oh yeah, that. The estimated ZERO people who will get cancer from it. I'm so worried for them. I hope they don't eat a banana and double their radiation.
Officials had pregnant women and children evacuate the city, and if the reactor had blown, Harrisburg would be a ghost city.
>Except it didn't, while coal and oil continue to destroy our planet.
The reactor melted down and it took 20+ years before it could be cleaned up. meanwhile it sat there, radioactive, constantly monitored, costing millions of dollars and had to be defueled and cleaned up which cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Actually doing the math they are way less efficient than even that. 20KM^2 for 100MW? 20KM^2 is 20,000,000m^2, and each meter is over a KW of power at least, so 20GW of power should be available in a 20KM area. 100mw/20GW=0.5%. But remember, it only works for HALF THE DAY. SO that 0.5% efficiency, which is a liberal estimate, is only for when the damn thing is working!
>but the nuclear boogey man could kill us all. lets focus on that and not on real issues :^)
Nuclear power is too expensive. It costs $20 billion dollars to make one facility, far too much for any private company to pay for without government socialist subsidies.
>evacuate the city
> if the reactor had blown,
It didn't. It didn't even come close.
It was an honest mistake. Given the amount of time your reply took, I'd assumed you'd looked into it and come to a bullshit conclusion somehow.
>had to be defueled and cleaned up
It didn't. They could have let it sit, it wasn't hurting anything at all.
>It didn't. They could have let it sit, it wasn't hurting anything at all.
Monitoring and testing costs money and an idle reactor is a reactor not making profit.
It took 5 years before a robotic device could peer into the reactor vessel. Previous attempts destroyed the cameras and robots due to high intensity radiation and heat.
>costing millions of dollars and had to be defueled and cleaned up which cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
still less than a month in the middle east to keep our oil prices down
If electricity generation were actually unsubsidized, and power companies were allowed to compete, you'd see nuclear all over the damn place.
eh i reckon if they had time to prepare themselves that might survive its not going that fast although loose objects might pose a problem but yeah if they werent ready for it they would be fucked
>still less than a month in the middle east to keep our oil prices down
Most energy generation in the USA is from coal and natural gas, not oil.
the only reason we sent 497,000 troops to protect a saudi king was because extremely rich people wanted their overseas investments protected.
There's a lot of things you don't realize.
that would make no sense whatsoever buisness wise with the amount of americans who still belive that nuclear is a bad idea the hit to microsofts public image would be to great it would need to be a largly unknown company and yes i know bill wouldent have to make it as a part of microsoft hes a massive public figure with a large association with microsoft
my 130.000.000 C° Plasma says OP is a Faggot
Coal-fired & nuclear power generation requires government funding and control = SOCIALIST POWER
Solar PV: The people generating their own power from their own sunlight on their own land = LIBERTY POWER
I've been reading about plasma technology and it seems really cool but extremely efficient nuclear power is already possible and could tide us over for several thousand years until we perfect this other technology
>Coal-fired & nuclear power generation requires government funding and control
>requires government funding and control
it shouldn't though and is basically holding us back in the dark age until it changes
That's implying that there wouldn't be tons of accidents if the whole world usednnuclear power that leaves the door wide open for morons to fuck up. Do you know what percentage of our earths ocean is contaminated from Fukushima? Enough that there is concern that entire species of sea creatures are starting to die off so rapidly that extinction could be the out come for at least a few.
No they aren't
They produce such small amounts of electricity, they're only good for small European shithole towns. Humanity is going to just keep growing so we need something more lasting. Solar and Wind aren't going to cut it
>Do you know what percentage of our earths ocean is contaminated from Fukushima? Enough that there is concern that entire species of sea creatures are starting to die off so rapidly that extinction could be the out come for at least a few.
stop believing everything you read on the internet, anon. you probably believed david suzuki when he said the entire western seaboard was at risk from fukushima as well
> Humanity is going to just keep growing so we need something more lasting
This is the problem. We need to stop growing, next up: GMO foods and nuclear power sources more widespread. We are already to many people on the planet
These are highly inefficient. They are not totally clean. To create a wind turbine you have to melt iron to forge gigantic pylons wich is not clean. Same thing for solar panel. You have to extract silica and there is a lot of waste in the process.
Both are not eternal so you eventually have to replace them.
It's too late to stop growing
You can't just tell people not to make babies. They're going to anyways. So now, we have to start looking at long-term solutions to meet that growth.
what if when some bullshit terrorism attack was met with a war. What if we actively seek out and mass kill groups that plan to cause terrorism attacks to prevent 17th century power structures? What if people realized an economy can be capitalist, but the people living in that economy don't need to have a capitalist mentality?
>herp derp this has been the worst fucking peacetime to date. No innovation, no drastic progressions of technology (save a few areas) just an absolute "fight about anything" fest and an ever growing sociopath promoting society "herpderp I like Sin because someone told me it exists herpderp u have made me the mads so now me and my boys gonna merk you/sue you, because we has da powas und da exp.".
>semi autonomous retards. Semi autonomous retards everywhere. Seriously sociopaths, why haven't you committed suicide yet before age or others weaken your top level human ass? You'll all only simultaneously be in the top 5% of the relevant populous for so long even though if you're all 5% snowflakes of best human design, you statistically can't all be top 5% you retards.
>Kill yourselves, or bring more physics into this thread
>for several thousand years until we perfect this other technology
dude, we don't need several thousand years
Wendelstein 7-X is already build and will fire next year.
ITER will be completed 2020
DEMO, which will be either a Stellerator or Tokamak depending on which one turns out to be more reliable (i bet it will be the W7-X design) goes online by 2040.
of course it does. Nobody said otherwise.
But unlike to nuclear fission, fusion just produces Helium as waste.
Fill it in Balloons and give it to your kids.
You have fun I sure as fuck hope I'm not around to see the population grow larger then what Earth was intended to support. There will prprobably be a natural phenomenon to thin the population just like there are for vastly over populated areas on a much smaller scale and how would someone solve the problem of potential famine and the fact the so much of the planets trees and forests would have to be demolished to create enough housing it would more then likely have very ill effect on our planets ecosystem we do still need some foliage to survive.
You're eliminating factors like School systems built around "natural" decay rates instead of education and a direct and intentional breakdown of any school systems that teach dynamic and critical thinking (because peacetime and religious fags). We've literally got a system and mentality in place that purposely curbs any kind of natural innovation. "Anon. has more than me, so Anon. must tell me all their secrets and let me replace Anon. because I am best Anon.".
>whoever the fuck started promoting the idea that copying files is paramount to stealing (stealing being the unreturn able theft of something) should have some of their memories stolen just for the lulz to see how long it takes for them to go insane and wish they'd been a fan of copying and sharing files.
>worst peacetime to date.
this. Solar panels are good but don't generate enough electricity. For the buildings we've installed them on they still only generate a fraction of the total supply. And this was when it was really sunny. We think these will generate 168MWH each year which isn't enough for large buildings.