what do you say /b/? fuck nuclear plants?
they are freaking dangerous and a threat to all people around them
>inb4 try to produce enough energy without nuclear power
>fuck you, im from austria
They're really not dangerous. The issue is that, when there's a problem, it's a big problem.
But they're less dangerous than coal and natural gas, and take up less space than wind and solar.
That happened literally twice.
Meanwhile, coal plants blast out massive amounts of pollution, causing all sorts of health problems.
Not to mention there are other, safer designs in the works than the standard pressurized water reactor.
>>implying I implied
Then you don't build them in danger zones. It's called foresight.
>mfw someone found out my first argument was in fact nearly worthless
compare how many years that last
and two times is two times to much
Well, if we can work out some way to efficiently transport electricity through space we could just build a nuclear power plant on the moon, no?
couldn't make the damn place any less
What does eating kangaroos and having a particularly worthless indigenous population have to do with nuclear energy?
Your entire country looks like a nuclear bomb went off, like everywhere, anyway.
Should probably get rid of cars as well if you're concerned with cancer.
Nuclear power plants are generally built outside cities and suburbs. Where the only people who would be effected by the very minimal extra radiation are the people who voluntarily work there.
Nuclear power is clean and safe as long as a little bit of planning has gone into it, and if you're building a nuclear power plant, I'm guessing there's gonna be a lot of planning involved.
People don't just knock up a Power plant willy nilly.
>being so retarded as to not even know about Thorium-based Molten salt reactors (MSRs, LFTRs)
Your homeland has the most Thorium in the world!
You should have a Fosters and a Vegemite sandwich to celebrate your lack of education, you moronic fuck
It's not only about explosions risks
It's mostly about all the fucking TONS OF IMMORTAL DEATH TOXIC WASTES produced each years, poisonning the planet if not buried,
... and even buried, we have to praise that it will never be affected by some "sub-earthquake" or pierced
Nuclear is shit, fuck it. Let's replace it by clean energy
And, tru dat.
Btw, I've been on a trip to inactive fission power plant in Germany, and we saw it from inside (it was never launched), and we had lecture on nuclear power plants in Germany. From thriteen only four are working after Fukushima, and it's like fucking statue to honour people's stupidity. Let's work on fusion plants faster, so those Greenpeace faggots would shut their mouths. Fucking niggers.
and this is the kind of shit Green peace put together.
DON'T BUILD ANYTHING, TERRORISTS MIGHT FLY A PLANE INTO IT.
HELP THE WHALES.
They're fucking Fear mongering
problem with this is the risk of spacecraft crashing/exploding for whatever reason, releasing large amounts of nuclear waste into the atmosphere, contaminating the entire planet and causing a nuclear holocaust
They're considerably the safest and cleanest form of energy we can use, besides solar/wind/geothermal, but they require so much space, and are so inefficient that they are not an optimal source of energy at this current time
The Fukishima "meltdown" was a near-accident, the only explosion was a basic hydrogen explosion which really did nothing, only trace amounts of elements were released, and even then, only the immediate sorrounding area was in danger.
Bozo's like you are the reason why only the less-safe reactors are around really, and honestly the community behind them are concerned with safety above anything.
They really are the future of energy, people just piss their pants over the word "nuclear"
Well... as I see it, nuclear power as it is, is rather dangerous. The powerplants that are built until today and are still under construction do inherit a certain danger. Both melt-downs (Chernobyl and Fukushima) were ultimately caused by human failure and the principle of how the reactors were built. Also, radioactive waste is still a problem that has no solution and grows constantly.
Thorium reactors wouldn't be able to melt down and explode and rather die out. The problem is that it is underdeveloped and not applicable in it's current state of development.
Renewable energies have a high potential but since there are so many restrictions in building and using them they are not sufficent on their own. If someone is interested I'll try to explain them a bit more detailed.
OP, you are humongous faggot and that's okay, but look at this shit:
Nuclear power plants are projected by specialists with high IQ and years of extremely hard studies, which are way wiser then you will ever be. If you don't trust them, then you have even less reasons to trust yourself, so you can go kill yourself already.
The only reason we're not running on Thorium-based nuclear power today is back in the day when a decision needed to be made as to what type of material to use to develop nuclear power, the war gods of America much preferred the one that gave them the byproduct known as Plutonium. One guess as to why. So interest in Thorium was shelved, until recently.
Most renewable energy sources don't produce a steady amount of electricity like thermal powerplants (they can be geothermal, coal or nuclear. they are all thermal). Instead, they produce electricity depending on the current circumstances. wind turbines work only when there is wind, solar panels only when there is sun etc. The problem is that they produce more energy than can be used and we have no means to save all the energy that comes from them. So, to have energy when the circumstances for the renewables are not right, we would need to develop a possibilty to save the excess energy or use thermal power plants which are only restricted by fuel.
>Renewable energies have a high potential
If that were true, entrepreneurs would be making shittons of money and business would be flourishing like silicon valley 2.0, not barely stumbling along only because of government incentives.
As it is, we can't simply not use nuclear power plants as we are partly depended on them (thank the companies) but they are also bound to be a problem on the long run if we don't finally start developing the thorium technology but I think it will be the same with it as it is with the nuclear fusion. It just won't come to a result if it is not profitable.
If you would have done any thinking you would realize that renewable energies are an investment that pays itself off in time. You build it once and don't have to pay for anything afterwards and get free energy for as long as you keep the thing running. Think for a bit longer than your next weekend.
true, have myself some photovoltaik on my garage. shit is awesome, i only have to pay for the energy i use at night anymore
next investment will be some windy thing, any suggestions?
As I said, solar power is not as steady as it would be needed, not even the solar roadways. And you already said, hydropower is cool but has it's limit as it need rivers and there are limits as to how many we can build in one river. and austria is pretty much the best country for hydropower. in spain it would barely cover a fraction of what is needed.
Not without having been there, sorry. I wouldn't want to give bad advice in this matters and I would have to guess a shitload of things before I could start recommending something.
da hier eh keiner mehr außer dir liest... ein windrad ist nicht unbedingt leise also solltest du genug abstand zu gebäuden haben in denen leute wohnen, sonst kriegst du die genehmigung nicht. Außerdem solltest du einen platz wählen auf dem genug wind geht. schau dir die hauptwindrichtung an und was da so rumsteht. bäume und gebäude verlangsamen den wind, mitten in einem haufen felder mitten im nirgendwo wärs ideal. ansonsten je höher desto schneller und unbehindeter der wind.
1. viel freie fläche rundherum
2. möglichst hoher punkt, hügel oder so
Chernobyl is a wildlife haven. Amazing things start happening when places idyllic enough for people to colonise are released back to nature. Animals and trees don't even give a fuck about radiation levels that are sub - 'kill everyone within a month' levels.
As far as 'side effects' go, the occasional unplanned safe zone from human habitat destruction isn't that bad. It also improves carbon economy even further, despite the reactor no longer being operable. You know, on account of all the fucking trees and no fucking people.
mehr felder und freie fläche in windrichtung als hier geht nicht. hab mir erst ein zusätzliches grundstück als erweiterung gekauft. neben dem haus stehen leider etliche bäume, also würde es nur auf der neuen mauer gehen. bei uns geht verhältnismäßig viel wind, vor allem tagsüber. nachts eher weniger. denkst du es würde reichen um meinen bedarf komplett zu decken? mit 24 paneelen wäre mein bedarf kpmplett gedeckt, da ich dopelt so viel produziere wie ich verbrauche. aber in der nacht ist das dann eher sinnlos...
Ein paar solarpanele UND ein windkraftwerk sollten schon genug produzieren wenn du keinen übermäßigen verbrauch hast aber das problem ist halt die speicherung für die nacht. das ist eben das problem mit den erneuerbaren. sie sind nicht kntrollierbar. über nacht ists halt schwierig.
>people dont like nuclear power plants
>no one mentions the nuclear reactor driven machines like navy vessels
>there is one just off the coast of san diego
>there is 3 at newport
>these things are just as bad as nuclear plants
>except these things are parked in populated areas
Also über den tag produzierst du genug nur in der nacht brauchst du halt strom? wenns so ist dann kann ich dir schwer helfen. das gleiche problem haben wir im großen maßstab auch. das ist einer der gründe warum die erneuerbaren allein nicht die ultimative lösung sind. leider.
ja, das perverse daran ist, dass die menge eigentlich für die nacht auch gerade ausreichen würde, wenn ich sie speichern könnte.. aber leider muss ich sie stattdessen ins netz einspeisen.. sorgt dann eben doch für ein gesamtminus in der bilanz, und vlt könnte das ja durch zusätzliche installation eines windrades ausgeglichen werden... aber erzähl mal von deinem "großen maßstab"
naja... landes und europa weit gesehn ist es so das immer so viel strom produziert wird wie gebraucht wird und je nach dem kraftwerke hoch- bzw runtergefahren werden weil man es einfach nicht speichern kann. zum teil laufen windräder auch im leerlauf weil sie sonst das netz überlasten würden. Die einzigen sinnvollen methoden das zu speichern sind speicherkraftwerke die wasser mit dem überschuss den berg hochpumpen und wieder runterrinnen lassen in turbinen wenns gebraucht wird und das geht halt nicht überall.
Ein kohlekraftwerk zb kannst du mehr oder weniger anheizen und die produzieren dann halt in der nacht den strom wenn die erneuerbaren nichts oder zu wenig machen. Das ist zumindest der derzeitige stand. noch mehr fragen?
Ich studier grad, hab aber ein paar praktika gemacht also kann ich dir leider nichts genaueres über irgendwelche firmen sagen. Ich weiß einiges von der technischen seite aber was firmenpolitik angeht hab ich nicht allzuviel erfahrung. Und das mit den solarfeldern hat eher damit zu tun das es nocht nicht viel gefördert wird. Damit sowas wirklich umgesetzt werden kann muss die regierung zumindest teilweise dahinterstehn aber die sitzt ja nur rum mim daumen im arsch und überlegt sich wie sie das bildungssytem noch mehr verscheißen können.
Fucking idiot, stupid baby boomer hippies like you keep us stuck in 1949 with dirty, dangerous, corrupt, and politically disasterous energy infrastructure.
Please die off with them and take your shitty superstitious unscientific worldview with you.
Nuclear is a very wide definition of various ways to generate electricity. Fusion is where my bets are at. Just a decade or two and we won't need new fission reactors. Fusion is safer, more efficient and leaves no heavy radioactive waste.
hmmm... da müsst ich mich ehrlich gesagt mal genauer damit beschäftigen. ich habs nicht so mit politik und so. wie gesagt, mein wissen außerhalb vom technischen ist begrenzt da ich noch nie in der position war in der es wichtig gewesen wäre.
danke für alles^^
irgendwie hab ich das gefühl, dass wir uns gegenseitig helfen können... ich dir, falls du mal was pc technisches brauchst, da ich prgrammierer bin und du mir in alle diesen energietechnischen fragen.. wenn du interesse hast, schreib an die mail hallo1126 an google (wegen den ganzen englischen hier etwas "verdeutscht", aber wird wohl kein problem darstellen die komplette adresse rauszufinden
You could do it on a space station and send your waste into the sun.
You could do it on earth and simply drag your waste into space and send it into the sun.
You could just build a fucking LTFR like we started to in the 50s. and not worry about meltdowns either. ...but you can't weaponize it, so fuck that option then... unless you wanted a cheap, efficient, safe, and incorruptible energy source. ...who would want that?
Thorium needs to be converted to U-233. So thorium reactors are actually U-233 reactors, producing U-232, which has a half-life of 160.000 years.
With fusion you are left with mostly helium isotopes, which are very useful. If I remember correctly one of these isotopes was helium 3, which makes a durable fuel.
How much thorium do you think there is in crust? How much hydrogen there is to create helium from it? Also, making helium-3 or tritium seems way more possible then thorium.
One does not simply send waste to the sun. Read some orbital mechanics, or play some KSP and you'll understand things tend not to travel in straight lines in multi-body systems
I think? I think??? wat? You're insinuating that the feasibility of thorium reactors depends on peoples opinions of how much fuel there is?
fuckpudding, go into your back yard, dig up a handful of dirt, and you have enough thorium to run that reactor for a week. it's fucking everywhere, we don't need to mine or till the entire earths crust over to get it.
This whole thread is a reflection of the stupidity of /b and I want everyone in it to die. You suck and I'm out. Ain't nobody got time fo dis.
obviously you have control over meltdowns, otherwise a meltdown would be happening every other week. take your uneducated opinion elsewhere.
Chernobyl had no containment building; its reactor was not built inside a concrete dome built to withstand a 747 impact like literally every other nuclear plant on the planet. It also had several failsafes that were manually shut off for a test that the corrupt, ineffectual USSR government demanded, despite the aforementioned problems. Take your uneducated opinion elsewhere.
Not without way to steer it. Else, it would need massive calculations, and there are unpredictable things that can happen on way there (unknown asteroids etc.). It is possible, but mostly with someone controlling it.
>>fuck you, im from austria
Well G'day mate.
Put another shrimp on the barbie..
But seriously stop being a fag. Nuclear is fine. Its just expensive because we always want the nuclear plants that produce weapons grade materials.
Seems like /b/ hasn't changed. I've been gone for a while, and /b/ is stil arguing over trival shit. Nuclear power is the future, but current plants are out of date, and new ones are politically suicidal because Fukishima. Give it a few more years, then politicians will forget it about the issue. The oil industry bankrolls solar/wind because they own the subcontractors needed to refine and process the material use in solar/wind production. You're battling with money and power, not facts and or idealistic bullshit. There are people in play trying to seize some political power; while others are trying to maintain that power.
The technology has improved so much and regulations are stopping plants from becoming more efficient, cleaner, and more fail safes.
"Fusion is 20 years away derp"
"Fusion its totally coming any time soon guys!"
We can start building thorium reactors right now if we wanted to, the reactor can use its own waste several times over, and thorium is fucking plentiful.
At least you're learning orbitial mechanics. Something fucking engineering professors have a hard time explaining to the students. Also nothing travels in a straight line in space, because a straight line in linear, and does not take into account multiple variables of space travel. Gravity you've already hinted to anon1.
I live in Seabrook NH. Pic related is the power plant, maybe a mile or two from my house. Had a bunch of uneducated retards protesting against this when it was built and when it was re-certified or some shit like that. Fuck this gay earth.
Yeah what annoys me about stuff like that is that you know for every protestor there are thousands of people who are perfectly fine with nuclear power but dont go and counter protest because they have a fucking job.
and for those that can't read
>panels dont orient toward the sun, so less efficient
>glass will erode under constant strain
>LED's not visible at angles you'd see while driving
plus the fact that you'd just be better off building an actual solar plant out in the desert
>and for those that can't read
Now you made me feel bad for choosing the second one.
>plus the fact that you'd just be better off building an actual solar plant out in the desert
>because energy transportation over long distances works so good
but cant argue with the other ones
What about the obvious one:
>a large vehicle slams his brakes on the segments will shear off and hopefully decapitate people.
They had a demonstration where they gingerly drove one of those lightweight mini tractors on to it.
But the forces upon a road when a large articulated truck slams on his hydraulic brakes are literally millions of times greater.
It comes down to one simple thing
why cover roads in solar panels when you could just put them on the roof of houses?
seriously. It'd be so much fucking easier.
There may not be as much surface area, but do you have any idea how long it'd actually take to cover every road(or house for that matter)?
Once that's done just start putting a roof over parking lots and put solar panels on that.
The 4th video made me laugh.
Ive seen the claim before.
What they have identified there as some kind of product of radiation from the chernobyl disaster is simply the heartwood and sapwood in the tree.
Its common fucking knowledge to anyone who has ever done woodworking.
How did they get as far as making a video about it before realizing that simple fact?
Luddites don't have to know facts, they don't have to use logic, the only thing they have to do is convince their fellow luddites that (fill in the blank) is harmful and is poisoning the earth for our chillums!!!
Implying this /b/ro has to feel the consequences of some uneducated nigger in the 50's.
You're a piece of shit. We might as well make niggers slaves again with that attitude.