>>685035880 What happens when the sun goes down moron? Good luck storing that power.
Nuclear is just as clean, far more reliable, cheaper, and fuels like Thorium are extremely abundant. It's also less environmentally invasive. So called "green" energy always takes up massive amounts of room.
>>685036659 >So called "green" energy always takes up massive amounts of room. And then there's the fact that for most "green" technologies, the waste from manufacturing them far outweighs what they save over their expected life.
>>685036360 Like I said, I admire your clairvoyance in knowing what a disaster a reactor that hasn't been completed is going to be.
Off yourself. Fusion reactors aren't my area of expertise, (I'm more interested in breeders) but it's obvious that you're just fearmongering because your 8th grade science teacher told you that nuclear was bad.
>>685036659 >nuclear >clean you're a fucking moron man its incredible you believe that like wow. You are so fucking stupid man its crazy i cant even right now you know? you are such a fucking idiot like wow WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!
>>685037402 >when the fusion reactor in France goes online and proves just how obsolete and dangerous nuclear power is You're right, "disaster" was not the exact wording you used. Feel free to substitute the original wording in for "disaster," and everything I said will still be true, you fucking mongoloid.
>>685034848 How did that work out for Chernobyl, Long Islannd and Fukushima?
Hey.. let's not talk about how these 'clean' reactors are actually thousands of times more dangerous than most US coal plants. Don't forget that mentioning how they are constantly leaking, or the fact that they are in serious disrepair states across the US. Going decades beyond their normal operation usage. What could go wrong..
Plants have been converting solar energy into chemical energy since before the first multicellular organisms crawled out of the oceans.
Coal is basically just stored solar energy. So are crops. Unless you're talking geothermal then pretty much all energy sources originated as solar but we're just shit at utilising it because we're acting like all those sources are infinite.
If we didn't waste so much land and energy on useless shit then the problem would be more or less sorted out already.
>>685038310 are the majority of incidents that occur around nuclear power plants related to their old age, or could they happen to the most modern designs used today >three mile island >chernobyl >fukashima
Nuclear is the safest per terrawatt hour of any energy source including renewable. Google it if you don't believe me. NASA recently came out with a study saying it's prevented 1.8million+ deaths that would have been due to externalities from coal and oil plants. Plants are lasting past decommission date because they are built so steadily and can continue to last. Nuclear plants are unbelievably safe environments. The only plants I know of that have "leaks" are boiler plants but that only extends to the parking lot which you need security clearance to get into anyways, and it's a level lower than normal background radiation.
With nuclear fusion is it ever going to be possible to have a net gain in energy since you need to at least equal the energy output of the reaction in order to contain it safely and then each stage of conversion you lose some of it before it ends up finally as electric?
>>685037734 On the off chance that this is not an ironic post:
Unlike fossil fuels, which release waste into the atmosphere, nuclear power plants only release easily contained solid waste. This is only a problem because our obsolete reactors are so inefficient, and give off so much of the stuff. When we burn uranium, we are only using as little as ~.5% of its energy potential.
Contrast this with a breeder reactor, which creates more fissile material as it goes. (Using some other fuel, which is where the thorium meme comes from.) In a thorium reactor, you'll have far less waste, and of the waste you do have, 85% of it only needs to be stored for a short period of time. There is the remaining 15% which needs to be stored for 300 years, but this is easily done.
It's especially easily done when you consider that 4 or 5 thousand tons of thorium could power the ENTIRE WORLD FOR A YEAR.
>>685038213 >Your statement can be applied to literally anything. That's right. Now stop being butthurt over solar power and try to notice what situation has the best worst outcome. >wind farm might crush a guy >solar farm might take light away from the grasses underneath the location >meltdown leading to centuries of area contamination and hundreds of deaths
The worst explosion you're going to get from renewable energy is electronic. If you've ever worked in a trade you'll know what a risk assessment is, try doing one of those for a nuclear reactor. Now do one for a bunch of giant fans.
>>685038296 >let's not talk about how these 'clean' reactors are actually thousands of times more dangerous than most US coal plants First off, I'd like to see your statistics for this, because you're wrong.
Secondly, you're talking about Light Water Reactors. As has been mentioned in this thread a thousand times, those are demonstrably obsolete and dangerous.
>>685038557 Highly recommend you read up on these as they're all really really interesting.
>Three mile island Happened due to an inability to accurately and sensibly transfer information. There was a maintenance problem, and no good way to figure out what the problem was, one problem led to many small problems and a few big ones, and the control centers at the time were not equipped to discern small alarms from big alarms, so the smaller problems were prioritized essentially, which led to it having to be shut down. It's more complicated than that but the short answer is no, it wouldn't happen because control rooms have been revamped to display more information and prioritize alarms, and maintenance errors happen far less frequency due to the indepth nature of procedures.
>chernobyl dumbass mistake, russian plant decided to turn off a reactor to see how long the turbine would spin if a shut down happened. Many other reactors were asked to perform the experiment and denied it for a reason. They then proceeded to turn on extra coolant valves (which they are never supposed to do) which caused the reactor's pressure to build higher. technically yes it could happen but it would only happen if many, many federal laws and regulations were broken, and would require almost 100+ people to agree in helping them be broken
>fukishima another dumbass mistake, built on/near a huge fault line and in a very typhoon heavy area. Knew they could have installed safeties before hand but didn't. Didn't put out a full response team because they were scared of panic. Could technically happen again but won't. Companies (including the one I'm working at) have spent billions to ensure it wouldn't happen to them since the accident.
All of these accidents occurred due to poor planning/execution in the 60-70s and have been almost 100% remedied since
>>685038917 According to the current law of physics, no IIRC. I'm not big into fusion, I know the push is for cold fusion but AFAIK perpetual motion is currently 100% impossible, which means net + energy definitely is as well.
>>685038941 Basically the same tech With half of the same safety procedures Plus not as well built facilities in the first place because cutting corners because USSR. >NO ONE DIFIRED IN THREE MILE ISLAND YOU CUNT Because tsunamis can hit mainland Japan and other countries, right? Because nuclear plants don't already have a fuck load of safety procedures and systems in place for most natural disasters (like a tornado is gonna cause a meltdown) by people who know what the fuck they're doing. >pretty sure you're not a nuclear physicist either >and I'm just repeating what my friend told me who wrote a whole damn college essay on this
>>685035727 Hay asshole. IF A NUCLEAR REACTOR GO'S CRITICAL AND THE FUEL MELTS DOWN IT **CAN NOT** REACH SUPERCRITICAL MASS AND CAUSE A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION. THE MATERIAL IS NOT RICH ENOUGH. The Fukoshema reactor buildings had a buildup of hydrogen gas due to down electrical systems and flooding causing an explosion. Same thing with Chernobyl, gas buildup and boom.
Pebble reactors (gen 3+) are technically impossible to release nuclear materials because the fuel is inside graphite pebbles like a M&M. Even if the pebbles weren't cooled and went critical and began melting the material is completely contained. Instead of making the reactors "melt down proof" it is best to use a fuel that is individually self contained.
>>685034848 I'm for nuclear, but solar is something that we should focus more heavily on. And I don't just mean more efficient panels. I mean fucking figuring out how to harness the full power of our fucking sun, and eventually others. I'm talking taking the steps that will eventually lead to Dyson Spheres. Solar is the fucking future.
All other forms of energy have caused more problems than nuclear. It's like how people are afraid to fly, but jump in their car without batting an eye, even though flying is statistically much, much less likely to lead to injury or death.
>>685039120 They stick to each other. Magnetomes are the elementary particle which have +1/2 stickiness in ferrous materials. Thermal and sexual excitation leads to the forming of doner magnetomions within PN semierectors thus increasing their stickiness. Hence a magnet is born.
>>685039486 >no human error Lol read up on Fukushima, there were massive oversights. It was build on a huge fault line, in a tidal zone, and the company knew it had to upgrade it's protection from these dangers but didn't. It had human error just like chernobyl, it just was on a corporate level instead.
>>685039302 You're ignoring your own premise. The laws of physics state that the worst explosion you'll get from renewable energy is electronic, just as the laws of physics state that the worst meltdown you'll get from a liquid salt breeder is nothing.
>>685040085 Did you not even read what I said? My friend did research for this for four WEEKS, and got an A on the paper. He knows ten times more about this shit than either of us, and if you were reading half of the other posts that replied to yours you'd know you've already been blown out of the water. Fuck you, fuck your bullshit, fuck your life, fuck your ideas, fuck your argument, fuck whatever institution educated your dumbass, fuck your ISP for allowing you to have an internet connection, fuck your job for allowing you to have money, fuck your parents for raising you, fuck your grandparents, fuck your great grandparents, fuck your whole bloodline, and have a nice day.
>>685035880 it is also among the most expensive to produce, maintain, and takes up far more space and time to create one coal plant day's worth of energy. Solar energy is useless until we figure out how to concentrate it more efficiently
>>685039921 >Hay asshole. IF A NUCLEAR REACTOR GO'S CRITICAL AND THE FUEL MELTS DOWN IT **CAN NOT** REACH SUPERCRITICAL MASS AND CAUSE A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION. THE MATERIAL IS NOT RICH ENOUGH. >The Fukoshema reactor buildings had a buildup of hydrogen gas due to down electrical systems and flooding causing an explosion. Same thing with Chernobyl, gas buildup and boom.
>Pebble reactors (gen 3+) are technically impossible to release nuclear materials because the fuel is inside graphite pebbles like a M&M. Even if the pebbles weren't cooled and went critical and began melting the material is completely contained. Instead of making the reactors "melt down proof" it is best to use a fuel that is individually self contained.
>>685039906 Or, we could, you know, just send it to the fucking sun in a rocket.
Or to Venus?
Why the fuck not
Why hasn't this been discussed?
The only thing I can think of is that it would cost a lot to get it off the ground, but once it leaves the atmosphere, if the trajectory is planned correctly, it would blaze through space with no extra propulsion.
Don't send it to Mars just in case we decide to go there one day
Just send all the nuclear waste to Venus or to the sun.
>>685034848 Nuclear energy is terrible. They dig radioactive material out of the ground, they use some of it, then they put the less radioactive leftovers back into the hole they dug it out of. That's terrible.
>>685040851 The reason we don't do that is because if something goes wrong with the rocket, (worst case scenario it explodes in the atmosphere) you have a large amount of radioactive waste floating to the ground over a large area.
There are three things that prevent it from being ideal. 1 It is more dangerous than other reactors to the surrounding areas. 2 no way to dispose of used fuel source, must be stored. There are no long term studies on the possible effects of this storage. 3 The pollution to the water coolant which is typically released through rivers and into other bodies of water. It is HEAT (<- thats the pollution) that can disrupt the local environment. Other than that it has many positive aspects that I completely support, but you only asked about cons
1. Nuclear's far cleaner than anything else we have out there.
2. RBMKs (Chernobyl) were a beyond shitty reactor design that no one else uses besides actual Russians now (everything in former soviet countries have been shut down) and even those have improvements.
3. Fukushima performed as expected and all the safety systems worked. It's expected that in an incident like that the batteries take over and can last 24 hours before emergency diesel generators kick in and theoretically can last as long as it takes to reconnect the plant to the grid. The tsunami wiped out the generators and as it just so happened, the rest of the grid in the immediate vicinity that could be used to power the coolant pumps after the batteries died.
4. Thorium is meme bullshit. We're much better off using high temperature gas reactors utilizing natural uranium and high temp helium as coolant.
BTW, my degree is in this bullshit and I work with reactors every day.
>>685040982 This. Physics graduate also, I couldn't be fucked with explaining magnets. Also explain what? Their effects? The causes of magnetism? Go into fucking gaussian shit, fuck that for a basket full of potatoes.
>>685040973 >just fuck the entire education and research system >just fuck literal mountains of data supporting nuclear energy as a safe and reliable energy resource if done correctly >just fuck facts Okay. You win. You're right. You just know better than literally all the scientists in the world and years of evidence and engineering. >invest in a noose
>>685040851 because you have no idea how expensive that would be or the potential of a rocket exploding in atmosphere and raining radioactive dust and debris around or just choose to talk out the side of your neck instead
>>685040851 because if the rocket fails or explodes your going to scatter radioactive material over a disturbingly large area.... you can't put heavy shielding on it like the usual concrete and steel containers because your trying to make it fucking fly... and if you sent it up in "safe" amounts the cost to do so would be so high you could just burn dollar bills in a steam boiler to make electricity instead of screwing around with nuclear power anyway... also most global nuclear powers would get really nervous about you putting nuclear material (even spent) on top of a guidable rocket... regardless of where you say your gonna send it....
>>685041217 When you argue with these retards, you have to take it to their level. They'll grab on to the slightest chance of failure and yell that it's not good enough, because the results would be catastrophic if it actually happened. You have to show them something that physically cannot melt down and then shove it in their faces until they realize their mistakes.
>>685041153 It's very risky. Most of the material we have isn't highly irradiated. It is improbable to launch thousands of tons of waste. The better solution is injecting it into our mantle absorbing it into the center of the earth.
>>685038959 >>685039398 do you idiots know where the fuck thorium is found? do you know how long you have to enrich it before it turns to fissile U-233? how much energy that action in itself takes? how big do you think these centrifuges are bro? its not easy to get let me tell you man or find. did you know Afghanistan is the only place in the world with thorium on the surface aswell as lanthanum, cerium and neodymium? thats another story sorry lol. but yeah guys no joke the sun is our only hope, and somehow harvesting lightning bolts :P
>>685034848 >radioactive hydrogen poisoning the planet >legal "leaks" and run-off >cancer trails around waterways by sites you're delusional, or a shill. Either way, you're evil and what's wrong with the world.
>>685042273 I am >>685038310 I have seen them with my eyes. They are just a few flights of stairs underground, and have operations going on around them often, including people who physically dive into the pools when necessary. It's not like they're buried and away from all of civilization
>>685042888 Maybe after they're removed from the pool they eventually go far away but the point I'm making is they aren't going to kill you from 3 feet away, unless you're in a fucking operating reactor 3 feet away. It won't kill you 3 feet away in the water and it won't kill you after their cool down period when they're out of the water.
are you referring to the fusion reactor that will not produce any power whatsoever? the fusion reactor that is scheduled to run for like 100 seconds and then cool down for a few hours? as opposed to what we have now that runs for two years and has to be refuelled for 5 or 6 weeks.
the fusion reactor is nothing and anybody who endorses it proves that they know nothing about which they speak
i just want to make a point for all you uneducated fucks that think you know anything about nuclear power. when a reactor is critical it means that it is creating power at a constant rate. super critical means power is rising. subcritical means power is lowering. reactors are critical and supercritical every single day. you watched a movie somewhere created by someone just as retarded as you got the wrong information.
>>685044133 The hope is that it will lead to breakthroughs that will allow us to build reactors that DO produce power. As of now, fission is the only viable power source. Fusion is the hope for the future.
>>685044055 They are at my reactor, just talked to my roommate who interned at a different one and they aren't at his. And regardless of this, it has nothing to do with the argument that was originally being made, they could be buried miles below the surface, doesn't change the fact that getting within 3 feet of them in the pool or after they've cooled down won't kill you.
1. As has been stated salt mediums are corrosive and there's only one current alloy that's been known the withstand molten salt corrosion (and only then in small amounts): Hastalloy. To build an entire reactor out of that requires a lot of metallurgy work that still needs to be done. And even taking that into consideration, I don't think it's even been made since the 60s. Also, look into all the problems the Russians had with molten salt reactors; they are abundant.
2. Yes, thorium exists in much higher concentrations, however, it's rather diffuse in the earth's crust. Uranium, on the other hand, is rather concentrated in several spots. Additionally, thorium mining and refinement is a relative cottage industry compared to that of uranium.
3. We can actually get much higher utilization of uranium fuel by fission U-238 (the by far more abundant isotope of uranium) on the fast neutron spectrum. U-238 exists in droves and in amounts that we would never really need another fuel. It's essentially a limitless fuel supply. This doesn't even take into account the useful fuel we can get from recycling techniques pioneered by the French.
4. Neutron/fuel interaction data is very well established when it comes to uranium fission, not so much for thorium. So there still requires a lot more research in the actual neutronics in thorium fuel before it's truly useful.
TL;DR the science and industry revolving around uranium is already well established and can provide just as much benefit as creating a thorium industry (which would require non recurring engineering cost, both monetarily and research wise). If somethings not broke, why try to fix it?
>>685042057 Thorium reactors are mostly snake oil. The most safest designs are pebble reactors, zero leakage, can't meltdown.
The ultimate solution is starting a powerful xray or microwave energy release to kick start fusion of deuterium and tritium (hydrogen isotopes H2 & H3) nuclei together forming helium and radical neutrons releasing energy and kicking other radical hydrogen ions together.
Fusion is the future and will still release radiation. The issues with fission is you can make bomb out of the fuel. With fusion you can not.
>>685042148 >do you know how long you have to enrich it before it turns to fissile U-233 Irrelevant once there's a supply line. >how much energy that action takes Easily compensated by the payout. >not easy to get It's literally everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occurrence_of_thorium
ITT: people who didn't pay attention in high school chemistry don't understand that nuclear plants use a controlled fission reaction to heat water into steam to drive turbines, rather than burning coal or disrupting the flow of rivers.
>>685044385 because a mild fuckup at a solar plant isn't gonna increase cancer rates over an area visable from space...
also you don't think solar plants have their own wierd problems? talk to pilots... ask them how much they like flying around those large mirror fields... also you should see what happens when a bird fucks up and flies in front of a solar collector..... fried chicken quick.
sure you say you have a design that won't melt down. but what about say some kind of steam explosion that scatters radioactive dust into the airstream?
you do apply it to every project, but some projects are inherently more risky than others and warrant a healthier level of caution.
>>685041735 With pebble reactors and gen 4 reactors it is impossible for fuel release. They can't argue against that. It simply can't go critical even if some jackass grabs the fuel out the reactor it still is safe unless he gets a plasma or water cutter and cracks open the pebbles.
>>685044933 It doesn't necessarily get buried when put in spent fuel pool is what I'm saying though. It does eventually, but the pools themselves are not always buried, which is what I said in that post.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.