/nuclear/

Nuclear is too dangerous to be used.

inb4 next Chernobyl

>>57940966
you mean fission?

>>57940973
>>57940966
The reactor pictured cannot blow up, no chance of hydrogen explosion.

>>57940933
But why does my electricity bill keeps growing every 6 months?
t. russian

>>57940995
That's what they said about Chernobyl and Fukushima as well and look what happened.

Wind, solar or even coal never caused any deaths.

>>57941015
Because shit economy and the fact that the BN-1200 hasn't been built yet

>>57941028
Except Chernobyl and Fukushima were water cooled, a hydrogen explosion in a sodium fast reactor is physically impossible

And if you're saying coal never caused any deaths you are retarded.

>>57941015
Because the electrical engineers need more money for vodka and fucking your mother.

>>57941058
what about meltdown?

>>57941058
Go read a book, why do you think nuclear weapons are so dangerous? They're basically what's powering these power plants.

Do you really want to live next to a live nuclear bomb just so you can pay $50 less in electricity bills per year?

>>57941058
Not to mention Chernobyl had a graphite moderator. Shit burned for days.

>>57941071
Meltdown is extremely difficult due to the fact that sodium will not boil, and has massive thermal inertia, acting as a heatsink. A water-cooled reactor achieves meltdown resistance using active measures, on the other hand.

>>57941076
>nuclear reactor=bomb
Did you fail high school physics?
>Do you really want to live next to a nuclear reactor?
I already do

I live within 10 miles of 2 nuke plants I used to work for them once a year good money but they don't do it anymore they get the management to do it as "team building" it was good money anyway if the fearmongering would stop and we disn't have to use 1950s tech I don't think anyone could complain about nuclear power

>>57941028
None at all, ever? Hmm.

>>57941100
>I already do
Where? I do too.

>>57941185
Toronto, we're near the Pickering NPP

>>57941192
Ah.

Is it fusion or fission?

>>57941076
>Go read a book, why do you think nuclear weapons are so dangerous? They're basically what's powering these power plants.
>i don't understand nuclear power

>>57941028
There were some people who died on a wind turbine that caught fire.
Many hundreds of miners have died either in coal mines or from the effects of mining coal.
People die due to the sun frequently. It gives people cancer.

>>57941214
Or the pollution generated in china to make those panels.
Production of panels is very anti-green.

>>57941076
>Go read a book, why do you think nuclear weapons are so dangerous? They're basically what's powering these power plants.
Maybe you should try reading some non-fiction literature.

>>57941016
>they use windows

>>57941028
>Wind
Dangerous to upkeep due to heights and machinery involved.
>Solar
Dozens of people a year die falling from roofs while installing solar panels.
>Coal
Hundreds, if not thousands, die due to radioactivity, fly ash, mining, and contamination of groundwater due to the burning, mining, and disposal of coal waste.

>>57940933
>russia in charge of a new nuclear plant
Where is this located so I know if I have to move further away

>>57941028
>Wind, solar or even coal never caused any deaths.
The number of people who have died from falling off roofs while working on solar panels exceeds the deaths caused by all nuclear power plant meltdowns ever

>>57941354
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beloyarsk_Nuclear_Power_Station

Though it's not like they don't have a dozen other plants.

>>57941028
>Chernobyl
"Hey comrade, let's see what happens if we disengage all the safeties and push the reactor to the limit."

>Fukushima
"Hey senpai, let's see what happens if we build a nuclear plant in a place where earthquakes and tsunamis are a threat"

>>57941445
the location was chosen by General Electric.

>>57941445
>"Hey senpai, let's see what happens if we build a nuclear plant in a place where earthquakes and tsunamis are a threat without a proper seawall"
ftfy

File: img.jpg (96KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 900x500px

>>57941016

>not a thorium molten salt reactor

>>57941513
we're getting there, slowly

>>57941467
>"Hey senpai, let's see what happens if we build a nuclear plant in a place where earthquakes and tsunamis are a threat without a proper seawall or fuel storage or generator placement." Oh also if it goes tits up you're on your own because anything else would be most shamefru and dishonoabru -t. TEPCO
ftfy

>>57941445
More like "Hey comrade lets slap together a reactor without containment, without a way to stop it unfucking itself if steam voids form and without proper control rods and without all the needed instruments to safely run a reactor (ad infinitum).

Now let's pull out most of the control rods and lower its power :DDD

File: 16085724.png (180KB, 485x635px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 485x635px

>>57940933
How is it going to destroy nuclear waste?

>>57941467
Add to the fact that it was like 40 years old, too.

And that Chernobyl should not have been run on unresponsive auxiliary backups to run pumps while they fully powered down lol. That was a bit dumb.

>>57941534
E=mc^2

>>57941486
kek

>>57941534
Burns it.

It turns U238 into Pu and burns it.

>>57941445
>"Hey comrade, let's see what happens if we disengage all the safeties and push the reactor to the limit."
Not quite, the real problem was that they had two operators in separate buildings who separately controlled the water flow and the control rods and because they couldn't communicate directly with each other they ended up working against each other to put the reactor into an increasingly unstable state.
What the accident revealed was a flaw in the management design of the reactors.

For Fukushima it was inadequate tsunami protection and poor cooling designs mostly. As people have pointed out there is another Nuclear plant much closer to the epicenter of the earthquake which had tsunami walls at least twice the height of those at Fukushima and the reactors suffered no damage, and the plant was used as a refuge for nearby residents.

>>57940933
ATTENTION ALL NUCLEAR ENGINEERS: We, the people of /g/, prefer renewable, clean energy. Look at that ugly mess in that photo. It's utterly pathetic. If you think fusion is great and non-intrusive, then you obviously espoused the lies from whatever entity produces such diplomas.

>>57941618
>Look at that ugly mess in that photo.
Looks beautiful to me.

>>57941606
>Not quite, the real problem was that they had two operators in separate buildings who separately controlled the water flow and the control rods and because they couldn't communicate directly with each other
That's even dumber than the meme description I gave

>>57941618
>prefer renewable, clean energy
Nuclear is clean as it get you dumb cunt

File: 1478834581245.gif (1MB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 785x757px

>>57941618
hydro energy damages nature ten times more than nuclear.
you literally cant power the earth using only solar, wind, and other memes like geysers and tides. the batteries required for those simply dont exist, and if they ever will then they would be much more toxic than nuclear

>>57941076
>go read a book
what book?

>>57941691
I recommend The Crossing by Cormac McCarthy. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons and the setting predates the discovery of the neutron, but it's a great book for winter evenings.

File: china-water-pollution-jiangsu-plant.jpg (85KB, 584x437px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 584x437px

>>57941618
your bait is too obvious

>>57941618
ATTENTION ANON: You do not represent all of /g/, you only represent yourself.

File: fire.png (116KB, 400x280px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 400x280px

>>57941028
>Wind, solar or even coal never caused any deaths.

>>57941691
The Holy Quaran

>>57941910
>hugging
fuck that's a sad way to die

>>57941997
the 1st jump, the other burn

>>57941683
>hydro energy damages nature ten times more than nuclear
An actual lie, unless you count humans doing something that can occur naturally as "damaging nature".

we need aneutronic fusion reactors, that's what we need.

>>57941997
Yeah, they should have started blowing each other.

>>57941016
inb4 stuxnet.4

>>57942127
>something that can occur naturally
Yeah, mountains are always falling in front of rivers creation million gallon reservoirs in the middle of nowhere.

>>57942154
oooh yeah/ here- heres a zero point module instead

>>57940966
>The energy method that literally kills the least amount of people out of them all
>TOO DANGEROUS
I want this meme to fucking stop

>>57941683
The batteries do exist for the most part. Coal, oil and gas tech companies just loath them and often buy out institutions doing the research only to shut down the projects. Lithium took off because the mining industry carries the same sort of weight and is often co owned by these same companies.

The cool new tech in batteries is TiO, third the price of Liqueur, half the weight, 40% more charge and 20 year life span. It's thus far gotten the backing of Elon musk.

Nuclear is still king though, for making a pure electrical society.

>>57942127
sorry, i shouldn't have used "ten times", i should have used "infinite times" because nuclear energy with today's technology does ZERO damage to nature while hydro destroys entire areas and disrupts the yeary cycle of river volume.

>>57942333
Actually happens fairly frequently (when large earthquakes occur).

excuse me you are violating the rules
how dare you post content that is not consumer electronics and/or consumer electronics accessories

>>57941192
So that's why I'm retarded

>>57941028
nuclear energy is like mass shootings
everyone's scared of it but the likelyhood of a nuclear disaster or mass shooting killing you is ridiculously low

File: 1479260270240.png (98KB, 179x214px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 179x214px

>>57941618
Into the trash it goes
>>57941486
Even better

>>57941028
weren't those old breeder reactors anyways?

>>57940966
Like kirk sorensen said, "Which one?".

>>57941606

That and the fact that the tests they were supposed to be conducting was supposed to be done by the morning shift, but ended up going past the afternoon shift and getting tossed onto the night shift. The people running the tests had no idea what the fuck there were supposed to be doing to begin with.

File: 1481304353497.gif (564KB, 800x430px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 800x430px

>>57942935
>t. non-American

>>57943059
what did he mean by this?

File: IMG_9515.jpg (53KB, 500x456px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x456px

>>57940966
Why can't we just have a nice thread every once in a while

>>57941028
>coal never caused any deaths.
A school was buried in an avalanche of coal not too far from me. 80 or so children died. But if you want to keep spouting shit, go ahead. Not like anyone ever died in the mines either or anything.

File: EkYYLRh.png (48KB, 1789x1105px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1789x1105px

>>57940966
>>57941028

>>57941028
>>Wind, solar or even coal never caused any deaths.
Oh wow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

Here's a spoiler:
Coal: Deaths per trillion kWh: 100,000
Nuclear (US): deaths per trillion kWh: 0.01

>>57943467
>Wikipedia
>Credible source
I bet you just edited those before posting.

>>57946151
>I'm 18 years old and still haven't figured out that wikipedia points have to have a source

>>57941534
Landfills somewhere in Siberia.

A master trole is in this thread.

File: 1481171325853.png (264KB, 564x797px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 564x797px

>>57940933
The problem is all preexisting plants, they should be updated, but that would cost far too much as of now.

I would like to see more solar panels for homes and businesses now while we perfect these greater energy generation technologies.

Decentralized energy production is great when coupled with large scale power production facilities.

>>57941028
>That's what they said about Chernobyl and Fukushima as well

Nobody said that about Chernobyl and Fukushima which is why they had lots of security in place to avoid just that. This case is different.

File: ab389484a3ed5ff45269a80526b16a65f5593874.jpg (691KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1920x1080px

>>57940966
the world eventually gonna use it anyway, stop delaying the inevitable. Idiot.

>>57948603
Using the materials in a safe manner is the issue.

Not who you responded to.

>>57940933
>Also, end of solar and wind subsidies when?

The same time the oil companies lose their subsidies.

>>57941028
>Wind, solar or even coal never caused any deaths.
They've never produced enough energy to power a modern city either.

>>57949597
The difference being, fossil fuels can reliably power a modern economy while renewables cannot. Let me know when you can command the wind and sun.

>>57947844
That's a really abstract way to picture electricity. But then again I'm just an EE dropout, what do I know

>>57949805
I agree. And it gives the impression that electricity is magic.

>>57941028
>Wind, solar or even coal never caused any deaths.
Oh ho ho

>>57940966

As a mechanical engineer in the energy sector:

Fuck off and drink a gallon of bleach.

>>57940933
the only reactor that cant blow up is every single one that is based on salts..anything else is just a disaster waiting to happen

>>57951327
Everything else isn't a disaster waiting to happen. Unless you're a slav using old RBMKs or you're run by the Yakuza, it's perfectly safe.

>>57951361
i can name like a billion things that can go fucking wrong even on the most secure nuclear reactor...
i still dont understand why they dont push for thorium reactors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

>>57951417
well he practicly stated the reason as to why salt reactors wont really get be casual..

"thorium is simply too common" and that for a company is bad..

>>57940933
Fake and gay

>In 2015, after several minor delays, problems at the recently completed BN-800 indicated a redesign was needed. Construction of the BN-1200 was put on "indefinite hold",[1] and Rosenergoatom has stated that no decision to continue will be made before 2019.[2]

>>57951504
so thats why the water-powered motors will never take off.

>>57951703
Bn-1200 is a Gen IV reactor anyway, it's not expected to be online before 2030.

France STRONK

>>57951830
If you didn't realize by now that Jewish interests are keeping many feels stagnant, there's no hope for you.

File: 1481242229291.jpg (111KB, 1280x704px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1280x704px

>>57940966
t. 156th in line Saudi prince.

>>57951830

>water powered motors

The Jews may be suppressing many things, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not one of them.

>>57940995
shame
Chernobyl turned into a beautiful paradise for wildlife and nature

>>57941714

but he still got his (you)'s

>>57940966

You mean fission power in which case that's arguably true. Fusion power, if workable, would be the energy source of the future.

>>57952548

Jew here, you don't know. You don't know, goy. Jews are the cause of entropy in the Universe.

LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTOR

>>57940966
>>57941076
Bullshit. Modern nuclear energy is totally safe - but generally it's not. My country has this cocked attitude that nuclear is bad so new plants are forbidden... but we need the energy so we keep a bunch of plants built decades ago online.

The biggest (longterm) problem with nuclear is actully uranium, not safety. Uranium is a finite resource, like oil, not a renewable resource like wind. Many countries are already out.

>>57941028
>>57941182
>>57941214
Some cities, specially in asia, have a Air Quality Index between 200 and 300 the entire winter due to coal. They could use filter or burn it differently but they don't. Exact figures are anyone's guess (specially from China) but it's safe to say that a lot more people die from coal than smoking. AQI above 200 is like smoking continuously.

>>57941071
>>57941100
Yes, there is a real risk of SJWs and feminists and leftists getting meltdownx when they hear the words "nuclear energy".

>>57941360
I'm not sure thst many are falling off roofs these days. I've seen people work on roofs. They use safety-wires and take all kinds of measues even if it's a one story house.

>>57941214
>People die due to the sun frequently.

Severe weather is powered by the sun directly or indirectly.

File: wendelstein7x.jpg (124KB, 810x540px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 810x540px

>>57940933
meanwhile, in germany the future is upon us already

File: 1454785286481.jpg (36KB, 640x660px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x660px

>>57940966

>>57940933
Ah, the Russian agenda to promote this shit.

>>57940933
>In 2015, after several minor delays, problems at the recently completed BN-800 indicated a redesign was needed. Construction of the BN-1200 was put on "indefinite hold",[1] and Rosenergoatom has stated that no decision to continue will be made before 2019.[2]

File: -1x-1.png (54KB, 1200x597px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1200x597px

>nuclear
>cheap
I want to believe

>>57943412
>I'll take "charts that are completely useless without labels" for 500, Alex.

>>57953224
>Chernobyl turned into a beautiful paradise for wildlife and nature

True.

It might even have saved the highly endangered Przewalski horses from going extinct.
They released a population in the area and it's doing quite well.

>>57943467
>Coal (global) vs. Nuclear (US).

>not comparing Coal (China) vs Nuclear (US).

I'm disappointed in you, anon.

>>57941445
>"Hey senpai, let's see what happens if we build a nuclear plant in a place where earthquakes and tsunamis are a threat"

This actually wasn't the problem at all. Just read about this reactor, it was in the same general earthquake/tsunami zone as Fukushimi but had absolutely zero issues. It ended up saving lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

The problem with Fukushimi was that it was the oldest and least upgraded facility, and also put the backup generators on wooden stilts that got washed out by the tsunami, killing the generators.

>>57941360
that's not the consequence of solar energy though
that's the consequence of retards not taking proper precautions when working on roofs

The United States will be the leader in solar energy. Thank you, Elon.

>>57955321
That shouldn't matter.

What does matter is when one of the failing nuclear reactors in Belgium blows up it's my problem.

But then Igor falls off my roof it's Igor's wife Svetlana's problem.

>>57955395
Nah, US will never catch up again.

>>57954305
> Just 20 more years guys. No really!

>>57940933
Japan has proved that nuclear is not safe.

Are there any qualified NROs here?
I'm wondering what work is like normally, and how difficult it was to find a job.

>>57940966
This is b8.

>>57941028
Except no, you troll.
People where screaming about Chernobyl and Fukushima before they fucked up. Everyone knew they should have been decommissioned

>>57955541
Nice meme

>>57954164
Uranium from seawater is inexhaustible, and the tech to extract it exists already.

And then there's Thorium.

>>57956688
Chernobyl should never have even been built, there was a policy paper/whatever the Soviet equivalent is that begged the Soviet government not to build it because it was a disaster waiting to happen. Fukushima on the other hand was built just fine, but the stupid nips in charge put their backup generators in the fucking basement despite the fact that it was in a tsunami zone and then built a seawall that wasn't tall enough. Both were failures of management, full stop.

>>57941171
>I live within 10 miles of 2 nuke plants
And you acquired the superpower of being unable to use punctuation.

>>57941030
While some greenfags are complaining about nuclear, anyone here a radiologist/in nuclear medicine?

Looking towards doing work in that area

going nuclear is the only option, unless you want to go back to the middle ages.

So is the worlds energy problem solved then? Absolutely no risk or downside to this? I dont believe it

>>57955195
How can it? Dont animals get radiation poisoning

>>57959516
This is really true. Anyone who argues that it's unclean and more dangerous than other forms of energy needs to go read a book. Even my liberal as fuck Earth Science professors were all for Nuclear

>>57959558
Of course there are downsides, but if we moved our coal efforts towards reactor construction in those coal dependent places, we'd be pretty well off in my opinion. A newly constructed reactor has an extremely low chance of failure, but people were against even maintenance costs in some places for older plants.
Some countries are using technology from the 60's and 70's, thus problems obviously arise.
Unfortunately, the cost to bring all these plants up to date is staggering, and the only real world superpower is in no position to go about shelling out more money until they can fix their deficit issues.

>>57959558
Risk is always there, but it's very minimal risk of anything catastrophic like 3mile or Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi.

The only real downside is storing the nuclear waste, but it's VERY much reduced in these new reactor designs, hell this particular reactor design (BN-1200) creates it's own fuel in the reaction process.

>>57959647
Im confused. Does it destroy nuclear waste or not?

>>57959600
They do but their lives are so brutal and short by default that it doesn't really matter.
And they've adapted to the higher background levels of radiation.
It's not enough radiation to do anything but weak chronic radiation poisoning- radiation is much less dangerous than people think it is.

>>57941618
>nuclear is clean
>produces nuclear waste that will literally never go away and can poison the earth forever

>>57959760
>do you mean mercury in the groundwater and air coalfag?

>>57940933
>Also, end of solar and wind subsidies when?
Why? There is no reason to, if they can implement same capacity with solar and wind let them. I don't mind nuclear but solar and wind is just energy that is there with negligible side effects, why not give them a slight boost?

>>57959890
do you think solar panels grow on trees? you do not have clean energy to manufacture them, it's the same dillema with electric cars, you're just shifting the pollution elsewhere, and in the case of the renewables your creating even more pollution because those technologies, like photovoltaics are very dirty and lots of power in the manufacturing process.

File: 1477362819979.gif (3MB, 460x337px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 460x337px

>>57959760
Coal mining and burning has spewed orders of magnitude more poison that nuclear has.

>>57959830
>>57959952
So what? Better to kill a few thousand people than to destroy the earth and make it uninhabitable in perpetuity

>>57959933
I completely understand what you mean and I agree with electric cars because of batteries

But solar panels are either silicon or just mirrors. I don't see how these are worse. Also that's a nice circular reasoning you got there with energy used in producing these. And one more thing, once produced these things do last.

Still, your argument does not explain why there shouldn't be subsidies for them.

>>57959978
So you're pro nuclear then. Nuclear waste is a regional problem, overwhelmingly.
However, coal mining and burning is producing large amounts of greenhouse gases that ARE destroying the earth and making it uninhabitable.

>>57959760
>Literally all of the history of nuclear waste can fit in a single football field AND it can be re-used in future reactors with longer life spans which are more efficient AND once it's absolutely useless it will become "stable" and likely be used in some other application.

Hey though why don't we just keep setting things on fire to boil water, who even needs air?
If we get rid of cars (The least impactful carbon source) because people are derp-level retarded, it'll be the coal and alt-energy peoples faults.

>>57959994

>global warming meme

co2 isn't bad for the planet, and given enough time it will go away in photosynthesis. The only shame about burning coal is that it too is a fossil fuel

>>57959988
>But solar panels are either silicon or just mirrors.
You have a distinct lack of understanding in how solar panels are made.

>>57941076
>>57941028


This guy is the fucking king op bait

>>57959978
>Uninhabitable
You can happily and healthily live out your entire life within the confines of the modern day Chernobyl exclusion zone.

It shares as much harm as any other chemical poison would.
I presume leaded gasoline has flown under your radar.

>>57960011
Enlighten me. Please also help me understand how they're worse than strip coal-uranium mines.

File: 1478930519347.jpg (82KB, 773x579px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 773x579px

>>57960008
In the mean time humans will develop science and technology which will help us maintain a livable and comfortable habitat on Earth and in space as micro-habitats flourish and new species come out, not to mention there will be a surge in plant life.

>>57960031
>You can happily and healthily live out your entire life within the confines of the modern day Chernobyl exclusion zone.

Okay how? Everyone says that if you stay too long you get sick and will die early

>>57960036
Well they're about the same as strip mines, because solar panels rely on rare earth metals to allow the photonic energy transitions to produce voltages. IE they have to mine rare metals out of the ground to make them. In those big-ass strip mines.

>>57941015
because we are paying for gas in turkey and electricity in iran and pakistan
they build reactors and electric lines there for our money

>>57960008
>given enough time it will go away in photosynthesis.
If photosynthesis was adaptive enough to solve the problem, there wouldn't be a problem.
You see, if the photosynthesis rate was fast enough to counter the CO2 rise, the CO2 would not have risen. CO2 is rising much, much more sharply than photosynthesis can manage, evident by the CO2 going up.
Fossil fuels are the remains of MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years of photosynthesis, and it's being burned in tens of years.

>>57941166
wow those temperatures are tiny

>>57960036
Because they are made from strip mining of other materials which are more expensive to refine. Panels are more expensive to design, build and maintain. They make far less power vs surface area covered and cannot give consistent power in most areas of the world.

>Oh but anon they can get power even when clouds are around
Yeah at a reduced rate and too much cloud = basically as good as nothing

>Oh but anon you charge your house batteries
Oh good, can't wait for those Li-ions to expand and melt my garage, not to mention when they inevitably reduce their charge after a few years. Thousands of dollars well spent!

>>57960082
>Given time
It's likely that in a few decades plants will have adapted to absorb more of the available food source, temperature, moisture and sunshine.
Especially considering human intervention will likely lower the rate of CO2 emissions. We might also start breeding plants that are CO2 starved.

>>57942745
Probably not zero though family to be honest.

Mining and processing uranium, and making water resivoirs damages the environment. This isnt a race to be the most retarded.

Remember the fuss about how russia backed out from recycling agreement with US?
this is the reason, US wasted several billions on building factory for it and still didn't
russia built one for 200 mil for this reactor

>>57960050

Because that sells tickets to "sneak in" as well as sells the idea of "Nuclear scary, keep using coal and oil while we peddle weak 'replacements' such as solar/air/tidal :^)"

There are people who never left the area to begin with and lived there the entire time. In fact, people went back to work at the plant after it happened since only 1 reactor died and the others kept running.
When people try to say that Chernobyl is some kind of example of nuclear at its worst, it's more so that Russia had a consistent history of mishandling nuclear material with wanton abandon. Secret cities were erected for the sake of refining and experimenting with nuclear materials that were often dumped into major rivers and handled without protective gear. They're the perfect example of what not to do at every point but they are not an example of how a reactor can go wrong anywhere but there and anytime but then.

>>57960063
Which rare earth materials are used in bulk in the solar panels? Silicon or small quantities of boron or lithium? I'm genuinely curious. Because silicon is easy to get and acceptably easy to purify.

>>57960088
Which minerals really? Also if they can design and maintain profitably with small subsidies I'm fine with it, because they're pretty low risk renewable alternatives. Emptiness in Arizona is wasted anyway.

I already acknowledged their shortcomings and I'm not claiming things should be 100% renewable (I hate Li batteries) but I don't think there's a single reason for not subsidizing them.

>>57960140
Mining using electrical vehicles charged by nuclear plants would reduce most of the pollution that everyone is concerned about. Mining operations will become cleaner and at some point not required for large amounts of times as power plants use and reuse material that goes from one generation reactor to another. At some point we will grab materials from out solar system and then we will truly be a sustainable race for a long term period.

>>57960176

I dont believe you. It sounds too alternative media to me

>>57960250
>alternative media
You're on an alternative media website, dickwad

>>57960179
>Which minerals really?
Solar cells are comprised of things, some of them being
- Copper indium gallium selenide
- Cadmium telluride
- Amorphous silicon
- Crystalline silicon
and others. They generally have a lifespan of 30 years with good care and will output a fair amount of power in certain circumstances.

>if they can design and maintain profitably with small subsidies I'm fine with it
Design only goes so far, even with sun tracking refractive designs the costs of maintenance cause the payback time to increase almost outside of the panel life span. They're good for passive power for, say, heating or cooling systems in certain areas of the planet.

>Emptiness in Arizona is wasted anyway.
The cost of transporting that power reliably far enough to places which it'll make a difference is prohibitive, as well as station upkeep will be expensive and the space required is ~70 times that of a nuclear plant that puts out the same power.

>I already acknowledged their shortcomings and I'm not claiming things should be 100% renewable (I hate Li batteries) but I don't think there's a single reason for not subsidizing them.

I know, it's just that you have an option to subsidize a better source (nuclear) which has far less draw backs and has a very long and proven life space (France has been nuclear since the 70's).

File: Punished Hey Zeus.jpg (150KB, 426x607px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 426x607px

>>57940933
STANDING ON THE EDGE

>>57941182

That chart is sure to trigger greenies...

> Wind is less safe than nuclear

>>57960250
So Reactor 4 melted down, but 1, 2 and 3 continued to produce power for another 20-30 years if memory serves, being shut down in... 2000? Or 2001? Something like that. Google it, I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK
The RBMK reactor design was awful, so many fault points.

The best design against peoples "Nuclear = bomb" fear mongering is the Integral Fast Reactor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

>>57960356
>- Copper indium gallium selenide
>- Cadmium telluride
>- Amorphous silicon
>- Crystalline silicon
These are not rare, they're already there for semiconductor processing anyway. Also isn't like 90% of the solar cell silicon? Silicon isn't hard to find and let the 10% be the dirtiest material to mine, it's still okay.

>Design only goes so far, even with sun tracking refractive designs the costs of maintenance cause the payback time to increase almost outside of the panel life span. They're good for passive power for, say, heating or cooling systems in certain areas of the planet.
If they can make a profit with a renewable energy source with small subsidies it's not a big deal.

>The cost of transporting that power reliably far enough to places which it'll make a difference is prohibitive, as well as station upkeep will be expensive and the space required is ~70 times that of a nuclear plant that puts out the same power.
Fine, just use them in Arizona and places that are suitable. Still you're using wasted space if people are willing to put a solar station there for profit.

>I know, it's just that you have an option to subsidize a better source (nuclear) which has far less draw backs and has a very long and proven life space (France has been nuclear since the 70's).
But there's no reason to subsidize nuclear. Only downsides of renewables affect the company operating them (maybe making them less profitable) while downsides of nuclear affect the whole country and its relations with other countries. Why would anyone subsidize this?

Anyway, conclusion I want to reach is, there are reasons for subsidies to renewable energy sources (no downsides and other stuff that has been discussed) but there are only a few reasons to subsidize nuclear (research value, potential, but liability for the whole country). So I don't understand why the original poster added the final sentence, it just doesn't make any sense at all or I'm missing something blindingly obvious.

>>57941015
Other way around. Your electricity bill keeps growing, so the government is building more cheap electric powerplants to make electricity cheaper.

You'll not see the full gains for years yet. But if the government is to do a good job, then they have to do it right. And that takes time.

We only get the first Thorium reactor fully online in 2017 and those can use old the old waste from the older types of reactors as part of their fuel.

The future is bright, even though I know that you, being Russian is against optimism on principle.

>>57942213
Stuxnetting that would mean that the Russians would retaliate.

Last time your guys got drunk, they ran shutdown /s /t 001 on Estonia.
(That's what they get for using Windows.)

I don't really want to see that shitshow, and neither does the US.

>>57960452
>These are not rare, they're already there for semiconductor processing anyway. Also isn't like 90% of the solar cell silicon? Silicon isn't hard to find and let the 10% be the dirtiest material to mine, it's still okay.

Those are just some things they're made of, I know they're fairly common. I'm not looking into materials but you can.

>If they can make a profit with a renewable energy source with small subsidies it's not a big deal.

You sure seem keen on subsidies without realizing that it's a big deal because it's the tax payers money at stake, not their own. They likely won't make a profit over time but that doesn't matter, it doesn't work in most places of the world. Not just because of sun availability but also maintenance workers and available materials.

>Fine, just use them in Arizona and places that are suitable. Still you're using wasted space if people are willing to put a solar station there for profit.

Why build something you don't need to when you could get more for less in a space that's not literally middle of nowhere?

>But there's no reason to subsidize nuclear. Only downsides of renewables affect the company operating them (maybe making them less profitable) while downsides of nuclear affect the whole country and its relations with other countries. Why would anyone subsidize this?

Because it's effective and expansive for future energy needs.

>Anyway, conclusion I want to reach is, there are reasons for subsidies to renewable energy sources (no downsides and other stuff that has been discussed) but there are only a few reasons to subsidize nuclear (research value, potential, but liability for the whole country). So I don't understand why the original poster added the final sentence, it just doesn't make any sense at all or I'm missing something blindingly obvious.

There's no liability in nuclear if oversight is managed well, not to mention it's proven to work. France has been nuclear for ~40 years without issue.

>>57955541
Yeah, if you build the plant next to the ocean where you know there is a plate boundary off shore, don't erect adequate tsunami protection and install critical electrical and cooling equipment in the bottom floors so that if there is flooding it will damage them.

>>57959760
>>57959978
Radioactive elements have been on this planet since its formation and we are still here.

>>57941076
you luddite motherfucker, average rate in my country is 0.13$/kWh

>>57960008
>co2 isn't bad for the planet, and given enough time it will go away in photosynthesis
Plants (and lifeforms) that absorb CO2 do it at a constant rate and an abundance of CO2 doesn't (in all of them) result in any increase in reproduction or growth they would cause an increase in total CO2 absorption.

The problem is that we have massively increased the production of CO2 and we haven't actively tried to increase CO2 absorption (by planting and other means) at similar rates.

While I am skeptic on many of the claims by climate scientists, some who sound like they should be well respected suggest human extinction in 10 years which is beyond bullshit, it is pretty certain we are in for a worse ride over the next few decades than we had in the past few decades.

>>57941016
>2016
>windows xp

>>57954164

Australia is sitting on most of the uranium but their government is too cucked to mine and sell it in any significant quantities.

>>57962231
Or use it.

>>57962216
It just works, okay?

This board can literally not get any more cancerous, can it?