Thoughts on nuclear power

I am so for nuclear power. I feel like the majority of the population doesn't understand what it is. Even after trying to explain it to my family they still are skeptical. There is no need to. You will get more radiation from the sun than you will get from a nuclear power plant. Unless you're a complete idiot and go touch the uranium.

Overall, it's just widely misunderstood because everybody has this mentality that anything with "nuclear" is bad.

It's always getting safer.
People don't seem to be aware of the potential of Nuclear Power, and how even more amazing it could be if we kept up with applied research and design.
Design especially.
It's sad to see we're forced to use less modern designs because tax payers have been lead to believe that 80's and 90's tech is the pinnacle of Nuclear Power safety.

OP here, it's also sad since my friend is in stem.

>>7695752
I won a debate in grade 6 opposing nuclear power, so I can confidently say I'm qualified to discuss this topic.

Nuclear energy is bad.

>>7695865
Not only that but scared because they hear things like chenyobly and fukashima being the most recent

>4th and 4.5 Gen fission reactors now
>Thorium salt reactors online in 15 years or less
>Fusion online ASAP

Nuclear power, in that order, now. Thanks.

>>7695752
Primitive technology. Little better than the day we learned to ignite pitch and animal fats.

Neat, and a great design for its era and what it was. But still infantile.

>>7695918
People don't even look into all the details. Anti-nuclear people forget that Chenyobly wasn't made to safety standards so the USSR could make nukes, and fukashima had a very small leak due to an earthquake.

>>7695923
Yeah, better to get power direct from the devil.

>>7695923
It's kind of the best we have at the moment. Also "infantile" what are you a fucking reddit meme lord?

I rather like it. Especially since most of the current nuclear workforce is reaching retirement age now.

Wish it wasn't so mired in government bureaucracy though. We might get some decent reactor designs in the UK if that were so.

>>7695947
But the medias potrayal of these incidents puts the general public on edge

File: rsz_screen_shot_2015-03-16_at_114023_am.jpg (69KB, 864x611px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 864x611px

>nuclear

If nuclear power were economically viable and safe, we wouldn't even be having this discussion as it would already be extremely widespread. Yet here we are 65 years later and the 50's dream of a nuclear utopia hasn't come to pass because it is not economically viable.

>>7695966

Pretending that nuclear disasters aren't bad doesn't make them so. Nuclear accidents and proliferation are actual existential threats to humanity; far more hazardous than even the climate change boogieman.

>>7695947
Chernobyl wasn't just not meeting safety standards, it was also being abused in ways that make anyone with even passing knowledge of reactors want to run and call child services.

Fukishima's problem iirc was the loss of their generators. If the generators and their fuel supply had been better protected the plant would have been fine.

>>7695947

>putting a reactor in a tectonically active area

J U S T

>>7695967
Source?

>>7695993
what the else is japan suppose to do for energy? Most of the land is mountains, and open land is needed for food production/ housing.

>>7695993
Fukishima withstood the earthquake just fine. All the safety systems functioned perfectly. As did all the other reactors in japan. Things only went to shit at Fukishima when the tsunami wiped out all the generators.

>>7695994
NEA, IAEA, BP. Just kidding. I pulled that from google images. But if you want independent confirmation

https://www.iaea.org/pris/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=CN
>2014 Nuclear Production
>130,580 GW.h
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_China
>2014 Wind Production
>153,400 GWh

Uranium is becoming more scarce than oil.

Lets start making real advances in wind and solar. We use solar for survival, crops are our greatest asset. Why arent we using their secrets for our own advantage?

>>7695979
>If nuclear power were economically viable and safe, we wouldn't even be having this discussion as it would already be extremely widespread.
The free market thing falls apart when the government deliberately prevents the construction of plants, as well as prevents further research.

>>7696011
>We use solar for survival, crops are our greatest asset. Why arent we using their secrets for our own advantage?
Let's skip a step and make power plants that use oxygen/mitochondria. I mean, it's that simple, right?

File: Nuclear_power_plant_construction.jpg (277KB, 996x530px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 996x530px

>nuclear

>>7695752
Nuclear power is amazing and should be everywhere. The radioisotopes produced are jack shit, encase them in lead and screw them into the earth's crust, where a fuck ton of radioisotopes already dwell.
Fusion will be the big mama. If we are able to sustain that, oh man. We are jammin for hundreds of thousands of years.
All you have to do is knock some electrons off of water, a wee bit of fission (yayy, even more energy) and you're in business. Suppose deuterium and tritium will eventually run out but oh well. We should be Dyson sphering by that point anyway, unless we goof out and eradicate ourselves with nukes.

File: 20151031_IRC316_0.png (66KB, 580x598px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 580x598px

>nuclear

>>7696015

>free market

Hahahaha you're showing your true ignorance now. If it weren't for government funding there would literally be no nuclear generators. Nuclear power generation is so economically unviable that it cannot even go ahead without ongoing guarantees of government subsidies. The government prevents nothing, they only pulled the plug on wasting public money on this garbage. Prove otherwise.

>>7695979
>Nuclear accidents and proliferation are actual existential threats to humanity

>existential threats

I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Existential Threat" requires an actual threat to human existence, or at the very least the existence of human civilization. It doesn't just mean "very very very bad."

Also, nuclear accidents aren't even very very very bad. They're just very bad. Nuclear proliferation is unlikely to lead to large-scale nuclear war, but even if it did, this would merely be very very bad, and still not an existential threat.

>>7696037
>If it weren't for government funding there would literally be no nuclear generators.

If it weren't for government funding there would have been no nuclear power plants in 1950, certainly. I don't even really think this would be a bad thing; a lot of the history of nuclear power was sent down a bit of a dead end as "make plutonium for the government" became a primary profit generator, and not so much "cheaply produce electricity."

Considering that there are something like 55 publically-funded different nuclear reactor startups right now whose demands to the government are less "please give us money" and more "please give us permission to actually build our reactors in the next decade" this argument kind of ceases to hold water.

>>7696045
>something like 55 publically-funded different nuclear reactor startups

That's bullshit, there is no single nuclear venture funded wholly by private entrepreneurs, not that you understand the difference between public and private funds.

>>7695947
>fukashima had a very small leak due to an earthquake.
YEAH, small leak. Have you even checked any sources other than mass media? Its infinitely worse than chernobyl. The fuel rods have melted through the reactor and are polluting soil/groundwater, massdeaths of several species on spacific, 230x increase of tyroid cancer in children, leukemia cases also in hundreds of percents and its only been few years since the disaster. Some radioactivity concentrations in Tokyo that exceed the U.S. government threshold for defining radioactive waste, pretty much across the rest of the east coast aswell.

The liquid releases will continue for years and years regardless and will destroy a good part of pacific ecosystem.

>>7696038

>implying that nuclear war isn't an existential threat

Easy to say a few decades after the cold war.

>implying that nuclear accident couldn't make large parts of a continent uninhabitable, destroy farmland and fresh water supply

This isn't a binary condition. You wouldn't consider it an existential threat if half of China or North America became a worthless wasteland?

>>7696071

>before Fukashima
>oh it only happened once and Chernobyl was a one-off and can't happen again :^)
>after Fuckashima
>oh but that was different it was an earthquake and can't happen again :^)

>>7695752
Pretty sure everyone with a brain knows it's legit, but casuals will just think about nuclear bombs and oppose it.

>>7696035
Nice Graph. I quite like the part where it tries to imply that 250 and 90 are both much larger numbers than 883.

>>7696071
Source on any of this.

File: intothetrash.jpg (31KB, 352x450px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 352x450px

>>7696035
>change since 1997

More people died from the (unnecessary) relocations following Fukushima than will ever die from health effects from the radiation release.

>>7696115
>the (unnecessary) relocations following Fukushima
lel

I'm hoping these Helion fucks pull off fusion and utterly shake up the world's economic system.

>tfw they miniaturize the tech further and we get fallout style nuclear cars

i know it won't happen but i want it so much

>>7695752
>most of the waste produced can be taken care of
... can be, but isn't.
That's the problem.

I was lead to believe that nuclear power relies on an extremely limited source of fuel (a certain kind of uranium or whatever) and that if we seriously depended on Nuclear power then this fuel would be depleted rather quickly (like 20 years kind of quickly). How true/false is this?

>>7696100
Trashman needs to face the facts. Nuclear is in decline worldwide because it is an outdated technology.

>>7696136
That's a low estimate, but yes.

> roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

If we used 100% nuclear power, we'd need to use 10x the uranium we do now, so that leaves us with ~23 years left - not really a viable amount.

>>7696136
Only true until we crack the secret to harnessing fusion. At that point, fuel becomes infinite essentially.

>>7696143
1/10th of our power is nuclear power? That's actually a lot more than I would have guessed.

>>7695752
total chernobyl deaths: 56
total fukushima deaths: 0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNRdmaJkrM

+ common myths debunked
+ great movie to show to normies, environmentals
+ great film to show to anyone that isnt 100% well informed


lotsof info on moltensalt & thorium reactors
https://www.youtube.com/user/gordonmcdowell

>>7695993
all their generators were subterrain. wich meant that if they were drowned, all of them would be.

in fact, this was pointed out in a 2008 study by the US. and plainly ignored.

>>7696011
theres a shitton of uranium left

also there is the thorium cycle


>>7696035
>change relative to 1997
what shitty subterfuges solarfags have to turn to
kek
most interesting is the fact that just because theres more of it, doesnt mean thats a good idea.
you could make a similar graph with 'renewables' replaces by coal


>>7696037
nice unfounded lies you have there
nuclear power is 4-6cent/kWh, including waste disposal
now add the fact that new design can use the current 'waste' as fuel, wich means that waste we currently spend money on to store, is actually worth something

I live in germany, 45% of my electricity is 'renewables' (though most of it is biofuel) 0% is nuclear. and the price is 26 EURO cents per kWh. and that is with heavy subsidation (wich my taxes pay for in addition)

>>7696136
It's both true and absolutely false.

It's true in that, if we just ran the whole world on the 1960s-era nuclear reactor designs that provide most nuclear power, we would use up proven economical uranium reserves (the ones that are known to exist and be profitable to extract at current prices) in about 20 years.

It's false in that those reactor designs are ~1% efficient. The nuclear waste still contains 99% of the usable energy. It's like if our cars got 0.4 mpg because they dribbled 39.6 gallons of unburnt gasoline out the tailpipe every mile, into a special second fuel tank that we weren't legally allowed to use. We'd run out of oil deposits pretty fast too.

Reactors that can use ~100% of the energy in uranium fuel do exist - they're known as "breeder reactors", because they use the excess neutrons from the nuclear reactions to transmute non-fissile isotopes into fissile fuel, essentially "breeding" more fuel from waste. They're not economical, though, because uranium's pretty cheap right now.

Second of all, it's false because uranium's pretty cheap right now, and those numbers are for reserves of uranium cheap enough to profitably extract at current prices. The reserves of more expensive uranium are incredibly vast - by the time you get to $240/kg U, it becomes profitable to extract it from seawater, and the sea contains so much dissolved uranium that it's virtually inexhaustible.

>>7696071
source your claims faggot

but spoiler: im calling bullshit
because
>The fuel rods have melted through the reactor and are polluting soil/groundwater
no way. those large concrete spheres you see around reactor arent part of the shielding. their entire purpose is as safetynet specifically incase of a meltdown. chernobyl didnt have one of these btw.

also the reason chernobyl was so bad is that there was amassive explosiion wich catapulted radioactive material into the air, even clouds, wich went all over the place.
but it wasnt even that bad. you can go there today and its fine (not the reactor, the larger area). the reports about cancer children and grey star are from people that stayed there during hightime, when every was told to evacuate. these days its fine.

>>7696093
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/fukushima-worse-than-you-know.html

http://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energy-education/cancer-on-the-rise-in-post-fukushima-japan

http://enenews.com/professors-largest-mass-mortality-associated-disease-recorded-place-along-west-coast-hundreds-millions-died-epidemic-wiped-20-different-species-sea-life-along-fukushima-coast-missing-video (be sure to check related links, there are A LOT of specied facing the same fate.)

Dont have time to search rest, at work having a lunch break.

>>7696129
you mean helios?

im rooting for

nuclear cars wont happen. you can already make a small nuclear reactor. and there are existing ones since the 50's. the problem is the proper shielding.
were gonna see battery cars once batteries reach a better density (improving at about 8% per year currently), and fusion powered ships & planes, maybe trucks. perhaps trains too.

>>7696192

Nice lack of sources.

>>7696220
>cost of nuclear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuke,_coal,_gas_generating_costs.png
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power/

>electricity price and source
https://www.vattenfall.de/de/strom-easy12.htm
use 80331 (munich)

not gonna scan my electricity bill for the graph


>uranmium
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-fuel-cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/

>thorium cycle
youtube.com/gordonmcdowell

>>7696011
Lolwut?

>>7696037
They only have to back it because greenies pile on the frivolous lawsuits and the NRC piles on the useless red tape.

>>7696071
You're talking out of your gaping cum-filled asshole.

>>7696115
This

>>7696133
The problem was solved many years ago, it's now in the politicians court.

>>7696194
>Second of all, it's false because uranium's pretty cheap right now, and those numbers are for reserves of uranium cheap enough to profitably extract at current prices. The reserves of more expensive uranium are incredibly vast - by the time you get to $240/kg U, it becomes profitable to extract it from seawater, and the sea contains so much dissolved uranium that it's virtually inexhaustible.

That what I say to people who think we've passed peak oil. The calculations were made based on currently known resources that are economically recoverable with our present technology. Technology marches on and prices go up.

>>7696197
>A blog, a greenie website and a greenie blog.

Get fucked.

File: edgy1.png (624KB, 885x627px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 885x627px

>>7695923
>>7695923

>>7696077
experts during the cold war didn't even believe nuclear war was an 'existential threat'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn

exactly what *accident* would lead to 'continents' being uninhabitable

>>7696011
uranium isnt scarce
there are thousands of warheads full of it collecting dust

Nuclear power is, if not the ideal solution to the energy crisis, then the ideal stopgap till fusion. The impact on the climate is negligible, the radiation emitted by a plant is comparable to the radiation most people are exposed to just from their phones and computers, and the cost/energy ratio is tremendous.

And yet, nuclear power will never be adopted as the world's primary energy source. There are a variety of reasons, but the big two are government subsidizing and public ignorance about radiation.

Nuclear power plants are very cheap to run once they get going, but the initial construction costs and overheads are dauntingly high. A power plant won't become profitable for several years after its activation, necessitating government subsidies for every single plant that opens. This isn't a huge problem when a nation is getting about 10% or so of its power from nuclear, but if it were to go up to 90% then there would be some serious funding problems. Should the taxpayers be sending their money to the power companies through bills AND taxes? (I think it's better than the alternatives, but whatever)

Second, the average person on the street doesn't know anything more about radiation than "it's an invisible substance that kills you" (and yes, I know "substance" isn't even accurate but look at media portrayals of dangerous radiation areas: it's usually a green fog or a pool of dark blue-tinted water or some shit). Despite their exposure to tons of radiation every day from phones and the goddamn sun, people treat it like a boogeyman and don't want anything to do with it. It's the old "everyone who drinks dihydrogen monoxide dies" joke made real. And that's simply not going to change until popular film, literature, and even videogames stop treating radiation as a scary, unknowable killing force.

The problem is, solar and wind just don't meet the growing energy needs of society. And nobody important will admit it till it's too late.

Nuclear reactors, though more efficient than other 'green' sources of energy, have enormous start up costs, so much so that nobody is willing to build a reactor in America unless they get an agreement from the local government that they can sell their energy at a fixed rate above market value to make up for initial cost.

Combined with the awful public perception nuclear energy has, it's not an attractive investment in America.

There was a poll conducted that showed most people aren't opposed to nuclear energy per se, they're just opposed to nuclear reactors near them.

>>7695752
WHO NEEDS NUCLEAR POWER IF YOU CAN MAKE LAMP OIL OUT OF FAT PEOPLE

If only we could harness the atomic butthurt of nuclear shills, we'd be set! So much impotent rage going to waste.

File: 01-Fukushima-Entire-Pacific-Pollution-Complete-in-6-Years.png (529KB, 774x434px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 774x434px

>>7696255
Yes, ill go get fucked and drink cum from my gaping asshole, in the meanwhile you could actually read the articles and cross reference the sources, the cancer results and TEPCO statements are originally in japanese though. Also nothing in those articles is made up. Although i do acknowledge the pacific ecosystem effects and the reasons for numerous massdeaths are speculation. Its only been few years and frankly no one has ever done extensive research on the effects of radioactive isotopes on ocean scale ecosystems. 2 thing are obvious though, the mass deaths are happening and no one can explain why (can be googled aswell, they are numerous but barely anyone dares to consider that they could be attributed to fukushima).

Please do your own investigative work and present alternative theories, i prefer actual discussion to ad hominems.

A good crash course on the history of nuclear power can be found in "A is for Atom" by Adam Curtis.

Also, breeder reactors can use something like 98 - 99% of all the energy in it's fuel rods. I never understood why they never went that why.

>>7696315
>the cancer results
Looked even worse when a similar mass screening was conducted in a region that was unaffected by fukushima. It's a screening bias and you could replicate it virtually anywhere with the same methodology.


>mass deaths
Nope. People looking for dead organsims, find ten of them and claim fukushima did it and calls it a mass death.

>>7696372
>It's a screening bias
Nope!
>The finding, based on screenings of around 370,000 Fukushima residents aged 18 or younger at the time of the accident, “is unlikely to be explained by a screening surge,” the researchers said, pointing to radiation exposure as a factor behind the rise in thyroid cancer cases.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/07/national/science-health/new-report-links-thyroid-cancer-rise-fukushima-nuclear-crisis/#.Vl_yvd-rTdQ

>>7696343

We never went that way because breeder reactors can be used to produce the plutonium needed for nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation is unacceptable.

>>7696591
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/nuclear/nopetheres-no-thyroid-cancer-epidemic-in-fukushima

Moron.

>>7696677
>scientists disagree over controversial topic
Shocking

>>7695922

>unable to achieve complete ignition in any tokamak or even at the NIF.
>achieved 1/3 ignition at NIF, but took WAY more energy to start it than it produced
>we are still a century away from seeing a fusion reactor

You make a point about Molten Salt Reactors tho.

>>7695979
France gets nearly all its power from nuclear power plants and sells electricity to it's neighbours.

>>7696293
>The problem is, solar and wind just don't meet the growing energy needs of society. And nobody important will admit it till it's too late.
this. I did a research project on solar and it actually lowered my confidence in solar.

>>7695923
>implying you have the capacity to understand the workings of a nuclear power plant on even a basic level

>>7696917
>uranium heats water
>water turns turbine
It's that simple. The rest is just safety features.

File: 272626.jpg (180KB, 881x874px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 881x874px

Quoting the old classic, "if it goes wrong, it goes very wrong". I'm all for the minimal CO2 emissions but chernobyl yo.

>>7695752
The radiation danger in operating plants really only exists if personnel are poorly trained or not following safety regulations It's more of a risk with nuclear waste, since nothing we can build today is expected to last more than a few thousand years, so there's a risk of radioactive materials escaping before they decay to safe levels. And of course that danger can be minimized with fuel recycling to minimize the amounts of long-lived waste isotopes produced to generate a given amount of energy.

Actual radiation incidents are definitely worse than mere chemical pollution, largely because radiation takes longer to dissipate, however nuclear plants do not actually release radioactive materials into the atmosphere unless something goes horribly wrong, whereas normal pollution is an inevitable consequence of fossil fuel power. Currently there is no way to totally abandon both fossil fuel and nuclear if we want to keep power consumption at anywhere near current levels. Wind, solar, and hydroelectric power should be used wherever feasible, since they produce NEITHER radiation nor pollution, however we will still need to use nuclear for some of our power. And as long as we're careful, we'll be safe. I recall reading that even with the nuclear disasters taken into account, nuclear power is actually the LEAST deadly power source.

>>7695923
I'd hardly call nuclear power primitive. Unless you're going to explain to me how E=MC^2 is incorrect, there's only two things more efficient than nuclear fission: nuclear fusion and antimatter. And antimatter is useless as an actual power source unless we can actually find some lying around in space or something.

>>7695967
This data isn't particularly useful unless we have relative costs or something.

>>7695996
Put the reactors inside the mountains.

>>7696011
>Uranium is becoming more scarce than oil.
Yeah, but the amount of oil you need to run your car is enough uranium to power a city for a year or two.

>>7697187
>Using nuclear fission to spin a turbine isn't primitive

>>7696083
>what is the difference between a quantity and the rate of change in a quantity

>>7696136
I think we have a century or two of uranium yet (but that doesn't take into account converting thorium or U-238 into fissionable uranium). And by the time we run out we should have practical fusion. Besides, we're not going to become 100% nuclear any time soon, if we built too many reactors in too short a time there will be a shortage in qualified personnel which will result in an increase in accidents.

>>7697004
And how exactly is that primitive?

>>7697191
So what would you propose as more advanced?

>Wasting uranium supply for petty power generation instead of using it for nuclear space propulsion and dense energy source for long space voyages

Smh senpai

>>7697237
We have yet to find an actual good reason to be out in space.

>>7697258
Your not thinking of the future fa m

>>7696731
check this article
its well written and and great overview
theres a lot more going on in fusion than ITER/NIF
http://time.com/4082939/inside-the-quest-for-fusion-clean-energys-holy-grail/

>>7696725
More like scientist 1 exposed for fraudulent conduct by scientist 2 with no room to wriggle out.

>>7697019
>chernobyl yo.
Nothing close to it will ever happen again.

Fukushima is a magnitude lesser and even so the fukushima reactors are actually older than the chernobyl one.

AP-1000 class reactors built today are several magnitudes safer, you'll never see one involved in a catastrophic failure even if you lived to be 1000 years old.

>>7697258
https://aeon.co/essays/elon-musk-puts-his-case-for-a-multi-planet-civilisation

>>7697191
>harnessing fission power
>primitive
would you rather go outside and turn a big flywheel yourself?

>>7697258
1. Fucking science
2. Space is fucking cool
3. Discovering the secrets of the fucking universe

I'm using this thread to ask a question I've been thinking about.

Since water vapor is a byproduct of nuclear reactors, instead of letting it escape into the atmosphere why not let it condense and bottle it. A second revenue stream for nuclear reactors.

Is the water tainted in any way that would not allow for human consumption?

>>7697530
>fresh wastewater from your local nuclear power plant
Gee I wonder why.

>>7697549
Most bottled water is just tap water. You can "lie" or basically just be very vague.

>>7697530
Isn't the water usually recycled back into the system?

>>7697530
>Being this retarded.

Read a book. It's a closed system, retard.

>>7697608
The water vapor that comes out the giant cylinder? Where is that coming from?

>>7697625
The plot thickens.

>>7697608
>what are cooling towers
>why are reactors located near large bodies of water
you should read a book or two

We should use everything not replace. Why the fuck people cannot think of this? O yea because it either get rid of all the fucking carbon plants or do nothing.

>>7696819

Doesn't mean nuclear is economically viable. The public purse subsidizes that juice.

>>7697333

Fuckyoushima is proving to be far worse.

What is /sci/ opinion on cold fusion?

>>7697880
literal meme "science"

>>7697880
Literally more of a meme than thorium-powered EMdrives.

>>7697892
That's higher praise than I would have given it.

>>7695752
People shouldn't be so quick to dismiss renewables just because some of them are inefficient at the moment. Hydroelectric and geothermal for example are very productive but limited in the locations they can be used.

Solar efficiency and battery capacity will only improve in the future. We probably won't see the majority of power coming from renewables in our lifetimes, but it's bound to happen sooner or later if fusion proves conclusively infeasible.

One of the reasons we have governments and don't live in anarcho-capitalist free markets is for stability. Investing into alternate energy production now is a good idea to establish technologies for energy companies to transition into when we run out of fuel/major caps are put on emissions.

>>7697928

Solar efficiency is a red herring anyway. There is basically LIMITLESS FREE ENERGY bombarding the Earth, it's not like any is being wasted.

Solar and wind also has the advantage that buildings usually have plenty of wasted space that could be used for their own generation, thus removing a massive amount of distribution inefficiency. The real problem is that solar breaks the centralized generation model.

>>7697950
And the current panels are expensive to make in terms of money, energy and rare materials.

>>7695752

There is no solution. We will all die.

>>7697207
>And how exactly is that primitive?

It turns a coil to make electricity, which is exactly how every other power source works, bar solar power.

>>7697530
>instead of letting it escape into the atmosphere why not let it condense

You mean like rain? Idiot.

How negatively did the dropping of the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima affect people's opinions on nuclear? If the bombs were never dropped, would our world be more like the prewar Fallout universe?

>>7697258
With nuclear pulse propulsion, we could easily start doing mass mining, construction, and industries out in space

>>7698019
Nuclear pulse propulsion is only ideal for surface to orbit propulsion (and ideal only in an efficiency sense, there's obvious issues with dropping nuclear bombs on the launch pad). For orbit-to-orbit propulsion, ion engines are more efficient.

>>7698033
Nuclear pulse propulsion is actually way better ISP than ion engines

>>7696077
>You wouldn't consider it an existential threat if half of China or North America became a worthless wasteland?

First of all, no, because again "existential threat" is a phrase that actually means things and is not synonymous with "very bad."

Second of all, how exactly would a "nuclear accident" cause that to happen?

>>7697859
Not if you bother to read the details. But keep shoveling shit into your head from the crackpot sites.

>>7696255
>The problem was solved
Not even.
Lrn2hazmat

>>7696282
>uranium isnt scarce
>thousands of warheads full of it
Warheads use plutonium, Einstein.

>>7697187

Yeah, if we could somehow get people to follow safety regulations reliably and never deviate for any of a number of stupid reasons, you'd be right. However the regular occurrence of ordinary industrial accidents shows that this is inevitable. A casual survey of chemical plant explosions, for example, shows just how often they are caused not just by momentary carelessness, but by repeated, continual, cognizant defiance of safety regulations. It's mind-boggling, but it happens all the time. It's something of a miracle that nuclear plants don't blow up more than they do, and I think that might have something to do with their relative scarcity. Regulation and inspection is obsessive and the operators themselves have a keen awareness that what they're doing is special.

I'm just speculating here but I wonder if nuclear plants became more commonplace and run-of-the-mill, if that same laxity that causes chemical plants to explode every year or couple of years might not infect the nuclear plant culture as well.

I think nuclear is criminally under-exploited, for the record, but I do worry what a greater reliance on it might bring...

>>7696002

I know hindsight is 20/20 but you have to wonder what made them think putting them generators below the waterline was a good idea. Like ... who knows about earthquakes and tsunamis better than the Japanese? Surely the thought must have occurred that any earthquake serious enough to threaten the reactor was also likely to produce a dangerous tsunami?

>>7697977

I think it had more to do with the specter of GLOBAL NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION raised by the cold war with the Soviets. Most Americans were happy about bombing the Japs. Then living under the nuclear sword of Damocles for a couple generations really put the fear into them. And that specter persists, even though there are people old enough to vote now who weren't even alive when there was a Soviet Union.

>>7696071
>230x increase of tyroid cancer in children

Not correct. I've read the study. The purported increases don't match up with the known timeline for thyroid cancer resulting from radiation exposure. The increase is because people are getting screened for cancer like crazy and discovering early-stage cancers (that weren't caused by fukushima).

>The liquid releases will continue for years and years regardless and will destroy a good part of pacific ecosystem.

Not correct either. The concentration of radioistopes in the ocean will increase, but it'll be a fraction of the amount present during the height of Cold War nuke testing. A 'good part' of the Pacific ecosystem wasn't killed off then, it won't happen now.

>>7697950
>centralised generation model.

You're an idiot if you think decentralised power will ever be a thing. It's the stupid shit peddeled by anti-capitalists.

>>7698309
And it won't work, why?

Load balancing is the only initial difficulty, but it's certainly not impossible. Fault tolerance is superior. Etc. Do you have any idea how much of the electricity generated is just wasted in the lines? Just to travel from A to B? Just to not have anything to used by?

Decentralized production means you're better able to not make shit you're not even going to use. Go back to drooling on yourself.

>>7697961
So what is a non-primitive power source in your opinion? A ZPM?

>>7695917
Well, I'm convinced.

>>7696626
Except that the DoD doesn't have to use the plutonium to build bombs and the USA builds them anyway. So I don't see the logic in not using breeder reactors.

>>7698309

Ahahahaha you tiny-minded moron. Plenty of decentralized generation is popping up and Tesla is aiming for that market.

>>7698254
Plutonium is basically just refined uranium anyway. And you can run reactors on Pu too.

File: lamarsh.jpg (113KB, 463x648px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 463x648px

>all this incorrect information
>all these high schoolers arguing about shit they dont know anything about
>retards constantly checking wiki before posting their shit arguments
lel /sci/ is fucking pathetic
read a fucking book

>>7695993
Yeah, hindsight is 20/20. But to improve our foresight, here's a list of places where is is unsafe to build a nuclear power plant.

>tsunami zones
>earthquake zones
>places with an incompetent government
>tornado zones
>areas with possibility of terrorist attacks
>places where there might be war
>flood zones
>areas with governments that want to aquire nuclear weapons
>areas with sinkholes
>areas with active, or possibly dormant volcanoes
>areas with citizens thay might want to create nuclear weapons
>areas with sinkholes
>hurricane zones

If you live in an area without any of these, nuclear power just might be for you.

>>7697977
I don't think it would have initially turned people off of nuclear power. Quite the contrary. The existence and demonstration of nuclear weapons forced people to immediatly change their perspective of the world. No one could deny the game changing power that fission represented. That's why science fiction from the era following WW2 had so much nuclear power (and hence the Fallout vidya franchise).

Only after people started getting jaded about the Cold War and nuclear war and finally after 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl did the public develop a phobia of nuclear power.

For anyone here mentioning Fukushima and tectonic zones and other shit:

They ran a statistical model for the zone and made the complex to withstand the strongest earthquake in the confidence intervals. Unfortunately the real event surpassed that limit. It was a case of minmaxing. Basically in construction you can go to two extremes:
Overbuilding: This is Hoover Dam. That shit would probably outlast USA. Complete monstrousity of a construction. Awe and behold. This is what happens when you say highest quality best of the best don't care about costs.

Minmaxing: This is what happens when you let greedy fuckers with government connections get public contracts. In the name of optimising they usually do the absolute minimum amount of work, thus reducing costs and increasing profits.

What should happen: Optimising: This is what happens in Germany. Had they optimised Fukushima they would have also built better statistical models-emphaisis on models not one- instead of picking one that is based only on historical data and also would not have cut costs anywhere(It is known that the company did not do proper maintenance as it wasn't in the contract, not an expert on nuclear reactors but I'm pretty sure as any building complex non-well-maintained buildings do create proportionate problems).

>>7699189
>>tsunami zones
Build AP1000 with better safety.
>>earthquake zones
Never was a problem, the buildings are earthquake proofed and the reactors go into safe mode when seismic triggers reach too high value.
>>places with an incompetent government
applies for anything.
>>tornado zones
Tornado:0
Reinforced concrete: 1
>>areas with possibility of terrorist attacks
An unlikely target, hardened and due to failsafes there's almost no risk for anything but facility damage.
>>places where there might be war
Bombing reactors are dumb as shit and at-risk reactors would likely be shut down anyway.
>>flood zones
build flood walls.
>>areas with governments that want to aquire nuclear weapons
depends on who wants to bomb them.
>>areas with sinkholes
You're retarded if you think anyone would build heavy industry on sinkhole prone ground.
>>areas with active, or possibly dormant volcanoes
A reactor building is probably the safest place you can be in if the local volcano blows up.
>>areas with citizens thay might want to create nuclear weapons
Now you're just grasping for straws.
>>areas with sinkholes
sinkholes again? No.
>>hurricane zones
Hurricane: 0
Reinforced concrete: 2

>>7699273
Mankind has not yet dominated nature, nor have we rendered everything predictable with certainty.

I'm sorry you were raised into this post 60's delusion.

>>7698033

Yes, but the fallout created from liftoff is a major concern.....

>>7697309
>http://time.com/4082939/inside-the-quest-for-fusion-clean-energys-holy-grail/

I wish I had a subscription to Time. If I did I could read this article.........

>>7699310
Too bad you're poor, and therefore garbage that doesn't deserve access to information.

Better luck next time, but we all know how likely a next time really is :^)

>>7699314
>implying you can get legit scientific info from shit like Time
read a fucking journal article if you want real information

>>7699319
>Implying a subscription to a journal is cheaper
;^)

>>7699298
We have dominated your mom. And that's about as relevant as your content-devoid reply.

>>7699335
"I see nothing, therefore, there is nothing to be seen."

Clever.

>>7699338
>No content the post 2
An empty reply is as good as no reply. Have you given up or did you think your shitty fallacies would get you anywhere?

>>7699345
How can I give up on something I never started?

>>7699329

>Implying Time is equally as legitmate as any peer reviewed scientific journal

Kill yourself

>>7699354
>Implying kill myself will make me different from you
Alive yourself.
:^)

>>7699347
>admitting defeat
Ok.

>>7699357
"Something that cannot win, can be defeated."
Okay.

>>7699356

>Implying that killing yourself won't make any difference

I rest my case

>>7699368
>Implying that was implied
)^;

>>7699377

>Implying that I'm implying anything at all

>>7699382
>Implying implications

>>7699385

>Implying I really care

>>7698496
You're a fool if you ever think it will be cheaper than centralized generation and even more of a fool if you think it will work in the upper and lower latitudes, or power energy intensive industry like steel, aluminum and concrete making.

>>7699433

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-has-won-even-if-coal-were-free-to-burn-power-stations-couldnt-compete

>upper and lower latitudes

Keep moving those goalposts.

>>7699466
https://www.dews.qld.gov.au/electricity/prices/current

>pay triple what other people pay in non-insane areas
>brag about it

>>7699273
>Never was a problem, the buildings are earthquake proofed and the reactors go into safe mode when seismic triggers reach too high value.
Does this "safe mode" eliminate the need to cool the reactor? Failure of the cooling system (which I imagine would definitely be possible in a severe enough earthquake) is the main vulnerability of nuclear reactors.

>>7699758
The cooling systems at Fukishima survived the quake just fine. The reason they broke was because the backup generators weren't protected against the resulting tsunami.

>>7699758
>>7699778
aren't modern reactors passively cooled anyways?

>>7695947
If Fukushima was a small leak, then I don't want to know what an awfully big, China syndrome style, leak does.

I used to think F wasn't so bad, but look at what needs to be done just to contain the radioactivity, let alone dismantle and clean up the site. That's a job for centuries.

>>7699466
>http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-has-won-even-if-coal-were-free-to-burn-power-stations-couldnt-compete

Hahaha

Did you just use an opinion article as a source.

>>7699802
They are

>>7699808
It's leaking at a rate of a couple grams of tritium per year. It's a non issue.

>>7699802
we dont have any modern reactors in operation at least not in the US. there are 4 AP1000s under construction in the US now but thats it

>>7699933
Gee, I wonder whose fault is that?

Oh wait, it's the greenies who block any move to build replacement reactors...

>>7697977
There's a guy who got caught in both bombs. He worked in Hiroshima, barely survived, went home to Nagasaki, and got bombed again. He took on tons of radiation, but he still managed to reproduce without any issues.

>>7700029
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi

In case you were interested.

>>7700029
>died of stomach cancer
>his wife died of liver cancer after a life of health issues
>all three of their children reported suffering from health problems likely connected with their parents' exposures
yeah he's totally fine

>>7700038
>>died of stomach cancer
>>his wife died of liver cancer after a life of health issues
>they were both 93 years old
m8..

>>7700038
>At the age of 93

As for the kids, all the article referenced said was that they were "sickly all their life. For all we know, it could have been the author's dramatization--which it probably was because if you look at.

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

>No statistically demonstrable increase of congenital malformations was found among the later conceived children born to survivors of the Nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[12][13][14] The surviving women of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that could conceive, who were exposed to substantial amounts of radiation, went on and had children with no higher incidence of abnormalities than the Japanese average.[15][16]

Also the references are pretty legit.

>>7700044
>Late in his life, he began to suffer from radiation-related ailments, including cataracts and acute leukemia.
f4m...

>>7700038
Considering most old people die of either cancer or heart failure I'm not surprised.

>>7700087
that's what happens when you survive two fucking nuclear bombs. smokers have similar health problems from radiation in their later years. see: lung cancer. only the average age of smokers isnt 93

>>7700125
>cigarettes are radioactive

>>7700195
Po-210 mainly and some other trace radioactive contamination on tobacco leaves.
avg background radiation dose is about 300 mRem/year in US.
avg dose for smokers is about 8000 mRem/year in US

>>7698264
we can construct plants that have whats called 'inherent safety'
meaning no matter how bad anyone fucks up worst case is the reactor becomes unoperational.
includes deliberately trying to fuck it up and plane crashes.

all generation four designs have this
the most prominent ones are molten salt reactors and integral fast reactors (using liquid metal)

>>7699310
>>7697309
1. when I read & bookmarked it there was no paywall
2. its worth the 3$ honestly
3. with some googling I found this
http://www.setventures.com/unlimited-energy-for-everyone-forever-fusion-cover-time-magazine/
same text, gonna have to find pictures of the companies yourself

or just read this pdf (must enable javascript)
http://files.parsintl.com/eprints/87780.pdf

bonus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm6hpqFtxEk

>>7696002
Bullshit. The generators are part of the safety system. And this single failure brought the whole system down.

We were told that dropping the dampening rods into the core will stop the chain reaction, and that's the end of the story. Well, not quite. After Fuckushima we learned that a different kind of alchemy continues for months, nuclear reactions that produce short-lived but nevertheless harmful isotopes. That's why cooling must ideally go on for years.

One single shitty engineering decision, and overruling the guy who wouldn't sign if off, eventually led to a disaster. A generator has a 1 in 10000 chance of not starting up when needed. That's unacceptable given the possible consequences. So you plan for two, then the chance is 1 in ten million, right? Wrong, if you use the same model of generator, the same fuel source, maybe even the same fuel tank, the same location, etc. When the unexpected strikes, it wipes out both generators. Look up Challenger and its three O-rings.

And that's why I've gone from pro nuclear to nuclear sceptic. The designs look nice on paper, but they fail in practice. Cut a single corner, and you're looking at a potential meltdown.

New reactors that eat spent rods from traditional reactors for fuel look nice, too. Now look up how much waste they transform in a year, and how much spent fuel there is. Realize how many new reactors you'd have to run for a century.

If wishes were horses, then nuclear would be safe.

>>7696146
At that point the planet is doomed because (almost) free energy with no waste and no carbon will be wasted freely.

At which point governments will have to tax this energy to death to prevent the planet from overheating.

Let's not see how well that goes down with the free markets.

>tfw the public opinion of nuclear has ruined it
>tfw it's our only true hope
>tfw all I want to be is a nuclear physicist

>>7696179
The backup batteries too.

>>7701055
>We were told that dropping the dampening rods into the core will stop the chain reaction, and that's the end of the story. Well, not quite. After Fuckushima we learned that a different kind of alchemy continues for months, nuclear reactions that produce short-lived but nevertheless harmful isotopes. That's why cooling must ideally go on for years.
Anyone who saw K-19: The Widowmaker would know this. That's the real reason why nuclear reactors are so scary, because you can't really just turn them off.

>>7701055
You need to understand that the dangers of radiation are wildly over stated

File: Selection_005.2.png (20KB, 366x449px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 366x449px

>>7696136
>>7696143
Read about Thorium cycles, it could provide exponential increases in energy that would last tens of thousands of years, and that's only on current 'economically recoverable' reserves.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

It is already official policy in India:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India's_three-stage_nuclear_power_programme

That said, renewable is the future. It is expanding exponentially which in line with other disruptive technologies like the telephone or internet. It is guaranteed to be the future. Transmission and storage problems can be solved in the future, it is not impossible.

If some of those billions of public dollars wasted in the past 50 years of nuclear generators were thrown at solar capture, this wouldn't even be worth discussing. Here we have an effectively infinite source of energy powered by our nearest star, which drives all processes on this planet, and people are STILL arguing that it's a waste of time trying to harvest it.

Solar power is indirectly most of our energy generation:

>fossil
>wind
>hydro
>bio

Anyone who argues against solar is a either a shill or a useful idiot.

>>7701055
check the generation four designs

and stop fucking forming an opinnion without hacving all the information

>>7701642
look

we need to convert it to something usable (electricity mostly). wich makes the 'already powered by solar' argument nought

also indeed, EVERYTHING (matter that is) in the uniserve, except hydrogen, is 'solar powered'. so thats useless as well, because while it sounds neat and might convince some hippies, the fact that granite is 'indirectly solar powererd' doesnt help with electricity generation.

the problem is full spectrum photons are useful for pretty much nothing manmade.
we need to convert them to electricity first.
so while the sun might be very longterm (actually itll start boiling our oceans in 700 or so million years), we are NOT directly harvesting the suns energy, we are CONVERTING it. and those convertion devices, solar panels, have a plethora of drawbacks

>and people are STILL arguing that it's a waste of time trying to harvest it
and have any of he argument beens solved?
- cost
- energy density
- intermittency
- intermittency at half decent price
- still beeing way more expensive than everything else

>>7701055
>We were told that dropping the dampening rods into the core will stop the chain reaction, and that's the end of the story. Well, not quite. After Fuckushima we learned that a different kind of alchemy continues for months, nuclear reactions that produce short-lived but nevertheless harmful isotopes. That's why cooling must ideally go on for years.

Lolwut? This was well known long before Fukashima. In fact, it was known at the very start of the nuclear age way back to Manhattan.

>>7702006

Blah blah blah. All of those things are already achievable. Besides the lack of level playing field where nuclear and fossil have been propped up by the public tit for decades. we have brainwashed idiots actively arguing against solar wherever they can. Play semantics all you want but you are a patsy for yesterday's garbage. Get out of the road of the future.

>>7702006

I know that dyslexics have trouble with reading comprehension and I won't hold that against you, but it doesn't entitle you to spout ignorant garbage in public. You clearly do not know what you're talking about and are just posting your "gut feeling" in lieu of research.

>>7701642
>this wouldn't even be worth discussing.
Thats bullshit
Most of the expense of nuclear is getting through government regulation/bureaucracy.

Solar can have endless billions thrown at it, it would still be expensive useless shit

>>7702183

Lies.

>>7695752
nuclear power is good when you have the money/resources for it

"green" power is good when you have the money/resources for it

which is better? depends on where you live and your opinion on both.

>>7702182
Where's the research comparing the relative costs between nuclear and solar?

>>7702185
Idiocy

>>7702286

Oh so you haven't even researched it yourself? And yet you feel entitled to comment? Blowhard dimwits like you should just shut the fuck up.

>>7702301
If you want to convince people, why don't you post the research?

>>7702456

Fuck off you lazy ignoramus, blowhard fools are the cancer killing scientific debate. What sort of shitforbrains jumps into a discussion without any actual information, then feels entitled to demand that other people disprove his ignorant viewpoint?

>>7702471

1/10 enjoy your circlejerk

>>7702501

Later dickhead.

>>7702517
>>7702501
>>7702471
>>7702456
>>7702301
>>7702298
>>7702286
>>7702207

Can all of you please kill yourselves?

>>7702632
Yes.

>>7695752
On the topic of nuclear power, what universities do people recommend for a Masters of Engineering (Fission Reactor Design)?

I'm an Australian looking to do my masters in the US. I would prefer to avoid the North East but it there aren't any decent nuclear engineering universities elsewhere I guess I don't have a choice.

>>7702781

Fuck off we're full.

FWIW, the big engineering bugbear of thorium reactors: scaling molten salt heat transport, would also be a massive boon to concentrated solar power generation as well as energy storage systems.

>>7696138
>outdated
Have fun not leaving our solar system.

>>7701471
"renewable" is expanding because of massive government subsidies
These places pay over 30 cents a kwh

>>7695752
Thorium plz

>>7696010
>muh wind raw output matters
hahahhahahahaahah
You drank the coolaid bro, wind power is fucking garbage just as bad as solar.
1) will never consistently reach 100% quota
2) need to invest in over production to reach your 100% quota
3) need to invest in grid infrastructure to handle excess ( options include: grounding the excess )
4) won't last as long as a nuclear generator

Basically, we need storage

To those who say nuclear power is economically not viable then you're just using a strawman argument. Every single energy source we have is subsidized by the government. Oil, Gas, and Coal take up 40% of your paycheck taxes. Solar is proven to be economically nonviable and wind is too new to be used in a commercial scale. There is a reason why China, India, Japan, Indonesia, and a lot Asian countries are going nuclear and that's because it meets the UN climate change regulation and its cheaper in the long run. India, China, and Indonesia are going to adopt thorium nuclear power plant into their grid. China is exporting their cheap, mass produced reactor to the world. They're selling it to England and some African countries are hoping to buy some as well. If you want to know the future of energy. Look at China and India. They'r expanding their nuclear power and wind. They're dumping their coal plants because the smog is pissing off their citizens. China central party saw a security threat with the smog and if they didn't address it the people would have lynched them.

>>7695967
Yea, imagine a clouded day with no wind. There wouldn't be any solar and wind energy.

Unless we have viable means of storing energy we have to rely on nuclear fission and fossil fuel for our energy.

There are however some promising techniques for storing energy, you could pump water up behind a dam (store the energy gravitationally) or use molten salt (store the energy thermally). But afaik they aren't used on big enough scales.

>>7703831
Actually clouds don't affect solar at all. The type of solar radiation that solar panels use to produce electricity passes through clouds with ease.

>>7703813
But thats the thing, the west decided no more nuclear power plants in the 70's, and made it impossible to build any.
To change that, you'd need a pro-nuclear president in the US

>>7703813
+++
Good man, the industry is subsidized and those subsidies are controlled by pundits, paper pushers, and greedy SOBs. Everyone knows that green energy DOESN'T WORK without STORAGE, and yet we are still pushing the european grid to collapse.

WHEN WILL THE WORLD STEP UP TO INVEST IN STORAGE?

>>7704049
No point to invest in storage when you could just build nuclear to provide power at a tenth of the cost.

>>7704049
Germany is talking of boosting their nuclear industry because the green energy failed and cost a lot of money. Also every time they shut down a nuclear plant they have to open a coal plant. The proposed solar/wind plants were never build and coal plants were build in Europe. Since Germany said they stopped Nuclear power their CO2 emissions have increased. The Germans have learn that green energies do not work and never listen to the Eco-nazis. Obama wants more nuclear power but the Coal industry is the problem. Thankfully the liberals are killed coal in the US. They're going town to town with business advisers, financiers, and lawyers to argue in court that coal power is ineffective and expensive. Natural gas is replacing them, but its not enough. Nuclear power is being pushed in the US. You'll see being pushed even further in 2020 when China opens dozens of new plants. They're going to open 100 by 2025. The Chinese also took the US LFTR designs and updated them to 21st century engineering standards. Not to mention they're using Gen IV tech for their new reactors. India is doing the same. Coal and Oil is too expensive for their future needs.

>>7704046
>US decided no more nuclear plants in 70s.
Thank the NRC for that, and that wast he coal industry lobbying in congress to open a regulation body for nuclear. Ironic because coal doesn't have one.

>>7695923
It's the only energy process that isn't derived from a natural phenomenon. So an actual MAN-MADE energy source isn't really primative.

>>7704074
>>7704071
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/michael-bloomberg-environment-coal-sierra-club-116793
Its the Beyond Coal campaign. Its already crippled the coal industry by a third of its production power since 2010.

>>7704086
>It's the only energy process that isn't derived from a natural phenomenon
So where does uranium-235 come from, then?

Solar power efficiency is about 24%, and that's the most advanced panel. I have no idea why any retarded govt. would waste billions on these tin sheds when nuclear is at least 60% efficient if not more

>>7704071
Regards from Germany. Lots of bullshit detected in your post.

>>7702112
Of course it was known, but it didn't exactly hit mainstream media.

>>7696060
There is actually
http://www.setventures.com/unlimited-energy-for-everyone-forever-fusion-cover-time-magazine/

>>7704017
no, they only produce 10-25% of their production capability in cloudy weather. try again tho shill

>>7704128
Nuclear is well over 90% in the US

>>7704146
>Nuclear is well over 90% in the US
the fuck are you talking about? nuke plants operate on a standard thermal cycle. they dont get efficiencies any higher than say 30-40%

>>7701975
As an engineer I've learned to expect the unexpected. Therefore I have a hard time believing that the 4G designs really account for every eventuality. I know that I do not have the expertise to thoroughly check these designs, which means that to me they'll really look nice on paper. Until they also fail, like 2G and 3G designs.


Also note that I called myself a sceptic, not anti-nuclear. Feel free to try to convince me, without ad hominems please.

>>7695752

Tell your friend to eat shit!

Next generation reactors are going to use spend fuel and decompose it into non radiating compounds...

>>7704171
Gen IV reactor designs are designed to shut down in the case of containment breach and use spent fuel as fuel. This is what Candu in Canada was doing until Harper shut it down because he allowed Alberta big cock to penetrate his asshole.

>>7695752
>Thoughts on nuclear power

It's dead Jim. Just look at the near nonexistent literature for it in the past few decades.

>>7704231
It was dead until China resurrected it. The superconducting metals used in nuclear powerplants were build in South Korea but China increased their load capacity and started to build their own. Japan, Germany, Russia, India, and a few other countries are building those metals now. This is because China is mass producing nuclear plants like they're one dollar socks at Walmart.

>>7703775

>wind isn't viable for 100% of generation
>therefore it must be 100% coal or nuclear
>QED :^)

There are some pretty tiny intellects chiming into this discussion.

>>7704017
are you fucking retarded? EM is reflected by various interference - maybe you need to learn the very basics of science before you come to /sci/ - i feel like there should be a eleventh grade phys/bio/chem test before you're allowed to post.

>>7704046
you're right... children get afraid of muh mutants, and super scary meltdowns.

>>7704052
you're a daft contrarian cunt. Why not just live with less energy then? Why not tear all our infrastructure up simultaneously? The answer is sane progression you numbskull - we have tons of wind and solar on the ground right now, and places like denmark and germany need options. Why not ask why your country doesn't post budgets for military projects?

>>7704071
>failed
Everyone knew what was going to happen. The german government ducked their heads in the sand, or else your PM deliberately chose to appease the polls.
>coal
i bet everyone gets that 2024 extension due to infrastructure allowments ( ie coal plants cannot be saved with co2, arsenic, mercury capture ) and coal will remain the defacto power source for china and USA ( by that i mean >50% power generation at any given time, as it is RIGHT NOW - don't get it twisted shills this is the truth ).

>>7704118
iuno this is a cool question

>>7704128
>efficiency for nuclear
Mein gott, what a strawman argument
All that matters is generation you fucking pleb; I'm all for nuclear don't get me wrong.

>>7704131
Where exactly? Germany wasted billions when it would have been much better to build it in Spain and extend transmission capacity. Fucking Eu doesn't work together at all - build it in North Africa and your power problems are LITERALLY GONE.

>>7704142
>fusion
No where near ready; Ai will be matured on likely solve fusion before humans ( re: 2025 - not AGI )

>>7704171
No idea man would love to have some talking points to better read the material though.

>>7704228
fuck that is so shitty man candu is one of our national treasures...

>>7704239
you supposed the second green text fuck face, its your intellectual dishonesty that kills any online debate

I wish i was a mod and could ban you for life after grabbing your MAC address you pitiable cunt.

Did you even read my post? I SAID STORAGE
>>7704231
>thorium
yeap, maybe because its not the science that needs research, but the massive amount of engineering to justify safety. That being said nuclear is safe as fuck if you follow the recommendations of your safety comission and replace old parts... fuck japan man

>>7704228
honestly breaks my heart to hear this
candu reactor designs are still running in like what 13 countries? we used to be a meca of nuke power

>>7704239
the only redeeming part of your garbage post is that you proposition solar/wind alongside other production, which subsumes
1) that green energy cannot be alone in power generation (wrong, we just need storage fuckface)
2) there's any advantage to a split generation paradigm ( why would there be: more transmission lines, more infrastructure cost to balance the massive ∆EnergyOutput(@T), the problem in subsidization:growth - i.e. where does the government want to hover for % total production without imbalancing the grid, etc

Basically you don't even understand the conditions that form an argument in energy generation, let alone the critical thinking to render one, nor the attention to detail required to validate your reading comprehension.

Get out.

>>7698932
/thread

>>7704255
Well the liberal PM in Canada is going to resurrect the nuclear industry. It what made nuclear medicine cheap in Canada. I don't know why people listen to coal and oil companies. These guys are running a dying business model. Coal is being raped left and right around the world. Africa doesn't want to use coal. That was their saving grace. Oil is becoming to expensive to extract because Saudi Arabia cheap oil is running out. Only tar sands are left. This is why the COP 21 talks in Paris have pushed really hard on Nuclear power. Indonesia invited Lars Joregensen to talk on Thorium plants and its benefits. Indonesia can't afford to use oil or coal for electricity. I believe they have their own local source for thorium.

>>7698932
lel I have that book in my flashdrive. I need to finish this book.

File: lamarsh.jpg (79KB, 684x649px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 684x649px

>>7698932
>>7704299
What Chapter you guys want to see?

File: lamarshnuke.jpg (1MB, 1992x1365px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1992x1365px

>>7704304
start from page 1, these niggas need to be taken back to the basics

>>7704242
What are you whining about maple nigger

File: larmarsh2.jpg (247KB, 1074x652px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1074x652px

>>7704317

>>7704228
Where did harper shut down candu?

>>7704255

You should be banned for being so butthurt. If only your impotent rage could be harnessed, at least one big dildo could be powered by it!

>>7704286
good stuff i'm happy nuclear is on the table again after the japanese fiasco

>>7704371
>>7704323
>>7704283
literally cancer
You only shitpost with no knowledge of the subject, and get your sources from conspira-fag websites.
leave.

>>7704390
ya no kidding....

MOVE THIS SHIT THREAD TO POL.

>>7704395

>ad-hominem

Fuck off back to /pol/

>>7704401
I'm sorry did you contribute anything to the thread? haha

>>7704403
And what was your contribution?

'muh thorium reactors'
'muh IV gen is safe'
'Fukushima is the greenies fault'

?

There's no science in this thread. None at all. Belongs in pol.

Nuclear is dead. Deal with it.

>>7704411

Double-dubs don't lie. /thread.

>>7704410
>ad hominem
(You)
(This) is the quality of your posts

I only talked about the need for storage as complement to green energy because without it green energy is almost effectively useless. (RE: outputs@peak usage, over production, grid problems)
>fukushima
I would bet there would be sealife deaths, but I don't care enough to follow up on what anon posted in >>7696197. From what i've heard TEPCO has been very sketchy in their approach to the press. The only point I would have made is made in >>7698264 Re:safety

>>7701055
from what i've read two safety assessments gave different estimates of failure for the challenger, a contractor's outside approach gave a 35, and maybe that was due the o-ring's i'm not an engineer.

The only storage that is currently feasible is molten salt, http://www.abengoa.com/web/en/noticias_y_publicaciones/noticias/historico/2015/05_mayo/abg_20150527.html

File: autism-pic.gif (46KB, 240x380px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 240x380px

>>7704421

>>7704438
>4
>>7704421
>>7704415
>>7704411
>>7704410
>>7704403
>>7704401
>>7704396
>>7704395
>>7704371
You fags should go back to /lgbt/. You guys like humping each other in this thread.

Weight Loss Program

A guy calls a company and orders their 5-day, 5lbs weight loss program.

The next day, there's a knock on the door and there stands before him a voluptuous, athletic, 19 year old babe dressed in nothing but a pair of Nike running shoes and a sign around her neck..

She introduces herself as a representative of the weight loss company. The sign reads, "If you can catch me, you can have me."

Without a second thought, he takes off after her. A few miles later puffing and puffing, he finally gives up. The same girl shows up for the next four days and the same thing happens. On the fifth day, he weighs himself and is delighted to find he has lost 5lbs as promised.

He calls the company and orders their 5-day/10lbs program. The next day there's a knock at the door and there stands the most stunning, beautiful, sexy woman he has ever seen in his life. She is wearing nothing but Reebok running shoes and a sign around her neck that reads, "If you catch me you can have me".

Well, he's out the door after her like a shot. This girl is in excellent shape and he does his best, but no such luck. So for the next four days, the same routine happens with him gradually getting in better and better shape.

Much to his delight on the fifth day when he weighs himself, he discovers that he has lost another 10lbs as promised. He decides to go for broke and calls the company to order the 7-day/25 lbs program.

"Are you sure?" asks the representative on the phone. "This is our most rigorous program." "Absolutely," he replies, "I haven't felt this good in years."

The next day there's a knock at the door; and when he opens it he finds a huge muscular guy standing there wearing nothing but pink running shoes and a sign around his neck that reads, "If I catch you, you are mine."

He lost 33 lbs that week..

>>7704464

Behead yourself.

>>7704480

Weight Loss Program

A nuclear energy proponent calls a company and orders their 7-day, 25lbs weight loss program.

The next day there's a knock at the door; and when he opens it he finds a huge muscular guy standing there wearing nothing but pink running shoes and a sign around his neck that reads, "If I catch you, you are mine."

He gained 10lbs that week...

>>7704046
you mean like obama?

>>7695752
Fuck nuclear power. It rapes my neighborhood with fracking wells (yes that is a thing unfortunately.).

It is also unneeded. More education should be taught in schools about how to stop using so much fucking energy in their daily lives.

>>7703831
>Yea, imagine a clouded day with no wind. There wouldn't be any solar and wind energy.

You store excess energy for use during those times. There are tons of storage methods already being used for that and peak hours.

>>7695752
Literately the only way forward for mass energy production

Its fan-fucking-tastic

>>7704171
basically the reaction they use requires ideal conditions because they run on ~2,1 neutrons average per split instead of 5+. 5+ is basically the standard nuclear bomb, with some 'control mechanisms' to prevent it from going full explosion.
theres a lot more, but beeing an engineer you can just read the stuff yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
youtube.com/gordonmcdowell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-_p_l3eA_E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgTgV3Kq49U
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/07/150724-next-gen-reactors-seek-to-revive-nuclear-power/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdIqwqgv2Ac


>Also note that I called myself a sceptic, not anti-nuclear
>without ad hominems please
note that I didnt call an ad homien, I advocated getting ALL the relevant information before forming an oppinion, wich you didnt. see here

>One single shitty engineering decision, and overruling the guy who wouldn't sign if off, eventually led to a disaster.
not with inherent safety, wich you would be aware of if you ahd opened even wikipedia
>That's unacceptable given the possible consequences.
fail to proof that its actually not worth it.
spoiler: chernobyl claimed a whopping 56 lifes. fukushima zero.

but check pandoras promise, wich is linked above


and next time, please dont perpetrate false contra nuclear arguments

>>7704543
actually this is the link to the pandoras promise documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNRdmaJkrM

>there is no existential threat to having fission reactors all over the world in every country

Fedora fans actually believe this. I know that your basement dwelling is basically a fallout shelter, but I like to go outside on occassion.

File: Untitled.png (580KB, 488x723px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 488x723px

>>7695752
Someone just posted this 5 minutes ago. Is this true at all?

>>7704811

Well they don't talk about it on the news, so it mustn't be a problem any more, right? :3c

File: Conner-ImageF.00002.jpg (717KB, 1642x1836px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 1642x1836px

>>7704811
>thedailysheeple
No.
No it's not.

>>7704830
obviously that website is gay but what kind of complications will occur in the future based on the fukushima disaster? will it have long lasting effects?

>>7704832
Yes, the most important long lasting effect is that retards will continue to fear nuclear power for no reason.

>>7704859
notice how this scale is in curies, a significant amount of activity
>>7704860
notice how this scale is in becquerels, a ridiculously tiny amount of activity (1 curie is 3.7E10 bq)
and chernobyl speaks to the idiocy and non-compliance with procedure and safety, not with the safety of nuclear power

Nuclear Engineer (12 hours from graduating) here

Go ahead and ask me shit, maybe I can clear some stuff up for yall

>>7704885
my only question is from where

>>7704882
nice try straw man. nice try obfuscating.

what in the fuck is wrong with you people?

you guys are gonna get everyone killed... I think you know that though. fucking psychos.

>>7704892
Georgia tech

>>7704882
mistakes happen. on a long enough timeline they are guaranteed.
you seem to think you're above making mistakes.

>>7704900
b8 or are you just retarded?
also maybe you should learn about what happened in those accidents

>>7704908
thats why there are several redundant safety measures in place, to reduce the risk of an accident, and mitigate the damage caused if an accident should occur. and chernobyl had nothing to do with a mistake, unless you consider a series of grave misconducts and safety overrides a mistake
not to presume that nuclear power cant always be made safer

>>7704917
I consider using high pressure systems and a core idea that requires active cooling and failsafes, a mistake.

>>7704920
obviously passive systems are desired, but removing 200-300 MW of thermal power without active cooling systems isnt easy in the slightest. the 4 US AP 1000s arent built yet. and chernobyl didnt even have a containment building

>>7698254
Plenty of warheads use uranium. A significant portion of reactor fuel already comes from dismantled warheads.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/military-warheads-as-a-source-of-nuclear-fuel/

>>7704920
Agreed. When the consequences of something going wrong, no matter how low the risk, are that thousands of square miles are rendered uninhabitable for thousands of years, its not worth it.

>>7704944
>thousands of square miles are rendered uninhabitable for thousands of years
that's not true tho

>>7704947
Flat out lying now... see images posted above.

Salesman stoop low. Go live in the exclusion zones. Have kids there. See how it works out for you.

>>7704952
there are people living in the chernobyl exclusion zone right now

>>7704957
There are people living in ur mum right now.

>>7704965
Wuw rude

>>7704965
brilliant

>>7704957

There are people living in squalor all over the world, it does not mean it is desirable.

>>7704990
>thousands of square miles are rendered uninhabitable for thousands of years
>but its actually inhabitable
>b-but its not the hamptons

>>7704168
I think he means capacity factor.

>>7704511
>Fracking wells for nuclear power

You're an idiot

>>7704811
>9gag
>The Daily Sheeple

Given the source? No.

>>7704832
Well greenpeace keeps going on about tritium leaking into the Pacific at a rate of a couple grams per year. The argument is dumb because there are a couple grams of naturally occurring tritium per cubic kilometre in seawater. It just a non-issue at those volumes.

>>7704952
You don't even know what a Becquerel is, do you?

>>7704238
>China is mass producing nuclear plants like they're one dollar socks at Walmart

Which is why we need an international ban on nuclear power before Chinese "engineering" does its thing

>>7705157
uh... I do now. Everything is on the fucking internet. Its da infomation super highway bru.

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=becquerel

but its besides the point, just like everything you mongoloids say.

You don't even know what a millisievert is, do you? That's more relevant, but still besides the point. I only said it to make a point.

whats are the units of radiation flux? don't know? google it.

I fucking hate all of you people. I've been waiting all night for a clever response to what i posted before, and THIS is the CRAP I get. You don't know what a becquerel is...Fuck you. Fuck you all. Shove the uranium rod up your ass, and reap the benefits. Faggot.

>>7705174
>being this buttblasted
if only you put the time and effort shitposting here on the efficiency and safety of nuclear power, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now

>>7705174
>I asked if YOU know what a Becquerel is
>Starts screaming like a mentally deficient 5 years old that everyone else doesn't know.

Really smart looking, mate.

>>7701389
>>We were told that dropping the dampening rods into the core will stop the chain reaction, and that's the end of the story. Well, not quite. After Fuckushima we learned that a different kind of alchemy continues for months, nuclear reactions that produce short-lived but nevertheless harmful isotopes. That's why cooling must ideally go on for years.
>Anyone who saw K-19: The Widowmaker would know this. That's the real reason why nuclear reactors are so scary, because you can't really just turn them off.

The point is whether this alchemy was widely publicized and debated when the gen-2 and gen-3 designs were shown to the public and building permits were sought. I rather think the story at the time was, 'rods drop and the core is safe'. Which makes me wonder what we don't know about gen-4.

>>7701400
You need to understand that the radiation from normal operation means leukemia for a few children, and cancer for a couple of adults after a decade or three. Whether this is acceptable compared to the risks of carbon can be debated.

>>7704421
Nice example from the nuclear industry in Japan. There was an accident in a recycling plant where the staff mixed several times the safe amount of some stuff at once, resulting in a runaway reaction, a flash and irradiated people. Anyone who knows about chain reactions should know better.

To those who say there's no science in this thread, well, running nuclear reactors is about the reactions, the output, but also about the engineering and the human factor. And it seems we don't have the latter two sufficiently under control. Nice 4th gen designs on paper, but what will actually be built and how it's run may have corners cut, bringing the house of cards down. In fact, the assumption that 4th gen is totally safe will make the staff careless.


The point about the O-rings was that they knew they had an unacceptable risk of burning through, so they used three. That changes the risk from, say, 1:100 to 1:million. But when the cold changed the failure rate for a single ring to, say, 1:10, it affected all three, and resulted in 1:1000.

>>7704438
> /sci/ thread
> complain about autism

lolwut

>>7695752
Nuclear power is 10/10 power.

Without it, I wouldn't have a job.

>>7705320

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7trn91xkJ0w

whoever burn things that form by unimaginably long period of time unimaginably large amount of energy, better be dead than alive.

I don't know what nuclear energy fans are arguing for, I mean the technology isn't new, it's had well over 50 years to get it right. If it's so viable, surely you chaps could formulate a solid business case, drum up some VC and bank investment and away you go, right?

>>7705471
Not with the regulation nuclear has atm.

>>7705535

If nuclear is so safe then you'd have no problem with regulations.

>>7705564
>If nuclear is so safe then you'd have no problem with regulations.
Bad regulations can exist no matter the safety of the thing being regulated.

>>7705569

Cite a single bad nuclear regulation.

>>7705174
maybe you should read this m8

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/01/how-the-internet-makes-you-think-youre-smarter-than-you-really-are/

>>7695923

Would you rather we destroy the planet even more by fucking burning dead animal >>7695923
>>7695923

Being thos retarded in 2015.

What if we just launch nuclear waste into a black hole

>>7705663
Or just launch it randomly into space and let the ayylmaos deal with it

>>7695986
Would you please go into this in depth or provide a source that I might read?
ty c:

>>7705925
not him but:

>operators wanted to run test to see how much power and for how long turbines would supply power without a steam supply
>dont consult physicists/engineers
>turn off emergency core cooling systems (ECCS)
>lower power level
>get call from kiev requesting backup power
>return to full power level without ECCS
>supply kiev power needs and begin lowering power level again
>forget to set power regulator so that power level drops to 700 MW
>actual power level drops to 30 MW
>xenon poisoning (you can look that up)
>start pulling out control rods to increase reactivity in core
>end up with only 6-8 control rods in the core (not supposed to have less than 15-30 at any time)
>turned on some extra circulation pumps
>water/steam in the core is changing sporadically (effecting reactivity) and is close to saturation point
>deactivated automatic shutdown system
>now begin their test
>reactor without control for ~30 seconds
>shit manager alerts to drop control rods
>core too hot (RBMKs have positive temperature and void coefficients of reactivity)
>core went prompt critical
>2 explosions and graphite fire
>no containment building

Thorium?

>>7705960
And it's still a design flaw that caused the disaster

>>7706139
..not really
the NRC doesnt allow the licensing of reactors with positive temp-reactivity coefficients, but to say thats what caused the accident and not gross negligence is rediculous

>>7695986
>If the generators and their fuel supply had been better protected the plant would have been fine.
Or if Fukushima 1, like Fukushima 2 that no one have heard about, had the ancient technology of steam-driven circulation pumps that can take over in case of power failure and latent reactor heat.

>>7706139
>all safety systems shut off
>numerous procedural violations
>numerous operator errors
>it was the reactor's fault

>>7706146
>the NRC doesnt allow the licensing of reactors.
That pretty much sums up their current mode of operation.

>>7704798
You do realize that going outside exposes you to radiation, right? And btw, on average there's more radiation exposure from coal power plants than nuclear ones, for the same power output.

>>7704908
Sure, accidents are inevitable, but fortunately the vast majority are fairly minor ones. Overall, fossil fuel is more deadly than nuclear. Unless we decide to start letting people with no qualification operate reactors, we won't have anything as bad as Chernobyl. And even that didn't render entire countries uninhabitable. Even a reactor like the one at Chernobyl, highly unstable and with no containment building, could not turn into a nuclear bomb no matter what you did to it. What you could get is a steam explosion spreading radioactive materials - but that can be minimized with a containment building, which Chernobyl lacked but virtually all modern reactors have.

>>7704920
At the time, pretty much every reactor required active cooling. The RBMK WAS inherently unstable as a compromise to use low-quality fuel, however the disaster could have been averted if they hadn't mishandled the reactor, of if they'd actually built a containment building at the plant.

>>7704952
Are the exclusion zones even "thousands of square miles"?

>>7705287
The radiation from normal operation is LESS THAN the radiation put out by an equivalent coal power plant. Unless you're talking about a reactor you built in your garage without any shielding.

>>7705564
What we're developing now isn't the basic principles of nuclear power, but the sort of safety required to prevent a Chernobyl from happening again. A lot of the reason for strict regulations is that the public has a poor understanding of nuclear engineering, and all they know about it is Chernobyl (which was an accident waiting to happen from the beginning).

>>7705960
What was the reasoning for that experiment anyway? If they had to shut down the reactor, couldn't they just use power from one of the other reactors to run the pumps?

>>7706616
they wanted to see if the turbines could continue to provide sufficient power until backup generators came online in the case of an accident

>>7706612
>and all they know about it is Chernobyl

And Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. More reactors online means more chances for things to go wrong; engineering oversight or human error. Handwave it all you want but people don't want this shit in their area, so it will never happen. Stay angry and impotent.

>>7706670
Yeah I know but why would they need to do that, or even use the backup generators at all, when they had other reactors right there to power the cooling pumps? Did they really think all of the reactors were likely to fail at once? Or was there some reason why they couldn't run the pumps off of electricity from another reactor's turbine?

>>7706734
It's still too early to tell what effects Fukushima will ultimately have, but Three Mile Island was basically nothing. It did release higher than normal amounts of radiation, but the overall effects weren't out of scale with those caused by pollution from equivalent fossil fuel plants. Excepting truly disastrous situations like Chernobyl (which are easily avoided by not cutting corners), nuclear poses less of a health hazard than fossil fuel. And even with Chernobyl and the like taken into account, its overall effect of human life is less than that of fossil fuel.

>people don't want this shit in their area,
Sure, but that's not an argument against nuclear power. There's no reason why you can't build reactors in areas that no one else wants.

>>7706755
cant in the case of grid failure or station blackout

>>7706767

>ignoring the obvious pitfalls of moving and storing waste

>>7706768
Was there a single point of failure at the Chernobyl power plant? Like a transformer or something that power from all the reactors went through? Otherwise it seems unlikely that all of them would fail at once.

>>>/diy/911008
>>>/int/51797402

>>7705157
>Fracking wells for nuclear power
>You're an idiot

You're not up with the latest tech.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/01/23/fracking-for-uranium/

>>7695752

Nuclear power will not ever be bigger than it is today, thank the cold war tainting the world "nuclear".