Why nuclear?

>>8423610
>I fuckin luv science
>nucular power is science
>I fuckin luv nucular power

>>8423610
Because nuclear is clean, the fuel is abundant and the technology is still very crude so there is massive room for improvement

>>8423633
>the fuel is abundant

We only have 80 years left at the current consumption rate

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

>>8423633
Can you turn the waste into something usefull?

>>8423637
>a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total

Why you lyin? Also from that article:

>Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

>>8423637
>We can get rid of all the stuff we could use to make more nukes in just 80 years
>Not only that but it will produce energy for us
>Somehow a bad thing

>>8423610
How many degrees of warming is it worth to exclude nuclear power?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change

>>8423645
Fuel for next gen reactors

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/smarter-use-of-nuclear-waste/

>>8423658
That would be great.
Because the waste is the only thing that bothers me.

>>8423610
Because it can provide a power baseline independent from the environment and eases the load on fossil fuels.

>>8423663
>Because the waste is the only thing that bothers me.
Its not nearly as big an issue as people make it out to be, even if it is never reused.

>>8423689
You don't live where i live.
They put these barrels with the waste in salt mines, they rust.
This waste is pouring into the groundwater.
It is a big issue!

>>8423699
Forgive me if i struggle to believe nuclear waste is being stored in rusting barrels inside salt mines

Do you have some source for this?

>>8423699
where is this place? Can't anyone just go there and make a dirty bomb then?

>>8423707
http://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/hannover_weser-leinegebiet/Erneut-rostige-Atommuell-Faesser-in-Leese,atommuell342.html
it's in german
the translation to the first sentence:
"Checkers Found in interim storage facilities for low-level radioactive nuclear waste in Leese (Nienburg) Two barrels with strong traces of rust."

Q: When will the next nuke plant be built?
A: Never.

Nuclear is the only carbon emission free power source. that is always on and can be placed anywhere you can put a coal or gas power plant.

Hydro is location dependent. Can be affected by droughts and floods. Destroys towns, farmland, and wilderness to fill up the reservoir. Destroys those things down steam when the dam fails. Interferes with fish movement.

Geothermal is location dependent.

Wind isn't always on and location dependent. Bird hazard.

PV solar is fucking expensive and inefficient. Is not always on. Needs new long distance transmission lines to get the electricity far far away for when it is producing a lot. So the sunlight isn't wasted. Location dependent, works best in dry sunny parts of the world. Takes up a lot of land, if you just place panels out in the field, instead of on top of buildings.

Hating nuclear energy is a meme for people who post #JeSuisFukushima on their facebook pages. Done right, nuclear energy is very safe, clean, and effective - you can get much better power output from a nuclear facility than from a wind farm of the same size. It's only when you get lazy dumb fucks trying to circumvent safety regulations that anything remotely dangerous can occur.

>>8423721
Well, this certainly isnt ideal, but its only low level waste and as far as i can tell from that article the barrels werent actually breached.

Even if they were, a tiny bit of mildly radioactive material in the ground water will do literally nothing

This isnt spent fuel, its irradiated filters and gloves and things like that

So what of those big solar plants with mirrors that heat up some fluid to drive a steam reactor or something? Is that cheaper than photovoltaic?

>>8423752
Havent heard about this but it sounds extremely inefficient

>>8423764
It's pretty cool
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

>>8423765
>CSP technologies currently cannot compete on price with photovoltaics (solar panels), which have experienced huge growth in recent years due to falling prices of the panels.[12]
Meh.

>>8423765
That actually is pretty cool

>>8423744
Slippery slope

Smaller footprint & scaleability.

>Wind farms & solar panels are fucking ugly >they don't provide jobs, and they kill wildlife
>they take up too much room

>>8423610
Aside from waste considerations, which is a standing unsolved problem, nuclear is unsafe from a complexity frame of reference. Historically, civilizations collapse. According to a book by prominent historian Joseph Tainter, there have been 23 distinct civilizations, excluding isolated groups and indigeneous tribes, and 22 have failed. That's approximately a 95% probability of catastrophe. At their peak, they all exhibit parallel markers: specialization in the workforce, hyper complexity, outstripping available resources.

Betting on nuclear is a gamble that this time is different. Doesn't even pass the smell test.

>>8424013
Collapsed civilization =/= nuclear meltdown.

Fuck off with shill.

>>8423721
I find it outrageous how Germany is the biggest hater of nuclear power, while at the same time building coal power-plants and puny wind turbines.

A few months ago I read an article of Germans crying because neighboring France was building a nuclear power plant near the border in Alsace.

>>8423637
Look up uranium seawater harvesting, and never spread this nonsense again

>>8423971
Is a fallacy for a reason

>>8423610
Because we are in the universe race.
We have to progress the most we can in the less time possible or else, dead.

>>8424031
Dont forget Germany buys a shit ton of its power from France who produces almost all of it with nuclear

>>8423610
that chart masks the true cost of solar. there is a high opportunity cost associated with converting large areas of land into solar farms. the amount of sunlight that hits the earth on a given day is a limited resource and it trades off against food production. you could convert huge argicultural farms into solar farms, but the cost of food would go up. solar is only efficient in small-scale applications, such as building roofs, where there is no other use for the space.

wow. that seems off.

given the Delivery the Nuclear Promise iniatives by NEI/NRC/Industry CNOs is to reduce O&M cost 30% to be cost effective with other baseload generators ($26/kwh here in Texas) i dont think these values are accurate.

>>8423637
New nuclear plants don't even use uranium you brainlet.

>>8423730
does this guy not know about Vogtle, VC Summer, or Watts Bar?

or perhaps the dozen or so units coming online and being constructed in China?

>>8424019
Managing probable outcomes. There's close to 450 civilian generating facilities worldwide. Fukushima was one, Chernobyl was one. It wouldn't take many incidents to relate devastating consequences via the jetstream. Given how tightly coupled dependent societal infrastructure is, it wouldn't take much variance to reveal some nasty outcomes. Fortunately, non system thinkers (you) aren't in roles that directly affect anyone's life. You can go back to cleaning up splatter off porcelain.

>>8423610
profitability man renewables are cheap and everyone would be able to buy more then what they need and it would thrust internationaal economy into a downward spiral and deflate everything drastically. all this from a glance.

>>8423699
can't talk to the german article you referenced, however in the current day Dry Cask Storage multi-purpose canisters, for example, are of stainless steel. the fuel is stored in a dry, helium environment.

>>8423610
I don't actually think there are many people who are advocating using ONLY nuclear power and not renewables, with maybe the exception of uranium mining CEOs.
Nuclear is just a much more efficient, much safer, and much less environmentally damaging (in terms of strictly energy production; extraction is still very harmful) source of energy than fossil fuels. It would be an extremely useful and important step in the direction of weaning ourselves off of non-renewable energy towards solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, etc.

>>8424071
Frankly I'm happy to take a nuclear meltdown every few decades that kill a few 10's of people if it reduces the literal millions who die from power generated by things like coal

>>8423633
single failure proof analog devices are not crude. they are proven, and relable, and their failure modes and effects are understood and able to be mitigated.

>>8424073
renewables are cheap because they're subsidized, not because the capacity factor and efficiency supports their yield on investment.

>>8423610
Environmentally friendly hydro is superior. Problem is it cost more, and all hydro is treated the same.

>>8424031
>>8424057
Germany pays 35 cents(US) for a kilowatt hour of electricity.

France pays 18 cents.

Denmark pays 45 cents.

USA pays 12 cents.

Alaska interior, which is wind powered with a huge battery bank on the grid. They pay 25 cents.

>>8424080
Centralized power generation will go away. Societal destabilization -- in the form of collapse -- will result in a large scale population drawdown: billions.

>>8424080
This and only this. The greater good must come first.

>inb4 slippery slope and other fallacies

>>8424089
Sounds about right. America gets most of its power from fossil fuels of which it has enormous reserves

>>8423637
Current reactors are primitive. Modern reactors like the IFR are hundreds of tousands of times more efficient

>>8424100
Germany and Denmark could be cheaper. They tax all the other energy sources, not solar or wind. So that solar and wind are price competitive.

>>8424095
Firstly you cant be sure that this will happen,secondly there is no reason to assume a collapse would be so rapid that nuclear reactors couldnt be deactivated safely and thirdly, why would I care at all about whatever is left behind?

>>8424108
>hundreds of thousands of times more efficient

traditional PWR vs any liquid metal reactor both still limited to Carnot steam cycle efficiency.

literally how do you into introduction to thermodynamics.

>>8424121
nuclear reactors, or moreso the fuel within a nuclear pressure reactor vessel, does not deactivate. residual heat must be removed.

>>8424125
So dump the spent fuel in the marianas trench and forget about it. It will subduct in a few thousand years and will then literally not be a problem

Besides all that, you realise all the next generation reactor designs use spent fuel as their fuel right?

>>8423741
>. It's only when you get lazy dumb fucks trying to circumvent safety regulations that anything remotely dangerous can occur.
Problem is crony capitalism pretty much guarantees this will happen. We're a society of short term bonus seeking corner cutters. Until that changes, no industrial operation can truly be considered to be 'well run'.

>>8424013
>>8424071
Pseud alert

>>8424121
>you cant be sure that this will happen
It is historically very probable for society to collapse. There is nothing intrinsically different between this paradigm and those throughout our past. The, still, common narrative in the throes of every bubble is: "this time is different". It never is. Human behavior has not changed.

>no reason to assume a collapse would be so rapid
Correct. There's no way to measure the terrain of the decline, but given how over leveraged we are, and how keen we've been on maintaining continuity (growth), the regression back to reality won't be slow and orderly. Governing bodies are also reactive, not proactive. Collectively, we navigate from trendlines in the rearview mirror.

>why would I care at all about whatever is left behind
I don't understand this statement.

>>8423610

simple:

- lowest cost per kwh
- doesn't destroy birds
- ideal for desalination

>>8424150
I dont even understand what you are worried about happening

>>8424137
So let's not do anything and wallow in our shit. Great plan.

>>8424150
>It is historically very probable for society to collapse.
Historically we lived in mud huts and sacrificed animals to the sun. This argument is idiotic. Everything is the same... except for all the things that are different. You have such a shallow mindset and yet you wrap yourself in false superiority, as if you understand the "system".

>There is nothing intrinsically different between this paradigm and those throughout our past.
Except for technology, global politics, human intelligence... Basically all the things relevant to the present topic.

You are apparently ignorant of current gen safeguards against catastrophic meltdown, and your doomsday scenario is baseless.

>>8424159
Societal deterioration as a result of sustained declines in GDP leading to a cascading system failures. Nuclear energy, at present scale, cannot be maintained unless the hypercomplexity of society is maintained.

>>8424180
>Nuclear energy, at present scale, cannot be maintained unless the hypercomplexity of society is maintained.
So? Its a power source for an advanced society, no one is denying this

>>8424185
Yet, we're an advanced society with medieval beliefs

>>8424187
So? I'm desperately trying to understand your point but I dont see what it is

>>8423645
Anti tank rounds

>>8423721
>low-level

For a second you had me worried.

>>8424089
>USA pays 12 cents.
And that's highly dependent on location. Georgia Power is about 4.5¢ off peak/ on summer and around eight cents peak summer. It can go as low as 1.5¢ per kwh for overnight power used for electric vehicle charging.

>>8424170
>So let's not do anything and wallow in our shit. Great plan
Can't wish the problems away. Fix crony capitalism and you fix the safety problem. But you can't just accuse people of wallowing in shit and hope that makes the problem go away. It's a fixable problem but not one that is going to happen without effort targeting it specifically instead of trying to wish it away.

>>8424180
You have no idea what you're talking about. If you simply abandoned a modern nuclear reactor nothing much would happen. First you would have emergency generators that automatically run for a few weeks to cool. Then you have automatic injection of a very large amount of water onto the rods. The fuel would eventually meltdown but the heat at that point would be so dissipated that the effect would be minimal. No catastrophic meltdown has ever been caused by abandonment of the facility, they're caused by combinations of human error, primitive technology, and natural disaster.

>>8424214
>Can't wish the problems away. Fix crony capitalism and you fix the safety problem.
The problems are already being fixed by new reactor technology. It has nothing to do with capitalism.

>But you can't just accuse people of wallowing in shit and hope that makes the problem go away.
Idiotic strawman. The problem goes away by continuing to build and improve nuclear reactors. My pointing out that you are spouting bullshit and that following your irrational fears produces nothing is a completely separate point.

>>8424170
> This argument is idiotic.
>as if you understand the "system"
Did you know that methane, from natural gas, is the primary feedstock for hydrogen. Reacted with atmospheric nitrogen (see Haber Bosch) yields anhydrous ammonia, the basis for all nitrogen fertilizers (urea, nitrate, etc). The advent of this method gave rise to the Green Revolution (10 kilocalories of hydrocarbon energy per every 1 calorie of food). Along with phosphates from mines like Bou Craa in the Western Sahara and potassium, although previously from wood ash, from brine evaporation ponds like in Utah. You see modern society is only cohesive due to very long and very complex infrastructure supply lines. How about hydrocarbon cracking which is the basis for modern chemistry? Do you understand anything or are you functionally embarrassed by your intellectual inferiority that you do nothing, but lash out erratically?

> Nothing functionally different except technology, global poltiics, human intelligence
Technology predicated on hydrocarbon inputs. Because really, you're not mining quartz or producing silane gas or cutting ingots into wafers for processors without petrochemical dependencies.

Global politics is still human behavior. And all the intelligence we've amassed in our superior neocortical substrate, gets co-opted by the far more irrational limbic system it is built on.

I think you're mostly ignorant of just about everything, but society will always need ditch diggers which you seem well suited for.

>>8424215
most of what you said is correct. however, seeing as you're an advocate i want to help you along the way in some further justification from someone in the industry.

single active failure ensures that two trains of emergency diesel generators start and are loaded within a certain time with emergency core cooling pump motors and valve alignments to forward flow borated water to reactor coolant system to maintain peak fuel clad temperatures within acceptable limits. however, in most cases this is not automatic and requires operator action for switchover of suction sources and discharge paths.

given the industry initiatives in reponse to fukushima (FLEX, SAFER, etc) long term mitigation of a beyond design bases external event maintains fuel in a coolable geometry, precluding the eventual meltdown. also, decay heat is a semi-logarithmic but not negligible after a few days or even weeks; the effects are not minimal.

also, SL-1 wasnt techncially an abandonment but the three dudes dying didnt help. and exceptions (or really improvements) from the above would be the AP1000 design which has multiple passive long term core cooling systems. but even with that design, ive been told (havent read the SERs, SRP, or FSARs), still require operator action at 72hrs.

>>8424233
what about spent fuel ponds? don't these have to be maintained as well?

>>8424206
I'm on that particular Georgia Power EV plan. It's great, except I can't use my oven, dishwasher, or clothes dryer during summer months, between 11am and 11pm.

My figures are national averages.

>>8424244
yes indeed. spent fuel pools (SFP), as well as dry cask storage casks and the independent spent fuel storage impoundment facilities theyre stored on must be maintained. the latter are more passive, ISFSIs are just really fancy and secure engineered parking lots.

most fuel is ~10ft long. fuel pools have 23ft above the top of active fuel for shielding. so this means theres about ~35ft of water above the fuel in the pools. SFP cooling systems (pumps, heat exchangers) with makeup capability are provided to maintain the spent fuel cool. there are multiple redundent contingencies for the loss of power to the pumps, or loss of inventory in the pools, etc.

>>8424265
what would happen to those rods IF the cooling system were to fail. wouldn't the water evaporate exposing them?

File: Pinker.jpg (45KB, 555x299px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 555x299px

>>8424224
>Did you know that methane, from natural gas, is the primary feedstock for hydrogen.
So what do you think is going to happen? One day we'll run out of methane and civilization will collapse? No, methane will become more and more expensive, increasing demand for alternative solutions. There is already a large amount of work in alternative fertilizers, as well as biotech which improves crop yield and even allows plants to produce their own ammonium from nitrogen in the air. Why exactly do you think this process somehow validates your doomsday prophecies?

>Technology predicated on hydrocarbon inputs.
Why is it predicated on hydrocarbon? Because hydrocarbons are cheap. What happens when they aren't cheap? We move on. Technology is not static.

>Global politics is still human behavior. And all the intelligence we've amassed in our superior neocortical substrate, gets co-opted by the far more irrational limbic system it is built on.
Human behavior doesn't change! Except when it does! woops...

>I think you're mostly ignorant of just about everything, but society will always need ditch diggers which you seem well suited for.
Delusions of grandeur are apparent.

So, nuclear powered cars when?

I want to ago decades without refueling.

>>8424273
so, first, what it would take for the spent fuel pool cooling system to fail would take a coincident prolonged failure of the following: offsite power (very reliable), on-site emergency diesel generators (very reliable), lack of makeup capability (all components including pumps, flexible hoses, generators, etc on-site as part of FLEX).

now, unlike other industries in saying that defense in depth is ridiculous and incredible, lets take the nuclear approach and see what could happen if the fuel pool were allowed to boil and the water level decrease. this was a major concern in the fukushima response (you could read the INPO topical report on this). SFP makeup was prioritized when in actuality the level of the fuel pool never actually decreased by either seismic sloshing or boiling.

we maintain time to boil (TTB) by conservative analysis on a daily bases, espicially during an outage with freshly offloaded hot fuel.

but to directly answer your question if all fails the water would decrease in level after the very efficient boiling heat removal boils the water away. eventually, given the loss of water fuel may uncover. i'm not up to speed if air moderated fuel would melt or go subcritical. maybe a real nuke could chime in.

>>8424286
too heavy
too dangerous
RTGs aren't good at high specific energy
nuclear steam has all the problems of nuclear and steam power.

>>8424286
>So, nuclear powered cars when?

Never. You really want ahmed down the street to get his hands on something fissile?

Nuclear would be the majority of US power supply just naturally through the free market if the NRC wasn't formed to stop it

>>8424248
>except I can't use my oven, dishwasher, or clothes dryer during summer months, between 11am and 11pm.

Sarcasm, right?

>>8423610

because it has potential to be greater than everything else combined

>>8424277
> run out of methane and civilization will collapse
No, the agricultural dependency of natural gas is one example of systemic complexity. Mining anything requires hydrocarbon machinery. Shipping anything, be it transcontinental trucking or international freight, requires diesel.

Alternative fertilizers? Like what exactly. NPK is fairly important to plant life. Biotech is not responsible for rhizobium bacteria, common to the root system of legumes (beans) which fix atmospheric nitrogen to nodules in the rhizome until flowering. At that point, they leave the root system and are converted to amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins. I'll leave out the part about the biotech industry being an abstraction on chemistry which is dependent on cracking long chain hydrocarbons into alkenes.

>predicated on hydrocarbons
Plastics, paints, resins, solvents, detergents... the entire chemical industry, pharmaceuticals. The sheer volume of inputs that need replacing are virtually insurmountable. You can build all the electric cars you want, but you're still riding around on 20 gallons of oil in those tires plus another 8 gallons in manufacturing.

>Human behavior doesn't change! Except when it does! woops...
That wasn't a counterargument. If you're referring to the decline in warfare, that's largely due in part to globalization. Geopolitical alliances are made out of self interest; you don't go to war with business partners. Take away trade and watch what happens. WWIII will be a resource war.

>Delusions of grandeur are apparent.
Actually, I'm sure any moderately sufficient career aptitude test will place you accordingly. No need to flare up that hindbrain, only an observation of competence.

>>8424325
i disagree. it would have been and would be suicide for AEC/NRC to phase out or stop nuclear power. they just do their job in ensuring the health and safety of the public is protected.

there are many other organizations which add to the administrative overhead burden and lack of efficiency in the nuclear commercial power industry. but you've got to understand theres so much more to it than just a couple of things to blame, none of which the NRC controls:
obsolescence
subsidies on wind and solar
low natural gas prices
lack of rate base support for regulated states

>>8424336
"to cheap to meter"

>>8424304
Shouldn't it be possible to eventually downsize and make them lighter if we invested on them?

>>8424312
What big difference is it going to make if his charging towards me in a box filled with flammable fuel compared to some reactive material?

I mean, how much easier would it really be to be able to make a dirty bomb then, compared to now?

>>8424351
you could look into small modular sized reactors.

but you've got to realize that there's just not an industry for that kind of thing. nuclear generated heat works best in a steady state, chemically controllable fashion. starting and stopping and accelerating aren't much fun in a nuclear reactor.

now, for vehicles like planes and submarines and ships that can travel at a near steady state speed almost indefinitely, it makes sense in principle. the planes a big special though.

the engines out by EBR-1 are pretty cool to go check out. they're huge.

>>8424277
>>8424345

You've also fallen into the common economic substitutability trap which is wrong at any scale other than isolated subsets. It also doesn't factor in time, which is intrinsically vital in all depletion scenarios. Economists also believe the environment is a subset of the economy, an assumption which is patently flawed. Extending that logic, a market is more important than fresh air or clean water.

>>8424348
The NRC didn't allow new nuclear power plants from like the 70's up until 2008
Even now they are still being fucktards sitting on permits for a decade

>>8424358
>nuclear generated heat works best in a steady state, chemically controllable fashion. starting and stopping and accelerating aren't much fun in a nuclear reactor.

Can't we make them just charge batteries for an electric motor entirely or to smooth out this problem with electric motors?

>>8424288
this is all great info. thanks for contributing and answering my questions

>>8424370
thats just not accurate at all.

multiple units started construction in the seventies, and operation in the nineties.

the government shutdown delayed multiple operational and construction permits. also it's not like its an easy process, or should be. there's an enormous amount that goes into ensuring the site is reasonable to have a nuclear power plant.

many of the construction permits that were in the works during the 70s and 80s were canceled as a result of TMI. even more after Chernobyl. the sway in public opinion removed support for expanding the industry.

they're not fucktards. they have a role to play in this industry, and although may go overboard a little bit, do so in the better interest of the public. to think otherwise is to be uninformed and misguided.

>>8424378
if i understand your idea, commercial generated electricity could perform that role. and it's a foundation-ally supporting principle given electrical cars, charged by nuclear generated electricity. but nuclear fission creates heat. to capture heat and use it for motion requires, currently to the best of my knowledge as to any other alternatives that are cost effective, steam driven turbines. and i couldn't imagine your corner gas station mechanic working on even a low pressure multi stage steam turbine.

>>8424380
not a problem man, glad i could help. theres a lot of really good information out there, just need to know where to look. EPRI, NEI, INPO, and the NRC websites are particularly sluggish to navigate but there is a lot out there to read.

>>8424392
>do so in the better interest of the public
The best interest of the public would be cheap clean electricity
Not an NRC that sits on permits to build new reactors at an existing power plant for a decade

>>8424401
nothing about nuclear power is cheap. nor should it be. nuclear power inherently must be safe. the job of a nuclear power plant worker is not to generate electricity, it's to ensure the health and safety of the public. spinning the turbine is a by-product of successful, safe operation.

have you read nureg-0800? do you know what goes into licensing a nuclear power plant? "sitting" on a permit is just not accurate.

also, just because there's already a suitable area designated for existing power plants doesnt mean it's any easier to build more on that site. it means that the suitability and feasibility must be ensured given the surrounding support of the community for emergency preparedness and the environmental conditions won't be negatively impacted by the addition of an additional heat source onto your heat sink. can only dump so many btuh's into a lake before the fish give it up.

also consider the fact that the up front cost of construction a nuclear plant is very high and a perfect aligning of the stars must usually happen to afford doing so.

>>8424345
>Mining anything requires hydrocarbon machinery. Shipping anything, be it transcontinental trucking or international freight, requires diesel.
It doesn't require it, those are just the cheapest technologies currently available.

>Alternative fertilizers? Like what exactly.
Well to be more specific it's alternative sources of energy to produce the fertilizer. All you need is electricity and water to produce hydrogen and we can get electricity without fossil fuels.

>Biotech is not responsible for rhizobium bacteria
What is this supposed to even mean? You are not responding to what I'm saying.

>The sheer volume of inputs that need replacing are virtually insurmountable.
Oil is not the only source of hydrocarbons. Again, you are confusing "the current easiest way to produce products" with "the only way to produce products". Are you incapable of admitting that technology is not static?

>That wasn't a counterargument. If you're referring to the decline in warfare, that's largely due in part to globalization.
Globalization is a huge change in human behavior.

>Take away trade and watch what happens.
Take away a part of reality and watch what happens! A ridiculous hypothetical that proves nothing is what happens.

>Actually, I'm sure any moderately sufficient career aptitude test will place you accordingly. No need to flare up that hindbrain, only an observation of competence.
Your baseless arrogance really convinced me.

>>8424417
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html

Why do you talk like this
The NRC does no such thing, its SOLE PURPOSE is the prevention of new nuclear power plants

Look at these applications, they apply in 2008, then 8 years later they are canceling their applications, without a SINGLE SHOVEL FULL of dirt being moved, with a billion dollars spent trying to get a permit

This is why we don't build more nuclear power plants, not up front capital costs, conventional power plants aren't cheap either. And this is why we hadn't broken ground on new plants since the 70's.

>>8424366
>You've also fallen into the common economic substitutability trap which is wrong at any scale other than isolated subsets.
How is the thing you just made up wrong?

>It also doesn't factor in time, which is intrinsically vital in all depletion scenarios.
How did I not factor in time? I'm pretty sure I stated that over time, fossil fuels will get more expensive, increasing demand for substitutes.

>Economists also believe the environment is a subset of the economy, an assumption which is patently flawed. Extending that logic, a market is more important than fresh air or clean water.
No idea what you think this means. You seem to be making up vague terms and counting on them sounding like they mean something instead of making an argument.

just use coal, in America we have so much
don't let it go to waste

>>8423610
Hydro is the best

>>8423610
Every other power production type went obsolete as soon as nuclear was discovered.

Nuclear and fission/fusion is the future and if you disagree you can go and fuck your self hippy faggots

>>8423658
So maybe, in a perfect world. But not actually in the real world.
Instead we'll just bury fuel somewhere and hope it causes no issues. Which it does.

>>8425553
except in the USA, the eco weenies won't let us bury it.

france is fighting wars in north africa to secure places to bury their's.

recycling fuel into more fuel is the politically safe solution.

>>8423610

Fuck that pic!

>>8424085
Oil and gas are only cheap because they've had decades of heavy subsidisation and continue to attract large subsidies, tax breaks and favourable treatment from governments.

If the same thing happens to renewables, the only difference will be less air pollution and reliance on foreign fuel sources.

File: Unbenannt.png (72KB, 1912x785px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1912x785px

okey we have a problem were do we put that dangerous material that contaminates everything

why dont we just put it somewhere were everything is already higly contamiated

>>8424427
>>8424457
IQ beta

>>8425721
> Oil and gas are only cheap because they've had decades of heavy subsidisation

No. They're cheap because they're cheap. They're very energy dense, so they're cheap to harvest and store on a per kJ basis.

Wind & solar aren't cheap because they're very diffuse and hard to collect. They're also intermittent, so you need batteries. Batteries are still expensive as hell despite the fact we've been making batteries for a very long time. When the batteries are cashed, they become toxic waste.

Geothermal is cheap and clean, but there's an off chance you could trigger an earthquake or a volcano.

Hydro is cheap and clean, but even then there are potential problems.

No magic bullets. Yet.

>>8424190

Hes saying that although we have the technology, there's too many morons around thinking nuclear will result in nuclear war and radiation and shit. We are an advanced society alright, we have computers and self driving cars; but people still post stupid shit in Facebook and visit flat earth circle jerk website.

Just look at vaccination.

>>8423610
>but I've never seen an actual reason to go nuclear over renewables. Why?

Because you are stupid.

and you need to lurk moar.

>>8428783
(continued)
>Because you are stupid.
>and you need to lurk moar.

A small lump of uranium with a radioatctive output of 8,000Bq is placed ten meters from a standing human of average build and 6' height, wearing normal street clothing.

Calculate the average dose in seiverts absorbed, assuming sea level atmospheric conditions and a RH% of 55.

Answers are acceptible in 235 or 238.

>>8428793
(continued)

Now, let's not always see the same hands...

>>8428793
this is just easy plug and chug crap
why are you posting it?

Nuclear isn't economically viable. See Hinkley point and Olkiluoto.

>>8423734
>geothermal
>location dependent
yeah, it has to be somewhere on land made of dirt. It's literally free energy from the internal heat of the earth.

>>8423971

nice argument fagboat

>>8423610
Its such a dense energy source you know.
If god had given two gifts to humanity one would be fission,easily opened package,and fusion,inside a hard nut to crack.

>>8423645
Radionucleids for use in nuclear medicin
>it can cure cancer

>>8423971
The next word you're looking for is "fallacy". It's called the slippery slope fallacy.

modern reactors can use thorium which is more abundant than coal

>>8429196
some spots are more suited than others. As you don't have to drill as much and have better access to water.

Iceland is geothermal heaven.

The Sahara Desert is the worst location possible.

>>8430450
Availability and cost of fuel aren't limiting factors for nuclear power. The limiting factor is economics: nuclear plants are so expensive to build that interest on the capital is almost as expensive as the fuel costs for an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.

And it would be 10x worse for Thorium. We now have enough experience with research prototypes to be reasonably certain that they'll never be commercially viable.

>>8426838
> They're also intermittent, so you need batteries.
No-one is really considering batteries as a primary solution to the unpredictability of renewables.

The main solutions are hydro (which inherently has a certain amount of storage capacity), aggregation, and backup power.

Large scale wind and solar are still relatively immature technologies, which means there's still plenty of scope for the costs to drop.

But even now, 1 GW of solar or wind with another GW of gas for backup is cheaper both to build and to run than a GW of nuclear.

About the only reasons to go with nuclear are if you don't have the spare real estate for renewables (e.g. Japan), you have a nuclear weapon program to support, or you want to maintain some nuclear engineering capability for its own sake.

>>8431167
thorium eats spent fuel.

so we build them as part of a waste management program and get better value from uranium plants we will still be running.

>>8423637
>80 years
We'll have fusion by then.

>>8423764
4u

>>8423651
>Breeder reactors could
>Could
That is just so much couldawouldashoulda. Come back when we get something real here and now, not something that forever takes yet another 30 year to be ECONOMICAL. And you missed this gem from that same article:
>if the price of uranium increases substantially

>>8424040
>Look up uranium seawater harvesting, and never spread this nonsense again
You look up the cost of developing this tech and stop posting until you have grasped the cost of development and cost of harvesting. You know, you could also get gold from sea water but somehow this is not done.

>>8424108
>hundreds of tousands of times more efficient
OK so now we get more energy out than we put in. Genius.

>>8423637
We thought we only had enough uranium to last 20 years in the 1950s. Turns out that preparing to kill those pesky Ruskies at the push of the button while they're doing the same is a heck of a motivator to find more material to turn into nuclear weapons.

>>8423633
¿How is nuclear clean?

>>8423658
>Fuel for next gen reactors
Article is from 2005. Article refers to work that happened 30 years earlier. So in more than 40 years we have not gotten to the stage where idea becomes operational reality.

This should tell you something about time scale for research. It isn't like an episode on Star Trek.

>>8423734
>Nuclear is the only carbon emission free power source.
This makes the assumption that mining and processing and transport is carbon emission free. Unless you want to be overly selective.

>PV solar is fucking expensive and inefficient. Is not always on. Needs new long distance transmission lines to get the electricity far far away for when it is producing a lot. So the sunlight isn't wasted. Location dependent, works best in dry sunny parts of the world. Takes up a lot of land, if you just place panels out in the field, instead of on top of buildings.

Tell the Germans. Even with no subsidies they have turned this into an industry: some companies buy up rights to roof areas, others operate it. Flying in to Munich Airport you will see solar power panels on roofs everywhere.

>>8424066
>New nuclear plants don't even use uranium you brainlet.
Go on, tell more what they use.

>>8424110
At times the incentive systems for wind drives the price of electricity into the ground. It happens a few times a year and will increase with continuous development of wind power farms.

>>8423741
Problem is that nuclear power was original primarily for producing plutonium for weapons. This gave the operations a convenient secrecy shield in the events of leaks and problems. Only the most naive think the culture of secrecy has changed.

>>8424190
Not him but only parts of the world live in advanced societies, Medieval cultures have plenty of people who would like to sacrifice themselves and thousands more if they could sabotage a nuclear waste site to contaminate the part of the world they do not agree with. And these sites will have to be protected fo ages.

>>8431167
The problem wtih nuclear is 100% regulatory
Take away that bullshit that tacks on years & years of delays, and it would be the most common power source in the US

>>8424351
>What big difference is it going to make if his charging towards me in a box filled with flammable fuel compared to some reactive material?
That is the difference between one medium sized explosion and loss of life vs. nuclear contamination, evacuation of a larger part (of a city possibly), serious terror scare and a long, long time to clean up the mess.

>>8432162
>The problem wtih nuclear is 100% regulatory
Part of the regulations is that a plant will some day have to be decomissioned and that it must be done in a safe manner.

Has this yet actually been done? And what is the running cost?

Many years ago in the UK it was stated that the cost is prohibitive (billions to close down and large sums to maintain the system in a safe manner as the core is too huge to recycle), so the cheapest solution is just to keep them running past original design end date.

>>8423610
I'm so tired of big oil shills shitting up this board with threads like this, as well as with the climate change denial threads.

>>8432162
> The problem wtih nuclear is 100% regulatory
You mean the fact that you can't just dump spent fuel and contaminated plant in landfill?

>>8431219
> thorium eats spent fuel.
Confirmed for not understanding the first thing about the fuel cycle.

You can use the neutrons emitted by various types of spent fuel to breed 233U from 233Th. But it doesn't cause spent fuel to decay any faster, and it isn't of any practical use so long as other, more convenient fuels remain cheap and readily available.

>>8432181
> Has this yet actually been done?
Sort of. The earliest reactors are substantially decommissioned (fuel removed, most plant removed, reactor vessel left in situ).

> And what is the running cost?
Decommissioning cost? Impossible to say. Most of the reactors which are old enough to have been substantially decommissioned were joined at the hip to nuclear weapon programs, so much of the information about them is secret.

The others are only partially decommissioned and/or have the spent fuel taken care of by the supplier state (invariably a nuclear weapon state, where it's impossible to get useful numbers because there's never a clean separation between civil and military programs).

>>8432122
>That is just so much couldawouldashoulda.
He talked about how there is still room for improvement in his original post, so you can't refute that point by saying that current reactors only be fueled for an additional 80 years, you dumb shit.

>>8432122
>OK so now we get more energy out than we put in.
>>8424124
>literally how do you into introduction to thermodynamics.
He talks about the overall fuel efficiency, and not the thermal efficiency, which is below 1%, so yeah, you can't improve it a hundred thousand-fold, but there is still a surprisingly large room for improvement.

>>8432390
No I mean the fact that they might spend a billion dollars and a decade of time, without being able to break ground on a new plant.
This is a normal thing.

>>8432181
How much of the decomissioning cost is real, and how much is bureaucracy or other bullshit? I dnno
Obviously there are a lot of old dirty plants that are going to be a chore to clean up, new ones with new designs wouldn't be the same as plants built in the 50's.

As far as i understand all the nuclear plants pay ahead of time for their decomissioning anyways.

>>8423730
The construction of PAKS-5 will start in 2018, and it will come online in 2025, while the construction of PAKS-6 will begin in 2020, and it will come online in 2027.

>>8432160
>This makes the assumption that mining and processing and transport is carbon emission free. Unless you want to be overly selective.
The whole idea is that we will have electric cars and mining equipment in the future, you big dumb-dumb, because if we don't, we're basically fucked anyway.

>>8423610
The reason it is expensive is cause the safty restrictions are millions of times stricter than and other energy. Also the environmental impact is always calculated higher for nuclear than any other power industry. Are oil spills ever calculated in with this stuff? No and it happens all the time.