Best method of generating power?

>>8927995
It's cool, I guess

>>8927995
>Thoughts on Nuclear Energy, Sci?
It is cleaner and cheaper than most power sources
>I've heard but haven't been able to confirm that by using a mix of Light water reactors, breeder reactors and uranium extraction from sea water, we could have enough fuel to outlast the sun.
Where did you read that?

>>8927995
Enough with the damn shill threads already. Fuck off to reddit.

>>8928017
I ain't a shill, I just don't know much about power generation.

>>8928017
Shut up! Nobody is impressed by your stupid windmills and everybody thinks you are a stinking hippie.

Yes, in theory breeder reactors combined with all of the Earth's uranium reserves could make nuclear power outlast the sun, but it won't necessarily be economical.

Right now nuclear power is comparatively cheap, since we are extracting ready-to-burn (only after enrichment) U-235 from high-concentration ores.

Overtime, however, you will have to start tapping into the much less cost-effective low-concentration ores and sewater, which combined with breeder reactors may make renewables simply cheaper - especially with the latest developments in photovoltaics.

I'm no economist though, so don't quote me on this - just some food for thought.

File: 5425062+_8f7ff0277e6b08c4119a3ca1f47775e9.gif (138KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 200x200px

>>8927995
Personally I think it would be the best investment in energy we have moving forward.

The upsides generally are that its overall cleaner than fossil fuels (all of them) and produces exponentially more energy than them. It also has the advantage of being one of the few fuel sources that can actually produce enough energy within its lifespan/use to cover the energy cost of its production and maintenance.

The big downsides are of course that it can be weaponized if handles improperly, spent fuel must be stored somewhere indefinitely, and there tends to be a pretty stable patter of human fuck ups leading to a "melt down" or similar event about every 20 years.

Once again the counter argument to this is that if we invest in it now, the technology may improve between events reducing the frequency or impact of these fuck ups making them not as server, but no one seems to want to walk down that road.

Personally, I think its worth the try, but I considering people are now afraid of normal old salt like its the devil incarnated, I doubt we'll ever really use it to its full potential.

>>8928026
>implying 4 nuclear threads just happen to pop up in rapid succession
>implying there isn't a pattern of a burst of thread and then no one mentions it for months

Fuck off shill and take 4chan off your spam list.

>>8928308
>>>/pol

>>8927995
Also:
http://energyfromthorium.com/cubic-meter/

File: 1473284719860.jpg (8KB, 265x265px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 265x265px

What about Liquid Salt (thorium) reactors?

Anons I want to build a homemade generator that would be capable of powering a sigle lightbulb. I got wind I guess. What do?

>>8929720
Get windmill
Attach alternator
Attach battery
Attach light bulb
Reap photons

>>8929758
Any tutorials you could point me to? Also, what kind of battery do I need?

>>8928688
Dude, uranium is cheap. Doesn't matter at all if the price doubles.

>>8929992

You don't "need" a battery to power a lightbulb.

>>8930445
Well there's no guarantee that the wind will blow all day and night lad, and I don't need the bulb powered at all times. Is it not better to save the energy and use it as you want?

dyson sphere

It's another card in the hand of not relying on fossil fuels.

>Thoughts
It's great. It's always on, it's very safe, and it's very space efficient. Unfortunately, it's held back by idealistic morons who hate it because they can't understand it. Also unfortunately, there are vocal popsci morons who give nuclear a bad name by spouting complete nonsense.

>>8931791

Is it still safe when targetted by aggresion, for example during a war? Power plants are always prime targets.

>>8932511
I dont think you understand how much regulation the NRC does over this. You could launch dozens of standard missles at the container or spent fuel pools and theyd be fine. You'd need an incredibly high temp bomb to actually disperse the radioactive materials.

>>8932511
I hope you know nuclear reactors were designed with that in mind. They can withstand dozens of planes flying into them and exploding and could easily hold out a few bombs.

>>8932602
>>8932608

So you're saying that nuclear plants are resistant to bombardment?