Nuclear power

Storage is ineffective, degrades rather fast and take up a lot of space and resources, that have alternative uses

Storage as in e.g. large scale battery tech (reverse flow etc.)? Not really. You get 10 MW of storage from a container you can put on a truck like pick related.

Attached: 5793AF34-6962-4744-A2B6-DFD09564D724.jpg (721x420, 38K)

We are still pretty far away from that though

If we could improve wave and tidal power it would make a huge difference since we can predict tides 100 years in the future

Improving energy storage is the most important thing, it makes it feasible to create power plants in space.

>we manage to invent very efficient way to create energy
Do you think the rich gas conglomerates will allow this, kek.

>Is it really something we should favor over solar/wind (plus storage)?
Yes.
Nuclear is green. Solar and Wind aren't.
> It seems nuclear power is becoming increasingly costly.
Purely due to government regulators and bureaucracy.

But why would you? With nuclear, there is no such problem, as reaction is constant and doesn't require storage of excess power.

Then why is Germany ramping up use of coal and natural gas power plants instead of turning to storage?
Could it be that energy storage requires massive amounts of lead-acid batteries that must be replaced and thrown away every five years?

Nuclear power is the cleanest form of energy for the amount it produces per waste. Do you know where the resources for those gigantic windmills and solar panels? Mining metals

Mining is an incredible destructive and dirty job.

I think silicon comes from sand though

Attached: chernobyl-miners.jpg (646x431, 82K)

yep it comes from sand but its still mined

Attached: Featured_FracSand.jpg (900x400, 535K)

*come from

because i don't want to see acres of ugly turbines and panels whenever i drive down the interstate

This is a repetitive anti-nuke shill thread. The show is agitprop meant to scare the population. Nuclear is safe and cost-effective under the right type of reactor and regulation. We could have had $0.02 kwh power if not for anti-nuke shills over the past 40 years. It is no surprise there has been an uptick in the media since the DoE has finally decided to move forward with funding gen IV, molten salt and new fuel-type approvals. Anti-nukes are anti-human and bukwarks to human progress and type 1 civilization.

It's nuclear power plant, not central, frog boy.
Stop exploiting poor africans.
youtu.be/42_-ALNwpUo

You are DELUSIONAL!
YOUVE BEEN EXPOSED TO FEEDWATER!
>3.6 roentgen
Not great, not terrible.
I've seen worse

>But why would you?
Because he's retarded. Many such cases.

Solar and wind are great as supplementary sources of power, and of course we should be increasing our utilization of both... but apart from sustainable fusion (if we ever get it working) nuclear fission is the most efficient, safe, and cost-effective means of generating power by a country mile.

Anything becomes dangerous when mixed with gross incompetence and shitty engineering. A toaster is a safe, efficient, and reliable way to make toast until some dumbfuck sticks a fork in it. A car is a safe, efficient, and reliable way to get from Point A to Point B so long as you aren't driving drunk or high or asian. And a nuclear reactor is a safe, efficient, and reliable way to produce electricity until you introduce a reactor designed by Communists and operated by Slavs.

He is underming the fruits of his own labor! Take him to the infirmary.

Greenpeace is responsible for global warming and Fukashima, they got their start as anti-nuke activists in the 60s. End result is we wound up with more coal plants and older, unsafe reactors we can't afford to replace

no it's not i'm talking about nuclear central
i think i know better than you last week i visited the nuclear central of penly . and who give a fuck about niggers ? they're presidents should stop selling their country to us !

>10 MW of storage
Not a unit of energy capacity, its a unit of rate of energy flow.

MWh, sorry

Yeah I bet nobody is taking responsibility for that.

now germany runs on coal

>efficient, safe, and cost-effective
yes, yes and no

Very unfortunately, nuclear is kind of expensive all-in.

Your in shock.

I'm starting to think they made that Chernobyl show just to make nuclear power look "scary and dangerous"
I mean it just came out of nowhere all of a sudden after all the talks of nuclear power.
I doubt it's a coincidence.

Oof imagine being an electrician in some big battery like this and something goes wrong and you get squirted with acid all over your body. Big yikes

City of Pripyat is one of the few places in the world I'd love to visit. They have tours where they drive you around in a mini van but people also go on illegal stalks and enter different buildings. You can live for a few days in some abandoned apartment. The only problem is there is no electricity and you must charge your shit with portable chargers and there are some radioactive spots that can be dangerous so it's necessary to have the radiation meters or whatever those things called. I saw videos on youtube and it looks cool af.

I'm on episode 3, do they ever show what happened before the explosion?

Just play STALKER some of the new mods make the game look really good

Solar is a fucking shit meme.

Mining the minerals (cadmium and tellurium) needed ends up strip mining and creating a similar amount of environmental destruction as the oil sands
Processing and Manufacturing the panels creates tons of toxic chemicals
Then you have maintenance required costs which requires potentially more of the above
And you have to replace them every now and then because believe it or not, having panels in areas with wind/particles in the atmosphere etc. damages them
Which means go through the first two again
Its expensive as fuck

Nevermind
>it takes up a ton of space - more than coal/oil/natural gas/hydroelectric/nuclear
>its not efficient enough to meet current needs
>batteries aren't sufficiently enough advanced
>solar mirrors require heat engines/generators in order to convert thermodynamic energy to mechanical to electrical
>all of which cost significant amounts of money, have varying efficiency, require cooling, and maintenance frequently

God forbid they use Gallium Arsenide which is used for high efficiency cells. The name alone should tell you what is wrong with it.

On top of that, you need the infrastructure to redirect all of the energy they are producing into city centers, rural areas, etc. You would also need to produce a large amount of lithium to contain the energy that they would not be able to produce during dusk. Lithium is a toxic product, and its production creates toxic by-products. In the end of solar power you basically have to dustbowl huge swaths of land to cover the area to produce enough energy for the growing population.

Also, examples of great solar usage? All lies. Germany is one that always pops up. But only 7% of their electricity is produced by solar. The vast majority is brown coal at 25%, hard coal at 18%, and nuke at 15%.

Wind runs into similar issues.

It has a very high initial investment cost (most of which is due to all of the red tape and legal blocks you have to get through to even build one), but once built the cost to continue operation drops immensely.

nuclear power is just too dangerous and fuckups will always happen, people will always make mistakes, overlook design flaws and do the dumbest shit.
just look at chernobyl, it was a total shitshow and because of the mistake of one retard millions have to suffer.
there is also radioactive waste which accumulates and there is no real solution to this problem.

maybe gen IV reactors will be better but the risk and the waste still remain and its unlikely they will build them in large numbers.

>just to make nuclear power look "scary and dangerous"
the radioactive material is really spooky tho
you seen what it can do on ouchi who turned into soup.

>City of Pripyat is one of the few places in the world I'd love to visit
you must be retarded, you inhale the wrong dust at a bad corner and then croak 15 years later from cancer.

Attached: 1404751952403.gif (500x383, 474K)

Since I forgot to put an example with this one here's the efficiency of Solar:.

Burning trash via an incinerator. You get a ton of energy out of burning refuse. 280k tons (308k US tons) nets you around 170k mwh on a 5 acre plot. If you got more trash you can easily make more than that.

To put this in comparison - the Sarnia photovoltaic power plant in Ontario - produces 200k mwh. This is on a 1.1k acre plot.

Hence, you could build 220 incinerators producing electricity in the same place as a single solar plant with an output comparable to Sarnia.

have you ever seen what happens with an electric car catches fire?

The thing about energy density increasing is you get closer to a bomb
youtu.be/jNso0sgqxjM

they burn for days

Attached: mit-energycosts.jpg (562x390, 28K)

>much incineration exhaust fumes
You use lime scrubbers among other things. Bagging etc. There are a lot of things used to control emissions. Unless you are really a part of the industry you don't learn about it. Like lets take a look at sulfur emissions for example:

You split it into two forms

>Regenerative
>Non Regenerative

For Regenerative, you have Wellman-Lord, DESONOX as wet processes and activated carbon as a dry process.

For non regenerative, you have more options with sorbent ejection as dry, sprayer-dryer absorption as semi-dry, and lime/sodium hydroxide/ammonia/hydrogen peroxide/sea water all as wet options.

NOx has things like SCR, EGR etc.

CO2 has extraction processes, carbon recapture, chemical stripping/solvent absorption, etc.

This is all ignoring basic tenants like bag filters, electrostatic filtration etc.

Most modern plants use multiple if not all of the above. Especially incinerators as the environmental regulations on them are stricter than those on oil/natural gas plants/refineries.

Will fusion forever be a meme? Is someone suppressing fusion technology?

Attached: tokemak.webm (480x360, 822K)

If you want an idea how efficient modern waste to energy plants are, Mitsubishi Plant A posted their emissions and contrasted them with the Euro 2000 Regulations:

Emission = Euro 2000 Reg = Plant A Emission
>Dioxins = 0.1 ng-TEQ/Nm3 = 0.00011 ng-TEQ/Nm3
>Dust = 10 mg/Nm3 = 3 mg/Nm3
>HCl = 10 mg/Nm3 = 2 mg/Nm3
>SOx = 50 mg/Nm3 = 4 mg/Nm3
>NOx = 200 mg/Nm3 = 110 mg/Nm3

That plant A runs 3 units, that take 300 tons/day. General rule of thumb 500 kWh per ton. So its a lot of energy produced.

WtE also have to test toxicity of fly ash/bottom ash produced. If there are hazardous levels of lead, cadmium, copper or zinc, you have to follow different hazardous waste disposal regulations in order to prevent leaching into underground aquifers.

The biggest issue with WtE tends to be odor pollution. Some plants deal with this via negative pressure zones, but not all plants are equipped to do so.

Sometimes other processes are used to create syngas as well.

Its quite an in depth procedure, but like I said before, no one really gets educated on it unless you want to work in the field.

Hello Mr. Anti-Nuke shill, how much are gas companies paying these days?

Lets talk a bit about wind:

>requires a fuckton of space
>mechanically quite useless - doesn't provide a ton of energy
>alter the qualities of wind currents - winds that pass through a turbine are slower and drier that winds that don't
>the change in quality of winds affects agriculture etc.
>winds can stay still for periods of a time
>can't really store the energy well

If you want an example of how retardedly useless wind is, look at some shit from the 2016 election.

nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-calls-shutting-down-new-york-nuke-plant-n550331
>Sanders wants to shut down a nuclear power plant that provides 25 per cent of New York City's power in favor of renewables.

In order to replace that one plant with wind turbines you would need to build 140% more turbines than New York has built in the last 20 years. If you wanted to replace nuclear in New York entirely, it shoots up to 550% more turbines than New York has built in the last 20 years. The sheer footprint of that is completely ridiculous, never mind the wasted resources, maintenance costs, lower efficiency etc.

This is also ignoring that you probably have no idea how oil or natural gas plants work.

If you want greener than fossil fuels go nuclear.
If you want greener than nuke go thorium.

Yes. Just because lada breaks down somewhere in siberia, it doesn't mean that all cars are dangerous.
Also try living up in north. I don't see any kind of energy storaging being good enough to get through winter.
I don't mind these "greener" alternatives, but for my country they will never be the majority of energy.

Your delusional. And worse you aren't pumping WATER INTO MY FUCKING REACTOR

Not 500%. 550% more than the past 20 years. There are currently 542. To meet the demand they would need to build another 2981. Bringing the new total up to 3523 turbines. There is already roughly 58,000 acres taken up by the current 542. The construction would take up another 321,000 more acres giving you a grand total of 378,000 acres wasted by this shit.

Keep in mind those are approximate numbers as many wind farms don't list their acreage in publicly available format.

By comparison nuclear, including decommissioned plants has taken up 2921 acres exactly. Hell, had Shoreham gone as intended it would have prevented 3 million tons of CO2 emissions per year. And it's half the size of two of the plants included in that nuclear acreage.

>much land usage to get uranium
Crow Butte is a good example. It's only 3,300 acres on the lease and in situ leach takes up only 1,100 of the lease. Uranium isn't like the fucking Alberta tar sands. It's quite small scale.

And this is all conveniently ignoring thorium.

I'd play it but being there is the whole different level. The best time to go there is in the fall that's when everything looks gray. There are so many trees everywhere now and in summer it looks too green.
There is no more dust. Some basements and some abandoned machines that were used to clean up after the accident are radioactive so you must be careful around those. Also moss on the ground has lots of radiation. There are videos about Pripyat' on youtube you can check out most of it is safe.

>why not to listen to environmentalists"

They have no knowledge of the processes in which resources for "clean" energy are accrued let alone the processes which are utilized to meet their final production stage.

They have no knowledge of the demonstrably significant environmental impacts of "clean" energy projects due not only to production but also maintenance and operation.

They have no knowledge as to the scale of which the "clean" energy processes must operate at in order to meet similar energy demands of "dirty" fossil fuels/nuke/etc.

They have no knowledge as to environmental regulations as to which plants must pass in order to operate.

They have no knowledge as to emissions standards as to which plants must meet in order to operate.

They have no knowledge as to how say "high" emissions are the mark of poor maintenance/operation but immediately assume it is industry standard.

They have no knowledge as to American/Canadian/European energy consumption rates and their breakdown as to what industries contribute to these standards.

They have no knowledge as to various anti-pollution mechanisms ranging from operational procedures to control devices utilized to lower emissions.

They have no knowledge as to how the industries work in particular - that is how oil and gas processing/catalytic cracking provides various needs, the analysis of combustion of fuel, or even how Nuclear facilities provide medical isotopes.

They have no knowledge of how significant government funding is allocated towards "clean" energy and its nature of propping up a largely floundering industry.

They have no regard for how their implementation of their ideals will decimate lower social/economic class individuals - and if implemented cross borders, will slow the industrial progression of nations outside of their homeland.

They innately oppose outputs seen as "dirty" without any comparison to their "clean" output in regards to efficiency.

even if it works its very very complex and keeping that thing operational is probably a nightmare and even building it takes forever.
just look at ITER in france, its a multinational effort and started in the 80s and today isn't even close to produce energy.
maybe we have one fusion reactor in 2036.
100 years in the future they maybe make 20% of energy production.

mining coal and oil isn't good for nature or for us but its probably never gonna stop.

>most of it is safe.
and then you stumble over your feet and land with your face in caesium 137 and then 20 years later croak on cancer.

Attached: 1340999891055.png (321x333, 254K)

HOLZGAS
1. Carbon neutral
2. Easy to convert gasoline engines to run on it
3. Fuel is literally anything that burns with open flame. You can run your gayming laptop on FUCKING WOOD.
5. There was no point 4

danke.

Attached: 2001.jpg (760x400, 23K)

>and then you stumble over your feet and land with your face in caesium 137 and then 20 years later croak on cancer
It's a possibility that's why you need to have a meter to be on a safe side.

ok guys i hear a lot about this thorium thing i didnt know about.
i just watched something about it on jewtube, but can anyone here who knows a bit better about it tell us why it didnt happen already ?
i mean it looks all nice and well, so why hasn't it been adopted yet ? i can only see benefits to it and no drawbacks... wtf

but if you fuck up somehow you could die a horrible death.
its not worth it to visit that place or other highly radioactive places.
literally paying to walk around some polluted shithole

Attached: 1559575864542.jpg (720x720, 268K)

>but can anyone here who knows a bit better about it tell us why it didnt happen already ?
Look it up on Wikipedia. There have been and still are many thorium research reactors, including in Germany. The problem with thorium is not a physics problem, but an economical and engineering problem. It's simply the case that uranium is simpler and cheaper to use at the moment. If uranium runs out, then sure thing, the nuclear industry may start building thorium power plants. It doesn't do that yet, because they do not want to invest in efforts which are very hard to get right economically.

>Germans going antiatom
why is it always Germans?
Fukushima happened because of earthquake/tsunami
Charnobyl happened because commies wanted to make shit cheaper
Germany neither has commies or capacity for earthquakes/tsunamis.

thx user

will read up on it a bit more

What about hydro power?

>Charnobyl happened because commies wanted to make shit cheaper
this isn't just a commie problem, in capitalism everything needs to become cheaper too.
just look at the nuclear powerplants in france or belgium.

Attached: 1484764436073.png (321x308, 153K)

you mean with water?
you can't build that everywhere.

>comparing commie power plants to modern western ones
I doubt they have "lets blow this shit up" button disguised as SCRAM button.

That's my point, don't pay some normie tour company that only lets you walk in certain spots and doesn't let enter any buildings but go there by yourself and stay in some abandoned commieblock appartment. You must be careful around the elevator shafts in the 16 floor and other tall buildings because they are all open and stay away from basements where radiation can still be high because it's too much radioactive mold.

We should just skip it and figure out a way to harness power from the Earth's rotation

and that still doesn't make them 100% safe. and the companys that run them will cut corners everywhere.

Mass energy storage is better done with alternatives like water towers or reservoirs than batteries.

>t seems nuclear power is becoming increasingly costly.
Still magnitudes cheaper than Solar and Wind power.
There is no future without nuclear power. Stop shilling for green energy you retard.

Explain how it is becoming increasingly costly? Solar and wind blow and are unreliable.

Nuclear power is cheaper and has a higher energy output than any other energy source.

I want the (((HBO))) watching normies to go away

>lel da nuclear is scary dae Chernobyl???!

If people want low carbon, electric cars, hydrogen ships & a growing economy the only way forward is nuclear power.

take him to the infirmary, he's delusional

>Purely due to government regulators and bureaucracy.

Well, you get things like happened with fukushima, where the facility is designed to handle a 1 in 50 years tsunami and gets hit with a 1 in 200 years tsunami and people ask why it wasn't built to handle a 1 in 100,000 years tsunami

Aside from overregulation and absolutely insane safety requirements jacking up costs, nuclear has a massive problem with public perception due to mass media attacks on it, as well as huge costs in dismantling the plants once they're done and finished.

radioactive waste and waste storage is a non-concern and already solved problem and the only people who care about this are mouthbreathing gullible retards led around on a leash by mass media and politicians - Basically anything that has to do with the nuclear industry gets costs ballooned an order of magnitude because a politician wants to grandstand against teh ebil nuckler for brownie points and the knock-on effects from that have caused the mess the industry is in today, helped in no small part by bribes from oil/gas/coal industries.

The easiest way to cause some cognitive dissonance in the anti-nuclear leftist sheep, is to slowly explain to them that nuclear is the single best weapon against global warming.

Neuclear Fusion will be the next biggest break through in the scientific community.

>cutting corners when safety of whole continent is at stake
I dont think so.
Do you even know how much inspections and regulations commercial powerplants got compared commie ones?

>memeflag
>opinon
pick one kike

>Still magnitudes cheaper than Solar and Wind power.

You sure?

Attached: DB092768-071A-4D2D-AADB-57690F11B3CD.jpg (1200x744, 103K)

It's shit.

>Fucks up aquatic ecosystems
>reservoirs are stagnant compared to rivers and have larger sediment deposits
This means you get excess algae/weeds and have to either harvest or introduce new aquatic species to control it otherwise native species are displaced
>reservoirs evaporate faster
>downstream evaporate faster
Which means plant and animal life get harmed so you have to have operators monitoring send adjusting frequently to prevent it
>reservoirs water is low in dissolved oxygen and temp which Fucks up animal life
Now you need an aerating turbine to fix this issue
>emits around 0.5 pounds of carbon dioxide per kwh due to decomposition of vegetation and soil
Natural gas in a decent plant emits 0.6, so it's really not that much greener. A shitty plant will run 2.0 but you get more closer to 0.6/0.8 for natural gas.
>Fucks up fish migration
>takes up significant portion of land
>terraforms the land around it which Fucks up animal/plant biomes
>may require flooding which destroys habitats/agricultural land
>may require displacement of local population
>fuck ups result in huge floods that kills fuck tons of people
>is very location oriented in efficiency - can range from 0.25 acres per mwh to 2000 acres per mwh

Basically it's sold as being green, but really isn't and divests future generations from the beauty of the natural environment while Fucking every animal around it. Plus sometimes you have to deal with delta p, and that fucking sucks dick.

> It seems nuclear power is becoming increasingly costly.
this user is delusional

Attached: get him out of here.jpg (640x640, 61K)

>I dont think so.
forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2018/02/04/belgiums-neighbors-fear-a-nuclear-incident/#7ae980c56ca2

take this user to the infirmary, he's been chugging feedwater!

Attached: Vomit Biorobot capped.png (892x1396, 349K)

absolutely!

Attached: Uncomfortable facts.jpg (480x851, 73K)

After fukushima, Japan shut down all their nuclear reactors. So did Germany.

What was the result?
Germany is now burning more coal than ever.
Japan is now burning more oil than ever.

Electricity costs have gone up.
The silent deaths from air pollution and industrial accidents continue to go unreported, and continue to outclass every single nuclear accident combined on a month to month basis alone.

Just for some perspective:
Radioactive fallout from all nuclear accidents combined has killed an estimated 30,000 people due to additional cancers, etc. Most of this from Chernobyl.
Radioactive pollution from coal/oil/gas let alone regular pollution, isn't even accounted for anywhere. How many cancers from smog? Nobody's bothered to check, although we do know that 7 million people die yearly from just air pollution alone, let alone the rest of the pollution.

We could literally have a chernobyl happen

EVERY
WEEK

And it would still not kill as many people as oil/coal/gas does.
And total direct radiation deaths from all nuclear accidents combined is like 200 or so, maybe less. Chernobyl was ~30 and probably the single biggest one.

The real problem is ultimately shills/media/liars at the moment. Your average retard still thinks every worker at fukushima died, that chernobyl made all of belarus+ukraine an uninhabitable wasteland, and that any day now the fukushima radiation is going to destroy the entire west coast (once it gets there!)

The risk of nuclear meltdown is minimal. The only catastrophe was Chernobyl (complete incompetence by an authoritarian regime) and the more serious incident at Fukushima (caused by a natural disaster).

>The risk of nuclear meltdown is minimal.
and then some retard fucks it up again or something else we didn't think about happens and millions of people croak from cancer.
there is no 100% safety and if this shit fucks up its bad for everyone.

also people on average don't get smarter, at some point you will have niggers run the nuclear plants and then its only a matter of time.

>The only catastrophe was Chernobyl

wud? It’s kind of catastrophe number 27 or so of 42

Attached: 85FC2402-E0A6-4259-808A-D686592A9949.jpg (1920x1080, 531K)

This

>please, tell me how the ̶R̶B̶M̶K̶ modern commercial reactor explodes
>our great ̶s̶o̶v̶i̶e̶t̶ western democratic safety regulations are the envy of the world

Attached: Merchant Dyatlov.png (531x911, 229K)

this user has failed to read the crossed out history, remove him from the control room

Attached: Change my mind t.Blyatlov.jpg (460x385, 58K)

I don't know why y'all hate solar. It's the most abundant energy there is. Imagine a gas stove that is burning forever but you're not cooking anything over it
Just because current tech is relatively slower doesn't mean it won't advance

>bazillion of cracks
>no photo of a single one
>not even an interview of power plant worker
>iodine pills mentioned 3 times
mediocre fearmongering