Some people actually believe there is better energy resource than nuclear one
Other urls found in this thread:
cen.acs.org
iea.org
eandt.theiet.org
agora-energiewende.de
inhabitat.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
world-nuclear.org
twitter.com
Yeah? How about sucking my dick?
Ha! Owned.
Let's just build a nuclear waste disposal facility in your garden, then.
>other energy resources do not produce MORE waste per KW
can I opt out of air pollution? fucktard
>only uranium can be used to fuel nuclear reactor
It's sad, frankly
I see the nuke shills are pretty active today.
Nukes are fake and gay.
Fear hoax psyop.
Nuclear power is fake as well.
Govt doesn't want nuke plants because they're just hollywood movie magic.
Name more beautiful and better energy source
I can wait
the sun
To be honest, an RBMK looks better than any other reactor or plant.
Well yes. Nuclear waste disposal is a larger problem, mining it is quite dirty, the power plants don't really pay for security that becomes necessary because they and their waste sites exist, and many other problems.
But what many don't know: Also the world reserves of easily available fuel for current reactors (inb4 filter all the fuel from the oceans, it's easy!). We got 90 years or so at CURRENT consumption levels, which is not at all most of the world running nuclear reactors.
Yes, different reactor tech may make more / different fuel useful; it's not available yet and/or linked to the possibility of fucking everyone getting nuclear weapons within arm's reach.
>Waaaaah mooommmmyyyy there are people disagreeing with me on the internet! WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Go back
Chad MSR vs Virgin RBMK
Posting this from 1950s?
Antimatter if we can make usable amounts which we can't.
watching too much anime dud
Coal directly kills 800.000 people every single year due to air pollution. If we include both atomic bombs we're still nowhere near a fourth of that in terms of lifetime casualties for nuclear.
Solar is even dirtier than mining and refining Uranium/Plutionium/etc
Geothermal, Hydroelectric, etc isn't viable on the scale we need it let alone everyone you want.
Until we find a clean way to build much much more efficient batteries nuclear is our very best bet by a long shot. And no nuclear waste is not the problem retards in the 2000s made it out to be.
Nope, today. Still the same problem.
Until CANDU reactors become available, you're probably soon confronted with more than 3x higher prices for Uranium if you build reactors now and others do the same.
What about nuclear two?
Molten salt?
Will gladly accept this in place of flowers.
It's so much cooler.
We have no shortage of nuclear fuel. As soon as we run out of enriched uranium we can just use depleted in fast breeders.
Coal sucks, yes. Although you can make far better plants, it's not like you're stuck with the crap you're currently running.
The bit about Solar/Hydro is unrealistic FUD. These are very feasible on a larger scale than now and should be done first.
Muh green power
Which by the way requires you to destroy vegetation birds and insects to get a fraction of what Nuclear core can do
Scientists have been pushing tokamak-based nuclear fusion for over 30-40 years and still can't keep up the reaction for more than a minute.
Meanwhile they disregard thorium fission reactors because not exciting enough I guess.
Fuck this world
Rubimaki claimed the lives of hundreds before that one was even an idea. Who's the virgin now?
>These are very feasible on a larger scale
Sure if we completely ignore that Hydro isn't feasible on the scale we'd need it to be and that Solar isn't an isolated piece of tech floating in a vacuum. Solar needs batteries. And a fucking ton of them. And I don't know about you but the last time I checked the production of these batteries is even more destructive to the earth than coal and nuclear combined.
>Although you can make far better plants
Are you seriously babbling about muh clean coal? Cause even the most modern coal power plant is a) ironically causing more radiation in their surroundings than nuclear power plants and b) still fucking toxic to human beings as well as the environment.
I genuinely don't understand how people that say they are for protecting the environment and sustainability can even say solar in it's current state is anywhere near ready to take over.
This is not a "just", it is almost generally coupled to the potential of quick availability of nuclear weapons everywhere.
And it has been one of these "next decade we will have great fast breeders" thing for the last sixty years. No such optimism is warranted. Fuck the nuclear power lobby's future fantasies where it's all efficient, problem-free, safe and plentiful.
It's a sad thing to not mainly pursue the alternatives that currently work under the guise that the theoretical fantasies become reality soon (yea, they might, and science can continue, but governments should focus on what works, starting with deploying ~15% solar electric that can be used without much storage at all, and then more solar thermal).
>Rubimaki claimed the lives of hundreds before that one was even an idea. Who's the virgin now?
You're not familiar with MSR at all are you
What are you on about mate? Yea, you flood some places with your dam and so on, but they don't get removed from ecosystems.
What are you two morons babbling about?
There are already multiple fuels for nuclear cores which produce way less nuclear waste which is ONLY ''downside'' to nuclear energy, which is also easily contained and can be used multiple times
T H O R I U M
You do understand that in order for country to run ''green'' it should be 20-30% covered in ''green'' power sources
>Sure if we completely ignore that Hydro isn't feasible on the scale we'd need it to be
Huh, what scale do you need?
> Solar needs batteries.
No. If you used it as sole technology and don't mainly use power during peak solar, you might need batteries, but until you have like 15% this isn't even a problem - you can go higher with organizing things correctly, still without batteries.
It doesn't matter that you might eventually need batteries, going straight to near that point is the first thing to do.
I do not care about your Dyson spheres.
Existing 10+ deployed productive commercial reactors only.
>0.1 nuclide have been deposited on your shill account
Ridiculously expensive, slow to build and with a limited life span.
Yeah I'll pass thanks
Nah - it should run with less emissions per capita than Switzerland, Argentine or Chile I guess?
But this isn't important, the issue is only what we do starting now, and I say we deploy what already works to the extent it can be deployed. Hydro as much as possible, Solar PV to ~15%, Solar thermal to near 100% of normal warm water use (storing warm water in insulated tanks or moving it in pipelines is pretty ez).
Controlled fusion is not the same as bombs. In that case you should count the regular nuclear bombs as well on the nuclear plant side.
What should we do?
Make more nuclear cores.
Fast reactors are fun, soviets had few models that were sodium cooled in Kazakhstan for water desalination.
Let's see how you supply the heavy industries with solar power, then you can open your mouth again.
Your economical uranium will just run out in 20 years and then it's probably costlier than Solar / Hydro anyhow.
Again, I do not care about Dyson spheres, thorium reactors, new gen fast breeders and other things that aren't yet commercially deployed. They may be good at some point, they don't work now.
90 years
now 20 years
will it run out tomorrow?
lol you people are fucking joke, as stated, learn more about new fuels
>Huh, what scale do you need?
Oh I don't know, ever heard of this tiny thing called the Earth and Human power consumption?
Our energy consumption in 2015 was 109.136 TWh. The largest hydroelectric dam in human history can barely put out 0.0225 TW. So are you implying we're just going 4.850.489 three gorges dams to saturate human energy consumption four years ago?
You entire argument about solar falls apart the second you realise peak energy consumption is ~7-8 pm.
You also can't produce solar energy on one side of the earth and send it to the other side to meet demand there when it's night.
South Australia got the biggest battery in the world right now build by Tesla iirc, 100MW. Which can power 30.000 homes for one hour if shit hit the fan and the power grid brownouted.
You desperately NEED batteries for solar to be viable at all.
100% of heavy industries consumption doesn't necessarily have to be covered in 15% Solar PV of overall electrical energy, but sure, we can try this too. Might work quite well with heavy industries, they can run the most intensive processes during peak solar.
>The largest hydroelectric dam in human history can barely put out 0.0225 TW
Wat? That dam had 98,8 TWh in 2014 and generally made >90TWh yearly.
I don't really care about your numbers either, human power usage will very much adapt to supply (provide more and it'll all be consumed by inefficient temperature regulation, motors and so on). We can just deploy hydro to the maximum amount feasible first, before that we don't need to even bother with the dirty "quick" (never really quick) nuclear solutions, which always devolve into
> hurr durr it may be a clusterfuck and have a gazillion hidden costs that we keep off the accounting sheets, but the future will solve it all
>I don't really care about your numbers either
Uh huh, facts don't matter especially if they aren't in my favour so let me keep rambling on about my bullshit. Got it kiddo. Fuck off back to Jow Forumsfuturology.
Then just put a 5G antenna on your roof
Do you have any idea how it impacts marine life?
This is why green faggots scare me
They wouldve killed planet by trying to go green lol
Your few numbers were completely wrong at a very basic level - why would I care about more of them?
You even seem to think there is a nuclear power plant bigger than the Three Gorges Dam. There isn't. It's producing ~three times more damn power than the biggest nuclear power plant.
>Do you have any idea how it impacts marine life?
Positively? If you do a lot of hydro you can and actually might want to use trash rakes to get rid of trash in water, and they don't make the ocean go acid.
Use tiny bypass channels to deal with the few fish species that migrate upstream (not technically marine life in general).
>Positively
Yea? The Rhine and its suppliers upstream are very healthy for such *very heavily* used pieces of water. And it has a lot of hydro power in between.
>Inb4 it failed in burgeristan because nobody tried to offer fishes any path besides 50m/s+ flows through a turbine which they obviously can't take.
There are still millions of tons of uranium lying in warehouses.
cen.acs.org
Also we can harvest uranium from oceans for $300 or less per kg. Which is totally fine.
Also closed fuel cycles exist.
Also there are other radioactive fuels.
>they can run the most intensive processes during peak solar
This is how you admit you don't know anything about heavy industries.
>All these people shitposting about the waste
>No one mentions the stupid upkeep costs because those reactors require as much maintenance as an iron 19th century steam boiler
Say what you want about solar, but at least it doesn't rip everything in a 50m radius apart at the molecular level
Please go back
>There are still millions of tons of uranium lying in warehouses.
Already calculated in as well as is possible.
This and the uranium reserves available at up to 3x current cost = 90 years at current consumption.
>Also we can harvest uranium from oceans for $300 or less per kg.
With an optimistic estimate by Nobukawa from 1994? Yea, optimism is optimism - do it for 5-10 years, then we can talk about the real numbers.
> Also closed fuel cycles exist.
> Also there are other radioactive fuels.
And Dyson spheres. I don't really care about hypothetical machines that are always xx years away. It needs to be deployed a bunch of times now, then we have real numbers for cost / efficiency / ...
Before that nuclear power is always super damn cheap, easy, near inexhaustible because all inaccessible reserves also can be magically tapped, and nearly 100% efficient and leaving almost no trash because it's all completely used and cleaned by fast breeders. It never was anything like that.
Because heavy industries need coal and oil, right? Heh.
And again, you totally need 100% heavy industries covered too to reach 15% solar PV.
Try to calculate how much it would cost to switch Europe to 100% solar. It will never become viable.
Thoughty2?
>Your few numbers were completely wrong at a very basic level
>Our energy consumption in 2015 was 109.136 TWh
iea.org
>The largest hydroelectric dam in human history can barely put out 0.0225 TW
>There are also plans to install six more turbines in an underground power house by 2012, giving it a capacity of 22,500MW.
eandt.theiet.org
>peak energy consumption is ~7-8 pm
agora-energiewende.de
Before you even bring it up I very much doubt Germany is much different than any other first world country.
>biggest battery in the world right now
>100MW
>Which can power 30.000 homes for one hour
inhabitat.com
I'd really like to see you backup your previous bullshit:
>We got 90 years or so at CURRENT consumption levels
>but until you have like 15% this isn't even a problem - you can go higher with organizing things correctly, still without batteries
I'm especially interested in you backing up that every industry on earth will just switch to producing exclusively at peak hours and somehow not crashing the entire grid as you said and implied:
>human power usage will very much adapt to supply
>If you used it as sole technology and don't mainly use power during peak solar
>Might work quite well with heavy industries, they can run the most intensive processes during peak solar.
>And Dyson spheres. I don't really care about hypothetical machines that are always xx years away. It needs to be deployed a bunch of times now, then we have real numbers for cost / efficiency / ...
>
>Before that nuclear power is always super damn cheap, easy, near inexhaustible because all inaccessible reserves also can be magically tapped, and nearly 100% efficient and leaving almost no trash because it's all completely used and cleaned by fast breeders. It never was anything like that.
lol it's more real 100% solar/wind/hydro energy. Stop living in your fantasy world and face reality.
Wake me up when Germany stops burning oil and gas.
>100% solar
>when wind and water energy exists
based brainlet
I will do that too
wind turbines work 20% of the time
are noisy as FUCKING SHIT
literally fuck over migration of animals and insects
power of muh green power
No one really gives a shit about animals or insects. I'm not the other retard, I'm all for Nuclear until we figure other shit out. Wind however is one of the only really viable options (depending on region of course). Especially in the German northern sea. Don't listen to the retards though who say just build a wind farm in the fucking Rocky Mountains or whatever and it will somehow magically work.
Excuse, me, sir,
Can you point me to my signature where it says I agreed to let corporations pollute my air, water, food, and rape the climate?
You are not him but you are as retarded
Without insects and animals this planet is dead
But I guess you enjoy eating your GMO PVC matter ( meat )
I'll just write that comment off as low effort baiting and act like you never said something so utterly retarded.
Mmmmmmm freshly unfrozen 12 months old meat imported from Turkistan well fed on 99% GMO corn and PVC injections mmmm delicatess of 21ct
History proves that in peaceful nations nuclear power deters the creation of nuclear weapons.
>The largest hydroelectric dam in human history can barely put out
No, it can put out:
en.wikipedia.org
Also the top 6 are all hydro and only the 7th is nuclear.
en.wikipedia.org
>We got 90 years or so at CURRENT consumption levels
Yes, at up to 3x current extraction cost:
world-nuclear.org
> I'm especially interested in you backing up that every industry on earth will just switch to producing exclusively at peak hours
Why wouldn't they if that's when power is cheaper / only available then? Heh.
But actually only you faggots keep going back to 100% solar. Meanwhile I say ~15% for now, as the first project to do, plus as close to 100% of normally warm thermal solar as feasible, plus as much hydro as feasible.
It's just an obstinate thing to ask for 100% nuclear too.
> hurr you'd have to make planes super heavy and cars too and they'd have three gorillion terrajoules of energy in a crash because of it, never mind all the terrorists and cost of accidents
Not what we need to do.
pv is ok short term, but not politically viable
fission isn't funded because muh' petro lobbying
nuclear is being abandoned because democratic nimbyism
hurr durr, lets give shitistan all our money for oil and gas
why humans so fucking retarded?
History shows no such thing. History doesn't offer a guarantee of "peaceful" nations either.
We need a cum reactor.
It consumes cum and produces energy.
That's assuming using uranium which quite frankly is kind of shit as a fuel. Thorium is way more common and produces less waste that is hazardous for less time.
S.A. abandoned their weapons program to get a power program. All nations that have been denied the ability to pursue nuclear power end up going for weapons.
imagine actually thinking that hydroelectric dams are efficient in ANY way
In my city there used to be clear running river water, after dam was built its slow, greenish / brown color of mud which is unable to run through , water is NOT for consumption anymore , wild birds do not come anymore, frogs died out , there is 0 big fish in it
Yeah totally based and worth it
Yea yea, thorium and gen V fast breeders and so on... blah blah.
None of this shit has been started to be commercially used in a bunch of dozen reactors yet. We could start one or two, but it's hardly worthy of being a national focus, and it probably will again not be cheap, easy and everything else the nuclear lobby has been promising for like 70 years now only to leave everyone with far, far more costs and issues than planned.
Oh geee
I wonder who could profit of people not having cheaper means of energy and not selling oil as much anymore OH MY I WONDER
And nations that had nuclear power and the will to do so had some weapons in 10 or 5 years.
With fast breeders already present and all that in place already, everyone willing have a significant amount of weapons in very few years, possibly 2 or less. I figure Ukraine and Turkey might have gotten some nukes by now if that was the case.
You people are disgustingly retarded
So what if everyone has nukes? what's he gonna do, activate it in their own backyard?
Nukes are worhless without sonic carriers
>imagine actually thinking that hydroelectric dams are efficient in ANY way
They are.
> In my city there used to be clear running river water, after dam was built its slow, greenish / brown color of mud which is unable to run through
You probably don't have your wastewater or agriculture fertilizer under control.
Don't blame your government sucking hard on dams in general, it's not that hard.
I'm glad you've shown that you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It makes it a lot easier to ignore you.
It is not even my government , dam was built in country river is coming from, it's all from slowing down water flow
>Nukes are worhless without sonic carriers
Lel no. Hundreds of thousands died to small nukes from propeller planes.
And nobody -not even burgeristan- has really good success at shooting down even scud variants fired by some insurgents, never mind what would happen if an actual nation prepared these or better or even just planes.
And yea, the burger government would go nuts again if Cuba or even Mexico got nukes, because ultimately they'll manage to find a very threatening method of delivery quickly. Sure, they'll tell Joe that nothing can happen and that the glorious nation of burgerstan would surely stop everything ever, but that's not reality.
But you actually got nothing other than "this will work great in the future".
Maybe it'll take 15+ years, but of course we should wait for this and do nothing until then (oh, the power of the nuclear bullshit lobby, it has caused burgers and others to wait for 60+ years already).
Okay, then you and their government dump too much shit and fertilizer in the river. Manage it better then.
Look up Oak Ridge dipshit. We already know the tech works and have for 50 years. It's not that we have nothing. It's that dumbasses like you have wrung your hands about nuclear power for 50 years to the point that it's been damn near impossible to get the technology off the ground.
>>only uranium can be used to fuel nuclear reactor
fucking faggot, theoretically anything with 90+ protons can be used to fuel a nuclear reactor, not efficiently, but possible, based blue pilled nigger, efficient alternatives to uranium are plutonium and possibly thorium, but only certain isotopes, and they are incredibly rare on earth's surface. fuck you.