What is wrong with Nuclear Power?

What is wrong with Nuclear Power?

What is "nuclear waste" and do we have a good way to get rid of it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
youtube.com/watch?v=mCRDf7QxjDk
copenhagenatomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CA_Whitepaper2014.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjls6KJ38XQAhWJWxoKHQq2AewQjRwIBw&url=https://www.pinterest.com/pin/292171094553538459/&psig=AFQjCNG53UVaV2MZy1icJ944Vxpmc3Sjog&ust=1480226364129605
telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/15/china-to-build-nuclear-reactor-in-essex-after-hinkley-deal-appro/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

just set up a solar dome lmao

Solar seems like the way to go if they could just make it more efficient at capturing solar energy, lower the cost of the panels and upkeep.

And Arizona/ Nevada/ NewMexico would be okay with us blanketing their deserts

There is a way to get rid of the waste and generator power at the same time but it doesnt make money so there really isnt a point in me talking about it...

>do we have a good way to get rid of it?

Yes. Dump it all on the Middle East and Israel.

Its a great thing, the nuclear waste isnt actually that big of a deal itself. Unfortunately the industry worldwide is run by some of the dumbest motherfuckers that have ever lived.

We arent mature enough for nuclear power yet.

nothing is, we've had completely renewable nuclear power for decades but (((they))) were losing money so it got shut down.

>what is wrong

Uneducated hippies who don't realize that nuclear power is far more efficient and clean than alternatives. It's the perfect stepping stone until we have complete renewable energy.

A lot of old nuclear waste from the 70s has been recycled in newly discovered reactions

That said, stick the nuclear waste in the Australian outback where nobody cares

There are two main problems with nuclear power:

1) We currently have no way to dispose of nuclear waste besides just storing it underground.
2) The up-front cost of a nuclear plant is 4x-5x higher than an equivalent GW gas plant. Few utilities are willing to make the gamble on an investment of that scale except in areas where they are guaranteed rates of return through integrated utility structures.

Aside from these two issues, the break-even cost (LCOE, or levelized cost of electricity) is extremely low for nuclear, making it one of the most efficient and reliable sources of electricity we have.

Literally just get the thorium reactors going and we're good for at least a couple of decades.

>That said, stick the nuclear waste in the Australian outback where nobody cares

Fair point. Not like our spiders could get any bigger right?

>Funnel Webs mutate vocal chords and start yelling like Lebbos when they want to fight you

Tbh is this one of the things I fail to learn about. I actually would like if someone could explain how this shit works exactly.

Coal needs to be completely phased out world wide. Then Natural gas.

What can you do to replace it? Only Nuclear fan fill the role. Hippies can fuck off.

Nuclear Power, or how nuclear power can be renewable?

Go watch Pandora's Promise.

It relys on humans to run it and when the humans are gone it will all fail

underrated

Controlled nuclear explosion used to heat water into steam to turn turbine to generate electricity

Control rods used to control explosion, heavy irradiated with long half-lives

Thanks user

youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

When humans are gone, who gives a fuck what happens to the planet?

>Coal needs to be completely phased out world wide

You need coal to produce steel you twit.

bury it, or reuse it as fuel again.

Even though I like Nuclear Power, it can pose a MASSIVE threat to the country. In case of a war, if those were targeted, they would release 10 times more radiation than the most powerful Nuclear Bomb ever engineered.

With that being said, Solar is DEFINITELY the way to go. Either that or by using the core temperature.

Watch this for redpilling: youtube.com/watch?v=mCRDf7QxjDk

Basically, stick a HUGE rod of a material that conducts heat into the Earth. Use a bunch of water to generate steam and power generators, which would generate a shit ton of energy.

He obviously means for electricity generation. They use different types of coal for steel anyways.

I really miss the Soviets. Their Nuclear Physics was top notch.

>Solar is DEFINITELY the way to go

>One of the highest costs of generation
>Inefficient use of space (though distributed generation is something no other type can easily perform)
>Intermittent generation makes it unsuitable for grid-scale use

Until we develop the grid-scale storage necessary, solar will only be able to reduce the amount baseload generation provides, but not replace it.

Currently our best option. Solar and wind aren't efficient yet, don't have a constant output, are limited by geography, and solar takes a fuckton of space. Nuclear reactors produce a shit ton of energy, and despite the fearmongering, they have the lowest death rate per tWh, even if you include shit like chernobyl. Also, shit like chernobyl and fukashima can't really happen with modern reactor designs. Both of those reactors were very old but there is a lot more insiation on them. The main problem is the nuclear waste. The US was going to build a fuckhuge storage depot in the yucca mountains but nevadaniggers got mad and canned it. It's a shame we spend so much money on solar and wind while nuclear gets next to nothing for research. These problems could have been fixed decades ago.

Okay noobs, nuclear power works by heating water through radiation, which powers a steam turbine.

The radiation process is controlled by control rods that are put in the nuclear core (three mile island shit). Nuclear waste is those control rods and spent uranium cores. Both stop working eventually (get less effective) but remain very radioactive (cancerous).

Now, on the bright side, each plant actually produces very little waste in comparison to coal, oil, or even solar power come to think of it. And it doesn't take much uranium to keep the power going.

Good things to do with the waste? There's a new process that can turn some of it into glass. The rest of it needs to be put underground for a very long time. Like a really long time. But eventually it becomes safe.

>nuclear waste
this is a meme, there is no problem at all other wise you would see tanks and military platoons camping in the whereabout of every central in Europe but you don't see that. There is literally no danger attached to nuclear power plants, they are like coal burning centrals no more no less.
Nukes are a meme too and so is the whole nuclear physics supporting nukes.

Geo is bretty gud, but and would never let us do this to Yellowstone

>Oi m8, get in moi fahckin web kahnt I wanna fockin suck out yer guts

There is only onw wrong with Nuclear Fission power, the waste is kind of cunty, it likes to fuck up. everything else is fine really.

enlighten me

its a fair point the sun is nuclear ofcorse

The problem: severely mentally retarded initial construction and refurbishment cost projections resulting in cost overruns literally everywhere except China.

The waste issue: throw it into the sun. But that requires perfectly calculated gravity assist trajectories and extremely robust spacecraft design. However it is clearly the best solution.

Why yellowstone? We can literally drill a Hole ANYWHERE as long as it's deep enough and use the temperature 24/7 in order to generate energy. Then do that Multiple times to generate ALL the energy we need.

We can literally do it WITH solar plants. We do the regular solar plants (Which heat water), then we dig down, and use the earth's temperature ALONG with the sun's in order to heat the same water.

meme all the dead fish from waste dumping and all the dead people and all the dieing ecoosystems and places we cannot go to for thousands of years out of existance?

Literally dump it in Canada, if they retaliate we win

>no danger at all
No inductance company will insure a nuclear power plant and for good reason.

Guys I've been making plans to finally start to attend college somewhere this next semester, and I've a vested interest in nuclear energy. Would getting a degree in nuclear physics be a smart way to go at this point if my intention is to get into the Nuclear energy industry and is it projected to see a lot of growth? I'm really intrigued but want to make sure it will be lucrative before I drive in.

You are a fucking moron, pls never comment on this topic again

As long as they are built far away from me. I don't want to live around that shit.

I'm always puzzled by solar enthusiasm. It's like 3.5x less efficient than it needs to be useful on a large scale, and there is literally NO VISIBLE PATH to achieve that. It's worse than fusion. Nobody fit to comment even has an off the cuff idea about what a 80% efficient solar panel looks like.

copenhagenatomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CA_Whitepaper2014.pdf

Nuclear waste.
Nope.
Diminishing returns. After a while, it doesn't generate enough power to justify keeping around. If they COULD make it work, they DEFINITELY would.
If you can figure out a way to make it work, get hella money!

i know what ur saying but the sun has nourished 99% of all life on earth for a long time why dig shit up and burn it rather than harnessing it?

For everyone saying >muh nuclear waste
Modern designs can use every atom of nuclear waste as full until they're only left with non radioactive material. Seriously you fucks are triggering me with your ignorance

>copenhagenatomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CA_Whitepaper2014.pdf
how does it burn it and make it not nuclear?

source

>e
also thorium salt reactors are not real yet

Solar enthusiasm is all driven by the fact that you're harvesting the energy of the SUN: a nuclear reaction or whatever a million times the size of our entire planet.

If we could figure out a way to make THAT shit cost-effective, it would be better than fossil fuels or whatever that might be gone in the next 200-300 years or whatever. It's all a REALLY long-term investment thing. Sure, there's no visible path NOW, but over the generations, supposedly some people can figure out a way to make it better.

thats bold claim. i hope you can cite a source for that information.

It greatly reduces the long term hazardous "nuclear" component while not really generating enough power to be profitable.

Why not just shoot for the moon and build fusion reactors then? They have a better chance of actually working. Which isn't saying much.

>What is wrong with Nuclear Power?
Not much other than the consequences for fucking up with it need to be 50x more severe so the bigwigs keep things 100% safe 100% of the itme.

>What is "nuclear waste" and do we have a good way to get rid of it?
Nothing economical. Maybe someday there will be a way to regenerate these rods, but not anytime soon.

Why do you need a source? They're obviously wrong. If this was the case, somebody would ALREADY BE DOING IT because you could make hella money that way.

>Nobody fit to comment even has an off the cuff idea about what a 80% efficient solar panel looks like.
An 80% solar panel is impossible on earth and improbably even under ideal conditions. Solar has a relatively low theoretical efficiency with current technology and we're actually very close to that limit already.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor


This design amongst other newer generation designs can burn 'waste' from shitty 60's design reactors which were made to generate material for nuclear bombs as fuel until your left with nothing radioactive or material that is only radioactive for under 100 years. Most reactors in use nowadays are literally 60 year old designs which are fucking garbage for energy production because that isn't what they were made for.

By transmuting it into isotopes which are either more stable (less radioactive) or isotopes which are greatly unstable (in which case they undergo decay very quickly and become relatively safe in a relatively short amount of time)

Give the waste to SpaceX, send it up in a rocket, and hope it doesn't explode.

the sun uses nuclear FUSION, a process that is still in slow progress of being artificially replicated and uses hydrogen

our modern reactors use FISSION, which uses radioactive materials like uranium

Kys you faggot. Nuclear power plants can be bombed by anyone to cause an IMMENSE radiation you dumbfuck.

They won't spontaneously explode, so they aren't as much a threat as the hippies claim, but they are a threat in times of war.

Do your research before pitching in your uneducated opinion. You stupid fucking nigger.

I thought Nuclear Energy was 100% fine, no cons when I was 10 years old. Grow the fuck up.

you could also create almost near infinite amounts of electricity revolutionizing all economy's and changing the entire human race ... google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjls6KJ38XQAhWJWxoKHQq2AewQjRwIBw&url=https://www.pinterest.com/pin/292171094553538459/&psig=AFQjCNG53UVaV2MZy1icJ944Vxpmc3Sjog&ust=1480226364129605

thats not a real reactor they are 200 years away from thorium reactors last time i checked

Ask a councilor, not half-wit 15-year-old coloset Nazis that dwell on this shit site.

The French re-enrich nuclear material and end up with much lower a quanities of waste, although you always end up with some nuclear bi-products that need disposal. The US can't do the same because of a Carter era law preventing re-enrichment due to proliferation concerns.

No it isn't 'wrong'. The reason it isn't being done is due to lobbying from big oil and all the bullshit red tape in place due to dirty smelly 80iq hippies and oil and gas companies lobbyino our lawmakers. Also fuck uranium, thorium is where it's at.

Once nuclear power plants are converted to thorium there will be no nuclear waste and no risk of meltdown.

make a small verion of a big version tahts ready made and will last a few melenia by using finite resources seems legit ...

A breeder reactor isn't a thorium reactor and we could be building thorium reactors today if money was put into them. Did you even fucking read what I posted?

>What is wrong with Nuclear Power?
That's the wrong question
>What's wrong with the popular form of Nuclear Power ?
There are many types of Nuclear Energy, it's the current popular design of it that is fucked

Nothing

>What is wrong with Nuclear Power?
The only thing wrong with it is that it can be used to enrich uranium to make nuclear weapons. More people die per megawatt of solar power produced than nuclear power
>What is "nuclear waste"
Nuclear waste consists of a number of radioactive isotopes that are produced as a result of the splitting of uranium atoms in fission, some are very short lived (Europium 155 which has a half life of just under 5 years) and some are very long lived (Iodine 129 which has a half life of over 15 million years
>do we have a good way to get rid of it?
There are reactors that can reuse nuclear waste, which are expensive. There are storage facilities that consist of giant pools with barrels of waste in them (water is very good at absorbing the bad stuff). You can literally dig a hole below any source of groundwater, throw the waste in and seal it up and it'll be fine but hippies are retarded and want to use up all the rare earth elements for their shitty solar panels

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
salt breeders are thorium reactors am i wrong they can just use other things they were nerver sucsessfull?

Thorium reactor waste is like 100 year half life and is useful. Old designs had 10,000 year half life waste that had to be disposed of. Coal is highly carcinogenic as well. Big isssue with with proliferation but supposed thorium deals with that as well. Then just ban uranium refinement or plutonium production. Thats some world governance type shit im ok with. Same with blocking chemical weapons production. Though this is often just as excuse... Look at Iraq War 2. Bill Clinton murdering all those Sudanese people by knocking out 50% of their pharma capability to take the heat off him. Easy to blame """intel""" when ur security state operates in pure shadows.

Solar uses nonrenewable rare conflict minerals currently and is hugely damaging to produce. We can get there tho with material science / nano tech advancements. There's this cool idea of a paint that is essentially a photovoltaic. Just cover every surface with it. It was very cheap as well. Low efficiency but extremely low cost and easy to make ubiqituous. Many such cases.

Plant photosynthesis supposedly utilizes quantum mechanics to 'optimize' the best possible energy conversion pathway out of all the degrees of freedom / excitation states, which is why it gets such extremely high efficiency. We'll figure that out eventually,

Thinking solar is better as you can have a various sized power solutions and it is easier to build and maintain.

>impossible on earth and improbably even under ideal conditions
In all fairness to solartards, that article assumes current PV technology is a given. 500 years from now I'm sure they'll be able to make a technomagical quantum black rectangle that sucks up 99% of light energy and turns it into electricity, but nobody will ever want one.

Kek, I just like to hear the opinions of people hear because they're usually not the type to pussy foot around things, and thought it might spark interesting discussion. I don't think EVERY poster here is as you say though I cannot deny there are plenty.

Calm down big oil shill. If a plant was bombed there would be no nuclear explosion and radiation would be limited to the radius of the explosion. The exact same thing could be said of coal. I'm pretty sure you aren't getting paid by Exxon to shill on this board so I'd go back to sucking congressmen dick.

bro u mad how long will these barrels last..

fill our aquifers with nuclear waste this goy

Just read the fucking page dude. You even fucking reposted it so I know you know how to get to it.

The nuclear waste is very small compared to other sources. If you take all nuclear waste and stacked it up 8 yards (~8 meters) deep and by side, it will only occupy a football field. And we're not actually wasting it, we're storing it for future use when we discover more efficient way to use those nuclear fuel.

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
Breeder reactors could, in principle,
such as uranium-238 or thorium-232
should i read more?

Hanford Vitrification Plant

We have discovered a way. It's called Vitrification

Research is not dependant on implementation

Solar is a cancerous meme because the market does not incentivise innovation when propped up by faggot muh climate jew dollars

The radioactive material that fuels a nuclear power plant is contained in ceramic fuel pellets that are capable of withstanding thousands of degrees of heat. These fuel pellets are then encased in hollow metal rods that help keep the material from interacting with the water that cools the reactor. In addition, the reactor's thick metal walls and piping, as well as a massive reinforced concrete containment structure, are designed to keep the coolant, fuel, and associated radiation isolated from the environment.

>fill our aquifers with nuclear waste
You can't fill the aquifers if you dig past them senpai

The way it looks we are going to have really efficient cheap solar panels and cheap, high capacity batteries before we have Fusion, making it pointless for anything but space or specialty applications.

So not all breeder reactors use thorium like you previously claimed. Amazing what actually reading the fucking article can do.

i dont disagree we would just be creating no go areas im not saying anybody would go there but how much do you think this will cost they will continue to just dumpp it like they do now

bro breeder reactors arnt real yet the thorium reactor is a breeder reactor non of them are anything but a pipe dream at this point

>What is wrong with Nuclear Power?
You tell me what is wrong with this:
telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/15/china-to-build-nuclear-reactor-in-essex-after-hinkley-deal-appro/

Nuclear waste: stuff we pay poor African countries to take because they don't know any better and are too poor to decline. They dump it on the ground near where they live and kids play in it.

...

Solar Power is currently a fucking meme.

Making the batteries and the panels themselves is incredibly toxic

true but it dosent mean it the wrong question to ask just the wrong implementation atm

And yet again if you read the fucking link I gave you you would see a whole list of breeder reactors and thorium reactors that have already been built. Why ask for a source if you aren't even going to read it?

When you start assuming very complex material science problems will be solved for your pet technology to come to fruition you're just jerking off to popsci articles. I could rub it raw to the idea of a room temperature superconductor being found in the island of stability but I don't because that's a silly assumption that will only leave me disappointed.

>we would just be creating no go areas
Not necessarily, you can just put them where it's impossible to live, such as in the middle of deserts in the western US and the Australian outback

i will read it but i swear if this dosent prove me wrong all the ones we have currently create waste