If you don't support nuclear power, you are not an environmentalist

We could have modern reactors producing energy for half the cost of coal. That would mean huge economic growth as energy-intensive industries could expand and create jobs. But enviro-cucks would rather waste time on solar that will never be more than a small percentage of our power generation.

Other urls found in this thread:

nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm
misc.weedwhacker.org/misc/tectc.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=pVbLlnmxIbY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>We could have modern reactors producing energy for half the cost of coal
citation needed

>I have zero knowledge about x toppic but I want to talk about it regardless
Why don't you go somewhere else where you don't need to know anything. for example. Fucking leave leaf

Building a functional nuclear reactor isn't expensive. You can build one in an university sport hall.

Nuclear fuel isn't expensive, even fancy fuel is cheap per energy content and rudimentary fuel is literally cheap as dirt.

Squeezing power out of a nuclear reactor isn't expensive, it's the same stuff as any other thermal energy plant.

--

Nuclear is expensive because of hilariously overblown safety protocols. If we accepted one tenth of the death toll of conventional power for nuclear, we'd have trouble making reactors that unsafe.

nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm

maybe you should go somewhere else if u cant do a simple google search and see that the claim is clearly bogus i suggest
they are about as bright as you are

The lack of support for nuclear among liberals is why I know they're just virtue signaling about the environment.
If global warming was truly the doomsday scenario they claim it is we would have no other choice but nuclear to meet our energy needs and stop CO2 emissions.

"Thorium: Energy Cheaper than Coal"

misc.weedwhacker.org/misc/tectc.pdf

>Nuclear is expensive because of hilariously overblown safety protocols. If we accepted one tenth of the death toll of conventional power for nuclear, we'd have trouble making reactors that unsafe.

Yup. It also takes 10-20 years to get a permit.

You forgot the nucular waste.
But right, you are shooting that around in the middle east, so I guess not a problem for 'murica anymore.

We can't even build working thorium reactors yet.

Yes, let's compare 50 year old reactor designs that use expensive fuel to reactors that are 1/5 the size, use fuel that is literally an industrial waste product right now, and are 50% more efficient.

Thorium breeder reactors would be able to use 99% of our old waste and turn it back into fissile material. So it would actually reduce the nuclear waste.

>Yes, let's compare 50 year old reactor designs that use expensive fuel to reactors that are 1/5 the size, use fuel that is literally an industrial waste product right now, and are 50% more efficient.
literally all the top google searches point it to being about the same efficiency

We had 2 molten salt reactors, which are the same except the fuel... 50 years ago. The Indians are almost finished on theirs, the Chinese have some coming.

Maybe look at the material I gave you from an expert who has published peer-reviewed research, instead of trusting google searches.

Nuclear waste is nothing. Even if we assume all waste is forever toxic material that must be locked away for use by no one, there's so little of it we can feasibly just do that.

In fact, nuclear waste is very rich raw material for further processing into reused nuclear fuel and any heavy element chemistry.

Readily available fresh nuclear waste is even more valuable because of medical and other applications for short-lived isotopes you can separate from it.

We don't want to build them. There was the opportunity in the 40s-50s to construct something like that, but you can't weaponize thorium to an appreciable degree. We hated Russians and had a seemingly limitless supply of oil, so why not the former?

You don't want to build them. The government could start making an investment in these today, and within 10 years get rid of taxes because they could make power so cheaply and sell it.

>100 tons of nuclear waste underground is more damaging than millions of tons of CO2 pumed into the air

What about ionized heavy water dumped in rivers?
And leftovers from fision ((buried)) in underground vaults?
Greenpower and nuclear fusion is the future, things like petrol and fision should be oriented to other purposes.

>Maybe look at the material I gave you from an expert who has published peer-reviewed resear
not gonna debate a technology that doesnt even exist yet and is only theorized about. Current nuclear isnt much cheaper than coal

>he doesn't know water vapour is a greenhouse gas

There is not one commercial reactor on the face of the planet that has in the history of nuclear power run for one single month without subsidy.

Here is a decent Kurzgesagt video showing basic things you should know as basics
youtube.com/watch?v=pVbLlnmxIbY

we never bothered developing the technology because uranium reactors produce plutonium for nuclear weapons

thorium reactors dont

>What about ionized heavy water dumped in rivers?

Quit using reactors from the 1950s.

>And leftovers from fision ((buried)) in underground vaults?

Breeder reactors to turn this back into fissile material. 4th generation nuclear would actually solve the problem, not contribute to it.

>not gonna debate a technology that doesnt even exist yet

"I'm going to pretend 50 year old technology is fake"

More than coal? Kill yourself.

Does that change the fact that modern reactors are much cheaper than coal, with or without subsidies?

Needs more naked chicks. But I like.

You're doing good work redpilling poor fools

It's going to happen, one way or another. Either the US does it and makes a killing, or we wait for the Chinese and the Indians, and they make a killing.

Your infographic is deliberately deceptive.

Nuclear power creates 2,000-2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year. That nuclear waste literally has no where to go. There are no disposal sites.

That's only at 10% of the demand. At 100% demand that's 23,000 tons per year, with no where to go.

Not to mention all the energy lost to mining. Without oil, it's not going to be sustainable.

(yawn) All the more reason to build thorium breeder reactors and turn the nuclear waste back into fissile material.

>Breeder reactors to turn this back into fissile material. 4th generation nuclear would actually solve the problem, not contribute to it.

That's how it works at all.

>"I'm going to pretend 50 year old technology is fake"
That technology isn't what you're describing.

>More than coal? Kill yourself.
We heat up the planet when we use energy for work no matter what. Don't act like your idea does anything more than kick the can down the road.

>Does that change the fact that modern reactors are much cheaper than coal, with or without subsidies?
There's no way in hell that's correct.

Liquid salt? Christ we've never managed to clean up the experimental reactor. You're talking about bullshit that nobody is ever going to bother with.

But okay, i'll bite, you seem to be an expert in how we should replace our current electrical generation systems with nuclear.

What's the cost and the timeline? Who pays for it?

>Does that change the fact that modern reactors are much cheaper than coal, with or without subsidies?


Go ahead and name one reactor that is currently active and is cheaper then coal with or without subsidies.

The name of the facility, not some vague ideal you came up with in your head or read in a tabloid. Just the name.

It should be a simple thing for you, if you're not just talking out of your ass.

Are you pretending to be retarded or do you actually know nothing about thorium reactors?

That you answered in that form tells me most clearly that you know jack-shit beyond infographics nursed from /r/futurology.

Bump. The anti-nuclear crowd are criminally uninformed.

How much would it cost to replace all electrical demand with nuclear, and how much would it cost to increase the requisite mining of fissionable material, and how much would it cost to replace the mining equipment with machines that run off electricity alone.

Nobody has those answers because they get in the way of their grand narrative.

im not anti nuclear its just not this tits n ass combo everybody makes it up to be. Its similarly costed to coal and costs more than Modern NG, but has different emissions and vastly higher security problem,probably has its uses, it's just not the best thing since sliced bread

Oh and how much would it cost to train the countless amounts of highly educated people needed to run every one of the nuclear plants?

Let the market decide. How is that an argument against nuclear power? I don't think we should stop using fossil fuels altogether, that's retarded.

>Let the market decide.
THEY DID. THAT'S WHY IT'S ONLY 10%.

>I don't think we should stop using fossil fuels altogether, that's retarded.
We've no choice but to stop eventually. It's a finite resource.

I agree, but the security and environmental issues are under control. All the anti-nuclear rhetoric is keeping tech from advancing to the point where it is the best thing since sliced bread.

LUCKY FOR YOU

LU-LU-LU-LUCKY FOR YOU

>We've no choice but to stop eventually. It's a finite resource.
and when it's going to be sufficiently expensive, we are going to stop. In the meantime u are stuck with this system

why u picking battles u can't win lmao

>I agree, but the security and environmental issues are under control.

Clearly not, Fukushima was a disaster because of environmental issues and the worst thing about it was the release of shit from the spent fuel pools, which is an aspect of the security problem being completely unsolved, in that there is no safe place currently set up to store international nuclear waste.

>All the anti-nuclear rhetoric is keeping tech from advancing to the point where it is the best thing since sliced bread.

??? Sliced bread is a luxury food, it's a convenience, not a life-saver.

Since the Japanese got raped so badly with Fukushima, why aren't they building a Thorium Reactor? Not sure if thorium reactors are real if they are so safe and all.

The market changes, running out of fossil fuels would affect the viability of nuclear power. If reactor tech keeps advancing and people keep pushing for low carbon emission energy, its a good option.

Yes i know that, which is why i'm asking for both a cost-analysis and a time table. To replace oil with nuclear by the time oil runs out and keep up with growth is, to me, an impossible feat of logistics. Maybe china can do it because they're slaves, but i just can't see democracies having the response time necessary.

>To replace oil with nuclear by the time oil runs out
oil will never run out. It will increase to the cost it will be more profitable to use other sources. There are 0 non-renewable resources that have ever ran out.Look if the oil would be at 200$ instead of 50$ there would be a massive shift towards other forms of energy, the fact it oil isnt running out anytime soon

It was your analogy m8, are you pretending to be dense? Fukishima was an inherently unsafe reactor due to its location, that shit wouldn't fly today. The gooks can't do anything right, what did you expect? Look at yucca mountain, there are plenty of means of secure waste storage.

>running out of fossil fuels would affect the viability of nuclear power.
Yes it would. It would make it increasingly difficult to build a nuclear power plant at a profit. If we don't throw up thousands of new plants in the next 50-100 years, we won't have the energy left to build them, and people will divert what resources they have to stockpiling weapons in defense of their tiny piles of resources.

The only solution is to reduce our energy use to a sustainable level and never go above it again.

But that's contrary to science fiction so we're just fucked i guess.

>If we don't throw up thousands of new plants in the next 50-100 years, we won't have the energy left to build them
yet the oil price is half of what it was 3 years ago, u'd have a point if it was double

I think your underestimating the earths fossil fuel reserves, we've got plenty of time to build reactors.

>oil will never run out. It will increase to the cost it will be more profitable to use other sources.
That's not a sentence as far as i can tell.

>There are 0 non-renewable resources that have ever ran out.
Is that a statement?

>Fukishima was an inherently unsafe reactor due to its location, that shit wouldn't fly today.

You're saying we shouldn't build nuclear reactors on water sources? Well that's going to severely up the costs and risks, water sources tend to be very useful for steam engines.

>Look at yucca mountain
OH THANK YOU now i can fucking ignore everything else you say.

YOU go look at Yucca Mountain. IT WAS CANCELLED.

>yet the oil price is half of what it was 3 years ago, u'd have a point if it was double
You are seriously stupid if you think low oil prices are a good thing. You know that extraction is monumentally expensive right? What do you think happens to oil extraction companies when the cost of a barrel of oil is less than what it takes to make that barrel of oil?

>I think your underestimating the earths fossil fuel reserves, we've got plenty of time to build reactors.
They're state secrets, so i can't know for sure. But what i do know is that Saudi Arabia had the largest inland oil reserves ever discovered, and that they are now doing offshore drilling despite how far less efficient that is for getting oil.

They're running out. If they're running out and had the largest reserve known, we're all running out.

A century is all we have left.

Or just avoid fault lines and areas prone to tsunamis. I wonder why. I'm saying there are ways to store high level waste for thousands of years, securely and cost effectively.

>being an environmentalist is a good thing

Let’s be clear about what Stephens actually said. Here’s his summary of the current state of climate science:
>While the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future.

Here’s the translation: Science teaches us that humans have helped cause global warming, but when we try to forecast the extent of the warming and its effects on our lives, the certainty starts to recede. In addition, the activism has gotten ahead of the science. Indeed, Stephens even quotes the New York Times’ own environmental reporter, Andrew Revkin, who has observed that he “saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.”

Dude, I'm talking about coal mostly.

>Or just avoid fault lines and areas prone to tsunamis.
Oh so we can only build in the white areas and everywhere else just won't have electricity because you can only transmit so much so far?

Again, you don't know shit. You're a fucking idiot.

>What do you think happens to oil extraction companies when the cost of a barrel of oil is less than what it takes to make that barrel of oil?
some go out of business until it reaches long run equilibrium. - lower than it was 3 years ago because fracking enabled access to vast reserves that were previously unusable.
You need to study your extraction theory you are lacking
>You know that extraction is monumentally expensive right
depends for whom, fracking currently isnt very profitable but it would be with 60-70 a barrel. Conventional means, esp. in middle east remain very profitable as extraction cost is very close to 0

You're a fucking idiot who didn't even know yucca mountain was cancelled. Go back to /r/futurology they'll buy all your shit.

Modern reactors are built to withstand all sorts of natural disasters and terrorist attacks. If you're building a reactor in a high risk area, take extra precautions. Its that simple.

Ad hominem eh? So you admit we're doing fine on fossils fuels for the time being?

>You're talking about bullshit that nobody is ever going to bother with.

China and India are already building them. Shill less.

Start building experimental molten salt thorium reactors. Work out the kinks, then go balls out. Invest trillions of dollars in them, create electricity at 3c/kw (conservative estimate) sell for 15c/kwh to anyone who wants power.

You can get about a 30-35% return on investment doing this. Invest $10 trillion over the next 10-20 years, and you could replace all tax revenue currently being collected.

"Attack person advocating for implementation of better idea by pointing out that idea has not yet been implemented." Circular logic much? Kill yourself, you Big Oil shill.

$2/watt is a conservative estimate for the capital cost. Probably lower.

Let the chinks who are studying here stay. Not hard.

They are currently being constructed.

China is already doing it. With our scientists, because our government is cucked and wants to fluff the Chinese bull to become the dominant economic power.

>Yes it would. It would make it increasingly difficult to build a nuclear power plant at a profit. If we don't throw up thousands of new plants in the next 50-100 years, we won't have the energy left to build them, and people will divert what resources they have to stockpiling weapons in defense of their tiny piles of resources.

You must think we are really, really stupid.

>some go out of business until it reaches long run equilibrium. - lower than it was 3 years ago because fracking enabled access to vast reserves that were previously unusable.
Yes and that resulting oversupply to the market ended up killing itself. Shale has been losing companies for the last 5 years or so, and nobody is going to restart it.

The supply will run low, and we won't have the extraction rate we need to keep the lights on. This will happen over the next 10 years, Venezuela is an early warning sign of this. Everywhere is going to deteriorate to that.

And molten salt reactors cannot create a steam explosion. You can literally put them on a fault line like Fukushima and they will not blow up.

>Everywhere is going to deteriorate to that.

George Soros? Is that you trying to frighten the cattle into compliance?

The super high temp reactors also produce a shit ton of hydrogen gas as a by product, which would be useful for cars in the future

>Shale has been losing companies for the last 5 years or so, and nobody is going to restart it.

they will at higher prices, which will eventually happen. And its not like all wells are making a loss, some are doing fine.

Good for water desalination, too.

Scientists have observed cracks in the Arctic expanding from a few centimetres to over a metre and they're pissing out methane

>You forgot the nucular waste.
>what is closed cycle

>Start building experimental molten salt thorium reactors. Work out the kinks, then go balls out. Invest trillions of dollars in them, create electricity at 3c/kw (conservative estimate) sell for 15c/kwh to anyone who wants power.
>You can get about a 30-35% return on investment doing this. Invest $10 trillion over the next 10-20 years, and you could replace all tax revenue currently being collected.
That's more than half of the USA's economy. How the fuck is that going to work? What doomcrying proposal would get everyone to give up half their earned income in taxes?

>$2/watt is a conservative estimate for the capital cost. Probably lower.
Source? is that watt hours or just watts? Also, in 2012 the top 37 electricity consuming countries used 19,000 TWh annually, or 17.1 quadrillion watt hours. Nuclear comprised 10% of that. So for 2 dollars a watt hour you're looking at an ADDITIONAL cost of 8 quadrillion dollars.

Maybe your source was wrong?

A fantasy at best. Nobody has come close to closing it.

An insufficient amount are "doing fine" to keep up with global demand once supplies run thin.

We'll just build more? No. Banks aren't going to issue loans for things that aren't likely to see significant returns.

Daily reminder that oil companies ran a smear campaign against nuclear in the 70s by promoting "clean" energy like solar and wind because they knew those sources wouldn't be competitive

>global demand once supplies run thin
>once supplies run thin
prices of oil have decreased by 50% there can be 2 explanations 1. massive fall in global demand 2. massive increase in supply. You are making yourself look silly when you at the same time complain about low oil prices and a fall of supply, or that we are anywhere close to running out. If we were oil would be much more expensive than in previous periods. The fact is that it's not and we are not going to run out of oil anytime soon

I go to a high end engineering school. One of my professors stated he and a research team once formulated a working plan to reduce nuclear waste from power plants by 90% in the 80's. He then told me that a group of government officials shut him down and said stop his research or he would regret it.

He said it was bad during Regan worse during Bill and more than likely has just gotten worse ever since.

I don't know how true this information was but he is a super cool dude and I don't think he would lie to the class like that, especially promoting anything like this might cost him his job.

He has back tracked when he said nonPC stuff in class before like "Thank your deity that this formula makes thing work out like this because doing this all by hand would make you want to commit suicide... wait... I shouldn't say that. No seriously class I sincerely apologize I really don't want that comment to become a thing."

He also doubled back on saying God numerous times. He would always correct himself with "whatever deity you believe in"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)

Wrong.

Only "environmental" solution is mass genocide. Less humans will result in a better environment. It's the only way.

finally some one sensible, care to be the 1st in line?

but did he know how to activate almonds?

completely agree. nuclear power and electric vehicles is the way to go, not carbon taxes. capitalism can fix all.

>2. massive increase in supply.
It's the second one but that was only because oil shale was profitable for a short time. But then the price of oil fell below their breakeven point and now they're all going bust.

We're in a bubble.

>You are making yourself look silly
You don't understand the economics of extracting oil, at all. I don't even think you've a basic grasp of economic theory.

It will happen sooner or later. "Running out" isn't the problem though so much as not keeping up with the growing demand as third world countries start to use more. Modern techiques/technology have pushed back the date, but it is still coming.

You first comrade. I intend to meme my way through life as long as I can.

Conceptski, broski. Good Luckski.

>cooled by boiling lead
That's neat though.

>their breakeven point and now they're all going bust.
>We're in a bubble.
are you dense?
>''bubble'' pops
>price of oil increases
>oh look shale is now profitable
>price goes back down
nigger you dont understand 1 thing about it, when price of oil increases so do the proven oil reserves, effectively increasing the amount of oil being mined.

As i see it, the choices are: Reduce energy use willingly and bloodlessly now, or, Reduce energy as a consequence of nuclear war resulting from severe resource shortage like what venezuala is going through atm.

Why did it hit venezuala first? Their economy is more delicately balanced on the knife's edge of oil profits.

That picture is bullshit, at least here in the UK. Coal power plants are incredibly heavily regulated in terms of their emissions, and 99.99% of sulphur has to be removed from the waste output.

>>oh look shale is now profitable
>banks look at the volatility of the market and its history
>new construction loans denied

Sorry. That's economics. You even show in your example how history would just repeat itself, so why would a bank be stupid enough to give money to a company that will probably just end up bankrupt like last time?

>The construction of the BREST-300-OD in Seversk (near Tomsk) was approved in August 2016.[3]
It's already in construction. There's also SVBR-100 and BN-800/1200.

when you violate the NAP of all the future generations of unborn with nuclear dirt that will remain active as long as the sun keeps its light

it is bullshit. it's like that everywhere in the west. it's all a scam to send our manufacturing over to the undeveloped world
>we're not robbing you of your industry goyim, we're fighting global warming!

banks will always lend to oil companies, its not like they will be blacklisted. If anything they would require more rigorous capital ratios,more leverage and charge a higher interest rate.

Yes and it will take several years to see how well it works out. I am greatly skeptical.

NO THEY FUCKING WON'T. Why would they make choices that would lose them money? that's not how you run a fucking business!

> If anything they would require more rigorous capital ratios,more leverage and charge a higher interest rate.
Yes! They Do! That's another reason why shale stopped being profitable!

we could be living in a world where the righteous won, but instead we live in the world where the piece of shit jews. brits and americans decided to destroy the only defense against the marxist poison that has infiltrated and corrupted every single generation in the western world

less leverage****

You mean the only source of electricity and comfort you have ever known?

Biting the hand that feeds you is not considered a mature behavior.

Its also the riskiest long term solution - seeing as the tend to explode at a rate of one a decade, fucking up hundreds of miles of land for centuries...

Until you can make nuclear plants earthquake, tsunami, cold, heat, flood, lightning, technical failure and terrorism proof - they are still a concern.

>Yes and it will take several years to see how well it works out.
Well, duh. It's essentially a test platform to see how well it will work and what possible bottle necks and redesigns there might be to increase efficiency. Far from your
>A fantasy at best. Nobody has come close to closing it.