This is literally the solution to everything. Make Saudi Arabia irrelevant. Energy costs go down...

This is literally the solution to everything. Make Saudi Arabia irrelevant. Energy costs go down. The climate change idiots will shut up because this is clean. Why is this not our main source of energy yet?
>inb4 fukushima

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production
pvwatts.nrel.gov
energyfromthorium.com/2016/10/16/ornl-msre-film/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Is that a nuclear waste chart, adam west?

>cheap electricity will halt progressive liberalism

>kg
>gas
K

The current plan for nuclear waste is to have the spent rods put in dry casks, but it on a parking lot with a chain link fence and pay a man with a gun to watch it for 10,000 years.

Also, energy extraction of nuclear power is shit. fucking 18th century steam turbine shit, it's embarrassing.

I could honestly live without electricity.
I wouldn't be on here
I would be happier.

Why the fuck aren't we shooting it into space? What's the big deal?

>Lay waste to the soil looking for uranium
>Make nuclear waste by the ton that contaminates everything for thousands of years
>Meanwhile the sun bathes you in free energy everyday

wow

>leaf education

I understand the point, but a more practical graph would show cost per unit of energy.
Although more convincing to your point would be a graph of waste produced per unit of energy.

solar energy is expensive

>2017
>not using renewables
CUC

>The climate change idiots will shut up because this is clean. Why is this not our main source of energy yet?
We don't have SpaceXXX yet

That's fucking right.

Good thing cheap energy is inevitable.

cheaper than coal

>Make Saudi Arabia irrelevant
>become dependent on Kazakhstan, A FUCKING LEAF and Australia
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production
Sound like a great idea, I'm sure leaf uranium will be extra enriched

>nuclear waste will sit around for 10,000 years!

When will this meme fucking die?
Do you know how long 10,000 years will be at our rate of advancement? Fuck man, convert the world to nuclear and I give us a few decades before we can reliably launch all nuclear waste into the fucking sun.

Dis you calculate the sustainability on that "expensive"?

What a retarded chart
> Implying we get anywhere close to 100% efficiency in harvesting the energy of nuclear reactions
We'd need something like a perfected Magnetohydrodynamic molten nuclear material reactor to do that.

At least those countries dont fund ISIS

To heavy

US is 9th place on that list tho

Because rockets sometimes explode.

>implying we can also harvest 100% of energy from gas or coal
Kys you pseudo-intellectual

Nuclear power is the shit, but fusion is the way of the future, fission is just a temporary pit-stop.

We need to invest in fusion power research more than building new fission plants.

> be Germany
> it understand the difference between 'intermittent' and 'continuous' sources of energy
>not the first time they have confused temporary and permanent things
>import hundreds of thousands of Turks to fill temporary skills shortages.
>they stay forever and bring their families

Hans, you really need to learn the difference. You're making a fool of yourself.

it's always a kike objecting to nuclear power, or a liberal woman

dumb leaf
you gotta be a yank on vacation or something, srs

Saudis are making oil so cheap that no one is going for solar energy. Theyre gone soon.

hahaha holy hell well done, Justin

can thorium fission be capable of repurposement into fusion when the time comes?

Steam turbine, or rather turning a generator is how EVERY source of power works (sans Solar).

We just come up with more efficient ways to heat up water.

To be honest, the uranium in the north of Canada isn't the most abundant. The town literally called, Uranium City, was a US planned mine. After the amount of uranium they were pulling out from the ground started to dry up and costs went way up, they pulled out. Town is a complete ghost town that makes great for a SHTF place to be. Since the US didn't fill in the mine after they left, its open and available for taking advantage of.

you think uranium is a gas????? how about gasoline, do you think that's a gas????

obongo is gone

it will remove their only moral high ground, which is climate change. If we can nullify the global warming argument then they're the only ones pushing for venues which will destroy civilization. Right now both sides are heading for destruction (if you believe in global warming, which I don't but most normies do)

t. holiday yank

Sadly the latest fusion shit looks like it will only be practical on neptune. I don't remember why, but there are quite a few articles on it, iirc.

I want to believe that they'll figure out a new solution though. Generally, you can gamble on science making starting breakthroughs because wow, holy shit, we don't know everything. It's always safe to gamble on there being more we don't know.

You get greater diminishing returns from a greater initial energy. If you only get 10% of the energy source of something that produces 500 kJ per kg vs something that produces 5000, then you lose 4500 kJ in the energy harvesting process vs losing only 50. Now, if you consider that we actually harvest even more energy than that proportionally from fossil fuels and much less than that from nuclear reactions, it starts to become an even bigger problem. Not to mention the initial costs for nuclear reactors are much higher, require much more bureacracy, higher time to implement, more government interaction to build, etc. Nuclear is good in a limited domain but don't think that atm it can entirely displace fossil fuels unless we transition to something like LFTR or fusion or something revolutionary compared to what we're doing now.

And next gen reactors produce FAR less waste.

Some can even continually reprocess the fuel until there is next to no highly radioactive waste.

right, nuclear power will take away the only thing tht they sort of have going for them.

*lose 4500 kJ vs losing only 450
fugg

...

>not posting glorious thorium reactor

Solar energy is difficult to capture, as its is limited depending on area. Furthermore, the amount of energy captured is fairly low, even in sunny areas.
pvwatts.nrel.gov
This website has a good calculator for predicting the amount of money youd save by using solar panels

Thorium is far more abundant and a whole lot safer than uranium and plutonium. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

No idea to be honest I'm not an expert on the technical details.

>Sadly the latest fusion shit looks like it will only be practical on neptune.

What are you talking about?

>I want to believe that they'll figure out a new solution though.

I think with enough money and research it's only a matter of time, maybe 20-30 years with sufficient funding. I certainly don't have the technical expertise to say for sure, though.

Worst case scenario we do a bunch of interesting physics and engineering R&D that will spill over into other applications.

No.

They are literally the exact opposite process. You cannot repurpose a fission reactor and turn it into a fusion reactor.

Nor could you efficiently fuse atoms heavier than iron to get a net gain in energy.

The heaviest of atoms are literally made during supernovas. They take far more energy to produce than the lighter elements.

what is this? quick rundown pls

doesn't matter if 100% of our electricity came from nuclear, we still need oil for almost everything that is manufactured.

To expand on this post, the return on investment is fairly low for solar panels. I think solar panels have the potential to be sustainable, but aren't currently

It is, but those climate change proponents are, generally, the same idiots that would be against nuclear power. I hate environmentalists so god damn much, and I should be broadly agreeing with them.

a fucking leaf

Okay we get it, stop being mean...

tech that doesn't work yet and maybe never will

Deuterium/Tritium fusion is nowhere near as "holy Grail" as a lot of people would have you believe.

There was an article in the Journal of Atomic Scientists (I believe) that really talks about the HUGE pitfalls we have to face when it comes to DT fusion.


Helium-3 on the other hand would be closer to the holy grail we're looking for. Too bad it's only abundant on the Moon.

can you elaborate on what the leaf meant ?
best energy source is hydro( although is slows earth rotation and lengthens days) , tidal, then wind and solar . we should use all of these most of the time with large molten salt reactors to provide the ability to rapidly react to changing consumption when these cant .
the main problem with oil dependency is cars\ships\planes .i think we can switch most cars to electric in the next 20 years.

inb4 burn black people and jews = renewable energy

forget to drink your maple syrup today?

no shit they're the opposite. i'm talking in terms of cooling and safety/containment measures. Was wondering if there was a given amount of free energy it needed to contain in case of snafu that could be sufficient for the projected needs of fusion.

I think the waste extremely dangerous is equivalent to the energy potential being extremely high. Either way look up how many people have died from coal vs nuclear. It's about 1 nuclear death for every 4000 from coal based off of energy output.

just launch it into deep space

>best energy source is hydro( although is slows earth rotation and lengthens days)
wat

>>inb4 fukushima
in after Chernobyl
in after 3 Mile island


Solar and wind to supplement coal and natural gas. We have proven as humans that we cannot predictably contain the power of the sun. We cannot guarantee 100% chance of success, no matter how sure engineers are.

The amount of death, and the duration of time that some of these accidents are uninhabitable.

I love knowing that the waste from nukes is stored on site, and later off site....in a massive storage area for lots of nuke waste...What happens when that system fails. How much of a mess will that cause? You can argue all you want, but the waste in the containers will outlast the containers.

You can passively extract it from the oceans.

basically a cleaner form of fission; using a fluid nuclear fuel means it's easier and safer to control where the radiation is coming from (easier to prevent runaway catastrophes) as well as generally safer in storage; contaminating fewer metals outside its piping, and not being so goddamn poisonous and all. Problem is only if there's a leak, and the whole paranoia thing around nuclear power is always gonna stop progress.

Right but the vast majority of the oil used today is for energy. Our need for it would decrease dramatically.

There's no reason not to just bury it 500 yards under a desert somewhere, especially if we find a good use for spent nuclear fuel in the future.

Saudis are literally our only allie in the war against repitilian judeoslavs

If you're building a new home or replacing your roof, it'd be interesting to know how the Tesla solar shingles figure into the value calculations.

Containment for fusion is mostly concerned with capturing Neutrons and gamma rays.

You could not experience a "run-away" fusion reaction like you could with a fission reaction. As the plasma cools or the pressure decreases the reaction immediately stops.

>muslims
>ally
what?

Quality if b8

you think (((they))) allowed this?
what about anti cold fusion lobby

that chart there says 3% for electricity. Unless we're going to get rid of all fossil fueled vehicles and replace them with electric cars we still need a lot of it.

Basically molten salt thorium reactors are self-containing as well as being much smaller facilities. Where Uranium reactors need constant monitoring and intervention to prevent them from boiling away their coolant, molten salt reactors need constant monitoring and interaction to keep them critical and maintaining a chain reaction. In the event of a catastrophe, a thorium reactor would shut itself down.

breh you realize Chernobyl is a wildlife sanctuary and birds nest in the roof of the sarcophagus right? Stop being a fucking fearmonger, we've already solved the spent fuel question with molten salt reactors.

gotcha, thank you

The energy required to do that, considering the mass of nuclear waste, would be so high that it would probably be net energy negative even when considering the energy harvested from the nuclear reaction.
Saudi Arabia and Israel are basically allies at this point, even if the Saudi government won't officially explicitly say much about it.

Thorium

nuclear power is not the solution it creates massive ammounts of radioactive waste that cant be stored corretly and causes large swaths of land to be unihabitable for 27,000 years. dont be fucking stupid.

I just want us to use uranium to put interest back into nuclear energy so we can get moving on Thorium.

That's one of the issues we have had in the past, actually maintaining the reaction. We've pretty much solved that problem but we've got some other rather heavy problems in order to make fusion viable.

These Gen 4 Fission reactors are a MUCH more attractive prospect for future energy concerns than fusion.

>Also, energy extraction of nuclear power is shit. fucking 18th century steam turbine shit, it's embarrassing.
Steam turbines are the best option for heat to usable energy for most conditions, and no amount of time will change that. Making a peltier stack with the same net efficiency will always cost more, for example.

Was dismissed in the 1960's because it didn't produce plutonium for weapons. China and India now leading the field in research

energyfromthorium.com/2016/10/16/ornl-msre-film/

Tesla solar shingles (from what I've just read) are less efficient than solar panels. There are some articles online about the topic, but i can't seem to find a data sheet for the Tesla shingles.
If you find one i can probably tell you a little more.
>t. An electrical engineer

>mine the earth dry in order to have solar energy to power a country smaller than the United States
lol k fag

use uranium to generate energy for cars.

If we perfected the physics we could harness the atomic forces of heat/magnetism going on in the reaction and harvest energy using an MHD Drive, but that's a while off if it's even possible.

unrelated but what do you think about solar paint? why is this not a feasible option?

Shh. You're trying to talk sense to a Trudeau worshipping leaf. You're right, but just stop trying to unfuck the retarded

>rocket explodes

The radioactive "waste" may one day be usable again. This is what is means to use technology that ISN'T a dead end.

inb4 donald trumps grandpa explains the power of nuclear

...

until we can figure out what to do with it who the fuck are we to put this garbage on the planet for someone else to deal with.

>nuclear power is not the solution it creates massive ammounts of radioactive waste


Are you retarded? It produces so little waste that literally all the waste is stored on site in casks because Harry reid didnt want it all being sent into his backyard.

We do need to figure out where we are going to put it all but relative to how much energy is produced there is almost no waste. The catch is that it will never go away, we just have to store it forever.

Exactly.
A lot of these 4th Gen reactors actually use current "waste" in order to start their reaction.

Some reactors are even flexible enough to continue to "burn" some continually less refined waste fuels. You could literally continue to gain usable energy while using up the waste.

no but you might be if you believe that shit.