I am literally 100% right
But what about nuclear waste
>>55364684
Solar thermal is objectively better than photovoltaic though.
>>55364693
Put it in Yucca Mountain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
>>55364684
Fusion isnt Meme tier, it just doesn't work, ... yet.
>>55364722
if it doesnt work its a meme
Call us when it works.
I think nuclear power is bad because radiation into the water makes it hard for fish to spawn
>>55364693
Reusable
>>55364740
>Call us when it works.
Alright what's your number?
>>55364684
actually hydro is god tier because it can serve all purposes, nuclear is only good for producing stable energy that secures the base needs. So if you have enough sufficient sources for hydro its the literal best and basicly the only one that is sufficient for all needs.
Biomass is god-tier my friend
>>55364786
Good, now build a usine around it :^)
>>55364869
biomass is basicly a shittier version of coal with changed ratios of inpurities and added slow renewability. Literally no one can defend this.
>>55364716
Didn't Yucca Mountain get shut down because it was near a fault line or something?
Besides, iirc the new gen of reactors can use nuclear waste as fuel
>defending nuclear energy
>>55364978
Yucca mountain got shut down because politician is a synonym for flaming faggot.
>>55364978
Yes, got shut down. Now waste is going to WIPP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
>>55365013
>thinking anything at all is wrong with nuclear energy
>>55364684
You are actually 100% right, carry on OP.
>>55364684
Hydro should be god tier. It's fucking awesome.
>>55365673
Waste. Ionizing radiation.
>>55364806
Nah, dude. Hydro disrupts rivers and surrounding ecosystem
>>55366151
Maybe in 1986 USSR
>>55364806
Hydro literally destroys the ecosystem around it.
>>55364693
high level nuclear waste account for like 3% of all nuclear waste, and it can be reused in some reactors.
>>55364786
>theory
>meaning that we don't know for sure
Reminder that nobody ever has confirmed the existence of a nuclear fusion reaction, let alone if we can use it to generate energy.
>>55366290
Reminder that nobody has ever confirmed your existence
it's all just a theory
>>55364684
>God-tier: Fission
K
>Top-tier: Geothermal, hydroelectric, onshore wind
eh; eh; lolwut?
>Mid-tier: Biomass, photovoltaic
eh never really looked into it; ok
>Low-tier: offshore wind
eh
>SHIT-tier: solar-thermal, tidal
u wot m8??, eh
>Meme-tier: fusion
um, wtf, lol?
Hydro should be mid tier. There literally aren't enough rivers to power everything. There's also a ton of consequences, like changing the hydrology of a region so if not done carefully it can be disastrous.
>>55366209
Literally not a problem. Climates and ecosystems have been changing on their own for millions of years. Deal with it.
>>55364693
Easier to deal with than the consequences of other clean energy sources. There are plenty of places to store it where it'll be safe, the biggest problem in picking a spot so far is bureaucracy. Solar is a meme because mining the minerals/metals for it is horrible for the environment. Wind is OK, but it can't be applied everywhere. The biggest drawback with wind is ruining the scenery, but that's subjective. Hydro can fuck up the ecosystem of the river and the hydrology of the surrounding area and there aren't enough rivers to power everything. Nuclear is the only option that can provide enough power for everything with minimal impacts on humans and the environment.
>>55366377
>change has always happened so it's always good
>>55366348
If I wasn't so tired, I'd argue, but I only got shit-tier comebacks atm.
I was coding my hentai web app most of the day, and I still gotta make a YouTube video in a little while. I need a nap, tho
>>55366441
Tired shitposting is still shitposting
>>55366440
>>change has always happened so it's always good
Not what I said. Animals adapt or move. Life goes on. Crying because some change may happen is pretty stupid when change is bound to occur anyway.
>>55366656
Humans are animals, and one of the adaptations we've evolved is the ability to influence the environment to our benefit. If we can prevent change for our benefit, we should.
>>55365017
>>55364978
yucca mountain got shut down because some senator from NV at first was like, "hey give us money to build a sweet facility to store waste" and then turned around and said "fuck you guys, i already got the money, you can't store anything here".
This left the DOE in a pickle because they couldn't force NV to do it, as they'd risk a MASSIVE backlash (federal government forces NV to accept nuclear waste!".
basically we taxpayers got fucking played.
>>55366707
>Humans are animals
That's part of the reason I used the word actually.
>If we can prevent change for our benefit, we should.
And if we can induce change for our benefit then we should too. It isn't a one way street.
HWAT FI mwe made nuckealr fusikon but we used the sun as the reactor. but we make like a bunch of energy collectors borbit the sun like a bugnch of orgbiiting solar panels. and we make them orbit real close so tehy get realy hot. and make alot fo energy. for earth. and then we take all the made energty and we beam it back to earth. for ppl
>>55368147
I think that's a great idea
>>55364684
How is biomass not shit tier? Are you from Iowa?
>>55368154
elloit musk PLZZZZZZZ send
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrvs420WeoI
>>55368200
nCIE DUIBS MIRSTER RIMIER!!!!!!!
>>55368075
And the climate is so complicated and there's so much we don't know that humans are much safer maintaining the status quo than attempting terraforming at this point.
>>55366236
You think our nuclear technology has improved a bit since the Cold War?
>>55364684
>mid tier
>pv
>massive progress being made year-on-year
>only solution that can be put up practically anywhere
>already massively taking off and it is nowhere near as good as it will be a decade from now
>mid tier
I always knew /g/ was full of retards, thanks for confirming it.
>>55364684
What if all nuclear fuel on earth is used up? What about the radiation and toxicity of the waste that will exist fir millions of years?
>>55366441
>Using """renders"""
>>55368147
>>55364751
Riddle me this fuckboy,
How the FUCK does water get radioactive? Seriously name one single radioactive isotope of oxygen or hydrogen that can be caused by the baby tier bullshit that comes out of fuel rods. Do the fucking liberals think deuterium causes cancer now holy fuck. Even if you do get a neutron emission that causes a radioactive nitrogen molecule that shit is half lifed to hell in like 10 seconds god damn
>>55368415
>How the FUCK does water get radioactive?
Tritium.
>>55364978
Harry Reid up to his usual shenanigans.
We should toss him off the top of it.
>>55364684
Sorry, but the Dyson Sphere is best tier.
>>55368447
Which rarely gets produced and causes 0 rems compared to background radiation...
>>55368538
I'm not saying anything about how common or bad it is, just answering the question.
>>55368415
thermally
>Nuclear in charge of being built on time and on budget
>>55366329
if you replace the cringeworthy lolwats with what the fucks this was basically going to be my response to OP.
DAE le thorium?
why isn't nuclear categorized as renewable?
in theory all energy source will extinguish after enough time.
even if Earth's population caps at 20B and everyone consumes energy at 3X the rate of the most modern societies today, there is enough energy that can be harnessed from nuclear fuels, given high energy density, to power our world indefinitely for all practical purposes.
>>55368746
Because eco hippy faggots think nuclear is literally satan.
I live in Quebec and we have closed down our last nuclear plant a few years ago because nuclear power is dangerous. We have enough rivers to power the entire province, and possibly the entirety of north America if we build enough plants. Expect us to control your power supply by the end of century because
N U C L E A R I S S H I T
>>55368797
>what is fukushima
>>55364693
thank Carter for not being able to reprocess
>>55364684
>I am literally 100% right
Not quite. You have to take into account the efficiency. Wind wins a fuck ton there.
>>55368878
>>what is fukushima
The city I live in.
>>55368309
if you think it hasn't you're retarded.
and charnobyl wasnt designed solely as a power reactor, but to produced plutonium and power in tandem. and it had positive void and temperature coefficients of reactivity (which are not licensable in the US)
>>55368894
i just hope no children in your family and friend's family is born with gigantism then
>>55368886
now check their respective capacity factors..
>>55368931
and power density
>>55368919
No signs of it so far.
Also, Fukushima city is about 60km from the power plant, so not much to worry about. Place is nice though.
>>55368878
>>what is fukushima
willful negligence of safety
>>55368999
yeah they shouldn't have activated the earthquake switch
>>55368931
>>55368947
When you think of power, there are aspects that need to be taken into account.
>location
Wind is the heavy winner here. You can put wind turbines anywhere and still get power, plus they dont take up much space.
>power density
Nuclear power wins here. Fission is OP.
>cost to power ratio
Wind wins here again. Low cost to make, and power output pays off.
>environmental impact
Wind or Geothermal win here. They have small environmental impact. Nuclear needs mining, hydroelectric impedes waterways, solar has a large carbon footprint. You could probably throw tidal in there somewhere.
Wind is a good source of power that is truly renewable. I would argue that until we have fusion reactors, nuclear is not reliable due to its non renewability.
>>55364684
>God Tier
>Not a dyson sphere
>>55369013
earthquake of same magnitude occurred 100 years prior in same place, followed by tsunami
>known to japs
>put generators in basement
>know thats not safe
>put some tubing up to top level so the intakes wouldnt flood
>tsunami comes and floods diesel generators
>station blackout could have been avoided by moving and isolating the generators from a known problem
>>55369025
>>cost to power ratio
>Wind wins here again.
for a wind farm to output the equivalent amount of energy of a nuclear power plant, the cost is about 2 billion give or take a few million. for the nuke plant, it's 1-3 billion
theyre pretty comparable, even with all of the regulations and delays nuclear power facilities face.
>>55368878
Canada sells twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia to the US. You have the US by the balls but you're too much of a cuck to do anything.
>>55369087
The cost of building, which is factored into the ratio, for a nuclear plant is 9 billion per unit, as of. 2009
(sauce http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power#.V3dFJyMXbqA)
>>55369135
Provinces control their energy policy.
>>55369051
Compounded by people protesting about further work being done at the station.
>greenies complaining about nuclear power being unsafe blocking planned upgrades
>self fulfilling prophesy
>>55369025
>Wind is a good source of power that is truly renewable.
if only it worked for poor germany
they use over twice as much imported nuclear power from france than they do wind power
in fact they used more nuclear power than renewable power from all sources in 2015
>>55369145
watts barr 2 cost less than $5B
Hydroelectric dams are complete shit. It's like having a giant bomb waiting to explode on the retards who decided to live next to it. 171,000 people died from 1 dam collapse in China. How many people died from nuclear accidents?
>>55369293
>How many people died from nuclear accidents?
all together? *far* less than coal you fuckstick
the only issue with nuclear besides individual plants ignoring safety regulations is storing the waste until we can figure out how to reuse it, it's by far the safest best electrical generation we have even with all the disasters we've had
Retard. I was arguing in favor of nuclear energy. And why did you randomly bring up coal?
>>55369293
I've lived in Washington my whole life, and all we use is hydroelectric. I've never once have heard of an accident.
>>55369293
>china
Do they ever do anything right?
How about a first world country?
>>55368878
This is funny because Ontario is ~60% nuclear energy ever since coal was eliminated in 2014.
>Expect us to control your power
Stick it frenchie, we don't want your power.
>wind power
>giant fiber glass body with a generator inside that gets incredibly hot
>sitting next to a giant tub of oil
>so high and so remote that fire fighters can't put them out when they catch
>just sit back and watch them burn while hoping it doesn't spread
>blow themselves apart and shrapnel damages others in the area
>ice builds up on blades and ejects at velocities near 200mph
>need diesel fuel to power generators and heaters to blast the ice off the blades with hot water
>good
Wind power is the shittiest meme out there and it only exists because green subsidies are passed out by total suckers.
Solar power has a viable future. Wind does not.
>>55369396
>Retard. I was arguing in favor of nuclear energy.
in which case learn to string your sentences along and pad them out a bit to remove ambiguity
>>55369041
>>55368532
science fiction meme tier
>>55364684
Also you're missing
>Elder God tier: LFTR
>>55369747
>>Elder God tier: LFTR
the true meme tier
fusion will happen before muh thorium
>>55369768
Fusion has been a dream for decades and is still 'a ways off'
We could have LFTR in a decade, and that time is just to relearn and redesign the existing plans
>>55364684
>nuclear
>clean
>>55369800
but thorium isnt some sort of holy grail that its made out to be. fusion is
>>55369808
>clean doesn't mean carbon-free in the context of energy production
I am so glad actual technology threads are hapening again
bump
>>55369825
clean means no harmful byproducts.
>>55368913
>positive void and temperature coefficients of reactivity
What does this mean?
lol fuseion
>>55369880
no it does'nt
>>55369916
positive reactivity means the neutron population (or multiplication factor k) increases, and negative reactivity means it decreases. when k increases, so does the power level. if there is a positive void coefficient of reactivity, reactivity increases with increasing void (lower moderator density, like air bubbles). positive temp coefficient of reactivity means that reactivity increases with increasing temps.
its not good because if your temp rises, you get higher power level, which then leads to higher temp, and even greater power level from positive feedback. same thing with voids, especially in BWR and reactors where boiling is allowed to occur in reactor core itself, when water boils, void increases, increasing power level
>>55369861
Agreed. I'm far from being a specialist but these threads are always catching my interest.
>>55370007
and in the US, those coefficients must be negative to be licensed by the NRC, so that if power level increases for some reason, when the temp rises, it will be like a negative reactivity insertion (think control rods) and power level will go back down automatically. russia's RBMK had positive coefficients for both void and temp which help lead to the accident
Manufacturing photovoltaic cells fucks the environment bruh. Entire Chinese provinces are basically wastelands just from solar cell production. Thermal solar, especially trough style setups like in your pic, are vastly superior. Their only downside is that they consume water (but so does fission)
>>55364684
What's wrong with Solar Thermal? It's perfectly in places that get lots of sunshine and no cloudy days, like the Sahara and Atacama desert.
>>55364684
What tier is cold fusion ?
>>55364684
If you think wind is good at all you don't know enough about it.
>has to constantly run gas/diesel generators at a lower efficiency/energy output than required to extract it
>renewable
pick one
Wind power is absolute shit.
Nuclear would be the future if people would stop spreading FUD about waste and shit.
I'm kind of ambivalent on solar and don't know enough about hydroelectric or geothemal.
>>55370154
fairy tail shit, with "zero point energy"
solar power is nuclear power
how does sun work?
>>55371116
currently in fusion mode
>>55371116
well if we're meming then fission, fusion, wind, solar, and geothermal are all resulting from nuclear power sources
>>55364684
>>55370168
this, move onshore down to with offshore and you're just about right. it can be close to "clean" but honestly the land/area destruction is bad enough to forget that.
>>55368147
>௵
been a while
>>55364684
Improved it for you.
>>55364693
That's what Mercury and Venus are for.
>>55364693
india or russia
once you add batteries and how they make solar panel you have to wonder is nuclear energy really that dirty
>>55371575
africa
>>55371575
india
>>55366290
You are wrong.
Modern nukes use fusion to blow themselves.
First, the bomb use fission to reach the energy threshold it needs to start the fusion.
Then, the fusion happens and blows everything. Controlled fusion is hard. Fusion is doable .
>>55366290
>Reminder that nobody ever has confirmed the existence of a nuclear fusion reaction
are you havin a laff m8
they've had fusion labs and experiments successful since the 50s. fusion was discovered before fission. we havn't hit ignition, but there have been dozens of fusion devices to create fusion power
>>55371698
what is Castle Bravo and Ivy Mike
>>55366329
> 12 year old
B&
>>55369427
When we have enough dams to power Ontario, you'll want to switch because it's a lot cheaper and cleaner than nuclear energy. And you'll have to when your timebomb blows up. Deal with it faggot.
>>55369427
When we have enough dams to power Ontario, you'll want to switch because it's a lot cheaper and cleaner than nuclear energy. And you'll have to when your timebomb blows up. Deal with it faggot.
>>55369293
>How many people died from nuclear accidents?
By number of joules produced? Fewer than any other power source.
>>55368350
>1995
>"Solar energy will eventually reach $1/watt and compete with coal! Technology is improving!"
>2005
>"Solar energy will eventually reach $1/watt and compete with coal! Technology is improving!"
>2015
>"Solar energy will eventually reach $1/watt and compete with coal! Technology is improving!"
Meanwhile nuclear power gets safer and more reliable with each year. We now have operational thorium reactions in Norway that consume nuclear waste instead of creating it. On top of it all for large scale production nuclear plants need far less real estate per watt than solar.
Face it anon. You jumped on the wrong bandwagon. 10 years from now you'll still be saying the same shit and waiting for things to get better. Nuclear fusion will happen and magnet based perpetual motion machines will exist and PV will still be "improving" while failing to compete except in niche markets and hippies too retarded to maintain a much cheaper windmill.
>>55369293
There has only ever been 2 disaster level meltdowns at nuclear reactors in history.
Chernobyl and Fukushima
>>55369471
>Why don't they use heat pipes and fans to direct the heat from the generator onto the blades to prevent ice buildup in the first place?
>>55368532
>>55369041
>>55371405
There are people on this planet right now who think that a dyson sphere would be a good idea.
>>55367116
this image made me kek. thanks for he kek.
>>55364740
We have built fusion reactors that can produce as much electricity as it takes. Fusion is far from meme tier
>>55368351
M8 the generation 4 reactors are Gr8 check them out before you judge.
>>55374036
Solar power production is extremely toxic and kills lots of workers, it's alright because they are probably just some Africans but it's good to know
>>55374303
>magnet-based perpetual motion
I giggled, I admit it.
>>55374303
This
>>55374303
I think it's dumb to give up on the idea of solar energy. It's literally all over the goddamn planet, being wasted all the time. If we could harness solar power to power the whole planet, we could probably lower the global temperature a notch.
>>55364693
Thorium plants produce almost no nuclear waste
>>55376011
Yeah but they also can't be used to make bombs so good luck funding research
>>55364684
You can't call nuclear fusion meme tier while listing nuclear fission at the top in god tier, cuck.
It's just not possible to due because you need to put a lot of energy (IE a nuclear fission) into it to make it work. We don't have that capability yet save for nuclear bombs.
But maybe if you hadn't fallen asleep in physics, you would understand that if we could harness nuclear fusion, we might very well be able to solve the energy crisis because the energy output is so much greater than nuclear fission.
>>55368075
You're a fucking dingdong m8
You're basically suggesting that we check if there's a gas-leak by striking a match, there's no reason to disrupt a functional eco-system if the disruption has a chance of being catastrophic and irreversible.
>>55364684
>dad was researcher in nuclear fusion
>dad dead because of cancer
>cancer because of radiations
>radiations because of a better world
>that post
You made me feel so sad, faggot
>>55364684
What's wrong with tidal? It's predictable and reliable, with potential output measured in GW.
>>55377829
whered he work? PPPL? LLNL?
i got a job offer from Lockheed to join their compact fusion R&D program, but they fucked me and rescinded my offer, saying they're "restructuring" the team before i started working. i almost had the dream
>>55377829
>nearest nuclear station is >200 km
>my cat has cancer
Fucking nuclear power, I swear. It's not like there's a gorillion causes of cancer, including background radiation.
>>55377920
obviously it would generate a LOT of energy, its just that installation and upkeep would be basically impossible to do reliably
the cost outweighs the benefit
therefore it's shit
>>55364693
Put those on moon, when needed go to it and get all the energy back to earth.
>>55378037
get yourself a Geiger meter and compare to average levels.
>>55364693
This. People disregarding nuclear waste are retarded. It will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. You cannot plan ahead this long and make sure it is stored safely. That doesn't even reliably work for a hundred years.
Saying that the dangerous waste makes up just a little percentage isn't helpful either. With the amount of nuclear power, you still end up with a great amount of highly dangerous waste.
>>55364716
So the whole world will transport it into Yucca Mountain, for the next decades? I don't think so.
>>55378285
And then the rocket explodes during the starting phase. No, thanks.
>>55366209
>>55366251
well so do nuclear power plants as well as any steam based power plant , wind turbines to air and solar/photovoltaic to ground below them. Water has still a lot more advantages over everything else. Also it just reduces the amount of water , thats if you use it on a river , there is a lot of ways to minimize the damage.
so geothermal is the best one?
>same as output as nuclear powerplant
>less impact on environment
>lesser maintenance
>as efficient as wind
>>55378378
You're forgetting erosion, causing landslides, possibly destroying/changing large areas of land.
>>55378407
>as efficient as wind
thats not really a plus.
>>55378037
You fucking idiot I was talking about fusion
>>55377993
ENEA, in Italy
>>55378456
Unless he was keeping a fusor running on his worktable 24/7 he was getting less exposure.
>>55378418
you are forgetting the impact on environment that mining/creating basically anything has. I don't hear noway getting rekt for environmental impact. Also still you cannot produce 100% of total energy from any other source this efficiently so as a power source its literally best at the moment, aside from the crappy hippy shit that you have to deal with when using everything else too.
>>55378486
not that guy, but there are shittons of gammas to deal with
and i doubt he was fucking with some fusor bs
>>55378486
I think he was a little incoscient because he was all the time near the tokhamak(Well I'm notte sure that's the correct spelling)
>>55378523
>fusion
>gammas
>>55378526
It's spelled tokamak. The longest run times achieved on them are measured in seconds.
>>55378556
>>fusion
>>gammas
>what is brem
it's the main sources of power loss in the plasma
>>55378523
Any decent workplace that deals with radioactivity at all have safety standards and max levels of radiation. Even dentists for the occasional x-ray. They're wearing plates that indicate how much radioactivity they were exposed to.
Unless you live in some 3rd world shithole maybe.
>>55378569
Fusion is 99% neutrons and X-rays. Plasma is not nearly hot enough for gammas.
>main sources of power loss
Turbulence.
>>55378556
I know but you can stay nearby a tokamak while it's not working
nuclear fusion will never happen because without gravity to maintain a stable environment it will always cost more energy to iniatiate fusion than what you get out of it.
fission is the way to go, we mastered that shit 80 years ago. it's easy as fuck and it gets you all the energy you ever need.
>>55378573
Dunno, maybe cancer was because of overexposing to the sun
It's funny how people flip out about cancer from nuclear power plants but completely ignore smoking as benign.
>>55378630
Well, he was not a smoker :^)
>>55378573
i visited a lab where they didnt realize how much x-rays they were going to get until they started doing operations. they had 100+ KeV x-rays that they had to get 2 rooms over to be safe. there are lots of reports coming out in recent years from tritium handlers during weapons programs that have gotten cancer. it's an unfortunate occupational hazard that shouldnt exist but it does
>>55378598
x-rays, gammas, same shit (not literally but you understood what i meant)
>Turbulence
that's not a term in the energy balance. it's just disruption based on a number of factors (kink instability being the typical most prolific in things like tokamaks and old pinch devices)
>>55378630
Funnily enough, background radiation near coal power plants is higher than near nuclear reactors.
>>55378644
Red meat and processed meat cause cancer (source: WHO). Did he eat either regularly?
>>55378368
>the rocket explodes
What is this, 1957? Technology has advanced greatly and I'd be surprised if someone manages to fuck something up that badly.
>>55364684
>fusion
That's so true. Literally every time a discussion on energy happens fusionfags have to fuck it up with their muh thorium muh viable futureproof systems muh carl sagan
>>55378630
>radiation from a cigarette
>>55378368
>And then the rocket explodes during the starting phase. No, thanks.
It's ok, we aren't using american technology for space travel anymore
>>55378726
>what is Po-210
that chart shows basically double the exposure from cigs tho, it's around 8000 mRem annually, not 160,000 uSv (16000 mRem)
remember with nuclear you will have to pay for the costs of controlling and managing the waste literally forever making it the most expensive
>>55378687
Nah, i remember him taking care of himself, probably cancer was a conseguence of Chernobyl
>>55378794
i'm like 99% positive that everyone will eventually get cancer if they live long enough. it just happens
>>55378621
>heavier than air aircraft will never happen
It's a matter of scaling. Fission is just a glorified steam engine.
>>55378672
>same shit
Yeah, except it's effectively blocked by lead. For gamma rays 4cm of lead block only a half of them.
>>55378833
>Yeah, except it's effectively blocked by lead. For gamma rays 4cm of lead block only a half of them.
energy difference isn't a distinction between gammas and x-rays, it's their source. gammas are born from the nucleus and can be same or lower energy than hard x-rays, which are not born from the nucleus
>>55378870
>same shit
>explains why it's not the same shit
>>55378903
i know its not, i said sometimes i use them interchangeably
gamma is easier and faster to type out than x-ray
>>55378771
Nee gen plants use the waste of older gens as fuel
>>55378694
Challenger exploded about 15 years ago, during the Bush administration. Some safety checks have been added since, but rockets still have a chance of exploding at every launch.
With that said, we've put nuclear material on a rocket before. Deep Horizon had a plutonium battery on board.
>>55378694
There are failed launches every year.
>>55371405
>>55374599
I had the idea for a Dyson Sphere as a kid, not knowing that it was already a thing. Even then I knew it was probably a bad idea.
>>55364684
So memes are the future?
Thorium is the future
global warming is a meme
>>55379131
Maybe for india.
>>55368538
Remember that japanese reactor melting down?
Do you know how much sea life died because of that?
>>55379145
Why just India? Australia, USA, and Turkey have massive amounts of Thorium as well.
>>55379160
Japanese don't care about sea life
>>55379160
none from tritium
it would be Cs and I mostly
>>55379168
Because India has no/limited access to uranium.
>>55368447
Water reactors have 2 reservoirs, the irradiated one never leaves the reactor, it slows down neutrons and heats the other reservoir.
>>55364716
Surely dumping all of our nuclear waste into tunnels in the center of Nevada could never come back to haunt us? Haha right?
>>55379245
Realistically no it won't come back to haunt us.
>>55379232
in PWRs yeah, not BWRs. theres only a single loop in BWRs, which is why the turbines have heavy shielding
Hydroelectric is shit tier. It does just as much harm as good. It stops up to 90% of the sediment budget of the coastline that is fed by rivers. Longshore sediment transfer is vital to the sustainability of beaches. Without it, you either have to dredge sand from offshore and pump it back onto the beach or lose it forever-this is especially important for sea-cliffs.
When you put a dam on a river, it stops the sediment supply and causes massive erosion faking the rivers, through the estuaries and along the coastline.
They're already costing hundreds of millions dollars a year in damage. Considering that 70% of the population lives in somewhat close proximity to the coastline, it's a big deal.
>>55379077
Failed launch =/= explosions
>>55365673
As long as thr russians dont build them.
>>55364684
nuclear is horrible.
>>55368797
what's wrong with caring about the environment? it's your planet too.
>>55381408
they also think GMOs are bad even tho they save thousands of lives
nuclear is safe af
>>55381440
gmos are bad.
>save thousands of lies
where did you hear this?
>>55381403
yes. so is oil. any of these things that cause this much damage EVER, no matter what the cause was, is simply unacceptable. we need to stop treating the planet like we own the place. we're just living here. if the planet decides it's had enough it'll flick us off like the insignificant insects we are. man's arrogance will be the downfall of us all.
>>55381496
>gmos are bad.
in what capacity
>>save thousands of lies
>where did you hear this?
it allows for crop production in bad soil, resistance to pests, larger yields, etc. to provide crops to poorer farmers and nations
>>55368309
Even at the time of Chernobyl our NPPs were better than Russians, and yes, in the last 30 years there have been advances.
>>55381496
They improve harvests and can grow practically anywhere, which helps desolate shitholes. Also they can boost the nutritional content of the fruits they bear so it's a boon for shitty communities who can only eat beans and rice. Overall you get huge harvests which lowers the price.
>>55381590
>resistance to pests
frankly, it's mostly just pesticide resistance so that farmers can use more of it.
>>55381590
where did you get this information?
>>55381527
if we were to supply the entire world's energy needs through nuclear power, there would only be a 10% chance of a TMI type accident (partial core melt, no significant environmental impact) over the course of 60-100 years operating thousands of reactors. and that's assuming the core damage frequency of an AP 1000, and new designs are lowering this core damage frequency with new research and development
>>55381610
>frankly, it's mostly just pesticide resistance so that farmers can use more of it.
that doesn't even make sense, if it were less resistant to pests they would have to use more to ensure their yields were not being destroyed.
>>55381633
we don't really need energy. we should go back to simple villages. electricity was a mistake.
>>55381624
idek what information you're referring to. what exactly do you think GMOs are for? what do you think they do? they're taking the bad qualities out of crops and replacing them
>>55381683
you mean like the Nazis did?
>>55381496
>gmo
I understand you guys are actually talking about crops, but without genetically modified organisms we'd know shit about physiology.
>>55381707
not eugenics, but in a slightly similar vain. it's not like we're trying to edit genes of jew so their skin glows in the dark
yet
>>55381680
ayy lmao
>>55381603
well, even if they are safe, we should probably avoid them unless necessary.
I know new stuff can be exciting, but we risk getting too far away from our true nature. if it can bring us closer though then fine.
>>55381796
>we risk getting too far away from our true nature
appeal to nature is fallacious
>>55364693
They dump that in area 51 dont worry about it.
>>55378368
>So the whole world will transport it into Yucca Mountain, for the next decades? I don't think so.
Actually yes this is feasible.
>>55364684
>onshore wind
literally the worst thing to ever happen to the countryside
>>55381756
are you happy sitting in front of a glowing box all day? driving everywhere? relying so much on electronics?
seems like it's imprisoned us more than liberated us.
>>55378368
>So the whole world will transport it into Yucca Mountain, for the next decades? I don't think so.
why would we be responsible for another country's commercial waste?
>>55381872
you're under no compulsion to utilize new tech.
>>55381864
why?
>>55381878
Why would we want to help another country at all?
There are many potential reasons. The most obvious is we could make money on the deal.
>>55381909
>implying
yeah, if you want to be amish I guess. why people get so defensive when you suggest balance is beyond me.
>>55381945
we have enough problems trying to get geological repositories up for our own waste, adding foreign countries isnt going to make it any easier
yucca isn't even open for disposal atm
>>55381963
it's ridiculous to assert that new tech is a hindrance. how many lives are saved from cancer diagnostics and treatments, clean running water, quick transport via car, helicopter, etc, fresh meat and produce readily available, and all that stuff that comes with technological advances.
>>55382020
not all new tech is good. remember aerosol cans?
remember microwaves?
people blindly accepting things and believing them to be safe instead of being skeptical and slowly integrating them into their daily routine is not a good idea.
>>55381651
I did not say it was less resistant to pests. It's just as resistant, but by being more resistant to pesticides, more/different pesticides can be used to get a higher yield.
>>55364693
If aussies weren't fucktards that shit would be solved by now.
>>55382076
>microwaves
holy shit don't even start
>>55382119
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/why-you-should-never-microwave-your-food/
>>55382084
i dont think you're other post was very clear to me
>frankly, it's mostly just pesticide resistance so that farmers can use more of it.
it sounds like you're saying that its only pesticide resistant so farmers would use more of it. if that's what you meant to say that doesn't make sense
unless you meant something different and would like to clarify
>>55382119
alright, BPA then.
>>55374372
because the centrifugal force on the heat pipes would keep the liquid at the tips of the blades rather than on the generator where it would need to be to work correctly
>>55382175
that's entirely false. microwaving is essentially steaming, especially with veggies. it's one of the better ways to retain nutrients in food. and there is no problem with cooking with microwaves
http://greatist.com/health/healthy-cooking-methods
http://www.shape.com/healthy-eating/cooking-ideas/5-healthiest-ways-cook
http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/how-to-retain-vegetable-nutrition-while-cooking.html
>>55382265
>dont cook with materials not specifically meant for handling microwave ovens
>>55382076
>remember microwaves
Oh you mean that convenient way to heat our food? I remember that one! It helps us stick to healthy diets by giving the option to prepare a good meal quickly.
Or were you talking about actual microwaves as in the waves that make up our current digital wireless communication medium of choice?
>>55382076
>why you should never microwave your food
>Unfortunately, no studies have been conducted since to replicate Dr. Hertel’s findings, so it would be reaching to conclude that microwaving does indeed deteriorate health.
so what's the deal with corn/ethanol?
>>55382289
wifi signals. they cause cancer.
>good meal quickly
you mean your hotpockets. we all know no one uses microwaves to heat quality food. if anything all they've done is encourage more unnecessary rushing/stress. why is it the more appliances we get that save us time, the less time we seem to have?
>>55382335
>not using a microwave to steam veggies in seconds
you're not too bright are you
>>55382335
>wifi signals. they cause cancer.
citation please
>>55382335
>why is it the more appliances we get that save us time, the less time we seem to have?
lel would you rather go back to the times when you had to hunt, skin, and butcher your own meat to survive, and build a fire to roast it?
>>55364684
>onshore wind
>Top tier
So close.
>>55377829
>Be me
>Dad works in Nuclear since the early 70s
>Dad still alive
>Dad aware of what his total rads are every year he's alive
>Dad healthier than I am
Don't blame nuclear if your father didn't know how to properly monitor his exposure or failed to account for correct safety and PPE procedures
>>55382423
this desu senpai
NRC limit in US is like 5 rem annually and is very strictly monitored
>>55382375
>implying that was my point
doesn't answer my question.
>>55382364
cell phones do. why wouldn't wifi?
people blindly accept things as safe until they find out they're not. then they sue everyone.
doesn't seem like the best way to go about doing things.
>>55382481
>cell phones cause cancer
citation please
>>55382467
we seem to have less time because we get so much more done in a day that it seems we've been working nonstop and hustling and bustling, when really everything we do is much more efficient.
but you couldn't even be the least bit introspective and self aware, so you ask dumb ass questions and get dumb ass responses. fucking contrarian cunts like you are the worst.
>it would be so much better without electricity
fucking dumb shit
