What is the best means of generating energy /pol/? Why is it Nuclear?
>>75818012
nuclear is objectively the best. Safer, cheaper per watt, higher efficiency, etc, etc...
The environmentalists who oppose Nuclear need to shut the fuck up and read a goddamned book.
>>75818012
>What is the best means of generating energy /pol/?
Solar and it's not even close.
Solar has seen it's cost go WAY down in the last couple of years.
Nuclear leads to watch to much nuclear waste.
And I'm a afraid of them blowing up. Could only work in the inland areas of the USA, not on the coast.
>>75818012
Thorium reactors
>>75818511
"I'm afraid"
You invalidate literally anything else you might say with two words. If your decision making process includes what you are afraid of you are not qualified to make decisions for anyone but yourself. Your probably the kind of faggot that wants gun free zones so that you can *feel* safe "knowing" that no one near you is armed even though gun free zones and cities with strict guns laws have been demonstrated to be statistically less safe than unregulated areas.
And solar only works in place with reliable and sustained sun. New York for Example has only 28 days a year where solar can realistically capture enough energy to power a home.
>>75818511
>Nuclear leads to watch to much nuclear waste.
>And I'm a afraid of them blowing up.
So use a reactor that makes almost no waste and isn't under pressure so it can't blow up.
>>75818511
even factoring in all of the nuclear accidents in the past 30 years, Nuclear is still statistically safer than Solar, Wind, Oil and Coal.
>>75818012
>What is the best means of generating energy /pol/?
Fission
Now fuck off
>>75818511
GTFO hippy cuck. Coal liquefaction will always be the true master race of energy production.
>>75819851
I see your coal liquefaction and raise you to nuclear powered coal liquefaction.
The economic holding point of coal conversion has always been the heating cost. Normally you got the heat by burning some of the coal. But if you got your heat from a nuclear reactor you can lower the conversion cost to an economically viable point. Use a nuclear reactor to convert coal into oil.
This is my favorite suggestion to the environazi demand that we give up ICE and drive battery cars.
Although I think that direct fuel production from nuclear cracked hydrogen and extracted carbon is a better tech.
>>75818568
This poster and I are literally the only non retards on /pol/
>>75818012
hydro is the best.
>>75820184
>coal liquefication
>not plasma gasification
Retard confirmed
>>75818012
Because nuclear fusion is the FUCKING SUN and powers the entire fucking universe
>>75818511
Nuclear Fusion has no waste. What are you talking about?
>>75820303
this anon knows what's up
>>75820288
not an argument, it's not as efficient and fucks with the water cycle.
>>75818511
Solar is a meme
Wind is literally better in every way
>cheaper
>safer
>more scaleable
>not toxic to produce
>works with or without sunlight
6% of power in the US is from wind and it's growing fast
Solar is less than half of 1% and people have been saying "it'll be big soon I promise!" for decades
>>75818511
>I'm afraid Dave, I'm afraid
fuck off cunt, not an argument. If you don't like them, don't live near them
>>75820303
The biomass carbon required would take up massive amounts of farm land that could be feeding people or feeding the food I want to eat.
Coal is under the ground and concentrated saving on space and required devoted lands.
We can't produce enough waste biomass to fuel most of our vehicles without dedicated production.
>>75820657
I think some of the wave harnessing technologies have some promise, that is not what he is talking about tho
>>75820770
You can also use shit and medical waste though
>>75821010
>You can also use shit and medical waste though
I was including waste biomass from all sources.
>>75820732
but nuclear is about 20% of the US's energy, and there are only about 100 nuclear power plants in the us...
That means you could literally power the entire united states by building 400 more nuclear power plants.
>tfw geological engineering student
>tfw praying Trudeau doesn't do some stupid shit like carbon tax in the name of "global warming"
>>75820732
>falling for the wind meme
wind isnt even close to 6
see chart
>>75819749
No lad, fusion is better if it ever gets figured out
>>75821187
lol, leaf forgets to append picture to go with his >tfw
>>75820732
>safer
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/03/17/inconvenient-truth-wind-energy-has-killed-more-americans-nuclear
>>75821268
Nice shit graph
This data here doesn't even include small/scale wind and it's way higher than that
>>75821451
I said wind is safer than solar.
>>75821177
There's a lot less than 100 nuclear plants.
There's only 99 reactors and plans have between 1 and 6 each.
>>75818511
Most nuclear plants used fuel cycles designed to breed weapons grade capable waste, you can optimize fuel cycles for waste reduction
>>75821827
Wrong.
Nuclear weapons grade material is made in uranium processing facilities, not by nuclear reactors.
Today's reactors are commercialized versions of PWRs first developed for use on nuclear submarines.
>>75822035
Also, this is now a nuclear reactor porn thread.
>>75822035
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Plutonium isn't a byproduct created during great enrichment or processing of uranium. However, plutonium is created in a LWR. If it's viable to extract it from the spent fuel and make a weapon is subject of debate.
>>75821666
Satan checked
If we're still getting 66% of out power from fossil fuels, we're not doing too well.
I'd love to see more nuclear plants built, but it's hard to get people unspooked of the nonexistant nuclear boogeyman.
Chernobyl was because soviets couldn't into safety
3 mile island was blown way out of proportion
Fukashima was because Japan is a island riddled with earthquakes due to being literally on the ring of fire, and nuclear plants not really liking getting a Michael Fox treatment
>>75821666
That actually helps my point, though. Worst case scenario, we would have to build 400 more.
>>75821666
>Says wind is 6% of energy generation
>Their own source says its .6%
Kek.
>>75822494
Yeah, I'm just saying we have a lot less of them than you stated earlier.
>>75822532
>literally cannot read
>>75822624
shit, here's a better picture
>>75818568
Thank you! Jesus, everyone I talk to doesn't seem to understand this is likely the energy source of the future.
>>75822624
I redid the math. We would only need to build 244 more nuclear power plants to be totally power independent from any other country.
Here's the construction site of ITER, the world's largest fusion reactor
>>75823156
and the size of its magnetic confinement coils
>>75822830
Thorium reactors really do seem like the best thing to construct right now, seeing as they're clean, efficient and because of the fact thatbwe have a fuck-ton of thorium sitting around.
>>75820478
>fusion has no waste
Only if we can breed out all the neutrons
>>75818012
Just let the sun come to you... much more efficient than all the regulations, billions of worthless union contractors, and taxation of the already poor taxpayers. Plus, using sunlight doesn't create waste that future generations have to look after for tens of thousands of years.
>>75823247
>Falling for the thorium meme
We all know it is going to be at least 20 years until a commercial one is built.
The NRC will tear into those plans like a feminist tears into a big mac.
>>75823436
The fuck are you talking about
Solar is shit except for off grid installations
Think this runs on solar? On wind? On oil? On anything but nuclear? Wrong. This is _ONLY_ possible with nuclear. The submarines are an even more extreme example.
I'm not saying military of this kind is necessary, I'm just saying it is in its own league. Nuclear is fucking bad ass and nothing comes close to it.
>>75823367
Neutrons immediately decay.
The only radioactive waste from fusion is in the reactor casing at the end of its design life.
>>75820478
It also accounts for 0% of world energy production?!? Are americans really this fucking stupid?
>>75818291
So what do you do with the waste? Thats where the issue is.
Now if they used Thorium, that could never explode, and is no where as radioactive after its used, then it would be different story. But they can't make boom booms with Thorium.
>>75818012
Dig another Panama Canal and instead of using it as a shipping route place enormous turbines under the source of the water. Using the rotation of the Earth to produce insane energy.
>>75822433
>However, plutonium is created in a LWR. If it's viable to extract it from the spent fuel and make a weapon is subject of debate.
Not for anyone that knows anything about the topic.
Regular waste fuel is a soup of transuranic isotopes and is actively harder to work with to make a bomb than raw uranium ore.
However, you can bake enriched uranium in a standard power reactor to get a viable plutonium output to make a bomb. An action that no nation has ever done to produce weapons material because it's more costly to do than production in a dedicated reactor.
>>75823634
Just put it in a rocket and launch it into space
>>75823573
> Neutrons immediately decay.
No. See induced radiation. This is why fallout. This is why alpha, beta, and gamma are not long lived, but neutron is long lived, among radiation types.
That said, the amount of waste is *****tiny****
>>75823727
Hydro power is shit since it fucks with rivers
We've already got fuckloads of dams
>>75823573
>>75823573
Free neutrons decay, yes and shed high energy photons onto their surroundings. Breeding is a better use of them by far.
>>75823634
>Take spent fuel rods
>Separate spent fuel from still-perfectly-good fuel
>Remove spent fuel
>Reuse fuel rod
>Be any country besides America, the only country where this is not common practice, and the only country where this process is illegal.
>>75823568
Also costs the taxpayers almost a trillion dollars every year to build all that military rubish. Cool technology?.. yes.. necessary?.. not in the least.
>>75823536
>The fuck are you talking about
>Solar is shit except for off grid installations
Solar power plants are now producing as much power as nuclear and coal plants these days. They just cost a bit more. I suppose we could get rid of a couple of nuclear subs and probably pay for most of it though.
>>75823792
>See induced radiation.
That's not a neutron, retard.
Read my post again.
>>75823573
>Neutrons immediately decay
10 minutes is a long time.
>>75823634
If you do it right you can just leave it sealed in a cave and come back in a few thousand years when it's decayed
>>75818012
Antimatter.
Dumb fucks saying coal. baka.
>>75822452
>and nuclear plants not really liking getting a Michael Fox treatment
Actually no damage was done to the plant by the earthquake and it was the 3rd most powerful in recorded history.
The only damage came after they lost power and couldn't find the balls to tell management to tell the government to have the military fly them out a set of generators in the middle of a disaster that killed 15,000 people.
>>75823976
You're the dumbfuck, anon. Anti-Matter reactors are hundreds of years off. We haven't even made Fusion reactors yet, or at least not ones for energy production.
>>75823867
Solar is great for peak load power
Nuclear is great for base load power
>>75823937
Neutron radiation produced during active operation and only lasts 10 minutes is "nuclear waste" now?
>>75823991
IIRC at least one of the reactor casings was cracked by the quake, but it wasn't a contributing factor to the meltdowns
>>75823509
>We all know it is going to be at least 20 years until a commercial one is built.
>The NRC will tear into those plans like a feminist tears into a big mac.
4 year for China's test bed, then 8 years for a full commercial to go critical.
After that production time will drop once they start factor production.
>>75823991
The backup power is part of the plant right? The reactor design requires it for safe operation.
>>75823867
> Also costs the taxpayers almost a trillion dollars every year to build all that military rubish. Cool technology?.. yes.. necessary?.. not in the least.
At least we are on the right board to argue this. One way to look at it is that we bankrupted the USSR by provoking them to spend on this shit too. Another aspect is limiting rouge nations that would go old school plunder cities and kill everyone style. The USA is not the world police, but we do protect our interests quite well, no one fucks with us and lives.
Isnt hydro still the cheapest method. Aside from that I say nuke it all. Thorium sounds rad from what ive read but I dont think there are any large scale reactors working yet.
>>75823976
>>75824088
We're not even close to mass producing Anti-matter, let alone safely storing it in a way that would keep it from kill you to high fuck should you happen to drop the case.
>>75824481
Hydro is limited to certain areas, basically every good river is already damned to hell
LFTR is supposed to be great and inherently safe, but everyone is pushing for meme sources like wind and solar
>>75824180
Alright, you said neutrons decay immediately and I corrected your stupid ass. It had nothing to do with waste dipshit.
>>75823634
Thorium has its own issues, it's not a silver bullet.
>>75823766
I'm well aware of what spent nuclear fuel is. You can use the PUREX process to strip out the plutonium, but you can't pull out the individual isotopes, that is, you can't separate 241 from 242. Now if you can make a bomb with that distribution of extracted plutonium is for debate, there is literature that will claim yes and others that say no.
And I think you're inplying you could use a higher enriched uranium to breed more plutonium in a conventional reactor. That's true, but detecting HEU isn't terribly difficult.
>>75823861
It's expensive to do, other countries such as Japan and France have less energy security, in particular access to uranium (US gets most from Canada and Australia) so it makes sense for them to reprocess. It's not outlawed in the US, just no economic incentive.
>>75824221
Yes, they had both diesel generators and batteries. The diesel generators were, iirc, below sea level. Several reports suggested they move them up the hill but they didn't.
>>75824221
>The backup power is part of the plant right? The reactor design requires it for safe operation.
The earthquake didn't damage the backup power. That was the water which could have been stopped by any number of possible solutions. The point is that it's not dangerous to build nuclear power plants on earthquake active areas which would otherwise exclude the whole pacific ocean coast line from future nuclear development.
>>75824743
>10 minutes isn't immediately compared to 10,000 years for Plutonium waste
>>75824628
>LFTR inherently safe
I agree would have been much better than uranium, but lets not lie about it. LFTR also has many safety issues associated with it as well as waste issues that last for couple hundred years (meaning many generations have to deal with it).
>>75824787
>>75824828
It'd be nice if people who ran nuclear plants would take shit seriously and stop ruining future fission projects
>>75823789
You recon that'll be a net energy gain? Maybe.
You think shooting radioactive waste into the atmosphere strapped to an explosive is a good idea?
I seriously hope not
>>75820657
It might fuck with the environment, but it is the most efficient.
>>75824967
The accident of Fukushima Daiichi is now being used as a case study in accident management failure for at least the oil/gas and power generation industries.
The conclusion is that management needs to be less "Japanese" when confronted with bad news and to put reals before feels when allocating resources.
>>75824926
The waste isn't the issue with LFTR, we have shanty-town wells in the third world that have lasted that long.
The problem is that there is nowhere near enough R&D going on in the US right now to develop a viable commercial variant.
>>75825130
I don't even care if he blows all the rockets up raining waste all over; Letting morons throw our only radioactives away into space almost unused isn't acceptable.
>>75825305
Budget issues. Doesn't stop the military from spending trillions on a dozen F-35s.
>>75823766
>>75824787
Actually, that's wrong now that I think about it. The plutonium production is via capture of U238 so HEU would make less plutonium so Idk what you are getting at.
>>75825285
I love how, when I try to tell people about East Asians worrying about superficial perfection and being satisfied with censorship as magical, they don't believe me, until about three minutes of horror stories later.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
This is a good article
>>75824926
>LFTR also has many safety issues associated with it as well as waste issues that last for couple hundred years
Sure but the amounts are tiny. Like the whole waste cycle from a world running 100% on LFTRs making all our liquid fuels and electric power fills only a large suitcase a year.
Yeah that suitcase is if concentrated death without question, but you can vitrify the waste from each plant in glass and toss it down a produced waste water well from the oil and gas industry. Let it sit 10km below the surface in a brine water salt dome where background natural radioactive is more powerful.
You said LFTR safety, I don't think I can stress how much the low pressure design makes the design safer. Or that the lack of water on the reactor side helps with limiting potential risks.
>>75824900
Immediately is a subjective term, to me it means in a split second.
To you, given that (you) compared it to the waste of plutonium, immediately may be 10 minutes.
Subjective terms have no place in science, friend.
>>75821187
You don't read the news much eh?
The only place in Canada that's refusing a "Carbon Tax" is Saskatchewan.
Fucking NDP in Alberta...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf4y8fWTp5Y
>>75826369
>not posting the based original nuclear redpill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMqHTbXm3rs
this guy literally swam in a spent fuel pool a few decades back
>>75826837
My man Galen Winsor
>this guy literally swam in a spent fuel pool a few decades back
He fucking ate uranium oxide to prove a point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKOTKdhBm_4
skip to 32 min to watch him literally eat radioactive material.
>>75823634
Breeder reactors.
Yucca mountain the leftover waste instead of storing it on site like they do now.
>>75818012
France runs on mostly Nuke power, they saw the menace of the arabs and their oil with the first oil embargo and then went mostly nuke power as their coal reserves dwindled.
- France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
>>75824533
I'll store it up ur mums arse m8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNTVDszP-zM
Go to the 9 minute mark
In this order
Fusion
Thorium
NCT Solar
Uranium
Hydro
Domestic solar/collectors
Geothermal
Any other fossil fuel
There's a lot more research into fusion than you'd believe, the real challenge is finding a gas with a high enough ionization and that's simple enough to fuse efficiently. The next challenge is finding the right solutions to plasma dynamics that create a strong enough "pinch."
Next is Thorium because it's everywhere and has less likelihood of resulting in nuclear warfare because the waste isn't very useful. Uranium is further down the list because nuclear war is scary, okay?
NCT solar panels are in a category of their own due to having a much higher shelf life and a much higher efficiency than other solar technologies. Again, this research is being patent trolled just like fusion.
Hydro and geothermal are further down not because they aren't beautifully efficient, but because the logistics of where you can build these things is iffy. If a river is large enough to be dammable, its also large enough to be navigable or large enough to seriously effect the surrounding eco system. Furthermore, besides Iceland, Japan, west coast America and maybe a few other places, the crust simply isn't thin enough for geothermal to work. Also, there's a lot of idiocy surrounding geothermal, anyone remember that SG-A episode? Drawing "more energy" won't result in an explosion or create earthquakes, the pure stupidity of some people. Don't breed. Please.
>>75823536
This. It's a niche system that has great benefits. Widespread use and reliance are not one of them.
Space stations? Of course, it's a great supplement to nuclear.
Middle of nowhere? Fantastic, don't need much infrastructure.
When you get to the point of trying to replace much of a system with solar, you hit a wall of resources. The most efficient require rare earth elements, and demand will only increase the price.
You get more bang for your buck with hydro and nuclear, as long as you shred the NRC. Realistically the USA has very diversified sources of energy, including the two most common resources in america. Natural gas, and oil.
The system will ebb and flow according to policy and price of resources. Oil is cheap. Natural gas is cheap. Coal is cheap. Those three make up most of our energy production for a reason.
When oil hits $100 a barrel we'll make more natural gas plants. When natural gas prices rise, we'll (hopefully) make nuclear plants. Solar, wind, and similar high cost renewables should be relegated to the realm of promoting homesteading and improving land that would otherwise be uninhabitable. Like space.
>>75818012
>Why is it Nuclear?
Because e = mc^2.
>>75818511
Solar is not a base load power supply. It can only supplement existing power plants, never fully replace them.
>muh nuclear melt downs! muh waste!
Can you even thorium reactor?
>>75820184
I see your nuclear powered coal liquefaction and raise you thorium nuclear powered coal liquefaction with the thorium extracted from the coal prior to processing.
Shit is so cash.
>>75824926
You know you can dump the waste into subduction zones.
>>75827701
>flag
>incredibly accurate post
Is like some sort of anti-shitpost? Am I being reverse baited??
Makes you think...
Before this thread dies I will leave this here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
>>75829284
Completely impractical today for numerous reasons
Maybe 500 years in the future when putting stuff into space is as common as driving a car is today
Should of added this
>>75829423
Like Moonman City?
