Daily reminder that nuclear power is the ONLY power source efficient enough to sustain the Earth's population without destroying the planet. A nuclear plant running for 40 years produces less pollution than a coal plant running for 1 year. Daily reminder that coal plants release more 100 times more radiation than nuclear plants. Daily reminder nuclear fusion will completely solve the problem the nuclear waste.
>>55449391
Hail Fusion, fission and Wind
people are afraid of it because it has the word nuclear in it
>>55449391
>A nuclear plant running for 40 years produces less pollution than a coal plant running for 1 year
A nuclear plant also costs a lot more, with a shorter life spawn to as well. Then there is the waste as well
>Daily reminder nuclear fusion will completely solve the problem the nuclear waste.
Daily reminder that we are at least 40 years away from nuclear fusion can be an effective thing.
>>55449607
>A nuclear plant also costs a lot more
Nuclear has higher establishment costs, bot lower operating costs and lower total cost per terawatt/hour than solar or wind
>with a shorter life spawn to as well
Nuclear has the longest life span, with 4th generation reactors certified for 80 years nowadays.
>Then there is the waste as well
Fast/breeder reactors reduce waste volume by 90%, and lower the lifespan of the waste from 10,000 years to 300 years.
>>55449391
>nuclear fusion will completely solve the problem of nuclear waste
Now if we could only figure out how to get fusion to work in a controlled setting that isn't the fucking sun then yeah... I agree.
Thorium fission is best fission.
Reduce the population.
>>55449843
It has a higher established cost and higher maintenance cost.
Still shorter then what a coal or oil power planet can do.
I noticed you left out the fusion.
>>55449391
>without destroying the planet
The entire northern hemisphere of planet earth has been contaminated by fukushima.
>>55449391
yeah nigga, i like the idea of fusion, we already got a big working fusion reactor in the middle of our solar system, we just need to figure out how to harvest it's free energy, oh wait a second.....
daily reminder that fission is too dangerous to be allowed to continue and money needs to be poured into R&D of fusion reactors.
>>55449925
you first. dont forget to post pic of your slashed wrists so i can make that my desktop wallpaper
>>55450038
You think fusion will be less dangerous then fission?
>>55450003
So find a way to make solar efficient then. I would support it 100%. But right now, the disgusting chemical processes used produce solar panels completely negate any environmental benefit.
>>55449959
Maintenance, shutdown and waste storage costs are all factored into the electricity costs, and it is still cheaper than solar and wind. It's only marginally more expensive than coal.
>Still shorter then what a coal or oil power planet can do.
Coal plants last only about 40 years, before corrosion from the filth literally just breaks their shit up
Oil power plants are almost nonexistent nowadays
>I noticed you left out the fusion.
Fusion would make all of this irrelevant, but we haven't got it working yet.
>>55450115
How would fusion be "dangerous"?
>>55449993
hardly
Fukudhima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island have not caused any widespread changes in global ecology
coal has
coal destroys ecosystems (strip mining is rape of the earth) and pollutes the very air we breath
it will boil us alive
Nuclear power including use of nuclear bombs has killed less then coal and oil combined. The nuclear being dangerous arugement is exactly like the gun and negro one, irrational and based on emotional reaction to far and inbetween events like Chernobyl.
>>55450115
yes by many factors. first of all fusion reactors can't melt down, and they don't produce nuclear waste. they're almost completely safe compared to fission reactors
>>55450229
>actually comparing Fukushima and Chernobyl to three mile island
and this is where you lost credibility.
opinion discarded.
>>55450170
>Maintenance, shutdown and waste storage costs are all factored into the electricity costs,
You must live in a very backwards upside-down country if that's the case. Because over here the maintenance, shut-down and waste is factored into electricity costs.
>and it is still cheaper than solar and wind
The hell they are, some solar power station don't even have any moving parts so the cost for maintenance is very low.
>before corrosion from the filth literally just breaks their shit up
That is why the summer period is spent to clean the machine
>How would fusion be "dangerous"?
Because when you are talking nuclear fusion then you are talking about the sun, we get enough trouble as it is when a fission reactor goes wrong. What do you think a fusion is going to do, create a miniature sun inside our atmosphere?
>>55450247
kek. what happens when your nearest fission reactor melts down and the land is destroyed for 1000 years?
>>55449391
Yep, we understood it here in France
>>55450038
fission/nuclear kills fewer per terawatt/hour than coal
coal mining accidents are common and frequent, and there is the ecological damage to contend with, and black lung for miners
you need less uranium to produce the same quantity of power, so mining deaths are reduced
the real difference between coal and nuke deaths are that nuke deaths tend to come all at once (even then, the numbers are hardly staggering) whereas coal kills everyday in small numbers
>>55450247
>coal plant fucks up
>some people die
>nuclear plant goes into full melt down
>thousands die, potentially a whole continent poisoned
HURR
>inb4 but derp! its never happened b4!
its almost always some dumb as fuck uneducated amerishit.
>>55450165
The cost of solar panels have dropped 95% since 2008. 95%.
Nuclear is so expensive that no private sector groups run a nuclear power station. It only works with subsidies.
>>55450369
all three were widely reported nuclear accidents, the most widely reported
that is the only reason I mention all three
>>55450385
>1000k years
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt and are currently inhabited
>>55450443
As long as it's a plant made after the 1980s the chances of nuclear meltdown are infinitesimal.
Also Chernobyl was a complete meltdown and thousands of people didn't die. In fact Chernobyl is one of hte most overblown stories in the history of the world.
The United States never utilized a nuclear plant that was as faulty as the one in Chernobyl or as outdated.
>>55450385
like Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Proper safe guards prevent against it like three mile island, Chernobyl was the result of turning off all safe guards and running a reactor and a way not even fantasized about by the constructors and designers of the reactor type as it was so absurd. Smog and shit kills the environment and 1000's of people a year.
>>55449925
tell that to the poo in loos and niggers
>>55450376
>The hell they are, some solar power station don't even have any moving parts so the cost for maintenance is very low.
not sure if b8
pic related
>we get enough trouble as it is when a fission reactor goes wrong. What do you think a fusion is going to do, create a miniature sun inside our atmosphere?
All you have to do to shut down fusion is just shut off the power, and the reactions immediately stop. Fission on the other hand is a constant chore to prevent a runaway reaction.
>>55450475
uh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exelon
> In October 2009, Exelon had full or majority ownership of 17 nuclear reactors in 10 nuclear power plants.[4]
the only reason more nuke plants haven't been built is local resistance and legislation making it difficult to build new plants
this is actually making nuclear power more dangerous as newer, safer, and more effecient plants cannot be built
>>55450003
>we already got a big working fusion reactor in the middle of our solar system, we just need to figure out how to harvest it's free energy, oh wait a second.
yeah thats right wait a second, our magnetosphere and atmosphere shields us from all that power. and our pv cells are maybe 15% efficient
>>55450385
It sure looks dead and devoid of life over here :^)
>>55450637
not to mention Chernobyl had no containment dome whatsoever
>>55450443
>thousands die
Yeah never forgot the gorillions lost from Chernobyl and Fukushima
>>55450443
>nuclear plant goes into full melt down
When has this ever happened?
>>55450644
>Thermal
>239.7
That does not seem right, at all. In way shape or form, because thermal is just using solar to heat water or oil. How can the LCOE be that high, however I just want to ask.
Do you know what LCOE stands for?
>>55450852
1986
>>55450890
>Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies. It represents the per-kilowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
>>55450711
That fucking mission in COD4 on insane I swear to fucking god
>>55450165
>>55450475
i'm plastering my barn roof with solarpanels (4kw) next spring, + a 2kw wind turbine and storage system add up to less than 8000,-€ investion.
fun fact beside: i plan to replace my gas powered heater with geothermal heat pump powered with electricity from the panels/turbine later on.
not because i'm a hippie or some shit like that but because it's cheaper in the long run and a lot cleaner. most of the new houses in my area are already built that way.
>>55450950
>full melt down
no
>>55451031
Looks fully melted down to me m8
half the battle would be won if they renamed a proposed nuclear power plant. a "fission-steam" plant would probably slip past the average facebook mom. after all, steam is water, and water is from gaia so it must be clean and natural
>>55450968
Just checking, however to repeat my earlier point LCOE is not maintenance cost.
>>55449959
>only government can "license" reactor construction
>only GE is licensed to make them
>"costs" run ridiculously high
wow what a surprise
>>55451005
You will be paying more than the average person still using the grid.
Just because you don't use the grid anymore doesn't make it cheaper.
>>55451194
>maintenance costs don't fit under operating costs
>>55451127
Still, only like 31 people died. It wasn't as bad as people say. Pripyat is basically a wildlife preserve now. There is plenty of life there. Just not much human life.
>>55449607
>40 years
Because we are not investing enough money and other resources into it.
>>55449391
Thorium
>>55451204
dude i'm german, and as i stated : it is cheaper in the long run.
i'm not totally off grid i sell the energy to the grid once the accumulators are chared and buy from the grid at peak times.
solar enrgey does not only mean panels + also vaccum tubes for heating. a friend of mine has a new house, they did not realize that the gas heater was broken until 3 weeks ago because 3m2 of vaccum tubes where enough to heat the complete house.
>>55449924
http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i27/Trying-Unleash-Power-Thorium.html
Yup, Norway is at it. I am just a bit disappointed it is only a private effort.
>>55450105
I'm more important.
>>55451162
actually i take that back. the opposition to nuclear power isn't hysterical facebook moms or misinformed hippies, it's the coal, gas and oil companies who are keeping the competition out of the game, through useful idiots like the aforementioned hippies and concerned mothers
shit i think everyone has a memory of being 7 or 8 and having some woman come into the classroom to tell us all about how nuclear power was the worst thing ever and basically just an uncontrollable bomb waiting to go off. in retrospect, that woman was probably a 24 year old liberal arts student, but the message has stuck
Nuclear is for people who don't have rivers.
>>55451302
>only like 31 people died
Immediately.
>>55451240
Hes a swede jesus christ.
They think that immigrants are a net gain to the economy because they only check for taxes paid.
>>55451481
>people who don't have rivers.
That describes a good chunk of humanity.
>Thorium
If thorium reactors were viable why are we using standard shitty fission?
Explain that without your tinfoil.
>>55451578
because the technology to develop it to the point of real application has not been reached yet
>>55451551
Don't worry, if we can get better conductors, we can supply half Canada and the USA with power with just our current dams.
>>55449391
M.S Chemical Engineering here
I've worked in the oil industry for 2 years before I switched industry, and honestly...the current market energy futures are :
>fuel cells (dat higher than nuclear efficiency)
>solar (cheaper assess via Chinese competition)
>fossil fuel/natural gas/biofuel (especially when it comes to thermocracking the hydrocarbons)
I love Nuclear power and I've worked with a lot of nuclear techs (mainly Navy Nukes) and nuclear engineers and I'm a huge nuclear advocate; but there are a lot of strict regulations/security policies that are way more advance than we can discuss.
However, I truly hope thorium fission will pave the way into sustainable fusion. But for that, we first need China/India to publicly produce a viable modelt, then we copy them and out-engineer them. Think of China/India as a guinea pig model for thorium salt reactions. We won't see nuclear being that big in our future, but in our grandkid's future, you can bet your money on it.
>>55449482
Republi-tards somehow have empathy for bushtard 'nucular' LMAO
>>55452049
Nuclear energy was the energy we needed 20-30 years ago. It SHOULD have been a temporary solution to give us time to get to the next energy source but muh chernobyl and muh smoke stacks
