My local paper's letter to the editor is a bunch of people patting themselves on the back about wind mills and solar...

My local paper's letter to the editor is a bunch of people patting themselves on the back about wind mills and solar energy. I wrote a letter but would like to run it through you guys to see if i sound like an idiot.

>Climate change has been placed in high priority in businesses and politics; however, the talking points are a bit delusional. Cutting carbon emissions by 50% in x amount of years won’t happen without replacing the energy source. Wind and solar are both great but their efficiency is still questionable and they both need subsidies to stay in business, while producing only 4% of our electricity. If we’re not going to have a conversation about our population problem and how the United Nations population forecast on most continents will double within 50 years, then it’s time to talk practical solutions: Fission/Fusion.

>Fission nuclear energy provides 20% of the United States energy. It would be more if oil didn’t drop drastically in the past few years (see our Kewaunee plant). Fission is when you split an atom using uranium. This produces great power but you’re left with a good amount of waste. Steel rods, infected lab equipment, ect, not to mention the average time of the atoms is around a thousand years until they become stable. That is, when ionizing radiation becomes electromagnetic radiation. However, the future is very optimistic with its natural evolution.

continued

>Fusion nuclear is feasible within 20 years (depending on how volatile oil becomes in the future). The hydrogen bomb incorporates the same logic as fusion reactors, which has already been successful. This is the process of smashing hydrogen atoms together, instead of splitting them with uranium/plutonium. This, depending on design, can save up to 99% of nuclear waste, but the benefits don’t stop there. The average time the waste becomes stable is only 50 years, compared to fissions hundreds of years. It produces more power and the smoke coming out of the chimneys are 100% water vapor. Businesses like MIT, Lockheed Martin, Boeing are already creating reactors and engines by incorporating fusion theory. Multiple countries are funding a plant in France (currently the leading country in fission energy) to create a fusion plant that is meltdown proof, China is right behind them.

>What we should be doing is supporting this and get rid of the notion that ionizing radiation is a horrible thing. Just 0.5 ounces of liquid hydrogen can produce as much energy as 28 tons of coal with no waste or pollution. Potassium -40, found in bananas, contains ionized radiation. Also found in kidney beans, sunflower seeds, potatoes, and most nuts. It’s time to think practically instead of regurgitate the most politically popular opinions.

Also general fusion/fission discussion

We get it, you're being paid to shill Nuclear power. Take it to reddit were people are dumb enough to fall for it.

business are wasting millions to shill? is fission a meme, too?

Nuclear power is glorious and make benefit mother Russia

I'd lose the word delusional, it's a bit standoffish.

Objection: Since the primary source of industrial hydrogen is from processing hydrocarbons, you've basically just found a more complex way to burn fossil fuels.

some general advice is that your writing lacks sophistication. "Fission is when you split an atom using [...]" is what I would imagine a snotty grade schooler to stutter.

>It would be more if oil didn’t drop drastically in the past few years
It would be more if the NRC simply allowed new nuclear plants Which they didn't for a 40 year period, and now have approved a couple.

Not sure why you decided to write an email about some fusion meme shit
When they say "within 20 years", never.

Why not use the electricity you gain from fusion for electrolysis and Deuterium/ Tritium filtering? The net gain in energy would still be incredibly high but the only waste is Protium Isotopes and Oxygen.

So uhh... what happens to that solitary neutron?

yeah i thought the same. The thing is that most people reading this paper don't know what fission is.

why do people think that fusion is a meme? Do you think fission is a meme? I'm from Veeky Forums and don't understand this boards culture.

If I were you, I'd also throw in some intermediary stuff regarding Generation IV fission reactors, like LFTR and VHTR the like.

>the talking points are a bit delusional.

bad diction unless you are trying to get a rise out of people

use a word like "misguided" instead

We treat fusion as a wet dream that we will be dealing with in 50 years at best. Due to some serious lack of investment, most fission projects haven't been on the timeline governments want them to be on, so research has gone by slowly. It's also the magical infinite energy source that would provide a lot of cheap, safe, and green energy to pretty much everyone with almost no downside.

Fusion as a power source is just a meme right now

Fission is workable right now, no need to talk about some crap fusion meme shit.

I thought it was that currently it take more power to smash the atoms then it produces. But that's fine for prototypes. Manhatton project took like 1/6 of the u.s. energy.
But as far as Veeky Forums goes the general consensus is it can be a reality?
yeah i hear that.

>Fission produces clean energy, but you’ll need uranium or plutonium to help split the atoms.
better?
so self driving cars were a meme until they got it to work? Just want to make sure i meme correctly here.

>I thought it was that currently it take more power to smash the atoms then it produces. But that's fine for prototypes. Manhatton project took like 1/6 of the u.s. energy.
Yes and no, there has been a few reactors that have hit the break even point, however for the costs of maintenance and amount of staff involved, it's nowhere near economically feasible right now. Plus there's not much in the way of private investment in reactor technology that hasn't even been on the market yet.
>But as far as Veeky Forums goes the general consensus is it can be a reality?
Can be? Yes, definitely. The sun's been doing it for billions of years. Thing is, engineering the first feasible reactors is going to be expensive.

You're not using uranium or plutonium to split atoms, those are the atoms that are being split. The Uranium or Plutonium is bombarded with neutrons and when they absorb one, they become unstable and decay, which releases energy. This decay releases more neutrons, and now you have a self-sustaining nuclear reaction.

>The Uranium or Plutonium is bombarded with neutrons and when they absorb one, they become unstable and decay
I thought that was just x rays and stuff. Isn't atom bombs splitting atoms? or are you saying when dense metals like uranium/plutonium decay it produces way more power? to the extent of exploding.

Think of a nuclear reaction like a chemical reaction.

n (neutron) + U-235 --> (U-236)* --> Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3 n + energy

The energy released is equivalent to the mass difference between the starting reactants (the neutron and U-235) and the products. Note that this reaction also produces 3 neutrons, which can interact with more U-235 atoms to produce another reaction, and so on.

Jesus. Where to start..
1. Delusional is a terrible word to use, especially in the first sentence. You shut out the people you are trying to win. Drop it entirely and just point out that cutting emissions (drop your made up numbers here too) is impossible without replacing the energy source.
2.Wind and solar are both "great". Bad qualifier, totally undefiined. Then to make it worse you continue by explaining why they arent "great". You also fail to explain why fusion is the answer instead of just, you know, increasing the renewables from 4% to say 100% (protip: there is a good reason).
3.Fission is 20%, it would be more if oil didnt drop, see the kewaunee plant. First, nuclear plants are expensive, what is your proof that more would be built, even if oil stayed the same price. Second, say "price".. the price of oil dropped, not "oil". Third, assume your reader doesnt know what the kewaunee plant is or why it is important. Use a sentence to connect the dots, the word because is your friend.
4. Fission is when you split atoms, PERIOD. Uranium is one way to do it, of many. For that matter, you never use uranium to split hydrogen atoms. Most plants use uranium to split... wait for it.... uranium. Anything under iron is thermodynamically impossible to split for a net energy gain. The opposite is true for fusion.
5. Nuclear waste. Just say nuclear waste. People know what it means, and "steel rods" and especially "infected lab equipment" is either juvenile or flat out wrong (plants arent labs per say, and equipment isnt infected, it is contaminated).
6. Nuclear waste products from fusion plants can remain radioactive anywhere from a few minutes to _tens of thousands_ of years, depending on the kind of waste and the quantity.
7. "stable" means it no longer undergoes radioactive decay (within a given time frame, stability always comes with this quantifier). Ionizing radiation never "becomes" EM radiation. contd..

atom bombs work by basically smashing large quantities of enriched uranium together. Two quantities of uranium below the critical mass are smashed together, which produces one quantity of super-critical uranium. This super-critical mass of uranium creates an exponential chain reaction, so it goes boom.

bro im limited to 500 words.
>Ionizing radiation never "becomes" EM radiation
you sure about that? I've read different.
>Fission is when you split atoms
not according to this guy but yeah thanks this is what i needed. greatly appreciated for your time.

You misunderstood my post. Fission IS when you split atoms. Look at the reaction in my post. you're using a neutron to split a U-235 atom into more stable components, which results in a release of energy.

7 contd-
radioactive decay results in emission of two kinds of ionized subatomic particles, and x-rays. All three are ionizing radiation, in that they are energetic enough to ionize an exposed material, ie strip electrons from that material.
8. "However, the future is very optimistic with its natural evolution". No idea what the fuck you mean with this or why this sentence even exists.
9. Fusion is feasible within 20 years. News to me, you need to back up such claims, again, oil price volatility only acts as a financial incentive/impediment, it doesnt actually affect the physics of what we can do.
10. Hydrogen bombs use fission and fusion. Also "process" or "phenomenon" is the word you want, not "logic". Finally, "which has already been successful" in this sentence reads as fusion reactors, even tho you mean the H bomb. Its an ugly way to say it as well and superfluous, drop it.
11. You "fuse" hydrogen atoms (smashing implies breaking them apart), and you never split them with uranium as i mentioned already.
12. Depending on design can save 99% of waste : you mean reduce nuclear waste, and drop the "depending on design" because you have no idea what you are talking about so its best not to say anything than talk out of your ass.
12: 30 years is the typical industry number for storage time, and again fission products are harmful for thousands and thousands of years, typically.
13: it produces more power. quantify that. thats a big selling point. how much more, and why? you could mention that a tablespoon of water can provide the hydrogen to give x amount of homes electricty, and compare to a standard US fission plant.
14. Its not smoke, as you mention, so dont even start by calling it smoke. Also IS not ARE water vapor. But for that matter, the vapor coming out of a fission plant is also water vapor. Here you are comparing to coal plants, make the distinction.
15. Tho technically a business, MIT is a university and should be named as such.

yeah i keep confusing atom and hydrogen bombs.

15 contd.
they are designing and building reactors, not "creating" them. they are not engines. its not "fusion theory" its fusion physics but again, that is superfluous.
16. The plant in France has a name, use it. It also has problems. Lots of them. How does france "lead" in fission energy? qualify that statement.
17 China is right behind. Citation needed.
18. get rid of the notion that ionization is a horrible thing. this statement is so bad on so many levels. its not a "notion", its a physical fact. and by calling it horrible you color your readers against you.

your argument here is that the amount of radioactive waste is minimal, the payout is profound, and in fact the kind of radiation that can be expected could feasibly be compared to a truckload of bananas (that would be a lie tho, fusion plants produce significantly more).
drop the whole thing about beans and seeds etc you made your point.

regurgitate, like delusional, is a shit way to color your opposition. let the reader make up their own mind based on the facts you provide.

high energy ions can create EM radiation by knocking core electrons out of an atom, and when another electron relaxes and fills that hole, it emits a photon which is typically in the x-ray region.

alpha and beta particles dont magically transform into EM radiation tho, and as I said, hard x-rays (EM radiation) are also ionizing radiation as they can also knock out electrons.

>"depending on design"
well isn't it thought? not just design but method, too.
>"However, the future is very optimistic with its natural evolution". No idea what the fuck you mean with this or why this sentence even exists.
lol i was trying to make a transition between paragraphs. I know it sucks.

I'll make all the recomendations before i submit it. thanks. Btw you should be a teacher. Most of my professors just hand my paper back with a "maybe add a comma" comment or something. This was actually helpful.

>Fission is when you split an atom using uranium.
More like you split Uranium atoms or something along those lines.

You do sound like an idiot.
>the average time of the atoms is around a thousand years until they become stable
>The hydrogen bomb incorporates the same logic as fusion reactors,
>The average time the waste becomes stable is only 50 years, compared to fissions hundreds of years.
>the smoke coming out of the chimneys are 100% water vapor.
>Potassium -40, found in bananas, contains ionized radiation.
>Businesses like MIT, Lockheed Martin, Boeing are already creating reactors and engines by incorporating fusion theory.
Jesus. Don't write anything ever to anyone.

As to the substance:
>Fission nuclear energy provides 20% of the United States energy.
20% of US electricity maybe. It's under 10% of energy used in the USA, not counting energy used outside of the country to make goods and services for consumption in the USA, and it's maybe 1% of what would be needed to fully replace fossil fuels, when you factor in things like heating, chemical production, and synthesizing fuels. The USA's one of the bigger nuclear users, so worldwide, the installed nuclear base is more like 0.1% of what would be needed to replace fossil fuels.

Imagine that a once-in-a-century nuclear disaster or weapon material theft becomes a once-a-month thing. We'd run out of places to live pretty quickly.

>Wind and solar ... both need subsidies to stay in business, while producing only 4% of our electricity.
The case for wind and solar isn't the current state of the art, but the rapid progress being made, and the fact that we can expand them without limit, use them forever, and let anyone have access to the technology, with no catastrophic potential, no pollution, and no weaponization issues.

>Imagine that a once-in-a-century nuclear disaster or weapon material theft becomes a once-a-month thing. We'd run out of places to live pretty quickly
yeah im sure that lone wolf will break through security (which is heavily armed) and have the know how to make a nuke in his moms basement. Oh the horror the future brings.
btw fusion wouldn't use uranium/plutonium.

>im sure that lone wolf will break through security (which is heavily armed) and have the know how to make a nuke in his moms basement
Wow, you really changed my mind with this brilliant argument. It hadn't occurred to me that someone could think of a highly specific scenario which seems unlikely to happen. This sure settles the issue of nuclear weapon proliferation once and for all.

>The case for wind and solar isn't the current state of the art, but the rapid progress being made, and the fact that we can expand them without limit, use them forever, and let anyone have access to the technology, with no catastrophic potential, no pollution, and no weaponization issues.
>and the fact that we can expand them forever
The fact is we cannot, there are a number of hard limits involved, and this is why renewable energy hasn't and won't replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future.

>the only way to get a nuke is make a lot of nuclear power plants
kek

/thread

OP is a retarded high schooler