What are the pros and cons of nuclear power over common renewables like solar...

Lunatick
Lunatick

What are the pros and cons of nuclear power over common renewables like solar and wind? Is either one more or less cost effective, safer, etc. for moving towards a carbon-free grid?

Attached: nuclear-power.jpg (142 KB, 1500x997)

All urls found in this thread:

energyfromthorium.com/energy-weinberg-1959/
urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I want a pony
dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/
dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Discussion
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheleznogorsk,_Krasnoyarsk_Krai?wprov=sfla1
bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/
nationalreview.com/2017/06/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy/
environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis
newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/
world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx
blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/fast-breeder-reactors-are-the-least-safe/
princeton.edu/sgs/publications/articles/Time-to-give-up-BAS-May_June-2010.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
fepc.or.jp/english/nuclear/power_generation/safety_measures/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety_and_security
cracked.com/personal-experiences-1848-i-work-in-nuclear-power-plant-5-insane-realities.html
theconversation.com/nuclear-workers-risk-of-cancer-lower-than-previously-thought-21885
nature.com/articles/bjc2013592
thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/271353-is-it-safe-to-live-near-nuclear-power
theenergycollective.com/willem-post/191326/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes
forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#f958a4d709b7
cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
scholar.google.com/scholar?q=harvesting.uranium.from.seawater&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiizMzjv43aAhVRuVkKHfApBRYQgQMIJjAA#d=gs_qabs&p=&u=#p=Pl1O2h5WJwAJ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_solar_cell
investorintel.com/sectors/technology-metals/technology-metals-intel/tellurium-trials-tribulations/

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

At lunch rn so i'm not gonna go dig up the source but IIRC in terms of manhours/kilowatt hours efficency, IE how many employees it takes to run x amount of power, thus how much it costs, nuclear needed one person to generate the same amount of power that it takes 75 people working to do with solar. In terms of safety, nuclear is incredibly safe, every major nuclear accident was caused by human error in some capacity. Fukushima being built in a fucking tsunami zone, chernobyl caused by an engineer with an inflated ego of what his design was capable of, etc. The biggest gap in terms of effectiveness is actually size and space needed. Solar takes up shitloads of space for a comparitively small return to nuclear or fossil fuels. If we can get commercially viable 80%+ solar panels then it may be a different story.

TechHater
TechHater

So renewable's is a conspiracy fronted by engineers who want to increase their employment prospects?

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

solar and wind

Attached: 1505176301682.gif (1.03 MB, 500x500)

JunkTop
JunkTop

nuclear has an extremely high initial investment, but also produces the most power compared to operational cost. basically only hydro is better in that respect, but of course nuclear can be built many places and hydro cannot. when you work out how much wind or solar is needed to equal a single 3GW nuclear plant, it's pretty clear why they just can't compare. also a grid needs to be reliable. wind and solar don't actually help you do that, while nuclear naturally runs at a steady rate.

Attached: hink.jpg (90 KB, 628x353)

Soft_member
Soft_member

Both are extremely safe and produce next to no carbon emissions, especially if you disregard construction and emergency scenarios. Both energy types would compliment each other really nicely and would make a sustainable future easily available, but the fossil fuel industry Jews like to make people believe that the two types of energy must be pitted against each other and only one can control the world's entire supply of energy even though that is completely autistic logic and economically inefficient as well as disastrous.

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

Is the initial investment in the infrastructure comparable between nuclear and solar/wind towards the goal of going carbon-free? I've seen some nuclear advocates throw around 3-6 trillion for a fully carbon-free grid running largely on nuclear with some hydro and others thrown in for peak times. It is a lot, but seems eminently doable over the course of some decades. It's a little frustrating to think the US could cut the vast, vast majority of its carbon footprint out in a couple of decades with current technology, with the upshot of creating energy independence.

farquit
farquit

Nuclear is more friendly to the enviroment than wind or solar

t. nuclear engineer

cum2soon
cum2soon

it produces less CO2 than wind or solar

Attached: 1521902581502.png (79 KB, 766x411)

askme
askme

it's cheaper and produces more electricity for less price than wind or solar

Attached: 1521902492723.jpg (46 KB, 1200x450)

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

Next gen of nuclear plants will be even more cheaper and produce more electricity for less expenses and even less harmful to the enviroment
it's already in use in south korea

Attached: 1521902904999.jpg (695 KB, 900x4000)

TreeEater
TreeEater

never listen to those uneducated "muh green energy" idiots, and their only argument "muh nuclear waste"

you should know that in nature there are more radioactive materials and radioactive caves and in higher altitude than the nuclear waste

Attached: onkalo-posiva.fi2.jpg (86 KB, 887x540)

Emberfire
Emberfire

Except for all the radioactive waste, danger of fallout, danger of cancer and danger of derailing for the use in nuclear bombs, totally safe tech.

RumChicken
RumChicken

Now here's an example of theose uneducated masses

Except for all the radioactive waste
like I said, it's put in a place safer and less radioacive than your smartphone
danger of fallout
in what way? nuclear war? we are talking about the energy
danger of cancer
in a well managed plant the possibility of leaking radioactivity is at 0.000001%
danger of derailing for the use in nuclear bombs
Not talking about the energy

totally safe tech
safe as long it's operated by vodka drinking slavs, or by idiot japs that try to look smart and use open sea water as a moderator

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

safe as long it's
safe as long it's not*

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

with people like you running things, an accident is guaranteed.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

Well, part of the problem is it's hard to justify. Today, a new plant might end up costing $20 billion and it has to compete with, say, new gas turbine plants, which take much less time to build, require 1/10 the investment and still produce 1/10 the power while not dealing with any of the nasty nuclear problems. So nuclear is not going to make money back easily in such a market.

Solar/wind end up needing all kinds of secondary systems and grid considerations that make them much more expensive than estimates may suggest.

Some multi-decade, multi-trillion dollar investment seems like it could achieve a lot, but then we'd have to find large programs that can be cut in exchange.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

1) Smartphone radiation is not ionizing, you are comparing apples and oranges.

2) Meltdown and fallout happened several times in human history, most notably in Tschernobyl. Besides that, the same uranium centrifugal machines that produce fuel, may be used to produce a higher once traction for fission bombs. Thus is why the US made sure Iran imported their fuel from Russia and not build and operate their own mills, AFAIK.

3) Well-managed plants are a myth, everything ages and is prone to malfunction and error.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

Question. why would solar and wind would generate CO2?

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

3) Well-managed plants are a myth, everything ages and is prone to malfunction and error.
well, that´s true, but so far nuclear energy has killed way less people than any other energy source.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

Not the person who posted, but solar panels require silicon processes (Czochralski process) which require a high temperature, and obviously you need steel or aluminum to make a wind tower.

massdebater
massdebater

That is not an argument for nuclear, but against hydroplants, coal etc.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

Too dangerous to be left in this beautiful, green world.

Attached: 1505271693048.png (618 KB, 764x762)

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

is it true that the only reason why we don't use nuclear is because there will be not enough uranium for every one to use for 30 year ?

TechHater
TechHater

Nuclear pros
Easily able to supply power to an industrial society
Stable power with no undervoltage
No need for shit tons of batteries
Very safe due to weapons proliferation fears

Cons
Weapons proliferation
It's scary

Coal pros
Can provide power to an industrialized society, low chance of undervoltage as long as maintenance is done
Easy and cheap
Infrastructure inertia helps keep the supply going
No weapons proliferation
Cons
Quite dangerous
We will run out someday

Solar and wind pros
No weapons proliferation
Renewable, safe when in operation
Maintenance for solar is easy, few moving parts to fail
Cons
Inconsistent power generation, needs battery stations
Cost isn't low enough to supply power to an industrialized society... Yet

Attached: 7rau79cvlun01.jpg (112 KB, 1280x1231)

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

you're out of arguments, my brainlet friend?

Smartphone radiation is not ionizing
I stopped reading here you idiot

there's shit tons of Uranium not exploited all over the world, especially in the underdeveloped countries, most of politicians say that just to keep 3rd world from digging for it to sell it fr some money which leads to Uranium everywhere and chaos

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

You're more likely to get cancer from living near a coal plant than from a nuclear plant.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

That is not an argument for nuclear
it actually is you are just an idiot

Booteefool
Booteefool

Chernobyl does not start with the letter Ц.

Attached: 2143.png (628 KB, 727x344)

girlDog
girlDog

I stopped reading here you idiot

OK, what ions may I create with 860 MHz, 2.4 or 5 GHz waves? Care to name the element or experiment?

That is not an argument for nuclear power.

Tanks killed more people so using firearms is better.
Your logic.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

English spelling of ч is ch.

eGremlin
eGremlin

Tanks killed more people so using firearms is better.
your comparison method is flawed. In your example, tanks and firearms are tools designed to kill and incapacitate the enemy (even tough they are wildly different because one is a firearm and the other a vehicle, but i won´t focus on that), meanwhile energy sources are not, an thus, you can use as an argument the fact that nuclear kill more, because it means is a safer energy source.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

I've literally been to Chernobyl

You are wrong and an idort

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

The actual come is that when shit hits the fan it can be pretty dangerous, but we need to be more rational than that. Even with all the the crisis combined, nuclear still has killed less than solar total and also per kilowatt hour, and it's the best alternative. Just look how much BP fucked up? The environmental damage alone is enough to be concerned. In the past, our knowledge about how radiation affected health was poor and misguided, but if you trust that some intern X ray your chest it's free clinic, then you can trust profesionals will usually not fuck up.

Spamalot
Spamalot

That's not what he said at all you dense fuck. People are researching renewables and actively improving them, they just can't get up to the efficiency of nuclear. They may eventually be reasonable, they may not.

Methshot
Methshot

But utilities should not kill or endanger people at all, because they are utilities, this is my argument.

OK I will give you a better example. Cars are not a safer transportation choice just because more people die while riding motorcycles, compared to cars. That speaks not for cars, but against motorized personal vehicles in general.

King_Martha
King_Martha

Coasian theory suggests that there is more than one way to skin a cat, but activists tend to only think in terms of black and white.
To put it another way: We know having a healthy society benefits everyone, but it's unclear how we encourage people into getting flu shots. Do we subsidize the flu shot? Or do we penalize those who choose not to get a flu shot? If you tamper with the market by using some form of tax/subsidy, you are simply trying to correct some form of externality and replacing it with another - i.e. not ACTUALLY solving the problem.
So if solar/wind ever actually becomes a thing, it would be mandatory for every house to have solar or some variant to help reduce pressure (during peak hours) on fossil fuels. It will never replace it until we find a way to store that energy, and even then the wattage from these renewables is laughable.
It's also a joke to expect people to back off from using electricity as well.
The best we can do on that front is to encourage public transportation, and possibly getting rid of shit like free parking in the cities and suburbs (which would never fly).

Firespawn
Firespawn

Nuclear has like every benefit, including cost, safety, and practicality. Solar and wind have the unique negatives of not being able to scale to more than approx 30% of total demand because of their unreliable intermittent nature and the lack of a scalable storage tech.

SniperGod
SniperGod

Renewables are like a modern religion among the left, funded in some significant part by the fossil fuel industry, but since then it's become self-sustaining to a large degree based on anti-scientific pseudoscience nonsense, and a general "let's get back to nature" bullshit Gaia-worshiping philosophy. It's also based on the false assumption that giving humans more energy will cause them to do more damage to the environment, when the opposite is true. We need more energy to help protect and preserve the environment.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

Yep.

radioactive waste
So what? There's so little of it, it's not a problem. It's not like it's magically infinitely dangerous or anything.

danger of fallout
Coal kills like 300 people /every day/ from airborne particulate pollution alone. That's more than some reasonable estimates of the total death count from nuclear in the history of mankind.

danger of cancer
Generally exaggerated. It's still a concern, but it's generally very exaggerated.

danger of derailing for the use in nuclear bombs
Largely exaggerated. The link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons is very flimsy. Countries that want nuclear weapons get nuclear weapons, no matter whether they already have nuclear power. Also, practically every nuclear bomb, if not every nuclear bomb, has been made with centrifuges or weapons-purpose reactors, and not with civilian power reactors. For example, North Korea had no nuclear power program, and it got the bomb, and South Korea has a large nuclear power program, and no bombs. The connection is really quite tenuous.

StonedTime
StonedTime

Not really. There's plenty more conventional uranium stores. Maybe in a few hundred to few thousand years we would need to switch to a more efficient breeder reactor, but that's a far way away. With a breeder reactor, nuclear fuel supplies are unlimited. Breeder reactors can more or less literally take every rock as fuel, and we'll run out of sun before we run out of rock.
energyfromthorium.com/energy-weinberg-1959/

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

But utilities should not kill or endanger people at all, because they are utilities, this is my argument.
And I want a pony.
urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I want a pony

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

no its because certain energy industries are prepared to throw billions into lobbying to make sure coal and gas are the number one options. theyre even willing to bankroll greenie agitators as long as it keeps nuclear off the table

iluvmen
iluvmen

Denmark is producing 50% of its energy with wind turbines.

idontknow
idontknow

It's cooking the books. The only reason why they can make such a ridiculous claim is that they rely extensively on fossil fuel and nuclear imports from other countries.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

Nuclear is way too expensive. The construction and decommissioning costs more than wipe out any savings from the efficiency of nuclear reactions. The UK is building a nuclear power station, and the people building it have been guaranteed electricity prices way higher than the market price, so we'll have to pay way more for our power than without nuclear.

Playboyize
Playboyize

It's a first-of-a-kind project, under a shitty regulatory regime. Of course it's going to cost a lot. In countries with reasonable practices, nuclear capital costs have been dropping for decades. In South Korea, nuclear capital costs are like 1/3 or 1/4 of the costs in USA and England.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

This must be the dumbest thing I read this week, congrats.

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

to play the devil's advocate, human error is not something you can prevent. the argument against nuclear is that even though the risk is small, the consequences are too high.
other problems with nuclear are the waste (very difficult to store safely) and the limited fuel supply

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

If it's that expensive then why are we doing it? Renewables and battery storage are only getting cheaper.

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

Fukushima being built in a fucking tsunami zone

By that logic, absoluetely every incident with nuclear reactors can only be human error.

Anyway, nulcear isn't by far as cheap as the industry claims. Even France, who tried to produce economies of scale by building the exact same reactors dozens of times, and have absoluetely percect conditions for nuclear power plants (lots of fresh water sources throughout the land, no natural hazards at all to worry about, a government that strongly pushed nuclear etc) are slowly realizing that costs in the double digit billion range are coming towards them in form of demontation costs.

Emberburn
Emberburn

battery storage
only getting cheaper.
No it's not.

Are you talking about lithium? There's not enough lithium in the whole world for even 1/1000 of the battery that we would need. Ditto for nickel and lead.
dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/

Evilember
Evilember

Those decommissioning costs are artificial, fake, invented by the greens and their pseudoscience regarding the dangers of radiation.

WebTool
WebTool

a battery that can power the whole world for a whole week without any new energy fed into it

So this is the kind of argument you need to withdraw to to shit talk renewables, I see.

and an armada of gas-fired peak-load plants would offset the need for full storage.

Yeah, or just hydroplants and biomass.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

Ah, the standard gish gallop of the greens. Shoot down one piece of bullshit, and they move on to the next position. I'll play this game for now.

From Wikipedia, worldwide hydro nameplate capacity is like 800 GW. With a reasonable capacity factor, that drops down to an actual average production of like 400 GW. It's doubtful that you could even double that because most of the good dam sites are already taken.

We're going to need like 50 TW, and maybe even 70 TW, before the end of the century, due to increase in population, and continued industrialization, and hopefully because fossil fuels will be replaced by electricity (directly or indirectly). In other words, less than 1% of our target.

The infamous Mark Jacobson tried this same line of argument, and he was called out on this bullshit. Look up the 100% WWS paper, and the recent rebuttal that focused on Jacobson's lie about hydro, which exactly mirror yours. Rather than attempt to defend his position with another paper, he tried to sue them for defamation. Remember, this is the foremost expert of the green energy movement, who is also a liar and a fraud.

And how big would that dam be? For the US, just a few of the Great Lakes Of Michigan. Try scaling that to the rest of the world. It's impossible.

dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

I can tell a similar story for biomass. Not enough land.

As soon as you try to put numbers to these things, you quickly realize that it's all pipe dreams and lies, and only nuclear has a chance to avert climate change and ocean acidification.

JunkTop
JunkTop

If the whole world switched to nuclear uranium reserves would be gone within 50 years.

There is absoluetely no reason whatsoever why a mix of renewable energies can't power a nation. China is on its way to 80% renewables by 2050.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

Does his stand not have legs

Supergrass
Supergrass

If the whole world switched to nuclear uranium reserves would be gone within 50 years.
Mostly false. When we look for uranium, we keep finding more of it. Also, that's only talking about the best of the best sources. We can use lesser sources. The cost of raw uranium is a very small fraction of the total electricity cost, and so you could increase the raw cost of uranium by 100x and not noticeably effect the electricity cost. The distribution of materials in the Earth's crust is generally logrithmic - increasing the price by 100 will drastically increase available supply.

There is absoluetely no reason whatsoever why a mix of renewable energies can't power a nation.

Yes there is. Except for unusual cases of countries with small populations and very large hydro reserves, it cannot happen. Only solar and wind can scale to the amounts of power needed, and both are intermittent, and the energy storage tech doesn't exist.

China is on its way to 80% renewables by 2050.

Yea. Some people said the same thing about Germany. Did you know that their CO2 emissions haven't changed for many years? Did you know that a nearby country has a much smaller per capita CO2 footprint? 3 guesses. It's nuclear France.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

Sorry, also posting to /k/ at the same time, without the trip, and so sometimes I miss adding it back here.

King_Martha
King_Martha

Mostly false. When we look for uranium, we keep finding more of it

It's still going to run out. Our grandchildren will be really thankful if we spent trillions on building an energy infrastructure based on a ressource that doesn't exist anymore when they are grown ups.

Yes there is. Except for unusual cases of countries with small populations and very large hydro reserves, it cannot happen. Only solar and wind can scale to the amounts of power needed, and both are intermittent, and the energy storage tech doesn't exist.

This is not true. Every nation on earth, maybe with the expectation of micro nations, can cover its energy consumption with renewable energies.

Yea. Some people said the same thing about Germany. Did you know that their CO2 emissions haven't changed for many years? Did you know that a nearby country has a much smaller per capita CO2 footprint? 3 guesses. It's nuclear France.

That's because France is sunnier and warmer and thus needs less energy. Spain has a similar energy mix to germany, and a similar CO2 foot print to France.

viagrandad
viagrandad

It's still going to run out. Our grandchildren will be really thankful if we spent trillions on building an energy infrastructure based on a ressource that doesn't exist anymore when they are grown ups.
No, it won't. Eventually, we'll get a breeder reactor working. No rush. But when we do, nuclear reactors will be able to use everyday rock as fuel. We'll run out of sun before we run out of rock.
energyfromthorium.com/energy-weinberg-1959/

This is not true. Every nation on earth, maybe with the expectation of micro nations, can cover its energy consumption with renewable energies.

Again, how? What part of my argument do you not buy? Hydro cannot scale. Only solar and wind can scale, but the intermittency plus lack of storage tech means that they cannot work. What part of this story do you think is wrong?

That's because France is sunnier and warmer and thus needs less energy. Spain has a similar energy mix to germany, and a similar CO2 foot print to France.
I'm betting that there's more to this story, like maybe less electricity usage per capita, less manufacturing, etc. I don't care enough to do research now. I will again point out that France has decarbonized their entire grid, mostly, and it took less than 20 years to do. Germany has been at it a while, and they've made no progress at all at reducing CO2 emissions.

takes2long
takes2long

My grandparents lived in one of Russia's secret towns constructed during the 50s for nuclear research, having a reactor burried under a hill formation.

They mopped the streets every week to prevent radiation poisoning, still my granddad and my dad got sick from cancer.

Think twice before propagatinga tech you know too little about. Pic related

Attached: IMG-20170910-150201.jpg (268 KB, 1184x1600)

askme
askme

what does it take to be a nuclear engineer and what's the daily routine like? (anyone with knowledge, please respond.)

idontknow
idontknow

Uh-huh.

Nuclear waste from power plants isn't a liquid. What are you even talking about?

Whereas, back in the real world, coal kills 300 people /every day/ from premature deaths from airborne particulate pollution alone, and that's even before we talk about climate change and ocean acidification. That's more people dead every day than have ever died from civilian nuclear power according to WHO estimates. Ignoring climate change and ocean acidification, we should already be replacing coal and nat gas plants with nuclear to save many, many lives. The CO2 problem just makes this need even stronger.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

To continue, perhaps you're confusing weapons manufacture with nuclear electricity production? It's a common mistake by people who don't know what they're talking about, and by people with an agenda. Weapons waste is generally a lot nastier, and also a liquid. I'm not suggesting that we use those nuclear processes. I'm suggesting that we make electricity.

Methshot
Methshot

No, it won't. Eventually, we'll get a breeder reactor working. No rush. But when we do, nuclear reactors will be able to use everyday rock as fuel. We'll run out of sun before we run out of rock.
energyfromthorium.com/energy-weinberg-1959/

Oh, so now we need sci-fi to make it work. See this:

scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

200 years with current rates of consumption means 10 years if the whole energy production of the globe switched to nuclear (currently at 5%, so 20 times more nuclear plants means the uranium reserves will last 1/20 as long). Even if you assume huge new ressources and everything, more than 100 years of ressources are impossible.

Again, how? What part of my argument do you not buy? Hydro cannot scale. Only solar and wind can scale, but the intermittency plus lack of storage tech means that they cannot work. What part of this story do you think is wrong?

Pumped-storage-hydroplants have an efficiency of 80-90%. Storing is literally a non-issue.

Emberburn
Emberburn

I literally just explained why you're wrong on both points.

Please see:
Mostly false. When we look for uranium, we keep finding more of it. Also, that's only talking about the best of the best sources. We can use lesser sources. The cost of raw uranium is a very small fraction of the total electricity cost, and so you could increase the raw cost of uranium by 100x and not noticeably effect the electricity cost. The distribution of materials in the Earth's crust is generally logrithmic - increasing the price by 100 will drastically increase available supply.

And how big would that dam be? For the US, just a few of the Great Lakes Of Michigan. Try scaling that to the rest of the world. It's impossible.
dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

And finally, I don't know why you think breeders are impossible. They're not. Are you unfamiliar with the research done by Oak Ridge National Lab on the molten salt reactors and the research done by Argonne National Lab on the entirely different integral fast reactor? Two independent and very promising lines of research.

And finally, to paraphrase from the ThorCon people. So what if we run out of fuel in 20 years. That's 20 years more than what we have now, delaying climate change and ocean acidification. That's 20 years that we really, really need right now, because we don't have anything else that will work, and really need to stop CO2 emissions right now, and nothing else is ready, and that 20 years might buy us time to figure something else out. -- Of course, supplies even with conventional reactors will last a lot longer than 20 years - again the papers that you're citing are artificially limiting the reserves based on today's prices, but if you permit the prices to increase by 100x, then you get a lot more uranium.

Emberfire
Emberfire

So the fuel just magically appears as rods inside the reactor? Or do you have to transport it using machinery and humans - drive it around the streets. Sometimes workers make mistakes, it's only human. Forgot to change clothes? Now your car, your shops, your street is all contamined.

We are talking about the 50s and 60s here, it was all brand new tech, and people had to adapt first, which takes time.

I worked in a semiconductor department back in 2012, yet the people still managed to routinely overexpose themselves with arsenic waste from wafers.

CO2-Problem
I'd rather listen to someone like Freeman Dyson on this one (he makes the argument of us knowing too little about the earth to make such a bold claim as climate change being man made).

Firespawn
Firespawn

So the fuel just magically appears as rods inside the reactor? Or do you have to transport it using machinery and humans - drive it around the streets. Sometimes workers make mistakes, it's only human. Forgot to change clothes? Now your car, your shops, your street is all contamined.
Still killed less than 300 people in the entire history of nuclear power, and coal kills that many worldwide in an entire day. You need to put the risks into perspective.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

"After six decades and the expenditure of the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars, the promise of breeder reactors remains largely unfulfilled and efforts to commercialize them have been steadily cut back in most countries"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Discussion

You should stop with the "we need storage for 7 days without any energy production whatsoever" bullshit.

I can’t say that I’ve studied the topography of our lands to see how many places are amenable to these grand-scale engineering marvels. I may be oblivious to the widespread existence of natural bowls perched on the edges of cliffs. Whatever the case, the 22 GW of pumped storage we do have at present presumably picked the primo spots.

What an idiot. "I have no clue what I'm talking about, but here are some bullshit equastions I did" Is that you?

SniperWish
SniperWish

I'd rather listen to someone like Freeman Dyson on this one (he makes the argument of us knowing too little about the earth to make such a bold claim as climate change being man made).
So, going to listen to a celebrity, instead of the consensus of experts and the available evidence? Excellent choice. However, I think you're on the wrong board. I would suggest the following boards for you:
/x/
/pol/
/b/

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

Yeah dude, let's just abandon electricity and go back to burning wood in the woods and hunting with sticks.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

It's a self fulfilling prophesy. People don't like nuclear, and so it doesn't get built, and therefore people say "aha, nuclear doesn't work". All of the scientists in the IFR project say that it was working, and they were close, and then Clinton shut it down as part of a campaign promise to the greens. A similar thing happened earlier when Nixon shut down the MSR project in order to divert funds to his home state of California. It hasn't worked because no one has given it a chance.

You should stop with the "we need storage for 7 days without any energy production whatsoever" bullshit.
And why should I do that?

What an idiot. "I have no clue what I'm talking about, but here are some bullshit equastions I did" Is that you?
You're ridiculous. That's not how geology and topology works. Look at the numbers, and adjust them as you want, and you're still going to get something absolutely impossible in size. There's just not enough proper geography to make this work - even 1% of the target is probably impossible.

Supergrass
Supergrass

300 people

Excuse me, are you even aware of what you suggest? Have you forgot about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobl, Kyshtym... ?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
I'd rather listen to someone who made advances in science, worked with noble laureates and almost got one himself, and a Christian, over a tripcode stranger.

"Experts" and politicians, professionals have too much to loose, while Freeman Dyson is just too old and too accomplished to really care for his image.

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

People don't like nuclear

Except countries like Japan and France, where it was seen as the salvation energy up until recently. Also most other highly developed economies use and developed them. Breeder reactors, like liquid salt reactors, are just internet memes.

Even if we assume three Lake Michigans for the US, why exactly would that be so outrageously much? The US is big. And you can store a good portion of that energy in coastal seawaters or underground. That's like saying "dude, a nationwide railway system, are you insane? Do you even know how much iron we would need? Completely insane dude"

Building a 100% sustainable (nuclear isnt), clean and safe energy infrastructure should be the goal for this century, and you can only do that with renewables.

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

Hiroshima, Nagasaki
Not nuclear power. Those are nuclear bombs.

Kyshtym
A weapons manufacturing plant. Again, not nuclear power.

Chernobl
According to the WHO, killed about 300 people.

Let me add a few more to the list:

Fukushima.
Killed about 0 people.

Three Mile Island
Killed about 0 people.

Except countries like Japan and France, where it was seen as the salvation energy up until recently.
People are stupid, yes. What's your point?

Breeder reactors, like liquid salt reactors, are just internet memes.
That's simply not true.

Even if we assume three Lake Michigans for the US, why exactly would that be so outrageously much?
Seriously? Even granting the obvious stupidity here, which my link lays out, what about the rest of the world? Good thing that we have plenty of spare land and lots of spare water for the plan.

dude, a nationwide railway system, are you insane? Do you even know how much iron we would need? Completely insane dude
No, it's really not. You can run the numbers, and you don't get an obscene conclusion for building a railroad.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

you can only do that with renewables.
No you cannot. None of the renewables scales to the average power demand that we need except solar and wind, and solar and wind will not work because of the intermittency problem and the lack of scalable storage.

King_Martha
King_Martha

Also, breeder reactors:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
One working as a breeder since 1980.

You really shouldn't trust green sources on this one. They're all liars and frauds, or fools who are simply repeating what the liars and frauds say. The entire green energy movement is a sham, a religious cult.

Spamalot
Spamalot

people don't like nuclear

Yes, because the risk of failure means you have to move away from you town or die, and even if everything goes right, the tech is still very expensive, messy and impractical. Even in Germany, without state subsidies and a misled population, nuclear owner stations would never been build, because coal and oil is cheaper.

Following the 2011 Japanese Fukushima nuclear disaster, authorities shut down the nation's 54 nuclear power plants. As of 2013, the Fukushima site remains highly radioactive, with some 160,000 evacuees still living in temporary housing, and some land will be unfarmable for centuries. The difficult cleanup job will take 40 or more years, and cost tens of billions of dollars.

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

and you can only do that with renewables.

WROOOOOONG

happy_sad
happy_sad

No, it's really not. You can run the numbers, and you don't get an obscene conclusion for building a railroad

The railway system throughout the US cost more than a trillion to build in todays dollars. If you would spend that kind of money over the next 80 years on renewables, 100% by 2100 would be guaranteed.

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

Again, going by the history, nuclear is not actually dangerous. People think it is, but it's not. Coal kills more people worldwide in a single day than have ever died from nuclear power plant accidents. Repeating your falsehood doesn't make it true.

tech is still very expensive
Only because of choices that society has made, including excessive and needless government regulation, and poor choices on designs. In countries that make the correct choices, you see different results. In South Korea, capital costs have been decreasing for 3 decades, and the cost is 1/3 to 1/4 of the cost in the west.

The area around Fukushima is not highly radioactive. It's under 10 mSv / year, which means that it's about as radioactive as Denver. We are not evacuating Denver. Why are we still keeping people out of Fukushima?

And Fukushima was like 50 year old technology. We know how to build safer reactors. And even then, one of the worst possible accidents, and no one died.

5mileys
5mileys

Not nuclear power. Those are nuclear bombs.

It's the same tech. I will stop arguing with you as you are quite obviously biased.

askme
askme

This is not a question about money. Money cannot solve fundamental problems like making the sun shine at night, or getting enough extra land and water to store the needed energy during the night. Your comparison to the continental railroad is simply non-sequitir. There were no radical material or land shortages involved.

It's the same tech. I will stop arguing with you as you are quite obviously biased.
Yes, I'm biased for the truth. Why should we include nuclear bombs? It's not the same tech. Practically every nuclear bomb ever made was made from purpose built military installations, whether centrifuges or dedicated reactors. Civilian power reactors are not used and have not been used to make bombs. Further, the idea that access to nuclear power means access to bombs is not supported by the historical data. For example, look at Korea. South Korea has plenty of nuclear power, and no bombs. North Korea was denied access to nuclear power tech from the outside world, and they built lots of nuclear bombs.

Attributing nuclear bomb deaths to nuclear power is just not reasonable in any way. It would be like attributing deaths from tanks to indoor heating with heating oil because tanks run on gasoline.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

Seriously?

Emberburn
Emberburn

Why should we include nuclear bombs? It's not the same tech.

There are three ways of making nuclear material for atom bombs, gas centrifugal, gas diffusion or by breeding plutonium in conventional power plants, afaik. Every process is inseparably linked with the civil use of nuclear power. It's the same tech.

Emberfire
Emberfire

There aren't either for renewables. You can build pumped-storage hydroelectric plants literally everywhere, including underground or underwater. The technology is really, really simple. Off shore windparks could have their energy reservoirs right where they are built. There is no need for three big lakes. It would probably be more desirable for efficiency reasons to have them close to population centres.

SniperWish
SniperWish

Only at the crudest level. Again, that's like saying that tanks are the same tech as heating a house with heating oil. You take oil, and you burn it. Yet, we would consider tanks to be wildly different from houses that are heated with heating oil.

Again, I say, look at the history. There are plenty of examples of countries that got nuclear weapons in spite of worldwide embargoes on giving them nuclear power tech, and there are plenty of countries with nuclear power tech that don't have bombs.

Furthermore, again, practically every bomb ever made had its weapons material come from a dedicated military reactor, and not a civilian power reactor. They're different things. They're designed differently, built differently, and operated differently. Having a civilian nuclear reactor doesn't actually help you get a bomb. We can say this somewhat confidently, because everyone who has ever built a bomb did not use a civilian nuclear reactor, and instead used centrifuges (or gas diffusion), or dedicated plutonium production reactors.

You can build pumped-storage hydroelectric plants literally everywhere,
No you cannot. You need a large vertical distance over a short horizontal distance in order for the economics to work out.

including underground or underwater
You're an idiot.

The technology is really, really simple.
And exceptionally expensive, and requires a ludicrous amount of land.

There is no need for three big lakes.
That was just for the US demand you goddamned idiot. Now scale that up from 300 million users to 7 billion users. Now scale that up by another factor of 3 or 5 because of increased electricity demand as we transition away from fossil fuels for industrial heat and transport and towards electricity. It will not work. Take your head out the sand.

TechHater
TechHater

Only at the crudest level.

So it would be OK to allow citizens to own their own little reactors at home, like a smaller version of submarine reactors? Sell rods in supermarkets? That would be safe? Are you even aware of what you suggest?

ever made had its weapons material come from a dedicated military reactor, and not a civilian power reactor.

Dude I visited the town where they made fuel for disaster several times. There is one large hidden facility responsible for electricity and nuclear fuel. Go read about
it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheleznogorsk,_Krasnoyarsk_Krai?wprov=sfla1

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

So it would be OK to allow citizens to own their own little reactors at home, like a smaller version of submarine reactors? Sell rods in supermarkets? That would be safe? Are you even aware of what you suggest?
Uhh, what? I didn't suggest anything like that. You're taking the analogy way too far. I don't want people to have nuclear weapons nor nuclear reactors at home.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheleznogorsk,_Krasnoyarsk_Krai?wprov=sfla1
It was established in 1950 for the production of weapons-grade plutonium.
Again, what are you talking about? Did you even read the link before posting it?

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

Ok, but seriously, describe to me the accident in more detail please. What did the accident involve? Did it involve the light water reactor? Did it involve other sorts of waste from the weapons material cycle outside of the light water reactor? How many people died? What sort of evidence and sources do we have?

I'll believe that there was a major accident, but probably far less bad than Chernobyl, which means the death count, if any, is going to be quite small. A dozen at most, if I had to guess.

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

I'm not answering the question here, but how does something like solar or wind adapt to demand? what do they do with access energy?

Supergrass
Supergrass

I'm not answering the question here, but how does something like solar or wind adapt to demand?
They don't.

what do they do with access energy?
Currently, they dump it, e.g. it goes to waste.

In the green's fantasy, they use magical storage technology to store the energy and use it later when it's needed. The problem is such storage technology does not exist, and is unlikely to exist in the foreseeable future.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

Uhh, what? I didn't suggest anything like that. You're taking the analogy way too far. I don't want people to have nuclear weapons nor nuclear reactors at home.

Well, the oil analogy implies a comparison between oil and uran rods. There is a reason uran is so restricted for civilians, and the reason is not hazardous radiation (think of asbestos or lead) but the ability to make bombs.

Did you even read the link?

I visited the town. There is one large facility, гopa, which both fueled the whole town as well as developing plutonium warheads, in the 60s. It's all shut down now afaik.

Pic related, view on the park.

Attached: IMG-20170910-150219.jpg (426 KB, 1184x1600)

girlDog
girlDog

So, based on this brief description, we had a weapons reactor that also produced a small amount of electricity as a byproduct. Not unheard of. However, it won't be a normal civilian reactor design. They would have made substantial sacrifices in design and operation concerning the electrical output in order to produce weapons plutonium.

I ask again: Do you know what sort of accident it was? Details please. And how many people died? Any estimates?

viagrandad
viagrandad

Thorium MSRs has a better chance of succeeding as a green energy source than solar or wind. Both Wind and solar depend on expensive low energy density batteries that are non renewable and need to be replaced every 10 years. Solar and wind will never be industry friendly and unless you live in a country with o a service economy and a sunny climate like Israel or Dubai, it will never replace coal or gas.

happy_sad
happy_sad

Storage is indeed not an issue. You can just produce Hydrogen. The problem is the economies of storing, since producing hydrogen is not very efficient. So 100% wind and solar is definetely possible, it's just very expensive, at least with current technologies.

takes2long
takes2long

Are you assuming combustion in something like a hydrogen fuel cell, or using a heat engine? Don't hydrogen fuel cells require rare and expensive materials that probably wouldn't scale? And heat engines take a further severe dip in round-trip efficiency. I think you're underselling just how "very expensive" it's going to be.

Also, time to bring out the big guns:
bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

askme
askme

And how many people died? Any estimates?

My granddad (engineer at the plant) and my dad died from cancer earlier than they should have, lots of other people working there got cancer, they had to spray the roads regularly. Radiation kills slowly, just like coal.

idontknow
idontknow

Sure. Know anything about the kind of accident? I mean, at this point, it seem reasonable to write this off as some kind of weapons manufacture accident, outside of the light water reactor. You're not giving me any reason to believe that it was a problem with the light water reactor.

likme
likme

Furthermore, this seems mostly academic. It won't radically adjust the total death count from nuclear. It doesn't change my positions one iota. Do you disagree?

hairygrape
hairygrape

why aren't we investing more into fuel cell technologies?

Playboyize
Playboyize

dad and grandad died of cancer earlier than they should

So, at what age were they supposed to die of cancer?

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

Not that much really. Even if there is another efficiency dip of 50%, so 25% storage efficiency overall, that doesn't raise the price that much. If you want 10% of your yearly energy output stored, so a bit more than a month you can go without energy production, you would need to produce 40% more electricity than you consume, so the prices would only rise by 40%.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

they had to spray the roads

Why? With what?

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

No accidents, just daily exposure to higher doses for decades du to proximity.

It is anecdotic yes, but what more can an internet stranger give you?

And arguing about death count, it's really weird, as everyone dies regardless of what we do. But still, nuclear energy can turn into a nightmare for humanity, and has so far at least half a dozen times. From my point of view, we are better off burning coal and oil until fusion or something new works, with the occasional solar panels to charge your smartphone so that we feel good about ourselves.

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

That is a crazy big amount of storage tanks that you're assuming. However, your math doesn't work out. You're assuming that the storage is only used for 10% of the year. In reality, it would be used every day. There's this thing called "night", which means the storage system would be used every day. Moreover, because the sun only shines for about 1/6 of the day (for the purposes of photovoltaic), storage would need to supply the power for 5/6s of the day. I think you need to redo your math.

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

nuclear energy can turn into a nightmare for humanity
That's just it - I again say that I don't think it can. We've seen the worst it can do, Chernobyl, and it only killed 300 people. That's not a nightmare. Again, that's just the deaths from a single normal day from airborne particulates from coal.

From my point of view, we are better off burning coal and oil until fusion or something new works
Absolutely bizarre, and contrary to all of the evidence.

Skullbone
Skullbone

List these nighmares for humanity, please

Firespawn
Firespawn

No, it's not a "crazy big amount". It's about the same as is already stored. You do realize that storing energy is already being done, or are you literally that clueless?

People also consume much less electricity during the night. Also, it would be wind and solar, not just solar.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

You do realize that storing energy is already being done,
On extremely small scales compared to today, yes. Most changes in demand are met by changes in non-storage production, e.g. ramping plants up and down. The amount of existing storage is extremely, extremely small, compared to the amounts that we would need.

Let's take a random metric. Hydrogen gas at 30 MPa. That's 0.75 kWh/L.

US electricity demand is about 3 TW. Let's talk 7 days of storage, instead of 36 as you did. What is the volume of this tank I wonder?

(3 TW)(7 days)(1 L / (.75 kWh))
= 6.72e11 L
= 6.72e8 cu-m
= 0.672 cu-km

That pretty big, but that doesn't seem impossibly big. That's a cube less than 1 km on each side.

Ok. So, I have to ask. Why hasn't anyone built this for the grid? Why are grids buying lithium batteries instead of this hydrogen storage? I assume that they're not that stupid, and that there's an aspect to this that I'm not seeing yet. What is it?

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

People also consume much less electricity during the night. Also, it would be wind and solar, not just solar.
Just wanted to point out that your storage is still going to be used to supply much more than 10% of the total energy demand.

Still, I'm confused. These numbers look too good.

Is it just that the 25% round-trip efficiency means that you need like 2x or 3x more solar and wind in order to satisfy minute-by-minute demand? I suppose...

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

the worst it can do

That is nuclear annihilation of our entire species by the push of button. Are you this deluded, dear scientist?

Absolutely bizarre

How so? What evidence? We've got enough coal for 400+ years, peak oil is just a theory and not a proven fact, just like global warming. If it was a given that ressources will end in 80+ years, we'd see a run on them like nowhere before in human history. Instead, people pay more for a share of Facebook than a barrel of oil. Where I live, gas is as expensive as 20 years ago. That's reality for you.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

Hydrogen power plants are being built. Japan wants to produce 10% of its energy in hydrogen plants by 2030 or so.

If you would use all the solar and wind to solely produce hydrogen, and not connect the wind and solar farms to the power grid at all, and then have a hydrogen-based energy production, prices for wind and solar would need to drop by around 60% (~5eurocents/kwh) to make the hydrogen economy cheaper than any alternative.

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

I mean, that must be it. It must be that 25% round-trip efficient storage is not cost competitive compared to building a nat gas plant, or another coal plant. That's why it's not being done today.

However, if photovoltaic costs do become extremely, extremely cheap, this doesn't seem to be impossible.

However, I think we lose on another metric - with that amount of overbuild, we're covering like most of northern Africa, aka the entire Sahara desert, or thereabouts, in solar cells. That just strikes me as impossible, and also an ecological disaster of unprecedented proportions.

That is nuclear annihilation of our entire species by the push of button. Are you this deluded, dear scientist?
Nuclear power plants cannot do that. Please stop conflating nuclear power and nuclear bombs.

How so? What evidence? We've got enough coal for 400+ years, peak oil is just a theory and not a proven fact, just like global warming.
Lols.

Even ignoring that, there's still the fact that coal kills 300 people every day. I'd rather not kill those people. Switching to nuclear can do that.

Yea. That solves most of my complaints. I think. As I wrote above, I am still concerned about the absolutely ludicrous amount of land required though to meet the power demands of 10 billion people at roughly 5 KW each (roughly what you expect for European standard of living, and moving all industrial heat and transport fuel to electricity).

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

Oohno nukes are gonna end the world! As a free thinker, we must put a stop to this madness!
If only evidence existed to the contrary...

heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm

Nojokur
Nojokur

Offhand, that's:
15% solar cell efficiency
25% round-trip storage efficiency
For the sake of argument, assume 50% of demand goes through storage.
Throw on 5% losses from the AC-DC inverters, and another 5% losses from long distance transmission.
Solar insolation values are IIRC like 200 W / sq m daily average in Sahara in winter.

(5 KW) (10 billion people) (1 m^2 / 200 W) (1 / 15%) (.5 + .5*4) (1 / 95%) (1 / 95%)
= about 4.62e6 sq km

The Sahara desert is about 9.2e6 sq km

Yea, we're getting pretty close to covering like all of northern Africa in solar cells. That still strikes me as a really bad idea.

Illusionz
Illusionz

Hydrogen power plants are being built. Japan wants to produce 10% of its energy in hydrogen plants by 2030 or so.
Where does that hydrogen come from? Would it come from splitting water? Electrolysis? IIRC, almost all hydrogen today comes from certain chemical processes from fossil fuels.

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

That's reality for you
Thats ironic, coming from someone who cant separate nuclear power from nuclear weapons

Spamalot
Spamalot

If we can get commercially viable 80%+ solar panels then it may be a different story.

Very unlikely, givent that photosynthesis is the most efficient way to get energy out of light after millions of years of evolution. And it's still only at ~35% effectiveness.

massdebater
massdebater

what are breeder reactors

Methshot
Methshot

Electrolysis
i'm guessing that's the goal, despite the fact that methane gets you very cheap hydrogen.

StonedTime
StonedTime

4 million square km solar cells would cost around 800 billion with current prices (200$/per sqm). Let's say building all the additional infrastructure (hydro power plants etc.) costs 700 billion. That's 1.5 trillion. Let's say the project takes 50 years. Thats 30 billion every year. For the whole world community, not just for the US. If we assume the US pays proportional to its share of global energy consumption, that would be roughly 1/6, or 5 billion a year. How much again are we spending on the F-35?

farquit
farquit

We need more energy to help protect and preserve the environment.

No, just less people

happy_sad
happy_sad

not 100% efficient

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

Ok. So, I have to ask. Why hasn't anyone built this for the grid? Why are grids buying lithium batteries instead of this hydrogen storage? I assume that they're not that stupid, and that there's an aspect to this that I'm not seeing yet. What is it?

I know a guy who studies energy production, he always says germany could go 100% clean and renewable for ca. 25 billion/year, and that includes electricity for hydrogen production cars are going to drive with and people are going to heat their homes with. So 25 billion, for 20 million households, are like 1.250€ each, for all electricity, gasoline, etc. Even if you double that number, it doesn't sound that outrageously high, considering we would be 100% clean, 100% safe, and 100% independent from imports from politically questionable countries like Saudi Arabia or Russia.

Emberfire
Emberfire

Do you use alex jones as your source? This is math and science board you know

Flameblow
Flameblow

large programs that can be cut in exchange.
In the united states it would pay for its self in 8 years of operation, that seems fine by comparrison to similiar projects.

SniperWish
SniperWish

Smartphone radiation is not ionizing

me no like big nujlur bomb go bad

Do you have nay actual points?

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

Creating them mostly.

StonedTime
StonedTime

and there's the answer
please libs kys, you've "fought" nuclear power since the 1970's, and Al gore bragged about "shutting it down with no new plants"...
thanks to libs the energy crisis is real

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

If the energy production is 100% solar and wind, all transportation is fuell cell or battery based, how exactly would they still produce co2 while creating them?

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

If a terrorist attavks any major power generation would it be a WMD according to miss jill?they didnt plan on making it int ok a bomb, they wanted to devastate the eletrical grid.

DeathDog
DeathDog

Lol no, we have plenty, main reason we dont use it is propaganda funded by dominant energy providers that works due to fear.

eGremlin
eGremlin

rare earth metals LOL
battery waste is already BROWN SITES for enviro cleanup
if the libs support it, expect to lose in the short and the long run

FastChef
FastChef

Tanks killed more people so using firearms is better
Those are weapons though so a better comparison would be to say use tanks becuase they do thier job, murder, better than guns. The same way nuclear does a better job of safely producing energy so we should use it over other options. Your anology is shit though.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

So youre saying we shouldnt use the car thats safer though? How dies that make sense? When you options are bus, car, motorcycle for example if the bus kill fewest people than thats an arguement for the bus over other options, if there was a magical option that resulted in no deaths then we would clearly favor that option.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

Renewables are like a modern religion among the left, funded in some significant part by the fossil fuel industry, b
You're kidding right?

Soft_member
Soft_member

if the libs
Back to
/pol/

girlDog
girlDog

The literal act of ripping it out of the ground and turning it into a usable product man.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

How are there greenhouse gases emmitted? Assuming all machinery etc. are going to have hydrogen combustion engines or fuel cells.

askme
askme

gonna need facts on that claim my man.

TreeEater
TreeEater

Assuming all machinery etc. are going to have hydrogen combustion engines or fuel cells.
If you assume that all the vehicles and machinery involved in the production of solar panels and wind turbines use fuel cells, well, yes, they carbon footprint is almost none.

BUT THATS NOT REALITY.

In reality you got normal fuel consuming vehicles moving the parts and resources, and the byproducts of creating the solar panels are really nasty

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

¨Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.¨

Emberfire
Emberfire

Are you retarded? We live in the real world, not your fantasy land user.

SniperGod
SniperGod

Yeah, it's really an outlandish fantasy idea to think the technologies that are dropping in price since a decade will continue to do so.

WebTool
WebTool

Do you also think that thos advances that we havent yet made will have no enviromental impact? Also hood job responding to me rather than the person who took some time to respond you you. Really awesome.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

but what its a fantasy is to accept what says. I seriously doubt that all the vehicles related to creating green energy in the next decade will be working with fuel cells or a battery bank, or that the solar panel factories will stop having such toxic byproducts in their process.

StonedTime
StonedTime

Cars as a primary way of transportation? Are you insane user? Do you know how much a car costs? Plus, a car needs a paved road to drive on. A horse can go anywhere. So you want to tell me we are going to spend hundreds of billions on paving thousands of kilometres of road, just so cars can ride on them? Stop living in fantasy land you moron, horses are the future.

You know, railways only happened because the strong, central government had the guts to invest large amounts of money into building them, and then other countries followed because they saw it can actually be done, and the advantages are gigantic.

Today, we don't have strong central governments, because the private sector has grown too strong and powerful.

DeathDog
DeathDog

Even if they did producing those fuel sells has an enviromental impact. The point being that of course creating solar oanels cuases some amount of pollutuon and as of right now its significant enough to be a pretty large downside.

TechHater
TechHater

*strong, central government of the british empire

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

I'm not talking about next decade.

If all machinery, transportation, etc. involved in the production of fuel cells run on fuel cells, and all electricity is 100% renewable, the production of fuel cells will not cause emissions, either.

Nojokur
Nojokur

well, right now the ammount of vehicles that use fuel cells or battery banks AND are working to create solar panels or any green energy source are incredubly low. Solar panel production is still incredibly toxic and it shouldn´t be considered a green energy source until it stops producing such byproducts. my point still stands.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

So if you produce a shitload of emmisions then you wont produce emmisions? Thats your plan? Where do we get the materials to create all of these fuel cells? Are you not aware that chemicals used to treat materials in fuels cells are toxic?

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

Silicium based solar modules are not toxic.

Lunatick
Lunatick

but the byproducts in creating those are.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

¨Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.¨

If you don´t accept natgeo as a source, i can find more.

Soft_member
Soft_member

Using toxic chemicals while producing is not the same as creating them as a byproduct. Where in the article does it say there is toxic waste as a by product?

girlDog
girlDog

Is your arguement meant to be that solar energy could maybe be produced cleanly? I dont get your stance man.

idontknow
idontknow

It could, if all electricity is generated cleanly, and all machinery, transoportation etc use clean energy sources as well.

So if we lived in a world, where let's 60% of the electricity comes from solar, 40% from Hydroelectricity, Biomass and Hydrogen plants, and all fuel in the economy would be hydrogen, it would be a 100% emmission-free, sustainable economy.

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

ok, the natgeo only says that it produces waste(second paragraph) but it doesn´t go deeper than that. So i made a little investigation and found this.

nationalreview.com/2017/06/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy/

which led me to this

environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis

So you might be right that the production of solar panels don´t create that much of a waste,(yet they create a carbon footprint, because they need energy and that energy comes in its majority from carbon sources). But the panels themselves are incredibly toxic even when compared to nuclear energy.

Methnerd
Methnerd

well, that´s a good argument, but we could make the same thing with nuclear energy and at a cheaper cost.

TreeEater
TreeEater

there are some solar module technologies that are toxic, but most arent.

Skullbone
Skullbone

Uranium is scarce and radioactive waste is a problem

WebTool
WebTool

Even though he is right.

Attached: images-(9).jpg (12 KB, 425x312)

RumChicken
RumChicken

tripfag is obviously a paid shill

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

Okay, thats nice but how reasonable is such a thing? Nuclear is cleaner right now and for the forseeable futre. Why would we not use our best avaliable methodology to create electricity. Once solar is better we should go for it, people have suggested somewhat reasonabel plans for grid stabilit with solar using underground water reservoirs, could work.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

but do you know the porcentage of that? or are you just inventing it?

coal and fossil fuels are more of a problem They kill more people than nuclear has in the same time lapse nuclear energy has been a thing.
newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/

Also uranium isn´t scarse and there are breeder reactors which would make the point moot.
world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

¨Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon.
Its availability to supply world energy needs is great both geologically and because of the technology for its use.
Quantities of mineral resources are greater than commonly perceived.
The world's known uranium resources increased by at least one-quarter in the last decade due to increased mineral exploration.¨

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

Are you intentionally arguing in circles? Thats been addressed and isnt a that great of a criticism to begin with.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

I dont even read his posts. My eyes literally glaze over after the first few words if I even try reading his posts.

Nojokur
Nojokur

If you would produce sustainability through breeder reactors the costs are probably bigger than just renewables and storing the energy in hydro and hydrogen plants, plus you would have obscene amounts of radioactive waste and the occassional meltdown with damages in the hundreds of billions if all energy is produced this way.

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

show me the sources of that. You must have learnt it from somewhere.

Lunatick
Lunatick

You could have just said
yes, i am intentionaly arguing in circles

Booteefool
Booteefool

breeders are more dangerous and much more expensive than light water reactors. they really arent an alternative.

girlDog
girlDog

Thats an intrestingnsource user.

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

best avaliable methodology
It only looks best on paper, but not in real life.

1)How do we make this thing so safe meltdowns will not happen?
2)How do we make it safe to terrorism, earthquakes, tsunamis, green activists?
3)Where do we get the uran?
4)Where do we enrich said uran to use it as fuel?
5)How do we make said enrichment safe to terrorism, earth quakes, tsunamis, green activists?
6)Where do we find a storage facility?
7)How do we make this facility safe to terrorism, earthquakes, tsunamis, green activists?
8)Where do we find workers willing to be exposed to high dosages of radiation?
9)Who pays for the environmental disasters that might happen, or evacuation of whole cities?
10)What tech can handle high dosage of radiation that is lethal to humans for long durations?
11)How do we keep the population healthy in proximity and who pays the additional health care costs?
12)How do we keep logistics of uran transport safe from terrorism, earthquakes, tsunamis, green activists?
13)how do we compete against disruptive tech that delivers cheaper watts?

All problems that have been critical for different reactors at different times. This tech is more expensive than E=mc2 might suggest.

viagrandad
viagrandad

show me the source that backs up your claim.

cum2soon
cum2soon

blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/fast-breeder-reactors-are-the-least-safe/

askme
askme

Also this

princeton.edu/sgs/publications/articles/Time-to-give-up-BAS-May_June-2010.pdf

hairygrape
hairygrape

Gish gallop inc
1)How do we make this thing so safe meltdowns will not happen?
Talk to bill gates, theyve got it covered and have for 5 years.
2)How do we make it safe to terrorism, earthquakes, tsunamis, green activists?
How do you make other power sources safe from such things?
3)Where do we get the uran?
I dont know what uran is. If you mean uranium you get it from the ground, we have plenty
4)Where do we enrich said uran to use it as fuel?
Where do we do it now? What is the pointnof this question?
5)How do we make said enrichment safe to terrorism, earth quakes, tsunamis, green activists?
Already answered this
6)Where do we find a storage facility?
Have then/in development already. Not a concern
7)How do we make this facility safe to terrorism, earthquakes, tsunamis, green activists?
Really same thing again? How afraid are you and why? Who scared you this this badly?
8)Where do we find workers willing to be exposed to high dosages of radiation?
Are you under the impression that nuclear power requires exposing people to radiation regularly? Are you just stupid?
9)Who pays for the environmental disasters that might happen, or evacuation of whole cities?
The goverment/people, just like oil spills but less costly
10)What tech can handle high dosage of radiation that is lethal to humans for long durations?
Oh yiu really are just retarded, wow. Get off this board.
11)How do we keep the population healthy in proximity and who pays the additional health care costs?
What are you even talking about? What planet do you live on? You know coal affects many many magnitudes more people than nuclear, right? Of course you dont.
12)How do we keep logistics of uran transport safe from terrorism, earthquakes, tsunamis, green activists?
Just retarded
13)how do we compete against disruptive tech that delivers cheaper watts?
We embrace it if its better, of course. The point is that there isnt and wont be in the forseeable futre.

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

An 8 year old article is a better source than current paper on the subject? Why?

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

breeders are more dangerous

but they are so SO good for growing the economy

TreeEater
TreeEater

nuk ez bead and scary
got it do you have the ability to have an honest conversation on this subject or no? It doesn't seem as though you do, that or your being dishonest on purpose.

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

his post more honest than your insulting.

you = failure

Emberfire
Emberfire

tfw thread count doesnt go up.

Flameblow
Flameblow

Oh so even though ive been responding honestly and supporting my claims and they have not, I am the dishonest one, got it.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

His posts treat reality as a suggestion, hardly honest.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

....
1)How do we make this thing so safe meltdowns will not happen?
Hire competent people. Chernoby was caused by incompetents that tried to do something very stupid AFTER they turned off all the security measures in the reactor.
Fukushima needed two acts of nature to create it a problem, and yet it didn´t explode or anything, its core just melted.
And the consequences of 3 mile island are close to none."The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."

Also the new reactor models are way safer than the old ones.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
fepc.or.jp/english/nuclear/power_generation/safety_measures/
2)How do we make it safe to terrorism, earthquakes, tsunamis, green activists?
5)How do we make said enrichment safe to terrorism, earth quakes, tsunamis, green activists? >7)How do we make this facility safe to terrorism, earthquakes, tsunamis, green activists?

Nuclear plants are one of the safest thanks to the fear the word nuclear causes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety_and_security
(i know its from cracked, but it has valid sources that can be tracked down and confirmed)
cracked.com/personal-experiences-1848-i-work-in-nuclear-power-plant-5-insane-realities.html

3)Where do we get the uran?
from the ground. uranium is quiet common.
world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

...cont.

eGremlin
eGremlin

user you may as well be claiming that we can use nuclear power because it will make zues angry with us. Did you get your understanding of nuclear power from an oil executive?

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

Oh so even though ive been responding honestly and supporting my claims

ultimate kekels.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

Can't*

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

tobacco execs = bad
oil execs = bad
nuclear execs = savior of humanity from evil global warming

?

gotcha

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

You're right, this is a /pol/ board now, why would well supported claims matter?
When do we start blaming the jews?

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

4)Where do we enrich said uran to use it as fuel?
...on the power plant.

6)Where do we find a storage facility?
they already exist, and if we use a breeding reactor, its a non concern.

8)Where do we find workers willing to be exposed to high dosages of radiation?
Post it on the internet. Also working on a nuclear powerplant gives you very little radiation, so little that its not that much of a concern.
theconversation.com/nuclear-workers-risk-of-cancer-lower-than-previously-thought-21885
nature.com/articles/bjc2013592

9)Who pays for the environmental disasters that might happen, or evacuation of whole cities?
whoever owns the power plant.

10)What tech can handle high dosage of radiation that is lethal to humans for long durations?
tech from the 1950´s and up, considering that we have nuclear plants since then.

11)How do we keep the population healthy in proximity and who pays the additional health care costs?
that´s assuming that the power plant leaks dangerous levels of radiation, which is proven false.
thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/271353-is-it-safe-to-live-near-nuclear-power

)12
defer to my previous post. questions 2, 5 and 7

13)how do we compete against disruptive tech that delivers cheaper watts?
embrace the tech and find better ways to produce energy, like fusion.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

tobacco execs = bad
oil execs = bad
nuclear execs = savior of humanity from evil global warming

Yeah, that's what I meant clearly.
Couldn't have been that all the points that user offered are the same propaganda spouted by big oil companies for years as a way to maintain the status quo where they get to make more money.
You're right though, I was trying to say tobacco execs are evil and nuclear power execs are da best.

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

Hey guys nuclear power is completely harmless and nothing will go wrong ever now fork over your government funding and subsidies and stop thinking about fuels that never run out

t. this thread

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

very well, we stop using the breeder reactors, but instead use more of the normal ones and leave the nuclear waste several kilometers underground until they stop being radioactive. like we are doing right now. problem solved

girlDog
girlDog

very well, we stop using the breeder reactors, but instead use more of the normal ones and leave the nuclear waste several kilometers underground until they stop being radioactive.

Until someone decides to cut corners and not do that

happy_sad
happy_sad

If you want humanity to advance technologically and eventually progress to space colonization, Nuclear is the clear cut only option because of how efficient it is at creating large amounts of power.

If your content with humanity sitting on Earth and maintaining the standard of living and technology we have now, then the other forms of Energy generation are fine.

It basically comes down to are we going to let fear hold us back from achieving greatness or not.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

No one in this thread has claimed anything like that. Its just not the disaster waiting to happen that idiots like you seem to think it is.

takes2long
takes2long

Then that´s not a problem with nuclear energy, but with the people being corrupt or greedy.

w8t4u
w8t4u

achieving greatness
You mean infecting other worlds with the virus of human consumption.

Bidwell
Bidwell

Let our species eventually die out because we where too worried about other uninhabited planets ecosystems?
Fuck off.

iluvmen
iluvmen

tfw my child is born with 3 legs because someone was corrupt or greedy
thanks nuclear power

idontknow
idontknow

We already had two nuclear meltdowns that caused damage so big you can barely put a number on it, but it's definetely in the hundreds of billions range. How many are going to happen if increase the number of nuclear plant by a factor of 20?

And even if american nuclear power plants will be really, really safe, a mexican nuclear power plant near the border melting down is almost as bad as an american melting down for the US.

likme
likme

Let our species eventually die out

Absolutely.

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

why dont you just cut to the chase and call him a bigot.

thats always a super effective way of shutting up the opposition.

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

my children died because he fell from a wind turbine/ solar panel
Thanks green energy.

You see how it sounds stupid to blame the energy source and not the person in charge of keeping the regulations?

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

think humanity is gonna be a type 10 civilization of some such bullshit, and without nuclear we'll go extinct

BWHAHAHAHA HAH HA HA

seriously?

Techpill
Techpill

Most factories and plants in areas without a large pool of professionals import workers from other areas.
I work in a robotics manufacturing shop in Metro Detroit and we go all over the country building stuff and maintaining shit.

TreeEater
TreeEater

In the very long term yes.
There are plenty of natural disasters that could happen and wipe out humanity.
The chances of them happening anytime soon are astronomically low, but that doesn't mean we should not prepare for it.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN

...and build nuclear power plants everywhere

holy fuck you guys are fucking hilarious. but also very very sad.

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

Its just not the disaster waiting to happen
Look at this bear. Despite its fearsome appearance, it is actually perfectly harmless because I make money from it. Go on, go and touch the bear

t. nuclear lobby

Attached: bear.jpg (71 KB, 876x493)

Skullbone
Skullbone

technically 3, and the number is around 10,000 in its most exaggerated numbers. So far fossil power IN THE US kills 13,000 PER YEAR.

theenergycollective.com/willem-post/191326/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

Oil company has deposited .05$ into your account.

Emberfire
Emberfire

yes yes
.

you care about humanity of course of course.

Evilember
Evilember

I'd rather my child die in a freak accident than be born and live as a freak

RavySnake
RavySnake

I already have enough work for the next 30 years, what other motive would I have?

I see what is happening in Europe and other countries with low ambition and motivation and I dont want it to happen here in America.

WebTool
WebTool

i mean, you were the one that made the argument first. also if you bothered to read the links that have been posted, you´d see that there is almost nochance of having mutations within a city that operates a nuclear plant. Hell, the chances of mutations are higher with fossil fuel plants.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

EXXON has you on the payrolls then? You ever get any information from Rex?

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

'murica

StonedTime
StonedTime

Did you purposfully misunderstnad the post you are responding to?

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

the new generation of retards just hates oil and loves nuclear, for humanity

their parents hated the hippies that fought the oil pipelines more than anything; call em commies and pinkos and shit.

they have evolved.

DeathDog
DeathDog

Okay, now calculate the cost of not doing it in lives that will be lost due to continued use of fossil fuels rather than the number that might be killed if things go very wrong. You will kill more people by letting thing continue as they are.

eGremlin
eGremlin

atomic bombs have only killed 130000 people in all history
automobiles have killed 4 million people in the US in all history
therefore atomic bombs are safer to use than automobiles

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

nuclear is incredibly safe
Nuclear is by far the dirtiest and most dangerous source of energy. That's why such extreme measures are taken in the attempt to make it clean and safe. If nuclear power generation were performed to the standards of, for instance, burning coal, it would quickly render a large surrounding area indefinitely uninhabitable and kill most who failed to evacuate quickly enough.

On top of that, the technology for nuclear power and the technology for nuclear weapons are inseparable. This makes it unsuitable for most of the world to use, and irresponsible to promote.

every major nuclear accident was caused by human error in some capacity
Every accident of every kind is caused by human error in some capacity. Humans aren't perfect, and will inevitably commit errors.

This is typical doublethink of nuclear enthusiasts: we put the most effort into keeping it clean and safe, therefore it is the cleanest and safest, and when those efforts fail and terrible consequences ensue, well that's just an individual anomaly where someone fucked up and shouldn't be considered. You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. "Nuclear power is clean and safe" is a religious conviction.

FastChef
FastChef

I already have enough work for the next 30 years

can I get a job shilling nuclear on Veeky Forums too?
I have zero morals, and have extensive experience trolling.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

Renewables have a kill count of 0.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

So what now youve moved on from the merits and flaws of diffrent power genration to talking about hippies hating on oil? Make an actual argument or go back to your containment board.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

Saving those people will ultimately lead to overpopulation and a resulting correction where billions of people die. Thanks, nuclear power.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

morons are completely impervious to logic

this thread needs to die. let the nuclear shills circle jerk themselves.

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

Im an electrician.
Whatever path humanity goes with energy, I will have unlimited work.
I know several friends in the field working down in the solar farms in Texas making insane money, same with nuclear plants.
The money is everywhere for us, why would I care which energy type we use besides for the future progress of humanity

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

That is demonstrably false, 2 seconds of Google could tell you that. You are being intellectually dishonest.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

EXXON has you on the payrolls then? You ever get any information from Rex?
Make an actual argument or go back to your containment board.

hmm

whereismyname
whereismyname

If you don't count all the workers who fall off rooftops while installing solar panels, or fall off wind turbines while doing maintenance, or who get poisoned by the chemicals used to make solar panels, or who die in the rare earth element mines which are mostly in Africa and have no safety standards.

Illusionz
Illusionz

WAH
WAH
that guy is a pol person
make the evil pol person go away mommy

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

This is really shitty bait, youre argument has now shifted to nuclear power will be too good and thats a bad thing? Come on man.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

You're a fucking 2 year community college moron.
So you don't know fuck all about what you're cheerleading

thanks for the clarification on that.

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

Read the links in the thread and you can see how demostrably false this post is.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

Never went to any kind of college, I work at a robotics plant as an electrician mainly doing work for the Big 3.
Idk why I would lie about that its not very glamorous

Lunatick
Lunatick

using your wicked logic?
yes.
but in reality you are comparing things that have nothing in common. the bombs are designed to kill, and cars to move persons and things.

Yet in my example i´m showing the deaths that the energy sources have per year. the three are the same thing. Energy. sources.

Dangerous things can be safe. A gun is safe as long as the user follows all the appropiate rules regarding how to use it. It won´t explode in your face unless you do something stupid.

show me the proof. because i´ve already shown mine that says that´s false.
theenergycollective.com/willem-post/191326/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes
forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#f958a4d709b7

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

I buy domestic, just so you know.

And I think nuclear is retarded.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

poster makes an awful argument
I sarcastically respond by showing that his argument works just as well when used agaisnt him
i then ask to have a real conversation instead
you somehow think ive contrdicted myself
Nice

King_Martha
King_Martha

I don't count those, no.

Soft_member
Soft_member

If you want to talk about hippies and make posts along the lines of
wah
wah
wah
Then /pol/ is a much more appropriate board.
Do you have a problem with that?

girlDog
girlDog

I dont either.

Only a moron would.

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

I Drive a 94 Honda Accord cause I'm cheap as fuck.
The deadliest thing in the electrical field is 120V.
More people die to that by such a large margin.
Experienced guys get really relaxed working with low voltages, where as if your working with 480V on a daily basis, you are always on your toes.

farquit
farquit

What are your qualifications buddy?

happy_sad
happy_sad

using your wicked logic?
yes.
but in reality you are comparing things that have nothing in common. the bombs are designed to kill, and cars to move persons and things.

The point is that you're not accounting for the fact that nuclear power is used far less than fossils. You dumbass.

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

why not? they are related.

5mileys
5mileys

Don't pretend you don't post or at the very least browse in pol, asshole.

fucking asshat

askme
askme

Its used less because of public fear mongering, and the fact it is way more efficient at producing power.

Bidwell
Bidwell

tl;dr

idontknow
idontknow

we can scale up or down the numbers so they are in proportion, either way nucler kill less than any other source.

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

Imagine for a second that all fossil fuel manufacturing and power stations were replaced with nuclear ones and had been so since their inception in the 1800s. Do you think there would be a comparable amount of deaths and disease then? Dipshit

Playboyize
Playboyize

nucler kill less than any other source.
lol

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

There is no where near enough uranium to do that.

nuclear shills then respond "THORIUM, GOD OF THUNDER"

Techpill
Techpill

No, there would probably be fewer deaths and disease.
Nigga, 450k people died every year from heart diseases from FF and your worried about the 15 who die yearly from nuclear.

Methnerd
Methnerd

Nigga
why the homophobia?

TreeEater
TreeEater

120V kills more then any other source by a large margin.
Your more likely to die from changing out a circuit breaker in your house then working in a nuclear power plant for 40 years.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

Nigga, 450k people died every year from heart diseases from FF and your worried about the 15 who die yearly from nuclear.

No, I'm worried about how many would die if everything was nuclear.

also
450k people died every year from heart diseases from FF
lol

Snarelure
Snarelure

So lets scale home circuit breakers up to 480V.

That is your fucking logic for nuclear...

baka

Skullbone
Skullbone

There's a lot more people in houses than people in nuclear plants, retard.

Emberburn
Emberburn

Sorry, the 633,000 people who die yearly from heart disease.
cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Firespawn
Firespawn

show me the source where it shoes that nuclear power kill more than any other source.

SniperGod
SniperGod

from FF

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

What is a transformer?
Nuclear would not change the voltage going to your house are you retarded?
These are the brainlets in here arguing about the electrical field who know nothing about the simple basics of how things work.

You fuckers should have to post atleast Ohms Law next to a comment

RavySnake
RavySnake

LIQUID SALT THORIUM BREEDER REACTORS

THORIUM

THOR, GOD OF THUNDER

logic

WebTool
WebTool

brainlet.jpg

StonedTime
StonedTime

V= IR

Every retarded cat lady knows that.

And you're so proud that you managed to figure that out, and are therefore qualified to shill nuclear.

DeathDog
DeathDog

E = IR
Only brainlets use V

Failed out of the thread

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

I didnt even have to google it.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE xDDDD bazinga!!

FastChef
FastChef

Try not to vapourize your dick next time you're chaning out a circuit board, asshole.

JunkTop
JunkTop

ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

Then I don't count any of the cancer deaths or any of the fire fighters who got radiation poisoning at Chernobyl.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

Tell that to african and chinese miners mining those rare earth metals.
Tell that to the workers refining those rare earth metals.
Tell that to the villagers living near the grey sludge byproducts of those rare earth metals.

And most importantly of all, tell that to the birds that get mass genocided by solar panels and wind turbines constantly.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

bazinga!!

I hope to one day see a webm of sheldon getting rekt.

Supergrass
Supergrass

OH GOD
WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE BIRDS

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

i care more about the birds than random villagers, to be desu

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

green energy
environmentally friendly
Kills birds.

one of those things is not like the others.

RavySnake
RavySnake

Deaths caused by shitty working conditions in 3rd world countries don't count. The kill count for coal and nuclear would be much higher, too, if you counted those. We should only compare death through producing energy in the 1st world country. And renewables have a big fat 0 there when it comes to killing people.

RumChicken
RumChicken

derailing for the use in nuclear bombs

the plutonium they pull out of normal light water reactors is too mutt and would just fizzle in an actual nuke. to cook really tasty and pure weapons grade plutonium you need to only leave the uranium in the reactor for a short period of time then eject it not overcook it and leave it in for the entire fuel cycle like reactor grade plutonium

compare the amount of time it takes to refuel a PWR with Hanford B or Windscale where plant workers were constantly manually adding and ejecting fuel canisters without ever shutting down the reactor

if you actually tried to use a PWR to breed weapons grade plutonium your output would be so tiny it would hardly even be worth it(assuming israel didn't bomb your plant long before you ever produce anything)

Attached: Hanford-reactor-loading.jpg (371 KB, 1024x827)

DeathDog
DeathDog

where is your source on that claim?

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

nuclear is incredibly safe and any incident is done by human error
ran by humans

idk, there is a principle of trust in humanity for this sort of technology. its not that i dont trust the technology, just those who run it.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

Well, in germany there are high safety standards regarding the maintenance of wind turbines. Only highly skilled workers do it and are secured with a rope at all time. As I said, lack of safety standards in 3rd world countries (like US) dont count.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

thunderf00t spotted

Attached: 1518401699425.jpg (45 KB, 800x450)

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

I lold

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

OK, how many deaths from nuclear have there been in places with high safety standards?

Remember, you can't count Chernobyl if you think even the US is 3rd world.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

I was in a hurry when I originally typed that out, so I didn't get to clarify about what I meant as "Human Error". For example, by Fukushima being built in a tsunami zone, that pretty much sealed the fate that a terrible accident would occur there eventually, and whoever picked the location should have known that. Now if nuclear reactors were melting down left and right despite skilled and educated engineers doing everything right, I wouldn't call that human error, but a lacking in knowledge about the technology. A good is example is despite all the nuclear reactors onboard US navy vessels, how often have there been headlines about some horrible reactor meltdown on board one of them?

we put the most effort into keeping it clean and safe
which is why nuclear reactors don't just randomly melt down. In modern reactor technology the failsafes are damn good at what they do, which is why the few nuclear mishaps there have been were nearly all precipitated by someone deliberately doing something reckless (Chernobyl), or fucking up part of the design/layout of a nuclear plant(Fukushima)

"Nuclear weapons and power are inseparable"

This is true to an extent, but breeder reactors are not the only model, just the most common because that's where the research money went. Nuclear proliferation in weaponry is not our friend, but in power generation it could fix many of the earths major problems because of how cheap electricity would be if nuclear was used on a wider scale.

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

I was under the impression that we can extract uranium from sea water, and the supply would be effectively limitless. Also people seem to act like it's either nuclear or renewable, both have similar issues (rely on dirt industries to build the foundations) but once you've actually made the switch you can continue to expand using the now clean energy. Proliferation is a red herring as productions plants for weapons grade material require so specially designed facilities which are poor at generating power and therefore would not be used for actual power plants. Fossil fuels produce more waste (including radiation) which is released directly into population centers despite tougher regulations and advanced technology. Nuclear plants already prevent leakage on any significant level, and the accidents produce exposure that is barely above background or at worst equivalent to a year of background at once (less chance of cancer or mutations than associated with most things, such as birth control of plane flight). A single nuclear plant replaces many fossil fuel plants, each one of those has a vastly greater negative health impact than the single nuclear plant at any scale even assuming that the plant had an accident. If you replaced the world's fossil fuel plants with nuclear (in terms of power capacity, not 1:1 which would be overkill), then you would quite literally have saved millions of lives as well as drastically reduced all forms of pollution and greenhouse emissions. Scaling up the amount of nuclear plants doesn't mean the relative health and environmental costs magically explode exponentially. If EACH fossil fuel plant has greater waste and exposure than a single nuclear plant, how would replacing multiple fossil fuel plants with nuclear (even if it was 1:1) do anything but reduce the negative effects? A valid concern is costs, not red herrings like waste, radiation exposure, safety, or proliferation.

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

That's different though. Fallout doesnt care about borders. There is radioactive damage in all of europe because of Chernobyl. It would be the same for the US. If Mexico would produce all its energy in nuclear reactors, and one of their dozens has a fallout, probably large parts of the US would suffer, too (depends on where exactly the meltdown would happen). However, if Mexicans are dying maintenaning the wind turbines, that would not kill anybody in the US.

Snarelure
Snarelure

That assumes a disaster would be exactly the same as that one, it was the product of egregious failures and negligence on multiple levels coupled with outdated knowledge and technology. A more reasonable assumption is that accidents would resemble Fukushima, itself still an ancient design coupled with gross negligence and (known) design flaws. And even then the outcome was that the surrounding area's contamination was so negligable that it's comparable to normal background radiation at high elevation cities. The radiation leaking into the ocean is also insignificant due to the fact that the (already radioactive and uranium rich) oceans disperse and dilute the contamination. The reason why they evacuated everyone and cordoned off the area was due to overzealous protocol and the perxeption that it must be dangerous. The area is no more dangerous than any high altitude city, and in fact is less dangerous to your long term health than any city polluted by convention power plants.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

ya, until your kids start building sand castles.

the radiation is in the soil

JunkTop
JunkTop

When you baselessly accuse others of being "shills" it mostly reveals that you dont have a substantial argument.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

If that was too long for you you should try another board thats more at your level
/x/
Maybe? You might prefer
/a/
Perhaps?

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

Pros:
Constant production unlike wind and solar
No CO2 emissions whatsoever
No aesthetic concerns (even though wind turbines look cool as fuck)
Fuel has extremely high energy density
Spent fuel rods have to be cooled for decades in a bath (why not put a heat transver system in the cooling bath, get some enrgy out of those too?)
Once humans go extinct, they'll create a 2-mile wide radioactive dead zone once the spent rods evaporate their water bath
pretty much the safest form of energy generation, as long as it's not built in an earthquake/tsunami/communism prone region

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

Id like to see your source for global supplies of uranuim being so scarce.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

I doubt that scientist avoided putting into their reports that information.

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

Once humans go extinct,
I assume we will turn them off first?

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

google it

this has always been the case. its common knowledge

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

I have, my results say we have a fairly sizable source of readily avaliable uranuim as well as additional deposits that are currently not readily accesable but could be made to be if needed. It says uranuim is less rare than many semi rares metals and also can e harvested from sea water at 3 parts per billion if need be.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

what a total crock of shit this entire post is.

display your source.

King_Martha
King_Martha

world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx
Thats the first result on google, there are a few others though.
Why is it "a total crock of shit"? You said google it and i did, is that not what you expected to find?

Spamalot
Spamalot

18 millisieverts isn´t that bad, but ok. i concede the point.

world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

now display yours that says uranium is scarce.

likme
likme

There is radioactive damage in all of europe because of Chernobyl.
BS.

Firespawn
Firespawn

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

some quick number crunching shows that at current use there is 1194 years worth of uranium in low grade ore. (Lets forget the cost of refining said low grade ore for the moment)

if we divide by the reciprocal of 14% (the current amount of worlds energy supplied by nuclear), we get 167 years.

Now factor in growth over coming decades (which you are now doubt in favor of).

JunkTop
JunkTop

npr says 14%
this site says 4%:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

which gives 48 years worth of uranium from low grade ore.

now factor in growth over the coming decades (which you are no doubt hugely in favor of (you know - to progress humanity to the stars or whatever))

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

if we divide by the reciprocal of 14% (the current amount of worlds energy supplied by nuclear), we get 167 years.
Now factor in growth over coming decades (which you are now doubt in favor of).
I dont think this means what you think it means, mind breaking it down for me?

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

fuck off retard.

learn to do some calculations yourself.

Im done wasting my time with you.

Illusionz
Illusionz

(which you are no doubt hugely in favor of (you know - to progress humanity to the stars or whatever))
Are you for some reason under the impression that there are only two people in this thread?

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

who the fuck are you?

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

Oh alright thats a grear response. Thanks for being autistic.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

Why is it "a total crock of shit"?
and also can e harvested from sea water at 3 parts per billion if need be.

remember folks, when dealing with retards, try not to get frustrated.

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

Who the fuck are you? 55 posters user. You may not have been talking to just me, believe it or not.

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

so?

viagrandad
viagrandad

scholar.google.com/scholar?q=harvesting.uranium.from.seawater&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiizMzjv43aAhVRuVkKHfApBRYQgQMIJjAA#d=gs_qabs&p=&u=#p=Pl1O2h5WJwAJ

Your point?

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

You clearly stributed a statment i never made to me but i can see you missed that.

w8t4u
w8t4u

for the 10 billionth fucking time

its not whether it can be done

its whether it can be done economically.

why is that so fucking hard to understand.

like for example. there may be 10 tonnes worth of little flecks of gold in the hills. but if it takes you 10 years to gather 1 dollar worth of gold, its not fucking economical for you do wander around collecting it.

jesus fucking christ

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

Read the article then you mongoloid.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

rEAd tHe ArTIclE thEn yOU MonGOlOiD.

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

Is your position that nuclear power isnt economically viable despite the fact thats clearly demonstrably false? You sound like a retard.

Firespawn
Firespawn

The readings were of soil samples, I wasn't implying air (which would be less for similar reasons as ocean contamination)

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

Attached: 1522030324831.jpg (22 KB, 449x450)

Snarelure
Snarelure

You missed a factor of a thousand.
4 million sq km
= 4 trillion sq m, not 4 billion sq m.
So, total price is around 1 quadrillion dollars, aka 1 thousand trillion dollars.
I'd love to know how.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

Deadly serious.

Any plan will need to solve for liquid transport fuel. This is the same problem for the solar+wind fantasy as it is for nuclear. I hope that US Navy process to create gasoline from seawater can scale to commercial scale and replace fossil fuel gasoline.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

But that's just wrong. The IFR is safer than conventional light water reactors. Not all reactors are the same thing, and not all fast spectrum breeders are the same. They worked out a lot of these problems back at Argonne National Lab.

idontknow
idontknow

All 300 of them, give or take?

MPmaster
MPmaster

ISIS actually trying to attack a US nuclear plant would be pretty funny considering security at NRC plants are exempt from the National Firearms Act and can buy a crate of full-auto carbines and 10,000 rounds of 5.56 like most people buy toilet paper

Attached: 1428013426538.jpg (41 KB, 283x352)

DeathDog
DeathDog

You can't scale nuclear reactors by that much. To power the whole world you would need to build around 2.000 1MW nuclear reactors, each costing more than a billion. As the best spots would be used up by the few first hundreds, the next are going to become more and more expensive, as you need to invest more in the cooling infrastructure etc. So saying 5 billion each on average is really not overestimating it. that would be an investment for 10 trillion dollars for the building alone. Then you would also face huge operating costs, because you just grew the demand for uranium by a factor of 20. Plus, the uranium, even in the most optimistic scenarios, with such a rate of consumption will run out in 100 years max.

Renewables have their own set of problems, but by now their prices have dropped so far that it really makes no sense to keep building nuclear reactors. Every coal and nuclear plant that gets closed down will be replaced by a wind or solar farm, or a gas turbine. As it is, it really makes very little sense to build anything else.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

1 km = 1000 m
1 km^2 = (1 km)^2 = (1000 m)^2 = 1 million m^2
Are you really this bad at dimensional analysis? Go retake high school chemistry.

Booteefool
Booteefool

see:
1 km = 1000 m
1 km^2 = (1 km)^2 = (1000 m)^2 = 1 million m^2
Are you really this bad at dimensional analysis? Go retake high school chemistry.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

Plus, the uranium, even in the most optimistic scenarios, with such a rate of consumption will run out in 100 years max.
That's still 100 years that we delayed climate change and ocean acidification, giving us 100 years to figure out something else. Even if you were right, and you're not, that's still a huge win, and we should do it.

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

Renewables have their own set of problems, but by now their prices have dropped so far that it really makes no sense to keep building nuclear reactors. Every coal and nuclear plant that gets closed down will be replaced by a wind or solar farm, or a gas turbine. As it is, it really makes very little sense to build anything else.

Well, if you want to solve for climate change and global warming, then we need nuclear. We cannot build any gas plants. We need to shut down all existing gas plants, if we want to meet our CO2 emission goals.

Methshot
Methshot

Solar has become relatively cheap. The Topaz solar farm cost 2.5 billion and has an energy output of 1,1 TWh/per year. If we assume a lifespan of 25 years, thats rouhly 27TWh for 2,5 billion. Maintenance and operation cost barely exist. So 27TWh for 2,5 billion are a little under 10 cents per KWh. That's pretty cheap. Nuclear and coal sit at 6-8 cents.

Wind is even cheaper than solar. The best farms are already competetive with nuclear, coal and gas.

As prices of solar and wind continue to drop, more and more locations become lucrative for building. How big the share of wind and solar is going to be depends on how much the prices keep dropping. If they drop another 50%, not going 100% solar and wind would be economically insane.

TechHater
TechHater

The Topaz solar farm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
the capacity factor is 23%
The project uses nine million[8] thin-film cadmium telluride PV panels
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_solar_cell
CdTe-panels with an efficiency of about 14 percent
www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/9/11818/pdf
CdTe ... Tellurium 7.8 g m^2
investorintel.com/sectors/technology-metals/technology-metals-intel/tellurium-trials-tribulations/
Its estimates global reserves at 24,000 tonnes

So, let's target 10 billion people, at 5 KW power usage each. How much tellurium do we need?
(10 billion) (5 KW) (1 sq m / 1000 W) (1 / 23%) (1 / 14%) (7.8 g / sq m)
= 12,111,801 tonnes

Yea, that's not going to work. Only short by a factor of a thousand. Another piece of tech that can be discarded as "round error".

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

The prices for c-Si panels are nigh identical to CdTe panels. However, CdTe panels produce a more electricity when it is very hot, so for c-Si you end up 20-30% higher in cost for high performance solar farms as the Topaz solar farm. So instead of ~9 cents, you would have 11-12cents.
However, for locations with not so intense sunlight the price gap becomes narrower.
C-Si doesn't use any scarce ressources and can be scaled indefinetely.

Illusionz
Illusionz

As far as I know, you are right that polycrystalline silicon solar cells don't have a raw material shortage problem. The problem there is the land use reqs, and the intermittency / storage / EROEI problem.

I still need to look into hydrogen more. It seems too good to be true, assuming solar prices continue to fall - except for land use concerns. As I said above, paving over most of north Africa, like half a dozen countries, seems like something that's not going to work out that well.

Supergrass
Supergrass

Also, I still think that we're underestimating costs somewhere when we're talking about paving over an area the size of a small continent. That's got to be hugely expensive.

w8t4u
w8t4u

Well, you can use roofs. Downsides are it is more inefficient, and you have a lot of installation costs that are not going to go down. However, these cost disadvantages can be overcome if the solar panels simply drop even more in price. If c-Si prices drop to 50 cents per Wpeak, solar basically is the cheapest alternative on the market for energy production, in term of using them in large solar farms. If they drop another 10-15 cents, even mass-installing them on roofs should be cheaper than any other alternative. So to achieve that, they would need to more than half their current price (they are at 90 cents to 1 dollar currently for 1Wpeak).

Methshot
Methshot

please respond.

Supergrass
Supergrass

Germany needs roughly 560TWh of electricity every year. With 500 Topaz Solar farms, this would cover their electricity needs. Cost for that would be 50 billion a year.

Electricity however is only a quarter of germany's total energy demand. Germany also uses around 13.000 Petajoule a year in other forms of energy (gasoline, etc.).

1kg of Hydrogen has an energy value of 120 Megajoule. Producing 1kg of Hydrogen through electrolysis needs around 40KWh. You would need around 100 billion kgs of Hydrogen to cover all of Germanys demands. That would mean you need another 4.000TWh electricity for hydrogen production. This is equivalent 4.000 Topaz solar farms (less, but let's say the rest is used for storage capacities, which we don't have yet.). Cost for those would be 500 billion/year. So all in all you would need 550 billion/year. Let's say there is some additional hydrogen production for energy storage and round this up to 600 billion/year. For 20 million households, this would mean a divided cost of 30.000 euros each/year. That is actually not that bad, considering you are covering ALL energy costs. If the prices dropped by a factor of 5, this could work. 6.000€/year for a 4 person household is okay. Price drops could come from making hydrogen production more efficient, and further drop in cost of electricity through renewables. Let's say you achieve 20KWh/kg of hydrogen, and 5 cents per KWh, then the cost per household would drop to 7.500 euros. If you achieved 10KWh/kg of hydrogen, and 2,5 cents per KWh, you would end up with 3.750€, which is probably considerably less, than what Germans currently pay.

For 4.500 Topaz solar farms you would need to cover roughly a third of germany in solar panels though (4.500*23sqkm~100.000sqkm, total size of germany ~ 350.000sqkm). However, obviously it wouldn't be all solar, it would be a mix of solar, wind, hydro, and biomass. So the land restriction might not be so absolute.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

Germany needs roughly 560TWh of electricity every year. With 500 Topaz Solar farms, this would cover their electricity needs. Cost for that would be 50 billion a year.

Electricity however is only a quarter of germany's total energy demand. Germany also uses around 13.000 Petajoule a year in other forms of energy (gasoline, etc.). 13.000 Petajoule are roughly 3.600 TWh. Let's add another 100TWh as storage, and say you need to produce 3.700TWh worth of Hydrogen.

Hydrogen produced with 90% efficiency through electrolysis. This means you are roughly going to need 10% more electricity compared to what you are getting out.That would mean you need 4.070TWh worth of electricity to cover all Hydrogen demand. That's roughly 3.700 Topaz solar farms, and 370 billion costs/year. So all in all, you end up with 420 billion costs/year, which translates into 21.000€ per household.

Now consider that private households only consume roughly a quarter of all energy, and everything else is consumed by industry, public transport, etc. This would mean a private household of 4 people would pay ~5.200€/year for all their energy cost, including heating, transport, electricity, etc. This would be a bit more than 100€pp/month. That's actually quite good.

It would also mean covering a good portion of germany in renewables. 4.200 solar farms cover an area of roughly 100.000sqkm, or a third of germany. Obviously it wouldn't be all solar, there will probably be much more wind in the mix, than solar. You would probably have wind for the northern part, and solar for the southern part. Wind farms are much more efficient in terms of land they occupy. Roughly you could say that 4sqkm translates into 1TWh. So if you were to produce the 4.200TWh with windfarms, it would cover "only" 16.800sqkm, or 5% of germany. However, you could also put a good share of those offshore, so the area covered by windfarms is even smaller.

girlDog
girlDog

wanna try that a fourth time just to be sure?

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit