Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 07:12:42 UTC No. 16272552

>>16272547
>Eh, why is this technology outputting GWs of electricity at constant rate with 0 carbon emissions so expensive?
>it's more cost effective pedaling on my bicycle

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 07:26:33 UTC No. 16272558

>>16272552
But why though? Are other forms subsidized, or is it because they're (((allowed))) to be used that forces companies to invest in their development?

Also, can the waste from fission be used for fusion, so doing so now actually sets you up for fission later?

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 07:42:27 UTC No. 16272562

>>16272558
Nuclear reactors are pretty complex technical endeavors with shit tons of paperwork on top of that. Maintenance and fuel adds a little on top of that, but most of the cost is in building them, so the interest rates on loans used for construction push the cost up higher too. Renewable energy tech can be made by chinese kids and installed by grandpa, and then the government gives you a handjob for it, so much easier to set up and cheaper. The fact that nuclear reactors provide predictable thermal energy can be really handy though so the extra cost can pay off in the long run, especially if utility companies run them for the better part of a century like they usually try to. The fact that nuclear reactors can provide heat in larger quantities than electricity is overlooked a lot but its probably the best feature if you include near-future developments. As for fusion, they don't run on nuclear waste, but breeder reactors or hybrid fission-fusion reactors could, so a few decades from now it totally could end up getting used as fuel.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 07:49:31 UTC No. 16272567

>>16272562
How would you even use the heat from reactors practically? Have the steam tunnel through pipes to manufacturing areas or what?

It sounds like renewable is
>we have no idea what we're doing but it gets it done

and nuclear is
>we need to actually have a long-term comprehensive plan and build society around it and if we do it will pay off immensely

and as such nuclear is a waste of time in our retarded society

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 07:52:01 UTC No. 16272571

>>16272567
Yeah pretty much, the chinese just did something like that with a nuclear reactor to heat an oil refinery. And I like your analogy for how the 2 are useful, it sums it up well.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 07:55:37 UTC No. 16272573

>>16272547
fossil fuel kikes will use all justification to avoid using nuclear + renewable combination. And everyone will fall for their propaganda, it's pretty funny

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 07:56:32 UTC No. 16272574

>>16272571
Just sounds like we're going to get absolutely raped by the Chinese like we already are because we have no collective identity and just fight over nonsense while China just gets shit done. I'm sure importing millions more immigrants will help us.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 07:59:45 UTC No. 16272575

>>16272573
>fossil fuel kikes will use all justification to avoid using nuclear + renewable combination
more like fossil fule + renewable niggers are threatened by nuclear chads so they pulled out all dirty regulation tricks to stop nuclear.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 08:13:29 UTC No. 16272586

>>16272573
>>16272573
Renewables have hurricanes and earthquakes, nuclear has the A-bomb, how will cuck fuels even compete?

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 08:14:20 UTC No. 16272589

>>16272575
Yeah those dang regulations who needs em nuclear is 100% safe (for some reason)

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 08:19:44 UTC No. 16272592

>>16272589
Ehh, most of the regulations are a good call but in the US at least I think the NRC was intentionally made dysfunctional to the point that it was so fucked up it couldn't approve licenses in a timely manner no matter what they were.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 09:14:20 UTC No. 16272615

>>16272558
>Are other forms subsidized
this

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:07:03 UTC No. 16272683

>>16272574
Pretty much

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:11:01 UTC No. 16272687

>>16272547
>australian
HAHAHAHA, Imagine listening what those corrupt chinese cocksucking retards have to say

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:42:17 UTC No. 16272709

>>16272547
There’s been virtually no advancement in reactor technology since the 1980s. Universities train just enough nuclear engineers & physicists to keep the existing plants running to the end of their lifespan. The only career path that isn’t a total dead end is the Navy, but even there you’ll just be Homer Simpson in a nice looking uniform, staring at a terminal on a warship for 12 hours a day.
Imagine Google or Tesla having a nuclear research division. We would be building a new reactor every week. They would be so efficient we could power a major metropolitan area with a fuel pile no bigger than the size of your fist.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 13:35:47 UTC No. 16272778

>>16272547
Those fake new. A cheaper method to produce.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-hPVVPrz4U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnos4iGuwqU

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 16:15:18 UTC No. 16272899

>>16272562
>The fact that nuclear reactors can provide heat in larger quantities...
The undiscovered new tech is a form of material that encapsulates heat long term and can dispense it slowly, and recharged later.
That's what the world needs
Some kind of metal cube that you can just toss around in factories and nuclear plants to get it red hot, then you put it in some kind of space void with a faucet to let heat out, and when it's completely cold you send it out to the plant again.
This will solve 50% of the global requirement for electricity, which is heat

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 01:43:58 UTC No. 16273570

>>16272552
>ant-nuclear movement from Germany, Italy and Lithuania

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 01:45:41 UTC No. 16273573

>>16272547
all heat based power plants work in the same way
>heat large water tanks
>water becomes steam
>steam turns turbines attached to generator
>unlimited_power.gif
with nuclear power it's hard to get the fuel
>mine uranium ore
>blast it with fluorine gas to get UF6 gas
>spin_me_round.gif
>collect lighter U-235 gas isotope
>reduce it back into U-235 metal
>extrude into rods
>heat.jpg
with coal it's easier to get fuel
>mine coal
>burn it lmao

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 01:55:50 UTC No. 16273587

>>16273573
not really. all that effort for uranium fuel gets you orders of magnitude more energy than the same volume of coal - and it is not nearly sufficiently more difficult to extract uranium than the same mass of coal to counteract the energy density advantage.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 01:55:36 UTC No. 16275453

>>16273587
You don't have to throw away 99% of your uranium you know
They just do it because of non-proliferation nonsense

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:19:54 UTC No. 16276127

>>16272567
If it's near enough to a town, then using it for district heating is a viable option. I've even seen people spitball the idea of de-icing streets in winter months.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:14:33 UTC No. 16276444

>>16273587
Well sure it gives a lot of energy, but that doesn't change the fact that to do all that is very expensive. With both coal and nuclear you gotta mine, but with coal you poke a hole in the ground and directly burn the black colored rocks you see. Nuclear on the other hand you need to do isotope separation. An extremely inefficient and expensive process. Also, waste management is expensive too. The spent fuel needs to be contained, along with the irradiated cooling water.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:15:33 UTC No. 16276448

probably specific to australia
their geography favours solar and wind in some ways, because there is lots of open space and sunshine, but the people who need to electricity are densely packed into small areas for the most part
as well, they don't have any nuclear experience, so they'd have a huge job of training up SQEPs and paying their wages, which I assume they have costed in (if they haven't they are stupid)

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:17:38 UTC No. 16276452

>>16276448
i read the article a little further and it doesn't include the costs for establishing the industry

DRILL BABY DRILL at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:39:11 UTC No. 16276491

>>16272547
Nuclear is bad for economy.
Coal, oil, gas is all good for the economy. So is pollution - which benefits the average working man by increasing his wages and standard of living. That's why the 50s were a golden age and had high birth rates - because we had enough industrial pollution to make life worth living.

Drill, baby, Drill!

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 21:08:10 UTC No. 16276527

>>16272589
Many nuclear regulations in the US are criticized for being shameless pork. Tens of thousands of dollars for toilets, hundreds of dollars for screws, etc. Similar to the USAF budget that blatantly overstates the value of items to move money around.
I'm in favor of strict regulations, as long as they actually serve a purpose beyond making a bureacrat rich or funding a black project.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 00:44:15 UTC No. 16278070

>>16276527
Yet wasted billions+ on tranny restroom and Ukraine bullshit etc

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 01:15:03 UTC No. 16278092

>>16272547
>Figures manipulated THAT much
The only way to deal with eco-terrorists or 'environmental activists' which to me is exactly the same is forcible psychiatric internment and injection of antipsychotics thrice a day.