>muh energy crisis
>muh pollution
>muh global warming
When are we gonna start using nuclear energy?
>b-but but Chernobyl
Was literally Soviets being moronic
>muh energy crisis. >muh pollution. >muh global warming
>muh energy crisis
>muh pollution
>muh global warming
When are we gonna start using nuclear energy?
>b-but but Chernobyl
Was literally Soviets being moronic
>b-but but waste storage
>b-but uranium is a finite resource
>b-but a lot of uranium lies in problematic countries
>b-but they are unreliable, as can be seen in France right now
>b-but they warm rivers or dry them out at problematic rates, forcing shutdowns in summer when ACs need the most energy
>b-but the cost is significantly higher than renewables
>b-but the energy companies expect government subsidies for the decommissioning
>muh uranium
Just use thorium
>muh waste
Put it on a rocket out of the solar system
>cost
A spook
>Put it on a rocket out of the solar system
>>cost
>A spook
I couldn't larp a nuclear fanboy better if I wanted to make them look stupid.
The planet has a frickload of space
Put all the nuclear waste on the island the tzar bomb was detonated over
Yeah... no....
Whats on that island?
Nothing.
Nothing is on that island
Perfect place to put some nuclear waste
The problem is not what's on that island, the problem is if we should trust the Russians with that. If they frick up, the stuff lands in the ocean. And I don't think that Russia is willing to take the waste from everyone and their mother and store it for free.
>the problem is if we should trust the Russians with that.
why should anyone be trusted with that?
When it costs just $50 to put a pound on Mars, and or about $30 to a put a pound on the moon, offloading our nuclear waste to the future becomes extremely easy and convienent and not morally wrong either
>>muh waste
>Put it on a rocket out of the solar system
How about no?
The supposed "waste" is a valuable resource, this is why no operational long term storage exists for it.
Put simply:
Most LWRs need refueling when neutron-poisons get to around 5% of the fuel, as that slows the neutrons down too much to keep long chain reactions going.
But the US has moronic laws banning nuclear "waste" reprocessing, this makes said "waste" effectively 95% fertile fuel that is just chucked away!
So far, it still works out because uranium mining is very cheap, so, not much has changed.
Meanwhile, France has to import their uranium, and as such allows reprocessing.
This isn't even taking into consideration that more work is finally being put into fast-spectrum breeder reactors, which will allow closing the cycle with negligible total waste left over in the end (if any).
personally, I like that idea. I know that this is pretty dangerous, considering rockets explode and stuff. and also there is so much mass, that it would be incredibly expensive. But if we wait for a century or so, and we get a cheap and reliable way of transporting this shit off-world, my idea would be to bring it to the moon. It would be safe enough so no one can ever steal it, there is no geological activity and no weather to erode any of the material. you could even get it back if you wanted to do so. and also it is probably more energy efficient the shooting it out of the solar system or in the sun. So I say, just hold onto the trash for a century and see what we can do about it.
>Put it on a rocket out of the solar system
>considering rockets explode and stuff
Storing it for 300 years is a lot better idea. There is plenty of infrastructure around the world that has survived this time frame
>put nuclear waste in rocket
>explodes because we can't into space
>launching facility is now an exclusion zone
yeah, what a great idea
Great. Another Green Peace gay that wants everyone to suck Poutine for fossil fuel.
>Waste
Most of the fuel can be reused. More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the waste. The actual waste that gets buried is really small and besides, it gets buried deep underground where it can't reach people so it's safe.
Check: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
> Uranium is a finite resource
So is coal. And as another anon pointed
there's still thorium.
Also, we can extract uranium from seawater.
Check : https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extract-uranium-seawater-nuclear-power
>but they are unreliable, as can be seen in France right now
1. A lot of France reactors are old. So corrosions is to be expected. Because of Green gays it was not politically acceptable to build new reactors so we lost our building skill but we are slowly getting it back.
2. Out of 28 reactors being shutdowns only 12 are due to corrosion. The other 16 are due to expected maintenance.
With expected maintenance, you can plan ahead for importations. You can't do that with renewable since we can't control nor predict the weather well enough. That's why you have intermittent problems with solar panels and etc...
That's why nuclear is more reliable than renewables.
>the cost is significantly higher than renewables
Great, now Greenpeace gays are now cost gays. It's ironic before you guys were crying that cost didn't matter because renewables = good.
1. Nuclear has a problem with economy of scale but we are dealing with it by building SMR. It should solve the cost problem.
2. It doesn't matter. Renewables cannot function permanently hence why Germans are forced to inhale coal. So yeah, between coal or nuclear, the latter is the better option.
Great. Another Nuke gay that wants everyone to suck Poutine for uranium.
>Most of the fuel can be reused.
That's false. Fast breeders don't reduce waste by significant amounts.
>The actual waste that gets buried is really small and besides, it gets buried deep underground where it can't reach people so it's safe.
>t-trust me bro
>So is coal.
I was never advertising coal.
>Also, we can extract uranium from seawater.
Technically or economically? Renewables are already cheaper even without all those seawater and thorium shenanigans.
>A lot of France reactors are old. So corrosions is to be expected.
So we have to build all new reactors or invest a shit ton in maintenance? Stop, nuclear energy is already so expensive.
>You can't do that with renewable since we can't control nor predict the weather well enough.
Nuclear power plants are also shut off in summer when the cooling water becomes too warm or when it's too dry and the rivers don't carry enough water. Don't pretend they're independent of the weather. Oh and guess what will happen in the next decades. More heat waves and more droughts.
>Renewables cannot function permanently hence why Germans are forced to inhale coal.
That's not even an oversimplification, it shows that you have no idea what you're talking about
Renewables are unreliable sources of energy, that's why they can't replace nuclear even if they're "cheaper" (they're not, you're only looking at the price for total capacity, but you don't take into account capacity factor)
>Also, we can extract uranium from seawater.
muh seawater with 1ppb is totally economical
Yeah, they certainly dream shit up these ambitious, eager, delusional 20 somethings. Don't they.
sarcasm is the lowest form of humor
i find that a strange sort of compliment, that someone thinks you're trying to be funny when you're actually not
Yeah, it is. The cost of uranium is a negligible factor.
>b-but a lot of uranium lies in problematic countries
>Australia problematic
I actually agree with this one
>b-but but waste storage
Non-issue, build a hole.
>b-but uranium is a finite resource
Build breeder reactors
>b-but a lot of uranium lies in problematic countries
Non-issue
>b-but they are unreliable, as can be seen in France right now
Some meme.
>b-but they warm rivers or dry them out at problematic rates, forcing shutdowns in summer when ACs need the most energy
Just build it on the coast.
>b-but the cost is significantly higher than renewables
Muh meme fiat imaginary numbers. The important thing on a strategic level is that the EROI is 10-100 times higher
>b-but the energy companies expect government subsidies for the decommissioning
Again, muh fiat.
>Just build it on the coast.
Based moron never heard of landlocked countries.
>Non-issue, build a hole.
>issue
>Some meme.
>muh fiat.
If you say so. It's not like power plants use real resources and not just dollarinos, but you seem to be the economist here
>Based moron never heard of landlocked countries.
These dont really have an economy. See Bolivia.
>Muh resources
Nuclear plants are made of steel and cement. The amount of power they produce is enough to produce hundreds of times the steel and cement required to build them.
>Based moron never heard of landlocked countries.
Only like 5% of the world population lives in those and most of them are irrelevant uberpoor shitholes in africa and asia. The rest are the euro ones that have the Danube (which is not drying any time soon). A non-issue.
>It's not like power plants use real resources
And that resource use, in real terms, is covered with EROI (embodied energy) which is extremely high for breeder reactors (easily >1,000). There is no real resource bottleneck to building as many reactors as we want and enough easily mineable uranium/thorium for millennia of full primary energy coverage. France managed to convert 70% of its electricity to nuclear in 20 years without breaking a sweat and that's with regular reactors. If it had gone on for another 20-30 years, it could've covere the entire primary energy consumption (but it's not viable due to frickall electric vehicles and many unelectrified industries)
Even without seawater extraction, the usable fuel jumps several orders of magnitude and won't have to think about a different energy source in the next several millennia.
Yeah, seawater uranium will totally break the bank. A kg of seawater uranium for 640$ (achievable atm) can give out 21GWh, You can completely cover the entire primary energy consumption of the US for a year (~29.5PWh) by burning 1,400t of it, worth 900 million dollars.
Oh yeah, such a big problem for the like 17 land locked countries with tiny populations because they are land locked. Totally unsolvable problem. Guess we should make them use wind and solar, even if half of them can't use them!
What SHOULD the landlocked countries do? Also, it's not like this only affects political countries. Half of the US states and the Russian Oblasts, or China have the same problem.
With seawater uranium extraction (currently too expensive to be economical), there is enough fuel for breeder reactors to satisfy our energy needs for 5 billion years at 1983's total energy consumption rate, thus making nuclear energy effectively a renewable energy.
>With seawater uranium extraction everything will be alright
>Mei-mein Führer, seawater uranium extraction is a meme
> That was an order! Extracting uranium from seawater was an order! Traitors, filthy traitors, they all have betrayed me!
Also,
>at 1983's total energy consumption rate
Why 40 years ago? Not that it matters with 5 billion years (good luck with that btw), but that's so odd. Energy consumption was a fraction of what it is today.
>Mei-mein Führer, seawater uranium extraction is a meme
It was done 15 years ago at a cost of $1000 per pound. Its not a meme. Its not competitive with current suppliers of cheap uranium. When these run out in 500 years then we switch to seawater and electricity costs go up 1% to pay for it
>It was done 15 years ago at a cost of $1000 per pound. Its not a meme
Last year it was $7-10... so yeah. Kinda reminds me of how they tried to filter gold from seawater
>Last year it was $7-10... so yeah
Irrelevant, what is even your point? I told you the cost and this is a problem for you. Why is that?
>Not that it matters with 5 billion years
Theres 7 million billion tons of uranium on the crust.
Are you moronic? There's also a hundred billion tons of gold in the crust, yet we only extract 3000 tons per year. Abundance in the crust is seldom the limiting factor in mining.
We are talking about uranium moron. The limiting price is $1000 per pound. Forget about the crust as a whole, it can be extracted today from seawater at a cost of $1000 per pound. That resource is not infinite because the sea is not infinite but its good for hundreds of millions of years.
It doesnt matter if its more expensive than c=it is today. A kilo of uranium has the energy equivalent of 2000 tons of coal. So if that kilo costs $2000 its still cheap compared to coal. How much do you think 2000 tons of coal cost? Much more than $2000
>We are talking about uranium moron
We're talking about how little sense it makes to state the amount in the Earth's crust.
>A kilo of uranium has the energy equivalent of 2000 tons of coal.
Are you high? A kg of natural uranium gives you about 40 kWh of electric energy. You need 14.5 metric tons of coal for the same output.
Why are nuclear fanboys always so detached from reality? Is it that they wouldn't be nuclear fanboys if they were aware of reality?
>We're talking about how little sense it makes to state the amount in the Earth's crust.
It can be mined entirely over billion of years. But the sea is enough.
>You need 14.5 metric tons of coal for the same output.
Not with breeder reactors that use all the uranium and not just U-235. But assume you stick only to U-235, you say its equivalent to 14.5 tons of coal? A ton of coal is currently selling for $400, so 14,5 tons are worth $5800. Natural uranium BTFO coal at a cost of only $2000 per kilo, not even counting breeder reactors.
>muh breeder reactors
And they run for free? They magically make U-238 deliver the same amount of energy as U-235?
> A ton of coal is currently selling for $400
The whole energy market is completely fricked, judging technologies by strongly fluctuating data during a war and the highest inflation since god knows when, makes little sense.
>And they run for free? They magically make U-238 deliver the same amount of energy as U-235?
Muh fiat
>The whole energy market is completely fricked, judging technologies by strongly fluctuating data during a war and the highest inflation since god knows when, makes little sense.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.48.11.1898#:~:text=%2DThe%20costs%20of%20extracting%20the,costs%20of%20nuclear%20raw%20materials.
>The costs of extracting the uranium and thorium from the Conway granite are estimated by workers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to be less than $100/pound, or at most five to ten times the present costs of nuclear raw materials.
Uranium from granite will be used before uranium from seawater is used.
Ohh I think I see what you did. You took the energy in U-235 and the price of natural uranium. Before this recent Russian shitshow, coal was at $50 per ton. Assuming we will return to a sane world, coal is less than half as expensive as the uranium and that doesn't even factor in enrichment and fuel production.
>Russian shitshow, coal was at $50 per ton
People pay $400 for a ton of coal and not give a frick. 1 ton of coal can produce 2 MwH of electricity. At a cost of $400 thats a base cost of 20 cents per kWh. Germans were paying close to 30 cents per KwH BEFORE the russian shitshow and they were extremely industrialized and rich. The price of electricity doesnt matter, what matters is how much energy you have. Energy produces 100 times more wealth than what you pay for it.
You may play with prices and say that under some conditions uranium or coal may or may not be cheaper than the other. It never mattered, only the supply of energy matters and its practically unlimited with uranium from seawater (which isnt the only source of uranium).
Dude if you enjoy sucking your own dick, then don't waste my time. I know you're aware it makes absolutely no sense to use the current prices in understanding the long-term cost. Natural gas prices have exploded fivefold over the past 12 months
Ok, you're officially moronic. I'm not deleting the rest of my comment, but I consider this conversation over. Keep thinking that energy magically multiplies and you don't need to put anything into a fast breeder reactor. It has a giant switch that says "transmutate" and you just swap U-238 for U-235.
Then why the frick did you bring up seawater in the first place?
>Then why the frick did you bring up seawater in the first place?
To show you that it is economical even at that price. People in Germany pay 300 dollars for a MwH and they thrive on that because they make much wealth from that what what they pay for electricty.
You could pay 10 times more for electricity and be wealthier as long as more electricity was available. The price has to go up like 100 fold before it starts breaking an economy.
>It has a giant switch that says "transmutate" and you just swap U-238 for U-235.
Its called neutrons homosexual
Ah, and they are just lying around? Gotta pick me up some neutrons the next time I leave my cave. Maybe I can transmutate shit into gold with them.
Do the 650 include enrichment and fuel production?
>A kg of seawater uranium for 640$ (achievable atm) can give out 21GWh,
That's complete bullshit, see
You're off by an even greater factor than this homosexual:
In all honesty, I
wrote kWh when I meant MWh. But 21 GWh from a kilo of uranium is a nonsensical number. You assume that all uranium is U-235, which it's not. You either need to factor in enrichment or transmutation, which you didn't. And then you just show complete ignorance towards thermodynamics. Nuclear power plants run at about 35% efficiency. So, to correct your calculation, it's not 1,4000t, but more like 570,000t. Using your price, dividing by (0.007*0.35), You don't end up at 900M, but 370 billion dollars.
moron i specifically showed you that even using only U-235 with no breeder reactors its cheaper to get energy from uranium at $2000 per kilo than at coal at current prices. And dont say its not economical because such prices are about 20 cents per kWh, while germans have been paying 30 cents for kwh for many years. So you can have a thriving industrial economy on such energy prices. The only real problem is actually having energy, not the price, unless the price is something extremely high like 50 dollars for a KwH
>coal at current prices
Shit it's you again. You even messed up by another factor 3, moron.
Also, I would like to point out that you are comparing production cost with market price. The price of uranium has doubled since January. Nice how you don't take this into account.
>The price of uranium has doubled since January.
Irrelevant since i have been talking about uranium from seawater only. Its cheaper today as a form of energy than coal.
Do you think, the cost of digging up coal has doubled? Please tell me, you're 15 or purposefully trolling. Don't schools teach at least basic economics?
>Do you think, the cost of digging up coal has doubled?
Supply and demand moron.
Ok, thanks for confirming that you are trolling. Wow. How did you become this good? I want to learn from you.
Cry more homosexual
No, seriously, you can stop. I give up. Teach me.
>You even messed up by another factor 3,
Uranium is cheaper than coal by energy content whether its only U-235 or plutonium from a breeder reactor. And by the time high-grade uranium ores run out coal will have also run out so uranium will be the only game in town, there wont be any coal for sale at any price. The ultimate upper price is $1000 per pound, such prices are insane compared to the current price of uranium and yet they are cheaper than coal, today.
>Uranium is cheaper than coal by energy content
So? God, why are you so moronic? I mean, nuclear is likely cheaper in the long run, but you are looking at an extremely specific detail and base your opinion on this. And you still can't tell production cost from spot price. If you're trolling, 10/10, hats off, master. I am actually angry at how moronic you are or pretend to be.
>Do the 650 include enrichment and fuel production?
>breeder reactors
>enrichment
Midwit moment.
>You're off by an even greater factor than this homosexual
Nope, see
>https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/48/039/48039446.pdf
>But 21 GWh from a kilo of uranium is a nonsensical number
Again, you have no idea what a breeder reactor is and how it's different than a regular one
>https://whatisnuclear.com/energy-density.html
>Nuclear power plants run at about 35% efficiency
You are outing yourself as not knowing what "primary energy" means.
reactors
>Midwit moment.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about the real world and not some research lab/science fiction. Show me scalable breeder reactors and we can talk about them.
>You are outing yourself as not knowing what "primary energy" means.
Honestly, who gives a shit about primary energy? "Make water go hot, make propeller go wroom" is the most moronic way of electricity production.
>viable since the 40s, only abandoned because it doesn't produce nuke juice
>even chink bugmen built one
>lab/science fiction
Yeah
>Honestly, who gives a shit about primary energy?
It's not about giving a shit. It's about you calculating these 35% over the primary energy, meaning you don't know what it means (the power before these conversion losses), otherwise you wouldn't be doing it.
>It's not about giving a shit. It's about you calculating these 35% over the primary energy, meaning you don't know what it means (the power before these conversion losses), otherwise you wouldn't be doing it.
We're transforming most of our energy needs to electricity. Instead of burning oil and gas to heat our homes and drive to our ex's workplace in hopes to bump into her, we will do this with heat pumps and EVs. The competition of nuclear energy isn't coal. Coal is going to die, no matter how much Trump wants the miners to clean it. You don't see solar gays state 5 times as much as their panels deliver because muh primary energy, when their efficiency is 20%.
Unless you are heating your home with literal fission products, primary energy is extremely cumbersome.
And yes, burning dinosaurs has the same crappy efficiency. I know.
You're not understanding what I say.
The point is that you do a redundant calculation on the primary energy (trippling it to account for efficiency losses) when "primary energy" doesn't need that trippling since it is the energy before the trippling
Btw, even with regular reactors at ~45MWh per 1kg of natural (0.7% U235) uranium and 640$ per kg for seawater extraction, you still get 0.5 cents per kWh-thermal and 1.5 cents per kWh-electric for fuel which is nothing, considering it's basically infinite. Oil at the bottom price of 50$/bbl and burned at 3 cents per kWh-thermal and at ~9 cents per kWh-electric and it's EROI is only getting shittier as wells progressively dry up over the next 40 years.
> so energy intensive they don’t allow surplus energy
>nuclear
>sub-1 ROEI
Pretty sure it's impossible. A current 1GW reactors is in the 50-70 range (meaning it supplies 50-70 times the energy that was embodied in the construction, fuel and decomissioning) and can concievably be operated for 60-80 years, if not 100, only being beaten by some types of hydro. They are pretty small all things considered and really only use 200t of uranium per year. And a breeder molten salt eactor is probably be the energy source that can reach the highest realistically possible EROI ever (>1,000) since it's extremely small for the energy it produces and uses frickall fuel.
>Same with modern oil extraction
It's more with shale oil thing. There are large amounts of it (several times more than the current conventional reserves) but its EROI (in the 2-3 range) is too shit to actually be worth extracting (above 7) on a large scale. Shale and tar sands basically only operate because of the general abundance of energy, they'd be unsustainable in a vacuum.
>you still get 0.5 cents per kWh-thermal and 1.5 cents per kWh-electric for fuel which is nothing, considering it's basically infinite
Don't you realise how absurd your calculations are? Have you ever paid a power bill?
Generating (!! Not buying!!!) 1 kWh of electricity from nuclear power costs ~13 cents in Germany (what's where I have the numbers for). Buying costs 35 cents, but ok, other countries oder it for 20 cents maybe.
So, you want to increase the price of uranium PRODUCTION to a value dozens times more of the current MARKET value and expect the price to be 1.5 cents per kWh??
>and expect the price to be 1.5 cents per kWh??
I legit think you might have brain damage. What part of "1.5 cents per kWh-electric for fuel" translates into "electricity will cost 1.5 cents per kWh"? It's the price of the fuel, I explicitly said it is. And yes, it's relatively low. Nuclear power is overwhelmingly driven by fixed costs and fuel accounts for frickall of the electricity price in every scenario. The current nuclear fuel cost going up 1 or even 2 cents per kWh won't change the economics in any meaningful way. Especially in a world where easily accessible energy is progressively going down in volume and people have finally realized that solar+storage doesn't quite have the EROI needed to sustain civilization, no matter how much imaginary fiat numbers they shuffle around HDDs.
>What part of "1.5 cents per kWh-electric for fuel" translates into "electricity will cost 1.5 cents per kWh"?
The part where I thought you were somehow arguing on topic and not rambling some correct but incoherent things like a hobo on a public bus.
you forgot that problematic countries can use it to build nuclear weapons
>>b-but but waste storage
dump it in the Marianas trench . It will never matter again
wtf anon think of the megalodons
think about those sweet giant radioactive megalodons tho
You mean soviets being soviet.
How many nuclear plants exist in the world?
How many in America?
How many have been built in the last 10 years? In America? In the world?
Not enough
Two reactors are currently under construction in the US state of Georgia. As is the tradition, it is far over budget and well past its scheduled delivery date.
There are 16 being built in China alone
Energy
>Not a thing
>Was literally Soviets being moronic
could really be chalked up to environmental factors leading to the particular design which caused the accident
which mind you was still a very unlikely even which relied upon various low probability events happening at the same time
so even le ebin bobiets or three mile bing used as an example is kinda mute
IQfy says to buy junior uranium miners if you're bullish on nuclear, do you guys agree?
That does sound like a smart idea but politicians are moving against nuclear so it's not a guaranteed bet. Germany is gonna close even more nuclear plants butI know Turkey is building 2 nuclear plants and are planning on building 2 more so guess it all balances itself out
The idea is that if it succeeds, you're essentially in a leveraged position already. But yeah you have to be geographically mindful. And as a side note, a country banning nuclear doesn't necessarily imply they ban exporting uranium, as I'm sure you know.
I think it's a pretty cool bet, I'd say I feel the same way about uranium miners as I do BTC in 2014-2017 personally, but that doesn't mean shit ofc. Just feels so obvious to me it's set to appreciate in value; by not investing you're essentially betting nuclear will be LESS popular in 5-10 years than it is today, which to me seems completely moronic.
>SDP
I don't really trust the politics expertise of someone who doesn't even know the names of the parties.
India's building a couple too, I think
>When are we gonna start using nuclear energy?
Whenever nuclear fusion.
>they don't know about CIA merlin operation
>fusion power is finally made commercially viable
>researches proud to announce new nuclear energy is ready
>people: b-but nuclear power bad?
>no no this is fusion, it's much better than fiss-
>AAAAAAAAA IT'S NUCLEAR POWER SHUT IT DOWN
Isn't Greenpeace's official stance against fusion power research? Or at least was at some point.
>fusion power is finally made commercially viable
Really, already? I thought it was still being researched.
Thorium molten salt small modular reactors.
That's it. That's literally the solution we've been sitting on.
How many reactors (not research reactors or prototypes) exist? Can it compete on the market with renewables?
Why even bother with Thorium. Uranium is cheap enough and we have plenty of experience with Uranium fueled reactors.
It's not like we're gonna run out of nuclear fuel any time soon.
>Why even bother with Thorium
- the waste lasts 300 years instead of 10,000
- the U232 is very difficult & expensive to separate from the U233 so it won't be used to make nuclear weapons
The price of the fuel is already one of the cheapest aspects of nuclear power. The abundance of Thorium doesn't significantly affect nuclear power's costs.
You can still make bombs out of Thorium. The US has experimented with that and they successfully detonated a device using Thorium products as the fissile material. It's more annoying to do but doable. You also don't strictly need nuclear reactors to produce nuclear bombs and governments can build research reactors anyway even if thorium is the main source of electrical energy.
That's hardly a problem. There are 8 million tons of known recoverable uranium and there might be more of it found. Considering the price of the fuel, you could even go for the whole seawater uranium and it wouldn't be prohibitively expensive. If you extracted 1% of the uranium present in the water you'd get 40 million tons of it or 5 times the currently known recoverable uranium. It is also a potentially endless supply of uranium because it will leach into the water from underwater rocks as the concentration decreases over decades.
Plus, it's not exactly true that we are using so much uranium. Rather, we use so much new uranium but if it was really a problem, you could invest in reprocessing the depleted fuel which makes the whole abundance issue irrelevant.
But honestly, this is beside the point. I am not saying that you should not use Thorium at all. I am saying that fuel is such a non-issue that in this day and age you don't need to focus on long-term fuel sustainability but rather on building more power plants. Using newer technologies we have less experience with doesn't sound like a very efficient way of increasing the share of power generation from nuclear sources.
Thorium is cool and good and whatever but it solves a problem that we don't actually have and can only delay the goals here.
>There are 8 million tons of known recoverable uranium
Sauce? And how much is required to supply energy to the entire world?
Nuclear energy agency
https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_52718/uranium-2020-resources-production-and-demand?details=true
The 8 million figure is the more expensive recoverable resource at 260 dollars/kg.
>And how much is required to supply energy to the entire world?
At 80 million MJ/kg if we reprocess it fully then at 10% of total efficiency you only need a little bit over 50k tons per year to satisfy the world's energy generation which gives you ~140 years of supply given the 8 million tons figure and over 700 years using the 1% of seawater uranium figure.
This is plenty of time to focus on the environment and whatnot, give up fossil fuels and also do research and gain experience on thorium-fueled reactor designs.
Thanks. Bank of the envelope: we use ~23PWh per year, one kg of U-235 delivers 230M kWh. 8M kg of U contain 56k kg U-235, so 1.3e16 Wh.
23PWh is 2.3e16 Wh. Did I lose 3 orders of magnitude somewhere while googling together the things?
If you use just the U-235. It's possible to use the U-238 as fuel as well though.
How much did I muss with current technologies? I don't mean fast breeders.
There's at least 1 breeder reactor used for power generation so I don't imagine it's a big stretch.
Still, even if you limit it only to U-235 (at the 10% total efficiency I assumed), I get a full year from traditional uranium sources + another 5 from seawater uranium so I'm not sure where you lost half of a year.
1-5 years isn't that much of we're thinking about the future.
This is only if you completely disregard breeder reactors though. They already exist and the adoption of widespread nuclear power will be very gradual anyway.
And I only specified 1% of seawater uranium so that the drop in concentration doesn't significantly affect the extraction but you could go a lot further than that, plus you'd be getting constant replenishment from the ocean floor which is made from pretty uranium-rich volcanic rocks.
>They already exist and the adoption of widespread nuclear power will be very gradual anyway.
They exist in prototype, not as scalable, economic reactors.
The entire point is that uranium is extremely limited and depending on how fast we want to replace fossil fuels and how fast we want to electrify sectors such as transportation and heating, we will run out of uranium very fast. Without technology that doesn't exist yet, nuclear won't be a viable option.
The fuel is the cheapest part of running a nuclear reactor. You could ramp up the extraction of Uranium quite a lot and open new mines before fuel costs start to matter in a significant matter. You won't run out of Uranium on Earth any time soon and you can basically open mines anywhere on Earth. There's nothing stopping you from ramping up the uranium mining in the US to Kazahstan levels apart from politics.
The entire "thorium is more abundant" argument hinges on the relative concentration of thorium in the crust compared to uranium but there's relatively little thorium produced, most of it as a by-product. So if you actually care about replacing fossil fuels fast, Thorium is a terrible solution because there's way less of it available now than Uranium. If you want to actually start building dedicated Thorium mines to satisfy the demand it would be way easier to just expand the Uranium mining. It's easier to mine, can be found anywhere and can also be extracted from water (basically indirectly extracting it from the ocean floor making it a nearly unlimited source of it).
Researching this somehow made me think of Thorium even less. I am now realising how much of a nothing burger Thorium is. I suspect it's mostly a marketing scheme to make the public more comfortable about nuclear power rather than an actual practical solution.
>There's nothing stopping you from ramping up the uranium mining in the US to Kazahstan levels apart from politics.
Politics and the amount of uranium.
Thats moronic propaganda. Uranium is everywhere, its in granite, its in coal. It has been extracted from seawater at a cost of 1000 dollars per pound.
Your map only refers to premium uranium ore mines where its all nicely 20% concentrated
Good luck getting it out of granite then.
>Sufficient uranium resources exist to support continued use of nuclear power and significant growth in nuclear capacity for low-carbon electricity generation and other uses (e.g. heat, hydrogen production) in the long term. Identified recoverable resources, including reasonably assured resources and inferred resources (at a cost <USD 260/kgU, equivalent to USD 100/lb U3O8) are sufficient for over 135 years, considering uranium requirements as of 1 January 2019. However, considerable exploration, innovative techniques and timely investment will be required to turn these resources into refined uranium ready for nuclear fuel production and to facilitate the deployment of promising nuclear technologies.
As of the source in
And that's just the need in 2019. we only get 4% of our energy from nuclear power. Oh and the energy production in 2019 was 70% higher than in 2000.
So, to sum up: we have 135 years of uranium left to fulfil 4% of the current energy demand. This makes 5.4 years of fulfilling the whole demand, or let's say 10 years together with renewables.
You are extremely naive if you think we can just obtain arbitrary amounts of uranium. Without next gen reactors, nuclear is no alternative. At all. It's a finite resource in an economic sense. Just because there are a few parts per million in granite doesn't mean that you can get them out to make a net gain. If it costs more energy to obtain the uranium than you can generate with it, then it's not an option.
t has been extracted out of seawater at a cost of $1000 a pound. Its a done thing, not theoretical. And extracting it out of granite would be orders of magnitude easier.
So only 8 times as expensive as what the OECD uses as their upper limit.
>So only 8 times as expensive as what the OECD uses as their upper limit.
And? Whats important is that its a resource you can use, its cheap at $1000 per pound
>Uranium is a naturally occurring element with an average concentration of 2.8 parts per million in the Earth's crust.
Something on the order of 10.000 billion tons of uranium are available.
>available.
You only have to strip off the remaining 999997.2 atoms to get to the 2.8 atoms :^)
It's not cheap, moron. The current price is ~$48 per pound. Before the Russian invasion it was at $10
Its still cheap because the price of uranium has a nearly insignificant influence on the cost of eletricity. And you are trying to change the topic to save face, first you say uranium supplies are small and will run out soon, then you say oh no supplies are gigantic but they are expensive its just the same!
Well its not the same. 1 kg of uranium (not enriched) has as much energy as 2000 tons of coal. Currently coal trades at over 400 dollars a ton, so its value would be 800.000 dollars. At roughly $2000 a kilo uranium from sea water is a bargain
You could pay nuclear for using uranium and nuclear would still be more expensive than alternative power sources.
Not the point dumb shill
Yes the point. Nuclear is already economically not competitive, and you want to double the cost.
>Yes the point. Nuclear is already economically not competitive, and you want to double the cost.
This means nothing. We are talking about uranium reserves and you want to talk about the price. Completely different topics dumbass
If you want to spend several times as much on electricity as you spend now, be my guest.
Your cost estimates are completely wrong. Uranium is so cheap that even if its cost goes up 100 fold it would not even change the cost of electricity 1%.
Tell me where I made a mistake in my calculation. I got my info from the Swiss nuclear lobby website: https://www.kernenergie.ch/de/rohstoff-uran-_content---1--1085.html
>20 Tonnen (1 Kubikmeter) angereichertes Uran, um rund 8,5 Milliarden Kilowattstunden Strom zu produzieren.
20 tons enriched uranium for 8.5 billion kWh
>Um 20 Tonnen angereichertes Uran zu erzeugen (der Anteil Uran-235 wird von 0,7 auf bis zu 5 Prozent erhöht), werden etwa 200 Tonnen Natururan (10 Kubikmeter) benötigt.
To get 20 tons enriched uranium you need 200 tons natural uranium
200 tons ~ 400,000 pounds, and according to you that's about 400 M$. Divide that by 8.5 B kWh and you get 5.9 cents per kWh, which I generously rounded to 5, since I calculated with 8 in my head, since it was easier. And that's just the cost to extract it. The company that extracts it wants some profit. When they sell it to the energy company, some taxes are due. I estimate it will be ~10 cents when it arrives at the power plant, hence, doubling the cost of energy production there.
So, where are my cost estimates wrong?
The point is that uranium could be free and it wouldn't make a difference, nuclear wouldn't still be viable power source. The fact that uranium isn't free and won't be free won't help.
>first you say uranium supplies are small and will run out soon
That's what the OECD says you imbecile.
>then you say oh no supplies are gigantic but they are expensive its just the same!
It literally is. Cost is always the limiting factor in resources. You will never extract a resource to the last atom. But if it takes more fuel than you extract, you're just burning (nuclear) fuel for no reason.
The Swiss claim you need 20 tons of enriched uranium to run a 1GW reactor for a year, producing 8.5 billion kWh. They say that you need 200 tons of natural uranium for that. So, $1000 per pound? That's $400 million for just one reactor, or 5 cents per kWh in addition to all the other costs. Add some taxes, revenue for the miners and transportation, and you easily double the price of nuclear energy by extracting uranium from the oceans.
As opposed to the 10 years of Lithium and Cobalt we have left lmao?
>As opposed to the 10 years of Lithium and Cobalt we have left lmao?
You don't use up lithium. The lithium in your old battery is still lithium. The uranium in your old fuel cells is not uranium anymore.
You couldn't be more wrong. Fuel is among the most expensive parts of a fission reactor. It is because it is extremely hard to acquire fissile fuel and make into an usable form.
The vast majority of Uranium is U-238 which is a fertile fuel which needs to be bred into Plutonium 239. The process is much easier said then done.
>It is because it is extremely hard to acquire fissile fuel
Its literally a rock on the ground you just dig out somewhere in Canada or Australia
You have process the mineral you brainlet. If you wanted to get U235 from it. You have to physically separate it from the U238. That's why enrichment facilities have massive centrifuges that do this.
There's a reason why nuclear power is limited to nation states that have significant economic resources and why North Korea and Iran are having hell o af time trying to start.
You are talking to the guy who thinks that if you sieve enough seawater, you end up with fuel rods.
My entire point from my first post is that you don't need to hurry with Thorium as much as people suggest. Most of the arguments I hear for Thorium from people are different forms of "it's not uranium (bad rock)".
Uranium supply also follows demand and there is practically an unlimited amount of uranium in Earth's crust. It's not like Australia and Kazahstan already discovered most of Earth's uranium resources and we can't get more.
This entire post is on the right track, but not quite there in some regards. For example:
>The price of the fuel is already one of the cheapest aspects of nuclear power. The abundance of Thorium doesn't significantly affect nuclear power's costs.
This is true to a certain degree. While mined Uranium is probably comparable in price to Thorium, fuel fabrication into rods to be used in PWR/LWR configurations costs a good amount of money. In the case of a Thorium MSR, fuel could be added directly into the blanket, leading to reduced costs. In addition, there is nowhere near as much of shielding required for these reactors, as the primary salt and blanket do an excellent job containing radiation. This allows for reduced shielding, reduced neutron irradiation on the housing materials, and reduced size compared to many operating reactors around the world. Additionally, due to reduced actinide production, fuel is a lot more economical as it has to be stored for a significantly shorter period of time. These aspects all play a role in reducing price of production over U235 reactors, even though the prices might be relatively similar (which I've never heard of before, I'd love to see a source for this)
>You can still make bombs out of Thorium.
Indeed correct, but as this anon stated,
U232 makes it very difficult to do so. Read nth country to see that this is not a viable form of a weapon. The whole trajectory of U235 production is because of the Manhattan Project
Your point about MSRs applies equally to a Uranium-fueled MSR too though.
Uranium MSRs produce longer living actinides due to the process starting higher on the periodic table, making them less efficient from a waste disposal standpoint. Additionally, they can operate within a thermal spectrum and breed at the same time, faster than IFRs from what I understand. Do Uranium MSRs have these advantages as well? And again, there is only one naturally found isotope of Thorium, so there is no need for separation prior to blanket salt insertion. What needs to be done for Uranium to be fed into an MSR?
In that sense you have a point.
Yet, this is where the real world takes a detour:
It is easier to bootstrap something new on top of something old instead of scrapping it all and starting from scratch, you'll hear terms such as:"safer investment"...etc
But it all boils down to the same point, you don't want to rock the pot too hard and put all of your eggs in one highly ambitious basket - this holds even more true for incredibly "stable" industries such as energy.
>It is easier to bootstrap something new on top of something old instead of scrapping it all and starting from scratch
This is primarily why we are using PWRs in the first place. Weinberg developed these for the navy to be used on carriers and subs, but his vision was always to use MSRs as a form of energy production. Through the years, the design was neglected, and if it wasn't for Sorensen almost all research on the topic would have been lost.
>eggs in one highly ambitious basket
The thing is that this could be done. Oak Ridge ran an MSR for extended periods of time without problems. It is not outside of the realm of possibility, in fact, some countries are already making advances in the MSR fields with reactors. The states developed this technology and will be cucked by it rightfully so
Again, the problem isn't the technology, it's scaling the supply chains.
Yes to a certain degree you are correct. Since thorium would be a new concept, new supply chains would need to be created which is a barrier to entry, but in the end that doesn't matter. What matters under a capitalist organization of society is construction time, number of years for the plant takes to pay itself off, and upfront capital costs. One problem with PWR and LWR designs is that they are frequently subject to postplanning cost hikes, time delays, and just generally high cost of construction. This is one of the reasons we don't see widespread adoption of nuclear in the states. These issues have resulted in current dialogue being centered around lowering starting capital in the form of SMRs, but I argue that while these solutions could all be solved by just using a Thorium MSR instead. They are proposed to be no where near as expensive as U235 LWRs and additionally, do not need the fuel fabrication supply chains that are present in current reactors as Thorium could be fed directly into the reactor
The costs and delays are mostly caused by overregulation though, you'd still hit the same issues with MSRs (and even worse possibly, salts are quite corrosive).
Yet it might be skirted around altogether by going with the SMR (Small Modular Reactor) route. As then, one design gets approval after passing through all the bureaucracy and then you just do copy-paste (with much less stuff needing to be approved at installation).
I would add to this
>thorium reactors can't meltdown: if you turn it off, the reaction will stop
This is a big argument for midwits crying "muh chernobyl".
Thorium is far more abundant than Uranium and has the potential to be much safer.
because you can make bombs out of uranium
At the current rate it won't last until the end of the century.
Nuclear fuel WILL run out.
Future generations WILL NOT solve it.
Nah, not soviets. They were ukrainians.
This. Soviets did what they always did and made the reactor equivalent of a RX-7. Extremely fickle, constantly needs maintenance, but extremely high power and can run on literal shit EU for fuel. There were previous minor accidents, but Ukranians managed to destroy nuclear energy for everybody. Luckily they are being massacred for this mistake, if not for no nuclear, maybe EU wouldn't be so reliant on Russian Oil and Gas.
yikes!
>>muh global warming
we produce less than a water drop of CO2 into a tank of 100L representing terrestrial atmosphere...
Okay fossil fuels/automotives shill.
(0.05 ml) / (100 l) = 1/2000000, or .5 parts per million
we're at 430 ppm CO2 last I checked
you're unbelievably moronic and I hope someone puts 430 ppm of ricin into your water heater tank.
Climate deniers should be banned from this board.
Honestly it's garbage.
they could do better with an inverted klystron bout the size of a small house. They're already building the reactors, that shit is old news
holy shit OP is a moron
what regulatory issues do we face in building nuclear power?
is it different for different fuel sources (thorium vs uranium)?
>what regulatory issues do we face in building nuclear power?
Depends where you want to build, but here's an example from the US:
>https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/nuclear/regulations-hurt-economics-nuclear-power/
>The American Action Forum (AAF) found the average nuclear plant bears an annual regulatory burden of around $60 million—$8.6 million in regulatory costs, $22 million in fees to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and $32.7 million for regulatory liabilities. That amount covers long-term costs associated with disposing of waste, paperwork compliance, and regulatory capital expenditures and fees paid to the federal government. Further, they found that there are at least six nuclear plants where regulatory burdens exceed profit margins, assuming only a $30 million annual regulatory burden.
>It has taken the NRC an average of 80 months to approve the most recent combined construction and operation licenses. This contrasts to regulatory approval in the United Kingdom, which can be completed in about 54 months. Furthermore, license renewals in the United States take as long as approval for uprates. The uncertainty of being granted a license renewal and the long wait time for a license extension have caused some plants to shut down prematurely rather than wait multiple years.
Nuclear is a cope, and solar/wind is even more of a cope. Only way forward is degrowth.
>degrowth
that's the opposite of a way forward, it's a way backward, it's in the name itself
Do you know what we call things that grow indefinitely? Cancer. And it typically kills its host.
the cancer doesn't care, and whining about it will change nothing
The cancer dies with its host.
and it still doesn't care, pay attention
If it were smart it would be benign and live a long time in its host.
it's not smart enough to want to be smart
Maybe the benign cells should just kill the cancer.
the cancer is too smart for that
>that's the opposite of a way forward, it's a way backward
It doesn't have to be. We can support a civilization with high quality healthcare, mass literacy, etc. without the levels of energy consumption we (especially in the West and East Asia) are currently using. If we do not transition to such a civilization, we will be forced to as oil gets scarcer.
There's one way your utopian dream can happen.
Population Control
Which is happening naturally, outside of Africa. When it comes to Africa, we need to promote family planning, feminism, women's education. That will tank the birthrate.
>we need to promote family planning, feminism, women's education. That will tank the birthrate.
Hard to say, maybe it's also prosperity, and through that social security. If you have a functioning state and pension system, people don't need to breed as much to secure their pension. But yes, foreign aid would likely help.
Israel has a high birthrate (3.01) despite being a rich country. Meanwhile Brazil has a low one (1.79) despite having a lower GDP per capita. The difference is cultural. Feminism and women's rights are what control a birthrate, not economics.
>Israel has a high birthrate (3.01) despite being a rich country.
Israel is one of the most unequal countries. Is it possible that the high birth rate is just the average from some extremely poor/high birthrate and some extremely rich/low birthrate people?
Even seculars in israel have a lot of kids but i mean its driven by the religious. Israel is somehow not pozzed because of language barriers
It's Hassidic israelite welfare queens, I've seen Israeli anons talk about them and apparently they're literally destroying Israel by having tons of kids and then refusing to work because they have to spend all day every day reading the Talmud and Torah instead lol
They are in a kind of demographics warfare with the palestinians and are an ethnoreligious state in the vein of Utah, which double boosts fertility. They also have the ultraortodox israelites, who have 10 children and took the torahNEET pill. Average israelites have around 2-2.5 children (pic related, their stable demographics indicate they have slightly above replacement fertility) and will have to handle an ever increasing volume of dead weight.
Did you look at the graph?
>there's a clear correlation between prosperity and birth rates
>proceeds to pick outliers (not even the biggest ones) as example to the contrary
>"The difference is cultural."
Anon, you might be moronic
Just cutting off foreign aid would be enough, they keep having kids because they get artificially sustained, which causes them to have more kids and the problems just gets worse and worse and more expensive.
don't you need uranium to do thorium anyway?
it's too late. we have to shut down civilization now.
https://www.brighteon.com/881137b2-5d54-4182-a47e-bb42f7626b90
at least china is building +100 new reactors
getting shit done while the west is stuck ye olden and slow democracy days
I've had this super autistic idea to build a massive nuclear plant in California with a dual function as both a power generator and desalination plant.
The filtered seawater would be use to flood the area that is now Death Valley national park and essentially recreating the prehistoric lake that existed there 20,000 years ago. The lake would serve as a water reservoir and runoff would be used to irrigate crops.
The extracted sea salt can then be used for cloud seeding to alleviate the extreme drought in the southwest.
For maximum autism, I would build a new Dubai-like city on the north shore of the lake (now Furnace Creek area).
I can see California benefiting from a smaller version of your idea where the plant just provides electricity and drinking water.
Forget the part with the artificial inland sea. Geoengineering on that scale would be insanely expensive, even with nuclear power.
You won't get anywhere with this idea without doing at least some basic calculations.
You will need to calculate how much energy it will take to boil-desalinate enough sea water to fill Death Valley. I'll give you a rough estimate that you will need about twice the volume of Lake Tahoe to fill the valley, or approximately 72 cubic miles of fresh water.
You'll probably use up half of the world's uranium reserves before you top off.
I dug up some pictures of the prehistoric lake for reference.
I'd want the new lake topped of to the original shoreline as closely as possible.
>rockslide from nearby mountain creates megatsunami that washes the whole lake city away
You've posted this moronic idea before.
The logistics needed would be absolutely staggering and you haven't even scratched the surface.
Also, a big ass fault line runs right the frick through Death Valley. What do you think adding billions of tons of water weight is going to do to that fault?
>Also, a big ass fault line runs right the frick through Death Valley. What do you think adding billions of tons of water weight is going to do to that fault?
not much
just divert the colorado river. And also divert it into the Salton sea and let it stay that way
There is an absolutely gigantic grift engine around solar and wind that is pushed along by fossil fuel companies because no amount of memeing about unontanium batteries will help them overcome efficiency losses of trying to use peak power for base load.
>build solar and wind
>need more batteries
>as more of grid as a % is just solar and wind, power generation dips even more violently at night
>need more solar and wind to make up shortfall
>need more batteries to deal with overgeneration during the day
Repeat 5Ever
But energy consumption at night is significantly lower. Plus, hydroelectric storage already exists.
You can straight up go for months without decent sunlight or wind.
It literally happened last year.
UK's wind generation fell by a whooping 70% for the entire year
Completely destroying their belief in renewables
maybe they shouldn't depend on solar panels in a sunless hellhole
They didn't
They fell for wind
They straight up promised to power the entire country with wind by 2020's
And as you can see, they fricking failed
They are now building 17 nuclear plants
Don't brexit then. Build grids so that the regions with wind will power the regions without wind. The wind doesn't stop on the entire continent at once.
What the frick
Yes they fricking do, dipshit
UK is small compared to the expanse of seasonal winds
In fact, over 28% of UK's wind generation ARE off shore
When exactly was that lull you're talking about?
Not a meteorologist
But pretty sure wind dies down every summer for 3-6 months
Well you just cited such an event. The month is enough. Like, was it July 2021?
>They are now building 17 nuclear plants
more based than i thought brits could be, this improves my opinion of them
A single nuke is worth SIX renewables
GET FRICKED!
This energy crisis are all on you fricks who advocate for green.
May Russia condemn your soul
meds
EAT RUSSIAN DICK
Hey are you not going to answer yet?
Answer the reality that you sooooooo wanted already
You piece of shit
:^)
Seriously, what do you mean by "six renewables"?
Seriously, meds. Now.
I can't heeeear your apology
>A single nuke is worth SIX renewables
What do you mean by this? Wind turbines are a dime a dozen, can be placed on farm land and don't require a body of water for cooling.
And you needed to produce the same amount of energy
HAHAHAHAHAAH
Kill them, Putin!
KILL. THEM. ALL
EVERY. SINGLE. ONE
This is so funny
Not a single shortage of hilarious headlines
Not one older than a week
All because you believe in Green energy
Oh my fricking sides
this is good, hopefully germany will stop being moronic now
Unfortunately, not fricking yet
They would rather reopen their coal plants than their nuke plants
Kill them, Putin.
Kill them all
>reopen their nuke plants
I am unsure if you are a moronic burger who has no idea about Germany, or an even more moronic German who didn't read anything in the news over the past 2 years because muh msm
yeah, i figure that's the kneejerk reaction, they'll do something else soon if this continues
Literally last year was a protest vote because our supposed conservative party was fricking us over and importing Arabs. Now we forced them to reform. You will have to wait until our next election to see results.
The Greens only had 14% of the popular vote, it is rediculous that they are deciding policy.
And the last 3 nukes are scheduled to shutdown by the end of this year
Oh wow.
Leave while you still can, Hans
>rediculous
What is more "rediculous" is first of all what a little lying c**t you are (sorry if you are a moron and legitimately cannot round numbers) and second of all how much FDP can dictate the course of the coalition with even fewer votes than the Greens.
Flooding Death Valley is a cool idea but I prefer it how it is.
why do you prefer death
I'm not saying we should not flood the Death Valley
I'm saying that terraforming nature, especially on such a massive scale would result into major effects on the environment.
You would need extremely detailed analysis of the biodiversity, weather, and geology of the land before doing something so damn extreme.
Too many times have mankind tried to remodel nature and time and time again, it resulted into failures that result into deadly floods, landslides, soil erotion, and god forbid, skyrocking the presence of rodents and deadly insects
Turning the Death Valley into a lake would skyrocket the humidity in the entire nation.
Since the Spanish arrived, they documented CA as a dry and arid area. The foliage and animals adapted to it
Consult the meteorologist and geolist if the introduction of so much moisture would not result into major landslides and floods.
Heck, forest fires in the region are common and the environment adapted to it in ways that benefits them in the long run
Forest fires destroy criters and parasites.
Trees adapted their seeds to survive the firestorm so life can reborn anew with new genetic diversity
How would they fare with Death Valley turning into a lake?
death valley is just a social construct, there is no valley, it's just a hole in the ground
Oh my god!
Yes Germany, YES!
Commit the greatest nationwide anhero we would ever witness
Please do it
Do it NOW
Whoooo Hooooo!
>build nuclear plant
>nooo its unsafe meltdown chernobyl fukushima waah
>build it with 10000 redundant safety mechanism
>nooo its expensive my dinky renewables and dirty coals plants are cheaper
>build a lot of plants to create economy of scale
>but mass meltdown dangerous noo
>so we will build it with 1000..
>rinse and repeat
its never a fair argument with these morons, decades of development setback and they scream because young (and lost old) technology is more expensive than existing entrenched fossil fuel technologies.
>but its dirty waah
you dont trust the US to keep it in some 5000ft deep concrete bunker, you dont trust the Russians to put it into some deserted island and keep it there, then launch the fricking thing into the sun, into a blackhole or something who gives a frick, what, you afraid that some depleted fuel cells are going to cause it to go boom?
>but its expensive waah
what happened to saving the environment at any cost?
>mass meltdown
I've never heard that. Also, the point still stands: You can operate them either safely, or economically.
>you dont trust the US to keep it in some 5000ft deep concrete bunker, you dont trust the Russians to put it into some deserted island and keep it there,
99% of the countries in the world are neither the US, nor Russia, can you imagine? A lot of countries still haven't found geologically stable bedrock to build storage, yet keep producing waste with nowhere to put it.
>then launch the fricking thing into the sun, into a blackhole or something who gives a frick,
The people standing under the rocket when it goes Challenger. Also, talk about cost. Not even the most moronic nuke shills unironically think that rockets are a good idea
>what, you afraid that some depleted fuel cells are going to cause it to go boom?
Not boom, but leak into ground water, like it has in the past. Not all of us have the memory of goldfish.
>what happened to saving the environment at any cost?
Why would you increase the cost for no benefit? Renewables offer more bang for the buck. Saving them at all cost doesn't mean that we should spend $100 per kWh in the future.
>t-trust us, this time it's safe
No, frick off.
>A lot of countries still haven't found geologically stable bedrock to build storage
Bullshit, dig a three mile deep boreshaft and shove things in. Not geologically stable means it might shift deeper in the next 10 million years
>Bullshit
If it were that easy, people would do it. Finland is the only country that has managed so far.
It is easy.
People are just raising unrealistic fears like a child complaining about monsters under the bed
>People are just raising unrealistic fears
But it isn't people who are looking for long-term storange, but companies and governments.
Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was canceled after Nevada went "nmby" and raised deluded fears of it contaminating their water and violating the territory of the Natives
Dumbasses
>fears of it contaminating their water
So they could not prove that it wouldn't reach the drinking water? Curious...
Of course it is. Every day, this shit is above ground, it costs money. You can say a lot of bad things about capitalism, but it's a good way to use goods efficiently. No one has money to waste on waiting decades for no good reason.
>. Every day, this shit is above ground, it costs money.
Everthing costs money and you are not saying anything. You are talking in vague terms because you dont know anything. Literally everything costs money and effort
Have you ever visited an intermediate storage site? Why would they run these intermediate sites for decades? Do you think, the people work there for free?
Nothing you are saying is an argument. You are saying the world is as it is because the world is as it is. Circular logic is not logic.
No, I am saying if the world is as it is, there must be reasons for that.
It's not that they cannot prove that it won't contaminate their water
Rather, they found that the guys who complained that their water would be contaminated were actually using falsified data
>If it were that easy, people would do it
This is not an argument
Every country that went renewables became Russian frickslaves
Shut the frick up and face the truth.
Germany is dying
Oh, it's the newspaper guy again. Good morning
Face the reality, wienersucker!
>launching it on rockets that have a very high failure rate so that it can be maximally dispersed into the atmosphere when one inevitably blows up
brilliant
you complain that they're making moronic arguments, but you're only helping them
>If we believe the Earth is 6 bajillion years old dealing with solar flares and doomsday volcanic eruptions, then clearly fricking SUVs farting out C02 is irrelevant.
Most of the 6 bajillion years, humans have not existed. No one is worried about destroying the Earth. We are worried about what regions will become uninhabitable and what the people who live there today will do then.
only the russian government refused to believe that the reactor had exploded
luckily only at the start as they did start containment procedures soon after
they wouldn't have a choice, there's millions of doctors in the world operating under rival regimes
that's a local issue, i'm not saying that it would be impossible for a single dystopian government to manage it, i'm saying it wouldn't happen on a global scale
That is the problem of the environmental protection agencies of Bolivia and Chile. But I am sure that the displacement due to lithium mining is negligible to all of Africa pouring into Europe.
sued where? Congo has laws against child labor but you cant trace cobalt back to the mine. Fungible
Notice how he doesn't name a company or even country. He's making that shit up, don't bite.
>societs being moronic
So a normal Tuesday in the USSR.
>God gives you magic rocks that provide free energy
>don’t use them
>burn all the dinosaur juice instead
humans ffs
I recall some schizo writing about earth before our civilisation and one point he included was atlantis having sea nuclear power plants (which took part in some catastrophe), so I believe extracting it from water is the future we want.
>Turkey
>Third world shithole
>Economy is as unstable as a neckbeard dating a twitch cosplay chick
>Erdogan promises cheap electricity
>Nuclear reactors
>They've been building this shit since
2015
>Still very little progress
>"B-But Turks are stupid"
>We are not the ones doing it we are paying premium for labor from Japan and Russia
>Still no nuclear reactors years later
>Turkey has a shit ton of potential for solar power
>They estimate we could even end up selling most of it
>Literally put solar panels all over the place and you're done
>Nope
>Everybody wants Nuclear because "muh unlimited power"
>MFW it will only power like 25% of Antalya
>It won't even be cheaper than usual
Nuclear is a waste of fricking time that only cold ass, cloudy ass European countries need.
They started construction in like 2018 and they'll be ready in 2023.
>MFW it will only power like 25% of Antalya
These 4 reactors alone will supply 12% of the entire electricity consumption of the 84-million country. 6-7 plants like this for 120-140 billion can be the base load of the grid until 2100.
>Literally put solar panels all over the place and you're done
You're done in the sense that you'll maybe have 4-6 hours of electricity per day. It will really reinforce the third world experience.
>b-but muh grid level storage
Yeah, right.
They want weapons, is why.
I agree and have felt the same way for years, we've nearly perfected failsafe nuclear fission reactors (of course, there is no true "Perfect" here on earth, but the highest standard we can achieve adopts the term)
For the price they can charge one entire coast of the US, they're developing fission, up until the point the first experimental fusion reactor melts down and has the effect of 100 Chernobyl's, possibly an H-Bomb explosion at the site...
>first experimental fusion reactor melts down and has the effect of 100 Chernobyl's, possibly an H-Bomb
Based baitposter.
stay mad, yankees.
The only good rebuttal I’ve ever heard is that these systems are so energy intensive they don’t allow surplus energy to be added into the system
Same with modern oil extraction. Negative sum economy
FRICKING FINALLY!
Time to die Germany
>FRICKING FINALLY!
Scheduled maintenance?
Yeah. They say.
We'll see if it turns back on or they'll turn it off at a later time
Either way their green energy FAILED
They still intend to shut their last nukes
Loooooool
>falling for the "oil = green energy" meme
No.
The bastards straight up shut down 4 out of 8 of their nukes 2 years ago.
Firmly believes that solar and wind are enough
40% of their power are renewables.
Pushes UN to follow them
Most expensive eletricity and completely dependent on Russian gas.
Now that gas us gone, they are SCRAMBLING for coal instead of reopening their nukes
Hilarious
Build more Solar and Wind, Germany
You said they work
>The bastards straight up shut down 4 out of 8 of their nukes 2 years ago.
Firmly believes that solar and wind are enough
>40% of their power are renewables.
Do you think that 4 nukes make up 40% of Germany's energy production?
>Most expensive eletricity and completely dependent on Russian gas.
What the frick has gas to do with electricity?
>reopening their nukes
The ones shut off 2 years ago? Are you even listening to yourself?
>Build more Solar and Wind, Germany
Again. What's the connection to gas?
First off
Germany had 6 nukes responsible for 15% of their power. Had
Gas is VITAL for renewable system because renewables generation fluctuates every time.
If the load gets too high or low, you risk shorts
Gas have instant ramp rate and therefore vital for renewable systems.
Either gas or hydro.
Dams no longer get built because it destroys wildlife.
Germany deluded themselves that being reliant on imports for basic necessities is a good fricking idea
Instead of learning and reopning their nukes, they would rather reopen coal plants.
They would die and i have absolutely 0 symphaty for the willing fool.
They were warned by Trump and they laughed
Die
>Germany deluded themselves that being reliant on imports for basic necessities is a good fricking idea
Germany has sun, wind and coal. Yet you argue for gas and uranium. Curious.
>Instead of learning and reopning their nukes, they would rather reopen coal plants.
It's not possible. A nuclear power plant is not a bar where you sweep the dust off the tables, clean the glasses and roll in a new barrel of beer.
>They were warned by Trump and they laughed
Trump believed that "clean coal" gets cleaned by miners. Trump wanted to sell his overpriced fracking gas to make Germany dependent on the one nuclear superpower that starts a new war every couple years instead of that other nuclear superpower that starts a new war every couple years. If you're arguing with Trump, you undermine every point you make on geopolitics and energy.
But no wonder. I bet Trump would also think that you can simply reopen nuclear power plants years after they started decommissioning.
You can pull whatever excuses you want.
End the day, it matters not
Germany's decision to shut down nuclear and be dependent on imports, instead of self-sufficiency is killing them right now
Karma is a b***h and I am here dancing on their graves.
Whooohoo!
>End the day, it matters not
I've been trying to find out what your native language might be. Is it Ukrainian? I don't think it's German.
>Germany's decision to shut down nuclear and be dependent on imports, instead of self-sufficiency is killing them right now
How could Germany be self-sufficient with nuclear power?
France is 70 nuke.
Ask them.
So, France is independent of imports, yes?
Exporter of Energy
YES
France does not import uranium?
Matter of fact, no
You cannot even buy enriched uranium easily.
You have to make them yourself
So, where are all the uranium mines in France?
Beats me
I'll give you a hint: mostly Namibia and Niger. But you said that nuclear would mean you're independent of imports. Hmm.
Sure whatever.
Either way, Germany is dying. France is not.
The message is loud and clear
Get fricked
>Germany is dying. France is not.
Germany is supplying France with electricity.
They are importing electricity only at the moment.
France shut down half their nukes for maintenance.
They only have to suffer for a month or so.
Ahahahahaha how much are they paying you? "Maintenance" sounds like it's a regular, scheduled task when they actually suffer from corrosion.
Oh, and as you mentioned Germany using gas for peak load. What are the French using for that?
Sure, whatever
See you by winter
70% nuclear for electricity mean they need gas only for non-electric reason.
If they can plug on the lines, they have 0 problem
I'll give you fertilizer, though.
You need gas for producing the right chemical reaction but that's a different topic
>70% nuclear for electricity mean they need gas only for non-electric reason.
Germany isn't producing electricity with their gas. They are using most of it for industry and heating. Germany should have invested in heat pumps, but only the greens were/are for that. So why are you trying to spin this like it's their fault?
>You need gas for producing the right chemical reaction but that's a different topic
No, it's exactly that topic. Steel and chemistry, two industries where you need a lot of heat locally, are among the biggest consumers. Gas in Germany is virtually irrelevant for electricity, they were producing 12% from gas in 2021 and 14% in 2010, the year before they started shutting off nukes due to Fukushima. In the same time, France went from 4% to 6%.
Why do you make this about electricity when Germany reduced its electricity from gas while France increased it?
>Gas burning accounted for 15.3% of German electricity generation last year, according to BDEW
uhh, huh
Now shut up and die
This statement is worthless without a year.
I'll tell you what you're doing. You are mixing two valid, yet unrelated points.
1. High-CO2 electricity production. In contrast to what you're implying, Germany is using mostly coal and lignite. Germany has a lot of both, and the seething French tried to occupy the corresponding regions multiple times (Saarland and Ruhr area). Today, we know that it's a problem, but not for matters of self-sustainability, but because of climate change. Burning your own coal is more autarkic than importing uranium. It's a problem, but electricity has nothing to do with Russia. They managed the stop of coal imports from Russia within days.
2. Dependence on Russian gas. There's a lot of geopolitics in this, involving several wars, Russia and the US participated in. In the past, Germany (and many others) got their gas from Russia. A proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline was blocked by virtually every superpower. Of course the Russians don't want to lose a share of their business. Russia Assisi didn't want to pay Ukraine to use their pipeline, that's what this whole nord stream 2 story is about. But why does Germany need so much gas? Germany has more steel workers than the next three European countries together (Italy, France and Poland). They have about as much revenue in the chemical industry as the next three countries combined (France, Italy, Netherlands). Obviously, France's gas consumption is lower when their industry is only a third of the German one.
However, and this is where Germany really fricked up, more Germans hat their homes with gas. It was advertised as an alternative to oil heating. That's objectively better, but they should have pushed for heat pumps instead. Their dependence on gas is not due to a lack of nuclear power plants, but a lack of heat pumps. Their dependence on Russia for gas is not due to the lack of nuclear power plants, but understandable if you look at a map.
Sounds fair but I'll laugh either way as there is enough grounds to call them fools
Shutting down nukes in the middle of an energy crisis
And they are going to do it twice
There were never any reports of Germany building renewable plants to replace the lost nukes. But there are news of them reopening coal plants so yeah
Article was made in Mar 2022
So that'll be 2021
Ah yeah, I just realised, my earlier source (Fraunhofer) was writing about production, not consumption. But still. 14->15% is hardly "dependence because of stopping the nuclear power plants"
>Sounds fair but I'll laugh either way as there is enough grounds to call them fools
At this point I'm just happy that you're happy
>There were never any reports of Germany building renewable plants to replace the lost nukes. But there are news of them reopening coal plants so yeah
Then you should question the sources of your reports. As you can see here
Germany is expanding renewables rapidly, while scaling back coal. Of course, it's not like a nuclear power plant that is "opened" if some farmer puts solar cells, or if 5 more wind turbines are connected, but that shouldn't mean you can neglect reality.
Whatever
Your argument is null in the face of REALITY
What a pathetic reply to a comment that just proved yours competition wrong. Seethe more. And maybe look at the data than whatever regional newspaper you get your news from.
>There were never any reports of Germany building renewable plants to replace the lost nukes.
>that drop for 2021
Fricking kek.
Coal plants reopening, isn't it?
Those guys cannot cope with interminent Renewables so greens have to get killed
I'm already done, btw.
I'll be waiting for news after 10 days of Nordstream """maintenance"""
... like I said, I can only be happy that you're happy, little guy
Half of the Fr*nch heat their homes with oil and gas.
And most of German factories rely on Russian pipes.
Piss off already.
Either Nuke or Russia
GET FRICKED
>And most of German factories rely on Russian pipes.
>implying the French melt steel and produce fertiliser with nuclear energy
You know perfectly well that they don't.
>exporter of energy
Question - how is Germany re-opening coal plants killing them, exactly?
It raises their CO2 output to a level somewhat above 50% of Poland's CO2 output. Oh the humanity.
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
France is still importing energy from Germany top kek
Also, last price in Germany is 273.05 €/MWh, in France it's 445.38 €/MWh
Frogs BTFO
why do people care about waste so much? that we're taking radioactive shit from the ground and then putting a smaller amount back in?
cause they care when cancer causing things are in the ground rather than in your food cause the word RADIATION is all scary and shit to normies
>racism
Cringe.
>racism
>Cringe.
Just leave the site altogether, go to fricking r*ddit, holy frick.
>Was literally [humans] being moronic
You think human moronation is an isolated case? Lol no.
Stick with thorium molten salt reactors. They literally can blow up. We could've had them everywhere by the 60s, but the tech couldn't be weaponized, so funding went to the reactors we see today.
>can
*Can't
(Don't buy budget phones, they lag when you type, and frick up words)
>They literally can blow up.
So, kinda like diesel generator, but instead of chemical explosion it's atomic explosion?
Huh, it's real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER
>while we have to ration our energy now lmao
What? Stop making stuff up, nuke shill
No, it's true
They are already rationing hot water
Rationing energy is not unlikely if Nord Stream does not open
Where?
Also, how would you heat water with a nuclear power plant there? There's exactly one town in Germany that had warm water heated with nuclear energy
>lowering the temperature of its tenants’ gas central heating to 17C between 11pm and 6am
It's currently over 30° in Germany. God, no, please don't limit our central heating, this is literally worse than 1945, back then at least we had Trümmerfrauen.
>The district of Lahn-Dill, near Frankfurt, is [...] from mid-September
So they already started rationing in .. um ... the future.
Look up the word rationing and then tell me where exactly this happens in Germany.
Denying reports made by the government itself
So, so, deep in your own bullshit
So, where are they rationing it? Point to the location where you cannot heat your apartment above 17° at night.
Dec 2022
At the EXACT time they would shut their nukes
Merry fricking Christmas and a Happy fricking New Year
May we never see any of them again
Why don't countries just turn their sewage plants into biodigesters so they get cheap, sustainable natural gas?
They already do that
Every water treatment plant uses their incineration as a way to power their plant
70% of their power comes from incinerated trash and waste