>>108625741
All technology comes down to either spinning a wheel with steam or spinning a wheel with explosions.

>>108625753
Solar panels might be the only exception.

>>108625741
Power that uses steam: nuclear, coal, combined cycle gas, geothermal, concentrated solar
Power that doesn't use steam: hydro, wind, solar, single cycle gas, tidal power

File: 713oE6jfJaL[1].jpg (151.9 KB)

151.9 KB JPG

>still stuck on steam tech
lol Noobs

>>108625741
Yup.
One of the more efficient ways we have of producing energy. But water is starting to be replaced with CO2 as a medium which can increase the efficiency a bit.

Fact: the sun moves by boiling water to generate power

>>108625773
Oh yeah and there's oil, which can be either or both like natural gas

>>108625773
Hydro and tidal are just very cold steam.
Wind is just very diffuse steam.
Gas there's probably some steam in the combustion byproducts.
Solar it depends but solid state solar I'll give you.

>>108625773
Power that turns one form of energy into another using mechanical motion: all of them

>>108625753
Dis guy don't know about the piezo electric effect... haha noob

File: 1776429256400.jpg (92.6 KB)

92.6 KB JPG

>>108625741
all power generation depends on turning something.

File: 1773983276989954.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>108625741
Not all nuclear power. One company (Helion) generates the current directly
>As the plasma expands, it pushes back on the magnetic field from the machine's magnets. By Faraday's Law, the change in field induces current, which is directly recaptured as electricity, allowing Helion's fusion generator to skip the steam cycle.

File: yes.png (243.3 KB)

243.3 KB PNG

>>108625741

>>108625823
The human body is majority water tho.

>>108625761
solar farms typically use a central furnace to, guess what, heat water and turn it into hot steam.

>>108625786
can they take some of the co2 from the emissions? or is that not pure enough

>>108625741
Correct, however it's not about process, it's about energy density.

>>108625741
Best way of doing it, but often given bad rep because of morons watching too many Three Mile Island, Cherobyl, Fukushima, SL-1 documentaries
Either because,
>Bad designs
>Inexperienced or poorly trained crew
>Companies cheaping out
>Companies dodging safety protocols
>Companies taking shortcuts

But when everything runs smoothly, it's way better than windmills or solar panels can do in the same space it occupies.

>>108625852
Solar towers are obsolete

>>108625852
Yeah but that's besides the point.

>>108625830
Lel.

File: 1749556767507359.jpg (57.5 KB)

57.5 KB JPG

>>108625741
Upvoted my good sir! And take my gold while you're at it. This was a wholesome good guy greg post for the win!
Obligatory XKCD

>>108625873
>Bad rep
>Lists a bunch of times shit went wrong, like really wrong
>Silver lining is world is big enough for this to go wrong a few more times without impacting too many people
I agree with you on this, however you have no idea how retarded you sound. Please don't try to market this shit to anyone, we're sure to never get nuclear if you're in charge of marketing

>>108625953
Then go back to the coal mines.

>>108625959
Coal is abundant and has no other real use.
Don't mind if I do, lass.

>>108625741
obviously
does anyone really think there's a better way to generate energy than burning rocks or boiling water?

until we can make suns there will never be anything better

>>108625953
and what makes you qualified to determine that otherwise? a 5 minute ChatGPT session regarding nuclear reactors and suddenly you're an 'expert' on the matter?
Congratulations, print it out on paper and mount it on your refrigerator door, don't forget to frame it and tell your future kids about it.

>>108625859
There are regenerators to capture CO2 emissions and convert that into electricity, yes.

>>108625930
What's so funny nigga

>>108625985
Determine what otherwise?
I agree with you that we need nuclear

>>108625998
>Nigger
I'm not black, bro

>>108626017
Okay but you still haven't explained what's funny

>>108625970
>and has no other real use
Coal can be gassified and further turned into ammonia and methanol

solar is fucking based you can absorb energy for free from a literal star and no one can stop you
the government and capitalists hate it because they can't block the sun and make it pay for it

>>108626154
*builds a dyson sphere and locks you outside*
what now, chud?

>>108625741
Heating water is just a really efficient way to turn an arbitrary power source (which usually can output heat) into other forms of energy such as mechanical and electrical.

>>108625932
well kekked, my good gentlesir

>>108625741
GabeN won.
>>108626164
Dyson Spheres would almost certainly be Steam Machines.
Astronomers should look for Steam in their telescopes.

>>108625829
False

Beyond insane to put Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in the same sentence

The greatest Western policy failure of the latter 20th century was the management of nuclear power fears. Look up the history of deaths from nuclear accidents in the West. It's like Russia has a strategy of "if we're unbelievably incompetent with our nuclear power programs, we can make uneducated Westerners think that's how it is everywhere"

>>108626671
Russia is white
Westerners aren't

>>108626049
This is funny:
>Not all nuclear power. One company (Helion) generates the current directly
>As the plasma expands, it pushes back on the magnetic field from the machine's magnets. By Faraday's Law, the change in field induces current, which is directly recaptured as electricity, allowing Helion's fusion generator to skip the steam cycle.

>>108626051
Is it still called coal after it's been gassified? Didn't think so.

>>108625873
>>108626671
Nuclear is obsolete. No reason to use it when solar and wind are cheaper and work fine with none of the risks or downsides of nuclear.

>>108626726
what changed to allow wind and solar to generate power 24/7 within the same land footprint as nuclear?

>>108626753
Batteries got cheaper. Wind can work at night. Nuclear doesn't work 24/7, it regularly has weeks of downtime for refuelling. Land footprint is irrelevant, there's no shortage of land.

>>108625741
Supercritical CO2 is coming.

>>108625830
>fusion
just two more decades!

>>108626777
>Land footprint is irrelevant, there's no shortage of land.
Bizarrely stupid post!

>>108626777
Batteries, that's exactly the problem. Wind and solar require buffering that nuclear doesn't. The 2 weeks of refuelling every 2 years is controlled downtime. Wind and solar are uncontrollably variable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute

>>108626777
>it regularly has weeks of downtime
once every couple of years and only one reactor at a time. meanwhile the iberian blackout occurred because an inverter shat the bed.

File: holy-shit-renewable-energy-in-2026-v0-111f1n6tgdlg1.png (273.5 KB)

273.5 KB PNG

>>108626826
Renewables are working fine. Nuclear is not needed at all.

>>108626845
>capacity
Capacity isn't production

>>108626845
non-sequitur post

>>108626845
>planned
HAHAHAHAHA

>>108626853
>Renewables are unreliable
>Actually they work fine
Don't see how that's a non-sequitur. The image is tangential yes, just posted it to show that nuclear is dead in the west and isn't needed.

>>108626865
Argument doesn't logically follow
Evidence of current state doesn't prove it's the optimal state

>>108626860
Here's the actual additions in 2025. Meanwhile no nuclear power plants built in the US in 2025, and that's a good thing.

>>108626879
If it's not optimal the invisible hand will fix it

File: 9eb3058b7679ac13.jpg (47.5 KB)

47.5 KB JPG

>>108626880
Oops forgot the image.

>>108626691
>Russia is white
Then why are they the only ones to fuck up an entire technology for half a century?

>>108626726
>>108622214

>>108626892
Survivorship bias
Those that start more projects will suffer more failures

>>108626903
Their failures were self-inflicted.
>we don't need containment boris, iz russian design!

File: 1756592468249371.jpg (345.2 KB)

345.2 KB JPG

ALL OF THIS TO BOIL WATER

LITERALLY SPLITTING ATOMS

TO BOIL WATER

>fossil fuels bad
>renewables bad
>nuclear power bad
Meanwhile in 2025:
510GW solar added globally, China accounted for 66%
160GW wind added globally, China accounted for 75%
20GW hydropower added globally, China accounted for 96%
120GW fossil fuels added globally, China accounted for 86%
5GW nuclear added globally, China accounted for 60%

>>108626903
I can guarantee with 100% certainty you have no knowledge of the history of nuclear power. You probably think "Mayak" is a fashion brand

>>108625741
Yes, it is a heat engine. Water just happens to be a very good application for a heat engine. It also can act as a moderator for neutrons.

>>108626726
Absolutely not, Nuclear energy is a necessity for industrialized society and beyond to endure. Solar energy and wind are terrible for stable, baseline load which are a requirement for heavy industry (which is need to manufacture wind generators and photoelectric cells)

>>108625879
they're low cost and more efficient than photovoltaics

>>108626931
this anon knows how to kinetic energy
tell us how

>>108627283
Yet no one builds them anymore, why is that

>>108627302
enshittification, same reason why everything else sucks. did you really need to ask?

>>108627365
If the market wants it it would have fixed it

>>108625741
>encounter alien
>"You see human, we use highly advanced anti matter reactors to generate staggering amounts of heat to create steam to-" the human engineer got a hysterical meltdown.

>>108627381
the market isn't a conscious thing, it doesn't "want" anything
you're reifying a system of retarded business and finance corpos whose only collective "goal" is to abuse economic speculation to suck in more imaginary capital

>>108627283
That's not entirely true.

>they're low cost and more efficient than photovoltaics

They are higher cost if not for the sole reason that it has moving parts for regular manned maintenance and needs someone to go deal with it in a tower (expensive to construct), then there's the fact that some of the mirrors are going to be oriented wrong to not get the all the light it can harness, also they need motors in every mirror mount to orientate it (or else it misses the tower).

The efficiency is better doesn't mean anything in the face of how easy it is to just one and done PV, compared to thousands of little motors and bearings that occasionally need to be regressed by hand.

Even the way it can use sand or salt to store energy is a meme considering how much easier it is to store energy in a chemical battery compared to pumping metric tonnes of much lower specific energy material.

Meanwhile solar PV systems is just make it and get it to sit there for 25 years (12.5 years for the lfp batteries and improving), maybe send out a technician to a faulty battery (which can be placed in neighbourhoods near where they dwell and not hundreds of miles out where the land is cheap), and clean it by a over grown roombas (which is easier to do on a perfectly flat panel).

>>108628080
lifetime of PV might also be longer than people estimated
scientists recently examined a used panel from 2000 and it still provided 87% of its originally rated power

>>108627283
>they're low cost
Solar panels are even lower cost now.

File: 4a43b6c2a531e35a6397cf8b44a9649b.jpg (208.3 KB)

208.3 KB JPG

>>108628100
yeah lets just cover the world in panels

File: 94op3agapkug1.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

>>108628141
There is plenty of space for them. Nuclear uses more space than solar panels anyway.

>>108625859
>This goy actually thinks Co2 emissions are a problem

>>108628158
>Comparing the size of a solar farm to a uranium mine
Bizarre
You think the materials for solar panels just spring out of thin air you motherfucker?

>>108628169
The materials used for solar panels are also used for nuclear power plants.

File: surface-area-required-to-power-the-whole-world-by-solar-v0-XCoLKkAZxQaaKsgjckxnkQEIcOk5iZFowULuXpRrIc4.png (506 KB)

506 KB PNG

>>108628158
The "land footprint" argument is a new desperate shilling point they've trotted out recently as solar's total victory becomes clearer and clearer. It's hilarious that nuclear actually uses more land without even considering that you can install solar panels on existing buildings or that the land that solar panels occupy can be used for agriculture.

>>108628175
OK now tell me the comparative lifetime rate of material consumption per unit of electricity. I don't think you'll like the answer

>>108628185
Now tell me the materials required to replace ~500,000 square kilometres of solar panels every 25-30 years, not to mention the beyond obscene amount of battery storage that would be required. Complete ignorance of material complexity.

>>108628191
>>108628205
They can be recycled, and they're mostly made up of glass which isn't comparable to uranium and nuclear waste.

>>108628205
a fuck ton of glass and aluminium, two of the best recyclable materials we have

now look at the fuck ton of steel and concrete nuclear power plants needs, both materials are among the largest CO2 producers in the world, which you need to replace every 50 years, plus a huge constant supply of fresh water

>>108628087
>lifetime of PV might also be longer than people estimated
scientists recently examined a used panel from 2000 and it still provided 87% of its originally rated power

Yup.

Better yet, the lifespans estimates for newer panels should be greater than the older panels using inferior tech, you can see this in the degradation rates of newer panels being lower, the only thing to worry about is if the build quality hasn't been cut to reduce costs too much. Say for example the moisture seals aren't as good and/or the back mirror/electrical conduit lines have dramatically higher corrosion with less rare earth metals like silver being replaced for copper pastes. Insurance and manufacturer warranties are weary of this risk so only recommend the standard 25 years.

>>108628205
Brother the material costs is less than the panel, even in the strongest state supported manufacturers in China only get a few percent worth of support to undercut the world.

>>108625992
Yeah, and you can use your diesel generators to make new diesel from the CO2 and H2O from the exhaust, but the useful energy you produce will be net
negative.
Your idea is the same and should be avoided at all costs.
Carbon capture for anything involving hydrocarbons is a great evil and should be fought against no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, this should be obvious to anyone with even the most basic grasp of thermodynamics.

If society wants carbon capture on large scale and what it to actually be feasible we need new, plannable, energy sources with a very high EROI that don't themselves release CO2 when producing energy.

>>108625741
Electricity is just hot water.
That is why you can get burned by it, if you touch exposed wires.

>>108628213
>>108628158
Holy shit. These anti nuclear arguments are so dumb somebody has to be paying for this.

>>108628213
A nuclear reactor building is mostly made of concrete and steel and can be mostly recycled, far more easily than solar PV, and as a bonus there are way less heavy metals, especially if you compare [joules produced over expected lifetime/weight]
See how easy they was?

File: 58f4ba7855704b5c9cc1eab5e7d74604[1].jpg (524.5 KB)

524.5 KB JPG

We should be combining nuclear and solar efforts for their respective strengths. Imagine how far nuclear standardisation and production speed could have come along by now were it not for ridiculous Russian-based concerns.

The volume of nuclear waste produced is miniscule for the output, all the nuclear waste ever produced until today would fit in a stadium-sized warehouse.

>>108628325
How about we just don't make anymore nuclear waste or toxic uranium mines and use clean renewable energy instead?

File: file.png (132.3 KB)

132.3 KB PNG

>>108626154
>no one can stop you
they have collected 100m and want to trial it this year.

File: nuclear-waste-in-the-world-v0-whj74nsje5rd1.png (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB PNG

>>108628341
>stadium-sized warehouse.
Way more than that. Look at all this nuclear poo. Would've been so much worse if there was more nuclear. Nuclear needs to be phased out completely so that there isn't more nuclear poo to deal with for generations.

>>108628346
The industry producing glass, aluminum, and silicon requires guaranteed capacity every hour. Solar and wind cannot guarantee this output. Batteries cannot account for this gap. What power source will be used for this industry?

>>1086281

You can get acres upon acres of land unfit for much agricultural purposes cheap enough to support solar power, the fact remains it takes less than a percent to satisfy the electrical demands of the USA. This doesn't even factor into account that some of that land has buildings that can just have solar panels installed, the fact that solar panel designs continue to drop in weight so it becomes easier to install them in new and reinforced warehouse roofs, the fact that multifunction cells now can use cheaper materials to not be restrained by Shockley–Queisser limit (and it hasn't even hit the market nor be included in the calculation for land usage), the fact that the cooling and shading effects can boost the productivity of grazing land for beef and sheep in desert prone land.

Now with hydrogen production and storage getting even cheaper you can even save some of the cheap summer excess in higher latitude regions, or cloudy seasons and days. So say the 20-30% lower electrical production winter periods (in my Britbong 55 degree latitude) becomes just gets a waste of 60-70% (bare in mind this is improving) of the 70-80% of the energy not produced in winter.

>>108628378
nuclear waste is a scam 99% can be processed and made less harmful instead they throw it into deep cavern where it will be exposed to ground water and slowly radiate the water supply. Its stupid fear mongering and lots of greedy retards making a quick buck on both sides.

>>108628380
>Solar and wind cannot guarantee this output. Batteries cannot account for this gap.
Says who?

>>108628378
4,000,000m3 is a lot smaller than you think it is
The leaning tower of pisa is only ~18 metres wide
Your picture is literally in SUPPORT of this statement, at most maybe 2 stadiums

>>108628408
You would require backup batteries with weeks of storage

File: 27269472835_9ee8266cdb_c.jpg (67.2 KB)

67.2 KB JPG

>>108626154
>blocks the sun in your're path

>>108628325
>A nuclear reactor building is mostly made of concrete and steel and can be mostly recycled, far more easily than solar P
Why do you lie?
Have you seem to deconstructing projects in Germany? Nothing is easy about it and it's taking decades.

And no, .concrete isn't great for recycling, you can basically only use it as rubble. Most CO2 emissions come from making the cement, which can't be recycled.

>>108628494
to be fair, nothing in Germany is quick or easy

>>108628506
anything nuclear power plants is incredibly slow and expensive all over Europe

including France which heavily uses and subsidizes nuclear power

File: wheel.png (872.1 KB)

872.1 KB PNG

>>108625829
retvrn to tradition

>>108628378
I'm a pro solar guy, but you have to be fair to modern nuclear, the figures are from Uranium reactors that use only the u235 isotope, which is miniscule in comparison to the u238 (u238 takes up 99.7% of natural uranium). So that figure takes into account all of the depleted Uranium which isn't even that dangerous, plus we've got fast reactors now that can use up this depleted Uranium. The left over waste from these designs are useful for the medical industry, can't be procured into nuclear bombs by terrorists, and last hundreds of years worth of radiation not thousands (so definitely can be cheaply buried without security).

Having said all that, nuclear designs like this would have been great decades ago, but fast breeder reactors were a technical and financial challenge and we overlooked thorium designs for the same reasons plus we had the cold war (thorium designs can't produce nuclear bombs). Solar is cheaper today, and the foreseeable future, the aerospace & nuclear industry will have fusion reactors ready for their cool niche space programs. So really the best use case for fission is: to clean up the u238 we have laying around so we don't have to spend anything to keep it safe like security or radiation blocking for thousands of years, or maritime nuclear submarines and maybe cargo ships (if we want to cut down on co2 being released into the atmosphere at the expense of subsidising it).

Also the cool thing about nuclear fusion is that you can directly convert the plasma into electricity (bypassing the stage for turbines like steam ones and being cheaper/more efficient to do).

Please don't talk about the hurdles to get to net gain reactors or an economic model, ITER are building a old design that can do net gain, newer designs like commonwealth fusion can show case net gain for cheaper & faster, if superconductor research alone progresses it would shrink reactor designs even further.

>>108628523
All you're talking about is technology that doesn't really work or no ones want to pay to build and use in a large scale.
We still accumulate nuclear waste and nuclear fusion is far from being practical and the most successful designs use stuff that's even nastier than uranium.

>>108628513
slow and expensive because of the political opposition and lack of ongoing industry. As anything would be in that situation

>>108628570
>political opposition to nuclear
>in France

>>108626154
>the government and capitalists hate it because they can't block the sun and make it pay for it

As someone who makes room for pretty liberal markets with the caveat of state intervention and appropriate taxation, I don't hate it, it's just that a lot of people America (and some around the world) has put all it's points into petro chemicals and refuses to give up the fact that it's dying (lower & lower energy return on investment) and had major flaws (long logistics supply chain issues that need to be constantly ran to be cheap, through places that just hate us for the fucked up shit we do to keep it running). But we revolutions are bloody things, so I bided my time mostly for the markets to catch up.

>>108628599
Political opposition and lack of ongoing nuclear industry across the West has impacts on global supply chains and expertise, yes. Countries do not function in a vacuum.

Jesus christ. More solar retards who don't even have arrays. It's not scalable. It's barely scalable for a fucking modern home, let alone a city, mass industry, etc.
It's happeningfag tier delusion to think that there's some grand conspiracy instead of the fact that it simply isn't worth the squeeze. If there's one thing you can count on people to give a fuck about it's their wallet, and solar doesn't affect it enough, that's it. Shocking I know.

>>108628638
What is blud wafflin on about. Solar won, theres no conspiracy or debate about that at all

>>108626936
>>108626888
>>108626888

What the discussion is centered on is nuclear proponents desperately wanting us to cling on to toxic obsolete inferior technology that is nuclear.

>>108628654
Won at what? Wasting money? Using up vast amounts of land for dismal output?

>>108628670
>Wasting money?
Nuclear definitely won big time there. Hundreds of billions wasted managing nuclear waste over the decades.

>Using up vast amounts of land
Already established that nuclear won there too >>108628158
Not only uses it up, but actually actively makes it uninhabitable, while solar can improve the land it's on.

>>108628698
>while solar can improve the land it's on
how?

>>108628541
Like I said at the start, I'm a pro solar guy. What I was doing there is saying the point you previously bought up about nuclear waste is vastly exaggerated.

>All you're talking about is technology that doesn't really work or no ones want to pay to build and use in a large scale.

Fast breeder reactors do work, even if they were not economical it is barely so considering it's strengths, they can eat most of the old waste from old u235 reactors. Here in the UK for example the government are funding these reactors to eat up our waste.

I will reiterate and further explain on what I was talking about before, nuclear reactors aren't just nuclear reactors, they can produce isotopes that are useful for cancer treatments and scanners.

>nuclear fusion is far from being practical and the most successful designs use stuff that's even nastier than uranium.

On the timescales required of getting nuclear fission production ready for mass manufacture, it is highly likely we will have nuclear fusion designs ready for niche use cases like space missions. Solar doesn't make sense for Mars based, fusion reactors can also dramatically cut down on flight times to Mars and other space destinations and means astronauts aren't as exposed to space radiation because they get there so quickly, the weight reduction and subsequent weight reduction (food+water+less radiation shielding), is worth it.

In aviation it's also worth cutting down on fuel weight. You have a scope of hundreds of tonnes of fuel, if you can get a reactor plus bolstered landing gears within that weight (smaller weight begets smaller thrust needed for lift) you can get airliners that fly faster and cheaper even if the energy itself isn't cheaper. If that reactor and the the magneto hydrodynamics is aerodynamic and efficient enough you can further reduce weight (higher lift to drag ratio) and therefore cost.

>>108625753
There are other approaches, but inventors that look into them have a (((mysterious))) habit of being unalived at (((random))).

>>108628811
Solar grazing and some agriculture.

>>108628698
It doesn't make it uninhabitable. Are you living in a 1965 scifi horror flick? Even Chernobyl is habitable. How does solar improve land? By blocking out the sun? By percolating chemicals? And for what, so you can power a tiny home cabin. Get real fella!

>nooo its world changing tech it's just a global conspiracy to keep it hidden!
Yes yes much more likely

>>108628811
Saves on water + livestock feed costs for farming if you space it correctly, so it's good for drought prone regions limited by water (tends to be where solar panels make the most economic sense even without this effect).

>>108628638
imagine still spreading solar FUD in 2026 when its literally already deployed at scale. fucking retard.

>>108628849
I was referring to the uranium mines required for nuclear.

>>108628929
Although nuclear power itself and its waste byproducts also have the potential to render land uninhabitable.

>>108628638
It takes less than 1% of land in the USA to produce it's electricity.

>>108628935
No they don't, that's pure scaremongering.
But then all the anti-nuclear arguments are based on lies and irrational fears.

>>108628929
And so what?
Mines only use land temporary, after extracting the ore they place the overburden and top soil back so you can farm or do whatever you want on that land.

>>108625953
>IT WENT WRONG
>REALLY WRONG
>less deaths than coal
>less environmental damage than coal
lol
LMAO
Faggot.

>>108629261
Those mines need to be operational and occupy land for nuclear to work. Closing the mines would entail shutting down nuclear capacity. Anyway I'm doubtful remediating and reclaiming the land those mines are on is that simple, considering how extremely toxic they are.

>>108628494
>Why do you lie?
>Have you seem to deconstructing projects in Germany? Nothing is easy about it and it's taking decades.
It's true in the same way most of solar PV is recyclable. The vast majority of the steel is reclyable without any issue.

>And no, .concrete isn't great for recycling, you can basically only use it as rubble. Most CO2 emissions come from making the cement, which can't be recycled.
Yes, rubble and fillers, that's how many things are "recycled".

>>108625812
Solar cell no, it uses photoelectric effect

>>108629302
You clearly have no idea how mining works.

>>108629386
Do you imagine that nuclear will magically work with no uranium mines?

>>108625741
too much pollutioj look at all the smoke

>>108625741
You can also use supercritical CO2 or something. But it is similar. (Not quite ready yet).
Heat is just the easiest type of energy to create because of thermodynamics. So it is going to keep being a thing. Even fusion reactors will likely use something similar.

>>108625830

starship enterprice engine but what happens at warp

File: 1757802848595677.png (257.6 KB)

257.6 KB PNG

>halfway through the thread
>no one posted it yet
I know this board is dead like the rest of the site but come the fuck on now

File: Aliens laughing at water boilers.jpg (197 KB)

197 KB JPG

Also obligatory

>>108625829
clamp it to your nipples

File: ricky.jpg (34.9 KB)

34.9 KB JPG

>>108625788
>the sun moves
Where does it move to?

>>108628353
of course it's the jews
every single time

>>108630091
It's energy moves to all of the planets. Water is the key.

>>108628185
>you can install solar panels on existing buildings or that the land that solar panels occupy can be used for agriculture.
good luck with all the toxins leaching out of solar panels

>>108628221
CO2 is plant food

>>108628494
>germanistan as an argument
LMAOOOOOOOO

>>108628541
>All you're talking about is technology that doesn't really work or no ones want to pay to build and use in a large scale.
China is already trialing LFTR reactors, technology that was ready in the 1950's but got buried because it can't be used to produce nukes

>>108625753
Photovoltaics can do visible light but also infrared (albeit it doesn't make economic sense with current technology). Linear motors can also turn motion from pushing a metal rod through an indicator. Plasma charge can be turned into electricity without any of those.

Everything I mentioned (bar photovoltaics and possibly fusion) in the future has very few niche use cases, but it is the future so who knows what wild card can reawaken interest in translating power with them.

>>108628080
On the flipside, what you say is not entirely true, because it ignores the gap at large scales and long timescales (80+ years). Both of these are critical contexts to civic infrastructure. It's true the upfront cost of solar is cheaper, but when you look at long term maintenance at utility-scale they fall behind massively. Inverters have to be replaced every 12 years, batteries have an even shorter lifespan. A solar field producing 400MW (matching solar tower output) needs a massive battery array and a shitload of inverters. The modularity looks cheap until you of course realize that replacing one panel doesn't fix the others. This of course is moot, because panels are scrapped and replaced before they hit the end of their life. The upfront "cheapness" only makes sense when optimizing for eternal economic inflation, and refurbishing a solar tower costs less than replacing an entire solar field, which again, happens long before they hit the end of their 35 year lifespan. And that's before we get to the part where modern PV farms have increasing mechanical complexity as they rely on robotic cleaning which introduced even more maintenance costs.

PVs make sense for small scales and areas that can't support solar towers (which is most areas). From a thermodynamics perspective they just can't compete. For a system that works on hedging against future value and hates specialized local labor, PVs end up being attractive. Hence why the larger picture tends to be swept under the rug. Doesn't fit so nicely in the globalism trade scheme that very much wants you to ignore the gnashing teeth of entropy closing the gap.

>>108631030
Where are you getting 80+ years for the tower from? Most sources I find suggest 50years at most with good anti corrosion practice?

Grid Batteries don't last less than inverters because of improvements in LFP cells (lasts 12.5 years with calender aging). The LFP cells in the future generation will last +20years with PTFE coating in anode particles. Similar to the motors in the helio stat that last 20-30 years. And one bad cell isn't the cost killer for an array, they can be further divided into sub packs that can be disabling a particular section until a technician goes to replace that cell. That strongly probably won't even happen. Also you can unlock economies of scale that you just can't with solar thermal with good contracts or public awareness of prices, think home battery's and electric cars. Meanwhile you have to move sand or salts around with thermal solar.

Cleaning solar PV is even easier than cleaning thermal solar mirrors because they don't move around, you need something simpler than a room a and tracks for it to go around.

And the most regular maintenance for solar thermal is specialized mechanically orientated technicians checking it the turbine yearly for damage.

If everyone just accepted the net gain of minimising specialized labour, we'd all have the same stuff if we choose political system adaptations to just divide it up fairly, that will allow us to just do other stuff or nothing at all.

The difference in storage costs doesn't bridge the huge gap in price per watt of an entire utility solar array even when accounting for storage costs ($0.065 – $0.082 PV Vs $0.075 – $0.100 solar thermal). This doesn't even take into account that battery, PV, and inverter have a much greater road to improvement, longer lifespans (inverters that run even cooler with solid polymer caps and higher switching frequency so they run cooler), less material usage including rare ones (think lithium to Sodium ion transition).

>>108628378
Note that only the high level waste lasts generations.
The rest decays to safe levels in a matter of decades.

So it's a 21m x 21m x 21m cube.
That is really tiny.

But nah let's just fuck up our climate instead I'm sure future generations would prefer that over a few shipping containers of spicy stuff....

Speaking of wheels small scale consumer flywheels when?

File: 1775561019434775m.jpg (113 KB)

113 KB JPG

>>108631888
What reinforced concrete and steel structure are you tearing down every 50 years in the desert? It doesn't sound like you're finding very good sources. "80+ years" isn't a specific timescale pegged to solar towers, it's me telling you that short-sightedness introduces unsoundness and is a half-truth.

>The LFP cells will last +20years.
And it's still a maintenance burden that scales with size. Solar towers get off-peak power production by virtue of their design.

>And one bad cell isn't the cost killer for an array
I explicitly called out the modularity fallacy, where failure is almost always rhetorically scoped to the same granularity of the modularity. One battery dead one day. one battery dead the next. a single battery has gone bad in both instances, but we're not looking at a single bad battery all the same.

As for the rest of it, you can consider that the number of PV panels has an unfavorable ratio to the motorized mirrors driving a solar tower. Each individual panel may be less fussy than a mirror, but it's another manifestation of the same flawed logic in the modularity fallacy, disregarding the cascading sum.

>If everyone just accepted the net gain of minimising specialized labour
The "net gain" is nothing but driving up a single unit on an incomplete spreadsheet in the most naïve fashion. The fungibility of labor actively detracts from the quality of society. You are trading off the most important thing, the core reason we build any of this, for a meaningless abstraction.

Of course it's irrelevant to all of this, because even on a more honest spreadsheet, PV doesn't win in this domain. Only the naïve, narrow view which is constructed to hide the shortcomings is it the case that PV makes sense where a solar tower is viable. While it might be true in the sense that those with power over capital will it into existence, the proposition that solar towers are deprecated isn't based on any technical reality. Just a political one.

>>108625741
Then riddle me this faglord, how do you convert heat energy into electrical energy in the most efficient way possible?

>>108625753
Wait until OP finds out about the inclined plane

File: ltg_stare.jpg (22.3 KB)

22.3 KB JPG

>>108628834
>unalived
You need to go back to the youtube comment section

File: OIG2.jpg (342.3 KB)

342.3 KB JPG

>>108625741
Alien "You see, unlike Earthling technology, our power generation is very efficient. We use this antimatter reactor to generate heat which we use to boil water, and the steam tur-"
Engineer: [SCREAMING]

>>108625852
Anon said solar panels not solar farms

>>108629929
Rest of the galaxy knows Earth as the waterpunk planet

>>108625873
>Companies cheaping out
>Companies dodging safety protocols
>Companies taking shortcuts
Did we fix this behavior since last catastrophe or are we just gonna keep entrusting things to people who want to make the most money, damn the consequences?

File: Screen Shot 2021-02-11 at 4.32.18 PM.png (152.5 KB)

152.5 KB PNG

We do have other methods that don't rely on spinning a wheel to generate electricity but they still need further research and require precise equipment.

>>108632735
I never understood how that works, if light is a combination of a multitude of colors (wavelengths) then why do we need a unique wavelength for each material? Can't the electron just absorb the wavelength it needs from a normal light source?

File: 1745699212611948.jpg (81.3 KB)

81.3 KB JPG

>>108632778
>>>/sci/

>>108625830
>As the plasma expands
fusion doesnt create power only consumes it

>>108632802
>fusion doesn't create power
You need a college degree to post here.

>>108632802
>fusion doesnt create power
Go outside. Stare at the sun for a while.
Now you are blind, but at least you briefly saw a working fusion system that creates power!

>>108632778
because a photon changes the power level of the electron depending on its frequency. if the frequency is high enough to make the electron's power level go over 9000, it will go super saiyan and be able to escape its orbital

>>108632914
>>108632840
if you need more power to start and sustain the reaction than it outputs it is not creating power

>>108632932
I get that part, what I am asking is why do we need a certain special photon for that to happen when a normal light source should already include such a photon in its frequency range.

>>108632933
inb4; >>108632840

>>108628213
EROEI

File: Solar_spectrum_en.svg.png (124.2 KB)

124.2 KB PNG

>>108625741
we need efficient rectennas for the UV and visible spectrums

>>108632954
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energy#Electron_binding_energy
you don't need a special photon. you just need the photon to have high enough energy for the target atom. a gamma ray would work on all atoms i believe

>>108628404
>99% can be processed
Ok, how?

>>108625761
>Literally able to absorb power from the sun
This shit is so surreal to me how people are so violently against this. We literally grow corn to turn into gas, wtf are we doing?

>>108625799
>Hydro and tidal are just very cold steam.
Or steam is just very warm hydro. Not so clever now, are ya.

>>108625753
>>108625761
piezo electric crystals don't need to spin desu

>>108628378
yeet nuclear poops into space with a railgun
out of sight out of mind
wallah

File: 7F433CF4-4820-4C4A-92C9-0EDE83DE89BB.jpg (198 KB)

198 KB JPG

>>108634856
>how people are so violently against this
It's a mystery.

>>108632418
>One battery dead one day. one battery dead the next. a single battery has gone bad in both instances

that's not the failure mode for the 20+ year figure, in reality they last much longer albeit with less capacity, that means you can use simple bms data collection and extrapolation to manage what you demand from that cluster (it's not that energy or cost intensive for something less than a raspberry pi), in this way your unit can choose and alert you remotely of what to expect and plan your maintenance around it, heck the power and cost requirements to track voltage data on an individual cell is nothing in the face of modern monitoring units. all this is included in the cost figures.

>The "net gain" is nothing but driving up a single unit on an incomplete spreadsheet in the most naïve fashion. The fungibility of labor actively detracts from the quality of society. You are trading off the most important thing, the core reason we build any of this, for a meaningless abstraction.

Labor only stays fungible it the person doing it doesn't pursue the mystery in life and instead opts for quick hits of dopamine, when we make a decision that frees up human time, we're more free to pursue the mystery of life. underneath all the anger and confusion in the world, there's a silent flow of people realizing that even with all the wealth inequality, it's alright.

>>108628654
>toxic
Solar proponents ignore how their panels don't work when the sun isn't shining and they generate numbers about cost/co2/pollution by not capturing storage in those numbers.
Out here in the real world where you're replacing entire arrays of batteries in rotation every few years, GWh for GWh, your batteries are generating 2000 tons of unrecyclable toxic waste every 20 years for every quarter ton of waste the nuke plant is casking up.
You're strip mining 60,000 tons of Earth for that initial GWh worth of storage, while a Uranium mine is moving all of 135 tons. And that's just the Lithium I don't even feel like getting into the copper/graphite/cobalt/etc that comes with the battery chemistries.

>>108634856
Yeah crazy that people would be for or against a technology based on its practical effects rather than on reddit tier philosophical arguments
>Literally able to absorb power from the sun
Yikes

>>108636465
And nuclear proponents ignore the cost of destabilizing African and Middle East governments in order to install a puppet leader that'll allow to mine uranium with slave labour for a penny per kilo.

>>108628408
Anyone with a modicum of research in this area would understand why. And you can't go above around 30% of non-dispatchable energy source unless you want to not be able to restart your grid in case of major incident, like Spain a few years ago.
You can read the report of Spain electricity provider which points out that issue clearly: they have too much non-dispatchable energy sourcez (renewable), they can't adapt production to consumption as well, and if they need to restart their grid by islanding again, they will be in big trouble.
Both solar and wind power are non-dispatchable. You either need gas or coal power plant or nuclear ones to compensate for that issue. See Germany too, they banned nuclear for Wind and Solar, but they restarted building gas powered plant, depending on Russia.

>>108625741
why does nobody try to complete Nikola Tesla's works?

>>108628599
The socialist allied with the Green in France in late 90s. The Green minister is on tape saying she betrayed the government to bury nuclear at the european parliement.
They stopped research project like Superphenix.
The next socialist government (Holland) made an alliance again after the Sarkozy years (the plurial left) : one of the condition of the deal was to close the oldest nuclear plant and stop any investment.
Macron then continued that policy: he closed Fessenheim, and stop any investments, even research project like ASTRID.
He only switched gears around 2 years ago, after 7 years of denial.
Now we see a revival : Belgium, Switzerland, Italy are removing thei ban on nuclear (most of them were made after Chernobyl, despite completly different technology).
But France lost a lot of time and technical skills.
The Green, both French and German, are traitor to the nation in my opinion. They knowingly sabotaged a clean energy like nuclear, either by ideology, or by being paid by Russian gas companies.

Yes, spinning a turbine is still the most efficient way to generate electricity, and the most efficient way to spin a turbine is with steam.
When that changes, we'll come up with another solution I bet.

>>108625761
the reason solar panels haven't taken off is precisely the fact that it doesn't boil water. if it did we'd all have roofs made of panels

>>108638047
Nuclear isn't clean energy

>>108638081
Cleaner than the gas, coal. Which are required by solar and wind. Compare the CO2 output of Germany on a good wind day compared to France.

>>108625741
>Turns out it's just yet another way to heat water and turn it into hot steam
Is there any particular reason /g/ is fascinated by this and brings any attention to it at all?

>>108636465
You can recycle batteries, it uses less energy than the raw materials. They're bad at refusing all the material rn (50-60%), but they're improving.

>>108638314
most people have no idea where electricity comes from, they think we turn heat straight into power like a solar panel

>>108625741
No shit, it all boils back to the steam engine.
Turns out however that the model can be improved upon for a good long while.

>>108639557
>the model can be improved upon for a good long while.
kinda interesting that things still haven't improved much. how come it is so difficult?

>>108625741
Fun fact about nuclear power: there's only enough uranium reserves for 10 years of global energy production.

global annual energy production: 30,000TWh/year
global uranium reserves: 8 million tonnes
energy from uranium reserves: 0.04TWh/tonne * 8m tonnes = 320,000TWh

That's 10.67 years of global energy production. It's expected to triple within the next decades. Breeder reactors and seawater extraction could extend this, but they're not exactly proven technologies.

>>108628158
>Nuclear uses more space than solar panels anyway.
that's a good thing, solar energy makes less energy than windmills

>>108625761
>>108628698
>>108628839
>>108628857
a wild tornado appears!

>>108641314
Anon you have misplaced a significant figure we have ten times that, breeder reactors go another ten and saltwater extraction is effectively infinite if we get it working.

>>108625879
>>108627302
this
nuclear power is the new norm.

>>108641347
All the numbers check out. Breeder reactors theoretically can extend that 100x, but none of them have reached those numbers yet nor have proven to be viable on large scales. In theory, seawater extraction can meet up to 4x current energy production indefinitely, but past that it will eventually deplete. Mass scale seawater extraction is not proven either. At 10x current energy production, even with the most optimistic scenario for breeder reactor + seawater extraction + 30,000t/year seawater replenishment, it will run out in under 1 million years.

>>108641378
even 100,000 years of uranium sounds okay to me

>>108641378
>it will run out in under 1 million years.
Well not exactly run out. The 30,000t/year replenishment would last for billions of years in theory, but it wouldn't meet 10x current electricity generation. This is all pretty theoretical stuff.

>>108625913
These men had to pedal for 375 hours to generate this video. 7 of them died.

>>108625932
Performative /pol/troon syndrome.

>>108641641
better than 613245 people died for installing a single windmill and/or solar panel

>>108641713
How do you imagine this happens? Because of your fatboy feelings?

>>108641781
because i sayd the truth, you retarded jam boi, eolic & solar energy caused more human deaths than school shootings, please understand for fucks sake.

>>108626726
It's not reliable enough and grid-scale storage to cover low periods of wind/sun generation isn't feasible yet. Nuclear works all the time 24/7 and requires little to fuel it for massive amounts of power.

>>108641314
Grandma please fuck off with your bullshit chain mail, Facebook post, Twitter disinfo
>0.04TWh/ton
~400–700 TWh per tonne, you're only off by about 10,000x

>8 million tonnes
identified economically recoverable uranium, not accounting for sea-based or re-use

With current reactor designs, known uranium reserves support centuries of global electricity demand, and with advanced fuel cycles, potentially millennia. Destroy your computer for posting such insane lies.

>>108641848
Your numbers are wrong.

See here: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world-nuclear-power-reactors-and-uranium-requireme

2667TWh / 68,920 tonnes of uranium = 0.04TWh/tonne

>>108641868
site redirects to a casino crypto scam ad
please fuck off already grandma.

>>108641897
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/minerals-mining/mining-data-statistics-analysis/minerals-metals-facts/uranium-nuclear-power-facts

2667TWh and 60,000 tons.

>>108641919
another casino crtpyo scam

god, grandmas never learns

>>108641983
It's the official government site of Canada. Feel free to show a source for the ratio of TWh to tonnes of uranium.

this >>108641897 >>108641983 is a bot, right?
trying to discredit evidence with totally unrelated non-arguments. has to be a bot.

here's a reminder: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. or the bots.

>>108635492
little do you know. the electrons are spinning!

>>108641919
>>108641868
>>108642008
Then DON'T SEED THE SHILLS and the baitsi
i repeat, SHILLS AND BAITS.
just give up already grandma

>>108641919
>>108641868
You dense motherfucker, that's the U-235 portion while U-238 makes up 99%+. Most reactors are only using 1% or less of the uranium because it's cheaper and simpler.

>>108641848
trvth nvke

>>108642046
Yes, as I mentioned, breeder reactors can extend that by 100x in the best case scenario. None have done this yet. That extends it to about 1000 years at current rates, a few centuries with expected growth of electricity demand.

>>108641789
>because i sayd the truth
Speak English, garbage.

>>108642205
>caring about muh idiom
>just a typo
Stfu grandma, speak hebrew because you lost.

always has been

>>108638081
most of its waste can be recycled, did you not know that
let's see how much plastic waste can be recycled

>>108638112
CO2 is plant food. Higher CO2 output=greener

>>108625741
>Turns out it's just yet another way to heat water and turn it into hot steam.
And a temperature gradient from hotter steam to condensed water is a way to turn a turbine shaft, yes.

So what? It still creates usable power.

>>108625753
Wait until OP finds out about stirling radioisotope generators. Same basic principle, just using helium gas in a closed loop instead of water/steam.

File: 43177103.jpg (249 KB)

249 KB JPG

>>108625741
Nuclear power itself is very clean, its the spent fuel rods that are the fucking problem.

>>108641345
That depends on where and the odds of a tornado occuring.

>>108642690
Why don't we just send those rods to the moon, creating a whole logistical system around that would make it cheaper and safer than any other retarded alternative.

>nuclear power thread
>the one solar + wind autist instantly rushes in to spam it to death

>>108634856
Solar farms take up a lot of space and the upkeep seems pretty high, and output is conditional, like wind turbines. When nuclear exists, it just doesn't make sense.

>>108630726
>Photovoltaics can do... infrared
is it wrong to say that IR is too low energy for that?

>>108625830
>Helion
fantasy, as long as they don't find ways to get more energy than they use to start the fusion process.

>>108626154
yup. the funny thing is that 30-40% efficient panels already exist, they are just too expensive compared to the mass produced ones, but as long as china doesn't mass produce them, no one cares

>>108627278
>>108641842
so, add batteries (LFP, pumped hydro, whatever)
LFP batteries are already at <$60/kWh wholesale

>>108626826
tbf, these systems usually have fossil fuels as backup, though AFAIK hydro could also work (assuming its location doesn't have droughts)

>>108637995
>You can read the report of Spain electricity provider which points out that issue clearly
>if they need to restart their grid by islanding again, they will be in big trouble.
they need to upgrade to grid-forming inverters.

>>108628341
a stadium that you wouldn't want to be close to in case it explodes or get bombarded or whatever.

>>108628404
>>108628523
>can be reprocessed
>thorium
but it mostly isn't reprocessed and none use thorium.
stop using fantasies as arguments.

>>108628638
>It's not scalable
hmm, yeah, that's why solar investments keep growing
LMAO

>>108636465
>their panels don't work when the sun isn't shining
what is a battery?

>unrecyclable toxic waste
bs, lithium is already being recycled.

>for every quarter ton of waste the nuke plant is casking up
of materials that are really fucking dangerous.

>>108628670
>dismal output?
literally tons of GWf of energy are being produced rn using PV panels kek

>>108632735
interesting. how does this differ from the photoelectric effect?

>>108626726
>No reason to use it when solar and wind are cheaper and work fine with none of the risks or downsides of nuclear.
>...
>Only works sporadically 8-12 hours per day
>Heavily depends on weather conditions
>Some days do not meet minimum demand requirements
>Cloudy with no little-no wind.
Yeah, sure, okay. Good luck with that on your shoulders.

>>108646764
>what are hydro, pumped hydro and batteries?
>what is a electrical grid for?

>>108646369
>how does this differ from the photoelectric effect?
Same thing, different ways of calling it.
It's the same concept used in solar panels and the reason why efficiency sucks. You need high energy photons to get a small amount of kinetic energy out of electrons, not to mention that sun light can't provide said energy.

>>108646992
>efficiency sucks.
eh. as far as I know, there are 30%+ solar panels that combine different materials and construction strategies, and even those aren't being mass produced because 20% is good enough as long as you have the land.

>>108645417
>Takes up a lot of space
I really don't think space is an issue in a place like America. Maybe in Europe or Asia, but here we have an abundance of free space to build on. Even in places where there's less room, you can just wire power from places where land is cheaper.
>When nuclear exists, it just doesn't make sense.
But the thing is, isn't solar legit just flat out cheaper than nuclear? Nuclear, as safe as it is, is still a very expensive type of power. Iirc it's THE most expensive type of power. Utility-scale solar I think is, as of right now, the actual cheapest form of power production; batteries included. And, this is the big part, it's STILL getting cheaper.

So wouldn't the most logical thing be to scale up solar and wind, and then use nuclear as a sort of backup? This doesn't really need to be an either or discussion, I really don't know why people treat it that way. You can build both and reap the benefits of both.

Plenty of water, one thing we will never run out of. All other materials are somewhat finite even though we have massive quantities of seemingly everything, here in the west anyway.

>>108625741
>nuclear power
>just yet another way to make steam
yeah but what if the source of heat could ignite in contact with air and meltdown contaminating the environment for thousands of years and killing all animal life in the area

>>108625753
RTGs exist, and ain't either of those. Don't generate much power though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator

>>108625741
just read what you wrote OP. turns out you're not only gay, but also retarded.

File: 1736038075788623.png (784.5 KB)

784.5 KB PNG

>>108625753
why hasn't somebody just invented a wheel that moves itself?

>put the solar panels in the reactor

>>108648289
ackshually... that wouldn't be a bad idea, would it? something like >>108632735 could work maybe? + some internal reflection...
as long as 40%+ of the energy is recovered and the reactor doesn't melt, it could work, I guess.

>>108646353
>Photovoltaics can do... infrared
>is it wrong to say that IR is too low energy for that?

Yeah, you need a big difference in heat to get a decent efficiency in what ever device you use to convert heat. The neat trick is to get something red hot like 1500k and use the TPV cell to capture the light spectrum coming off of it. The efficiency is 40% -50% that way, problem is keeping that heat difference from cell to source, without that you can't sustain that efficiency. Also the materials used at the moment are expensive.

>>108644933
But what about moon bases? We should just drop it in to a decaying orbit so it falls in to the Sun.

>>108647964
Because of the laws of thermodynamics.

>Zoomer learns some elementary school basic shit
>Make a thread about it

>>108646369
>can be reprocessed
>thorium

>but it mostly isn't reprocessed and none use thorium.
>stop using fantasies as arguments.

Brother China recently built a thorium reactor, most stuff in the lab nowadays is expensive to develop, thorium has a chance to not be such a proliferation threat because it's so hard to make bombs out of it, this with an exception in regulations designed for weapons grade and reactors that can melt down mean you can let corporations print safe in peace once your lab guys make it simple. Even if it doesn't make sense to use it on land because solar is cheaper, cargo ships will love it because even with good shielding it saves them 1000s of tonnes of fuel weight, this is something batteries can't do without significant compromise in added weight for long distance routes or extra stops.

It would make a fantastic intermediate step while we wait for nuclear fusion to replace heavy fuel oil and diesel in shipping and submarines.

>>108649298
>Because of the laws of thermodynamics.
thermodynamics disproves god?

>>108625873
And you think the browning of the world is going to somehow make those problems less common?

>>108625753
>>108625761
Solar panels collect energy generated by a massive continuous spinning explosion.

>>108625873
>But when everything runs smoothly
True, the only downside to nuclear is that you have to take it seriously and built and maintain it with quality in mind.
If you cheap out on it and put profit first, that's where problems start.
And that's the kind of world we live in.
So nuclear is by itself the best energy source possible.
But also it demands something our society is not keen on focusing.
It's like it's a tech that would be perfect for a jew free world.

>>108625799
Welcome back, Mr. Thales.

>>108651157
And no reactor gets built ever if the plant operator has to set out hundreds of billions in case of a disaster, nor will any insurance company underwrite it. So the state picks the tab in case anything happens.

>>108647964
Doesn't the Earth move on its own? Who is pushing it?

File: 43634634646.png (359.9 KB)

359.9 KB PNG

>>108625753
There is another

>>108625741
We need fat retard bikes that generate power.
Perfect timing as America is as obese as ever and AI about to take a tonne of jobs.

>>108653126
Average power for a tour de france rider is 200-300W. Good enough to recharge mobile devices and LED lights not much more.

>>108628221

but you cannot build anything from aluminium

>>108632119

they dont unless solar panels

>>108632119
Deprecated. Batteries are much better.

>>108649460

big forest fires near uranium mines like sascatchewa might been coincidence

>>108625741
CO2 not water

>>108634856
>literally able to generate megawatts of power from a few hot rocks
This shit is so surreal to me how people are so violently against this. We literally tear up the earth for precious minerals for solar panels, fill garbage dumps with broken panels and used up wind turbines, wtf are we doing?

>>108637995
>See Germany too, they banned nuclear for Wind and Solar, but they restarted building gas powered plant, depending on Russia.
not only that, once the gas Russina dependency became a political issue because of Ukraine the Germans suddenly had to switch back to coal. Meanwhile France has a strong and healthy nucleur program with no power shortages.

File: 7f44l5vtr2xf1.jpg (157.9 KB)

157.9 KB JPG

>>108654777
lucky 7 trips of truth

if the west can make them cheaper but still safe they make economic sense. france has serious experience they can easily do nuclear but if your country doesn't have the skills then it's decades away and forget it just go renewables for now

>>108642690
Just drop them in Africa or some other nigger filled shithole.
The real problem are fucktard boomer libs.

>>108652249
me

>>108645417
Takes up less space than corn

>>108654733
>We literally tear up the earth for precious minerals for solar panels, fill garbage dumps with broken panels and used up wind turbines, wtf are we doing?
Because the other source requires the world to not be jewish and put quality first. Also long term thinking.

>>108626691
>Russia is white
Case sensitive exactly like that.
A worse insult than being called brown.

>>108641652
yeah, that's the XKCD faggot alright

File: 1768364001983340.jpg (31.6 KB)

31.6 KB JPG

>>108656803
Don't push it.

Why don't we generate power with magnets?

>>108659213
You forgot to add "Molested as a child" in that picture

>>108646369
>Thorium
Working on that and making progress.

>What is a battery?
Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt
and that last one is a real struggle if your argument is not fucking up nature and possible future long-term detriments and damages from things such as radiation, with how deep-sea mining works and other cobalt extraction methods such as leeching, or the ore extraction itself while mining copper where cobalt is found as a byproduct, contaminating the area and impacting groundwater, but thats the same for most if not all mining operations.

i dont get why you are so against Nuclear, im a proponent of both i want Nuclear as an auxiliary power source, or direct on site for larger projects, not to replace other great alternatives such as solar, i also think every new home should be built with roof solar panels to supply your own home.

>waste
The amount of waste is literally close to nothing,
and all sector struggles with waste management. its the same for old and defunct solar panels and the massive blades from wind farms.

>recycling and dangerous materials
yes and that is good for all sectors and fuel can and is being recycled and used for more cycles than it was at nuclears inception, passive radioactivity from active plants is nothing, if you compare that to the radioactivity you get from an active coal plant and its smoke its honestly crazy.

The only things halting nuclear is fearmongering people thinking the core is a nuclear bomb or something, and that their bones will turn green and melt if there is a plant within 100 miles.

>>108636464
>Labor only stays fungible it the person doing it doesn't pursue the mystery in life and instead opts for quick hits of dopamine, when we make a decision that frees up human time, we're more free to pursue the mystery of life. underneath all the anger and confusion in the world, there's a silent flow of people realizing that even with all the wealth inequality, it's alright.
you're an idiot if you think automation is freeing us up to ponder the mysteries of life instead of the mysteries of our craniums being splattered over the walls by kill droids.

>>108660061
youre an absolute moron that bought into the scam that nuclear energy will solve absolutely all of our problems

its the new recycling, a massive lie shilled absolutely everywhere just so the poor corporations can keep growing their profits, instead of all of us having to stop and maybe even decrease our ever demanding consumption

do you know whats actually stopping nuclear from being widely adopted?
its prohibitively expensive and extremely impractical
and thats completely ignoring safety, even the nuclear engineers themselves dont have the faintest idea what theyre actually doing

all nuclear disasters happened under the supervision of trained nuclear engineers following protocol based on the most recent available knowledge
its only after something goes wrong that we figure out something new, like a design flaw

nuclear power is fake, which is why it's being slowly phased out
the charade is getting too expensive to keep up

>>108660648
Nuclear won't solve all problems and carries risks, but it's been known to everyone with basic knowledge of physics, thermodynamics and economics that nuclear is the best option and always has been.

>>108660941
economics teaches us that nuclear isnt economically viable unless subsidised in its entirety

File: nuclear 2 stroke.png (277.3 KB)

277.3 KB PNG

>using fission to spin turbines
broke
>using fusion to pump water
woke

>>108660941
Nuclear literally can't power human civilization for more than a few years in its current state. >>108641314

Uranium reserves are estimated to run out in around 100 years at its current low levels, let alone powering the entire globe and meeting future demand.

Solar is the only sustainable power source at the 100TW scale.

>>108661014
>sustainable power source
>literally doesn't work 50% of the time

>>108661070
At 172,000TWh/year which is the current global annual primary energy consumption, and with current nuclear technology, known uranium reserves would run out in 2 years if the whole world ran on nuclear.

>>108647673
>you can just wire power from places where land is cheaper
can you? or are you just guessing? what is the resistance on a standard power line?

>>108661014
are we pretending the world isn't going to change in the next 100 years? (fusion or whatever)
what if that is more than enough?

100 years is good enough for me, I can tell you that much.

>>108642063
the fast breeder in china puts out almost 1twd per ton. if all reactors were even 60% as efficient as that one, which already exists and is operational, then the sun would burn out before the earth ran out of uranium. strontium and plutonium don't even matter and can safely be forgotten.

>>108661219
>>108661207
There is no fast breeder that has a utilization rate of over 2%. It doesn't exist. commercially viable thorium reactors, fast breeder reactors with 100x+ energy per unit of fuel, commercially viable fusion, uranium extraction from seawater extraction at scale. None of these things exist.

Even in the most optimistic scenario with fast breeder reactors that extracted 100x more energy per unit of fuel, known uranium reserves would run out in 200 years. With seawater extraction, the ocean would be depleted in 100,000 years, less if electricity demand exceeds 20TW.