[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1613638502321.png (38.57 KB, 646x486, NUCLEARRRR.png)

 No.84591[Last 50 Posts]

REDpill me on nuclear energy. Is it really the solution to all our energy problems?
>>

 No.84594

Yes.
>>

 No.84599

>>84591
No the numbers don't add up
>>

 No.84608

I used to think so, but then I found out we only have enough uranium for a 100 years or so. What I think now is that it's great while we transition into fusion energy or other, promising forms that won't run out any time soon.

In immediate, practical terms? Nuclear should replace fossil fuels, absolutely.
>>

 No.84618

>>84608
>we only have enough uranium for a 100 years or so.
Can extend that a bit w/ breeder reactors
>>

 No.84619

>>84608
take the thorium pill
>>

 No.84621

Geothermal. It's literally everywhere on the planet and it will never run out.
>>

 No.84802

File: 1613662033612.jpeg (77.61 KB, 730x411, bah.jpeg)

>>84619
This is the correct answer.
>>

 No.84808

If you combine nuclear, solar, wind, and geothermal as a united front you'll be able to mostly get away from oil, problem is you still need petroleum for plastic and medicine unless we come up with a new plastic recipe
>>

 No.84814

>>84619
Isn't thorium a meme though?
>>

 No.84822

>>84591
It was when we could cheaply extract everything from over-exploited countries, build cheap failure prone plants and just throw the waste in the ocean. Now all this tends to make people angry so it drive up the cost too much and breeder or thorium plants are as far as fusion tech. So no it's not.
>>

 No.84827

>>84822
We just need to dump them into space
>>

 No.84828

>>84808
fungi my dude.
>>

 No.84829

Nuclear energy should be expanded to take over from fossil fuels until proper renewable is able to take over from it.
>>

 No.84830

Except for emissions nuclear unfortunately shares a lot of the same problems of oil when its comes to the raw materials being mined.
>>

 No.84833

>>84827
Ah yes because it's cheap to send stuff in space and who doesn't like a big flying stack of nuclear waste on thousands of tons of high explosive material
>>

 No.84834

>>84822
> breeder or thorium plants are as far as fusion tech.
we have breeder plants actively running and producing energy right now, what the hell are you on
>>

 No.84836

>>84828
could you expand on this?
>>

 No.84838

>>84834
we also have fusion plants producing energy, doesn't mean it's a reliable way of producing electricity yet, there are plenty of problems. Also plutonium is scary as shit.
>>

 No.84839

>>84838
We don't have fusion plants that produce more than a couple MW of net electrical power because they keep getting built off the literal meme of fucking energy-based confinement instead of matter-based confinement. Breeder plants have managed to supply actual electrical energy for cities reliably for their entire lifespan. There is a difference.

The development of the tokamak has honestly set back humanity's fusion reaction work by no less than forty years, and I pray nightly that God will curse every single person who continues to propagate that retarded concept with leprosy.
>>

 No.84843

>>84808
>still need petroleum for plastic
you can make plastic out of hemp
>>

 No.84844

>>84839
A prototype is a prototype.
And anyway, fusion tech could realistically be adopted across the world. Classic nuclear fission? Across select counties, mainly the imperialist ones. Breeder? No way in hell it can exists outside of the top countries, they won't let people play with plutonium factories.
So it's not the solution to our energy problems.
>>

 No.84846

Nuclear fission is just kicking the can down the road anyway.
>>

 No.84851

Water-mediated uranium reactors are extremely fuel-inefficient and dangerous. Molten salt thorium reactors on the other hand are safe, use a fuel that is at least 3x more abundant than uranium in the Earth's crust, and they use it at least one or two orders of magnitude more efficiently. A bonus is it's extremely difficult to make a nuclear weapon from its fuel cycle.
>>

 No.84864

>>84844
If we're playing by capitalist rules, then it doesn't matter what energy mix we propose, it won't work anyway.
>>

 No.84867

>>84808
Petroleum isn't AS terrible of a problem when it's not being simply combusted.

>>84843
Not all plastics are equal. I see that one company has managed to create polypropylene and PLA out of hemp solids, but that doesn't seem scalable.
Hemp fiber has useful properties as a filler in petroleum-based platics, though.

>>84846
Only if consumption patterns don't vary and Jevons' paradox over-determines energy usage mix can you sensibly deploy the can-kicking talking point.
>>

 No.84871

>>84833
it was a joke dumb dumb
>>

 No.84883

>>84808
Plastic is another huge problem, we need to reduce plastic production and kick up recycling anyway
>>

 No.84887

>>84808
>If you combine nuclear, solar, wind, and geothermal as a united front you'll be able to mostly get away from oil

This x1000. Nuclear is great but it's not viable as a singular source of energy.
>>

 No.84892

File: 1613669423885.png (52.2 KB, 594x582, redditSoy.png)

>>84887

This x1000. Socialism is great in theory but it's not viable without some market elements.
>>

 No.84894

File: 1613669638828.webm (2.37 MB, 360x360, lunarsolarpower.webm)

Thorium-based molten salt power should be used until we return to the moon and build a massive solar array to replace the entire planet's electric power consumption. Earth-based solar and wind aren't going to be enough for all the shit we do.
>>

 No.84896

>>84892
>le soy face
please fuck off back to /pol/ with your infantile posts you manchild.
>>

 No.84897

>>84830
and the same problem as photovoltaics and shit when being mined :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>>

 No.84906

probably not nearly as excellent a solution as nuclear shills say but its definitely something that should be explored
>>

 No.84942

>>84892
Based
>>84887
Literally Reddit
>>

 No.85032

>>84894

The possibility of this kind of sci-fi shit really does make me despise our liberal capitalist condition right now. I don’t know how truly feasible the lunar solar model is, but that is the kind of mega project that I think would make people feel like they’re a part of something again, something a little bigger than just consuming the new products coming out of devices with increasingly powerful and small computers. It has a goal, to free humanity from dirty and limited power sources, and it is unifying in the sense that it would have to be a multinational project that would only be agreed upon if it was mutually owned by the participants in some fashion. I just hate this myopic hellhole.
>>

 No.85139

File: 1613679095933.png (897.28 KB, 794x807, calebMaupinIfOnlyYouKnew.png)

>>84894
>Thorium-based molten salt
This thread is basically as ridiculous as it gets. The discussion has not progressed passed talking points about nuclear energy not being viable ( certaines personnes semblent l'avoir compris … ) and a preoccupation with unproven technologies over the designs that have been functioning for nearly a century with problems that arise in only very exceptional circumstance. There is nothing inadequate about present technology besides the astonishingly effective smear campaign of hippy pseudoenvironmentalists, McCarthyite anti-soviet propagandists, and petrol companies that has convinced laymen that the only "viable" energy infrastructure is one in which the latter group is enriched at the expense of public and environmental health.

The reason many rich capitalist countries use only a marginal amount of nuclear energy is that it is not very well-suited to profit-driven investment. The plants take decades to build, the supply chain is complicated to manage, and when all is said and done the profit per kWh is smaller than that of the fossil fuels (and, when green capitalists manage to fleece the taxpayer for renewable energy grants, those as well). The reason you are inundated with industry talking points about nuclear energy not being viable is that if an honest accounting were done of the externalities that fossil fuels entail then there would be a strong case to hold the executives of these companies responsible for untold damage to humans and animals in their rapacious pursuit of profits.

And to head off accusations of conspiratorial thinking: there is no shadowy cabal of people in hoods organizing these narratives; it is about money on the table. Exxon hires competent scientists who have known about the effects of fossil fuel on the climate since the '70's. Investors have seen what happens to industries that the public turns against, such as the hamstringing of the tobacco industry in the US. How could they afford not to spend a relative pittance on disinformation campaigns to save their industry? How could they afford not to have lobbyists and judges in the pockets? As of today, the largest contempt-of-court sanction in US history is being levied against Steven Donziger, an attorney presently under house arrest who spearheaded a civil case against Chevron for their damage to the people and environment of Ecuador.

If you have strong, confident opinions about how to structure the energy grid of a major country but have never studied the matter seriously (or even taken a single college-level course on it) then you would probably benefit from scrutinizing where exactly it was that you got these opinions and what were the forces responsible for directing us to the circumstances in which we now find ourselves. Even if that is too much to ask, I can at least assure you that all the nuclear plants currently operating are not mere curiosities generating heat and steam for the amusement of the engineers and scientists running them; they really do a perfectly fine job of generating power even if they are worse at enriching capitalists than other options.
>>

 No.85149

The only reason to invest in nuclear power is for the depleted uranium, which can be used for ammunition
>>

 No.85158

A few years ago, nuclear energy was the brave new way forward, which was so good that it would overshadow oil as an energy source a million times over.

What happened?
>>

 No.85190

>>85032
>I don’t know how truly feasible the lunar solar model is
It's been feasible with technology from the '70s. That's hold old this proposal is.
>>

 No.85193

File: 1613681943626.jpg (577.02 KB, 1400x1054, molten-salt-reactor-experi….jpg)

>>85139
>unproven technologies

>>85139
>you would probably benefit from scrutinizing where exactly it was that you got these opinions
I have a white paper laying out the arguments for molten salt thorium technology sitting right on the chair next to me that was written by and personally handed to me by two retired professors of physics at my university. Suck a dick, anti-intellectual.
>>

 No.85268

>>85139
good effort post on surface level but I need to nitpick on few points.

>preoccupation with unproven technologies over the designs that have been functioning for nearly a century with problems that arise in only very exceptional circumstance

>it is not very well-suited to profit-driven investment. The plants take decades to build, the supply chain is complicated to manage, and when all is said and done the profit per kWh is smaller than that of the fossil fuels

The problem of current nuclear reactors is, as you mentioned, they are very sophisticated to build and maintain. Yes conceptually they are nothing more than boil that boils water to steam and then turning massive turbines to generate electricity but controlling uranium's fission once it's triggered is extremely hard problem. You can't just pour in cold water to put it out and you can't just let it sit idle till it dies off to put it bluntly. To top it off, the byproduct of reaction (plutonium-239) is extremely radioactive, have long half-life(nearly 10,000 years I think?) and weaponizable.

Thorium on the other hand has very desiring property of not as fissile as Uranium238. You need to actively feed neutrons to start reaction (by creating Uranium233) and once you remove source of neutrons, they cease to become Uranium233 immediately. This implies far less radioactive byproduct and their half life is reduced to few hundred years.

Both India and China is investing heavily into Thorium reactor and I wouldn't be surprised it they eventually become the standard design that even normies can stomach the idea of building one in the middle of big metropolitan city.
>>

 No.85278

why the fuck is my post keep getting chopped up in my browser after quoting other posts

also your argument that petro industry is the sole instigator of fear mongering of nuclear energy is weak and loses ground when one starts considering all the other countries like Korea or Japan where they do not have such strong presence of lobbyists. Both of them understand the risk involved (one is geopolitically volatile, the other is struck with natural disaster every other year) and yet invested heavily into sustainable economy of nuclear reactors precisely because of economic benefits well OK plutonium is probably major reason why they want it but still
>>

 No.85340

>>84619
Based and true, a communist revolution will ride of a wave of superior thorium technology that capitalist nation refuse to use because the previous industry has money invested in it, even though it’s much more efficient, a, hopefully, lethal contradiction.
>>

 No.85397

>>84839
>the literal meme of fucking energy-based confinement instead of matter-based confinement
>The development of the tokamak has honestly set back humanity's fusion reaction work by no less than forty years
why is magnetic bottle fusion bad ?
>>

 No.85420

>>85397
apparently pseuds in this thread don't understand how science progresses. who would have fucking thought?
>>

 No.85518

>>84591
take the nuclear pill comrade, we will glow
>>

 No.85524

>>84591
Isn’t PragerU finances by big oil baron fuckers? What did they mean by this?
>>

 No.85529

>>85524
looks like they're diversifying their portfolio
>>

 No.85643

File: 1613702758377.jpg (37.3 KB, 512x272, cia glow desktop.jpg)

>>85518
Kek. My sides. The meta though.
>>

 No.85663

>>84808
We should use less plastic period. It's a shit substance for a more simplified industrial world.
>>

 No.85910

>>84844
>>85397
Tokamaks. Are not. Viable.

There are other forms of fusion that are potentially viable.

Tokamaks need to put out enough energy that they overcome the less-variable energy operating costs of running the plant. This is something that can be scaled up easily enough.

But as their power level is scaled up, tokamaks quickly run into the inherent problem that the amount of energy required for confinement is invariably a faster-growing function than the amount of energy you can get out of them. Eventually, the amount of energy required to confine them becomes equal to the amount of energy you are getting out of the reactor, and there is no point going any further.

This means that you get a relatively narrow band of fusion reaction size that produces viable net energy. Note, this is just the net energy while it's running at the time - the overall energy rate is still strongly negative because of how much energy went into building and maintaining the planet and so on.

>>85420
Tokamaks are practically investiture scam at this point. We've known their inherent problems and the only thing keeping them going is the fact that people keep claiming that they've made some magic solution that overcomes an inherent problem with the design. All we've managed to do is optimize them more and more, making that band of viable energy bigger, allowing proponents to keep claiming that we've been "making progress", but at no point is this going to ever overcome the overall investment necessary to create the fusion plant over the plant's viable life cycle.

These fucking investiture scam designs are sucking away money, engineering, and research power that could be used to pursue other options, options that don't have the same inherent limitations as tokamaks. At this point they literally are standing in the way of how science progresses, because none of them are going to be long-term viable sources of energy.
>>

 No.85959

>>84843
Based and TedReesePilled
>>

 No.85966

>>85268
The mistake you are making is this one:
>even normies can stomach the idea of building one in the middle of big metropolitan city.
What "normies" can stomach is based off the consent that industries with large sums of money can manufacture. They can stomach the invasion of Iraq or Vietnam, they can stomach the arrests of Assange, Manning, and Snowden, they can stomach the disease and millions of lost life-years brought on by low-nutrition high-carb diets, not because those are fine states of affairs but because monied interests get to set the narrative. In the case of nuclear energy it is about continually having to reprove that it is safe and viable as if there are not already hundreds of plants in operation that have been generating power with no issue for decades– and as if the existing alternatives, such as coal, gas, or oil, ever provided such a proof before being made the backbone of the energy infrastructure of most of the industrialised world. And in the case of nuclear energy, the fossil fuel companies demonstrate that normies are prepared to stomach gradual degradation of the climate as well as a considerable risk to the planet's capacity to sustain complex life.

The main point is that the details of the drawbacks of one nuclear reactor design versus another has nothing to do with the viability of nuclear power, which has already been demonstrated. The principle reason nuclear power is marginal is that it is not as profitable as other sources.

(There is the matter of nonproliferation but this is not central since the largest consumers of energy are already in possession of nuclear arms and countries like Germany and Japan demonstrate that even with the non-thorium technology a reactor does not entail an arms program.)

>>85193
A paper constitutes proof only in formal fields such as mathematics and theoretical physics, but we are talking about practical problems whose solutions require verification in the miasma of unknown variables called the "real world". I know that there exist people who research these subjects and they write papers about their findings (so the existence of a paper sitting next to you is not very impressive or shocking although I am glad you take your studies seriously enough to reach out to professors at your university), but it is a fact that old-fashioned nuclear reactors have proven viable to supply the world's largest net-exporter of energy with the bulk of their power grid and thorium-based reactors have not yet risen to such prominence. So there is no reason to head off criticisms of nuclear power with advertisements of reactors that are unproven when existing technology is demonstrably adequate.

Additionally you seem to have misread my post, since in your case you presumably are in the course of studying the matter seriously. I did not prompt people who are doing what you are doing to self-reflect. If the profs who gave you that paper intend to review it with you later you'll want to take more care reading it than you have taken reading my post.
>>

 No.90721

File: 1614047050370.jpg (260.1 KB, 1181x1476, IMG_3170.jpg)

>>

 No.90741

>>84591
Nuke energy is only to be trusted in countries that invest intensively in maintaining and checking the integrity of the plants and ensuring their integrity by planning for all contingencies.

I don't trust the US with nuclear because 75% of its plants are more than 50 years old and probably dilapidated. Japan is stupid to use nuclear because it is the country with the most earthquakes in the world.

I would absolutely trust no South American or African countries with nuclear power.

The country I would trust most is Germany, which is ironically phasing nuclear power out.
>>

 No.90788

>>85966
What is matter-based confinement that you mentioned earlier? Is inertial confinement even more of a scam than magnetic confinement?
>>

 No.90801

>>85910
>There are other forms of fusion that are potentially viable.
which one ?
>But as their power level is scaled up, tokamaks quickly run into the inherent problem that the amount of energy required for confinement is invariably a faster-growing function
can you point me to a source no that
>>

 No.90824

>>85966
Existing technology is hardly adequate, water-mediated uranium reactors are incredibly inefficient in a variety of ways and are also dangerous.
>>

 No.90839

>>84608
That’s not really true, in northern Saskatchewan Canada there is MUCH more uranium than we could need in the next like 1000 years.
>>

 No.90874

>>90839
That's an unclear statistic. It could mean enough uranium to supply the current nuclear generation capacity for 1000 years, but keep in mind that currently, nuclear energy is a tiny percentage of total electricity generation. If we expanded nuclear to cover all existing fossil fuel power plants, that would be a huge increase in uranium consumption. Further more, electricity use will probably increase over time so the growth in uranium consumption needs to be factored in as well. Does one province of Canada have enough Uranium to supply the entire world if it shifts to majority nuclear power? Somehow I doubt it.
>>

 No.90887

>>90874
Well I’m not exactly quoting statistics, but nuclear plants don’t need a whole lot of uranium and we’re not producing near as much as we could be with current mines.
>>

 No.90893

File: 1614064530268.jpg (589.95 KB, 1800x1006, 5GDKCFPE2FDD7KZHR3MMFV4S4M.jpg)

>>84591
>Safe?
>>

 No.91044

If the starting point of your argument is "assume the profit motive is abolished, and we have a highly advanced and centralized global civilization," then basically anything could be considered a 'viable solution'.
>>

 No.91047

>>90893
>biggest nuclear catastrophe in history
>40 people dead
Damn, that's really fucking dangerous.
>>

 No.91101

>>91047
>having life ruined is fine if you dont die
with that attitude, im surprised you're even a socialist.
>>

 No.91142

>>91101
anti nuclearcels are Merkelite lib faggots and that's just objective fact
>>

 No.91181

>>90893
Yes, as with everything it is safe if you actually follow the safety procedures.
>>

 No.91214

>>90893
A single hydrodam failure resulted in more deaths than all reactor meltdowns in history combined. And yes, that also factors people who died or got cancer due to radiation poisoning
>>

 No.91220

>>90893
>>>/reddit/
>>

 No.91348

>>91220
>Nuclear radiation doesn't melt your skin off! That's reddit!
>>

 No.91364

>>91214
>that also factors people who died or got cancer due to radiation poisoning
Sounds like a pretty challenging number to estimate.
>>

 No.91506

>>91364
Why?
>Thyroid cancer in children is usually rare, but in the individuals exposed to radiation risk of disease increases considerably. After the Chernobyl accident in 1986, an over 10-fold maximal elevation in the incidence of thyroid cancer was registered about a decade later, cumulatively resulting in more than a thousand of newly diagnosed cases in children who lived in the territories of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine affected by radioactive fallouts. Experience from the epidemic substantially promoted knowledge in clinical pediatric oncology, pathology and basic sciences. This article overviews epidemiology, clinical features, results of treatment and follow-up of childhood patients with radiation-induced Chernobyl thyroid cancer in comparison to sporadic cases diagnosed at present. In addition, we discuss general issues of pathology and molecular findings in childhood thyroid carcinomas.
>>

 No.91544

>>84814
Yes it is, theres still serious issues with thorium reactors. If it was as good as people claimed we would actually have countries building thorium plants instead of just people insisting that its really perfect. It manages to produce even worse waste in the long run than current reactors. Best option is continuing to iterate on what we have while pouring money into fusion.
>>

 No.91891

>>91544
Thorium reserves are bigger than uranium. It has less nuclear waste at the end and safety levels close to foolproof are doable. It's hard to ignore the upsides.
>>

 No.91896

>>91544
>we would actually have countries building thorium plants
India is doing exactly that.

>It manages to produce even worse waste in the long run than current reactors.

This is just flat wrong. Molten salt reactors produce less waste and the waste they produce a decay chain with much shorter half-lives.
>>

 No.99473

>>85910
What other sources of fusion are there? What is matter-based confinement?
>>

 No.99479

>>91896
Molten Salt reactors are dogshit as the molten salt causes reactor corrosion. Anyone that actually thinks these are viable is a moron.
>>

 No.99481

>>90893
Didn't the old threads discussing this show mention how it was literally financed by Ukrainian oil and coal interests? Sabocat anon might remember better then me.
>>

 No.99512

>>99479
Got a source for this claim? Other reactor types experience a similar problem.
>>

 No.99638

No. The Pacific Ocean is still reeling from the Fukushima nuclear reactor leak disaster. And that was just one plant.

The solution is a 100% renewable solar, wind, hydro-power and geothermal energy grid, completely integrated, rationally planned and democratically controlled by the international working class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
>>

 No.99656

>>99638
Civ III's excellent soundtrack aside youre full of shit, the point of Coal Plants is they provide a steady base load of electricity. No other renewable can take this function except for geothermal which is extremely location specific - nuclear however can and has a proven track record of doing so (see France) anything else is just navelgazing about what could be but isn't.
>>

 No.99673

>>99638
Also you know that wiki entry is literally an opinion piece right? if the sloppy writing doesn't make it apparent check all the > citation needed, when? tags.
>>

 No.99697

Yes but the waste is a problem, they just haven't figured how to cleanly recycle or get rid of nuclear waste.
>>

 No.99699

>>99638
Not really the current estimate of thyroid cancer from Chernobyl is about 7k, and it's not like they all died from it, only 15 did. Which puts the number of actual deaths from reactor meltdowns at around 100 versus 26000 people who died in a single hydroelectric dam failure. Coal Plants (which produces more radiation than even nuclear waste) have cumulative deaths in the hundreds of thousands.
>>

 No.99700

>>99699
woop wrong tag
>>91364
>>

 No.99702

>>99697
France has been managing it better than any other country for years, and its a minor hangup since coal plants produce more actual radiation annually
>>

 No.99709

>>90741
white supremacy the post
>>

 No.99715

>>99512
Thorium molten salt reactors suffer from reactor vessel degradation, it's caused by radiation not chemical corrosion. It makes reactor vessels brittle and they have to be replaced more often than in other reactor types. It's not a deal breaker, we use technology with much worse maintenance demands.
>>

 No.99759

>>99656
>geothermal which is extremely location specific
Geothermal is available literally everywhere on the planet. Just dig deep enough and tap into it. And it will never run out.
>>

 No.99766

>>99673
That wiki article has 140 citations and 29 recommendations for further reading, many of them being peer-reviewed research papers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
>>

 No.99769

>>99766
> thinks geothermal just means drill into the mantle
you're an idiot
>>99766
another idiot
>>

 No.99776

File: 1614564003948-0.png (320.83 KB, 880x795, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1614564003948-1.png (276.09 KB, 1120x720, ClipboardImage.png)

>>99769
>Heh, you think you harness Earth's underground, inexhaustible geothermal energy resources by digging into the ground to tap into them?
>You're an idiot!

>>99769
>Heh, you think peer-reviewed scientific research means anything?
>Another idiot!

Haha. Well meme'd, friend!
>>

 No.99787

>>99776
> holy shit he actually thinks geothermal means just dig into the ground
that works for heating houses retards, geothermal plants require an abundant source of hot water this is why iceland gets free energy.
> Heh, you think peer-reviewed scientific research means anything?
For every phd thesis there is the real life data that solar is on 25% of the time and hydroelectric and thermal are on 1/3 of the time - nuclear is on nearly 100% of the year. It has actual proven use powering the bulk of country's outputs - outside of some special snowflake countries the same does not exist for renewables and every growth in solar/wind is precipitated by a growth in gas burning to offset their low reliability. A bunch of feckless what if scenarios and lazy obviously motivated writing isn't a convincing argument unless you are just spooked by nuclear.
>>

 No.99799

>>99787
>geothermal plants require an abundant source of hot water this is why iceland gets free energy.

Not if you use an enhanced geothermal system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_geothermal_system
>An enhanced geothermal system (EGS) generates geothermal electricity without the need for natural convective hydrothermal resources [hot water springs etc]. Until recently, geothermal power systems have exploited only resources where naturally occurring heat, water, and rock permeability are sufficient to allow energy extraction.[1] However, by far most of geothermal energy within reach of conventional techniques is in dry and impermeable rock.[2] EGS technologies enhance and/or create geothermal resources in this hot dry rock (HDR) through a variety of stimulation methods, including 'hydraulic stimulation'.
>>

 No.99803

>>99787
>For every phd thesis there is the real life data that solar is on 25% of the time and hydroelectric and thermal are on 1/3 of the time
False on the geothermal part. EGS can provide power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, independent of weather conditions. >>99799
>>

 No.99806

>>99776
This is a really cool and exciting technology I wasn't aware of.
>>99803
I mean the only existing plant is in Australia and operated for 160 days in 2013. It's still a very new technology but extremely cool nonetheless.
>>

 No.99809

>>99806
> I mean the only existing plant is in Australia and operated for 160 days in 2013. It's still a very new technology but extremely cool nonetheless.
Actually theres been a few plants, it seems like nearly all of them were discontinued and there are only a few in active development mostly in the UK right now. I wonder what the reason for that is.
>>

 No.99814

>>99809
It does cause magnitude 5-6 earthquakes though :/
>>

 No.99822

>>99814
Earthquake risk can be minimized by locating the EGS plants an appropriate distance away from major fault lines.
>>

 No.99825

>>99814
>>99822
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-human-induced-earthquake.html
>Contrary to popular belief, injecting high-pressure fluids into the Earth's crust doesn't always cause earthquakes. "In almost all reservoirs, it's only the horizontal stresses that change significantly," says Fryer. "With a normal fault, vertical stresses are much greater than horizontal stresses. When you inject a liquid into the rock, the interstitial pressure rises. This, in turn, increases the horizontal stresses and closes the gap between the horizontal and vertical values."

>In other words, injecting fluids in this way can actually stabilize the fault, provided the stresses inside the reservoir are responsive enough to changes in interstitial pressure. "That's why it's so important to understand the properties of a reservoir before you start injecting," adds Fryer.


https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/220/2/1436/5610225?guestAccessKey=c2da3694-23c1-4aad-ae0b-66a6b87e27e1
>>

 No.99847

>>99825
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/02/the-pros-and-cons-of-enhanced-geothermal-energy-systems/

> That doesn’t mean EGS is safe everywhere, however. New research in Seismological Research Letters linked enhanced geothermal systems and a 5.5 magnitude earthquake in Pohang, South Korea, that caused $75 million (U.S.) in damages. Previously, experts had believed EGS could not cause earthquakes of that magnitude.
>>

 No.99865

>>85139
This. No need to dream of new reactor technologies (although no need to write them off either), even uranium based fission remains the best option if built on a large enough scale. See this recent article: https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1336/luddite-delusions/
>>

 No.99879

>>99865
Current light-water uranium reactors are very inefficient and use up the rare uranium-235 isotope without doing much with the remaining uranium-238. It is currently debatable whether easily accessible U-235 would last more than a few decades were light-water uranium reactors ever to comprise a significant fraction of the world's election power production.
>>

 No.99901

Based and geothermalpilled anon
>>

 No.99927

Don't the standard nuclear reactors of today also require massive amounts of water and produce large quantities of potentially ecologically harmful heated water, which limits their implementation in places without that abundance of freshwater expendable reservoirs?
>>

 No.99952

This whole nuclear debate is a bizarre one imo.

Even if nuclear is the safest and cleanest form of energy production (which as I understand it, it isn't far off from being), you still have to deal with the waste products for centuries. Additionally you have to be confident that funding isn't going to be cut or society isn't going to break down for centuries. Neither of which we can be confident of even if the world were to fulfill people's socialist wet dreams.

Societies collapse, sooner or later, and we should keep that in mind. Nuclear may be highly useful now but it'll inevitably be a death trap for future generations.
>>

 No.99979

What about solar plants in the desert?
>>

 No.100896

File: 1614630597284.png (224.72 KB, 2560x1467, ClipboardImage.png)

>>99787
>For every phd thesis there is the real life data that solar is on 25% of the time and hydroelectric and thermal are on 1/3 of the time - nuclear is on nearly 100% of the year.

https://www.energysage.com/about-clean-energy/hydropower/pros-cons-hydropower/
<A commonly cited drawback of many renewable energy sources (including wind and solar) is that they are non-dispatchable energy sources. This means that they can’t be used to generate electricity 24/7; instead, renewable sources like wind and solar rely on the wind to blow or the sun to shine respectively. However, both storage hydropower and pumped storage hydropower facilities have the ability to generate electricity on-demand (by releasing dammed water through turbines), making many hydroelectric plants dispatchable resources. This allows hydroelectricity plants to replace traditional dispatchable generation methods like coal and gas peaker plants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
>>

 No.100952

>>99952
>Nuclear may be highly useful now but it'll inevitably be a death trap for future generations.
Literally all the nuclear waste produced by the us since its inception could fit in a single football sized facility. They'll be localized hazards for future gens assuming the locations for storage are sound.
>>

 No.100955

>>100896
Unfortunately dams destroy river ecosystems.
>>

 No.100957

>>100896
I like how that source mentions > some adverse environmental effects and leaves it at that. The Colorado River ecology has been destroyed beyond repair because of > some adverse environmental effects. As it turns out damming entire rivers is awful for wildlife.
>>

 No.100958

>>100952
Reminder that coal plants produce more radioactive material than nuclear, so decommissioning those for any other solution is a net gain.
>>

 No.100979

Just dump the waste in the deepest parts of Anatarctica, literally no one or anything lives there
>>

 No.100991

>>100979
france turbo recycles their waste until its far less dangerous wraps it in clay and dumps it in the deepest part of the ocean where it inevitably ends up pulled deeper into the earth.

the only downside is they may inadvertently create godzilla.
>>

 No.108435

File: 1615172160541.png (570.98 KB, 600x600, ClipboardImage.png)

>>

 No.108719

>>85139
retard

Unique IPs: 61

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]