FUCK NUCLEAR POWER
We have cheaper, more efficient, safer and cleaner alternatives. The only reason nuclear is used is because it was heavily subsidized by tax payers, but we have superior sources of energy we should be subsidizing instead.
who cares
>>712773833
Jill Stein is a fucking retard, but she was actually right about nuclear and people are too fucking stupid to realize it.
No matter how well trained you feel you are, there WILL be some incompetent dipshit somewhere on the planet that doesn't know what to do when there's a meltdown. It's already happened, it would be childishly naive not to expect it again.
>>712773894
Japan
>>712773894
Everyone should be faggot. But just like you, I, and everyone else on this cesspit would rather beat off to odd shit. Nice one. Faggot.
>>712773833
Yes, unfortunately you do not have enough of the others to meet the need.
Modern nuke plants, not crappy obsolete ones like we have, are the ideal backbone, and put out less toxic and radioactive waste than the "clean" coal and oil plants. And in nuke plants, that waste can be used in industrial and medical applications.
Don't be dumb, it's not the 1970s anymore.
>>712773833
fucking retard, go suck a dick OP; that's the only thing you're good at
>>712774216
>not enough of the others
that's because they haven't been subsidized like nuclear energy
Trust me, there is more than enough sunlight, wind and running water to power the entire planet.
and let's start talking about HYDROGEN FUEL-CELLS, can we?
I've been on these buses, they're fucking SILENT
>>712773833
Efficiency =/= Quantity
The US relies on nuclear energy for 20% of its energy distribution, and this comes from less than 100 nuclear plants. Meanwhile, there are over 1000 wind energy plants and they only account for 0.6% of total energy produced.
>>712774485
>muh COSTS
>we have cheaper alternatives
LEARN TO READ FAGGOT
Nuclear energy is more costly than almost any other form when you include all the tax money we subsidized it with.
>>712774485
>huurr durrr I dont understand economics
>>712774639
>quantity
yes, wind plants are small and cheap compared to nuclear plants, so looking at pure numbers of plants is just fucking stupid.
If nuclear power wasn't subsidized by tax payers, it would not account for 20% of our energy and we could have invested in cheaper, more efficient and cleaner sources.
THAT'S MY FUCKING POINT
Fucking faggots spreading lies and panicking about nuclear are the fucking problem.
>>712775069
>the problem
for who, the nuclear industry?
We have BETTER ALTERNATIVES, why are you still sucking their dick?
Yes, modern nuclear facilities are relatively safe, but mistakes will ALWAYS happen; counting on flawless human execution around the planet for decades is naive as shit.
>>712773833
I work at a nuclear power plant lol. I think they're quite nice actually.
I work in the energy sector and the one thing I can say with absolute certainty is you're all fucking retarded.
>>712775591
I bet, they spared no expense to the taxpayers when they built those plants. Would you trust a bunch of half-educated Africans and Asians to run your plant?
>if not, consider where the propagation of nuclear power will lead
>>712773833
nuclear is much cheaper per-watt. assuming it doesnt fail, nuclear power plants are very small and efficient means of power production, wind is not. geothermal heating and cooling is the shit tho. just fucking expensive as fuck to install.
>>712775607
you wouldn't have a job otherwise, amirite?
>>712774698
nope. just, nope.
>>712775859
>cheaper per-watt
only because it is subsidized by tax payers. If it had to compete fairly with renewable forms of energy it would not be cheaper.
>expensive as fuck to install
nothing compared to the costs of developing nuclear power
>assuming it doesn't fail
>>712776114
Great argument, you fucking piece of shit
>>712776132
you keep saying subsidized... if you can prove that the nuclear power industry is more heavily subsidized than alternative energy, i'd be very impressed.
>>712773833
you are right. we should turn off all coal, oil, nuclear energy plants... for san francisco and let them build wind turbines all over sf
>>712775829
The last part of your statement only emphasizes how much you really don't know about the subject.
>use up all the wind energy
>clouds stop
>no more rain
>all crops die
GOOD FUCKING JOB FAGGOT
>>712776380
>comparing nuclear subsidies to all alternative energy subsidies combined
not exactly fair, but that's still missing the point anyway
nuclear power only gets about $1,000,000,000 in tax payer subsidies per year at this point, but that is NOTHING compared to the original research and development costs for the nuclear program.
Alternative energy sources get more subsidies now, but it's to catch up in the research and development we already heavily paid for with nuclear power.
>>712776551
So what happened in Fukushima?
Was that or was that not the error of half-educated Asians running technology they didn't understand?
>>712776583
are people stupid enough to think this could happen?
>>712776132
You do know that wind and solar have both been subsidized ridiculously for the last 8 years or so, right? And neither can provide power without a backup plant to pick up the slack when they regularly stop producing.
>>712776296
This is a quote from Scientific American magazine (that's called a source, it helps legitimize your point)
"the typical nuclear generator in North America could produce power at $50 to $75 per megawatt-hour, depending on assumptions about construction costs and interest rates, against $70 to $80 for coal-fueled power. Wind-powered electricity would cost from $60 to $90, but there are limits to how much it can be scaled up. A megawatt-hour of solar power still costs in the hundreds"
>>712776906
They fucked up. Backup cooling systems didn't work.
>>712776547
Just put them in the bay or on the coast, way cheaper than SF property prices.
Nuclear energy is literally the only hope of humanity ever leaving this shithole
also, hydrogen fusion is potentially unlimited energy
fuck fission I'd say, but nuclear fussion? well that should be our top priority
>>712777082
and if you think that won't happen again you're naive as fuck. Errors happen, and we cannot afford errors with nuclear power.
>>712777075
this factors in waste disposal, which is significantly cheaper per-watt than renewables.
>>712773833
HURR DURR GURR, just wait for fusion power faggots.
Wind power isn't clean at all. I read an article about how producing the solar cells in the wind turbines cause more pollution than coal power. Of course this is always conveniently omitted by renewable advocates.
>>712777075
>This is a quote
>no year, issue, author or link
My picture cited the Wall Street Journal calculations for power plants opening in 2016 you dumb faggot
>>712777502
>jew street journal
>>712776906
What exactly do you want to know?
>>712777400
or molten salt thorium plants.
>>712777400
no
we have better alternatives already, we don't need your expensive science fiction
>>>712777777
>>712777550
kys
WSJ is owned by the same people that own FOX
>and the rest of the largest media empire on the planet that just so happens to be ultra conservative
>>712777588
>Was that or was that not the error of half-educated Asians running technology they didn't understand?
read nigger
>>712773833
>>712777169
>nuclear power is only hope
wut
>this shithole planet that I fucking hate and want to leave
ok, I see
>>712777501
>producing solar cells in the wind turbines
nigger wtf are you talking about?
>>712773833
What happens when it's not windy?
>>712777082
>They fucked up. Backup cooling systems didn't work.
They didn't anticipate that the nuclear plant would need to handle total submersion in seawater. An understandable oversight that I'm sure won't be repeated.
>>712778766
How else are you going to generate the power needed to rotate the propellers?
>>712774541
I don't think you get that the reason we can't rely soley on the renewables is because they can't appropriately accomodate growth and power spikes over the course of a day.
Also Hydrogen fuel cells are retardedly inefficient
>>712778924
it's always windy somewhere, just like the sun is always shining somewhere and rivers are always running somewhere.
Even if the air is completely still, you can still use it to make power.
Fuel cell systems are in use all over the planet, they have no emissions and are more efficient than natural gas.
>>712778081
The tsunami was outside of their design basis. The exhaust ports of their emergency diesel generators were close to the ground. The water rose up so much that the diesel generators couldn't run because the exhaust couldn't escape. When they were on battery power they only had 4 hours left. The newer nuclear power reactors are pretty remarkable. You don't have a stem degree otherwise you would have actual facts to meet me with. You don't know shit, but you like to talk shit. How quaint.
>>712779476
>inefficient
no they're not, they're more efficient than gas depending on how they're set up. There's a lot of different ways to run a fuel cell.
>>712779029
Hey somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. What a refreshing change.
>>712779663
https://youtu.be/Y_e7rA4fBAo
>>712779629
>outside of their design basis
yeah, well shit happens, natural disasters are still NATURAL, you can't act surprised every time one happens.
The truth is that you CAN'T prepare for every single eventuality, which is why nuclear power has already done so much fucking damage to our planet.
>>712773833
>using wind power
unless were talking balloons in the atmosphere transferring the energy down a la Gundam/big hero 6 i am all fucking set. i like living in a world with birds thank you.
>>712775829
might lead to harvesting energy directly from stars
>>712780118
wind is only one of several sources of energy that are superior to nuclear energy.
>>712779857
>uclear power has already done so much fucking damage to our planet
>>712777810
Better alternative than the only hope of solving all energy problems and enabling us to go to space one day with water asteroids powered by fusion power.
>>712780208
We're a long ways from that and nuclear energy is not the choice to take us there. There are simply better alternatives everywhere.
>>712773833
fuck off, do you really think that's easy, cheap or not bad for nature to build those giant wind things?the amount of metal you have to extract and the industrial waste of building them completely offsets the advantages
now fuck off
>>712780311
That's because everyone for a hundred miles had to leave the areas where nuclear power went wrong.
You're trying to take credit for fucking shit up SO BAD that humans had to flee for their lives instead of stay.
I smell green party filth in this thread
>>712779857
You don't have any counter argument whatsoever. You just say literally anything in the world in history can happen therefore we can't have it. You are illogical and provide no substance to this discussion. You can be loud and whiny somewhere else. You don't know how power markets work.
Buddy, I live in WV. You can Fuck nuclear energy as much as you want after we get rid of coal and gas. That shit has ruined our economy.
>>712780361
>only hope
no, don't buy into that sci-fi bullshit
we don't need to power a Death Star, our needs are relatively simple and easily filled
>>712780547
>because you don't need to build nuclear power plants out of metal
die in a fire retard
>>712780549
And you're using an early 50's soviet reactor fallout that accounts for over half of those ever displaced by a nuclear disaster as an example while not realising how much modern western countries use nuclear without so much as a hiccup. France currently runs off of 78% nuclear energy and has done so for years, the only difference between them and the US is that they didn't have decades of anti nuclear propaganda
>>712780681
>anything
no, the same thing that has happened several times in recent history to absolutely disastrous consequences.
Quit shoving your head in the sand you moron
>>712780709
You mean the sci fi shit of being able to produce fire in the stone ages?
The sci fi shit of being able to burn coal to get steam powered energy?
The sci fi shit of burning coal/oil for electrical energy?
The sci fi shit of using nuclear power plants?
Go back to living under a rock, while people with a vision for the future to what they always did.
Ill have my fusion energy
>>712773833
The USA would switch but the initial investment for wind energy is fucking massive
>>712780984
Do you believe in climate change?
If a single tsunami could cause Fukushima, I would not trust any of those old nuclear plants in France. Yes, they've been fine SO FAR, but you wouldn't have to be so dogmatically blind to the possibility of failure if you weren't using nuclear power.
Wind turbines are huge, loud and cause depression on people who happen to see them every day of their lives, and also kills birds, lots of them, so you can shove one right up your arse.
>>712781066
Your standard of absolute disaster seems skewed, you act as though every nuclear error has been to the extent that Chernobyl was, while Chernobyl cost literally 3 times as much as the next largest nuclear error which was three mile. Not only that but only 45 people died due to THE LARGEST nuclear disaster and people already live in areas near pripyat again
>>712781197
not as massive as the initial investment for nuclear was
>but then, we had a war to win too
all we need is to find a military application for wind power, and then maybe we could spend our money on something worthwhile.
>>712781514
>skewed
compare it to literally any other type of power disaster and NO, it does not seem skewed.
>>712781066
Holy shit you're completely retarded haha. My head in the sand? Did you just say that all nuclear disasters have been because of the same thing?
Once again, you prove that you have no arguement besides your lack of knowledge on the subject. Do some research. Come at me with facts. Don't come at me with your feelings because fuck your feelings.
>>712781567
That won't happen, the military industrial complex has zero reason to care about wind or developing it in such a way that civilian applicatipns would be subsidized. Stop dreaming
>>712781080
>Ill have my fusion energy
you need to walk before you can run
right now we're dragging our broken bodies using a single arm and you're trying to fly
>>712781853
>The two largest experimental fusion plants are being build right now in the US and Germany
>>712781774
yeah, it was just a joke
maybe we can get them interested in fuel cells if we make it seem confusing enough
>>712782006
>experimental
there's a big difference between knowing theory and making it an affordable reality.
>>712781703
FACT: nuclear power is less efficient and more dangerous than readily available alternatives
>>712782254
And thats why are researching it right now, are you kinda retarded or something.
>>712781694
Look up how many people died building the Panama Canal fuck head. You don't know shit. Watch the video of the two men on top of a burning wind turbine jump to their death because they were forced to pick between burning to death or jumping.
>>712782476
Provide reputable statistics or you're basically just saying 'but muh feelings'
Or you can make ethanol from CO2, burn it again to produce CO2 and use that CO2 to burn it again. Repeat infinitely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EYQLOlwDM
>>712782476
Says who? Where? How so? No basis behind anything you're saying.
Fact: you're a whiny retard
>>712782570
great, spend your money on research if you want
that's not the point, we still need sources of power in the meantime.
>>712782605
>muh FEELS
fuck off retard
>>712782737
Yes, nuclear power plants.
>>712782667
>>712782702
already posted source, try reading the thread
>it was the WSJ
>>712779663
No they're actually not at all. Do some research. They're still trying to figure out how to make it efficient,and if they do they'll be great, but right now I think it has less than 50% efficiency.
>>712777110
they dont own those coasts nor the bay
>>712782807
unnecessarily dangerous waste of money
there are superior alternatives by every single metric.
>>712782690
you can also run co2 through water to form carbolic acid then run an electric current through the acid to form natural gas and methanol, so you can burn coal and produce a gas and liquid fuel from the emissions to burn for more energy.
>>712782971
>but they own all of SF
who is "THEY"?
and why can't they build in the bay or on the coast?
>>712777075
The other thing to keep in mind is if nuclear power becomes the norm parts will become mass produced,making it extremely cheap. As it stands now parts are made custom order because mass production isn't profitable, meaning prices are extremely high.
>>712782973
Why invest in "superior" shit, if its just energy for the meantime while we wait 20-30 years for fusion power?
>>712782897
wrong, google it faggot
>In addition to electricity, fuel cells produce water, heat and, depending on the fuel source, very small amounts of nitrogen dioxide and other emissions. The energy efficiency of a fuel cell is generally between 40–60%, or up to 85% efficient in cogeneration if waste heat is captured for use.
>>712774541
>muh subsidy
You think that's the only reason renewable fuels haven't taken off? A majority are still inefficient as far as infrastructure outlay and RELIABLE power delivery goes. Solar only works when there's sufficient sunlight, wind only works when its actually windy. Nuclear produces reliable power around the clock and produces practically no waste in relation to coal/gas and the industry required to build and maintain renewable resources.
I agree that we need to move to more sustainable means of power generation, but nuclear should be at the core of that, at the very least during the transition.
>>712783082
better than investing in inferior shit
>20-30 years for fusion power
KEK, you keep dreaming kiddo
>>712782879
WSJ isn't a source. It's a media outlet. WSJ would need a source. Give us that and we will see (chances are it's shit just like the WSJ) Give us a peer reviewed piece that shows us the metrics of why it's more dangerous. I'm typing this from my office literally a quarter mile from our nuclear reactor. Ask me why I'm not scared.
>>71278308 Not to mention the increased research and development of more advanced technologies that will improve efficiency.
>>712773833
Checked, im studying renewable energies at university i can say that this thread is bullshit, as almost everything in thw world, it depends, it depends on the instalation, it depens on the use, it depens if its autonom or for sale, it depens on the latitude and shadows, it depens on a fucking lot of thinks but i can say with security that they are the future, u can say whatever u want but within 10 years oil and gas will start to go down and people will start having their own energy.
Ask me anything and stop basing your arguments on stupid propaganda graphics
>>712783277
Thats what Hitler said when he abbadoned the research of nuclear power in in the 30s.
>>712783314
Jesus Christ, find it yourself you whiny faggot
You don't even have a source for your own claims, but I OWE you a pee-reviewed article? Just fuck off
>>712773833
>what is Betz's Law
>OP is a faggot
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz's_law
>>712773833
>We have cheaper, more efficient, safer and cleaner alternatives.
No. No alternative can produce as much as nuclear technology on the same surface, with no gas emission.
Your statement is just wrong. Checkmate, kid, just grow up and come back.
>>712783421
20-30 years won't even be enough time to implement the new technology if it was perfected today.
We NEED better alternatives RIGHT NOW
>and we actually have them
>>712774142
Planet doesn't care about your shit. You're not saving the world, you're just a moralfag and planet will survive you. It will survive anything. It's not a person, you dumb liberal untermensch.
>>712783449
Go piss on your own articles
>>712783491
no you're wrong
>seriously, read the fucking thread
double checkmate
>>712776981
>independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-town-rejects-solar-panels-amid-fears-they-suck-up-all-the-energy-from-the-sun-a6771526.html
In America, yes.
>>712774013
Very good point
>>712783551
Tell me again, how fast were the first nuclear power plants build?
And building fusion plants wouldnt be limited by bullshit like the fking rods, so theyll spread even faster.
>>712783449
You're the one with burden of proof cunt, not me. You lose. Later nerd.
>>712783460
>missing the point this fucking bad
wind is not the only alternative dummy, but it's still better than nuclear
>>712783378
Oil and gas is already going down due to fracking, and when the electric company wants to charge $15k for a 2500 ft line extension to reach your house if you want to put it in the back of your property, they make solar feasible on a small scale for my situation.
Actually it's still not really economically feasible, but it's so close that I said fuck it and I'm going that route anyway.
Actually it's a combined diesel solar power plant.
>>712778699
Desire to explore and travel to places we haven't been is what drove humanities development. Only the incapable retards stayed behind in Africa to bang rocks together.
It's a good thing nuclear power wasn't developed as much because the early cost-benefit analyses were completely off. If we had developed it as much as we planned to initially the price for nuclear power would've gone up an insane amount and lots of people would lose money.
People thought it would be bad for health and the environment but those aren't the real issues, it's just expensive af.
>>712779503
>It's always windy somewhere
So we can just move thousands of tonnes of wind turbines to wherever it happens to be windy at the time and plug them in?
>>712783378
The biggest problem is, at least in my mind, the security perspective. With the advent of smart inverters with DG solar, you can have pretty consequential levels of Volt-Var control in an environment that is less than secure from the cyber perspective. Too many poorly placed and hacked/malicious smart inverters and you could basically destroy the grid.
Uhhh no.
There was a penalty tax to be established in scandinavia because they were going to shut down the power plants. The estimated cost increase was to be about 250% more expensive.
And you say this is good?
Nice surface level analysis.
Also these faggot countries rely so heavily on wind power and clean energy is their main investment in power.
>>712783963
Show me anything else than can produce 1200 MW in the space a nuclear reactor can. There are 200 wind turbines that only produce (sometimes) 2 MW each near where I live. They're ugly and still have carbon footprints.
>>712784186
It's always windy over the ocean (there's very little topography).
>>712783786
>mfw
This is why we can't have nice things
>>712784249
Good comment just appeared
>>712783963
Just trying to point out that OP is posting grossly inaccurate graphs and figures that defy the laws of physics, therefore his intellectual credibility and that of all of his sources must be questioned, faggot.
>Nothing beats nuclear
>>712774013
That's why you build redundancy into a system.
You make it so that any fuckup would have to be so elaborate that it would have to be a deliberate, coordinated effort.
For example, you can have it so that two or more non-identical computers can each single-handedly put shielding between the rods, but the computers have to agree to remove the shielding.
You then make the shielding controlled by a system where there is an acutator which can move the shielding, and it's magnetic so if the acutator power is cut off the shielding will drop back into place.
All computers have to agree for the acutator magnet to receive power, and the magnet is only powered when the shields are supposed to be lifted or moving; so if the shielding is supposed to be applied but the acutator gets stuck, the shielding drops into place anyway.
Manual override of the between-rod shielding then requires simultaneous physical input into the aforementioned computers, because it should be needed only very rarely.
With all this, you can eliminate an important category of nuclear accidents: allowing the rods to reach critical mass because your shielding somehow ended up in the wrong state.
>>712784249
>in the space
do you think that's an important factor or something?
PROTIP: there's plenty of empty dirt in the US and on this planet, your concern is immaterial
> enslave niggers
> niggers walk treadmill
> treadmill turns generator
> get free EMF
>>712783651
the thread won't change anything to the fact that nuclear energy is the most efficient and cleanest one, by far.
The reality won't change because it feels more comfortable to you, retarded kiddo.
>>712784441
more like enslave cyclists,
>>712784374
>too fucking stupid to know the difference between output and efficiency
KEK
>>712784464
>most efficient and cleanest one, by far
KEK, you really believe that? You're alone, retard
>>712784441
watermelons are quite expensive to produce to feed all the niggers
My dick beats all current energy technology' just ask your mom faggots
>>712773833
What the fuck is this graph? Since when do wind power, geothermal, hydroelectric, or solar plants use fuel? And how can something have more than 100% efficiency? That graph is a crock of shit.
>>712784579
>output vs efficiency
Kek
>nuclear wins at both
>>712784766
feed?
>kek you almost had me
>>712784428
Then you're suggesting building a massive switch yard out in bumfuck Egypt to tie in to our power grid. Then transfer that power across the United States. Here's the issue retard. Is your state's power regulated or not? How will they make claims to who has the choice of what empty dirt they use? Will the federal government suddenly need to regulate it all? Therefore who pays for building it and running it (it would end up being the taxpayers)? You're asking for a massive headache both physically and administratively. Your empty dirt comment holds about as much merit as fucks I have left.
>>712784464
Agreed
>>712778009
> ultra CUCKservative
Here, fixed it for ya
>>712784299
No, it's not. There's plenty of instances in history alone where sailing ships were stuck at sea for weeks waiting for winds to pick up again.
Even then anything that's not within a few miles from shore makes power transmission and its infrastructure expensive. Then there's the issue of waves and tides, and any metal at sea corrodes much faster than on land due to salt exposure and required much more maintenance.
Nuclear cores however can be built anywhere stable and operate 24/7 regardless of weather conditions.
>>712785058
>wins
against what? It's better at efficiency than some sources and better at output than others.
By the same token, there's better sources for max output AND efficiency, so nuclear power is not optimal for either scenario.
>>712784680
He isn't alone. Fuck your feelings kiddo.
>>712773833
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ODMUbe7J-I&t
>>712785044
>angry and confused: the post
Trump supporter?
>>712785244
It would be a disaster trying to transfer power from out in the sea back to land. The amount of calcs needed done to prove it would be safe would make it not even worth it. I'm with you my man. Nuclear is the bomb.
>>712785276
>feelings
why would I care? You're the one that seems emotional here, passionately sticking up for your butt-buddy
>>712783975
I'm still shit posting on /b 8 extra hours per week because we are still only working 32 hours weeks in the Gulf Coast oil industry.
>>712785393
No I'm not confused, I'm annoyed that this graph apparently isn't aware of the law of conservation of energy. How can you get 11 times the energy you put into the power plant as fuel, especially when you're talking about wind farms that don't use fuel?
W-what about T-thorium guys.
>>712773833
i see the chart shows price per kilowatt as well beacause i for one know that wind energy gernators are cheap and matinece free
>>712785537
Well I work at a nuclear power plant so yeah. I'd say I'm pretty passionate about it.
>>712785831
Lol yeah that's bs. I hope you're joking.
>>712785676
If you call searching through Funny junk work
>>712785871
so you're motivated by keeping your job, not for any sort of betterment of mankind or scientific truth
thanks for your feelings, I'll be sure to ignore them immediately
>>712781514
I'm not a tree hugger like OP, but Chernobyl cost us way more than 45 deaths.
I was born few hundred miles away from it.
It affected oncology (statistics in my country us not even public AFAIC), birth deffects. Huge hidden death and sickness toll.
>>712786089
Lying conspiracy theorist
>>712786073
I could destroy you on any energy platform you want to throw out. Go ahead. Feelings aside, I'll wipe the floor with you with facts.
>>712773833
so according to this graph, with wind energy, you get 11.65 times the energy out of the system as you put into it?
OP, your a dumbass, in this case, leave it to the engineers who do this shit for a living, some retard on /b/ is not about to outdo them with a shitty graph he found online, written by journalists which purports that wind is some sort of over unity machine.
>>712786089
esp. thyroid cancer incidence
but in nuclear power's defense it's not at all likely to happen again with modern tech etc
>>712773833
This graph means nothing.
>>712785680
If I had to guess I think the graph is trying to propose the most convoluted rubric by which to measure the efficiency of energy harvesting imaginable.
Imagine how many gallons of diesel is burned in heavy equipment in order to drill for oil, how much power does it take to run the factory that makes wind turbines, how many meals do you have to feed the African slave children that harvest lithium and cadmium, basically how much energy does it take just to get to the point of using the fuel.
You take that energy plus the energy the fuel contains and you divide it by the power plants output which will be about 14-28% of the fuel's stored energy.
The problem with this method of ranking energy sources is its fucking retarded.
There is no way to accurately tally how much energy it took to create a wind turbine or a solar panel or a gallon of oil. It can be roughly estimated and you can skew the numbers however you want to make whatever power source you want look good.
It's not just calculating the energy needed to run it, but the energy needed to build and develop it.
Compared to the costs of developing and maintaining nuclear power, wind is incredibly fucking cheap, and is well worth the costs to build it.
>>712786226
How about tidal power?
MFW AP's graph does not really make any sense
>>712786021
How many viruses did 4chan upload to your phone battery?
>>712786448
meant for>>712785680
>>712786417
kinda
>>712786295
Not to mention Chernobyl happened because they disabled their safety related systems because the government wanted to run a test and see how far it could go.
1000% of energy is retained
nigga what
>>712786449
You is be an idiot
>>712786417
>you can skew the numbers
same can be said of literally anything
your skepticism is nothing but innate prejudice, why would you trust these numbers less than anyone else's?
>>712774013
exactly
>>712783063
san fransisco only owns san fransisco.
they have no rights over coastal waters of adjoining counties. they have no rights over the bay area. they may not interfere with nor impede the water rights of bay area coastal entities. they may however fill their coast with coastal wind mills as long as it doesnt get in the way of adjoining water usage.
so 1 they can shit up their coasts and block all their own ports
or 2 fill their 27 square miles with wind turbines
or 3 buy easement rights from adjoining counties as san fransiscan pro-rated rates.
and if they did all 3 they most likely still will not have enough power to run their city. california will definitely not subsidize their power usage when it already depends on hydro and natural gas from mostly outside the state. especially in the face of rolling black outs from the enron years
>>712773833
But if we catch too much wind going the opposite way to the way the earth is spinning, the earth will slow down and eventually stop spinning, which means all the water will cause a tsunami. Like when you slide a drink of water across the bar and then abruptly stop it and the water sploshes out.
Then because we aren't spinning anymore our sun orbit will get slower and we'll start falling into the sun and all the global warming from being near the sun will kill off all the plants and without plants there will be no herbivores or carnivores.
From there? No food, tsunamis whiping out the populations, oncreasing heat... doesn't sound like a good plan really.
Nope, I'm up for nuclear.
>>712786089
It was a huge fuckup, but the same incident happening again would be at odds so unlikely you'd never see it happen in a million years.
At present there are almost 500 other operational reactors on earth that are properly staffed and maintained and have been running without incident for decades.
>>712786657
It's a real thing I swear. It can't generate huge amounts of energy but it's low cost and low maintenance.
>>712786476
>AP's
it's including building, development, maintainance and research costs translated in terms of energy as well
has anyone mentioned that you cant build nuclear reactors fast enough to keep up with demand?
thats the problem with population increasing exponentially. our infrastructure itself cant keep up
>>712786706
>SF has no rights over the bay area
wut
>>712786887
And building low output, expensive, solar and wind plants can?
>>712786887
>population increasing exponentially
thank fuck that's not even remotely true
population is stabilizing or dropping anywhere that has first-world consumption and production
it really doesn't matter how many people are born and die without ever consuming resources, it literally has no influence on overpopulation.
If we stop using nuclear power, what will we then replace them with? The only real alternative nowadays is coal, oil and biofuels but they let out tons of CO2 etc which really fucks the planet. Sure nuclear power isn't renewable but it using it while replacing it slowly with wind, water, sun power etc will be a FAR better alternative than using coal for the next 50 years. Rome wasn't built on a day.
The publics fear of nuclear power is just as illogical as peoples fear for terrorism, the number of deaths is so incredibly low.
Source on picture: Posted on October 28, 2014 by Erin Polka. This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Brave New Climate, David Ropeik, Energy, James Conca, Next Big Future, Nuclear, nuclear fear. Bookmark the permalink.
>>712773833
Only legitimate answer is tidal and wave generators. No emissions, no meltdown, not dependent on clouds. Tides are all the time all day. Throw a bunch of screws on the ocean floor and a few floaties out as a small island away from the beaches and you're golden. Doesn't even "screw up the view"
>>712786593
READ THE THREAD NIGGER
I think solar's the way because you can just install it and leave it for a long-ass time. No maintenance but solar cells aren't very good yet.
>>712787186
>this
People are incredibly unrealistic when it comes to degrading neclear power.
>>712787191
>>712787186
FUEL CELLS, BITCHES
IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING
>>712786449
What about it? The energy coming out would be proportional to the surface area affected. Therefore, it would be a massive project to reach anywhere close to 1200 MW. I don't even want to think about the calcs needed to account for fluctuations in the tide and water itself. What about people in the Midwest? Do they just put it in their lakes? Bottom line, it wouldn't produce enough energy because it's not that efficient/reliable.
>>712787113
I did not say that.
but that being said, yeah the things made out of highly processed silicon stands a pretty good shot.
>>712787453
>>712787191
Sure, these two are very plausible candidates for replacing nuclear power, if we start building them we can gradually replace them over time. Can't take away nuclear power without having something to fill the gap
>>712786694
If you actually believe that anyone was able to accurately audit all energy consumption in every aspect of human society across the globe and what energy was allocated to the production of which energy harvesting methods, then cool.
Secondly it's also irrelevant, what if we find some fuel source buried in the ground left behind by aliens. And that power source required the destruction of and energy from 3 suns to create, but it will provide 1 million times the human races power needs for the next thousand years. Shouldn't use it by this retarded rubric because it took too much energy to make the power source.
I find the simple analytical method of taking the energy output of a power source and dividing it by the energy content of its fuel sufficient, and so does the rest of the scientific community.
>>712779503
If you applied the same principal to coal or natural gas those energy sources wouldn't exist. A complex power grid which can only run a small percentage of its generators at one time is a shitty fucking option, especially given that truly robust energy infrastructure must be able to run efficiently 100% of the time. Uncuck yourself, enviro-fag.
>>712786982
sf =/= bay area you doofus. its just a 27 sq mile chunk on the peninsula
>>712788102
>it's also irrelevant cause what if aliens left us something better?
just fucking shut the hell up
Compare energy sources to carbondioxide emissions:
carbondioxide emissions:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2014.09.22/mainbig.png
Energy production sources:
http://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/europe-energy-mix-by-fuel.jpg
Note how sweden still barely emits carbondioxide while Germany (who switched nuclear power for coal power) lets out an incredible amount of carbondioxide.
Also compare the energy sources with "death per TWh energy" from this post
>>712787186
>>712788326
SF is in the bay area, so they definitely have rights over at least part of the bay area, you fucking idiot
>>712774485
hurr durr education isnt free saying ass
>>712787453
I could go for this too. Seems promising.
>>712788327
What if matumbawimbe the nigger warlord kidnapped a bunch of scientists and stole a nuke and used it to build a power plant for his village that runs at 2% efficiency. Took way too much energy to make the plant but it runs fucking good and makes them power and it's already fucking made.
>>712788383
they are only a part of the bay area. they dont own the bay area. nor do they run the bay area. they have no rights over the rest of the bay.
heres a map for you you stupid fuck
https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco+Bay+Area,+CA/@37.8042118,-122.5673966,10.25z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808583a3a688d7b5:0x8c891b8457461fa9!8m2!3d37.8271784!4d-122.2913078
>>712788741
great point, very helpful
>>712788913
>rest of the bay
could thing I didn't say that, you fucking piece of shit
biofuels are carbon neutral
if only we could more efficiently convert plant biomass into usable fuel
tfw lignin
>>712788926
You're quite welcome.
I guess aliens are too unrealistic for even a hypothetical situation to express a point in an argument, but everyone is fine with matumbawimbe the nigger warlord and his antics.
Money is killing this world and there's nothing anybody can do about it because money is power. Everyone wants money therefore everyone wants to kill the world. Nobody can save the world because in order to get the power to do that, you need money.
> uh guys nuclear and coal and gas aren't good for environment
Wind turbine doesn't offset is own carbon cost to produce in its lifetime.
What happens when you cover the country in wind turbines? You upset nature idiots. Tidal power will ruin tides and kill ocean life.
Lets just fucking raze Africa and turn it all into solar power for the world. At that scale it will be cheap enough and there is nothing of importance there anyway
>>712790057
>ruins tides
what does that mean?
>>712790057
>ruins tides
yeah, fuck the moon. that shit has no power here
>>712773833
Wat
It is physically impossible to produce more energy than what is consumed. How the fuck do they calculate a <100% energy output when compared to input energy.
>>712790245
It means energy isn't fucking free if you put tidal generators in the ocean they take energy and turn it into electricity. Where does the energy come from well from the water so the tides get all fucked up and fish get confused and probably the Gulf stream and shit like that gets fucked up and all the whales and dolphins beach themselves. The changing tides will alter the rotation of the planet and days will get shorter or longer and then the moon gets pulled down out of the sky or some shit. Moon makes tides you know, moon doesn't orbit earth they orbit each other, that's what makes the tide opposite the moon from the centripetal force. If you fuck with the inertia of the tides you screw the earth-moon orbit I know it sounds fucking insane but you have to trust me.
Energy isn't fucking free, wind power affects the climate, taking solar heat energy turning it into electricity changes the temperature of the planet but fortunately pretty much all electricity eventually turns into heat so it kinda works itself out magically
>>712773833
What the fuck is that chart supposed to mean? It's impossible to get a 100% efficient machine. A basic understanding of the laws of thermodynamics would make that clear.
>>712788959
they have rights over the spec of the outer coast a bit north of daly city. thats all the coastal region they have for wind.
north of sf blocks bay entrance. right of the city blocks south and east bay water access.
wind is not a good option unlesss they willing to turn the entire city into a wind farm. they have no rights to fill the surrounding land with wind farms either.
>>712790837
That's like saying solar panels are stealing all the sunlight away from our plants.
What we're taking away is drop from a bucket.
>>712790837
Yeah, better use nucular reactors and then have a few of those go boom (e.g. Fukushima) and make fish, whales and all the other crap fucking glow in the dark. And let's eat those later too. Way better approach.
>>712787250
lol how niggers can't read
>>712773833
BUT WHAT WOULD WE DO IF WE COULDN'T INVADE COUNTRIES FOR THEIR OIL ANY MORE? DID YOU THINK THIS THROUGH, OP?
>>712791301
Never advocated nuclear wow this thread is like listening to a broken fucking record
>>712780208
> What even is solar power?
>>712773833
>solar
>wind
>bateries
the production proces of the devices needed to generate and store electricity this way requires large amounts of heavy metals (look on google what it takes to mine this stuff) and in total it propably requires more energy to make them than they will actually deliver in their lifetime
nuclear is not ideal but apart from geothermal and hydro plants it still has the best pollution/Mw ratio
now fuck off. DIESEL POWER
>>712793861
Wind turbines pay themselves off in a few years.
>>712793861
I must admit, this is a rare quality thread
>>712794288
but you can't rely on wind turbines alone unless you use a massive battery bank.
it's not always windy. and sometimes there is too much wind and they have to shut down the turbines
>>712794644
why would we use them alone?
>>712794644
This is a bad argument. Wind turbines are generally concentrated in areas with above average winds such as plains and shores, plus wind is more constant and at higher velocities at the altitude the turbine blades are lifted to by poles.
>>712775829
>says nuclear power takes a lot of money and is unsafe
>gets triggered over the thought that they arent cutting corners so it doesnt meltdown without random error
Stop whinning so much, it might not be clean, nor is it the best, but right now it's what we have. Lots of places use wind farms, move to one of those places or stfu
>>712778009
Still owned by jews
*cough* thorium *cough* *cough*
>>712777810
Nasa uses this. I don't think it's cost effective though
>>712795680
How do they make it energy efficient?
Doesn't it take energy to produce the H2 fuel?
>>712795988
Don't they just electrolyze water? Shit I forget. It's efficient for space travel but not for saving money
>>712796381
yeah I guess it makes sense for space travel
