Nuclear power is the only realistic solution to climate change:

do you even know how it works?

> less CO2 than wind and solar

How? Apart from whats generated from the production of the equipment (which nuclear has too, in a much larger volume) Wind and Solar produce no waste in the production of energy.

If I've missed something here, I appeal for a knowledgeable fag to fill me in. thx

how WHAT works, please clarify your question

There is a lot of disadvantages to nuclear power like the expensive ass cost to make the plant. And the energy isn't renewable so its only a short term granted we don't fucking nuke ourselves to extinction

Andrew Yang supports Nuclear energy expansion.

Yang 2020

The "emission of CO2" is calculated as "how much CO2 does one mean of energy production emits per GW/h"
For nuclear, solar and wind, the only moment where they can emit CO2 is during the manufacturing/building phase. This is where nuclear beats both (not by a massive margin, but still beats them). Indeed, you need to manufacture thousands of solar panels / wind turbines to reach the potential power generation of a nuclear plant. This results in large CO2 emissions which quickly catch up (and eventually surpass) that of the CO2 emitted when building a nuclear facility.

costs are only expensive in the US. The french can make a reactor at a fraction of the price of that in the United States.

Huh. Didn't know that. Well, Yang 2020 I guess then. Anyone who likes nuclear power is my friend.

>renewable so its only a short term
yes, nuclear fission is a short term solution. But it enables us to drastically reduce our CO2 emissions until we find a way to create fusion plants and expand wind / solar facilities (which are much more expensive and slow to put in place).

>the french can make a reactor at a fraction of the price

yeah so can the chinks. damn chinks.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_tower_(downdraft)

Have you taken a look at this type of renewable energy source? I am user who asked fission or fusion so i will just mark my posts with -aev because it is fun having an intellectual conversation on this board

What are we gonna do about the radioaktive waste that is produced?

looks cool, but I see a few issues with it
1) 1km high tower ruins the landscape much worse than nuclear plants, solar or wind do.
2) Works best in hot dry climate, therefore not applicable everywhere, unlike nuclear
3) needs air to work, cannot function in space (not great for space exploration).

for the moment we can store it (unlike CO2). There are already many scientists working on the solution. It's better to have nuclear waste under control than have tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Nuclear waste can be recycled (see Superphoenix) or used as fuel (Bill Gates and the chinks are working on a reactor which uses nuclear waste as fuel)

ah ok that makes a lot of sense, but it's made irrelevant by the fact that even though nuclear produces less CO2 than the equivalent amount of solar panels needed to fulfil one plant worth of energy, it still produces waste, whereas solar & wind produces none. That compounded over years is incredibly powerful.

>Bill Gates and the chinks

Name my band Yea Forums

Climate change isn't man made, it has to do with the sun cycles.

Also what happens to all the radioactive material that is a byproduct of nuke plants?

Plants breathe CO2 and release oxygen moron

NOT OP, JUST ADDING TO THE DISCUSSION
>Climate change isn't man made, it has to do with the sun cycles.
It is, but that natural process has been exacerbated massively by us
>Also what happens to all the radioactive material that is a byproduct of nuke plants?
This is 100% true, no solution other than storage currently
>Plants breathe CO2 and release oxygen moron
They do but cannot cleanse the air as fast as we're introducing toxins to it. Plus they only breathe CO2, not the dozens of other toxic particles introduced to the air including carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, formaldehyde, benzene and soot.

yes. But on the other hand, nuclear works 24/7 at full power, while wind and solar only work between 20% and 40% of the time, rarely at max power.

lmao

> Climate change isn't man made, it has to do with the sun cycles
only partially true. Climate change is a natural phenomenon, excessive release of CO2 and pollution are not. Humans are dangerously accelerating the rate at which the global temperature is rising. However, I'm optimistic (unlike most leftist morons). We still have maybe 50 years or so before we actually start to see any noticeable change in weather patterns.

>what happens to all the radioactive material that is a byproduct of nuke plants
please refer to >Plants breathe CO2 and release oxygen moron
Incorrect. Plants don't "breathe" CO2. They use CO2 in a process called photosynthesis in order to create oxygen. The oxygen which is produced by photosynthesis is then used by the plant for respiration (breathing). Most plants don't use the entirety of the oxygen they produce, there is some leftover. But, plants are not enough to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Also, there isn't only CO2. Methane, CO and other toxic gases cannot be breathed out by plants and stay in our atmosphere for decades.

lol you beat me to it

The main challenges for nuclear are political (it's unpopular) and financial (it's expensive AF). The technical side is nice, even if it takes a long time to actually build up a couple new generators if you want to do it right, but that's not all you need for a proper solution.

For many nations it also doesn't solve the issue of energy dependance.

>(it's unpopular)
yes. that's the biggest problem with nuclear. when you say nuclear, people think of chernobyl (and they think millions died when that's not true) or fukushima (nobody died of radiation) or three mile island (zero deaths). Ignorance of the public is the nuclear's greatest foe.

In fukushima the problem wasn't the deaths. It's the large-scale disruption for years (a large area had to be evacuated, it's a huge hit to the economy), the damage done to the ecosystem (tons of radiation went into the ocean, it's not pretty down there), and the ridicolous cost of the cleanup (in the "hundreds of billions of dollars" region).

the meme of ecosystem death is just that, a meme. While the initial issue is bad, ecosystems prove to deal with that plenty easily. It's no different then the whole mercury scare.

Can I get a source for the top info? I have a hard time believing that transporting nuclear waste and the huge amount of cement used in nuclear plants outstrips the carbon footprint of making a solar panel. Wind turbines I could believe, Transportation of those parts is insane

Molten Salt Thorium Fission reactors are significantly safer than any other reactor that's been tested.
The only hindrance on Nuclear Power for the world is they don't have a good place to dump the radioactive waste. They were going to put it in Nevada, but the Nevadian politicians had a fit. I think the next best place to put the damn waste would be at the Kaaba in Mecca.

meant to attach picture

Attached: MSR.jpg (744x461, 130K)

PS Kaaba is this place

Attached: kaaba.jpg (800x597, 95K)

The best place is in space. Put it in containers solid enough to survive a failed launch, shoot upwards. No need to aim.

>solve global warming
>give everybody cancer
totally worth it

it costs too much to do that though
its like $millions/kg of weight to get up there

Attached: chinatmsr1.png (799x614, 323K)

>much safer than anything else
If you mean by accidents and work place sure, otherwise it's the most dangerous. And when it gets bad it gets real bad, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
>waste is far easier to manage
They don't do this tho, illegal waste management and bad storage are real issues.

>that of the CO2 emitted when building a nuclear facility.
Citation please

That's because we're really careful about how to get things up there, so they end up in the perfect position. This isn't needed, neither is slow acceleration so humans can survive.
We should build on the works of Gerald Bull instead. Build a V3 on steriods and shoot that crap up.

>1km high tower ruins the landscape much worse than nuclear plants, solar or wind do.
Also citation please, also solar winds.

Absolutely true. Now all you need to do is convince the americans to stop stealing all the oil and to stop sabotaging/blowing up nuclear power plants..I mean they dropped a nuke on japan, they didn't need to sabotage the nuclear power plant too years later in 2011...But I guess that's what happens when fear and greed/money are your primary driving factors

Americans did this to keep control. Control is very important if you want to be a world leader.

The nips or someone have developed a polymer that is able to collect uranium from the ocean, it surprises me that I never hear about any research in that area given that one part per billion of ocean water is uranium. It is a practically unlimited fuel source, though mining is cheap enough not to cause any worries at the moment.
Coal-fired plants produce more ionising radiation at the site than nuclear power plants, all of which is insignificant in comparison to the cosmic radiation you are unavoidably bombarded with daily. Waste products can be recycled, it is simply a question of cost of recycling versus cost of mining uranium; at the moment mining is more economically viable but breeder reactors can deal with by-products.
When people bring up Fukushima and Chernobyl it's fair to say that the Ukrainians were operating complicated, early nuclear tech whilst being utterly incompetent and in the context of the disaster that befell Japan Fukushima was not particularly bad and also avoidable.
I've seen the stat before too, think it was in A-level geography and that was way too long ago for me to remember.

Ever heard about fision?
It can power an entire city with just a drop of sea water

That would be a huge problem for suppliers of other fuels. The richest people on the planet would not like this at all.

>fusion
nigga if we had fusion energy we wouldn't need to have this conversation but cold-fusion is kind of a unicorn

But it's literally an INFINITE amount of energy, we literally create a small sun on a machine

What? Why would it be better in space? The primary concern is containing the heat and pressure, neither of which is helped by 0 G.

I did some rough calculations and from the hydrogen in a drop of water (assuming volume is roughly 0.001 cm^3) you'd get about 47 MJ of power, so that is not bullshit. The problem is forming and separating tritium and deuterium isotopes, electrolysis of the water to produce hydrogen, containing the enormous heat given off by the reaction and providing enough energy for the reaction to start. Fusion has a long way to go before it's usable and there's only so much we can do to cut down on these issues, unfortunately. That's why we stick with tried and true fission rather than some pie-in-the sky idea that's always decades away from being viable.

In order to beat the solar and wind generators, you still have to add the cost and polution fo mining uraniun, enrichment treatment of the uraniun, and decomission plants and waste treatment and dispossal, and there is no way that sum be less than solar and wind in cost or co2 waste. The usual considrations over nuclear plants avoid this cost because the goverment pay for it

You do realise more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a lot more greenery, CO2 is one of the main building blocks of life, you're obviously one of those fuckas with their head buried in the sand. Why don't you get on your high horse about radioactive waste polluting the world. Or plastics going into the oceans something worth while instead of main stream bullshit fear porn. There's a lot of horrendous pollution in the world and it's doing a helluva lot more damage than CO2 ever will to our planet. Take the US favourite uranium tipped shells they fire at every fucka for instance. Or carbon monoxide from combustion engines. Sulphur from coal. No you don't hear that much about the real pollutants cos the cunts doing that shit are the real leaders of your and my country. Now smart ass prove me wrong.

Why dont we just send that waste into deep space? It may be even cheaper then building those storages

China's first full scale LFTR is supposed to go online this year

Malon detected

Attached: malon waste disposal crew.jpg (875x760, 57K)

That's not how space works. If you shoot it up it will just come back down, unless you have it move fast enough it leaves Earths sphere of influence and that requires 13 km/s. And even then it's just orbiting the sun in the earths orbit and might hit earth again. If you want it to fall into the sun it has to go 30 km/s, faster than the fastest space probe ever made.
It's not worth it for garbage.

It's also a fantasy.