After the US lost Saudi Arabia/petrodollar, they are now switching to green energy.
>>16243547Trump will reverse this.
>>16243549Only thing Felon Mop will do after summer is pruno.
>>16243549from his prison cell?
>>16243549trump signed some more minor pro-nuclear stuff too, both parties like nuclear now but for different reasons
>>16243549Why?
>>16243547a bit of a deja vu with that specific pic, almost as if I had saved it in my /pol/ folder years ago
>>16243848>too complicatedGet accustomed to seeing that phrase as it will increasingly be used to justify our downward spiral as more infrastructure is put under the control of the same type of people who ran the water systems in Flint and Jackson.
>>16243630Why would Trump be pro-nuclear?>>16243817Oil lobby.
>>16243998>oil lobbyso the same people funding the democrat anti-nuclear people
>>16243547Nuclear is not renewable, though.
>>16243547I wonder how historians will record the anti-nuclear craze wave.
>>16244042The era of democracy is best summarized with this simple demonstration: commoners protesting against cheap relatively clean energy because their wealthy overlords convinced them to.
>>16243998That oil lobby must be quite weak if it allowed Trump to lost to Biden in 2020.
>>16244019>renewableThis is my first time on /sci/. Read this first. Realize that the people here don't even understand elementary school physics. Will never come back.
>>16244059They taught us in kindergarten that Uranium, Plutonium, and Throium, etc. do not grow in trees. I guess I'll learn otherwise once school starts.
>>16243998>Oil lobbyHydrogen power and carbon based materials can be extracted from oil. They are still needed.
In before She'll, Exxon, and Halliburton become Hydrogen companies or mine Helium-3 on the Moon.
>>16243889Called competency crisis.
>>16243998>Why would Trump be pro-nuclear?Because it would drastically reduces American dependence on foreign oil, which everyone except people on the Saudis' payroll agrees is a good thing.
>>16244094Breeder reactors are a thing.
>>16244272You failed to answer the question
>>16244274uranium 238 doesn't grow on trees either. eventually you run out of material with nuclei large enough that fission releases energy, and then what?
it does not matter anymore, get solarpilled
>>16244019It's green energy regardless, because uranium glows green.
>>16244019It also provides more energy than anything else per capitaWe're not likely to run out of uranium anytime soon, or thorium.We'd have even more if nuclear power plants were allowed to recycle their waste products.
>>16244457do you have any idea how much fucking u-238 there isthe stuff is everywhere - enough, with breeder reactors, to continue supplying global power for literally millions of years just by extracting a few thousand tons of u-238 from seawater every yearthe main reasons we (the US) don't use breeder reactors often today are actually:1) fuel reprocessing was made illegal during the Carter administration because of overblown fears of nuclear proliferation (this single thing is why the US has any appreciable volume of nuclear waste requiring asinine "long term storage" schemes, BTW - that's usable nuclear energy we're just leaving in dry cask storage to decay uselessly); this was reversed, but it killed development of the reprocessing industry for a while2) there's so much fucking u-238 that it has remained economical to simply mine more of it and do isotopic refinement on it - leaving ALL the energy from the "depleted" uranium (which is just u-238 with much less u-235 mixed in - still an entirely usable fission energy feedstock) unused. (this was another reason reprocessing was easy to regulate out of existence; nobody's anywhere close to running out of uranium to mine)
>>16244607>We're not likely to run out of uranium anytime soon, or thorium.We are actually likely to run out. The current stocks last 200 years. If we had 4 times as many nuclear plants, it'd be 50 years. And with 8 times as many nuclear plants (the absolute minimum needed for our energy policy to be called "smart"), it'd be used up in less than the lifetime of a plant.Yeah sure, you can also get energy from plutonium. So add 20 years to how much it'll lasts, it doesn't change the big picture.This is why we need thorium. It's a shit nuclear power source, but we will never run out of it. So let's use up all the uranium and in parallel develop thorium for use in the period afterwards.
>>16244641>no one ever makes more uraniumThat's 200 years if we never ever mine or produce another dropAgain, you can just use the waste to greatly increase that number, or literally just keep digging like we've been doing.
>>16244641200 years is more than enough time for developing techniques to dick deep into the core or get more of the stuff from asteroids or other planets.
>>16244641There's 6 million tonnes of proven uranium reserves. At 7.5 GWh/kg, that's about 45*10^21 Wh, or something like 300,000 years at current usage.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1111/textAlmost there bros also check them digits on that bill number
What's the future of nuclear power?
>>16244795H2 economic benefithttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_niUTeXxrUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-hPVVPrz4U
>>16243547>Saudi ArabiaThey will find away.https://headtopics.com/us/saudi-arabia-says-pink-hydrogen-is-for-girlbosses-23640480https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-train-saudi-arabia/8561154/https://energynews.biz/saudi-arabias-visionary-path-to-hydrogen-dominance-unveiled/#google_vignette
>>16243998He likes huge bombs and chuds believe a nuclear war with China (America's no 1 trading partner) would somehow be a good thing.
>>16244581>top is a photo of something that actually happens, albeit rarely>bottom is a homosexual power fantasychecks out
>>16244923>China (America's no 1 trading partner)it's actually number 3. Canada and Mexico are both ahead of it. it's number 1 in imports to the US, but still substantially less than imports from Canada and Mexico combinedAmerica's "reliance" on Chinese imports is a bit of a meme
>>16244923>huge bomb
>petrodollar
>>16244042They will be too busy having sex on their nuclear pulse propulsion propelled love cruise to venus to care.BANGPLAP BANGPLAP BANGPLAP
>>16244795Probably as a complement to renewables and might get used to heat some industrial plants. Space nuclear is going to be cool too, NASA takes it serious now
>>16244923Chuds support China and Russia over America.
>>16245548Nobody actually supports China though, the only people outside of China who do have their family back in China being threatened if they don't. You know, typical socialism.
>>16244150How colony though key logistics planning.https://phys.org/news/2021-10-mars-colony-hydrogen-factory-propellant.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nafr8LfBTCMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tEN3XNtWnk
>>16244911>First rowVGH…zased
>>16244042German historians:
>>16243549>>16243589>>16243597Trump is pro nuclear? What the fuck ? He quite literally spear headed SMR and advanced reactor demonstration program in 2020. Let alone advances in Nuclear policy , like signing an an executive order in 2020 aimed at revitalizing the nuclear energy sector and establishing a U.S. uranium reserve to secure the domestic supply chain. the list goes on and on. I ask again what the fuck are you all talking about
people who use terms like petrodollar, peak oil or dedollarization have a 100% chance of being retarded.
>>16245492>>16244824Best answer, correct post
>>16243998>Why would Trump be pro-nuclear?So America is not completely dependent on the middle east for its energy use. Have you never listened to his speeches?
>>16245938>>16246278They don't, they are all told by the media that Trump's stances on economics and energy are identical to Dubya, when the truth is he's farther than him than Biden is
>>16244049Using propaganda from explicit misanthropes that wanted billions of poor people to die. It's really insane.
>>16243597he will never go to prison. he will throw everyone in prison. watch him!
>>16244124Honestly the oil industry has cause for concern, and if it's needed to grease the wheels they should be given a ramp to nuclear investment to diversify. If we actually did a nuclear build-out to decarbonize electricity, it wouldn't be much more effort to build enough surplus to produce hydrocarbons for less than what we pay now.
>>16244618Also worth noting that breeding technology for energy production was left in a larval state. And even then gain ratios over 2 were trivially achieved. There's no telling from the current literature how far we could take it if we had university funding being used to competitively advance breeding reactors.
>>16244824H2 is giga-retarded. We can just close our carbon cycle by using nuclear to recycle CO2 into all our favorite hydrocarbons and not change all of our infrastructure to use a cantankerous fuel that's even avoided in spaceflight because of what a pain in the ass it is. The grift-lobby is slow to catch up but with a bona fide nuclear push the war on hydrocarbons is going to be completely over within a few years.
>>16246278>So America is not completely dependent on the middle east for its energy use.That hasn't been a real issue since the 70s when we got nuclear energy. Post-shale it's just fucking retarded. We've only been in the middle east for Israel.
>>16246551No matter, hydropower car will take off decade.
>>16243547Too good to be true. I will believe it when I see it, until then I pray for total oil death
Is there a link to a list of things the bill changes? Does it remove the red tape on fuel reuse or breeder reactors?
>>16243547Coal is clean baby
>>16246551>not change all of our infrastructure to use a cantankerous fuel that's even avoided in spaceflight because of what a pain in the a-Use nuke energy for portable fueling tanker and duel machinery comparable with diesel.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFW8M-BWGSYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJgYRCB7RbM
>>16244019Lmao there's enough uranium and thorium on earth to last for 100,000 years or more depending on how efficiently it is used.
>>16244618extracting uranium from water is actually quite energy intensive, and I don't think it would make much sense when wind and solar are on the table.
>>16244911Iran perhaps trading signing
>>16246616Nice violent fantasy life you have, why exactly does the petroleum industry upset you so badly? Is it because you're too poor and lazy to be able to afford your own car? Or maybe its that you've glommed on to the doomsday cult's messiah complex and you irrationally see yourself as the savior of the planet in order to justify your cringey power fantasies, which is it?
>>16246784where the fuck is it
>>16246551H2 is needed to produce synthetic hydrocarbons tho. This is true for those direct CO2 capture schemes as well as biomass upgrading, both need fuck tons of H2. The funny thing though is even with carbon capture natural gas derived H2 will likely be cheaper in most places, so the electrolysis stuff is somewhat pointless
>>16247257Well a lot of people hate the oil industry, electrolysis would work fine I am just saying purely from a cost standpoint methane reforming + carbon capture still beats out electrolysis. If you don't want all the other baggage that comes with gas its still a good idea tho
Clean energy improves almost every year. That's how it works. Eventually we will get to the iphone 4s of color panels. Where there's barely any innovation. Or it's slowed down.
>>16246784Pant sus!!
>>16243547Looks like a handout to investors who got caught by all those startups with ideas out of a physics class weed circle. The Super Conductive Americium Metamorphosing reactor is 100% proven to work on paper, get in at the ground floor of our high tech pyramid-shaped funding scheme!That and jobs for the boys nonbinary individuals who come to work in stolen women's underwear. Throwing money at the democrat-captured grant-consuming academic do-nothing wing of the nuclear industry.And they got Republicans on board just by saying it was pro nucular.Call me when they're making it possible to build more copies of actually working plants instead of one-off prototypes.
Green energy? How about red and purple H2?
>>16245938Long time>>>/his/16774996
>>16243630Probably because they are controlled by the exact same people. The richest Americans can afford to have both parties in their pocket. Every bill that passes with bipartisan support reperesents their will. Every bill that might be good for the people gets locked behind "partisan gridlock". Since bribery is legal in America, super-pacs can accept unlimited campaign contributions forcing politicians to obey the ultra-wealthy. America is a plutocracy that pretends to be a democracy.
>>16247619Nuclear power is good for everyone
wish denmark would get on the nuclear train as wellwe could cover our entire energy need with a handful of SMRsbut nooo, let's keep wasting money on goddamn wind turbines and solar
>>16247635Well the answer is all possible methods - not sure why only two nations in Europe are based on nuclear power ( Finland and France) - it is wild to me considering nuclear fission was a European discovery. SMRs are undeniably the future of town baseload electrical coverage
>>16247635Hopefully Fukushima city council get it nuke back up>>16247610Really mod?
>>16246697that process would only need to extract about 1/10th of the uranium currently mined, if that much, because we are just... not using breeder reactors. it wasn't nearly enough to be a dealbreaker given how much energy you can produce even with 1980s breeder reactor and seawater uranium extraction tech, both of which have improved (the latter extensively)
>the world is healing Saudi Arabian knew woman are awful
>>16247257>>16247260i really, really wish more people knew about the Bosch reaction, CO2 + 2H2 -> C + 2H2O. with water splitting, it's literally a closed loop for the hydrogen that has a net reaction of CO2 -> O2 + Cmethane reforming just puts out more CO2 by reversing the Sabatier reaction. "carbon capture" is vague bullshit that currently doesn't mean anything except somebody selling you a pipe dream. what you need is, unequivocally, CO2 splitting.the key to CO2 splitting at scale has always been efficient water splitting, as counterintuitive as that may seem. in fact, steam reforming (what you likely mean by methane reforming) consumes water - even though it seems like you're getting hydrogen from the methane, half of it is coming out of splitting the water. nuclear is rather unique in how well it lends itself to water splitting, as it can more readily produce the temperatures needed for more efficient water splitting processes (sulfur iodine cycle, for example) than any other power generation scheme, including concentrated solar.it is also possible to split methane into 2H2 and C more easily than water, and use the resulting 2H2 to feed a CO2 splitting process, but the net process isn't CO2 splitting. unless you also do water splitting, it requires a continual supply of methane: while the Sabatier reaction yields methane, it's only half of what you need, as you only get 2H2 from CH4, and the Sabatier reaction is CO2 + 4H2 -> CH4 + H2O, so you only get half your methane-derivable hydrogen back if you aren't splitting water. now, this does mean each molecule of methane can technically split one CO2 molecule without water splitting by splitting 3 methane molecules (2CH4 -> 2C + 4H2 as input, CH4 -> 2H2 from the Sabatier reaction products; net cycle only requires one CH4), but even there your best bet for carbon capture is still getting those hydrogen atoms back out of the water, albeit only needing to do that half as much as a pure Bosch reaction system.
>"DUDE JUST BUILD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS THAT COST $30-40 BILLION EACH, TAKE 10-15 YEARS TO CONSTRUCT AND PRODUCE LESS ENERGY THAN 100 WIND TURBINES THAT COST $1 MILLION EACH"This is your brain when you can't even do basic economics. Nuclear will never be an option for the simple fact that they never were, are and will ever be profitable.
>>16246793the croc on his right foot in 3rd panel
>>16246658>>16247260Hamon electrolysis hi-kick
>>16247916>$30-40 billion eachthis is entirely because they haven't been built at scale in decades and you have to basically rebuild the whole industrial process to make a new one. it's like slapping all the development costs of a new fighter jet on the first one produced and acting like each one is going to cost the same amount.people whining about "muh basic economics" are invariably those whose understanding of economics ends at simple household budgeting.
>>16243549>electric everything at homeImagine North Korea, Vietnam and Iran actually economical growth
>>16243547>green energykek, that would be funny if it weren't sad.A literal choice between two evils.
>>16244641>muh peak uranium
>>16248444He greener bot
>>16248444We can make artificial uranium
>>16244272America completely energy independent rn homie
>>16246278also >>16248748https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-leads-global-oil-production-sixth-straight-year-eia-2024-03-11/
>>16247804The energy requirments of methane reforming are much lower than electrolysis, hence why its so cheap compared to it. Carbon capture for burned fossil fuels with atmospheric air is retarded and I don't expect it to ever be very useful, but fortunately the CO2 produced from methane reforming is basically just mixed with steam so its easy to separate out and inject into the ground without sending it up the stack. They already do CO2 capture at some plants for this reason, but its more for selling industrial CO2 than any environmental reason. I will show you how fucking expensive purely water derived hydrogen is, assume a nuclear reactor can produce heat at 3 cents per kilowatt hour and convert it to H2 thermochemically at 50% efficiency. H2 is 33 cents per kilogram, your already up to about 2 dollars per kilogram with this method. Carbon captured methane reforming seems to be estimated around 1 to 2 dollars per kilogram, so its not too massive of a difference but you can see why I think gas will continue to be used for this. They might start using nuclear heat sources to drive the reforming process though, so they don't have to inject air which would make CO2 capturing easier.
>>16248869*H2 has an energy content of 33 kwh per kg
>>16243549Yes, he will put the S**dis back in their place
>green energyLmao>Non renewable>Produces the worst possible waste products of any fuel>Is mined in exactly the same way as coal>Requires 3 coal fired powerplants to even build 1 nuclear plant>Encourages nuclear weapon proliferation and dirty bombsThere will be no energy transitionNuclear is just another product to sell to sapsFossil fuels will not be used lessThe environment will not benefit one iotaLife will continue to get worse for everyone, especially being saddled with the debt of subsidizing the most expensive source of power and a 1000 year clean-up job
>>16248869>They might start using nuclear heat sources to drive the reforming process thoughRed hydrogen method seem more legit
>>16247916>TAKE 10-15 YEARS TO CONSTRUCTIn your third world country maybe
>>16245602>>16245548Germany-France issue resurface since 800s ADhttps://twitter.com/peterkinvara/status/1624348000842665985?
>>162488692 things:1. we've already got water splitting tech that's 60-70% efficient2. a kilogram of H2 is a lot of fucking H2, approximately 500 moles of the stuff - that's enough to split >10kg of CO2. that's ~3 kilograms of graphitic carbon from the fucking air for less than 3$. that's... shockingly close to current prices of MINED graphite.i think you're confusing what is being claimed - the hydrogen in all those CO2 splitting processes is closed-loop. if you want H2 as an end product, then yes, with current tech you want to use steam reforming.
>>16249284Wait I am genuinely confused here, explain. How is the H2 closed loop? So does the process extract its own H2 from water without needing some external injection?
>>16250044Bosch reaction: CO2 + 2H2 -> C + 2H2OWater splitting: 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2return the 2H2 to the Bosch reactionNet reaction: CO2 -> C + O2the hydrogen never actually gets produced or used up. apart from leaks, once you have a supply of hydrogen (or just water if you do splitting first), you don't need more - just more energy for water splitting. the Bosch reaction is actually exothermic, but very high-temperature.
>>16243547>unsustainable>can't be recycled>garbage yield>dangerous to the environment I expected this, but it's more gay that I thought it would be.Fuckers will literally fuck over the whole planet over chum change.
>>16250114This is cool, but the cost of electrolysis is still there, so you are paying for that form of hydrogen production anyways. A potentially cheaper method involving gas reforming:CH4 + H2O -> CO + 6H2CO + H2O -> CO2 + H2This leaves you with 7H2 and a CO2thenCO2 + 2H2 -> C + 2H2O.Leaving you with 5 H2 and a solid carbon you can cleanly landfill somewhere.
>>16250175If the intention was CO2 capture from other sources, you could sacrifice more of the output hydrogen to drive more of the second reaction
>>16250175Holy shit im dyslexic,, you get 4 H2 and 3 remaining after destroying the CO2, same idea stands
>>16250188*2 remaining H2 after CO2 destruction
>>16250171Fun fact: Nuclear is actually pretty cheap it’s once up and running.
>>16246658>Electrify the water through uraniumbased pringle Italian man
>>16248716Cursed 2021 wars going on
"petrodollar" "peak oil" and "dedollarization" are terms that instantly distinguish you as either a desperate thirdie who wants to feel more important or a 5th columnist contrarians who feel smart for saying that le west is le ending and we should all bow to le china because they're so much more noble.
>>16251584triggered
>>16244124Wouldn’t black H2 oil fill in half carbon dioxide?
>>16243547Will built small reactor solve the power problem?
>>16250220fpbp
>>16253474anon, in your own words please tell me what you think fpbp means
>>16253863Define as first post, best post
>>16249234Brazil, SA, Iran, Egypt lagging behind China and India powerhouse
>>16243547What next gaseuro or oilyen/oilyuan?
Fusion has been solved for billions of years. There's a massive source of limitless energy so big it's impossible to miss and so bright it'll burn your eyes pumping out so much energy that a minuscule fraction of a minuscule fraction of it heats up the entire frigging planet. All of it up for grabs and basically none of it used. But let's con the tax cuck and sell him the idea that we can somehow make the most extreme conditions in a bottle with the rarest, most expensive material in the world to maybe in a million years achieve net positive energy in the milliwatt range because why the fook not.
Free Electric!
>>16246697Sand and seawater?
>>16243547With the competence crisis around, do you really think nuclear power is a good idea with blacks, latinos and women managing and operating these power stations?
>>16244824Giga-Hydro Storm!
>>16243547Too little too late. You can't destroy an industry without consequences. Let this be a lesson to the bookburners [math] — [/math] (((activists and regulators))) [math] — [/math] in the future
>>16243597He can have his one call to his saudi kings
>>16256024Consider Texas bigger infrastructurehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrpi5ewsnIshttps://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-stations-texas/8562318
>>16247916they're profitable in chinathey're profitable in franceclearly germany and us just can't understand advanced communist/frog techoh, wait, germany and us are far more advanced than either of those shitholes, and unfortunately this bullshit comes with voting rights which allows for big oil to muddy the waters and dupe dipshits into voting against their interests, so, no more nuclear for advanced countries!
>>16250188>>16250192Good take
ant brain>dude solar and wind lmaodog brain>fossil fuel power plantspeasant brain>fusion power soonthe thinking man>classic fission powerchampion of man>small modular fission reactors
>>16257069Are these real videos
>>16257075Yes man, god is real.
>>16257419I can only say one half of that is true
>>16256024One true god
>>16244452Trump got us to energy independence to begin with before it was torn down by Biden. Why in the fuck wouldn't he promote more energy solutions that support energy independence?
>>16243547US has massive oil reserves and Alberta to the north they never needed OPEC
>>16246571Correct answer as Italy, Vietnam and Germany should do it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbRl0OOFQgs
>>16243547Like potteryhttps://archive.org/details/WilliamEngdahlACenturyOfWar/page/n84/mode/1up
>>16257643Indeed from trudeaus saudi connection to the east and soros tides and rockefeller foundations embargoing in the west with muh environmentalism, us foreign policy is treating alberta as its freezerFine i say, than let us go build snpw forts im the north with the japaense, chinese, russians, french, norge and uk
>>16244581>lease your fields for solar farm companies>warranty about the same or shorter than panels' lifespan>25 years later>you're left with a ruined field full of difficult and expensive to utilise garbageMany such cases. And you could have just had a wind turbine somewhere nearby. Or better yet, invest in nuclear.
>>16244581Inhale toxic chemicals
>>16257865>Or better yet, invest in nuclear.Yeah, invest billions into a radioactive waste factory that will salt the earth for thousands of years, much better for the farmer
>nuclear>green energyYou're such a good corporate bootlicker.
>>16258120You're right, 'green' should be saved for utopian pipe dreams.
>>16258131>utopian pipe dreams.Like nuclear?
>>16258120Biden lost right?
>>16258120See>>16256024
>>16258140>H2 economic powerhouse Y e s
>>16244272You also need to think about the petrodollar and what it means for the us as a world power.
>>16258120Don’t you nuclear already cleanest overview?
>>16243547Renewable "green" energy has been a scam for decades now
>>16243547DIO conquerer
It’s jover
>>16257643Antarctica got trillion ton of oil and white hydrogen down there.
>>16246693>Lmao there's enough uranium and thorium on earth to last for 100,000 yearsthe demand for electricity rises exponentially as time goes on.
>>16260421for oil prices
>>16258581i miss him
uranium, thorium and plutonium I care about. Green energy my ass.
>>16244581>putting solar right above cropswhy
Nuclear power is fine, guys
>>16263426indeed
>>16259889It madness with these activisthttps://x.com/lelievre12/status/1807388887817298145
