...seems the news has more or less forgotten about it, at least here in the U.S.. But the situation is deteriorating there, and now there are elevated radiation levels all over the west coast of the U.S., and rumors of evacuation in Tokyo. Cleanup crews are burning radioactive debris, sending plumes of radiation into the atmosphere, and there are concerns about the cooling pools structural integrity. Information is pretty heavily filtered through the company contracted for cleanup, but things don't look good.
One thought I have had about all this is that proponents of nuclear energy are, fundamentally, Utopians; they fall into the same general category as Libertarians, Anarchists, and Communists, in that their argument is always essentially the same: under ideal conditions when everything goes as expected and everyone behaves ideally, nuclear energy is perfectly safe.
1. Oh, shit.
2. Just point them at this, and Chernobyl, and I'm sure there are other serious meltdowns, that show that not everything does go according to plan all the time.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on April 21, 2012, 06:49:40 PM
1. Oh, shit.
2. Just point them at this, and Chernobyl, and I'm sure there are other serious meltdowns, that show that not everything does go according to plan all the time.
They always have excuses, though, for why That Would Not Happen Again. Because, like, Those Plants Were Old, and Now We Have Better Safeguards.
In other words, in an ideal world where everything goes as planned, Nuclear Power is Perfectly Safe.
Quote from: Nigel on April 21, 2012, 06:56:37 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on April 21, 2012, 06:49:40 PM
1. Oh, shit.
2. Just point them at this, and Chernobyl, and I'm sure there are other serious meltdowns, that show that not everything does go according to plan all the time.
They always have excuses, though, for why That Would Not Happen Again. Because, like, Those Plants Were Old, and Now We Have Better Safeguards.
In other words, in an ideal world where everything goes as planned, Nuclear Power is Perfectly Safe.
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg)
It gets worse. There was a clip from Ashai TV I wanted to show you, because it had subtitles and everything, but the clip has mysteriously vanished from the web.
So here's a transcript for you:
QuoteTAMAKAWA [0:00] You may think it's "already one year [since the accident] but it's actually "still only one year." [0:05] True cause of the Fukushima Daiichi accident still hasn't been identified. [0:10] Results from the investigation by Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) designated by Japan's Diet have not been published yet. [0:18] Still, they are talking about resuming the operation of nuclear plants. [0:21] I wonder what lessons they have learned from the Fukushima accident. [0:26] I want to ask you if TEPCO's Fukushima Daichii is safe now. [0:35] They talk as if the accident was over. Is it really over? Please look at this.
[0:40] (caption) Two major political parties hope to resume the operation. But is the accident over? [0:42] Is it really over? For example, Unit 4. [0:49] In fact, Dr. Koide of Kyoto University is worried about it most. [0:53] The present conditions of Unit 4 are like this. [0:57] You see, almost no walls. [1:00] They were blown off, and honestly speaking, the Unit 4 is a wreck. A wreck. [1:04] There's a stuff called "fuel pool" here. [1:10] This is a schematic illustration on the right. [1:12] The space up to around here is occupied by the nuclear reactor. Around here. [1:17] And there's a fuel room in this area. Many fuel rods are stored in the fuel pool. [1:24] They are "spent" fuel, but a total of more than 1,500 rods are in there. 2.8 times more fuel than that inside the reactor. [1:31] These rods in the pool must be cooled constantly. [1:34] Now, what if an earthquake strikes right now and the water in the pool started to leak? I asked this question to Dr. Koide. Please watch this video.
KOIDE [1:45] As you see, there's the pool, here and many spent fuel rods are in the bottom of the pool. [1:54] If a large aftershock strikes and the wall here collapses, the water in the pool will leak out and the spent fuel will not be cooled any more. [2:07] Then they will start to melt, probably completely. [2:15] And a huge amount of radiation contained in the spent fuel will be released outside, with no walls to contain it.
TAMAKAWA [2:27] We'll never know an earthquake strikes. [2:30] But can't we simply build another pool beside it and take the rods out and transfer them to the new pool before an earthquake strikes?
KOIDE [2:37] Well, if you hoist them up in the air, huge amount of radiation will come out from the spent fuel [2:45] and people nearby will have no choice but to die from it.
TAMAKAWA [2:49] That strong?
KOIDE: Yes.
TAMAKAWA [2:53] Spent fuel rods are in the pool but it doesn't mean they're "spent." [2:58] They still produce heat and still have radioactivity that would kill peple nearby if exposed in the air. [3:05] They are safe now simply because they are in the water and the water blocks the radiation. [3:10] As the video shows, I asked him "Why can't we simply transfer them to another pool?" Now, let's look at how the transfer is normally done. [3:20] As shown here, nuclear fuel rods are initially in the reactor. When they are spent, they are transferred to the spent fuel pool here.[3:28] What they do first is lower this giant container into the water. [3:34] Then the fuel rods are transferred into this container in the water. All of them. [3:42] Then they close the lid with water inside, and hoist the container outside. [3:48] But now, because of the earthquake, the crane to hoist them is not working any more. [3:53] Then, how are they going to transfer the fuel rods?
KOIDE [3:58] You see, there's a giant crane above the operation floor.
TAMAKAWA: Yes.
KOIDE [4:02] This crane is for hoisting the giant container up and down. [4:09] But since this reactor building itself was blown off by the explosion, they can't even use this crane. [4:16] There are many things they have to do. [4:18] First, remove the debris and other things that have fallen into the fuel pool. [4:25] Next, they have to set up a crane at the site to lower the giant container into the water. [4:35] A giant crane to operate from outside. They have to make preparations for this operation. [4:41] Lower the container down into the water, put the fuel rods which are probably damaged to some degree, into the container [4:48] and hoist it up to move outside. All this could take years.
TAMAKAWA [4:57] What if a destructive earthquake strikes during those years?
KOIDE [5:03] That will be the end.
TAMAKAWA: The end?
KOIDE: Yes. You see, that will be the end.
[5:04 - 5:07] Reaction shot of news presenters]
PRESENTERS [5:08] Unbelievable. Unbelievable. [5:12] This is a serious problem.
TAMAKAWA [5:14] TEPCO knows this is the most pressing issue. Yesterday, as if to make it in time for our program, TEPCO announced the latest schedule. [5:22] It says they start retreiving the fuel rods of Unit 4 in January next year at the earliest. [5:27] So if a large earthquake should strike from now until that January... [5:35] No, it doesn't have to be that large. Unit 4 has been shaken many times already.
PRESENTER [5:39] If the pool got cracks after another earthquake and the water starts to leak out, Dr. Koide says that will be the end.
TAMAKAWA [5:49] The end for a wide area including Tokyo.
PRESENTER [5:54] Oh my, and they are talking about resuming nuclear power plant operation.
Holy shit. Thank you, Cain.
There's more:
QuoteTAMAKAWA [5:55] I think resuming the operation is out of the question at least until the results from the investigation by NAIIC come out [but see below]. [6:00] The same goes for the new nuclear regulatory agency. The nature of the agency should reflect their results [but see below].
PRESENTER [6:07] For an important issue like this, the opposition should check the ruling party. [6:15] But this time they can't, because there are also people in the opposition who want to promote nuclear power, who want to resume the plants' operation, who are pressed to do so. Both sides want to operate nuclear power plants.
TAMAKAWA [6:26] But there are many people including Mr. Kono of LDP [opposition] who think that's not the way it should be.
PRESENTER [6:32] But they're a minority, aren't they?
TAMAKAWA: No, they aren't. [6:36] There are people who think the same even in DJP [ruling party]. But here are also many people who want to resume the operation.
PRESENTER [6:41] I want to vote again.
PRESENTER [6:42] They talk about resuming the operation after gaining understanding from local communities. [6:45] But for this issue, I think the whole country of Japan, or the whole area including the neighboring countries, is a "local community" that would be affected. [6:51] We should keep in mind that it's not only the sites of the plants that should be considered as "local communities."
PRESENTER [6:57] We should recognize the accident is far from over and the crisis is still ongoing.
TAMAKAWA [7:06] Yes. And excuse me, I have a correction to make. [7:13] Retrieving the fuel rods is planned to start not from January, but from... when? December next year? (Yes.)
TAMAKAWA [7:14] December next year? No kidding!
TAMAKAWA [7:18] Sorry, I was too optimistic.
PRESENTER [7:21] The members of the Diet who want to resume, I want them to resign.
PRESENTER [7:25] We need to reconsider this issue.
PRESENTER [7:28] I want to know the exact names of the members of the Diet who want to resume, and ask them for their opinions.
TAMAKAWA [7:34] I hope this issue will be discussed further at the Diet.
Since this time:
The NAIIC has not issued a report.
A new nuclear regulatory agency has not been created
The Japanese government has declared two nuclear reactors safe to restart.
So....I should probably NOT visit Tokyo for a few years, and nuclear power scares the shit out of me more than it used to.
If a country(Germany) immediately decommissions all of its nuclear plants in response to an incident like this it generally means we're not being told the full extent of the story on how bad things really are.
In the long term our only choices for sustainability are nuclear or drop the population of the planet.
Fucking Christ. Thanks for the update Nigel, Cain, and Faust.
The difficulty of finding information about current radiation levels on the West coast is alarming me. It's scary for two reasons; one, because I know the information exists, and two, because one of the ethical considerations of public health workers is the cost/benefit ratio of informing people of public health issues. If the radiation levels along the West coast are unacceptably increased, the cost of informing the public would be high, and the benefit low. If the radiation levels are acceptable, the cost of informing the public would be low, and the benefit high.
Quote from: Cain on April 21, 2012, 07:36:53 PM
There's more:
QuoteTAMAKAWA [5:55] I think resuming the operation is out of the question at least until the results from the investigation by NAIIC come out [but see below]. [6:00] The same goes for the new nuclear regulatory agency. The nature of the agency should reflect their results [but see below].
PRESENTER [6:07] For an important issue like this, the opposition should check the ruling party. [6:15] But this time they can't, because there are also people in the opposition who want to promote nuclear power, who want to resume the plants' operation, who are pressed to do so. Both sides want to operate nuclear power plants.
TAMAKAWA [6:26] But there are many people including Mr. Kono of LDP [opposition] who think that's not the way it should be.
PRESENTER [6:32] But they're a minority, aren't they?
TAMAKAWA: No, they aren't. [6:36] There are people who think the same even in DJP [ruling party]. But here are also many people who want to resume the operation.
PRESENTER [6:41] I want to vote again.
PRESENTER [6:42] They talk about resuming the operation after gaining understanding from local communities. [6:45] But for this issue, I think the whole country of Japan, or the whole area including the neighboring countries, is a "local community" that would be affected. [6:51] We should keep in mind that it's not only the sites of the plants that should be considered as "local communities."
PRESENTER [6:57] We should recognize the accident is far from over and the crisis is still ongoing.
TAMAKAWA [7:06] Yes. And excuse me, I have a correction to make. [7:13] Retrieving the fuel rods is planned to start not from January, but from... when? December next year? (Yes.)
TAMAKAWA [7:14] December next year? No kidding!
TAMAKAWA [7:18] Sorry, I was too optimistic.
PRESENTER [7:21] The members of the Diet who want to resume, I want them to resign.
PRESENTER [7:25] We need to reconsider this issue.
PRESENTER [7:28] I want to know the exact names of the members of the Diet who want to resume, and ask them for their opinions.
TAMAKAWA [7:34] I hope this issue will be discussed further at the Diet.
Since this time:
The NAIIC has not issued a report.
A new nuclear regulatory agency has not been created
The Japanese government has declared two nuclear reactors safe to restart.
One of the things I heard, from a pretty credible source, is that the Japanese government is resisting restarting those reactors but is under pressure from other governments. Notably ours.
Quote from: Nigel on April 21, 2012, 06:18:55 PM
One thought I have had about all this is that proponents of nuclear energy are, fundamentally, Utopians; they fall into the same general category as Libertarians, Anarchists, and Communists, in that their argument is always essentially the same: under ideal conditions when everything goes as expected and everyone behaves ideally, nuclear energy is perfectly safe.
THIS! Harnessing a power source that has the capability to wipe out every living thing in an area the size of a small country is, in terms of retardedness, right up there with war, democracy, prohibition and religion.
The fucking alarmists and agenda-pushers are really muddying the waters, too, with shit like this:
http://www.radiation.org/press/pressrelease111219FukushimaReactorFallout.html
It's been pretty soundly rebutted, but still. These fuckers don't make it any easier to find good information.
Beig in Australia, visiting Japan and having a lot of friends living there, this worries the hell out of me. For exactly what you're sayin Nigel; it's hard to get info from someone who doesn't have an agenda.
In Japan ive seen a fair wack of protest against nuklier power. I always notice street art too, and this time a significant portion of it was giving an anti-nuklier message.
Quote from: Nigel on April 21, 2012, 06:18:55 PM
One thought I have had about all this is that proponents of nuclear energy are, fundamentally, Utopians; they fall into the same general category as Libertarians, Anarchists, and Communists, in that their argument is always essentially the same: under ideal conditions when everything goes as expected and everyone behaves ideally, nuclear energy is perfectly safe.
Well, I approach it from a pragmatic angle...Something's gotta keep the lights on, and burning coal and fuel oil ain't the way to do it.
Solar. Wind. Somethin'...
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 22, 2012, 06:00:32 AM
Solar. Wind. Somethin'...
Still need consistent and constant power generation.
Quote from: Guru Coyote on April 22, 2012, 06:10:23 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 22, 2012, 06:00:32 AM
Solar. Wind. Somethin'...
Still need consistent and constant power generation.
Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.
The problem is, sure, nuclear power, heavily regulated and thoroughly tested, could be safe.
Only, those two things are never going to happen, so it's a pipe dream, like having an unregulated market lead to better conditions of wealth for everyone, or that if we abolished the State people would just get along in perfect harmony.
Nuclear power is vital for nuclear weapons and for providing the energy to keep the state running. As a consequence, all its mishaps and red flags and corner cutting actions will be over looked. Secondly, we've had this song and dance before. When Chernobyl went kaboom, the entire French nuclear industry, including large numbers of French physicists and nuclear scientists, went on the record as saying the fallout would not hit France, even as its eastern hills were lightly peppered with radioactive material for months. Why? They wanted to counter "negative public perceptions" of nuclear power - to the point they outright lied about what was happening and put people at risk.
And why did Chernobyl go critical in the first place? Because safety protocols were ignored.
Quote from: Cain on April 22, 2012, 10:08:06 AM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on April 22, 2012, 06:10:23 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 22, 2012, 06:00:32 AM
Solar. Wind. Somethin'...
Still need consistent and constant power generation.
Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.
That doesn't sound right to me. What kind of renewable energy source?
Where did you see that?
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf
QuoteThe gross resource has been quantified by state, water depth, distance from shore, and wind class throughout a band extending out to 50 nautical miles from the U.S. coastline.
This total gross wind resource is estimated at more than 4,000 GW, or roughly four times the generating capacity currently carried on the U.S. electric grid.
Now, obviously, there are issues with that. Actual energy capture would be closer to 60%. And there would be serious technical hurdles to overcome in integrating an entirely new energy grid, intermittancy and so on.
Nevertheless, 60% still represents more than the US currently use by far.
Furthermore, the larger the system put in place, the more issues of intermittancy become irrelevant
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
QuoteMr. Kempton of the University of Delaware and Mr. Wellinghoff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said the backbone would offer another plus: reducing one of wind power's big problems, variability of output.
"Along the U.S. Atlantic seaboard, we tend to have storm tracks that move along the coast and somewhat offshore," Mr. Kempton said.
If storm winds were blowing on Friday off Virginia, they might be off Delaware by Saturday and off New Jersey by Sunday, he noted. Yet the long spine would ensure that the amount of energy coming ashore held roughly constant.
Quote from: Cain on April 22, 2012, 10:37:07 AM
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf
QuoteThe gross resource has been quantified by state, water depth, distance from shore, and wind class throughout a band extending out to 50 nautical miles from the U.S. coastline.
This total gross wind resource is estimated at more than 4,000 GW, or roughly four times the generating capacity currently carried on the U.S. electric grid.
Now, obviously, there are issues with that. Actual energy capture would be closer to 60%. And there would be serious technical hurdles to overcome in integrating an entirely new energy grid, intermittancy and so on.
Nevertheless, 60% still represents more than the US currently use by far.
Furthermore, the larger the system put in place, the more issues of intermittancy become irrelevant
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
QuoteMr. Kempton of the University of Delaware and Mr. Wellinghoff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said the backbone would offer another plus: reducing one of wind power's big problems, variability of output.
"Along the U.S. Atlantic seaboard, we tend to have storm tracks that move along the coast and somewhat offshore," Mr. Kempton said.
If storm winds were blowing on Friday off Virginia, they might be off Delaware by Saturday and off New Jersey by Sunday, he noted. Yet the long spine would ensure that the amount of energy coming ashore held roughly constant.
That is roughly 5000 turbines...
Currently the worlds largest offshore windfarm has 102.
It's ambitious and will be awesome if it happens as described.
The largest part of the cost incurred is in the construction of the turbines which to date the US doesn't do very well (not at all for offshore). It would be a huge amount of cash to hand over to another country, however it would be the most responsible and prudent investment a country could make in the energy sector.
Oh yeah, it'd be a hugely ambitious and costly project, no arguing there.
On the other hand, it'd still be cheaper than building nuclear power plants, have less risk of going critical, and pay for itself much more quickly.
Quote from: Nigel on April 21, 2012, 06:18:55 PM
...seems the news \ is perfectly safe.
5 update due at 9
the size of N.power Past\Present\Future
in the past? so called soverien GOVERNMENTS have built artifacts to themselves
(as usual}
large nuclear power plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations_in_the_world)
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa at 8,212 MW v Three Gorges Dam in China. installed capacity to 21,000 MW
v
Composition of Electricity by {{aLL}} Resource 20,261 (TWh per year 2008)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation
/\/\/\ /\/\/\ Never mind bragging rights
REMember at this time 3&1/3 hrs REMaing till poist. My 1 electron version
V their Many! assumes 1. that that Elecron can appear in one of three forms
as a particle {the ice form) 2: as a liquid {the field form) 3? as a Gas
{this is the aether form and will not be discussed as they could nOT UNderstand)
UNDERSTAND? Assume for a while thought that they are correct | that there are Many
\/\/\/ \/\/\/
A question arises about What % {percentage) of the global surface electrons are
found running along the (Um}? electrical grid, & what does it imply about the
REMinder. This is a question about the concept of source & sink & is just tossed
in to muddy the waters {so to speak) and has littel to do with the present
other than the fact it does use the electron {OR electrons) have it your way. U know
_
OK moving along to the future / the portable device / Away from fixed position
{Bigger is better)(to smaller is easier to transport long distances}
Lemme suggest i try to compare Submarine production {portable nuclear) Small v
Large
(http://media.turnofspeed.com/media/hub/main_cheer2105272.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine
Current generations of nuclear submarines never need to be refueled throughout their 25-year lifespans.
The design has two 35 MWe units based on the KLT-40 reactor used in icebreakers ( refueling 4 years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion
? ? ? ?
please think that i do not suggest TW/CENT OR GW/DECADE OR MW/Year
i speak of PORTABLE units & probably in terms of KW/ per Min OR
fractions thereof. No i do NOT think Go.Mints think along these lines
i think they think BIG & will continue to do SO. "RongLii" 3 hrs to post TIME 9B
_http://futurismic.com/2007/12/18/personal-nuclear-generator/_
Quote from: Cain on April 22, 2012, 10:16:46 AM
The problem is, sure, nuclear power, heavily regulated and thoroughly tested, could be safe.
Only, those two things are never going to happen, so it's a pipe dream, like having an unregulated market lead to better conditions of wealth for everyone, or that if we abolished the State people would just get along in perfect harmony.
Nuclear power is vital for nuclear weapons and for providing the energy to keep the state running. As a consequence, all its mishaps and red flags and corner cutting actions will be over looked. Secondly, we've had this song and dance before. When Chernobyl went kaboom, the entire French nuclear industry, including large numbers of French physicists and nuclear scientists, went on the record as saying the fallout would not hit France, even as its eastern hills were lightly peppered with radioactive material for months. Why? They wanted to counter "negative public perceptions" of nuclear power - to the point they outright lied about what was happening and put people at risk.
And why did Chernobyl go critical in the first place? Because safety protocols were ignored.
Not only will they never happen, but even the idea that it could be safe with heavy regulation and thorough testing is a bit optimistic, because we can't test for unforeseen situations, and even if we could, we still have the still-unresolved question, after 60 years, of what to do with spent fuel rods.
Additionally, we cannot currently make use of breeder reactors that would significantly improve the viability of nuclear power, because of the perceived risk of the plutonium being used for nuclear bombs.
Obligitory sensationalistic but real pics
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mutation-Watch/330100447017280?sk=photos
Quote from: Faust on April 22, 2012, 11:15:24 AM
That is roughly 5000 turbines...
Currently the worlds largest offshore windfarm has 102.
It's ambitious and will be awesome if it happens as described.
The largest part of the cost incurred is in the construction of the turbines which to date the US doesn't do very well (not at all for offshore). It would be a huge amount of cash to hand over to another country, however it would be the most responsible and prudent investment a country could make in the energy sector.
More an observation than anything, but the drive for nuclear power seems to be more interesting to "Western" thought than "Eastern". It's quick, cheap and the problems are someone else's. I have a feeling that if we see any real large scale renewable programs it's going to be coming from somewhere like China where taking on multi generational projects is more commonplace.
It also occurs that projects like this could solve employment woes in several nations. Realistically it needs a large upfront investment, but should leaders of countries not be playing the long game?
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2012, 11:05:08 PM
Quote from: Faust on April 22, 2012, 11:15:24 AM
That is roughly 5000 turbines...
Currently the worlds largest offshore windfarm has 102.
It's ambitious and will be awesome if it happens as described.
The largest part of the cost incurred is in the construction of the turbines which to date the US doesn't do very well (not at all for offshore). It would be a huge amount of cash to hand over to another country, however it would be the most responsible and prudent investment a country could make in the energy sector.
More an observation than anything, but the drive for nuclear power seems to be more interesting to "Western" thought than "Eastern". It's quick, cheap and the problems are someone else's. I have a feeling that if we see any real large scale renewable programs it's going to be coming from somewhere like China where taking on multi generational projects is more commonplace.
It also occurs that projects like this could solve employment woes in several nations. Realistically it needs a large upfront investment, but should leaders of countries not be playing the long game?
Realistically the decommissioning of existing plants for offshore would result in a loss of jobs. But in places countries using only fossil fuels it creates new jobs and has expedient return on investment. A lot of European countries vetoed the use of nuclear power in their countries so it will be widely adopted by Europe.
In the east I don't see them using renewable energy in any of the developing countries like china or India, renewables take planning and lump investment which gradually pays off, there are a lot less complications with Nuclear. Especially if you are just dumping waste into the sea or down a mine.
Thinking purely about currently nuclear countries switching to renewable sources, would there actually be a net loss of jobs? Given that the projects are vast, the decommissioning process is unlikely to happen until the new sources are running to a point where thy can reliably providing the equivalent energy. I would guess the best way forward would be to run a cross-over period where you are creating large amounts of surplus energy that you can shift onto the world market at whatever price you choose. It's all pure profit anyway.
Job creation in the manufacturing sectors and the workforce required to keep the project maintained and operational I would guess to be at least equal to those involved in nuclear. I really have no idea, I've not looked at the numbers for nuclear and haven't a clue about how to calculate potential employment figures for a hypothetical offshore project.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2012, 11:37:45 PM
Thinking purely about currently nuclear countries switching to renewable sources, would there actually be a net loss of jobs? Given that the projects are vast, the decommissioning process is unlikely to happen until the new sources are running to a point where thy can reliably providing the equivalent energy. I would guess the best way forward would be to run a cross-over period where you are creating large amounts of surplus energy that you can shift onto the world market at whatever price you choose. It's all pure profit anyway.
Job creation in the manufacturing sectors and the workforce required to keep the project maintained and operational I would guess to be at least equal to those involved in nuclear. I really have no idea, I've not looked at the numbers for nuclear and haven't a clue about how to calculate potential employment figures for a hypothetical offshore project.
The manufacturing of offshore wind turbines is a very specific skill set, one the US hasn't got an awful lot of experience in. Although if the US was to do 5000 of them it would be worth learning how to do it right as it would create some employment for a long term.
Because of the nature of wind turbines compared to what is a large processing plant, there is less admin work, less maintenance, no cleaning crews, no long term on site staff thats where the loss of jobs comes in. I've no idea how a cross over period of exporting the power would work but its possible.
Quote from: Cain on April 22, 2012, 10:08:06 AM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on April 22, 2012, 06:10:23 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 22, 2012, 06:00:32 AM
Solar. Wind. Somethin'...
Still need consistent and constant power generation.
Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.
No argument there. That should be started on immediately.
However, the reactors are in place right now, and we still need power while we put in the infrastructure to make power.
Also, modern pebble bed reactors aren't nearly as dangerous as the antique they had running in Japan (or North Dakota, for that matter).
Quote from: Faust on April 22, 2012, 11:27:18 PM
Realistically the decommissioning of existing plants for offshore would result in a loss of jobs.
Jobs, IMO, aren't a consideration, here.
To my mind, the top two priorities are:
Keep the lights on.
Don't poison whole cities.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:19:48 PM
Quote from: Faust on April 22, 2012, 11:27:18 PM
Realistically the decommissioning of existing plants for offshore would result in a loss of jobs.
Jobs, IMO, aren't a consideration, here.
To my mind, the top two priorities are:
Keep the lights on.
Don't poison whole cities.
This! Jobs are important but only when there's employees left alive to do them.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2012, 02:40:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:19:48 PM
Quote from: Faust on April 22, 2012, 11:27:18 PM
Realistically the decommissioning of existing plants for offshore would result in a loss of jobs.
Jobs, IMO, aren't a consideration, here.
To my mind, the top two priorities are:
Keep the lights on.
Don't poison whole cities.
This! Jobs are important but only when there's employees left alive to do them.
Also, energy companies should not be allowed to run museum pieces. As safer tech becomes available, they should be forced to impliment it, at least within a reasonable time frame.
It's not like any of them are going broke.
You obviously know more than me about different kinds of power stations and how safe they are. All I know is my argument hasn't changed since the days of the cold war where people were constantly trying to freak me out with the prospect of a nuclear war.
Death by nuclear war requires someone somewhere to press a button
Death by nuclear reactor requires someone somewhere to forget to press a button
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2012, 02:49:48 PM
You obviously know more than me about different kinds of power stations and how safe they are. All I know is my argument hasn't changed since the days of the cold war where people were constantly trying to freak me out with the prospect of a nuclear war.
Death by nuclear war requires someone somewhere to press a button
Death by nuclear reactor requires someone somewhere to forget to press a button
When pebble beds fail, they stop reacting.
Thing is, the Fukishima plant was a disaster waiting to happen. They had the spent fuel rods stored on the roof, and the emergency power generators located on the ground. Given that a tsunami was the "emergency" they were planning for, it seems that Mike the engineer from my plant had to have thought that scheme up.
Wave comes through, trashes generators. Pumps stop. Old fuel rods start to heat up. Hello, nurse!
A few simple changes would have prevented the disaster.
1. Spent fuel rods stored in separate buildings, and moved to a proper facility as soon as possible.
2. Generators on the roof, away from potential flooding.
This was just an example of piss-poor design. Hell, the reactors themselves did fine.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:17:52 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 22, 2012, 10:08:06 AM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on April 22, 2012, 06:10:23 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 22, 2012, 06:00:32 AM
Solar. Wind. Somethin'...
Still need consistent and constant power generation.
Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.
No argument there. That should be started on immediately.
However, the reactors are in place right now, and we still need power while we put in the infrastructure to make power.
Also, modern pebble bed reactors aren't nearly as dangerous as the antique they had running in Japan (or North Dakota, for that matter).
We absolutely need power until the new infrastructure is in place, partly because we HAVE to kept the spent fuel cooled. There are a lot more reasons than that, of course, but that one's pretty fucking critical.
As for not running antiques, every power plant built is going to be an antique in fifty years, with no budget to decommission or replace it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:44:48 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2012, 02:40:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:19:48 PM
Quote from: Faust on April 22, 2012, 11:27:18 PM
Realistically the decommissioning of existing plants for offshore would result in a loss of jobs.
Jobs, IMO, aren't a consideration, here.
To my mind, the top two priorities are:
Keep the lights on.
Don't poison whole cities.
This! Jobs are important but only when there's employees left alive to do them.
Also, energy companies should not be allowed to run museum pieces. As safer tech becomes available, they should be forced to implement it, at least within a reasonable time frame.
It's not like any of them are going broke.
But that's not how they will see it and they are the main opposition. To be honest the management involved with those should have been shoved into the reactor years ago alongside Ayn rands festering corpse. If you can overcome them then, you can ignore the screaming tea party crowd who will invariably be against the idea.
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2012, 03:12:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:17:52 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 22, 2012, 10:08:06 AM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on April 22, 2012, 06:10:23 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 22, 2012, 06:00:32 AM
Solar. Wind. Somethin'...
Still need consistent and constant power generation.
Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.
No argument there. That should be started on immediately.
However, the reactors are in place right now, and we still need power while we put in the infrastructure to make power.
Also, modern pebble bed reactors aren't nearly as dangerous as the antique they had running in Japan (or North Dakota, for that matter).
We absolutely need power until the new infrastructure is in place, partly because we HAVE to kept the spent fuel cooled. There are a lot more reasons than that, of course, but that one's pretty fucking critical.
As for not running antiques, every power plant built is going to be an antique in fifty years, with no budget to decommission or replace it.
This is why - in a sane world - they'd be forced to budget for retrofits & replacements.
I mean, the pebble bed design is damn near perfect, but something better will be along, and eventually everything wears out anyway.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2012, 03:12:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:17:52 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 22, 2012, 10:08:06 AM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on April 22, 2012, 06:10:23 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 22, 2012, 06:00:32 AM
Solar. Wind. Somethin'...
Still need consistent and constant power generation.
Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.
No argument there. That should be started on immediately.
However, the reactors are in place right now, and we still need power while we put in the infrastructure to make power.
Also, modern pebble bed reactors aren't nearly as dangerous as the antique they had running in Japan (or North Dakota, for that matter).
We absolutely need power until the new infrastructure is in place, partly because we HAVE to kept the spent fuel cooled. There are a lot more reasons than that, of course, but that one's pretty fucking critical.
As for not running antiques, every power plant built is going to be an antique in fifty years, with no budget to decommission or replace it.
This is why - in a sane world - they'd be forced to budget for retrofits & replacements.
I mean, the pebble bed design is damn near perfect, but something better will be along, and eventually everything wears out anyway.
Not if we put funding into something that
doesn't have disastrously toxic waste products. Saying that nuclear
could be perfectly safe and efficient if only we utilized all these safeguards and regulations and planned ahead and the plants were run properly and we figured out a permanent and safe solution for waste disposal is no different from saying that a Libertarian free market
could be a perfect system if everybody behaved themselves.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 03:48:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2012, 03:12:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 23, 2012, 02:17:52 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 22, 2012, 10:08:06 AM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on April 22, 2012, 06:10:23 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 22, 2012, 06:00:32 AM
Solar. Wind. Somethin'...
Still need consistent and constant power generation.
Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.
No argument there. That should be started on immediately.
However, the reactors are in place right now, and we still need power while we put in the infrastructure to make power.
Also, modern pebble bed reactors aren't nearly as dangerous as the antique they had running in Japan (or North Dakota, for that matter).
We absolutely need power until the new infrastructure is in place, partly because we HAVE to kept the spent fuel cooled. There are a lot more reasons than that, of course, but that one's pretty fucking critical.
As for not running antiques, every power plant built is going to be an antique in fifty years, with no budget to decommission or replace it.
This is why - in a sane world - they'd be forced to budget for retrofits & replacements.
I mean, the pebble bed design is damn near perfect, but something better will be along, and eventually everything wears out anyway.
Not if we put funding into something that doesn't have disastrously toxic waste products. Saying that nuclear could be perfectly safe and efficient if only we utilized all these safeguards and regulations and planned ahead and the plants were run properly and we figured out a permanent and safe solution for waste disposal is no different from saying that a Libertarian free market could be a perfect system if everybody behaved themselves.
You're getting no argument from me...Mostly because there are 2 perfectly safe methods of disposing of nuclear waste, but the NRC refuses to even look at them, because if they were implimented, 1/3rd of the NRC would be out of work.
So, yeah, any system based on expecting people to behave themselves is, as we have pointed out many times before, automatically a failed system...And while there is risk in any energy generation system, the risk in nuclear systems is so much higher than the alternatives that it should be replaced.
I make two exceptions for this:
1. Remote site energy generation, where it is not feasible to bring power in or use safer forms of power, and
2. Space-based energy generation. Solar energy works really well in the short term on satellites & space stations, but the panels degrade extremely quickly, and are not sufficient in any long term application.
However, in the meantime, we have to come up with alternate energy sources before we start shutting down reactors.
What are the two safe disposal methods?
I would absolutely so not be at all down with space-based nuclear. Holy shit. What's the rationale there? I can't even see how it would be managed, and anything that's in orbit is at risk of, at some point, coming down. Adding a massive layer of shit that could go catastrophically wrong to something that can go catastrophically wrong seems to be, putting it mildly, not a good idea.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:58:57 PM
What are the two safe disposal methods?
1. Put the waste in silica & lead, and fuse the sand into glass, stack blocks out in the salt flats, or
2. Dig a 2 mile bore hole, and drop the shit down. Given time, it will eventually pass into the Earth's mantle, where most of the world's radioactives are.
Both methods allow you to recover the material, which might be important. If it's hot, it still has energy, and we might need that later.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:58:57 PM
I would absolutely so not be at all down with space-based nuclear. Holy shit. What's the rationale there? I can't even see how it would be managed, and anything that's in orbit is at risk of, at some point, coming down. Adding a massive layer of shit that could go catastrophically wrong to something that can go catastrophically wrong seems to be, putting it mildly, not a good idea.
Depends how you do it. Any real space platform would be at a Lagrange point, and would thus never come down unless you made it come down.
DUMB, ILL-CONCEIVED IDEA: Send it all to Mars so that future Mars missions have a potential power supply.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 05:03:04 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:58:57 PM
What are the two safe disposal methods?
1. Put the waste in silica & lead, and fuse the sand into glass, stack blocks out in the salt flats, or
2. Dig a 2 mile bore hole, and drop the shit down. Given time, it will eventually pass into the Earth's mantle, where most of the world's radioactives are.
Both methods allow you to recover the material, which might be important. If it's hot, it still has energy, and we might need that later.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:58:57 PM
I would absolutely so not be at all down with space-based nuclear. Holy shit. What's the rationale there? I can't even see how it would be managed, and anything that's in orbit is at risk of, at some point, coming down. Adding a massive layer of shit that could go catastrophically wrong to something that can go catastrophically wrong seems to be, putting it mildly, not a good idea.
Depends how you do it. Any real space platform would be at a Lagrange point, and would thus never come down unless you made it come down.
Isn't the glass-fusing angle a relatively recent development that's still being explored because the logistics of actually doing it are a bit more complicated than they sound? I remember reading about that fairly recently.
I had to look up Lagrange point, and while theoretically that does solve the problem of a nuclear power plant space station coming down, I have to ask... what use is a nuclear power plant space station, other than to power other stuff that's in space? The logistics and insane expense of getting everything there are one thing... how is that power going to be transported to Earth? It sounds like one of those interesting theoretical "well maybe someday we'll have the technology to make it economically feasible" scenarios.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 05:03:04 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:58:57 PM
What are the two safe disposal methods?
1. Put the waste in silica & lead, and fuse the sand into glass, stack blocks out in the salt flats, or
2. Dig a 2 mile bore hole, and drop the shit down. Given time, it will eventually pass into the Earth's mantle, where most of the world's radioactives are.
Both methods allow you to recover the material, which might be important. If it's hot, it still has energy, and we might need that later.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:58:57 PM
I would absolutely so not be at all down with space-based nuclear. Holy shit. What's the rationale there? I can't even see how it would be managed, and anything that's in orbit is at risk of, at some point, coming down. Adding a massive layer of shit that could go catastrophically wrong to something that can go catastrophically wrong seems to be, putting it mildly, not a good idea.
Depends how you do it. Any real space platform would be at a Lagrange point, and would thus never come down unless you made it come down.
Isn't the glass-fusing angle a relatively recent development that's still being explored because the logistics of actually doing it are a bit more complicated than they sound? I remember reading about that fairly recently.
The idea was first thought up at a science fiction convention in the early 60s. They proposed it to the NRC, who told them to shit in their hat and leave this sort of thing to the
experts.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
I had to look up Lagrange point, and while theoretically that does solve the problem of a nuclear power plant space station coming down, I have to ask... what use is a nuclear power plant space station, other than to power other stuff that's in space? The logistics and insane expense of getting everything there are one thing... how is that power going to be transported to Earth? It sounds like one of those interesting theoretical "well maybe someday we'll have the technology to make it economically feasible" scenarios.
It's for powering stuff in space. Beats the hell out of shipping up tanks of liquid fuel stock.
Or for beaming power down via laser or microwave to collection points on the Earth. That's feasible right now, but not really efficient...And it has one really nasty application (Someone pissing you off? Shift the beam over their cities).
I know that there is at least one company that embeds nuclear waste in glass. However, I believe there are some pretty serious logistical problems with embedding spent fuel rods in glass.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:04:44 PM
I know that there is at least one company that embeds nuclear waste in glass. However, I believe there are some pretty serious logistical problems with embedding spent fuel rods in glass.
I'm sure there are. Materials handling is never simple, especially when the material is radioactive and also toxic as hell.
But I'm sure that the sci-fi guys who came up with it know better than the nuclear scientists at the NRC. :lulz:
And it's not like 3300 is hotter than the liquidity point for glass. Or quartz.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:08:25 PM
But I'm sure that the sci-fi guys who came up with it know better than the nuclear scientists at the NRC. :lulz:
*shrug*
Two of the science fiction writers had PhDs in physics.
EDIT: One of them (Benford) had a PhD, the other (Bova) had a degree in material science.
I'm sorry, I'm being a dick. But it does sound an awful lot like "guy goes up to expert panel and proposes an overly simplistic version of something expert panel has already spent years working on". Having a PhDs in physics doesn't make someone a nuclear physicist, and for that matter being a nuclear physicist doesn't qualify them as an expert in handling waste.
And, I spent a few minutes looking at papers on deep-bore disposal and apparently they've unsuccessfully been trying to figure out a good way to do that for decades.
If a solution to a very serious problem sounds simple on the surface, and yet isn't being implemented, in general I've found that it's because it's much more complicated than it sounds. For that reason, I'm extremely skeptical of simplistic solutions to complicated problems.
Sort of like how Mike the Engineer has all kinds of great ideas.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:18:07 PM
I'm sorry, I'm being a dick. But it does sound an awful lot like "guy goes up to expert panel and proposes an overly simplistic version of something expert panel has already spent years working on". Having a PhDs in physics doesn't make someone a nuclear physicist, and for that matter being a nuclear physicist doesn't qualify them as an expert in handling waste.
I just edited: Upon checking, only one of them had the PhD.
In any case, the NRC isn't exactly composed of experts, either...Their boss is a theoretical physics geek. Also, they're under fire from the Union of Concerned Scientists for doing basically fuck all about the waste issue. Hell, they've had 4 decades to work on it, and the best they could manage was Yucca mountain. Barrels in a cave near an aquifer on a fault line.
I'm thinking you could get the dingbat that wrote
Twilight, and do a better job.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:22:24 PM
Sort of like how Mike the Engineer has all kinds of great ideas.
Filthy Assistant, you mean. Mike has no ideas, and won't tolerate them from anyone else, either.
:lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:22:24 PM
If a solution to a very serious problem sounds simple on the surface, and yet isn't being implemented, in general I've found that it's because it's much more complicated than it sounds. For that reason, I'm extremely skeptical of simplistic solutions to complicated problems.
Assuredly. Remember that I am a maintenance geek; all is complication.
But going to the moon was complicated. So is eye surgery. So was the development of the reactors themselves.
Question I have is, how much funding has the borehole approach gotten? It is my experience that you can smash any complications with a project (that isn't actually impossible) with enough applied cash & expertise.
Of course, if we DID that, we couldn't afford 12 shiny carrier groups to save us when Zombie Tojo comes back for a terrible revenge.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 07:33:30 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:22:24 PM
If a solution to a very serious problem sounds simple on the surface, and yet isn't being implemented, in general I've found that it's because it's much more complicated than it sounds. For that reason, I'm extremely skeptical of simplistic solutions to complicated problems.
Assuredly. Remember that I am a maintenance geek; all is complication.
But going to the moon was complicated. So is eye surgery. So was the development of the reactors themselves.
Question I have is, how much funding has the borehole approach gotten? It is my experience that you can smash any complications with a project (that isn't actually impossible) with enough applied cash & expertise.
Of course, if we DID that, we couldn't afford 12 shiny carrier groups to save us when Zombie Tojo comes back for a terrible revenge.
Also, the above post explains why alternate energy won't be taken seriously until it's too late.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 07:24:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:18:07 PM
I'm sorry, I'm being a dick. But it does sound an awful lot like "guy goes up to expert panel and proposes an overly simplistic version of something expert panel has already spent years working on". Having a PhDs in physics doesn't make someone a nuclear physicist, and for that matter being a nuclear physicist doesn't qualify them as an expert in handling waste.
I just edited: Upon checking, only one of them had the PhD.
In any case, the NRC isn't exactly composed of experts, either...Their boss is a theoretical physics geek. Also, they're under fire from the Union of Concerned Scientists for doing basically fuck all about the waste issue. Hell, they've had 4 decades to work on it, and the best they could manage was Yucca mountain. Barrels in a cave near an aquifer on a fault line.
I'm thinking you could get the dingbat that wrote Twilight, and do a better job.
That's a good point. The NRC doesn't come up with disposal plans, do they? They just approve plans submitted by contractors? So it would be up to the contractors to come up with a functioning disposal proposal? I don't typically find the Free Market adequate to handle these kinds of things, either.
And then there is the issue of location, which seems to be largely decided by who is desperate enough (or overridable enough) to accept waste that will make vast regions lethally toxic for ninety thousand years.
All of this is kind of reinforcing my original opinion on the matter...
In space, nuclear has a few different applications. As Dok said, solar panels degrade. But also, if we ever do start branching out, we wouldn't be able to rely on solar power the further we got from the sun. Also, it's probable that that uranium deposits exist on other worlds and moons, making it a local resource. It could also be used for propulsion. Theoretically, we have the capability of within a lifetime interstellar travel using nuclear pulse propulsion (once a safe distance from Earth, naturally), which basically involves exploding a lot of bombs behind your ship to get to about 10% light speed.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:39:22 PM
That's a good point. The NRC doesn't come up with disposal plans, do they? They just approve plans submitted by contractors? So it would be up to the contractors to come up with a functioning disposal proposal? I don't typically find the Free Market adequate to handle these kinds of things, either.
And then there is the issue of location, which seems to be largely decided by who is desperate enough (or overridable enough) to accept waste that will make vast regions lethally toxic for ninety thousand years.
All of this is kind of reinforcing my original opinion on the matter...
Yep.
Humans can't be trusted with anything more dangerous than silly string.
And I'd keep the silly string away from most of them.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 07:39:58 PM
In space, nuclear has a few different applications. As Dok said, solar panels degrade. But also, if we ever do start branching out, we wouldn't be able to rely on solar power the further we got from the sun. Also, it's probable that that uranium deposits exist on other worlds and moons, making it a local resource. It could also be used for propulsion. Theoretically, we have the capability of within a lifetime interstellar travel using nuclear pulse propulsion (once a safe distance from Earth, naturally), which basically involves exploding a lot of bombs behind your ship to get to about 10% light speed.
That will never, ever work. Ask me why.
Apparently this company: http://www.kurion.com/index.html embeds nuclear waste in glass. But only byproducts, not spent fuel rods.
Also, apparently Yucca Mountain has been terminated. http://www.reid.senate.gov/issues/yucca.cfm
So, sixty years later, we still have no solution for the majority of our nuclear waste. Not even a bad solution; no solution at all.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 07:39:58 PM
In space, nuclear has a few different applications. As Dok said, solar panels degrade. But also, if we ever do start branching out, we wouldn't be able to rely on solar power the further we got from the sun. Also, it's probable that that uranium deposits exist on other worlds and moons, making it a local resource. It could also be used for propulsion. Theoretically, we have the capability of within a lifetime interstellar travel using nuclear pulse propulsion (once a safe distance from Earth, naturally), which basically involves exploding a lot of bombs behind your ship to get to about 10% light speed.
That will never, ever work. Ask me why.
No.
Ok, I'm too curious.
Why?
Oh oh oh, lemme guess this one!
Spaceships carrying nukes = Mass fuckery
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 07:57:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 07:39:58 PM
In space, nuclear has a few different applications. As Dok said, solar panels degrade. But also, if we ever do start branching out, we wouldn't be able to rely on solar power the further we got from the sun. Also, it's probable that that uranium deposits exist on other worlds and moons, making it a local resource. It could also be used for propulsion. Theoretically, we have the capability of within a lifetime interstellar travel using nuclear pulse propulsion (once a safe distance from Earth, naturally), which basically involves exploding a lot of bombs behind your ship to get to about 10% light speed.
That will never, ever work. Ask me why.
No.
Ok, I'm too curious.
Why?
Okay, I'm gonna put you in an aluminum can with a complete life support system, etc. Mind you, our life support systems aren't the most robust things in the world. They can't be, by their very nature...Remember, the Apollo 13 mission failed due to a $5 solenoid, and that was a SIMPLE system, designed to last 2 weeks.
Then we're gonna strap a giant iron plate to the back of it, and off you go.
Every so often, we're going to beat the living blue Jesus out of the plate, with a nuke detonated some distance behind the spacecraft. The radiation won't get through the plate, but it's going to vibrate like a church bell, and maybe flex a little.
That vibration is going to transmit, to some small degree, into the can. The can holding your life support system, which is ALSO being irregularly accelerated, comparable to dropping a few pounds of weight on each and every component -
irregularly - in your system.
Good news: You're gonna go like a bat out of hell.
Bad news: You died of asphyxiation sometime at the beginning of the flight.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:55:19 PM
So, sixty years later, we still have no solution for the majority of our nuclear waste. Not even a bad solution; no solution at all.
We have a solution: Put 'em on the roof. Generators on the ground.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:21:32 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 07:57:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 07:39:58 PM
In space, nuclear has a few different applications. As Dok said, solar panels degrade. But also, if we ever do start branching out, we wouldn't be able to rely on solar power the further we got from the sun. Also, it's probable that that uranium deposits exist on other worlds and moons, making it a local resource. It could also be used for propulsion. Theoretically, we have the capability of within a lifetime interstellar travel using nuclear pulse propulsion (once a safe distance from Earth, naturally), which basically involves exploding a lot of bombs behind your ship to get to about 10% light speed.
That will never, ever work. Ask me why.
No.
Ok, I'm too curious.
Why?
Okay, I'm gonna put you in an aluminum can with a complete life support system, etc. Mind you, our life support systems aren't the most robust things in the world. They can't be, by their very nature...Remember, the Apollo 13 mission failed due to a $5 solenoid, and that was a SIMPLE system, designed to last 2 weeks.
Then we're gonna strap a giant iron plate to the back of it, and off you go.
Every so often, we're going to beat the living blue Jesus out of the plate, with a nuke detonated some distance behind the spacecraft. The radiation won't get through the plate, but it's going to vibrate like a church bell, and maybe flex a little.
That vibration is going to transmit, to some small degree, into the can. The can holding your life support system, which is ALSO being irregularly accelerated, comparable to dropping a few pounds of weight on each and every component - irregularly - in your system.
Good news: You're gonna go like a bat out of hell.
Bad news: You died of asphyxiation sometime at the beginning of the flight.
Damn. :lulz:
And here I was worrying about small grains of dust puncturing the hull at .10 c.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:21:32 PM
...we're gonna strap a giant iron plate to the back of it, and off you go.
Every so often, we're going to beat the living blue Jesus out of the plate, with a nuke detonated some distance behind the spacecraft. The radiation won't get through the plate, but it's going to vibrate like a church bell, and maybe flex a little.
That vibration is going to transmit, to some small degree, into the can. The can holding your life support system, which is ALSO being irregularly accelerated, comparable to dropping a few pounds of weight on each and every component - irregularly - in your system.
Good news: You're gonna go like a bat out of hell.
Bad news: You died of asphyxiation sometime at the beginning of the flight.
When I first heard of the Orion project(s) when i was maybe 5 years old, I couldn't believe that people had seriously considered it.
They'd be better off just cutting a hole in a reactor, and using it like a really shitty ion emission drive
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 08:24:23 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:21:32 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 07:57:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 07:39:58 PM
In space, nuclear has a few different applications. As Dok said, solar panels degrade. But also, if we ever do start branching out, we wouldn't be able to rely on solar power the further we got from the sun. Also, it's probable that that uranium deposits exist on other worlds and moons, making it a local resource. It could also be used for propulsion. Theoretically, we have the capability of within a lifetime interstellar travel using nuclear pulse propulsion (once a safe distance from Earth, naturally), which basically involves exploding a lot of bombs behind your ship to get to about 10% light speed.
That will never, ever work. Ask me why.
No.
Ok, I'm too curious.
Why?
Okay, I'm gonna put you in an aluminum can with a complete life support system, etc. Mind you, our life support systems aren't the most robust things in the world. They can't be, by their very nature...Remember, the Apollo 13 mission failed due to a $5 solenoid, and that was a SIMPLE system, designed to last 2 weeks.
Then we're gonna strap a giant iron plate to the back of it, and off you go.
Every so often, we're going to beat the living blue Jesus out of the plate, with a nuke detonated some distance behind the spacecraft. The radiation won't get through the plate, but it's going to vibrate like a church bell, and maybe flex a little.
That vibration is going to transmit, to some small degree, into the can. The can holding your life support system, which is ALSO being irregularly accelerated, comparable to dropping a few pounds of weight on each and every component - irregularly - in your system.
Good news: You're gonna go like a bat out of hell.
Bad news: You died of asphyxiation sometime at the beginning of the flight.
Damn. :lulz:
And here I was worrying about small grains of dust puncturing the hull at .10 c.
That's a problem that any interstellar craft would have to deal with, with the exception of ram scoops, which WANT the debris.
And it isn't just dust. There's one atom of hydrogen per cubic meter in deep space, more or less...Get close enough to the speed of light, and there's no difference between that hydrogen atom and a million ton cannonball.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:55:19 PM
So, sixty years later, we still have no solution for the majority of our nuclear waste. Not even a bad solution; no solution at all.
We have a solution: Put 'em on the roof. Generators on the ground.
In the pool?
On the roof?
God wants us stuck here is what im taking away from this. :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 08:55:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:55:19 PM
So, sixty years later, we still have no solution for the majority of our nuclear waste. Not even a bad solution; no solution at all.
We have a solution: Put 'em on the roof. Generators on the ground.
In the pool?
On the roof?
Welcome to the Fukushima Plant! Pool's on the roof!
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 08:56:20 PM
God wants us stuck here is what im taking away from this. :lulz:
No, he just wants a smarter monkey first.
Interesting time to cart out a thought experiment: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
At an annual 2.3% growth rate of energy consumption it would take about 2500 years before we'd need 100 billion suns worth of energy. :lulz: (We'll need at least a small star cluster for iPads.)
Also, in just over 700 years, any energy generated on Earth would put the surface temperature at the melting point of steel - because thermodynamics, that's who.
Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed.
Quote from: Xooxe on April 24, 2012, 09:12:26 PM
Interesting time to cart out a thought experiment: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
At an annual 2.3% growth rate of energy consumption it would take about 2500 years before we'd need 100 billion suns worth of energy. :lulz:
Also, in just over 700 years, any energy generated on Earth would put the surface temperature at the melting point of steel - because thermodynamics, that's who.
Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed.
I like the assumption that we'll be here to use energy in 700 years.
Yeah, he said it was a flawed argument.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:21:32 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 07:57:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 07:39:58 PM
In space, nuclear has a few different applications. As Dok said, solar panels degrade. But also, if we ever do start branching out, we wouldn't be able to rely on solar power the further we got from the sun. Also, it's probable that that uranium deposits exist on other worlds and moons, making it a local resource. It could also be used for propulsion. Theoretically, we have the capability of within a lifetime interstellar travel using nuclear pulse propulsion (once a safe distance from Earth, naturally), which basically involves exploding a lot of bombs behind your ship to get to about 10% light speed.
That will never, ever work. Ask me why.
No.
Ok, I'm too curious.
Why?
Okay, I'm gonna put you in an aluminum can with a complete life support system, etc. Mind you, our life support systems aren't the most robust things in the world. They can't be, by their very nature...Remember, the Apollo 13 mission failed due to a $5 solenoid, and that was a SIMPLE system, designed to last 2 weeks.
Then we're gonna strap a giant iron plate to the back of it, and off you go.
Every so often, we're going to beat the living blue Jesus out of the plate, with a nuke detonated some distance behind the spacecraft. The radiation won't get through the plate, but it's going to vibrate like a church bell, and maybe flex a little.
That vibration is going to transmit, to some small degree, into the can. The can holding your life support system, which is ALSO being irregularly accelerated, comparable to dropping a few pounds of weight on each and every component - irregularly - in your system.
Good news: You're gonna go like a bat out of hell.
Bad news: You died of asphyxiation sometime at the beginning of the flight.
It has to be a passive system to get that level of speed. Most deep space probes get the slingshot treatment around Jupiter to bring up their speed now in a way that wont damage the device.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:56:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 08:55:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:55:19 PM
So, sixty years later, we still have no solution for the majority of our nuclear waste. Not even a bad solution; no solution at all.
We have a solution: Put 'em on the roof. Generators on the ground.
In the pool?
On the roof?
Welcome to the Fukushima Plant! Pool's on the roof!
:lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 11:28:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:56:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 08:55:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:55:19 PM
So, sixty years later, we still have no solution for the majority of our nuclear waste. Not even a bad solution; no solution at all.
We have a solution: Put 'em on the roof. Generators on the ground.
In the pool?
On the roof?
Welcome to the Fukushima Plant! Pool's on the roof!
:lulz:
No, it's fine.
look.... they employees are back to work!
(http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fukushima-reactor-4-fuel-pool.jpg)
(yeah. that's the pool up there, open to the air....)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:56:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 08:55:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:55:19 PM
So, sixty years later, we still have no solution for the majority of our nuclear waste. Not even a bad solution; no solution at all.
We have a solution: Put 'em on the roof. Generators on the ground.
In the pool?
On the roof?
Welcome to the Fukushima Plant! Pool's on the roof!
We need to destroy this forum, now before they base any more nuclear reactor designs on it :eek:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 09:13:27 PM
Quote from: Xooxe on April 24, 2012, 09:12:26 PM
Interesting time to cart out a thought experiment: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
At an annual 2.3% growth rate of energy consumption it would take about 2500 years before we'd need 100 billion suns worth of energy. :lulz:
Also, in just over 700 years, any energy generated on Earth would put the surface temperature at the melting point of steel - because thermodynamics, that's who.
Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed.
I like the assumption that we'll be here to use energy in 700 years.
Yeah me too, makes me think there's a chance. I, personally, need to think that.
The bit that gets to me, in my poorly-educated but persistent state, is that there may be a total catastrophe. These facilities are built on the silly assumption that things will remain stable here on Earth. THINGS ARE NOT SO STABLE.
Or so it would seem to me.
I'm not fool enough to get stuck on ideas of what I want.
If the poop hits the spreader I just want to know how to survive as a species. There's no amount of power worth having if it results in the degeneration of our species due to nuclear fuel contamination.
As an aside, did you guys know that literally ALL insurance plans available to the public through employment (in the US at least) have a loophole that makes them immune to damages in the event of nuclear catastrophe?
That was what I read, any way. It's not like the SYSTEM didn't see this potential coming.
Not sure what's really worth saying, but wanted to put a bit down. I also want to see what comes up on this thread in the future.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/06/19891351-radioactive-water-seeping-into-pacific-from-fukushima-is-emergency-official-says?lite
"And you don't stop."
- The ghost of Harry Daghlian
Oh, fun fact:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlutiumDuring and after the end of World War II, scientists working on the Manhattan Project and other nuclear weapons research projects conducted studies of the effects of plutonium on laboratory animals and human subjects.[70] Animal studies found that a few milligrams of plutonium per kilogram of tissue is a lethal dose.[71]
In the case of human subjects, this involved injecting solutions containing (typically) five micrograms of plutonium into hospital patients thought to be either terminally ill, or to have a life expectancy of less than ten years either due to age or chronic disease condition.[70] This was reduced to one microgram in July 1945 after animal studies found that the way plutonium distributed itself in bones was more dangerous than radium.[71]
Eighteen human test subjects were injected with plutonium without informed consent. The tests were used to create diagnostic tools to determine the uptake of plutonium in the body in order to develop safety standards for working with plutonium.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 06, 2013, 06:03:20 PM
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/06/19891351-radioactive-water-seeping-into-pacific-from-fukushima-is-emergency-official-says?lite
"And you don't stop."
- The ghost of Harry Daghlian
Oh, fun fact:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlutiumDuring and after the end of World War II, scientists working on the Manhattan Project and other nuclear weapons research projects conducted studies of the effects of plutonium on laboratory animals and human subjects.[70] Animal studies found that a few milligrams of plutonium per kilogram of tissue is a lethal dose.[71]
In the case of human subjects, this involved injecting solutions containing (typically) five micrograms of plutonium into hospital patients thought to be either terminally ill, or to have a life expectancy of less than ten years either due to age or chronic disease condition.[70] This was reduced to one microgram in July 1945 after animal studies found that the way plutonium distributed itself in bones was more dangerous than radium.[71]
Eighteen human test subjects were injected with plutonium without informed consent. The tests were used to create diagnostic tools to determine the uptake of plutonium in the body in order to develop safety standards for working with plutonium.
Hahaha, yeah, in order to work with human research subjects I had to go through ethics training. TRUST ME, that's the merest tip of the iceberg of human rights violations when it comes to unethical research on humans. The atrocities done to prisoners, poor people, and wards of the state in the name of science are unspeakable. I could tell you things that would make your stomach turn. Not just anyone's...
yours. Right up into the 1970's (officially) in the US as well as elsewhere. And you want to know what pharmaceutical researchers do when they can't legally/ethically/affordably run research on humans in the US? They contract out with agencies that find poor people in other countries to research on. It's charming.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on August 06, 2013, 06:12:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 06, 2013, 06:03:20 PM
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/06/19891351-radioactive-water-seeping-into-pacific-from-fukushima-is-emergency-official-says?lite
"And you don't stop."
- The ghost of Harry Daghlian
Oh, fun fact:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlutiumDuring and after the end of World War II, scientists working on the Manhattan Project and other nuclear weapons research projects conducted studies of the effects of plutonium on laboratory animals and human subjects.[70] Animal studies found that a few milligrams of plutonium per kilogram of tissue is a lethal dose.[71]
In the case of human subjects, this involved injecting solutions containing (typically) five micrograms of plutonium into hospital patients thought to be either terminally ill, or to have a life expectancy of less than ten years either due to age or chronic disease condition.[70] This was reduced to one microgram in July 1945 after animal studies found that the way plutonium distributed itself in bones was more dangerous than radium.[71]
Eighteen human test subjects were injected with plutonium without informed consent. The tests were used to create diagnostic tools to determine the uptake of plutonium in the body in order to develop safety standards for working with plutonium.
Hahaha, yeah, in order to work with human research subjects I had to go through ethics training. TRUST ME, that's the merest tip of the iceberg of human rights violations when it comes to unethical research on humans. The atrocities done to prisoners, poor people, and wards of the state in the name of science are unspeakable. I could tell you things that would make your stomach turn. Not just anyone's... yours. Right up into the 1970's (officially) in the US as well as elsewhere. And you want to know what pharmaceutical researchers do when they can't legally/ethically/affordably run research on humans in the US? They contract out with agencies that find poor people in other countries to research on. It's charming.
Warren Ellis was right about
everything.
Paging Dr McGrupp. Dr McGrupp please come to the thread, please.
We need a PUPPY to explain the Fukushima didn't get bad while it was a headline and then just stop being bad once people forgot about it.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on August 06, 2013, 06:12:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 06, 2013, 06:03:20 PM
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/06/19891351-radioactive-water-seeping-into-pacific-from-fukushima-is-emergency-official-says?lite
"And you don't stop."
- The ghost of Harry Daghlian
Oh, fun fact:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlutiumDuring and after the end of World War II, scientists working on the Manhattan Project and other nuclear weapons research projects conducted studies of the effects of plutonium on laboratory animals and human subjects.[70] Animal studies found that a few milligrams of plutonium per kilogram of tissue is a lethal dose.[71]
In the case of human subjects, this involved injecting solutions containing (typically) five micrograms of plutonium into hospital patients thought to be either terminally ill, or to have a life expectancy of less than ten years either due to age or chronic disease condition.[70] This was reduced to one microgram in July 1945 after animal studies found that the way plutonium distributed itself in bones was more dangerous than radium.[71]
Eighteen human test subjects were injected with plutonium without informed consent. The tests were used to create diagnostic tools to determine the uptake of plutonium in the body in order to develop safety standards for working with plutonium.
Hahaha, yeah, in order to work with human research subjects I had to go through ethics training. TRUST ME, that's the merest tip of the iceberg of human rights violations when it comes to unethical research on humans. The atrocities done to prisoners, poor people, and wards of the state in the name of science are unspeakable. I could tell you things that would make your stomach turn. Not just anyone's... yours. Right up into the 1970's (officially) in the US as well as elsewhere. And you want to know what pharmaceutical researchers do when they can't legally/ethically/affordably run research on humans in the US? They contract out with agencies that find poor people in other countries to research on. It's charming.
Oh, I've know people in my university that hired themselves out to take pills from some shady companies for about $80 USD a month.
Quote from: The Johnny on August 07, 2013, 04:14:08 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on August 06, 2013, 06:12:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 06, 2013, 06:03:20 PM
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/06/19891351-radioactive-water-seeping-into-pacific-from-fukushima-is-emergency-official-says?lite
"And you don't stop."
- The ghost of Harry Daghlian
Oh, fun fact:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlutiumDuring and after the end of World War II, scientists working on the Manhattan Project and other nuclear weapons research projects conducted studies of the effects of plutonium on laboratory animals and human subjects.[70] Animal studies found that a few milligrams of plutonium per kilogram of tissue is a lethal dose.[71]
In the case of human subjects, this involved injecting solutions containing (typically) five micrograms of plutonium into hospital patients thought to be either terminally ill, or to have a life expectancy of less than ten years either due to age or chronic disease condition.[70] This was reduced to one microgram in July 1945 after animal studies found that the way plutonium distributed itself in bones was more dangerous than radium.[71]
Eighteen human test subjects were injected with plutonium without informed consent. The tests were used to create diagnostic tools to determine the uptake of plutonium in the body in order to develop safety standards for working with plutonium.
Hahaha, yeah, in order to work with human research subjects I had to go through ethics training. TRUST ME, that's the merest tip of the iceberg of human rights violations when it comes to unethical research on humans. The atrocities done to prisoners, poor people, and wards of the state in the name of science are unspeakable. I could tell you things that would make your stomach turn. Not just anyone's... yours. Right up into the 1970's (officially) in the US as well as elsewhere. And you want to know what pharmaceutical researchers do when they can't legally/ethically/affordably run research on humans in the US? They contract out with agencies that find poor people in other countries to research on. It's charming.
Oh, I've know people in my university that hired themselves out to take pills from some shady companies for about $80 USD a month.
Yeah, it's fucked UP). Technically US companies have to abide by NIH ethics guidelines, but there are so many ways around it that it's basically the honor system. At least universities are constrained by the threat of losing funding.
QuoteIn the United States, across the Pacific, there was no sense of alarm.
"With the amount of dilution that would occur, any kind of release in Japan would be non-detectable here," said David Yogi, spokesman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
It's official - the US Environmental Protection Agency have absolutely no idea what an environment is
:horrormirth:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 07, 2013, 07:13:33 AM
QuoteIn the United States, across the Pacific, there was no sense of alarm.
"With the amount of dilution that would occur, any kind of release in Japan would be non-detectable here," said David Yogi, spokesman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
It's official - the US Environmental Protection Agency have absolutely no idea what an environment is
:horrormirth:
(http://i.imgur.com/g4aRcy5.jpg)
Quote from: Pæs on August 07, 2013, 07:54:02 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 07, 2013, 07:13:33 AM
QuoteIn the United States, across the Pacific, there was no sense of alarm.
"With the amount of dilution that would occur, any kind of release in Japan would be non-detectable here," said David Yogi, spokesman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
It's official - the US Environmental Protection Agency have absolutely no idea what an environment is
:horrormirth:
(http://i.imgur.com/g4aRcy5.jpg)
THAT IMAGE :eek:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on August 07, 2013, 03:46:17 PM
Quote from: Pæs on August 07, 2013, 07:54:02 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 07, 2013, 07:13:33 AM
QuoteIn the United States, across the Pacific, there was no sense of alarm.
"With the amount of dilution that would occur, any kind of release in Japan would be non-detectable here," said David Yogi, spokesman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
It's official - the US Environmental Protection Agency have absolutely no idea what an environment is
:horrormirth:
(http://i.imgur.com/g4aRcy5.jpg)
THAT IMAGE :eek:
Nope. Can't see it. Nuh uh. Eyes refusing to look :eek:
Second exception to the "P3nt will fap to anything" rule found!
Quote from: Carlos Danger on August 08, 2013, 01:16:29 PM
Second exception to the "P3nt will fap to anything" rule found!
I'd have done it too if it wasn't for those pesky internets :argh!:
What the fuck is that thing anyway? I need answers, damnit!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-japan-decontamination-insight-idUSBRE97D19F20130814
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 03:40:55 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-japan-decontamination-insight-idUSBRE97D19F20130814
That is some post-apocalyptic horror, right there.