There Has Been An Error!
It's not so much the safety I'm worried about, it's the cost. As I understand they're quite expensive to build, and they take a rather long time. I'm open to the possibility though, should costs come down and a steady source of uranium is available (read: not in radical Islamist countries). I'd be fine with one in my back yard.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the renewables. The Solar and Wind industries are growing at a rate of 15-30% per year IIRC, even through the recession. There were certain places in America where wind actually became cheaper than the fossil fuels during the oil scares following Katrina, and the technology is advancing rapidly.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=energy-mcdonald-exro-technologies (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=energy-mcdonald-exro-technologies)
Wind is also quite popular in Europe, where Germany has installed 20 GW worth of turbine farms and Denmark generates 20% of its electricity from the wind.
Solar is developing fairly fast too, although the market seems to be aiming more at 2-3KW home installations that power your home systems and feed electricity back into the grid. More of a distributed system, as opposed to centralized: the development of a smart grid is essential for this to become viable on a big scale.
Nanosolar is making strides in the utility-level solar market; the clever bastards figured out how to print PV panels with an efficiency of ~16%. Once that goes domestic (a few years), a full home installation could cost as little as $5,000 to $6,000. And yes, the design is viable. They're currently producing business and utility scale arrays; Google bought a bunch of them for their California Googleplex.
http://nanosolar.com/ (http://nanosolar.com/)
http://www.celsias.com/article/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheap/ (http://www.celsias.com/article/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheap/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosolar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosolar)
If you are really interested in solar energy or wind energy you could look into it now.
With the massive government kickbacks these things are getting you can get solar panels/shingles or wind turbines installed for close to that price now.
If you ask me, the technology that REALLY needs to catch up is energy storage (read: batteries).
DUDES
I'm not a science guy or anything, but being in the building trades, I'd have to say the shit is going on that makes all this irrelevent. However, because of the usual factors in haves vs. have nots, positive resources are not priority. Although still in early stages overall, an entire house is absolutely able to exist off the grid by being self sufficient for electricity and therefore also heat. Water is not too far behind and presently doable and in effect, just not as efficiently. A couple of years ago, building a home to this code was 40-60 thousand bucks for the systems themselves but it's rapidly becoming less.
IN MY OPINION
Natural resources are deliberately ignored to serve profit making. Nuclear power is shear insanity. I'm not taking any heads up from the French unless it's cheese.
Quote from: Horrendous Foreign Love Stoat on February 17, 2010, 05:03:36 AM
QuoteIt's not so much the safety I'm worried about, it's the cost.
So its not going to be as subsidized as it looks? and would not the newly created jobs, and college courses for said jobs kinda help out the economy a bit?
All energy sources are subsidized, but nuclear takes the cake. It's not uncommon for billions to change hands, just to build a reactor or two.
What would happen if you put those billions into solar/wind R+D? Or better yet, into a massive fusion crash-course program, ala the Manhattan Project?
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 17, 2010, 05:00:16 AM
If you are really interested in solar energy or wind energy you could look into it now.
With the massive government kickbacks these things are getting you can get solar panels/shingles or wind turbines installed for close to that price now.
If you ask me, the technology that REALLY needs to catch up is energy storage (read: batteries).
That's where hydrogen comes into play.
Some form of efficient, long-term energy storage is a
must if we are to switch over to renewable energy systems. The thing about renewable forms of energy is that most of them are not always on: solar panels produce no electricity in the night, nor do turbines produce power when there's no wind. We can't afford to have huge black-outs every couple of minutes, and obviously lithium-ion batteries or good ol Duracells aren't going to cut it on a nation-wide, utility-scale level.
The solution lies in hydrogen.
When water is split apart by hydrolysis, it forms H2 and O2 gases. This is pretty common grade-school science, but what about when it gets applied on a massive scale? Excess energy can used to split massive quantities of water, resulting in large amounts of explosive gases that are then liquefied and stored in underground/offshore reservoirs. Power sources based on solar, wind and other fluctuating power sources will naturally have fluctuating levels of power output (which is why the smart grid is so damn important), and secondary generation capabilities will be needed for when total power production slips below total grid demand. This is where hydrogen-oxygen combustion kicks in.
When needed during the day (or at night, when solar production bottoms out), utilities will fire up their secondary power plants and start burning the hydrogen and oxygen they've accumulated throughout the day. Same principle as gas or coal fired plants, and those old fossil-fuel plants could probably be easily re-purposed. This would provide the always-on energy buffer that coal and gas plants do today, and would dynamically balance/smooth out the fluctuations in the power supply caused by wind and solar.
The environmental impact of implimenting this would be near zero. We could re-use our old plants, produce efficient energy storage reservoirs from Earth's near-infinite supply of water, and produce no emissions by burning the fuels. Burning the H2 and O2 would of course recombine the gases into water: the same amount of water (or close enough) that originally entered the system. Tada!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage#Hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage#Hydrogen)
Also flywheels. I would explain about those too, but my wrists are starting to hurt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage#Flywheel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage#Flywheel)
Nuclear power is cost competitive compared to other non fossil fuel options (though solar has some interesting potential, especially with the new lens IBM made).
Nor can a house survive off grid without using up fossil fuels. There are places in the country where you can have a surplus from solar/wind, but you still need the grid to provide reliable access to power. Storage just isn't up to the task.
I should point out that Nuclear does have a problem that it uses a ton of water, which is becoming a problem in the US.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 17, 2010, 06:33:26 AM
Nuclear power is cost competitive compared to other non fossil fuel options (though solar has some interesting potential, especially with the new lens IBM made).
Nor can a house survive off grid without using up fossil fuels. There are places in the country where you can have a surplus from solar/wind, but you still need the grid to provide reliable access to power. Storage just isn't up to the task.
I think they do have off-grid solar packages, but they're much more expensive (tons and tons of batteries) and you typically need a backup gas/diesel generator for extended cloudy periods.
With a diesel generator, though, you could make your own biodiesel from waste vegetable oil.
QuoteI'm a bit lost on the debate here, as as far as I see it, nuclear power done right, like France, works well, provides cheap and clean energy with minimal waste, there has not been a terrible nuclear disaster for quite some time now, and you can even re-use the waste to provide tasty add-ons for your army, and unique isotopes for your scientists to play with.
Actually there was a nuclear energy "incident" about once a year in France. It was discovered nuclear scientists had in fact been manipulating the statistics or outright lying in order to avoid "causing a panic".
This resulted in the black comedy of, when Chernobyl happened, of the rest of Europe destroying food that had been downwind from the fallout and staying inside for a week, while France was portrayed as being entirely unaffected and went about their business normally, until a minor politician questioned this response. It was then revealed the French scientists obsession with secrecy and protecting the nuclear industry actually extended to even defending Soviet mistakes, and that France should have taken the same kind of actions the rest of Europe had.
I don't know about other countries but the systematic coverup of the French nuclear industry raises worries for me about safety, generally. If one country can do it, several others can, and probably have.
Quote from: E.O.T. on February 17, 2010, 05:17:00 AMNuclear power is shear insanity.
Why?
QuoteI'm not taking any heads up from the French unless it's cheese.
I tolerate pissing on the French when it's tongue-in-cheek. Please don't do it in a serious argument. I'm not sure what to make of this, but it makes you come off as a bit bigoted "hahah lol french they stink lol" :? They're just a country like anybody else. Would you say the same thing about China or Germany? No, if anything you'd say something you could back up with something else than just the dumbest prejudice.
Sorry I don't meant to pick on you again, but this unwarranted bitching on the French just ticks me off.
Quote from: Remington on February 17, 2010, 06:28:13 AM
...interesting text on hydrogen...
Hydrogen is a very small molecule, it will leak.
I found something!
"We have an unprecedented opportunity this time to understand what we're getting into before we even switch to the new technology," says Tromp, the lead author. "It won't be like the case with the internal-combustion engine, when we started learning the effects of carbon dioxide decades later." (http://www.theozonehole.com/hydrogeneconomy.htm)
I used to have a strong fear of nukes, sort of an irrational impulse, I suppose.
Now however, you see how much we depend on electricity, and what people are like when their televisions and toaster-ovens stop working: Absolutely Insane.
I don't think it would take much of a push for the general populous of any nation to accept anything that'll feed their ipods and HD tv's without extra effort. Especially if the threat of losing power is hyped, and the people doing the hyping are the same people swapping briefcases on new plant deals, well then they'll just have extra motivation to sell it.
Meanwhile, I am all for alternative methods. It's not that nukes themselves scare me now, as much as the people operating them. It only takes one asshole, or a small collection of them, to fuck us all in our mutated multifarious asses.
And I like them. Given the right conditions and/or applications of technologies, you don't even need to convert waste oil into biodiesel to run it. And given the right nudge (this is my idealism leaking out here) people are wonderfully capable of amazing ingenuity. Using the sun as a power source is a smart goal as it gives us enough, we just haven't come up with a feasible means of harnessing it.
But when it comes to supplying the needs of The People without a hiccup in current consumptions levels, it'll be nukes. I think.
Quote from: Alty on February 17, 2010, 05:06:45 PM
I used to have a strong fear of nukes, sort of an irrational impulse, I suppose.
Nukes aren't the cleanest power in the world, but they are the cleanest power
that can be placed anywhere.
The minor risk of an accident vs the certainty of freezing to death in the dark. Choose.
BUT ITZ NUKULUR!
\
:omg:
Quote from: LMNO on February 17, 2010, 05:23:57 PM
BUT ITZ NUKULUR!
\
:omg:
"The only physics I ever took was ex-lax."
- Founder of the
Peoples' Lobby, a CA-based anti-nuclear power organization.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 17, 2010, 05:22:05 PM
Quote from: Alty on February 17, 2010, 05:06:45 PM
I used to have a strong fear of nukes, sort of an irrational impulse, I suppose.
Nukes aren't the cleanest power in the world, but they are the cleanest power that can be placed anywhere.
The minor risk of an accident vs the certainty of freezing to death in the dark. Choose.
Hey, I'm all about it. I don't want to freeze, and I especially don't want to be turned into a living pocket warmer for some gorilla with a gun.
It was an irrational fear. I got over it.
Surprised nobody has mentioned this (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/) yet. Thorium plants are the way nuclear power could have always been, but plutonium plants gave the military a ready supply of fissionable material for bombs, so that's what we went with.
Also, it's really going to have to be a variety of solutions. The quest for the silver bullet will usually fail.
Hmm, the one India is designing is very interesting, the thorium is exposed to plutonium to maintain the reaction.
Which means we get a double benefit of having something to do with all that plutonium waste the ancient reactors in the US put out.
Quote from: Annabel the Destroyer on February 17, 2010, 05:00:16 AM
If you are really interested in solar energy or wind energy you could look into it now.
With the massive government kickbacks these things are getting you can get solar panels/shingles or wind turbines installed for close to that price now.
If you ask me, the technology that REALLY needs to catch up is energy storage (read: batteries).
THIS
A low or no-loss battery would change everything about how we work with our energy production and needs.
There's no such thing as a 100% efficient battery, I'm pretty sure. Isn't that sort of business supposed to be impossible?
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 17, 2010, 10:20:01 PM
There's no such thing as a 100% efficient battery, I'm pretty sure. Isn't that sort of business supposed to be impossible?
Of course there is no such thing as a 100% efficient battery, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. "Impossible" according to current knowledge, yes, and probably actually impossible. However, a low-loss battery would still change EVERYTHING.
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 17, 2010, 10:20:01 PM
There's no such thing as a 100% efficient battery, I'm pretty sure. Isn't that sort of business supposed to be impossible?
Yes, 100% efficiency is impossible.
And we're not even close.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 17, 2010, 10:25:59 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 17, 2010, 10:20:01 PM
There's no such thing as a 100% efficient battery, I'm pretty sure. Isn't that sort of business supposed to be impossible?
Of course there is no such thing as a 100% efficient battery, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. "Impossible" according to current knowledge, yes, and probably actually impossible. However, a low-loss battery would still change EVERYTHING.
Actually impossible. Entropy and conservation of energy demand their cut, no matter how small those cuts may be.
Give me a 60% efficient battery, and I will rule the world. DO YOU HEAR ME? THE WORLD! MUHAHAHA!
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 17, 2010, 10:35:37 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on February 17, 2010, 05:17:00 AMNuclear power is shear insanity.
Why?
QuoteI'm not taking any heads up from the French unless it's cheese.
I tolerate pissing on the French when it's tongue-in-cheek. Please don't do it in a serious argument. I'm not sure what to make of this, but it makes you come off as a bit bigoted "hahah lol french they stink lol" :? They're just a country like anybody else. Would you say the same thing about China or Germany? No, if anything you'd say something you could back up with something else than just the dumbest prejudice.
Sorry I don't meant to pick on you again, but this unwarranted bitching on the French just ticks me off.
JUST FOR
your uptight panty concerns. Yes I would. I don't consider this such a serious "argument" that i can't be light-hearted. Some of my favourite writers and philosophers are/ were French. some of my favourite smut is French. I do not think, as a nation they are exemplary in all that much, currently they seem to be Europe's California. However, all the time I spent in France was enjoyable.
AND BECAUSE
the trail of epic disaster follows nuclear power everywhere it goes, I think it's insane to continue fucking with it.
Umm, what trail of "epic disaster" are you talking about? Chernobyl? Once incident, which was the result of a shitty reactor design that's no longer in use?
Learn 2 Science. :kingmeh:
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on February 18, 2010, 01:16:36 AM
Umm, what trail of "epic disaster" are you talking about? Chernobyl? Once incident, which was the result of a shitty reactor design that's no longer in use?
Learn 2 Science. :kingmeh:
O.K. MR. "SCIENCE"
look into Washington.
OR
go swimming in the Willamette.
The biggest and best argument against nuclear energy (aside from the frequent and rather alarming "failures") is that it's really expensive. Ideally it could be cheap, but in practice it's never been.
EOT, the Willamette is only contaminated with sewage. There's a good reason we don't eat shellfish from the mouth of the Columbia, though, or eat berries grown in the fertile floodplains. Thanks, Hanford!
http://www.doh.wa.gov/Hanford/publications/overview/columbia.html
I remember watching them haul the Trojan core upriver on a barge. Never did find out where they put it, in the end.
http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/entry/view/trojan_nuclear_power_plant/
Worth noting that it was a huge money hole, as well. I'm still sad they demolished the cooling tower, though. That thing was neat, and a visual reminder of just how fucked-up that whole project was.
And then there's WPPS, which was merely expensive and pathetic. And Three-Mile-Island, Chernobyl, Karabolka and... well, we don't really know about all of them.
Here's a good (probably partial) list of nuclear accidents in the US: http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
I'm not against nuclear, I just think that the human track record with it has not been very good so far.
Yeah, but again, that's because so far the approach has been to use plutionium so that the military can have it's horrible byproduct for bombs. Not all possible nuclear reactors do that.
Um, they use uranium, the *byproduct* is plutonium.
A great deal of the US reactors (all but one iirc) are of the old shitty design as well (if not as shitty as Russia's, but even then they had to manually override the safeties during a meltdown to cause the disaster).
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 18, 2010, 02:39:28 AM
Um, they use uranium, the *byproduct* is plutonium.
Oh, then never mind. Clearly that makes my whole point wrong.
On the list of nuclear accidents in the US, is a there a comparative list of coal power plant accidents? Industry in general doesn't have the best safety list.
I also find the 'exposed to radiation' line kindof amusing, I mean, turning on a lightbulb exposes me to radiation without knowing how much it's hard to say if its significant at all.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 18, 2010, 02:59:31 AM
On the list of nuclear accidents in the US, is a there a comparative list of coal power plant accidents? Industry in general doesn't have the best safety list.
I also find the 'exposed to radiation' line kindof amusing, I mean, turning on a lightbulb exposes me to radiation without knowing how much it's hard to say if its significant at all.
Didn't find anything, but there's this from Scientific American:
Quoteestimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.
Under optimum operation, nuclear is vastly superior in safety and efficiency to coal. I don't think the debate is between coal and nuclear; I think the debate is between nuclear and sustainable sources of energy.
Of course, when things go wrong with nuclear (or when Really Bad Ideas are treated as business as usual, as in the case of Hanford) they have much farther-reaching and devastating long-term effects than when something goes wrong with a coal plant.
However, watching this go upriver was pretty neat:
(http://cryptome.org/eyeball/npp2/pict454.jpg)
Of course, I also have to admit that living in an area which has had a high rate of failed nuclear projects and a high level of contamination, I'm a little biased.
It's sad how irresponsible the people who run nuclear power plants are. Chernobyl happened in large part because of an overzealous stress test, and ignoring obvious warning signs, aside from it being a rushed construction.
NIMBY, but only because they can't seem to find properly vigilant operators.
Quote from: E.O.T. on February 18, 2010, 01:23:17 AM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on February 18, 2010, 01:16:36 AM
Umm, what trail of "epic disaster" are you talking about? Chernobyl? Once incident, which was the result of a shitty reactor design that's no longer in use?
Learn 2 Science. :kingmeh:
O.K. MR. "SCIENCE"
look into Washington.
OR
go swimming in the Willamette.
What about Washington? Are you saying that some contamination at Hanford constitutes an "epic disaster"? That's lulzy. One of my best friends worked there. He was, essentially, Homer Simpson IRL. And even HE couldn't fuck that thing up. And as previously mentioned, WPPS was just an expensive boondoggle, but that had nothing to do with a nuclear diaster, that was a financial disaster.
Tell me, what definition of "epic disaster" are you using? :lulz:
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 18, 2010, 03:20:34 AM
It's sad how irresponsible the people who run nuclear power plants are. Chernobyl happened in large part because of an overzealous stress test, and ignoring obvious warning signs, aside from it being a rushed construction.
NIMBY, but only because they can't seem to find properly vigilant operators.
It happened because somebody shut down the safeties. During a meltdown. Pure stupidity (or maybe malice, they aren't around to ask). The others led up to it, but if the safeties had been left on the plant would have shut down.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 18, 2010, 03:27:15 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 18, 2010, 03:20:34 AM
It's sad how irresponsible the people who run nuclear power plants are. Chernobyl happened in large part because of an overzealous stress test, and ignoring obvious warning signs, aside from it being a rushed construction.
NIMBY, but only because they can't seem to find properly vigilant operators.
It happened because somebody shut down the safeties. During a meltdown. Pure stupidity (or maybe malice, they aren't around to ask). The others led up to it, but if the safeties had been left on the plant would have shut down.
The point stands. Incompetent operators are the largest risk in a nuke plant.
In a properly designed plant the incompetence risk is reduced a bit, since you can't shut down the last layer of failsafes, the rods are held above the reactor bed, and if it gets too hot the bits of metal holding the rods up melt, the rods all fall and the reaction shuts down.
Doesn't keep them from dumping crap into a lake though :argh!:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 18, 2010, 03:35:13 AM
In a properly designed plant the incompetence risk is reduced a bit, since you can't shut down the last layer of failsafes, the rods are held above the reactor bed, and if it gets too hot the bits of metal holding the rods up melt, the rods all fall and the reaction shuts down.
Doesn't keep them from dumping crap into a lake though :argh!:
Amazing. They've even engineered away the need for competence.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on February 18, 2010, 03:21:56 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on February 18, 2010, 01:23:17 AM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on February 18, 2010, 01:16:36 AM
Umm, what trail of "epic disaster" are you talking about? Chernobyl? Once incident, which was the result of a shitty reactor design that's no longer in use?
Learn 2 Science. :kingmeh:
O.K. MR. "SCIENCE"
look into Washington.
OR
go swimming in the Willamette.
What about Washington? Are you saying that some contamination at Hanford constitutes an "epic disaster"? That's lulzy. One of my best friends worked there. He was, essentially, Homer Simpson IRL. And even HE couldn't fuck that thing up. And as previously mentioned, WPPS was just an expensive boondoggle, but that had nothing to do with a nuclear diaster, that was a financial disaster.
Tell me, what definition of "epic disaster" are you using? :lulz:
Hanford wasn't exactly an
accidental disaster. Well, there were accidents, but the bulk of the disaster was long-term policy.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/Hanford/publications/overview/columbia.html
It's not the technology that's the problem, it's all the human beings in charge of the technology and the policies behind operating the technology.
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 18, 2010, 03:36:13 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 18, 2010, 03:35:13 AM
In a properly designed plant the incompetence risk is reduced a bit, since you can't shut down the last layer of failsafes, the rods are held above the reactor bed, and if it gets too hot the bits of metal holding the rods up melt, the rods all fall and the reaction shuts down.
Doesn't keep them from dumping crap into a lake though :argh!:
Amazing. They've even engineered away the need for competence.
They aren't *that* good yet.
QuoteWorkers discovered a foot-long cavity eaten into the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Borated water had corroded the metal to a 3/16 inch stainless steel liner which held back over 80,000 gallons of highly pressurized radioactive water. In April 2005 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed fining plant owner First Energy 5.4 million dollars for their failure to uncover the problem sooner (similar problems plaguing other plants were already known within the industry), and also proposed banning System Engineer Andrew Siemaszko from working in the industry for five years due to his falsifying reactor vessel logs. As of this writing the fine and suspension were under appeal.
For one example. The checklist of things you'd have to do to get a Chernobyl type disaster in a well built reactor is very long, but lower scale disasters are easy to come by.
It's not an epic nuclear disaster without a crater.
brown outs will cause more deaths than nuclear accidents.
alternate solution is cutting down on power usage (BWAHAHA)
Quote from: E.O.T. on February 18, 2010, 01:14:02 AMJUST FOR your uptight panty concerns. Yes I would. I don't consider this such a serious "argument" that i can't be light-hearted.
What is "uptight" about being annoyed over someone taking the piss on a country for no apparent reason at all?
In that manner, what is "light-hearted" about taking the piss on a country for no reason at all?
Quotethe trail of epic disaster follows nuclear power everywhere it goes, I think it's insane to continue fucking with it.
Everywhere?!?! :lulz:
Please stop driving your car, don't you see the PILES OF EPIC DISASTER they leave EVERYWHERE??
Do stay away from tall buildings or airplanes, just to be sure.
The French really do make excellent cheese, though.
Hanford wasn't an accident, right? It was just a case of "BUILD BOMBS FASTER, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL SHIT LIKE WHERE TO PUT THE HORRIBLE GOO", I thought.
This is not the same as reactors being safe or unsafe.
Incidentally, a line very much like that one resulted in my son.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 18, 2010, 05:39:10 PM
Hanford wasn't an accident, right? It was just a case of "BUILD BOMBS FASTER, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL SHIT LIKE WHERE TO PUT THE HORRIBLE GOO", I thought.
This is not the same as reactors being safe or unsafe.
no, no, no...Hanford was an EPIC DISASTER. You can tell because of the smoking radioactive crater where Richland used to be.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on February 18, 2010, 06:02:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 18, 2010, 05:39:10 PM
Hanford wasn't an accident, right? It was just a case of "BUILD BOMBS FASTER, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL SHIT LIKE WHERE TO PUT THE HORRIBLE GOO", I thought.
This is not the same as reactors being safe or unsafe.
no, no, no...Hanford was an EPIC DISASTER. You can tell because of the smoking radioactive crater where Richland used to be.
Okay. Waiting for the bad part.
The bad part is that Richland is still there.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 18, 2010, 05:39:10 PM
Hanford wasn't an accident, right? It was just a case of "BUILD BOMBS FASTER, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL SHIT LIKE WHERE TO PUT THE HORRIBLE GOO", I thought.
This is not the same as reactors being safe or unsafe.
There were also some accidents which were largely covered up until after the fact, which contributed to the radioactive sludge at the bottom of the Columbia which still prevents us from eating shellfish harvested from the mouth of the river.
Obviously Trojan was also a contributor.
I wonder what the half-life of driving automobiles is?
Having skipped all the replies to add my viewpoint, I just would like to say that we'd have no worries about running out of fuel in any reasonable amount of time if we could build breeder reactors that could re-process the waste.
But noooo you can make weapons grade shit with that, so they are banned, so instead we have to use the isotope of uranium that we have the least amount of. Gah!
Besides, modern pebble bed reactors are about as safe as it gets. Unlike coal, you are not spewing radiation into the air (really, coal has a lot of radioactive elements in it), you are containing it in one place.
Quote from: cavehamster on February 19, 2010, 08:05:00 AM
Having skipped all the replies to add my viewpoint, I just would like to say that we'd have no worries about running out of fuel in any reasonable amount of time if we could build breeder reactors that could re-process the waste.
But noooo you can make weapons grade shit with that, so they are banned, so instead we have to use the isotope of uranium that we have the least amount of. Gah!
Besides, modern pebble bed reactors are about as safe as it gets. Unlike coal, you are not spewing radiation into the air (really, coal has a lot of radioactive elements in it), you are containing it in one place.
It's good that you skipped all the replies, as it's a fairly safe assumption that no matter what it is you have to say, no one else has already thought of it over the course of the last four pages.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 19, 2010, 05:39:47 PM
Quote from: cavehamster on February 19, 2010, 08:05:00 AM
Having skipped all the replies to add my viewpoint, I just would like to say that we'd have no worries about running out of fuel in any reasonable amount of time if we could build breeder reactors that could re-process the waste.
But noooo you can make weapons grade shit with that, so they are banned, so instead we have to use the isotope of uranium that we have the least amount of. Gah!
Besides, modern pebble bed reactors are about as safe as it gets. Unlike coal, you are not spewing radiation into the air (really, coal has a lot of radioactive elements in it), you are containing it in one place.
It's good that you skipped all the replies, as it's a fairly safe assumption that no matter what it is you have to say, no one else has already thought of it over the course of the last four pages.
Ouch!
Acerbic Nigel is acerbic. :lulz:
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 19, 2010, 05:39:47 PM
Quote from: cavehamster on February 19, 2010, 08:05:00 AM
Having skipped all the replies to add my viewpoint, I just would like to say that we'd have no worries about running out of fuel in any reasonable amount of time if we could build breeder reactors that could re-process the waste.
But noooo you can make weapons grade shit with that, so they are banned, so instead we have to use the isotope of uranium that we have the least amount of. Gah!
Besides, modern pebble bed reactors are about as safe as it gets. Unlike coal, you are not spewing radiation into the air (really, coal has a lot of radioactive elements in it), you are containing it in one place.
It's good that you skipped all the replies, as it's a fairly safe assumption that no matter what it is you have to say, no one else has already thought of it over the course of the last four pages.
Did somebody already mention this? Serious question cause it was new to me, but I could have missed it. I'm pretty sure I think I read all four page, if you don't mind me not going to read four pages just to check if I indeed read everything in those four pages :)
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 19, 2010, 06:42:40 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 19, 2010, 05:39:47 PM
Quote from: cavehamster on February 19, 2010, 08:05:00 AM
Having skipped all the replies to add my viewpoint, I just would like to say that we'd have no worries about running out of fuel in any reasonable amount of time if we could build breeder reactors that could re-process the waste.
But noooo you can make weapons grade shit with that, so they are banned, so instead we have to use the isotope of uranium that we have the least amount of. Gah!
Besides, modern pebble bed reactors are about as safe as it gets. Unlike coal, you are not spewing radiation into the air (really, coal has a lot of radioactive elements in it), you are containing it in one place.
It's good that you skipped all the replies, as it's a fairly safe assumption that no matter what it is you have to say, no one else has already thought of it over the course of the last four pages.
Did somebody already mention this? Serious question cause it was new to me, but I could have missed it. I'm pretty sure I think I read all four page, if you don't mind me not going to read four pages just to check if I indeed read everything in those four pages :)
Who cares? She was nicer than I was going to be. Cavehamster has a habit of constantly making sure everyone knows how little he cares about their opinions, debating points, etc. He's a complete shit, and I can't think of anything that would make me come to his defense. I would not piss down his neck if his heart was on fire.
Fuck him. Fuck him in his ear.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 19, 2010, 05:50:16 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 19, 2010, 05:39:47 PM
Quote from: cavehamster on February 19, 2010, 08:05:00 AM
Having skipped all the replies to add my viewpoint, I just would like to say that we'd have no worries about running out of fuel in any reasonable amount of time if we could build breeder reactors that could re-process the waste.
But noooo you can make weapons grade shit with that, so they are banned, so instead we have to use the isotope of uranium that we have the least amount of. Gah!
Besides, modern pebble bed reactors are about as safe as it gets. Unlike coal, you are not spewing radiation into the air (really, coal has a lot of radioactive elements in it), you are containing it in one place.
It's good that you skipped all the replies, as it's a fairly safe assumption that no matter what it is you have to say, no one else has already thought of it over the course of the last four pages.
Ouch!
Acerbic Nigel is acerbic. :lulz:
:thanks:
Replying without reading everything first is something I specialize in, so I think I'm well-qualified to comment.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 19, 2010, 06:45:22 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 19, 2010, 06:42:40 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 19, 2010, 05:39:47 PM
Quote from: cavehamster on February 19, 2010, 08:05:00 AM
Having skipped all the replies to add my viewpoint, I just would like to say that we'd have no worries about running out of fuel in any reasonable amount of time if we could build breeder reactors that could re-process the waste.
But noooo you can make weapons grade shit with that, so they are banned, so instead we have to use the isotope of uranium that we have the least amount of. Gah!
Besides, modern pebble bed reactors are about as safe as it gets. Unlike coal, you are not spewing radiation into the air (really, coal has a lot of radioactive elements in it), you are containing it in one place.
It's good that you skipped all the replies, as it's a fairly safe assumption that no matter what it is you have to say, no one else has already thought of it over the course of the last four pages.
Did somebody already mention this? Serious question cause it was new to me, but I could have missed it. I'm pretty sure I think I read all four page, if you don't mind me not going to read four pages just to check if I indeed read everything in those four pages :)
Who cares? She was nicer than I was going to be. Cavehamster has a habit of constantly making sure everyone knows how little he cares about their opinions, debating points, etc. He's a complete shit, and I can't think of anything that would make me come to his defense. I would not piss down his neck if his heart was on fire.
Fuck him. Fuck him in his ear.
I like your style, well done!
Quote from: cavehamster on February 19, 2010, 07:14:00 PM
I like your style, well done!
That's nice. Turn your head, please.
Dok Howl, fair enough. I was mostly asking for the sake of my own memory, anyhow :)
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 19, 2010, 07:23:18 PM
Dok Howl, fair enough. I was mostly asking for the sake of my own memory, anyhow :)
S'ok. I just wanted to take a cheap shot at Cavehamster.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 19, 2010, 07:23:18 PM
Dok Howl, fair enough. I was mostly asking for the sake of my own memory, anyhow :)
Having now reviewed the pages, I didn't see anything mentioned about pebble bed reactors or fast breeder reactors.
A lot of the 'waste' that we are burying now could be re-used again and again as fuel in a breeder: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last
"Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies."
The USA has huge deposits of uranium so it's a good thing build more plants here anyway.
Most of the reason we don't see more nuclear reactors is political rather than technical. Couple that with the public perception that only uranium can give off radiation and that you are guaranteed to glow green if you get near a plant, and well... Modern designs make sure that the failsafe in case of an incident is indeed to 'fail safe'.
I do think we'll see an uptick in the number of nuclear plants as future generations become more divorced from past really bad incidents in poorly designed facilities.
Doesn't matter. You're fucked anyhow.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 19, 2010, 07:51:30 PM
Doesn't matter. You're fucked anyhow.
Yeah, well.. it happens. At least I was honest about my post ;)
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-29/news/17840875_1_laser-beams-national-ignition-facility-deuterium-and-tritium (http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-29/news/17840875_1_laser-beams-national-ignition-facility-deuterium-and-tritium)
Some nuclear fusion researchers are taking an idea from gamers: blast something with lasers (lots of lasers) until it explodes (or is heated up to 6 million degrees F).
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 18, 2010, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on February 18, 2010, 01:14:02 AMJUST FOR your uptight panty concerns. Yes I would. I don't consider this such a serious "argument" that i can't be light-hearted.
What is "uptight" about being annoyed over someone taking the piss on a country for no apparent reason at all?
In that manner, what is "light-hearted" about taking the piss on a country for no reason at all?
Quotethe trail of epic disaster follows nuclear power everywhere it goes, I think it's insane to continue fucking with it.
Everywhere?!?! :lulz:
Please stop driving your car, don't you see the PILES OF EPIC DISASTER they leave EVERYWHERE??
Do stay away from tall buildings or airplanes, just to be sure.
Cars do, in fact, leave piles of epic disaster everywhere. Way worse ones than Nuclear plants.
Well, that proves nothing.
Only that cars aren't the solution to the world energy problem.
So there.
If someone can process my poop into power, I will light up the globe.
The pollution will be pretty bad, but at least the lights will be on.
Hm, what about the trains?