|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:As extremely poisonous heavy metals, yes. Anything highly radioactive will stop being highly radioactive very quickly because it's highly radioactive. I don't think highly radioactive material is more dangerous than low-radioactive because of some perceived Elephant's Foot instant death. The less radioactive, long half-life stuff can be extremely deadly when it is allowed to spread into the environment. It's not exactly something you can immediately produce "yeah this is really bad" results for either, but when any kind of ionizing radiation gets into a human body, it can have devastating effects. Nuclear fission in it's current form is:
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:
A plutonium bomb (and my information is a few years old so if I'm talking poo poo please correct me) would be an implosion type warhead. Plutonium only goes critical if it's compressed quite severely with a number of simultaneous explosive charges, and the timing being off by even the slightest amount would radically reduce effectiveness, if not completely fail to detonate. Plutonium is relatively easy to acquire, but the technology to make a bomb is "space is hard" complex. To contrast, you could probably make a gun type warhead using weaponized uranium using two cannons and a chunk of uranium 235, the compression requirements are much less strict. However, refining weaponized uranium is "space is hard" complex. Most of the Manhattan Project was just producing uranium 235, and we only wound up with enough for one weapon (fun fact: Hiroshima was a live beta). I highly recommend this lecture, Physics for Future Presidents if you would like to learn more about the mechanics of nuclear warheads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:Nuclear fission in it's current form is: You are wrong and probably vote Green.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
 : Solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal are all really good energy sources that should be used instead of fossil fuels. : Green energy already exists, it's called nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
Am I right in thinking a lot of the hysteria around the perceived dangers of radiation being based around the whole Radium craze of yesteryear? Radium is pretty loving horrible because your body uses it as it would use calcium, so if you ingest it (which a lot of people did, via crazy radium quackery) it will seriously gently caress you up in the long term. A few scientific studies have come out measuring the health effects of the Liquidators in Chernobyl and they generally found that there was no huge incidence of cancer, and those that did may have been down to better screening techniques rather than the direct effect of the radiation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
Ionizing radiation is provably very dangerous to the human body, especially if it's ingested or taken inside your digestive/respiratory/circulatory systems. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:Nuclear fission in it's current form is: Literally nothing is renewable if nuclear isn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Literally nothing is renewable if nuclear isn't. "Uranium-235 is a finite non-renewable resource." Is there something in this sentence you think is incorrect? Maybe you want to talk about breeder reactors and afterwards we can discuss converting our cars to run purely on water.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:"Uranium-235 is a finite non-renewable resource." Uranium-235 is not the only potential nuclear material.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:"Uranium-235 is a finite non-renewable resource." Silicon is a finite non-renewable resource as well, even the universe is finite. If there is so much of it that it would satisfy our needs for hundreds or even thousands of years it might as well be infinite as far as political/economical decisions are concerned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Silicon is a finite non-renewable resource as well, even the universe is finite. If there is so much of it that it would satisfy our needs for hundreds or even thousands of years it might as well be infinite as far as political/economical decisions are concerned. Economically, it makes more sense to use an energy source that doesn't create dangerous waste that needs to be securely housed for thousands of years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Economically, it makes more sense to use an energy source that doesn't create dangerous waste that needs to be securely housed for thousands of years. You are right, we absolutely should not be burning fossil fuels
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Economically, it makes more sense to use an energy source that doesn't create dangerous waste that needs to be securely housed for thousands of years. Not if it's cheaper to store the waste compared to some other factor with the alternatives (for example, overbuilding capacity for solar and building large storage facilities with dangerous levels of energy for that excess capacity). And that's ignoring any and all possibilities for reusing said waste too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Things that are cheaper rarely end up being better. I wonder how many solar plants or wind farms could be built with the $100 Billion the US government still had to spend as of 2014 to clean up the Hanford site. http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/etox/resources/case_studies/hanford.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:"Uranium-235 is a finite non-renewable resource." breeder reactors exist already even a thorium reactor has already been built and was operational in the states in the loving 1960's Solar/Wind are: 1) not efficient enough AND too expensive to ever fully replace the energy even currently produced by fossil fuels (never mind what our energy demands might be in the future) 2) given that, and with respect to the very simple truth that coal/gas produced energy is far more damaging to the environment AND directly deadly to humans than nuclear energy ever has been or will be on any metric and: 3) assuming that we cannot simply 'cut back' on energy use more than a token amount without deeply impacting quality of life - we will need a viable alternative that can replace the quantity of power produced by fossil fuels, which is both efficient and cheap AND reliable enough to actually do so and the only such alternative is nuclear. I will agree that if we keep burning U-235 we will run out in a quantifiable amount of time - luckily U-235 is not the only fuels source available to us, and likely we're well on the way to developing a new set of reactors that don't need it AND don't operate under high pressure restrictions or use solid fuels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Economically, it makes more sense to use an energy source that doesn't create dangerous waste that needs to be securely housed for thousands of years. Many industrial processes produce dangerous waste. For some reason nuclear fission just breaks people's brains when it comes to waste management.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Economically, it makes more sense to use an energy source that doesn't create dangerous waste that needs to be securely housed for thousands of years. unless your alternative source has extreme economic drawbacks in other areas: like unreliability of operation or a lack of efficiency requiring much larger costs to even get it running on a scale that could begin to replace existing power needs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:Things that are cheaper rarely end up being better. What do you think "economically" means?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Economically, it makes more sense to use an energy source that doesn't create dangerous waste that needs to be securely housed for thousands of years. Which is a completely unrelated argument because the "finiteness" of nuclear fuel has no bearing at all on how dangerous or costly it is to process the waste.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Which is a completely unrelated argument because the "finiteness" of nuclear fuel has no bearing at all on how dangerous or costly it is to process the waste. Yeah, I misread what was being said there. Though I'm loving that nuclear is the only option for this forum because it's the easiest. MizPiz fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
ease isn't the issue, viability is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:Nuclear fission in it's current form is: The same is true of solar, too. Producing PV cells uses finite materials, creates tons of toxic waste, and mismanagement of that waste can easily create a localized environmental catastrophe. Of course, solar and wind rely heavily on batteries, which are most definitely nonrenewable. I'll be surprised if peak lithium doesn't make electric cars non-viable within our lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Though I'm loving that nuclear is the only option for this forum because it's the easiest. No, it's the only viable option for baseline production.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Solar panels won't work everywhere, but more places could implement it. My company is pushing near to 10k employees in a single campus of 20 buildings and the entire campus now runs 100% off grid between our solar farm, windmills, and geothermal heat. Different areas are more feasible for different types of renewables and companies could definitely be encouraged to do more to select technologies that are suitable for their area. Offer like a fixed %off tax credit or something for percentage of power going to your building from renewables. That'll get companies putting it in much faster than trying to push some sort of rigid building code. Plus, governments love handing out tax credits to corporations so it's something that could feasibly be done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
After watching the full length LFTR vid I'm pretty onboard with the idea. It doesn't seem like all that poo poo I was worried about exists with these things, or doesn't exist in large quantities. I like the idea of the consolidation too, solar is really cool but compared to what they were talking with a LFTR it ends up being a net step backwards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:Nuclear fission in it's current form is: The thing about nuclear waste is its highly hazardous, but its also highly concentrated and containable. Coal power also produces highly hazardous waste, but its neigh impossible to contain so we just say "gently caress it, run it through a mostly useless filter so people feel like we're doing something and then dump it in the air". We're far better off with an occasional nuclear disaster than we are with the guaranteed environmental, health, and economic damage caused by coal plants working as intended. Also most of the nuclear waste we produce can be recycled into usable fuel but we're not doing it because politics. Renewables should be developed, but they're far more limited by location and other constraints than nuclear is. Ultimately, even places with abundant renewable energy resources will need other sources to supplement it, and a lot of places don't have great options for renewable energy. OtherworldlyInvader fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:Nuclear fission in it's current form is: A lot of things produce hazardous waste products. I do not mean this to dismiss the question of radioactive waste. But there are lots of other wastes. Pollution does not cease to exist merely because it occurs on Chinese territory. As for your last point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill Sure, you might say, nobody died. But nobody died at Three Mile Island either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Solar panels won't work everywhere, but more places could implement it. My company is pushing near to 10k employees in a single campus of 20 buildings and the entire campus now runs 100% off grid between our solar farm, windmills, and geothermal heat. Different areas are more feasible for different types of renewables and companies could definitely be encouraged to do more to select technologies that are suitable for their area. That's really the sort of thing I meant earlier too. Do you have any information on cost, specifically, investment vs savings? Of course, location is a huge factor, but I would venture a guess and say that every Wal-Mart in Arizona, for example, could do this and save money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Wal-Mart has deployed and uses huge amounts of renewable energy. They're probably a bigger consumer of renewable energy than the vast majority of countries. That doesn't mean that it makes financial sense for smaller companies, though...they're able to build this because of economies of scale, i.e. they're able to buy things in vast sums and realize cost savings as a result. They use so much energy that they are by financial/shareholder necessity on the forefront of reducing the costs as much/as fast as possible. They're also redesigning long-haul trucks to be more fuel efficient. You can find both of those things via google. In the southwest of the US (where it is only intermittently/rarely cloudy), we're at a point right now where it makes sense for a homeowner to buy a solar panel system if they can afford it or finance it. Solar panels are no longer a product where it's a luxury or you buy it to feel good about yourself. It makes financial sense...albeit with the 30% federal tax credit. Within 5 years time, it is very likely that the prices will be low enough and the efficiencies high enough that even the federal tax credit will be meaningless. Probably 10 years from now for the rest of the country that have cloudier skies. So you can imagine the same will be true for businesses, but slightly faster since they would have large scale advantages. Solar power is a very near-term inevitability. You're going to see it being a standard option on new home construction, etc. The current hot fad in the tech sector is what Solar City is doing which is solar leasing, where a company puts solar panels on your roof at 0 cost that they own, and then they sell you the electricity back at a lower cost than the utility. It's a great idea for those who don't want the upfront costs, although most homeowners with good finances are much better off buying the systems outright. What Solar City is doing (and other companies have followed suit) could very rapidly speed up the transition. As to nuclear, there is no doubt that we should be building nuclear plants by the dozen. They're cheaper and cleaner. Disposal is mostly just a political bogeyman of the NIMBY variety. Those against it have such poor objections that they come across sounding brainwashed. It boggles the mind that many greenies are standing in the way of it. Been that way for a while now. Speaking of fission, on the topic of fusion, Lockheed Martin has said they will try to have a prototype fusion power generator by 2017, with goals to begin making them for sale in 2022. That's another thing to pop into Google. The energy future is exciting and American ingenuity is mostly leading the way
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Economically, it makes more sense to use an energy source that doesn't create dangerous waste that needs to be securely housed for thousands of years. Economically, it makes more sense to shove that fuel back into a breeder, like the second one that just got finished in glorious mother Russia  , or the ones currently being finished in India and China. Did I mention the waste that comes out of a good breeder only presents a radiation hazard of about 300-500 years (that's at least 2 orders of magnitude less than the waste you shoved into the reactor as fuel, nerds).Bedshaped posted:Things that are cheaper rarely end up being better. I wonder how many solar plants or wind farms could be built with the $100 Billion the US government still had to spend as of 2014 to clean up the Hanford site. Saying nuclear power station waste management will cost as much as weapons production waste management is about as good as the stupid "nucular reactors = nucular weapons = nucular war = environmental damage to the max  " argument. Also 100 billion dollars worth of renewables produce less electricity than 100 billion dollars worth of nuclear power plants.Bedshaped posted:Ionizing radiation is provably very dangerous to the human body, especially if it's ingested or taken inside your digestive/respiratory/circulatory systems. You know that the radiation you receive from  nucular power tends to be somewhere between "doesn't matter" and "not worth caring about" unless you pitch a tent in spitting distance of the Chernobyl reactor building?
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 23:31
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Bedshaped posted:Things that are cheaper rarely end up being better. I wonder how many solar plants or wind farms could be built with the $100 Billion the US government still had to spend as of 2014 to clean up the Hanford site. Are you really equating the damage done by the very first production of nuclear weapons to a modern breeder design that produces a small amount of relatively short-lived waste? And even that 'waste' has medical and space exploration applications. It's hard to take anything you say seriously after that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Speaking of fission, on the topic of fusion, Lockheed Martin has said they will try to have a prototype fusion power generator by 2017, with goals to begin making them for sale in 2022. That's another thing to pop into Google. I was pretty skeptical about this until I read this book about Skunkworks: http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003 It doesn't deal with energy at all, but Skunkworks as an institution has a long heritage of doing the seemingly impossible. Exciting times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
I just read the OP and I regret to inform you that you have all been trolled by a master of the internet who has tricked you into describing your knowledge and recommendations for the future of renewable energy! You fools! The answer is thorium anyway
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Cool Bear posted:I just read the OP and I regret to inform you that you have all been trolled by a master of the internet who has tricked you into describing your knowledge and recommendations for the future of renewable energy! You fools! The answer is thorium anyway Thorium reactors still have engineering hurdles that need to be resolved to bring power plants online, that poo poo's corrosive as hell. Fact is that there's no political will in the West to develop nuclear power and arguing about its technical merits isn't going to change that. Solar and wind are inferior technologies that will keep us reliant on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future but that's where the cultural capital and money are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
I would bet all of my money that nothing will happen until it is profitable. That means that oil needs to increase in price. Can you imagine private oligarchs coming together and saying to each other "we need to make sure that we invest ahead of time to properly make sure that the american people never have to experience the horrible disaster of the stagflation 70's. Not even a Hyper-Keynesian government will be able to help the poor people who will desperately deal with unemployment and inflation at the same time. This will significantly drive down the cost of labor, and we the oligarchs, who bribe the american government, must help prevent this, a decade ahead of time." No you need to threaten them with guns and the IRS give me your money you lying nazi sacks of garbage
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Thorium reactors still have engineering hurdles that need to be resolved to bring power plants online, that poo poo's corrosive as hell. Since ,  and :india: are currently ironing out the issues with breeders and Thorium reactors.In the future, we shall be ashamed and license-build Chinese nuclear reactor designs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Thorium reactors still have engineering hurdles that need to be resolved to bring power plants online, that poo poo's corrosive as hell. Is it somehow magically more corrosive than all the other ridiculously corrosive chemicals used on a daily basis in the production of pretty much everything?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Since Hell naw son,  would never import that commie garbage, instead there will be trillion-dollar contracts given to Lockheed to develop their own drat reactors once the need is great enough to overcome cultural and political barriers.Really the only way that nuclear could take off again in America is if the Koch brothers decided to complete their transformation into cartoon villains and astroturf a new political movement to allow them to build plants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Really the only way that nuclear could take off again in America is if the Koch brothers decided to complete their transformation into cartoon villains and astroturf a new political movement to allow them to build plants. Nuclear power is not profitable in the short run. The extent to which the environment will be destroyed to scrape the most pathetic scraps of oil from the earth will be impressive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
Cool Bear posted:Nuclear power is not profitable in the short run. Which is why it's basically dead in and being pursued in places like .
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 10:33
|
|