Welcome to Gaia! ::

Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

I HAVE THE POWAH!
Now I'm gonna throw my two cents in... didn't read the whole discussion, it's pretty much sweatdrop

I'm against nuclear power not only because of the accidents that happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
I'm much more worried about the storage of the nuclear waste. We don't have a perfect storage and many people think that it's the best idea to bury it in "safe" containers. Unfortunately, the containers decompose due to the radiation.
You can't play down radiation. You can't take it lightly.
Furthermore, generations after us will suffer. It takes over a million years for Uranium to decompose.
It's best when we look for alternatives that are less dangerous and don't have any open questions.
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

7,900 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
Skyburn
Exoth XIII
chainmailleman

Any nuclear reactor isn't safe. The reason is how they work. They are steam boilers. They use the heat from the reaction to boil water and push the blades on the turbines. Just like in the 19th century with all of those steam boiler failures.....

No. The reason for frequent boiler failure in the 1800's, was the fact that they didn't know how to build an adequate feedback control system. The boilers didn't adjust themselves. As such, people had to keep a constant eye on them, with the result that most boiler failures were due to user error, either people were running them too high, or they weren't being adequately attended.

If you look at the data, nuclear power is actually the second safest method of power generation (only hydroelectric is safer, with the fewest deaths per kilowatt hour.)
Quote:

Fukushima and Chernobyl were no different. It was a big release of built up pressure.

Fukushima wasn't designed adequately to withstand local hazards (IE tidal waves.) Chernobyl was built out of mud and spit.
Quote:

Thorium is "Safer" than Uranium only in the fact that Thorium does not sustain it's own reaction. It requires an outside source of Neutrons. Therefore not requiring control rods to absorb stray neutrons. Thats it. Don't believe me? Google this s**t. Every reactor is built on the same principles. San Onofre just lost it's cooling radiators a few months ago releasing a fairly large portion of radiation into the pacific.

If you're going to use google, try and fact check.
Yes, they discovered a minor radioactive steam leak. It was at a rate of six hundredths of a gallon per minute, and was automatically detected, and vented into an auxiliary building. NO radiation was released into the pacific.

See, this is what modern engineering gets us. The problem was found immediately, and stopped before anyone could get hurt.

Compare this with oil, where it seems once a year, we have a major spill, explosions, malfunctions, etc.
Ironically, because people are so worried about nuclear, nuclear plants have to be MUCH safer than oil plants.

Two corrections (though one is debatable):
1) Nuclear is safer than Hydroelectric, based on the figures I've seen.

Could be wrong. Even so, though, hydroelectric requires a source of water that you can safely dam up, which is only possible in certain areas, which makes nuclear the better option for most of the country.
Quote:

2) Fukushima wasn't able to withstand multiple extreme disasters. Tsunami? Pfft. Earthquake? Pfft. Both? Nope. And we aren't even talking normal disasters; we are talking extreme disasters.
And it's still an ancient plant.

I've spoken to a nuclear engineer. I seem to recall them testing out the design for a plant on a computer by launching simulated trees at it. I assume they were horsing around, though, since plants are usually designed to get hit with a missile.
Quote:

Other than that, you're spot on. Impressive if you're only using Google, which I typically consider inadequate and infuriating for people to use, because it often leads them astray.

Google for the specifics, but I'm also a mechanical engineering major. (Which, these days, does involve a little nuclear engineering classes.)
Exoth XIII

Could be wrong. Even so, though, hydroelectric requires a source of water that you can safely dam up, which is only possible in certain areas, which makes nuclear the better option for most of the country.
Actually, a lot of the more recent designs are designed to work in rivers and oceans based purely on natural flow, and are rather creatively impressive, considering the problems you'd normally see with not actually forcing water by them.
Granted, they are considerably less efficient and pale in comparison to the Hoover and Three Gorges.
The most impressive ones I've seen are those that actually still work as supports for bridges and don't endanger fish or wildlife, and those that can be moved to allow for ships to still pass through.

Older nuclear plants, I'm not sure of their specifics. Most would take some heavy effort by some terrorists to actually damage, and infinitely more effort to cause to meltdown. I know quite a few are inadequately designed for what we now know of nuclear power. Fukushima, for example. Only one method of decay heat removal. Say, "only one method for..." to most modern nuclear operators and he'll probably cut you off, screaming in horror before you get to add another word after that, because we never do anything with just one method. That's silly.
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

7,900 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
Skyburn
Exoth XIII

Could be wrong. Even so, though, hydroelectric requires a source of water that you can safely dam up, which is only possible in certain areas, which makes nuclear the better option for most of the country.
Actually, a lot of the more recent designs are designed to work in rivers and oceans based purely on natural flow, and are rather creatively impressive, considering the problems you'd normally see with not actually forcing water by them.
Granted, they are considerably less efficient and pale in comparison to the Hoover and Three Gorges.
The most impressive ones I've seen are those that actually still work as supports for bridges and don't endanger fish or wildlife, and those that can be moved to allow for ships to still pass through.

Neat, but they still need a source of water, even if you aren't damming it up.
Quote:

Older nuclear plants, I'm not sure of their specifics. Most would take some heavy effort by some terrorists to actually damage, and infinitely more effort to cause to meltdown. I know quite a few are inadequately designed for what we now know of nuclear power. Fukushima, for example. Only one method of decay heat removal. Say, "only one method for..." to most modern nuclear operators and he'll probably cut you off, screaming in horror before you get to add another word after that, because we never do anything with just one method. That's silly.

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason why we should be worried about the older plants, is with how much people worry about nuclear power, and how little they know about it, whenever something goes wrong, no matter how small, it gives modern, well designed plants a bad image.
Teriyaki Boneless Wings's avatar

Chatty Flatterer

Reik8
Now I'm gonna throw my two cents in... didn't read the whole discussion, it's pretty much sweatdrop

I'm against nuclear power not only because of the accidents that happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
I'm much more worried about the storage of the nuclear waste. We don't have a perfect storage and many people think that it's the best idea to bury it in "safe" containers. Unfortunately, the containers decompose due to the radiation.
You can't play down radiation. You can't take it lightly.
Furthermore, generations after us will suffer. It takes over a million years for Uranium to decompose.
It's best when we look for alternatives that are less dangerous and don't have any open questions.

As mentioned earlier, the containers take forever to break down... And when they start to leak our future generations can foresee the problem and patch it up no problem.
Of Or Pertaining To Axiom
Reik8
Now I'm gonna throw my two cents in... didn't read the whole discussion, it's pretty much sweatdrop

I'm against nuclear power not only because of the accidents that happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
I'm much more worried about the storage of the nuclear waste. We don't have a perfect storage and many people think that it's the best idea to bury it in "safe" containers. Unfortunately, the containers decompose due to the radiation.
You can't play down radiation. You can't take it lightly.
Furthermore, generations after us will suffer. It takes over a million years for Uranium to decompose.
It's best when we look for alternatives that are less dangerous and don't have any open questions.

As mentioned earlier, the containers take forever to break down... And when they start to leak our future generations can foresee the problem and patch it up no problem.


But I doubt if that is really necessary. It still isn't justifiable to produce more nuclear waste just because the containers could be repaired.
Reik8


But I doubt if that is really necessary. It still isn't justifiable to produce more nuclear waste just because the containers could be repaired.

Reik8
Now I'm gonna throw my two cents in... didn't read the whole discussion, it's pretty much sweatdrop

I'm against nuclear power not only because of the accidents that happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
I'm much more worried about the storage of the nuclear waste. We don't have a perfect storage and many people think that it's the best idea to bury it in "safe" containers. Unfortunately, the containers decompose due to the radiation.
You can't play down radiation. You can't take it lightly.
Furthermore, generations after us will suffer. It takes over a million years for Uranium to decompose.
It's best when we look for alternatives that are less dangerous and don't have any open questions.

*Facepalm*
We store our waste inside a mountain. All you have to ensure is that there is no groundwater for contamination to leak into, and who gives a crap if the containers break down? They're inside a freaking mountain. You're talking enough tenth-thicknesses to ensure guys climbing the mountain will be getting far more radiation from the radon emanating from the mountain than the stuff inside it.
Add some poisons in there as well, and no meltdown.

Also, your information on the containers isn't exactly correct. Radiation doesn't so much break them down as it does make them brittle.

My favorite proposal is dropping it to the bottom of the ocean in a spot known to be devoid of life inside of tungsten balls.

Also, fun fact: Coal releases more radiation than nuclear power.
You're worried about radiation? Shut down coal plants. Build more nuclear plants.
New power plants also have methods of producing less waste by reusing what they produce; though, this is mainly based upon the initial fuel itself.
Skyburn
Reik8


But I doubt if that is really necessary. It still isn't justifiable to produce more nuclear waste just because the containers could be repaired.

Reik8
Now I'm gonna throw my two cents in... didn't read the whole discussion, it's pretty much sweatdrop

I'm against nuclear power not only because of the accidents that happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
I'm much more worried about the storage of the nuclear waste. We don't have a perfect storage and many people think that it's the best idea to bury it in "safe" containers. Unfortunately, the containers decompose due to the radiation.
You can't play down radiation. You can't take it lightly.
Furthermore, generations after us will suffer. It takes over a million years for Uranium to decompose.
It's best when we look for alternatives that are less dangerous and don't have any open questions.

*Facepalm*
We store our waste inside a mountain. All you have to ensure is that there is no groundwater for contamination to leak into, and who gives a crap if the containers break down? They're inside a freaking mountain. You're talking enough tenth-thicknesses to ensure guys climbing the mountain will be getting far more radiation from the radon emanating from the mountain than the stuff inside it.
Add some poisons in there as well, and no meltdown.

Also, your information on the containers isn't exactly correct. Radiation doesn't so much break them down as it does make them brittle.

My favorite proposal is dropping it to the bottom of the ocean in a spot known to be devoid of life inside of tungsten balls.


And this shows me how humans treat nature nowadays...
Well, I can understand when a country uses nuclear energy when there's no other option left. But countries like France, China and Russia don't need it and build them in masses. And I mean, the waste won't get smaller. The great mountain doesn't have space for endless amounts, neither does the ocean.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Reik8
Now I'm gonna throw my two cents in... didn't read the whole discussion, it's pretty much sweatdrop

I'm against nuclear power not only because of the accidents that happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
I'm much more worried about the storage of the nuclear waste. We don't have a perfect storage and many people think that it's the best idea to bury it in "safe" containers. Unfortunately, the containers decompose due to the radiation.
You can't play down radiation. You can't take it lightly.
Furthermore, generations after us will suffer. It takes over a million years for Uranium to decompose.
It's best when we look for alternatives that are less dangerous and don't have any open questions.


THORIUM.

Done and done.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Reik8
Skyburn
Reik8


But I doubt if that is really necessary. It still isn't justifiable to produce more nuclear waste just because the containers could be repaired.

Reik8
Now I'm gonna throw my two cents in... didn't read the whole discussion, it's pretty much sweatdrop

I'm against nuclear power not only because of the accidents that happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
I'm much more worried about the storage of the nuclear waste. We don't have a perfect storage and many people think that it's the best idea to bury it in "safe" containers. Unfortunately, the containers decompose due to the radiation.
You can't play down radiation. You can't take it lightly.
Furthermore, generations after us will suffer. It takes over a million years for Uranium to decompose.
It's best when we look for alternatives that are less dangerous and don't have any open questions.

*Facepalm*
We store our waste inside a mountain. All you have to ensure is that there is no groundwater for contamination to leak into, and who gives a crap if the containers break down? They're inside a freaking mountain. You're talking enough tenth-thicknesses to ensure guys climbing the mountain will be getting far more radiation from the radon emanating from the mountain than the stuff inside it.
Add some poisons in there as well, and no meltdown.

Also, your information on the containers isn't exactly correct. Radiation doesn't so much break them down as it does make them brittle.

My favorite proposal is dropping it to the bottom of the ocean in a spot known to be devoid of life inside of tungsten balls.


And this shows me how humans treat nature nowadays...
Well, I can understand when a country uses nuclear energy when there's no other option left. But countries like France, China and Russia don't need it and build them in masses. And I mean, the waste won't get smaller. The great mountain doesn't have space for endless amounts, neither does the ocean.


Maybe for a million years though.

And this would only be until fusion came out, if we couldn't do better than that.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

In 100 years solar panels in Antarctica would be all the rage.

Cause Antarctica has natural sub zero temperatures which is great for semi-conductors, 6 months of straight sunlight, an ozone hole that makes light come in at much higher levels, no-one lives there and it's technically a desert so the weather is like nothing.

It's perfect.


The only problem I see is batteries- even with that long of sunlight, you'll still need batteries for the other half of the year.

This can mostly be resolved in the future with nano capacitors, which will have thousands of times the capacity as lithium ion but with much lower losses than regular capacitors, so it will be able to store energy for 6 months with low losses at like 1-5% it's total energy cap. That means that while it will most likely out do lithium ion in terms of endurance (capacitors last millions of cycles, instead of thousands, plus this stuff is like 100 times stronger than steel), it will also have 10-100 times the energy density, making it feasible in terms of size and cost, sense you won't really have to replace it very often and it will hold loads of power.


That being said, at the low temperatures in the Artic you may be able to have lithium ion last quite a while at pretty high efficiency.

So idk.

We may come up with better batteries too.
Teriyaki Boneless Wings's avatar

Chatty Flatterer

Reik8
Of Or Pertaining To Axiom
Reik8
Now I'm gonna throw my two cents in... didn't read the whole discussion, it's pretty much sweatdrop

I'm against nuclear power not only because of the accidents that happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
I'm much more worried about the storage of the nuclear waste. We don't have a perfect storage and many people think that it's the best idea to bury it in "safe" containers. Unfortunately, the containers decompose due to the radiation.
You can't play down radiation. You can't take it lightly.
Furthermore, generations after us will suffer. It takes over a million years for Uranium to decompose.
It's best when we look for alternatives that are less dangerous and don't have any open questions.

As mentioned earlier, the containers take forever to break down... And when they start to leak our future generations can foresee the problem and patch it up no problem.


But I doubt if that is really necessary. It still isn't justifiable to produce more nuclear waste just because the containers could be repaired.

the most efficient/safe energy production is bound to have some downsides

luckily the only one is waste that has some upkeep to it

i dont see the problem
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Reik8
Of Or Pertaining To Axiom
Reik8
Now I'm gonna throw my two cents in... didn't read the whole discussion, it's pretty much sweatdrop

I'm against nuclear power not only because of the accidents that happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
I'm much more worried about the storage of the nuclear waste. We don't have a perfect storage and many people think that it's the best idea to bury it in "safe" containers. Unfortunately, the containers decompose due to the radiation.
You can't play down radiation. You can't take it lightly.
Furthermore, generations after us will suffer. It takes over a million years for Uranium to decompose.
It's best when we look for alternatives that are less dangerous and don't have any open questions.

As mentioned earlier, the containers take forever to break down... And when they start to leak our future generations can foresee the problem and patch it up no problem.


But I doubt if that is really necessary. It still isn't justifiable to produce more nuclear waste just because the containers could be repaired.


And what would you have us replace it with?
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

1. Put hydro electric dam in middle of ocean
2. Create just enough force with a staircase design to reliably spin heavy generator turbine
3. ...???
4. Profit.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games