hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1 of 11 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 214

Thread: Nuclear Power

  1. #1
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    17,672

    Nuclear Power

    If you are against it you are wrong. Discuss.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    If you are against it you are wrong. Discuss.
    What the fuck's there to discuss? This is one where even when attempting to play devil's advocate you simply have to stop and take a shower to rid yourself of the stench of Greenpeace.

  3. #3
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    5,126
    It is the future. Doubt anyone will disagree, this thread will hopefully fill up with people agreeing and then moving on.

  4. #4
    Moderator Moderator F*** My Aunt Rita's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Whereever particular mexicans congregate.
    Posts
    3,026
    When do we reach peak thorium?

  5. #5
    Donor TheManFromDelmonte's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    5,021
    The only debate is over the best way to stop the lazy and greedy cutting corners on the safety and reprocessing.
    And who pays for it.

  6. #6
    Super Ponerator Global Moderator Evelgrivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,277
    Quote Originally Posted by F*** My Aunt Rita View Post
    When do we reach peak thorium?
    Hypothetically, never. The big problem with Thorium, to my knowledge, is that disposal methods/desirable consumption processes for depleted fuels have not been developed yet; there hasn't been much interest in making that investment from United States industry or government.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    July 30, 2011
    Posts
    1,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    If you are against it you are wrong. Discuss.
    Why are you making me agree with you?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Evelgrivion View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by F*** My Aunt Rita View Post
    When do we reach peak thorium?
    Hypothetically, never. The big problem with Thorium, to my knowledge, is that disposal methods/desirable consumption processes for depleted fuels have not been developed yet; there hasn't been much interest in making that investment from United States industry or government.
    C.

    the big problem with thorium, in common with every other alternative form of nuclear power, is that we have established, safe, proven and accepted reactor designs and procedures for conventional nuclear power available right now. these proven designs are built on sixty+ years of research. switching to a new, novel form of nuclear power comes with an opportunity cost of that research, which would be all-but-abandoned, leaving whoever is developing the alternative technology with a astronomical bill to bring the alternative up to parity with the traditional.

    the tl;dr of that is unless china suddenly decides they want to convert everything to thorium it's unlikely to happen in our lifetimes.

  9. #9
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Fourfingers frankie View Post
    Tbh its not very cost efficient. On the basis of climate change generally being a load of horse shit we should be back to burning coal.
    If you actually checked it you would discover its cheaper then coal in the long run.

    Also climate change is very real the only thing up to debate is the extend of human influence upon it.


    

  10. #10
    Donor Devec's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Dutchlands
    Posts
    3,625
    I thought I remember something about traditional nuclear plants being very very expensive due to all the safety measures that have to be build in, comparative to a coal power plant that is. Whilst both working largely the same way through steam turbines for power generation but just using a (very) different heat source. That said I can't exactly remember if running a nuclear was cheaper in the long run. Let alone selling it to the public because average joe will think of Chernobyl and Fukushima, which is of course not completely baseless because if it goes wrong, it has massive consequences.

    The question that should be asked instead of are you against it should be, is it worth while to invest another crapload of money into new nuclear power plants which will last another 25 years?

  11. #11
    Super Ponerator Global Moderator Evelgrivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Devec View Post
    I thought I remember something about traditional nuclear plants being very very expensive due to all the safety measures that have to be build in, comparative to a coal power plant that is. Whilst both working largely the same way through steam turbines for power generation but just using a (very) different heat source. That said I can't exactly remember if running a nuclear was cheaper in the long run. Let alone selling it to the public because average joe will think of Chernobyl and Fukushima, which is of course not completely baseless because if it goes wrong, it has massive consequences.

    The question that should be asked instead of are you against it should be, is it worth while to invest another crapload of money into new nuclear power plants which will last another 25 years?
    I think new nuclear fission power plants are a necessary interim investment, and one to be made between now and the closure of the funding gap for commercialized nuclear fusion. While the mantra "Nuclear fusion is always 20/30 years away" endures, the statement is incomplete; the reality is that Nuclear Fusion is 10 to 30 years and 70 to 80 billion dollars away.
    Last edited by Evelgrivion; August 21 2012 at 06:40:21 AM.

  12. #12
    big diiiiiiiiick Movember 2012Donor Dark Flare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,685
    Perhaps because we're going to run out of coal a lot quicker than we run out of materials for nuclear power.
    Quote Originally Posted by Amantus
    whats tyhe appear of a shnitifuck cu nt eve onlio9ne corpotraTION DICKOLHEAD FUCKIN AS

  13. #13
    fuck entrox Donor Jason Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Civilization
    Posts
    7,942
    Seriously, we have the hole made in the desert away from any water table thats stable, slight chance of earthquakes but compartmentalization takes care of any accidents that might happen.

    The reactors in Japan held up well past what they were designed to hold up against.

    When accidents happen the results are horrible, but what the fucking hippies refuse to acknowledge is our ability to learn from accidents and mistakes.

    Nuclear power is the only viable stopgap between fossil fuels and Fusion/Future tech.


    Compare the amount of coal infrastructure with nuclear infrastructure and its easy to see why projections make coal cheaper.
    But we need to stop fucking with the atmosphere, real earth lovers would support nuclear while we develop more efficient Photovoltaics and (insert green energy here).


    ENGAGE SERIOUS BUSINESS GROUP THINK.
    Last edited by Jason Marshall; August 21 2012 at 09:08:53 AM.

    "Sometimes someone just needs to be the OP" -Tellenta Philosopher of our People.

  14. #14
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Fourfingers frankie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fourfingers frankie View Post
    Tbh its not very cost efficient. On the basis of climate change generally being a load of horse shit we should be back to burning coal.
    If you actually checked it you would discover its cheaper then coal in the long run.

    Also climate change is very real the only thing up to debate is the extend of human influence upon it.
    I'm not going to link wiki pages because frankly on this forum I shouldn't have to but pretty much everyone from the economist on down agrees coal after natural gas is cheaper than nuclear. That's before you even look at the open ended decommissioning costs of nuclear.

    That said there is still a place for it Imo, I just don't see why it is considered the only viable option.
    Yes and no. You have to include the cost of the carbon tax and you come out with the coal being only slightly cheaper then nuclear and that is only because cost of the capital for nuclear power is more expensive then for conventional power sources. If you can manage to get the funding with the same cost you dont even need carbon tax for nuclear power to become competitive.

    And unlike you I have a source:
    http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/...update2009.pdf

    And if I manage to find a newer research from the UK royal society of engineers it showed even better performance for nuclear power.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Marshall View Post
    Seriously, we have the hole made in the desert away from any water table thats stable, slight chance of earthquakes but compartmentalization takes care of any accidents that might happen.

    The reactors in Japan held up well past what they were designed to hold up against.

    When accidents happen the results are horrible, but what the fucking hippies refuse to acknowledge is our ability to learn from accidents and mistakes.

    Nuclear power is the only viable stopgap between fossil fuels and Fusion/Future tech.


    Compare the amount of coal infrastructure with nuclear infrastructure and its easy to see why projections make coal cheaper.
    But we need to stop fucking with the atmosphere, real earth lovers would support nuclear while we develop more efficient Photovoltaics and (insert green energy here).


    ENGAGE SERIOUS BUSINESS GROUP THINK.
    Fukushima accident is pretty much human factor. It has been reported before that they need higher walls surrounding the power plants yet they didn't do it because of the cost. You need a high level of supervision surrounding nuclear plants since you really dont want corruption and malice around them.
    Last edited by Zeekar; August 21 2012 at 09:16:45 AM.


    

  15. #15
    Smuggo
    Guest
    The safety aspect of the plant itself is secondary to the issues around the waste it produces.

    Chernobyl was a :lolsovietunion: issue, and Fukushima actually kinda proves that nuclear power plants are pretty safe, because it demonstrated that a really old nuclear power plant that was never really designed to cope with the forces it faced could survive a massive earthquake and tsunami and still be contained.

    The waste however has a load of issues around its storage. Yes we can store it underground, but it needs to be safely contained for millennia and we can't really be sure that these containment facilities will even have the funding to maintain them for anywhere near that length of time, let alone be able to guarantee they would stand up to the test of many centuries left on their own. That's the big problem with current nuclear power generation IMO, not the actual process of generating it.

    So, while they are a short-term solution, we really need to be putting more money into fusion power generation research, and renewables (wind, wave, solar) as they're better long-term solutions that don't have waste issues (well fusion might but its waste products should just be Helium).

  16. #16

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,103
    Fukushima's an argument in favour of nuclear power tbh. Criminally mismanaged, 50 year old reactor designs, inadequate protections in place and it still took one of the strongest earthquakes in human history (and the ensuing tsunami) to cause what eventually turned out to be a relatively mild accident.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    ...it needs to be safely contained for millennia...
    Not strictly true. Take a radioactive element and heat it up to, say, the temperature of the sun, and chances are it will undergo fission and decay into something a lot more stable, giving off energy in the process. Because of this, if and when we get fusion technology to a useful state, even a modest collection of tokamaks would be able to chew through the world's stockpile of nuclear waste in very short order. A century at the most, I reckon.
    Last edited by elmicker; August 21 2012 at 10:49:25 AM.

  17. #17
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    5,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    The safety aspect of the plant itself is secondary to the issues around the waste it produces.

    Chernobyl was a :lolsovietunion: issue, and Fukushima actually kinda proves that nuclear power plants are pretty safe, because it demonstrated that a really old nuclear power plant that was never really designed to cope with the forces it faced could survive a massive earthquake and tsunami and still be contained.

    The waste however has a load of issues around its storage. Yes we can store it underground, but it needs to be safely contained for millennia and we can't really be sure that these containment facilities will even have the funding to maintain them for anywhere near that length of time, let alone be able to guarantee they would stand up to the test of many centuries left on their own. That's the big problem with current nuclear power generation IMO, not the actual process of generating it.

    So, while they are a short-term solution, we really need to be putting more money into fusion power generation research, and renewables (wind, wave, solar) as they're better long-term solutions that don't have waste issues (well fusion might but its waste products should just be Helium).
    Fast Breeder Reactors use nuclear waste right? Or am I thinking of something else...

  18. #18

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Fast Breeder Reactors use nuclear waste right? Or am I thinking of something else...
    They remove the very longest lived of the radioactive materials. In terms of just storing the material it's the difference between it being radioactive for 100,000 years without the breeder reactor reprocessing and 10,000 years with. Considering the cost barriers to switching to breeder reactors, it's never been a serious practical option.

  19. #19
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    The safety aspect of the plant itself is secondary to the issues around the waste it produces.

    Chernobyl was a :lolsovietunion: issue, and Fukushima actually kinda proves that nuclear power plants are pretty safe, because it demonstrated that a really old nuclear power plant that was never really designed to cope with the forces it faced could survive a massive earthquake and tsunami and still be contained.

    The waste however has a load of issues around its storage. Yes we can store it underground, but it needs to be safely contained for millennia and we can't really be sure that these containment facilities will even have the funding to maintain them for anywhere near that length of time, let alone be able to guarantee they would stand up to the test of many centuries left on their own. That's the big problem with current nuclear power generation IMO, not the actual process of generating it.

    So, while they are a short-term solution, we really need to be putting more money into fusion power generation research, and renewables (wind, wave, solar) as they're better long-term solutions that don't have waste issues (well fusion might but its waste products should just be Helium).
    Certain geological places are more then stable for millennia. Just dig a deep enough hole in a proper place and fill it up with rock/concrete, it will be stable long enough. Or use fast breeder reactors.


    

  20. #20
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    5,126
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Fast Breeder Reactors use nuclear waste right? Or am I thinking of something else...
    They remove the very longest lived of the radioactive materials. In terms of just storing the material it's the difference between it being radioactive for 100,000 years without the breeder reactor reprocessing and 10,000 years with. Considering the cost barriers to switching to breeder reactors, it's never been a serious practical option.
    Here's the article I read a while ago on this:-

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...aste-nightmare

    But it's :guardian: and I haven't exactly checked facts further than that article.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •