If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Great news, everybody. Pat Boone has solved our energy problems by inventing controlled fusion   (wnd.com) divider line 173
    More: Hero, Pat Boone, Daniel Boone, hydrogen bombs, Soviet government, Ethel Rosenberg, End of World War II in Europe  
•       •       •

5174 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Apr 2012 at 3:52 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-21 07:05:25 PM

Ringshadow: ...Also, I'd be less grumpy if people would explain to me IF WE HAVE SOLVED THE FACT THAT SOLAR CELLS ARE TOXIC....


Saying waste is an issue for solar and isn't for nuclear? When did I wander into bizzaro-land?

I'm not sure why you are freaking out about solar cells and batteries being toxic, because recycling programs for solar cells and batteries exist in pretty much every country/state. One company (First Solar) says they recycle 90% of the pholovoltic cell. I do wonder what part of it is not recycleable, but either way I don't think that qualifies as exactly a giant point of concern, especially vs nuclear waste which is more dangerous in pretty much every way other than quantity. Printed photo-voltaic cells (which are about a decade away from full commercial usage) use even less material, so even if you assume there is no advancement on recycling in the same amount of time, you'll still end up with less waste. Batteries I don't see as an issue exclusive to solar, as the necessity of increasing batteries for EV usage would also be paired with the switching to nuclear as a source for transportation energy as well, and battery recycling is very common.

Link

Nuclear waste wouldn't be so much of an issue if we stopped using antiquated designs, and started pushing hard at using / developing the lower waste designs that have come about in the last decade. Thorium looks great from what I've read, and most of its drawbacks don't look to be any worse then current reactor designs. Also I've heard a lot in the last few months about Traveling Wave Reactors (I think Bill Gates talk at TED about it kinda kicked that off), and if those can be even half as good as they are being made out to be, they'd be fantastic as well. Hot fusion is probably at least another decade away from having a true stable test reactor, and two or more away from a commerical design, but that's sorta the end game of nuclear. If you do it right, you could reasonably have no significant waste except for He4, which we will need anyway once we exhaust our natural supplies.

Ideally - I'd see a future where we get the backbone energy, like what we need round the clock, from nuclear sources of one type or another, and then get a majority of the additional energy we need during the daytime from solar to minimize the concern storage presents. But no single technology is going to be the answer.

Also, I'm not confident we'll ever figure out how to do cold fusion, since as its been explained to me during my coursework - it violates the current understanding of physics. Sure we could keep putting some time/money into looking for it, but hot fusion is where we need to focus in the near future.
 
2012-04-21 07:07:37 PM

HeartBurnKid: My bias? Really? Because I can smell your bias a mile away.


Uh, I work in the industry and I know some about it. So yes, I'm biased toward it but I also actually know shiat.

Do you not realize that the land around the Fukushima plant is going to be uninhabitable for at least the next 20 years?

Someone lives there right now. He farking refused to leave. He's a farmer. And I can't find an article on him of course, but it did make fark. Does someone have better googlefu than I do? The article basically stated they issued his own dosimetry and he was keeping calm and carrying on.
Also the workers are living there, more or less. But keep digging to China.

It's all well and good to sit here and talk about the normal operating parameters of a plant, but in the real world, abnormal situations happen. Natural disasters. Terrorist attacks. Corporate negligence. You can't just plan for normal daily operations; you must plan for the worst case scenario. And the worst case scenario for nuclear is bad.

This counts for every industry ever. And we do plan for worst case scenarios. They're called Design Basis Accidents.
And why would terrorists hit a nuclear plant? We have private armies.

I'd say the better way forward lies in renewables. Solar, wind, etc. Maybe it doesn't work in China, but we're not China. We have a huge amount of land where nobody lives, and it's mostly very hot, very flat, and very windy. We can use that.

No one in the thread has explained to me yet how they plan to deal with the fact that solar panels and batteries are mixed toxic waste, yet.

And I have nothing against renewable carrying peak load but it WILL NOT CARRY BASE LOAD.

/I also have some understanding of the grid

Bennie Crabtree: MAXIMUM TROLLING


I'm not trolling. That is farking Pripyat. The city evacuated for Chernobyl. Wildlife seems to have largely taken the area over.

TheBigJerk: Ringshadow: Or how about thorium reactors? Given thorium is common? Instead of chasing the foxfire that is fusion?

Man, Thorium has WAY to many syllables, and it sounds pagan. That would just be ungodly.

Yes, Thorium good too, as is further study and improvements in fission (which I assume you are, you know, a part of, I'm just the "GED in nuclear science" type) but Fusion is the one everyone recognizes the name of.

Also, we all want ramscoop spaceships because ohmygodohmygodohmygodSPAAAAAAAAAAACE!


As much as I love space I live in reality and I fail to give a shiat about theories until they provide a reactor that can run in the black, finance wise. Thorium has already proven that and will largely rule Gen IV of reactors.
 
2012-04-21 07:08:04 PM
If they took all the money they use on makeup in the Pat Boone Mediscare commercials to make him look less corpselike, they could feed thousands of starving kids.
 
2012-04-21 07:14:19 PM

FormlessOne: udhq: The stakes aren't even as dire as the fossil fuel conglomerates would have you believe. They initially pedaled the idea that the Ukrainian exclusion zone would be an irradiated wasteland for 10,000 years. Less than 40 years later, it's teeming with perfectly healthy wildlife and open for tourism.

That's a bit disingenuous, on both cases. It is indeed teeming with wildlife - however, it's teeming with perfectly healthy mutated wildlife, both plant and animal. It's become such a fascination that scientists make (very, very short) trips there to observe the mutations. The exclusion zone is open for limited tourism, to allow people to see the exclusion zone. Here's an excerpt from the Telegraph article describing Ukraine exclusion zone tourism:

Visitors have to sign a waiver, exempting the tour operator from all responsibility in the event that they later suffer radiation-related health problems.

Driven round at breakneck speed, and told not to touch any of the irradiated vegetation or metal structures, "tourists" are invited to briefly inspect the stricken number four reactor from a short distance as the geiger counter guides carry clicks ever higher.

"Let's leave now, it is very dangerous to be here," Vita Polyakova, a tour guide, told a group including The Sunday Telegraph last week. "There are huge holes in the sarcophagus covering the reactor," she added, in a tone that suggested she was not joking.

Using those as examples, without providing the qualifications that describe the reality of the situation, is disingenuous.

It's not "safe." It won't be "safe" for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Those examples are like claiming boiling water is perfectly safe, without saying "as long as you don't dip your junk in it for more than a second or so."


It says something pretty significant about your knowledge of half lives that your estimated time until it's safe varies by a factor of ten.
 
2012-04-21 07:15:28 PM

Ringshadow: HeartBurnKid: My bias? Really? Because I can smell your bias a mile away.

Uh, I work in the industry and I know some about it. So yes, I'm biased toward it but I also actually know shiat.


So if you're biased, why should I or anybody else trust you?

Do you not realize that the land around the Fukushima plant is going to be uninhabitable for at least the next 20 years?

Someone lives there right now. He farking refused to leave. He's a farmer. And I can't find an article on him of course, but it did make fark. Does someone have better googlefu than I do? The article basically stated they issued his own dosimetry and he was keeping calm and carrying on.
Also the workers are living there, more or less. But keep digging to China.


OK, so you say someone lives there right now. So I should just ignore the Japanese government when they say that the area is uninhabitable.

It's all well and good to sit here and talk about the normal operating parameters of a plant, but in the real world, abnormal situations happen. Natural disasters. Terrorist attacks. Corporate negligence. You can't just plan for normal daily operations; you must plan for the worst case scenario. And the worst case scenario for nuclear is bad.

This counts for every industry ever. And we do plan for worst case scenarios. They're called Design Basis Accidents.


Well, somebody sure didn't plan for Fukushima, did they?

And why would terrorists hit a nuclear plant? We have private armies.

I'm not sure what universe you live in where "private armies" are a source of comfort on anything, but it's not one I care to inhabit.

I'd say the better way forward lies in renewables. Solar, wind, etc. Maybe it doesn't work in China, but we're not China. We have a huge amount of land where nobody lives, and it's mostly very hot, very flat, and very windy. We can use that.

No one in the thread has explained to me yet how they plan to deal with the fact that solar panels and batteries are mixed toxic waste, yet.


Except the dude that already talked about the recycling programs that are already in place, of course.

And I have nothing against renewable carrying peak load but it WILL NOT CARRY BASE LOAD.

It will if we find a way to store it. There have been wonderful advancements in molten salt storage, for example.

/I also have some understanding of the grid

Bennie Crabtree: MAXIMUM TROLLING

I'm not trolling. That is farking Pripyat. The city evacuated for Chernobyl. Wildlife seems to have largely taken the area over.

TheBigJerk: Ringshadow: Or how about thorium reactors? Given thorium is common? Instead of ...
 
2012-04-21 07:16:42 PM

CrazyWhiteBoy311: Saying waste is an issue for solar and isn't for nuclear? When did I wander into bizzaro-land?


Waste is an issue. What's hilarious is people in these threads only ever seem to consider fuel and not, say, large components, or low level waste. And fuel would be far less of an issue if we recycle.
And I never claimed nuclear power didn't have a waste problem, I was pointing out it isn't unique to us. Far from it.

I'm not sure why you are freaking out about solar cells and batteries being toxic,

..because it's called "green" while creating toxic waste. Two plus two equals five.

because recycling programs for solar cells and batteries exist in pretty much every country/state. One company (First Solar) says they recycle 90% of the pholovoltic cell. I do wonder what part of it is not recycleable, but either way I don't think that qualifies as exactly a giant point of concern

Recycling programs are everywhere yet people don't and the shiat is landfilled. If you landfill the waste of solar power, you'll get a superfund site. That is my point. At least nuclear waste is controlled from start to finish.

especially vs nuclear waste which is more dangerous in pretty much every way other than quantity.

Nuclear waste is controlled, monitored, regulated by multiple federal agencies, and a lot less dangerous than you realize.

Nuclear waste wouldn't be so much of an issue if we stopped using antiquated designs, and started pushing hard at using / developing the lower waste designs that have come about in the last decade.

Have you read the thread and noticed the arubahah in it about the AP1000? File this under "No shiat Sherlock, we are lagging behind the rest of the world including China."

Thorium looks great from what I've read, and most of its drawbacks don't look to be any worse then current reactor designs. Also I've heard a lot in the last few months about Traveling Wave Reactors (I think Bill Gates talk at TED about it kinda kicked that off), and if those can be even half as good as they are being made out to be, they'd be fantastic as well. Hot fusion is probably at least another decade away from having a true stable test reactor, and two or more away from a commerical design, but that's sorta the end game of nuclear. If you do it right, you could reasonably have no significant w ...

Gen III+ designs include the EPR, ABWR, and AP 1000.
Everything you're mentioning is Gen IV, and won't even hit until 2024.
And I refuse to believe fusion won't have waste. You're only considering fuel waste, and even then? Oh please. Major components will need replaced. And always consider low level waste.

/know what I help do at work? Tag low level waste
//know what I saw done this outage? Major components replaced
///like, tanks over 80 feet long part of the main steam system major components
 
2012-04-21 07:18:26 PM
Sorry to mention it, but what about Thorium? Sounds like it has many of the plus's of nuclear but without some of the odious implications with Uranium, with DoD's interest is weaponization. Thorium is far less weaponizable so the Gov wasn't that interested back in the 50-60-70-80s. I hear it's far less toxic and for a much shorter time.

I realize I know virtually nothing about this, but I do live right in the way (30miles NE) of any leak that emits from the crumbling Vermont Yankee Nuke. Everyone would like it's licence terminated on schedule, but the NRC granted the 20 extension anyway.

So Thorium does seem like an attractive, if at all plausible, alternative
 
2012-04-21 07:22:41 PM
HeartBurnKid

You're not worth the stress and you're seemingly deliberately ignorant about my industry.
Welcome to ignore.
 
2012-04-21 07:24:42 PM

DrD'isInfotainment: Sorry to mention it, but what about Thorium? Sounds like it has many of the plus's of nuclear but without some of the odious implications with Uranium, with DoD's interest is weaponization. Thorium is far less weaponizable so the Gov wasn't that interested back in the 50-60-70-80s. I hear it's far less toxic and for a much shorter time.

I realize I know virtually nothing about this, but I do live right in the way (30miles NE) of any leak that emits from the crumbling Vermont Yankee Nuke. Everyone would like it's licence terminated on schedule, but the NRC granted the 20 extension anyway.

So Thorium does seem like an attractive, if at all plausible, alternative


Thorium is already in discussion in this thread, and to my memory will play a part in Reactor Generation IV.

Generally I like thorium, but I'm waiting to see how the new designs pan out.

/we are coming into Reactor Generation III+
 
2012-04-21 07:26:39 PM
Ringshadow: HeartBurnKid

You're not worth the stress and you're seemingly deliberately ignorant about my industry.
Welcome to ignore.


She's so awesome. I want to give her a frickin' medal.
 
2012-04-21 07:33:49 PM

Ringshadow: HeartBurnKid

You're not worth the stress and you're seemingly deliberately ignorant about my industry.
Welcome to ignore.


I haven't trolled you, I haven't insulted you, I simply made my feelings known that the potential perils of nuclear power do not outweigh the benefits, and provided citations to back up my assertions. If that's enough to get an ignore from you, then you truly are thin-skinned. Do you plan on ignoring everybody who disagrees with you?

If your objective here was to provide a counterpoint to the villification of the nuclear industry, as you put it, you're doing a piss-poor job.
 
2012-04-21 07:40:42 PM
I was born with a high IQ and active intelligence; and I made it my business to seek logical answers to the looming world energy crisis. I've been schooled and mentored by several real scientists - and I've been complimented by many in the scientific community for making very complex topics understandable to non-scientists like me.

And now you're a has-been. Nice.
 
2012-04-21 07:52:57 PM
I remember someone pointing out that fission, fusion, and solar each takes a square mile of land to build a gigawatt facility. I think that was the Long Now SALT talk where they debated nuclear and solar.

Combine that with the multi-megawatt batteries mentioned at TED and decentralization and rooftop solar could combine to reduce the need for land devoted to energy production.

Either way, more land will have to be devoted to energy production because we've become gluttons for energy, and fossil fuels are just locked up sunlight. We'll have to lock up sunlight once again.
 
2012-04-21 07:54:00 PM

Ringshadow: karmaceutical: Reprocessing doesn't just make it go away either.

No, but it strongly reduces the waste and makes it more manageable.

AdrienVeidt: Okay, stupid question here, I"m sure: if nuclear reactors have the obvious safety liability of poisoning the environment for hundreds/thousands of years if they have a catastrophic failure; why don't we simply build them underground? Put them a mile or so underground with giant NORAD-style safety doors that slam shut in case of said failure and we just go on with our lives after an appropriate memorial service for the brave technicians we lost?

This sounds like a wonderful idea until you think about the fact that each plant has several hundred employees and putting a plant underground makes the entire plant a permit required confined space or something. Remember: the plants have to be habitable by humans, and has to have a lot of material in and out during outage.

Also, this is Pripyat now:
[www.activeukraine.com image 605x404]
Clearly, nuclear power accidents turn everything into a wasteland.

/those trees seem to like it


Dude. That's nice from the air. But the view of Pripyat from the ground?

media.giantbomb.com
 
2012-04-21 07:55:12 PM

AdrienVeidt: Okay, stupid question here, I"m sure: if nuclear reactors have the obvious safety liability of poisoning the environment for hundreds/thousands of years if they have a catastrophic failure; why don't we simply build them underground? Put them a mile or so underground with giant NORAD-style safety doors that slam shut in case of said failure and we just go on with our lives after an appropriate memorial service for the brave technicians we lost?


Or even better... what if we had one floating in space, where it could beam energy directly to all points on the planet?

It would have to be enormous, self-running, and have a giant supply of fuel though...
 
2012-04-21 08:03:16 PM

Garble: AdrienVeidt: Okay, stupid question here, I"m sure: if nuclear reactors have the obvious safety liability of poisoning the environment for hundreds/thousands of years if they have a catastrophic failure; why don't we simply build them underground? Put them a mile or so underground with giant NORAD-style safety doors that slam shut in case of said failure and we just go on with our lives after an appropriate memorial service for the brave technicians we lost?

Or even better... what if we had one floating in space, where it could beam energy directly to all points on the planet?

It would have to be enormous, self-running, and have a giant supply of fuel though...


I suspect we'll be using space as a trash can for waste and dragging asteroids in long before we can beam energy.


Whatever happened to efficiency in energy transport through shiat like zirconium wiring?
 
2012-04-21 08:28:02 PM
The comic Transmetropolitan wallpapered the planet Mercury in solar panels and beamed the power to earth somehow.

Hey, why not? It's about as likely as harnessing fusion.

/big fan of Transmetropolitan
 
2012-04-21 08:28:03 PM

AdrienVeidt: Okay, stupid question here, I"m sure: if nuclear reactors have the obvious safety liability of poisoning the environment for hundreds/thousands of years if they have a catastrophic failure; why don't we simply build them underground? Put them a mile or so underground with giant NORAD-style safety doors that slam shut in case of said failure and we just go on with our lives after an appropriate memorial service for the brave technicians we lost?


The extra cost to do that would probably be prohibitive. Reactors need to have cooling so that would be an added difficulty (and why so many reactors get built near water).
 
2012-04-21 08:30:30 PM
Everyone that says it is cheaper...yada...yada. Even when things go well for the life of the reactor, the never include the costs of clean up when it reaches EOL. And that is farking expensive. Put that in your real costs.
 
2012-04-21 08:33:29 PM

Paleorific: Everyone that says it is cheaper...yada...yada. Even when things go well for the life of the reactor, the never include the costs of clean up when it reaches EOL. And that is farking expensive. Put that in your real costs.


No they just charge you a "decommission fee" for decades. That's why they are afraid as hell closing them down because people will start understanding the will be paying for closed reactors for decades.

New plants are hugely expensive to build too.
 
2012-04-21 08:37:17 PM

Corvus: No they just charge you a "decommission fee" for decades. That's why they are afraid as hell closing them down because people will start understanding the will be paying for closed reactors for decades.

New plants are hugely expensive to build too.


Yeah you're all broke up about that extra buck or whatever on your power bill. I can tell.

And ANY new power plant is farking expensive to build. Why do you think it's normally government loans that start any sort of power plant construction?
 
2012-04-21 08:47:00 PM

Ringshadow: AdrienVeidt: Okay, stupid question here, I"m sure: if nuclear reactors have the obvious safety liability of poisoning the environment for hundreds/thousands of years if they have a catastrophic failure; why don't we simply build them underground? Put them a mile or so underground with giant NORAD-style safety doors that slam shut in case of said failure and we just go on with our lives after an appropriate memorial service for the brave technicians we lost?

This sounds like a wonderful idea until you think about the fact that each plant has several hundred employees and putting a plant underground makes the entire plant a permit required confined space or something. Remember: the plants have to be habitable by humans, and has to have a lot of material in and out during outage.


I'm not seeing how that's a deal-breaker. How's that significantly different from mines, the Chunnel, and the aforementioned NORAD? Plus, since energy production is unquestionably an issue of strategic national importance, I'm sure there are exceptions for such things. Honestly, I was thinking the significant issue would be cooling, since it gets hotter the deeper one goes.

What I'm really seeing is that it's simply a question of money. It would cost too much to build and operate them underground, compared to the risk to health, so the for-profit corporations don't do it. But I'm not hearing a rock-solid engineering issue that would prevent it.
 
2012-04-21 08:53:04 PM

AdrienVeidt: Okay, stupid question here, I"m sure: if nuclear reactors have the obvious safety liability of poisoning the environment for hundreds/thousands of years if they have a catastrophic failure; why don't we simply build them underground? Put them a mile or so underground with giant NORAD-style safety doors that slam shut in case of said failure and we just go on with our lives after an appropriate memorial service for the brave technicians we lost?


...that's...basically what coal mines are. Minus the NORAD-style safety doors.
 
2012-04-21 09:09:12 PM
If we need Pat Boone to solve our problems we're in deep trouble.
 
2012-04-21 09:11:37 PM

Ringshadow: Corvus: No they just charge you a "decommission fee" for decades. That's why they are afraid as hell closing them down because people will start understanding the will be paying for closed reactors for decades.

New plants are hugely expensive to build too.

Yeah you're all broke up about that extra buck or whatever on your power bill. I can tell.

And ANY new power plant is farking expensive to build. Why do you think it's normally government loans that start any sort of power plant construction?


Or any other major infrastructure for that matter. And the same fools who think government can't do stuff well are the ones who create savings during their terms by ditching all upkeep costs and pushing for shiat like the cheapest road repairs and reducing as many regulations as they can before they are out, the tax revenue their taxcuts gave back are gone, and it's somebody else's problem.

Sorry about the rant, but right now China has better long term vision than us.
 
2012-04-21 09:11:45 PM

Ringshadow:
Waste is an issue. What's hilarious is people in these threads only ever seem to consider fuel and not, say, large components, or low level waste. And fuel would be far less of an issue if we recycle.
And I never claimed nuclear power didn't have a waste problem, I was pointing out it isn't unique to us. Far from it.


All power production methods produce low level waste. Its unavoidable. Perhaps everyone is glossing over that because it isn't unique and is instead highlighting the unique waste product that nuclear presents.

..because it's called "green" while creating toxic waste. Two plus two equals five.

If you want to be pedantic, then nothing that has anything to do with electronics is going to be considered 'green' then, since there is almost always a toxic waste byproduct of any piece of electronics. If you want to say that fine, because it is technically true.

Recycling programs are everywhere yet people don't and the shiat is landfilled. If you landfill the waste of solar power, you'll get a superfund site. That is my point. At least nuclear waste is controlled from start to finish.

I've never actually read any studies on how much solar waste actually ends up in landfills, and considering its still around 10 years until significant quantities of solar cells actually need to be replaced, I wouldn't expect to hear them until then. Do we need to stress the importance of recycling solar cells and batteries - definitely, I'd agree with you all day on that. But unless you freak out about ALL electronic waste that ends up in a landfill I think you're applying an unfair bias against solar power.

Nuclear waste is controlled, monitored, regulated by multiple federal agencies, and a lot less dangerous than you realize.

I'm talking about it as a material, not how the material is handled. I understand that high-level waste and transuranics are monitored, but that doesn't mean that the materials themselves aren't toxic, even after they are no longer significantly radioactive.

Have you read the thread and noticed the arubahah in it about the AP1000? File this under "No shiat Sherlock, we are lagging behind the rest of the world including China."

Yeah, that statement was meant to be an agreement with you, as I don't disagree with all of your points.

Everything you're mentioning is Gen IV, and won't even hit until 2024.
And I refuse to believe fusion won't have waste. You're only considering fuel waste, and even then? Oh please. Major components will need replaced. And always consider low level waste.


I've heard shorter times to deployment (closer to 2018 for thorium, 2020 to TWR), but if you work in the industry I'll defer to your experience there. Gen III+ stuff is a stepping stone, but I don't think it addresses the issues that are vital for the public getting behind nuclear power in the first place. Even a small amount of long half-life waste material scares the shiat out of people, regardless of if this is justified or not, and the difference between Gen III+ and Gen IV stuff is still a factor of 10 to 100 (depending on who's studies or white papers you read).

Yes I was referring to fuel waste, and as I said 'if you do it right', which I mean as a realistic ideal situation. If you use the deuterium-tritium reaction with a lithium surround (necessary for secondary production of tritium), neutron escape from the containment vessel is protected from neutron flux, drastically reducing waste. Fuel waste in this reaction is strictly He4. Yes this will produce some low-level waste, but it will be drastically less then what a current reactor produces, and compared to the amount of He4 produced, is small, hence my phrasing of 'only significant waste'. If I meant no waste, I'd say no waste.

Also, talking down to people who actually support some of your points, and are attempting to have an actual friendly discussion is kinda a dick move. My whole point was that you are unjustified in completely disregarding solar and not accepting that the current generation of nuclear systems, while significantly better then their predecessors, fail to overcome many of the shortcomings that terrify the public about nuclear technology. I do believe we need to transition to getting more of our energy from nuclear power, but I think we need to utilize solar and other systems as well. And the combination of multiple systems might allow nuclear to grow slowly while the public perception of it is changed, which is going to take a combination of time, education, and track record without blemishments. The goal here is to reduce fossil fuel usage and help convince people like HeartBurnKid that new systems can prevent the types of disasters that older systems allowed.
 
2012-04-21 09:20:33 PM
Hey RingShadow, since you're on the topic of radioactive waste, have you heard what France has discovered a new way of dealing with nuclear waste? It was on BBC's Horizon: Link. It was a very informative episode on the state of nuclear power and the public conscious of it.
 
2012-04-21 10:34:04 PM

Ringshadow: Radiation. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too. When they canceled the project it almost did me in. One day my mind was full to bursting. The next day - nothing. Swept away. But I'll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end.

 
2012-04-21 10:34:05 PM
I love me my Ringshadow :3
 
2012-04-22 12:05:44 AM
So all this arguing and nobody pointed out that Pat wrote a whole article about the wonders of nuclear fusion that was nothing except the wonders of THERMONUCLEAR BOMBS?

I think he got them all in: Castle Bravo, Tsar Bomba, China's big nuke...and not one word about controlled fusion that nobody's ever gotten close to achieving. Good for you, Pat!
 
2012-04-22 12:09:05 AM

Gyrfalcon: So all this arguing and nobody pointed out that Pat wrote a whole article about the wonders of nuclear fusion that was nothing except the wonders of THERMONUCLEAR BOMBS?

I think he got them all in: Castle Bravo, Tsar Bomba, China's big nuke...and not one word about controlled fusion that nobody's ever gotten close to achieving. Good for you, Pat!


Yeah, we got sidetracked. Sorry, lets get back to focus on the important part:

He's a jackass and this is a bunch of WND tom foolery....
 
2012-04-22 12:29:57 AM

Ringshadow: Solar cells are poisonous and batteries are mixed toxic waste.


Spent fuel rods.
 
2012-04-22 01:53:12 AM

udhq: Chagrin: udhq: You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.

Unless that plant is Fukushima or Chernobyl.

The stakes in failure for a nuclear plant are extremely high. We have no technology to recover from a nuclear error.

Chernobyl had no containment unit, and Fukushima was built on a fault line with pre-climate change estimates of climate events. Both were fundamental failures of planning, not of technology.

The stakes aren't even as dire as the fossil fuel conglomerates would have you believe. They initially pedaled the idea that the Ukrainian exclusion zone would be an irradiated wasteland for 10,000 years. Less than 40 years later, it's teeming with perfectly healthy wildlife and open for tourism.

In America, we are exposed to more radiation as result of the isotopes released by burning coal than from our nuclear industry.


So you expect planning in the future to be perfect. Gotcha.
 
2012-04-22 03:29:55 AM

She comes in colors everywhere: Ringshadow: Solar cells are poisonous and batteries are mixed toxic waste.

Spent fuel rods.


Ringy isn't denying the spent fuel rods are an issue to address (and has addressed them repeatedly throughout the thread), but rather pointing out that nobody seems to talk much about the poison and toxicity involved with solar tech.
 
2012-04-22 04:36:35 AM

Summercat: She comes in colors everywhere: Ringshadow: Solar cells are poisonous and batteries are mixed toxic waste.

Spent fuel rods.

Ringy isn't denying the spent fuel rods are an issue to address (and has addressed them repeatedly throughout the thread), but rather pointing out that nobody seems to talk much about the poison and toxicity involved with solar tech.


Because there isn't any! Nuclear is horrible horrible horrible and solar/wind is 100% safe and perfect and there's no point in arguing any other way! There's so many things that could maybe possibly conceivably theoretically go wrong someday in the future somehow with nuclear power, and nothingnothingnothing that could ever go wrong with solar, let's never discuss either except in terms of absolutes!!!
 
2012-04-22 04:51:50 AM

Gyrfalcon: Summercat: She comes in colors everywhere: Ringshadow: Solar cells are poisonous and batteries are mixed toxic waste.

Spent fuel rods.

Ringy isn't denying the spent fuel rods are an issue to address (and has addressed them repeatedly throughout the thread), but rather pointing out that nobody seems to talk much about the poison and toxicity involved with solar tech.

Because there isn't any! Nuclear is horrible horrible horrible and solar/wind is 100% safe and perfect and there's no point in arguing any other way! There's so many things that could maybe possibly conceivably theoretically go wrong someday in the future somehow with nuclear power, and nothingnothingnothing that could ever go wrong with solar, let's never discuss either except in terms of absolutes!!!


Aye, I prefer minimal-grid energy technologies (as opposed to off-grid, which I consider antisocial), and I'll admit that Solar isn't "Green" in an overall sense.

Of course, *nothing* is.

...cue low-power hydroelectric dams, old windmills, and waterwheels. :P
 
2012-04-22 04:55:50 AM

Ringshadow: And is opening for tourism of Pripyat.


Where you can only go to certain areas, and your guide wears a Geiger counter. sounds inhabitable to me!

at least you admitted to being an industry shill.
 
2012-04-22 05:13:03 AM

Summercat: Gyrfalcon: Summercat: She comes in colors everywhere: Ringshadow: Solar cells are poisonous and batteries are mixed toxic waste.

Spent fuel rods.

Ringy isn't denying the spent fuel rods are an issue to address (and has addressed them repeatedly throughout the thread), but rather pointing out that nobody seems to talk much about the poison and toxicity involved with solar tech.

Because there isn't any! Nuclear is horrible horrible horrible and solar/wind is 100% safe and perfect and there's no point in arguing any other way! There's so many things that could maybe possibly conceivably theoretically go wrong someday in the future somehow with nuclear power, and nothingnothingnothing that could ever go wrong with solar, let's never discuss either except in terms of absolutes!!!

Aye, I prefer minimal-grid energy technologies (as opposed to off-grid, which I consider antisocial), and I'll admit that Solar isn't "Green" in an overall sense.

Of course, *nothing* is.

...cue low-power hydroelectric dams, old windmills, and waterwheels. :P


Meh, unless civilization ends and we all move out to the Capital Wasteland, people are just going to have to accept that fossil fuel and/or nuclear are the only real options for large human habitation zones (i.e. cities). Yeah, I agree that dams are preferable and solar/wind for local use is ideal; but most people live in big cities and there is no way you can use solar or small-scale hydroelectric for a city of 3-5 million people. It has to be a constant high-yield reliable output: Fossil, turboelectric dams, nuclear. Sorry, folks.

At the very least, you're going to have to have those for heavy industry. Sorry. Even your windmills are not reliable as a power source, obviously, and watermills require a stream, which means living by a river and diverting the natural course of same. Tough for people who live in the desert, or even any distance from a natural watercourse. (Guess why so many cities are built on rivers: It's not just for transportation hint hint).

Really, the only way conversion to low-impact power will work is for cities to disappear, which means about 4/5ths of humanity has to also disappear.
 
2012-04-22 05:56:22 AM

Gyrfalcon:
Meh, unless civilization ends and we all move out to the Capital Wasteland, people are just going to have to accept that fossil fuel and/or nuclear are the only real options for large human habitation zones (i.e. cities). Yeah, I agree that dams are preferable and solar/wind for local use is ideal; but most people live in big cities and there is no way you can use solar or small-scale hydroelectric for a city of 3-5 million people. It has to be a constant high-yield reliable output: Fossil, turboelectric dams, nuclear. Sorry, folks.

At the very least, you're going to have to have those for heavy industry. Sorry. Even your windmills are not reliable as a power source, obviously, and watermills require a stream, which means living by a river and diverting the natural course of same. Tough for people who live in the desert, or even any distance from a natural watercourse. (Guess why so many cities are built on rivers: It's ...


Oh, I agree and understand. My comment was meant towards people trying to be snarky after me. The big issue is that of load - our society is now addicted to power (in the electrical sense), and have built our cities and societies around it's existence.

The biggest issue is if there was a general collapse of civilization (like there has been in EVERY area, multiple times), we likely would never get to 1700s level of technology - the easily accessible to low tech reserves of power simply are not there anymore. We used them all. Now, that's a Worst Case Scenario, but I like reading stories around that - and how the survivors deal with them. Part of my personal fetish for the rise and development of civilizations and societies, but I digress.

But barring MAJOR changes (and we're talking either a complete paradigm shift or a population die-off disaster), we're going to have an increasing population and shrinking available resources under traditional methods. One just has to look at the forthcoming 'Food Crisis' (a decade or three down the line) as part of it. Traditional (and the historian in me giggles at this) farming is inadequate.

Now, food is just ONE of the issues - but I'm not a smart person like Ringshadow or others in here. Food, Power, Politics, Economics - they are all tied together, but require different skills to improve and adjust.

I know jack-diddly about power, my view on politics is rather simplistic ('the method at which to reconcile two or more opposing viewpoints into a course of action that all parties can live with'), and my view on economics is... Probably moronically simple (I always wonder how car dealerships can survive, are there really people buying enough cars constantly?).

Food? Food is simple. Seeds go in the ground. Water. Wait for plant to grow. Take care of plant. Eventually plant turns into Food Parts. Young Animals grow into Adult Animals, with are both a source of Food Parts and more Young Animals. Aquaponics (Hydroponics + Fish Farming) takes up less space than Traditional (hee) agriculture, and can be done in any setting - even in the middle of an urban setting. It does take power to do so...

But if Ringshadow can get me the power, I can get people the food.

/Going to try to go back to college to get 'degree' in aquaponics (Or whatever ends up closest to that)
//I believe in this shiat that much
 
2012-04-22 07:16:39 AM
JAYoung 2012-04-21 06:37:38 PM
Nuclear's a socialist energy system for socialist societies

narcosphere.narconews.com
 
2012-04-22 07:45:07 AM

Ishidan: Ringshadow: /you want proof our American plants can weather untold shiat? Look at Waterford 3
//it took a direct strike during Katrina, ran a whole month only on diesel generators, and came out of it fine

What you say? Look at the water?

Hey, good advice!
/go on, tell me how many of our nuclear powered aircraft carriers or submarines have suffered catastrophic meltdowns, despite being on self-mobile, inherently unstable platforms. I reckon there were more cancer cases from the asbestos in the pipe lagging than from the radiation, as well.
//fortunately, we never had to test their survival skills vs. direct attack, such as a torpedo hit


*Cough* no, but the Russians have.
 
2012-04-22 08:18:26 AM
intelligent comment below: Ringshadow: And is opening for tourism of Pripyat.

Where you can only go to certain areas, and your guide wears a Geiger counter. sounds inhabitable to me!

at least you admitted to being an industry shill.


So being an expert in what you're talking about makes you paid by that industry to post on FARK?

/condescending

Please. Tell me more about your assinine opinions. Am I paid by Big Pharma because I talk down to Alternative Medicine?

/endcondescending
 
2012-04-22 09:47:36 AM
He is right.

Solar power is unreliable because it only works at peak efficiency during the day and if the weather permits.
Which is why space based solar is one of the solutions that needs to be looked at, because up there its 24/7 sunshine with no atmospheric interference.
Its going to require some work to make it happen, tho.
Likewise, fusion needs a big investment to go from experimental bangs to a reliable engine that can power cities.

If anything I'd say A for effort in trying to make the Right realize that science and engineering are more important to the nation than the dozens of lesser wedge issues in play. Its also an area that Obama hasn't been particularly strong on.
 
2012-04-22 10:40:20 AM

way south: He is right.

Solar power is unreliable because it only works at peak efficiency during the day and if the weather permits.

If anything I'd say A for effort in trying to make the Right realize that science and engineering are more important to the nation than the dozens of lesser wedge issues in play. Its also an area that Obama hasn't been particularly strong on.




That's not true any more. The prototype tech for solar panels that can give full power for the average domestic use even in the dark rain, and cover a fraction of the average domestic roof, already exists, and will be rolled out within the decade. Batteries are also on track to easily cope with day/night cycles in the same time period.

Domestic power is going to be decentralised and local by 2030 in most of the Western world. The increasing cost of coal/gas electricity and the plummeting of the cost of solar tech makes it pretty much inevitable.
 
2012-04-22 12:07:58 PM

Bungles: way south: He is right.

Solar power is unreliable because it only works at peak efficiency during the day and if the weather permits.

If anything I'd say A for effort in trying to make the Right realize that science and engineering are more important to the nation than the dozens of lesser wedge issues in play. Its also an area that Obama hasn't been particularly strong on.



That's not true any more. The prototype tech for solar panels that can give full power for the average domestic use even in the dark rain, and cover a fraction of the average domestic roof, already exists, and will be rolled out within the decade. Batteries are also on track to easily cope with day/night cycles in the same time period.

Domestic power is going to be decentralised and local by 2030 in most of the Western world. The increasing cost of coal/gas electricity and the plummeting of the cost of solar tech makes it pretty much inevitable.


Link

It hasn't been true for a while. Also, I've never heard anyone say "solar should provide 100% of our energy" except when they are implying that if it does not, we should ignore it altogether.
 
2012-04-22 12:52:42 PM
Okay, let's do it this way.

Nuclear waste IS an issue. But nuclear waste is tracked from beginning to end, and continues to get tracked where it ends up. There is no question about where it goes. Free release of waste from nuclear plants is very, very minimal and controlled by multiple government agencies.
Fuel waste could be steeply reduced by recycling but that is currently illegal in the US.

The problem is: no one in these threads recognizes the problems.. MUCH LARGER PROBLEMS.. had by other industries. Yes, certain parts of solar tech are VERY TOXIC and are not nearly as tracked as nuclear waste, which opens up the potential for very toxic stuff getting landfilled. It's not as green as you think. Hell, no tech is absolutely green and if you don't believe me, ask that town in China that recycles computers. The town where lifespan is under 40 now.

And it disgusts me.. DISGUSTS ME.. when people shout horrible things at nuclear power while being totally down with other industries killing people. If someone died in nuclear power, every farking plant would come to a screaming halt. There'd be site wide standdowns and procedure changes and news broadcasts. And that's for an industrial accident! Hell, example: I got a 9volt shock off an instrument and I got sent to the goddamn ER over it. A plant I was at last year lost someone, he had a heart attack on the way out driving, and it just devastated the plant for days.

But people in these threads? Act like there's nothing wrong when people die in other industry. Scroll up. You'll see it. "Well that sucks but whatever." There is something HORRIBLY WRONG when an industry kills people, and keeps killing people, and never seems to learn!

Not to mention we don't exactly have the sole holding on making land unlivable! Start looking up superfunds, and brown zones! Go read about Love Canal! Hell, make it a double whammy and read about Bhopal! The chemical industry has done more damage than we ever have, and ever will! The fossil industry's kill count is in the literal thousands!

But we're horrible because we are radioactive! OOGA BOOGA.

And my patience is out. I'm done tolerating idiots. I'm done repeating myself. Am I a shill? No, I am a technician in the industry, who understands raditation protection, and some basic plant operations at a 10K foot level. I know enough to put most things into Laymans terms. I know enough to competently explain, and defend my industry.

If that makes me a shill, so be it. Put me on ignore. Watch me not care. I'll explain to who does give a rip, and carry on.

/OM NOM LUNCH
 
2012-04-22 02:04:27 PM
I love me some Ring shadow.
 
2012-04-22 02:15:33 PM

Dictatorial_Flair: "Alarmingly Predictably, America is becoming woefully behind the curve."

FTFY Mr. Boone.


Yeah, it's almost as if basic and higher education combined with fiscal support for scientific research were somehow in our national interest or something.
 
2012-04-22 02:42:52 PM

FormlessOne: That's a bit disingenuous, on both cases. It is indeed teeming with wildlife - however, it's teeming with perfectly healthy mutated wildlife, both plant and animal. It's become such a fascination that scientists make (very, very short) trips there to observe the mutations. The exclusion zone is open for limited tourism, to allow people to see the exclusion zone. Here's an excerpt from the Telegraph article describing Ukraine exclusion zone tourism:


Fine except for the fact your point is total horseshiat. Scientists have a hard time finding serious negative effects in the exclusion zone, most effects are relatively minor. Most claims of serious impacts are seen with skepticism by other scientists.

Wildlife and Chernobyl: The scientific evidence for minimal impacts.

Most animals that died of radiation died right away after the disaster.
 
2012-04-22 03:41:52 PM

Hickory-smoked: Dictatorial_Flair: "Alarmingly Predictably, America is becoming woefully behind the curve."

FTFY Mr. Boone.

Yeah, it's almost as if basic and higher education combined with fiscal support for scientific research were somehow in our national interest or something.


Socialist nonsense like that would seriously cut into our supertech mass murder budget, you farking elitist commie.
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report