Nuclear Power Discussion - General

I thought the title said Nuclear Power Digression.

You won't be supportin' it when there is a bloodsucker at your door >:/

i agree with op... just wait till fusion is fesable

This is not a choice any more, we need nuke plants.

[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;21185364]no it's not even because it was 24 years ago we've had nuclear power for 50 and only had one problem and long island is hardly a problem chernobyl happened not because of a lack of technology, it happened because the russians were fucking retarded[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. Some fucking idiot thought, "HURR, I'VE GOT AN IDEA! WE'LL STICK GRAPHITE ON THE END OF THE CONTROL RODS! :downs:" which is the most FUCKING RETARDED IDEA I'VE EVER HEARD. That's a big no-no in Nuclear Physics 101. Graphite is a MODERATOR. Moderators are used to SLOW neutrons so that they may be pulled into other nucleons to continue the nuclear reactions. Control rods are in place to ABSORB neutrons to stop a nuclear reaction. Some idiot for some fucking retarded reason thought that shoving graphite onto the tips of the control rods was a good idea... probably because he was fucking retarded. And all of the retards around him didn't stop to think, "hey, maybe that's not the greatest of ideas!" So when they went to stick the control rods in to stop the reactor blowing, all it did was slow down all of the neutrons being produced which caused the reaction to accelerate! And before you know it: BANG. A tonne of people are dead and 50000 people have to evacuate their hometown and that entire place is abandoned for the foreseeable future. [editline]02:22PM[/editline] [QUOTE=lulzbocks;21197121]I never actually knew that the power plant's only purpose was to heat water.[/QUOTE] That's the purpose of EVERY power plant. Induction is basically the only way to generate electricity on the scales that we require, hence we use turbines and generators.

I agree with the OP fossil fuels and coal will not be plausible resources for us much longer. Nuclear power, while not the only able source of power for the future is one that should be looked at. Personally, I think we need to look into solar power, researchers agree that per minute of sun light, if harnessed correctly, could power the Earth for years.

I bet that whoever rated this thread dumb didn't even fucking read it. Nice job Loompa Lord. +1 support on everything you said. I see no reason why the United States should be so against using Nuclear Power. I guess we like to spend money and waste our resources.

Here's a beautiful essay I wrote. [QUOTE] Danny Michelin - 3/10/10 The Future of Nuclear Power On a Personal Scale, by Danny Michelin. In the future we are going to run out of gas. Period. By 2020, between the lack of new oil and new population, we will have not enough oil to sustain economic growth. We desperately need to look for an alternative. Nuclear energy is the answer. There is a goldmine of energy ready with nuclear power versus energy alternatives like wind, solar, and water, but the majority of the environmental scientific community just refuses to look at it. Governments can save much money in the long run by researching more efficient and safer nuclear power sources. There are three kinds of nuclear energy; fission, fusion, and radioactive decay. Fusion is when like-charged atoms combine to create one. It it caused when atoms are heated up so hot to where they become a plasma (which is an ionized gas), and then fuse. It is currently the cleanest power source in the world, only producing helium. There are currently only two fusion power plants in the world. One in England and one in California. The Joint European Torus, or JET for short, is located in England. The National Ignition Facility is located in Livermore, California. Fission is the most common nuclear power source, and is currently the only one available for commercial usage. Fission breaks apart two atoms, and from those atoms breaking apart creates energy. Radioactive decay is when the device uses the radioactivity coming from the material(s) to convert to usable energy. This is used in most atomic batteries. There are two ways to generate the nuclear power, a nuclear reactor and a nuclear battery. I will briefly explain what we currently have, and then what we could have in the future. Within nuclear batteries, there are two types. Thermal and non-thermal. Thermal batteries, like nuclear reactors, generate electrical energy from atomic energy, do not use a chain reaction in the reaction process.. Non-thermal batteries extract part of the nuclear energy as it is being turned in to heat. Most batteries typically have an efficiency of 0.1–5%, while betavoltaics have an efficiency of 6–8%. Non-thermal generators can be grouped into three classes. There are three types of thermal batteries: Thermionic Converter, In this technology, power is produced when a hot electrode thermionically emits electrons over a space charge barrier to a cooler electrode. Radioisotope thermoelectric barrier, where a thermoelectric converter connects pairs of thermocouples in a series. Every thermocouple is made by the connection of two dissimilar materials. One of each pair is heated and the other on is cooled. Thermophotovoltaic cells, This technology works on the same principles as a photovoltaic cells (what solar power uses), except that they convert infrared (rather than visible) light emitted by a hot surface, into electricity. Or Alkali-metal thermal to electric converter (or AMTEC). AMTEC work on an electrochemical system which is based on the an electrolyte fast ion conductor. There are also some other types of nuclear batteries. Non-thermal batteries extract the energy before it is turned in to heat. Non-thermal converters are put in to three categories: Direct charging generators In this type, discovered in 1913, the main generators consist of a capacity which is charged by the current of charged particles from a radioactive part coming off of one of the electrodes. The space between the electrodes are either vacuum or dielectric. Betavoltaics This fairly recent technology, a small batter powered by the beta-particle-emitting decay of tritium. This device works in the same principle as Thermophotovoltaic cells. Optoelectric This Russian technology uses a beta-emitter that would replicate a excimer mixture, and the light would charge a photocell. Reciprocating Electromechanical Atomic Batteries These kinds of power work with friction. This piezoelectric batter uses electromechanical atomic batteries use the charge from two plates bending towards each other, and until the two plates touch, discharge electricity. What atomic batteries can achieve are monumental compared to lithium-ion batteries. Lithium ion batteries have a very varying charge, while, say, an alkali-metal thermal to electric converter atomic battery has set efficiency of 16%, going up to 35 or 40% in the next few years. Laptops would last up to 30 years at a time without disposing of the battery, and electricity costs would go down dramatically because batteries produce enough to run household appliances. Each light in your house could also have a small atomic battery. Of course, this nuclear technology is going to increase prices, but it will save hundreds in energy bills if we use batteries in appliances and the like. Nuclear submarines are very powerful and are very green. They are easily usable for cars and such. Submarines simply use a scaled down version of a nuclear reactors. We could use what nuclear subs use (it is a small, miniaturized form of a reactor) to power our automobiles. What subs use is small and it does not leak any radiation. It may have a very low efficiency but, it lasts 25 years at a time without replacement of the rods. People are down there for 6 months at a time, and do not get radiation poisoning and other conditions that beta and gamma radiation can do. There have been no meltdowns within the last 42 years because of advances in safety, and the last meltdown was a soviet experimental submarine. Meltdowns in modern, non-ex-soviet states are extraordinarily low and there have only been two cases. However, nuclear material cannot be recycled, and its half life is 1.3 billion years. We would have to utterly destroy the material to make it safe. One way could be to shoot the materials in to the Sun, but that would require much money to do it. However a hydrogen powered space cannon is being researched, and would make shooting the materials in to the Sun much cheaper. It is going to be a while before we see micro-electronics (such as smart-phones) with atomic batteries. Currently, the smallest betavoltaics is laptop sized, and it will take a while before the batteries become small enough to reach the smart-phone market. Cell phones at first would be big and bulky, but after a while, it could go down to a reasonable size. Micro electronics would also have the highest chance of the battery breaking, and people would have minimal shielding from radiation. However, with time and resources, we could create something safe and small enough for cell phones. A concern from many people would be the risk of a meltdown, however, nuclear batteries do not get as hot as full sized nuclear reactors, and therefore the risk of a meltdown is very minuet. A good thing about betavoltaics is that it would be cheaper to send the materials in to space because the batteries are typically small. A future where we use nuclear technology is entirely possible, especially with the current advances in nuclear technology. Betavoltaics could run our small, consumer electronics while mini-reactors would work in cars. Dependency on oil would decrease heavily, and domestic spending would also decrease. I think a nuclear future, is a better future. Sources: [url]http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/cannon-shooting-supplies-space[/url] [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7843868/[/url] [url]http://sonicmems.ece.cornell.edu/publications/pervasivepower.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm[/url] [url]http://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch371/lecture/lecture6/sld010.htm[/url] [url]http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-12.htm[/url] [url]http://www.prlog.org/10356087-nuclear-energy-the-upcoming-laptop-battery.html[/url] [url]http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://world.lib.ru/m/mazurenko_w_n/51day.shtml&ei=Fl6FS6HcOMiwrAfD2v2KAw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBQQ7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25D0%259F%25D0%259E%25D0%25A1%25D0%2592%25D0%25AF%25D0%25A9%25D0%2590%25D0%2595%25D0%25A2%25D0%25A1%25D0%25AF%2B%25D0%25AD%25D0%259A%25D0%2598%25D0%259F%25D0%2590%25D0%2596%25D0%25A3%2B%25D0%2590%25D0%259F%25D0%259B%2B%25D0%259A-27%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dopera%26hs%3DG1f%26rls%3Den[/url] [/QUOTE] [editline]07:09PM[/editline] I'm strongly for nuclear power, including nuclear batteries.

[QUOTE=dolphinlover;21183464]I'm opposed to Nuclear Power due to the Environmental hazards. Nuclear fission generates spent nuclear fuel, more commonly known as toxic waste. This toxic waste is impossible to break down, and is buried in the Earth, causing tremendous damage to the environment. What's worse, Spent nuclear fuel remains radioactive for up to 3 centuries.[/QUOTE] The fuel can be processed so it's usable again. Afterward it's about as radioactive as the surrounding rocks.

[QUOTE=Athena;21201863]The fuel can be processed so it's usable again. Afterward it's about as radioactive as the surrounding rocks.[/QUOTE] Just keep in mind that the half life of uranium is a few billion years. [editline]07:17PM[/editline] And that's only when half of the material turns in to thorium. [editline]07:20PM[/editline] [QUOTE=evilking1;21185719]If you are afraid of global warming, nuclear power is one of the few solutions that help.[/QUOTE] Yup, all it produces is steam.

[QUOTE=zombiefreak;21201935]And that's only when half of the material turns in to thorium.[/QUOTE] Speaking of, Liquid-Fluorine Thorium Reactors are the most promising nuclear technology. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8[/media] TL;DW: Thorium is abundant, fairly harmless, and an excellent source of fuel. Nobody's made a reactor of it though because "AHHH NUCLEAR POWER" and you can't bomb people with the waste.

Why dont we shoot the waste in space ? First it cost A LOT (Rocket Fuel,the Shuttle itselft) And also you dont want that to explode when its going up(Huge Dirt Bomb)

[QUOTE=genyus;21202070]Why dont we shoot the waste in space ? First it cost A LOT (Rocket Fuel,the Shuttle itselft) And also you dont want that to explode when its going up(Huge Dirt Bomb)[/QUOTE] Shoot it in to the sun with hydrogen cannons.

Nuclear power is good. Greenpeace can suck a dick. > My two cents.

[QUOTE=OvB;21202235]Nuclear power is good. Greenpeace can suck a dick. > My two cents.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/ads/rating/tick.png[/IMG]

I don't like nuclear power because de_nuke is one of my least favorite CSS maps. Juuuuust kidding, nuclear power is the one of the greatest inventions of the last century, and should be fully utilized by all competent world powers to curb our emissions and build a reliable, relatively sustainable power grid.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;21184181]Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Every liter of pure water is 1/9th hydrogen by mass. Using a very simple process it is possible to break down water into water and oxygen. Both of these resources could be sold for monies.[/QUOTE] Two problems with that: 1. The energy required to seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen is greater than the energy yield of the resulting hydrogen. In short, it's inefficient to begin with. 2. The plants providing the energy required burn fossil fuels. Using hydrogen in them is not an option, because it would take more hydrogen to provide the energy for producing a given amount of hydrogen, and so on. It just dosn't work. Now if you use nuclear energy to produce the hydrogen, that's another matter. The plant would only need a good water supply for cooling, and it's energy output would be incredibly high compared to you run-of-the-mill coal plant. [b]tl;dr: to make hydrogen without wasting already dwindling supplies of fuel, you would need a nuclear power plant.[/b]

The only reason the Greenpeace fags are still listened to is one simple word: Chernobyl. This ONE incident has brought hell down upon all who support safe use of Nuclear power. Stupid blind fucks never look at the actual facts and say that all NPP are Chernobyl like and WILL melt-down. How many years has it been since a large scale incident? more than 20.

[QUOTE=Loompa Lord;21182885][B]Power plant security has also been increased by about 8,000 officers since the attacks on September 11, 2010, further emphasizing a work safe environment.[/QUOTE] There's going to be another attack this year?! :byodood: [editline]03:48AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Athena;21202005]and you can't bomb people with the waste.[/QUOTE] That should be a [b]good[/b] thing. But of course...

Well the argument that NPP's are a prominent terrorist target is like saying we shouldn't have airplanes because they obviously have a tendency to fly into buildings.

Fission power is handled all wrong. Inertial Conefinment Fusion is where it's at.

[QUOTE=DarkendSky;21203183]Fission power is handled all wrong. Inertial Conefinment Fusion is where it's at.[/QUOTE] Won't be 'nother 50 years chump.

As long as they get rid of the waste properly, nuclear power should replace oil.

I think nukes are cool, i mean, come on, they can destroy AN ENTIRE FUCKING CITY. Now we just need to make one that can blow up a continent... :science:

When facepuch tries to havce an intellectual conversation shit hits the fan

[QUOTE=Loompa Lord;21182885] Power plant security has also been increased by about 8,000 officers since the attacks on September 11, 2010, further emphasizing a work safe environment. [/QUOTE] OP is from the future. Tell me, OP, where will these attack occur?

Fuck fission and breeder reactors, Fusion is where it's at, leave it on long enough, and up the power input by enough, and voila, an iron factory. Oh, wait, stars go supernova because some of the core turns to iron and explodes.

I find it rather sad that everyone thinks Nuclear Power is dangerous because a bunch of nutcases made a nuclear reactor with the little money the USSR gave them, and used it without any security measures that were the standard at the time (Due to lack of money). And managing the waste, that's easy: Vaults made out of concrete, graphite and tungsten, two kilometers under the ocean floor. Simple as fuck. I hope we find a way to use fusion power soon. The bad thing is that H3 will have to be produced in particle accelerators, or imported from the Moon. Proton-proton (Raw Hydrogen) fusion would be the shit.

I used to think that Nuclear power was bad as it might end up like Chernobyl, but then I learned that it was a design flaw that caused it. But what about waste?

[QUOTE=Mr. Kobayashi;21186113]I am doing a report on this to for school and it is literally open at this moment I emailed Greenpeace about if they would prefer Nuclear or Fossil Fuels [IMG]http://imgur.com/0Z0z5.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Jesus Christ, that was just so fucking retarded. Nuclear disasters every year? Give me a fucking break.