Should The Advancement of Nuclear Technology be Encouraged? - General

[QUOTE=Da_Maniac_;35151241]Anything can be made easy by oversimplifying: "Making cold fusion is easy, just make a fusion reactor and get it to run cold". In truth your solution would require massive amounts of gravity calculations, not forgetting the amount of energy and research that would be needed to make a railgun powerful enough.[/QUOTE] Power it with a nuclear reactor.

[video=youtube;DyB7Ho_W9RE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyB7Ho_W9RE[/video] [QUOTE=kebab52;35140049] But then there's the problem of the disposal or long-term storage of nuclear waste, so both sides of the debate have a good argument. [/QUOTE] But surely advancing nuclear technology would help solve the problems that nuclear energy currently presents?

[QUOTE=RobbL;35153695]But surely advancing nuclear technology would help solve the problems that nuclear energy currently presents?[/QUOTE] True, but like I said, I'm just thinking of the typical arguments against nuclear power.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;35142044]Cold fusion dude. It will solve all the world's energy problems.[/QUOTE] Shame it's virtually impossible.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35155650]Shame it's virtually impossible.[/QUOTE] ah, but not [I]completely[/I] impossible! On a more related note I am pro-nuclear and I think that more money should be put into nuclear research.

Yes, there's no better form of power as far as efficiency goes. There's a reason that stars use nuclear energy, it's the best.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;35144405]In what way? Do you mean lifetime greenhouse gas emissions or resulting waste?[/QUOTE] Wind and solar can actually use quite a few resources that people don't think about. Just one example is the water that's necessary to clean the solar panels to keep them even decently efficient. Nuclear reactors put out a TINY amount of nuclear waste (I believe it's about a soda can size for the entire life of a person) and a bit of heated water from the reactor itself. Environmentalists are going crazy over a solar farm they are attempting to build in the California desert right now because of the negative impact on the ecosystem.

wind and solar are just stupid and anyone supporting their use at this time is a fucking idiot, they are too inefficient based on the space they take up, money they cost and resources they require as well as the environmental impact. Yeah they're possible but they're too impractical for use. It's like saying we should all ride zebras instead of drive cars because zebras are eco-friendly and look nice.

I really love the idea of nuclear power; it seems like one of the most reliable, if not THE MOST, sources of energy that has had it's dangers been blown out of proportion by isolated events that happened for a reason. (kind of like sharks, me thinks.) Another thing to consider is that with the advent of nuclear energy, world governments MUST take into account the potential destruction it can cause. This will probably lead to precautions, acts, etcetera and onwards that will likely advance the general safety of the populace, and may evolve into even more kinds of acts that branch out into many more subjects, possibly advancing the... hmm, how to put this... social and political aspect of many things as to be less barbaric. Kind of winded thinking, but, eh.

[QUOTE=sgman91;35156680]Wind and solar can actually use quite a few resources that people don't think about. Just one example is the water that's necessary to clean the solar panels to keep them even decently efficient. Nuclear reactors put out a TINY amount of nuclear waste (I believe it's about a soda can size for the entire life of a person) and a bit of heated water from the reactor itself. Environmentalists are going crazy over a solar farm they are attempting to build in the California desert right now because of the negative impact on the ecosystem.[/QUOTE] Nuclear power has the associated baggage of mining, enrichment and transport, in reality when considering the whole operation of a nuclear power plant it is somewhere above wind, solar and hydroelectric but below biogas in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt hour. It's all well and good to say that the actual process of fission produces negligible amounts of pollution (when not counting nuclear waste) but you are ignoring the logistical side of energy production. [editline]16th March 2012[/editline] Oh and the fact that uranium is another limited resource

Of course. It should be pushed as hard as we can push it. We'll never get better fission reactors, working fusion reactors and the like if we let it stagnate as we are now. Wind and solar power just isn't gonna cut it on this scale, sooner people realize that and start working on advancing nuclear the better off we are.

The talk about the dangers of nuclear power goes out the window when you consider thorium breeder reactors and once fusion becomes viable.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;35157371]Nuclear power has the associated baggage of mining, enrichment and transport, in reality when considering the whole operation of a nuclear power plant it is somewhere above wind, solar and hydroelectric but below biogas in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt hour. It's all well and good to say that the actual process of fission produces negligible amounts of pollution (when not counting nuclear waste) but you are ignoring the logistical side of energy production.[/QUOTE] All that can be powered by nuclear itself. (electric cars etc.) So it's really besides the point. Nuclear waste really isn't a problem either. The farther we get the more we can recycle and there are plenty of safe ways to store it. France has been doing this for quite a while now.

[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;35141863]It should be developed, but not recklessly. Slow and steady is the better option instead of radiation-mutant-cancer-death.[/QUOTE] If we had more money invested in the exploration of nuclear hot fusion, we would be already using it in everyday. The stellarator design is in principle the most efficient (since it's continuous) way to realize fusion but is hard to create the necessary geometry for the magnetic fields and therefore superconducting coils. Just in the late time we got enough funding to realize such projects in an efficient way (see Wendelstein 7-X and 7-AS). It is not that we have no idea about or that pusing the project may harm a nation or more as it is possible for fission. Fusion is more or less "clean" and luckily is easily disturbed so something like supercriticality, as it is possible for fission, is impossible.

Just imagine if all the money going towards the absolute mess of solar and wind went to nuclear technology instead.

[QUOTE=Satane;35146987]What's wrong with security ? Nuclear reactors are among the safest places on earth already.[/QUOTE] Japan says hi. We need to make them more safe from natural disasters. And when it comes to things like these you can never really be too safe.

[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;35168909]Japan says hi. We need to make them more safe from natural disasters. And when it comes to things like these you can never really be too safe.[/QUOTE] Realistically you shouldn't even be building houses where Fukushima was, why would you build an industrial complex there?

[QUOTE=aVoN;35168777]If we had more money invested in the exploration of nuclear hot fusion, we would be already using it in everyday. The stellarator design is in principle the most efficient (since it's continuous) way to realize fusion but is hard to create the necessary geometry for the magnetic fields and therefore superconducting coils. Just in the late time we got enough funding to realize such projects in an efficient way (see Wendelstein 7-X and 7-AS). It is not that we have no idea about or that pusing the project may harm a nation or more as it is possible for fission. Fusion is more or less "clean" and luckily is easily disturbed so something like supercriticality, as it is possible for fission, is impossible.[/QUOTE] Just read some more about stellarators; christ, looks like they are a nightmare to actually manufacture.

[QUOTE=sgman91;35165324]All that can be powered by nuclear itself. (electric cars etc.) So it's really besides the point. Nuclear waste really isn't a problem either. The farther we get the more we can recycle and there are plenty of safe ways to store it. France has been doing this for quite a while now.[/QUOTE] You really can't sweep it aside like that, mining for example has great environmental effects unrelated to the burning of fossil fuels to extract uranium, how do you suppose nuclear power would assist in reducing the environmental effects of that? Furthermore, how would nuclear power assist in reducing the environmental impact of commissioning and decommissioning plants? Nuclear power is great yes, but don't think of it as the end all

[QUOTE=ShadoWxAssassiN;35144238]Nuclear energy looks like it could do great things, only problem I have is the potential of a devastating accident like Chernobyl. Imagine that in a smaller area, like Long Island. The entire fucking island would be almost inhabitable (or at least more than half of it.)[/QUOTE] Chernobyl happened for many reasons that would be near impossible in a modern nuclear plant.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;35169518]You really can't sweep it aside like that, mining for example has great environmental effects unrelated to the burning of fossil fuels to extract uranium, how do you suppose nuclear power would assist in reducing the environmental effects of that? Furthermore, how would nuclear power assist in reducing the environmental impact of commissioning and decommissioning plants? Nuclear power is great yes, but don't think of it as the end all[/QUOTE] Are you seriously trying to say that the environmental effects of mining matter at all when compared to every car and business in the world? Nothing is perfect, but nuclear is the best we've got.

[QUOTE=Goberfish;35169015]Realistically you shouldn't even be building houses where Fukushima was, why would you build an industrial complex there?[/QUOTE] Even more realistically you shouldn't build anything in Japan because natural disasters are always a big risk for those guys. 20 Earthquakes in the past 10 years, 12 of them being a 7-9 in the Richter magnitude scale. The rest ranging between 4-6.

[QUOTE=Nikita;35140368]We should develop an efficient form of hot fusion, because it produces harmless helium, and fuel for it is really abundant in the universe (just look at the moon's soil for example)[/QUOTE] In my opinion, profitable nuclear fusion should be among the #1 goals in humanity. the more efficient it becomes, the closer people get to harmless, clean, nearly unlimited energy - something that will benefit humanity greatly.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;35142044]Cold fusion dude. It will solve all the world's energy problems.[/QUOTE] This might've already been brought up but iirc fusion is really reliable due to the fact that as soon as the machinery loses power, it can't meltdown or carry on producing energy, it's really safe.

[QUOTE=Nikita;35140368]We should develop an efficient form of hot fusion, because it produces harmless helium, and fuel for it is really abundant in the universe (just look at the moon's soil for example)[/QUOTE] Fusion right now requires far more energy than it produces as it is. Also, at any given moment there is less than 50 pounds of natural tritum on Earth. It is also dangerous to humans and is relativly unstable , which means that the production of tritium must be done close to the reactor and must be done safely. Also, Cold Fusion is impossible because in order to produce energy there must be heat so its relatively inefficient. Fission, is unsustainable not because of the waste, but human beings. Nobody wants to live near a Fission reactor, and is too easily weaponized. The best type of Nuclear plant is Thorium-Salt reactors, but are hard to build on large scale, so until that happens, they're just glorified generators. Also, to deny the "Green" techs, Solar is expensive and slow to produce and Wind turbines dont work in space.

[QUOTE=sgman91;35173566]Are you seriously trying to say that the environmental effects of mining matter at all when compared to every car and business in the world? Nothing is perfect, but nuclear is the best we've got.[/QUOTE] You know I didn't say that, stop drawing conclusions that can't be drawn

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;35185971]You know I didn't say that, stop drawing conclusions that can't be drawn[/QUOTE] ... The examples you gave were mining and the commissioning and decommissioning of plants, both of which are completely inconsequential on a worldwide scale.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35150379]I'm not a nuclear physicist, so I'm not sure. However, from what I've heard(from real physicists), in order to fuse atoms together the conditions need to be very similar to a star. This requires a lot of heat. If we master fusion, we harness the power of the stars themselves, which is pretty neat, but a huge undertaking.[/QUOTE] Well it might make you happy to know that nuclear physicists are hopeful that ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) will be able to pass the break even point of fusion and actually get more energy out of its reaction than it puts in (they're expecting to put in about 50 megawatts of power, and get out about 500 megawatts).

[QUOTE=sgman91;35185985]... The examples you gave were mining and the commissioning and decommissioning of plants, both of which are completely inconsequential on a worldwide scale.[/QUOTE] I thought the point of Nuclear power you were arguing was to reduce the environmental impacts of energy creation?

[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;35168909]Japan says hi. We need to make them more safe from natural disasters. And when it comes to things like these you can never really be too safe.[/QUOTE] That reactor was outdated and I'm sure in a report they done for it before the eartquake fucked it in the ass I'm sure the report said it needed either shut down or to be updated and made safer so that's more of an issue that the reactor was neglected in terms of safety features. But don't quote me on that, I'm zombified running on 5 hours sleep and i had to get up at 5 in the morning :v: