• Japan halts last nuclear reactor
    64 replies, posted
I'm saying it again - Fusion's where it's at. automerge...
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;42207039]Nuclear power is probably one of the cleanest (contrary to its portrayal in popular culture) and most efficient sources of alternative power out there. Reactionary decisions are almost never good.[/QUOTE] But what are we going to do with all the waste? As far as I know there isn't really a safe way to dispose of it yet.
[QUOTE=nikomo;42207274]Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a molten-salt thorium reactor be completely safe in the case of an earthquake? Fukushima was dangerous because of the cooling systems shutting down, but a TMSR would safely shut-off in case of power-loss to the entire system, because the little plug keeping the molten salt would stop being cooled, melt and the salt would just drop off into a safe storage container, and the reaction would halt, as far as I remember.[/QUOTE] That's pretty much hitting the nail on the head. If Fukushima was a Thorium reactor, it wouldn't have escalated... Unfortunately, the only country with a solid push in Thorium technology is currently China. Until we can get a full on cooperation between several superpowers in terms of financing, manpower and technology, we'll get nowhere [I]fast[/I].
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42207209]good. let's stop using dangerous and environmentally destructive ways of harnessing energy.[/QUOTE] yeah guys lets go use some clean coal for our energy for once!!
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42207236]geothermal, tidal, wind[/QUOTE] In many locations geothermal and tidal power aren't even an option, and wind power takes up an IMMENSE amount of space. Even if you took the most powerful wind turbine out there (it's 443 feet tall and has a diameter of 538 feet), it would take 125 of them to equal the output of a single 1GW nuclear reactor. Beyond that though, in the entire history of nuclear power it has caused less damage and fatalities than hydroelectric or coal do in a single year.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42207236]geothermal, tidal, wind[/QUOTE] It's not gonna happen as long as there's gas, oil and coal readily available. Shutting down nuclear power mostly means substituting it for worse alternatives rather than renewable ones, regardless of what fans of the latter may hope for.
[QUOTE=Desuh;42207299]But what are we going to do with all the waste? As far as I know there isn't really a safe way to dispose of it yet.[/QUOTE] Bury it or use it in Integral Fast Reactors - those babies basically use nuclear waste for fuel. Amazing stuff. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor[/url] Too bad the US government killed the project just when it was actually close to results.
For a country that's, for all intensive purposes, a rather technologically leading country. This is a step backwards. Rather a shame Apparently this plan isn't new: [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20850416"]Source[/URL]
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;42207424]For a country that's, for all intensive purposes, a rather technologically leading country. This is a step backwards. Rather a shame Apparently this plan isn't new: [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20850416"]Source[/URL][/QUOTE] Yeah, we've known about it, but actually seeing it happen is worrisome.
not replacing and upgrading reactors with new modern ones, not improving security fast enough ... that's problem of nuclear energy ... 2/3 of reactors with serious incidents were on brink of obsolete to 'final closure' schedule most of Fukushima is 60s design 70s build and 80s security tech this is problem of whole industry, as minimum modern reactors gets contructed you get low feedback on needed improvements
I wouldn't be so eager to jump on the nuclear power train if I lost all my property and wealth to Fukushima.
[QUOTE=Dwarden;42208412]not replacing and upgrading reactors with new modern ones, not improving security fast enough ...[/QUOTE] You act like decommissioning an old nuclear power plant is some easy task and that building a new one is pennies on the dollar. In reality doing both things costs billions of dollars, a bill that nobody in their right mind wants to try and force the public to eat. It costs far less to keep a 30-50 year old derelict nuclear power plant running until something bad happens and then shutter it. I'm glad japan finally got some sense in turning those banes of humanity off, too bad it isn't indefinitely.
[QUOTE=Van-man;42206653]No. They should be placed in seismic stable regions. Don't want another factor to add to the list of [I]"shit that can go horribly wrong"[/I][/QUOTE] all of Japan is seismically unstable, they should however have made note of ancient tsunami markers which are all over Asian countries which were placed and adjusted after countless centuries of tsaunamis to warn people about where to build and where not to build. twas not the earthquake that killed the reactor, it was the tsunami that flooded the building and caused systems to crash what sucks though is countries like Germany who's reactors aren't in any danger are shuttering their reactors too [editline]15th September 2013[/editline] this was partly design flaws and partly due to the culture of japan, nuclear power should not be full steam ahead, questions need to be raised. I live by the Davis bessey nuclear power station in Ohio and this thing is almost as bad as Fukushima in the years of mismanagement and poor regulation, since this incident they've doubled down on their efforts to bring the plant back up to where it should be
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42207236]geothermal, tidal, wind[/QUOTE] Wind and tidal is horribly inefficient at the moment, and at this point we might as well focus on fission, fusion, and geothermal.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;42208974]You act like decommissioning an old nuclear power plant is some easy task and that building a new one is pennies on the dollar. In reality doing both things costs billions of dollars, a bill that nobody in their right mind wants to try and force the public to eat. It costs far less to keep a 30-50 year old derelict nuclear power plant running until something bad happens and then shutter it. I'm glad japan finally got some sense in turning those banes of humanity off, too bad it isn't indefinitely.[/QUOTE] Yet they did make the public swallow that bill 30-50 years ago? I'd rather pay a little more and get clean, safe energy instead of using coal or gas. Denmark should have a nuclear plant somewhere, wind power isn't a solution on its own.
Going by the BBC article the idea of this is that they're shutting them down to perform maintenance and make sure they're not going to explode so I really don't see the big deal here.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;42208974]You act like decommissioning an old nuclear power plant is some easy task and that building a new one is pennies on the dollar. In reality doing both things costs billions of dollars, a bill that nobody in their right mind wants to try and force the public to eat. It costs far less to keep a 30-50 year old derelict nuclear power plant running until something bad happens and then shutter it. I'm glad japan finally got some sense in turning those banes of humanity off, too bad it isn't indefinitely.[/QUOTE] You might want to look up [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor]Liquid fluoride thorium reactors[/url] and see how they're actually safer, more viable and are the next generation of nuclear energy, and also finally doing away with the problem of nuclear weapons because if everyone adopts these they can't say their enrichment plant is for nuclear energy. Not to mention that thorium is incredibly abundant compared to rare metals such as uranium (which could now instead be used for electronics, research, etc.) and it has been speculated that much of the moon contains vast deposits of thorium too.
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;42210986]You might want to look up [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor]Liquid fluoride thorium reactors[/url] and see how they're actually safer, more viable and are the next generation of nuclear energy, and also finally doing away with the problem of nuclear weapons because if everyone adopts these they can't say their enrichment plant is for nuclear energy. Not to mention that thorium is incredibly abundant compared to rare metals such as uranium (which could now instead be used for electronics, research, etc.) and it has been speculated that much of the moon contains vast deposits of thorium too.[/QUOTE] very brief but worth watching, he has full length presentations on youtube also [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY[/media]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42207236]geothermal, tidal, wind[/QUOTE] Tidal is situational and hard to pull off, wind is inefficient as fuck, and geothermal [I]causes earthquakes.[/I] [editline]16th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ViralHatred;42210986]You might want to look up [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor]Liquid fluoride thorium reactors[/url] and see how they're actually safer, more viable and are the next generation of nuclear energy, and also finally doing away with the problem of nuclear weapons because if everyone adopts these they can't say their enrichment plant is for nuclear energy. Not to mention that thorium is incredibly abundant compared to rare metals such as uranium (which could now instead be used for electronics, research, etc.) and it has been speculated that much of the moon contains vast deposits of thorium too.[/QUOTE] But it'll never get adopted [I]because[/I] it can't be used to make bombs.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42216879]Tidal is situational and hard to pull off, wind is inefficient as fuck, and geothermal [I]causes earthquakes.[/I] [editline]16th September 2013[/editline] But it'll never get adopted [I]because[/I] it can't be used to make bombs.[/QUOTE] Windpower = Adopted by many countries but doesn't make bombs or planes or anything, but [i]makes money[/i]. Hydroelectric Dams = Adopted by many countries, causes lots of damage, [i]makes money[/i]. And so on. LFTR's generate electricity cheaply and the fuel materials are abundant, slap a profit margin on it and bam you have a money maker that can even outsource to other countries like France does. Something doesn't have to have military applications to be adopted, it just has to be cost-effective. Nuclear weapons are not cost effective and are only going to be used as a deterrent until the next big thing comes along or until every country has a way of perfectly and safely intercepting them 100% of the time.
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;42217014] Something doesn't have to have military applications to be adopted, it just has to be cost-effective. Nuclear weapons are not cost effective and are only going to be used as a deterrent until the next big thing comes along or until every country has a way of perfectly and safely intercepting them 100% of the time.[/QUOTE] Cost effective doesn't matter, they won't replace conventional nuke plants because you can't make nukes with them. Yeah, only a deterrent for now, but for the foreseeable future it is the biggest and the baddest thing out there and for the foreseeable future you [I]can't[/I] 100% shoot them down or otherwise neutralize them.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42217082]Cost effective doesn't matter, they won't replace conventional nuke plants because you can't make nukes with them. Yeah, only a deterrent for now, but for the foreseeable future it is the biggest and the baddest thing out there and for the foreseeable future you [I]can't[/I] 100% shoot them down or otherwise neutralize them.[/QUOTE] A mass driver in space would be just as cost effective, destructive and unstoppable as a nuke. The only reason we don't have them is because orbital weapons are banned. We also have the Non-Proliferation Treaty however until every country joins it nothing will be done to reduce current nuclear stockpiles as they are a deterrent to non-complying countries.
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;42217208]A mass driver in space would be just as cost effective, destructive and unstoppable as a nuke. The only reason we don't have them is because orbital weapons are banned. We also have the Non-Proliferation Treaty however until every country joins it nothing will be done to reduce current nuclear stockpiles as they are a deterrent to non-complying countries.[/QUOTE] Orbital [I]nuclear[/I] weapons are banned. The Outer Space treaty does [I]not[/I] ban conventional weapons.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42217258]Orbital [I]nuclear[/I] weapons are banned. The Outer Space treaty does [I]not[/I] ban conventional weapons.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure any weapon capable of the same level of destruction as a nuclear weapon counts as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. The Outer Space Treaty prohibits any and all WMD's of any kind from being placed in space or a celestial body.
I like how every time an alternate energy thread pops up you get to see every corner of the spectrum start fighting to see which energy source is the most superior. Thorium is still in the lab Fusion isn't even sustainable yet Nuclear has waste problems Solar is a joke Wind is the same Hydroelectric is generally unusable without massive amounts of land or a gravity drop Geothermal is extremely hard to find sustainable vents for. Coal pollutes like a bitch Gas is only a bit cleaner There is no "winning option" when it comes to electricity production. They all have massive downsides (ESPECIALLY thorium, which has yet to prove anything outside of a lab yet people are calling the second coming of christ). You may now resume your dick waving.
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;42217434]I'm pretty sure any weapon capable of the same level of destruction as a nuclear weapon counts as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. The Outer Space Treaty prohibits any and all WMD's of any kind from being placed in space or a celestial body.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure a WMD is defined as a weapon that can cause significant harm to a large body of people [I]through the release of a chemical, biological, or nuclear agent.[/I] Conventional weapons include weapons that use [I]chemical based explosive energy[/I]. These include non-nuclear bombs/missiles, mines, small arms, shells, whatever doesn't use nuclear energy. If its not a chemical, biological, or nuclear agent, it can be weaponized in orbit for the time being. The reason why it hasn't been done is its not cost effective. Its so far more cost effective to lob it on a ballistic trajectory from the surface. The reason we don't have a mass driver in orbit is because [I]they don't exist in any fully tested and fielded form.[/I] Not because they're banned. The moment one is launched, and tested, it'll probably get banned too but for the time being, no its not banned.
[QUOTE=MIPS;42218216]I like how every time an alternate energy thread pops up you get to see every corner of the spectrum start fighting to see which energy source is the most superior. Thorium is still in the lab [...] [/QUOTE] Thorium was tested and a working prototype was created at ORNL in TN back in the 60s, it ran for several months flawlessly and all the documentation behind it is easily available. The idea has just not been commercialized.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;42220138] Thorium was tested and a working prototype was created at ORNL in TN back in the 60s, it ran for several months flawlessly and all the documentation behind it is easily available. The idea has just not been commercialized.[/QUOTE] So in 50 years nobody has considered a full-scale operation even though it outweighs nuclear in every possible way? Besides "The idea has just not been commercialized", is there anything other reason why it still has not took off? Biased science? High cost? Advocates that are full of themselves?
[QUOTE=MIPS;42220212]So in 50 years nobody has considered a full-scale operation even though it outweighs nuclear in every possible way? Besides "The idea has just not been commercialized", is there anything other reason why it still has not took off? Biased science? High cost? Advocates that are full of themselves?[/QUOTE] Easy! You can't make bombs from it.
[QUOTE=MIPS;42220212]So in 50 years nobody has considered a full-scale operation even though it outweighs nuclear in every possible way? Besides "The idea has just not been commercialized", is there anything other reason why it still has not took off? Biased science? High cost? Advocates that are full of themselves?[/QUOTE] Goddamn, when did you become so dense?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.