[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;35856788]What would be nice is if Fukushima scared Japan enough to funnel a ton of their money into thorium and fusion research.[/QUOTE]
That'd be cool.
I won't pretend to know much about it, but from what little I have heard, thorium reactors sound really neat.
Anyone happen to have more insight on them they could share?
[QUOTE=Canary;35853119]I remember countless comments from users on this forum saying "It's not going to meltdown" and "It's nothing like Chernobyl" OK it didn't fully explode a gaping hole into the reactor like Chernobyl but it still made a whole area uninhabitable.[/QUOTE]
Four people die generating wind energy for every one person killed generating nuclear energy.
2.5 people die in Europe alone generating hydroelectric energy for every one person who dies worldwide generating nuclear energy.
Eleven people die INSTALLING ROOFTOP SOLAR PANELS for every ONE person killed by a nuclear accident.
One hundred people die generating energy from natural gas for every one person who dies generating nuclear energy.
Nine hundred people die generating energy from oil for every one person who dies generating nuclear energy.
Four THOUSAND PEOPLE DIE generating energy from coal for every one person who dies generating energy from nuclear energy.
All ratios are generated based on the number of deaths per single TWh produced. This means that differences in the total percentage of energy generated by that type of fuel is negated.
[url]http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html[/url]
There are no other arguments.
Nuclear energy comes from a huge variety of plants, and many of them heavily out dated, and yet still coal kills people at a four thousand to one ratio.
Also keep in mind that a nuclear power plant, operating as intended, generates virtually no harmful pollutants. The spent rods are largely your only concern.
Coal plants, operating as intended, generate a vast amount of harmful gases and several hundred orders of magnitude more harmful radiation than a nuclear power plant.
Not only is Chernobyl the only instance in the history of nuclear energy that caused anything anywhere NEAR that level of destruction, but it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for it to happen in the overwhelming majority, if not all, modern reactors.
I don't know how I can make this clearer.
Nuclear energy is the SAFEST FORM OF ENERGY. BY A RIDICULOUS MARGIN.
[editline]6th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;35857041]That'd be cool.
I won't pretend to know much about it, but from what little I have heard, thorium reactors sound really neat.
Anyone happen to have more insight on them they could share?[/QUOTE]
There isn't a lot to thorium reactors.
The science behind them is certainly complicated, but in layman's terms, it really isn't that much different than Uranium. It requires a little more effort to boost it into generating energy, but the details are nothing really interesting (unless you are in the field, I imagine).
The major benefit from thorium is that thorium is significantly more common in the Earth's crust. I think it is overall safer to use as well, but it has been a while since I have heard any updates regarding the modern thorium reactor designs.
I like how this went from a news article to a "this was worse because X and Y said it wasn't" shitstorm.
You guys are classy.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;35850340]I know it was for maintenance, but when I saw the title I just clicked it to make the "One car crashes, [B]BAN CARS[/B]" comment.[/QUOTE]
A car crash hurts a few people. A faulty nuclear reactor is devastating.
[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;35858825]A car crash hurts a few people. A faulty nuclear reactor is devastating.[/QUOTE]
Several thousands more people die every year from car crashes than people have been killed from faulty nuclear reactors in the lifetime of atomic power.
So that argument is kind of piss-wash. Just saying.
[QUOTE=redBadger;35856342]Nuclear Power really isn't the best answer.
Sure, it may be the safest (assuming everything functions as it should) and super efficient, but how about you answer this question: where are you going to store the shit? In the long run, Nuclear Power is going to be a bitch to store, especially since it has to be contained for a huge collection of years.
So before you all praise nuclear energy and how it's the best, why don't you remember the huge, huge storage problem, by which nobody has found a safe and practical solution to.[/QUOTE]
Switch to fusion as soon as its viable, leaves no radioactive fuel and is much, much more efficient.
Fusion power is still a long way away, and can still irradiate the reactor vessel through neutron activation.
There's still useful and safe designs at the moment which can be utilised (Molten salt reactors, CANDU, etc.)
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;35859438]Fusion power is still a long way away, and can still irradiate the reactor vessel through neutron activation.
There's still useful and safe designs at the moment which can be utilised (Molten salt reactors, CANDU, etc.)[/QUOTE]
Actually, the by-product is helium-4, and it's non-radioactive. But it is still a few decades off conventionally.
[url]http://www.crossfirefusion.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor/overview.html[/url]
[QUOTE=MIPS;35858811]I like how this went from a news article to a "this was worse because X and Y said it wasn't" shitstorm.
You guys are classy.[/QUOTE]
I've actually really enjoyed the conversation in the thread.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
