[QUOTE=DrLuke;33101409]With your attitude we should revert back to burning coal for energy, because it's the safest way.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that, I'm just trying to forward both sides of an argument. I'm aware that pulling the Titanic is a stupid way for holding a debate, but I'm trying to forward a point here. Nothing is indestructible, and nuclear power plants would be a grand target for a talented hacker with access to a zero day, like what happened at Bushehr plant. (Those idiots should disconnect their Internet)
[editline]3rd November 2011[/editline]
Nuclear power is a safe, renewable, efficient source of energy, and it would be dumb to give it up, however a lot of Facepunchers seem to think there's nearly no underlying reasons why not to use it, which isn't true either. I'm just trying to get you guys to be more objective in thinking.
Not Cobalt-Thorium G! It would irradiate the earth for 96 years!
[QUOTE=mac338;33101280]Yet still there are viruses like Stuxnet that already are proven to penetrate security, tell the operators the reactors are okay, and then heat them.
[editline]3rd November 2011[/editline]
And still the safest and most modern nuclear plants are vulnerable as proven by a certain tsunami recently.
(Don't burn me for this: I'm trying to make an objective argument though I'm pro-nuclear energy)[/QUOTE]
That reactor used Plutonium / Uranium in its fuel rods.
This one uses Thorium which is harmless compared to those.
Only a small ammount of uranium is needed as a catalyst.
[QUOTE=mac338;33101280]Yet still there are viruses like Stuxnet that already are proven to penetrate security, tell the operators the reactors are okay, and then heat them.
[editline]3rd November 2011[/editline]
And still the safest and most modern nuclear plants are vulnerable as proven by a certain tsunami recently.
(Don't burn me for this: I'm trying to make an objective argument though I'm pro-nuclear energy)[/QUOTE]
What nation/who would use a virus to take down a NPP? I could see terrorists doing that, if they had the know how, but some part of me seriously doubts Al Qaeda has the know how and resources to do something like that. I'd think they'd be more likely to try to crash a plane into one, and fail at doing any major damage.
I could see China having the resources to do that, but can you imagine if the USA found out that China melted down, oh lets say the NPP in Toledo, Ohio, right next to the Great Lakes? It would be suicide for the Chinese, for ANYONE to do something like that.
I'm not saying NPPs are perfect, they have their flaws. But I just find it silly that one would be against Nuclear power because they're worried about it being attacked. I'm much more worried about something going horribly wrong like Fukushima or Chernobyl.
This is good news, Thorium Reactors is clearly the only proper way forward. Good Riddance India.
What about my design?
[sp]It's a joke[/sp]
I wonder how much rep they had to grind with the Thorium Brotherhood to get those reactors.
[QUOTE=mac338;33101170]My dad is against nuclear power claiming
"should a nation go to war, which can be unpredictable, or if there's going to be a terrorist target, a nuclear power station would be one of the first things to attack. And that's why I'm against nuclear power."
I'm all for nuclear power, but my dad does actually have a valid point.[/QUOTE]
You think nobody else has thought of this?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCoFLby5x8Y[/media]
[QUOTE=Mr.T;33103094]What about my design?
[sp]It's a joke[/sp][/QUOTE]
I knew it was only a matter of time before you came here
We have a lot of thorium, guess our future generations wealth is secured.
[QUOTE=mac338;33101359]Thanks for the information.
So, what about safety standards - some countries like India are likely to have - well, not too much. In case of an actual meltdown in a precarious country a lot of neighboring countries will have consequences for something that is beyond them.
Chernobyl radiation map over Europe:
[IMG]http://maps.grida.no/library/files/radiation-from-chernobyl.jpg[/IMG]
Here in Norway we had to kill many thousands of animals, and a lot of people got cancer.[/QUOTE]
Just because they're a developing country doesn't mean that they don't have as good safety standards. Thorium is much harder to weaponize too, I've heard.
[QUOTE=mac338;33101382]In the same way Titanic was unsinkable?
It's a douchebag argument but it's valid.
What about, for example, Stuxnet?[/QUOTE]If they say it can't down, they probably mean it can't melt down in the same way your couch can't meltdown, not so slogan they're gonna use.
[QUOTE=wewt!;33100936]heh, sorry India but a 14 year old on Facepunch already made it in his backyard :v:[/QUOTE]
Is this some old inside joke? I never heard that one.
[QUOTE=mac338;33101382]In the same way Titanic was unsinkable?
It's a douchebag argument but it's valid.
What about, for example, Stuxnet?[/QUOTE]
Chernobyl was an obsolete Soviet design NPP running dangerous tests by people that had absolutely no idea what they were doing (and from what I remember, they were literally reading out the manual for it.)
Fukushima was an outdated NPP that didn't suffer nearly as bad as a meltdown after [I]enduring the worst earthquake and resulting tsunami in modern Japanese history almost simultaneously.[/I] Nuclear power plants are not treated like just another coal or natural gas power plant, the amount of regulations and safety put into them are ridiculous.
Modern power plants not only designed to naturally shut off in the case of catastrophe, but can withstand planes ramming into them, have detachments of security guards equipped with assault rifles and bullet proof vests. Shipments of nuclear waste are often protected with a national guard/military detachment, and dumping centers are heavily protected against both natural disaster and attack.
Speaking of Stuxnet, you realize the "nuclear power plants" that you claim it's managed to successfully infiltrated were Iranian enrichment centers? I don't see how those are comparable to a modern US or European NPP.
[QUOTE=a dumb bear;33104961]Thorium is much harder to weaponize too, I've heard.[/QUOTE]
More like impossible, but yeah. You kinda can, with a lot of external shit, but it's a massive fucking pain in the ass.
A thorium reactor also isn't going to be even remotely capable of a dangerous shutdown, even in case of an attack. The whole "terrorism" thing is garbage.
[QUOTE=mac338;33101359]Thanks for the information.
So, what about safety standards - some countries like India are likely to have - well, not too much. In case of an actual meltdown in a precarious country a lot of neighboring countries will have consequences for something that is beyond them.
Chernobyl radiation map over Europe:
Here in Norway we had to kill many thousands of animals, and a lot of people got cancer.[/QUOTE]
I doubt "alot of people got cancer" because of Tsernobyl. Greenpeace's progapanda. The radiation cloud's activity wasn't even equal to the radiation there is when you're on an aeroplane, and the cloud faded away quickly, even though it left some traces. And that was in Finland, closer to tsernobyl. Its just easy to blame tsernobyl for every cancer found.
BTW Fukushima was an old shitty powerplant. One finnish nuclear scientist told me when I was visiting the Olkiluoto that he and his team have visited several power plants around the globe to inspect nuclear power plants and they had found lots of flaws with japans powerplants.
As far as I know fukushimas plant was supposed to be taken down already, but because of the energy demand and lack of permissions for new reactors they kept it running over it's designed lifespan (40 years)
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33105351]More like impossible, but yeah. You kinda can, with a lot of external shit, but it's a massive fucking pain in the ass.
A thorium reactor also isn't going to be even remotely capable of a dangerous shutdown, even in case of an attack. The whole "terrorism" thing is garbage.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's probably cheaper to just buy/steal Uranium than it is to convert Thorium to Uranium if you're a terrorist.
Thorium, thorium everywhere.
Or so we hope? Does this has any downsides? Its safer, more abundant... What could go wrong?
[QUOTE=dass;33107334]Thorium, thorium everywhere.
Or so we hope? Does this has any downsides? Its safer, more abundant... [B]What could go wrong?[/B][/QUOTE]
Westerners hear the word "Nuclear" and collectively shit themselves while screaming for it to go away.
"The Thorium Energy Alliance (TEA), an educational advocacy organization, emphasizes that "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."
My reactor is ready.
[QUOTE=Mr.T;33103094]What about my design?
[sp]It's a joke[/sp][/QUOTE]
How's the progress on your experimental VTOL aircraft and your UN serverfarm, by the way?
[QUOTE=The Baconator;33105199]Is this some old inside joke? I never heard that one.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1092231[/url]
[QUOTE=mac338;33101170]My dad is against nuclear power claiming
"should a nation go to war, which can be unpredictable, or if there's going to be a terrorist target, a nuclear power station would be one of the first things to attack. And that's why I'm against nuclear power."
I'm all for nuclear power, but my dad does actually have a valid point.[/QUOTE]
IF you don't build nuclear plants the next target would be airports
and then if no airports, government buildings,
no government buildings, public places,
no public places, houses,
no houses, what's left to bomb?
Time to go mine the moons thorium deposits.
[QUOTE=mac338;33101382]In the same way Titanic was unsinkable?
It's a douchebag argument but it's valid.
What about, for example, Stuxnet?[/QUOTE]
Woah, what?
Please don't use a Titanic analogy unless it makes sense
[QUOTE=sltungle;33101341]Actually, Fukushima is nowhere near modern. It's had some modernisation done to it in recent times if I'm not mistaken, but the place was put up in '71. Far from modern.[/QUOTE]
It went bad because the cooling system failed. The same thing applies for any other plant.
Of course you don't attack the reactor itself but rather its surroundings.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
