Quantcast

France is doing something the US should be emulating.

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,914
14
Hypernormality
I agree. Nuclear Power is very important in the short term future. France is also the site of the worlds first fusion reactor. It is being built by France, England, Japan and the US. It is due to go online in 2016 I think.

On the other hand, New Zealand gets 60-80% of its power from renewable sources. Wave and wind mostly, but some traditional hydro stuff and geothermal too.

This what people mean when they say the US is getting left behind. The world's biggest economy is the technical leader in none of the many energy generation fields, not even oil which it loves some much. Europe and the far east are pushing ahead with Biotech too.

Regressive policy sucks.
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,796
42
Japan
I think everyone needs a Mr Fusion in their home. Go nuclear energy. Yay.
(Hiroshima has the best carrots of anywhere in Japan)
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,914
14
Hypernormality
The fear of the Newkila booger-man is largely misplaced too (In terms of civilian reactors I mean). And the sooner fusion becomes commonplace, the sooner it becomes a whole lot safer.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,914
14
Hypernormality
fluff said:
Whaddya wanna do with the nucular waist?
Blast it in to space, put it into the core of the planet, choose a single tiny, tiny area of the planet to serve as a waste repository until we can dispose of it in one of the previous ways. Once we have Fusion reactors this will become a much tinier problem anyway. This is a great example of how we must invest in progressive technologies and research to achieve a better result for ourselves. Once we studied fission and got to used to handling it enough, we could take the step forward and start to plot on Fusion, which is a better product. Who knows what could come next? Potentially fusion reactors could be shrunk to very small sizes if we can apply enough energy density to contain the reactions.
 

ridetoofast

scarred, broken and drunk
Mar 31, 2002
2,093
0
crashing at a trail near you...
glower = reactor?

and yes thanks to the sheep that is the public masses and things like China Syndrome type movies the fear of nuclear power is very much misplaced. coming from the nuclear navy i am somewhat skeptical of the practices of civilian plants but its the almight dollar that drives their operation and maintenance culture...the navy has no bottom line
 

Kevin

Turbo Monkey
Westy said:
Chernobyl was the peak of nuclear plant technology. If it failed there is no point on going any further.
The accident in Chernobyl was caused by human error.
It was one man alone who caused the core to melt down because he was pushing the reactors limits despite of people telling him not to. The accident could have easily been prevented if the plant haddent been saving money on safety precautions
This doesnt mean Im all for nuclear energy though.
I think the world should invest in 100% natural recourses like the sun, wind or waves so in a couple of decades nuclear or fossile (oil, charcoal etc.) sources will be a thing of the past.
 

I Are Baboon

Run, Forrest, Run!
Aug 6, 2001
29,927
2,834
MTB New England
Kevin said:
The accident in Chernobyl was caused by human error.
It was one man alone who caused the core to melt down because he was pushing the reactors limits despite of people telling him not to. The accident could have easily been prevented if the plant haddent been saving money on safety precautions
I think you missed Westy's satire. :)
 

DirtyDog

Gang probed by the Golden Banana
Aug 2, 2005
6,599
0
Kevin said:
The accident in Chernobyl was caused by human error.
It was one man alone who caused the core to melt down because he was pushing the reactors limits despite of people telling him not to. The accident could have easily been prevented if the plant haddent been saving money on safety precautions
So was it one man alone or lack of safety precautions? Be patient with me, I am not an expert in nuclear technologies like you guys are.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,900
5,591
Sleazattle
BeerDemon said:
So was it one man alone or lack of safety precautions? Be patient with me, I am not an expert in nuclear technologies like you guys are.
Seeing as none of are experts on anything except maybe our actual professions. All posts should probably be deleted without several qualified professional references showing we are experts in the fields we comment on.
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
24,293
3,356
In my pants
Westy said:
Seeing as none of are experts on anything except maybe our actual professions. All posts should probably be deleted without several qualified professional references showing we are experts in the fields we comment on.
Yeah but we've got a guy named Reactor here!!!

Save us reactor, save us!!!!

I must be living in a cave.......FUSION reactors in the works? WTF??? How'd they do it? Was it cold? Was it hot?
 

Kevin

Turbo Monkey
BeerDemon said:
So was it one man alone or lack of safety precautions? Be patient with me, I am not an expert in nuclear technologies like you guys are.
I guess in the end it was the lack of money for safety precautions.
The guy eventually pushing the button should have never come so far in the first place

This has nothing to do with being an expert on nuclear technologies and I allready stated that Im against nuclear energy. Thats why I understand your concern very well.

I was just pointing out that this didnt have anything to do with technology. I think in another country with more funds, unlike the former USSR where corners were cut everywhere regarding saftey regulations, nuclear power could be made safe to use imo.
Its just that I would like to see investements made in better ways to provide power because there is still the nuclear waste that has to be taken care of and the fact that generating power out of natural recources is less harmfull to the enviroment then a nuclear plant.

In the beginning it will take lots money to achieve this but in the end it will be better for the planet and eventually it will earn its investements back.
 

DirtyDog

Gang probed by the Golden Banana
Aug 2, 2005
6,599
0
Westy said:
Seeing as none of are experts on anything except maybe our actual professions. All posts should probably be deleted without several qualified professional references showing we are experts in the fields we comment on.
Well its pretty funny when people become self appointed nuclear engineers :p

Oh yeah, I forgot about that fusion thing. Changleen needs to lay off the pipe. Thats funny stuff.
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,796
42
Japan
BeerDemon said:
So was it one man alone or lack of safety precautions? Be patient with me, I am not an expert in nuclear technologies like you guys are.
I am. I know everything about everything. I thought all PD regulars did.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,900
5,591
Sleazattle
BeerDemon said:
Well its pretty funny when people become self appointed nuclear engineers :p

Oh yeah, I forgot about that fusion thing. Changleen needs to lay off the pipe. Thats funny stuff.
I kind of blew off the fusion comments.

But there has been great leaps in reactor technologies. I spent a week at a plant that makes fuel rods and reactor cores and some folks were telling me about ceramic coated fuel pellets that can resist meltdown with despite complete loss of control and cooling. Neat stuff.

Some power companies along cooperating with French companies have started the licensing process to build the first US plants in over three decades. About flipping time.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,638
4
SF, CA
I'm no expert but I did work in the power industry for awhile, mostly evaluating electricity assets (of that, mostly power plants)... at the same time, I'm a (surprise) pretty rabid environmentalist.

With that in mind, I actually feel like nuclear power is probably the best available option for reducing dependence on oil. The technology has come a long way both in terms of plant operations and waste disposal. It's not perfect, but nothing is. Every other option that is even close to as clean is not viable in terms of capacity in the near term.

Hydroelectric - the cleanest cheapest power on earth. Unfortunately in involves flooding rare and beautful valleys. See the 5 gorges project in China... an ecological disaster.
Wind - huge capital investment for the capacity, requires massive amounts of space, and the offshore versions that actually have a reasonable capacity seem to interrupt bird migration. Plus the NIMBYs are a bunch of dicks.
Solar - photovoltaic is nowhere near viable as a net positive energy source. solar-thermal is, I think, but I don't know the details
Giothermal - pretty viable, but only a few spots where you can do it
Wave/tidal - this I know the least about, but I believe it has some pretty serious ecological consequences
Coal - getting cleaner in terms of toxins, but still pretty awful in terms of CO2 and always will be. I don't know what modern mining practices are like, but that side of it can get pretty nasty too.
Natural gas - better than coal, though obviously still a big CO2 producer and I think we're already maxing out our ability to produce energy from it.... DRB, do you know more?
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,796
42
Japan
ohio said:
I'm no expert but I did work in the power industry for awhile, mostly evaluating electricity assets (of that, mostly power plants)... at the same time, I'm a (surprise) pretty rabid environmentalist.

With that in mind, I actually feel like nuclear power is probably the best available option for reducing dependence on oil. The technology has come a long way both in terms of plant operations and waste disposal. It's not perfect, but nothing is. Every other option that is even close to as clean is not viable in terms of capacity in the near term.

Hydroelectric - the cleanest cheapest power on earth. Unfortunately in involves flooding rare and beautful valleys. See the 5 gorges project in China... an ecological disaster.
Wind - huge capital investment for the capacity, requires massive amounts of space, and the offshore versions that actually have a reasonable capacity seem to interrupt bird migration. Plus the NIMBYs are a bunch of dicks.
Solar - photovoltaic is nowhere near viable as a net positive energy source. solar-thermal is, I think, but I don't know the details
Giothermal - pretty viable, but only a few spots where you can do it
Wave/tidal - this I know the least about, but I believe it has some pretty serious ecological consequences
Coal - getting cleaner in terms of toxins, but still pretty awful in terms of CO2 and always will be. I don't know what modern mining practices are like, but that side of it can get pretty nasty too.
Natural gas - better than coal, though obviously still a big CO2 producer and I think we're already maxing out our ability to produce energy from it.... DRB, do you know more?
You neglected to mention the frothers preferred option. Rendering the fat from 3rd world children. Probably work better though if we rendered the fat of frothers.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,846
0
Orange County, CA
valve bouncer said:
You neglected to mention the frothers preferred option. Rendering the fat from 3rd world children.
The only reason those children are fat in the first place is because they leech aid from our taxpaying dollars! It's our fat to use, goddammit!
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,900
5,591
Sleazattle
valve bouncer said:
You neglected to mention the frothers preferred option. Rendering the fat from 3rd world children.
Why would we get them from the third world. Everywhere I go I see fat kids, not the big boned plump kind, the knee and ankle fold waddling around type fat kids. We just need to set up liposuction and refining facilites in grade schools.
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,796
42
Japan
Silver said:
The only reason those children are fat in the first place is because they leech aid from our taxpaying dollars! It's our fat to use, goddammit!
You are faster than N8 rooting his missus. :blah:
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,796
42
Japan
Westy said:
Why would we get them from the third world. Everywhere I go I see fat kids, not the big boned plump kind, the knee and ankle fold waddling around type fat kids. We just need to set up liposuction and refining facilites in grade schools.
Help me here Westy...it was a movie or a TV program, they raided the liposuction....got it FIGHT CLUB...
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,900
5,591
Sleazattle
They have actually developed vehicles that can directly process human fat into environmentaly clean energy.














 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,638
4
SF, CA
Westy said:
Why would we get them from the third world. Everywhere I go I see fat kids, not the big boned plump kind, the knee and ankle fold waddling around type fat kids. We just need to set up liposuction and refining facilites in grade schools.
Why lipo and render the fat? Lets get those little piglets turning water wheels like Conan the Barbarian. Kill two birds with one stone, and possible create a generation of badass, sword-fighting, he-men (and she-women).
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
ohio said:
DRB, do you know more?
ball bearings, its all ball bearings these days.

Whatcha looking for? Wanna talk natural gas production and consumption... Prepare to sleep people.

Natural gas is better in regards to CO2, sulfur and particulate emissions compared to coal and oil. CO not much better. NOx, mostly worse, depending on the consumption method. The real bugaboo in regards to natural gas and pollutants is itself. Uncombusted natural gas is a like a bazillion times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Plus its coming into the environment at every step of the process not just consumption.

From an efficiency stand point, the improvements over the last few years have been big. The combined cycle turbines. Plus they are figuring out higher combustion temperatures from a cooling standpoint. I'd say that of all the fossil fuels natural gas has the best potential.

How much is left? Its tricky stuff that isn't as easy to find as oil is.

The rest of it is hippy crap. I figure the world will be burning oil shale for energy, clog the environment and evolve the earth into Venus.
 

ridetoofast

scarred, broken and drunk
Mar 31, 2002
2,093
0
crashing at a trail near you...
actually chernobyl was a very poor design as it used positive coefficient of reactivity.

also there were operating at an unstable low power level conducting testing that required overiding protective features.

it was a combination of poor design and poor operating features.

im not professing to be an expert but i did the same thing reator did in the navy only i was on a target aka carrier and he was a bubble head aka submariner.

i cannot tell you how many times i was 'briefed' on chernobyl as part of our continuous training
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,900
5,591
Sleazattle
Question for you nukular trained folks: Couldn't you place a carbon bowl with integrated control rods at the bottom of a reactor. In case of a meltdown the melted Uranium would be contained in the bowls and automatically have the reaction slowed to a reasonable level?
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
The fusion reactor he is talking must be the experimental ITER site in France. It isn't so much a reactor as it is a research project. They are talking 2040 for functional sites. That is assuming they can overcome the technical and scientific challenges which are substanial.