Nuclear Energy

N

nasum

CAGiversary!
Sure why not, it's definitely coming up in MN right now (we have two plants about 40 miles away from the Twin Cities in either direction) as there is a vote on lifting the moratorium on building more. Then we get the earthquake in Japan that is causing a potential meltdown in one of the reactor cores.

What really gets me is that this technology seemingly hasn't changed in 30-50 years. I think 80% of the plants in the US were built in the late 60's to the mid 70's. If you think about it, look at an iPhone 4 and it's just sort of taken for granted. That thing would be some major outer space kinda shit in 1975. I mean seriously, what was then a super computer now fits in your pocket and takes phone calls as well as shows you boobs on the internet.
If such a device can exist and is readily available and affordable, why haven't our super genius scientists figured out how to put together a powerplant that's ten million times more effective/safe/easy to manage/etc...
 
That's because there's only one way to make a steam turbine spin copper wire: by making steam. The only "breakthroughs" are more sophisticated fail-safes. Reactions, generation, and waste are virtually the same. What you seem to be looking for is nuclear fusion, not nuclear fission.

But yeah, there's no point to tihs thread because spinning turbines with steam is how all electricity is produced, the difference is in what's used to vaporize the water.

edit: Now I'm curious, what "technology" do you think should've changed?
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']What is the point of this thread exactly?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='nasum']If such a device can exist and is readily available and affordable, why haven't our super genius scientists figured out how to put together a powerplant that's ten million times more effective/safe/easy to manage/etc...[/QUOTE].
 
Because the OP thinks there is an overnight solution to this situation and comparing it to the Iphone 4. Talk about having your head stuck in a bucket.

It's easier to create a nuclear bomb than to keep a nuclear reactor under control.

Everyone is freaking out about nuclear power plants right now. There are other types of power sources we are developing but they are still in theoretical stage/testing stage because of the limits on technology.

Once one of the reactors go critical in Japan...major public opinion will be shifted away from using nuclear tech.

Instead of nuclear tech, the world will be more dependent on fossil fuels. That's the bigger problem there. Remember it takes oil and other resources to produce the materials to build a nuclear plant.

You might want to think of the LONG TERM effects of a meltdown and the effects the radiation will bring if it is carried to other countries by the winds. I do not believe the radiation will weaken by the time it hits the west coast of the US. It's going somewhere right?
 
He did a ninja edit, Spanky.

But to answer that question: production of nuclear material is VERY regulated and there is no way we can actively stop nuclear material from not being radioactive. Disposal for the most hazardous materials is no more advanced than digging a deep hole and burying it in the hopes that no one will dig it up in the next 5000 years.

edit: What ITDEFX said. Decontamination is also multi-decade and extremely expensive process. If somehow the Hoover Dam exploded, all you'd deal with is the flooding. After the clean up, you could move back in. This is not the case for Chernobyl.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I honestly can't believe someone would compare creating nuclear power to making an Iphone 4. Two very different things.[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the vs. forum! Where conservative arguments have the nuance of Kraft mac'n'cheese and the reasoning of belligerent children.:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='nasum']Sure why not, it's definitely coming up in MN right now (we have two plants about 40 miles away from the Twin Cities in either direction) as there is a vote on lifting the moratorium on building more. Then we get the earthquake in Japan that is causing a potential meltdown in one of the reactor cores.

What really gets me is that this technology seemingly hasn't changed in 30-50 years. I think 80% of the plants in the US were built in the late 60's to the mid 70's. If you think about it, look at an iPhone 4 and it's just sort of taken for granted. That thing would be some major outer space kinda shit in 1975. I mean seriously, what was then a super computer now fits in your pocket and takes phone calls as well as shows you boobs on the internet.
If such a device can exist and is readily available and affordable, why haven't our super genius scientists figured out how to put together a powerplant that's ten million times more effective/safe/easy to manage/etc...[/QUOTE]
You do realize that the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant was commissioned in 1971 and the construction on the Fukushima II plant was started in 1976, right?

They didn't build it them four years ago or anything. And as others have said you're talking about two completely different things (Iphone4 production vs nuclear fission).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unless the Iphone 4 is POWERED BY NUCLEAR ENERGY!!! :hot::hot::hot:

Can you imagine all the Iphones in the world melting down all at once?
 
Now the funny part about the OP is that the basic premise is a fallacy. Nuclear power technology *has* advanced far beyond what is in use in the US at places like 3 Mile Island. For example, in Europe, they can actually "re-use" the uranium fuel (that is to say, they perform fission on an atom more than once). There are other advances in safety that would require almost an entire teardown of our current reactors to implement.

The problem is, our current laws dont really allow for new reactors. There is some allowable amount of retro-fitting, but it would be more cost-effective to just build new. The NIMBY mentality prevents new reactors from coming online. I'm absolutely for *more* nuclear power. Partially, that may be a bias coming from the state with the highest percentage of their power supplied by nuclear tech (Illinois). I was so hoping that Pres. Obama being from there that he would eventually get behind that too. At least those would be jobs that couldn't be outsourced ;).
 
based on the disaster, we have a fair amount of internet nuclear engineers/

but seriously, i think people need to be more informed of what nuclear technology is. people are buying iodine tablets in vancouver and all over the west coast of the US, which is a freakin' joke.

i think that only then, we can really make an informed opinion. of course, that's asking a lot. short of taking nuclear physics at a university, which is beyond the level of most american citizens, there is no real way to understand it. the only thing you can do is trust in politicians and scientists, which obviously won't go over well.
 
You're going to find out very quickly that "alternative" and "clean" energy sources shutting down during a time when we need the power the most.

There was a period of several weeks this winter where Électricité de France, the French nuclear electric power generating firm, was simultaneously having to sell its nuclear electric power to the UK, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark.

It was getting to the point where the French grid authority was beginning to warn that one or more of those customers was going to have to be cut off to tend to France's own energy needs.

Why were those countries consuming nuclear power so avidly?

Because they've become increasingly reliant on wind power in the last few years, and have found out the hard way that when the demand for power is at its highest (dark winter nights with Arctic cold), their windfarms are often totally useless. Either because the wind farms are becalmed, the most frequent problem, or because the turbines are disabled by icing.

Nuclear to the rescue! And a good thing, too. If those countries had been forced to rely on wind, it would have resulted in a severe humanitarian and economic crunch.

Let's also note that the Japanese plants which went off-line and stayed off-line after the quake and tsunami were old technology designs (from the early 1960s!). Newer generation nuclear plants would have come back up onto the grid almost immediately.

And of course the troubles at Fukushima, where the external cooling systems were crippled by the tsunami, wouldn't have been an issue at all for a modern reactor. Such modern designs don't require external cooling.
 
Yeah, and where are those flying cars? I mean we have pocket computers now, why can't we have Jetson style flying cars?

Scientific laws are laws for a reason, no matter the advances in technology, nuclear power will always have risks.
 
[quote name='Clak']Scientific laws are laws for a reason, no matter the advances in technology, nuclear power will always have risks.[/QUOTE]

I'll take the three accidents in nuclear power's history over the continued pollution from coal and petroleum, and the massive inefficiency of wind/solar.

That said, I'm not a fan of the massive subsidization of the nuclear industry. On top of that, if an accident were to ensue, taxpayers would be on the hook. Remove those, and I'm on board for tripling our nuclear energy output.
 
I didn't mean that as slight against nuclear power. Just trying to point out that no amount of technological advance is going to change the fundamental risks.
 
There is no better source of energy than wind and the sun. It is sustainable, clean, and omnipresent.

Technology hasn't quite made it what it could be yet, but why is that? Maybe there are parties so very interested in the proliferation and continuation of our addiction to oil that energy source startups get stiffled before they're given the chance.

As an evironmentalist (Sierra club member, but thats about it) I'm torn about nuclear energy. I know I just got a letter from them asking me to sign a petition against nuclear energy, so I know Sierra club's position but am not well researched enough to know the "why" behind it.

Nuke energy seems clean, a hell of a lot cleaner than coal or oil. Still, as a former resident of Goldsboro I understand the dangers too.
 
The problem is what to do with the waste. The best you can do is bury it and hope it doesn't get uncovered. Of course nobody wants it near them, with good reason. It isn't really clean at all, it just doesn't pollute the atmosphere so long as everything is working as it should. And when it doesn't work as it should, well yeah.
 
[quote name='62t']You're going to find out very quickly that "alternative" and "clean" energy sources shutting down during a time when we need the power the most.

There was a period of several weeks this winter where Électricité de France, the French nuclear electric power generating firm, was simultaneously having to sell its nuclear electric power to the UK, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark.

It was getting to the point where the French grid authority was beginning to warn that one or more of those customers was going to have to be cut off to tend to France's own energy needs.

Why were those countries consuming nuclear power so avidly?

Because they've become increasingly reliant on wind power in the last few years, and have found out the hard way that when the demand for power is at its highest (dark winter nights with Arctic cold), their windfarms are often totally useless. Either because the wind farms are becalmed, the most frequent problem, or because the turbines are disabled by icing.

Nuclear to the rescue! And a good thing, too. If those countries had been forced to rely on wind, it would have resulted in a severe humanitarian and economic crunch.

Let's also note that the Japanese plants which went off-line and stayed off-line after the quake and tsunami were old technology designs (from the early 1960s!). Newer generation nuclear plants would have come back up onto the grid almost immediately.

And of course the troubles at Fukushima, where the external cooling systems were crippled by the tsunami, wouldn't have been an issue at all for a modern reactor. Such modern designs don't require external cooling.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I have an idea! How about we not rely on just 1 source of green energy like just wind and just solar, but instead, use as many green sources as possible so we're not stuck in case one doesn't have the needed energy output?

And yeah, nuclear energy is great once it you start using it! But it also isn't cheap OR clean to produce the materials needed and dispose of it after it's done.

[quote name='pittpizza']There is no better source of energy than wind and the sun. It is sustainable, clean, and omnipresent.

Technology hasn't quite made it what it could be yet, but why is that? Maybe there are parties so very interested in the proliferation and continuation of our addiction to oil that energy source startups get stiffled before they're given the chance.

As an evironmentalist (Sierra club member, but thats about it) I'm torn about nuclear energy. I know I just got a letter from them asking me to sign a petition against nuclear energy, so I know Sierra club's position but am not well researched enough to know the "why" behind it.

Nuke energy seems clean, a hell of a lot cleaner than coal or oil. Still, as a former resident of Goldsboro I understand the dangers too.[/QUOTE]
There's been concerted efforts from oil companies from the beginning to stiffle alternative energy. Hell, just look at all the lobbying to open up more oil digging. It's frickin insane.
 
Wow, so comparing the advancement of technology over the past 40 years means I think iPhones can create nuclear energy?
fuck me, just crown me the greatest internet troll ever if that's what you really think I was getting at.

How is pondering a lack of progress in energy in general a conservative argument? I know, let's melt black people to create the heat that spins the turbine! Now it's a racial issue too! I'm just firing on all cylinders right now aren't I?

"Hey, I have an idea! How about we not rely on just 1 source of green energy like just wind and just solar, but instead, use as many green sources as possible so we're not stuck in case one doesn't have the needed energy output"

This is where we should be heading, plus geothermal which is hugely underused and research is even more underfunded I would imagine.
 
Energy companies have been suppressing green technology via lobby for decades.

Decentralized power sourcing is the best solution for what is going on. Either point of use generation (solar) or another, smaller production facility. Such decentralization would also prevent large-scale grid shutdowns from accidents (see 2003 blackouts) to vandalism or war.

There is no doubt in my mind that nuclear energy is convenient in the short term. The potential for disaster is too great in my opinion and even worse yet is the waste storage problem. Another huge issue is the whole "nuclear now, green later" mindset that prevails in Washington. We're putting off the inevitable, either we stifle the growing demand for power or we eventually build a crap ton of nuclear plants.

I think a great way to start conserving energy is through higher taxes on businesses that leave their lights on and PCs running overnight with no use (almost all retail stores I've worked in). Another idea might be short, rolling blackouts for civilian/nonessential buildings that occur daily.
 
how does taxes fix that? aren't they already basically paying a penalty in higer electric bills? the all important bottom line is already affected.
 
[quote name='nasum']Wow, so comparing the advancement of technology over the past 40 years means I think iPhones can create nuclear energy?[/QUOTE]
Never really can be too sure with you. No offense intended, naturally.
 
[quote name='nasum']how does taxes fix that? aren't they already basically paying a penalty in higer electric bills? the all important bottom line is already affected.[/QUOTE]

Electricity is cheap. There is no penalty for wasting a ton of it.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']Never really can be too sure with you. No offense intended, naturally.[/QUOTE]

yeah I make some pretty ridiculous jokes, but I'd hope that'd be obvious
 
Talk is that the government is going to nationalize TEPCO because they're inept shitheads and the government is more concerned about the people and the environment than trying to salvage capital. If only other governments felt that way..
 
fools, the only way to save anything is for the free market to handle it! They're all gonna die when the radiation leaks into the ocean and Gojira comes for them!
 
[quote name='nasum']Wow, so comparing the advancement of technology over the past 40 years means I think iPhones can create nuclear energy?[/QUOTE]

Is there not an app for that?





edit: Just for fun I googled "nuclear iphone" and found this. :rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top