|
Independent of all other considerations, having a functioning fusion reactor would also be dope as hell
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 05:41 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:26 |
Next you're going to tell me they've already done some sort of triple chain to go even further beyond.
|
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 06:48 |
|
Has anyone thought about combining saiyan fusion and namekian fusion?
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 07:01 |
|
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 18:58 |
|
The "for some reason" is that their best success and proudest moment for a lot of the leading lights was successfully mobilizing resistance to nuclear post Chernobyl. They turned out to be completely and utterly wrong on most elements regarding nuclear but just keep doubling down because being considered right the entire time is the point, not actually being right with current knowledge. Same reason why new dams in Australia are such hard work. Franklin River* is a legitimately proud moment for the Australian green moment and their placement needs a lot of care but oooo boy is it an outsize response. * Cliff note version, the state government was going around installing dam after dam for cheap hydro to power industry and the rivers they were damming were absolutely first rate conservation candidates, green movement opposed it and eventually the federal govt got on board and used some clever interpretation of laws to overturn the state govt decision.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 19:28 |
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Okay... Well first of all, I think its clear I was giving your acquaintances the benefit of the doubt and assuming what you relayed is 100% accurate; but if we're going to be pulling teeth here for no reason at all; (1) Anecdotal evidence is at best a kind of hearsay which is at best a 'kind of evidence'; (2) I have no evidence that what you said is an accurate representation of what your friends said, or what they believe; it could've been garbled in a game of telephone. (3) Even if what you conveyed was an accurate word for word transcription it still might not be an accurate representation of what they believe in their heart of hearts, so I feel it is perfectly reasonable for me to for the purposes of conversation and for the sake of the argument, the best possible interpretation benefit of the doubt version of the argument your friends are actually making. Because that's more interesting to discuss than the worst version of what they're saying. I don't even know if an experienced parody author could do a better job than this. Maybe Terry Pratchett could've pulled this off.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 20:58 |
|
My understanding is that a lot of green movements have their roots in the nuclear disarmament movements. I have no problem with nuclear disarmament (although I don’t expect that genie to ever go back in the bottle) but it’s just stupid to equate any nuclear technology, including medical radioisotopes, with nuclear weapons.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 20:59 |
|
Are there actually any political movements that target medical isotope generation and/or use in their platform? I ask out of genuine fascination.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 21:05 |
|
Potato Salad posted:I don't even know if an experienced parody author could do a better job than this. Maybe there's just a complete breakdown in the communication here, but I don't think this post of yours does anything to help resolve it. Is there something about what I'm saying you're actually either (a) Not sure what I mean, not in my last post in particular but during this conversation overall; in which case can you ask me to clarify what specifically you're not understanding; or (b) Is there something specifically that you disagree with, in which case can you first at least clarify what you think my position is that you disagree with so I can clarify if that was my meaning or not. Or (c) I guess we could just drop it if trying to figure out what we're actually saying to each other is just intractible at this point? Because I don't think either of us really has any idea of what's happening at this point if this is what it comes down to?
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 21:24 |
|
Potato Salad posted:Are there actually any political movements that target medical isotope generation and/or use in their platform? I ask out of genuine fascination. Australian Greens want the Lucas Heights reactor shut down and medical isotopes produced by particle accelerator only.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 21:27 |
|
some what related, there's tom scott video about how a university nuclear med. dept delivers atoms with a bank air pipe system to a nearby hospital because driving is too slow.(10 mins on a good day) thats neat.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 21:39 |
|
There's a quantum entanglement joke in there somewhere but I'm uncertain until someone makes it.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 21:42 |
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There's a quantum entanglement joke in there somewhere but I'm uncertain until someone makes it. Don't worry about it, the joke collapsed into an awful punchline when a goon told it.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 21:52 |
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Maybe there's just a complete breakdown in the communication here, but I don't think this post of yours does anything to help resolve it. Is there something about what I'm saying you're actually either (a) Not sure what I mean, not in my last post in particular but during this conversation overall; in which case can you ask me to clarify what specifically you're not understanding; or (b) Is there something specifically that you disagree with, in which case can you first at least clarify what you think my position is that you disagree with so I can clarify if that was my meaning or not. Or (c) I guess we could just drop it if trying to figure out what we're actually saying to each other is just intractible at this point? *points at your custom avatar*
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 22:12 |
|
MooselanderII posted:*points at your custom avatar* But I am very clearly asking for clarification and not asserting confidence? Or are you saying I SHOULD just assert 100% confidence? I'm not sure what you're indicating here.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2022 22:18 |
|
Paywall but the blurb says it, 5 reactors back online in France this week. Hopefully things continues at this pace: https://www.wsj.com/articles/frances-restart-of-nuclear-reactors-eases-blackout-fears-11671102996
|
# ? Dec 16, 2022 08:33 |
At how many are they now? And how much of capacity? Another article mentioned that they are now at the highest level since March, but didn't say anything about how far away they are from normal levels.
|
|
# ? Dec 16, 2022 11:21 |
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Paywall but the blurb says it, 5 reactors back online in France this week. Hopefully things continues at this pace: Yeah looks like they're up to 42GW now, basically the same output as last December, though I think the peak in recent years was around 50. Someone posted a link to all the plant maintenance and outage data but I couldn't really figure it out lol. Anyway yeah there's still some installed capacity they should fix up.
|
# ? Dec 16, 2022 11:23 |
|
Let’s check in with France’s flagship new reactor project. https://www.barrons.com/news/new-delay-cost-overrun-for-france-s-next-gen-nuclear-plant-01671212709
|
# ? Dec 17, 2022 15:34 |
|
From what I can tell without knowing any of the details it seems like the issues with these new nuclear plants are issues with existing proven technology. Pumps and welding pipe together aren't anything too special other than the extremely high level of QC if it will be used/done for a nuclear plant. Are the operating temperatures or pressures of these newer safer designs that much more or is there some other detail I'm missing?
|
# ? Dec 17, 2022 18:33 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDXXWQxK38 Is this actually legit?
|
# ? Dec 17, 2022 18:59 |
|
devicenull posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDXXWQxK38 Maybe? Somebody did a writeup here or in the nuclear reactor thread in the last few pages that discussed Helion. All fusion news coverage is wildly overstated so grain of salt, etc.
|
# ? Dec 17, 2022 19:05 |
|
in a well actually posted:Maybe? Somebody did a writeup here or in the nuclear reactor thread in the last few pages that discussed Helion. I think you're referring to this one. cant cook creole bream posted:
That video certainly sums it up better than I could. I am not a plasma scientist with specialization in magnet confinement and ion induction, (IANAPSSMCII) so I can't tell if there are scientific holes in the process. But the current reactor produces some fusion, so the underlining principles seem to be sound. The question is if the upscaled reactor model is actually big enough to rise the amount of fusion to a level where it's net-positive and if they can do the upscaling without making the plasma unstable, so it doesn't fizzle out. Also I guess they have to make certain that the more frequent pulses don't break it down on an engineering level. Let's see what actually happens in 2024. I will continue to follow them. Regardless if you believe anything Helion is claiming, it's a well produced video. They actually go well into the details of the energy math for each reaction variant. cant cook creole bream fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Dec 17, 2022 |
# ? Dec 17, 2022 19:22 |
|
Re: Helion They talk about the plans for generating energy, but I'm very much in the 'until I see it' boat. The timing of this smells of building up visibility/value for a funding round. Most importantly, we should be building what we can (solar, wind, even crappy battery storage) not waiting for some future miracle cure for our climate related energy ills.
|
# ? Dec 19, 2022 05:54 |
|
EoRaptor posted:Re: Helion 100% yeah, but I doubt they're going to be taking any money from actual commercial energy projects so it's basically fine.
|
# ? Dec 19, 2022 06:48 |
|
We should be funding *everything* and seeing what sticks in a sustained fashion. Fusion presents various advantages over Fission, which has advantages over Natural Gas and other forms of baseline power generation, it arguably even has advantages over hydro; you'd need only a fraction of the safety regulations for fusion compared to fission. It's also great for space travel/exploration/science; fission reactors also provide various medical and other benefits, maybe fusion can as well.
|
# ? Dec 19, 2022 06:50 |
|
Raenir Salazar posted:We should be funding *everything* and seeing what sticks in a sustained fashion. Fusion presents various advantages over Fission, which has advantages over Natural Gas and other forms of baseline power generation, it arguably even has advantages over hydro; you'd need only a fraction of the safety regulations for fusion compared to fission. It's also great for space travel/exploration/science; fission reactors also provide various medical and other benefits, maybe fusion can as well. Hydro is one of the things that needs to go the way of the dodo, we only tolerate it out of lack of something remotely equivalent in properties (dispatchable, cheap, low carbon, non-nuclear power). It wrecks a lot of the environment (both within the basin and in terms of changed ecosystems of the entire river system) and is orders of magnitude less safe than fission nuclear. I'm not sure how fusion will end up being that much better unless we have need for absolutely humongous point sources of power or unless there is a way that the irradiated cladding and the like only contain radioactive particles with very short (single digit seconds) or very long (1k's of years) half-lives. Agreed that funding multiple avenues of energy generation and not just what works now. If we only funded what already worked, we would have abandoned a lot of large scale solar and wind funding (and requisite battery) for nuclear two decades ago!
|
# ? Dec 19, 2022 08:15 |
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Hydro is one of the things that needs to go the way of the dodo, we only tolerate it out of lack of something remotely equivalent in properties (dispatchable, cheap, low carbon, non-nuclear power). It wrecks a lot of the environment (both within the basin and in terms of changed ecosystems of the entire river system) and is orders of magnitude less safe than fission nuclear. We might be able to get rid of some dams if we banned hydroelectricity but we mostly build them for other reasons - only 3% of dams are hydroelectric. Since we build dams anyway we might as well stick turbines in them. Getting rid of dams would undeniably be great for natural ecosystems but it would require people living along rivers deal with natural seasonal flooding and finding other ways to manage water resources for irrigation and human use. We may as well also point out that transitioning agriculture to high intensity hydroponics, so we could turn farmland back into natural habitat, would be great for natural ecosystems. It's similar in that it's technically doable, incredibly expensive and beneficial to the environment.
|
# ? Dec 19, 2022 11:14 |
|
Yeah to be clear wasn't saying hydrodams were universally bad, only that if we had the choice between what we need for energy generation something like a fusion plant is better because then we don't need to build a new hydrodam, potentially displacing communities and affecting fragile ecosystems. It's a good point we definitely don't want to tear down dams or not build dams that serve other useful utility purposes for humans like moderating flood seasons and so on. Electric Wrigglies posted:Hydro is one of the things that needs to go the way of the dodo, we only tolerate it out of lack of something remotely equivalent in properties (dispatchable, cheap, low carbon, non-nuclear power). It wrecks a lot of the environment (both within the basin and in terms of changed ecosystems of the entire river system) and is orders of magnitude less safe than fission nuclear. My assumption is a Nth-generation commercial fusion plant is probably smaller than a comparable fission plant not accounting for things like research purposes and handwaving the transitional period/process of gradually building better and more streamlined fusion plants (with the initial ones presumably being very large because of the need to still carry out research, theoretical and engineering experiments). So they would be in theory, capable of essentially replacing coal and natural gas plants; either built over decommissioned plants or in similar locations to coal/oil/gas plants. As for the radioactive cladding everything I've seen online with quick googling suggests its overall better than the waste from fission reactors? At a minimum this is still a big question mark that will heavily depend on what we actually decide to use as the reactor shielding; its entirely possible that it becomes a solved problem when we get to the point where we're deliberating the mass production of fusion reactors.
|
# ? Dec 19, 2022 21:19 |
|
I never once conceptualized that fusion power might end up with power stations smaller than the current fission ones - and considering the tech does not even exist so anything may be possible - it is amazingly narrow minded of me. Also, yeah, was too strong on the dam comment, their use will trend towards more control, not going away altogether. Dams and their management have quite a large risk profile, which considering the trend towards reduced appetite for risk, makes them harder to motivate. On trends, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-21/solar-projects-blocked-country-nsw-visual-impacts/101796444 is more and more coming to renewables. This implies a public consultation period which aside from consuming money and time in its own right, are generally easily extendable and allow for challenges later on. Eg, someone challenges on the basis that someone was not consulted after the capital has been raised, court will delay the project in the interests of abundance of caution, incurring finance costs not originally expected for the project which might make it fall over altogether or at least has its economics stuffed. This on top of the world-wide reduction in trade openness, opposition to just in time practices and other blips on the international mfg landscape, I would not be surprised if the run of solar project cost decreases are over and they start to trend upwards.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2022 11:19 |
A potentially enlightening article on the ways state-level power supply regulatory oversight is manipulated; I'll eventually work it up for network effect post in the media lit thread. https://www.npr.org/2022/12/19/1143753129/power-companies-florida-alabama-media-investigation-consulting-firm quote:Yellowhammer News and Alabama Political Reporter offer clashing ideologies - one hardline conservative, the other centrist - and appear simply to be competitors. Owners of the two sites separately defend their coverage, saying they are independent news outlets. These quotes are only up to the halfway point of the story. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Dec 21, 2022 |
|
# ? Dec 21, 2022 22:33 |
|
Germans angry and dissapointed at getting what they voted for, google translated.quote:https://svenska.yle.fi/a/7-10025040 Oh dear, oh well, so sad.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2022 09:23 |
|
quote:- Going back to nuclear power is something I will not discuss as long as we in Germany do not discuss how we can reduce electricity consumption, says Mara Sauer. According to her, it is mainly in industry that these savings must take place. Is what you are mainly arguing against when talking about nuclear. Takes that have their roots in wishing there was less poor people to supply electricity or standard of living to. All the rubbish about cost of nuclear, storing a few kt of waste, capitalism is the enemy, wont someone think of the warm water in the river, the O+G made me picket the reactor is all a fig leaf for a lot of the green movement being anti-people. Electric cars and electrifying transport alone mean that the electricity production in Germany has to scale up, not down. To be fair, one of the most effective methods for suppressing nuclear is asking the question; Do you want nuclear; Yes/No Do you want wind farms spoiling your view; Yes/No Do you want coal with climate change: Yes/No Etc, Rather than; Do you want (pick as many as you want, impact of multiple selection reducing negative impact of each individual selection); coal with its climate change, wind farms with the extra x number of deaths a year and spoiled views, water dams with risk of multi thousand deaths, nuclear with its large up-front cost, etc. Asking as an individual question is asking whether you want the negative and saying "no" implies you don't have to have any negative.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2022 10:45 |
His Divine Shadow posted:Germans angry and dissapointed at getting what they voted for, google translated. In exchange for all of that, more coal will be extracted in the time range up to 2030 (but still overall less than had been agreed to in the last agreement).
|
|
# ? Dec 29, 2022 11:11 |
|
Lol at that nuclear quote. Supposedly they've earmarked almost half a trillion EUR for various bailouts and subsidies: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-half-a-trillion-dollar-energy-bazooka-may-not-be-enough-2022-12-15/ Even at the rates of the disaster of a project that was OL3, that would've been enough to build around 40 1.6GW units like that, assuming nobody eventually figures out how to make them more effectively. That would cover electricity needs entirely.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2022 11:40 |
|
mobby_6kl posted:Lol at that nuclear quote. Supposedly they've earmarked almost half a trillion EUR for various bailouts and subsidies: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-half-a-trillion-dollar-energy-bazooka-may-not-be-enough-2022-12-15/ At the time of the last election the competing proposal was to take all that money and pay it directly to the investment banks, the true victims. And under no circumstances ever to invest into any infrastructure, including power plants. The movement withing the green party towards accepting nuclear is more likely to lead to a new NPP, then the movement within the CDU against austerity.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2022 12:40 |
|
I was looking at the French power production and now they are back to exporting power and curtailing nuclear production. I assume a lot of coal power in Germany is online though still, what mechanisms are there to curtail cross boarder coal generation prior to nuclear generation? I mean other than physical interconnectors.VictualSquid posted:At the time of the last election the competing proposal was to take all that money and pay it directly to the investment banks, the true victims. And under no circumstances ever to invest into any infrastructure, including power plants. ok, there is definitely an eat the rich argument to be made there but plans on eating the rich don't have to stop us insisting the greens get on board for the climate, considering they are the ones that self-declare as the only people that care. Also, if nuclear was not at such risk activism wise, I am sure CDU types would be all on board. They are investments with a massive barrier of entry of needing large capital. You try and find somewhere to park 500 billion euros with a 5 or 10% return on investment for 60 years.
|
# ? Dec 30, 2022 11:53 |
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I was looking at the French power production and now they are back to exporting power and curtailing nuclear production. I assume a lot of coal power in Germany is online though still, what mechanisms are there to curtail cross boarder coal generation prior to nuclear generation? I mean other than physical interconnectors. (Coal is brown, wind is.. greenish?) I don't know of any mechanism that would encourage them to turn off coal completely and pay France for nukes, but there should be. Otherwise they'll just keep burning coal while nukes are idling because coal works out to be 1EUR cheaper per MWh.
|
# ? Dec 30, 2022 12:32 |
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I was looking at the French power production and now they are back to exporting power and curtailing nuclear production. I assume a lot of coal power in Germany is online though still, what mechanisms are there to curtail cross boarder coal generation prior to nuclear generation? I mean other than physical interconnectors. Well those interconnection cost more money then the CDU types are prepared to ever invest into power infrastructure. As in, there was funding to build them set aside, in case we need some french nuclear power for some reason, and the CDU cut that funding. The CDU types are 100% obvious about the fact that they would never invest money into any power plants of any type under any circumstances. Even the subgroup that you get your arguments from is only saying that if the greens never forced people to The lack of new nuclear power plants during the Merkel years comes from Austerity politics. The 2014 shutdown schedule was an attempt at distraction from the other disastrous energy policy decisions, that obviously succeeded with you. And whats more is that anti-nuclear attitudes became an apolitical default opinion. Based on the timing to me it makes more sense to blame the pro-nuclear lobby then the green movement for that, but it is debatable. Anyways, that gave us a new right wing Atomausstieg. Which differed from the green Atomausstieg in that the CDU considered the loss of shareholder profits for the nuclear industry to be the only danger of the Atomausstieg. As that can be solved with bailouts, that means it can proceed much quicker then the green Atomausstieg. Everybody who identified as pro-nuclear in 2014 German agreed that those bailouts solve all problems that they had with the original Atomausstieg. Which you noticed by the lack of pro-nuclear protests, especially among the anti-fossil protests. The nuclear question asked in any German election since 2014 is not pro vs anti nuclear. Is the biggest downside of the Atomausstieg the danger of fossil fuel dependency? Or is the most important danger of the Atomausstieg to the investor profits in the nuclear industry?
|
# ? Dec 31, 2022 12:26 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:26 |
|
Maybe this is just crazy talk, but why does fusion power need to be a continuous source? The technology around setting off a fusion reaction is well understood at this point. And the technology around energy storage is getting better. Is it impossible to use hydrogen bombs underground to (for example) melt a large amount of salt at once, or boil a large amount of water to move it to a higher elevation? The amount of energy that can be generated is so large that the conversion to stored energy wouldn't even need to be particularly efficient.
|
# ? Dec 31, 2022 12:53 |