|
blowfish posted:Oh I forgot that was Jacobson. It's the energy equivalent of having a strict creationist as professor emeritus of evolutionary biology. I just need to make a paper showing how using solar power to create death rays = more CO2 production.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
blowfish posted:Oh I forgot that was Jacobson. Is he a known quantity then? I was only on the ball with this one because the exact same paper showed up in the UK megathread last month.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Pander posted:I just need to make a paper showing how using solar power to create death rays = more CO2 production. Decomposing bodies release carbon dioxide, and people who are dead due to having been killed by solar death rays tend to decompose! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Is he a known quantity then? I was only on the ball with this one because the exact same paper showed up in the UK megathread last month. Well he came up with the "nuclear power = nuclear war = more CO2  " thing. Shortly after Fukushima he wrote a much less crazy anti-nuclear paper (note that this was after he published the aforementioned nonsense), in which he applied an atmospheric model to simulate the spread of radioactive contamination from Fukushima and came up with something like 700 (100-2000 in the 95%? confidence interval) deaths using linear no threshold. There are, of course, things in the paper you can disagree with like the choice of the particular atmospheric model, the use of linear no threshold, and accusations of scaremongering by some pro-nuke people for modelling exactly the same release in in some US flyover state. However, I'd call that a sane higher estimate of potential radiation damage when compared to hilarious "sloppy statistics misattributed a million post Soviet collapse deaths" crap (though obviously I would still consider it an overestimate myself). In addition he gives the occasional talk or Ted talk on renewables and how nuclear is bad. e: google tells me he did a 2030 renewables scenario five years ago 
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:49
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Speaking of weapons, there's a lot of effort in the form of political initiative to destroy weapons-grade material in commercial nuclear power plants. This is another window people can peak through to better understand what the political landscape looks like when it comes to nuclear energy in the foreseeable future. To start, the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) being built in the US by Shaw Areva has effectively been mothballed. The entire purpose of the facility was to fabricate uranium-MOX fuels composed of weapons-usable plutonium as the fuel isotope, in hopes of destroying the plutonium in commercial nuclear power plants. The UK tried to do this as well but it proved to be too expensive for both the fabrication of the fuel and its use in conventional power plants. A slight shift in priorities was enough to freeze plans for trying the same thing in the US: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-US-MOX-plant-left-cold-by-budget-0503147.html The MFFF was part of a bilateral agreement with Russia to help destroy stockpiles of weapons-grade and weapons-usable plutonium. The Russians are apparently several hundred steps ahead of the US since not only do they already have MOX-producing capability, they also finished construction of another commercial 789 MWe sodium-cooled fast-reactor to go along with their other 600 MWe unit on-site. The new reactor is currently being loaded with fuel and should go critical some time in May. This is another one of those "Yeah maybe in the next 30 years" pipeline reactors so I'm kind of excited to see how it's going to work: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Fuel-loading-begins-at-fast-reactor-0302147.html While the on-site BN-600 uses 17-25% enriched uranium as fuel, the Russians plan to use this new BN-800 unit to burn uranium-plutonium MOX fuels instead. More importantly, they hope to gain some much-needed information on how a closed-loop plutonium fuel-cycle would work. The reactor is supposedly capable of plutonium breeding where the only fuel required, after an internal stockpile of reactor-grade plutonium is bred, will be natural uranium. And unlike a CANDU system, it could go even further than that by taking in pure U-238 completely devoid of U-235 from uranium enrichment for fuel, and also burn any long-lived actinides added into it. All this stuff is theoretically possible with the design, but the real question is what the effects on performance will be for these types of operations, and what other things could be learned for future commercial designs. Wikipedia has a bit of a blurb about the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beloyarsk_Nuclear_Power_Station Of course, it wouldn't be a nuclear power plant without numerous incidents and protests and such, even in Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Wikipedia posted:As with most Russian nuclear power plants, the station lacks a containment building. Could someone who knows more about nuclear power plants explain the logistics of this, because this does not sound like a good idea. blowfish posted:Well he came up with the "nuclear power = nuclear war = more CO2 At least he didn't use the claim that nuclear power produces similar amounts of greenhouse gas when compared with fossil fuels, which is one that I've seen multiple times. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Could someone who knows more about nuclear power plants explain the logistics of this, because this does not sound like a good idea It was a cost-saving measure enacted during the 1950s by the USSR in their RBMK design. The basic idea was that a containment building was unnecessary so long as the technicians were monitoring the reactor adequately. Only a third of Russia's reactors are still the old RBMK types, while the rest are newer designs that do have containment structures, so that assertion on Wikipedia isn't really true any more. The containment building is an emergency fourth level of protection against radiation emission, and not involved in normal operation of the reactor. It should be differentiated from the reactor vessel, which is the third level of protection. The RBMK design didn't use it because it more than doubles the expense of construction and makes it more difficult to refuel and maintain the reactor. Their thinking was they wanted a design that was safe because of its simplicity to operate. But after the Chernobyl accident, which was an RBMK reactor, the USSR updated its standards and retrofitted its existing inventory with partial containment structures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Containment Kaal fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
Six professors from the UC Berkeley nuclear engineering department will be doing an AMA on reddit on March 13 (this coming Thursday) as part of the r/science AMA series. There's no link yet and I will post again when it goes up as a reminder, I just wanted to put it out there in case anyone wanted to put together a good question/questions. According to the FB event these are the professors participating. I've added their specialty in parentheses since I'm personally familiar with all of them: Joonhong Ahn (waste management) Max Fratoni (reactors, neutronics) Rick Norman (nuclear physics/astrophysics) Per Peterson (reactors, thermo, policy) Rachel Slaybaugh (reactors, neutronics, nuclear security) Kai Vetter (radiation detection, nuclear physics/security) Really looking forward to it - should be interesting. If you missed it, some Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear engineers did an AMA a few days ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Phayray posted:
Just read through the Union of Concerned Scientists posts and wow, what's with the quick dismissal of anything not light-water? I expected more of a math looks good lets wait and see kind of answer or so an so has started testing waiting on results. Safe answers with optimism. Not "lack of operating experience with full-scale prototypes is a significant issue" answer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Zelthar posted:Just read through the Union of Concerned Scientists posts and wow, what's with the quick dismissal of anything not light-water? I expected more of a math looks good lets wait and see kind of answer or so an so has started testing waiting on results. Safe answers with optimism. Not "lack of operating experience with full-scale prototypes is a significant issue" answer. Why would there be optimism? UCS hates nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Pander posted:Why would there be optimism? UCS hates nuclear power. Zelthar posted:Just read through the Union of Concerned Scientists posts and wow, what's with the quick dismissal of anything not light-water? I expected more of a math looks good lets wait and see kind of answer or so an so has started testing waiting on results. Safe answers with optimism. Not "lack of operating experience with full-scale prototypes is a significant issue" answer. Sorry, I should have mentioned that UCS are the anti-nuclear nuclear engineers. They're generally better than most anti-nuclear groups but as shown in the AMA, they seem to be against anything that's not a perfect, already-proven improvement of current light water reactor technology. Phayray fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Phayray posted:they seem to be against anything that's not a perfect, already-proven improvement of current light water reactor technology. Where they say that CANDU reactors "have certain safety issues that make them less desirable" one of which is "higher volume of waste". Well, that is true, but the reason is because CANDU fuel bundles are designed to be sub-critical in light water, so they're slightly larger or more voluminous per gram of fuel than light water reactor fuel bundles. What this means is in the event of a problem the cooling loops and core can be flooded with light water and it will automatically make every fuel bundle sub-critical, even in the absence of the control rods, or the gadolinium nitrate injectors (a neutron poison). It also makes wet-storage inherently less complicated. GOOD GOD! That "higher volume" sounds like a safety feature mis-interperited as a flaw.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
ductonius posted:Where they say that CANDU reactors "have certain safety issues that make them less desirable" one of which is "higher volume of waste". Well, it is certainly true that the party line in this thread is that nuclear power CANDU no wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Well, it is certainly true that the party line in this thread is that nuclear power CANDU no wrong. You keep chasing that strawman, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Well, it is certainly true that the party line in this thread is that nuclear power CANDU no wrong. Nope, nobody is saying that and your posting is consistently bad because you cannot seem to comprehend posts  . Nuclear power can do less wrong than the large scale coal power that we have today and is more viable on a mass scale than anything else. Ok, now you post a strawman, Go!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Nuclear power can do less wrong than the large scale coal power that we have today and is more viable on a mass scale than anything else. Ok, now you post a strawman, Go!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:It's ironic that you accuse someone of making strawman arguments while making a strawman argument yourself in the same post (silence_kit did not advocate coal power over nuclear power, yet you implied he did so). It's a poorly-worded argument that, even ignoring the poor wording, is overly simplistic. But it wasn't a strawman. Feral's though? Total strawman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Well, it is certainly true that the party line in this thread is that nuclear power CANDU no wrong. More like "using nuclear power sucks, but not using nuclear power sucks worse"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
Phayray posted:Six professors from the UC Berkeley nuclear engineering department will be doing an AMA on reddit on March 13 (this coming Thursday) as part of the r/science AMA series. There's no link yet and I will post again when it goes up as a reminder, I just wanted to put it out there in case anyone wanted to put together a good question/questions. Questions are live: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/20b7v9/science_ama_series_were_professors_in_the/
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Phayray posted:Questions are live: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/20b7v9/science_ama_series_were_professors_in_the/ This was an awesome read, much better than the Concerned Scientists one from last week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
A friend of mine had a fracking operation start up across the street from his house and had a story written about the experience: http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-12815-fractured-dream.html It's pretty predictable if you're already familiar with fracking, but is keeps amazing me how little effect the traditionally powerful NIMBY complainers have in the face of a massive energy corporation nowadays.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:A friend of mine had a fracking operation start up across the street from his house and had a story written about the experience: I just saw a commercial this morning tell me that safe hydrofracture drilling is safe and clean and safe, so this article must be mistaken, not that I've read it, since it can't be true if it said anything other than hydrofracture drilling is completely safe.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Pander posted:I just saw a commercial this morning tell me that safe hydrofracture drilling is safe and clean and safe, so this article must be mistaken, not that I've read it, since it can't be true if it said anything other than hydrofracture drilling is completely safe. It's mostly concerned with things that aren't the safety questions. That said, the nice thing about hydrofracture drilling is that, in theory, it is safe and (fairly) clean, as long as you cut absolutely no corners and have a really thorough, conscientious geological survey. Guess how often that happens.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Crell posted:This was an awesome read, much better than the Concerned Scientists one from last week. God drat I don't know how to read a reddit. Everything's hidden in a billion trees which then have further trees and I have to manually hunt for all the actual answers?? Am I missing some button that makes things readable and makes sense?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:A friend of mine had a fracking operation start up across the street from his house and had a story written about the experience: Best part is that the home owner is a republican and the county commissioner is saying FYGM.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:God drat I don't know how to read a reddit. Everything's hidden in a billion trees which then have further trees and I have to manually hunt for all the actual answers?? Am I missing some button that makes things readable and makes sense?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:It's mostly concerned with things that aren't the safety questions. That said, the nice thing about hydrofracture drilling is that, in theory, it is safe and (fairly) clean, as long as you cut absolutely no corners and have a really thorough, conscientious geological survey. Yeah, a lot of the issues with fracking are the same issues with drilling gas wells generally. It's just that in the past it's generally gone on far away from civilization so nobody noticed or cared. Fracking makes it possible to exploit a lot of deposits that were unprofitable previously. Many of those sites are now, unfortunately, underneath places where people live.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Yeah, a lot of the issues with fracking are the same issues with drilling gas wells generally. It's just that in the past it's generally gone on far away from civilization so nobody notices or cares. Well clearly they should have bought mineral rights when the moved there too. Vote republican!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
I think this is the thread to post this into. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJwZ9uEpJOo quote:The Dual Carbon Battery developed by Power Japan Plus is balancing the energy storage equation of performance, cost, reliability and safety. Even more, we are cleaning up the dirty reputation of advanced batteries. I've been waiting years for someone to break the chokepoint that is batteries and I really hope this could be one of the best possibilities. I dream of electric cars becoming the norm, mainly because I live in a city and the noise gets on my tits constantly. They made an.....interesting.....choice with the voice over artist, and an even more interesting choice with his pronunciation of "vehicle". Apologies if this has already cropped up in the thread
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Unfortunately we're probably not getting away from car noise anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
That kind of feels like solar roadways - potentially really cool, but not something we can judge based on essentially just marketing material.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
We're never going to get away from car noise anyway, since most of it is road noise rather than engines. Certainly in the UK at least, the gravel/tarmac mix we use makes a very distinctive and loud roaring noise that drowns out all but the most aggressive engines at anything above 30mph. You can only really hear engine noise from anything closer than about 100ft, which is kind of useful for telling the difference between noise from the motorway over a mile away and a car that's on the road right next to you. I can't really see this making any real difference to ambient noise levels in an urban/suburban environment, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
I saw this video on Thorium (it's... not the most visually appealing video) and it has some crazy information in it. Like... U.S. nuclear reactors being extremely inefficient based on Navy technology, who didn't care about efficiency. Also, Nixon killing Thorium research in the 1970s.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
But can my artificial engine noise sound like a 1955 B-movie UFO? Renaissance Robot posted:We're never going to get away from car noise anyway, since most of it is road noise rather than engines. Certainly in the UK at least, the gravel/tarmac mix we use makes a very distinctive and loud roaring noise that drowns out all but the most aggressive engines at anything above 30mph. You can only really hear engine noise from anything closer than about 100ft, which is kind of useful for telling the difference between noise from the motorway over a mile away and a car that's on the road right next to you. Places where cars are going fast aren't where blind people are about to cross the road in the first place though. It's meant to keep things audible in slower areas where people might actually be crossing.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
I actually think that the artificial noise generator is a fairly good idea, particularly since it's also coupled with a reduced noise mandate for gas-engined vehicles. The idea should be to gradually reduce the overall sound impact of cars. Once gas-engined cars are quieter and there's less ambient noise, the noise generators on electric cars can be turned down further since they'll be easier to hear.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:22 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:We're never going to get away from car noise anyway, since most of it is road noise rather than engines. Certainly in the UK at least, the gravel/tarmac mix we use makes a very distinctive and loud roaring noise that drowns out all but the most aggressive engines at anything above 30mph. You can only really hear engine noise from anything closer than about 100ft, which is kind of useful for telling the difference between noise from the motorway over a mile away and a car that's on the road right next to you. I get what you're saying. And it has deflated me. Does anyone know what the feasabilty is like for electric buses and trucks. I used to live next to a bus stop and the noise from those as they pull away is very loud and disturbing. does and electric battery/engine combo exist that could shift a bus around? Plus the great black cloud of fumes the older buses often leave in their wake are very unpleasent too. I do think in urban areas like London where cars aren't really getting up to 30 mph very often, that the tyre noise isn't really as intrusive as engine noise. Or more precisely, exhaust noise. GrumpyDoctor posted:That kind of feels like solar roadways - potentially really cool, but not something we can judge based on essentially just marketing material. from what I have reasearched on these guys since I saw this, the scientists and companies involved seem to be legit, and without a history of making overblown claims they can't back up. But of course at the end of the day it is a marketing video and they are probably looking for investment.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
Just more reasons in my list of reasons to hate the EU. US federal government mandates useful car equipment like reversing cameras. The EU mandates annoying noise makers. Typical.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Just more reasons in my list of reasons to hate the EU. "The hell with the blind!"
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
I thought electric car manufacturers voluntarily installed noise generators anyway? Some drivers prefer an aural response to their actions, ie engine gets louder when they accelerate more.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Making electric cars sound like IC engine cars is dumb. They should sound like the cars in the Jetsons.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 15:23
|
|
