|
slidebite posted:Germany was phasing out nuclear plants well before that. I remember going to Hanover Fair in 08 (07?) and the German who was with me was telling me about how insane the governments plan was to shutter the nuclear plants... only to buy needed shortfall of power from France and other neighbours.. which was Nuclear Its just the standard 'Not in MY backyard' bullshit.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And yes, there was Fukushima, which was an incredible overreaction considering nothing freaking happened. Well, for certain values of nothing. The plant got wrecked up, there were hydrogen explosions that blew the roof off, people were evacuated, there was contamination, there's an ongoing cleanup, and the plant is being scrapped. It wasn't Chernobyl, but it wasn't exactly TMI either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That's not the point. They chose the dirtier of the two to transition into. Pretty sure that was the plan before Fukushima. CommieGIR posted:nothing freaking happened  I think there is way too much nuclear alarmism in this world, but this a few steps too far in the opposite direction. The IAEA rated it in the same category as Chernobyl and there's still a 20 km radius exclusion zone.Carrying this topic over to more thread related content, a week ago Siemens and Airbus signed an agreement to work together on full and hybrid electric aircraft.  quote:Airbus Group (stock exchange symbol: AIR) and Siemens (stock exchange symbol: SIE) have signed a collaboration agreement in the field of hybrid electric propulsion. In doing so, the Chief Executive Officers (CEO) of both companies, Tom Enders and Joe Kaeser, have launched a major joint project towards the electrification of aviation with the goal of demonstrating the technical feasibility of various hybrid/electric propulsion systems by 2020. Both companies will be making significant contributions into the project and have sourced a team of around 200 employees to advance European leadership in innovation and the development of electrically powered aircraft. http://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/?press=/en/pressrelease/2016/corporate/pr2016040246coen.htm http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/n...7fbe7cfad~.html No idea how a hybric electric airfract is going to work. Jet fuel for boosted takeoff and climb, electric for sustained cruise and descent?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Ola posted:Pretty sure that was the plan before Fukushima. The IAEA was stupid to phrase it like that. Because Fukushima and Chernobyl were nowhere near like each other in any way other than they were both nuclear reactors that melted down. Yes, it needs to be resolved, but the incidents were nowhere near the same level of disaster, in fact the radiation has been overstated and many groups and papers have already shown that the radiation risk isn't even much above background levels unless you are standing right next to the reactor itself. Fukushima is easily a level 5. Its not a level 7. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140482 quote:According to a June 2012 Stanford University study by John Ten Hoeve and Mark Z. Jacobson, the radioactivity released could cause 130 deaths from cancer (the lower bound for the estimater being 15 and the upper bound 1100) and 180 cancer cases (the lower bound being 24 and the upper bound 1800), mostly in Japan. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant was projected to result in 2 to 12 deaths. The radioactivity released was an order of magnitude lower than that released from Chernobyl, and some 80% of the radioactivity from Fukushima was deposited over the Pacific Ocean; preventive actions taken by the Japanese government may have substantially reduced the health impact of the radioactivity release. An additional approximately 600 deaths have been reported due to non-radiological causes such as mandatory evacuations. Evacuation procedures after the accident may have potentially reduced deaths from radiation by 3 to 245 cases, the best estimate being 28; even the upper bound projection of the lives saved from the evacuation is lower than the number of deaths already caused by the evacuation itself.[67] 20,000 people died from the Tsunami. No one has died from the plant meltdown. Anyways, nuclear aircraft. Enjoy.  
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:20,000 people died from the Tsunami. No one has died from the plant meltdown. Clearly, the lesson we should have taken was "Abolish hydroelectric power."
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Is that the NB-36's reactor? Where is that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
My brother-in-law traveled to the Fukushima area last fall as a part of his masters thesis in power engineering, and concluded that while the radiation issues were mostly insignificant, there were a lot of very real socioeconomic and psychological problems in the area because of stigmatization and fear. Lots of farmers losing their income because nobody wants to buy anything from the area, people getting into depressions for all kinds of reasons, a lot of that stuff. The problems caused by the Fukushima incident are kinda like a psychosomatic disorder: the problems are real, but you can't treat them with ordinary means because they are caused by mind, not physical issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Is that the NB-36's reactor? Where is that? No, that is the NHTR-3 and one other reactor. I am unsure what happened to NB-36s reactor
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Ola posted:Not enough nuclear in Germany to simply quit coal. And then there was Fukushima, which I think they overreacted to. Anyway, if I remember the numbers right, the % of renewable energy now is bigger than the % of nuclear was in 2010. That's only because old forests are considered a renewable energy souce. Something like 40% of Germany's non-fossil-fuel power comes from burning wood. Energiewende has been an environmental disaster, across the board. http://www.economist.com/news/business/21575771-environmental-lunacy-europe-fuel-future
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's only because old forests are considered a renewable energy souce. Something like 40% of Germany's non-fossil-fuel power comes from burning wood. Energiewende has been an environmental disaster, across the board. Yeah, it's been thoroughly embarrassing to watch Germany's energy slide, no matter their gains on renewables.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Ola posted:No idea how a hybric electric airfract is going to work. Jet fuel for boosted takeoff and climb, electric for sustained cruise and descent? Electric boosted takeoff, all turbine for sustained cruise? You could probably get away with smaller and more efficient engines that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Reminder: if you want green flight, the best way to do it is with a hydrogen fuel cell on an airship 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Reminder: if you want green flight, the best way to do it is with a hydrogen fuel cell on an airship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq-N3_plNq8
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Always the right response quote:It's helium. What are you not getting about this?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Is that the NB-36's reactor? Where is that? It's on display at the site of a decomissioned research breeder reactor (along with a second reactor intended for airplane use) about 18 miles south of Arco, Idaho.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Maybe a hybrid-electric aircraft would be like an aero-Volt. Short all-battery range, with a small gas turbine to run a generator for longer flights if needed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Maybe a hybrid-electric aircraft would be like an aero-Volt. Short all-battery range, with a small gas turbine to run a generator for longer flights if needed. You know how there's been a boom in peaking natural gas generators due to the low cost of gas? Many of those are literally 747 engines. You have this rear end backwards - generating electricity with the turbines would be a massive reduction in efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Airship. Use a hydrogen fuel cell, you can have a big sausage of uncompressed hydrogen flying along with you. Electricity runs the airship's engines. No pollution. All of this technology exists right now and is not moon technology. Job done*  *does not apply to places with cold temperatures unless we keep the cell-room permanently heated. Maybe we could surround the room with water heated to a certain temp (say 30 degrees) as a heatsink? **Oh, and you have to beware severe weather systems in a way you don't in other aircraft types because you can't overfly/outrun them
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You know how there's been a boom in peaking natural gas generators due to the low cost of gas? Many of those are literally 747 engines. You have this rear end backwards - generating electricity with the turbines would be a massive reduction in efficiency. Maybe, but I suspect it would probably at least break even with more efficient ground generators once you factor in transmission losses, an extra electrical->chemical->electrical conversion from charging the battteries, the extra weight of dragging a large battery pack around, etc. or maybe not, i'm not claiming to be an expert, it just seems intuitive to me. batteries are still nowhere near the energy density of hydrocarbons, but idk how big a gas turbine you'd need to make it worthwhile so maybe it would offset the benefits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Don't stop, I'm almost there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
It's like it's some alternate timeline where people didn't fear nuclear poo poo and you'd find one that looks like this on the sides of buildings. Commonplace, like industrial AC units.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
That's Fallout as gently caress, in all the ways that can be construed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
ehnus posted:That's Fallout as gently caress, in all the ways that can be construed. I have a hunch they may have used it for reference material.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You know how there's been a boom in peaking natural gas generators due to the low cost of gas? Many of those are literally 747 engines. You have this rear end backwards - generating electricity with the turbines would be a massive reduction in efficiency. Not going for efficiency in this situation, more like the ability to maintain peak power. Again, the energy density of batteries isn't even in the same league as hydrocarbon fuels. They're also not literally 747 engines. They use the base turbine core that was developed into one of the flavors of engine that some 747 variants used, but an LM5000/6000 isn't a high-bypass turbofan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
This kinda sucks - early this afternoon I heard something out of the ordinary land, but because I was doing something else, I didn't go to the airport. Turns out we were visited by four canard fighters - of some sort. When they took off, they flew over my house - I could have sworn it was a Rafale. I snapped a picture when the last one was banking in a turn, and it's not a Rafale, or a Gripen: e: it's in a turn away from where I was. So then too late I went up to the airport. This was hanging out. The aircraft - not unusual at all. The nation it came from, though... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You know how there's been a boom in peaking natural gas generators due to the low cost of gas? Many of those are literally 747 engines. You have this rear end backwards - generating electricity with the turbines would be a massive reduction in efficiency. The aeroderivative turbines are a couple of generations old now; most of the electricity-producing turbine engines these days are purpose-built combined-cycle units that share nothing with aircraft engines. Nebakenezzer posted:This kinda sucks - early this afternoon I heard something out of the ordinary land, but because I was doing something else, I didn't go to the airport. Turns out we were visited by four canard fighters - of some sort. When they took off, they flew over my house - I could have sworn it was a Rafale. I snapped a picture when the last one was banking in a turn, and it's not a Rafale, or a Gripen: My guess is that you saw a Sukhoi Su-30MKI - I mean, it's India's top front-line fighter aircraft, and the Indian Air Force C-17 only reinforces that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The aeroderivative turbines are a couple of generations old now; most of the electricity-producing turbine engines these days are purpose-built combined-cycle units that share nothing with aircraft engines. I think you are right. Goin' to an airshow, maybe? Also lol, the squadron that operates India's C-17s is called the Skylords.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Ola posted:
slidebite fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I think you are right. Goin' to an airshow, maybe? They're probably doing some sort of training exercise; because India is a (relatively) friendly nation and because they fly about the most trick Su-27 derivative in the world, their crews and aircraft are in high demand for adversary training.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
MrChips posted:My guess is that you saw a Sukhoi Su-30MKI - I mean, it's India's top front-line fighter aircraft, and the Indian Air Force C-17 only reinforces that.  Bloody hell that's low.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
The Russians liked the MKI so much they ordered a copy (essentially) in the Su-30SM, and have more of them on order than any other aircraft type IIRC. If they stick around there you should definitely try to get a better look, they are loving gorgeous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Watched a documentary about Fukishima and it was pretty plainly shown that you can be downtown in many major cities or on the beach in Brazil and be exposed to far more radiation than a "hotspot" in the exclusion zone at Fukishima. I am not the IAEA, I posted their assessment to show the accident was "something" as opposed to "nothing". edit: wait, what? That sounds very speculative. quote:At a distance of 30 km (19 mi) from the site, radiation of 3–170 μSv/h was measured to the north-west on 17 March, while it was 1–5 μSv/h in other directions.[96][191] Experts said exposure to this amount of radiation for 6 to 7 hours would result in absorption of the maximum level considered safe for one year. Is there a beach in Brazil you can say that about? Or did they include UV radiation from the glorious sun? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster end edit Anyway, Russia's being dicks again. Here's a video (in the article, don't think I can embed it) of Su-24s buzzing a US ship off Spain.  quote:In one of the most aggressive actions in recent memory, Russian warplanes conducted “simulated attacks” on the a U.S. Navy vessel in the Baltic Sea on Tuesday, repeatedly flying within 30 feet of the ship, according to a defense official. http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/13/russian-su-24-attack-aircraft-us-navy-destroyer-donald-cook-baltic-sea/82979184/ Ola fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Nobody cares. Ridiculous but true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Ola posted:I am not the IAEA, I posted their assessment to show the accident was "something" as opposed to "nothing". edit: wait, what? That sounds very speculative.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Ola posted:Anyway, Russia's being dicks again. Here's a video (in the article, don't think I can embed it) of Su-24s buzzing a US ship off Spain. Chances are very strong they had them lit up like Christmas Trees the entire time they flew near as well, so who cares. They probably knew too. MrYenko posted:Don't stop, I'm almost there.    
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:But the radiations! Think of the children! About that...
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
meltie posted:
pfffffft they just photoshopped out the landing gear.  Ola posted:Anyway, Russia's being dicks again. Here's a video (in the article, don't think I can embed it) of Su-24s buzzing a US ship off Spain. After watching the video of this  incident I'm convinced it's not so much "Russia's being dicks" as much as it was "Russia's (pilots) were bored as gently caress / giving a show" cause CommieGIR posted:Chances are very strong they had them lit up like Christmas Trees the entire time they flew near as well, so who cares. They probably knew too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
One reason it's a problem is that you're about two switches away from people dying. Or a single equipment malfunction. Also because on the approach nobody knows what an inbound pilot's intentions are...and who the gently caress cares if you shoot him down after he tosses his A-S missile at you? Congratulations, 20 of your sailors are dead but at least you got that lovely jet too. Bad things happen when poo poo like this takes place. It's only a matter of time before somebody on one side or the other fucks up. That's the whole reason PDMA exists. Both sides got sick of dealing with the fallout.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
So what you're saying is you don't want another funtime Hainan Island incident only jet v boat?? You're no fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
I am endlessly amused by how propeller blades look on a digital camera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 01:46
|
|
