|
PT6A posted:And there's basically no chance of that even happening in a modern reactor. And a properly functioning coal plant emits more radiation than a properly functioning nuclear plant. I think concerns around nuclear power make a lot more sense if you take into account that people worried about it were adults when both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island happened.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
PT6A posted:And there's basically no chance of that even happening in a modern reactor. And a properly functioning coal plant emits more radiation than a properly functioning nuclear plant. lol very little. Just when people had started to forget about Chernobyl (which was a legit loving disaster, made worse by soviets being soviet), Fukishima happened. Fukushima was an absolute worse of the worst-case scenarios playing out, coupled with some poo poo design flaws and Japanese face-saving ending up making a terrible situation worse. None of the things that happened to Chernobyl or Fukushima, or even 3MI could happen to our reactors. The design simply won't allow it, nor do we have the environmental conditions that could cause a tsunami on lake Ontario. But fear is a powerful motivator so we'll keep burning coal instead of building more reactors and being totally goddamn energy independent with Canadian uranium in Canadian-designed and built reactors. MA-Horus fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:I think concerns around nuclear power make a lot more sense if you take into account that people worried about it were adults when both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island happened. You can now add Fukushima to that list.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
i remember before fukushima being lectured by condescending goons about how chernobyl could never happen again with today's designs they're saying the exact same thing now except its fukushima that could never happen here but is it possible that something bad could happen that is neither like chernobyl nor like fukushima? *extremely sarcastically* no *while rolling eyes*
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
doesn't ontario dump all its nuclear waste on a native reserve?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:lol very little. Nuclear just has a PR problem; being sketchily run by an evil Mr. Burns and operated by an incompetent Homer is pretty much the only portrayal of it in popular media, and the only other times you hear about it is when something goes horribly wrong. On top of that, there are associations with radiation, nuclear bombs etc. So it's not hard to imagine why people who are ignorant about it fear it. Hell, my mom still doesn't trust/use microwaves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:doesn't ontario dump all its nuclear waste on a native reserve? I'm not saying they do, I'm just asking questions man. My problem with nuclear isn't safety, it's cost. Every time in Ontario, it ends up taking twice as long and twice as much to build. We know windmills and gas plants are going to gently caress us but not nearly as bad as a nuclear project gone long. In other news, hopefully there isn't a big hill on either of these highways because when it snows, it will be a slippery slope. quote:Mayor John Tory to announce tolls proposal for 2 major Toronto highways
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Something bad could, maybe, potentially happen with nuclear vs. something bad definitely, always, constantly happening with fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
This seems like a timely reminder of how many people think of nuclear power and especially "radiation".Guy DeBorgore posted:i remember before fukushima being lectured by condescending goons about how chernobyl could never happen again with today's designs This is in no way my field so I won't pretend to be super knowledgeable but my general impression of the situation is that even the occasional reactor meltdown would be nowhere near as lethal or bad for the environment as continuing our huge reliance on fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This seems like a timely reminder of how many people think of nuclear power and especially "radiation". TBH this is my understanding too, and i think the cost issue raised by the Postess is more practically important. The UK's walking back its mammoth planned nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point, not b/c of safety fears but just because it's too expensive. and i think the economics of power generation are shifting away from huge plants delivering shitloads of baseline power to more distributed, smaller plants, but i might be way off base about that. but also there's lots of goons who earnestly think nuclear power is safer than pillows and puppies and it's good to make fun of them
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
I think there is a good argument in favor of nuclear power produciton, my problem is with all facilities built around the greatest fresh water reserves in the world. Maybe there are better places we could build them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Winnipeg couldn't possibly get more uninhabitable. Build them there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:Maybe there are better places we could build them? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the only way to avoid further contribution to climate change is to reduce the use of power. Even if we were to switch to nuclear worldwide and maintain our current power use we would be hosed. Not to mention the time and resources it would take to build all those nuclear power plants. But you all know that new (nuclear) power plants wouldn't just be about satisfying existing use, it would be about about expanding power use so we can build even bigger homes and build more useless poo poo. Sure if all new power plants were nuclear it might reduce climate impact, but if all that new power is used to expand cities, manufacture new phones for everyone every six months, and pull even more potash out of the ground then we're only increasing our impact on all the other environmental crises we face. Any discussion about energy and climate change needs to first be 'how much energy do we use/need?'. Talking about how we make our energy is secondary. I mean hydro is better than fossil fuels (in terms of climate change), but if we build a new hydro plant to power natural gas refineries than what have we accomplished? We just destroyed a bunch of rare ecosystems, arable land, and sacred land for nothing. Duck Rodgers fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
We are always going to need more power, luddite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:Any discussion about energy and climate change needs to first be 'how much energy do we use/need?'. Talking about how we make our energy is secondary. I mean hydro is better than fossil fuels (in terms of climate change), but if we build a new hydro plant to power natural gas refineries than what have we accomplished? We just destroyed a bunch of rare ecosystems, arable land, and sacred land for nothing. It's not just clean or dirty power, there's degrees you see.  Switching China from coal to natural gas is a win. gently caress your sacred land, there won't be any land left if we don't stop global warming. You think solving the greatest problem the planet has ever faced is going to happen without a few sacrifices?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
The big problem with nuclear power is it's safe and scales well when it's done properly but becomes an epic loving disaster when the entity providing it doesn't take the required safety and maintenance needed to deliver nuclear power as seriously as it should and hides deficiencies when they are discovered instead of rectifying them. So management starts cutting corners and covering stuff up and then something happens that was completely avoidable in hindsight but welp now an entire populated area needs to be abandoned for generations. As for nuclear waste, apparently there are reactors that can be used to consume the waste from normal plants but that's expensive and nobody is going to spend money they don't have to, so instead we put that poo poo in big rear end holes in the ground and hope nothing goes wrong. It's a real loving shame that yet again human greed and stupidity ruins something that could be a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:As for nuclear waste, apparently there are reactors that can be used to consume the waste from normal plants but that's expensive and nobody is going to spend money they don't have to, so instead we put that poo poo in big rear end holes in the ground and hope nothing goes wrong. You mean, like our CANDU reactors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor#Fuel_cycles quote:Even better than LWRs, CANDU can utilize a mix of uranium and plutonium oxides (MOX fuel), the plutonium either from dismantled nuclear weapons or reprocessed reactor fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor#Economics quote:The neutron economy of heavy water moderation and precise control of on-line refueling allow CANDU to use a great range of fuels other than enriched uranium, e.g., natural uranium, reprocessed uranium, thorium, plutonium, and used LWR fuel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:It's not just clean or dirty power, there's degrees you see. You seem to misunderstand. I'm saying we stop global warming by reducing our energy use. Surely that's a sacrifice is it not? I never said we shouldn't use the best option to provide power. We need to use the cleanest energy possible, but we also need to make our cities more compact, make public transit better, stop using cars as often, switch to agroecological farming methods, repair things rather than replace, stop using disposable products etc etc etc. Doesn't matter if we switch from coal to natural gas if we increase our energy use by building a bunch of new suburbs and 2 cars for every family in that suburb to commute to their job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:i remember before fukushima being lectured by condescending goons about how chernobyl could never happen again with today's designs STILL less destructive than burning fossil fuels which gently caress up the environment even when operating correctly. Nuclear is a PR problem, not a technological one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:You mean, like our CANDU reactors? Yep, exactly like that. Problem is, last I read about it the process of fueling a reactor with recycled nuclear waste was so expensive nobody was bothering because gently caress it make bux put the waste in the ground. China IIRC is the only place doing it and they only have one reactor running on reprocessed waste as a trial to see how feasible it is. That's old news though they started in 2010 I should check and see how that's worked out over the past 7 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Gonna be exciting when the first liquid salt thorium reactors come online and Canada hasn't even approached the idea because of a lack of political will
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:You seem to misunderstand. I'm saying we stop global warming by reducing our energy use. Surely that's a sacrifice is it not? I never said we shouldn't use the best option to provide power. We stop global warming by releasing less greenhouse gas. We can make public transit better by electrifying it (more electricity), switching to electric cars (more electricity), switch to hydroponic/vertical farming (more electricity), recycle materials rather than just digging it up and throwing it away (way more electricity/energy), etc etc etc. We need more electricity, but we need it from sources that don't produce greenhouse gasses. That means nuclear, with a side of solar/wind. We can coat every building rooftop and parking lot with solar panels and put a windmill on every farmer's field if it makes you feel better, but it will always be a drop in the bucket compared to what we need. And bulldozing half the planet to cover it in solar cells or wind farms hardly seems environmentalist to me. Then of course there's the majority of the world who are choking on the fumes of the wood/coal/animal-dung fires that serve as their only energy source, they could probably use more electricity too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Aren't liquid salt thorium plants on the high end for maintenance requirements? That's kinda scary when we live in a society that can't even be arsed to maintain bridges made of concrete and steel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:You seem to misunderstand. I'm saying we stop global warming by reducing our energy use. Surely that's a sacrifice is it not? I never said we shouldn't use the best option to provide power. That sounds nice but global warming is a global problem. Canada's 1.6% and China is 29% and growing until 2030 partly because they're burning a ton of coal to provide power to their developing nation. Same with India. You're going to tell the people there that just got electricity that some Shipping a shitload of natural gas to China will help lower global emissions because they're jerks and are going to produce energy no matter what you think and at least they're not burning coal. I think if we were really serious about ending global warming, we'd get NATO to bomb one random coal power plant per week but nobody seems to take this problem as seriously as I do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Aren't liquid salt thorium plants on the high end for maintenance requirements? That's kinda scary when we live in a society that can't even be arsed to maintain bridges made of concrete and steel. I assure you, compared to the current reactors running at Darlington and Pickering I'm sure the maintenance requirements are rather paltry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Molten salt reactor schemes have all kinds of real-world issues like much worse corrosion of pipes, more difficult maintenance (i.e. the loop has to be drained before it cools or you end up with solid coolant in the pipes, and you can't allow any amount of water in) and the schemes that use homogeneous coolant/fuel mixtures make operation and maintenance even more of a nightmare. Personally I'm totally cool if we just keep making water-cooled reactors because those are proven, dependable, and will never go out of style. Even though LFTR reactors are essentially a meme on the internet, there's nothing stopping you from using thorium in a fuel cycle based around water-cooled reactors; even CANDUs could be configured to run with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:We are always going to need more power, luddite. I can't really tell if this post is serious or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
I hope so. I admit I'm a sad brained pessimist but when I hear 'this technology will reduce maintenance costs!' I don't think 'great now they'll for sure be properly maintained', instead I think 'great now instead of some corporate dicks making an extra million by encouraging a systemic neglect for maintenance, they'll make an extra two million'
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Can someone 'splain me why Fukushima is used as a counterargument to the "Chernobyl could never happen again with a modern reactor?" Fukushima was: 1) Built before Chernobyl 2) Operated for a significantly longer time than Chernobyl 3) Built on a fault line 4) Hit by a catastrophic natural disaster And it still wasn't really that bad, certainly not compared to Chernobyl or the continued harm we're doing to the planet by burning fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:Gonna be exciting when the first liquid salt thorium reactors come online and Canada hasn't even approached the idea because of a lack of political will Actually a company in Ontario is making some serious progress on a molten salt reactor. Not Thorium, but a good stepping stone. http://terrestrialenergy.com/terrestrial-energy-surpasses-cad-20-million-financing-milestone-for-imsr-development/ quote:Terrestrial Energy, a developer of Advanced Nuclear power plants, today announced that it has secured CAD $22.5 million (USD $17.2 million) of financing since inception, of which $5.3 million (USD $4.0 million) was raised in August 2016 to close its Series A funding. Today’s announcement follows the Company’s January report that it had raised CAD $10 million in its Series A funding. http://terrestrialenergy.com/terrestrial-energy-announces-its-engagement-with-the-canadian-nuclear-safety-commission/ quote:OAKVILLE, ON – February 25th, 2016 – Terrestrial Energy is pleased to announce that it is submitting its Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR) design to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for Phase I of its pre-licensing Vendor Design Review.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:I can't really tell if this post is serious or not. Tell me oh wise one where and how we're going to reduce our need for energy. Tell me as someone who lives in a western nation that you'll tell the developing world to curb their use of energy so we can be the only people who got to enjoy the luxuries that came with the advent of bountiful energy. Energy efficiency is one thing, but suggesting we look for ways to reduce our overall need is idiotic short of us killing all of ourselves off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Square Peg posted:with how turbo-hosed the nuclear regulatory system is in the US, we'll likely have them before they've even started. While that is encouraging it isn't the States we need to look to here for a competitor but China
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:I hope so. I admit I'm a sad brained pessimist but when I hear 'this technology will reduce maintenance costs!' I don't think 'great now they'll for sure be properly maintained', instead I think 'great now instead of some corporate dicks making an extra million by encouraging a systemic neglect for maintenance, they'll make an extra two million' That's the problem with capitalism in general, in that it perverts the incentives. Most of the time doing what's right and proper isn't the most profitable, and there really isn't a way around it other than better regulations and stricter enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
goons and nuclear energy is so loving tedious and i'm on balance a nuclear supporter there are plenty of legitimate reasons to not be a fan of nuclear without screaming about The Atoms, plenty of policy positions anti-nuke people take other than "ban nuclear yesterday", and pretending energy generation and emissions production is a zero-sum game between fossil fuel and nuclear is disingenuous
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Can someone 'splain me why Fukushima is used as a counterargument to the "Chernobyl could never happen again with a modern reactor?" Fukushima was: In a way, it was hit by two natural disasters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Can someone 'splain me why Fukushima is used as a counterargument to the "Chernobyl could never happen again with a modern reactor?" Fukushima was: People who cite Fukushima think that the radiation would poison the entire Pacific Ocean and weren't aware that what hosed it over was a giant tsunami knocking out the backup diesel generators. Because atoms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:there are plenty of legitimate reasons to not be a fan of nuclear without screaming about The Atoms Such as? I'm assuming your list is going to include transuranics, high development and deployment costs, and?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:People who cite Fukushima think that the radiation would poison the entire Pacific Ocean and weren't aware that what hosed it over was a giant tsunami knocking out the backup diesel generators. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:32
|
|