|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:aren't there feeder reactor designs that recycle the most vile isotopes and leave us with pretty benign stuff that nobody builds because reasons? Usually reasons = capitalism but I don't know about this case in particular.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:aren't there feeder reactor designs that recycle the most vile isotopes and leave us with pretty benign stuff that nobody builds because reasons? we can build very good and very safe reactors these day. no one wants to afford them before the previous things break, and not many know about the fact either
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:whoa i stumbled across the swords latest album and was really taken aback, confused and amazed listen to low country
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
taking a mini-course in nuclear energetics was extremely depressing
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
well gosh maybe we ought not to be pursuing the energy source that, if cheaped out on by various governments or energy companies when built, will require effort to ensure that the running stag tribe doesn't wind up getting wiped out from a cracked containment vessel near a river
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
you can't cheap out on a generation 3 reactor, even with the first production designs. you either make it and it is safe and efficient, or you make something else
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
lol yes i'm sure that there is no possible way that the lowest bidder would use all due diligence in making a nuclear reactor while being entirely forthright about it (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
y'all gettin' stymied
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
Stymie posted:lol yes i'm sure that there is no possible way that the lowest bidder would use all due diligence in making a nuclear reactor while being entirely forthright about it (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
Dillbag posted:is that the door from tron? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Livermore_National_Laboratory https://www.flickr.com/photos/llnl/5795116114 iirc it's build to specs able to survive a direct nuclear blast cinci zoo sniper posted:yes, there are. nuclear energy for a while hasn't been a security issue, it's policy issue where you need to teach and explain a lot of things so germans dont go "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE BUT CHERNOBYLE MY WIND TURBINAS DOEZ NOT EXPLODE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" i have a theory that the nuclear power system was setup in a way to facilitate plutonium for weapons manufacturing during the cold war (in the same the whole space race thing was both a science endeavor/dick waiving contest with the russians and a good way to pump extra funding into icbm dev) so i'm pretty sure that might explain why gen 1&2 reactors opted to go uranium, active cooled and all that. since the country build up knowledge & infrastructure around those they stuck around for a long while because of both business resistance to change and public resistance to new plants; gen 3 reactors in the 90s were arguably much better but they flopped because no one built them all things equal, i'd prefer other power gen methods to be used, but nuclear makes a hell of a lot of sense in places like japan where they just don't have other significant alternatives to dense power prod like coal  i know germany talks a good game about energy, but they've maintained a ~50% dependency on fossil fuels while they were switching out their nuclear for renewable, which seems like a massive loss of opportunity imho, and anyway they still import power produced via nuclear so all they're doing is nimby'ing the poo poo out of the issue
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
that's what germany always does see: the syrian refugee issue where they accept 2 million refugees, scrape the cream off the top and kick all the "undesirables" into other EU countries germany is scum
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Pretty colors
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
surebet posted:i have a theory that the nuclear power system was setup in a way to facilitate plutonium for weapons manufacturing during the cold war (in the same the whole space race thing was both a science endeavor/dick waiving contest with the russians and a good way to pump extra funding into icbm dev) so i'm pretty sure that might explain why gen 1&2 reactors opted to go uranium, active cooled and all that. this isn't just your theory, this is literal history. there were a lot of competing reactor designs in the 50s through 70s but the funding was coming from the government, and the government was really interested in reactors that could make parts for bombs. natural thorium, for instance, can be burned in a reactor of the proper design (solid-state ones that can be built with 1970s technology, btw, not just the molten-salt design that you see bandied around) and there is like 100x as much thorium on earth as there is uranium. but the thorium cycle doesn't lead to weapons-grade uranium or plutonium, so it got a tiny fraction of the research funding, and never turned into anything commercial. here, have some computer pictures/nuclear energy crossover   
Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:this isn't just your theory, this is literal history. there were a lot of competing reactor designs in the 50s through 70s but the funding was coming from the government, and the government was really interested in reactors that could make parts for bombs. i always try to explain thorium reactors to people when there's an energy conversation and i always get shouted down by people afraid of anything nuclear. trying to tell somebody that you can have nuclear energy without it being scary when poo poo goes wrong is basically impossible due to all the problems with the breeder type reactors
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:this isn't just your theory, this is literal history. there were a lot of competing reactor designs in the 50s through 70s but the funding was coming from the government, and the government was really interested in reactors that could make parts for bombs. awesome, thanks for scratching that itch, i tried searching around a few times (incl after my post) and i always came up short i'm probably on a couple new watchlists after trying multiple iterations of "bomb" "nuclear bomb" "plutonium production" etc etc fusion is starting to shape up as a commercial product, and would be a great alternative to more fossil fuckery or gen 2/2+ reactors, but that's going to be a rough sell which is really a shame
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
i'm throwing my money in with the stellarator design bc it's the most elegant concept, imo. in a tokamak there's this problem where, since it's a simple toroid and the magnetic field is constant, the particles at different radiuses in the plasma drift in and out and hit the walls and ruin all your careful confinement. so you gotta run a rotating current through the plasma as well to make it travel in a helix, so the particles spend about half their time on the inside and half on the outside, and that is a huge complication and it's still unstable and has been problematic for the last fifty years. in a stellarator, the idea is "what if we repositioned the magnets and made the plasma path a (shape like a) mobius strip, so that every particle follows the exact same path over time no matter where it is". it's a simple, passive, geometric solution to the problem instead of brute-force engineering -- but designing the magnet geometry properly has been extraordinarily difficult. it took until last year for any stellarator to be able to hold a plasma for times measured in seconds, but it finally looks like it's gonna be possible -- the Wendelstein 7X in germany should be hitting eight seconds this summer, and has a roadmap to a 30-minute plasma burn time with a >1 Q-factor in the next five years. also, i like stellarators because they look like a proper spaceship reactor core:  
Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 09:56
|
|
|
that looks like one hell of a complicated doughnut, i like it
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
im this
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
Anaconda Rifle posted:im this where do you put your genitals? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HamillHimself/status/873583622548332544
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/iD4RO/status/872896047760236544
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
man, VR with a bunch of star trek gamers. how awesome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJw7IufBodE
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Iridium posted:man, VR with a bunch of star trek gamers. how awesome. So can you call security on obnoxious trolls and have them escorted to the brig?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
mama mia! thatsa spicy reactor wall!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
ADINSX posted:So can you call security on obnoxious trolls and have them escorted to the brig? oh my gooooood i would actually buy the game if that was possible
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Agile Vector posted:oh my gooooood i would actually buy the game if that was possible star trek brigs aren't big enough
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o678wPfMJRA
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
akadajet posted:star trek brigs aren't big enough full of paedos
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Agile Vector posted:actually lol excuse me mr. atheist i forgot you're so much better than everyone else lololol
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Iridium posted:man, VR with a bunch of star trek gamers. how awesome. oh look its my version of hell
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
 http://www.africanews.com/2017/06/02/will-you-use-the-period-emoji-during-your-menstrual-cycle/
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:
So your name isn't ironic then huh
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
star trek 2021
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
🔥 💧
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
The control room for the first production reactor in Sweden. The Ågesta reactor produced electricity and district heating 1963-1974 and the reactor was then dismantled. The control room and everything else is preserved, but tours are rarely given.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
im the desire for a tour
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
did they take turns patrolling the floor and sitting at the desk
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 18:42
|
|
