|
I'm as much for nuclear power as the next guy, but putting radioactive waste and/or materials into peoples' homes seems like a bad idea. This is "dirty bomb" material. Also tracking all those radiation sources would be very difficult. You can't be sure it won't end up on some scrapheap somewhere sold as lead or whatever. The person stripping this thing likely will die. Everybody handling one of these with breached containment for extended periods of time will get a serious dose of radiation. The Soviet Union had a BUNCH of these generators which they used to power radio navigation beacons in remote areas like Siberia. They have lost track of a number of these after the dissolution of the USSR. A quote from Wikipedia: quote:In December 2001, three Georgian woodcutters stumbled over such a power generator and dragged it back to their camp site to use it as a heat source. Within hours they suffered from acute radiation sickness and sought hospital treatment. So, this is an idea I cannot get behind.
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 08:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Dirty bombs are not a thing to be concerned about. No one who wants to build a bomb is going to build a dirty bomb, the entire concept makes no sense to anyone who takes a minute to understand the biological effects of radiation. quote:Nuclear material record-keeping in the US is much better than in the USSR, and a hospital basement with well-marked warning signs is quite different from a radio navigation beacon in the middle of Siberia. I see no issue so long as the generator is marked and put it in a lead container with a warning engraved on the side. I wouldn't suggest putting these in homes Good, then we are pretty much in agreement. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 10:04
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Denmark (and some of the EU I'm not sure) banned import and sale of old style light bulbs meaning you can now boy only power saving compact-fluorescent bulbs or LED lights. The ban is EU wide actually.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 09:33
|
|
|
Yeti Fiasco posted:this doesn't seem like much, though I guess the land has no other use. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
Yeti Fiasco posted:Why would you want to though? Surely a better location is near a metropolitan area so there's less transmission lines. Joking aside, the middle of a hot, arid desert is a bad location for a nuclear plant because of the lack of cooling water.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Winks posted:Tell that to the Palo Verde nuke plant in Arizona. That's pretty drat cool.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Aureon posted:(If the situation is the same as in Italy, where literally four people out of five believe nuclear reactors can explode, that speaks for impressive mindwashing) Depends on your definition. In Chernobyl the reactor DID explode, and at Fukushima the reactors remained more or less intact, but (hydrogen) explosions DID occur. Of course you're probably talking about the reactor going up in a mushroom cloud like a nuclear bomb, in which case the answer is no.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:[...]Given the issues with waste (minor issues sure, but still an issue), plus you need to mine and refine the fuel, plus the huge amounts of NIMBYism[...] Australia currently has no nuclear power stations, yet they are a large producer of uranium. I don't see that changing any time soon anyway since they make heaps of money off of uranium mining.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
Aureon posted:I mean atomic explosions, not hydrogen explosions. Yeah gotcha. Man this reminds me about a discussion about nuclear power in I think it was Real Time with Bill Maher. This woman is against nuclear reactors because they are totally "slow-motion nuclear explosions". Yes that is exactly what is happening inside a nuclear reactor, lady, you nailed it! 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
jfreder posted:There aren't any literal explosions in an internal combustion engine but I understand the point you are making. No, you're wrong, they are explosions e: NUKULAR EXPLOSIONS  fake e: Yeah I think you're right actually. 
spankmeister fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It seems like Oil Shale would be prohibitively expensive compared to just drilling more wells. Yeah when crude reaches a high number like $200 a barrel (note: number pulled entirely out of rear end) then shale could be economically viable. But right now we still have more easily accessible sources of crude.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 10:29
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:Has anyone heard about bloomboxes lately? the one thing that intrigued me most about them was that they claimed reversibility was possible, just not in the first model. Has a reversible model come out yet? Whats the round-trip on it like? What exactly are you talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
Besides, Ethanol is for drinking. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
This is the worst derail. Anyway, the UK has just anounced it's energy strategy for the future, and nuclear will play a big part. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-UK_seizes_the_day_with_new_strategy-260313.html Personally I feel this is good news. In my opinion we really need to keep moving and researching, towards a future where nuclear can deliver safe, clean baseload power.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Please say they hinder them because gently caress coal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Ding ding ding. Cool. How is hydrogen beating anything though? It not actually being an energy source. (More like a carrier)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
The problem is that the licensing and stuff takes so incredibly long that it takes decades for a new design to be implemented. And then you have to deal with the NIMBY crowd, who manage to shut down reactors before they are even started. If we could streamline that process, for instance with EU or US wide design approval, we can certainly cut that time to say 5 to 10 years. Public opinion needs to change too. Fukushima didn't help in that regard obviously. At some point we need to realise as a people of earth that no, in fact we do not have a perfect power generation technology, renewables can get us a long way there, but we will still need some kind of baseload generating capacity for the foreseeable future, fossil, and especially coal, is the absolute worst way to do that. Maybe one day we can shut down all fission reactors and the world will be better off for it. (Well maybe we need a few for making isotopes)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:I'll watch it as soon as I have 75 minutes for myself, which won't be before Saturday Don't forget because it's really good.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
Uranium nuclear is a transitory technology as far as I'm concerned. We need to move to breeders and start using Thorium for nuclear to really work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Hmm the snowy mountains perhaps?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solution-to-renewable-energy-more-renewable-energy 99.9% sounds like a lot, but it really isn't that great. It's a downtime of roughly 10 minutes per week, or 43 per month, or just under 9 hours per year. We will still need a baseload generating capacity to get that up to an acceptable number.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
Natural gas is cheap and cleaner than other fossil fuels but it's still produces green house gases and other pollutants. Also, it's mostly methane which is a greenhouse gas in and of itself and at offshore rigs they just vent it into the atmosphere directly to get at the oil underneath. (At land based rigs they burn it off as to not create a fire hazard and all) I just wanted to get this off my chest because the idea of clean NG is a myth.Granted, it's way better than burning coal or oil.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:Yes, as Wibbleman astutely pointed out above, the video was from satirical site 'the onion', and was in there in the hope of bringing a chuckle to whoever clicked it. Can't be all serious all the time. Welp I didn't watch the video so
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 10:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Just because our supply of something is near infinite compared to current or future use does not mean that it is renewable. There is a certain amount of uranium in the earth's crust, if we were to mine it all we would not have any more. Yes let's not build reactors because we could maybe run out of fissile material in a million years.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Can we please go back to talking about real energy generation instead of this steorn-type bullshit?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Yeah, it needs to come out on iTunes/Amazon or even DVD. I can't get to any of the showings. A movie like this just needs to be released for free IMHO, in the interest of public education.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
I thought it was a local politician who obstructed Yucca Mountain, not Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 06:31
|
|