|
Corky Romanovsky posted:not as bad as your posts turn on your monitor
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
Solar and battery tech is gonna keep Improving, nuclear is moot
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
please don't bring negative energy here, you're disturbing my chakras
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:turn on your monitor It's night time and the local renewable power storage has already been depleted, turning on my monitor would spool up a coal fire and accelerate climate change. I'd rather have a slightly irradiated planet than a complete collapse of civilization as we know it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Nuclear power is...good?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
mister magpie posted:Nuclear power is...good? Yeah, pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
We should create a new form of nuclear power that involves literally detonating a high yield nuclear weapon and surrounding it with a bunch of windmills so the shockwave spins them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
i enjoy electricity and think that it is a good thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
mister magpie posted:Nuclear power is...good? when used responsibly and properly and not built on fault lines yes~
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Corky Romanovsky posted:It's night time and the local renewable power storage has already been depleted, turning on my monitor would spool up a coal fire and accelerate climate change. I'd rather have the complete collapse of civilization as we know it, but with president donalb josef trimp we will probably both get what we want
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
I was at a Democratic platform meeting last night and this older lady used her speaking time to rant about nuclear power. Then she got back in line, waited patiently, and gave another three minute anti-nuclear rant. I don't get how someone can be pro-science and anti-nuclear at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Corky Romanovsky posted:It's night time and the local renewable power storage has already been depleted, turning on my monitor would spool up a coal fire and accelerate climate change. Hilariously, coal plants output more environmental radiation than nuclear power does, because coal contains trace amounts of radioactive isotopes and burning it purifies it then releases the isotopes into the air. Nuclear power keeps all of its radiation inside the plant. The real threat from nuclear power is the damage to local ecosystems because of the enormous amount of water nuclear generation uses and the thermal waste from all the warm water being pumped back into whatever water source feeds it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
even in water impact fossil fuel plants require the same general order of magnitude of water as nuclear plants to function. it depends on the specific fossil fuel and the specific nuclear reaction involved but yeah to run a coal power plant you need tons of water to clean out all the lovely effluent, a nuclear plant needs tons of water but all it does is make the water hot lmao many inland nuke plants have 'cooling reservoirs' where hot-rear end water is kept in a couple iterative lined ponds to cool off before it's released back into the local water table, sterile as fuk but otherwise fine
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I was at a Democratic platform meeting last night and this older lady used her speaking time to rant about nuclear power. Then she got back in line, waited patiently, and gave another three minute anti-nuclear rant. I don't get how someone can be pro-science and anti-nuclear at the same time. You know how conservatives kinda believe in stuff just for reactionary/historical reasons? (Like for example wind and solar are bad because liberals like it) Well liberals do the same thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:it's cool how germany, because they're so concerned about public safety, shut down all their nuclear plants and replaced them with coal  ??
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
I could be wrong, but didn't Germany increase the amount of energy they buy from other countries (that maybe use fossil fuels to generate said energy)? A chart of just Germany's generated energy wouldn't really tell the full picture in that case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
merkel did promise to shut down all their nuclear plants by 2030 or so but they're replacing that with giant wind farms in the north sea and personally owned solar on Bavarian sheep farms instead of more coal which is p decent but the nuclear is still good
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
And 2002 probably doesn't line up with when Germany started its campaign to end nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
What kind of idiot builds a nuke plant on a tsunami ravaged coastline anyway
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Mineral oil is for shaving, not energy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
mister magpie posted:Nuclear power is...good? ya
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:What kind of idiot builds a nuke plant on a tsunami ravaged coastline anyway You are starting from a false premise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Mineral oil is for shaving, not energy. It's for cooling your gaming rig
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Your return on energy investment for nukes is basically only beaten by hydro, and all major rivers that could be dammed, have been dammed. we should make more rivers using nukes
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
wtf
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
That was a proposed part of Operation Plowshare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare Hey kid, you like Fracking? how bout...Nuclear Fracking? quote:At the end of the program, a major objective was to develop nuclear explosives, and blast techniques, for stimulating the flow of natural gas in "tight" underground reservoir formations. In the 1960s, a proposal was suggested for a modified in situ shale oil extraction process which involved creation of a rubble chimney (a zone in the oil shale formation created by breaking the rock into fragments) using a nuclear explosive.[10] However, this approach was abandoned for a number of technical reasons. TheDon01 has issued a correction as of 04:34 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 04:31
|
|
Not a Step posted:I was at a Democratic platform meeting last night and this older lady used her speaking time to rant about nuclear power. Then she got back in line, waited patiently, and gave another three minute anti-nuclear rant. I don't get how someone can be pro-science and anti-nuclear at the same time. It's not contrary to be pro science and anti nuclear
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Depends on their reasoning. If they just say "atoms are scary", that isn't really science. I'm all for solar, thermal, tidal, etc, and for improvements to the power distribution and storage systems to address issues of utilizing fossil fuels, but I don't think we can get all of that online soon enough to prevent disruptive environmental changes. If their reason is purely from a risk of radioactive contamination of the planet, then we simply aren't agreeing on what the true risk is and/or what an acceptable level of risk is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
TheDon01 posted:However, this approach was abandoned for a number of technical reasons. Hmm, I wonder why 🤔
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:What kind of idiot builds a nuke plant on a tsunami ravaged coastline anyway japan has a distinct problem in that they can't really just built on the mainland because korea and china hate them as i understand it, even fukashima would have been fine if it weren't for some dumb cost-cutting Hodgepodge has issued a correction as of 07:46 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
Corky Romanovsky posted:Depends on their reasoning. If they just say "atoms are scary", that isn't really science. those renewables are themselves disruptive environmental changes because they require lots of land even at 100% solar efficiency you're going to need hundreds of times the area of a gas or coal plant to catch sufficient photons to match outputs. that difference is taken away from wild habitat. a perfect renewable power station that arrived tomorrow would still be an ecological disaster to use on a large scale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Everything will be fine once we start mass producing those nano-carbon graphene super capacitors. Any day now. Yep any day now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:japan has a distinct problem in that they can't really just built on the mainland because korea and china hate them They cut corners on the seawall and only designed it to withstand the most likely tsunami. Its not unlike what happened to New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Corky Romanovsky posted:Depends on their reasoning. If they just say "atoms are scary", that isn't really science. Her entire argument amounted to 'atoms are scary' and also 'terrorists will get hold of our atoms!'. whomupclicklike posted:It's not contrary to be pro science and anti nuclear Nuclear energy is the best and cleanest of any presently viable location independent large scale electrical generation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:those renewables are themselves disruptive environmental changes because they require lots of land Does that include the area taken up by open-cut coal mines used to feed the plant? Or tailings dams and other associated coal-mining related area? How about the energy used trucking/training gas/coal from where it was mined to the plant? You're kinda forgetting the insane scale ecological disaster happening right now which to be honest is probably too far gone for people to have much impact on anyway, I'd take a large scale renewable plant causing habitat loss over the current planetary deep-dicking. On the matter of ship-bound nuclear reactors, a large factor in what causes damage and radiation release when things go wrong with commercial reactors is latent heat production. Technically speaking the fuel from a reactor once it has undergone fission keeps producing some amount of thermal energy forever (from decay of fission products) however obviously the rate of heat generation falls off exponentially from the time that the fission chain reaction stops. The fuel from a large grid-connected reactor generates enormous amounts of heat (in the megawatt range) for days after the reactor has been completely shut down, which will quite happily melt the reactor core, causing the exposure of nuclear material to water which will generate hydrogen, or air which can cause the fuel to ignite. The difference between a large reactor and a small one like you'd find on a ship is that the magnitude of the latent heat generated is much lower and the reactor structure can realistically handle it without melting and having the fuel become exposed, so accidents are going to be a lot easier to manage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Does that include the area taken up by open-cut coal mines used to feed the plant? Or tailings dams and other associated coal-mining related area? How about the energy used trucking/training gas/coal from where it was mined to the plant? You're kinda forgetting the insane scale ecological disaster happening right now which to be honest is probably too far gone for people to have much impact on anyway, I'd take a large scale renewable plant causing habitat loss over the current planetary deep-dicking. i get it now. we should construct rows of land locked nuclear sea vessels in place of current reactor sites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 11:18
|
|
|
wheres the nuclear reactor roof shingles, elon musk you loving cuck
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:even in water impact fossil fuel plants require the same general order of magnitude of water as nuclear plants to function. it depends on the specific fossil fuel and the specific nuclear reaction involved but yeah to run a coal power plant you need tons of water to clean out all the lovely effluent, a nuclear plant needs tons of water but all it does is make the water hot lmao Turkey Point in south Florida has hundreds of miles of cooling channels that alligators like to chill in. e: I think the big cooling ponds actually circulate the water back into the plant, typically. At least for ones that aren't on oceans/rivers/big natural lakes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Does that include the area taken up by open-cut coal mines used to feed the plant? Or tailings dams and other associated coal-mining related area? How about the energy used trucking/training gas/coal from where it was mined to the plant? You're kinda forgetting the insane scale ecological disaster happening right now which to be honest is probably too far gone for people to have much impact on anyway, I'd take a large scale renewable plant causing habitat loss over the current planetary deep-dicking. Yes, this includes all mining grounds and support infrastructure. Renewables still require two orders of magnitude more land. One of the primary benefits to both nuclear and fossil fuels is power density. One strip mine in South Dakota or one disassembled coal mountain in Appalachia can easily generate enough coal to power the entire United States for over a decade. The reason we don't do that is because it costs more than gas, which is even less land hungry. To do this same thing with a solar/wind/hydro mix we would need to devote more land to power generation than we currently do to farming. Entire forests have not been felled and entire habitats are still there because we use fossil fuels and not renewables to keep our lights on. Climate change is a serious problem, but let's not pretend like renewables are universally green. They're not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
Baloogan posted:i like nuclear power and thers like lots of uranium in the sea and its not hard to centrifuge the uranium out because its so heavy and also u can make fresh water from the salt water and irrigate the planet I've often considered that NK or Pakistan or somewhere should do this and make a lot of money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:21
|
|
