|
rudatron posted:woah woah, slow down there einstein, just tell me how any of this can help me get laid, and if not, why i should care BIG BRAIN BIG BALLS BIG CUM BIG FUN
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
Not gonna name names, but it sounds like someone has electrophobia, and by someone I of course mean crazy cloud
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Not gonna name names, but it sounds like someone has electrophobia, and by someone I of course mean crazy cloud
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
or OR or maybe there's a lot of problematic electrotypicals around itt
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Show me on the doll where the atoms touched you
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:this is projection, you'd like to attack me for being electron-averse to allow yourself to redirect away from your own electron-dependency I am projecting so hard... on my home theater system! rudatron posted:Show me on the doll where the atoms touched you The atoms are inside you right now
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Maybe you're just too reliant on electricity to live as Nature intended, says man on an internet forum
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Wall outlets are a gift from God
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:when i hear half life i think about https://lparchive.org/Half-Life-2/ I think https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dttKjLpGkwE Because we're never gonna meet up with Alyx. This song is Gordon Freeman singing
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Also with all due respect WTF is with your technophobia crazy cloud You are posting these words using a computer If you're using a cellphone the transmitter is microwave and you hold it next to your head
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
i hope to die at the ripe age of 99 when an electric truck carrying organic fair trade coffee strikes me during my afternoon stroll
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:i hope to die at the ripe age of 99 when an electric truck carrying organic fair trade coffee strikes me during my afternoon stroll Not a bad death bah
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
mister magpie posted:Not a bad death bah Eco friendly and fair trade. Niiice late stage death
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Kaczynski had some good ideas
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
it's going to be p. funny if jill stein was right and we all get wifi brain cancer
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:Kaczynski had some good ideas So did that kid from Into the Wild
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Kaczynski was a reactionary nutter who killed people because he failed at life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
kaczynski's desire for widespread attention doomed him bad move ted, should've kept quiet in your sweet shack
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Kaczynski was a reactionary nutter who killed people because he failed at life. He was a subject of a psych "experiment" at Harvard trying to experimentally determine the long-term effects of being a horrible rear end in a top hat to someone for years (which may have been CIA-backed interrogation research). Turns out that's not a great idea http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/06/chase3.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:So did that kid from Into the Wild That kid from Into the wild walked into a wilderness without any supplies save a sack of rice and the only information he had was a (incorrect) card he had stolen from a library His egoism killed him, or he had an actual death wish
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
i still like electricity
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
I'm willing to like, have my mind changed here but I don't understand why nuclear energy is worth the risk of a disaster like Chernobyl or Fukushima? I recognize that these sort of events are incredibly uncommon and even that Fukushima probably wouldn't have happened had it not been for that tsunami.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Fukushima and Chernobyl are both really long lists of Goofus dont's over Gallant do's
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Chernobyl was a flawed reactor design (that the designers knew about but which the plant technicians were never informed of) and fukushima wasn't nearly as bad aa the reaction to it would have you believe - the evacuation occurred as a precaution but its not as if the entire site was irradiated, it was mostly leakage into the ocean. In terms of death per kilowatt hr, nuclear kills less people than coal, biofuels or even solar (mostly people dying when they fall off roofs). Importantly, nuclear is the only feasible non-carbon baseload that's not limited by geography (hydro is better but there's a maximum capacity to that that we've already practically reached).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
whomupclicklike posted:I'm willing to like, have my mind changed here but I don't understand why nuclear energy is worth the risk of a disaster like Chernobyl or Fukushima? I recognize that these sort of events are incredibly uncommon and even that Fukushima probably wouldn't have happened had it not been for that tsunami. Chernobyl was a fundamentally bad design that was made on the cheap in the first place and then not maintained whatsoever. They used graphite rods to control the reactor, so when things got too hot, the graphite burned and an explosion happened (note, not a nuclear explosion, just a regular chemical one) and that released a bunch of radioactive junk into the air. It's hard to do good estimates, but maybe 50 immediate deaths and 4000 overall deaths came from it over a decade or so. For context, Coal mining kills 5000+ directly a year, and heaps (greater than 4x) more if you include blacklung and other stuff related to it. Fukushima was a major fuckup, but nobody died from the radiation. It's still a major fuckup, but things like fly ash (coal residue) spills are worse and kill more people. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities Is probably a good way to compare things. it's a "number of dead people per equivalent unit of electricity generated". Historically, nuclear is at the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:25
|
|
rudatron posted:Chernobyl was a flawed reactor design (that the designers knew about but which the plant technicians were never informed of) and fukushima wasn't nearly as bad aa the reaction to it would have you believe - the evacuation occurred as a precaution but its not as if the entire site was irradiated, it was mostly leakage into the ocean. This is immensely helpful, thank you.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:25
|
|
Triangle Shirt Factotum posted:Chernobyl was a fundamentally bad design that was made on the cheap in the first place and then not maintained whatsoever. They used graphite rods to control the reactor, so when things got too hot, the graphite burned and an explosion happened (note, not a nuclear explosion, just a regular chemical one) and that released a bunch of radioactive junk into the air. It's hard to do good estimates, but maybe 50 immediate deaths and 4000 overall deaths came from it over a decade or so. For context, Coal mining kills 5000+ directly a year, and heaps (greater than 4x) more if you include blacklung and other stuff related to it. This too, thank you. I think nuclear energy is good now
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
whomupclicklike posted:I'm willing to like, have my mind changed here but I don't understand why nuclear energy is worth the risk of a disaster like Chernobyl or Fukushima? I recognize that these sort of events are incredibly uncommon and even that Fukushima probably wouldn't have happened had it not been for that tsunami. we're already on the way to having vast regions of earth becoming uninhabitable 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Wait one follow up question I have is what do we do about nuclear waste
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
whomupclicklike posted:Wait one follow up question I have is what do we do about nuclear waste Stick in a mountain where it will happily reside forever, bury it somewhere relatively geologically inactive, dump it in the ocean because a few meters of seawater is a pretty good insulator. Most of the irradiated waste from reactors isn't nearly as dangerous as the anti-nuclear people would have you believe. Again, the tailings from coal power are significantly more of an environmental hazard than the waste from a reactor. Nebakenezzer posted:That kid from Into the wild walked into a wilderness without any supplies save a sack of rice and the only information he had was a (incorrect) card he had stolen from a library 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
whomupclicklike posted:This too, thank you. I think nuclear energy is good now 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Stick in a mountain where it will happily reside forever, bury it somewhere relatively geologically inactive, dump it in the ocean because a few meters of seawater is a pretty good insulator. Most of the irradiated waste from reactors isn't nearly as dangerous as the anti-nuclear people would have you believe. Again, the tailings from coal power are significantly more of an environmental hazard than the waste from a reactor. Burying/entombing it being the better option because then if we ever get serious about recycling spent fuel we'll have easy access to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:38
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Burying/entombing it being the better option because then if we ever get serious about recycling spent fuel we'll have easy access to it. How can the waste be recycled? What is it used for?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
More reactions, in a different but more complex kind of reactor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Waste is more fuel waiting to be recycled. The U.S. has a (really goddamn tiny) re processor in South Carolina that we don't use intelligently, but there is no physical reason we can't have a literal Department of Energy "Send your reactor waste here and we'll send you back some fuel". There'd be some mildly radioactive cladding that we'd have to deal with, but I think blending it with regular aluminum would dilute it to safe levels until it finished decaying. We still haven't figured out a good way to decommission the reactors them other than "Fill that bitch in concrete". There are several old rear end reactors from the 1950s where I work that are literally mountains of concrete. Luckily concrete is pretty easy, but there are some (underfunded) DOE projects looking at doing something less dramatic than. I did a minor bit on epoxies for fixing contaminated areas in decommissioning reactors. As for waste weapons grade radioactive stuff, we either blend some of it in with the nuclear fuel or we encase it in high temperature, fission decay, and acid resistant ceramics or glass mixes. I am literally working on a journal article on this subject, we should be able to fill the ceramic with 10% wt weapons Pu and then put it in a drum and forget about it, it's a neat project, though not super sexy science. I work for the DOE. I'm not an authority by any means, but I know some of what is going on in one of the national labs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
But what happens after those reactions? Is there still waste? Thanks for actually explaining this I really appreciate it
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
whomupclicklike posted:But what happens after those reactions? Is there still waste? Thanks for actually explaining this I really appreciate it Always some unusable radioactive stuff, but if you do it right and chain the nuclear reactions to favor generating certain kinds of radioactive waste, the waste eventually turns inert and no longer radioactive after a few years or decades. It's an oversimplification, but think of every ounce of Uranium is very, very slowly turning into not-radioactive lead all by itself. The Dipshit has issued a correction as of 03:50 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
whomupclicklike posted:How can the waste be recycled? What is it used for? Its kinda like burning coal, capturing all the soot from the coal and compressing that into new coal blocks, then burning the coal again. It can be expensive and time consuming, but you basically extract another 10x the power from uranium as you got out of the first pass. People get scared though because a potential by product of reprocessing uranium is plutonium, which is the stuff you make nuclear weapons with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:51
|
|
Triangle Shirt Factotum posted:Always some unusable radioactive stuff, but if you do it right and chain the nuclear reactions to favor generating certain kinds of radioactive waste, the waste eventually turns inert and no longer radioactive after a few years or decades. And then you can use that lead for nuclear shielding, right? The whole problem solves itself?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
whomupclicklike posted:But what happens after those reactions? Is there still waste? Thanks for actually explaining this I really appreciate it Eventually you get down to stuff thats not worth the cost of dealing with anymore. Its still radioactive and needs to be contained, but theoretically we might want to someday dig up that waste and reprocess it when it is economically worthwhile. Reprocessing gets rid of a lot of the high energy stuff by turning it back into more fuel, but you're always going to have radioactive waste from bits of machinery that were in the reactor or whatever. That stuff still has to be dealt with so you never really eliminate all nuclear waste or even the bulk of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:54
|
|