/sci/ - Science & Math

>How long until this madness reaches...

Shortly after the next nuclear 'event' there

Climate change suddenly starts getting serious in real life. Solar power still has the impossibility of there not being enough sun and land to power everything. Evidence is growing that wind farms severely disrupt local and possibly global climate.

Being environmentally friendly is too difficult so we distract ourselves by decommissioning our friendliest source of energy. I fucking hate mob mentality.


SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR NUCLEAR POWER TRUTH

WE WANT NUCLEAR POWER

let them phase it out. let them run out of other sources while countries that arnt retarded can flourish.

>>5032322
>our friendliest source of energy
Yeah... because having areas completely uninhabitable is fine.

Oh, but it doesn't happen that often so who cares.

>>5032330
its still less damage than any other power source.

Irrational Radiophobia is becoming more of a threat than the radiation itself.

>Climate change

Global cooling

my fanon is that all of these retarded things the public wants to do and the media reinforces is actually part of a global plan to control the world by the elite of the world.

i mean whats the best way to keep blacks in africa down and kill them? start a group that tells africa to burn their food becasue GMOs are poisonous, AND as a bonus you look like you saved them and thus get even more support. how do you keep technology out of the hands of countries you want to keep down? tell the public its dangerous.are you going to kill babies by spending billions to create a vaccine and then bribe all the doctors to give it to babies, or tell people not to vaccinate their children? (this also is selective and only kills retarded peoples babies.)

>nuclear power so dangerous!

>>5032358
>implying hydro dam failures are as catastrophic as a meltdown

>implying shitty Chinese dam design is as globally dangerous as shitty nuclear plant design

>implying these numbers are statiscally comparable... what's next, the number of deaths from Segways vs. cars?

>5032366

Why do you hate safe and efficient energy sources?

>>5032366

WHO estimates there are 1,000,000 deaths every year resulting from coal plants around the world. It was determined that during Chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster in history (and one that will almost certainly never be repeated because the soviets were idiots) caused 57 initial deaths and is estimated to eventually cause ~4000 deaths by cancer. You would need dozens of catastrophic meltdowns every year (never gonna happen) to kill as many people as coal does.

>>5032366

>implying widespread drought from wind farms is harmless

There are still countries that are hopeful and proud of their nuclear programs, so it's not like the industry will die out.

I am currently employed at a nuclear facility

Sometimes i wish i could just snap my fingers and people would understand what nuclear power is all about.

But sadly its not so simple, media has most certainly done its homework when it comes to making anything nuclear sound bad and obsolete, when it is in fact the answer to most of todays problem (and im not talking just energy)

People who get deteriorated because accidents can happen need to know that we have the technology today to make the process perfectly safe,

You need to understand the incredible stress Japan soils is being subjected to, and given that they have over 50 reactors its indeed a feat that they managed to make them THIS safe.

What happened in fukushima (in detail) is that the containment building was to small (by European standards) so pressure could build up fast. The backup diesel generator where built in a spot where the water could reach, so the pumps were no longer able to cool the reactor.

there are backup systems they could have applied to avert the explosions but unfortunately Fukushima is no exactly the newest generation.

Before you spread any lie infused propaganda about nuclear power i want you to read about RTGs, Nuclear medecine and check out Nuclear powered pacemakers while your at it.

Nuclear waste isnt necessarily unless you put it in a container and bury it, there are a lot of uses...

but our hands are tied by the media and public opinion who sadly...

never knows what they are talking about...

>>5032382

What kind of uses could high-level nuclear waste have aside from powering other reactor designs (eg LFTRs)?

>>5032366
>>implying hydro dam failures are as catastrophic as a meltdown.
What is a "meltdown"
>>implying shitty Chinese dam design is as globally dangerous as shitty nuclear plant design.
Please explain how a LWR can be a global danger at all.
>>implying these numbers are statiscally comparable... what's next, the number of deaths from Segways vs. cars?
Why are they not statiscally comparable? Segways vs. cars? sure.

That's what I like about my country (Finland). We are building more nuclear plants. Olkiluoto 3 will be the most powerful nuclear reactor at the moment it is finished unless they manage to finish that Chinese one first.

>>5032397
I wish my Denmark would be that smart. But the only political party I can imagine even considering nuclear power(without looking into it nor checking) are isolationist, bigoted, xenophobic, fools.

>>5032387

Depending on the isotope it has a variety of uses

But the simple and most common is to isolate a specific high energy isotope from the "waste"

what many people dont know about nuclear "waste" is that... (again depending on isotope) i can actually maintain an above average temperature

You can use this temperature difference in a peltiere based generator or sterling motor if you will...

You will have energy for as long as the is decaying, depending on your design.

20 years is not uncommon as this has been proved and successfully applied in lighthouses in Russia.

The project stopped however because the precious metals were stolen and lighthouses are no longer needed since other means of navigation are available.

>>5032342
THIS

The Fukushima radiation levels are now below background compared to many other inhabited areas on Earth. Totally irrational fears.

>>5032395

A meltdown is the name for any level of fuel core damage. In the event of a meltdown the damaged fuel will stay entirely within the containment vessels.

Is this going to turn into an LFTR thread or has /sci/ gotten over that fad?

>>5032571
lftr4lyf!

...

sorry, I'll never do that again.

(The hype does seem to have died down. There have been no substantiative progress reports from any of the LFTR organizations in the last year.)

>Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
>nuclear disaster.
>disaster.

I would say that using the word "disaster" in reference Fukushima is hyperbole at best.

Nuclear is safe as long as the procedures are respected. Which can basically be said about every source of energy existing. btw
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/belgium-nuclear-idUSL5E8JRCYE20120827
Because of badly manufactured reactor tanks, cracks have appeared.
It isn't a problem under normal conditions, but if the reactor had a melt-down, the emergency cooling would increase those crack.
Actual dangerous leaks are not unlikely to happens in such condition.
Of course it can only happens in case of a meltdown that require an emergency cooling, a situation who is very unlikely to happens in the first place and it's just one Power plant in Belgium
Except the factory who produced (and went out of business a few years ago, so don't count on them to repair the cracks) also furnished other power plant in Belgium AND in the rest of Europe, as well as, you bet it, even the USA.
Since the info has been communicated, cracks in other reactors have been noticed too. It was a systematic manufacturing problem
The best part is, the guy who was in charge of overlooking Nuclear plant in Belgium, and informed of the other client of this business of the cracks problem was asked to take an early retirement (it was planed that he does anyway, but they accelerated the process) and even scolded him a bit about "being alarmist", when all he did was make is job and informing the requiring authorities of the risk, as he is required by his job.
Of course, that any problem come out of this is very unlikely. As unlikely as a Tsunami hitting a nuclear plant.
I mean, out of all the nuclear plants existingin the world, only three of them have been through a meltdown.
So, very unlikely, objectively.

This is still an energy source that produce waste that have to be stocked an surrealistic length of time to become safe. out of its containment.
When it comes to nuclear fissions, the waste management will always be the problem.

Why are people so retarded when it comes to nuclear power?

The paranoia is bad enough without faggots like Greenpeace inflating numbers in all their "scientific reports"

There was one a few years ago claiming Chernobyl caused a hundred million deaths... a number they arrived at by attributing almost ALL deaths in Central Europe for several decades following the incident to the radiation released by Chernobyl... even deaths that have zero connection to radiation exposure

>>5032382
>Nuclear waste isnt necessarily unless you put it in a container and bury it, there are a lot of uses
I am not a pro, but I thought the nuclear wastes used in medicine were different kind that the one that require to be buried.

>>5032611

Japan Steel Works

>Japan Steel Works' services are in great demand owing to its role as one of only four manufacturers worldwide of large single-piece pressure vessels for nuclear reactors[2][3] at the company's factory, which is located on the island of Hokkaidō. The other manufacturers as of 2010 are two companies in China, and one in Russia.[4] However, Japan Steel Works is the only one that can make cores in a single piece without welds, which reduces risk from radiation leakage.[5] The company has boosted production to 6 units per year from 4 previously of the steel pressure vessel forgings, which contain the nuclear reactor core. It is scheduled to take capacity to 11 by 2013.[5] Due to the production bottleneck, utilities across the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need, along with deposits worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Other manufacturers are examining various options, including finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods, or making the component themselves with welds.[2] However, welds are weak points which can result in reactor leakage.

Just a quick piece to take into consideration. Reactor manufacture is at a bottleneck but capacity is on the increase.

A lot of you keep bitching about the stupid stuff people believe about nuclear, but your claims on renewable's are just as ill informed. Yeah sure we could safely power the world on nuclear and find a resemblance of a solution for the waste. But what's the point? Energy really should not be an issue, there are so many ways we could be generating our energy. It seems to me a little bit crazy to adopt something with such long term implications. Especially since whatever we choose is going to be obsolete in a matter of hundreds of years at the most anyway. Nothing we can do now will compare to fusion or solar satellites. Another good reason not to produce a shit load of radio-active waste.

>>5032358
What I would like to know tough, and isn't represented in the graph is how difficult it is to control the problems.

I mean, this graph represent how much damage would happens if shit turned for the worst, but how likely will it actually turns for the worst?

I mean, in case of coal and gaz plant, if you stop the feed of the fuel, it cease to be a danger before it reach any critical point. The danger would lie more in the stocking and transportation.

As for dam, little flows of water can be released if the dam start to crack up. A well managed dam will never release its full contain as it will be regulated before it is to late. And, I might be wrong, but an emergency release valve in a dam is a less complex system than an emergency cooling system in a nuclear plant, thus less likely to malfunction.

Finally, I would like actual statistics. How much fossile fuel plants and Dam have got critical problem and how much people have them killed or wounded in the past 20 years? and how does it compare with nuclear plants?

>>5032639 Energy really should not be an issue

We use WAY more energy than you think.

I know, Germany is fucking retarded, you don't need to tell me. Last winter our power grid was under ridiculous strain already.

>>5032630
It was a belgium factory that produced the cracked tanks, tough.

>>5032639
>Taxi cabs are good at getting people around so why waste money on airplanes.
Are you serious?

">>5032639 Energy really should not be an issue

We use WAY more energy than you think."

Nope, I know how much we use and the exponential pattern in which it increases. Energy is just much more abundant and easier to use than you think. The only problem is that we have all the infrastructure set up for fossil fuels and nuclear requires relatively little infrastructure. However, most of the many feasible alternatives require lots of new infrastructure.

>>5032650
>>We can't cross the pacific with taxi cabs.
>Yes we can. We just need a bridge.
Are you serious?

>>5032639
>Nothing we can do now will compare to fusion or solar satellites.
You're right, our energy needs are currently being met by technology that exists today, rather than fantasies that will never ever be viable.

>>5032650 Nope, I know how much we use and the exponential pattern in which it increases. Energy is just much more abundant and easier to use than you think.

I don't think you grok the scale of what you're talking about.

I made a rough calculation on the number of nuclear reactors we would need to build to satisfy current global energy demands. The number was around 50 new and operational reactors every day for a year. That's a lot of reactors, we are far from having the numbers of nuclear engineers required to run the plants.

>>5032662
But fusion is just 30 years away!

>>5032662
>>5032662
>Implying Fusion isn't about to become a real thing
Not the anon you quoted, but check
https://lasers.llnl.gov/
https://lasers.llnl.gov/newsroom/project_status/index.php
https://life.llnl.gov/index.php
Remember how exploitable nuclear Fusion was always in forever 50 years from now.

Well, now it's only in forever 20 years from now
And in a few years we might ever reach the forever 10 years from now.

And actual Fusion delivering more energy than the amount needed to trigger it (still not exploitable, tough) will actually happens at the end of this year or at the start of 2013

">>5032639
>Nothing we can do now will compare to fusion or solar satellites.
You're right, our energy needs are currently being met by technology that exists today, rather than fantasies that will never ever be viable"

Hahahaha, so what? What we have today it the peak of human technology. I can't comment on fusion, but satellite generation is not too far off.

>>5032358
https://life.llnl.gov/why_life/index.php
It look like it.

Geothermal has the potential to supply a hefty chunk of our energy needs.

>>5032673

I appreciate that you included the figures you were using to make your rough calculations so I could know you weren't just pulling shit out of your ass and parading it as a valid approximation.

Also, even if we were to step up nuclear power, areas that have hydro power would not be compelled to switch. Nuclear is an excellent alternative to fossil fuels for areas that don't have access to better energy sources.

>>5032702
And more over when it's Thorium.

>>5032625

Indeed true... this is not done as for today

as for medical uses isotopes are produced in a facility specialized for that purpose and this makes them VERY expensive

as much as nuclear "waste" is concerned

its a mixture of different isotopes (the portions and magnitude of these depends on what kind of fuel you used for the process) and this mixture is pretty much useless as it has the physical characteristics of all the different elements. But it can to some extent be controlled to produce a specific series of isotopes depending on reactor construction.

the separating of isotopes can be a simple matter as a decantation or it can be extremely difficult requiring huge mass spectrometers.

But its far from impossible to perfectly separate isotopes and but them into use once again, the only problem is that this is mostly done on one occasion and that is to produce nuclear weapons.

We seem to spend more money to take human bodies apart then to learn how to put them together again...

>>5032641
Hello, anyone to respond me?

>>5032708
Its funny since you can't fit down a thorium engine into a car.

The car would be too big to be practical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1TNHt4SRmU&feature=related

>>5032739
Your post is incoherent and retarded.

Happy?

>>5032753
The really funny thing is that neither there exist plutonium reactor of this size able to deliver Gigawatts.No, don't mention Radioisotope thermoelectric generators, they don't deliver beyond a few hundreds watts.

As for the real powerful nuclear reactors able to deliver that, they don't run on plutonium but Uranium (and way bigger than a Thorium plants).

I guess we'll have to assume all of this is just a work of fiction.

>>5032322

>>Solar power still has the impossibility of there not being enough sun and land to power everything

The sun gives out over two million exajoules per year that isn't absorbed by the atmosphere. That's several times larger then our total yearly energy consumption.

Assuming 10% efficiency, that's several hundred thousand exajoules. With a 5% increase in energy consumption per year, we could keep up with the growth till the 22nd century. And that's assuming our efficiency stays the same, and we don't use the ocean or space.

And before you go on about how solar requires rare or dangerous materials, read this: http://www.kurzweilai.net/ibm-sets-world-record-pv-solar-cell-power-conversion-efficiency

>>5032761
That does answer neither of my questions.
>Requiring more informations and precisions is a incoherent and retarded thing to do.
Could you at least tell me why I shouldn't ask for what I have asked.

>>5032761
>Finally, I would like actual statistics. How much fossile fuel plants and Dam have got critical problem and how much people have them killed or wounded in the past 20 years? and how does it compare with nuclear plants?
How is that a retarded thing to ask?

>>5032387
>>5032625
>>5032382
Why dont we put it into steel containers and dump that shit into the ocean?
If its 10km below the surface I doubt it can do any damage.
And it only costs the steel and the boat used for transporting it.

>>5032787
>something goes wrong and the container bursts or degrades through some unforeseen circumstance
>ru-oh

>>5032787
Steel and salt water (plus organic lifeforms living around it) does not make the best melange. neither is it good if you replace steel with lead. Especially if it is supposed to remain intact for several million of years. add to that flows of water and you have a massive radioactive contamination waiting to happen.

The only considered safe option (or less worst) is to stock them in old mines deep under ground specially transformed for the stocking of the wastes and far from any geological activity.

And even then, it's only considered safe for at best a few hundred years, as we have no idea if the evolution of our civilization will keep maintaining such places.

>>5032801
What part of 10 km below the surface did you not understand?
No animal from this depth can get to the ocean surface, nor can an animal from the ocean surface dive to this depth.

>>5032804
>No animal from this depth can get to the ocean surface, nor can an animal from the ocean surface dive to this depth.
Water currents, do you know it? Also, your lack of knowledge of the marine biology is showing.

>>5032808
>water currents
>in the mariana trench
I dont think so tim.

>mfw my dream job is working at a nuclear power plant

>>5032803
Using a magnetic cannon to space should solve the problem.

>>5032809
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench
> Furthermore, plate subduction zones are associated with very large megathrust earthquakes, the effects of which are unpredictable and possibly adverse to the safety of long-term disposal
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16393748
>circulation with mean flows of the opposite directions was observed in the Mariana Trench at a longitude of 142°35' E. Power spectra of daily mean currents showed three spectral peaks at periods of 100 days, 28-32 days and 14-15 days. The peak at 100 day period was common to the power spectra.

More realistically, it is possible to "burn" those long semi-live wastes with a Fusion or thorium reactors.

>Nuke means death
That's clearly a message for us, American waito piggu.

>>5032836
It is not backed by rationale, sensei.

>>5032817

You're running away from reality again

>>5032803 And even then, it's only considered safe for at best a few hundred years, as we have no idea if the evolution of our civilization will keep maintaining such places.

If our civilisation devolves to the point where it doesn't know to manage nuclear waste then we're already doomed

>>5032852
Okay then how abaut a space elevator and the just nudge it into the sun.

>>5032852
Actually, he's not.

http://research.lifeboat.com/ieee.em.pdf

It should be noted, tough, that almost no Nuclear plant can take on the impact of a commercial plane on its reactor.

Neither can any other plants or dam, tough.

What kind of power plant would produce the more damage, hurt the more people, have the longest, heaviest long-term impact if hit by a plane?

>>5032889
Dam by far, if it's the right one. Which terrorists would carefully pick.

>>5032889 It should be noted, tough, that almost no Nuclear plant can take on the impact of a commercial plane on its reactor.

I want to study this. I can't see a plane breaching containment vessels. It might rip a nasty hole in the outer building and damage external parts but there are multiple layers of passive fail safes to take out, on modern reactors anyway.

>>5032917
The problem is, a well dedicate terrorist will aim at an old plant.

>>5032920
or a dam

>>5032916
Wait, a dam is usually a big pile of concrete, way more ticker than a bunker. Wouldn't it actually be able to take the damage?

>>5032920
>dedicate terrorist will aim at an old plant
>implying people who would ride a box to their death would be smart enough to do this kind of research
Odds are they'd aim it at the newest, shiniest reactor around and hope it crumbles like the twin towers.

>>5032767
To supply a significant fraction of the Earth's energy requirement from solar power would need the entire land area of several North African countries. Nobody doubts that such a project would be fine in principle, nobody wants to transfer their energy dependence from one cabal of unstable countries to another. The other problem is the cost of construction, not only of the collectors which would be a vast construction project in itself that China would just love to get exclusive rights to, but also to distribution.

>>5032917
>>5032889
Actually, things should be Okay
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/aircraftcrashbreach/

>>5032889
>What kind of power plant would produce the more damage, hurt the more people, have the longest, heaviest long-term impact if hit by a plane?

If a hydro dam really would be blown open by a commercial aircraft, then the dam for sure. The actual cost to human life from dam failures (and successes too) is surprisingly disproportionate.

>>5032947
>2002
Or not
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/21/nuclear-risk-plane-crashes
That one date from 2011

>>5032949
But isn't a dam like an huge bunker, ticker that even a nuclear reactor protection?

Wouldn't it be able to sustain the chock?

>>5032958

This article has no technical details. They're saying the risk of plane crashes is higher, it says nothing for the structural integrity of the power plants.

>>5032964
the easiest way for you to understand is to get a raw chicken egg and try to crush it from the pointy ends in a single hand

then try from the middle

it's basically like that...they aren't designed to handle every possible shock load, only designed for the expected ones

>>5032942

>>To supply a significant fraction of the Earth's energy requirement from solar power would need the entire land area of several North African countries

It would take a little over 360,000 square miles, which is slightly less then 4 times the total square mileage of all urban areas in the US, to supply the entire world's energy needs with 10% efficiency solar. The URBAN area. The Rural mileage is over three and a half million.

In other words, by covering our roofs with solar panels, and setting up arrays in the country-side, America alone could produce as much power as the entire world consumes. With current technology. With greater efficiencies, we can divide that area. With 20%, we would only need 130,000 square miles, etc.

>>Nobody doubts that such a project would be fine in principle, nobody wants to transfer their energy dependence from one cabal of unstable countries to another

Solar means total energy independence for any country that adopts it. It will be done right here, not in some other country on the other side of the globe.

You're thinking in terms of centralization that simply won't exist with solar, and that's one of it's selling points.
>>The other problem is the cost of construction
>>not only of the collectors which would be a vast construction project in itself that China would just love to get exclusive rights to, but also to distribution

The bill will be footed by everyone on the face of the planet. You and I will buy our own panels and install them on our own houses. The era of centrally owned an operated energy is at a close. The 'solar web' will be distributed and owned by millions or billions of individuals.

More uranium for us, if you ask me.

>>5032964
>>5032889
>>5032678
>>5032646
>>5032641

Where's your "h" button man?

Nukuler power is the only viable way to go. All these "in 3 years we'll see X technology articles!" are jokes. Go pick up a five year old Popular Science magazine and you'll see what I'm talking about. It's going to be a long way off until solar panels are efficient AND cheap enough to become viable sources of energy.

There are only two negative using nuclear power brings: waste and the potential for a nuclear incident.

I say who gives a fuck about the waste. Bury that shit out in a desert where it won't leak out of its container. 99.9999999999% of the world population will never know where it is and would never care either if it weren't for all the hippies crying about it.

Nuclear incidents in my opinion are so few and far between it's more advantageous that a few humans get a couple mrems of exposure every once in a great while than to slowly destroy our entire planet burning fossil fuels.

I worked in a nuclear sub by the way, so I have a little over 50 mrem of exposure.

>>5033078
Why are you talking about Solar panel when what what you quote only mention Fusion?

also, what is an "h" button?

>>5033082

An "h" button is a button with the letter "h" on it. You used it in your post. I linked those posts because the guy's h button wasn't working.

Solar panels can run homes cost effectively, but trying to run an entire city or country using solely solar power would be retarded.

they all march to beat of the oil and coal company's drum.

"global warming is only a myth and not a pressing issue
nuclear power can never be safe
Solar is not efficient"

>>5033086
except every post you quoted except one had h's in them you fuckwit.

>>5033086
You mean the "h" key on my keyboard? I still don't understand what's your point with that? Also, I already knew that, for the solar panel.

>>5032303
Fuck here in Italy we had a referendum and in my village where live 2500 people (don't know exactly how many voted) only 3 voted for the activation of the nuclear reactor. Me my father and some friend of mine.
At the same time there are two aerogenerators what need to get dismonted because they don't fit into the landscape.

God dammit these people are so stupid.

France, never. They are in for some electricity sales.

It gonna be a huge profit for them.

Even if Germany can supply their own electricity, Germany sold of a lot of energy in the past, so thats something France may take over.

ITT mostly amerifaqs Fra(n)cque who do not know about the limited supply of uranium plus the environmental consequences of harvesting it plus the so called end-disposal.

oh and please show me the drought caused by floating off shore wind parks oh and follow that ibm link.
lobbyfuckedfaqs...

>>5033165
germany is still selling energy without the production of nuclear energy stupid.

>>5033186
No one ever said they wind or solar energy was more dangerous, they said it wouldn't compensate enough.

What they deemed dangerous are the Gas and coal plant as well as the potential flooding of dams(el in distress)

Quick question about nuclear waste!

Can't we just easily throw that shit into space?

>>5032932

When engineering you don't build things any larger than they have to be. Remember the structure has to support itself; too much excess weight can make it less stable, not more. So they're designed to maintain their normal load, plus whatever margin of error is considered safe. They are not just giant super-thick walls of steel-reinforced concrete. Their structural integrity is mostly already devoted to bearing the load of all that water. Sudden additions of stress, particularly localized, penetrating stress in the form of a fast-moving aircraft loaded with fuel, could very easily compromise the entire structure's integrity and result in a catastrophic failure.

Remember also that dams are at least partially hollow. They have internal chambers for pipes and ductwork and spillways and the generators, etc etc.

>>5033238
If you know an easy way of getting millions of tons nuclear waste up there sure, why not? Currently NASA spends billions of dollar getting a few tons at most of material up in space.

>>5033238

All it would take is one rocket malfunctioning and you'd have yourself a nuclear rainfall over a massive area of land. It's not safe enough. The safe option we have (but aren't implementing) is placing the spent fuel in deep boreholes. This is the best option we have for disposing of nuclear waste.

>>5032641

>Finally, I would like actual statistics. How much fossile fuel plants and Dam have got critical problem and how much people have them killed or wounded in the past 20 years? and how does it compare with nuclear plants?

During the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, an oil refinery processing your fossil fuels burst into flames and the dam for a small reservoir burst. Both events each killed more people than what happened at Fukishima.

>>5033245
But the added tension wouldn't add itself to the already existing one, as water is on the other side. Quite on the contrary, it is an opposing tension.

Let assume that the dry side of a dam can take as much stress than the one retaining water. A plane hitting the dry side should apply more pressure than the water is making on the other side. Only then would the water go through the hole and the complete destruction of the dam would rather be caused by the water flowing through the hole and increasing it.

But the already existing stress of the water would not add up to the one caused by the plane in the initial step of destruction.

>>5033245
It's not often I can comment within one of my areas of expertise, hut here goes.
Spillways, pipes tubes whatever are all tertiary, ie they get added after the structural work on the primary structure is done. In most cases spillways actually go around the structure rather than through, and whatever minor plumbing that traces the dam follows along non critical sections. So for the most part, yes actually, dams are mostly just walls of concrete and steel, there just happens to also be some other crap tacked on.

That said, they are not designed to resist significant impact. Semistatic water loads act very differently from, and are reinforced differently from impact loads. A dam could take a hummer plowing into it by virtue of its great mass, but a plane is A different matter.

>>5033276
Thanks for the input.
Does actual study exist about the kind of impact a dam can take?

>>5033245 When engineering you don't build things any larger than they have to be

wat

lrn2factorofsafety

You build as big as you can get away with regarding physical space and budget constraints.

Funfact
Airplanes are built with a much lower factor of safety than any car, bridge or crane. You will come across many weight/load ratings on lifts, cranes etc and everyone finds it's OK to exceed the specified rating by a little/large bit because you have some FoS to bite into. You DON'T do this with aerospace equipment.

>>5033305
It would.act no differently than a concrete slab reinforced for static loads. Most likely it would fail due to punching shear or crushing.
Crushing is just that, the concrete fails in compression. HPC can only take 45 mPa of load before it fails.
Shear punching is when the impact force.distributes along the perimiter of contact as a resisting shear and just fails the whole section along that line in shear.

>>5033245 Their structural integrity is mostly already devoted to bearing the load of all that water. Sudden additions of stress, particularly localized, penetrating stress in the form of a fast-moving aircraft loaded with fuel, could very easily compromise the entire structure's integrity and result in a catastrophic failure.

Your use of the term "very easily" is unqualified and I suspect is nothing more than speculation. I beg of you to be more critical in your statements.

>>5033313
The FoS in structural engineering has more to do with the unpredictability of our material properties. You can't guarantee concrete will mix perfectly throughout or steel will have appropriate.residual stress distributions

It isn't relevant how many people died directly from the Fukushima disaster. The question is how much the cancer incidence rate will increase.

>>5032330

>Yeah... because having areas completely uninhabitable is fine.

Yeah, good thing no other power source has rendered entire swaths of land completely uninhabitable.

Oh wait...

>>5033336 The FoS in structural engineering has more to do with the unpredictability of our material properties.

That's an interesting approach I haven't thought too deeply about. I've a mechanical background and may take for granted materials being within tight boundaries.

The main issue I have with nuclear power currently is that a lot of the problems that a likely to occur are in the end the fault of those who protest so strongly against nuclear power in the first place. Because it's so hard to build new nuclear power plants, companies are forced to keep extending the lives of the existing power plants. Fukishima had already been running for longer than it had been originally designed for.

>>5033344

That sounds like a fun place.

Does anyone have any figures for the area destroyed because of the gulf oil spill?

>>5033362

Yes. This boils my piss.

About a year ago I heard on the radio when driving: 'Explosion in Czech nuclear power plant!!' I was in Poland ATM, so I hurried home and got online to investigate.

It turned out that some idiot threw cold scrap metal into smelting furnace which happened to be on grounds of the plant, which caused furnace to crack a bit.

So much for nuclear disaster.

>>5033367

Yeah, that's Centralia, PA. It's been completely uninhabitable since the 80's.

>>5033362
Pretty much this. It's reached a point where the system designed to prevent disasters will cause them. Someone hold me.

Actually, do you think as the current population - mostly "baby boomers" - who grew up with nuclear scare dwindles, we might see a resurgent interest in nuclear power?

>>5033367

A quick look on Wikipedia suggests that it was about 100,000 square kilometers, far bigger than the 2,600 square km zone around Chernobyl.

Well, to be honest, Wikipedia returns three different events for 'gulf oil spill'. It seems we're vomiting up oil all over the place.

>>5032702 I appreciate that you included the figures you were using to make your rough calculations so I could know you weren't just pulling shit out of your ass and parading it as a valid approximation.

Valid argument. I will have to dig up the exact numbers I used but the result was pretty daunting. We really don't have the spare people, right now, to run these additional plants even if we were willing to pay for them. We need to plan in at least 50 year blocks to effectively get a hold on our energy supply, 4 year politics really goes against this forward planning.

>>5033411 Actually, do you think as the current population - mostly "baby boomers" - who grew up with nuclear scare dwindles, we might see a resurgent interest in nuclear power?

Yes but only if the knowledgeable people are willing to counter Greenpeace propaganda.

>>5033450
Greenpeace argument's is not Propaganda tough. Their main complain about Nuclear is basically the one legit complain: We still don't know what to do with the most dangerous wastes.

well, this is the ultimate result of the japanese media's sensationalist bullshit in a mad dash to get more viewers after the reactor accident.

i'm not sure if the lack of public education on nuclear energy, lack of accuracy by the media, lack of brains on the part of the protesters, or all three are equally to blame

either way
>enjoy your rolling brownouts and or hastily build natural gas plants, japan

>>5032330
fun fact; the area around fukushima has been declared safe for habitation again as of this past spring. the only "exclusion zone" left is 2km around the plant. show's over folks everyone go home.

>>5032889
>It should be noted, tough, that almost no Nuclear plant can take on the impact of a commercial plane on its reactor.
you're shitting me right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8
they're designed to take that and far worse
a 747 wouldn't be shit

>>5033490
also the fuel casks can take a train crash head on at top speed and not give a fuck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHtRZ_k0s7M
>mfw greenpeace making shit up again in the video

>>5033510
You don't have a face.

>>5033510

Excellent little clip you have found.

It's hard to imagine a video with such little sensationalism is talking about such a huge controversial subject.

>>5033529
exactly

Wait what?

Is this mentality also being applied to Nuclear Fusion? If so then that's ridiculous !

Nuclear fusion reactors aren't some kind of pipe-dream, constructing one is perfectly possible. Tbe problem lies in sustainig the fusion of Hydrogen atoms using a magnetic field for a long amount of time.

We have only managed to sustain Nuclear fusion for 8 seconds so far, however it is only a matter of time before we are able to sustain it for a much longer time.

This would create electricity for hundreds of thousands of people cheaply, easily and efficiently. It will be a lot safer than Nuclear fission (which is what we use now)

I can't see why people would be against this. It's almost as if people think Oil is an infinite resource, and doesn't case nations to go to war over it.

Some info on Nuclear fusion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe7mbv7v9Zg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gRnezJNFro

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fusion.html


http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-reactor.htm

get a load of all these faggots defending nuclear power.

>>5033641 however it is only a matter of time before we are able to sustain it for a much longer time

>fantasy

>>5033459

Their arguments are unfounded and you know it. We do have plans for long term nuclear waste care (Yukka mountain) but uninformed protesters still fuck things up because they have mouths bigger than their foresight

>>5032303
Well, Japan has a history, Germany wants to look all green and glass and shiny, like an entire country made of iPad, except for actually being scarily efficient. As for Italy- Well.. Err... Another thing to be blamed on the ruins of Berlusconi?
>>5032606
Personally, I wouldn't call it a disaster until the STALKERs showed up. Samurai STALKERs...

>>5033641
>I can't see why people would be against this.

Maybe you don't understand:
it's not that people are against it -- it simply is not here yet
but even given that, people may always assume there are dangers to it. They are almost certainly correct.
(We won't really know until we have a working plant what the dangers are.)

>>5033490
>they're designed to take that and far worse
a 747 wouldn't be shit

You can't assume, just because that video was done, that all nuclear power plants have a wall built to those specs.

That is a test of a wall -- it didn't even say anyone built a plant to those specs, let alone that ALL plants are built to those specs.


and STOP using youtube as an authority -- find out who MADE the video, don't just look for videos!

>>5033367
>Does anyone have any figures for the area destroyed because of the gulf oil spill?

'area destroyed' is far too provocative:
ocean water recovers far differently from land, just as atmosphere recovers differently from land or ocean.
And inversely to animal life, where the ocean incurs more damage than land spoilage.

In any case, 'destroyed' makes it sound like nothing remains, nothing ever comes back.

>>5032322
dude I have been saying wind power will do this for years.

source please.

>>5032303

Say hello sustainable energy.

I know several nuclear engineers/heads etc that work at the BNL and plants.

Their opinion?

"The media is killing a great source of energy."

>>5033785

sorry forgot the link. http://www.iter.org/

Holy fuck world, do you even thorium?

>>5032371
>huurr ima a newfag redditor posting on le fourchains

>>5033641
>mention fusion
>focus only on ITER and NIF

Do you even Bussard-Farnsworth Fusor, Anon?

The Navy's renewed the contracts. The money supply has ticked up.

Hold on to your butts.

>>5033092 except every post you quoted except one had h's in them you fuckwit.

He can't spell "though" you fucking fuck.

>>5032303
It's a bit more complicated situation with Italy. The main reason that nuclear energy has become a no-go here is that the risk of public money ending up in the pokets of the usal rich mafious bastards is damn high. In addition, it takes 10 year to built and make full operative a nuclear implant, so it really wouldn't solve our problems. In return for this, the goverment froze all the incentives for photovoltaic panels and such - they are such nice people it makes me wonna kill them all

>>5034782
>nuclear implant
wot

Reminds me of some of my friends talking about Fukushima

>how could japan even consider using nuclear power after what happened at hiroshima
How can people be so retarded?

Meanwhile, glorious country of Iran is investing in nuclear power - even with the threat of their plants being bombed by foreign terrorist national armies.

>>5033641
>8 seconds sustained fusion
oh man, that one second record sure got broken..

the only method of fusion energy i could see being commercially viable in the next half century is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetized_target_fusion

>>5033655
yes, let's

>>5033738
>STALKER; shadow of fukushima
plays somewhat like Shenmue for the dreamcast
all of my MONEY

>>5033758
these specs are standard NRC requirements of all operating nuclear power plants (even the old ones). most of the rest of the world has similar requirements.
here, the davis besse reactor investigation brought some of this stuff up
http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/davi/davis-besse-shield-building-qa.pdf
the wall in the video is thicker (probably) because they were testing impact on a flat surface, and had to account for the unique load bearing properties of the top of a concrete dome.
it's designed to contain the entire reactor pot's volume worth of water in case of a catastrophic steam explosion, an airplane impact isn't as stressful

>>5034070
word on the street is that polywell fusion has fundamental limits preventing breakeven. i'll go dig up the papers

How about, we just collectively agree to go back into the iron age?

>>5034918

What are you talking about. Everybody knows that Iran = terrorist and Israel = shining beacon of the middle east

>>5035472
Will any universities be building an MTF reactor, do you know?

>>5035472

laughingsluts.png

The madness has already reached those countries. PS buy stocks in plutonium commodities. Demand will shoot back up eventually. This is a huge power play by OPEC.

>>5032613
I could say the same about coal but hardly anyone seems to care about that hazardous waste.
>>5034070
I didn't know this. I wish Grace Hopper was alive, she'd probably get people supporting this.

/x/ here.

Nuclear "accidents" are really planned conspiracies by the oil oligarchies, who consistently manipulate the world and its societies to increase their own profits.

They're making sure people hate nuclear power so that it will be abolished, thus maximizing their profits. This is also why an alternate fuel for running cars hasn't been integrated, and why electric car innovation is mitigated.

Kock Brothers did Fukushima

>>5035596
a canadian startup, General Fusion, is taking up the torch.
they plan to have a test reactor ready to fire by some time in late 2013, i am excite as fuck

>>5035695
Did someone say general fusion?
Their prototype could not give me a bigger hardon even if naked models were straddling the pistons.

>>5035695
Oh shit, that thing.

If it works, every nut with a few hundred grand and a couple of years to kill is going to be able to make his own nuclear weapons.

I don't know much about fusion, anyone want to explain the different types and how they work?

I read somewhere on /sci/ that the ITER tokamak is a completely BS design and that the Soviet designers released it as a gesture of goodwill. Any clarification on this?

>>5035723
>dem pistons
wait, why so few? the optimal configuration is 200+ pistons for an even compression wave
i mean, if it's just to test the concept sure, but i get a sneaking suspicion that too few pistons will really fuck up your dynamics and make the fusion event way too sub optimal

>>5035751

This isn't the stupid plot of bat man. You cannot make a bomb with fusion.

It's already hit the US. San Onofre is likely to not be restarted, just because bad practices resulted in excess wear.

>get the details wrong
>sink the whole concept
sigh...

>>5035773
Fusion works with heat, pressure, and duration.

Tokamak is magnetic confinement of a fuel plasma. Long duration, high heat, low pressure.

Inertial confinement fusion is compression of a fuel pellet with lasers. Short duration, high heat, high pressure. The idea is basically a tiny H-bomb without the A-bomb trigger.

An electrostatic fusor is like a tokamak, but uses electrostatic confinement. These are easy to make but leak thermal energy like crazy and have no hope of producing net work. They are easy neutron sources, though.

Accelerator-based fusion devices use non-thermal collisions, so the concepts of temperature and pressure don't properly apply. You could say that they are the extreme of "high temperature/pressure, low duration", and while it's theoretically possible for them to do net work, none of our energy recovery technology is anywhere near efficient enough for this to happen.

A polywell fusor is, theoretically, a spherical fuel region magnetic confinement device, combining the advantages of tokamak and electrostatic fusor to do net work with a much smaller and less expensive device. They probably won't work much better than electrostatic fusors in practice.

General Fusion's magnetized target fusion is a medium duration, medium pressure concept that basically works like an internal combustion engine. You heat a plasma to fusion temperature, then compress it in a lead chamber to increase the rate of fusion. It's another neat idea that probably won't work.

>>5035773
ITER is inertial confinement fusion. look up the national ignition facility for their work, they basically make a little fusion fuel pellet "explode" inwards with giant fucking lasers. looks cool as fuck, might actually work out within thirty years or so

MCF is magnetic confinement fusion, that's the "tokomak" toroidal (donut shape) reactor. Probably will not achieve breakeven for another few decades, and a commercial power plant is decades after that. The design was given to the US by the russians as a peace offering. they really gave it to us because they knew it wouldn't work. you basically make a big donut of plasma and heat/compress the shit out it, then keep it there for years on end.

MTF is sort of a mix of both. you inject some plasma into the center of a vat of liquid lead/lithium, a bunch of pistons smack on the exterior of the sphere, creating a pressure wave that travels to the center and crushes the plasma to fusion pressures. the design is SUPER SUPER SEXY because you get 100% efficient capture of energy, nothing gets past all that lead, and the lithium converts into tritium which you use for your fuel. The lead/lithium both captures the head of the fusion AND acts as the primary heat transfer medium, much simpler construction and design. We've already surpassed the needed pressures and temps in other fusion methods.

>>5035805
oh, you can, but you need a fission trigger. a very good one at that. so you still need that pesky weapons grade U235

>>5035829
>mtf
>probably won't work
i will cut you

>>5035805
>You cannot make a bomb with fusion.
Like any practical D-T design, it's a breeder reactor. They absorb the fusion neutrons with lithium (dissolved in lead), which produces tritium.

Dissolve uranium or thorium in the lead, and not only will it produce several times as much energy (even depleted uranium can be induced to fission by the high-energy neutrons produced with fusion), it will also breed fissile material suitable for nuclear weapons.

Natural uranium, depleted uranium, and thorium aren't hard to get, and this is a perfect machine for turning them into plutonium 239 and uranium 233.

A fusion technology's practicality for power generation is directly related to its practicality for nuclear weapon production. It can't be good for one without being good for the other.

>>5035829
>>5035831

Interesting, thanks!

>>5035851
...and after it was said, all of the shiny happy fusion enthusiasts fell silent, and stopped looking each other in the eye.

Just like that, the party was over, and by ones and twos they mumbled their goodbyes and shuffled out of the room.

>>5035831
>Probably will not achieve breakeven for another few decades
Well, that's a bunch of bullshit.
JET already achieved theoretical breakeven in a D-D run, and it will after some refurbishment, do D-T runs in a few years, that will achieve a Q>1
When ITER's done it will have Q>5, if nobody fucks up.
>the design is SUPER SUPER SEXY
Yeah, "design". Magnetohydrodynamics is hard, hard as balls, really. The Tokamaks were supposed to produce net energy in the 70s. And then we discovered a whole heap of , sometimes to this day, completely unexplained instabilities, that were predicted in no way shape or form in any theory, and then we thought magnetically confined fusion will never achieve breakeven, and then H-mode was discovered where the plasma FOR NO EXPLAINABLE REASON suddenly doubles in confinement. It gets better, accidentally.
And now magnetically confined fusion works, kinda, for no reason whatsoever, really.
As long as no physical reactor has been built, all "alternative" approaches to fusion are about as much worth as a soggy bag of wet shit. "Designs" give you nothing if you trot around in a field where we can't even explain half the phenomenas yu observe, much less predict them.

If nuclear power is as volatile as some of you folks make it, then why are so many navy vessels utilizing it? Wouldn't the United States navy be aware that all their biggest warships are just ticking time bombs? Also, there is no port that I am aware of that does not allow U.S. navy ships into them on the basis that they could blow up at any moment.

>>5035967

Thread is derailing into unproven futurism.

Anyone want to get back to LWR?

>>5033641
>Wait what?
>Is this mentality also being applied to Nuclear Fusion? If so then that's ridiculous !
Nowhere is that said. You are the first person to brought that subject by asking if it is the case.

Most ecologist organisation are in favor of fusion. You asked that question out of nowhere.

>>5035967
because the only way to have 24/7/365 second strike ability is a nuclear subarine, diesel patrols.. were a horrible clusterfuck at best, and once you gained the ability to run deep, fast, and quiet, and launch missiles at any city in less than 15 hours, you gained something that will never go away.

For surface vessels, you gain the ability to operate at high speed without stopping, which is a big deal when you want to destroy SAMs/air grids without having to use massive air to air refueling operations, which means you can save them for dedicated bomber craft. Going to any site in the world rapidly is a huge strategic talent!


>>5036011
LWRs work, are safe, and can be made stable.

>>5036011
If you mean fusion, it's where we're headed, barring an apocalyptic event, and we should be pushing for it more. In the mean time IDK if fission is the best choice but it's better than coal and a little better than oil.

>>5036102
>If you mean fusion, it's where we're headed, barring an apocalyptic event
The qualifier is unnecessary. An apocalyptic event would also most likely involve fusion.

>>5035851
>>5035935
ooh that's what you were talking about
yes, that can happen, since you're basically turning into a heavy neutron bombardment thing instead of a power reactor

>>5036102
fusion is sort of like solar, really
it'll win out in the end, but on unreasonable timescales with lots of very slow progress

>>5035951
which is why i like mtf, most of the components have been tested and work fine in other experiments.
but yeah there's always the shit you can never possibly see coming, which is why general fusion is doing their testbed reactor.
i'm not saying it'll work immediately and we'll all bask in the glory of mtf, i'm just saying it has a reasonable chance of short to mid term success

>>5036146
>>5036102

Fuck you guys, you know that's not what I meant.

>>5033478
Haven't they found fish miles away with lots of contimination?

>>5036514
not that i know of, i'm always wary of articles that use the term "lots"
what kind? plutonium? cesium-137?
what concentration?
how much higher than a background dose?
in what area? very close? very far away? how spread out?

usually it's boiled down to vague shit to get more ad revenue
>your fish could have plutonium in! click past the break to see more!

Why choose between fission and fusion? They're two great tastes that taste great together!

What we should be using is applying the research of Project Orion to build an internal thermonuclear detonation engine. Breeding its own fuel would be no problem because it can use fusion and make all kinds of neutrons, and as long as you make it big enough, you should be able to keep anything nasty from going wrong.

The best part is, we'd only need one.

>>5036535
>as long as you make it big enough, you should be able to keep anything nasty from going wrong.

>as long as you make it big enough, you should be able to keep anything nasty from getting into the atmosphere.

fixed

>>5036522
I saw it on TV so I can't remember exactly ut I think it's related to this
http://colekcolek.com/2012/08/30/contaminated-fish-radiation-detected-japan/

I haven't heard anything about the land being contaminated though..

>>5035829
I'm not giving up on Polywell until the Navy gives up on it. Yes, I KNOW the military funded psychic research. The point still stands: the Defense Department isn't filled with your average chucklefucks. The Navy wants polywell reactors to power their new railgun destroyers, and so far the funding has held up. We won't hear anything for a while, but I think if they're still giving EMC2 money a year from now, it's a good sign.

Speaking of fusion variants, anyone else paying attention to Eric Lerner's dense plasma focus?

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/

It's progressed from totally implausible to not very plausible. Considering all the milestones they've set, I'm not ready to bet against them.

>>5036682
Polywell doesn't need to be a workable power source to be interesting to the military.

A better fusor could be a cheaper, more efficient neutron source than the sealed-tube generators currently used. Neutrons are useful for scanning.

They might be openly funding it simply to encourage other militaries to waste money looking into it. They're not funding it very much, after all.

>>5036718
So are you more hopeful for General Fusion or ITER, or some other approach?

Because I feel like we're getting down to the wire here. Crude oil supplies are unstable and are drawing down, fission works but future uranium supplies are in doubt, renewables keep getting better but still might not be ready in time for a serious oil crunch.

Fusion would give us lots of power, enough to keep up modern civilization, dependably. But when can we expect it?

>>5036745
I don't think fusion matters all that much. Proliferation threat is what keeps us from using the better sorts of fission reactor, and fusion power is the worst proliferation threat of all.

Oil and coal will last a good long time yet. Fission fuels are, for all practical purposes, limitless. Solar is advancing in a way comparable to computer technology.

I see no problems with energy whatsoever. The emergence of fusion power is unpredictable and would create new problems.

Let's just say that I'm optimistic that fusion won't come along sooner than we can handle it.

>>5033247
It could be a lucrative business for all those up and coming private companies competing with NASA.

Garbagemen.

In SPACE.

>>5036820
Problem: nuclear waste on Earth.

Solution: launch it into orbit with Orion rocket, destroy with Tsar Bomba.

Problem solved!

>>5036820
Planetes?

How does one reduce space debris, anyway?

>>5036038 You didn't adress my point but that's kind of what I expected

>>5032767
>The sun gives out over two million exajoules per year that isn't absorbed by the atmosphere.

We're to completely blanket the planet now? How do you intend to maintain that much coverage? What do you suppose will suffer from the loss of sunlight?

>That's several times larger then our total yearly energy consumption.
>we could keep up with the growth till the 22nd century

That's it? That's utter shit. We have access to enough thorium to maintain the same rate of increase for millions of years on it alone.

>>5036995
But are we going to build those reactors in time?

Our immediacy on this issue is directly correlated to how you feel about current supplies of crude oil. I happen to think we'll hit peak oil sooner rather than later. We know the Saudis have been overstating their reserves (thank you Wikileaks), and there's no telling when Mexico and South America will start running dry.

I really feel like whatever moves we should be making, we ought to make them very very soon.

And to be fair, the world isn't the US. China is moving fast on nuclear reactors, as is South Korea. But will the rest of us catch up to them in time? And will it be enough?

We're racing geology here. We might get a decent boost from oil in the Arctic if the Azolla event led to decent crude deposits, but it won't last long.

>>5036995
>We have access to enough thorium to maintain the same rate of increase for millions of years on it alone.

>5% increase in energy consumption per year
>doubles every ~14 years, for a million years
>let's call that 70,000
>energy consumption increased by 2^70000
>let's lowball it again and call that 10^20000
>let's say go full retard and say we could currently fuel all human energy needs with 1 atom of thorium per year
>lowballing lower than balls, on the millionth year we would need well over 10^19900 Earths made of pure thorium

Thoriumfags: actually this stupid.

>>5037044
See, this is why I hope fusion works sooner or later. We'll need it to move out into the solar system, at the very least. And we'll need the solar system to keep up growth at least in the next 500 years.

Fuck, you know what, I'll be happy if we just don't run out of power and revert back to the dark ages. Anything after that is just gravy.

>>5036995
>thorium for millions of years
yeah, no. a few hundred for sure, it's a great mid term thing and could stick around for a while

>>5037044
i apologized, i think i inadvertently started the church of LFTR on here, and now there are lots of people poorly quoting specific videos.

remember; thorium is not the golden bullet, it's just a very good fission reactor to fill the city-scale, close to population center, high safety margin niche.

>>5037065
>this is why I hope fusion works sooner or later. We'll need it to move out into the solar system, at the very least.
No, there are all sorts of ways to move out into the solar system. Even hydrogen rockets will do the job if we put the money in. Fission rockets would make it almost easy.

And once we get a foothold, we can set up insanely immense solar collectors.

I'm not saying that fusion won't be useful, but if it somehow turned out to not be an option, we've already got a bigger fusion reactor than we'd ever build. All we need to do is harness it.

>>5037084
skip the fusion drive bullshit and go straight for antimatter. there are some interesting designs for satellites that would harvest small levels of antimatter produced and carried but the magnetosphere.
storing it will be a bitch and a half though.

>wearing gas masks to protect against radiation

Nippon, are you really that stupid?

>>5037099
please be a troll

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/japan/120907/mt-fuji-may-be-getting-rea
dy-blow-scientists-say

Japan will be gone soon anyway, who cares.

>>5037106
Hey, that could put a dent in global warming for a year or two.

>>5037103
Fuck, I didn't realize I said gas masks. My English isn't good. What are those called?

>>5037113
dust masks
you do realize why those are important, right?

>>5037113
dust masks maybe

>>5037066
You seem to have a decent handle on things. When do you think we'll see peak oil? Because that's really what everything hinges on. It's the thing that keeps everyone up at night, the thing that spurs all advances in energy beyond fossil fuels.

>>5037210
peak oil? no idea. oil sands should keep things going for a while, possibly another half century, assuming we don't do more aggressive shallow drilling or more reserves don't open up.

peak natural gas won't be for a long time thanks to fracking, assuming the huge price drop isn't mostly due to speculation. expect to see lots of "clean burning" natural gas plants, and various energy giants pouring tons of money into methods to recapture co2 given off during natural gas burning, so they can be the first to claim their natural gas is "truly green" and get LOADSAMONE from investors

>>5033068
Solar panels could be free, and solar would still be useless.

>>5033090
Well, that last part is true. Solar is "inefficient".

>>5033238
Too expensive. Not needed. Much cheaper safer ways exist.

>>5033340
Likely few or none. Protip: LNT is bullshit.

>>5033459
My ass. Greenpeace is no better than creationists most of the time. And the waste is easy. Reprocess it, and the volume is stupidly small. MSRs and waste burners help here too.

>>5037044
Nope. You're the stupid one.

>>5037066
Gonna have to back that up.

>yeah, no. a few hundred for sure, it's a great mid term thing and could stick around for a while
When it's practical to mine granite for the thorium content, and the amount of granite and similar rocks seem quite abundant... I don't think it's an exaggeration.

>remember; thorium is not the golden bullet, it's just a very good fission reactor to fill the city-scale, close to population center, high safety margin niche.
And why can't it scale to more electricity?

>>5035590
america shining beacon of middle east.
rest of world out to get us.
the fact that you would ever even dare to insinuate anything else means that you are likely some sort of immoral athiestic Al Quelian foreigh communist disinfo terrist scum.
AMERICA #1 AMERICA #1 AMERICA #1 AMERICA #1 AMERICA #1

>>5037112
And we'd be having snow fall in Florida in June.

>>5037341
>Protip: LNT is bullshit.
it's not bullshit, the evidence is just conflicting. i don't really follow it but we need more hard data
the problem is there isn't much funding for finding hard data, it's all just "LNT is law get over it scrub"

>>5037347
>And why can't it scale to more electricity?
the reactor core gets really unwieldy quickly, and putting like 6-10 cores together to make a multi gigawatt plant is not too practical. light water reactors are better for that

however it would be FANTASTIC to have like two or three of these things around a large city and supporting the surrounding suburbs, really nice and cheap baseload power with great passive safety and relatively cheap fuel.

>>5037450
It might be law. That doesn't mean I can't call bullshit on studies that claim thousands on death without evidence.

>>5037454
Still waiting for a reason. Explain why it's hard to have multiple plants.

>How long until this madness reaches France?
I'm french and the fear-mongering is already there...
The new socialist (ugh) president is anti-nuclear.
And it's trendy to be "green" and against it.
Idiots, everywhere.

>>5037475
it's not hard to have multiple plants, it's just more reasonable to have them spread out instead of all packed together for one big baseload

more plants is actually better, the grid becomes much more segmented and can cope with losses, instead of the "all eggs in one basket" problem the current infrastructure has.

again, this is why i like lftr, this specifically

>>5037490
Still waiting why it's unreasonable as to why we couldnt have majority electricity from LFTR.

>>5035472
Are you thinking of Todd Rider's thesis? I thought that just covered the viability of pB-11. Most of Bussard's own work was with Deuterium, which he did think could produce net power, though he really wanted to shift to proton-Boron to avoid fast neutron radiation.

>>5032430
>The project stopped however because the precious metals were stolen and lighthouses are no longer needed since other means of navigation are available.
>the precious metals were stolen
Sweet smell of Russia.

>>5037494
because you can't make a weapon with it.

>>5038819
They're fine for making weapons.

The LFTR and LMFBR were, at one point, competing designs for weapon production. That's where the LFTR comes from.

It was abandoned because it was LESS suitable, not UNsuitable. U233 is not as good as Pu239 for nuclear weapons, though still better than U235. Thorium is less available than uranium, and the LFTR also requires significant amounts of other expensive, scarce materials.

The LFTR was the underdog from the beginning. A fallback that was abandoned when the LMFBR worked well enough.

>>5038794
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAXzicwhcHI

>>5037494
in general it's not good to depend entirely on one energy source.
in my super awesome dream world, LFTR acts as mid range baseload for large population centers, light water reactors handle really heavy baseload for industrial applications, and cheap ass solar panels on people's roofs in the suburbs slash their electricity bill down to (almost) nothing.

I want to make sweet buttlove to you, Nuka-Cola.

>>5038929
uh

lol nuclear shills everywhere

no a coal plant doesnt create a 20 mile no-man-land when something goes wrong.

>>5039265

No, it just creates a 20-mile no-man's-land through standard operating procedure.

>>5038866

FLTR's design wasn't as a weapon, but as an engine for a bomber. It's horribly shit for making nuclear weapons itself.

The scientists working on the project knew it would never work but when's the last time you refused to do anything your boss told you and kept your job?

>>5039265
Mining coal releases nearly as much radiation as a nuclear accident.

Coal is shit.

>>5039356
>

also, light water reactors do not make a 20 mile no-mans-land when something goes wrong, only two in history have, and the second one's no-mans-land has been authorized for habitation again for months.

would japan's other reactors shutting down normally during the earthquake with no issues be considered something "going wrong"?

Well if nuclear free countries want to be uncompetitive in industry because energy prices are so high be my guest . Other countries with rational policies will enjoy the fruits on economic development.

Does anyone have access to this document?

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00023216&soc=SPE

The madness has already reached us. Nuclear killers are everywhere. I just hope we dismantle them safely when we regain our sanity and shut them down forever. I guess you kids are too young to remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and how their legacy of death will 'never happen again'.

it turns out it is a matter of cost(generalization of health issues) to decide whether people abandon nuclear energy

Japan is a tiny little island, if bad things happen a large amount of land has to be wasted for decades, the lost is unmeasurable, so maybe it is a sane choice for japanese but not for everyone

I made a graph about Nuclear accidents and deaths

What do you think of my graph?

>>5041397

I started making one about oil but the data isn't laid out as easily on wikipedia.

>>5041285
Three Mile Island... Death...

Is "lol" considered shitposting?

>>5041285
Fun facts:
- The Three Mile Island accident did not result in a single death.

- 'Worst case' predictions for the Fukushima Daiichi incident put the total death toll over the next two decades at between 130 and 180.

- Chernobyl was, is, and will be the only substantial loss of human life from a nuclear accident.

- Even with estimates as high as 6000 premature deaths from cancers induced by radiation exposure, the total death toll for Chernobyl is roughly ten times less than the number of coal miners who have died in China in the last decade.

Lol, looks like it was a good time to earn a degree in petroleum engineering

Morons.

>>5041534
And thousands of people get cancer every year due to the effects of uranium mining.

>>5041285
>comparing fukushima and chernobyl
fuck you, you have no idea what you're talking about
>comparing chernobyl and three mile island
...

>>5041613
Even more get cancer every year due to the runoff from coal mining. Funny that.

The breakdowns of "deaths per kilowatt hour" pretty clearly put nuclear at the bottom of the list.

I hope Japan doesn't phase out nuclear power. The subsequent rise in energy prices would be disastrous for their already hard-starting economy. Japan needs to concentrate on economic competitiveness, not appeasing boisterous dumbfucks.

>>5041534
>- Even with estimates as high as 6000 premature deaths from cancers induced by radiation exposure, the total death toll for Chernobyl is roughly ten times less than the number of coal miners who have died in China in the last decade.

Why are you idiots always compare nuclear disasters with coal mining? Why not compare with car accidents, alligator attacks or some other irrelevant shit? You do know that nuclear power plants require fuel just like coal plants?

>>5042426
they're comparing it to coal power due to the fact that coal burning fumes have concentrated amounts of radioactive material just from normal operation, whereas nuclear power plants only release a double parts of billion of xenon-135.

>>5042426
Because the require far less fuel, even with the low density of uranium in the ore they dig up. Total lifecycle of building, mining, shipping, running, and decomissioning shows that nuclear kills fewer, even with accidents.

Hell, even comparing only on accidents alone, coal kills more. Nuclear has a few high profile disasters, coal has lots of unnoticed explosions and fires

>>5042439

Coal is natural and organic.

Refining nucular power involves witchcraft.

>>5042447
also, the other cool think about nuclear power, all your waste is totally contained during the entire operation of the plant, it always stays in one spot

>>5042426
>Why are you idiots always compare nuclear disasters with coal mining? Why not compare with car accidents, alligator attacks or some other irrelevant shit?
Because you can't power things on car accidents or alligator attacks.

Here's the solution to nuclear waste: just put it somewhere and don't go near it.

Once properly treated (vitrification, etc) it just sits in one place and emits radiation. That radiation is not particularly good for anyone in the immediate vicinity, hence the "don't go near it" part.

Contrast this with hill-sized mounds of radioactive fly ash that gets everywhere no matter how hard you try to contain it and leaches heavy metals and carcinogens every time some rain falls on it.

In many ways, "radioactive waste" is less difficult to manage than household refuse. The latter generates a lot of difficult to characterize chemical effluvia.

>>5042495
>you can't power things on car accidents or alligator attacks.

>>5041406
>>5041397

If you look at the graph you may not notice there are less plots for oil related accidents. The scales are very different.

In the nuclear graph, if you include the 4000 listed cancer deaths for Chernobyl the line shoots way up. It's harder to track non-immediate oil accident deaths so I figured it was best not to include them.

>>5042495 Because you can't power things on car accidents or alligator attacks.

>>5042668

>>5038866
Not really. LFTR was abandoned because it was less suitable than the two alternatives, natural U235 and natural U238 to plutonium. The hard hard to get rid of U232 contamination is a bitch. That's why the first two bombs were U235 and P239.

Still, is LFTR actually profileration proof? Dunno. Remember that conventional LWRs have to be slightly remodeled and run differently to get weapons material. The same would be true of LFTR.

>>5038870
LWRs rely on enriched uranium, which is somewhat in short supply. CANDUs maybe.

>bad to rely on a single energy source
Why? Single point of failure? Like modern oil? The only plausible single point of failure is if physics magically changes. We have plenty of supply of thorium, unlike oil. And besides, it's not like I'm saying stop all research into alternatives. It's just a simple fact that solar is retarded.

In the big picture, it is a waste of money to build the solar panel. It is better to build anything else if your goals are cheap, environmentally friendly energy production.

>>5041285
What? The couple hundreds deaths at most? Down to maybe a dozen if you exclude Chernobyl, the most f'ed up reactor design ever, with a positive coefficient of reactivity. It was a test reactor which disabled what little safeties they had on the day of the accident for a test. It wasn't even a power reactor. If you build a thing that can explode, be it oil or nat gas or nuclear, then it will explode.

>>5042718
>It's just a simple fact that solar is retarded.
That current* solar is retarded. Maybe if we make some breakthroughs. Fusion might also work if we make some breakthroughs.

I've noticed a prime example of poor reporting and dangerous journalism. Before they had any facts the message went out to thousands of people about an out of control chemical reaction in a nuclear power station causing fires and severely injuring several people.

Turns out it was a steam leak and two workers suffered minor burns.

There was no
BREAKING NEWS: We were 100% wrong about nuclear power plant situation.

This behavior gets on my tits

>>5042709
>>5042709
it wasn't picked up because it was thought to be useful as a bomb production reactor, and it wasn't dropped because it cannot produce bomb material

it was picked up as a possible small scale reactor, the brass took the nuclear airplane idea seriously, as well as adapting it to other weapons platforms.

it was dropped because it lost out to liquid metal fast breeders, since those seemed more useful as a way to burn U238 (of which there is a fuck ton). fast forward half a century later and LMFB is still kicking our collective asses.

>>5042718
actually, current solar is pretty good if you build the panels yourself. 90 cents a peak watt is nothing to scoff at.

it won't be useful for grid baseload for like 30 years but right now it's great for residential applications.

just don't buy pre-made cells, total ripoff

>>5042833
>it wasn't picked up because it was thought to be useful as a bomb production reactor, and it wasn't dropped because it cannot produce bomb material

Gonna need some citations. Pardon me while I whip up some to the contrary.

>it was picked up as a possible small scale reactor, the brass took the nuclear airplane idea seriously, as well as adapting it to other weapons platforms.
>well as adapting it to other weapons platforms.
You make it sound so sinister. It was just a power engine of an aircraft.

>it was dropped because it lost out to liquid metal fast breeders, since those seemed more useful as a way to burn U238 (of which there is a fuck ton). fast forward half a century later and LMFB is still kicking our collective asses.
Which again was a political decision by Nixon unrelated to the technical merits as Nixon wanted to give some pork to his LMFBR constituents in Cali.

>>5042835
Gonna need some more citations. Also, that's only because of an unfair pricing scheme where you are paid by the watt with no consideration of uptime. If this policy is allowed to continue unabated, expect higher electricity costs and periodic brownouts.

>>5042840
>Gonna need some citations.
oddly enough, i never see citations for "they just wanted lftr to making bombs! it couldn't make bombs so they got rid of it! it's a conspiracy!".
i'll go find some direct quotes if possible

what's sinister about it? something cheap and long lasting to power your war machines is a great investment. Too bad it didn't work about (that u232 contamination really makes gamma buildup a problem)

>>5042846
which is why i said solar for baseload is fucking stupid.
it's not going to power your entire house, but a good self-made $6000 system will slash the fuck out of your electricity bill.

>>5042859
>which is why i said solar for baseload is fucking stupid.
>it's not going to power your entire house, but a good self-made $6000 system will slash the fuck out of your electricity bill.
Again, only because of this fucktarded policy that lets you sell the electricity back at the same rate that the reliable producers can produce it.

>>5042859
>
>oddly enough, i never see citations for "they just wanted lftr to making bombs! it couldn't make bombs so they got rid of it! it's a conspiracy!".

It would help if you don't straw man my position. I clearly stated that it was not initially pursued because it wasn't good for bombs, /and/ that Nixon axed it simply to give jobs to his home state of Cali. Nothing sinister. Just a politician being a scumbag politician.

>>5042833
The Aircraft Reactor Experiment wasn't a thorium reactor at all, because they, obviously, didn't give two shits about breeding fuel in a light vehicle engine. It was a highly enriched uranium reactor.

"LFTR" is not synonymous with "molten-salt reactor".

Thorium reactors were always (necessarily) about breeding, and breeding was always about weapons, because the natural uranium supply is practically unlimited, and natural uranium is an extraordinarily energy-dense fuel for its U235 content alone.

>>5042926
>
>Thorium reactors were always (necessarily) about breeding, and breeding was always about weapons, because the natural uranium supply is practically unlimited, and natural uranium is an extraordinarily energy-dense fuel for its U235 content alone.
Uhhh... then why do I hear from everyone that cheap U235 supplies are indeed in fact limited?

this sort of bullshit will never stop, because the majority of humans are irrational, fearful, closed minded and ignorant. im not in favor of eugenics, but i really wish we could just get rid of the idiots somehow. our species could be so much more, if we werent being held back by people who think that modern science is equivalent to dangerous witchcraft.

>>5032330
and stripmining for coal is better?

>>5042958
>then why do I hear from everyone that cheap U235 supplies are indeed in fact limited?
Because you listen to poorly-informed people?

Let me clue you in: at this point, it wouldn't add significantly to the cost of nuclear power to get all of our uranium from seawater.

>>5043109
Last I checked, 1/7 of the price of electricity from a conventional light water reactor is from the fuel, including mining, enriching, and fabrication.

Last I checked, no one has actually demonstrated that you can get a significant supply of uranium from sea water. In fact, I've seen good arguments that this is highly implausible. However, I am somewhat ignorant on the topic. If you want to say that uranium is not a limited commodity because of sea water extraction, then what you said earlier was at least misleading, and perhaps dishonest.

>>5043118
>Last I checked, 1/7 of the price of electricity from a conventional light water reactor is from the fuel, including mining, enriching, and fabrication.
...and if you increase the mining cost by a factor of 10, it will still be approximately 1/7. Mining is simply not the expensive part of producing fuel.

There are places you can simply walk to and pick up a stone off the ground that is over 50% uranium by mass.

>I am somewhat ignorant on the topic.
You don't say...

Seawater uranium extraction is a proven technology and the only reason it isn't presently commercially viable is because mining it is so easy. Google it.

Note that seawater thorium extraction is not likely to ever be viable. Nor is there anywhere on Earth you can go to and simply pick up chunks of mostly-thorium.

>>5043118
actually there are some pretty interesting solutions to the uranium water problem in development. from oakridge no less

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20120821-00

>>5043184
>There are places you can simply walk to and pick up a stone off the ground that is over 50% uranium by mass.
Sources please.

>>5043196
If you can't do the basic background reading, then fuck you, stay out of the discussion.

>>5043206
>asking for sources to learn.
>told to fuck off
true story

>>5043221

Google motherfucker.

>Uranium ore is mined in several ways: by open pit, underground, in-situ leaching, and borehole mining (see uranium mining).[6] Low-grade uranium ore mined typically contains 0.01 to 0.25% uranium oxides. Extensive measures must be employed to extract the metal from its ore.[49] High-grade ores found in Athabasca Basin deposits in Saskatchewan, Canada can contain up to 23% uranium oxides on average.[50] Uranium ore is crushed and rendered into a fine powder and then leached with either an acid or alkali. The leachate is subjected to one of several sequences of precipitation, solvent extraction, and ion exchange. The resulting mixture, called yellowcake, contains at least 75% uranium oxides. Yellowcake is then calcined to remove impurities from the milling process before refining and conversion.[51]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Production_and_mining

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining

http://home.tu-clausthal.de/~mrbl/pdf/AMS_Lehmann_EN_S16-26.pdf

This search was free.

http://energyclub.stanford.edu/index.php/Journal/Nuclear_Age_Post_Fukushima_by_Burton_Richter

Has the Fukushima accident and effective safety measures finally make people look at nuclear power in a more positive light?

>>5043745
of course not. the educated, yes, the uneducated, they compare it to chernobyl with a straight face

Can /sci/ systematically refute a Greenpeace article?

Does anyone know how to start a pro-nuclear wiki? While I say pro I do ultimately mean unbiased and factual but we are currently at contention with the likes of Greenpeace and other fags, we need their audience.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclear/problems

>>5044591

Try Access To Energy.

>>5044596
This?

http://www.accesstoenergy.com

Noooope. Immediate attempt at apparent profiteering is putting me off.

>>5044606

Yeah, so far it's looking like he just wants me to pay to have him talk at me.

He does seem literate and free access to his documents would be nice but no

When people hear nucular energy its always "oh no chernobyl!!" when its not all that bad.

>>5044591 http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclear/problems

>The UK now has enough radioactive waste to fill the Royal Albert Hall five times over.

>citation needed

>>5045241
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/09/nuclear-waste-burning-reactor

>A plan to burn Britain's radioactive nuclear waste as fuel in a next-generation reactor moved a step closer to reality on Monday when GE-Hitachi submitted a thousand-page feasibility report to the UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).

>The UK has a large stockpile – around 100 tonnes – of plutonium waste. This is considered a security risk and the government is considering options for its disposal. The current "preferred option" is to convert the plutonium into mixed-oxide fuel (Mox) for use in conventional nuclear reactors.

>But a previous Mox plant in the UK was deemed a failure, and GE-Hitachi claims that its Prism fast reactor – a completely different design fuelled by plutonium and cooled by liquid sodium – offers a more attractive solution.

100 tonnes doesn't seem like very much. That's not much bigger than a 3m cube.

How much Uranium have we?

If we go by the Greenpeace claim of 5 Albert Halls
>Wikipedia
>The Royal Albert Hall, a large concert hall, is sometimes used as unit of volume in the UK, particularly when referring to volumes of rubbish placed in landfill.[28] The volume of the auditorium is between 3 and 3.5 million cubic feet (between 85,000 and 99,000 cubic metres).[29]

99,000m^3 - 9m^3 = 98,991m^3 Uranium waste

That's a lot of waste.

>>5044624
well, chernobyl was fucking bad. but that's basically the worst case scenario.

>>5045274
>That's a lot of waste.

Good thing then that the world is somewhat larger than Royal Albert Hall.

>>5045274
that's about 216 tons of plutonium waste, so green peace wasn't far off
good thing the plutonium basically just sits there, not intent on spreading around

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2007/7/nuclear-reactor-hazards-ongoi.pdf

Look at what I found

>>5045984
>>5045274
Most nuclear waste is low and medium level objects such as hazard suits, respirators, clothing, shit like that. Using that, Greenpeace overinflates the nuclear waste figure and puts into people's minds five Albert Halls filled with glowing waste.

>>5045996
oh, that would explain a lot

>>5045996
those fucks

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/deep-green-atomic-renaissance-interrupted-20081203

Another article. It certainly gives the impression of being factually accurate.

> Some 439 nuclear plants now operate worldwide. To replace even 25 percent of the world's current oil and coal energy would require over 1000 new reactors, plus replacement of existing plants as they expire. Decommissioning 400 plants and building 1400 new ones would cost $10-20 trillion, at least, and would triple the world's unresolved nuclear waste problem. Such a plan would also exhaust global uranium supplies long before the 1400 plants could be built.


Fair point. Need to check his figures for accuracy but it will take a /lot/ of new reactors. It will take a /lot/ of nuclear engineers and scientists to manage and maintain large number of required reactors and I don't think we have the number of people needed.