[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 94 KB, 563x563, why manul.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2907690 No.2907690 [Reply] [Original]

Is nuclear power safe?

>> No.2907712

Yes.

Consider that we've had a grand total of maybe 4 nuclear reactor events in the entire history of them.

None of them were even very threatening. Chernobyl really wasn't that bad. We could move back into Pripyat just fine.

Also, the Fukushima Daiichi plant only failed because it was hit by a FUCKING TSUNAMI.
This is AFTER surviving an earthquake much harder than it was ever built to withstand.

Furthermore, the system itself was undamaged: its power source was swept away by the waters.
FURTHERMORE, the system that required that power source was extremely out-of-date (abou 40 years old). The plant was to undergo an upgrades sequence in mid-2011, go figure.


Consider instead how many coal mines have collapsed, how many oil rigs have malfunctioned or gone up in flames, and what would happen if a dam collapsed.

>> No.2907715

If you do it right, it's safer than coal or oil or gas.

>> No.2907719

>>2907712
>and what would happen if a dam collapsed.
Lolchina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#1975_Flood
>It has been reported that around 90,000 - 230,000 people were killed as a result of the dam breaking.

>> No.2907741

>>2907712
Thanks, I'll have to vote in early summer about nuclear.
I'll vote pro.

>> No.2907742

>>2907712
Consider also that we're still using ridiculously out of date reactor designs. Its possible to build them so they're passively safe.

>> No.2907747

No, we do not have any safe means to store nuclear waste.

>> No.2907748

Its as safe as we can make it.

Which is nigh invulnerable.

Only problem is Greenpeace getting into bed with fossil fuel suppliers and spreading propaganda against it.

>> No.2907751

>>2907747

There is basically no such thing as "nuclear waste" anymore.

"Waste" can't be reused.

The stuff modern reactors create? We can use that.

>> No.2907752

>>2907747
Oh great, its you again. Don't suppose you're any more open to reason this time around?

>> No.2907755

>>2907747
Modern reactors do not produce waste, but more fuel.

Also we can just bury it where we dug it up. Places are already radioactive shit holes.

>> No.2907758

>>2907712
Chernobyl was bad, high cancer rates, birth deformities, etc.

The rest weren't bad at all though

>> No.2907765

>>2907751
What are these "modern" reactors you speak of? The boilers we use are decades old. And they produce waste. As in waste.

>>2907752
I have not changed my mind.

>>2907755
There's a difference between unprocessed ore and highly concentrated radioactive fuel.
We can certainly not "just bury it where we got it".
Ever wonder why fuel rods are stored for years at the power plants? We just don't know what to do with it.

>> No.2907777

>>2907758
>Chernobyl was bad, high cancer rates, birth deformities, etc.
The UN wrote a 600 page page report. They found a total of 56 people died from radiation.

There were however thousands of abortions due to fear of deformities.

Yeah your bullshit fear mongering killed more people. (if you consider a misguided abortion a death)

>> No.2907781

The one killer arguement against nuke plants is this:
Nuclear energy production is too costly, compared to other methods. It is not profitable, that's why we haven't build plants in such a long time. Nobody is interested in investing.

>> No.2907786

>>2907758

Okay fine Chernobyl was rather bad because it was right in a populated area.
But Chernobyl was devastating incompetence from the Soviet researchers which will (HOPEFULLY) never be replicated, and Fukushima was a devastating hammer from Mother Nature coming down on Japan which (HOPEFULLY) won't recur soon. They're both extreme statistical outliers.

>>2907765

>What are these "modern" reactors you speak of? The boilers we use are decades old. And they produce waste. As in waste.

Out of date, need to be upgraded.
To get upgraded, they need funding.
To get funding, they need to be green-lighted.

>We just don't know what to do with it.

Build space elevator -> launch to deep space.

Hell, we could launch it into deep space anyway but nobody really wants to risk it in case of a launch accident to spread fallout into the upper atmosphere. Just saying, that's something we COULD do if we accept the risk.

>> No.2907788
File: 114 KB, 360x540, 1292677268816.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2907788

Fourth generation looks pretty damn safe but I would like for all reactors be switched over to thorium because of the benefits over uranium, and its abundance in comparison the fissionable uranium.

>> No.2907794

>>2907765
>Ever wonder why fuel rods are stored for years at the power plants? We just don't know what to do with it.
Cause they're still too 'hot' to move.

>> No.2907811

>>2907777
That UN report is so full of bullshit, it's ridiculous.
Fuck the idiots who wrote this piece of toilet paper.
The Ukraine keeps the real death statistics closed.
They are top secret.
According to the Ukraine, only 18% of the original population of Tschernobyl is considered healthy.

Add all the cancer induced in the liquidators, the birth defects and the fallout all over Europe.

>> No.2907821

>>2907794
Fuel rods are good to go after 5 years. They still don't move them around.

>> No.2907823
File: 57 KB, 800x600, lain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2907823

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
>Dihydrogen monoxide:
>* is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
>* contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
>* may cause severe burns.
>* is fatal if inhaled.
>* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
>* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
>* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
>* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
>Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
>* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
>* in nuclear power plants.
>* in the production of Styrofoam.
>* as a fire retardant.
>* in many forms of cruel animal research.
>* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
>* as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

The lesson people should have learned:
People are afraid of the unknown, and if you don't know science then all scientific stuff sounds scary.

The lesson people DID learn:
Dihydrogen monoxide is really water. If you EVER forget this then some 12 year old will make fun of you. Never forget dihydrogen_monoxide is really water.

>> No.2907842

>>2907786
You can't "upgrade" the existing nuclear reactors. They have to be dismantled, which takes 10 to 15 years and new ones (Thorium) would have to be built.
That would cost a lot.

>> No.2907854

>>2907811
Lol I doubt you have read any of it.

I tried and got about 50 pages in.

But it seemed pretty fucking to me.

So yeah I'd rather believe a full fucking UN report than "secret death statistics" (which the UN has access to) and greenpeace nonsense.

>> No.2907862

>>2907765
>>2907781
I could explain in detail why you're wrong, but that would involve far more effort than you're worth. So, short answer:
All these issues with nuclear power? They're caused by willfully ignorant retards like you.

>> No.2907877

>>2907823

Possibly because it sounds similar to carbon monoxide, which is dangerous.

>> No.2907883

Molten Salt Reactors my friends..

>> No.2907892

Whatever. In the end I will still be the one who bet on the right horse.
Nobody will invest in nuclear power and that's it.

>> No.2907899

>>2907747
>Mix it with DU from the refinement process to bring it back to natural levels
>Put it back where we found it
TA DA! How's that work for ya?

>> No.2907900

>>2907892
What about nuclear fusion?

And fission will become really popular once oil, gas and coal start to run out.

>> No.2907901

>>2907892

The realization that we are rapidly consuming carbon based fossil fuels will prompt an inquiry into alternative power sources.

Once we run out of gasoline, nuclear power will become profitable and capitalism will win once again, just a bit too late.

>> No.2907914

>>2907900
>>2907900

Fusion is horrendously expensive to research and big oil; one of the most lucrative capitalistic ventures in history, will not risk such research occuring.

>> No.2907930

>>2907914
Whelp chances are oil companies already have fusion research in their pockets, ready to swap it out once oil becomes too expensive.

>> No.2907931

>>2907899
Coal, gas and oil will last us several decades to centuries. That's not the problem. Problem is fuel for cars and agricultural oil demand.

>>2907899
Who would pay for such nonsense?

>>2907900
Fusion is a dream that will never come true. Since the 1950s they've been telling us that it'll only take 50 more years until we have an economical fusion plant. Guess what, it's still 50 years ahead today.

>> No.2907939

>>2907901
Nuclear electricity production and fossil fuels are two separate things.
You can't produce chemicals, fertilizer and car fuel with nuclear energy.
There is no real substitute for oil.

Powering every car with electricity or heating every household with electricity is a logistic and financial nightmare.

>> No.2907949

>>2907931

Gas, coal, and oil theoretically can last us that long, feasibly the harsh sociopolitical climate of the middle east will determine the availability of oil.

>> No.2907955

>>2907939

>Powering every car with electricity or heating every household with electricity is a logistic and financial nightmare.

That will invariably occur once the fuel reserves are burnt out.

DEAL WITH IT

>> No.2907959

>>2907949
The USA isn't that dependent on oil or gas imports from the middle east. They get a lot from Canada for example. Unconventional gas is produced in the USA directly.

>> No.2907963

>>2907939
>>2907939

Notice the phrase, "alternative power sources"

The combustion engine is a relic, innovation is inevitable as long as we do not nuke everyone.

>> No.2907966

>>2907955
Maybe, maybe not. There are other methods available.
In the end the path that is the cheapes will prevail.
I don't believe that creating a massive nationawide supergrid would be cost-effective.
Instead, cars could be powered by methane or hydrogen, produced by renewable energy sources.

>> No.2907967

>>2907690

Yes.

Unless humans are involved, of course. See for example Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nothing would have happened there if people did what they were supposed to do.
The USA have known Tepco faked security reports since at least 2008. Why didn't anyone stop them?

>> No.2907975

>>2907959

I laughed my ass off when i read:
>USA isn't dependent on mid east for oil
Please look things up before stating such arbitrarily nonsensical comments.

>> No.2907976

>>2907939
>implying that it's logistically worse than moving fuel around
>implying it's not a nightmare because the US has no desire to invest in infrastructure
>implying that i seriously replied to a triptroll

>> No.2907978

>>2907966
Thorium breeder reactors produce 9% more fuel than they use.

Sounds pretty renewable to me

>> No.2907980

>>2907963
electrical motors are doubtless much more efficient than combustion engines. However, the problem of the batteries is still unsolved.
Current batteries are heavy, big and have a short life.
It is much more efficient to use fossil fuel.

>> No.2907990

>>2907980
Ok so we will just use fossil fuels forever then.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I was thinking we should focus on things which can work without limited supplies but since fossil fuels are so efficient we wont have to worry about it ever.

>> No.2907999

>>2907975
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import..
html

Yeah well sorry, an idiot is you. Canada and mexico are no.1 and no.2 import countries for oil to the USA.

>> No.2908011

>>2907990
Hey, I'm not omniscient. Maybe someday we will have lightweight and durable batteries.
In the meanwhile, it's just convenient to store energy in a chemical way aka fossil fuel.

>> No.2908025

>>2907999
I see you don't understand how the current economic system works.

Why don't you go back to class? High school doesn't need more retards.

>> No.2908026

>>2907990
cont: If you produce methane or hydrogen from renewables, it would be a sustainable cycle.

>> No.2908038

>>2908026
So we just use nuclear power to produce methane or hydrogen.

Makes sense to me

>> No.2908040

>>2908025
What? Qatar had to cancel their LNG-shipments of natural gas to the USA, because the production of unconventional domestic natural gas was actually cheaper than importing it. That is how the market works.

>> No.2908042
File: 41 KB, 485x364, 090610top.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2908042

Nope, fossil fuels are way safer.

>> No.2908045

>>2907939

Doesn't necessarily have to be a logistical nightmare if you develop technology to obviate the need for wires to transmit electricity. As it turns out we have some guys from MIT doing that very thing.

>> No.2908049

>>2908038
We could do that. Except nobody wants it.

>> No.2908061

>>2908038
Or oil.

>> No.2908062

>>2907999
>>2907999

Those are simply exporting statistics. Additional research will reveal production statistics. Guess who controls the world's available oil reserves?

>> No.2908064

>>2908045
Vaporware. Wireless transmission of electricity is nonsense.

If we managed to produce superconductors that work at normal temps, then we would be in business.

>> No.2908068

>>2908061
We do not burn oil to produce electricity. That's what we use coal and gas for.

>> No.2908069

>>2908064

Don't see how it's nonsense considering we had a working prototype for consumer use what, 3 years ago?

>> No.2908073

>>2908062
I don't get what you try to tell me.

>> No.2908079

>>2908068

Gasoline comes from oil.

Gasoline-powered generators are commonplace.

Hell that's what a fucking car engine basically amounts to.

>> No.2908082

>>2908069
Distances for transmission are only a few meters.

>> No.2908086

>>2908064

>If we managed to produce superconductors that work at normal temps, then we would be in business.

Clearly, we must invade Pandora to get that unobtanium.

>> No.2908090

>>2908079
We do not use oil on a large scale (in plants) to produce electricity.

>> No.2908092

>>2908045

It works, you just need a 50T magnetic field...

>> No.2908096

>>2908082

I suppose for now that's true. Though, if you wanted to reduce transportation fuel needs the transmitters wouldn't need to be more than a few meters at each junction anyway, and you could simply build them on the sides of or even into a road network.

>> No.2908102

>>2908073

..Because you are a fucking idiot, The table shows importing statistics, those countries import a specific amount of oil to export to the United States. The production of oil is not occurring in the information, in fact production isn't mentioned in the whole of the abstract, rather they are a stepping stone that readily exports oil to the US.

This "information" was made to mislead people, it worked.

>> No.2908108

ITT: People respond to a triptroll and also have never heard of butanol.

>> No.2908113

>>2908096
it would be more cost effective to just lay more cables.

>> No.2908122

>>2907931
>Fusion is a dream that will never come true.

Just like powered flight, amirite?

>> No.2908132

>>2908102
Uh, so what? How is production relevant when we were talking about oil imports?
I said the imports from the middle east are not that important. And you spout some nonsense about production? Logic is not your forte, is it?

>> No.2908135

>Is nuclear power safe?
relatively

>> No.2908137

>>2908068
But we need the oil for cars

>> No.2908141

>>2908113

Can't attach a cable to a moving vehicle unless you're proposing a state trolley system which would be...impractical.

>> No.2908142

>>2908108

Butanol, lets see two carbons with an additional hydroxyl group? This is an alcohol.

Burning alcohols especially ones as simple as butanol yield no significant energy output.

>> No.2908146

>>2908122
Go ask some fusion research physics. They'll tell you "in 50 years we will have it figured out".
Well sorry, 50 years is too long. The horse will be dead by then.

>> No.2908153

>>2908122
You're right, one day we'll figure out how those thermonuclear birds manage to splice atoms together.

OH WAIT

>> No.2908160

>>2908141
Oh I see what you mean.
Well, I read somewhere that we could put transmitters into the streets and power cars that way.
Interesting idea, but so costly.

>> No.2908163

>>2908146
And we were only fifty years away from thermonuclear power fifty years ago, too. Funny how things work out.

>> No.2908164

>>2908153

What that guy meant was the energy problem will most likely be fixed by technology that doesn't exist yet.

Just like flight was thought to be impossible or the dawning of the age of computation was not forseen.

>> No.2908166

>>2908146

Actually the thing about Nuclear Fusion is that you cannot predict when (if) it will occur.

Literally, this sort of discovery is one of those "it happens or it doesn't" sort of idea. The researchers blunder across it or it's impossible. There's simply no forseeing.

>> No.2908174

>>2908137
exactly. That's why we don't use it in plants.

>> No.2908183

>>2908146
50 years is and always has been a bullshit estimate. We don't have man-portable laser guns or mail delivered by rocket either, but that's more a question of practicality. We have a history of underestimating the costs and effort involved in making these strides. This does not mean fusion power will never happen.

>Well sorry, 50 years is too long. The horse will be dead by then.

Please clarify what you mean by this.

>> No.2908186
File: 96 KB, 300x317, slot car.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2908186

Guys, I have the answer:
FULL-SIZED SLOTCARS!!!

>> No.2908194

>>2908166
No. Unlike flight, fusion research is such a complex, costly and manpower intensive thing, that it will not happen just so.
Last I heard is that they plan to build a large scale reactor somewhere, that will supposedly yield some new insights. Who knows.
Anyway, you cannot build a fusion reactor in your backyard, like the flight pioneers did.

>> No.2908197

>>2908160

Money recouped by the fact that you no longer have to support a gasoline infrastructure, with all that that implies. Suddenly Americans no longer have to pay 30 bucks at the pump every day or two in order to get to work.

Let's face it, battery technology is going nowhere until we can figure out a way to mass-produce buckytubes (apparently that's another thing they're good for) and until the battery is either obviated or made extremely powerful, electric transportation is kind of screwed.

>> No.2908206

>>2908183

>We don't have man-portable laser guns

Yes we do.

>or mail delivered by rocket either

I imagine delivering mail at the speed of light is somewhat more impressive, actually.

>> No.2908211

>>2908183
In 50 years, prices for energy will be exorbitant if we have not found an alternative to fossil fuels.
Meaning: we must act now, before it is too late and we cannot wait another 50 years for fusion.

>> No.2908212

>>2908194
>Unlike flight, fusion research is such a complex, costly and manpower intensive thing, that it will not happen just so.

You could have said the exact same thing about flight in the time of the Greeks. Their vision of powered flight involved directly attaching wings to a man. The technology did not yet exist to construct an aircraft like that tested at Kitty Hawk. This is analogous to the state of fusion in recent years.

>Anyway, you cannot build a fusion reactor in your backyard, like the flight pioneers did.

Not now, no. Perhaps not for many centuries.

>> No.2908213

Actually in the 1930s there were some experiments with rocket delivered mail. It ended fatal sometimes, to they dropped the idea. Worked well though in regard to the transport.

>> No.2908219

>>2908206
>Yes we do.

I was referring to the "personal ray-gun" referenced in numerous pulp-SF works. I concede the point.

>I imagine delivering mail at the speed of light is somewhat more impressive, actually.

Perhaps. But you still can't get a package delivered directly through your Internet.

>> No.2908221

>>2908197

Fully agree with you.

>> No.2908222

yes

but the fact that people are still asking that question means that the luddites want to grind productivity to a halt and ruin the planet.

>> No.2908227

>>2908211
>In 50 years, prices for energy will be exorbitant if we have not found an alternative to fossil fuels.

There are a vast number of alternatives. The catch, as you well know, is that none can replace fossil fuels all on their own. Yet.

>Meaning: we must act now, before it is too late and we cannot wait another 50 years for fusion.

You speak as if continuing fusion research precludes the possibility of investing in other alternative energy sources. This is clearly false.

>> No.2908232

>>2908174
I think we are misscommunicating.

My understanding was that you were suggesting using nuclear energy to power hydrogen cars.

I suggested that we just use the nuclear power to produce oil instead.

>> No.2908238

Did someone say rocket mail?

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

>> No.2908240

>>2908227
Well, if you invest in alternate energy sources, you could as well forget fusion. Why invest twice in a thing you need only once?

>> No.2908250

>>2908232
Produce oil with electricity? What process would that be?
You can produce hydrogen with electricity and water. And if you invest some more electricity you can make methane from that hydrogen and CO2.

>> No.2908254

>>2908186
This idea has my full support.

>> No.2908255

>>2908240
Fusion is not a thing we would only need once.

>> No.2908260

>realizing i'm saging a nuclear thread which is guaranteed to get posts in to auto-sage.

sustainable energy usually isn't, it frequently does not scale or requires supporting technology that isn't mature. this is true of solar, wind, and to a certain extent- geothermal.

we should be messing with algae, hydrogen, and variations of nuclear. solar and wind should be addressed by end users and local investors. Passive solutions like green roofs and rainwater recovery can be embraced by companies in a cost effective fashion even in the short term.

>> No.2908263

>>2908221

Doing the math, about a hundred million households, assuming they only spend gas for one vehicle and spend 30 dollars a week on gas, if the aforementioned infrastructure cost a trillion dollars it would be recouped in less then 10 years (160 billion dollars saved annually.) This is ignoring that it would solve a great many of our apparent security problems with energy dependence (the US has coal reserves to last several centuries, let alone decades.) While I imagine the infrastructure would cost more than a trillion dollars the math is still there.

>>2908219

Look up rapid prototyping. Once those things really get inexpensive we'll see businesses selling schemata for products rather than products directly.

>> No.2908266

>>2908255
Sure it would be neat to have it. However in the meanwhile we have to find other means.

>> No.2908281

>>2908255

If we could produce a cold fusion plant that produces the same levels of energy as hot fusion?

Uh, fuck no, we would not need anything else. We'd have personal spacecraft within a year of that shit.

Cold fusion is the wet dream of energy production.

>> No.2908290

>>2908266
Not just "neat." Fucking incredible.

Of course we have to rely on other sources before we have viable fusion. That's what we've BEEN doing. We'll continue to do it even after we have fusion, because it can't be used for everything, at least not as far as we know now. I don't expect airliners powered by compact fusion reactors by 2100, at least.

Just because we're pursuing fusion doesn't mean we have to stop pursuing everything else.

>> No.2908291

>>2908142
What the fuck are you doing, anon? Go read up on the stuff before you comment again. Its a 4 carbon chain, and is almost a drop-in replacement for gasoline.

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

>> No.2908298
File: 5 KB, 202x250, demm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2908298

>>2908260
The U.S. Energy Information Administration calculates that, all-told, electricity from a Solar PV plants costs 4 times that of conventional coal.

Useless junk. Nothing wrong with going nuclear you hippie.

>> No.2908308

>>2908298
That's an average. I agree nuclear is a good option, but bear in mind solar PV depends highly on where the fuck you put it. It's going to be viable in Arizona, the South, or Death Valley, but not in the Northeast.

>> No.2908309

>>2908298
I think you clicked the wrong number, champ
>we should be messing with algae, hydrogen, and variations of nuclear.

>> No.2908310

>>2908263
>Look up rapid prototyping.

Don't have to. At least two of the tripfags on this board are quite enamored with 3D printers and molecular assemblers, among other things.

>> No.2908314

>>2908250
You take carbon, such as trees, and apply pressure and heat. end result is parts solid liquid and gas. Coal oil and methane.

They have been doing it for years. But it has until recently been more expensive than importing oil. New prices changes that, google just invested 20b into the technology.

In the future we might even skip the tree step and pull co2 straigjt from the air.

>> No.2908320

>>2908298
>>2908308
CSP > PV

>> No.2908324

>>2908308
certainly, and where it *is* viable, it should be addressed by the people who will benefit, the end users and the investors. There's no reason for the government to incentivise solar or wind in places where it isn't viable.

url related:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11020/1119116-54.stm?cmpid=localstate.xml#ixzz1BabPguye

>> No.2908341

>>2908310

3d printing is gonna revolutionize the way business gets done once the technology matures and we can make stuff with varying textures/qualities.