Are you for or against Nuclear Energy in any shape or form?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Danske, Nov 1, 2011.

?

Are you for or against Nuclear Energy?

  1. For

    334 vote(s)
    91.0%
  2. Against

    33 vote(s)
    9.0%
  1. Cadbury

    Cadbury Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,754
    Location:
    Coogee, WA
    They've been able to make a "working fusion reactor" for decades. But its of no commercial use. JET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus) can produce a little over half its input power for a faction of a second. ITER should be able to do better than "break even" for several minutes. But neither are close to being ready for generating electricity commercially.
     
  2. DarkYendor

    DarkYendor Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,196
    Location:
    Perth
    Radioactive waste from fusion? Fusion =/= Fission.
     
  3. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,872
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    The reactor confinement vessel will be radioactive when it's decomissioned.
     
  4. Billzilla

    Billzilla Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,251
    Location:
    Gold Coast

    Correct, which is why I did not mention them as usable devices.
     
  5. Goth

    Goth Grumpy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,228
    Location:
    /dev/null
    We've seen constant, steady improvements in the technology of tokamak reactors over the last 40 years, meaning improvements in confinement time, plasma density and temperature and magnet technology, as well as the ability to produce high-field superconducting magnets that are very large on an industrial scale and other technological enablers like that that have come along only lately.

    Laser-driven ICF facilities like NIF are not power-generating reactors, and it's difficult to see how they really fit into a sensible technological plan or roadmap for the development of power-generating reactors.

    Those laser experiments such as NIF are actually designed with a specific purpose - they're laboratory scale models of the physics (radiation-driven inertial-confinement ignition) of a hydrogen bomb.

    It leads to factual, sensible discussion on this subject that educates people, promotes rational discourse, with less chainy, which leads to positive contributions to forum quality.

    Not much, and not for very long.

    What elements do you expect to be making the tokamak vessel out of, what kinds of cross-sections do those elements have for neutron activation, what radionuclides do you expect to form by neutron activation, in what quantities, and what are their half-lives?

    It's not significant at all, never going to hurt anybody.
     
  6. Aetherone

    Aetherone Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,607
    Location:
    Adelaide, SA
    What about if they drop a section of the containment vessel on someone's foot?

    It sure would, right after the global war for energy resources ends.

    In that case you'll be complaining about having to use GM crops in order to produce sufficient food to feed everyone in such small spaces. With more than 7 billion mouths to feed, humanity has already vastly exceeded the natural sustainable carrying capacity of the planet. Without unnatural assistance of some form, half the humans on the planet (possibly more if the remainder want a high standard of living) needs to quietly die off.

    Green technologies would work reasonably well if there was only 2 or 3 billion humans to support.

    Whoops.
     
  7. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,062
    Location:
    Sydney
    We could dramatically reduce our environmental footprint on the planet IF we had enough energy. The worst pollutants can be rendered harmless, we already know how to do this. It just takes a lot of energy and at the moment we just dump it into the environment because its "cheaper".

    This is where I get so frustrated about the so called "Greens". They ignore the simple fact that there is now 7B of us and most of them living poorly and polluting the environment at an increasing rate per capita as they try to drag themselves up to our standards. We simply do not have the option to turn the clock back a couple of hundred years, Pol Pot tried that and it did not go well at all. If those "Greens" really do want to send us back in time the only humane way to do it is going to require a lot of nukes.

    The population problem itself is highly linked to the availability of more energy and so far our only practical way of producing at least 10 times the amount of energy on this planet without roasting ourselves is nuclear.
     
  8. Dicky

    Dicky (Taking a Break)

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    691
    Location:
    Sydney
    Taken at face value, the level of support here, for what should be a redundant technology, would be alarming if such support reflected general community attitudes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Australia
    That is a small sample rate, but consistent with larger surveys taken, and pre Japan tsunami.

    It is interesting to see the slowly increasing uptake evident in the suburban landscape.
     
  9. Aetherone

    Aetherone Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,607
    Location:
    Adelaide, SA
    I concur. Nuke should be an effective stop-gap solution to get us to a point where greener tech can actually do the job.

    Should be redundant, but isn't. Too much time and money has been wasted on bullshit technologies that promise a pie in the sky green earth but soak up millions of dollars and tens of years and really deliver sweet fuck all by the time they're actually reality. Where would be be if the billions wasted worldwide had been invested into nuke research and education?
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2011
  10. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    The general public are just not well informed when it comes to nuclear energy.

    It's just that simple. They see the media spinning doomsday articles and they lose the plot and flip out.

    I've heard a conversation go like this on the tram between 2 ladies post Fukushima:

    "What did you have for lunch today?"

    "I had some sushi, it was quite nice mmm"

    "Oh no! You really should stay away from that with all the happenings in Japan as of late!!"

    ...

    I felt like turning around and saying "Really....??? Realllyy?? Are you that fucking stupid?"
     
  11. Tabris

    Tabris Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    839
    Location:
    Albury
    Of all this I am well aware, however I will still stake a fiver on there being no commercial power plants inside of 40 years time.

    As for waste, well yes that depends on the reactor design type.
     
  12. andyroo54

    andyroo54 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,902
    Location:
    Xanthia
    The general population really doesn't have much say in what governments want to do. Except at election time. And even then they can spend millions 'educating' us about whatever it is they are putting in place.

    The real reason we don't have nuke power much is it's so expensive and takes so long to build a station. Why do that when we have a shitload of coal?

    I've got my own idea anyway.. it's super secret!
     
  13. Foliage

    Foliage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    32,064
    Location:
    Sleepwithyourdadelaide
    Hilarious, sushi is even made locally lol.
     
  14. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    You guys prob think im taking the piss, but I shit you not, that's how the convo went :lol:.

    Its like what, the WHOLE country of Japan is just one massive Sushi factory :tongue:.
     
  15. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,872
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    And between Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima daiichi the whole country glows in the dark too.
     
  16. Goth

    Goth Grumpy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,228
    Location:
    /dev/null
    Yes, most of the people in the world today wouldn't be alive if we didn't have technology.

    But that has been a true statement for centuries.

    So what? What's the problem? There's nothing bad about technology, it's good.
     
  17. Kore_5022

    Kore_5022 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,315
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Statistics like that are dodgy at best. 1007 people.
    Where these people educated, educated community members, alcholics, 16 year old pregnant mothers who dropped out in year 9 etc etc.
    Also a pretty damn good example of what media and fear mongering is capable of.
     
  18. isaaus

    isaaus Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,650
    For Nuclear Energy. Will be for it, till there is some magic energy crisis solution available.
     
  19. Aetherone

    Aetherone Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,607
    Location:
    Adelaide, SA
    Misguided greenies want to go back to living like its 1999 (bc)?
     
  20. chip

    chip Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,705
    Location:
    Pooraka Maccas drivethrough
    What do you actually mean here, something like the net benefits of technology have outweighed its drawbacks? It's a trivial exercise to list techologies that do terrible things, so you can't mean that technological progress isn't a double edged sword.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011

Share This Page

Advertisement: