"Oh so we're just going to cut our co2 emissions in half while lowering energy prices?...fuck that I want a thorium water solar concentration plant"
Energy Thread - How to Power Civilization
- Thread starter Strifen
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
So they don't have spent fuel, don't require radioactive materials, and there's no possibility of release?
I'm in no means against nuclear but you have to admit it has problems. I remember reading all the online nuclear power gurus on the forum after fukushima saying there was no possibility of melt down due to reactor design.
I don't think fracking pollutes groundwater simply due to the separation between the shale and aquifers. It's just a loosely formed opinion based on my hesitation to trust shirtless trailer dwellers that light their water on fire as it comes spewing out like their cousin has the other end of the water pipe in a cow's ass.
I'm in no means against nuclear but you have to admit it has problems. I remember reading all the online nuclear power gurus on the forum after fukushima saying there was no possibility of melt down due to reactor design.
I don't think fracking pollutes groundwater simply due to the separation between the shale and aquifers. It's just a loosely formed opinion based on my hesitation to trust shirtless trailer dwellers that light their water on fire as it comes spewing out like their cousin has the other end of the water pipe in a cow's ass.
- 16,958
- 7,977
If they were faking flammable tap water, I think that would be exposed by now. There's no way "shirtless trailer dwellers" are disciplined enough to cover that up.
Also, I don't think that's the only way for fracking to pollute. Swear someone linked an article here recently that detailed how the drill tailings are much more radioactive than what normally dumped in a landfill, yet there's no regulation against it.
Also, I don't think that's the only way for fracking to pollute. Swear someone linked an article here recently that detailed how the drill tailings are much more radioactive than what normally dumped in a landfill, yet there's no regulation against it.
kegkilla
The Big Mod
- 11,320
- 14,739
BrutulTM
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
- 14,762
- 2,644
They aren't "faking" the burning faucets, they are just incorrectly attributing it to fracking instead of the fact that they have an improperly vented water well and they live in natural gas country.
All About Fracking - Skeptoid
All About Fracking - Skeptoid
kegkilla
The Big Mod
- 11,320
- 14,739
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,843
- 50,762
With the new designs, they can't meltdown. If they are over temperature they shut down rather than ramp up. The old designs relied on cooling to moderate the reactions, and if the cooling stopped (like fukushima) it would inevitably melt down.
Of course there is some nuclear waste; but we are talking a couple hundred pounds of bad shit to deal with vs. billions of tons of particulates released into the air. Wonder which is worse, hmm?
Fukushima are 1960's designs that (obviously) will melt down without cooling. Anybody who said differently didn't know anything about them.
Lets ignore groundwater for a second and concentrate on co2... you realize nuclear outputs zero co2, right? So natural gas being 50% cleaner than coal isn't that awesome.
co2 is also just about the last emission to worry about, it is by far the least dangerous emission. To even attribute any real damage at all to CO2 you have to get into the cost/benefits of climate change, since it has no direct health impacts.
Chanur
Shit Posting Professional
- 29,037
- 47,009
The problem with natural gas being so cheap is it is killing alternative energy. It was cheaper than hydro electric at some point. Might still be as I don't follow the pricing to much as it's not in my wheel house.
Also they think slanted drilling or fracking is causing all these earthquakes here in Oklahoma. I have absolutely no idea if that's true but its the prevailing theory. I'm not sure how it would do that.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
Cad explained, but I'll expound what I know. Fuki is either light water or heavy (Not sure--they aren't much different), but essentially, if there is no cooling, the reactor continues to heat up. Fast Breeder reactors, if there is no cooling, or all the systems fail, the metal will literally smother the reaction. So, without human interference, the reaction shuts down rather than ramps up. That's not to say these are totally 100% risk free; the coolants for them burn when exposed to outside air, so if there is a massive break down, there could be a large explosion; and this explosion would be violent. But the actual nuclear aspect of the reactor? Would still smother itself.
So, dangerous? Yes, it can be. But not really in the "irradiated wasteland" way. More like the same kind of way that a rocket fuel plant might be. (There were some theoretical problems raised by some green groups of a perfect sodium exposion pressuring the core ect. But, the Gen 4 ones, as far as I know eliminated them.)
As for the waste. They produce, I believe, 1/2 ton of waste per 1k megawatt plant, peryear. However, unlike standard waste--this waste becomes harmless in 200 years. Well within the lifetime of our containers. And the smaller amounts mean the places we have set aside already will last---forever, really. The added bonus to this is that these reactors can use the old "spent" fuel we have sitting out there already. So, in effect, they will actuallydecreasethe current housing of old fuel, rather than increase it.
The new Gen reactors are just crazy good. I'd almost think they were bullshit, because they sound like it. But even reading the hippy counter arguments, it's all "my god, the sodium can catch fire! WARBAGABLE!" The fact is, the biggest problem with new nuclear is the capital cost for start up, its crazy high. But the long term operating cost is really low. So, it's profitable. The problem is, no one wants to push out that kind of money if some old Light water can blow up and have the public associate even these new plants with the old ones and shut them down. (Japan shut down like a multi-decade research project into fast breeders; billions of dollars, gone--because Fukishima. They just recently started it back up again, because they realized how badly they needed it.)
I'm fine with Natural Gas, btw. I am a bit more leary about water contamination than you; but I'm not dead set against it. The problem is, natural gas will get us through, what? 100 years? We have enough nuclear energy to currently power the earth for 50k years. And for me, that's a huge selling point. If we want to move society forward, we need to make third world shit holes into awesome consumer paradises that Dumar hates--and one of the principle difficulties with that is energy.
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,843
- 50,762
Yea, we should definitely argue the cost/benefit of completely reshaping our planets weather and ecology by changing the atmosphere. Thats a reasonable discussion.
Especially when the primary advantage of natural gas over nuclear is..... ?
More people have probably died in mining accidents for fossil fuels alone than have ever been killed by nuclear plants, nevermind the power plant accidents for fossil fuels and the emissions from them.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
Cad you're as usual too dead set on an idea to have a reasonable discussion on. Knives have also killed more people than hydrogen bombs and there obviously has to be a level of co2 emission that is acceptable and not explode the fuckin planet.
The new reactors do sound good as you describe them. I'm sure if it were that easy there would be some less retarded country like Japan or France that would have demonstrated by now.
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,843
- 50,762
Of course there is a reasonable level. Cars for example are not practical yet for electric power or (obviously) nuclear power. So there would be a goodly bit of co2 emission there. And airplanes, obviously. Fossil fuels make sense there. But there's just like no reason not to be building a shit ton of nuclear plants right now, but it's politics and uninformed people that prevent it. Which is a shame.
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,843
- 50,762
Japan has been anti nuke for a long time and their politicians catch hell for having nuclear anything in their country, but they still do it. Their shit is all old american tech though. Like 60's tech.
France is building at least 1 Gen3 reactor now.
Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy
The climate is gonna change regardless bro, the question is are the costs of making it change slightly less via a huge nuclear rollout and clamp down on co2 worth the costs. Its not an either or option, there is no option where the climate doesn't change, thats a false argument.