[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Trump - R_P - Jul 20, 2019 - 6:05pm
 
Questions. - r_sauve - Jul 20, 2019 - 5:54pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - BillG - Jul 20, 2019 - 5:03pm
 
Electronic Music - R_P - Jul 20, 2019 - 4:23pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - buzz - Jul 20, 2019 - 4:14pm
 
More reggae, less Marley please - R_P - Jul 20, 2019 - 2:11pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Jul 20, 2019 - 1:28pm
 
Fix My Car - SeriousLee - Jul 20, 2019 - 12:38pm
 
Evolution! - R_P - Jul 20, 2019 - 12:37pm
 
Coffee - SeriousLee - Jul 20, 2019 - 12:30pm
 
What Are You Eating Right Now That's Making You Want To S... - SeriousLee - Jul 20, 2019 - 12:19pm
 
Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake? - SeriousLee - Jul 20, 2019 - 12:15pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Steely_D - Jul 20, 2019 - 11:53am
 
Our friends the Saudis - R_P - Jul 20, 2019 - 11:40am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Copenhagen_Cat - Jul 20, 2019 - 11:19am
 
Unresearched Conspiracy Theories - R_P - Jul 20, 2019 - 11:16am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - SeriousLee - Jul 20, 2019 - 10:14am
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - SeriousLee - Jul 20, 2019 - 10:13am
 
Baseball, anyone? - zevon - Jul 20, 2019 - 9:53am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jul 20, 2019 - 6:46am
 
Interesting Art - Steely_D - Jul 19, 2019 - 8:32pm
 
What Makes You Sad? - SeriousLee - Jul 19, 2019 - 2:40pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - SeriousLee - Jul 19, 2019 - 2:36pm
 
Things You Thought Today - SeriousLee - Jul 19, 2019 - 12:24pm
 
What Browser do you use & why? - westslope - Jul 19, 2019 - 9:58am
 
If you had a time machine - what concert would you see? - oldviolin - Jul 19, 2019 - 9:00am
 
Thank You Canada - Proclivities - Jul 19, 2019 - 7:13am
 
Republican Wingnut Freak of the Day - Red_Dragon - Jul 18, 2019 - 7:48pm
 
What's that song - alkemyst - Jul 18, 2019 - 7:24pm
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - black321 - Jul 18, 2019 - 7:14pm
 
RP App for Android - jarro - Jul 18, 2019 - 5:44pm
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - oldviolin - Jul 18, 2019 - 5:38pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ziggytrix - Jul 18, 2019 - 5:22pm
 
Outstanding Covers - Copenhagen_Cat - Jul 18, 2019 - 11:02am
 
Immigration - R_P - Jul 18, 2019 - 9:26am
 
Slide Show Sync - wirefixer - Jul 18, 2019 - 8:16am
 
Republican Party - sirdroseph - Jul 18, 2019 - 4:30am
 
Flower Pictures - yuel - Jul 18, 2019 - 12:52am
 
Counting with Pictures - yuel - Jul 18, 2019 - 12:19am
 
Favorite Computer Utilities - Mac - kcar - Jul 17, 2019 - 3:04pm
 
Tech & Science - miamizsun - Jul 17, 2019 - 1:15pm
 
Travel Tips. - black321 - Jul 17, 2019 - 11:19am
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Jul 17, 2019 - 8:55am
 
The Masked... - oldviolin - Jul 17, 2019 - 8:47am
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Jul 17, 2019 - 8:33am
 
The Obituary Page - Steely_D - Jul 17, 2019 - 7:45am
 
MusicBee -- music client - gvajda - Jul 17, 2019 - 1:08am
 
New Music - R_P - Jul 16, 2019 - 11:05am
 
TED Talks - Proclivities - Jul 16, 2019 - 9:58am
 
Best guitarists - oldviolin - Jul 16, 2019 - 9:25am
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Jul 16, 2019 - 9:08am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Egctheow - Jul 16, 2019 - 5:57am
 
Books - sirdroseph - Jul 16, 2019 - 5:34am
 
Posting pictures - haresfur - Jul 15, 2019 - 4:18pm
 
Plugin RP for Volumio - dpozzi - Jul 15, 2019 - 1:14pm
 
FLAC Streaming - dpozzi - Jul 15, 2019 - 1:13pm
 
The Dog House - westslope - Jul 15, 2019 - 10:10am
 
Vinyl for old timer - Copenhagen_Cat - Jul 15, 2019 - 9:11am
 
UK stream - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 15, 2019 - 7:21am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - ColdMiser - Jul 15, 2019 - 4:04am
 
What are you listening to now? - SeriousLee - Jul 14, 2019 - 11:25am
 
Climate Change - miamizsun - Jul 14, 2019 - 11:15am
 
Democratic Party - westslope - Jul 14, 2019 - 9:24am
 
• • • Clownstock • • •  - SeriousLee - Jul 14, 2019 - 6:27am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Jul 13, 2019 - 10:33pm
 
Pence - R_P - Jul 13, 2019 - 5:56pm
 
• • •  What's For Dinner ? • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 13, 2019 - 4:42pm
 
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? - miamizsun - Jul 13, 2019 - 2:52pm
 
You might be getting old if...... - Egctheow - Jul 13, 2019 - 2:01pm
 
Protest Songs - rhahl - Jul 13, 2019 - 12:02pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - Jul 13, 2019 - 11:50am
 
Are they married yet? YES THEY ARE! - SeriousLee - Jul 13, 2019 - 11:34am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Jul 13, 2019 - 11:24am
 
When Yesterday's Over - Copenhagen_Cat - Jul 13, 2019 - 4:54am
 
David Gilmour's guitars on auction last month - Copenhagen_Cat - Jul 13, 2019 - 3:03am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 21, 22, 23  Next
Post to this Topic
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 9:44am



 Red_Dragon wrote:

The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
 

I see your point, but unless you can get people to stop reproducing at the current rate, and cut their consumption by ~30%, there isn't another source on deck that can meet the need. We need solar, we need wind, we need geothermal and tidal, but we need nuclear too. And the irony of the environmentalists dissing a major component of the solution to an environmental problem is pretty ripe. Nuclear can and has been done well and safely (see France). And if you leave it out of the solution, you don't have a solution. 
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 8:59am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


 Red_Dragon wrote:

The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
 

 
{#Lol}
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 8:40am



 Red_Dragon wrote:

The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
 


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 8:30am

 islander wrote:


Another fine reactor we should be using, but the original contractor messed up on the location. They claimed something about a secondary concern over gravity and wanting some safety space in case of uncontrolled reaction outbursts. It resulted in right of way problems for running power lines, and substantial interference from both local phenomenon and a seasonal rotational error in our own planets original setup.  In the end it wound up as a nice thermal and lighting source, but had problems meeting the unplanned linear demand spikes from a runaway customer base.
 
The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 8:23am



 Red_Dragon wrote:


 

Another fine reactor we should be using, but the original contractor messed up on the location. They claimed something about a secondary concern over gravity and wanting some safety space in case of uncontrolled reaction outbursts. It resulted in right of way problems for running power lines, and substantial interference from both local phenomenon and a seasonal rotational error in our own planets original setup.  In the end it wound up as a nice thermal and lighting source, but had problems meeting the unplanned linear demand spikes from a runaway customer base.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 7:50am

 islander wrote:

 A wise person around here one said the best green power is the kind that glows. 

 

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 7:33am



 miamizsun wrote:
reality intervenes...

Union of Concerned Scientists For Nukes!

Activist group finally recognizes that it can't achieve its energy and climate goals without nuclear power.

The activists at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have had a partial change of heart about nuclear power. Back in 2007, the UCS' Global Warming and Nuclear Power report declared, "prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria."

In its new report, The Nuclear Power Dilemma, the UCS now recognizes that nuclear power plays an important role in addressing the problem of man-made global warming by helping to keep U.S. carbon dioxide emissions considerably lower than they would otherwise be.


 

 A wise person around here one said the best green power is the kind that glows. 
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 7:10am

reality intervenes...

Union of Concerned Scientists For Nukes!

Activist group finally recognizes that it can't achieve its energy and climate goals without nuclear power.

The activists at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have had a partial change of heart about nuclear power. Back in 2007, the UCS' Global Warming and Nuclear Power report declared, "prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria."

In its new report, The Nuclear Power Dilemma, the UCS now recognizes that nuclear power plays an important role in addressing the problem of man-made global warming by helping to keep U.S. carbon dioxide emissions considerably lower than they would otherwise be.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 28, 2018 - 2:51pm

 miamizsun wrote:
i've posted about thorcon before (not sure which thread)

hargraves is making a case that nuclear is safer and cheaper than coal (while keeping co2 in check)

possibly targeting asian energy needs as a market



 

i know, the guy in the video below {#Arrowd} looks like lurch...

China and Russia looking at 27 floating nuclear reactors but ThorCon and Indonesia could scale to 100 per year.

ThorCon is developing molten salt floating nuclear reactors. They use the same steam and electrical side as a standard 500 MWe supercritical coal plant. But gone are the massive coal handling systems, the 100 m high boiler, the flue gas treatment system, and the ash handling and storage system. A generous estimate of the overnight cost of the ThorCon steam side, everything but the nuclear island, is $700/kW. This is a well-established number.

The total overnight cost of a 500 MWe coal plant is between 2000 and 1400 dollars per kW. Both figures assume no attempt at carbon capture. ThorCon would be 2 to three times cheaper than coal.

The ThorCon nuclear island requires one-sixth as much steel and one-fourth as much concrete as the portion of the coal plant upstream from the turbine. A 1 GWe ThorCon nuclear island requires less than 400 tons of superalloys and other exotic materials. ThorCon operating at near ambient pressure has a 2:1 advantage in steel and a 5:1 advantage in concrete over its nuclear competitors on the nuclear side. Much more importantly, very little of ThorCon’s concrete is reinforced. Reinforced concrete is impossible to automate, drives the critical path, is not amenable to block construction, and entombs the critical portion of the plant in a mausoleum making repair and replacement extremely difficult. ThorCon can be produced entirely in bargable blocks at shipyard assembly line productivity.

Based on resource and labor requirements and allowing for stringent inspection and testing, the ThorCon nuclear island should cost less than $500 per kW on an overnight basis.

Thorcon wants to provide Indonesia initially with 7 cents per kwh power that can be moved to any of the hundreds of islands in Indonesia. The costs should then go down with later units.




miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 13, 2018 - 7:25am

How We Screwed Up Nuclear Power

Half a century ago, nuclear power was on track to out-compete fossil fuels around the globe, which would have reduced the price of electricity, the amount of harmful air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change. Then came a dramatic slowing of new construction and research into safer and more efficient nuclear reactors.

According to Australian National University researcher Peter Lang, the '60s and '70s saw a transition "from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment." Had the initial trajectory continued, he writes in the journal Energies, nuclear-generated electricity would now be around 10 percent of its current cost.

In a counterfactual scenario featuring increasing uptake of nuclear power from 1976, Lang calculates that by 2015 it would have replaced all coal-burning and three-quarters of gas-fired electric power generation. Thus, over the past 30 years we could have substituted 186,000 terawatt-hours of electricity production, avoiding up to 174 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions and 9.5 million air pollution deaths. Cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions would be about 18 percent lower, and annual global carbon dioxide emissions would be one-third less.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 16, 2018 - 7:14am

 haresfur wrote:

It was a mistake for Carter to cancel the reprocessing program and mixed fuel reactors. I think it is a laugh when people complain about using plutonium in reactors when power reactors are getting about 1/3 of their energy from the plutonium produced by the time they need refueling. But the waste problem isn't the plutonium, although that is what scares people. The real issue is the long-lived fission products like technetium-99 and I-129. You still have to deal with those and reprocessing mobilizes them. There is a pretty good iodine plume from the British reprocessing plant.

I don't have an opinion on Thorium reactors. In the early days, the Hanford site played around with thorium in the K reactors by using it in the outside core tubes. You get a different suite of fission products but nothing that will go boom. I forget the details and my chart of the nuclides is at work.

 
this may offer some info/insight on the subject

sorenson has a loner more detailed google talk about the waste issue

one of the freaky things about this video is around the 13.39 mark george lucas of star wars fame strolls up behind the interview and nobody really notices or cares
{#Lol}



haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 16, 2018 - 6:24am

 miamizsun wrote:


i agree with teac and pro-nuclear scientists and engineers that the politics around nuclear energy have been misrepresented and/or misinterpreted 

broadly speaking old tech was geared toward making stuff that goes boom (see oak ridge) and people should be cautious about weaponizing anything

when designed primarily for energy production the waste and the risk are greatly reduced (in fact we can burn the old waste for energy)

obviously coal and fossil fuels are sun-setting tech and solar and wind are intermittent and usually require storage and back up sources of energy

i encourage folks to investigate and thanks for the support
 {#Cheers}
 
It was a mistake for Carter to cancel the reprocessing program and mixed fuel reactors. I think it is a laugh when people complain about using plutonium in reactors when power reactors are getting about 1/3 of their energy from the plutonium produced by the time they need refueling. But the waste problem isn't the plutonium, although that is what scares people. The real issue is the long-lived fission products like technetium-99 and I-129. You still have to deal with those and reprocessing mobilizes them. There is a pretty good iodine plume from the British reprocessing plant.

I don't have an opinion on Thorium reactors. In the early days, the Hanford site played around with thorium in the K reactors by using it in the outside core tubes. You get a different suite of fission products but nothing that will go boom. I forget the details and my chart of the nuclides is at work.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 16, 2018 - 5:15am

 haresfur wrote:
I know a bit about nuke stuff and tend to agree with you, at least in the mid-term timescale, but not because I'm wild about the risks or dealing with the waste.

Mainly I'm anti-coal and I reckon that if people want the energy they should be willing to assume the risks of nuclear rather than the known damage from coal mining and coal emissions.
 

i agree with teac and pro-nuclear scientists and engineers that the politics around nuclear energy have been misrepresented and/or misinterpreted 

broadly speaking old tech was geared toward making stuff that goes boom (see oak ridge) and people should be cautious about weaponizing anything

when designed primarily for energy production the waste and the risk are greatly reduced (in fact we can burn the old waste for energy)

obviously coal and fossil fuels are sun-setting tech and solar and wind are intermittent and usually require storage and back up sources of energy

i encourage folks to investigate and thanks for the support


 {#Cheers}

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 16, 2018 - 3:55am

 katzendogs wrote:
I had a  job here once.  


Just an FYI. {#Lol}
I rented a trailer in Joshua. The trailer (ina park) was backed up to a small ranch(ito) and was quiet and like in the middle of nowhere. This is where I found my first Walmart. Bought everthing I could get with my first paycheck. i bought the hottest friffin type of sleeping bag ever, not knowing all those ratings they have. (i'm in texas).

But i had a cow. I called her 96. Because of the tag in her ear. She and I would sometimes 'holla' at each other ! {#Lol} 
I would throw scraps at her at times. some beef even. Some eggshells. she was a crazy old friend from those few months.

 

some of us have had "kerouac moments" in our lives

mine wasn't as sexy as yours

{#Wink}
haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 15, 2018 - 5:34pm

 miamizsun wrote:

i like the energy and i still think nuclear is the way to go

in the mean time i say build a lot of smaller reactors with the tech we have

scatter them where we need to

you know, to hold us over until this cake is baked
 
I know a bit about nuke stuff and tend to agree with you, at least in the mid-term timescale, but not because I'm wild about the risks or dealing with the waste.

Mainly I'm anti-coal and I reckon that if people want the energy they should be willing to assume the risks of nuclear rather than the known damage from coal mining and coal emissions.
katzendogs

katzendogs Avatar

Location: Pasadena ,Texas
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 15, 2018 - 5:12pm

I had a  job here once.  


Just an FYI. {#Lol}
I rented a trailer in Joshua. The trailer (ina park) was backed up to a small ranch(ito) and was quiet and like in the middle of nowhere. This is where I found my first Walmart. Bought everthing I could get with my first paycheck. i bought the hottest friffin type of sleeping bag ever, not knowing all those ratings they have. (i'm in texas).

But i had a cow. I called her 96. Because of the tag in her ear. She and I would sometimes 'holla' at each other ! {#Lol} 
I would throw scraps at her at times. some beef even. Some eggshells. she was a crazy old friend from those few months.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 15, 2018 - 3:41pm




flan, that's actually funny  {#Arrowd}
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 9, 2018 - 2:00pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:

I think energy should be decentralized - every home should have it's own reactor.

 
Slippery slope my friend. With our luck, Trump will agree to share nuclear weapons technology with North Korea when he meets Kim Jong Un, in return for hair grooming secrets.

Next thing you know Suburban Americans will be using superior North Korean weapons technology to employ their reactors to construct tactical weapons.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 9, 2018 - 1:53pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:
I think energy should be decentralized - every home should have it's own reactor.
 

easy

next thing you know you'll ask for running water and indoor plumbing



Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Mar 9, 2018 - 1:43pm

 miamizsun wrote:

i like the energy and i still think nuclear is the way to go

in the mean time i say build a lot of smaller reactors with the tech we have

scatter them where we need to

you know, to hold us over until this cake is baked
 
I think energy should be decentralized - every home should have it's own reactor.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 21, 22, 23  Next