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

Guns - westslope - Jan 26, 2022 - 10:58pm
 
COVID-19 - westslope - Jan 26, 2022 - 10:40pm
 
Wordle - daily game - Steely_D - Jan 26, 2022 - 10:06pm
 
One small 'beef' i have with RP - BillG - Jan 26, 2022 - 9:50pm
 
In My Room - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 26, 2022 - 8:48pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 26, 2022 - 7:47pm
 
music that makes you dance with big wavy gestures - R_P - Jan 26, 2022 - 7:00pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - Red_Dragon - Jan 26, 2022 - 6:38pm
 
Supreme Court: Who's Next? - Red_Dragon - Jan 26, 2022 - 5:31pm
 
King Crimson - miamizsun - Jan 26, 2022 - 5:24pm
 
Neil Young - R_P - Jan 26, 2022 - 12:34pm
 
Submissions is broken - rgio - Jan 26, 2022 - 12:08pm
 
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today... - black321 - Jan 26, 2022 - 11:17am
 
Name My Band - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 10:55am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - black321 - Jan 26, 2022 - 10:38am
 
Audio Processing - Azimuth48 - Jan 26, 2022 - 9:55am
 
Photos you haven't taken of other people... - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 8:39am
 
RP and Life - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 8:28am
 
Movie Quote - Steely_D - Jan 26, 2022 - 8:25am
 
Get the Quote - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 8:19am
 
What are you listening to now? - oldviolin - Jan 26, 2022 - 7:35am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 7:22am
 
Today in History - Bill_J - Jan 26, 2022 - 6:41am
 
Best movies ever? - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 5:53am
 
Old Time and Folk - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 5:25am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Jan 26, 2022 - 5:16am
 
Won’t support you until - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 5:06am
 
Live Concert Streams - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 4:44am
 
Best Funk ? - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 4:30am
 
Jazz - Ohmsen - Jan 26, 2022 - 4:06am
 
What Did You Do Today? - Steely_D - Jan 25, 2022 - 9:44pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - fractalv - Jan 25, 2022 - 8:17pm
 
Tax the Rich! - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 25, 2022 - 3:51pm
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Jan 25, 2022 - 2:01pm
 
Russia - R_P - Jan 25, 2022 - 1:28pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Jan 25, 2022 - 1:15pm
 
New Music - R_P - Jan 25, 2022 - 1:04pm
 
Headphones for the hard of hearing? - westslope - Jan 25, 2022 - 12:27pm
 
Got a good recipe you care to share ??? - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 25, 2022 - 11:43am
 
Bitcoin - rgio - Jan 25, 2022 - 5:48am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - miamizsun - Jan 25, 2022 - 4:50am
 
Europe - Ohmsen - Jan 25, 2022 - 2:16am
 
Things You Thought Today - haresfur - Jan 24, 2022 - 11:14pm
 
Trump - westslope - Jan 24, 2022 - 4:59pm
 
Weather Out Your Window - Manbird - Jan 24, 2022 - 2:34pm
 
Evolution! - R_P - Jan 24, 2022 - 2:11pm
 
Happy Birthday! - Manbird - Jan 24, 2022 - 2:07pm
 
France - Ohmsen - Jan 24, 2022 - 11:07am
 
Joe Biden - Steely_D - Jan 24, 2022 - 9:59am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - islander - Jan 24, 2022 - 6:53am
 
Germany - westslope - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:24pm
 
Republican Party - Steely_D - Jan 23, 2022 - 7:54pm
 
The Obituary Page - Bill_J - Jan 23, 2022 - 6:20pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - triskele - Jan 23, 2022 - 2:40pm
 
Jimi Hendrix Memorial - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2022 - 1:52pm
 
Pictures I've taken and like. No promises! - oldviolin - Jan 23, 2022 - 12:34pm
 
Australia and New Zealand Music - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:45am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:37am
 
Play the Blues - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:35am
 
The war on funk is over! - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:22am
 
Classical? - oldviolin - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:16am
 
I play the drums... - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2022 - 11:01am
 
Jam! (why should a song stop) - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2022 - 10:12am
 
What Makes You Sad? - geoff_morphini - Jan 23, 2022 - 10:12am
 
The Dragon's Roots - triskele - Jan 22, 2022 - 3:30pm
 
A motivational quote - GeneP59 - Jan 22, 2022 - 11:40am
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - GeneP59 - Jan 22, 2022 - 11:15am
 
Make Scott laugh - Manbird - Jan 22, 2022 - 10:07am
 
ptooey Must Go! - islander - Jan 22, 2022 - 7:59am
 
• • • What Makes You Happy? • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 21, 2022 - 10:42pm
 
Kids say the funniest things - oldviolin - Jan 21, 2022 - 9:42pm
 
Star Trek - Manbird - Jan 21, 2022 - 8:46pm
 
Thank You Radio Paradise. - Manbird - Jan 21, 2022 - 6:14pm
 
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote') - Manbird - Jan 21, 2022 - 4:21pm
 
RightWingNutZ - westslope - Jan 21, 2022 - 4:21pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 22, 23, 24  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, 4 ... 22, 23, 24  Next