Nuclear Power policy

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Defiant »

A wildfire burning near the desert birthplace of the atomic bomb advanced on the Los Alamos laboratory and thousands of outdoor drums of plutonium-contaminated waste Tuesday as authorities stepped up efforts to protect the site from flames and monitor the air for radiation.

Officials at the nation's premier nuclear weapons lab gave assurances that dangerous materials were safely stored and capable of withstanding flames from the 93-square-mile (240 square kilometer) fire, which as of midday was as close as 50 feet (15 meters) from the grounds.
http://beta.news.yahoo.com/los-alamos-n ... 15279.html" target="_blank

I'm trying to decide if we're hearing these stories because of what happened in Japan, or if it's just continuing to be a bad year for the nuclear industry.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Defiant »

So John Oliver did a show on nuclear waste

And he's gotten flak for it. Having an acquaintance that works in the field of Nuclear Waste, and seeing the reaction of him and others in the field on social media, the reaction seem to be the same - a lot of criticism that he didn't have any experts in the field in the show, and that there was a lot of fear mongering.

While I generally like the show, there's been at least a few other times I've been unimpressed with it's coverage.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Defiant »

(Here's some more of the criticism:)
User avatar
hitbyambulance
Posts: 10233
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:51 am
Location: Map Ref 47.6°N 122.35°W
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by hitbyambulance »

twitter thread ban plz
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13681
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Max Peck »

Some people take comedy shows too seriously.
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
Moliere
Posts: 12295
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
Location: Walking through a desert land

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Moliere »

Max Peck wrote:Some people take comedy shows too seriously.
So John Oliver is allowed to say whatever he wants without being criticized?
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13681
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Max Peck »

Moliere wrote:
Max Peck wrote:Some people take comedy shows too seriously.
So John Oliver is allowed to say whatever he wants without being criticized?
Of course he can be criticized. And I can criticize the critics. And you can criticize me. Do you see how that works?
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Defiant »

Max Peck wrote:Some people take comedy shows too seriously.
Thank you, William Shatner.

Considering that some people consider it a source of news, and that it draws attention to issues and can change people's minds, maybe some people don't take it seriously enough. :ninja:
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13681
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Max Peck »

Defiant wrote:
Max Peck wrote:Some people take comedy shows too seriously.
Thank you, William Shatner.

Considering that some people consider it a source of news, and that it draws attention to issues and can change people's minds, maybe some people don't take it seriously enough. :ninja:
If some people consider John Oliver to be a source of news, then maybe some people should crack open a dictionary and see whether they can puzzle out the difference between topical satire and journalism.
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
gbasden
Posts: 7664
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by gbasden »

I agree with Moliere. John Oliver does do some amazing shows, but sometimes he's wrong. I've read a number of scientists that echo some of those same criticisms. I think that an even handed reading of the evidence probably shows he's incorrect about some of the things that were on this weeks episode, and that deserves to be called out.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by noxiousdog »

Max Peck wrote:
Defiant wrote:
Max Peck wrote:Some people take comedy shows too seriously.
Thank you, William Shatner.

Considering that some people consider it a source of news, and that it draws attention to issues and can change people's minds, maybe some people don't take it seriously enough. :ninja:
If some people consider John Oliver to be a source of news, then maybe some people should crack open a dictionary and see whether they can puzzle out the difference between topical satire and journalism.
John Oliver makes his living by blurring the line. It's valid criticism that he should be factually correct even if he may want to exaggerate for effect.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13681
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Max Peck »

noxiousdog wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
Defiant wrote:
Max Peck wrote:Some people take comedy shows too seriously.
Thank you, William Shatner.

Considering that some people consider it a source of news, and that it draws attention to issues and can change people's minds, maybe some people don't take it seriously enough. :ninja:
If some people consider John Oliver to be a source of news, then maybe some people should crack open a dictionary and see whether they can puzzle out the difference between topical satire and journalism.
John Oliver makes his living by blurring the line. It's valid criticism that he should be factually correct even if he may want to exaggerate for effect.
Was he factually incorrect in the nuclear waste segment? A barely-hinged twitter rant from an industry insider, making claims such as dumping drums of low-grade waste in the ocean is harmless (If so, why was it globally banned? Was shooting holes in the drums that didn't sink on their own a really well-thought out course of action?), didn't strike me as particularly compelling evidence to that end.
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by RunningMn9 »

noxiousdog wrote:John Oliver makes his living by blurring the line. It's valid criticism that he should be factually correct even if he may want to exaggerate for effect.
I agree. When he's doing these sorts of pieces, it's not primarily about the satire. It's primarily about him trying to inform his audience. Which is fine, but he should actually inform them.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by noxiousdog »

Max Peck wrote: Was he factually incorrect in the nuclear waste segment? A barely-hinged twitter rant from an industry insider, making claims such as dumping drums of low-grade waste in the ocean is harmless (If so, why was it globally banned? Was shooting holes in the drums that didn't sink on their own a really well-thought out course of action?), didn't strike me as particularly compelling evidence to that end.
Make up your mind. Was he factually correct or was it just comedy?
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13681
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Max Peck »

noxiousdog wrote:
Max Peck wrote: Was he factually incorrect in the nuclear waste segment? A barely-hinged twitter rant from an industry insider, making claims such as dumping drums of low-grade waste in the ocean is harmless (If so, why was it globally banned? Was shooting holes in the drums that didn't sink on their own a really well-thought out course of action?), didn't strike me as particularly compelling evidence to that end.
Make up your mind. Was he factually correct or was it just comedy?
Is there some logical reason that something cannot both be true and presented in a comedic context? The only thing I care about is that I found the segment to be entertaining, and as a simple layman I didn't spot any obviously fallacious information. That meets my standard for a comedy show. If I wanted an in-depth treatment of the subject, I'd hunt up some documentaries or crack open a book or three. I wouldn't rely on a comedian to do my homework for me.

If he lied about anything, then by all means use your vastly superior knowledge and rhetorical talent to enlighten me.
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13681
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Max Peck »

Oh, hey, while we're at it, where is the condemnation of Charleston's Post and Courier for their irresponsible reporting of radioactive alligators earlier this year?
The U.S. then shipped 1,500 tons of tainted soil back to the states for disposal. The 55-gallon steel drums of radioactive dirt were buried at the Savannah River Plant in 20-foot-deep unlined trenches.

That burial ground is where the plant dumped much of its solid radioactive waste at the time, often in cardboard boxes. Radioactive contamination continues to leach from burial trenches into groundwater and periodically the Savannah River despite efforts to cap the trenches and stem the leakage. Plant engineers built a dam to block most of the flow and create a large pond.

The contaminated pond water is used as irrigation and regularly sprayed into the surrounding forest where it is absorbed by the trees and evaporates harmlessly into the atmosphere. The pond also is home to two radioactive alligators dubbed by workers as Tritagator and Dioxinator — after two of the wastes, radioactive tritium and toxic dioxin.

Solid radioactive waste continues to be dumped into unlined ditches and buried. But now it’s limited to low-level radioactive material with short half-lives — the time it takes for the material to lose half of its radioactivity. Plant officials say the material loses virtually all of its radioactive punch before it can leach into groundwater and spread very far from the trenches.
Since the idea of "radioactive alligators" is just silly nonsense, I'm sure folks that are all up in arms about this would be just fine with taking a dip in that pond. :)
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by noxiousdog »

Max Peck wrote: Is there some logical reason that something cannot both be true and presented in a comedic context? The only thing I care about is that I found the segment to be entertaining, and as a simple layman I didn't spot any obviously fallacious information. That meets my standard for a comedy show. If I wanted an in-depth treatment of the subject, I'd hunt up some documentaries or crack open a book or three. I wouldn't rely on a comedian to do my homework for me.

If he lied about anything, then by all means use your vastly superior knowledge and rhetorical talent to enlighten me.
I think Katie and James already did that, but you chose to ignore it. Why would you be any more receptive to me?

This is like arguing about vaccines.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13681
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Max Peck »

noxiousdog wrote:
Max Peck wrote: Is there some logical reason that something cannot both be true and presented in a comedic context? The only thing I care about is that I found the segment to be entertaining, and as a simple layman I didn't spot any obviously fallacious information. That meets my standard for a comedy show. If I wanted an in-depth treatment of the subject, I'd hunt up some documentaries or crack open a book or three. I wouldn't rely on a comedian to do my homework for me.

If he lied about anything, then by all means use your vastly superior knowledge and rhetorical talent to enlighten me.
I think Katie and James already did that, but you chose to ignore it. Why would you be any more receptive to me?

This is like arguing about vaccines.
I don't even know why you decided to argue about it in the first place. All I originally said was that some people take comedians too seriously, and y'all decided that THAT SHALL NOT STAND.
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by noxiousdog »

Max Peck wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
Max Peck wrote: Is there some logical reason that something cannot both be true and presented in a comedic context? The only thing I care about is that I found the segment to be entertaining, and as a simple layman I didn't spot any obviously fallacious information. That meets my standard for a comedy show. If I wanted an in-depth treatment of the subject, I'd hunt up some documentaries or crack open a book or three. I wouldn't rely on a comedian to do my homework for me.

If he lied about anything, then by all means use your vastly superior knowledge and rhetorical talent to enlighten me.
I think Katie and James already did that, but you chose to ignore it. Why would you be any more receptive to me?

This is like arguing about vaccines.
I don't even know why you decided to argue about it in the first place. All I originally said was that some people take comedians too seriously, and y'all decided that THAT SHALL NOT STAND.
Oh good grief. Relax. The only one freaking out is you.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13681
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Max Peck »

noxiousdog wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
Max Peck wrote: Is there some logical reason that something cannot both be true and presented in a comedic context? The only thing I care about is that I found the segment to be entertaining, and as a simple layman I didn't spot any obviously fallacious information. That meets my standard for a comedy show. If I wanted an in-depth treatment of the subject, I'd hunt up some documentaries or crack open a book or three. I wouldn't rely on a comedian to do my homework for me.

If he lied about anything, then by all means use your vastly superior knowledge and rhetorical talent to enlighten me.
I think Katie and James already did that, but you chose to ignore it. Why would you be any more receptive to me?

This is like arguing about vaccines.
I don't even know why you decided to argue about it in the first place. All I originally said was that some people take comedians too seriously, and y'all decided that THAT SHALL NOT STAND.
Oh good grief. Relax. The only one freaking out is you.
I'm glad to hear that. I was a litlle worried that I had somehow annoyed you, but am happy to hear that is not the case. :)
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Kraken »

On a related note, Vanity Fair has a very good (long) article about the DOE. Why the Scariest Nuclear Threat May Be Coming from Inside the White House
On the morning after the election, November 9, 2016, the people who ran the U.S. Department of Energy turned up in their offices and waited. They had cleared 30 desks and freed up 30 parking spaces. They didn’t know exactly how many people they’d host that day, but whoever won the election would surely be sending a small army into the Department of Energy, and every other federal agency. The morning after he was elected president, eight years earlier, Obama had sent between 30 and 40 people into the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy staff planned to deliver the same talks from the same five-inch-thick three-ring binders, with the Department of Energy seal on them, to the Trump people as they would have given to the Clinton people. “Nothing had to be changed,” said one former Department of Energy staffer. “They’d be done always with the intention that, either party wins, nothing changes.”

By afternoon the silence was deafening. “Day 1, we’re ready to go,” says a former senior White House official. “Day 2 it was ‘Maybe they’ll call us?’ ”
After painting a picture of an agency in existential crisis, it goes into the top five threats that the DOE confronts. Nuclear waste management is among them.
User avatar
Nightwish
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:29 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Nightwish »

You're reading too much into the segment, it's not a super serious hour long documentary, it's just an alert that there's a lot of nuclear waste that hasn't been safely disposed of. It could, and should, be more accurate, but using the expression "low level waste" by a professional is just worse. It still kills you and makes your life dreadful and painful until you die.
me in OO -> just reading, but sometimes I do speak my mind
User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 13132
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Paingod »

Trump doesn't need to show up to effect a "Nothing Changes" agenda; he just needs to be absent. They should have really worried if a car with three people showed up.
Black Lives Matter

2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Defiant »

The dream of pollution and radiation-free electricity derived from nuclear fusion could be a step closer to reality thanks to a breakthrough by British scientists.

They have developed an exhaust system that can deal with the immense temperatures created during the fusion process and which so far have limited the viability of commercial fusion power plants.
https://news.sky.com/story/commercially ... h-12317089
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by malchior »

Defiant wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 9:34 am
The dream of pollution and radiation-free electricity derived from nuclear fusion could be a step closer to reality thanks to a breakthrough by British scientists.

They have developed an exhaust system that can deal with the immense temperatures created during the fusion process and which so far have limited the viability of commercial fusion power plants.
https://news.sky.com/story/commercially ... h-12317089
Sky.com wrote:"It's a pivotal development for the UK's plan to put a fusion power plant on the grid by the early 2040s - and for bringing low-carbon energy from fusion to the world."
Remember when nuclear fusion was 20 30 years away in the mid-80s? I do.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70097
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by LordMortis »

I have a vague memory of Keanau Reeves solving the problem with a backpack and a motor bike sometime in the 90s.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Kraken »

Commonwealth Fusion Systems and the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center have made encouraging progress toward SPARC recently. The goal is for SPARC (a demonstration reactor) to achieve net-positive energy in 10-or-so years, with commercial ARC reactors coming online within 15 years.
What is new? What makes this new path possible now?

The SPARC approach uses a newly available superconducting material that allows operation at much higher magnetic fields than the previous state-of-the-art. Superconducting materials are required in fusion energy systems as no electrical power is required to operate the magnets that provide the plasma containment; the high magnet fields are critical because they dramatically reduce the volume of the plasma at a fixed fusion power output. This combination makes a net-energy fusion device, such as SPARC, much smaller and less expensive than if it were built with the previous magnet technology. As a result, smaller and much more streamlined organizations, such as MIT and CFS, can pursue net energy fusion devices. This is not to say success is guaranteed; but the cost and timescale to retire key technical risks becomes acceptable to private-sector investors.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Isgrimnur »

Image
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Defiant »



Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Drazzil »

If we crack the fission and solid state battery problem and the whole "electric plane" problem we will be able to take a substantial bite out of carbon.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29816
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by stessier »

News at 11!
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Pyperkub »

Kraken wrote:Commonwealth Fusion Systems and the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center have made encouraging progress toward SPARC recently. The goal is for SPARC (a demonstration reactor) to achieve net-positive energy in 10-or-so years, with commercial ARC reactors coming online within 15 years.
What is new? What makes this new path possible now?

The SPARC approach uses a newly available superconducting material that allows operation at much higher magnetic fields than the previous state-of-the-art. Superconducting materials are required in fusion energy systems as no electrical power is required to operate the magnets that provide the plasma containment; the high magnet fields are critical because they dramatically reduce the volume of the plasma at a fixed fusion power output. This combination makes a net-energy fusion device, such as SPARC, much smaller and less expensive than if it were built with the previous magnet technology. As a result, smaller and much more streamlined organizations, such as MIT and CFS, can pursue net energy fusion devices. This is not to say success is guaranteed; but the cost and timescale to retire key technical risks becomes acceptable to private-sector investors.
Both the ITER and the SPARC proof of concept reactors are expected to be online in '25/'26.

Just 4-5 years. At that time, throwing money at them should work.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8486
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Alefroth »

Drazzil wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:50 pm If we crack the fission and solid state battery problem and the whole "electric plane" problem we will be able to take a substantial bite out of carbon.
What's the fission problem? The waste?
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Drazzil »

Alefroth wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:36 pm
Drazzil wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:50 pm If we crack the fission and solid state battery problem and the whole "electric plane" problem we will be able to take a substantial bite out of carbon.
What's the fission problem? The waste?
The cold fission problem. There is very little waste produced by Nuke power, but the amount of power required by a jet takeoff (Air travel being 1/3rd of emissions) most of those emissions are in the takeoff. W/O cold fusion or solid state batteries you cannot solve the huge energy output required by jet takeoffs.

Putting nuke plants in airplanes right now wouldn't solve that and every plane that crashes has the potential to be a dirty bomb.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29816
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by stessier »

You keep mixing and matching fusion and fission.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8486
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Alefroth »

Drazzil wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:45 pm
Alefroth wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:36 pm
Drazzil wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:50 pm If we crack the fission and solid state battery problem and the whole "electric plane" problem we will be able to take a substantial bite out of carbon.
What's the fission problem? The waste?
The cold fission problem. There is very little waste produced by Nuke power, but the amount of power required by a jet takeoff (Air travel being 1/3rd of emissions) most of those emissions are in the takeoff. W/O cold fusion or solid state batteries you cannot solve the huge energy output required by jet takeoffs.

Putting nuke plants in airplanes right now wouldn't solve that and every plane that crashes has the potential to be a dirty bomb.
I think you mean fusion.

Regarding the issue of fission waste, it may be small in volume, but it isn't insignificant.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by malchior »

Even if it was fusion that is deep science fiction stuff. We can't build commercial scale fusion reactors much less ones
that'd fit on an airplane. Air travel is going to be av gas based for a long time.
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Drazzil »

stessier wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:16 pm You keep mixing and matching fusion and fission.
no. Fission plants in planes would be bad. Fusion plants would be too big. If you're talking about going zero carbon then you need solid state batteries capable of powering a jets lift. Am I wrong?
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Holman »

Drazzil wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:45 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:16 pm You keep mixing and matching fusion and fission.
no. Fission plants in planes would be bad. Fusion plants would be too big. If you're talking about going zero carbon then you need solid state batteries capable of powering a jets lift. Am I wrong?
Fission reactors produce deadly waste. Fusion reactors wouldn't, but we haven't yet figured out how to make fusion efficient enough to produce more power than it requires.

Fusion power gets us to Star Trek's UFP, but we don't yet know if it's possible.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Nuclear Power policy

Post by Kraken »

Drazzil wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:45 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:16 pm You keep mixing and matching fusion and fission.
no. Fission plants in planes would be bad. Fusion plants would be too big. If you're talking about going zero carbon then you need solid state batteries capable of powering a jets lift. Am I wrong?
Right now, we're developing hybrid planes that will use jet engines for takeoff and electricity for cruising. No existing electric tech can deliver enough thrust for takeoff, nor is there anything on the horizon, but they can maintain speed and altitude after jet fuel does the literal heavy lifting. Some concepts NASA is working on.
Post Reply