Energy Thread - How to Power Civilization

"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"

Picasso_sl said:

billion dollar thousand year nuclear waste disposal bungled bullshit, or possibility of ultimate catastrophe.

Click to expand...

Except these are not draw backs of modern nuclear plants.

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.

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.

Picasso_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BrutulTM_sl said:

All About Fracking - Skeptoid

Click to expand...

Fucking love Skeptoid.

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_sl said:

Yea, we should definitely argue the cost/benefit of completely reshaping our planets weather and ecology by changing the atmosphere. Thats a reasonable discussion.

Click to expand...

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.