The Obituary Page
- Manbird - Jun 9, 2023 - 6:20pm
Trump
- oldviolin - Jun 9, 2023 - 5:58pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- Manbird - Jun 9, 2023 - 5:46pm
What's your favorite quote?
- Manbird - Jun 9, 2023 - 5:34pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Jun 9, 2023 - 4:24pm
Novelty songs
- kcar - Jun 9, 2023 - 4:24pm
Messages in a bottle.
- oldviolin - Jun 9, 2023 - 4:21pm
China
- R_P - Jun 9, 2023 - 3:31pm
Stuff you didn't know
- oldviolin - Jun 9, 2023 - 2:55pm
Wordle - daily game
- Manbird - Jun 9, 2023 - 1:51pm
Song of the Day
- Manbird - Jun 9, 2023 - 1:40pm
Republican Wingnut Freak of the Day
- R_P - Jun 9, 2023 - 1:31pm
Ukraine
- VV - Jun 9, 2023 - 1:17pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Jun 9, 2023 - 11:32am
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - Jun 9, 2023 - 11:26am
Things for which you would sell ManBird's soul
- miamizsun - Jun 9, 2023 - 11:20am
Big Brother is Watching You
- R_P - Jun 9, 2023 - 11:19am
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- pilgrim - Jun 9, 2023 - 10:26am
Shall We Dance?
- oldviolin - Jun 9, 2023 - 8:30am
Live Music
- oldviolin - Jun 9, 2023 - 8:29am
Climate Change
- black321 - Jun 9, 2023 - 8:22am
Things You Thought Today
- lily34 - Jun 9, 2023 - 7:44am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - Jun 8, 2023 - 6:28pm
2024 Elections!
- Beaker - Jun 8, 2023 - 2:56pm
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- Beaker - Jun 8, 2023 - 2:27pm
June 2023 Photo Theme - Lines - parallel, converging, cur...
- Antigone - Jun 8, 2023 - 2:05pm
Canada
- Beaker - Jun 8, 2023 - 12:23pm
ONE WORD
- pilgrim - Jun 8, 2023 - 8:41am
FOUR WORDS
- ColdMiser - Jun 8, 2023 - 7:52am
THREE WORDS
- ColdMiser - Jun 8, 2023 - 7:51am
TWO WORDS
- ColdMiser - Jun 8, 2023 - 7:49am
You're welcome, manbird.
- oldviolin - Jun 8, 2023 - 7:32am
What Makes You Laugh?
- oldviolin - Jun 8, 2023 - 7:28am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Jun 8, 2023 - 6:04am
Come join us in Eureka!
- bart.sp - Jun 8, 2023 - 4:40am
Russia
- miamizsun - Jun 8, 2023 - 4:18am
Mixtape Culture Club
- Beaker - Jun 7, 2023 - 9:35pm
New Music
- oppositelock - Jun 7, 2023 - 8:51pm
The Great Reset
- thisbody - Jun 7, 2023 - 5:38pm
Simulcast of VR Live?
- thisbody - Jun 7, 2023 - 5:15pm
Get the Quote
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2023 - 11:22am
Guns
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2023 - 10:15am
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today...
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2023 - 10:12am
Artificial Intelligence
- rgio - Jun 7, 2023 - 6:32am
Twitter and democracy
- kurtster - Jun 7, 2023 - 2:15am
Independent Party Candidates
- Lazy8 - Jun 6, 2023 - 10:16pm
A Picture paints a thousand words
- oldviolin - Jun 6, 2023 - 6:00pm
Song information
- Singletrack - Jun 6, 2023 - 4:23pm
Unquiet Minds - Mental Health Forum
- miamizsun - Jun 6, 2023 - 2:06pm
Bad Poetry
- GeneP59 - Jun 6, 2023 - 9:24am
TV shows you watch
- Steely_D - Jun 5, 2023 - 11:45pm
Derplahoma!
- Red_Dragon - Jun 5, 2023 - 4:28pm
BRING OUT YOUR DEAD
- oldviolin - Jun 5, 2023 - 7:52am
May 2023 Photo Theme - Buds, Sprouts & Beginnings
- sunybuny - Jun 5, 2023 - 7:22am
Movie Recommendation
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 4, 2023 - 9:59pm
Tindersticks
- oldviolin - Jun 4, 2023 - 8:53pm
just like old rario
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 4, 2023 - 7:41pm
Out the window
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 4, 2023 - 7:34pm
One Partying State - Wyoming News
- geoff_morphini - Jun 4, 2023 - 1:48pm
Skeptix
- R_P - Jun 4, 2023 - 12:04pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Jun 4, 2023 - 10:22am
What Did You Do Today?
- Antigone - Jun 3, 2023 - 4:40pm
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone
- oldviolin - Jun 3, 2023 - 10:56am
Counting with Pictures
- ScottN - Jun 2, 2023 - 8:28pm
Puzzle it
- oldviolin - Jun 2, 2023 - 2:04pm
Fascism In America
- R_P - Jun 2, 2023 - 1:24pm
(Big) Media Watch
- R_P - Jun 2, 2023 - 12:43pm
Musky Mythology
- Proclivities - Jun 2, 2023 - 11:50am
Country Up The Bumpkin
- oldviolin - Jun 2, 2023 - 9:21am
What Makes You Cry :) ?
- Beez - Jun 2, 2023 - 9:00am
Allergies ( aka pollen hell)
- black321 - Jun 2, 2023 - 8:02am
Food Democracy
- Proclivities - Jun 2, 2023 - 6:23am
Rock mix no longer available in Denmark
- klausf - Jun 1, 2023 - 11:37pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - Jun 1, 2023 - 9:00pm
RightWingNutZ
- R_P - Jun 1, 2023 - 4:32pm
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge?
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26 |
dionysius

Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 7, 2009 - 10:44am |
|
Lazy8 wrote: dionysius wrote:Fission reactors, even the fast breeders, will inevitably leave us with the problem of what to do with the waste. And they'll leave us with that problem for a very, very long time. That's not the kind of legacy I'd like to leave to our great-great-great...great-great-great-grandchildren. They're even puzzling about how to label such dangerous waste storage sites, since few people in ten thousand years are likely to know English. (And this is assuming the best case scenario, that humans and human civilization is still around then.) I don't think that fission is the way forwards.
However, fusion nuclear energy may indeed be the magic bullet. Very safe. Little or no waste problem, and the fuel? You're soaking in it. Limitless cheap electricity, which may be the rub, capitalism-wise. The private energy sector is never going to pour billions and billions into the R&D necessary to develop fusion energy, because the net return would be so low. This would take a huge public investment, then, and a big public effort is likely to generate opposition from those who are married to the old carbon and fission industries, because fusion would put them out of business. Politics will never end.
Fusion is not the 200 mpg carburetor bought up and embargoed by evilgreedy running dog capitalist oil companies. It hasn't happened because it's really really hard. And if it does happen those evilgreedy running dogs left holding the petroleum bag will indeed be out of business...motivating them to get on board when it becomes feasible and/or find something else to do with all that oil. Exxon-Mobile's shareholders don't care how it makes money. The public sectors of many countries have already poured billions into fusion research and have next to nothing to show for it. Maybe they never will. We can't count on a technology that may not even be possible. The problem of storing fission waste isn't nearly as difficult a technical problem as it is a political problem. We know how to build, run, and fuel fission reactors. If fusion comes along we can stop building them, but that's a decision I'd like to make with the lights on. The rewards of a successful R&D effort towards commercially viable fusion would indeed be very great (some of that research is going on right here at UT Austin). But the economics of this R&D still just don't make sense for private utilities and energy companies. Exxon-Mobil and BP would just not be making the same kind of record profits selling ultracheap fusion kilowatts than it would selling post-peak oil to the carbon junkie market. Why throw their money after it. when the public sector is doing the work for them? As one might expect, the international public/university consortium ITER in France are out front in fusion research, and might have something online by 2050. Still a wait, but within the lifetimes of many now living. This will change the game entirely. And I'm astonished to see that you think storage of fission waste is mostly political. Even finding the right geology to store waste for millennia and millennia is a challenge, and it will remain a poisonous reminder of our short-sightedness into a distant future we can't even imagine. This would be like stepping on landmines left by the Sumerians, only over an even greater timeline.
|
|
(former member)


|
Posted:
Dec 7, 2009 - 10:38am |
|
|
|
Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 7, 2009 - 10:28am |
|
dionysius wrote:Fission reactors, even the fast breeders, will inevitably leave us with the problem of what to do with the waste. And they'll leave us with that problem for a very, very long time. That's not the kind of legacy I'd like to leave to our great-great-great...great-great-great-grandchildren. They're even puzzling about how to label such dangerous waste storage sites, since few people in ten thousand years are likely to know English. (And this is assuming the best case scenario, that humans and human civilization is still around then.) I don't think that fission is the way forwards.
However, fusion nuclear energy may indeed be the magic bullet. Very safe. Little or no waste problem, and the fuel? You're soaking in it. Limitless cheap electricity, which may be the rub, capitalism-wise. The private energy sector is never going to pour billions and billions into the R&D necessary to develop fusion energy, because the net return would be so low. This would take a huge public investment, then, and a big public effort is likely to generate opposition from those who are married to the old carbon and fission industries, because fusion would put them out of business. Politics will never end.
Fusion is not the 200 mpg carburetor bought up and embargoed by evilgreedy running dog capitalist oil companies. It hasn't happened because it's really really hard. And if it does happen those evilgreedy running dogs left holding the petroleum bag will indeed be out of business...motivating them to get on board when it becomes feasible and/or find something else to do with all that oil. Exxon-Mobile's shareholders don't care how it makes money. The public sectors of many countries have already poured billions into fusion research and have next to nothing to show for it. Maybe they never will. We can't count on a technology that may not even be possible. The problem of storing fission waste isn't nearly as difficult a technical problem as it is a political problem. We know how to build, run, and fuel fission reactors. If fusion comes along we can stop building them, but that's a decision I'd like to make with the lights on.
|
|
dionysius

Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 7, 2009 - 10:05am |
|
MrsHobieJoe wrote:I need to read the article but simply put my heart says no, my head says yes so I have to go with the rational argument. Therefore I'm for it- I also don't have any baggage on this one- I wasn't sufficiently interested in the 1980s to be in CND or anything like that.
It would be difficult to accomplish our planned reduction in CO2 without nuclear (although it sometimes seems like we can't accomplish anything on climate change without everyone GOING nuclear).
Fission reactors, even the fast breeders, will inevitably leave us with the problem of what to do with the waste. And they'll leave us with that problem for a very, very long time. That's not the kind of legacy I'd like to leave to our great-great-great...great-great-great-grandchildren. They're even puzzling about how to label such dangerous waste storage sites, since few people in ten thousand years are likely to know English. (And this is assuming the best case scenario, that humans and human civilization is still around then.) I don't think that fission is the way forwards. However, fusion nuclear energy may indeed be the magic bullet. Very safe. Little or no waste problem, and the fuel? You're soaking in it. Limitless cheap electricity, which may be the rub, capitalism-wise. The private energy sector is never going to pour billions and billions into the R&D necessary to develop fusion energy, because the net return would be so low. This would take a huge public investment, then, and a big public effort is likely to generate opposition from those who are married to the old carbon and fission industries, because fusion would put them out of business. Politics will never end.
|
|
MrsHobieJoe

Location: somewhere in Europe Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 7, 2009 - 9:48am |
|
I need to read the article but simply put my heart says no, my head says yes so I have to go with the rational argument. Therefore I'm for it- I also don't have any baggage on this one- I wasn't sufficiently interested in the 1980s to be in CND or anything like that.
It would be difficult to accomplish our planned reduction in CO2 without nuclear (although it sometimes seems like we can't accomplish anything on climate change without everyone GOING nuclear).
|
|
Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 7, 2009 - 9:17am |
|
islander wrote:I think we have led a parallel life. The director of my engineering program arranged for us to frequently tour and learn about power generation at Coors (they make a lot more than just beer). He was one of the first that I heard frequently espouse the "too many people" problem. He also said Nuclear is the only way we will be able to power the future. I always thought he was 15% old crank (he was), but he was right on most topics - this one included.
The technology problems are minor, it is the political, embedded business and PR problems that need to be overcome. We still need to conserve and do everything possible to be responsible stewards of the planet. But most people aren't going to make the necessary changes until we hit the catastrophe point in the story arc. Given that reality, I think we should do as much as possible to push that point out and make it as mild as possible. Nuclear is a big way to keep us viable along that path.
I haven't read beaker's link yet, but look at Europe: Small, standardized nuclear installations are the norm and are working.
I went to school across the road from General Atomic, and some of the profs consulted there. In one class one of the club presidents announced that a plant tour was available for those interested, and a protester showed up that day to disrupt the announcement. She didn't want us to go. Who knows, maybe we'd be bitten by radioactive insects and develop inappropriate super powers or something. Call me crazy, but I'm one of those people who think that if you feel passionately about something you should actually understand it, that is understand the science as well as the politics. Before you grab pitchforks and torches and storm the castle of the evil Dr. Frankenstein. At that time this was clearly a minority view, and probably still is. People who don't know an alpha particle from the alphabet have led the angry mobs. We have to get past that. As they finally admit that the oil and coal won't hold out forever, that solar and wind will meet only a tiny fraction of our needs, and that most of us aren't willing to live like the Unabomber maybe they can tell themselves that the technology has matured and it's different now. It isn't, not that much. They were wrong then and if they march down the same path they'll be wrong again. If we had built and operated nuclear power plants on the scale that France did back then we probably wouldn't be having the greenhouse gas debate we are now, or at least we'd face much less draconian steps to mitigate the effects.
|
|
islander

Location: Seattle Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 7, 2009 - 8:25am |
|
cc_rider wrote:In college we had a prof. who was a big fan of nuclear power. He taught a number of thermodynamics courses: tough stuff, and the basis for the mechanical engineering profession (steam engines, anyone?) We toured a number of local facilities, including the nuclear reactor at UT. Betcha didn't know there was one, huh? No matter. We knew he was grandstanding for nuclear power, but none of us felt any particular compunction about its feasibility. Yeah, it's a complicated problem, but hey, you ever been inside ANY power plant? It'll give 'rocket science' a run.
I think nuclear power in some form is the only way to sustain the kind of energy consumption we have, particularly as developing countries ramp up their per capita usage. I do not believe the technical hurdles are insurmountable. The political and societal hurdles are far less tractable, however.
I think we have led a parallel life. The director of my engineering program arranged for us to frequently tour and learn about power generation at Coors (they make a lot more than just beer). He was one of the first that I heard frequently espouse the "too many people" problem. He also said Nuclear is the only way we will be able to power the future. I always thought he was 15% old crank (he was), but he was right on most topics - this one included. The technology problems are minor, it is the political, embedded business and PR problems that need to be overcome. We still need to conserve and do everything possible to be responsible stewards of the planet. But most people aren't going to make the necessary changes until we hit the catastrophe point in the story arc. Given that reality, I think we should do as much as possible to push that point out and make it as mild as possible. Nuclear is a big way to keep us viable along that path. I haven't read beaker's link yet, but look at Europe: Small, standardized nuclear installations are the norm and are working.
|
|
cc_rider

Location: Bastrop Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 7, 2009 - 8:13am |
|
In college we had a prof. who was a big fan of nuclear power. He taught a number of thermodynamics courses: tough stuff, and the basis for the mechanical engineering profession (steam engines, anyone?) We toured a number of local facilities, including the nuclear reactor at UT. Betcha didn't know there was one, huh? No matter. We knew he was grandstanding for nuclear power, but none of us felt any particular compunction about its feasibility. Yeah, it's a complicated problem, but hey, you ever been inside ANY power plant? It'll give 'rocket science' a run.
I think nuclear power in some form is the only way to sustain the kind of energy consumption we have, particularly as developing countries ramp up their per capita usage. I do not believe the technical hurdles are insurmountable. The political and societal hurdles are far less tractable, however.
|
|
|