Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/20/11 05:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/20/11 03:11 PM, JMCJoe wrote: Isn't nuclear fusion mathematically impossible?

I just talked to the Sun recently, and it assured that it is possible.

I mean for us humans. How are you supposed to contain that much heat?

At 3/20/11 11:50 PM, JMCJoe wrote: I mean for us humans. How are you supposed to contain that much heat?

Fusion has already been created, just not sustained. The JET reactor was able to achieve fusion for a half second.

At 3/20/11 11:50 PM, JMCJoe wrote:

At 3/20/11 05:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/20/11 03:11 PM, JMCJoe wrote: Isn't nuclear fusion mathematically impossible?

I just talked to the Sun recently, and it assured that it is possible.

I mean for us humans. How are you supposed to contain that much heat?

holy poo! thanks for inspiring me to look that up. :D

At 3/14/11 11:46 AM, animehater wrote: Nothing truly great happens without some risk involved. Besides, its not like a huge earthquake/tsunami damaging nuclear reactors is a common occurrence, so I think we're still good..

A tiny rock (200m~300m meteorite) hitting the ocean might kill a few million directly, but could also trigger dozens of Nuclear meltdowns. Are you suggesting we have an adequate defense for something like that?

What I don't think people have been informed about is the "ocean effect" on nuclear radiation.

Luckily I grew up with a dad who was a reactor operator on the boomer sub the Von Steuben.

Radiation works in terms of half life. The ocean has always been used for nuclear testing because the constant mixing of the ocean dissipates the radioactivity amazingly quickly; the smaller the sample, the smaller the half-life. A radioactive particle in an area of other radioactive particles is constantly regenerated by the formation of new radioactive isotopes. A radioactive particle in a non-radioactive area is not repenished, so it dissipates into space and is gone forever, unlike carbon dioxide which can be recovered and chemically separated into oxygen and carbon, but never destroyed.

The ocean effect is why the government felt comfortable sending fleet after fleet of nuclear powered nautical vessels such as Aircraft Carriers and nuclear armed and powered boomer subs into the oceans. The heat from a core meltdown powers turbulent currents that completely dissipate any dangerous radiation in short order. This is why nuclear plants are preferrably placed directly on coastal areas; near infinite amounts of water are available to dissipate radiation in case of an accident.

No matter how bad a nuclear accident, the earth will recover because the radiation will eventually dissipate into space. Toxic chemicals used to make solar panels and high output batteries will not. It may take hundreds or even thousands of years, but the earth has natural defenses against radiation; the very same protections that keep the radiation from the sun from frying the flesh off of our backs. All energy, whether from the sun or from a reactor, is ultimately nuclear energy, and this is an important fact when considering greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide gas and the effects of heavy metals such as lead that are used in battery construction.

At 3/28/11 02:44 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: What I don't think people have been informed about is the "ocean effect" on nuclear radiation.

What people haven't been wised up to is the "singularity" of systems evolution, and the distribution system that has spread combustion engines so far and wide that they almost outnumber people on Earth. (including all those lead acid batteries)

Luckily I grew up with a dad who was a reactor operator on the boomer sub the Von Steuben.

Luckily those Nuke subs haven't caught on or we'd all have one by now.

Radiation works in terms of half life.

If what you say is true, then why do they still bury stuff in Idaho, instead of dumping it into ocean chasms like they used to do?

Here's what i'm trying to say. Technology is evolving exponentially, and i'd say that in 20 years we'll have the whole power problem solved, but it takes 15 to 20 years to develop nuke reactors, and perhaps 50 to 100 years to clean up afterwards. The smaller the production system, the faster it can evolve. Nuke power plants are like toxic dinosaurs, compared with scurrying mice that evolved into humans.

Even if we evolve nuclear power into a "small and safe" breeder scale reactors, then every decent sized city on Earth will want one, which means many THOUSANDS of smaller reactors! That's not a road we want to go down with the likely future we're now heading for. If we invested even half that money on evolving wave/solar/wind/geo/hydro/recapture/refu se/etc/etc/etc, then we'd be developing real solutions for living, put into the hands of end users, and not by pushing people into poverty/riots thru government & big business monopolies constantly upping the cost of petro/power on futures trading based on global conflicts, leaving citizens with not much energy alternatives just as we have today.

No matter how "safe" a nuclear plant is.
It doesn't matter how you slice the so called 'pollution factors' of other ways to make electricity.
http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/text s/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_st orage.html

Spent fuel rods have to be stored for thousands & thousands of years & many places they are only 'temporarily' stored !

If there was a safe way to dispose of this waste i would be in agreement with using nuclear plants as a good way to produce electricity.
With our present technology & the ever growing piles of highly radioactive dumps that will remain toxic for tens of thousands of year s ! ! !
Means this is a stupid fucking way to boil water !

At 3/29/11 08:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Spent fuel rods have to be stored for thousands & thousands of years & many places they are only 'temporarily' stored !

or they can be recycled. what's that? everyone is too afraid of the word nuclear to allow for an effective method of making them safe.
encouraging nuclear energy would, if the logic of progress applies, encourage advancements in the elimination of waste.

plus, i really want super powers.

At 3/28/11 08:32 PM, JudgeDredd wrote:

What people haven't been wised up to is the "singularity" of systems evolution, and the distribution system that has spread combustion engines so far and wide that they almost outnumber people on Earth. (including all those lead acid batteries)

I think that was more about the industrial military complex that produced tanks for WWII refusing the end after the war did, and using the same tactics they used to put a tank on every battlefield in europe to put a car in every driveway in america.

I'm certainly a fan of a centrally powered electric rail system as opposed to many small combustion engines in the same way that I would much rather have one giant nuke plant in the middle of the Atlantic than a bunch of tiny ones in every city. There has to be some way to make an integrated inter-modal transportation system where instead of having thousands of cars burning fuel inefficiently, we could have short-run electric vehicles that link up to a centralized rail-type system when they hit a major route. Kind of like a ferry, only instead of a boat, it's a train.

If hobos can jump on and off moving trains, why can't cars? It's only really a matter of synching up speeds.

Luckily those Nuke subs haven't caught on or we'd all have one by now.

Tee-hee.

Those things run for years on one charge. I think you'd be surprised by who's got one and who doesn't.

If what you say is true, then why do they still bury stuff in Idaho, instead of dumping it into ocean chasms like they used to do?

Because people who didn't understand the science behind the ocean effect were the ones running the Environmental Protection Agency. Store it underground, and you know where the radiation goes. Put it in the ocean, even though is just as safe as connecting a groundwire for an electrical system, and all of a sudden people who fear new things don't trust it. Those people vote, and EPA is run by a democratically elected government.

Here's what i'm trying to say. Technology is evolving exponentially, and i'd say that in 20 years we'll have the whole power problem solved, but it takes 15 to 20 years to develop nuke reactors, and perhaps 50 to 100 years to clean up afterwards. The smaller the production system, the faster it can evolve. Nuke power plants are like toxic dinosaurs, compared with scurrying mice that evolved into humans.

optimally we would all tap directly into the sun's nuclear reaction for our energy resources. Fusion is like the steam engine to Fission's combustion engine. Ultimately I'd like to see solar farms in space, where the atmosphere doesn't absorb all the most useful radiation and power can be generated much more efficiently. The main problem is getting it back to earth in a cost effective manner.

Compare Chernobyl's sphere of waste to the Tennessee Sludge Spill (coal waste) or the oil spill in the Gulf coast, and you'll see much larger impacts from fossil fuels than from nuclear. Right now, it's the lesser of two evils.

Even if we evolve nuclear power into a "small and safe" breeder scale reactors, then every decent sized city on Earth will want one, which means many THOUSANDS of smaller reactors! That's not a road we want to go down with the likely future we're now heading for. If we invested even half that money on evolving wave/solar/wind/geo/hydro/recapture/refu se/etc/etc/etc, then we'd be developing real solutions for living, put into the hands of end users, and not by pushing people into poverty/riots thru government & big business monopolies constantly upping the cost of petro/power on futures trading based on global conflicts, leaving citizens with not much energy alternatives just as we have today.

I think wind and tide energy have much higher ecological dangers than they're presented as having. The air and sea currents affect climate much more directly than burning fossil fuels. It would be interesting, though, if the more turbulent weather generated by an overheated climate could be used to power wind turbines, ultimately mitigating the effects of hundreds of years of coal reliance.

I'm certainly in favor of the social aspects of technological self-reliance, however, I currently feel the world is too overpopulated to support that level of equal wealth distribution. If everyone had their fair share, noone would be able to afford a solar panel.

That's my point. In order for there to be economic equality, the overall wealth in the world has to hit a critical mass where if it was all equally divided, everyone would have enough land and equipment to farm their own food and solar power . That requires a pretty high level of technology to be widely available, and would end up with HUGE factories no matter what in order to produce all of it. We've been using fossil fuels to bridge that gap, and they're running out. The longevity of nuclear power is both its greatest strength and greatest weakness. Nuclear power could power the factories that make the solar panels for as long as it takes until there's enough for everyone. Solar power hasn't hit that kind of critical mass where you can run large factories off of it. Houses, yes, but not large factories.

I certainly agree that some overhaul of the system could make it all much more efficient, but I think it's a little too optimistic to think we don't need a stop gap power source to bridge us from fossil fuel to a system that takes it's energy directly from the solar system's largest nuclear reactor; the sun. Fusion seems to be the logical missing link, even as Neanderthal as it may look.

True that current solar panels and wind turbines are still expensive propositions, but the indications are that both these are going nano scale, so that adding solar or wind power to a home/shack/shelter will be no more costly than applying an advanced coat of paint, then we just need devices which run on lower voltage, kinda like smartphones do today.

I like your thinking on transportation. Could see that working really well as an interim solution.

At 3/29/11 02:38 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: True that current solar panels and wind turbines are still expensive propositions, but the indications are that both these are going nano scale, so that adding solar or wind power to a home/shack/shelter will be no more costly than applying an advanced coat of paint, then we just need devices which run on lower voltage, kinda like smartphones do today.

I heard something about an inefficient sheet plastic solar panel. It's not the good stuff, but it's lightweight and cheap so you could put a layer on your roof or make a tent out of it.

I'd still like to see a solar panel that could absorb a wider range of radiation. Have a piece of nuclear waste in a box that converts the radiation straight into electricity. Light's just radiation when it comes down to it.

I like your thinking on transportation. Could see that working really well as an interim solution.

Memphis is the FedEx hub for North America, and industrial level intermodal transport is a major employer. Putting truck trailers on trains is only a short step away from putting passenger cars on them.

I also love that rail systems are computer managed now. No stop lights, no traffic accidents, and fuel efficient rail transport. I love the idea of fully automated and computer controlled rail because it means that a computer can just solve for the best route and driving safety would no longer be a factor of people's ability to focus on driving.

When you consider how many people die just driving around, the cost in human life saved would make it worth it even if it didn't also protect the environment and save money. Although it would.

I wonder if the logistic and infrastructure issues wouldn't outweigh the benefits or make it prohibitively expensive?

At 3/29/11 08:20 PM, Ravariel wrote: I wonder if the logistic and infrastructure issues wouldn't outweigh the benefits or make it prohibitively expensive?

they already do it in the freight industry. they use batch processing to make it work.

Commuters already drive to train stations in NY and then walk to work. This just means they wouldn't have to get out of their cars.

We already use this, it just hasn't been taken to the next level.

At 3/29/11 12:23 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 3/29/11 08:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Spent fuel rods have to be stored for thousands & thousands of years & many places they are only 'temporarily' stored !

or they can be recycled.

;;;
To a point, but there is still highly radioactive waste & you can't 'recycle it forever & then it becomes effectively a forever proble...or at least a problem that will last longer then civilization by the Chinese , which is around 5000 years !
So you answer that problem I'll agree.
But we know we can use thermal energy from the earths crust, we can better use solar & if we spent the money we waste on oil to improve our storage batteries, solar would be better. Even in some parts of the world they use solar to make electric pumps pump water up to a holding area & at night the water runs electric generators.
There are better S A F E R ways, but Big Oil ,has to have its claws removed from Governements (claws being the M O N E Y they kick back to politicians AKA lobbying )

At 3/30/11 01:14 PM, morefngdbs wrote: To a point, but there is still highly radioactive waste & you can't 'recycle it forever & then it becomes effectively a forever proble...or at least a problem that will last longer then civilization by the Chinese , which is around 5000 years !

Actually, yes you can. You see, nuclear science runs on the equation Energy=Mass x (speed of light)/\2

That means you end up with physcially less mass than you started out with.

So it doesn't last forever. Carbon lasts forever. Unless you put it in a nuclear reactor. Then it converts directly to energy.

So you answer that problem I'll agree.
But we know we can use thermal energy from the earths crust, we can better use solar & if we spent the money we waste on oil to improve our storage batteries, solar would be better. Even in some parts of the world they use solar to make electric pumps pump water up to a holding area & at night the water runs electric generators.
There are better S A F E R ways, but Big Oil ,has to have its claws removed from Governements (claws being the M O N E Y they kick back to politicians AKA lobbying )

Big Oil only got so powerful when S T U P I D H I P P I E S skipped the "nuclear" chapter in physics class and decided anything related to bombs was scary.

Because, and this is important, WHEN THEY STARTED USING STEAM ENGINES, EVERYONE THOUGHT IT WAS TOO DANGEROUS BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR BOILER EXPLOSIONS.

Noone remembers those idiots who feared steam power. That's because they never made any positive contribution to society after they opted out of scientific progress. Well, unless you count the Amish, but they're more of a joke than anything else.

At 3/29/11 08:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote: If there was a safe way to dispose of this waste i would be in agreement with using nuclear plants as a good way to produce electricity.

So what we do is we build a big ass lead box in the Atlantic Ocean.

In the bottom of the sea.

Absorbent and yellow and porous is he

At 3/30/11 05:50 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Big Oil only got so powerful when S T U P I D H I P P I E S skipped the "nuclear" chapter in physics class and decided anything related to bombs was scary.

reductio ad hippiium!!!

And they had found a new way to produce power: thorium and closed fuel cycles. Closed cycle means that uranium is enriched once it's depleted, and then sent back for reuse.

You should be obligated to at least TRY to use an alternative power source in areas where it is possible.

In BC, we have plenty of potential for Geothermal energy, and yet we aren't using it, WHY?

1. Its clean (only by product is water vapor)
2. Relatively cheap (bit more expensive but once you have it you have it)
3. High scientific value (there are going to be people who will want to study this)
4. 100% renewable (our mantle will not cool with in humanities existence and even if it did we would all be killed off anyways)

But no, we insist on displacing people and wild life with the construction of more hydro electric dams (our method of choice for energy production here). Most of that energy is going to California anyways.

Nuclear energy should be kept away from the general populace; there is a nuclear plant in the New York City area that sits on an active fault in the middle of a very populated area. If we must use nuclear energy, we have to keep it in unpopulated areas where the effects won't be as tragic as 3 Mile Island. I think the big nuclear energy companies (or whoever owns the plants) really care about safety: I think they are simply profit hungry and cheap idiots who don't care about human lives. We need to stop these fatcats from causing another disaster by enforcng strict safety codes, making frequent government inspections, and focusing more on clean energy. We can't continue to deplete the world like this. We need to take action.

At 3/30/11 05:50 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
Big Oil only got so powerful when S T U P I D H I P P I E S...

Big Oil ...Big Nuclear ...Big Banks funding it. It all leads to corporate greed man.

I think Modern Hippies (Techies) are more about producing power as & where it's needed, and better storage of any power produced.

When is nuclear energy gonna be portable? No time soon.
When is nuclear energy gonna be easily produced at home? Never we hope.

Solar? Already, Improving.
Wind? Possible.
Biofuels? Why Not.
Others? Many. Can't Wait!

About 150 die in the US every year from solar power. It's far more dangeous every year than nuclear power was in chernobyl and the japanese disastor. Roofing is dangerous. People fall off, a lot. It's also incredibly toxic to make it, and the source of many cheap solar panels, china, dumps the waste into farms.

Nuclear power is probably the safest of power sources for replacing oil and coal, both incredibly dangerous fuels. I saw one estimate that a million die in china every year from coal fumes.

Nuclear power works all the time. With solar or wind, you can't actually burn less fuel because the solar or wind power might randomly run out.

Belive me. nuclear energy is not dangerous at all as long as the right people are doing the job; and even when complete idiots are handlin' the "situation" (LAUGH!!!!!) it is still not the most dangerous know form of energy. If anything the most dangerous form of power discovered so far would have to be anti-matter; mostly because one atom of normal matter and one atom of antimatter come in contact under the right conditions, it can cause anuclear explosion; fuck, they dont even have to be atoms, they can be any type of particle!

Im pretty sure the only death that occured in chernobyl after the explosion (and the radiation deaths) was some drunk soldier that tried to fuck a raccoon and got his dick bit off. (worst death ever)

At 4/2/11 12:44 AM, thatswedishguy wrote: ... If we must use nuclear energy, we have to keep it in unpopulated areas where the effects won't be as tragic as 3 Mile Island...

err... what was so tragic about three mile island?

At 4/2/11 11:19 PM, Darkgon01 wrote: Im pretty sure the only death that occured in chernobyl after the explosion (and the radiation deaths) was some drunk soldier that tried to fuck a raccoon and got his dick bit off. (worst death ever)

There are 57 confirmed deaths from chernobyl. Reliable estimates of the total who have died to this day range from 500-4000, though there are substantial difficulties in making estimates due to the worsening health care system for unrelated reasons after chernobyl.

At 3/29/11 12:23 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 3/29/11 08:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Spent fuel rods have to be stored for thousands & thousands of years & many places they are only 'temporarily' stored !

or they can be recycled. what's that? everyone is too afraid of the word nuclear to allow for an effective method of making them safe.
encouraging nuclear energy would, if the logic of progress applies, encourage advancements in the elimination of waste.

plus, i really want super powers.

I would very much prefer that they come up with an effective way of disposing of the stuff safely and without any sort of contamination.

That is exactly my issue with nuclear power. Last I heard the big plan was that all of the spent fuel rods would be transported by truck (!) to the west coast where they would be thrown into a deep hole in some mountain where they would have to stay basically for the rest of human history (doing who-knows-what while they are down there, possibly even affecting the environment in some way.) That sounds like a really bad plan to me; for the environment, for the safety of people and the world, etc.. If there was absolutely none of that going on I would think lots more people could get on board with nuclear energy.

Personally I always thought Solar energy was the way of the future as photo voltaic cells get more and more efficient all the time, but Nuclear energy certainly has the potential to be better than fossil fuels if we could just do away with the problem of disposing of the stuff.

At 4/2/11 01:10 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Big Oil ...Big Nuclear ...Big Banks funding it. It all leads to corporate greed man.

It's certainly a function of centralization, which has a tendency to push out minority groups in favor of widescale homogenity. Certainly not a healthy trend.

I think Modern Hippies (Techies) are more about producing power as & where it's needed, and better storage of any power produced.

Smale scale solar power, such as what is used in calculators, is not just the future, but the present. It really makes you wonder why cars don't come with solar panels on top. I mean, why not? They sit out in the open sun all day and are attached to batteries. I realize it's not enough to power the vehicle, but even a non-hybrid car could increas it's fuel mileage by not relying on the engine to generate the power for the auxillary electrical system (lights, radio, ignition, etc).

When is nuclear energy gonna be portable? No time soon.

Disagree. Nuclear subs are very portable.

When is nuclear energy gonna be easily produced at home? Never we hope.

I imagine there was a time when burning fire in the hut was considered very stupid because noone had invented the fireplace yet.

I think it's silly how many people freak out about lead-based paint in their homes that don't think twice about a lead-acid battery in their children's toys.

If we're going to use Fukushima as a benchmark for the safety of nuclear power, it's worth noting that the damage done by the nuclear incidents that occurred there pale in comparison to the disaster that it took to cause them.

Furthermore, different types of power work for different countries. On the island of Honshu, you can never be a hundred miles inland. In North America, you can easily be hundreds of miles from the coast.

At 4/3/11 02:38 PM, Ytaker wrote:

At 4/2/11 11:19 PM, Darkgon01 wrote: Im pretty sure the only death that occured in chernobyl after the explosion (and the radiation deaths) was some drunk soldier that tried to fuck a raccoon and got his dick bit off. (worst death ever)

There are 57 confirmed deaths from chernobyl. Reliable estimates of the total who have died to this day range from 500-4000, though there are substantial difficulties in making estimates due to the worsening health care system for unrelated reasons after chernobyl.

The whole town of Pripyat is in long-term radioactive decay, a testament to the possibilities a total meltdown presents. There is volatility in all fuels, but I think the psychological fear factor of potential decades of wastage in the worst case scenario turns people off to the idea of really proliferating nuclear energy as opposed to a necessary evil-type mindset.