First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Nuclear Energy Really Is Good....
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/2/17

munruo wrote:

Studied nuclear engineering to get my mechanical degree. Been awhile but something like the daily radiation increase was 0.01% for humans after nuclear disasters. So definitely nuclear energy is extremely dramatized. Not surprising with how self-defeating americans are that they'd allow ignorance to rule the decision for nuclear energy.

The biggest, largely neglected, problem reactors have in the current design widely used is screwing over rivers and other waters. The water systems in these reactors change an ecosystem in a major way by diverting huge amounts of water for processing.

Lotta improvements available to fix this like with the molten salt reactors. But like cannabis research, so much drama with this stuff that working on it is largely theoretical until someone comes up with something to shut the peanut gallery up or just do it w/o advertising.


The Oak Ridge National Laboratory had an actual one up and running for a few years before Nixon pulled the plug on it to send the money to California.

Here's their video documentary of it's specifications, fabrication, and operation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o

It had left the pages of theory, and became a reality. They only thing it didn't have was a turbine that generated electricity connected to it.

That is one of the biggest benefits of a Molten Salt Reactor. It doesn't need water. It can be located in the middle of a desert and not need water for cooling or operation. It can use CO2 to operate the turbine to generate electricity instead of water.
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/2/17
Really, really, really skeptical of a Molten Salt reactor.
3275 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/2/17

mxdan wrote:

Anyone who would have an opinion on nuclear itself being bad is scared of the tech not meeting the standard, not the energy itself. Energy is good if utilized well and if the waste isn't high.

The problem with both nuclear and coal is the waste output. In the case of nuclear it is volatile and builds up. That has a sustainability issue in the long term (Maybe we can figure out a cheap way to send it to the sun?).

I think regardless you need to realize that safety hazards are rare and not the real danger with power plants. It's that they have long term issues that need to be addressed.

Were as wind and solar have sustainability in mind and almost no waste and are cheaper to utilize (Though have less output per unit) and can potentially provide more jobs.

I'm not saying your videos don't have some merit but they miss the problem entirely in my opinion. Still, the fascination with splitting of atoms is something that is hard to get over, and if there could be some advances (particularly in waste management and recyclable process) I'm all for nuclear being utilized more. It's just got some dark horses that are ignored. And I hate short term management. Especially when it comes to our fucking kids having to deal with willfull neglect from giant babies.



Nuclear waste is not a scientific problem; it is a political problem. And I guarantee you that the fear of radioactivity is one of the things keeping nuclear power back.

This is what I always tell people:


auroraloose wrote:


Several years ago I attended a seminar by Prof. Bruce Marsh, a prominent volcanologist who was commissioned by the U.S. government to analyze the risks of geologic activity to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project. Marsh was very clear: the arguments against the repository are bullshit. The reason the project keeps getting canceled and uncanceled is that Democrats (in particular Harry Reid) don't like it.



If we finally build the damned thing, leftover nuclear waste will be no problem.
3275 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/2/17

KennethKenstar wrote:

Really, really, really skeptical of a Molten Salt reactor.


I have friends with previous engineering work in the power industry who are not.
7746 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/2/17

auroraloose wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:

Really, really, really skeptical of a Molten Salt reactor.


I have friends with previous engineering work in the power industry who are not.


That is what I thought. From what I can understand this a a much better solution.
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/2/17

MasterBismuth33 wrote:

There are better sources of power other than nuclear. Zero point energy is one of them. Look into Nassim Haramein's work on zero point energy.


So, I watched one of the videos where Zero Point Energy was given a brief overview (it was a 33 minute presentation). It was quite interesting.

But I gotta say, that this line of study is not well understood by physicists, so it won't be something we can tap into for a very long time. Something is definitely there. There is no doubt, but it is not understood. So, yeah, in maybe a hundred years we might have a better grasp on Zero Point Energy.

Today physicists understand fusion energy, but engineers are still trying to figure out how to make it happen. I think we will definitely have fusion energy WAY before physicists understand Zero Point Energy.

The way he talked about it though, made me think that that would be the way to power interstellar space ships. We just aren't ready for that form of energy, yet.
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/2/17

auroraloose wrote:



Nuclear waste is not a scientific problem; it is a political problem. And I guarantee you that the fear of radioactivity is one of the things keeping nuclear power back.

This is what I always tell people:


auroraloose wrote:


Several years ago I attended a seminar by Prof. Bruce Marsh, a prominent volcanologist who was commissioned by the U.S. government to analyze the risks of geologic activity to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project. Marsh was very clear: the arguments against the repository are bullshit. The reason the project keeps getting canceled and uncanceled is that Democrats (in particular Harry Reid) don't like it.


If we finally build the damned thing, leftover nuclear waste will be no problem.


According to many of the nuclear energy scientists and engineers pushing TMSRs (Thorium Molten Salt Reactors) is that you can also turn the radioactive waste into a salt form, through chemistry, and then use it to fuel the reactor as well. In other words, all of that radio active waste can be eliminated without a need to bury it for hundreds of thousands of years.

So, maybe instead of burying it forever, we can store it and tap into it as a fuel source in TMSRs. You kill two birds with one stone. Get rid of the waste, and use an already available source of fuel for the TMSRs....
3275 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/2/17

DeadlyOats wrote:


MasterBismuth33 wrote:

There are better sources of power other than nuclear. Zero point energy is one of them. Look into Nassim Haramein's work on zero point energy.


So, I watched one of the videos where Zero Point Energy was given a brief overview (it was a 33 minute presentation). It was quite interesting.

But I gotta say, that this line of study is not well understood by physicists, so it won't be something we can tap into for a very long time. Something is definitely there. There is no doubt, but it is not understood. So, yeah, in maybe a hundred years we might have a better grasp on Zero Point Energy.

Today physicists understand fusion energy, but engineers are still trying to figure out how to make it happen. I think we will definitely have fusion energy WAY before physicists understand Zero Point Energy.

The way he talked about it though, made me think that that would be the way to power interstellar space ships. We just aren't ready for that form of energy, yet.


Oh dear, no. No no no. No zero-point energy, and absolutely don't listen to Haramein.
20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/2/17
Multiple choice.

You read an article on a website about a technology that would solve the world's energy problems. Which is more likely?

a) There is a massive conspiracy to suppress this technology

b) Lunatic idiots are allowed to post bullshit on the internet

I'll give you three guesses.
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/3/17

MasterBismuth33 wrote:



The human heart is zero point energy. When you produce zero point energy machines, they become alive and aware.


Zero Point Energy deserves it's own thread. It is a different topic than nuclear energy. Nuclear energy exists now, and there are different designs that have a better safety margin than the current designs in use today.

However, Zero Point Energy is not something that physicists have fully studied yet, so I don't think it fits in our conversation, here.

You should start a new thread about ZPE.
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/4/17 , edited 5/4/17
So.... China has already been stealing the technology..... I mean, the U.S. has been "helping" China (to copy) develop the technology....

http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor/


Decades later, the U.S. Department of Energy (which owns Oak Ridge) is slowly reawakening to Weinberg's vision. But this time, rather than build a molten-salt reactor itself—the country currently lacks the political will and funding to do so—the U.S. is helping others.

Fortune has learned that DOE plans to sign a 10-year collaboration agreement with China to help that country build at least one molten-salt machine within the next decade. And in a smaller development, Oak Ridge publicly announced in January that it will advise Terrestrial Energy, a privately held Canadian start-up, on development of a molten-salt reactor that draws on Weinberg designs and on the reactor scheme that briefly hatched at Oak Ridge after Weinberg left.


Seriously, though, there were some who believed that if China built the first MSR that it would charge licensing fees to the U.S. to let us build those reactors. However, if the U.S. is "working with" China, and "letting" them have access to U.S. data, then perhaps the Chinese won't be able to get away so easily with charging the U.S., nor anyone else a licensing fee to build such reactors in their own countries....
31309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/4/17 , edited 5/4/17

auroraloose wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:

Really, really, really skeptical of a Molten Salt reactor.


I have friends with previous engineering work in the power industry who are not.


Just because they aren't skeptical doesn't mean it's 100% likely to work.
Even if it was likely to work i would still be skeptical.
31309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/4/17 , edited 5/4/17

MasterBismuth33 wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


MasterBismuth33 wrote:

There are better sources of power other than nuclear. Zero point energy is one of them. Look into Nassim Haramein's work on zero point energy.


So, I watched one of the videos where Zero Point Energy was given a brief overview (it was a 33 minute presentation). It was quite interesting.

But I gotta say, that this line of study is not well understood by physicists, so it won't be something we can tap into for a very long time. Something is definitely there. There is no doubt, but it is not understood. So, yeah, in maybe a hundred years we might have a better grasp on Zero Point Energy.

Today physicists understand fusion energy, but engineers are still trying to figure out how to make it happen. I think we will definitely have fusion energy WAY before physicists understand Zero Point Energy.

The way he talked about it though, made me think that that would be the way to power interstellar space ships. We just aren't ready for that form of energy, yet.


The human heart is zero point energy. When you produce zero point energy machines, they become alive and aware.



Proof of that claim?

Also for something to be aware it needs conciousness aka a form of brain
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.