A solution to Nuclear Energy problems?

[Herr Lipp]

Launch all the waste into space never to be seen again?

[DrHibbert]

Sounds fine to me.

[Herr Lipp]

I can;t see any negative points in doing it.... apart from cost, but....it's a permanent solution isn;t it so cost should be negligible

[DrHibbert]

Yeah I think I remember hearing that cost was the main problem. Not pissed off aliens.

[Herr Lipp]

Fuck it. We'll let the future generations worry about it. At America's and China's fossil fuel consumption rate it won't be too far in the future.

[Kinbote]

I'd rather a bit of nuclear waste sitting around than black smoke being belched into the sky above my house.

[Six Ways]

Yes, as I'm sure at least t3h Hibbert knows, the real reason they don't send it up into space is they don't want it to do a 'Challenger' on them.

Besides which, modern reactor designs are like literally 100% more efficient than old designs, so if the lazy cunts got off their arses, stopped trying to please the hippies and built some goddamn nuke plants, the fuel would last ages, not be a threat, and possibly be dumped on said hippies' homes. Anyone who argues against nuclear power is a foo' and not to be listened to. The only real reasons nuke plants aren't being built as we speak are a) the public is a load of ill-informed reactionist couch potato morons who instantly become an armchair ecologist at the mention of the word 'nuclear' (Hence MRI machines, not nMRI as they are technically known, standing for nuclear magnetic resonance imaging) and b) the government aren't prepared to raise peoples taxes by a teensy weeny bit and risk pissing off a few crotchety old bints in Scarborough to pay for them to be built in the first place.

So no, don't blast it into space, feed it to your grandparents.

[Spaced]

The situation in Australia is ridiculous. We're sitting on half the world's uranium, yet we contiune to get most of our power from burning the worst fossil fuel there is...brown coal. We don't have a single nuclear power station! We have all these people saying nuclear power isn't safe or environmental, while we continue with filthy 1900s technology!

[Six Ways]

I hate those people. How stupid can those fucking hippies be? Spaced, you're totally right. People who say that nuclear isn't safe or environmental just have none of the facts and all of the irrational fears. Like anyone's gonna let Chernobyl happen again fer chrissakes. WE ARE NOT GOING TO STAFF OUR PLANTS WITH LAZY DO-NOTHING COMMIE BASTARDS!

[XenonDreams]

I'm generally in favor of nuclear power. Blasting waste into space at this point is a no-go, as someone pointed out. Even with Columbia and Challenger, people still underestimate how incredibly dangerous space flight is. It's not so much the vacuumn or even reentry, it's just that rocketry is an incredibly dangerous and unstable way of getting from one place to another. However, I imagine in 100 years ago, with either space elevators (a very real possiblity if the whole nanotech thing keeps chugging along) and better propulsion methods, it probably would be reasonably safe to get rid of nuclear waste. It's a time frame of several decades at least, but I think it's a vaild refute to the enviromentalist types who lament radioactive materials sitting around on earth for thousands and thousands of years.

I've read some about nuclear power in America and even had a visiting proffessor teaching a course on (you guessed it) technoligical disaster who worked in the industry for the course of his adult life. It's hard to get a sense of how practical "going nuclear" really would be. We have, I beleive, 103 plants in the US, though none have been built within the past 20 years or so, and none are in the works (or at least under construction). On the one hand, a lot of states and localities vehemently oppose nuclear plants being built in THEIR backyard, and I'm sure federal regulations bring up operating costs significantly. At the same time, all nuke plants are insured by the federal government. I've heard it suggested that nuclear power would be completely non-existent if the government didn't assume liability for the effects of a meltdown, because private insurance would never cover a plant. I'm not so sure if this analysis was either well informed or very sound in either case, but it does cause me to give pause.

I have a tough time deciding what the best approach socially, politically and economically to dealing with something like nuclear power is, which carries the a very low probability but extremely high consequence potential for disaster along with it. Of course, there's an extrmemely high pay off if you can do it affordably, uranium is relatively cheap (for the amount of energy it delivers), doesn't contribute to global warming, doesn't cause smog, or water or air pollution, and it can be obtained from much more politically stable and friendly places. The waste afterwards, I think, can be dealt with pretty easily with (yes, i'll conceed) a little government oversite and some good engineering. I know a cherynobyl-like event is physically (yes, physically) impossible with the design of our plants here in the US, but there's always the potential for some kind of meltdown and/or release of radioactive material. (for those of you who had the same social studies teacher as me in 6th grade, it is not, however, possible, for a nuclear plant to blow up like an a-bomb)

It seems like more widespread use of nuclear power could be feasible if the somewhat overblown stigma against it can be erased. I would like to see liablity placed on the plant owners/operators, an then have federal regulations reduced to a bare minimum. If the free market will pay to insure it, then let it flourish. Actually, that only really sounds good on a national level, as I'm not sure any measure of enlightment amongst the general population about the relative safety of nuclear power is going to stop most people from screaming if a company tried to build a nuclear plant near where they lived. And still, perhaps rightly so.
It's too bad even AC suffers loss in the lines over long distances or we could just build a megaplex in some god foresaken tundra in Alaska. No easy answers with the whole affair, but I think nuclear power doesn't get enough attention in the debate over energy.

[vordabois]

Actually, I've read that quite a few environmentalists are advocating nuclear fission as an energy source nowadays. It's pretty clear that the biggest threat to our global climate these days is global warming. Hell, NASA has even shifted its focus away from assertaining its relevence and toward measuring its effects now. As our technological level lies to combat this phenomena, nuclear energy is the most sensible answer.

And yeah, everything you guys said about blasting it into space, completely agree. WAAYYYY too much of a risk. (Everything Mike said... space elevators and all... well said.) We've got some of the most reliable launch vehicles we've ever had, but the risk is still far too great. (NASA's Delta variants have a 95% success rate, which is about as good as it gets.) God, could you imagine how devastating the disaster of one blowing up in our upper atmosphere would be? One mistake or malfunction, and the material would spread everywhere. It'd be like the ultimate Chernobyl. The notion is downright terrifying.

Oh, and btw, has anyone been paying attention to the fusion stuff? It's starting to really move along. They've managed to sustain a fusion reaction, but none of the tests have produced more energy than used. But 6 nations have gotten together to build this huge reactor in France which is supposed to be the step between experimentation and utilization, and it'll be completed in 2016.

Some cool shit! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER)

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Six Ways
People who say that nuclear isn't safe or environmental just have none of the facts and all of the irrational fears.
Totally wrong.

Having been to Sellafield many a time, and living in its locality, its no coincidence the incredibly high rate of leukhaemia of the local population is vastly out of proportion in Seascale.

My brother-in-law started work there and within 3 months was diagnosed with leukhaemia. 12 other people who started work at the same time as him were also diagnosed with the disease at the same time.

Of course it wasnt coincidental, but BNFL give them (miserly) compensation, and kept them their job, and with no other jobs around everyone keeps their mouths shut.

Nuclear Power is blatantly unsafe, and the waste disposal issue is always going to be a nightmare. Sellafield are selling it off to the Japanese, as they have less strict rules on its dumping. Isnt it wonderful for tax-payers to know that the money they pay is going towards breaking the rules on toxic dumping. :)

Now THOSE are the facts, NOT irrational fears.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by vordabois
Oh, and btw, has anyone been paying attention to the fusion stuff? It's starting to really move along. They've managed to sustain a fusion reaction, but none of the tests have produced more energy than used. But 6 nations have gotten together to build this huge reactor in France which is supposed to be the step between experimentation and utilization, and it'll be completed in 2016.
Tear down all nuclear power stations and put all the resources into THIS

[Herr Lipp]

I can;t begin to imagine the physics behind getting energy from fusion :confused:

how long do they reckon fossil fuels will last for? Those sheiks in the Middle East better make the most of their riches. Their descendents are gonna have to get jobs in McDonalds once all teh oil runs out.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
how long do they reckon fossil fuels will last for? Those sheiks in the Middle East better make the most of their riches. Their descendents are gonna have to get jobs in McDonalds once all teh oil runs out.

That's another huge reason why environmentalists and Americans in general are starting to look at nuclear energy as a solution. Since we started to get involved in the Middle East as we have in the last couple decades (and especially with what's happened in the last four years), we're starting to seriously consider alternatives to get the fuck away from those (quite undesirable) mid east countries. There's a lot of talk going around regarding finding ways to cut our oil dependency.

[Herr Lipp]

It's inbedded in their religion to hate Christians. That's not groovy.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist
Tear down all nuclear power stations and put all the resources into THIS

Definitely, if we can get it working. However in the meantime, fission is still the best way to go. Man, Sellafield is ancient. I'm talking about building new plants, which would be completely safe, 100% more efficient, and produce much less waste, which really can be disposed of safely. And especially since I'm only saying we should do this until fusion kicks in, which is of course stupidly, stupidly amazing as a power source.

The problem with fusion at the moment is not the fusion reaction itself at all; that's fully understood and relatively easy to set up. Nor is it a problem of engineering the reaction to self-sustain; it's actually the matter of building the containment such that everything continues to work smoothly. Thing is, we're talking about millions of degrees here...it's next to impossible to design a material to contain that. If it wasn't, fusion wouldn't work! The problem is that the heat breaks down the magnetic containment and the bits that ferry away the power produced in the reaction. Dumbed down, but basically correct.

And christ, how long did it take them to sort out where it was gonna be? Forget the fusion itself, that was the hard part!

So yeah, fusion is t3h r0xt0r.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Six Ways
Definitely, if we can get it working. However in the meantime, fission is still the best way to go. Man, Sellafield is ancient. I'm talking about building new plants, which would be completely safe, 100% more efficient, and produce much less waste, which really can be disposed of safely. And especially since I'm only saying we should do this until fusion kicks in, which is of course stupidly, stupidly amazing as a power source.

The problem with fusion at the moment is not the fusion reaction itself at all; that's fully understood and relatively easy to set up. Nor is it a problem of engineering the reaction to self-sustain; it's actually the matter of building the containment such that everything continues to work smoothly. Thing is, we're talking about millions of degrees here...it's next to impossible to design a material to contain that. If it wasn't, fusion wouldn't work! The problem is that the heat breaks down the magnetic containment and the bits that ferry away the power produced in the reaction. Dumbed down, but basically correct.

And christ, how long did it take them to sort out where it was gonna be? Forget the fusion itself, that was the hard part!

So yeah, fusion is t3h r0xt0r.
Well to make new fission plants that are totally safe, or at the very least, let the public know they are totally safe, the need to get BNFL to get off their defensive arses (go on a guided tour at Sellafield and the first thing they say is "I wouldnt work here if I wasnt convinced it was safe. I wouldnt have my kids living here etc etc, kerching kerching") and tell people what is wrong with our current plants, and then what changes are gonna be made to the new ones to make improvements.

Basically new fission plants that are 100% safe and produce less waste sound great, but I want proof before I agree with it.

[Nak Nak]

My solution:
use Glasgow, Scumdee, Manchester, Birmingham, Texas and Florida as dumping grounds for nuclear waste and testing sites for unstable fusion power.

There is no loss and everything to gain.

[Herr Lipp]

Let's go and recolonize Rhodesia and dump it there. Starting with a litre or two in Mugabe's mouth

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Nak Nak
My solution:
use Glasgow, Scumdee, Manchester, Birmingham, Texas and Florida as dumping grounds for nuclear waste and testing sites for unstable fusion power.

There is no loss and everything to gain.
Sounds like a plan. :yes:

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
Let's go and recolonize Rhodesia and dump it there. Starting with a litre or two in Mugabe's mouth

Why did they stop calling it Rhodesia in the first place?

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Six Ways
Why did they stop calling it Rhodesia in the first place?
I dont know, but I presume its because when it became independant, they wanted a suitable African name, rather than a foreign name of their former oppressors

[Herr Lipp]

silly wogs. they'd still all be in mud huts if it weren't for Rhodes!

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
silly wogs. they'd still all be in mud huts if it weren't for Rhodes!
Err... hardly. They would have a better (and Mugabe-less) society right now.