Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

User avatar
junk
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:52 am

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by junk »

Trantor wrote:
fredgiblet wrote:
Trantor wrote:Nice. "You know your opponent has lost it when he goes "ad hominem"".
When people base their decisions on doomsday scenarios...
Sce-na-ri-os? Sounds kinda "fictional", at least in the undertones. So, how many more Chernobyls and Fukushimas do you need to rethink?


fredgiblet wrote:
Because she can think for herself, so she doesn´t fall for, let´s say something like "national superstitiousness" like others?
Relevance? None? OK.
Hehe, i´ve seen this before? Smells like Wikipedia, no? ;)

fredgiblet wrote:
While their oh-so safe and and reliable npp´s failed (gosh!!) due to low water levels in the rivers
I love it. Shutting down != failing
Exactly this IS failing. A multi-billion-franc facility shutting down for such a triviality? Srsly?

Actually comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima on a basis of a doomsday scenario is pretty weird. Chernobyl was an old style reactor that had people do something with it that was never meant to be done. Mistake was learned and you don't really see anyone messing around with stuff like this anymore.

For good reason and internation oversight is also stricter.

And once more - Considering what hit Fukushima you can only consider it to be an amazing piece of equipment. On top of that the majority of European reactors are in geostable positions. You don;t really risk a tsunami|Earthquake|Typhoon|Other connecting issues. And again the impact of both disasters on the environment is not very high. Essentially people were forced to move out of the area, but beyond that the environment is healthy.

Compare that to virtually any oil spill and the sheer astounding devastation it causes. Or compare it to the absolutely massive environmental impacts damns bring. Hell those have destroyed more communities and environmental niches than every single radition accident in history.

Or maybe you want to use the use of irradiated material outright? Makes sense right, considering the most accidents are caused by medical equipment as opposed to nuclear power. And probably more people have died due to mishandling those.

I admit I've never heard of the issues plaguing french nuclear reactors. But most renewable energy sources are plagued even more. Solar power tends to provide very little during winters, wind has issues on a lot of days, water is in even more danger from floods than anything else (though damn are usually built to help control floods).

Honestly no power soruce has no environmental impact. Some have different impacts. Some have normal pollution (traditional means), some have long lasting irraditated waste, that is relatively easy to store, others take large swathes of lands (solar) more created noise pollution problems (wind) and others completely reshape the ecosystem and environments - water.

Absalom
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by Absalom »

Trantor wrote:
fredgiblet wrote:
Trantor wrote:Nice. "You know your opponent has lost it when he goes "ad hominem"".
When people base their decisions on doomsday scenarios...
Sce-na-ri-os? Sounds kinda "fictional", at least in the undertones. So, how many more Chernobyls and Fukushimas do you need to rethink?
We don't care about failure count, we care about failure density & severity. Outside of Japan, the Fukushima reactor won't produce any meaningful radioactive effects. Honestly, there's as much reason to worry about the floating debris that's completely unrelated to the reactor, as there is to worry about the reactor's leakage. The air-dispersal is complete, and the ocean dispersal is going to be so dispersed that it won't matter. The only radioactive effects that anyone will have genuine reason to worry about are purely local ones.
Trantor wrote:
fredgiblet wrote:
While their oh-so safe and and reliable npp´s failed (gosh!!) due to low water levels in the rivers
I love it. Shutting down != failing
Exactly this IS failing. A multi-billion-franc facility shutting down for such a triviality? Srsly?
No, that's not a plant failure. An engineering failure? Sure, but a plant failure would require non-safe operation within the plant. I've gotten the impression that you're somehow involved in aviation engineering, but I'm not impressed with your critical thinking skills, this water complaint is quibbling over nonsense.


What are you expecting from nuclear, perfection? Doesn't exist. All you can do is get close enough that flaws don't matter. Right now, the best non-greenhouse reliable energy source is nuclear.

Wind isn't usable everywhere with current equipment (and might not be with upcoming equipment) and isn't stable anyways. Solar only covers the high-load portion of the day, and thus is restricted to a supplemental role (though it is very good there). Hydroelectric is highly geographical in distribution, and traditional forms pose alternative environmental challenges. Biogas & similar are supplemental, due to an inherently greater demand than supply. All other production-ready bio-fuels are low-quality. Geothermal has reliable disaster problems (injection geothermal turns out to reliably produce earthquakes, though fortunately they've been minor so far), and thus extra-strong NIMBY issues.

Out of all the "green" energy sources, nuclear is the only one which is:
1) capable of producing reliable output with current equipment,
2) capable of being built anywhere with current equipment,
3) capable of producing required output magnitudes with current equipment.

The only current replacements for nuclear power here on Earth are conventional fuel-based CO2 emitters. Nothing else has the combination of total output, reliable (a.k.a. 24-hour reliability) output, and variety of building sites. There's CO2 emitters & there's nuclear, everything else is still in R&D.


Personally, I'm holding out for the Polywell, but you really need to improve your anti-nuclear arguments.

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by fredgiblet »

Trantor wrote:Hehe, i´ve seen this before? Smells like Wikipedia, no? ;)
Are you implying that I think Obama was right? I don't. I don't necessarily agree with the Mercedes version either though, IIRC a Frenchman made a car-like vehicle a century before Mercedes, though I could be wrong about that and it would probably depend on what your definition was.

My point was that your point was irrelevant to the actual discussion.

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by fredgiblet »

CJ Miller wrote:How many millions must be banned before we stop having pointless arguments on the Internet?
ALL OF THEM! Our banhammers will blot out the sun!

CptWinters
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:20 pm

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by CptWinters »

Then we will troll in the shade.

User avatar
GeoModder
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by GeoModder »

discord wrote:and what part of diminishing current nuclear waste stockpiles are you missing?
None. The radioactive waste we have today will only increase because at one point even re-used "fuel" will need to go in stockpile. Further more, there's all those spent naval propulsion reactors from countries like France, Great Britain, Russia, and the USA lying around. However low-waste those may be considered.
junk wrote:As to storage. There's still more than enough space in underground areas which can be remotely enough even with a far greater population density. Take the US for example - it has a relatively low population density for it's size.
Plenty of space in some countries, yes. Not so much in for instance crowded Europe or beehive Asia. At least not in those countries operating nuclear reactors. But of course, if its outside your own borders, no problem. :roll:
Image

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by Trantor »

junk wrote:Solar power tends to provide very little during winters
Our solar energy provided enough to save the french´s sorry little nuclear asses this winter. Aren´t you reading the links i provide?


fredgiblet wrote:
Trantor wrote:It is interesting that you pick on everything i said execpt our (easyly disbanded) technological leadership in nuclear power.
Because it's irrelevant? I never argued against that and it really doesn't mean much. You used to like nuclear power, now you don't. So what?
It is highly relevant. Because if they were just some inefficient old plants everybody would belittle our decision. But we abandoned Top-Notch Technology most others could not even afford/develope TODAY.


Absalom wrote:Out of all the "green" energy sources, nuclear is the only one which is:
...
Jaja. I don´t care anymore about that well-known yadayada. Sorry.

Because: As i stated before, we Germans are ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATING that renewables not only WORK, but even AMORTIZE. And this is only the beginning.
I´m relaxed, because of this i don´t have to argue anymore.

You´re very welcome to enjoy the show. All of you. ;)
sapere aude.

Sanguinius
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by Sanguinius »

Trantor wrote:
junk wrote: Jaja. I don´t care anymore about that well-known yadayada. Sorry.

Because: As i stated before, we Germans are ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATING that renewables not only WORK, but even AMORTIZE. And this is only the beginning.
I´m relaxed, because of this i don´t have to argue anymore.
Yes so successful it requires the highest levels of government subsidy for any industry the world has ever seen:-

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-1 ... e-war.html

and regulations preventing the development of other sources of energy and things like this:-

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/p ... 05620.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/04/0 ... CI20120404

Wild variations in output an unstable supply and the most expensive energy in the world, that's quite an achivement alright.

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by Trantor »

Yeah, i´ve read this rubbish, and had a good laugh.
Sanguinius wrote:Wild variations in output an unstable supply and the most expensive energy in the world, that's quite an achivement alright.
I repeat: Relax. You´re very welcome to enjoy the show.
sapere aude.

User avatar
GeoModder
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by GeoModder »

Sanguinius wrote:Wild variations in output an unstable supply and the most expensive energy in the world, that's quite an achivement alright.
You seem to forget Germany is one of the most expensive countries in the world too. ;)
Image

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by fredgiblet »

An important point that I think has been lost in the shuffle. I can only speak definitively for myself but I suspect that the rest of the pro-nuke people agree.

I'm not against renewables. I don't think Germany is wrong to drop nukes. I think they are hasty, I think they are doing it for the wrong reasons (fear and overreaction Fukushima), but I don't think it's BAD. In fact I applaud the success with renewables and hope that they can indeed meet their needs from their renewable investments.

The key point that I have is not that renewables are BAD, nor that nukes are the only good choice. The first one is laughable and the second isn't really correct. The key point is that renewables are not enough. The only reliable renewables that I'm aware of are hydro and geothermal, both of which have their own significant issues. The point is that there must be something to back up the renewables, and the best choice for that is nuclear, particularly with new designs that eliminate most of the flaws of the old designs and future designs that will clear up the remainder of the flaws and reverse the isseus with the older designs.

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by Trantor »

fredgiblet wrote:... I don't think Germany is wrong to drop nukes. I think they are hasty, I think they are doing it for the wrong reasons (fear and overreaction Fukushima)
No, it´s not that. It´s our industry. Fuckupshima was their opportunity to kick off BIG business in that new direction. And of course to cash in subsidies for big-scale projects like off-shore windparks, new powerlines and research.

But i´m fine with that, some of those projects had to be done anyway, and the funny thing is that the biggest chunk of progress will come from the small scale/private sector. Even despite the fact that they cut all small-scale private subsidies - it doesn´t matter anymore, solar panels and wind-generators became so efficient that they amortize anyway.

And of course i hate nukes, because in their todays form they´re crap.
That´s what i say as an engineer.
Furthermore it´s a mad industry, and it´s one ugly manifestation of the military-industrial complex.

fredgiblet wrote:The key point is that renewables are not enough. The only reliable renewables that I'm aware of are hydro and geothermal, both of which have their own significant issues. The point is that there must be something to back up the renewables
No. Today it is not necessary to think about that, because there´s still plenty of diversification (and at least here in Germany an incredibly huge cold reserve, a relict from the cold war), and tomorrow there will be huge international powergrids and energy-storage in industrial scales.
fredgiblet wrote:and the best choice for that is nuclear, particularly with new designs that eliminate most of the flaws of the old designs and future designs that will clear up the remainder of the flaws and reverse the isseus with the older designs.
No.

But:
Let´s say something new comes up; maybe a new technology that requires sh*tloads of energy on the spot, more than the grid can serve, and oil or coal isn´t the weapon of choice - then i as an engineer would opt for LFTRs today.

Why?
First of all: Thorium decay chain. (Only) 360 years, and nearly everything harmful is gone. Gone - not half-life. No "Endlager" necessary. No comparison to those 300.000+ years for plutonium.

Second: Not less important: No fuel rod industry, because it´s online-processing. No fuel rods - no waste - no incompetence - no castor-transports - no SFPs - less mistakes. Makes it less complex and much safer overall.

Third: No pressure. They only need a small amount of technical pressure to prevent moisture sneaking in.

And fourth: They´re hot. In the sense of the carnot cycle. Which means efficency. Today´s nuclear immersion heaters run at only 270°, which means 33% efficiency, a pretty standard LFTR would make 580°, and there are plans for 800°. The latter would mean at least 70% efficiency.

And a thousand other technical details.

But more PWRs or BWRs? Or more RBMKs? Hell, no, thanks.


(Edit: Sadly LFTRs have no chance. Because they´re not dual use, and they would be a smart solution - and we all know that politicians never choose those.)
sapere aude.

Karst45
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:03 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by Karst45 »

icekatze wrote:hi hi

One thing that frequently gets overlooked in the nuclear or not debate: There is a very finite supply of nuclear fuel resources available. At our current rate of consumption, it is estimated that the economically viable supplies will be exhausted within 200 years. If we increased our dependence on nuclear fuel, that number would obviously shrink.

Well the same thing will happen with fuel.


Also werent there studie about liquid thorium that could be used as radioactive fuel? or is that still science-fiction fantasy?

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by Trantor »

Karst45 wrote:Also werent there studie about liquid thorium that could be used as radioactive fuel?
See above. Not liqiud thorium, but rather LFTR.

Karst45 wrote:or is that still science-fiction fantasy?
SF? No. They already made it work long time ago.
sapere aude.

User avatar
junk
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:52 am

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by junk »

Unless i am mistaken those thorium reactors with no chance are already being built. Theyre just keeping mumm on them being radioactive.

Also as far as Germany goes, a lot of people I know believe that in five or so years once the panic goes down, they'll restart the renewal talks.

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by Trantor »

junk wrote:Unless i am mistaken those thorium reactors with no chance are already being built. Theyre just keeping mumm on them being radioactive.

Also as far as Germany goes, a lot of people I know believe that in five or so years once the panic goes down, they'll restart the renewal talks.
Forget that panic-thing. We Germans ain´t no whiny sissies, that´s wishful thinking by the international right-wing yellowpress.
For the people, it´s rationality, for the industry it is happy anticipation for big business. And the latter is the cause why there won´t be a rollback.
sapere aude.

Fotiadis_110
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by Fotiadis_110 »

There are 2 things which drive nuclear power.
First, running the plants is surprisingly cheap, cheaper than coal, gas, or oil plants.
This leads to excellent profit margins and that means the guy who builds it gets lots of money from it over it's long lifespan.

Secondly, it is not only large but it can supply huge quantities of electricity in a small self contained 'block'

Both these things make the real rich guys see it as a money spinner, because they can easily afford the setup costs, particually when they set it up so the government pays for half (they just offer to pay for half and ask for funding for the rest, one of the easiest ways to make your money go further, and of course boosts your profitability).

And i've read about the LFTR, and honestly I am not convinced.
It is a technology that works yes, but I fear scalability will be far less in reality than in theory, leading to problems if they actually do go for that 800oC
Anything that relies upon convection is less scalable than something that uses forced flow.
And relying on forced flow means when the pump breaks down, either stuff gets bad or you have to send someone in to fix it.

Finally: Governments like Nuclear for the same reasons the rich do, small footprint, massive output and minor public outcry after they run well for 30 odd years.

However they are an elected body of representatives, and seek favour from the public, the moment they hear a whiff of a problem they immediately take a defensive stance 'NO MORE NUCLEAR!' when they hear of some kind of nuclear mishap for instance.

On a side note, I wanted to mention that no person i've ever spoken to who installed renewable energy actually had complaints about the systems or how well they actually work... Maybe there is something going for it after all?
Or maybe only greenies actually install them :P.

Absalom
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by Absalom »

Fotiadis_110 wrote:On a side note, I wanted to mention that no person i've ever spoken to who installed renewable energy actually had complaints about the systems or how well they actually work... Maybe there is something going for it after all?
Or maybe only greenies actually install them :P.
As a general rule of thumb, you can divide the folks who install them into two camps:
1) Those who will also be drawing from the grid, and thus won't notice when their alternative system's production drops, and
2) Those who aren't drawing from the grid, and thus are fully aware that they're getting much more than they otherwise would.

As a result, you won't see a lot of whining. Whining basically depends on someone both not having realistic expectations, AND not being on a system that spoils them (or on running into a con artist who's sly enough that they don't realize that they've been cheated...).

As for me, if I actually owned a house (especially one with a lawn sloping to the south) then I would certainly add a solar water pre-heater system... but I would also stay on the grid ;) .

User avatar
Ktrain
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 12:39 am

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by Ktrain »

Trantor wrote: Forget that panic-thing. We Germans ain´t no whiny sissies, that´s wishful thinking by the international right-wing yellowpress. For the people, it´s rationality, for the industry it is happy anticipation for big business. And the latter is the cause why there won´t be a rollback.
On the whiny sissy bit... I lived with a Prussian princess in undergrad and there was this one time where the chain attached to the toilet plunger came undone... and he was all effeminate and panicky about getting his hands dirty to fix it. I always had to do the man things. That and he would never stop about his aristocratic heritage.... sad thing is he's trying to immigrate to the States :lol: I believe he's busy frolicking as we speak...

Just saying that there exists a subset of the Germanic populace which Trantor's overlooking :mrgreen:
OUTSIDER UPDATE => HALF LIFE 3 CONFIRMED?

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Sustainable Systems and Nuclear Energy

Post by Trantor »

Ktrain wrote:
Trantor wrote: Forget that panic-thing. We Germans ain´t no whiny sissies, that´s wishful thinking by the international right-wing yellowpress. For the people, it´s rationality, for the industry it is happy anticipation for big business. And the latter is the cause why there won´t be a rollback.
On the whiny sissy bit... I lived with a Prussian princess in undergrad and there was this one time where the chain attached to the toilet plunger came undone... and he was all effeminate and panicky about getting his hands dirty to fix it. I always had to do the man things. That and he would never stop about his aristocratic heritage.... sad thing is he's trying to immigrate to the States :lol: I believe he's busy frolicking as we speak...

Just saying that there exists a subset of the Germanic populace which Trantor's overlooking :mrgreen:
Well, there´s no nobility anymore over here. By law. Abolished 1919. ;)
Who knows what weirdo that was. Glad he´s leaving Germany. :mrgreen:
sapere aude.

Post Reply