User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Nuclear Energy

  1. #11
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    I'm in favor of nuclear energy to pick up some of the load. I don't think to cons outweigh the pros enough to reject it, especially when compared to our current energy sources.

    Those who wish to avert climate change, and those who wish to avert an energy crisis, should be mindful of the fact that they are beggers, rather than choosers.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #12
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Just chuck it on the next space shuttle mission. Why we don't use space or the moon as a giant garbage dump is beyond me.
    A spaceshuttle weight is around 80.000 kg without special components. It can carry up to 40.000 kg of payload that way. One boosters weight is around 590.000 kg. And the main tank is around 750.000 kg. That sums up to around 2.000.000 kg per space shuttle for a paylod of 40000 kg.

    The "Castor Transport" that is called that way in Germany brings every year 142 tons of radioactive waste to waste storage. And that waste is only from the German nuclear power plants. So given the paylod of 40 tons of a space shuttle, we need a lot of space shuttles.

    The huge mass of radioactive waste results from its high density. Another thing is, you need to store the radioactive waste for several years until the most life threatening radiation is gone. Radiation that could not be shielded, when the waste would be transported. And what would happen, if it affects the space shuttles systems, even if most of it "hard radiation" is gone, is not known also.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  3. #13
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I'm in favor of nuclear energy to pick up some of the load. I don't think to cons outweigh the pros enough to reject it, especially when compared to our current energy sources.

    Those who wish to avert climate change, and those who wish to avert an energy crisis, should be mindful of the fact that they are beggers, rather than choosers.
    Let's not forget what it can do in terms of cutting spending and reliance on foreign energy sources. There are sufficient economic, environmental, sustainability, and foreign policy reasons to explore nuclear energy as a viability. Also, if it becomes more responsible for energy demands and is seen as an important, and lucrative, element of national power grids I think you'll see innovation that will make it closer to or even better than the costs of other plants.



  4. #14
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    A spaceshuttle weight is around 80.000 kg without special components. It can carry up to 40.000 kg of payload that way. One boosters weight is around 590.000 kg. And the main tank is around 750.000 kg. That sums up to around 2.000.000 kg per space shuttle for a paylod of 40000 kg.
    As I stated earlier (though not clearly), this would be a silly thing to do. It's ineffecient, requires massive amounts of fuel, and can't really hold very much to be honest.

    A far more effecient and practical system, would be to simply launch the control rods themselves individualy or bundled as a group, with some slight aerodynamic additions, and possibly a small booster, but send them up via a magnetic acclerator system (rail guns actually do have practical application and do exist, it's not like it's new technology), and rather than dump on the moon (why would we do that? We may try to colonize that sometime), it'd be far better to dump them into the sun. it just does nuclear reactions endlessly anyway, and the rods are full, so they won't affect it. It's not like radiation will screw up the sun.

    Wait for the earth to be closest to the sun, around late december or something like that, when the energy cost would be least... once yeu can get them to break the gravity of the earth, and have it calculated as to where to launch them... no big deal. As they're being launched magnetically, rather than via explosives, there's not really any real risk of it just randomly exploding and such. A small booster would just be used after they pass the atmosphere to continue them out of the gravitational pull of the earth, and poof, there yeu go.

    With proper timing, it'd take very very little energy and far less possible risk than a shuttle, which don't have a good track record of yeu know... NOT BLOWING UP.

    But anyways.

    The only drawback is rail guns require immense amounts of energy to fire, which's normally why yeu only usually see them on naval vessels, because nothing else is large enough to hold one, stable enough to fire it, and capable of holding a generator large enough to power it.

    Now if yeu had a stationary mounted one on the ground, as a permenent installation specifically for this one task? No problem! Hook it up to the very nuclear generator it's disposing the waste from and poof, power problem solved ^^

  5. #15
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Haha love your phantasy. Sending up nuclear waste into the sun with magnetic railguns .

    Oh my, I so have to find me a new forum, I am becoming dumber here by the second..
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  6. #16
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Yeah there's got to be SOMETHING wrong with it... I just don't know whot XD

    The muzzle velocity of a rail gun is quite a few times more than that of a traditional weapon, with no explosive charge, and capable of lifting vastly more mass. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if one could be built stationary and large enough to launch a projectile at least to the upper layers of the atmosphere. Since it wouldn't have physical damage dealt to the projectile, having a rocket attached would be far from impossible as well... meaning there must be SOMETHING I'm missing as to why they're not doing this already, other than 'it just seems silly'. I'm just not sure whot >.>

  7. #17
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Yeah there's got to be SOMETHING wrong with it... I just don't know whot XD

    The muzzle velocity of a rail gun is quite a few times more than that of a traditional weapon, with no explosive charge, and capable of lifting vastly more mass. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if one could be built stationary and large enough to launch a projectile at least to the upper layers of the atmosphere. Since it wouldn't have physical damage dealt to the projectile, having a rocket attached would be far from impossible as well... meaning there must be SOMETHING I'm missing as to why they're not doing this already, other than 'it just seems silly'. I'm just not sure whot >.>
    Energy balance. Right now, railguns consume an enormous amount of energy. It wouldn't surprise me if the amount required to fling nuclear waste into space would be more than that extracted from the waste in the first place.

  8. #18
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Energy balance. Right now, railguns consume an enormous amount of energy. It wouldn't surprise me if the amount required to fling nuclear waste into space would be more than that extracted from the waste in the first place.
    I knew it was a pretty ridiculous amount, but somehow I'm not sure I buy it that it'd be THAT much.

    They are capable of being mounted on ships which do have nuclear reactors, though small scale ones... though that'd also be much smaller scale on power output required to power one since they're not trying for superorbital velocities.

    In any case, a normal generator can usually power several cities worth, a single reactor should be more than enough to power a single projectile, especially with batteries to store and release it all at once.

    Now the argument as to the power required to extract the waste in the first place? Unlikely, considering the control rods are good for some time, we're not really talking about 'enough power to power a city for 10 years' to launch one relatively small projectile worth. So it wouldn't be like yeu're going through 20 rods worth of use to fire one stack of 20, I just can't really picture that.

    It WOULD be an excessive amount of power though... it may very well need a single dedicated reactor just to power the one launcher. If that were the case though, it would be capable of launching far more than just the small number it itself would produce.

    Of course this'd be short term as eventually we'd run out of uranium, but on the other hand, by the time we run out we should've finalized the whole fusion reactor thing to run at relatively sane temperatures, or at least develop materials that could handle it at the temperatures it works at. At least... that's the hope...

  9. #19
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    I knew it was a pretty ridiculous amount, but somehow I'm not sure I buy it that it'd be THAT much.

    They are capable of being mounted on ships which do have nuclear reactors, though small scale ones... though that'd also be much smaller scale on power output required to power one since they're not trying for superorbital velocities.

    In any case, a normal generator can usually power several cities worth, a single reactor should be more than enough to power a single projectile, especially with batteries to store and release it all at once.

    Now the argument as to the power required to extract the waste in the first place? Unlikely, considering the control rods are good for some time, we're not really talking about 'enough power to power a city for 10 years' to launch one relatively small projectile worth. So it wouldn't be like yeu're going through 20 rods worth of use to fire one stack of 20, I just can't really picture that.

    It WOULD be an excessive amount of power though... it may very well need a single dedicated reactor just to power the one launcher. If that were the case though, it would be capable of launching far more than just the small number it itself would produce.

    Of course this'd be short term as eventually we'd run out of uranium, but on the other hand, by the time we run out we should've finalized the whole fusion reactor thing to run at relatively sane temperatures, or at least develop materials that could handle it at the temperatures it works at. At least... that's the hope...
    We've already dealt with the temperature containment issue for a fusion reactor. There is no material (on Earth or anywhere) that could handle the temperatures that a fusion reactor would run at. Currently we are using very strong magnetic fields to contain the fusion.

    Magnetic confinement fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  10. #20
    Senior Member dga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    360

    Default

    given how many irresponsible plant operations there have been around the world, there is legitimate public concern over local risks of nuclear power. Storage is a legitimate regional concern, and shooting waste up into space is a legitimate global concern.

    A pity. While poking around google earth I cam across a reactor near san diego which purportedly provides 20 percent of southern californias power

Similar Threads

  1. Solar Energy from Space
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-29-2011, 11:19 PM
  2. Low Energy Level
    By machintruc in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-18-2008, 07:10 PM
  3. Energy Drinks
    By swordpath in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-18-2008, 06:21 AM
  4. Robotic Brains and Energy=Happiness?
    By Spartan in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-22-2007, 02:38 PM
  5. So there's a nuclear war...
    By Langrenus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-05-2007, 10:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO