France is doing something the US should be emulating.

[Damn True]

France gets 80% of it's electric power from Nuclear Plants. The US gets only 20%.

That sucks.

[fluff]

France gets 80% of it's electric power from Nuclear Plants. The US gets only 20%.

That sucks.

Is that like, radioactive daisies?

[Changleen]

I agree. Nuclear Power is very important in the short term future. France is also the site of the worlds first fusion reactor. It is being built by France, England, Japan and the US. It is due to go online in 2016 I think.

On the other hand, New Zealand gets 60-80% of its power from renewable sources. Wave and wind mostly, but some traditional hydro stuff and geothermal too.

This what people mean when they say the US is getting left behind. The world's biggest economy is the technical leader in none of the many energy generation fields, not even oil which it loves some much. Europe and the far east are pushing ahead with Biotech too.

Regressive policy sucks.

[valve bouncer]

I think everyone needs a Mr Fusion in their home. Go nuclear energy. Yay.
(Hiroshima has the best carrots of anywhere in Japan)

[Changleen]

The fear of the Newkila booger-man is largely misplaced too (In terms of civilian reactors I mean). And the sooner fusion becomes commonplace, the sooner it becomes a whole lot safer.

[fluff]

Whaddya wanna do with the nucular waist?

[Changleen]

Whaddya wanna do with the nucular waist?Blast it in to space, put it into the core of the planet, choose a single tiny, tiny area of the planet to serve as a waste repository until we can dispose of it in one of the previous ways. Once we have Fusion reactors this will become a much tinier problem anyway. This is a great example of how we must invest in progressive technologies and research to achieve a better result for ourselves. Once we studied fission and got to used to handling it enough, we could take the step forward and start to plot on Fusion, which is a better product. Who knows what could come next? Potentially fusion reactors could be shrunk to very small sizes if we can apply enough energy density to contain the reactions.

[valve bouncer]

Whaddya wanna do with the nucular waist?
N8 says he's got room at his place.
I give this thread until the end of the first page before Glower is all over it. ;)

[ridetoofast]

glower = reactor?

and yes thanks to the sheep that is the public masses and things like China Syndrome type movies the fear of nuclear power is very much misplaced. coming from the nuclear navy i am somewhat skeptical of the practices of civilian plants but its the almight dollar that drives their operation and maintenance culture...the navy has no bottom line

[N8]

A little nukie never hurt anybody!

[DirtyDog]

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

I like how everyone on the Internet is an expert at everything.

[fluff]

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

I like how everyone on the Internet is an expert at everything.
Yeah, but in the end it makes bugger all difference eh?

[Westy]

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

I like how everyone on the Internet is an expert at everything.

Looks like a ride through Gary Indiana.

Chernobyl was the peak of nuclear plant technology. If it failed there is no point on going any further.

[Kevin]

Chernobyl was the peak of nuclear plant technology. If it failed there is no point on going any further.

The accident in Chernobyl was caused by human error.
It was one man alone who caused the core to melt down because he was pushing the reactors limits despite of people telling him not to. The accident could have easily been prevented if the plant haddent been saving money on safety precautions
This doesnt mean Im all for nuclear energy though.
I think the world should invest in 100% natural recourses like the sun, wind or waves so in a couple of decades nuclear or fossile (oil, charcoal etc.) sources will be a thing of the past.

[I Are Baboon]

The accident in Chernobyl was caused by human error.
It was one man alone who caused the core to melt down because he was pushing the reactors limits despite of people telling him not to. The accident could have easily been prevented if the plant haddent been saving money on safety precautions

I think you missed Westy's satire. :)

[DirtyDog]

The accident in Chernobyl was caused by human error.
It was one man alone who caused the core to melt down because he was pushing the reactors limits despite of people telling him not to. The accident could have easily been prevented if the plant haddent been saving money on safety precautions


So was it one man alone or lack of safety precautions? Be patient with me, I am not an expert in nuclear technologies like you guys are.

[Westy]

So was it one man alone or lack of safety precautions? Be patient with me, I am not an expert in nuclear technologies like you guys are.

Seeing as none of are experts on anything except maybe our actual professions. All posts should probably be deleted without several qualified professional references showing we are experts in the fields we comment on.

[kidwoo]

Seeing as none of are experts on anything except maybe our actual professions. All posts should probably be deleted without several qualified professional references showing we are experts in the fields we comment on.

Yeah but we've got a guy named Reactor here!!!

Save us reactor, save us!!!!

I must be living in a cave.......FUSION reactors in the works? WTF??? How'd they do it? Was it cold? Was it hot?

[Kevin]

So was it one man alone or lack of safety precautions? Be patient with me, I am not an expert in nuclear technologies like you guys are.

I guess in the end it was the lack of money for safety precautions.
The guy eventually pushing the button should have never come so far in the first place

This has nothing to do with being an expert on nuclear technologies and I allready stated that Im against nuclear energy. Thats why I understand your concern very well.

I was just pointing out that this didnt have anything to do with technology. I think in another country with more funds, unlike the former USSR where corners were cut everywhere regarding saftey regulations, nuclear power could be made safe to use imo.
Its just that I would like to see investements made in better ways to provide power because there is still the nuclear waste that has to be taken care of and the fact that generating power out of natural recources is less harmfull to the enviroment then a nuclear plant.

In the beginning it will take lots money to achieve this but in the end it will be better for the planet and eventually it will earn its investements back.

[DirtyDog]

Seeing as none of are experts on anything except maybe our actual professions. All posts should probably be deleted without several qualified professional references showing we are experts in the fields we comment on.

Well its pretty funny when people become self appointed nuclear engineers :p

Oh yeah, I forgot about that fusion thing. Changleen needs to lay off the pipe. Thats funny stuff.

[valve bouncer]

So was it one man alone or lack of safety precautions? Be patient with me, I am not an expert in nuclear technologies like you guys are.
I am. I know everything about everything. I thought all PD regulars did.

[Westy]

Well its pretty funny when people become self appointed nuclear engineers :p

Oh yeah, I forgot about that fusion thing. Changleen needs to lay off the pipe. Thats funny stuff.

I kind of blew off the fusion comments.

But there has been great leaps in reactor technologies. I spent a week at a plant that makes fuel rods and reactor cores and some folks were telling me about ceramic coated fuel pellets that can resist meltdown with despite complete loss of control and cooling. Neat stuff.

Some power companies along cooperating with French companies have started the licensing process to build the first US plants in over three decades. About flipping time.

[ohio]

I'm no expert but I did work in the power industry for awhile, mostly evaluating electricity assets (of that, mostly power plants)... at the same time, I'm a (surprise) pretty rabid environmentalist.

With that in mind, I actually feel like nuclear power is probably the best available option for reducing dependence on oil. The technology has come a long way both in terms of plant operations and waste disposal. It's not perfect, but nothing is. Every other option that is even close to as clean is not viable in terms of capacity in the near term.

Hydroelectric - the cleanest cheapest power on earth. Unfortunately in involves flooding rare and beautful valleys. See the 5 gorges project in China... an ecological disaster.
Wind - huge capital investment for the capacity, requires massive amounts of space, and the offshore versions that actually have a reasonable capacity seem to interrupt bird migration. Plus the NIMBYs are a bunch of dicks.
Solar - photovoltaic is nowhere near viable as a net positive energy source. solar-thermal is, I think, but I don't know the details
Giothermal - pretty viable, but only a few spots where you can do it
Wave/tidal - this I know the least about, but I believe it has some pretty serious ecological consequences
Coal - getting cleaner in terms of toxins, but still pretty awful in terms of CO2 and always will be. I don't know what modern mining practices are like, but that side of it can get pretty nasty too.
Natural gas - better than coal, though obviously still a big CO2 producer and I think we're already maxing out our ability to produce energy from it.... DRB, do you know more?

[valve bouncer]

I'm no expert but I did work in the power industry for awhile, mostly evaluating electricity assets (of that, mostly power plants)... at the same time, I'm a (surprise) pretty rabid environmentalist.

With that in mind, I actually feel like nuclear power is probably the best available option for reducing dependence on oil. The technology has come a long way both in terms of plant operations and waste disposal. It's not perfect, but nothing is. Every other option that is even close to as clean is not viable in terms of capacity in the near term.

Hydroelectric - the cleanest cheapest power on earth. Unfortunately in involves flooding rare and beautful valleys. See the 5 gorges project in China... an ecological disaster.
Wind - huge capital investment for the capacity, requires massive amounts of space, and the offshore versions that actually have a reasonable capacity seem to interrupt bird migration. Plus the NIMBYs are a bunch of dicks.
Solar - photovoltaic is nowhere near viable as a net positive energy source. solar-thermal is, I think, but I don't know the details
Giothermal - pretty viable, but only a few spots where you can do it
Wave/tidal - this I know the least about, but I believe it has some pretty serious ecological consequences
Coal - getting cleaner in terms of toxins, but still pretty awful in terms of CO2 and always will be. I don't know what modern mining practices are like, but that side of it can get pretty nasty too.
Natural gas - better than coal, though obviously still a big CO2 producer and I think we're already maxing out our ability to produce energy from it.... DRB, do you know more?
You neglected to mention the frothers preferred option. Rendering the fat from 3rd world children. Probably work better though if we rendered the fat of frothers.

[Silver]

You neglected to mention the frothers preferred option. Rendering the fat from 3rd world children.

The only reason those children are fat in the first place is because they leech aid from our taxpaying dollars! It's our fat to use, goddammit!

[Westy]

You neglected to mention the frothers preferred option. Rendering the fat from 3rd world children.

Why would we get them from the third world. Everywhere I go I see fat kids, not the big boned plump kind, the knee and ankle fold waddling around type fat kids. We just need to set up liposuction and refining facilites in grade schools.

[valve bouncer]

The only reason those children are fat in the first place is because they leech aid from our taxpaying dollars! It's our fat to use, goddammit!
You are faster than N8 rooting his missus. :blah:

[kidwoo]

You neglected to mention the frothers preferred option. Rendering the fat from 3rd world children.

They'd get more from american kids. Edit: dayum, westy first.

Beerdemon.......change your sig......tis da troof!!!!!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm)

Still a research and viability thing, but it is happening.

[valve bouncer]

Why would we get them from the third world. Everywhere I go I see fat kids, not the big boned plump kind, the knee and ankle fold waddling around type fat kids. We just need to set up liposuction and refining facilites in grade schools.
Help me here Westy...it was a movie or a TV program, they raided the liposuction....got it FIGHT CLUB...

[valve bouncer]

They'd get more from american kids. Edit: dayum, westy first.

Beerdemon.......change your sig......tis da troof!!!!!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm)

Still a research and viability thing, but it is happening.
These guys are as fast as hell mate. Great minds think alike. I immediately altered my post but wasn't quick enough. :love:

[Westy]

They have actually developed vehicles that can directly process human fat into environmentaly clean energy.














http://www.queenwords.com/images/singles/bicycle.jpg

[ohio]

Why would we get them from the third world. Everywhere I go I see fat kids, not the big boned plump kind, the knee and ankle fold waddling around type fat kids. We just need to set up liposuction and refining facilites in grade schools.

Why lipo and render the fat? Lets get those little piglets turning water wheels like Conan the Barbarian. Kill two birds with one stone, and possible create a generation of badass, sword-fighting, he-men (and she-women).

[DRB]

DRB, do you know more?

ball bearings, its all ball bearings these days.

Whatcha looking for? Wanna talk natural gas production and consumption... Prepare to sleep people.

Natural gas is better in regards to CO2, sulfur and particulate emissions compared to coal and oil. CO not much better. NOx, mostly worse, depending on the consumption method. The real bugaboo in regards to natural gas and pollutants is itself. Uncombusted natural gas is a like a bazillion times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Plus its coming into the environment at every step of the process not just consumption.

From an efficiency stand point, the improvements over the last few years have been big. The combined cycle turbines. Plus they are figuring out higher combustion temperatures from a cooling standpoint. I'd say that of all the fossil fuels natural gas has the best potential.

How much is left? Its tricky stuff that isn't as easy to find as oil is.

The rest of it is hippy crap. I figure the world will be burning oil shale for energy, clog the environment and evolve the earth into Venus.

[Andyman_1970]

ball bearings, its all ball bearings these days.


I love that movie.....................

[DRB]

Oh and its not nuclear dumbasses.

Its NUCLAR.

[Westy]

Oh and its not nuclear dumbasses.

Its NUCLAR.

I thought it was nukular.

[ridetoofast]

actually chernobyl was a very poor design as it used positive coefficient of reactivity.

also there were operating at an unstable low power level conducting testing that required overiding protective features.

it was a combination of poor design and poor operating features.

im not professing to be an expert but i did the same thing reator did in the navy only i was on a target aka carrier and he was a bubble head aka submariner.

i cannot tell you how many times i was 'briefed' on chernobyl as part of our continuous training

[Westy]

Question for you nukular trained folks: Couldn't you place a carbon bowl with integrated control rods at the bottom of a reactor. In case of a meltdown the melted Uranium would be contained in the bowls and automatically have the reaction slowed to a reasonable level?

[Damn True]

I must be living in a cave.......FUSION reactors in the works? WTF??? How'd they do it? Was it cold? Was it hot?


Yeah, no kidding. I had no idea either. I thought that whole deal was a big theoretical physics pipe dream.

[DRB]

The fusion reactor he is talking must be the experimental ITER site in France. It isn't so much a reactor as it is a research project. They are talking 2040 for functional sites. That is assuming they can overcome the technical and scientific challenges which are substanial.

[splat]

I must be living in a cave.......FUSION reactors in the works? WTF??? How'd they do it? Was it cold? Was it hot?
Thats a good one ! I'd really like to know how they plan on doing this .

I use to work in the MIT Plasma Fusion Center and they were no where near making a Viable reactor. We had a Tandem Mirror reactor with Dual "Baseball Coils" ( the energy collectors ) when I left they were retiring that reactor , and building a larer Togamac. ( shaped like a Doughnut ). There was a long list of problem that they need to over come, and they believed that a viable reactor would not be on line till some time between 2030 and 2050, they would would haveto include some "major" discoveries. Must say it was a fun place to work.

[DirtyDog]

My new sig: priceless. Best I've ever had! Thanks changleen! LOL!

[Transcend]

blasting it into space is a huge issue. Remember the space shuttle comlumbia?

Now imagine it was filled with nuclear waste.

[Changleen]

My new sig: priceless. Best I've ever had! Thanks changleen! LOL!Yeah, you should really read the news occasionally.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm

:p

[Changleen]

The fusion reactor he is talking must be the experimental ITER site in France. It isn't so much a reactor as it is a research project. They are talking 2040 for functional sites. That is assuming they can overcome the technical and scientific challenges which are substanial.It is a prototype reactor... Therefore it is a reactor. It will produce energy which will be used by European consumers.

2040 is the date for the children of this reactor to be useful contributors. For the ITER site:"the first plasma should be possible in ITER by the end of 2016."

[DRB]

It is a prototype reactor... Therefore it is a reactor. It will produce energy which will be used by European consumers.

2040 is the date for the children of this reactor to be useful contributors. For the ITER site:"the first plasma should be possible in ITER by the end of 2016."

No actually the ITER plans currently do not plan on power generation for the public. There is a big difference between prototype (which it isn't) and experimental (which it is). They aren't even sure that they can create a reaction that uses less energy to start it then it actually produces.

Additionally, they aren't even sure how to build it to contain the reaction. I love this quote from Pierre-Gilles de Gennes (winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics). He said "We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box".

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done but I am saying don't get your hopes up. Fission is proven technology and should be exploited for all its worth until fusion becomes proven.

[Changleen]

Uh, we do know several ways to make the box... Do you read New Scientist?

[splat]

Uh, we do know several ways to make the box... Do you read New Scientist?

yeah I do know how they make the box ! I helped make one ! and the energy to hold it in place is stagering ! to hold our ( MIT's) Plasma in Place for 1 Second at 400 Million K took 25 MW/S of power to the Magnets for 7 seconds, Plus the discharge of a 1.2 farad Capactior Bank at 45 KV into an electron gun ( or a Shot from the 1 GW laser ) it would then take the Magnets 5 minutes to cool ( 2 of them required liquid N2 to do it ) and it would take 7 minutes to charge the Caps.

Also rading that Article , it is an experimental Togamac , probaly similar to the one at Princeton. Plus I personally think it would have been better in Japan. that Japanese Program was Impressive to say the least. there Tandem Mirror was 80 M long ! MIT 's was only 20 M ( MIT and Osaka had the only 2 tandem Mirrors in the world ) the Europeans were way behind the Japanese in their research.

[DRB]

yeah I do know how they make the box ! I helped make one ! and the energy to hold it in place is stagering ! to hold our ( MIT's) Plasma in Place for 1 Second at 400 Million K took 25 MW/S of power to the Magnets for 7 seconds, Plus the discharge of a 1.2 farad Capactior Bank at 45 KV into an electron gun ( or a Shot from the 1 GW laser ) it would then take the Magnets 5 minutes to cool ( 2 of them required liquid N2 to do it ) and it would take 7 minutes to charge the Caps.

Also rading that Article , it is an experimental Togamac , probaly similar to the one at Princeton. Plus I personally think it would have been better in Japan. that Japanese Program was Impressive to say the least. there Tandem Mirror was 80 M long ! MIT 's was only 20 M ( MIT and Osaka had the only 2 tandem Mirrors in the world ) the Europeans were way behind the Japanese in their research.

So is this method capable of containing a fusion reaction for prolonged periods of time without consuming more energy than it produces?

[splat]

So is this method capable of containing a fusion reaction for prolonged periods of time without consuming more energy than it produces?

The magnetic field is what holds it in place . the electron gun/Laser are what excites the plasma to start the reaction .

and that is one of the Big "challenges" they still have is how to produce that large of a magnetic field , for long peiods of time with out melting he magnets and using more energy than they consume . when I left the PFC they were getting to close to break even on engery in equaling energy out ( not including the magnetic field and vaccum containment , that is one point I forgot to mention is that all this has to be done under a "hard" Vaccum, but that is one ofthe hurdles they have gotten past. )