next »

[Dacke]

Several things can be bad at the same time.
Uranium is horrible.
Coal and oil are even more horrible.
Uranium is still horrible.

More (and massive) resources to better solutions, plix.

[Tycho Brahe]

similarly, people don't notice all the little deaths from coal each year, they only notice spectacular deaths from nuclear accidents once every 20 years, but if you add them up far more people die from coal plants / coal mining than nuclear plants / uranium mining (by many orders of magnitude)

See Brassed off for examples.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

the problem with that is that nuclear power is the safest power source that we *know* is feasible enough on a large scale to power the world. the other supposed power sources which need research should get that research, but there's no guarantee that they'll be developed to the point where they could power the world in a reasonable time span. so i think that until then, it makes the most sense to use the most safe, proven method, rather than unsafe, proven methods or rely on safe, unproven methods which may or may not work no matter how much money is spent researching them.

[Mipe]

Solution?

Underwater power plants. All the cooling you ever need, enough power and water to take a shot at electrolysis for unlimited hydrogen/oxygen fuel supply et cetera. Meltdown? No problem, if it is designed in a way to collapse into an underground cavern under the massive water pressure. Entomb itself.

But of course such solution has too high of an initial cost to be worthwhile. Damn the capitalism!

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

not all areas have access to water and it's hard to "transport" electric power over long distances: for instance it'd be infeasible for a nuclear power plant in the pacific or atlantic ocean to power a house in kansas.

but again, *modern* nuclear plants are completely safe (as far as we know), no problems have ever come out of the newer designs. it's only the older 60s/70s designs that have problems. so i don't think we need to make them *even safer* than perfectly safe.

[Mipe]

Did I say underwater?

Undersea. I meant undersea.

We have cables all over the place, you can't walk the seabed without tripping over one every other step.

Seabed, that's where the future is at.

[Tumetsu]

not all areas have access to water and it's hard to "transport" electric power over long distances: for instance it'd be infeasible for a nuclear power plant in the pacific or atlantic ocean to power a house in kansas.

but again, *modern* nuclear plants are completely safe (as far as we know), no problems have ever come out of the newer designs. it's only the older 60s/70s designs that have problems. so i don't think we need to make them *even safer* than perfectly safe.

This. I recently read about calculation which implied that with modern nuclear plants there will be one accident in every 200 year and by accident it didn't mean complete blowing up like Tsernobyl. We have problems with old models which aren't properly maintained.

People just tend to notice blowing plants more easily than ones which don't, even if the latter ones are more dangerous in reality and carry sneaking death for more people, maybe in long run for entire planet.

[Mipe]

Yeah, I recall there was one accident in US and they swept it all under the rug.

[Tumetsu]

Yeah, I recall there was one accident in US and they swept it all under the rug.

You mean Three Mile Island? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

@mipe: the cables in the ocean do not carry electricity, they are telecommunications cables. they carry information. carrying electricity degrades, no matter how many cables you have (unless they are a superconductor, which requires near absolute zero temperatures). this is why all the power in hour house is from *local* sources, not distant ones. you can't transmit electricity very long distances over cables without losing almost all of it. (this, btw, is why there's such a big search for superconductors at room temperature: if one could be built, you then *could* send power anywhere from anywhere.)

and some areas aren't near any water at all, not even rivers (besides which it'd make no sense to build a power plant in a moving river anyway considering friction would quickly wear it down even if it was made of steel). i suppose you could build artificial lakes, but again, why make something more safe if it's already perfectly safe, with a 0% failure rate?

[Mipe]

I remembered this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Silkwood

@paul eres: Who says that we shouldn't move to the seabed?

As for that 0% failure rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accidents_in_the_United_States

[Μarkham]

As for that 0% failure rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accidents_in_the_United_States

The links that went to specific plants were all nuclear plants built in the 1970's.  The theoretical 0% failure rate is for the more modern plants.  I think this is at least the third time this has been mentioned in this thread.

[Mipe]

Ah, right. Excuse me.

[Blademasterbobo]

Also personally I think it's slightly stupid to donate money to Japan atm, especially if your only goal is to help the current rescue efforts. Japan is one of the richest most industrialized countries in the world and I'm pretty sure the problem right now isn't money, but logistics. If you feel bad about the people in Japan, think of the nearly 5,000 people who die of AIDS every day, or the almost 16,000 children who die from starvation or other hunger-related causes. The same money you're willing to send to Japan could do a lot more good helping those suffering from extreme poverty.

I agree, donating money to Japan is morally reprehensible because in doing so you are literally murdering African children.

[PixelScum]

Also personally I think it's slightly stupid to donate money to Japan atm, especially if your only goal is to help the current rescue efforts. Japan is one of the richest most industrialized countries in the world and I'm pretty sure the problem right now isn't money, but logistics. If you feel bad about the people in Japan, think of the nearly 5,000 people who die of AIDS every day, or the almost 16,000 children who die from starvation or other hunger-related causes. The same money you're willing to send to Japan could do a lot more good helping those suffering from extreme poverty.

I agree, donating money to Japan is morally reprehensible because in doing so you are literally murdering African children.

Dear christ rdein is finally near complete doppleganging status, soon he'll kill super joe and eat his heart to take his powers and identity.

[gimymblert]

@paul

Okay

I think I mix a bit my concern about general energy consumption, that's out of the current debate.

[MaloEspada]

Also personally I think it's slightly stupid to donate money to Japan atm, especially if your only goal is to help the current rescue efforts. Japan is one of the richest most industrialized countries in the world and I'm pretty sure the problem right now isn't money, but logistics. If you feel bad about the people in Japan, think of the nearly 5,000 people who die of AIDS every day, or the almost 16,000 children who die from starvation or other hunger-related causes. The same money you're willing to send to Japan could do a lot more good helping those suffering from extreme poverty.

I agree, donating money to Japan is morally reprehensible because in doing so you are literally murdering African children.

Dear christ rdein is finally near complete doppleganging status, soon he'll kill super joe and eat his heart to take his powers and identity.

sorry, i heard my almighty name was mentioned here. what the fuck.

[Dacke]

I think I mix a bit my concern about general energy consumption, that's out of the current debate.

Energy consumption is pretty relevant to the debate.

One way of looking at it: Using more expensive (but better) energy sources would drive up prices and drive down usage.

Another way to look at it: Using less energy would allow us to get by with better energy sources.

[Tycho Brahe]

Underwater power plants.

Woah woah woah woah. FUCK NO

Look up the bikini atoll nuclear bomb tests. The worst of ALL of them was the underwater detonation. With a above-water nuclear dispersal, the radioactive material travels a relatively short distance before settling. With an underwater one, the material is carried a lot further by currents in the seas. It's like the difference between a leak at a oil well on land, and one underwater.

We really need more research into nuclear fusion. The amount of energy per gram of deuterium fusion is many times more than that of uranium fission. Plus, there's a huge supply of it, given that about 1% of the oceans are deuterium.

[gimymblert]

@Dracke
The discussion is about is nuclear safe, not about general consumption strategy, this would be in the other thread about light bulb.

But currently my view is that we should use less energy, consume less resource and have less people, with the obvious bottleneck being people ...

The problem is that current standard of living is too high, there is pressure from poor to achieve this standard (more consumption), and we would not want to decrease our standard, and even lowering some "comfort" is not enough. The problem is growth* we are reaching a point where it's not sustainable for too long (in decade).

We have to see how this ripple in term of living standard, about job that can be taken, income per people, health, distribution and transportation of goods, etc...

So what? half a solution is expending on the star but the scale is in century and it only address only a small number of need.
Reducing people number is not workable at all (genocide? birth control?).