What is Digg?521 Comments
- jasqwerty, on 01/28/2008, -27/+142Pebble bed reactors, impossible to go critical, case closed, environutters just need to sit down and STFU
And no, it doesn't need to be in my backyard either, that's why power lines exist, build them in the middle of ***** nowhere. - codyman, on 01/28/2008, -6/+76I live 5 miles from a nuclear plant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Ge ... aka the boobies at the beach - see picture for analysis) and I don't fear for my life everyday nor does the town facing high sickness rates etc etc.
Nuclear Power is a godsend in that the power vs waste relationship so highly favors power its ridiculous... think if all the US's subs / aircraft carriers were sucking up fossil fuels right now? - thebellmaster1x, on 01/28/2008, -1/+55"Uranium is the only fuel which, when burnt, generates more fuel."
They really should have worded that better. The original story on it was on Digg a few weeks ago.
It's not like you can burn uranium and get more uranium. It's just that the waste produced through the process still has a high enough energy density to be reused. Uranium does, like everything, succumb to that pesky Second Law of Thermodynamics. - jasqwerty, on 01/28/2008, -5/+59>>I would rather pay the extra money for peace of mind knowing that you really can't ***** up my food or water source with green power.
Producing solar cells is possibly one of the most toxic manufacturing processes of any product ever made, behind that are the battery systems needed for most green energy solutions. - airiox, on 01/28/2008, -15/+59Now only if we could get through the Environmental wackos in the US. They tell us we can't pollute but take the power generating option of least consequence to the environment off the table.
- jasqwerty, on 01/28/2008, -2/+44>>which can also be used for a dirty bomb
And why would I try breaking into a highly guarded military compound, which every nuclear waste disposal site is, when I can get a janitor's job on the night shift at a meat packing facility and steal some cobalt from the irradiation units? - JigoroKano, on 01/28/2008, -7/+48Dirty bombs are a threat invented by the media. For the same cost one could do much more damage and harm with more mundane explosives and materials.
One often thinks of the radioactive after effects of nuclear weapon for comparison, but that is not valid. Those bombs create nuclear material in the explosion reaction, not the case with a dirty bomb. Additionally, with a dirty bomb, the bigger the spread, the less potent the effect. - LoveWidescreen, on 01/28/2008, -7/+45I live about 10 miles from the infamous Three Mile Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_acc ... but I have no problems with it. Nuclear power is one of the safest methods of generating energy. It's amazing how many people are afraid of what "could happen" when countries like Canada and France get a huge portion of their electricity from nuclear. When was the last time you heard about a nuclear accident in either of those countries.
Chernobyl was a disastrous fluke; the Three Mile Island incident was from a manufacturing defect in a valve, so it wasn't even TMI's fault, really. Get over the irrational fears, people. It's because of the past 29 years of scaremongering by the anti-nuclear whackjobs that we're now in an energy crunch. - codyman, on 01/28/2008, -5/+43Or Jersey
- santaliqueur, on 01/28/2008, -2/+38Thanks for showing us that in nearly 50 years, there have been relatively few accidents. Disproving your own intended point, of course. Nobody ever got hurt at a coal burning plant, or an oil field, right?
- tdp301, on 01/28/2008, -5/+27The US has been operating a great deal of nuclear plants for many years, all of which were built in the 70s or before. Think about technology in the 1970s, and if using that technology they have been running safely for many years, then surely nuclear engineers of today can make very safe plants using modern technology, if even the old technology is proven safe.
- johndi, on 01/28/2008, -5/+27Finland hired shoddy contractors that deviated fro Specs and you blame the design? At least they have good enough QC to catch the mistakes. You're dealing in hyperbole and emotions, not facts. Take your steel container example. Outdated design doesn't mean dangerous, it just means we can do better today. Inadequate welding is a problem in craftsmanship. They should go after the contractor for delivering *****. Damaged during storage isn't a design problem either. Finland is possibly the worst example you could have picked. For the sake of a good debate you should try again because you are hurting your side with debating skills that are as poor as the Olkiluoto 3 contractors.
- ieataquacrayons, on 01/28/2008, -13/+34Homer Simpson works in a nuclear power plant. Therefore nuclear power has to be a good thing.
- sanman, on 01/28/2008, -5/+25See, this is why nuclear research should have been maintained these past few decades, rather than cutting it down due to concerns on nuclear safety. Because now that we really need nuclear, you can't just immediately get it going from a standstill. That's why nuclear power funding should have been kept going all along.
- jjb123, on 01/28/2008, -4/+23Nuclear produces much, much more energy than solar, for cheaper. Even if solar was twice or three times as cheap as it is now it still wouldn't be a efficient as nuclear. I think we should have a grid with solar in high light areas, nuclear in darker, snowier regions. These combined with hydro, wind and other generation methods would be ideal.
- iamdan1, on 01/28/2008, -5/+23Most of us don't have to worry about Chernobyl happening, unless you live near an old Russian Nuclear power plant. All plants are built with Containment domes that are a few feet of reinforced concrete around the reactor, as well as many other safegaurds, that if anything happens in the reactor, no radioactive material is going to be lost and the surrounding area is completely safe. Three Mile Island is the worse that can happen here, and that was human error.
- frsrblch, on 01/28/2008, -0/+17That'd be the first law of thermodynamics... the second one has to do with entropy, not conservation.
- santaliqueur, on 01/28/2008, -0/+17But...it has the word GREEN right in the title!
- johndi, on 01/28/2008, -2/+18I'm using the example from your own post. Read what you cut and paste. "...The finished container was found to have inadequate welding, an outdated design and was even damaged during storage."
Yes, I read the article. I learned a different lesson. I'm all too aware of contractor overruns and how contractors aren't held accountable when they screw up. It's shameful, and almost a built in incentive to screw up. It happens across the board, not just for nuclear power. Exibit A: Boston's Big Dig. - illt, on 01/28/2008, -8/+24dugg.
I took a nuclear engineering class as an elective last fall, and the prof spent a lot of time talking about current events and the state of nuclear power.
TV and movies don't help, like 24 where nuclear reactors can all be melted down by some hacker.
All gen III+ reactors are extremely safe and effective.
Gen IV reactors will be even better.
but no, alas, with MSM...
"Do what you're told america, shut up. here's 32 channels for american gladiators." -bill hicks - MattnJax, on 01/28/2008, -9/+25What do you feel is the best alternative msaleem? Solar? Wind? They all have negative qualities to go along with their positive ones. While I wouldn't want a nuclear power plant in my backyard (Chernobyl anyone?), I'm not opposed to it because it is a clean source of energy. If we can have nuclear powered aircraft carriers, then why not more nuclear power plants? Not trying to be a dick msaleem, just trying to start a conversation on legitimate alternatives to nuclear.
- JigoroKano, on 01/28/2008, -4/+19The whole article isn't wrong. Nuclear is low carbon, unless you have some alternate theory of nuclear physics.
- inactive, on 01/28/2008, -19/+34Green peace = Anti-productive.
- DeFex, on 01/28/2008, -3/+17they seem to prefer destroying forests and entire mountains for coal.
- tasadar24, on 01/28/2008, -0/+14A critical reactor is a reactor that is self sustaining, one that will produce power basically. You don't want a reactor to be super critical when you're not starting it up, and dear god help you if you get a reactor to prompt critical, but critical is the state that a reactor providing power is in.
- santaliqueur, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1412. Digg have morons.
- DannoSpeaks, on 01/28/2008, -1/+15You certainly seem to have an unbiased opinion... maybe we should all listen to you.
- hakr89, on 01/28/2008, -2/+16[citation needed]
- frsrblch, on 01/28/2008, -0/+13The oil and gas corporations here in Alberta used to budget for a certain number of fatalities each year. BUDGET FOR THEM! It was both expected and accepted that people would be killed while working. That's not the case anymore, and hasn't been for some time, but nuclear's track record in that regard, if this list is anywhere near complete, is AMAZING by comparison.
- natedouglas, on 01/28/2008, -0/+13I used to be a Mechanical Operator (MM2) in the Nuclear Navy. There HAVE been nuclear accidents -- just no meltdowns. As you know, if you're a nuke or ex-nuke, the Navy's safety standards are immense and reinforced by the UCMJ :-) I personally don't believe that similar standards are achievable in the civilian world.
Another benefit of the Navy is that it's heavily-armed and most of their plants are surrounded by large amounts of ***** ocean at all times. - rory096, on 01/28/2008, -0/+13"Further, I really don't like depending on the competences of others, that I don't know, with my life."
I guess you're a subsistence farmer then, right? Because our modern economy and, indeed, way of life depends on specialization of labor. - Sophistifunk, on 01/28/2008, -0/+12You don't want to depend on others' competence for your life? It must be lonely in your cave, never driving, flying, or seeing a doctor or eating food somebody else has prepared...
- JanYpe, on 01/28/2008, -4/+16Like Scotland.
- caintrain, on 01/28/2008, -0/+12I do have a nuclear power plant in my backyard. The contingency plans they have now guarantee an almost zero failure. Back in the Three Miles Island days people were much more relaxed, but tragedy breads innovation. My point is that you can see these cooling towers 30 miles away and most people don't think twice about them..
- crombenevolant, on 01/28/2008, -0/+12In reality they just hate people. They are also against wind power (hurts birds), and hydro power (hurts fish). The only thing that will make them happy is for us to just go extinct
- Androne, on 01/28/2008, -1/+12you want it to go critical. Critical mass is the minimum amount of nuclear material needed to sustain a chain reaction. Shape, speed of the neutrons and concentration affect the critical mass. Speed of the neutrons is decreased using moderator this is usually carbon, light water or heavy water. Pebble bed reactors encase the fuel in Carbon creating a pellet. Pellets can be added or taken away to achieve the desired reaction rate.
- brbubba, on 01/28/2008, -6/+17If a single business steps forward and bears the brunt of 100% of the upstart costs of a nuclear power plant I would say go for it in a heartbeat. However, you have to realize how much money in government subsidies is behind these projects. We are talking about billions of tax payer dollars being invested in a non-sustainable future. In addition, although current nuclear plants pay taxes on all electricity produced to the government for waste disposal the government has yet to come up with a good plan for waste disposal. Yucca Mountain you say? Not only is the project billions over budget and years late, the storage capacity of the facility is already accounted for. Meaning that there isn't enough room for all existing nuclear waste.
Meanwhile we have projects such as this, http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/stor ... which provide the same power output as one plant, have no associated pollution, cost far less, and have lower maintenance and security costs. - MattnJax, on 01/28/2008, -1/+12Great take. I'm especially digging you up for the "boobies on the beach" comment.
- msaleem, on 01/28/2008, -0/+11Matt I totally get what you're saying and the reason why I said "probably" is because I honestly don't know. I am aware of solar, wind, nuclear and so on, but I would certainly like to see a grid or chart comparing them.
- santaliqueur, on 01/28/2008, -0/+11Well, near water, in the middle of ***** nowhere.
- masterm1nd, on 01/28/2008, -1/+12"Waste" can be reused until it is basically nothing. The reason we have "waste" is because the president passed a law making usable material "waste" for military use.
- dinostabOMG, on 01/28/2008, -0/+10I don't find that it is, but I do object to its use of "Greens." One can be Green and pro-nuclear, and radical organizations don't speak for everyone.
- sanman, on 01/28/2008, -3/+13Fusion? It's not even clear that fusion CAN be made to work. I'm in favor of continuing research, but clearly we can't bet the farm on fusion, which doesn't work yet, and possibly may be unworkable. As for conventional radioactive waste, perhaps we'll just have to eject it into the sun.
- Androne, on 01/28/2008, -0/+10I agree. There isn't one solution it should be a mix of a few technologies.
- Shiftyeyedgoat, on 01/28/2008, -4/+14Dugg for the wheel of nude chicks in the sidebar.
If only we could harness the power of masturbation... - fgsfds, on 01/28/2008, -1/+11What the crap are you talking about? Most alternative energy sources hadn't even been DISCOVERED 50 years ago!
Hydroelectric plants have been just about as efficient as they can get for a long time. About all we can do to improve those is turn off the lights when the workers don't need them. Researching better hydroelectric plants would be a waste of resources.
Solar cells were invented in the 1970s, but the technology required to mass-produce them wasn't developed until the 1980s. That's not from lack of research either - computers use the same technology for chip-fab, and you can hardly call THAT a forsaken technology. Solar panels themselves are among the most researched technologies and have been so for, what, half their existence?
Development on wind turbines started in the 1980s, yet the problems with wind farms tend to be social instead of technological. Wind farms aren't being ignored because they're inefficient, they aren't being ignored because they cost too much, they're being ignored because they're highly visible and many people don't want to live near them.
Could more research have been done to improve some alternative energy technologies? Yes, but the technologies themselves usually don't leave much room for improvement.
The problem with alternative energy is that they don't provide *usable* energy. Sure, we could build one giant solar array in Nevada that could meet the power consumption of the US, but we have NO technology which would allow us to get that power to where people would need it. If you just threw more panels at the poor system efficiency then you would be talking about 5%-10% line loss just transporting power out of the array itself! However, if you built solar panels throughout the nation you would run into a worse problem - Solar irradiance and climate issues. The further you go from the equator the less power solar cells produce in winter, and once you get into places that have snowfall the system output drops like a rock. This is completely aside from the fact that rain, clouds, and night all wreak havoc on power production.
Wind power requires WIND, which is often not available in the desired quantities. Wind strength and thus power output vary throughout the day, and lulls are problematic.
Hydroelectric requires lots of moving water, which is usually not available.
If alternative energy is to become viable, then the place where research is REALLY needed is power storage technology and better ways to handle social responses. If somebody created a cheap battery that could handle infinite charge/discharge cycles, had a rapid response time, and was highly efficient, then alternative energy would finally be useful for power production on a meaningful scale - as it stands now, if every house had a solar panel then the result would be a huge spike and a huge crash at the start and end of every day, which would burn-out the grid. The ability to, say, convince a town to sign-off on a wind farm would be a big boon as well.
As far as nuclear waste goes: If the average American got their power only from nuclear, then the waste produced by their power consumption would be the size of an Aspirin tablet. If that fuel was sent to reprocessing, then the final waste product would be about the size of a grain of sand. There are easy and safe ways to deal with this waste, although once again the primary problem is that society's desires are in conflict with the best solution. - drake77, on 01/28/2008, -5/+15also... Greenpeace = Hypocritcal
The moment Greenpeace members stop using electricity, I will retract this statement however. - sgtpppr, on 01/28/2008, -1/+10The US gov't won't openly praise the benefits of nuclear power since they do openly condemn other countries for wanting to use it. It's bad enough we have this massive stockpile of nukes and continued development of smaller tactical nukes while we invade other countries at the hint of them having a single nuke research facility. They don't also want to show that nuclear reactors can save the world from oil slavery and global warming while condemning their development in middle eastern countries as 'unnecessary'.
- PilotPrecise, on 01/28/2008, -1/+10Admittedly no expert, I was under the impression that the only reasonable "solution" to future global energy needs was one that included several technologies (solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels, hydrogen, fossil fuels, thermal, tidal, etc.) working in conjunction. Because not all of these technologies are ready for "prime-time" we need solutions such as nuclear to bolster current energy supplies sooner rather than later.
It seems to me that any simplistic "FTW" statements are silly if not intentionally divisive. - insomniac8400, on 01/28/2008, -1/+10What should bother you is that current reactors in America are archaic. They are of terrible design. People should be demanding that these plants be replaced with new much safer designs.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 510 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is