|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Necroswordsman
Spartan
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 3434
Location: England (Badass country that it is)
|
 Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 7:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Zardoz wrote: | | Necroswordsman wrote: | Aha.
See it's not mac computers because I'm using a windows one now.
And before you judge, it's the only computer around.
So your rebuke fails. |
Pity, the picture was intended for you in particular *snickers*
How is it that you're surrounded by so much fail when it comes to computers?
Hmm, maybe you gave that windows machine a mac-infection by touching it  |
...
Whatever I'm too tired to care anymore.
_________________
necro- (nek'-ro) prefix, fr. Gk. nekros, a dead body, used in the construction of compound terms, signifying death in some form. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dazedandconfused
Mantastic
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 678
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nuclear power isn't that clean. You need somewhere to store the radioactive waste after it has been expended (suggestions for underground storage were made, but fear of groundwater contamination and damage to the environment make this unviable in the long term).
Plus 2 seconds is more than enough for a controlled fission reaction to become an uncontrolled chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion. If the control rods malfunction in any way, then everyone in a 100km radius of the plant is pretty much fucked. You don't get this risk with any other power source.
*D3C*
_________________
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” - Max Planck |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lisa
Manly!
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dazedandconfused wrote: | Nuclear power isn't that clean. You need somewhere to store the radioactive waste after it has been expended (suggestions for underground storage were made, but fear of groundwater contamination and damage to the environment make this unviable in the long term).
Plus 2 seconds is more than enough for a controlled fission reaction to become an uncontrolled chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion. If the control rods malfunction in any way, then everyone in a 100km radius of the plant is pretty much fucked. You don't get this risk with any other power source.
*D3C* |
It depends on how the core is designed as to whether or not the reaction can become uncontrollable in 2 seconds.
You are right, though, what to do with all that nuke waste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Talon
Ubermensch
Joined: 25 May 2007
Posts: 1145
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lisa wrote: | | dazedandconfused wrote: | Nuclear power isn't that clean. You need somewhere to store the radioactive waste after it has been expended (suggestions for underground storage were made, but fear of groundwater contamination and damage to the environment make this unviable in the long term).
Plus 2 seconds is more than enough for a controlled fission reaction to become an uncontrolled chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion. If the control rods malfunction in any way, then everyone in a 100km radius of the plant is pretty much fucked. You don't get this risk with any other power source.
*D3C* |
It depends on how the core is designed as to whether or not the reaction can become uncontrollable in 2 seconds.
You are right, though, what to do with all that nuke waste. |
Send it to F... No. Just kidding. Don't hurts us!
I meant to say Russia. Who admittedly already has a huge problem with nuclear waste, but there must be some way to fix it. Thing is, it is going to be hard.
Sahara (the movie) shows why storing it underground might not be a good idea. Launching it into outer space is too inefficient. Buiding one huge bunker and securing it will also prove ineffective, as the rays will bounce off concrete and eventually be too strong to contain. The main problem is efficiency.
_________________
One bullet can change a mans fate. One mans fate can change the world.
"Young men take note...you take these vows and you do your best to keep them your wife will walk all over you and do her best to destroy you. " -NewlySingle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Necroswordsman
Spartan
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 3434
Location: England (Badass country that it is)
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Talon wrote: | | lisa wrote: | | dazedandconfused wrote: | Nuclear power isn't that clean. You need somewhere to store the radioactive waste after it has been expended (suggestions for underground storage were made, but fear of groundwater contamination and damage to the environment make this unviable in the long term).
Plus 2 seconds is more than enough for a controlled fission reaction to become an uncontrolled chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion. If the control rods malfunction in any way, then everyone in a 100km radius of the plant is pretty much fucked. You don't get this risk with any other power source.
*D3C* |
It depends on how the core is designed as to whether or not the reaction can become uncontrollable in 2 seconds.
You are right, though, what to do with all that nuke waste. |
Send it to F... No. Just kidding. Don't hurts us!
I meant to say Russia. Who admittedly already has a huge problem with nuclear waste, but there must be some way to fix it. Thing is, it is going to be hard.
Sahara (the movie) shows why storing it underground might not be a good idea. Launching it into outer space is too inefficient. Buiding one huge bunker and securing it will also prove ineffective, as the rays will bounce off concrete and eventually be too strong to contain. The main problem is efficiency. |
Keep them under the sea.
Like Thunderbirds.
_________________
necro- (nek'-ro) prefix, fr. Gk. nekros, a dead body, used in the construction of compound terms, signifying death in some form. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Talon
Ubermensch
Joined: 25 May 2007
Posts: 1145
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Necroswordsman wrote: | | Talon wrote: | | lisa wrote: | | dazedandconfused wrote: | Nuclear power isn't that clean. You need somewhere to store the radioactive waste after it has been expended (suggestions for underground storage were made, but fear of groundwater contamination and damage to the environment make this unviable in the long term).
Plus 2 seconds is more than enough for a controlled fission reaction to become an uncontrolled chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion. If the control rods malfunction in any way, then everyone in a 100km radius of the plant is pretty much fucked. You don't get this risk with any other power source.
*D3C* |
It depends on how the core is designed as to whether or not the reaction can become uncontrollable in 2 seconds.
You are right, though, what to do with all that nuke waste. |
Send it to F... No. Just kidding. Don't hurts us!
I meant to say Russia. Who admittedly already has a huge problem with nuclear waste, but there must be some way to fix it. Thing is, it is going to be hard.
Sahara (the movie) shows why storing it underground might not be a good idea. Launching it into outer space is too inefficient. Buiding one huge bunker and securing it will also prove ineffective, as the rays will bounce off concrete and eventually be too strong to contain. The main problem is efficiency. |
Keep them under the sea.
Like Thunderbirds. |
Considered that. But it brings some uncomfortable factors into play - contaminated water, even seawater, still ends up in the cycle of life.
That, and you end up polluting the fishies. And they are my favorite food.
Shit like that persists through the food chain, and since fishing is still a vital source of food for several third-world countries, and Japan (yeah, had to mention that).
So that is, albeit viable, not the best idea.
_________________
One bullet can change a mans fate. One mans fate can change the world.
"Young men take note...you take these vows and you do your best to keep them your wife will walk all over you and do her best to destroy you. " -NewlySingle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Necroswordsman
Spartan
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 3434
Location: England (Badass country that it is)
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Talon wrote: | | Necroswordsman wrote: | | Talon wrote: | | lisa wrote: | | dazedandconfused wrote: | Nuclear power isn't that clean. You need somewhere to store the radioactive waste after it has been expended (suggestions for underground storage were made, but fear of groundwater contamination and damage to the environment make this unviable in the long term).
Plus 2 seconds is more than enough for a controlled fission reaction to become an uncontrolled chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion. If the control rods malfunction in any way, then everyone in a 100km radius of the plant is pretty much fucked. You don't get this risk with any other power source.
*D3C* |
It depends on how the core is designed as to whether or not the reaction can become uncontrollable in 2 seconds.
You are right, though, what to do with all that nuke waste. |
Send it to F... No. Just kidding. Don't hurts us!
I meant to say Russia. Who admittedly already has a huge problem with nuclear waste, but there must be some way to fix it. Thing is, it is going to be hard.
Sahara (the movie) shows why storing it underground might not be a good idea. Launching it into outer space is too inefficient. Buiding one huge bunker and securing it will also prove ineffective, as the rays will bounce off concrete and eventually be too strong to contain. The main problem is efficiency. |
Keep them under the sea.
Like Thunderbirds. |
Considered that. But it brings some uncomfortable factors into play - contaminated water, even seawater, still ends up in the cycle of life.
That, and you end up polluting the fishies. And they are my favorite food.
Shit like that persists through the food chain, and since fishing is still a vital source of food for several third-world countries, and Japan (yeah, had to mention that).
So that is, albeit viable, not the best idea. |
It's not like poisoning the land is any better.
Just make better quality nukes so they don't leak. Or, keep them in a dome seperate from the sea.
Submarines can launch missiles from unerwater without problem so yeah.
Keep them in the sky? Airship maybe.
We're due for some new technology damn it.
_________________
necro- (nek'-ro) prefix, fr. Gk. nekros, a dead body, used in the construction of compound terms, signifying death in some form. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Talon
Ubermensch
Joined: 25 May 2007
Posts: 1145
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Necroswordsman wrote: |
It's not like poisoning the land is any better.
|
Nope, but at least there are unused places on land. Seal the sh*t in a mountain or something.
| Necroswordsman wrote: |
Just make better quality nukes so they don't leak. Or, keep them in a dome seperate from the sea.
|
The dome is a viable option. There are too much radioactive material out already, though, so new stuff are not going to cut it.
| Necroswordsman wrote: |
Submarines can launch missiles from unerwater without problem so yeah.
|
Those subs are sealed. And so are the missile. I am talking also about the waste, not just the missiles.
| Necroswordsman wrote: |
Keep them in the sky? Airship maybe.
|
The taxpayers are going to go French revolution on your ass when you show them the fuel costs.
| Necroswordsman wrote: |
We're due for some new technology damn it. |
That is true. Fission is underway, if I recall correctly.
_________________
One bullet can change a mans fate. One mans fate can change the world.
"Young men take note...you take these vows and you do your best to keep them your wife will walk all over you and do her best to destroy you. " -NewlySingle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lisa
Manly!
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Talon wrote: | | Necroswordsman wrote: | | Talon wrote: | | lisa wrote: | | dazedandconfused wrote: | Nuclear power isn't that clean. You need somewhere to store the radioactive waste after it has been expended (suggestions for underground storage were made, but fear of groundwater contamination and damage to the environment make this unviable in the long term).
Plus 2 seconds is more than enough for a controlled fission reaction to become an uncontrolled chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion. If the control rods malfunction in any way, then everyone in a 100km radius of the plant is pretty much fucked. You don't get this risk with any other power source.
*D3C* |
It depends on how the core is designed as to whether or not the reaction can become uncontrollable in 2 seconds.
You are right, though, what to do with all that nuke waste. |
Send it to F... No. Just kidding. Don't hurts us!
I meant to say Russia. Who admittedly already has a huge problem with nuclear waste, but there must be some way to fix it. Thing is, it is going to be hard.
Sahara (the movie) shows why storing it underground might not be a good idea. Launching it into outer space is too inefficient. Buiding one huge bunker and securing it will also prove ineffective, as the rays will bounce off concrete and eventually be too strong to contain. The main problem is efficiency. |
Keep them under the sea.
Like Thunderbirds. |
Considered that. But it brings some uncomfortable factors into play - contaminated water, even seawater, still ends up in the cycle of life.
That, and you end up polluting the fishies. And they are my favorite food.
Shit like that persists through the food chain, and since fishing is still a vital source of food for several third-world countries, and Japan (yeah, had to mention that).
So that is, albeit viable, not the best idea. |
Ah, but water, even seawater moderates the radiation. The problem is that the seawater will also corrode whatever structure is containing the plant. Also, having the plant underwater makes the plant hard to access for maintenance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Talon
Ubermensch
Joined: 25 May 2007
Posts: 1145
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lisa wrote: | | Talon wrote: | | Necroswordsman wrote: | | Talon wrote: | | lisa wrote: | | dazedandconfused wrote: | Nuclear power isn't that clean. You need somewhere to store the radioactive waste after it has been expended (suggestions for underground storage were made, but fear of groundwater contamination and damage to the environment make this unviable in the long term).
Plus 2 seconds is more than enough for a controlled fission reaction to become an uncontrolled chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion. If the control rods malfunction in any way, then everyone in a 100km radius of the plant is pretty much fucked. You don't get this risk with any other power source.
*D3C* |
It depends on how the core is designed as to whether or not the reaction can become uncontrollable in 2 seconds.
You are right, though, what to do with all that nuke waste. |
Send it to F... No. Just kidding. Don't hurts us!
I meant to say Russia. Who admittedly already has a huge problem with nuclear waste, but there must be some way to fix it. Thing is, it is going to be hard.
Sahara (the movie) shows why storing it underground might not be a good idea. Launching it into outer space is too inefficient. Buiding one huge bunker and securing it will also prove ineffective, as the rays will bounce off concrete and eventually be too strong to contain. The main problem is efficiency. |
Keep them under the sea.
Like Thunderbirds. |
Considered that. But it brings some uncomfortable factors into play - contaminated water, even seawater, still ends up in the cycle of life.
That, and you end up polluting the fishies. And they are my favorite food.
Shit like that persists through the food chain, and since fishing is still a vital source of food for several third-world countries, and Japan (yeah, had to mention that).
So that is, albeit viable, not the best idea. |
Ah, but water, even seawater moderates the radiation. The problem is that the seawater will also corrode whatever structure is containing the plant. Also, having the plant underwater makes the plant hard to access for maintenance. |
I am way more concerned about the marine life, to be honest. But you have a point.
_________________
One bullet can change a mans fate. One mans fate can change the world.
"Young men take note...you take these vows and you do your best to keep them your wife will walk all over you and do her best to destroy you. " -NewlySingle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lisa
Manly!
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Talon wrote: | | lisa wrote: | | Talon wrote: | | Necroswordsman wrote: | | Talon wrote: | | lisa wrote: | | dazedandconfused wrote: | Nuclear power isn't that clean. You need somewhere to store the radioactive waste after it has been expended (suggestions for underground storage were made, but fear of groundwater contamination and damage to the environment make this unviable in the long term).
Plus 2 seconds is more than enough for a controlled fission reaction to become an uncontrolled chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion. If the control rods malfunction in any way, then everyone in a 100km radius of the plant is pretty much fucked. You don't get this risk with any other power source.
*D3C* |
It depends on how the core is designed as to whether or not the reaction can become uncontrollable in 2 seconds.
You are right, though, what to do with all that nuke waste. |
Send it to F... No. Just kidding. Don't hurts us!
I meant to say Russia. Who admittedly already has a huge problem with nuclear waste, but there must be some way to fix it. Thing is, it is going to be hard.
Sahara (the movie) shows why storing it underground might not be a good idea. Launching it into outer space is too inefficient. Buiding one huge bunker and securing it will also prove ineffective, as the rays will bounce off concrete and eventually be too strong to contain. The main problem is efficiency. |
Keep them under the sea.
Like Thunderbirds. |
Considered that. But it brings some uncomfortable factors into play - contaminated water, even seawater, still ends up in the cycle of life.
That, and you end up polluting the fishies. And they are my favorite food.
Shit like that persists through the food chain, and since fishing is still a vital source of food for several third-world countries, and Japan (yeah, had to mention that).
So that is, albeit viable, not the best idea. |
Ah, but water, even seawater moderates the radiation. The problem is that the seawater will also corrode whatever structure is containing the plant. Also, having the plant underwater makes the plant hard to access for maintenance. |
I am way more concerned about the marine life, to be honest. But you have a point. |
The radiation can't hurt the marine life if it is being moderated.
Also, the possibility for accidents goes up when proper maintenance is not being performed regularly.
Still, have to find a way to get rid of the waste and humanity doesn't know how yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hammerhead
Manly!
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 199
Location: Victoria
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fuck nuclear power, we have other means. Nuclear powerplants = terrorist targets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sweetdeviant
Mantastic
Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 847
Location: California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dazedandconfused
Mantastic
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 678
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lisa wrote: | It depends on how the core is designed as to whether or not the reaction can become uncontrollable in 2 seconds.
You are right, though, what to do with all that nuke waste. |
Not really, a malfunction is what will cause an uncontrolled fission reaction, and critical mass is critical mass. This technology might sound fancy, but it is really really crude. It is basically the same techniques they used in the first atomic bombs, except they are putting some graphite control rods in the uranium, because graphite can take excess neutrons without destabilising the nucleus, thus controlling the chain reaction. If, for some reason, these rods were to be accidentally removed (yes, unlikely, but still possible) then the reaction would lead to massive energy in a matter of milliseconds, melting the containment material and leaking nuclear material all over the place.
| lisa wrote: | The radiation can't hurt the marine life if it is being moderated.
Also, the possibility for accidents goes up when proper maintenance is not being performed regularly.
Still, have to find a way to get rid of the waste and humanity doesn't know how yet. |
If there is a small leak in containment the marine life will be drastically affected. Considering you need roughly 4 metres of solid concrete to safely block gamma radiation, I'm estimating you will need a few kilometres of sea water to absorb the same amount of radiation. A few kilometres is enough to contaminate a sizeable portion of marine life, and they will possibly pass on genetic mutations that may not be pretty.
| Talon wrote: | | That is true. Fission is underway, if I recall correctly. |
You must mean fusion. That reaction happens in the sun, and releases a far greater amount of energy per unit mass. Only problem is you need a lot of energy (in the sun's case, heat) to initiate these reactions. I don't know what we are up to in that regard, but if we find an efficient way to initiate these reactions, we will never need another power source.
*D3C*
_________________
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” - Max Planck |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Necroswordsman
Spartan
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 3434
Location: England (Badass country that it is)
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Talon wrote: |
| Necroswordsman wrote: |
We're due for some new technology damn it. |
That is true. Fission is underway, if I recall correctly. |
I'm talking about everything hovering.
That's where we should be.
_________________
necro- (nek'-ro) prefix, fr. Gk. nekros, a dead body, used in the construction of compound terms, signifying death in some form. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
