Prez wrote on Jul 7, 2024, 06:24:
We didn't abandon air travel despite how horrific the recent air crashes have been. 2 of them were due to nothing short of pure evil on the part of Boeing. But how many of you still fly?

That's because plane crashes don't destroy 100s of square kilometers of all life where they occur for decades to centuries to potential millennia. If they did, there'd be no airline industry. When we don't need to create artificial mountains in which to bury radioactive waste for millions of years, then come to talk to be about 'nukular' power. As always, put solar panels and wind power on all houses and buildings and you don't need nuclear/hydro/coal anymore. Every structure out there - just about - is capable of sustaining its own energy needs with that alone. It's fucking infuriating they aren't implement a crash program on this around the world. Not only will it end the energy crisis it'll create a ton of green jobs in the process to boot.

Fukushima was bad, and yet, it was nowhere, and I mean nowhere near what Chernobyl was. Prez knows better than me, but considering Fukushima was a worst case scenario come true, and an older design with some known flaws, the core foundational safety technologies did their job. The radiation release was quite minimal and there has been a lot of discussion among experts that the government made the exclusion zone needlessly large, mostly due to Japanese cultural feelings about radiation.

Most surrounding areas near Fukushima are considered safe to return to. Compare that to Chernobyl (a horribly flawed design, maintained and operated recklessly) with surrounding areas that will not be safe for centuries.

New nuclear plant designs are even safer, and the industry learned a LOT from Fukushima.

The biggest complaint I hear about nukes is waste. And yet, ALL the world's nuclear plant waste to date, could be easily, and safely, stored inside a football stadium with room to spare, and is safe enough to stand next to once it's run it's course in a radiation pool, and placed in a cask. Compare that to the millions of square miles of landfills full of toxic waste, and coal ash.

There are tradeoff to every power generation tech. Heck, I hope we figure out fusion, but ask yourself if you want to be anywhere near a fusion containment vessel if it was breached. It could likely be a blast on par with the large Beirut ANFO explosion in 2020. There would be a massive explosion as a small sun is briefly exposed to the environment, there would still be some radioactive products released, mostly short lived but that would depend on the reactor design. There would be some fallout, as the vaporized parts of the containment vessel, some of which would be radioactive from being exposed to a fusion process for years, are blown miles away.

It'll still, be worth it, but everything has risk,

Kind of disappointed this story wasn't accompanied by a BlueComment™️ stating "Holy crap!" 😢

I know that I am exactly correct - American reactor plants are constructed specifically with the worst known natural disasters known to man in the forefront of every consideration. I wish they weren't classified because I can show you pictures a building that I used to work in that was literally built to withstand being at ground zero of a nuclear attack. The reactor itself could have been utterly obliterated and we could still ensure that the U- 235, U-238, Cobalt 60, Cesium, and any other reactor decay element or reactor poison could be rendered no more harmful than an X-Ray. So, yeah, I am not wrong. But I also don't care, so bickering back and forth anymore about who is right or who has the bigger epeen is about as appealing a prospect as debating the finer points of migratory patterns of northern mollusks in winter. When you show me actual evidence that nuclear energy isn't the safest technology for energy production while being far and away the healthiest for the environment, I as always am willing to listen and learn. Until then, have a good day my friend.

I have to go eat breakfast with my cousin whom I haven't seen in about 30 years and for some reason I am nervous AF.

Sorry, Prez, but it is you who is incorrect. The Japanese Fukushima power plant was top notch. But even the best security measures and plans fail when nature strikes big time. And if it happens to a nuclear power plant, the radioactivity is a problem over decades and spreads over hundreds or even thousands of miles. This, by the way, does not happen with airplane disasters, therefore your comparison makes no sense at all.

It has happened twice as far as we know and almost happened a few times. You can still measure radioactivity from the Chornobyl catastrophe in European mushrooms 600 miles away from Chornobyl decades later and the area around Chornobyl is still an uninhabitable zone.
And Fukushima proved that despite the latest tech and many security measures nothing is safe. Ever. And in case of a nuclear disaster, it has huge (and incredibly expensive) repercussions. By the way, greed makes it even more likely to happen. "Do we need all that tech? Maybe we can produce cheaper by leaving just one thing out or cutting down on security personnel?" C'mon, this happens REGULARLY everywhere in the industry. No dobut it happens in nuclear tech, too. But in this case, when shit hits the fan, it is more than just one plane crashing down.

Therefore, we need to get out of nuclear fission ASAP and into e.g. nuclear fusion. We can make it happen, but we will have to invest big time and overcome the damned dinosaur fuel lobby. Up to then, nuclear fission power is definitely a means to reduce carbon emission.

And I know you are no Homer Simpson, Prez.

Again, incorrect. Japanese engineers were ignoring the insufficient construction that they had been warned about. Tsunamis are not uncommon in Japan - no one in the engineering community could figure out why, then, they would construct a reactor plant whose most critical safety feature (water cooling) could just be washed away. A worst case scenario is still a possible scenario, and if you aren't constructing for it, you are being foolish. Even so, the Fukushima meltdown was nowhere near as serious as Chernobyl - not even remotely close. You are just looking for any excuse to avoid nuclear power. I don't care anymore; it's a few people who actually understand the evidence versus an entire world of prejudice and overblown hysteria. There's just no overcoming that.

We didn't abandon air travel despite how horrific the recent air crashes have been. 2 of them were due to nothing short of pure evil on the part of Boeing. But how many of you still fly?

Again, it's fine. The Earth is eventually going to possibly become uninhabitable. We, right now, have the ability to reverse that trend, but we won't, because somehow the miniscule possibility of someone in the world somewhere eating a fish with slightly elevated radioactivity is scarier than the extinction of every living species on the planet. So I just shrug - what can you do? I'm not going to live long enough to see how this all turns out, so why should I care?

This comment was edited on Jul 7, 2024, 06:50.

Right before Fukushima blew up, the Japanese nuclear energy experts assured the world that this was impossible because of the highly modern security measures in the nuclear power plant. Well, shit. Again: if a nuclear plant blows up, it spreads particles that contaminate for decades. This is why this should be the least used option. But currently, I agree that it has to be used until we have discovered stable nuclear fission which will take us at least another 20 years or so (or more, if research gets even more obstructed by fossile fuel companies). Let us just hope that until then nothing big happens again.

Prez wrote on Jul 6, 2024, 13:44:
2 young and vibrant people dead at 30. And an old and grumpy cripple who should be dead ten times over lingers on. I might have a dark and ironic sense of humor, but the universe's is even darker and ironic.

That's because you still have a destiny to fulfill, Prez. We don't know how exactly it will all play out yet, but I have it on good authority that you'll be the grumpy cripple anti-hero that will save the world from an alien invasion.

I have solar now and it can be worth it but is not necessarily worth it by the very fact that it exists. I assume she has done her homework in regards to battery technology, smart panel, inverter, controller, and so on.

She might have? I am not sure. I just heard voices in the living room one day and it turned out that some salespeople were giving her brochures on it. I am staying Switzerland, but my advice to ANYONE is never let what a salesperson tells you be all you know on any subject because it will be incomplete at best, and possibly not true at all at worst.

That's why my imaginary self sustainingable homebunkerstead runs on Mr. Fusion.☢️

Prez wrote on Jul 6, 2024, 21:00:
For individual use minireactors would be ideal. The reason modular and minireactors will not provide a viable solution for most people though has to do with the economics of scale. A threshold exists where building a reactor small enough raises the cost of building and maintaining it prohibitively to where it is no longer cost-effective to do. China is running into those problems now - they built too many smaller reactors instead of just a few larger ones. There's a good video that explains it that I watched not too long ago but I am just too tired to find it. A good rule of thumb would be nuclear for the masses, and solar for the individual. My sister is actually looking at installing solar panels on her roof.

Fair enough and I can see the problem of scale. I still like to dream.

I have solar now and it can be worth it but is not necessarily worth it by the very fact that it exists. I assume she has done her homework in regards to battery technology, smart panel, inverter, controller, and so on.

For individual use minireactors would be ideal. The reason modular and minireactors will not provide a viable solution for most people though has to do with the economics of scale. A threshold exists where building a reactor small enough raises the cost of building and maintaining it prohibitively to where it is no longer cost-effective to do. China is running into those problems now - they built too many smaller reactors instead of just a few larger ones. There's a good video that explains it that I watched not too long ago but I am just too tired to find it. A good rule of thumb would be nuclear for the masses, and solar for the individual. My sister is actually looking at installing solar panels on her roof.

I'm all for more nuclear powerplants and I like the idea of microreactors in far out places.

A minireactor would be awesome to make my homestead completely power independent.

That's not accurate El Pit but I'm too tired too debate it, especially since it makes no difference. I did work as a nuclear operator on 4 separate reactors, so I do have at least a little knowledge about what I am talking about. But I will say that 'another Chernobyl' is not possible with US Reactors, and from what little I learned about post-Soviet Russian reactors it is not possible with them any longer either. Statistically they are by far safer than fossil fuel plants, and have a massively reduced effect on the environment.

EDIT: Rather than post some heinously boring enineer pdf about nuclear power, I will post this link, as it is good enouigh for non-engineering people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3znG6_vla0

This comment was edited on Jul 6, 2024, 19:23.

theglaze wrote on Jul 6, 2024, 15:13:

RedEye9 wrote on Jul 6, 2024, 12:36:
Why I'm embarrassed to be German [Sabine Hossenfelder]
ouch

The Germans (and other countries) avoiding investment into nuclear energy, or even taking reactors offline, is bizarre.

My conspiracy theory is the 'clean energy' movement is significantly propped up by Oil & Gas, an industry that been corrupting politics and pulling strings forever. So they've positioned themselves in a win-win scenario: invest in green technology so when it 'takes off' you strike gold again, and profit from its failures along the way as corporations and governments fall back on reliable fossil fuels.

I don't think it's as malicious as deliberately withholding tech advancements until we've burned through all the oil, or deliberately acquiring government tax breaks and funding into projects that O&G know will fail. But corporations are psychopaths after all.

Meanwhile nuclear is remarkably safe, offers consistent power with less environmental impact, and the entire science of it is known. Let's not invest into that one...

While it is true that nuclear energy could easily replace many fossile fuels, its risks are far, FAR higher than that of fossile fule energy plants. If nature strikes, the result of a nuclear meltdown has repercussions for decades (see: Fukushima) or some idiot trying something risky (see: Chornobyl). You do not have this with e.g. natural gas plants. Therefore, if you add in the cost of insurance that you would actually need for nuclear energy, the energy suddenly becomes unaffordable - if you find an insurance company that would actually take the risk after e.g. Harrisburg.

This is why going for low-risk energy is the best way but unfortunately not enough to guarantee a sufficient energy supply for industrial states. A good mix would be the best compromise right now with a lot of investment into the research of high-efficiency and low-risk energy plants. But this research is mostly blocked by the fossile fuel companies lobby, so good luck with that.

Meanwhile nuclear is remarkably safe, offers consistent power with less environmental impact, and the entire science of it is known. Let's not invest into that one...

I agree, but that ship has sailed I think. I don't feel all is completely necessarily lost however; given how fast they are advancing on nuclear fusion (before you scoff, research what they have achieved with it recently; if you are still a doubter afterwards, at least you'll be an informed doubter). I see it possibly becoming viable in as little as 20 years. Once Nuclear Fusion is achieved, it would be nigh impossible to ignore nuclear power any longer. Am I a dreamer? Yeah. But for all of you decrying the damage being done to the environment, your answer is (and always has been) in nuclear power generation. If you shit on the idea, fine. Just don't then start lamenting the environment because I won't want to hear it anymore. The answer is here already. If you choose to ignore it, that's on you, and I will no longer care. Your kids and your kids' kids will care though, and they might just take notice that your generation did fuck all except complain.

Free buddy key for the Corepunk MMO alpha.

359364cf-0476-4b15-862d-7164a6dfa28e - Please claim if snagged.

I guess they sent a bunch of these the last few days and there's also a Corepunk Reddit thread where tons of people are giving away keys if you're interested.

RedEye9 wrote on Jul 6, 2024, 12:36:
Why I'm embarrassed to be German [Sabine Hossenfelder]
ouch

The Germans (and other countries) avoiding investment into nuclear energy, or even taking reactors offline, is bizarre.

My conspiracy theory is the 'clean energy' movement is significantly propped up by Oil & Gas, an industry that been corrupting politics and pulling strings forever. So they've positioned themselves in a win-win scenario: invest in green technology so when it 'takes off' you strike gold again, and profit from its failures along the way as corporations and governments fall back on reliable fossil fuels.

I don't think it's as malicious as deliberately withholding tech advancements until we've burned through all the oil, or deliberately acquiring government tax breaks and funding into projects that O&G know will fail. But corporations are psychopaths after all.

Meanwhile nuclear is remarkably safe, offers consistent power with less environmental impact, and the entire science of it is known. Let's not invest into that one...

Good tales, BoP. I wish more people would help wildlife where they live. At a minimum put out a few watering stations - regularly cleaned and refilled. I have half a dozen of them and they're always being used by all the critters year round.

Prez wrote on Jul 6, 2024, 13:44:
2 young and vibrant people dead at 30. And an old and grumpy cripple who should be dead ten times over lingers on. I might have a dark and ironic sense of humor, but the universe's is even darker and ironic.

Life isn't fair. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or lying.