£20bn To Fix Problems With 143 EU Nuclear Power Plants

  On 10/3/2012 at 6:22 PM, Frankie5fingers said:

  On 10/3/2012 at 5:26 PM, keltoi said:

  On 10/3/2012 at 4:40 PM, joshuatx said:

  On 10/3/2012 at 3:46 PM, keltoi said:

  On 10/3/2012 at 2:37 PM, lumpenprol said:

Yep, another nuclear fan here. I'm not even worried about the radiation leakage issue. Fact is, only humans are scared of radiation, animals just keep going about their business. Hence why Chernobyl has basically become a nature preserve. I like the fact that worst case scenario, we create an unintentional future nature preserve.

 

not entirely true. research has shown that there are less mammals in highly contaminated areas.

 

It's highly debated what the overall effect of contamination has been on animals in the area and conflicting studies have already become politicized and controversial - WIRED ran a good article about it

and i read something about the area getting more dangerously radio-active over time, rather than less, due to certain contaminants mutating into other compounds with huuuuuge half-lifes as they decay in water.

 

 

actually i don't think thats true. i saw a documetery that went into chernoble. aside from the broken down buildings, the plant life has thrived increadibly. and the animal life while not large is doing just fine. they breed with no problems. honestly, it looks like fucking Eden in there. its just full of radiation. in fact i believe they say that the tress are actually feeding off of the radiation. reducing its levels

 

it's scientifically proven that some of the radioactive compounds decay in water to form new radioactive compounds with half-lifes into millions of years. americium or something, being one of them.

 

no time at the moment to find my source, maybe tomorrow.

  On 10/3/2012 at 6:29 PM, keltoi said:

  On 10/3/2012 at 6:22 PM, Frankie5fingers said:

  On 10/3/2012 at 5:26 PM, keltoi said:

  On 10/3/2012 at 4:40 PM, joshuatx said:

  On 10/3/2012 at 3:46 PM, keltoi said:

  On 10/3/2012 at 2:37 PM, lumpenprol said:

Yep, another nuclear fan here. I'm not even worried about the radiation leakage issue. Fact is, only humans are scared of radiation, animals just keep going about their business. Hence why Chernobyl has basically become a nature preserve. I like the fact that worst case scenario, we create an unintentional future nature preserve.

 

not entirely true. research has shown that there are less mammals in highly contaminated areas.

 

It's highly debated what the overall effect of contamination has been on animals in the area and conflicting studies have already become politicized and controversial - WIRED ran a good article about it

and i read something about the area getting more dangerously radio-active over time, rather than less, due to certain contaminants mutating into other compounds with huuuuuge half-lifes as they decay in water.

 

 

actually i don't think thats true. i saw a documetery that went into chernoble. aside from the broken down buildings, the plant life has thrived increadibly. and the animal life while not large is doing just fine. they breed with no problems. honestly, it looks like fucking Eden in there. its just full of radiation. in fact i believe they say that the tress are actually feeding off of the radiation. reducing its levels

 

it's scientifically proven that some of the radioactive compounds decay in water to form new radioactive compounds with half-lifes into millions of years. americium or something, being one of them.

 

no time at the moment to find my source, maybe tomorrow.

it kinda sounds like what you mean is that the radiation levels arn't increasing but that its just not disapating as fast as it used to by that logic.

+1 for thorium reactors and i'll add that i'm excited for the future of solar energy, incorporating organic photovoltaics and OLEDs

 

and i am pleased to see that these nuclear reactors will be fixed. improving the safety and efficiency of huge, potentially dangerous facilities is what we want. don't fix them and you end up with something like BP's shenanigans in the gulf. spend away, EU

Edited October 3, 2012 by luke viia

  On 10/3/2012 at 7:09 PM, luke viia said:

+1 for thorium reactors and i'll add that i'm excited for the future of solar energy, incorporating organic photovoltaics and OLEDs

you should check out solar roads. thats the future....well actually, they've already been invented (sort of). in fact ill post something in the new tech thread. be sure to check it out. its some amazing shit.

 

Safest my ass. Aside from liquid fluoride thorium, which is something we should really look into. We have an abundance of solar, hydroelectric and geothermal options to be explored.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Audioblysk

Get your heads out of your asses

 

1% chance of 100 deaths or 10% chance of 20 deaths, which is worse?

 

Clearly the latter. Obviously those numbers are pulled out of my ass but they're proportional and prove the same point

 

Nuclear power is the safest

Edited October 6, 2012 by Zeffolia

  On 10/6/2012 at 6:05 AM, Audioblysk said:

 

Safest my ass. Aside from liquid fluoride thorium, which is something we should really look into. We have an abundance of solar, hydroelectric and geothermal options to be explored.

yes. solar, hydro, and geo are safer in terms of waste. but they don't even compare to the amount of energy that a nuclear plant can produce. they must be gigantic in size to even get close to that amount which is just way too unrealistic at the moment. Nuclear is however, way safer than fossil fuels. Nuclear is a great substitute for energy as of now. and once solar, Hydro, and geo (or another) can finally advance far enough to produce the amounts that nuclear can we can switch to them. stepping stones, know what i mean?

 

if you havent seen the solar roads vid i posted in the new Tech thread then you should give it a look. honestly i don't know why the government doesn't fund it.

  On 10/6/2012 at 6:55 AM, Frankie5fingers said:

  On 10/6/2012 at 6:05 AM, Audioblysk said:

 

Safest my ass. Aside from liquid fluoride thorium, which is something we should really look into. We have an abundance of solar, hydroelectric and geothermal options to be explored.

yes. solar, hydro, and geo are safer in terms of waste. but they don't even compare to the amount of energy that a nuclear plant can produce. they must be gigantic in size to even get close to that amount which is just way too unrealistic at the moment. Nuclear is however, way safer than fossil fuels. Nuclear is a great substitute for energy as of now. and once solar, Hydro, and geo (or another) can finally advance far enough to produce the amounts that nuclear can we can switch to them. stepping stones, know what i mean?

 

if you havent seen the solar roads vid i posted in the new Tech thread then you should give it a look. honestly i don't know why the government doesn't fund it.

 

That video is great, what an interesting concept!

 

I still don't see how nuclear is the 'safest' option. Most efficient, effective, and suited to our ever growing needs, yes... but its safety profile is what I was questioning, we still don't know what to do with our waste and it poisons workers constantly in the plants themselves. My uncle worked @ Hanford in WA, his teeth are now falling out and he is discovering signs of cancer, all related to and confirmed from his work at the plant... that to me is the opposite of safe.

 

Splitting hairs, but I had to be clear

GO SOLAR

The solution then is to decrease our electricity usage. Somehow make the public understand that running 2 ps3s and 5 tvs in every household is wasteful rather than fucking up the planet more trying to keep up with sedentary electronic lifestyles.

quite true, well said

disagree, we're clearly going to be needing more and more juice as our lifestyles get even more cyber-ized. The solution has to be a combo of more efficient devices plus what's been posted earlier in this thread. Love the idea of the solar roads (especially given that asphalt has been implicated in global warming)

we might do well to refurbish old gear rather then allowing companies to come with new devices every hot second. companies could be made to release their true abilities rather then milking everyone dishonestly.

we so easily lose sight of waste issues. what, if i may ask, ever happened to hemp polymer? big petroleum keeps pumping us with the hard plastic dick

Edited October 7, 2012 by Redruth

can't disagree with the idea of refurbishing old stuff. But the breakneck pace of technological progress can't be denied, it's more than just marketing.

 

Regarding hemp polymer, no clue, but I don't think there's a conspiracy holding it back. If anything, it's probably just not as cost effective as oil-based. That's always been what's holding back organic food, solar, etc, right? Not some vast conspiracy, but just making it as cost-effective as other methods. I suppose you could call it a conspiracy that most big companies don't want to help figure out how to lower that cost, but why should they? Also, sometimes they do try to help, look at electric cars. It's my understanding that Toyota and Ford make much less (or even take a loss) on the production of Priuses and the like. Not sure if that's true, but those complex fuel cells aren't cheap, I'm sure. Oil is popular for a reason.

  On 10/7/2012 at 4:21 AM, Redruth said:

we might do well to refurbish old gear rather then allowing companies to come with new devices every hot second. companies could be made to release their true abilities rather then milking everyone dishonestly.

 

er

 

wasn't this one of the main causes of the chernobyl disaster? operating outdated equipment long outside its safety rating? OH WAIT LOL I'M TALKING TO TROON.