mikoyan Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 We worry about japan; but what about all those nuclear tests done in the past by several countries. My issue with nuclear energy is that it takes too much time for the waste to degrade and there is not bullet prof method of storing the waste. Nuclear power defenders say that nuclear power is one of the most efficient way of produce energy; but why not develop new and cleaner methods for producing energy; some argue the technology is not here now!; and I say yes it is not here yet because we keep dedicating too much effort to work on what we know it worked before; do you wan't an example? combustion engine; if we had had the need to work on electric engines and batteries 50 years ago; I'm sure most of us would be driving electrical cars; but that is not the case because we never had to think about oil until recently. We can get energy from the sun and the wind; why not dedicate more man power to work on new technologies?
Kuky Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 sadly I did see a documentary about how Ford and I think Crisler actually did have made very successful electric cars some 20 years ago I think, if not 30 years ago and people loved them... they even made infrastructure for them to be able to recharge but for greedy reasons that no one could explain with logic they abandoned this and thousands of people who wanted to keep their electrical cars were not allowed to and instead were scraped. This is a perfect example of handful of extremely greedy people and coorprations that dictate what fuel to use as for them oil will still keep making lots of money that they already have all the infrastructure for... they will not abandon that untill last cent is squeezed out of people's pockets. As long as they can make profits they will keep doing it... and just plainly sucks but I hope people will see this soon because they have not much choice now PC specs: Windows 11 Home | Asus TUF Gaming B850-Plus WiFi | AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D + LC 360 AIO | MSI RTX 5090 LC 360 AIO | 55" Samsung Odyssey Gen 2 | 64GB PC5-48000 DDR5 | 1TB M2 SSD for OS | 2TB M2 SSD for DCS | NZXT C1000 Gold ATX 3.1 1000W | TM Cougar Throttle, Floor Mounted MongoosT-50 Grip on TM Cougar board, MFG Crosswind, Track IR
winz Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Last time I checked, we don't get electricity out of thin air. So in terms of our dependance on natural resources, there is not that much of a difference between combustion engine based car and an electrical. If everyone went for an electric car, how much coal and gas would we have to burn to make up the energy required? How much would electricity cost? The Valley A-10C Version Revanche for FC 3
Kuky Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 I think the issue in this documentary was emissions produced by combustion engine cards and that going electrical is greener, fair enough it does matter then also how we get that electrical power, if it's again obtained by burning coal it's still bad. But say if one day scientists do manage to get fussion reactors online that problem would be solved. PC specs: Windows 11 Home | Asus TUF Gaming B850-Plus WiFi | AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D + LC 360 AIO | MSI RTX 5090 LC 360 AIO | 55" Samsung Odyssey Gen 2 | 64GB PC5-48000 DDR5 | 1TB M2 SSD for OS | 2TB M2 SSD for DCS | NZXT C1000 Gold ATX 3.1 1000W | TM Cougar Throttle, Floor Mounted MongoosT-50 Grip on TM Cougar board, MFG Crosswind, Track IR
sobek Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) But say if one day scientists do manage to get fussion reactors online that problem would be solved. Fusion reactors produce radioactive waste too. The reactor lining is bombarded with neutron radiation, which turns the lining into radioactive material. Edited March 20, 2011 by sobek Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
EtherealN Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Regarding that sobek, do you happen to know some good sources for studying the potential waste material situations for fusion power? With it still being highly experimental and with so many completely different types of technologies being explored (tokamaks, laser-implosion, Z-machine etc) I've found it hard to find good sources. But, sadly, that's just the way it is to be honest - everything we do will have an impact, even the "green" solutions. Wind power is fine - unless you are a migrating bird or bat and get your lungs detonated by the pressure fronts caused by the blades. Hydro is pretty good - unless you are a fish trying to get to your spawning grounds. Solar is nice, but for large parts of the world (like where I live) the time when you need the most power also happens to be a time where you have only 0 to 4 hours of daylight per day... My bet: in the end we'll have a vast mix. But I'd looooove to see some operational tokamaks. :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester
sobek Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Regarding that sobek, do you happen to know some good sources for studying the potential waste material situations for fusion power? With it still being highly experimental and with so many completely different types of technologies being explored (tokamaks, laser-implosion, Z-machine etc) I've found it hard to find good sources. Nothing. Probably not a point that fusion scientists like to brag about when trying to lucrate funds for their experiments. ;) But even now, medicine produces more highly radioactive waste than nuclear power. Speaking of tokamaks, I don't know what exactly happens with the reactor lining, but given that it would only have to be replaced with decomission of the reactor (or major overhaul), it would still be a major improvement compared to fission. Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
X-man Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Regarding that sobek, do you happen to know some good sources for studying the potential waste material situations for fusion power? With it still being highly experimental and with so many completely different types of technologies being explored (tokamaks, laser-implosion, Z-machine etc) I've found it hard to find good sources. Neutron activation can be a PITA. :) We recently did some experiments at my university with Cf-252 where we turned Cu-63 into Cu-64 :) Pretty neat stuff :thumbup: Im sure IAEA and ICRP have some publications on the matter somewhere, but I cant find any right now. In the mean while, here's some links. Ive not read through them all, so read at own discretion ;) High-Level Radioactive Waste from Fusion Reactors ADVANCED FUEL FUSION REACTORS: TOWARDS A ZERO-WASTE OPTION FUSION AS A FUTURE POWER SOURCE: RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS AND PROSPECTS 1 64th Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 135.181.115.54
EtherealN Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 given that it would only have to be replaced with decomission of the reactor (or major overhaul), it would still be a major improvement compared to fission. Launch it into the sun! :D Thanks, X-man. :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester
winz Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Found a nice little chart The Valley A-10C Version Revanche for FC 3
Pilotasso Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Im glad the situation in Fukushima seems a little more stable now. its time for reconstruction. :) .
winz Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 A collection of photos from the Fukushima plant. http://www.sme.sk/c/5824900/japonsky-postrach-menom-fukusima.html The Valley A-10C Version Revanche for FC 3
jpm1 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Chernobyl new sarcophagus will cost 1.5 billion euros and 80 millions euros per year for maintenance , for a 200x200m arch that should last 100 years . i wonder what it will cost for Fukushima (Ukraine) SU-25 missions [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
diveplane Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) scientists starting to see a mutation trend in the flora and fauna being affected in and around the disaster zones at fukushima. http://enenews.com/genetic-mutations-from-radiation-exposure-are-up-to-100-times-higher-than-anything-we-have-encountered-in-the-animal-kingdom-dr-fernex-former-who-consultant Edited July 31, 2012 by diveplane https://www.youtube.com/user/diveplane11 DCS Audio Modding.
diveplane Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Chernobyl new sarcophagus will cost 1.5 billion euros and 80 millions euros per year for maintenance , for a 200x200m arch that should last 100 years . i wonder what it will cost for Fukushima (Ukraine) yes this is another disaster waiting to happen, massive holes in the chernobyl structure right now, and in many areas very unstable, if any debris falls from the ceiling, it could be another disaster in the making there,as the radioactive dust particals that lay around inside could escape through these cracks. chernobyl will remain deadly for 60 000 years maybe even longer. Edited July 31, 2012 by diveplane https://www.youtube.com/user/diveplane11 DCS Audio Modding.
HiJack Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Chernobyl new sarcophagus will cost 1.5 billion euros and 80 millions euros per year for maintenance , for a 200x200m arch that should last 100 years . i wonder what it will cost for Fukushima (Ukraine) Any way, the next generation will hate us all. (HJ)
Pyroflash Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Hate us for what? Unlike Chernobyl, the Fukushima incident is manageable (even if it takes time), and the area will recover within our lifetime. Chernobyl on the other hand is something that we have to deal with, but at least we didn't cause it. If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
diveplane Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Any way, the next generation will hate us all. (HJ) no funds being put forward by the world to fix it, only the foundations got built i think. https://www.youtube.com/user/diveplane11 DCS Audio Modding.
diveplane Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Im glad the situation in Fukushima seems a little more stable now. its time for reconstruction. :) far from safe still, some crews falling ill trying to save japan right now. recent one here http://enenews.com/workers-fall-ill-reactor-3-transported-hospital-ambulance-both-altered-consciousness/comment-page-1 tempers flare as well fear of the radiation http://enenews.com/fukushima-daiichi-worker-workers-really-tempered-violence-trouble-like-fight-reactor-3 some of nuclear units and fuel pools are still spewing radiation into the atmosphere, and ground water table. its not going away, like some seam to think. Edited August 1, 2012 by diveplane https://www.youtube.com/user/diveplane11 DCS Audio Modding.
diveplane Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 recent study http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/07/radiation-in-west-coast-of-north-america-could-be-10-times-higher-than-japan.html https://www.youtube.com/user/diveplane11 DCS Audio Modding.
diveplane Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 U.S. nuclear power plants affected by drought http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=U.S._nuclear_power_plants_affected_by_drought_01_08_2012?ref=ccbox_fourteenday_topstories https://www.youtube.com/user/diveplane11 DCS Audio Modding.
Pyroflash Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 some of nuclear units and fuel pools are still spewing radiation into the atmosphere, and ground water table. its not going away, like some seam to think. The situation is improving quite rapidly, and will recover within the century. Compared to the potential that this disaster COULD have represented, I think that the situation has improved remarkably. And while it is true that the reactors continue to leak radioactive material into the atmosphere, ground, and water, it is important to note that in addition to this problem being contained, and efforts being made to remove it entirely being underway, this situation is far from being another Chernobyl. If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
diveplane Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) The situation is improving quite rapidly, and will recover within the century. Compared to the potential that this disaster COULD have represented, I think that the situation has improved remarkably. And while it is true that the reactors continue to leak radioactive material into the atmosphere, ground, and water, it is important to note that in addition to this problem being contained, and efforts being made to remove it entirely being underway, this situation is far from being another Chernobyl. i have no clue what media source your following? outside contamination cant be contained. =where the wind blows , and water flows now. Edited August 1, 2012 by diveplane https://www.youtube.com/user/diveplane11 DCS Audio Modding.
Speed Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) Chernobyl new sarcophagus will cost 1.5 billion euros and 80 millions euros per year for maintenance , for a 200x200m arch that should last 100 years . i wonder what it will cost for Fukushima (Ukraine) You'd think we could do better than a miserable 100 years. The Great Pyramid of Giza was constructed 4500 years ago, is not about to fall down any time in the next dozen millennia, and is about the same size. Maybe though, I'm under-estimating how much such a long-duration structure would really cost? On a side note: Isn't it kind of ironic that if humanity were to suddenly disappear, and all our other works had crumbled into dust, the last human structure standing might be one of oldest on Earth? Edited August 3, 2012 by Speed Intelligent discourse can only begin with the honest admission of your own fallibility. Member of the Virtual Tactical Air Group: http://vtacticalairgroup.com/ Lua scripts and mods: MIssion Scripting Tools (Mist): http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=98616 Slmod version 7.0 for DCS: World: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=80979 Now includes remote server administration tools for kicking, banning, loading missions, etc.
sobek Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 There are so many levels on which these buildings do NOT compare, i mean, are you serious? The main mechanism of pollution at chernobyl right now is that precipitation enters the building and washes dust as well as solving some of the radioactive components out of the matrix deposits and transporting them outside into the biosphere. The main concern for the sarcophagus is to keep out moisture and precipitation, that means it has to hermetically enclose the plant. Also, from a static point of view, an arch is simply less stable and under more stress than a pyramid. Last but not least, the pyramids are built in a desert, not in an area with precipitation and frost, which in combination wear down building fabric very quickly. Nobody said that the arch would collapse in 100 years, even without maintenance, but it sure as hell wouldn't stay watertight. Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
Recommended Posts