US Navy just patented a very compact fusion reactor.

Verado said:
Neither of those are facts. The reason we're not building nuclear power plants are public opinion. Politicians are subject to public opinion. The death tolls from the three nuclear accidents we have in our history, put up against other energy sources is proof enough alone that the fears and uncertainties on this subject are unsubstantiated.
Please take some time to consider this before honoring us with the opinion you are married to.
Click to expand...

The easiest way to identify someone who has no idea what they're talking about regarding nuclear technology is when they start talking about Chernobyl as a reason not to build modern nuclear plants. That's akin to saying "my grandmother's Yugo was dangerous so nobody should drive cars!". And then they complain about the cost, while proposing other "solutions" that are far more expensive and unreliable.
 
I'm not obtuse. You refuse to consider the actual cost of lives in this equation. The. Actual. Documented. Certied. Deaths. Bodies currently six feet under.
Not potential dead people. Actual dead people.
Real vs theory.
What has been proven to be more safe, while at the same time able to provide enough energy to rid us of carbon spewing power plants?
 
Last edited:
Verado said:
I'm not obtuse. You refuse to consider the actual cost of lives in this equation.
Click to expand...

Your blatant disregard for the economics, waste products and risks involved with Nuclear Power shows your opinion has no real grounded base in reality.
 
Mega6 said:
Battery tech has come MILES in the last few years, Would you have beloved electric cars with the range they now have - 20 years ago? I Doubt it. t's because of the battery tech. Nuclear Power has advanced tech wise but stagnated due to costs and complexity. Battery development is a lot easier, cheaper and cost effective than cutting edge Nuclear Reactor design and implementation.
Click to expand...

And we are tens of miles away from economically producing enough batteries to power metropoli for a minimum of two weeks. We're at least 50-100 years away from a battery/green energy society without some major breakthroughs. Right now battery tech is incrementing and not leapfrogging. Who is to say battery tech, especially lithium ion tech, won't hit a wall like process nodes did?
 
Tsumi said:
And we are tens of miles away from economically producing enough batteries to power metropoli for a minimum of two weeks. We're at least 50-100 years away from a battery/green energy society without some major breakthroughs. Right now battery tech is incrementing and not leapfrogging. Who is to say battery tech, especially lithium ion tech, won't hit a wall like process nodes did?
Click to expand...


Do you deny battery technology and other forms of energy storage is moving slower thank Nuke? What do you think a reservoir and a dam are? Potential Energy. You pump the water up into the res in the day and store. When your solar cells are dead at night - flow the water back down. There ya go. No batteries needed. just one example of energy storage without batteries,
 
Mega6 said:
Do you deny battery technology and other forms of energy storage is moving slower thank Nuke? What do you think a reservoir and a dam are? Potential Energy. You pump the water up into the res in the day and store. When your solar cells are dead at night - flow the water back down. There ya go. No batteries needed. just one example of energy storage without batteries,
Click to expand...

Limited places to implement and huge environmental impact.
 
Mega6 said:
LOL u guys are just too much. "just one example" get it? Keep splitting hairs.
Click to expand...

"One example"? This discussion has been going for 3 pages, literally everything you have come up with as reasons not to use nuclear has its own set of issues as to why it is not feasible in the near term. Nuclear has its own set of issues, yes, but many of them caused by NIMBY and other uneducated hysteria, and should not be disregarded as a stepping stone to moving away from coal, oil, and natural gas. Unless you suggest we should continue burning coal and oil until your halo green tech can actually take over?
 
Tsumi said:
"One example"? This discussion has been going for 3 pages, literally everything you have come up with as reasons not to use nuclear has its own set of issues as to why it is not feasible in the near term. Nuclear has its own set of issues, yes, but many of them caused by NIMBY and other uneducated hysteria, and should not be disregarded as a stepping stone to moving away from coal, oil, and natural gas. Unless you suggest we should continue burning coal and oil until your halo green tech can actually take over?
Click to expand...

Fission is not going to save the world unless there is a tech breakthrough and / or the technology matures. It is NOT ready so investigate OTHER solutions. You can't just fire up a thousand gen IV reactors if the technology is still immature. Where's the hysteria in that? NOWHERE. Everyone blindly looks past the economics and says "yeah we can do that". Well If it doesn't make money, no one will build it. That's how capitalism works. It may be viable in the future, but Fission is NOT viable now.
 
Mega6 said:
Welp let me run off and find all the ways to store potential energy besides a battery - because that's what you are asking. Nope.
Click to expand...

Deflecting the argument because you can't come up with good answers. Classic.

Mega6 said:
Fission is not going to save the world unless there is a tech breakthrough and / or the technology matures. It is NOT ready so investigate OTHER solutions. You can't just fire up a thousand gen IV reactors if the technology is still immature. Where's the hysteria in that? NOWHERE. Everyone blindly looks past the economics and says "yeah we can do that". Well If it doesn't make money, no one will build it. That's how capitalism works. It may be viable in the future, but Fission is NOT viable now.
Click to expand...

Gen IV isn't ready, but can be in the relative near future. Battery and "other energy storage tech," the key to completely green technology, won't be ready in the relative near future. If mass energy storage tech was economically viable, why isn't anyone building more of them?
 
Tsumi said:
Deflecting the argument because you can't come up with good answers. Classic.
Click to expand...

Pathetic that u want me to describe every potential energy scenario possible. Use your own imagination. It’s not that hard. You can push a weight up an incline. There’s another.

Tsumi said:
Gen IV isn't ready, but can be in the relative near future. Battery and "other energy storage tech," the key to completely green technology, won't be ready in the relative near future. If mass energy storage tech was economically viable, why isn't anyone building more of them?
Click to expand...

Yeah gen IV isn’t ready, thanks for repeating my previous point.

my point was alternative sources. Never declared anything as “ready”. Stop inserting your assumptions in between the lines.
I said battery tech is moving faster than nuke.
 
Last edited:
Tsumi said:
Deflecting the argument because you can't come up with good answers. Classic.



Gen IV isn't ready, but can be in the relative near future. Battery and "other energy storage tech," the key to completely green technology, won't be ready in the relative near future. If mass energy storage tech was economically viable, why isn't anyone building more of them?
Click to expand...

Storage is truly key, but t'll have to be inertial storage. Lack of inertia is currently the primary drawback of both wind and inverter-based renewable resources and storage. Each Interconnection has an inertial value under which they have to dispatch conventional synchronous resources over renewables regardless of economics.

That said, don't waste time on this nuke discussion. This guy ran off the rails pages ago. Verado's last post was correct.
 
Once for funsies I calculated something around 800 hoover dams to store energy for a renewable grid. That is an insane scale.

Using relatively short lived, extremely toxic batteries as a way to fix “green” renewables is laughable to me.

I am not against renewables for some extent of the grid but at some point it doesn’t make sense (yet).

Another way to look at it... it’d take 1.2 billion liters of lithium batteries to store just one hour of energy for the US electrical grid... or about 2 billion kg.
 
Last edited:
Mega6 said:
Pathetic that u want me to describe every potential energy scenario possible. Use your own imagination. It’s not that hard. You can push a weight up an incline. There’s another.



Yeah gen IV isn’t ready, thanks for repeating my previous point.

my point was alternative sources. Never declared anything as “ready”. Stop inserting your assumptions in between the lines.
I said battery tech is moving faster than nuke.
Click to expand...
Gen IV is quite ready only needs some expensive investment, but with good returns, but some politicians in charge decided it's politically bad for their future, especially in France were lower IQ people are the only you see on TV and political meetings. You can even get on trial if you ever contest the GIEC agenda and any stupid ecologist standard at work. There's a bunch of high tech french scientists who are nowgood for hire. They know everything about Gen IV and all the plans are ready for an ultra safe reactor. Project stopped some months ago for political reasons on president Macron decision.
 
Jandor said:
Gen IV is quite ready only needs some expensive investment, but with good returns, but some politicians in charge decided it's politically bad for their future, especially in France were lower IQ people are the only you see on TV and political meetings. You can even get on trial if you ever contest the GIEC agenda and any stupid ecologist standard at work. There's a bunch of high tech french scientists who are nowgood for hire. They know everything about Gen IV and all the plans are ready for an ultra safe reactor. Project stopped some months ago for political reasons on president Macron decision.
Click to expand...

If it was ready it would be here. It’s not. We can all guess on the timeline. Funding for experimental energy is temperamental at best. By the same argument, you can say fusion reactors are more ready. It’s one thing to build one and it’s another to actually produce net positive power reliably.
 
Mega6 said:
If it was ready it would be here. It’s not. We can all guess on the timeline. Funding for experimental energy is temperamental at best. By the same argument, you can say fusion reactors are more ready. It’s one thing to build one and it’s another to actually produce net positive power reliably.
Click to expand...

Nuclear power is more ready than batteries and your pie in the sky and very lossy energy storage methods you keep not mentioning. Nuke plants have been safely up and running as primary energy sources for decades. You cannot say the same for the vast majority of your preferred energy methods. Literally the only one you have is hydro and that is extremely limited by availability.

Ironic that the argument you're trying to push is the exact reason your preferred energy sources don't work.
 
Hoover works fine. Just fill it with mercury, or molten lead. Problem solved...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: travm
like this
SmokeRngs said:
Nuclear power is more ready than batteries and your pie in the sky and very lossy energy storage methods you keep not mentioning. Nuke plants have been safely up and running.
Click to expand...

for the millionth time gen IV reactors are not ready. Try and keep up.

In 70 years functional waste producing nuclear reactors, there are still all these problems. No, Nuke reactors have not run safely.
 
Mega6 said:
Your analogies are pathetic and don't work. I am not the one quoting bias sources,
Click to expand...

You say it is is biased. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Where are your sources? Are they biased?

A new molten salt reactor would consume all the older reactors' waste product. Upside! No shipping to the Sun, that nuclear waste is a valuable resource!

If all you can say is "no it can't be done, it's dirty.." you are not contributing to the conversation. With your level of vehemency to have any weight, you had better be a nuclear power researcher or physicist, or be able to quote one.
 
GoodBoy said:
You say it is is biased. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Where are your sources? Are they biased?
Click to expand...

Wikipedia certainly less bias than a Nuclear Organization that was formed to promote and proliferate Nuke power. Really? LOL
 
GoodBoy said:
A new molten salt reactor would consume all the older reactors' waste product. Upside! No shipping to the Sun, that nuclear waste is a valuable resource!
.
Click to expand...

Gen IV not ready or even proven to work yet, so what.
 
GoodBoy said:
If all you can say is "no it can't be done, it's dirty.." you are not contributing to the conversation. With your level of vehemency to have any weight, you had better be a nuclear power researcher or physicist, or be able to quote one.
Click to expand...

All I am getting is Nuke is great for the last 70 years. It's not true. I've pointed out some issues. I've used valid references. So why does my opinion have to be backed by a Nuclear Physicist but yours is just fine hanging out there? Seems to be a double standard here.
 
alxlwson said:
Problem is, sneak and peeks are issued because they don't have the evidence yet to haul you in. They have a thought, just big enough, to get a judge to write a warrant. They hope to find something on you, but if they don't, they don't want you to know that you're being investigated. They want to catch you doing something. That's a problem with our legal system. They want to catch you after the crime or unsafe act has occured, rather than attempt prevention. Prime example is cops sitting in a on thehiding hole highway. If they actually wanted to make the road safer, they would be out in a highly visible marked vehicle, driving the speed limit. Instead, they drive unmarked cars, while speeding around and hiding in a hole to CATCH someone, rather than PREVENT/DETER.


Anyway,

Seems to be a lot of folks in here with very high levels of physics knowledge. I had no idea
Click to expand...


Wait up, So you are claiming, or you are believing someone else's claim that a Judge is sitting at home reading a book, and a cop calls him for a warrant and says "Hey Judge, I got this guy, he's dirty, we KNOW it, but we don't have any evidence and so we need to search his home". And the Judge says, "No way, I'm not giving you a warrant unless you have probable cause." And the cop says, "Well we don't need to let the guy know where searching his house, besides, we want to snatch him up when he meets with his buddy so how about one of those sneak and peeks specials?" And the Judge says " Oh, well then yea, I can do that, I'll fax one right on over"

This is what you think is happening?

There is no less justification for a sneak and peek over a regular warrant. That's just false. What is different is that LE doesn't have to notify you of the search until later, meaning they can break into your place, conduct the search for evidence, and then use knowledge gained from the evidence to, A: fine more evidence before arrest, and/or B: catch you meeting with others thus catching more people they may not have known about before.

Come on, do you really think they would find more evidence by searching without your presence then they could fine with you there, with your personal effects on your person?

Look, I can see valid arguments against searches conducted without your presence, like it makes planting evidence an easier thing and it makes it easier for cops to conduct the search outside of the scope that the warrant allows. These are valid reasons to end them. I just don't think the reasons you listed have any merit.
 
Skillz said:
That's not really true.

Sure, the price hasn't changed much since say 1999. Let's say the cost of a game was $60 back then. $60 in 1999 is equal to $90 today. Games do not cost us $90, even if you add in the average cost of bandwidth.
Click to expand...


You don't have to jump from 1999 all the way to 2019 to see that the prices didn't change, they never changed. Not from 1999 to 2000, or any year after. The producers/distributors always claimed that a large part of the cost of games was the packaging, the artwork for the boxes, the burning of physical media, the cardboard boxes that just kept getting bigger and bigger for the pretty hard copy manuals. They said "buy our games as a download and we can drop the prices a lot", and that shit just never ever happened. Even just the change in packaging from boxed games to shrink wrapped jewel cases didn't drop the prices at all.
 
lcpiper said:
You don't have to jump from 1999 all the way to 2019 to see that the prices didn't change, they never changed. Not from 1999 to 2000, or any year after. The producers/distributors always claimed that a large part of the cost of games was the packaging, the artwork for the boxes, the burning of physical media, the cardboard boxes that just kept getting bigger and bigger for the pretty hard copy manuals. They said "buy our games as a download and we can drop the prices a lot", and that shit just never ever happened. Even just the change in packaging from boxed games to shrink wrapped jewel cases didn't drop the prices at all.
Click to expand...

Well it's clear to me that you don't understand inflation.

Maybe you should look into what inflation is and then you'll see. Games are cheaper.
 
Skillz said:
Well it's clear to me that you don't understand inflation.

Maybe you should look into what inflation is and then you'll see. Games are cheaper.
Click to expand...

How much impact did inflation have between 1999 and 2000 ? Games were not cheaper, but packaging was so tell me again how fucking ignorant I am?

I fully understand inflation. AAA titles sold for less than $50 with all that packaging in 1999. Today they cost $60 to $65 if you get a full game, and you get none of that packaging, in fact, you pay for your bandwidth instead. Some titles, you are even your own game server.

The current claim is that inflation from 2000 to 2019 is equivalent to a %50 increase, what was $100 is toady $149 dollars. By those figures alone, you seem to feel that a $50 game in 1999 should cost $75 today. But at that time the game makers were claiming that the eliminating the packaging would reduce game costs by half, $25 range, which with inflation would come to approximately $38 today. But we are double that figure. Cyberpunk 2077 is being presold today for $69.

So tell me again what I don't understand.
 
Mega6 said:
All I am getting is Nuke is great for the last 70 years. It's not true. I've pointed out some issues. I've used valid references. So why does my opinion have to be backed by a Nuclear Physicist but yours is just fine hanging out there? Seems to be a double standard here.
Click to expand...

Never said it was great for the last 70 years... It has had some issues.

Your opinion is just that, opinion. I asked if you had any current science to quote, you don't have ANY quotes just old accidents you point to.

No double standard, I am not saying that the new tech will necessarily be perfect. It has to prove itself. The difference between you and me is that you are dismissing it out of hand based on a few old designs' accidents and issues, whereas I am willing to listen to the new science and let them put all of the lessons learned with the prior iterations into a new, better, 0 hazardous waste design, and allow them to try it.

I did also poke some fun at the mentions of shipping waste to the sun, whoever proposed that, as it is completely absurd (without getting into name calling).
 
GoodBoy said:
Never said it was great for the last 70 years... It has had some issues.

Your opinion is just that, opinion. I asked if you had any current science to quote, you don't have ANY quotes just old accidents you point to.

No double standard, I am not saying that the new tech will necessarily be perfect. It has to prove itself. The difference between you and me is that you are dismissing it out of hand based on a few old designs' accidents and issues, whereas I am willing to listen to the new science and let them put all of the lessons learned with the prior iterations into a new, better, 0 hazardous waste design, and allow them to try it.

I did also poke some fun at the mentions of shipping waste to the sun, whoever proposed that, as it is completely absurd (without getting into name calling).
Click to expand...

Until Gen IV reactors are actually being tested and built - Nuclear is a dead end. Convince me otherwise, please. I don't see it. Even then, there are multitudes of issues with Gen IV. So we may never see them and don't be shocked by that either.
 
Last edited:
GoodBoy said:
I did also poke some fun at the mentions of shipping waste to the sun, whoever proposed that, as it is completely absurd (without getting into name calling).
Click to expand...

I did, in an attempt to bring up the cost of health issues from coal power plants. I'm not saying "shoot it into the sun". I'm saying the cost would be less than what the hidden costs of coal is.
 
Mega6 said:
...Even then, there are multitudes of issues with Gen IV....
Click to expand...

This would be where you provide a source for the "multitude of issues" these new not yet built (to my knowledge) reactors have.
 
GoodBoy said:
This would be where you provide a source for the "multitude of issues" these new not yet built (to my knowledge) reactors have.
Click to expand...

this is getting irritating having to repost in the same thread."disadvanages"

Mega6 said:
well if u care to check, gen IV designs - they are NOT ready. Wait a few years before you panic.

“The majority of the 6 designs are generally not expected to be available for commercial construction until 2020–30”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
Click to expand...
 

I found that sometimes, I like to reply with a link to the post # that has the aforementioned information :D

Tips from the bottom of the barrel ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mega6
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top