A bit of help with public perception for my work?

Discussion in 'The Guru's Pub' started by BLEH!, May 6, 2020.

  1. tsunami231

    tsunami231 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,448
    Likes Received:
    569
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070Ti Black
    I would not say "falsely" cause when thing go wrong with nuclear thing get really bad fast so they have reason to demonize it. cause it has happen before and will happen again. almost everything that bad side effect WILL be demonized the moment thing go horrrible wrong. there examples of it being contained and minimized sure but that area were it was contained it done for 100's of years and what happen when the contained area start to have leaks? cause again those leak will happen long before the radiation decays

    Necessary evil till we have better alternative. which will have it own problems. and with out thing would be much worse then it right now climate wise.
     
    BetA and BLEH! like this.
  2. Clouseau

    Clouseau Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,527
    Likes Received:
    319
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX GTX 1080
    Nah, would not go as far as to call it safe. We have operating procedures in place to help mitigate outcomes under defined circumstances. Do I believe the tragedies of Chernobyl, Fukishima, and Three Mile Island were blown out of proportion to some degree, yes. Those that have agendas will always skew occurrences to fit the message. What those tragedies do point out is that there are no ideal circumstances. We do what we can and hope for the best. But safe is not a word I would use to describe nuclear energy production. If it was safe, we would not need to have safeguards in place. We are improving the safeguards so as to make it safer. There are plans for the most likely and the most hazardous as defined by risk assessment but not all. If everything was accounted for, those three tragedies would not have been. They would have just been an occurrence outside of normal operations...nothing more, nothing less. The safeguards in place would have accomplished what they were intended for.
     
    BLEH! and sykozis like this.
  3. Size_Mick

    Size_Mick Master Guru

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    269
    GPU:
    Asus GTX 1070 8GB
    What is your perception of nuclear power?
    It's dangerous and impractical, but this opinion is based on the fact that we have all of those aging plants that were largely built in the '50s and '60s and are outdated. The spent nuclear fuel and where to put it afterward is also of major concern, but the subject is highly complicated, so I don't know how firm my opinions are. I could probably be swayed in either direction with a convincing enough argument.

    Do you approve of increased nuclear power usage to combat climate change?
    I think the only *real* way to combat climate change is by reducing the population dramatically. Everything else is merely a stalling tactic at best and an illusion at worst. Energy requirements should ideally be such that hydro and solar could supply everyone. However, because we now have so many people living in every God-forsaken nook and cranny on Earth, nuclear may be the only viable option in some areas.

    Is there more you'd like to know about nuclear power that you presently don't? (Whether it be down to misinformation or lack of good education on the topic.)
    Even if we reuse more of the spent fuel, we still have material left over with relatively short half-lives. What is needed to protect us and future generations, stretching hundreds of thousands of years into the future? Are there modern designs that are more fail-safe than traditional ones? Are there any that don't require a human presence to shut down if something terrible happens? Can they make them with a low operating cost, to bring electric prices down? As you're aware, there is currently a huge glut in gas and oil and I think many (perhaps most) people care more about what's in their bank account than whether or not Mankind has an actual future.
     
    BLEH! likes this.
  4. H83

    H83 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,009
    Likes Received:
    538
    GPU:
    MSI Duke GTX1080Ti
    Hi Bleh!

    What is your perception of nuclear power? Personally, i´m not a big fan of it because of all the waste produce by it and the secondary effects associated with the same waste. But i think it´s cool you and others like you, are studying a way of recycling nuclear fuel because if that was possible in a safe way and feasible on economic terms, that would make nuclear an important power source for the future.
    Regarding safety concerns, they don´t concern me that much because they have been very few compared to all ther years of using nuclear powerplants, and like you already said, some of them could have been avoided but that´s another story.

    Do you approve of increased nuclear power usage to combat climate change? Like i said before i think nuclear power could be important if the waste problem can be sorted out, but for me climate change has to be tackled differently than simply using nuclear, coal or renewable power sources. Personally i think we have to change our lifestyle, we consume too much, much more than we need, and most of that comsuption is useless because we really don´t need to change our phones, cars and other stuff so many times. The same way we don´t need to eat so much, to have so many clothes or to travel like crazy. Then there is so much energy and resources wasted stupidly and that could be avoided with some better organization and some common sense...
    And there´s the eternal question of are we really provoking the climate change or is this just another cycle... Too bad no one knows for sure.

    Is there more you'd like to know about nuclear power that you presently don't? (Whether it be down to misinformation or lack of good education on the topic.) I would like to know more about it but i also would like to know more about lots of other stuff but then i wouldn´t have time for gaming so...

    Anyway, good luck for your research!
     
    BetA and BLEH! like this.

  5. BLEH!

    BLEH! Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,978
    Likes Received:
    101
    GPU:
    Sapphire Fury
    This is a true assessment, but when safety systems work properly, everything nasty is contained. We've learned hard lessons about this, and all modern reactors have multiple, redundant backups to stop SNAFUs from happening.

    New ideas will help with the waste thing, that's what my research is mainly about.


    But yeah, many things are a "necessary evil" until we come up with something better. The difficulty is getting that better thing (fusion) to work so it can be put into wide-scale operation.
     
  6. BLEH!

    BLEH! Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,978
    Likes Received:
    101
    GPU:
    Sapphire Fury
    Maybe not "foolproof safe", but "safe enough mostly not to worry about" with the up-to-date tech. TMI was pretty much blown out of proportion, given the safety systems worked as intended. Chernobyl (we've all seen the series) is a mess that we're still paying for, literally and figuratively, due to hubris and bad design. The cover up behind that (some believe) lead to the fall of the Soviet Union. Fukushima... That's an entirely different mess. The safety thing around nuclear has so much red tape (in the west anyway) to maintain that safety, and to minimise the risk.
     
  7. Brasky

    Brasky Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,218
    Likes Received:
    185
    GPU:
    ASUS 1080 Strix
    the bad wrap that nuclear gets in the States is all from the dumb hippie movement in the 60's, and those people are so stubborn that nothing can change their minds about it. My personal perception is that it's a good source of energy and hopefully we'll get a few more plants built instead of decommissioning them. Waste storage is an issue, but like most things, with the proper steps and care it's very safe.
     
    BLEH! likes this.
  8. BLEH!

    BLEH! Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,978
    Likes Received:
    101
    GPU:
    Sapphire Fury
    The safety issue of older reactors is pretty well founded. In the West, those are regularly checked to see if they're still viable. If not, they're defuelled and mothballed, then decomissioned over time. Spent fuel is a big issue, there's about 250000 tons of it stored around the world, given we just don't have the capacity to recycle it all, or found anywhere to store it long term (which is a waste, given it's still useful material). Hence my research to make recycling easier.

    Population reduction/control is an *entirely* different argument which I'd rather not go down, but yes, demand reduction is an important part of climate change mitigation,. alongside greener generation.

    We've had an idea about that, some of the shorter-lived stuff can be used to generate further power (Sr-90 and Cs-137 if you're interested) - much in the same way as a reactor. Not very efficient, but uses the waste proudcts to good use. They've effectively decayed to nothing by 150 years.

    Some new ideas for reactor design are Small Modular reactors. You bundle like a dozen together to make a plant, which is still smaller than a regular one. These are meant to be cheaper by economy of scale and inherently safer by virtue of being smaller.
     
  9. fantaskarsef

    fantaskarsef Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,564
    Likes Received:
    3,521
    GPU:
    2080Ti @h2o
    It's dangerous beyond our means to handle the outcome of malfunctions, and we have seen those a couple of times by now. It's honestly beyond me how anyone would risk Chernobyl or Fukushima in their own country.
    No I don't, since it's only a stepping stone to where we should go. Maybe we should invest more money into saving power and having less environmental impact with our power sources than keeping old and dangerous tech running.
    Not really tbh, and the question's botched, since how would I want to know about stuff I don't know? :D

    And that's as far as I'll help, since this discussion soon will drift up into politics and an rather unrelated climate change discussion. Thread close incoming.
     
  10. BLEH!

    BLEH! Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,978
    Likes Received:
    101
    GPU:
    Sapphire Fury
    Thanks for the reply, man! We're looking at the recycling for all the reasons! It's the only way to make the fuel cycle sustainable long term, and safer!

    We've all got to do a bit, and lobby for corporations to do their (much bigger) bit to reduce climate change. Reduce demand AND go greener.

    Maybe I need to do some 101s on nuclear power in lay-terms... Of course I am a *bit* biased, but aren't we all for our passions?
     

  11. BLEH!

    BLEH! Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,978
    Likes Received:
    101
    GPU:
    Sapphire Fury
    Exactly the pragmatic viewpoint I take, not to hippie-bash, but partly that is where it stems from. People associate cooling towers with mushroom clounds, the two couldn't really be further from each other nowadays. We're even looking into using bomb plutonium/uranium and mixing that with the natural stuff to make more fuel to generate power...

    Yeah, the wastes are an issue, but we're working on that.
     
  12. BLEH!

    BLEH! Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,978
    Likes Received:
    101
    GPU:
    Sapphire Fury
    I don't think it is, personally, you're more likely to die in a car crash than you are from a nuclear accident or even a terrorist attack...

    Any better solutions that are technically viable? Renewables aren't there, and we sure can't store any excess energy easily.

    I'm trying to keep this discussion civil and non political (as outlined in my OP), the climate change debate is inherently linked, though, so trying to be positive about nuclear but also listening to concerns as they arise. We got facts, I'll lay 'em out there if they exist :)
     
  13. tsunami231

    tsunami231 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,448
    Likes Received:
    569
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070Ti Black
    Only way to change public perception is to prove it safe tell them it safe and and that we go all these safe guards dont mean it safe. just mean multiple safe guard in place that it. by having no meltdown no scares no nothing for 100's of years and all the radio active waste is converted to inerte material. which by the time we have ability to actual do all that we should be past usage of nuclear.

    If the system was made man it flawed there no such thing infallible system. you could have 100 safe guard and encasing to contain it but all it take for 1 thing go wrong and none of that will mater. the bad thing sthat CAN happen with this stuff can not be 100% stoped or aviode or containted forever half life of the material and all those safe guard will fail long before the half life of that stuff make it inerte so it will leak on in to environment at one point or another.

    Nuclear energy and nuclear bomb to this date is still most destructive worst fallout of all energy we created, and we created this as BOMB first not for energy, we are lucky it only been used handful of times in war and as far as i know USA is only one that claim that which isnt exactly some to to be proud of.

    Necessary Evil, you will never be able to prove it 100% safe not with level of tech we have. and we gona have this with same issue with almost power source we coming up. AC/DC where demonized cause used wrong or thing go wrong with it and people can die and die horrible, we take AC/DC for grated now. But one thing most people can agree upon is Nuclear energy is by the most dangerous and destructive power source we have as proven by nuclear bomb. good intention and 100's of safe guard dont mean it safe. and when those safe guards and containment fail and leak what can be said then? the half life on this stuff is 1000 of times longer then anything we can make to contain it. and if I wrong about from what I read please point me some article that say we can actual contain something that has half life of millions of years with out that containment failing first.

    The Radiation and fact that this stuff last millions of year and is big issue for people no mater what and explosion from that stuff can wipe out civilians and we already uncover ruins of civilizations that wiped out by nuclear explosions they probably said same thing to there people and yet were are they now. it gona get demonized not mater what and for good reason

    I can guaranteed 1 thing if all nuclear power reactor where shutdown world wide, because of these dangers the world would come to stop cause we would have mass power shortage. and then people will demonize that cause there isnt enough power to go round and then there will be all for nuclear. until years down there road there realized the dangers again.

    Saying you more likely to die in car crash or plane crash or terrorist attack dont mean the other stuff is safe either just mean you more likely to die of the other stuff. so never understood those argument when people make thing.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2020
    BetA likes this.
  14. Clouseau

    Clouseau Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,527
    Likes Received:
    319
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX GTX 1080
    The cooling towers, my grandfather (structural engineer) worked with an engineering team that designed the cooling towers of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant in Oregon. He took me and my brother on a tour once. The facility had a duck pond in the front...great PR stunt. Seriously though. There is nothing that is foolproof. We have made it as safe a feasibly possible. That does not mean I want to have one in my backyard. It is safer with all the technology in place than without it but it is still not a word that comes to mind when Nuclear Power is mentioned. Do I envision meltdowns and explosions...no. Economically and environmentally we have to do something. Nuclear Power Generation is a great solution...but at what cost? What exactly are the biproducts of spent fuel rods...seriously. How much of that waste is your research actually targeting at best...and no 100% is not a realistic answer. What are the biproducts/leftovers for this recycling? Is there another research team looking at recycling the leftovers that have a longer half life? Do we have the technology to neutralize radioactive material; rendering it as a non-radioative substance? Or are we just pushing the ball further down the field till that kind of tech comes to reality? Pushing the ball further down the field is a legitimate strategy in my books. It reduces the amount of waste and allows time for tech to be developed to handle the waste. It still comes down to from what I mentioned earlier: grow the industry and grow the hole. Would place Nuclear Energy Production akin to one who dabbles with the nefarious. We can mitigate a majority of the blowback, but not the one eluding us in the shadows.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2020
  15. Size_Mick

    Size_Mick Master Guru

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    269
    GPU:
    Asus GTX 1070 8GB
    Just curious -- did they ever consider building a nuclear power plant underground?
     

  16. Loobyluggs

    Loobyluggs Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,603
    Likes Received:
    707
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070 FTW
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Iceland

    They got Geothermal and Hydro, and, they got some of the hottest women in the world. (fact) And, practically no one there smokes.

    Not bad for a population of 360,000 people - but I think that is what happens when you have such a small population; things that affect one affect all. They simply have no need for large nuclear power stations.
     
  17. DocStr4ngelove

    DocStr4ngelove Master Guru

    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    281
    GPU:
    MSI RTX2080 Super G
    - It's a strong long lasting energy source
    - I'd approve only if nuclear power plants would be more secure against failures, terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Also i think humanity needs to have better plans what to do with the nuclear waste.
    - Is a fusion reactor a nuclear reactor and does it produce leftover stuff like nuclear waste?
     
  18. The Laughing Ma

    The Laughing Ma Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,191
    Likes Received:
    663
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 2070 Super
    Yes its a reactor. No the material produced during the reaction is usually nothing more than helium. It does use tritium which is an unstable (radioactive) isotope of hydrogen alongside deuterium another isotope (albeit stable) of hydrogen in the fusion process. The reactor vessel itself can become radioactive however it depends upon the materials from which that is made of
     
  19. Alessio1989

    Alessio1989 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,808
    Likes Received:
    475
    GPU:
    .
    I will give a simple short answer: it's not about not trusting a reactor (better, a technology) o being against nuclear fission (a physic event) in particular, it's about not trusting people that will build, maintain, dismantle that power plant and handle the produced radioactive waste.
    As for the economic side, I am pretty sure that with the sufficient investments it could become a lot cheaper and more efficient, but that not will change the human stupidity.
    Nuclear fusion on the other side needs still a lot of research and money, but at least in theory if something went wrong in the worst scenario it would be a release of tritium (12-13years of half-life, still better than any other major waste produced by fission and still shorter than valve time!) and helium in the near area and the reaction would stop itself immediately..
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
  20. Caesar

    Caesar Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    420
    GPU:
    GTX 1070Ti Titanium
    Nuclear power plants are typically used more often because they require less maintenance and are designed to operate for longer stretches before refueling (typically every 1.5 or 2 years).

    Natural gas and coal capacity factors are generally lower due to routine maintenance and/or refueling at these facilities.

    Renewable plants are considered intermittent or variable sources and are mostly limited by a lack of fuel (i.e. wind, sun, or water). As a result, these plants need a backup power source such as large-scale storage (not currently available at grid-scale)—or they can be paired with a reliable baseload power like nuclear energy
     

Share This Page