Fairly safe? I would call "safe enough to be used aboard the relatively tiny sealed spaces inside a nuclear powered submarine" more than just fairly safe. If it's safe enough to be used in a tin can 2000 feet beneath the waves with however many people aboard the boat with it, then why is it not safe enough for more extensive use on land?
Don't forget, that a nuclear submarine is probably the most demanding environment in which we could use such a reactor. The power demanded of the reactor is not constant by any means, unlike the relatively small operational demands placed upon a land based reactor.
Also, iirc the 'waste problem' did not exist up until President Carter signed an executive order banning reprocessing of spent fuel. Granted, there are some places where there is waste radioactive material that we don't really know what to do with, but that as I recall was waste from the Manhattan project and not from any electricity producing reactor. There was a story about that on slashdot just a few months back I think.
As far as I know, you are right in that it's a political problem and not a technical one.
Imo, nuclear fission reactor technology is the only threat to the bottom lines of the established hydrocarbon energy industry and they know it.
Also, as I recall, France has been reprocessing much of it's own waste for many years now. The US was also reprocessing until President Carter (for some reason) ordered reprocessing be halted in the US, thus creating a waste problem where the really wasn't much of a waste problem before.
Just leave it in storage. It's not going anywhere after all. It's certainly not doing any harm locked away as it is.
Let's not forget, that the 'waste' (Most of which can be reprocessed, some of which could even be used as is in some reactor types iirc) is contained in a nice neat little package unlike other methods of producing heat, such as oil gas or coal which dump their waste products into the atmosphere. Nuclear reactors contain their relatively tiny amount of waste into a nice neat little package by design.
So not only does it beat the others in terms of energy density and volume of waste produced in operation, it also lets us contain the waste!
*Drunk post, take with some salt*
But nuclear energy is far more energy dense, produces far more energy, produces energy far more reliably (and stably) and lets not forget that it can be throttled far more easily than 'renewables' generally can.
*serious question*
How many GW/h of electricity has been produced by land based nuclear reactors compared to what renewables have produced thus far? I'm not talking theoretical capacity factors, I'm talking actual generation figures. It's likely that it'll never be accurately (or even truthfully) answered, but it's an interesting question.
Just one other though, nuclear reactors that are powering ships and submarines are as far as I know completely sealed and have their own separate supply of water to cool themselves (where water is the coolant). Would it not be possible to ensure that land based reactors use the same design? Where the coolant is kept "in house" as it were?
That said, I think that it might not be practical on a large scale due to the amount of energy being worked with...
We must also not forget that there are various types of reactor. Each one uses water differently and some (as far as I know) do not use water at all (the lead cooled fast reactor of the Alfa class submarine comes to mind)..
*End drunk post*
"I don't think I would consider "safe" any industry where an accident or malpractice could result in a place being uninhabitable for 10,000 - 100,000 years. It is immoral to saddle future generations with this burden, however slight you perceive the risk to be."
Bullshit. If it were so "uninhabitable", then why has mother nature taken over Chernobyl? Why have the areas of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that were flattened by nuclear strikes been rebuilt? Why do people continue to live in places where the *background* radiation levels are higher than the Chernobyl average?
It is immoral to saddle future generations with problems that we could fix, or could at least lay in motion the plans to fix.
Why do people perpetuate the myth that anywhere that has been "afflicted" by "noocyoulahr" must ultimately end up a barren wasteland? It's insane and a huge lie. It is.
"Nuclear apologists need to wake up. "
I beg to differ. The rabid "renewable" loonies need to wake up. So do the supporters of frightful fracking. If we are to maintain progress in improving technological equality while at the same time becoming sustainable, then we cannot use large scale renewables to power our energy grids. We sure as hell can't use oil, coal or gas (for very good reasons). Which leaves nuclear fission. A system that by design contains all of the waste it produces into a nice neat little block.
I challenge you to find that can provide stable electricity around the clock, with all of it's waste contained and can do it without deeply damaging the surrounding environment. My money says you won't find anything in our arsenal today to beat nuclear fission. Heck, you won't find anything that will be in our arsenal in 50 years that will beat it.
"Human error is always going to be a problem. Untill the world gets its act together and starts deploying more CANDU type reactors which by design cannot meltdown"
I don't think human error is the problem. Human greed and human ego are the problems. The people who design, build, run, maintain and decommission these reactors are not going to be village idiots with no training. It's rather like the airlines, pilots don't generally make mistakes like confusing up and down. If an accident does happen, it's normally because of a faulty component, bad design/engineering or some unforeseen circumstances occurring. Planes have pilots and reactors have operators to make sure that when these things happen, actions are taken to mitigate the problem as much as possible.
Most, if not all people I have spoken with about the Fukushima event believe that it was a disaster. I don't believe that for a second. In fact, I believe that it was a triumph of good engineering that saved a great deal of lives that would have been lost if the reactors weren't so well designed and some *really bad* had happened.
No, the disaster was not in the actions of the plant staff but in the way the media and political systems made a mountain out of a molehill, creating needless panic, chaos and disrupting hundreds of thousands of lives needlessly.
"I for one will still fight against nuclear power."
Please allow me one intentional ad hominem my dear sir. "You bloody fool". It is utterly absurd to fight against something that you actually agree with! I don't think you fight against nuclear fission power itself, but against political systems and the "hangers on" that seem bent on holding us back from developing and building power plants that could generate electricity more cleanly than anything we have ever created before.
Argh! It removed the formatting! I had structured my comment so nicely as well.
If you can read that wall of text without going insane, you dear reader deserve a gold star and a pat on the head.
BAD SLASHDOT! BAD!
"I don't think I would consider "safe" any industry where an accident or malpractice could result in a place being uninhabitable for 10,000 - 100,000 years. It is immoral to saddle future generations with this burden, however slight you perceive the risk to be."
Bullshit. If it were so "uninhabitable", then why has mother nature taken over Chernobyl? Why have the areas of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that were flattened by nuclear strikes been rebuilt? Why do people continue to live in places where the *background* radiation levels are higher than the Chernobyl average?
It is immoral to saddle future generations with problems that we could fix, or could at least lay in motion the plans to fix.
Why do people perpetuate the myth that anywhere that has been "afflicted" by "noocyoulahr" must ultimately end up a barren wasteland? It's insane and a huge lie. It is.
"Nuclear apologists need to wake up. "
I beg to differ. The rabid "renewable" loonies need to wake up. So do the supporters of frightful fracking. If we are to maintain progress in improving technological equality while at the same time becoming sustainable, then we cannot use large scale renewables to power our energy grids. We sure as hell can't use oil, coal or gas (for very good reasons). Which leaves nuclear fission. A system that by design contains all of the waste it produces into a nice neat little block.
I challenge you to find that can provide stable electricity around the clock, with all of it's waste contained and can do it without deeply damaging the surrounding environment. My money says you won't find anything in our arsenal today to beat nuclear fission. Heck, you won't find anything that will be in our arsenal in 50 years that will beat it.
"Human error is always going to be a problem. Untill the world gets its act together and starts deploying more CANDU type reactors which by design cannot meltdown"
I don't think human error is the problem. Human greed and human ego are the problems. The people who design, build, run, maintain and decommission these reactors are not going to be village idiots with no training. It's rather like the airlines, pilots don't generally make mistakes like confusing up and down. If an accident does happen, it's normally because of a faulty component, bad design/engineering or some unforeseen circumstances occurring. Planes have pilots and reactors have operators to make sure that when these things happen, actions are taken to mitigate the problem as much as possible.
Most, if not all people I have spoken with about the Fukushima event believe that it was a disaster. I don't believe that for a second. In fact, I believe that it was a triumph of good engineering that saved a great deal of lives that would have been lost if the reactors weren't so well designed and some *really bad* had happened.
No, the disaster was not in the actions of the plant staff but in the way the media and political systems made a mountain out of a molehill, creating needless panic, chaos and disrupting hundreds of thousands of lives needlessly.
"I for one will still fight against nuclear power."
Please allow me one intentional ad hominem my dear sir. "You bloody fool". It is utterly absurd to fight against something that you actually agree with! I don't think you fight against nuclear fission power itself, but against political systems and the "hangers on" that seem bent on holding us back from developing and building power plants that could generate electricity more cleanly than anything we have ever created before.
Mine is for x-raying x-ray machines while some hipster is being x-rayed by the x-ray machine.
[sarcasm]Also, why not get messy? I like messy! It means we have to employ someone![/sarcasm]
Comparing a nuclear weapon to a nuclear reactor (of any kind) is rather like comparing the burning of a lump of coal to the detonation of gunpowder. Sure, the chemical process is more or less the same, but have you tried running a power station or a train using gunpowder?
Combustion/fission/fusion is all well and good, but if it happens too quickly and too intensely to be controlled or harnessed then what good is it? Mass suicide perhaps?
I suppose I deserved such snarky responses. Seeing karma go "bad" after my seconds post is.. Well, I don't know. I'd hazard a guess at "bad". It was a dumb post though.
Btw, TFA?
Whatever happens, it would be a hell of a blow for those guys to lose the rover after only a few months. Not only to the engineers and the scientists, but to exploration in general.
Slashdot Mirror
Fairly safe? I would call "safe enough to be used aboard the relatively tiny sealed spaces inside a nuclear powered submarine" more than just fairly safe. If it's safe enough to be used in a tin can 2000 feet beneath the waves with however many people aboard the boat with it, then why is it not safe enough for more extensive use on land? Don't forget, that a nuclear submarine is probably the most demanding environment in which we could use such a reactor. The power demanded of the reactor is not constant by any means, unlike the relatively small operational demands placed upon a land based reactor. Also, iirc the 'waste problem' did not exist up until President Carter signed an executive order banning reprocessing of spent fuel. Granted, there are some places where there is waste radioactive material that we don't really know what to do with, but that as I recall was waste from the Manhattan project and not from any electricity producing reactor. There was a story about that on slashdot just a few months back I think. As far as I know, you are right in that it's a political problem and not a technical one. Imo, nuclear fission reactor technology is the only threat to the bottom lines of the established hydrocarbon energy industry and they know it.
Hahahahaaaahaaaaaaaahhaaahahahaaaa!! Those fucking muppets! Hah!
Also, as I recall, France has been reprocessing much of it's own waste for many years now. The US was also reprocessing until President Carter (for some reason) ordered reprocessing be halted in the US, thus creating a waste problem where the really wasn't much of a waste problem before.
Just leave it in storage. It's not going anywhere after all. It's certainly not doing any harm locked away as it is. Let's not forget, that the 'waste' (Most of which can be reprocessed, some of which could even be used as is in some reactor types iirc) is contained in a nice neat little package unlike other methods of producing heat, such as oil gas or coal which dump their waste products into the atmosphere. Nuclear reactors contain their relatively tiny amount of waste into a nice neat little package by design. So not only does it beat the others in terms of energy density and volume of waste produced in operation, it also lets us contain the waste!
*Drunk post, take with some salt* But nuclear energy is far more energy dense, produces far more energy, produces energy far more reliably (and stably) and lets not forget that it can be throttled far more easily than 'renewables' generally can. *serious question* How many GW/h of electricity has been produced by land based nuclear reactors compared to what renewables have produced thus far? I'm not talking theoretical capacity factors, I'm talking actual generation figures. It's likely that it'll never be accurately (or even truthfully) answered, but it's an interesting question. Just one other though, nuclear reactors that are powering ships and submarines are as far as I know completely sealed and have their own separate supply of water to cool themselves (where water is the coolant). Would it not be possible to ensure that land based reactors use the same design? Where the coolant is kept "in house" as it were? That said, I think that it might not be practical on a large scale due to the amount of energy being worked with... We must also not forget that there are various types of reactor. Each one uses water differently and some (as far as I know) do not use water at all (the lead cooled fast reactor of the Alfa class submarine comes to mind).. *End drunk post*
"What", "A", "Shithole". That count?
"I don't think I would consider "safe" any industry where an accident or malpractice could result in a place being uninhabitable for 10,000 - 100,000 years. It is immoral to saddle future generations with this burden, however slight you perceive the risk to be." Bullshit. If it were so "uninhabitable", then why has mother nature taken over Chernobyl? Why have the areas of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that were flattened by nuclear strikes been rebuilt? Why do people continue to live in places where the *background* radiation levels are higher than the Chernobyl average? It is immoral to saddle future generations with problems that we could fix, or could at least lay in motion the plans to fix. Why do people perpetuate the myth that anywhere that has been "afflicted" by "noocyoulahr" must ultimately end up a barren wasteland? It's insane and a huge lie. It is. "Nuclear apologists need to wake up. " I beg to differ. The rabid "renewable" loonies need to wake up. So do the supporters of frightful fracking. If we are to maintain progress in improving technological equality while at the same time becoming sustainable, then we cannot use large scale renewables to power our energy grids. We sure as hell can't use oil, coal or gas (for very good reasons). Which leaves nuclear fission. A system that by design contains all of the waste it produces into a nice neat little block. I challenge you to find that can provide stable electricity around the clock, with all of it's waste contained and can do it without deeply damaging the surrounding environment. My money says you won't find anything in our arsenal today to beat nuclear fission. Heck, you won't find anything that will be in our arsenal in 50 years that will beat it. "Human error is always going to be a problem. Untill the world gets its act together and starts deploying more CANDU type reactors which by design cannot meltdown" I don't think human error is the problem. Human greed and human ego are the problems. The people who design, build, run, maintain and decommission these reactors are not going to be village idiots with no training. It's rather like the airlines, pilots don't generally make mistakes like confusing up and down. If an accident does happen, it's normally because of a faulty component, bad design/engineering or some unforeseen circumstances occurring. Planes have pilots and reactors have operators to make sure that when these things happen, actions are taken to mitigate the problem as much as possible. Most, if not all people I have spoken with about the Fukushima event believe that it was a disaster. I don't believe that for a second. In fact, I believe that it was a triumph of good engineering that saved a great deal of lives that would have been lost if the reactors weren't so well designed and some *really bad* had happened. No, the disaster was not in the actions of the plant staff but in the way the media and political systems made a mountain out of a molehill, creating needless panic, chaos and disrupting hundreds of thousands of lives needlessly. "I for one will still fight against nuclear power." Please allow me one intentional ad hominem my dear sir. "You bloody fool". It is utterly absurd to fight against something that you actually agree with! I don't think you fight against nuclear fission power itself, but against political systems and the "hangers on" that seem bent on holding us back from developing and building power plants that could generate electricity more cleanly than anything we have ever created before.
Argh! It removed the formatting! I had structured my comment so nicely as well. If you can read that wall of text without going insane, you dear reader deserve a gold star and a pat on the head. BAD SLASHDOT! BAD!
"I don't think I would consider "safe" any industry where an accident or malpractice could result in a place being uninhabitable for 10,000 - 100,000 years. It is immoral to saddle future generations with this burden, however slight you perceive the risk to be." Bullshit. If it were so "uninhabitable", then why has mother nature taken over Chernobyl? Why have the areas of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that were flattened by nuclear strikes been rebuilt? Why do people continue to live in places where the *background* radiation levels are higher than the Chernobyl average? It is immoral to saddle future generations with problems that we could fix, or could at least lay in motion the plans to fix. Why do people perpetuate the myth that anywhere that has been "afflicted" by "noocyoulahr" must ultimately end up a barren wasteland? It's insane and a huge lie. It is. "Nuclear apologists need to wake up. " I beg to differ. The rabid "renewable" loonies need to wake up. So do the supporters of frightful fracking. If we are to maintain progress in improving technological equality while at the same time becoming sustainable, then we cannot use large scale renewables to power our energy grids. We sure as hell can't use oil, coal or gas (for very good reasons). Which leaves nuclear fission. A system that by design contains all of the waste it produces into a nice neat little block. I challenge you to find that can provide stable electricity around the clock, with all of it's waste contained and can do it without deeply damaging the surrounding environment. My money says you won't find anything in our arsenal today to beat nuclear fission. Heck, you won't find anything that will be in our arsenal in 50 years that will beat it. "Human error is always going to be a problem. Untill the world gets its act together and starts deploying more CANDU type reactors which by design cannot meltdown" I don't think human error is the problem. Human greed and human ego are the problems. The people who design, build, run, maintain and decommission these reactors are not going to be village idiots with no training. It's rather like the airlines, pilots don't generally make mistakes like confusing up and down. If an accident does happen, it's normally because of a faulty component, bad design/engineering or some unforeseen circumstances occurring. Planes have pilots and reactors have operators to make sure that when these things happen, actions are taken to mitigate the problem as much as possible. Most, if not all people I have spoken with about the Fukushima event believe that it was a disaster. I don't believe that for a second. In fact, I believe that it was a triumph of good engineering that saved a great deal of lives that would have been lost if the reactors weren't so well designed and some *really bad* had happened. No, the disaster was not in the actions of the plant staff but in the way the media and political systems made a mountain out of a molehill, creating needless panic, chaos and disrupting hundreds of thousands of lives needlessly. "I for one will still fight against nuclear power." Please allow me one intentional ad hominem my dear sir. "You bloody fool". It is utterly absurd to fight against something that you actually agree with! I don't think you fight against nuclear fission power itself, but against political systems and the "hangers on" that seem bent on holding us back from developing and building power plants that could generate electricity more cleanly than anything we have ever created before.
I'm using an abacus with the calculations shouted down a tin-can telephone line you insensitive clod!
Mine is for x-raying x-ray machines while some hipster is being x-rayed by the x-ray machine. [sarcasm]Also, why not get messy? I like messy! It means we have to employ someone![/sarcasm]
What is "plant seal"? Are there navy seals embedded in all plants grown from monsanto seeds? Actually, that would be rather cool..
Comparing a nuclear weapon to a nuclear reactor (of any kind) is rather like comparing the burning of a lump of coal to the detonation of gunpowder. Sure, the chemical process is more or less the same, but have you tried running a power station or a train using gunpowder? Combustion/fission/fusion is all well and good, but if it happens too quickly and too intensely to be controlled or harnessed then what good is it? Mass suicide perhaps?
My name is Thunderbird 2 you insensitive clod!
So is Kelsey!
Ramaine...wasn't she a red shirt in star trek?
It doesn't matter, not one smegging bit."
A fair few!
Carreon eaters? Like the Pak'ma'ra? Don't mess with them, they never leave the house without Pak'ing some heat!
Does "April fools" no longer end at midday on the day in question? Lawn, off, get, etc etc.
From what I hear they are the latter. Although in the interest of full disclosure I do live fairly close to it and have a few friends who have attended. The place is regarded fairly well, although it has dropped a little in recent years. http://www.topuniversities.com/node/2253/ranking-details/world-university-rankings/2012
I suppose I deserved such snarky responses. Seeing karma go "bad" after my seconds post is .. Well, I don't know. I'd hazard a guess at "bad". It was a dumb post though.
Btw, TFA?
Whatever happens, it would be a hell of a blow for those guys to lose the rover after only a few months. Not only to the engineers and the scientists, but to exploration in general.
Who else has a feeling that someone fitted in a module backwards? Either that, or a dead cell or two.
... we are right royally screwed.