Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Matrim wrote:Nuclear fusion.

Currently produces a net loss of energy in all of our reactors.

i think you are confusing fusion with fission

biccat wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:"So little left that it's not worth trying to get" is not meaningfully distinct from "running out" in practice (after all, we'd "run out" of supplies of it were we to stop harvesting it), and "running out" is a much less awkward phrasing when used in more complex clauses.

It certainly is meaningfully distinct. Because the idea of "peak oil" tends to suggest that our world will come to a crashing halt when we run out of oil unless we Do Something Right Now. But that's silly, because economic forces are going to drive a demand for different energy sources well before oil shortages are a concern.

Of course doomsaying is silly, and detracts from sober action by instilling a panicked desire to do anything, no matter how pointless, which then makes one feel all safe and secure because something you don't understand is allegedly being done. We aren't going to "run out" in the sense of using every last drop on earth, that's silly and over-literal. We're going to "run out" in the sense that we will hit a point where it's not possible to extract a useful amount anymore, and so alternatives do have to be found. But there's no rush to implement them just yet, since we still have decades left to perfect them and prepare infrastructure for them.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:No, there's not. It would be closer to truth were we talking about some conceivable pseudo-perpetual-motion machine or cycle, but we're talking about "renewable" things in a very short frame of reference: the sun isn't "renewable", but from any currently relevant frame of reference it might as well be, since it won't stop dumping vast amounts of energy onto us for billions of years.

The limit is the amount of solar energy we can expect to harvest for a given time period. For example, if we were to put solar energy cells on every square inch of roof space in the United States, we would only satisfy about 80% of our current annual energy usage.

That seems like an unusually high percentage, considering how abjectly horrible current solar panels are.

There is an upper limit on how much solar energy impacts the earth annually. The upper limit on how much power we can produce in a day is also theoretically limited, but would be a lot higher.

True, but it still amounts to a larger source than any short-term non-renewable source on the planet.

These technologies are all still in their infancies, but there is nothing which human engineering cannot overcome with time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Matrim wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Matrim wrote:Nuclear fusion.

Currently produces a net loss of energy in all of our reactors.

i think you are confusing fusion with fission

No, "fusion" is the one we haven't gotten to work yet. "Fission" is what current nuclear reactors do.

Matrim wrote:
i think you are confusing fusion with fission

Errr....no. Fission is what powers all existing nuclear reactors, and almost all nuclear weapons. Even thermonuclear weapons are primarily fisssion devices, they're simply augmented by some nuclear fusion.

The problem with fusion is that the conditions to create it are similar to conditions at the center of the sun, and the only way humans can produce those conditions 'efficiently' (I say this meaning at a net gain of energy) by detonating a nuclear warhead. To create conditions for nuclear fusion WITHOUT setting off a nuke, well...it takes more energy investment to start and sustain the reaction than the reaction gives out.

But yes, the development of fusion reactor could be great. It's just that we're not at that level of tech right now. If someone could just hurry up an invent cold fusion we'd all be much obliged.

And while we're on the nuclear subject, let's point out that nuclear power is currently taking hit after hit, what with Germany's decision to abandon it and all.....however, that's completely OT, and I'll make my own thread to talk about that.

biccat wrote:
Basically, renewable energy is not the future.

Well, that really depends on what your future looks like. If there's no replacement for oil, then we either develop power-saving tech or kill enough people to reduce the demand for power. Given human history its likely that the latter would happen first, and the former would happen when everyone had blood on their hands. Very few people really like killing.

Also, as far as I know (and as I've said elsewhere, I'm no physicist) the laws of thermodynamics apply to the burning of oil as well, and that its the energy density of oil which allows it to wildly exceed the free energy production of renewable sources.

That was my whole point about 'nuclear fusion'

the amount of energy it creates is astonishing compared to nuclear fission.

i think corpses are fun had them confused, not everyone who ever mentioned nuclear ever.

Matrim wrote:That was my whole point about 'nuclear fusion'

the amount of energy it creates is astonishing compared to nuclear fission.

i think corpses are fun had them confused, not everyone who ever mentioned nuclear ever.

The problem is corpses was right. Nuclear fusion makes a lot of energy, but it needs even MORE energy than it produces to get the reaction started, and keep it stable.

youbedead wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:I think it's fair to note that Chernobyl's Zone of Exclusion has become an impromptu wildlife sanctuary due to the lack of human presence. One of the worst radiological disasters of all history.....and nature is coping along just fine.

People seriously overestimate nukes. Yes they have a lot of power, but they're still extremely limited.

Thats because of biorobots, and a society willing to use them. A war rather than an accident could blow the rooves (not plural) of reactors destroy all containment and prevent any method of cleanup.

A nuclear detonation causes on over-pressure wave of 1-50 psi depending on elevation and distance to target. A reactor containment dome can withstand 60 to 200 Psi, you are not going to blow the lid of a reactor in a war. Unless you deliberately target the reactor with bunker busters, which serves no military purpose

So your counting on people to always be responsible users of large ordnance.

Matrim wrote:That was my whole point about 'nuclear fusion'

the amount of energy it creates is astonishing compared to nuclear fission.

i think corpses are fun had them confused, not everyone who ever mentioned nuclear ever.

I hadn't got them confused.

Fission requires relatively little energy to initiate and produces a decent amount of energy whereas fusion at the moment takes a LOT of energy to initiate with considerably more power output than fusion yet it still has a net negative output.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Matrim wrote:That was my whole point about 'nuclear fusion'

the amount of energy it creates is astonishing compared to nuclear fission.

i think corpses are fun had them confused, not everyone who ever mentioned nuclear ever.

The problem is corpses was right. Nuclear fusion makes a lot of energy, but it needs even MORE energy than it produces to get the reaction started, and keep it stable.

This.

Orlanth wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:I think it's fair to note that Chernobyl's Zone of Exclusion has become an impromptu wildlife sanctuary due to the lack of human presence. One of the worst radiological disasters of all history.....and nature is coping along just fine.

People seriously overestimate nukes. Yes they have a lot of power, but they're still extremely limited.

Thats because of biorobots, and a society willing to use them. A war rather than an accident could blow the rooves (not plural) of reactors destroy all containment and prevent any method of cleanup.

A nuclear detonation causes on over-pressure wave of 1-50 psi depending on elevation and distance to target. A reactor containment dome can withstand 60 to 200 Psi, you are not going to blow the lid of a reactor in a war. Unless you deliberately target the reactor with bunker busters, which serves no military purpose

So your counting on people to always be responsible users of large ordnance.

Congratulations you broke the containment dome, yay! You've still got the reactor itself not to mention that just blowing it up is not going to spread the radioactivity

Orlanth wrote:

So your counting on people to always be responsible users of large ordnance.

No, I'm counting on military commanders to put their ordnance into something where its USEFUL.

I'd rather drop bunker busters on hangars, factories, and other things that could actually affect only my enemy. If I want to cut the enemy's power supply, I'll just graphite bomb his power lines.

Far be it for I to join in this lively debate, but I hardly think "green" is a bad thing. Encouraging conservation of resources is an excellent mindset.

youbedead wrote:

Congratulations you broke the containment dome, yay! You've still got the reactor itself not to mention that just blowing it up is not going to spread the radioactivity

Your being facetious, a targeted attack will be enough to uncap. add extra layers if you like, the atacker will add more explosives. Armour cannot win against firepower anymore. I may not know how many layers a reactor has, those attacking one probably do.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

So your counting on people to always be responsible users of large ordnance.

No, I'm counting on military commanders to put their ordnance into something where its USEFUL.

Some commanders think might think blowing a reactor is useful.

ChrisWWII wrote:
I'd rather drop bunker busters on hangars, factories, and other things that could actually affect only my enemy. If I want to cut the enemy's power supply, I'll just graphite bomb his power lines.

Look up strategic bombing in WW2. Sure factories were targeted, as were residential districts.

This just speaks of commanders of course. Not terrorists yet. I don't think you will have any objection to the theory that Al Quaeda and some other groups would have no problem with uncapping a reactor and spreading crap everywhere, if they could. After all they attacked no hangers or factories on 9/11 or 7/7.

Orlanth wrote:

Look up strategic bombing in WW2. Sure factories were targeted, as were residential districts.

That is not a valid example. Residential areas were bombed due to lack of accuracy. You also fail to take into account the pressure the modern international community could bring.

A modern military commander would prefer precision. Carpet bombing a city would bring on huge reprecussions with the international community. More importantly, we're assuming that there will somehow be a giant war that would have a the deployment of weapons powerful enough to destroy nuclear containment, against a state that posesses nuclear reactors. Who would be fighting this war? Why?

You can't just say, "War could result in destruction of nuclear containment", if the possibility of such a war is next to zero.

This just speaks of commanders of course. Not terrorists yet. I don't think you will have any objection to the theory that Al Quaeda and some other groups would have no problem with uncapping a reactor and spreading crap everywhere, if they could. After all they attacked no hangers or factories on 9/11 or 7/7.

Ah, and now you're moving the goal posts. Sure, terrorists might do so, but will they have the ability to breach the containment with the weapons they have? A nuclear reactor is a much tougher target than a civillian building.

I think this green movement is great, it's just misdirected.

While I found it amusing and enlightening, I can't help but think people will start throwing their garbage wherever they feel like again.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Ah, and now you're moving the goal posts.

No adding extra ones.

Besides lets end this thread drift. Simply declaring that nonne can or will be willing to blow up and expose a nuvcedlar core is wishful thinking. This planet has no shortage of fanatics, despotic murderers or madmen.

Orlanth wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:
Ah, and now you're moving the goal posts.

No adding extra ones.

Besides lets end this thread drift. Simply declaring that nonne can or will be willing to blow up and expose a nuvcedlar core is wishful thinking. This planet has no shortage of fanatics, despotic murderers or madmen.

Except most of them aren't complete idiots. No terrorist organization has the capabilities to preform an attack against a nuclear facility. The amount of explosives that would be needed to blow the lid of the dome (not to mention most facilities are extremely heavily guarded) with enough force to spread radioactive dust is obscene. The organizations that would want to do that don't have the capabilities and the governments that can do it wouldn't.

You're making the same mistake most laymen make concerning nuke reactors. Even if you use enough explosives to open the core it's really not going to do anything, you need a reactor thats going super critical for anything even remotely bad to happen.

Even then, the conditions at a nuclear reactor are not going to result in a nuclear explosion. Even if you blow of the containment vessel (which we already showed that the people who'd want to do can't, and the people who can don't want to), and managed to send the radioactive pile up, you'd end up with nothing more than a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb's main damage is not anythig it inflects itself, but rather the reaction to it.

So yes, I don't think that 'terrorists blowing up nuclear plants' is a valid reason to oppost construction of nuclear reactors.

ChrisWWII wrote:Residential areas were bombed due to lack of accuracy.

That isn't strictly true, civilians were targeted, on both sides, in order to try and reduce morale.

But in general you're correct. Nuclear plants are hard targets that very few nations have the resource to crack, and doing so requires lots of resource that would be better expended elsewhere; assuming they could be secured in the first place. It isn't like every country has the US Air Force, "adding more explosives" as Orlanth suggests isn't a simple task as there are limits on the ability of any given person or body to acquire said explosives.

Sure, someone some day might decide to target a nuclear plant, but that is the same risk that comes with building anything.