| User | Post |
alte Hexe
Posts: 1985/5458 |
Live(ed). 
I remember something like certain villages that were displaced by the dam projects in China will be receiving free electricity forever. |
Kasumi-Astra
Posts: 994/1867 |
Apparently the French give free electricity to all the homes in a 50 mile radius of all their nuclear power stations. Of course, I can't vouch for this... Doesn't Kiwi live in France? |
Cellar Dweller
Posts: 177/269 |
Originally posted by Jizuko
Uh, about the granite thing, I'm sure there was something with fire. Maybe I just interpeted it wrong when I heard it, maybe it wasn't granite but something else. I'm sure something catched fire though XD
It was graphite. When the cover was blown off of the reactor by excessive pressure, air came in contact with hot graphite in the reactor, starting a fire. |
Kasumi-Astra
Posts: 968/1867 |
If Chernobyl had actually totally experienced meltdown, then perhaps all of Europe would be uninhabitable.
The only radioactive material that was released was when the granite roof was compromised.
If the core had completely melted and started sinking towards the water table a few metres underground, there would've been a massive explosion.
There really is no need for H-Bombs all together. A-Bombs do the job if there ever was a need for one, and there is a thereotical upper limit to the ammount of explosive yield an A-Bomb has.
Probably the only reason we have H-Bombs is because they have no theroretical upper limit, because they are fusion bombs, not fission. |
Ran-chan
Posts: 5361/12781 |
If you dropped a 50 megaton bomb, I bet that you can see it from another continent...
The shockwave of the first Hydrogen bomb went 3 times around Earth. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 1724/5458 |
Those are ballistic missles.
The bombs aren't given names beyond their yield. The largest US hydrogen weapon ranks at a hefty 21 megatons. The Russians have claimed that some of their bombs yield up to 50 megatons, but the largest explosion to date has been 38.6 megatons. A big boom to be sure. But in reality, there is no need for any weapon of higher than 21-30 kiloton range, as that is still 2-3 times as powerful as Hiroshima, and dropping two of them on any city would cause immense damage. |
Steak
Posts: 330/507 |
Originally posted by Trapster
You know that less than 100gram of anti-matter has the power of a H-bomb, right?
If it reacts with matter.
Which H-bomb? There's more than one, and they have different "nuclear yields" (i.e., no. of kilotons/megatons). In the US alone...we have a few different kinds (and these are the ones I know about): Minuteman, Minuteman-II, Minuteman-III, Titan, Titan-II (this was the biggest), Polaris, Trident, Peacekeeper...which one?  |
NSNick
Posts: 1357/3875 |
Nuclear waste can be re-used, it's just the byproduct of that re-use just happens to be weapons-grade, so it's banned, at least here, anyway. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 1713/5458 |
Anti-matter exists on Earth, but it is kept in near absolute zero so that it cannot react with matter. Unfortunately, it is in such trace amounts that our knowledge of how it would react to exposition to a large amount of matter...Well theoretical physics is just that...Theoretical.
The future is in renewable and sustainable power. It takes a lot more space, but if done properly it can be quite rewarding. |
Ran-chan
Posts: 5322/12781 |
You know that less than 100gram of anti-matter has the power of a H-bomb, right?
If it reacts with matter.
|
Ailure
Posts: 6222/11162 |
It's already possible to make anti-matter, but it's so expensive to make and takes so much energy... it's not worth it.
And scientists hadn't seen any natural occurance of Anti-matter in space, just in labs.
But yeah, if we found tons of anti-matter then we could produce energy that makes the world going around for years. But how would you contain something that destroys any normal matter? ;P
I'm leaning towards thoose safe reactors Ziff is mentioning, hell I wouldn't mind a closedown of our reactors IF they built new ones who are safer and more effective.
...hell the biggest problem with Nuclear is it's waste, not that they meltdown. |
Dracoon
Posts: 1737/3727 |
I like nuclear power. It isn't all that dangerous, it provides a lot of energy, and it is better than most other alternate methods. The only place solar panels and wind turbines would work is on a giant platue or something. Kansas would do fine with them, but I'd prefer a reliable new nuke plant. I wouldn't mind being able to use hydrogen though, that sounds interesting. Now we only have to find a way to make anti matter and all that Star Trek stuff. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 1696/5458 |
The Soviets used a graphite silica compound designed to melt and encase radioactive isotopes inorder to slow the reaching of critical mass. The additional problem with Chernoybl was that the engineers at the plant were running stress and safety tests without the proper safeties. The reason it happened was the 10 ton reactor cap blew off because of a steam and pressure build up. And that 10 ton reactor top was a granite slab. The steam threw it away like a frisbee. In fact, that steam vent had the same equivelent force of the Hiroshima explosion.
There are three major reactors, the new Chinese one, the American hybrid and the CANDU from you guessed it, Canada. The American hybrid reactor puts out 1.233354323424546756432% more than the Canadian one or a relatively miniscule amount. The Canadian CANDU reactor is nay impossible to melt-down, unfortunately the reactor isn't a really completed project. It has the capability for more and on going research will insure it is a good investment for power hungry nations. The Chinese reactor is as small as a large pick up truck and produces half as much energy as either the Canadian or American reactor. They also use less fuel and CANNOT melt down. I could dip myself into the water and let it go, and I wouldn't cause a melt down. |
Ailure
Posts: 6182/11162 |
Well, Three mile island is the most well known accident apart from Chernobyl, probably becuse it's in USA and all but... 
And yeah, besides that accident happened before Nuclear power was "OMG dangerous". Now the security is much higher. And all... and hell there is a type of reactor now that is effective, cheap and secure now. Where an meltdown is suppodsdly impossible. |
Jizuko
Posts: 891/1191 |
Bah, partial core meltdown.
"No identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred (although a government report by L. Battist et. al. stated that "the projected number of excess fatal cancers due to the accident ... is approximately one.")"
That's nothing. Bet more people die from flying into windplants or drowning in a waterplant. Or chopping off their own heads in search for timber for fuel. |
Ailure
Posts: 6178/11162 |
Originally posted by Jizuko
Has there been any other meltdowns except Chernobyl?
Yes of course. Three mile island anyone?
Althought Chernobyl have been the most disastorus one. Due to poor safety, the other Nuclear plants hadn't released that much when having meltdown... |
Jizuko
Posts: 890/1191 |
Uh, about the granite thing, I'm sure there was something with fire. Maybe I just interpeted it wrong when I heard it, maybe it wasn't granite but something else. I'm sure something catched fire though XD
Kiwi; I saw one of those at the Nuclear Plant near my hometown, it's reaaally small, and it's not radioactive before it's gone through any process. You could like pick it up and hold it between your indexfinger and thumb.
Yeah, If a Nuclear plant goes down it affects many, but don't people think it affects just as many if not more if we just buy electricity from another country that just happens to use coal? It's the same world.
Some homeowners here have small solarplates on their rooftops or next to the houses but the dumb thing is that it only gives enough power to maybe heat your .. heaters. Guess when it gives most power? Yeah, summer. Guess when you need your heaters most? Yeah, winter. Very useful. And as we all know, energy can't be stored. It's fresh.
Has there been any other meltdowns except Chernobyl?
Oh yeah, the walls on a reactor can withstand a direct planecrash. |
DurfarC
Posts: 181/483 |
Well, Nuclear is clean, and it provides a lot of power. On the other hand, IF something happens, it's nothing much we can do. Here in Norway, we don't have nuclear power plants, most of the power generated comes from waterfalls and such. I think nuclear plants is ok in the developed world, since we follow the safety rules. And Russia's nuclear plants is actually one of the biggest threats that can affect Norway and Europe today. When Tsjernobyl exploded, many people went affected even here...
But I think nuclear is still better than coal and such. However, I think only Solar, Wind and Waterfall-generated should provide power. But that would be impossible... |
Ran-chan
Posts: 5273/12781 |
I wonder what kind of asshat came up with that stupid idea... I |
kiwibonga
Posts: 242/266 |
A cubic centimeter of material is enough to power a 5 people house for a year with nuclear energy... It's clean and efficient, you bet your ass I'm all for it |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
