The Power of the Atom.

[Shaggai]

Actually, the U.S. National Rifle Association did release the following statement:

"Once again, we see that the gun grabbers in Japan, whose barbaric and near total prohibition of firearms has left Japan a crime-ridden demilitarized zone of drug addicts and non-Christians, only succeeded in denying an innocent Reactor in its own nuclear power plant to be raped and killed by an earthquake. If that reactor had a simple AR-15 or even just a Mossberg 500 Pump Action Shotgun, that earthquake could have been stopped at the door, or more likely deterred completely by the fear of an armed reactor. Look closely, America: Do you want your family raped and killed by a Tsunami?"

Love...What the fuck are you smoking. I really don't appreciate being called a Gun Nut by a Mod ether but still

That was satire.

If we can just figure out how to do it.

We have been able to reliably create Uncontrolled Fusion for 60+ years.
Controllable for what? 30?
Now the hurdle is to make it cost efficient (IE Create more power than it creates to jump start it)

Didn't ITER do that or are they just planning to?

[Starkiller101]

Nuclear power is dangrous

[Yes Im Biop]

Love...What the fuck are you smoking. I really don't appreciate being called a Gun Nut by a Mod ether but still

That was satire.

We have been able to reliably create Uncontrolled Fusion for 60+ years.
Controllable for what? 30?
Now the hurdle is to make it cost efficient (IE Create more power than it creates to jump start it)

Didn't ITER do that or are they just planning to?

If they did I haven't heard of it. Nether has the world. Planning? Every Fusion project is planning to do it.

[Yes Im Biop]

Nuclear power is dangrous

Because you have written half a dozen research papers over 7 years proving this yes?
(I was a very strange child okay?)

[Shaggai]

Nuclear power is dangrous

A lot safer than coal though.

[Yes Im Biop]

Nuclear power is dangrous

A lot safer than coal though.

That's not saying very much

[New Panti]

Nuclear power is dangrous

It's dangerous if idiots are behind the controls or an earthquake happens.
EDIT: Actually, every power source has some risk involved, not just nuclear power.

[Shaggai]

A lot safer than coal though.

That's not saying very much

It actually is. And the only reason it is is that coal is an extremely major source of power.

[Starkiller101]

Nuclear power is dangrous

Because you have written half a dozen research papers over 7 years proving this yes?
(I was a very strange child okay?)

just look at what happended to chernobyl

[Yes Im Biop]

That's not saying very much

It actually is. And the only reason it is is that coal is an extremely major source of power.

Not what I meant then. Hm... Not saying much means it's not very hard to be better than something

[DesAnges]

Because you have written half a dozen research papers over 7 years proving this yes?
(I was a very strange child okay?)

just look at what happended to chernobyl

Chernobyl was a flawed experiment at a badly designed plant conducted by an imbecile and a lunatic. Nothing more.

As for the future, that's where thorium comes in. Easier to dispose of, more efficient and cheaper.

[Yes Im Biop]

Because you have written half a dozen research papers over 7 years proving this yes?
(I was a very strange child okay?)

just look at what happended to chernobyl

... ... ...
Godfuckingdamnit people.
For the 5th time in the thread.

1: Idiots at the controls
2: Idiotic building it
3: Graphite control rods
4: They wanted to see what would happen if it was Redlined
This was last page.

[New Panti]

Because you have written half a dozen research papers over 7 years proving this yes?
(I was a very strange child okay?)

just look at what happended to chernobyl

Seriously?

just look at what happended to chernobyl

Chernobyl was a flawed experiment at a badly designed plant conducted by an imbecile and a lunatic. Nothing more.

As for the future, that's where thorium comes in. Easier to dispose of, more efficient and cheaper.

/win

[Magna Libero]

A careful yes.

Germany's energies policy have been a good example on bad energy policies. The German government shut down coal power plants some decades ago, because they were unfriendly to the environment. After Fukushima they wanted to get rid of nuclear energy, but they also spent billions on renewable energy sources. Their "clean" energy turned out to be very expensive, so they had to reintroduce the use of coal.
So, I think I'm going to say yes for nuclear..

[Metox]

There are also multiple safety mechanisms such as SCRAM that prevent nuclear catastrophes on the scale of Chernobyl.

[Conscentia]

Yes. Preferably with LFT reactors.

[Conscentia]

Because you have written half a dozen research papers over 7 years proving this yes?
(I was a very strange child okay?)

just look at what happended to chernobyl

1 accident (caused by incompetent soviets) in the entire history of nuclear power.

Coal power has killed, and continues to kill, more people than nuclear power.
Please see the "Nuclear Power in Perspective" link in my signature.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Yes, albeit with extensive caution.
More importantly, we should also focus on research for fusion reactors. It's a very difficult source of energy, but the successful invention of a fusion power plant would end all problems of our energy crisis.

[Conscentia]

Yes, albeit with extensive caution.
More importantly, we should also focus on research for fusion reactors. It's a very difficult source of energy, but the successful invention of a fusion power plant would end all problems of our energy crisis.

Fusion has been "just 20 years away" for twenty years now.

I say we build a network of LFT reactors first, as they are safer, smaller, and more efficient than the Uranium plants that we built to provide ammo for the nuclear arms race. Once that's done, we can divert additional resources to trying to achieve fusion.

[Anachronous Rex]

Because you have written half a dozen research papers over 7 years proving this yes?
(I was a very strange child okay?)

just look at what happended to chernobyl

Which goes to show you that the Russians should never be put in charge of building anything important, but is otherwise irrelevant.

[Shaggai]

Yes, albeit with extensive caution.
More importantly, we should also focus on research for fusion reactors. It's a very difficult source of energy, but the successful invention of a fusion power plant would end all problems of our energy crisis.

Fusion has been "just 20 years away" for twenty years now.

I say we build a network of LFT reactors first, as they are safer, smaller, and more efficient than the Uranium plants that we built to provide ammo for the nuclear arms race. Once that's done, we can divert additional resources to trying to achieve fusion.

How about we test ITER and then build the LFT reactors if it doesn't do as well as we had hoped? I mean, how far have we gotten on it? Most of the way? It's pretty close to finished or already finished IIRC. Testing it shouldn't take all that long.

[Divair]

Nuclear power is amazing stuff. More please.

[Conscentia]

Fusion has been "just 20 years away" for twenty years now.
I say we build a network of LFT reactors first, as they are safer, smaller, and more efficient than the Uranium plants that we built to provide ammo for the nuclear arms race. Once that's done, we can divert additional resources to trying to achieve fusion.

How about we test ITER and then build the LFT reactors if it doesn't do as well as we had hoped? I mean, how far have we gotten on it? Most of the way? It's pretty close to finished or already finished IIRC. Testing it shouldn't take all that long.

I never suggested we drop ITER before testing it. I simply don't think fusion should be the focus of our attention. Certainly, I do not think we should divert additional resources to it until LFTR is as well implemented as it should be.

[Warda]

Nuclear power is amazing stuff. More please.

omg we agree on something

[Shaggai]

How about we test ITER and then build the LFT reactors if it doesn't do as well as we had hoped? I mean, how far have we gotten on it? Most of the way? It's pretty close to finished or already finished IIRC. Testing it shouldn't take all that long.

I never suggested we drop ITER before testing it. I simply don't think fusion should be the focus of our attention. Certainly, I do not think we should divert additional resources to it until LFTR is as well implemented as it should be.

The thing is, if ITER proves fusion to be a viable source of energy, why would we not focus on it? Yes, LFTR is one of the best sources of energy we have so far, but if fusion can actually generate energy would we not be better served using it?