Nuclear Energy?

[chrisname]

Xander314 wrote:

[The Sun] is really, really hot

Actually, the Sun isn't quite hot enough for nuclear fusion. The hydrogen nuclei in the Sun which fuse are positively charged, and like charges repel. They can't get past the Coulomb barrier because the Sun isn't hot enough and they therefore don't have enough energy to get close enough to fuse. The only reason the Sun shines is because of quantum tunnelling; every now-and-again, hydrogen atoms get close enough to fuse despite not having enough energy to do so. One of the biggest mindfucks of quantum physics is also one of the reasons we exist (to complain about how stupid and confusing tunnelling is).

[STLreliant]

Lol you make it sound like Jupiter consciously made the decision

Accidental I swear

Anyway a BBC TV program said about Jupiter being a failed star. I never liked their space shows, I prefer books for info or an actual documentary channel so I do not know why I even said it.

You guys have made me want to read A Brief History Of Time again, I think I will go dig it out and see if it mentions anything about slingshot orbits, you have intrigued me.

[Computergeek01]

helios made a comment earlier basically stating that we still relay on steam to generate electricity is a problem. I see your point and even agree with you for the most part, but AFAIK there are essentially three ways we as human beings know of to generate electricity, they are electrochemical (batteries, solar panels and fuel cells), electromechanical\electromagnetic (steam power, solar power and gas) and Seabeck effect (radioisotope thermoelectric generator and thermocouple). The last one is in my opinion the best method but the required differential in heat between the engine and the heat sink makes it impractical for every where except outer space.

We as a race are stuck on steam because it is a working fluid that does not need to be processed, is (by itself) safe for the environment and most importantly expands to more then 15,000 times it's volume between it's liquid and gaseous states. We mostly create steam with a locally abundant and renewable resource water, but we could use any fluid with an obtainable boiling and condensing point with varying degrees of success.

I personally think that while we are stuck using steam, Nuclear Power is the route we should be taking, it is safe, reliable and (depending on regulation) cheap. I don't disagree with what Germany is doing by shutting down their plants and buying nuclear power from France. This isn't hypocrisy, that's simply offshoaring the risk (as an American I'm brought up to be ok with crap like that :p ). Personally I think we as a planet need to look at it from that kind of perspective, if Nuclear Power generation is perceived threat then changing people’s minds is going to take several generations, this is time that we as a race don't have to find a solution for energy. We need to start identifying realistic areas to build these plants where any catastrophe, no matter how unlikely, has a minimal impact on human life. We need to look into automation and telepresence\remote administration to minimize the risk even to the people who are running these plants (stock holders at Cisco should be $H**ing their pants at the amount of money they could stand to gain from this).

Ideally I think that we should have Nuclear Power plants that every three months has four guys drive out into the middle of bumf**k nowhere to stand in front of a camera and wave, hold a lighter underneath the thermal sensors and change the batteries on the smoke alarms. Those should be the only people to ever set foot into the premises. Security measures unfortunately demand more people be physically present but sadly that's the world we live in today.

[ModShop]

Computergeek01 wrote:

Security measures unfortunately demand more people be physically present but sadly that's the world we live in today.

You could use an automated security system, complete with an arsenal of lethal and non-lethal weapons... (of-course, killing the intruders would defeat the purpose of "saving" them by keeping them away from the reactors...)

[anonymous23323124]

killing the intruders would defeat the purpose of "saving"

But it would teach them to stay away ^^ Anyway, civilians aren't going to wander onsite if there's a high razor wire fence.

I assumed security was primarily to counter the terror threat. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not particularly concerned about casualties on that front if it protects the plant and nearby inhabitants.

automated security system

But it can't be that simple to install an automatic defense system or the military would be using that kind of thing everywhere ;)

[tition]

@Germany shutting down Nuclear power (Computergeek01):

that's simply offshoaring the risk

I completely agree with you mate. Shutting down nuclear power in Germany is a 99.9% political decision. I lived in Germany before Fukushima: shutting down nuclear was a hot topic there far before the Japan incident.

The *state* news (the one for which you pay obligatory TV tax in Germany) covered 100% only protests against nuclear.
There wasn't one interview ever with a nuclear safety expert.
There wasn't one film of the inside of a nuclear plant.
There was however at least once a couple of weeks a documentary about Chernobil.
There was one mention in a full moon of the new gas pipeline being built between Germany and Russia.

[ModShop]

Xander314 wrote:

But it can't be that simple to install an automatic defense system or the military would be using that kind of thing everywhere ;)

I'm sure the primary cause of difficulty would be differentiating between friend and foe. In the power plants case, everyone can be assumed an enemy >:)