Possible fusion in two reactors?

[The_root_of_all_evil]

And people wonder why I hate nuclear power.

Magma is SO much safer

 

[emeraldrafael]

I dont see this as a good thing. PRetty mcuh this is something like the last thing you want to happen when you are in the situation Japan is in.

 

[Doclector]

Unlikely, but I suppose it's possible. If it did happen, then the big question is, how do we make it happen again? Do we really want to, is it safe?

 

[The Apothecarry]

 

[Lokithrsourcerer]

we've already cracked fusion in Oxford England the problem is sustaining it, because of the neutron damage to the reactor wall. we can overcome this by using helium 3 as fuel, unfortunately the only adequate supply of helium 3 is on the moon and Obama just scrapped the moon mission budget :-/

if we decommissioned all the nuclear weapons on the planet (the only source of helium 3 on earth that I have read about) we would have enough helium 3 to last till we can start mining it on the moon but that will never happen

(i'm no professor so there may be stuff i don't know about)

 

[Zantos]

Yeah. Isn't fusion supposed to create immense amounts of energy?

From what I learned in my chemistry class, it appears that nuclear fusion creates energy and creates its own fuel in the chemical reaction, which essentially makes a constant release of energy.

A miniature sun, if you will.

You're half right. In natural fusion the hydrogen is used up, but in reactor designs they breed tritium from the neutron flux and lithium coating inside the chamber.

 

[Verlander]

The actual Japanese coverage has been much better, in the sense that I feel the Japanese coverage has the proper perspective on the situation rather than "all reactor, all the time" as the BBC website seems to be doing. I'm starting to believe that the BBC is using this as its own little crusade against nuclear energy by hyping up the threat to extreme levels. They're not usually guilty of this, or at least not as guilty as the American media, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it in their own, more subtle way.

It's the same on the CNN site, and the New York Times' site. I don't quite get what they are trying to prove.

There is no nuclear threat-they've prepared too well.

Not quite true. There IS a threat, but it's currently not as bad as it's being played up to be. The people living in the danger zone have been evacuated and the radiation is still contained and can yet be cooled. However, until the reactors have actually been cooled and the cooling systems are back up and running, there is still a threat of further complications and meltdown, however big or small that threat is.

Ok, I exaggerated there slightly, but the threat is constantly there in theory. I don't see it getting bad though, the Japanese have coped magnificently

There is no huge structural collapse-they've prepared too well

False. The outer wall of the building housing Reactor 1 in the Dai-ichi plant exploded yesterday afternoon. Pressure is building in Reactor 3 and that building may also explode if the right conditions form.

I meant in Japan in general, but even in your example, I don't think that constitutes as huge. Especially considering the magnitude and location of the quake.

There is no political crisis-they've prepared too well.

This is right in the sense of there being no in-fighting right now among the politicians in Japan. However, there may be some serious political wrangling in the near future, as the PM has been beleaguered by his inability to pass a budget through before the start of the next fiscal year, and the bill for the recovery from this disaster will only add to the PM's worries. So there is no crisis now, but don't be so sure this won't create a crisis soon.

I think there will be political repercussions, as there is for anything, but had it happened in America, it would be stick to beat the political opposition with.

The ONE thing that Japan HAS proved is that they are far more adapt and reliable in case of emergency than Europe or North America.

Hang on there. That's not a certain thing either. Sure, after Katrina, FEMA and other agencies were in a shambles and there was widespread looting and other crime in New Orleans. But after 9/11, I would say the US emergency response crews showed a similar level of reliability and adaptability to the situation that the Japanese are showing now, in the face of their own disaster. The gulf oil spill last year was massive, and took a long time to clean up, but aside from passing around the blame for it, they did do a relatively good job of capping the ruptured line as effectively as they could. As far as Europe is concerned, a disaster of this magnitude hasn't hit Europe in a while, so it's hard to say how Europe would respond, but I wouldn't be surprised if they showed a similar level of resourcefulness and ingenuity. When something truly disastrous happens in an area, the people around it and affected by it tend to show such an ability to come together and solve the problem despite their differences, no matter where they're from, even if they go back to their squabbles afterwards. So while Japan has shown an admirable amount of reliability in this situation, that doesn't mean other countries wouldn't respond in a similar manner.

Europe is obviously a difficult one to fully generalise, as it is a collection of independent countries, all of whom have hundreds of years of national pride and conflict with their neighbours, desperately trying to get along with each other under a shared government that is making laws contrary to many of the individual governments own. I think the closest thing to eminent natural disaster is Mt Vesuvius, and Naples/rest of Italy is as doomed as a Farmville console port when that finally blows.

As for America, well, I've seen Volcano, and unless Tommy Lee Jones is present, San Francisco is fucked

There is no nuclear threat-they've prepared too well.

The fact that their dumping seawater into the reactor suggests that they haven't prepared well. It reminds me of when they dumped sand into the reactor in Chernobyl.

The workers at Chernobyl knew the explosion was eminent before it happened, but the govt wouldn't allow them to shut it down, and that wasn't during a terrible earthquake. Had Sellafield, or any other nuclear plant undergone a similar treatment, it would have gone up by now

And what's your point? What I was saying is that they are trying something desperate because things are fucked up and they're not sure how to handle it.

My point is that they aren't desperate, they are tackling the situation in a sensible and calculated manner.

My opinion though

 

[Brandon237]

Fusion has been doable for decades. The reason we don't use it for power is that it currently takes more energy to perform the fusion reaction than is generated from the fusion reaction.

And when you do make it energy efficient, you generally blow yourself up

But until we have good nuclear fusion that is sustained and can be safely harnessed, we must make do with fission. Which is still pretty good.

The reactors in Japan are not new, that is why they are a threat at all. Modern reactors are disaster-proofed like nothing else ever made.

 

[Ph33nix]

yeah fusion in this is not the holy grail of power its the oh fuck that reactor is going to leak radiation version

 

[Internet Kraken]

And people wonder why I hate nuclear power.

So, another person just rejecting off-hand what is still one of the safest sources of power generation we have just because the accidents tend to be conspicuous ones. Chernobyl. Was. An. Anomaly. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power] So is this scenario, although I'm wishing the Japanese people all the best for it.

I used to agree with you, until I got older and realized just how flawed nuclear power is. Yes, it's so safe that we still don't have any concrete plan about where to put all our nuclear waste. It's so safe that any site that houses nuclear waste has to be underground to prevent some from leaking it into the environment. It's so safe that if even a small amount of nuclear waste leaked, it could cause catastrophic damage.

I've done my homework. I've researched nuclear power a lot, mainly because I used to believe it was the future. But it's not. Hell it's not even a renewable energy source.

 

[Spacewolf]

And people wonder why I hate nuclear power.

So, another person just rejecting off-hand what is still one of the safest sources of power generation we have just because the accidents tend to be conspicuous ones. Chernobyl. Was. An. Anomaly. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power] So is this scenario, although I'm wishing the Japanese people all the best for it.

I used to agree with you, until I got older and realized just how flawed nuclear power is. Yes, it's so safe that we still don't have any concrete plan about where to put all our nuclear waste. It's so safe that any site that houses nuclear waste has to be underground to prevent some from leaking it into the environment. It's so safe that if even a small amount of nuclear waste leaked, it could cause catastrophic damage.

I've done my homework. I've researched nuclear power a lot, mainly because I used to believe it was the future. But it's not. Hell it's not even a renewable energy source.

not a small amount remember that about 90% of all ground level radiation is given off by radium gases,
Sellafield stores waste above ground
and fast breeder reactors make it renewable

 

[espada1311]

But the thing is, are you willing to have that on your conscience? You are personally responsible for the deaths of all those people, can the destruction of so many homes, lives, families, friends, and everything of the like, can you honestly justify to yourself that you killed all of them, so you can make the lives of everyone else better? If so, how can you choose these lives? what gives the rest of us the right to live, over them? what makes us so special?

We have the right to comfortable existence because we live in a nicer country. I happened to have been born in the right place, is all. Those who are suffering are far away and I don't see them suffer, so I have no reason to care, is how the thinking goes. An extension of that sort of thinking is responsible for a fair few of the world's political problems.

But, is it any different by condemn people to death due to apathy? We all could be doing more to help. We all could stop buying games and DVDs, and give the money to feed starving kids...but we won't, we prefer them to die (as long as we don't have to see it) and keep our shiny things. Which, is on the face of it, terrible, but then it's how our culture has developed...art has no practical use, takes alot of resources, but is essential, for some reason nobody can explain.

You have a point, however, my question was asked to you, as an individual, not the world as a group. Its a look into your personality, I'm asking if YOU are willing to trade blood for innovation.

Also, i will say that no one will give those large sums of money to kids in Africa for two reasons. One, in today's world, especially in the US (this is an observation, not a bitchslap), people don't want to give their money without the possibility of making a profit. In Africa, there isn't much (as far as i know) that big-time investors can put money in and make a profit, so they aren't going to give money anytime soon. This means that rich people wont send money to Africa, and rich people, in the US, hold 95% of the wealth in the world's wealthiest country. Looking at that, i must say it can severely impede the cashflow of humanitarian aid. Secondly, People don't help starving children because it can cause "problems" with the people currently in power, and today's society is very complacent with problems so long as i doesn't effect them too much. Humans wont change unless brought to the brink, and even then there will be tons of people still resisting. For example, in Quebec, there is such a high amount of administrators that it has become incredibly counter-productive, The amount of paperwork that must be filled for no particular reason is utterly insane, the procedure that MUST be followed is broken in some places and people who work for the Ville de Montreal have no pride in what they do, doing the bare minimum, while they enjoy the greatest benefits of all workers in the area, in some ways, even more so than doctors. However, will anyone fix this? No. Because its hard, it means cleaning the shit and removing what doesnt work, it would take time and money that no one wants to give. so we simply act like nothing is wrong and try to follow the broken system.

Lastly, while it is a little tangential to what i was talking about, art is incredibly useful in our society, while a lot of modern art has no real meaning, movies, books, music and vidoegames can convey huge messages and provide knowledge, insight and try to make us think, all the while, improving ourselves as human beings. Things like George Orwell's "1984", Robert Harisson's "Fatherland" and Anthony Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange" help us understand different messages and take our thoughts to new levels. Its not true art that is a waste, it's the MTV/Jersey Shore art that is wasteful.