hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 146 of 149 FirstFirst ... 4696136143144145146147148149 LastLast
Results 2,901 to 2,920 of 2968

Thread: God Hates THE WORLD (Natural Disaster Thread)

  1. #2901
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    33,150
    The hardest counter-point against launching shit into the sun is the possibility of the rocket going boom but even then there is math to be done if it happening in bumfuck pacific would be more harmful than the oil spills which are much more probable.

    But it's all academic at this point imo because we can build these now
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)

  2. #2902
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    24,169
    Pretty sure the ocean is big enough to dilute any radioactive material into irrelevance.
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  3. #2903
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    4,031
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    The hardest counter-point against launching shit into the sun is the possibility of the rocket going boom but even then there is math to be done if it happening in bumfuck pacific would be more harmful than the oil spills which are much more probable.

    But it's all academic at this point imo because we can build these now
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)
    That's actually easily solveable via napkin math. Bumfuck pacific wouldn't be so great because of currents and such. Bumfuck Sahara on the other hand would make it even cheaper closer you move to the equator compared to Cape Canaveral on Kazachstan. Central or southern Niger is even better.

  4. #2904
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    4,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Pretty sure the ocean is big enough to dilute any radioactive material into irrelevance.
    No.

  5. #2905

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    1,498
    Bury it deep in a subduction zone and let plate tectonics carry it down into the mantle?

  6. #2906
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    33,150
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Bumfuck Sahara on the other hand would make it even cheaper closer you move to the equator
    As opposed to the pacific ocean? :frysquint:

  7. #2907
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    4,031
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Bumfuck Sahara on the other hand would make it even cheaper closer you move to the equator
    As opposed to the pacific ocean? :frysquint:
    Yup, in case of rocket explosion resulting damage to the environment is much easier to contain. Good luck sieving waste in Pacific currents.

  8. #2908
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,745
    Find a tectonic stable granit plate.
    Dig 1 km deep.
    Dump the waste inside.
    Put the rubble you excavated back on top.

    You would be surprised how little waste is there that needs to be dumped like that.


    

  9. #2909
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,867
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    You misunderstood, I meant 5 years technological and industrial development makes cost estimates from 5 years ago entirely obsolete today. The pace of change is such that as little as 2-3 years might mean a substantial two digit percentage change in costs.
    Austerity automation thread is two floors down, mate. We know why NPPs aren't getting build, we are asking if cutting costs is worth 10 billion people living and breathing in toxic sludge in 2100.
    Apparently yes if that puts oysters on your table now.
    you see we're literally a minute away from midnight on the big doomsday clock, and that means all you dumbasses need to accept big cuts and a diminished lifestyle. But this thing that let's us have reliable 0 emissions energy is uhhh...too expensive and hard
    it's not reliable though. It's only reliable once you have built it and building it is not reliable AT ALL, in fact its among the least reliable.

  10. #2910
    dzajic's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 15, 2011
    Posts
    4,038
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Find a tectonic stable granit plate.
    Dig 1 km deep.
    Dump the waste inside.
    Put the rubble you excavated back on top.

    You would be surprised how little waste is there that needs to be dumped like that.
    You will never get any nation capable of such engineering to accept waste from other countries. Nor would country A ever fully trust country B that waste is stored really safely. So everyone with nuclear has to ensure their own independent long term storage, which is geologicaly impossible.

    And anyway, nukes are no longer a valid option. We need to drastically cut emissions within next ten years (since we failed to do much since 1990) any major be nuclear construction now would be running by late 2030es.

    And EU will limit personal water kettle to 500W without a thought. All home appliances made for EU standards are already feeble and close to the threshold of not doing their intended function.

  11. #2911
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,867
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    The hardest counter-point against launching shit into the sun is the possibility of the rocket going boom but even then there is math to be done if it happening in bumfuck pacific would be more harmful than the oil spills which are much more probable.

    But it's all academic at this point imo because we can build these now
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)
    Anyone who has played KSP can easily tell that firing shit into the sun is definitely a non-starter for delta V/ fuel reasons alone. Now firing stuff into deep space via slingshot orbits on the other hand....

    Delta V to sun is 30km/s (earth's orbit speed) + delta V to orbit

    Delta V to escape sun is 17km/s + delta V to orbit

    You can get escape trajectories via slingshots as cheap as 11km/s

    For fair comparison you could slingshot via Saturn to the sun for maybe 22km/s

  12. #2912
    Cosmin's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 14, 2012
    Location
    Event Horizon
    Posts
    7,634
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    The hardest counter-point against launching shit into the sun is the possibility of the rocket going boom but even then there is math to be done if it happening in bumfuck pacific would be more harmful than the oil spills which are much more probable.

    But it's all academic at this point imo because we can build these now
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)
    A concept of a reactor that burns waste and is being cooled by lead? Could have sworn it was russian even before I saw it written


    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Pretty sure the ocean is big enough to dilute any radioactive material into irrelevance.
    It isn't.

  13. #2913
    Cosmin's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 14, 2012
    Location
    Event Horizon
    Posts
    7,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    The hardest counter-point against launching shit into the sun is the possibility of the rocket going boom but even then there is math to be done if it happening in bumfuck pacific would be more harmful than the oil spills which are much more probable.

    But it's all academic at this point imo because we can build these now
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)
    Anyone who has played KSP can easily tell that firing shit into the sun is definitely a non-starter for delta V/ fuel reasons alone. Now firing stuff into deep space via slingshot orbits on the other hand....

    Delta V to sun is 30km/s (earth's orbit speed) + delta V to orbit

    Delta V to escape sun is 17km/s + delta V to orbit

    You can get escape trajectories via slingshots as cheap as 11km/s

    For fair comparison you could slingshot via Saturn to the sun for maybe 22km/s
    Yes, of course, instead of actually planning to dump it somewhere let's throw the trash around the Solar System and around because it's fucking cheaper. What a fucked up species we are, we are literally shitting undisposable trash around and it's going to orbit us a LONG time after we go extinct. Avenue 5 got it so right.

    Everything needs to be profit or not done at all. We can't hope to survive as a species with this attitude. And yeah the rich will be eaten first. Probably after all the fat Americans run out.

  14. #2914
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    3,255
    What's with the fetishist focus on what to do with spent fuel? Its a trivial problem compared to global warming, and for now on-site dry cast storage is more than fine.

    Id be confident that humanity would do much much better taking any effort wasted on that and putting it into carbon capture research and development, because we certainly aren't cutting emissions yet globally, or in the next 10 years. Lets be honest, we are never going to cut emissions.

  15. #2915
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    What's with the fetishist focus on what to do with spent fuel? Its a trivial problem compared to global warming, and for now on-site dry cast storage is more than fine.

    Id be confident that humanity would do much much better taking any effort wasted on that and putting it into carbon capture research and development, because we certainly aren't cutting emissions yet globally, or in the next 10 years. Lets be honest, we are never going to cut emissions.
    Because it's really not trivial at all to look after it safely, which you have to do because the consequences of terrorists getting hold of it or it getting into the food supply would be insanely bad.

    And because Nuclear makes no sense ANYWAY, so this is just shit-icing on the shit-cake that is putting our hopes on nuclear power.
    Last edited by Lallante; November 9 2021 at 01:40:58 PM.

  16. #2916
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    3,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    What's with the fetishist focus on what to do with spent fuel? Its a trivial problem compared to global warming, and for now on-site dry cast storage is more than fine.

    Id be confident that humanity would do much much better taking any effort wasted on that and putting it into carbon capture research and development, because we certainly aren't cutting emissions yet globally, or in the next 10 years. Lets be honest, we are never going to cut emissions.
    Because it's really not trivial at all to look after it safely, which you have to do because the consequences of terrorists getting hold of it would be insanely bad.

    And because Nuclear makes no sense ANYWAY, so this is just shit-icing on the shit-cake that is putting our hopes on nuclear power.
    Its literally trivial. Its been happening for decades with minimal incident. You store it in dry casks for as long as your civilisation is functioning, on-site. I take it you built a nuclear power plant with some form of security already? Yeah? Then do that then. A few gs of spent fuel might get nicked from time to time but its small fry compared to industrial waste from the fossil fuel industry.
    Have better political will? Do like the Fins and make a long term geologically stable storage cask facility.

    Its a solved problem.

  17. #2917
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    What's with the fetishist focus on what to do with spent fuel? Its a trivial problem compared to global warming, and for now on-site dry cast storage is more than fine.

    Id be confident that humanity would do much much better taking any effort wasted on that and putting it into carbon capture research and development, because we certainly aren't cutting emissions yet globally, or in the next 10 years. Lets be honest, we are never going to cut emissions.
    Because it's really not trivial at all to look after it safely, which you have to do because the consequences of terrorists getting hold of it would be insanely bad.

    And because Nuclear makes no sense ANYWAY, so this is just shit-icing on the shit-cake that is putting our hopes on nuclear power.
    Its literally trivial. Its been happening for decades with minimal incident. You store it in dry casks for as long as your civilisation is functioning, on-site. I take it you built a nuclear power plant with some form of security already? Yeah? Then do that then. A few gs of spent fuel might get nicked from time to time but its small fry compared to industrial waste from the fossil fuel industry.
    Have better political will? Do like the Fins and make a long term geologically stable storage cask facility.

    Its a solved problem.
    I'm sorry what? Minimal Incident?

    Do you know nothing about Sellafield at all?

    In any case, long term storage for waste literally adds 50% to the cost of nuclear. Not sure how one could describe that as trivial.
    Last edited by Lallante; November 9 2021 at 01:47:09 PM.

  18. #2918
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    3,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    What's with the fetishist focus on what to do with spent fuel? Its a trivial problem compared to global warming, and for now on-site dry cast storage is more than fine.

    Id be confident that humanity would do much much better taking any effort wasted on that and putting it into carbon capture research and development, because we certainly aren't cutting emissions yet globally, or in the next 10 years. Lets be honest, we are never going to cut emissions.
    Because it's really not trivial at all to look after it safely, which you have to do because the consequences of terrorists getting hold of it would be insanely bad.

    And because Nuclear makes no sense ANYWAY, so this is just shit-icing on the shit-cake that is putting our hopes on nuclear power.
    Its literally trivial. Its been happening for decades with minimal incident. You store it in dry casks for as long as your civilisation is functioning, on-site. I take it you built a nuclear power plant with some form of security already? Yeah? Then do that then. A few gs of spent fuel might get nicked from time to time but its small fry compared to industrial waste from the fossil fuel industry.
    Have better political will? Do like the Fins and make a long term geologically stable storage cask facility.

    Its a solved problem.
    I'm sorry what? Minimal Incident?

    Do you know nothing about Sellafield at all?

    In any case, long term storage for waste literally adds 50% to the cost of nuclear. Not sure how one could describe that as trivial.
    Yes that's what i said. Minimal incident.

    Windscale was at the dawn of time as far as nuclear industry is concerned; wasn't it an enrichment centre for the bomb rather than power generation? The cooling ponds are a state, no doubt. But get things into perspective.
    The annual death toll caused by poor air quality alone in the uk is in the high tens of thousands. 1 in 5 people across the globe can attribute the effects of fossil fuel pollution contributing directly to their deaths.

    Nuclear isnt that scary in comparison.

    $3.4 bil for Finland's long term storage project. Considering they generate 23 TWhs+ of power from nuclear annually that's cheap really, for that much pollution free power generation

    Now, back to your area of expertise. Is there a clear path to large scale Lithium-ion battery recycling yet? How are the less cobalt reliant alternatives coming along? Is the chap who invented li battery tech actually selling the world a load of bullshit with glass storage that's consistently not repeatable in experiments?

  19. #2919
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,867
    Finland havent finished building it yet so lets not count our chickens

    > Is there a clear path to large scale Lithium-ion battery recycling yet?

    No. Lots of promising leads, nothing I'd bet money on yet.

    > How are the less cobalt reliant alternatives coming along?

    This is an exciting area, watch this space in the next c. 2 years. Just need some large scale demonstrators and we are off to the races.

    > Is the chap who invented li battery tech actually selling the world a load of bullshit with glass storage that's consistently not repeatable in experiments?

    Dont know about this

  20. #2920
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    3,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Finland havent finished building it yet so lets not count our chickens

    > Is there a clear path to large scale Lithium-ion battery recycling yet?

    No. Lots of promising leads, nothing I'd bet money on yet.

    > How are the less cobalt reliant alternatives coming along?

    This is an exciting area, watch this space in the next c. 2 years. Just need some large scale demonstrators and we are off to the races.

    > Is the chap who invented li battery tech actually selling the world a load of bullshit with glass storage that's consistently not repeatable in experiments?

    Dont know about this
    He's literally Called Johnny B Goodenough I'd think his parents were Chuck Berry fans but the timeline doesn't add up.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •