Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
@Ottovonshitpost @transgrammaractivist @BowsacNoodle @jeffcliff GEOTHERMAL IS ALRIGHT, IF YOU HAVE IT
- BowserNoodle ☦️ likes this.
-
Embed this notice
@Ottovonshitpost @transgrammaractivist @BowsacNoodle @jeffcliff MY PROBLEM WITH NUKES IS THAT YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN AN ONGOING "EXPLODING WINDMILLS" PROBLEM FOR LONGER THAN A TYPICAL EMPIRE/CIVILIZATION LASTS
THATS KUST ASKING FOR TROUBLE
-
Embed this notice
A fair assessment. I went through the USN nuclear pipeline, and even when the odds were in their favor, there just weren't enough people who could understand the systems they operated to the level of "Don't operate this switch under these conditions or we all die"
-
Embed this notice
I'd love to see more organic Rankine cycle geothermal plants, but I think at this point the restriction is on builders/operators who understand it than it is on suitable locations and funding.
-
Embed this notice
@nugger @Ottovonshitpost @transgrammaractivist @BowsacNoodle @jeffcliff There are potential options such as accelerator driven reactors that can potentially burn nuclear waste, but I don't know if the economics exist to bring that into reality, particularly with how nuclear as a whole is kind of a black sheep.
-
Embed this notice
@ForbiddenDreamer @nugger @Ottovonshitpost @transgrammaractivist @jeffcliff "Nuclear Waste" is a fake term created from political implications of trying to reduce global proliferation. We finally had a facility in the works in upstate NY that could handle refinement of "waste" fuels, but the USA had a ban on reprocessing fuels since Ford/Carter only recently overturned, so we didn't have the reactors built to use it. Chicken and egg problem that only got worse as stuff like 3-mile-island scared people further, and I think the libtards finally shut down the facility despite all the investment in it.
-
Embed this notice
@BowsacNoodle @nugger @Ottovonshitpost @transgrammaractivist @jeffcliff I think like 90% of 'waste' can be reprocessed into plutonium and uranium, with 5% being relatively benign contaminants that are less of a health concern and mostly just have to be removed to make the fuel usable. The remaining 5% is both hazardous and can't be burned in conventional reactors and so would require some new form of reactor. The issue comes in that it's not economically viable to remove the 10% from the 90% (due in part to legislation, nobody's going to invest in new technology if it's going to be shut down in a year), so we just pull the plutonium from the waste and bury the uranium along with the 10% (minus some valuable isotopes extracted for medical use etc.)
nugger
Christmas Man
The Forbidden Dreamer
BowserNoodle ☦️
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the