Random Thread

[rotting bones]

I hear different groups are fighting to take credit for the latest superconductor paper. This is apparently a sign it might be real. If it's real, then fusion power will eventually be solved. If fusion power is solved, then the world can finally tell Saudi Arabia to fuck off.

Fusion power is hardly a cure-all, superconductors or no superconductors. Perhaps a room-temperature superconductor would make it easier, but that’s a relative term: plasma is a difficult substance to control, and in any case the energy density is abysmal. It’s far better to focus on solar and wind, with fission as a distant third — there’s plenty enough of those to go around.

Really? I've seen a lot of analyses arguing that no combination of traditional energy sources is sufficient to replace fossil fuels.

[bradrn]

I hear different groups are fighting to take credit for the latest superconductor paper. This is apparently a sign it might be real. If it's real, then fusion power will eventually be solved. If fusion power is solved, then the world can finally tell Saudi Arabia to fuck off.

Fusion power is hardly a cure-all, superconductors or no superconductors. Perhaps a room-temperature superconductor would make it easier, but that’s a relative term: plasma is a difficult substance to control, and in any case the energy density is abysmal. It’s far better to focus on solar and wind, with fission as a distant third — there’s plenty enough of those to go around.

Really? I've seen a lot of analyses arguing that no combination of traditional energy sources is sufficient to replace fossil fuels.

I haven’t. To me, solar+wind+nuclear seem like they would be sufficient — though to be fair, you need a good energy storage system too. If anything, that will be where superconductors can help.

Oh, and I forgot hydro, tidal and geothermal as energy sources too, though of course those require the right geography.

[WeepingElf]

Fusion power is hardly a cure-all, superconductors or no superconductors. Perhaps a room-temperature superconductor would make it easier, but that’s a relative term: plasma is a difficult substance to control, and in any case the energy density is abysmal. It’s far better to focus on solar and wind, with fission as a distant third — there’s plenty enough of those to go around.

Really? I've seen a lot of analyses arguing that no combination of traditional energy sources is sufficient to replace fossil fuels.

I haven’t. To me, solar+wind+nuclear seem like they would be sufficient — though to be fair, you need a good energy storage system too. If anything, that will be where superconductors can help.

Oh, and I forgot hydro, tidal and geothermal as energy sources too, though of course those require the right geography.

It even works out without nuclear fission. People tend to vastly underestimate just how much power the Sun sends to us - for free.

And of course, room temperature superconductors would be useful for many things besides nuclear fusion.

[foxcatdog]

Listening to in colour while drunk is an experience

[foxcatdog]

New barbie movie is the best movie i ever watched. Directing was on point and the writing varies between funny and smart.

[foxcatdog]

Assibilation is the most aesthetic sound change.

[Raphael]

New barbie movie [...]

Was there an old one?

[foxcatdog]

New barbie movie [...]

Was there an old one?

Tons of movies which look to be aimed at young girls and all animated. Not really relevant or worth mentioning for adults.

[xxx]

advertising is the art of the XXIst century...

[Ryusenshi]

degree_off_reduced.png (63.33 KiB) Viewed 24055 times

XKCD 1520, edited.

Those idiots even gave the new one the same name as one of the old ones!

More: show

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him." (Revelation 6:8, KJV)
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." (Oppenheimer quoting the Bhagavad Gita)

[keenir]

degree_off_reduced.png
XKCD 1520, edited.

Those idiots even gave the new one the same name as one of the old ones!

More: show

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him." (Revelation 6:8, KJV)
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." (Oppenheimer quoting the Bhagavad Gita)

nobody said syne-theological-fusings were easy; if it was, anyone could do...wait.

[Torco]

Nuclear is the bomb, and tbh it could provide like half of our energy needs: too bad it has such a lousy reputation

[WeepingElf]

Nuclear is the bomb, and tbh it could provide like half of our energy needs: too bad it has such a lousy reputation

It has its lousy reputation for good reasons. Have you learned nothing from Chernobyl and Fukushima? And can you tell us how to dispose of the radioactive waste safely?

[Raphael]

Have you learned nothing from Chernobyl and Fukushima?

The standard logic used by defenders of nuclear power is something like "Yes, there were some really big nuclear disasters, but each one of them involved a very specific combination of circumstances that is unlikely to repeat itself in the future."

The problem with that line of argument is, of course, that while the specific combination of circumstances that led to each of the previous disasters really is unlikely to repeat itself in the future, the more general fact of having some combination of circumstances that leads to a disaster is a good deal more likely to repeat itself in the future.

[keenir]

Nuclear is the bomb, and tbh it could provide like half of our energy needs: too bad it has such a lousy reputation

It has its lousy reputation for good reasons. Have you learned nothing from Chernobyl and Fukushima? And can you tell us how to dispose of the radioactive waste safely?

The problem with that line of argument is, of course, that while the specific combination of circumstances that led to each of the previous disasters really is unlikely to repeat itself in the future, the more general fact of having some combination of circumstances that leads to a disaster is a good deal more likely to repeat itself in the future.

We're still learning - and in the process, getting better at - dealing with the waste products from oil and natural gas...which we've been harnessing for a longer. Nuclear energy is still a young technology.

Can we foresee everything that can possibly go wrong? We try to, but we can't predict everything. Can we try to prevent as many possible failures of equipment as possible? Yes, just as we do all we can to keep lions, crocodiles, and mistreated dogs from attacking people - or to keep humans from killing humans in peacetime. (not sure if dogs or Asian elephants are a better analogy -- the latter are tamed, not domesticated, and when things go wrong with them, people can & do die as a result...but, so far as i am aware, nobody uses that as a reason to stop harnessing the power of that genus of elephants)

To expect a dangerous substance to have zero risk, is baffling. People learn through theory and things going wrong - look how long it took us to stop putting radioactive elements in things like skincare products. If and when we know what the problem is, we usually stop doing it, like we stopped putting radioactives in skincare products; while making buildings tsunami-proof is a bit harder, we try, and we learn and try again.

[Raphael]

Can we foresee everything that can possibly go wrong? We try to, but we can't predict everything. Can we try to prevent as many possible failures of equipment as possible? Yes, just as we do all we can to keep lions, crocodiles, and mistreated dogs from attacking people - or to keep humans from killing humans in peacetime. (not sure if dogs or Asian elephants are a better analogy -- the latter are tamed, not domesticated, and when things go wrong with them, people can & do die as a result...but, so far as i am aware, nobody uses that as a reason to stop harnessing the power of that genus of elephants)

When a tamed elephant goes rogue, that doesn't make large tracts of land uninhabitable. Which brings us to...

To expect a dangerous substance to have zero risk, is baffling. People learn through theory and things going wrong - look how long it took us to stop putting radioactive elements in things like skincare products. If and when we know what the problem is, we usually stop doing it, like we stopped putting radioactives in skincare products; while making buildings tsunami-proof is a bit harder, we try, and we learn and try again.

The difference between the unavoidable risks involved in dealing with other dangerous things and the unavoidable risks involved in dealing with nuclear power is that, with nuclear power, the bad things that happen when things go really wrong are so much worse than their counterparts in most other contexts.

That you mention tsunami-proofing illustrates the point I made above:

The problem with that line of argument is, of course, that while the specific combination of circumstances that led to each of the previous disasters really is unlikely to repeat itself in the future, the more general fact of having some combination of circumstances that leads to a disaster is a good deal more likely to repeat itself in the future.

Yes, there'll be more tsunami-proofing of nuclear facilities now, and yes, many nuclear facilities are already in places with little or no risk from tsunamis. But that's besides the point, because the next serious nuclear disaster almost certainly won't be caused by a tsunami, but by something else entirely.

[KathTheDragon]

Meanwhile, we're on course to make the entire planet uninhabitable, but sure, nuclear is the bigger threat.

[linguistcat]

Also doesn't coal at least release a lot of radio active compounds into the air and water anyway? Both when mined and when burned? Like a nuclear plant going critical is bad but for the most part it's still local. Coal burning, and possibly using other fossil fuels, is a global problem both for climate change reasons AND radio activity reasons.

I'm not trying to be flippant about the effects of nuclear radiation, but at least from what I've heard coal is a bigger danger - on average and over time - than all the nuclear plants the world has up to this point, including meltdowns. But I may be wrong on that.

[Torco]

Yup, that's right: the data, afaik, is not ambiguous about it.

Energy production always has externalities. nuclear's externalities have the problem of being highly narrativizable, and exceedingly spectacular. I can't reply with a similar "have you learned nothing from [event]" because coal, by comparison, kills and harms many many times more people per megawatt, but in a way that can't be turned into a scary, spectacular and memorable story as easily. Elf's concerned about nuclear poison being stored in a way in which it can't possibly cause harm to people: sure, i'd like that as well, but let's keep things in perspective here, the poison produced by coal, oil, gas etcetera is literally just cast into the atmosphere we all breathe, ensuring it will harm people... not to mention, you know, climate change. I don't disagree that it has a lousy reputation for reasons, but I wonder how much of the reason is that easy-to-narrativize thing, how much is the fossil fuel lobby: it's not actual data about actual harm, cause that's pretty clear, as far as I know: it simply causes less harm. Sure, we'd all like energy to be produced by very very clean renewables, but until we have much better ways to store energy, that just isn't in the cards: you need something to provide baseline during the night, when the wind isn't blowing etcetera. hydro can help, where it's availabe, but even it has harms as well: sunken towns, indigenous lands, fish migration blabla. plus, as climate changes it will become less and less reliable: some rivers will dry, for example. ultimatley it's a matter of harm-per-megawatt.

but we do live in a world where most everyone thinks nuclear = scary... geo could provide baseline as well, I guess?

[Travis B.]

I am of the view that nuclear, when done right, is better than fossil fuels. Sure, there have been a handful of spectacular nuclear incidents ignoring reactors (e.g. Windscale, SL-1, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima), but burning coal, as mentioned, dumps incredible amounts of waste, including toxic heavy metals and radioactive material, into our atmosphere every single day, and oil and gas exploration mobilizes significant quantities of radium that is in the ground, which very often heavily contaminates "brine" that comes out of the ground alongside the oil and gas (but is neatly dismissed as being "natural radioactivity"). It is just that the great pollution and contamination resulting from fossil fuels are just so much more pedestrian than the occasional nuclear disaster that it is routinely ignored or dismissed.