I think you'll find it's called Unbelievium.
>> ^MonkeySpank:

What's the point of having Nazi's on the moon? There are no Jews up there. Oh, and the technical term used in the field is Tritium, not Helium-3. Fucking Hollywood...

>> ^MonkeySpank:

What's the point of having Nazi's on the moon? There are no Jews up there. Oh, and the technical term used in the field is Tritium, not Helium-3. Fucking Hollywood...


I'd say they're referencing Frank Schätzing.

...and i'm keen to see reactions of German Feuilleton when this hits the cinemas over here.

What's the point of having Nazi's on the moon? There are no Jews up there. Oh, and the technical term used in the field is Tritium, not Helium-3. Fucking Hollywood...

>> ^Mashiki:

>> ^Xax:
1. Holy shit! I wouldn't have guessed the count to have been 10% of that.
2. How have we not destroyed ourselves completely over the last 70 years?
3. Remind me to take radiation meds before I ever visit the U.S. west coast.

1)You're looking at a couple of things. Power projection of devices, the others fall into research, refinement and higher yield.
2)MAD
3)Why? You're more likely to have more issues from Chernobyl then you will from weapons tests. From tritium leaks, or even the sun.


1. What?
2. Huh?
3. I thought it was obvious I was joking; my bad.

>> ^Xax:

1. Holy shit! I wouldn't have guessed the count to have been 10% of that.
2. How have we not destroyed ourselves completely over the last 70 years?
3. Remind me to take radiation meds before I ever visit the U.S. west coast.


1)You're looking at a couple of things. Power projection of devices, the others fall into research, refinement and higher yield.
2)MAD
3)Why? You're more likely to have more issues from Chernobyl then you will from weapons tests. From tritium leaks, or even the sun.

That was not really a debate, there was only 1 side given in the report.

Also he says that nuclear power is a failed technology from the 20th century, he's wrong in that nuclear energy has huge untapped potential (as long as it's done right), the fact it's from the 20th century means nothing, should we give up food cause that was like, you know, so last century.

Having said that, leaking tritium sounds incredibly bad, substances with a half life of over 12 years shouldn't really be leaking into water supplies.

As far as putting money into this tech and not solar etc, did Obama not sign the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act a while ago which gives $90'ish billion to those kind of techs? Or did solar/wind power tech's get completely overlooked even with that huge investment, maybe someone has more information on that.

Lastly, the liquid flouride thorium reactor talked about at the google tech talk looked promising, i wonder if this kind of tech was even considered
http://www.videosift.com/video/Liquid-Fluoride-Thorium-Reactor-Google-Tech-Talk-Remix

Interesting. My knowledge on fusion is limited to the basic function of it. I know little to nothing about reaction fusion technology. My brain finds it hard to fathom that harnessing the power of the sun couldn't have volatile reputations. More over, IF one fails, the cost of fixing it and how regularly it would fail are questions that I think are valid. A power station going offline for a year isn't the answer to a power crisis really.

For me, I have always liked the KISS principle to energy. Many small manageable solutions. Granted, I think fusion reactor technology is still smart to look to, but only for our really cool space ships and ray guns (like an ion cannon to clear an escape from Hoth). In other words, there are most likely easier and safer, more reliably ways to get our power...right?

(what I mean basically is this seems like one of those things that will get here when it gets here...but for a good solution now, it is not that. And even when it gets here, it's going to take awhile to get all the kinks out. Solar and hydrogen fuel cells seem like a real solution now that is already very mature and fairly plug and play with current technology.)

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The problem to me with a fusion plant is the energy density. If a catastrophe were to happen, how much of a city would go with it...or how much of a country? I have always liked the idea of everything being its own power station.

The danger of fission is radioactivity. All a "meltdown" does, as far as actual damage, is destroy the reactor. However, it can release radioactive isotopes into the environment, which brings enormous health risks. Fission is self-sustaining, so if the containment fails, the reaction can continue. It should also be noted that fission reactors are far safer today than they were in the past.
Fusion does not have this problem. If the system fails then the reaction stops. It might damage the reactor, but even if the magnet exploded (which would only be a local event) there would be no danger to the surrounding area. As far as I know, the only radiation threat would involve tritium, which is only one fuel method for fusion, and even then there would be far less danger than from a fission reaction.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The problem to me with a fusion plant is the energy density. If a catastrophe were to happen, how much of a city would go with it...or how much of a country? I have always liked the idea of everything being its own power station.


The danger of fission is radioactivity. All a "meltdown" does, as far as actual damage, is destroy the reactor. However, it can release radioactive isotopes into the environment, which brings enormous health risks. Fission is self-sustaining, so if the containment fails, the reaction can continue. It should also be noted that fission reactors are far safer today than they were in the past.

Fusion does not have this problem. If the system fails then the reaction stops. It might damage the reactor, but even if the magnet exploded (which would only be a local event) there would be no danger to the surrounding area. As far as I know, the only radiation threat would involve tritium, which is only one fuel method for fusion, and even then there would be far less danger than from a fission reaction.

Is it really more efficient to first produce tritium (through fission from lithium) and then use it and deuterium for fusion? I mean wouldn't it be easier to just use D-D fusion for example and compensate for the worse efficiency by skipping the tritium production phase? I'm sure this is exactly the best place on the internet to ask such questions!

It would of course be more accurate to say a bathtub of HEAVY water. Strictly speaking they are right that the fusion reaction itself does not create radioactive isotopes but the high energy neutrons released do activate the metal in the structure. The isotopes created are short lived though and the reactor could be buried on site for only 50-100 and would then be safe. tritium is not found on the moon, only helium 3.

Physics rules.

The Fusion they are describing here is done with deuterium-tritium. (1)

Deuterium is a stable Hydrogen form that can be found in "abundance" in ocean water. (2)
".... approximately one atom in 6500 of hydrogen (~154 PPM). Deuterium thus accounts for approximately 0.015% (on a weight basis, 0.030%) of all naturally occurring hydrogen in the oceans on Earth" (2)

Tritium is an unstable hydrogen Isotope, also found naturally though not as often. It is found in abundance on the moon. (3)

In other words, of that bathtub, only 0,015% of the hydrogen is actually used. 2 hydrogens are still a lot lighter then 1 oxygen (H2O ;-), so in total only a fraction of 0,015% of all the water is used. After that, we will have to use other materials. Since all of the materials you find on earth are made in the sun through Fusion, well, you can see how endless our fuel supply is. If technology can find ways to harvest the energy without blowing us all up.

One thing though: Fusion also creates radioactive materials. It is less of a problem then with Fission, but they are still there. Dont know why they mention it does not.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

"btw i would rather have one nuclear power station than seven gajillion acres of inefficient turbines. They are not made of recycled paper, you know?"...

"If you like progress, and you think a fucking windmill is progress, then you're mental."

You're comparing plastics with nuclear waste and you're calling me mental? At least plastic can be recycled. Nuclear power plants aren't made of recycled paper either, and they must continually be re-fueled every 18 months. Do you think they that fuel grows on trees? Wind turbines require no fuel, and need very little maintenance.

Progress is building more safe, renewable resources for power such as wind, hydro and solar power plants, not building more nuke plants.

I know all about Chernobyl and nuclear reactors, I used to work at one. I know the designs are different, my point is that it only takes one accident and the effects on the environment and life lasts for generations. Do you realize how many nuclear accidents there have been, besides the two major ones (TMI and Chernobyl)? There's more than just accidents at nuclear plants, accidents occur during the manufacturing, transport, storage, and disposal of the nuclear fuel. They may not be as big as Chernobyl, but the damage to the environment has been done, and the "pollution" will be around longer than you or I.

Here's a list of just some of the nuclear accidents in just the US alone:

July 1959 - Boeing-Rocketdyne Nuclear Facility in Ventura County, California, A clogged coolant channel resulted in a 30% reactor core meltdown, which led to the release of the third greatest amount of radioactive iodine-131 in nuclear history.

July 1956 - Sylvania Electric Products' Metallurgy Atomic Research Center, Bayside, Queens, New York, nine people were injured when two explosions destroyed a portion of the facility.

December 1958 - Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico. A nuclear criticality accident killed 1 operator.

1959 - Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Simi Valley Hills, California. A partial sodium reactor meltdown occurred.

January 1961 - National Reactor Testing Station in Arco, Idaho. A reactor explosion, killed 3 technicians, and released radiation. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were buried in lead coffins.

October 1966 - Detroit Edison's Enrico Fermi I demonstration breeder reactor near Detroit, Michigan. A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial core meltdown.

November 1971 - Northern States Power Company's reactor in Monticello, Minnesota. The water storage space filled to capacity and spilled over, dumping about 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River.

1972 - The West Valley, NY fuel reprocessing plant was closed after 6 years in operation, leaving 600,000 gallons of high-level wastes buried in leaking tanks. The site caused measurable contamination of Lakes Ontario and Erie.

March 1972 - A routine check in a nuclear power plant in Alaska indicated abnormal radioactivity in the building's water system. Radioactivity was confirmed in the plant drinking fountain. Apparently there was an inappropriate cross-connection between a 3,000 gallon radioactive tank and the water system.

December 1972 - A plutonium fabrication plant in Pauling, New York. An undetermined amount of radioactive plutonium was scattered inside and outside the plant, after a major fire and two explosions occurred resulting in its permanent shutdown.

May 1974 - The Atomic Energy Commission reported that 861 "abnormal events" had occurred in 1973 in the nation's 42 operative nuclear power plants. Twelve involved the release of radioactivity "above permissible levels."

March 1975 - Browns Ferry reactor, Decatur, Alabama. A fire burned out electrical controls, lowering the cooling water to dangerous levels, before the plant could be shut down.

1979 - The Critical Mass Energy Project tabulated 122 accidents involving the transport of nuclear material in 1979, 17 involving radioactive contamination.

March 1979 - Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. After cooling water was lost, the top portion of the reactor's 150-ton core collapsed and melted. Contaminated coolant water escaped into a nearby building, releasing radioactive gasses. A study by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, showed that the accident led to a minimum of 430 infant deaths.

July 1979 - Church Rock, New Mexico. A dam holding radioactive uranium mill tailings broke, sending an estimated 100 million gallons of radioactive liquids and 1,100 tons of solid wastes downstream.

August 1979 - A nuclear fuel plant near Erwin, Tennessee. Highly enriched uranium was released. About 1,000 people were contaminated with up to 5 times as much radiation as would normally be received in a year. Between 1968 and 1983 the plant "lost" 234 pounds of highly enriched uranium, forcing the plant to be closed six times during that period.

January 1980 - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (where large amounts of nuclear material are kept). An earthquake caused caused a tritium leak.

September 1980 - Two canisters containing radioactive materials fell off a truck on New Jersey's Route 17. The driver, en route from Pennsylvania to Toronto, did not notice the missing cargo until he reached Albany, New York.

1981 - The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that there were 4,060 mishaps and 140 serious events at nuclear power plants in 1981.

February 11, 1981 - Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah I plant in Tennessee, 110,000 gallons of radioactive coolant sprayed into the containment building, which led to the contamination of eight men.

July 1981 - Nine Mile Point's Unit 1 in New York state. A flood of radioactive wastewater in the sub-basement caused approximately 150 55-gallon drums of high-level waste to overturn, some of which released their highly radioactive contents. Some 50,000 gallons of radioactive water were subsequently dumped into Lake Ontario to make room for the cleanup.

January 25, 1982 - Rochester Gas & Electric Company's Ginna plant near Rochester, New York. Fifteen thousand gallons of radioactive coolant spilled onto the plant floor, and radioactive steam escaped into the air after a steam generator pipe broke.

January 1983 - Browns Ferry power plant, Athens, Alabama. About 208,000 gallons of water with radioactive contamination was accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River.

February 1983 - Salem 1 reactor in New Jersey. A catastrophe was averted by just 90 seconds when the plant was shut down manually, following the failure of automatic shutdown systems. The same automatic systems had failed to respond in an incident three days before. Other problems plagued this plant as well, such as a 3,000 gallon leak of radioactive water in June 1981 at the Salem 2 reactor, a 23,000 gallon leak of radioactive water (which splashed onto 16 workers) in February 1982, and radioactive gas leaks in March 1981 and September 1982 from Salem 1.

December 1984 - The Fernald Uranium Plant, a 1,050-acre uranium fuel production complex 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio. The Department of Energy disclosed that excessive amounts of radioactive materials had been released through ventilating systems. Subsequent reports revealed that 230 tons of radioactive material had leaked into the Greater Miami River valley during the previous thirty years, 39 tons of uranium dust had been released into the atmosphere, 83 tons had been discharged into surface water, and 5,500 tons of radioactive and other hazardous substances had been released into pits and swamps where they seeped into the groundwater. In addition, 337 tons of uranium hexafluoride was found to be missing, its whereabouts completely unknown. The plant was not permanently shut down until 1989.

1986 - A truck carrying radioactive material went off a bridge on Route 84 in Idaho, and dumped part of its cargo in the Snake River. Officials reported the release of radioactivity.

6 January 1986 - The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma. A container of highly toxic gas exploded, causing one worker to die (when his lungs were destroyed) and 130 others to seek medical treatment.

December 1986 - Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia. A feedwater pipe ruptured, causing 8 workers to be scalded by a release of hot water and steam. Four of the workers later died from their injuries. In addition, water from the sprinkler systems caused a malfunction of the security system, preventing personnel from entering the facility.

1988 - It was reported that there were 2,810 accidents in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants in 1987.

November 1992 - The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma closed after repeated citations by the Government for violations of nuclear safety and environmental rules. It's record during 22 years of operation included an accident in 1986 that killed one worker and injured dozens of others and the contamination of the Arkansas River and groundwater. The Sequoyah Fuels plant, one of two privately-owned American factories that fabricated fuel rods, had been shut down a week before by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when an accident resulted in the release of toxic gas. Thirty-four people sought medical attention as a result of the accident. The plant had also been shut down the year before when unusually high concentrations of uranium were detected in water in a nearby construction pit. A Government investigation revealed that the company had known for years that uranium was leaking into the ground at levels 35,000 times higher than Federal law allows.

March 1994 - A nuclear research facility on Long Island, New York. A fire resulted in the nuclear contamination of three fire fighters, three reactor operators, and one technician. Measurable amounts of radioactive substances were released into the immediate environment.

February 2000 - Indian Point II power plant in New York vented radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured.

March 2002 - Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Workers discovered a foot-long cavity eaten into the reactor vessel head. Borated water had corroded the metal to a 3/16 inch stainless steel liner which held back over 80,000 gallons of highly pressurized radioactive water.

Do you honestly think that more of this is worth not having to look at a field of wind turbines (they're not windmills btw, yes I get the refrence )? As far as I know, wind turbines have not killed anyone or released toxic and radioactive materials into the environment.