Electric energy

[bobucles]

There is no 100% clean nuclear power ever.

Yeah, so? Coal power makes more nuclear waste than nuclear power, and that stuff doesn't even have to be contained. Trace elements in bulk add up.

[MagicLegend]

There is no 100% clean nuclear power ever.

Yeah, so? Coal power makes more nuclear waste than nuclear power, and that stuff doesn't even have to be contained. Trace elements in bulk add up.

That's not the point he was making. We were talking about nuclear power, not on how much radiation from space arrives at earth all the time. Nuclear waste is a problem in this world, and that was what we were talking about.

By the way, your point isnt valid. The problem with nuclear waste is that it has a lot of radiation in a small package. That's not what's happening to the CO2 that's produced by burning the coal. You are right that everything has radiation, but I think it is over exaggerated to say that it creates more nuclear waste.

~ML

[ssilk]

Ok, let's make it a bit offtopic:

My point is: Nuclear power is too powerful, to give it into the hands of someone, or even a group of people.
The same is logically valid for fusion energy. That's generally my opinion about everything, which gives too much power (technical and political) into the hands of someone.

The problem is not technical (I'm sure, that could be solved), it's political/ethical: What will the mankind do, if a second Hitler comes and uses this power without scruples? Not possible in your Country?

Come on! Look around, what's going on in the world! It is possible! And don't compare this to other dangers, we are talking here about nuclear power.

[wwdragon]

Ok, let's make it a bit offtopic:

My point is: Nuclear power is too powerful, to give it into the hands of someone, or even a group of people.
The same is logically valid for fusion energy. That's generally my opinion about everything, which gives too much power (technical and political) into the hands of someone.

The problem is not technical (I'm sure, that could be solved), it's political/ethical: What will the mankind do, if a second Hitler comes and uses this power without scruples? Not possible in your Country?

Come on! Look around, what's going on in the world! It is possible! And don't compare this to other dangers, we are talking here about nuclear power.

That's awfully off-topic of you.
Fears do not justify abandoning at technology; the reason nuclear is bad is because of the waste & risk of explosion for badly designed ones.
If the generator plants & waste can be used safely and processed to be harmless, then it should be used.

Likewise, in Factorio, there should be ways to process it to harmless; there should also be ways to clean the air of the pollution the coal engines, etc make!

[ssilk]

Fears do not justify abandoning at technology; the reason nuclear is bad is because of the waste & risk of explosion for badly designed ones.
If the generator plants & waste can be used safely and processed to be harmless, then it should be used.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with fears, it is just a logical deduction: That is the same argument, as if I give everybody a weapon and proclaim, that then the world is more safe.
It is obvious, that this is not true. The truth is of course then, that it is better to give people not so much might.
Nuclear energy is pure might/power. Logical deduction: Don't give nuclear power into the hands of people. And: Don't use it. Even if you (technically) can.

Likewise, in Factorio, there should be ways to process it to harmless; there should also be ways to clean the air of the pollution the coal engines, etc make!

Factorio is a game. I really would like to use nuclear technology there... and as I know the developers also: it will have a twist.

[Takezu]

Well ... Nuclear Power i agree, it's way to dangerous, we all know what can be done with it's byproducts and what would happen if one of those things blew up.

But Fusion, i'm not so certain.
Fusion is much cleaner, depending on the used element the byproducts would be stable Helium and/or Lithium isotopes. Nothing much to build a bomb out of.
On the other Hand the fusion itself: It would need a high Magnetic field for containment, regardless of scale. The heat is way higher then that we could contain it without.
And it's not an easy on of switch to start it either, you'll have to overcome the strong positiv charges of the nucleus to archive fusion. And thats no easy task.
And nothing practical for warefare either, well besides the power that comes from those things, which is in relation higher then energy from nuclear decay.

As for factorio, we have a fusi in our backpocket, it screams downright for a big one for the factory. Those things don't explode like a Nuclear Reactor. Worst case would be that the magnetic field would fail, the fusion stops and after melting of the hull you'd have a Hydrogenexplosion, or a massiv Heliumcloud escaping into the atmosphere, latter would be fun if factorio would have a voice output . But i think it could more or less result in a great raising of the pollution.

Well Fusion isn't 100% safe, as said if the magnetic field fails, there'd be consequences but in relation to Nuclear Power, it's much safer.

[wwdragon]

Fears do not justify abandoning at technology; the reason nuclear is bad is because of the waste & risk of explosion for badly designed ones.
If the generator plants & waste can be used safely and processed to be harmless, then it should be used.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with fears, it is just a logical deduction: That is the same argument, as if I give everybody a weapon and proclaim, that then the world is more safe.
It is obvious, that this is not true. The truth is of course then, that it is better to give people not so much might.
Nuclear energy is pure might/power. Logical deduction: Don't give nuclear power into the hands of people. And: Don't use it. Even if you (technically) can.

That's not logic! That's a incorrect deduction based on fear.
You fear everyone having it because of what they could do; likewise you fear everyone having a gun because they might shoot someone.

Because you mentioned the gun thing, I'll point out that it is true!
You see, if everyone has a gun, then anyone inclined to get a gun and rob someone is a LOT less likely to do so because they KNOW the person they might rob will have one too and they, therefore will get shot if they try.

Nuclear power generation is a tool, not a symbol.


I also want the fusion generator to have a big world counterpart.... my accumulators are up to almost 10MW in storage now. :-s

[kronon]

There is no 100% clean nuclear power ever.

Well as the articles explain, there is. If you search on the internet, there are even more options.

For more information watch the documentary "Pandora's Promise".

More to a Factorio related point: In the future it shouldn't be a problem to clean up (or even use) nuclear waste.

[ssilk]

That's not logic! That's a incorrect deduction based on fear.

It is right, the nuclear power can be made much cleaner, but with risk I mean here not the risk for individuals (which have of course fears etc.), but the risk of surviving for the mankind the next 100-200 years.
So, if you define fear as the chance, that something ultimately bad happens (I call this now bad accident), I'm with you. If you define it as feeling not. I have no feeling about it.

You fear everyone having it because of what they could do; likewise you fear everyone having a gun because they might shoot someone.

Well, in my eyes it is a simple calculation: The chance that a bad accident happens multiplied by the damage.

Let's assume some simple numbers:
Guns:
Chance, that an accident happens: 1/10000000 (*)
Maximum damage: 6 persons (or better: one magazine)

Nuclear power:
Chance, that an accident happens: 1/10000000000000 (*)
Maximum damage: All mankind (No surviver)

(*) this is just a number, for my thought you can replace it with any other number.

So, if you try to calculate the risk of something you find out: The maximum risk of using guns is calculable, the risk of nuclear power generation is not claculable.

I know some action films, where the hero says something like "I know the risk". That are clever heroes. Not so cleaver heroes say "I don't know the risk, but I do it anyway." This works well in a film, where it is about feelings, doing good, saving the world for the childs by taking the bullets. But it won't work for the mankind. We are not stupid heroes. If we cannot calculate the risk, it is not just very risky, it is just wrong.

And this is what I mean: If you cannot calculate the maximum risk, then this is something, which should not be used.
Because even if the chance, that a bad accident happens with nuclear energy is very, very, very small, the results have the chance to be the absolute end for the mankind.
Guns are not able to do this ... except if you give everybody a gun and all shoot at the same time.

I know, I know: why can a nuclear power plant destroy all mankind? I think to all kind of nuclear power, and mean here especially atom bombs. Nuclear power plants are needed to create them.

Because you mentioned the gun thing, I'll point out that it is true!
You see, if everyone has a gun, then anyone inclined to get a gun and rob someone is a LOT less likely to do so because they KNOW the person they might rob will have one too and they, therefore will get shot if they try.

That's the theory. The practice shows, that it is just not true, because many accidents happen then just because of handling around with it. See Chernobyl. The people loose the respect. Another good example for that is car driving: everybody knows, that driving car has a much bigger chance of being killed, than being killed by nuclear waste or by a gun. But people do it.
People tend to think in their own system.
They think: how much danger is it and how useful is it? "Oh, it is dangerous? But I'm a careful driver! And driving car is soooo useful and cheap." But they forget, that the drunken drivers belong to this system. The accident can happen to them, too. Even without any fault.
The same is it with nuclear energy. They think "Oh, nuclear energy is much cleaner, not so much waste and it is soooo useful and cheap." But they forget, that atom bombs are made out of this "waste". They belong to the system.

Nuclear power generation is a tool, not a symbol.

If using the tool means rising the chance to having a catastrophic end for the mankind then don't use this tool.

There is no 100% clean nuclear power ever.

Well as the articles explain, there is. If you search on the internet, there are even more options.

When you follow all that ideas, you will find out, that this comes from a big lobby of different organizations, like the oil-industry and some more, that are all interested to tell the people, how harmless and "clean" nuclear power is. And it is sooooo useful. But that is not my point here. See above.

For more information watch the documentary "Pandora's Promise".

That film assumes, that the risk of nuclear power is calculable. But it isn't. For coal driven power plants the risk is calculable. Which doesn't mean, that I like them more. But we had here in Germany a big debate around that, and the result is to go into direction of clean energy, which seems to be a much harder way, than thought, but it looks promising, because it avoids all that.

More to a Factorio related point: In the future it shouldn't be a problem to clean up (or even use) nuclear waste.

All that technology is so big, so expensive, so potentially dangerous, so monopolistic, concentrated to some single points of failure, that I'm quite sure, that the future of energy production will be a clean way.

And from a game-play perspective (to make the turn back to on-topic ) would it be really stupid, boring, to make nuclear power "clean" in a way, that it has no side-effects. Of course it makes pollution, and I would like to have the danger of implementing some difficulties, to control the reactor. You need some clever circuits or so to keep the stuff from exploding (which is then of course NOT a total loss in the game, you need just to repair it.

[Koub]

I won't enter the debate of nuclear, clean energies, and all that IRL.
But gameplay wise, Nuclear in itself could be clean, BUT should produce wastes that would not be destructible, and would continuously and endlessly produce pollution.
I'm talking nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion would not have these drawbacks. It produces energy out of hydrogen and helium, with no radioactive byproducts. But it needs a shitload of energy to kick in. A nuclear fusion power plant could need a few 10s MW to start, and produce the double or triple as long as it's fueled with helium an deuterium.

[bobucles]

You have a power source that can not be small scale,
which can ONLY be run by experts,
which KILLS its experts,
which causes its construction materials to decay,
in a way that's both difficult and dangerous to diagnose,
the government's always breathing down your neck because they want it weaponized,
security's always breathing down your neck because everyone else wants it weaponized,
and if it screws up is the only power source that makes its real estate WORTHLESS.

In the long run, nuclear energy just isn't worth it. Renewable has a higher up front cost but so many more steps can be accomplished by the average joe without a security clearance. It's the way to go.

Fusion is the golden dream because it avoids many of the political hazards that nuclear has(it JUST makes energy go away g-man) and failure ISN'T a national tragedy.

But back to topic...

Is there an actual NEED for a higher tier of energy generation? Even the most absurd factories can be powered with existing means.

[Koub]

Why would there be need for electric inserters when burner inserters work fine , why would there need electric mining drills when burner mining drills can do the job ? why assembling machines MK2 and 3 when MK1 can assemble things just fine ? Well maybe because it's fun to get a sense of progression, and because after some time, laying down bazillions of solar panels is not as fun as setting-up a new system that does :
- pump water in lakes
- extract its deuterium and its tritium
- product energy with them

bonus : make zeppelins with the produced Helium \o/

[ssilk]

In the long run, nuclear energy just isn't worth it. Renewable has a higher up front cost but so many more steps can be accomplished by the average joe without a security clearance. It's the way to go.

I calculated last week, that the whole area of my house-roof is more than enough, to supply me with energy plus selling away about 50%. The only problem is then: Where can I buy such cool accumulators like in Factorio? One or two would be enough!
It's a tragedy, that the technology for storing electric energy is not so far yet. Where can I trigger the research?
But I found out now: that will change, the new accumulator types are already here (or are just some years away), the basic technology is already researched/improved a lot, the prices will fall.

@Koub: Making a Zeppelin would be really cool. I think of transporting whole platforms: an array of 50x50 tiles, completely mounted. The Zeppelin brings it and drops it. Uh, that is also another way of express transport. https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =5&t=13200

[bobucles]

Why would there be need for electric inserters when burner inserters work fine , why would there need electric mining drills when burner mining drills can do the job ? why assembling machines MK2 and 3 when MK1 can assemble things just fine ? Well maybe because it's fun to get a sense of progression, and because after some time, laying down bazillions of solar panels is not as fun as setting-up a new system that does :

But those items actually add something to a base.

- The MK2 makes new items, and the Mk3 is needed for only the best crafting.
- Electric inserters and drills replace coal belts, simplifying base design

The only thing this higher tier of energy does is shrink your base, and players aren't really strapped for real estate in Factorio. Does it create new things? Can players use the nuclear byproducts for crafting new items like better cannon shells and bullets maybe? High tier energy might be more useful on the space layer, where hull capacity at a premium.

[ThaPear]

You fear everyone having it because of what they could do; likewise you fear everyone having a gun because they might shoot someone.

Well, in my eyes it is a simple calculation: The chance that a bad accident happens multiplied by the damage.

Let's assume some simple numbers:
Guns:
Chance, that an accident happens: 1/10000000 (*)
Maximum damage: 6 persons (or better: one magazine)

Nuclear power:
Chance, that an accident happens: 1/10000000000000 (*)
Maximum damage: All mankind (No surviver)

(*) this is just a number, for my thought you can replace it with any other number.

So, if you try to calculate the risk of something you find out: The maximum risk of using guns is calculable, the risk of nuclear power generation is not claculable.

I know some action films, where the hero says something like "I know the risk". That are clever heroes. Not so cleaver heroes say "I don't know the risk, but I do it anyway." This works well in a film, where it is about feelings, doing good, saving the world for the childs by taking the bullets. But it won't work for the mankind. We are not stupid heroes. If we cannot calculate the risk, it is not just very risky, it is just wrong.

And this is what I mean: If you cannot calculate the maximum risk, then this is something, which should not be used.
Because even if the chance, that a bad accident happens with nuclear energy is very, very, very small, the results have the chance to be the absolute end for the mankind.
Guns are not able to do this ... except if you give everybody a gun and all shoot at the same time.

I know, I know: why can a nuclear power plant destroy all mankind? I think to all kind of nuclear power, and mean here especially atom bombs. Nuclear power plants are needed to create them.

I'm not sure why you'd equalize the risk of a nuclear power plant to that of a nuclear bomb. There is no way for a nuclear plant to explode like a nuclear bomb would. Even if there were, it'd still not be an incalculable risk because a single (or a few) nuclear bombs going off will not end humanity.

Nuclear power plants are not needed to create nuclear bombs. They generate byproducts that can indeed be used to create them, but a nuclear bomb can just as well be made without a reactor present.
Your comparison of nuclear plants and nuclear bombs could also be applied to gas power plants. Gas could potentially be used to create many nasty kinds of bombs (like a fuel air bomb*) and could kill a lot of people.

Nuclear power generation is a tool, not a symbol.

If using the tool means rising the chance to having a catastrophic end for the mankind then don't use this tool.

In the early days of creating vaccinations the same could be said. The same can currently be applied to the entire field of infectious disease research.

The only current obstacle to nuclear power plants is fear. People fear nuclear power for what can happen because when something does happen, it affects a large area for a long time.
In fact, the death rate vs kilowatts produced is a lot higher in other types of power generation. Just searching for death rate of coal power turns up many results (like this one) that show this.
While the argument of radiation can be applied, you must remember that that source doesn't account for people that die while acquiring (and transporting) the 3,500,000 tons of coal needed to produce as much energy as 1 ton of thorium would be able to.

*Detonations at 2:02

[bobucles]

Gas could potentially be used to create many nasty kinds of bombs

That's why natural gas tankers work way offshore and pump their goods to land. No one's dumb enough to run them up a narrow river and risk a catastrophe. Well. Except this one local place I know.

[Wyrm]

You have a power source that can not be small scale,
which can ONLY be run by experts,

False.

which KILLS its experts,

Name an industry that doesn't.

which causes its construction materials to decay,

All technologies have a useful life, linked to wear and tear and corrosion.

in a way that's both difficult and dangerous to diagnose,

All power technologies have dangerous failure modes.

the government's always breathing down your neck because they want it weaponized,
security's always breathing down your neck because everyone else wants it weaponized,

Only the U/Pu product chains. Thorium chains don't produce fissile material and cannot be weaponized except in dirty bombs. While this is a legitimate concern, there are also chemicals used in our present industry that are far more dangerous. Chlorine trifluoride burns sand.

and if it screws up is the only power source that makes its real estate WORTHLESS.

Tell that to the workers of Three Mile Island. The accident only took out one reactor, TMI-2, and resulted in no long-term evacuation of the surrounding area. TMI-1 was undamaged and was brought back online in 2010. The Fukishima Daiichi plant was struck by a tsunami, which would have made all the surrounding land worthless anyway, and caused more deaths —verified and theoretical— than Fukishima could. The only accident to fit your screed is Chernobyl, but even then it doesn't really hold water. Chernobyl used the RBMK-1000 early generation II reactors that had known instabilities and no containment building.

In the long run, nuclear energy just isn't worth it. Renewable has a higher up front cost but so many more steps can be accomplished by the average joe without a security clearance. It's the way to go.

Renewables have the very crippling limitation that they are very low density and are limited to how good the biosphere is at absorbing energy from the sun and storing it in usable form. We currently burn around 10-15 billion tons of fossil fuels a year. This is greater than the biomass of all terrestrial and marine dry biomass together — we'd chew through our present 'reserve' in less than a year. The only source that could take that kind of harvest is the global biomass of prokaryotes, and that would be difficult to harvest. There just isn't enough energy available from the biosphere to feed our hunger — at least if we expect it to be a healthy biosphere and not one that has been turned into a basket case servant of mankind.

Of course, I have ambitions for mankind. I want us to be able to conquer the stars, and we can't do that long term without lots of high-density fuels like nuclear.

Fusion is the golden dream because it avoids many of the political hazards that nuclear has(it JUST makes energy go away g-man) and failure ISN'T a national tragedy.

The fact that it has a higher energy density than fission is what makes it a must-have.

Is there an actual NEED for a higher tier of energy generation? Even the most absurd factories can be powered with existing means.

Not without fucktons of solar panels plastering your territory, oodles of energy accumulators, and/or rivers of coal/oil flowing in to feed those beasts.

[bobucles]

It's very clear you're a strong supporter of nuclear power, Wyrm, but no. Nuclear power is never JUST an electric generator, and it's not going to be. Major plants are barely worth the insane up front cost as is, when other developments are getting cheaper all the time. While there is a legitimate need for compact, high yield energy generation, that sort of tech is only going to be relevant in a private capacity. Like if I want a yacht, or a 50 thousand acre mansion, or some kind of privately guarded factory complex in a country with extremely loose labor and waste disposal laws.

And for crying out loud. Not every single source of renewable energy is something you BURN in a furnace.

[Okeanos]

Who said the radioactive material was only for power?

https://youtu.be/2ibnHGWR9pU

[MagicLegend]

Who said the radioactive material was only for power?

https://youtu.be/2ibnHGWR9pU

It isnt. Think of all the medical applications. Processed uranium is also used as counterbalance in planes, and there are so many other applications (killing people).

~ML