Judging by the explosion pattern, that's not a random happenstance, but a concerted effort for implosion. I'd love to see the video of it in collapse! :D
Pretty sure that was the tower they blew up in Washington a couple years back.
It was more a symbolic act than anything else-- the never-finished nuke plant was actually left standing, with only the cooling tower (those characteristic tube-towers you get in nuclear power plants) being blown up.
A group of hippies gathered around in safe distance and shouted in triumph. I'd be annoyed with them, since as far as I can tell the French are rapidly developing variations on nuclear power way safer and cleaner than our grease-belching coal plants, but they get so very few victories these days...
It's my understanding that the market is getting tighter for the fuel used in the reactors. Coal is filthy, but nuclear has a host of problems as well.
Oh, TONS of problems. Fission power is limited and non-renewable due to the scarcity of fissile material and the fact that you need a supernova to get more.
No seriously. That's where it comes from.
Fusion, the nuclear reaction that fuels the sun, is a much better choice since its fuel, hydrogen, is essentially everywhere, both on Earth and in the universe. It's literally the most common element.
Fission has the distinct advantage, however, that we know how to get energy surplus from it now, something we can't say for fusion and can barely say for the various solar harvesting technologies (hydroelectric, wind, and just about all other forms of energy are indirect solar). Fission power is probably a necessary intermediary between fossil fuels (which are a pretty atrocious option) and fusion, which we will ultimately need if we're to last, as a technologically advanced species.
Yeah, fusion would be nice, but I'm not expecting it any time soon. I'm assuming that we're just going to have to go with diversification in terms of where we get our energy. The good thing about how inefficient the system that is currently in place is, we can tighten up around the edges in terms of conservation and have noticeable gains. The down side is, so much of our infrastructure is designed around not only cheap, plentiful fuel, but that it's around fossil fuels specifically. Take farming for example, the massive machinery isn't going to be fission or fusion or solar powered for quite some time. Storage is another issue as well, all those batteries in the hybrids are pretty filthy to make.
Hopefully, despite the global markets looking icky, someone will still be pouring money into R&D for all this stuff. It still ticks me off that at least here in America, we'd be a lot better off if Reagan hadn't cut so much of the funding that Carter started, in response to the energy crises in the 70s. We've been down this path before, and simply ignored it. UGH.
On a more personal note, there was a lot of radioactive waste stored in my hometown, so I have a basic familiarity with some of the problems of nuclear. The peculiar effect this has had on me is that radiation symbols make me all nostalgic.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-23 03:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-23 05:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-23 03:44 pm (UTC)It was more a symbolic act than anything else-- the never-finished nuke plant was actually left standing, with only the cooling tower (those characteristic tube-towers you get in nuclear power plants) being blown up.
A group of hippies gathered around in safe distance and shouted in triumph. I'd be annoyed with them, since as far as I can tell the French are rapidly developing variations on nuclear power way safer and cleaner than our grease-belching coal plants, but they get so very few victories these days...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-23 04:00 pm (UTC)It's my understanding that the market is getting tighter for the fuel used in the reactors. Coal is filthy, but nuclear has a host of problems as well.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 01:35 am (UTC)No seriously. That's where it comes from.
Fusion, the nuclear reaction that fuels the sun, is a much better choice since its fuel, hydrogen, is essentially everywhere, both on Earth and in the universe. It's literally the most common element.
Fission has the distinct advantage, however, that we know how to get energy surplus from it now, something we can't say for fusion and can barely say for the various solar harvesting technologies (hydroelectric, wind, and just about all other forms of energy are indirect solar). Fission power is probably a necessary intermediary between fossil fuels (which are a pretty atrocious option) and fusion, which we will ultimately need if we're to last, as a technologically advanced species.
With apologies to the weasel king for this threadjack
Date: 2008-10-24 02:48 am (UTC)Hopefully, despite the global markets looking icky, someone will still be pouring money into R&D for all this stuff. It still ticks me off that at least here in America, we'd be a lot better off if Reagan hadn't cut so much of the funding that Carter started, in response to the energy crises in the 70s. We've been down this path before, and simply ignored it. UGH.
On a more personal note, there was a lot of radioactive waste stored in my hometown, so I have a basic familiarity with some of the problems of nuclear. The peculiar effect this has had on me is that radiation symbols make me all nostalgic.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 05:13 am (UTC)