ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:24 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Where to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor?
France 43%  43%  [ 9 ]
Japan 38%  38%  [ 8 ]
Libya (they've already been working on one anyway) 19%  19%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 21
Author Message
 Post subject: International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor happy fun time
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 8:51 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
so, it'll take 10 years to do, but debate is currently raging over where to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor? think of all the pros and cons not mentioned in that article, for instance Japan has been a nuclear test site already 2 times in ww2, the fact that it's far away from me incase it blows up etc and that while Japan is a nation well known for it's technology and industry, France is, well... um... they make french bread i suppose

any other bright ideas where to construct the thing? this "harnessing the power of the sun" sounds like fun...

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 9:55 am 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
I want it here in the USA. Put it out in the desert somewhere, so that if on the unlikely chance that it melts down it won't contaminate anything that matters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:23 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
Kylaer wrote:
I want it here in the USA. Put it out in the desert somewhere, so that if on the unlikely chance that it melts down it won't contaminate anything that matters.
Put it in Kansas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:47 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2788
Location: Neo-Connecticut
Taken from http://www.columbia.edu/~cjc38/plasma/plasmafaq.html

Quote:
Q. What is the difference between nuclear fusion and a nuclear power plant?
A. Nuclear power plants today use the process of nuclear fission to generate power. In this process a large, unstable nucleus (such as uranium or plutonium) splits into 2 nuclei and gives off energy in the process. Nuclear fusion is the combination of 2 small nuclei into a more stable nucleus, which also releases energy. Here are a few advantages of using fusion rather than fission for a power plant: Fusion does not occur spontaneously like fission does (it requires high temperatures and pressures) so there is no chance of meltdown accidents, the fuel used for fusion (forms of hydrogen taken extracted from water) is more plentiful and less of a security risk (you don?t have to worry as much about weapons use), the by products are eaisier to deal with ? Fission creates heavy metals which are chemically as well as radioactively poisonous and difficult to dispose of safely.


<3 @ Kylaer. Look up the facts first.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:16 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 5983
Location: Around about there.
Hmmm... it's much of a muchness between the two options they have, I'd've thought that France would have been much more geologically stable area to stick soemthing like this.
Personally I think it should be built in Chicago on the site upon which humanity controlled nuclear chain reactions for the first time. Yeah, lots of kharmic goodness and so forth in that. I believe there's other buildings in the way at the moment, but eh, they can be bulldozed.
Another bonus if something does go wrong is that hopefully it'll take out the sodding Chicago School of Economics. Aww yeah... that'll teach them to not be the microsoft of economics.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:46 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
I voted Japan simply because that country has a greater energy demand than France I would wager. However France already having an existing research center would help facilitate the proliferation of such reactors I would imagine.

In light of the thing not being highly unstable and liable to explode I retract my recommendation of putting it in Kansas. I don't know nearly enough on the subject to say which location would be more appropriate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:01 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
I think China would be the best place, from a "global citizen" perspective. Unfortunately, there's the whole China is still big, mean, and authoritarian. Next choice: India, and up and coming power with fast technology development, so it'll probably need a lot more power in the not too distant future. Third choice: U.S. if only to provide alternatives to the fossil fuels and such we now use so much. Fourth Japan, because all the really high-end stuff has to start in Japan, so the aliens know where to go.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:29 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
India is kind of having a little nuclear standoff with Pakistan at the moment if you hadn't noticed, the USA havent' really been asking for it to be placed there, so if everyoneturned around and gave it to them they wouldn't be too happy, and China? they made a version of the AK47 that doesn't work, that is nearly impossable plus they're insane from years of pseudo-commie rule, keep well away

as for energy usage/production, well, that comes up when the thing's running and been copied around the world, for now it'll need skills not power, and the French, while a nuclear power and pretty high tech (especially where arms are concerned) are also very workshy if they get the notion, whatever you can say about Japan, it is not that they shirk a challenge or some long hours, and they live on a solid rock island chain, france is all hills and mud, you can't have WW1 trench warefare on a volcanic island can you? thick clay/mud tho, loads of it

yes, everything can be derived back to and analysied from the point of war and arms

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 2:35 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/articl ... news03.txt

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:40 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
Quote:
Now the wait is almost over. Nearly a dozen laser facilities around the globe either have finished or are nearing completion of petawatt lasers. Last year, for example, researchers at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, U.K., finished upgrading their Vulcan laser from 100 terawatts to a petawatt of power, and they are gearing up to fire petawatt pulses. Another facility at the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute's Kansai Research Establishment in Kyoto fired an 850-terawatt pulse last year--a mere 15% shy of the petawatt goal--and is poised to go higher. Other lasers in France and the United States are in the midst of upgrades, and researchers say they'll be turning out petawatts by the middle of next year if not sooner.


http://mailman.mcmaster.ca/mailman/private/cdn-nucl-l/0307.gz/msg00027.html

because i knew a guy who worked at Rutherford for a bit, one guy there shot a spider with the laser to see if it would mutate, it was just vapourised, much to his disapointment

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:21 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 676
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Fusion is the ambrosia of power sources. There is almost nothing that can go wrong, it generates no waste, and fuel is VERY abundant.

Then how, as humans, will we screw this up? Perhaps squabling over blueprints will send us into a new cold war?

_________________
And thus, Grey wins. He's creating worthless drama in a totally unrelated thread even after he's been banned. - Emy

We're not mad. We're just argumentative. And we live in a state of fluctuating contempt for everything. - onion, when talking about herself and shoonra, actually describes the whole of kyhm forums.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 1:56 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Better bombs. The apex of human achievment is better bombs.

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:58 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
Vaergoth wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Fusion is the ambrosia of power sources. There is almost nothing that can go wrong, it generates no waste, and fuel is VERY abundant.


Almost, except it takes an ungodly amount of energy to initate, the material must be held in place using a magnetic field, cold plasma or similar because the heat required is literally the same as that found in the center of the sun and sustaining the fusion process will be a bitch. Realistically speaking we're looking at 50years minimum until we get this working on a commercial scale; and that is an optimistic projection.

Skjie wrote:
Better bombs. The apex of human achievment is better bombs.


No... just no.

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 4:34 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Sorry, he's right. Better bombs.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 7:20 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1349
No, BIGGER bombs, big enough to make you potential target piss themselves at the thought of them. Making them better only increases the casualty count, increasing the urine factor. the base factor is BIGGER.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 11:36 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
see, you guys go on about nukes (which are cheating really) when all you actually need is a physically massive conventional bomb, note my post in the flamethrower thread for the English big ones

also note the terrorist cell we've just stopped over here with only a half ton of fertiliser and detonation equipment, that's nothing, you measure tons in two figures or you measure them in nothing, dumb ragheads...

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:52 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
As was pointed out,t he important factor here is skills. Now, I am goign to - perhaps falsely, perhaps not - assume that all the proposed sites are equally capable of safely building and operating this thing, and can meet whatever demands there are in terms of energy, labor, and technicians. That is, I'm assuming that from a scientific and engineering standpoint they're identical, if only because I am by no stretch of imagination qualified to evaluate either.

If that's all equal, I'm going to favor France. Not because of politics, but language. The vast majority of cutting-edge nuclear scientists are to be found in the western world - in Europe, the US, and so forth. As such, I think it would be advantageous to site it somewhere in that part of the world - this is advantageous for cultural and linguistic reasons, as well as the simple fact that it's more convenient geographically.

In my opinion, though, such concerns shoudl take a back seat to the more immediate matters of engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:01 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
Hasufin wrote:
In my opinion, though, such concerns shoudl take a back seat to the more immediate matters of engineering.


you want it put in France because everyone there speaks English? have you ever been to France? as i said before, high tech industry and science is kind of what Japan does, and if you'd rather base a frikkin' high energy science lab in a patch of quicksand because a top nuclear technician lives by it, then i think you've got a few priority problems...

thsi project will go on for decades, scientits will move to it and and live there nomatter where it is, better to make it on some good land than try and stick it next to the most scientists today when in a generation's time it'll still be going eh?

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:09 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
Quicksand or a seismically unstable island chain. Hrm...

Anyway, my point was that if both places are equally cpaable of building and running the thing - which I am msot assuredly not qualified to judge, as I emphasized, then we should consider the cultural match, which even in spite of the current France-bashing fad, still very firmly favors France.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 4:11 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
Hasufin wrote:
Quicksand or a seismically unstable island chain. Hrm...

Anyway, my point was that if both places are equally cpaable of building and running the thing - which I am msot assuredly not qualified to judge, as I emphasized, then we should consider the cultural match, which even in spite of the current France-bashing fad, still very firmly favors France.


da artikle wrote:
The Japanese site of Rokkasho-mura has the advantages of proximity to a port, a ground of solid bedrock and a nearby US military base.

The French site at Cadarache offers an existing research facility and a more moderate climate.


my reasonings have been somewhat stated, the article sets out some and yours are? and come on, the language of physics used to be German untill the buildup to WW2 when it was changed to English in protest at German action in Europe, and if you think 'France bashing' is a fad then you've never been to Europe...

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group