Helen & Tom Visit The NUCLEAR REACTOR

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2005-05-30 03:16pm

What has to be the Jack Chick tract for the antinuclear crowd:

.pdf link

The home website for the organisation can be found here.

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2005-05-30 03:34pm

Wow. There are so many distortions in this site that I don't know where to begin...

Not the least of which is that solar, wind and water power comes without a price to Nature. Solar produces toxic by products while making the panels. Wind, if brought to the scope necessary to power America and other industrial nations would start fucking up wind patterns and subsequently weather. And water power screws up river and lake ecosystems.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-05-30 03:39pm

The Spartan wrote:Wow. There are so many distortions in this site that I don't know where to begin...

Not the least of which is that solar, wind and water power comes without a price to Nature. Solar produces toxic by products while making the panels. Wind, if brought to the scope necessary to power America and other industrial nations would start fucking up wind patterns and subsequently weather. And water power screws up river and lake ecosystems.

But they aren't used to make TEH BOMBS!!!

Reading that was hilarious in it's own way of watching people taking a slippery slope and running with it.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-05-30 04:12pm

It is foolish to think that we can master nuclear technology. "Science without conscience is the death of the soul".

I have no words.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-05-30 04:37pm

Wait, I don't find out what happens to Helen and Tom and the mad scientist? What about that cooky Republican (c'mon, he looked evil) capitalist dog and his General Grievous friend?

Fucking greenies, I wanted to see the end!

Maybe America gets overrun by commies because they get rid of their nukes and the USSR curbstomps them.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2005-05-30 04:46pm

Does it matter that we don't actually make atom bombs out of nuclear waste ?

At least they didn't try to sell geothermal as the solution, that stuff is WAY problematic. And hydro can't be applied everywhere.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-05-30 05:01pm

That's a pretty old comic. It refers to the year 2000 in future tense. I'm guessing its one of those old 60s things that got scanned on to a computer.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-05-30 05:08pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Does it matter that we don't actually make atom bombs out of nuclear waste ?

At least they didn't try to sell geothermal as the solution, that stuff is WAY problematic. And hydro can't be applied everywhere.

There's a variation on geothermal which, rather than use magma, uses the temperature differential at extreme depths compared to sea level. It's the same principle. However, not even that, if it works, can replace nuclear or even fossil fuels.

The sooner fusion is achieved and maintained with net energy gained, the better.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2005-05-30 05:17pm

Gotta love the panel with nothing but "PROGRESS!" and all those illustrations in the background.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2005-05-30 06:47pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Does it matter that we don't actually make atom bombs out of nuclear waste ?

At least they didn't try to sell geothermal as the solution, that stuff is WAY problematic. And hydro can't be applied everywhere.
There's a variation on geothermal which, rather than use magma, uses the temperature differential at extreme depths compared to sea level. It's the same principle. However, not even that, if it works, can replace nuclear or even fossil fuels.

The sooner fusion is achieved and maintained with net energy gained, the better.

The problem with drilling to those depths is no matter what you do alot of nasty shit comes out of the ground. Upkeep on geothermal plants is more costly than nuclear reactors, and the pollutants they release are really hard to contain.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-05-30 08:25pm

This is Class B Stupidity. Not to be confused with class A Bullshittery. Wow, look at how caricatured the scientist and management are.. and how even an eight year old could poke holes in this pamphlet.

Apparently also, one inherent evil of nuclear power is that it's used to make bombs. Wow. That matters... how? Oh no. We can add a few more bombs to our stockpiles of thousands.

I also really like how there's one panel at the end that says 'Energy is precious and only to be used in limited quantities...' and shows an old man riding a bicycle. Remember, kids PROGRESS! is a bad thing. We need to do things like back in the good ol' days! With Plague! And Ratcatchers! And book-burnings.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-05-30 09:16pm

My favourite bit is at the very end: "What will happen to Helen and Tom and professor Braithwaite? Dear readers, the next part of the story is up to you".

Well let's see:

Professor Braithwaite is found guilty of attempting to sabotage a nuclear facility - a terrorist offense - and is shot.

Helen and Tom having tresspassed in a no-go area are sent to a juvenile delinquent correctional facility and re-educated.

More nuclear reactors are built ushering in a brave new world of Progress!

Alliance SpecForceTrooper · Post by **Alliance SpecForceTrooper** » 2005-05-31 12:56am

Ugh.

Fucking Luddites and their bullshit.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2005-05-31 01:05am

Lord Zentei wrote:My favourite bit is at the very end: "What will happen to Helen and Tom and professor Braithwaite? Dear readers, the next part of the story is up to you".

Well let's see:

Professor Braithwaite is found guilty of attempting to sabotage a nuclear facility - a terrorist offense - and is shot.

Helen and Tom having tresspassed in a no-go area are sent to a juvenile delinquent correctional facility and re-educated.

More nuclear reactors are built ushering in a brave new world of Progress!

No no no. In accordance with the HAB code of law they will all be shot and they're bodies used for classified purposes.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-05-31 01:19am

The 1960's equivelent of "NUcLEAR pOweR SuxXORS!!!11!!1!!!!1!!"

Wonderful.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-05-31 01:44am

There's a variation on geothermal which, rather than use magma, uses the temperature differential at extreme depths compared to sea level. It's the same principle. However, not even that, if it works, can replace nuclear or even fossil fuels.

The acronymn you are looking for is OTEC. The problem with OTEC is that it releases methane stored in deep sea water, good plant locations are just like hydro - only applicable when coniditions are right, and doesn't handle storms well. Efficiency right now is crap, but the largest working reactor is only around 100 kilowatts, though one of the metal companies is supposed to build a larger research reactor. Also if you work at sea level, where you can actually get a decent theoretical efficiency, you are going to utterly destroy the local marine ecology. Thus far it seems to be yet another losing idea in the succession of green power generation techniques.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-05-31 12:04pm

Qt: Will people ever bother to develop non-nuclear, non-fossil fuel based forms of energy, or will the nuclear age relegate all those to the dust-bin? Essentially, do you think we'll develop a nuclear-powered economy before we ever discover more efficient forms of solar/hydro/geo-thermal energy?

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-05-31 12:29pm

wolveraptor wrote:Qt: Will people ever bother to develop non-nuclear, non-fossil fuel based forms of energy, or will the nuclear age relegate all those to the dust-bin? Essentially, do you think we'll develop a nuclear-powered economy before we ever discover more efficient forms of solar/hydro/geo-thermal energy?

Nuclear is the way to go. Hydro and geothermal energy simply cannot meet the worlds needs. Solar may be more promising, but it has problems of it's own. Of course, to optimize the efficiency of nuclear, one has to use breeder reactors and plutonium reactors which open the spectre of nuclear weapons. Ultimately, the world will need a functioning fusion power system.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-05-31 01:54pm

Suppose we have space-based solar power systems though? Or geothermal based ones on a far more geologically volatile planet?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-05-31 01:55pm

wolveraptor wrote:Suppose we have space-based solar power systems though? Or geothermal based ones on a far more geologically volatile planet?

If we had a far more geologically volatile planet, we'd have bigger problems than figuring out how to fuel our cars.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-05-31 02:03pm

wolveraptor wrote:Suppose we have space-based solar power systems though?

Possibly, though part of the problem with solar is the pollution generated by manufacturing solar panels. Also, you need $20000 per kilogram launched into LEO, and two to three times that for Geosynchronous orbit. The mass of a sufficient number of solar panels for a significant portion of the world's energy needs would be monstrous.

wolveraptor wrote:Or geothermal based ones on a far more geologically volatile planet?

First you need to find such a planet not to mention transport more than six billion people and the infrastructure needed to support them there. I daresay that if you can find the energy source needed to accomplish that you won't need to travel there in the first place, at least not because of global energy needs.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-05-31 02:33pm

Venus is geologically very active. Just don't try and think about breathing.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-05-31 02:47pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Venus is geologically very active. Just don't try and think about breathing.

Or stepping out into its 900-degree environs without plenty of water.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-05-31 02:53pm

Firefox wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Venus is geologically very active. Just don't try and think about breathing.
Or stepping out into its 900-degree environs without plenty of water.

I rather assumed that Venus was not a viable option.

There is also the surface atmospheric pressure to consider (90x Earth's at seal level). And the little detail of constant storms. And sulfuric acid rain.

PS: Foul faranheit-scale user! <smite>

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2005-05-31 02:58pm

wolveraptor wrote:Qt: Will people ever bother to develop non-nuclear, non-fossil fuel based forms of energy, or will the nuclear age relegate all those to the dust-bin? Essentially, do you think we'll develop a nuclear-powered economy before we ever discover more efficient forms of solar/hydro/geo-thermal energy?

Nuclear power is it. All "green" methods of power generation cannot supply even a significant fraction of the world's needs.

Wind power? Only useful where the wind blows, and blows constantly.

Hydrothermal? Only useful where you have rivers to dam. Unfortunately, damming rivers tends to fuck up the local ecology something fierce (since the local river valley ecosystem suddenly becomes an aquatic ecosystem.) Not to mention the CO2 dump that occurs when all that organic matter decays.

Solar? Fabricating solar cells requires the same sorts of toxic and highly polluting processes that making other semiconductors does. Not to mention solar cells are limited by a low efficiency, and can be further limited by the need to place them in places where the sun shines frequently, and where nobody would mind looking at the blinding and unattractive spectacle of thousands and thousands of solar arrays. Sure you could eliminate part of the problem by lofting them into space, but you're still making them on Earth, and you're adding significant pollution by getting them into space to begin with. (Sure you could strip-mine the Moon for your raw materials, but in that case, you'll be paying to loft the mining and processing equipment to the Moon.) And now, instead of acres of unsightly solar panels, you will have acres of unsightly microwave antennas. Except you can reuse the land under the antennas for things like cattle grazing. (Since you would be broadcasting this energy to Earth along frequencies that aren't strongly absorbed by the water in the atmosphere, since you're looking for power generation, not an amazingly efficient death-ray and atmosphere heater.)

Geothermal? Only where you can find a good place to tap into it. These places also tend to be prone to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other forms of unpleasantness.

The only two games in town are nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion. And, frankly, the clock is ticking to get practical nuclear fusion solved, as we're either past, at, or just before the point of peak global oil production . . . after which, the point will rapidly come where we either have something in place to replace the petrochemical energy input, or we start drastically scaling back.