Estimated power generation costs

2011-05-11 08:20:17

#26

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6920|Disaster Free Zone

Which is again hardly bountiful.

"Green" energy requires construction and maintenance. Nuclear requires construction, maintenance and an non-renewable resource which as time goes on will only ever increase in price. As I said it's fine as an interim source, in fact it's probably one of the best right NOW. But it is not a long term solution.

2011-05-11 08:27:42

#27

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6238|...

To a replace a single nuclear plant you're going to need thousands of wind turbines, I reckon maintenance is really going to be a pain in the ass. Not to mention that it's going to soak up a lot of construction materials, it's not an effective power supply either.

There's got to be a huge breakthrough in wind power if it's going to prove to be a viable solution.

Neither is going to be truly long term, for that we'd need to get off the planet.

inane little opines

2011-05-11 10:10:47

#28

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6913|Canberra, AUS

Utopia is hydrogen/helium mining gas giants for fusion plants.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-11 10:14:23

#29

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Spark wrote:
Utopia is hydrogen/helium mining gas giants for fusion plants.

Not in our lifetime

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-11 10:37:25

#30

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6913|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:
Spark wrote:
Utopia is hydrogen/helium mining gas giants for fusion plants.
Not in our lifetime

Utopias are generally like that

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-11 10:39:00

#31

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5940|College Park, MD

oh ye of little faith

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2011-05-11 12:55:57

#32

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6776|Long Island, New York

Spark wrote:
Utopia is hydrogen/helium mining gas giants for fusion plants.

https://images.wikia.com/deadspace/images/e/e6/Deadspacewideship_rotated.jpg

2011-05-11 13:03:16

#33

13rin: Member; +977|6718

I've always fancied hydrodynamic power...

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2011-05-11 13:10:49

#34

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5498|foggy bottom

someone mentioned thorium earlier

Tu Stultus Es

2011-05-11 20:26:04

#35

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6913|Canberra, AUS

13rin wrote:
I've always fancied hydrodynamic power...

Incredibly limited. The geographical requirements for it are... steep.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-12 04:10:04

#36

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6344|eXtreme to the maX

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
I would imagine that when Nuclear looses its negative PR image there is a fair amount of advancement to be had. i.e. If we put as much effort into nuclear as we are into other green technologies at the moment then we would probably already be carbon neutral

Erm, lol.

Do you have any idea how much effort has gone into nuclear?

Fuck Israel

2011-05-12 04:51:58

#37

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6971|Cambridge, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
I would imagine that when Nuclear looses its negative PR image there is a fair amount of advancement to be had. i.e. If we put as much effort into nuclear as we are into other green technologies at the moment then we would probably already be carbon neutral
Erm, lol.

Do you have any idea how much effort has gone into nuclear?

So you would say that there is a similar emphasis in developing Nuclear power as there is in developing wind or solar power?

There are currently a myriad of incentives for commercial and even residential renewable and green technology. The same cannot be said for Nuclear despite it being the only realistic way to meet any of our carbon commitments.

2011-05-12 06:12:13

#38

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6344|eXtreme to the maX

And how many trillions of govt dollars have been spent developing nuclear compared with renewable?

Civil nuclear power came out the spare change from national nuclear defense programs over the last 70 years, govts have spent almost nothing on renewables, except Bhutan.

Fuck Israel

2011-05-12 08:10:53

#39

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6649|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
And how many trillions of govt dollars have been spent developing nuclear compared with renewable?

Civil nuclear power came out the spare change from national nuclear defense programs over the last 70 years, govts have spent almost nothing on renewables, except Bhutan.

Your definition of "almost nothing" is remarkable. You should be in politics with a perspective on other people's money like that.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-05-13 05:28:22

#40

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6344|eXtreme to the maX

How much of that was govt spending.

Its still a drop in the ocean compared with nuclear.

Fuck Israel

2011-05-13 06:00:10

#41

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6649|'Murka

Your point? It's still far more than "almost nothing" regardless who is spending it.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-05-13 06:05:59

#42

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6913|Canberra, AUS

In any case I don't see the point. The problem with nuclear power isn't that it isn't cheap or efficient...

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-15 05:25:15

#43

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6344|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Your point? It's still far more than "almost nothing" regardless who is spending it.

By comparison....

Fuck Israel

2011-05-15 06:04:11

#44

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6649|'Murka

And why does it have to be govt spending?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-05-15 06:05:30

#45

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6344|eXtreme to the maX

It doesn't, and a lot of the spending on renewables is by private companies so I don't see the problem.

Fuck Israel

2011-05-15 06:39:34

#46

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6649|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
It doesn't, and a lot of the spending on renewables is by private companies so I don't see the problem.

If you don't see the problem, what are you grousing about?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-05-15 09:04:15

#47

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6819|the dank(super) side of Oregon

and does this incredibly cheap price tag on nuclear energy include the cost of real insurance or just the bullshit industry insurance? I'm all for nuclear but their numbers are mostly based on bullshit. If a wind turbine falls over, oh well. If a reactor takes a shit...

Last edited by Reciprocity (2011-05-15 09:09:21)

2011-05-15 09:30:59

#48

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6971|Cambridge, England

Reciprocity wrote:
and does this incredibly cheap price tag on nuclear energy include the cost of real insurance or just the bullshit industry insurance? I'm all for nuclear but their numbers are mostly based on bullshit. If a wind turbine falls over, oh well. If a reactor takes a shit...

yes.

2011-05-15 22:12:48

#49

UnkleRukus: That Guy; +236|5275|Massachusetts, USA

Reciprocity wrote:
and does this incredibly cheap price tag on nuclear energy include the cost of real insurance or just the bullshit industry insurance? I'm all for nuclear but their numbers are mostly based on bullshit. If a wind turbine falls over, oh well. If a reactor takes a shit...

How many reactors have "taken a shit" since the inception of nuclear power plants.

If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.

2011-05-15 23:30:18

#50

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6819|the dank(super) side of Oregon

4 civilian meltdowns. numerous civilian "incidents". numerous government/military meltdowns and incidents. like i said, I'm all for nuclear energy, but thinking it's some kind of clean and tidy miracle is a 1950's fantasy.

BF2S Forums Estimated power generation costs

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

13rin wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Board footer