Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

But the likelihood of a meltdown isn't that great compared to the likelihood of coal plants producing poisonous gases (100%)
What part of it's 99.9% steam did you not comprehend?
"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
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6674|Canberra, AUS
0.1% can still be nasty though
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Stimey
­
+786|6119|Ontario | Canada
Especially when you produce the huge volumes of smoke they do.
­
­
­
­
­
­
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England
Bah, most of their environmental impact (albeit local in nature) is located at the source of the coal mining operations. Parts of West Virginia are an ecological wasteland full of arsenic laced slurry ponds. Nasty, nasty shit.

https://onfinite.com/libraries/1283872/5e9.jpg

Last edited by Jay (2011-05-30 11:01:26)

"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
mr.hrundi
Wurstwassereis
+68|6437|Germany

Jay wrote:

mr.hrundi wrote:

Jay wrote:

It's an issue, but everything has environmental issues. Nuclear has nuclear waste as well as heat, coal has it's waste and also releases heat into the local water supply (and the filters have to go somewhere too). Gas is similar to coal except without the solid material waste. Wind doesn't work all the time and kills birds/bats/insects while creating noise pollution. Solar requires heavy metals in manufacturing and doesn't work at night or in the winter. Both wind and solar require caustic batteries.

So... pick your poison. Personally, natural gas fired plants seem like the clear winner to me.
I think the winner would be a de-centralized energy system, with lots of small energy producing devices. a start would be solar panels on many private buildings, wind turbines in suitable spots, geothermal power generators where they work and so on. In other words: everybody produces a little bit of energy and puts it in a regionwide network.

The factor I see working against this are the big companies. a de-centralized energy system would take away most of their profits.
Why do people keep saying this? Where do you get your source material for your opinion? Decentralizing is much less efficient. Little boutique power plants dotting the landscape does nothing more than take up more space and require more infrastructure to be built. It doesn't make any sense. You're talking about using 50-100 times the space for the same result. It makes no sense.

Do yourself a favor and ignore what the greens say about energy. They're a bunch of morons without any scientific background. And yes, 'environmental science' is a fake science. They don't even have to take calculus or physics here
how would solar panels installed on the rooftops of already existing buildings take up any more space? a huge windpark the size of a nuclear power plant takes up as much space as a power plant. efficency might be a problem, but this is (or at least I hope it is) only a matter of time.

I don't know if you'd consider geography as an environmental science, but I can tell you that I do quite a lot of physics there.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England
Solar panels on a rooftop are fine. But you're crazy if you think a windpark is the answer. It takes approximately 7 000 wind turbines to replace one nuclear power plant. Denmark has more wind energy per capita than any nation on the planet and it has resulted in exactly zero coal fired plants being shut down. Green energy can not, and will never, act as a direct replacement. It can act as a supplement (a really expensive and inefficient one), sure, but as a primary source of power? No. Not unless the price and efficiency of batteries improve exponentially.

It's a nice dream but the only real impact that your ideas would have would be to make your power more expensive, less efficient, and require much more real estate. I prefer the fatter wallet to the fake self esteem boost though, to each his own.

Last edited by Jay (2011-05-30 11:12:11)

"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
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|5749|شمال
good for them
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5473|Ventura, California

Jay wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Stimey wrote:

Why are people so tinfoil hat about nuclear power?
Meh, my guess is they've played the Chernobyl part of CoD4 too many times or they're afraid a tsunami and earthquake will come cripple their plants since the Japanese got pretty screwed.

Isn't Germany pretty free of natural disasters? It's not like they get hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes. or flooding.

Paranoid Nazis
If you use the word Nazis, or make further 'jokes' about Jews and Germany I will make it my mission to have you permabanned from this forum. Kindly fuck off back to your toy guns child.
I just got back from Memorial Day shooting my "toy" mini-14, and a bunch of M14s, M16A2s, AK47s, etc.  lol Jay, don't take an internet forum seriously, it's not like I would use that choice of wording outside of my "relax and lower IQ to 0" forum browsing.

Anyway, back on topic, how safe is nuclear energy? I heard that it doesn't produce too much waste. If so, why are we using oil for electricity when we could be using the nuclear and have more fuel for cars, at maybe...a cheaper price? I donno
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5701|College Park, MD

Jay wrote:

Bah, most of their environmental impact (albeit local in nature) is located at the source of the coal mining operations. Parts of West Virginia are an ecological wasteland full of arsenic laced slurry ponds. Nasty, nasty shit.

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1283872/5e9.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMcKyLcQ … re=related
well shit in that case, build baby build!
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6713|Purplicious Wisconsin

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Anyway, back on topic, how safe is nuclear energy? I heard that it doesn't produce too much waste. If so, why are we using oil for electricity when we could be using the nuclear and have more fuel for cars, at maybe...a cheaper price? I donno
Although it would be nice, problem is, if a car blows up. You're fucked.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Stimey
­
+786|6119|Ontario | Canada
hahahahaa omg
­
­
­
­
­
­
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5473|Ventura, California
What the heck War Man?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6674|Canberra, AUS

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Jay wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:


Meh, my guess is they've played the Chernobyl part of CoD4 too many times or they're afraid a tsunami and earthquake will come cripple their plants since the Japanese got pretty screwed.

Isn't Germany pretty free of natural disasters? It's not like they get hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes. or flooding.

Paranoid Nazis
If you use the word Nazis, or make further 'jokes' about Jews and Germany I will make it my mission to have you permabanned from this forum. Kindly fuck off back to your toy guns child.
I just got back from Memorial Day shooting my "toy" mini-14, and a bunch of M14s, M16A2s, AK47s, etc.  lol Jay, don't take an internet forum seriously, it's not like I would use that choice of wording outside of my "relax and lower IQ to 0" forum browsing.

Anyway, back on topic, how safe is nuclear energy? I heard that it doesn't produce too much waste. If so, why are we using oil for electricity when we could be using the nuclear and have more fuel for cars, at maybe...a cheaper price? I donno
Ummmm... technological challenges aside which are, well, insurmountable (and that's coming from a hardcore techno-optimist), what happens if you have a car crash? You'd be royally fucked.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5473|Ventura, California
...omg

I was saying that we should build more nuclear power plants to provide electricity, as opposed to all these electric power plants burning oil/coal.

Then we have more oil/petroleum/whatever for cars.

Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2011-05-30 23:57:20)

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6809|Nårvei

Electric power plants that burns oil ... you guys really have that?

Wait behind the line ..............................................................
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6713|Purplicious Wisconsin

-Sh1fty- wrote:

What the heck War Man?
Thought you wanted nuclear powered cars, you poorly typed the sentence which can make anyone misunderstand.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5473|Ventura, California

Varegg wrote:

Electric power plants that burns oil ... you guys really have that?

Thought I heard there was something like that. I can't remember.

In Switzerland they taught us there was a few types of electricity-producing facilities. Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, coal, and something else I thought was fuel.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6674|Canberra, AUS
Natural gas.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5998|...
Opposition parties here want to shut down plans for nuclear energy as well.

How fucking dumb / uneducated are the people in parliament? Guess the French are going to be rich.
inane little opines
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6105|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Solar panels on a rooftop are fine. But you're crazy if you think a windpark is the answer. It takes approximately 7 000 wind turbines to replace one nuclear power plant. Denmark has more wind energy per capita than any nation on the planet and it has resulted in exactly zero coal fired plants being shut down. Green energy can not, and will never, act as a direct replacement. It can act as a supplement (a really expensive and inefficient one), sure, but as a primary source of power? No. Not unless the price and efficiency of batteries improve exponentially.
As we've already explained, batteries are not the sole storage option.

Many countries have good opportunities for hydroelectric storage for one.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5178|Sydney
Tasmania has a population of 500,000. It's hydroelectric system powers the entire state.
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|5998|Vortex Ring State
I live in chicago, illinois

illinois is 80% nuclear

no accidents.

But yeah, I would say this is a knee-jerk reaction that is totally unfounded.

Nuclear power is almost 100% safe provided it is situated in a safe area (no natural disasters) with good, modern designs (no Chernobyl), and regular checks and regulation (so no Chernobyl shit)
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|5960|Places 'n such
Honestly, safety of the plant really isn't the issue with nuclear power, more the storage of waste, uranium 235 has a half life of 700 million years.

Last edited by presidentsheep (2011-06-01 09:55:29)

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|6732|Cambridge, England
The longer the half life the less dangerous it is. There seems to be a tendency to view it the other way around for some reason :s
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|5960|Places 'n such
Yeah, but the waste contains plutonium, uranium, etc stuff that you have to store securely for a long time.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard