geekhack

geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: Ekaros on Mon, 27 September 2010, 17:14:51

Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Ekaros on Mon, 27 September 2010, 17:14:51
Basicly nuclear powerplants are nice, and they use some heavy stuff so "heavier" topic.

Still, there might be some issues if you buy from french...
Like here in Finland, the new powerplat is 3-4 years late and costed 50% over budget...

Then there is change of it all going wrong(not realy, unless you desing it to go to hell or just do stuff you realy shouldn't do...), but then you end up with "nice" site preserving part of history.

Anyway, it's still best source of energy if you care about CO2, if not I would go with coal. Hmm, fusion would be very nice, one day...
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: quadibloc on Mon, 27 September 2010, 19:06:09
Given the amount of space that solar and wind energy take up, and the fact that their energy is not necessarily available when it is needed, I think that nuclear power is very important at this time.

We can use nuclear energy to cut our fossil fuel consumption significantly, and there is an apparent need to do so to prevent harmful consequences from global warming.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Mon, 27 September 2010, 19:15:20
Has anyone seen the movie Moon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/) about harvesting Helium-3 on the Moon for energy? Interesting concept and apparently NASA has researched it.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Rajagra on Mon, 27 September 2010, 21:51:22
I watched Moon the other day, it's pretty good. Nice to know that post-it notes will used for mission-critical note taking tasks for some time to come.

I think that wind energy would be a great idea, once they make it cost-effective and reliable. What I don't understand is why they make massive wind farms (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-11395964) instead of making one monster size turbine.

Sure, it wouldn't be practical to have a huge propeller-type blade. But a cross-flow fan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_fan#Crossflow_fan) lends itself to scalability nicely. And they are supposed to be quieter and more efficient, I believe.

But then I don't believe current wind farms have anything to do with real energy efficiency, it's all politics. So they build them using the simplest, cheapest type of design (still hideously expensive, mind you) and fill your view with them as an unmissable flag of political greenness.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: quadibloc on Tue, 28 September 2010, 07:59:37
Quote from: Rajagra;227473
Sure, it wouldn't be practical to have a huge propeller-type blade.
Even a cross-flow fan is subject to the square-cube law, although you could indeed scale it up in one dimension without increasing the mass per square foot of wind capture area.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: MissileMike on Tue, 28 September 2010, 08:41:06
Count me in as being pro-nuclear power.  There is plenty of uranium to last a few thousand years, even factoring in demand acceleration.

EDIT: According to wikipedia, it's only "at least a century"
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Tue, 28 September 2010, 13:24:40
i just read up a bit on another looming problem with hybrid cars. Rare earth minerals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element#Technological_applications). China has a nearly 100% monopoly on them right now. They are essential ingredients in components/batteries of hybrids. Also essential part of manufacturing of tech in general.

The chinese are not shy about restricting that supply, selectively, based on their ever-expansionist imperial domination plans for asia and the world. They just threatened to cut off japan's supply of them, in other words, japan's economic lifeline, over that fishing boat incident (http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/china-japan-spat-over-disputed-islets-rattles-nerves-in-asia-us/19651141). Japan meekly gave in and folded as a result. Exports of rare earth minerals were in fact halted from china to japan, AFAIK are still cut off. Holding all of japan hostage over chinese territorial claims.

But of course china flexes its economic muscle in support of the ruling party and their domination all the time. American workers also finance the yuan, since the CPC  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China)refuses to let it rise. And they own most of our debt, holding our economy hostage too.

In short:  buy oil and support terrorists; buy hybrids and support chinese communists. Both of whom are anti-democracy, and both of whom would like nothing better than to see america and western europe utterly destroyed. And both of whom link together all the time for that end (china's support of pakistan, encircling of india (the only functioning democracy on mainland asia), china's support of iran, etc).

My friend who recently relocated to china was looking for a computer the other day and I suggested a lenovo. He was shocked. He actually gaped at me and sputtered, there is no way i'm going to support china and that regime.

Makes me sad to think i may have to give up lenovo's (he wound up buying an HP, yea its probably made in china too, but atleast its an american company), and i had never thought of boycotting chinese companies before, but maybe that makes some sense given the regime. Hell, if we're talking about making economic changes so we dont support the saudi's and theocracies, why not this too?
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: ricercar on Tue, 28 September 2010, 14:39:07
Quote from: wellington1869;227672
{china} own{s} most of our debt, holding our economy hostage too.


To the punks we put in Washington, China's debt ownership is as frightening an issue as the rare earth metals issue. We got pwned.

example citation (http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2009/06/03/china-s-debt-restlessness)
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Rajagra on Tue, 28 September 2010, 15:44:41
Quote from: ripster;227707
We got pwned?


This demands an instant response...


Candygram for China! Candygram for China!
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Tue, 28 September 2010, 17:40:33
more on rare earth elements, hybrid cars, and chinese clout. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/business/global/29rare.html?_r=1&hpw)

Quote

A Japanese trader in the minerals said Tuesday that customs agents were still not allowing shipments of rare earths to Japan. Traders here say that it would be extremely difficult to find other sources of the minerals if shipments continue to be held up. China mines 93 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals, which can sell for hundreds of dollars a pound.
...
Rare earths are used to make a range of products: glass, batteries, compact fluorescent bulbs and computer display screens. Demand has risen in the last decade for their use in clean energy technology, like generators for large wind turbines and lightweight electric motors for cars.
They have been crucial as Japanese automakers vie to keep the lead in fuel-efficient vehicles, turning to the minerals for the powerful electric motors that help propel gasoline-electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius, or Nissan’s all-electric car, the Leaf.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: quadibloc on Wed, 29 September 2010, 11:06:52
Quote from: wellington1869;227672
i just read up a bit on another looming problem with hybrid cars. Rare earth minerals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element#Technological_applications). China has a nearly 100% monopoly on them right now. They are essential ingredients in components/batteries of hybrids. Also essential part of manufacturing of tech in general.
Since they could be mined and produced in many other places, including the U.S., though, it's great that they decided to do this, and wake up the world now, instead of at a later time when it could have dealt a serious blow to U.S. strategic capabilities.

The U.S. can just ban imports of foreign cars made with Chinese rare earths to force the foreign carmakers to buy U.S. rare earths. China might holler to the WTO, but now the U.S. can validly claim military necessity.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Superfluous Parentheses on Wed, 29 September 2010, 13:45:02
Quote from: wellington1869;227672
In short:  buy oil and support terrorists; buy hybrids and support chinese communists. Both of whom are anti-democracy, and both of whom would like nothing better than to see america and western europe utterly destroyed.


The Chinese and the Arab top brass are much too heavily invested in the West to want to see it go to hell. For the rest, you're probably right.

Back to the topic a bit: there are strong points in favor of Nuclear. Especially if you consider newer (like, 1960s and later) technology and a comprehensive nuclear strategy. IIRC breeder reactors can give us very close to clean energy for the next 1000 years by reusing much of what is now stored as dangerous waste (giving less and cleaner waste in return). Pebblebed reactors are pretty much impossible to melt down (they're inherently limited and shut down when the process isn't kept stable), and pebblebed reactors are far from the only possible, stable reactor types. We can do a LOT better than your standard 60s design fission reactor. I still don't know why in the US breeder reactors are banned but at the same time there's no place to put all the waste.

The main objection to nuclear right now is plain cost. It's more expensive than coal (which, by the way, also generates a lot of radioactive waste, but that just goes in the air instead of being stored) and gas, one because reactors are pretty expensive to build, and two, because the red tape involved for anything nuclear is astounding. I expect both objections to go away in the next decade or two because coal and gas are just not going to stay this cheap. That would also make other "clean" energy sources more competitive, but I suspect we're going to have to start taking nuclear much more seriously than we've done up till now (excepting the French and a few other countries).
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Ekaros on Wed, 29 September 2010, 19:10:31
Quote from: Superfluous Parentheses;228105
The main objection to nuclear right now is plain cost. It's more expensive than coal (which, by the way, also generates a lot of radioactive waste, but that just goes in the air instead of being stored) and gas, one because reactors are pretty expensive to build, and two, because the red tape involved for anything nuclear is astounding. I expect both objections to go away in the next decade or two because coal and gas are just not going to stay this cheap. That would also make other "clean" energy sources more competitive, but I suspect we're going to have to start taking nuclear much more seriously than we've done up till now (excepting the French and a few other countries).

Yep, it's either fossil-fuels or nuclear, if cheap power is wanted. Also nuclear energys efficiency would be easily increased if waste heat would be allowed to be sold instead of wasting it around. Atleast in colder parts of world... Red tape is bit much in case of building new plants. Like here first goverment, must provide a permit. And then it might take quite a long time to reach satisfactory quality for new plants, might be some issues here with local authorities. On otherhand I prefer for quality in this case, like on some others too...

Hmm, just noticed. I post quite a lot here...
EDIT: Maybe not compared to some guys...
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: tamasrepus on Wed, 29 September 2010, 19:59:01
Uranium fuel-cycle nuclear power is dead. My thoughts:


Moving on to Uranium to alternative nuclear fuels… there's Thorium. A short list of advantages:



…all this is known with relatively little research spent on the Thorium fuel cycle. More money needs to be spent on research and engineering to find the remaining positives and negatives.

So… why didn't we use Thorium in the first place, and why aren't we using it now? For the former reason, it was the cold war—there was a strong motivation to create as much Plutonium as possible so the US and USSR could build nuclear devices to point at each other. Mostly, the public opinion against all things nuclear, a mixture of which is founded and unfounded (mostly the latter).

More reading:
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: quadibloc on Wed, 29 September 2010, 20:07:43
Quote from: tamasrepus;228236
Thorium doesn't require enrichment.
I think that Thorium breeder reactors are a good idea, but I'm afraid this is one claim that can't be made in their favor.

Thorium isn't fissionable by itself. You can use it to make Welsbach mantles for lanterns to make them shine brighter. And it's very weakly radioactive. It's like depleted uranium - it is not a nuclear fuel directly.

To make Thorium-232 a nuclear fuel, you have to do the same thing to it as you have to do to Uranium-238. Expose it to neutrons in a nuclear reactor.

When you do that, Thorium-232 becomes Thorium-233, an unstable isotope with a very short half life... just as Uranium-238 becomes Uranium-239, an unstable isotope with a very short half life.

The Th-233 decays by emitting an electron (beta decay) to become Uranium-233, which is a fissionable material that can be used as fuel in a reactor, just like U-239 decays by emitting an electron to become Plutonium-239 - also fissionable, and a fuel for reactors.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: tamasrepus on Wed, 29 September 2010, 20:21:16
Quote from: quadibloc;228240
I think that Thorium breeder reactors are a good idea, but I'm afraid this is one claim that can't be made in their favor.

You may have missed the point I was trying to make—you don't need the huge amounts of energy required to enrich Uranium to prepare Thorium fuel. Uranium enrichment is an externality many nuclear power proponents ignore. Thorium is more "carbon neutral" than Uranium when this is taken into account.

I purposely left out the technical details, yes. You need another neutron source, be it Plutonium, Uranium, or if you want to consider the more avant-garde designs, a particle accelerator.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: quadibloc on Thu, 30 September 2010, 00:14:57
Well, the third article you gave a link to had said that a ton of Uranium gave a lot less energy than a ton of Thorium. But that's only if you use enrichment to get the U-235, and use only that - and throw the U-238 away.

You need to enrich uranium to get started in the reactor business. Otherwise you don't have neutrons to turn U-238 into fissionable Plutonium - or Th-232 into fissionable Thorium.

Basically, depleted uranium is the same as Thorium - so the arguments being cited in favor of Thorium are all also arguments in favor of breeder reactors. U-238 is more common than U-235 and it doesn't need to be produced through enrichment.

It is true that Thorium is more common than U-238, but more like three times more common instead of a thousand times more common - until you start using exotic technologies to get it out of rocks like granite. Which is close to trying to get gold out of seawater. "Burning the rocks" is what this was once called, as a far-future source of energy before people started hoping for fusion.

I think that the Thorium breeder is a good idea, but exaggerating its benefits, especially in a way that can be considered dishonest - basically treating uranium as though only the U-235 can be used - won't help get the case for it accepted.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Thu, 30 September 2010, 00:20:27
more rare earth trouble.
neodymium is used in US smart bombs.
Guess who controls the  market. And is squeezing us.
Now its really a national security issue.

From Businessweek: Pentagon Losing Control of Bombs to China’s Monopoly (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-29/pentagon-losing-control-of-bombs-to-china-s-monopoly.html)

Quote

Military officials are only now conducting an inventory of where and how U.S. suppliers use the obscure but essential substances -- including those that silence the whoosh of Boeing Co. helicopter blades, direct Raytheon Co. missiles and target guns in General Dynamics Corp. tanks.

Warning Signs

“The Pentagon has been incredibly negligent,” said Peter Leitner, who was a senior strategic trade adviser at the Defense Department from 1986 to 2007. “There are plenty of early warning signs that China will use its leverage over these materials as a weapon.”


they do see this as their version of "oil" and doing for china what oil did for middle east power.

Quote

Deng’s Quotation

In the lobby of Bai’s company, a unit of state-owned Baotou Iron & Steel Group Co., a now-famous 1992 quotation by Deng is emblazoned in pink marble. It reads: “The Middle East has oil, and China has rare earths.”
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Lanx on Thu, 30 September 2010, 03:33:13
america, so full of hypocrites.
hate nukes, yet it was b/c of massive scaling of nukes that we basically bankrupted the rooskies, thats balls!
hate wars, but love our soldiers
yet ppl hate nuke plants near them.
but are ok w/ soldiers (or navy boys) riding around on nuke powerplants or riding underwater in nuke powerplants.

Heck i've seen those specials about the cruise line, i think they would benefit by puttin a nuke reactor in those cruise ships.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: ricercar on Thu, 30 September 2010, 15:32:08
Nuclear power is good. Nuclear waste is bad.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 30 September 2010, 15:34:43
Quote from: ricercar;228520
Nuclear power is good. Nuclear waste is bad.


Damn right. Just ask the Italians (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25447).
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Ekaros on Thu, 30 September 2010, 15:38:36
Quote from: ricercar;228520
Nuclear power is good. Nuclear waste is bad.


Fossilic power is good. CO2 and sulphur is bad
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Thu, 30 September 2010, 15:46:30
eating is good. pooping is bad.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: platon on Thu, 30 September 2010, 18:14:02
Quote from: wellington1869;228531
eating is good. pooping is bad.


I kinda like pooping. I get the time to read something and i feel relieved when done.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Rajagra on Thu, 30 September 2010, 18:18:03
Nothing is more satisfying than a good dump.
Now I know EXACTLY what you are thinking right now, but you are wrong. I stand by my assertion.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Thu, 30 September 2010, 18:35:34
but thats pure sin coming out your bottom.

Quote

Peter: I'm looking for some toilet training books.
 Salesman: We have the popular 'everybody poops", or the less popular 'nobody poops but you'.
 Peter: Well, you see, we're catholic...
 Salesman: Ah, then you'll want 'you're a naughty, naughty boy, and that's concentrated evil coming out the back of you'.
 
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 30 September 2010, 18:47:08
Speaking as a Catholic, we do NOT believe that! :D
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Thu, 30 September 2010, 20:19:09
Quote from: Superfluous Parentheses;228105
The Chinese and the Arab top brass are much too heavily invested in the West to want to see it go to hell. For the rest, you're probably right.



"[As for the United States] for a relatively long time it will be necesary that we quietly nurse our sense of vengeance.. We must conceal our abilities and bide our time."  
--Lieutenant General Mi Zhenyu, Vice Commandant, Academy of Military Sciences, Beijing, qouted in The Coming Conflict With China, by Richard Bernstein & Ross Munro

if not destroyed, then at least reduced to a client state like north korea or tibet or burma.  I certainly doubt that the one-party system in china is expecting to coexist "as equals" in the long term with the democracies.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Rajagra on Thu, 30 September 2010, 20:54:17
Looks like they played us at our own game. Why bother going to war when you can play mergers and acquisitions with countries instead of companies?
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Thu, 30 September 2010, 21:02:00
Quote from: Rajagra;228591
Looks like they played us at our own game. Why bother going to war when you can play mergers and acquisitions with countries instead of companies?


who would have thought that commies would be better at capitalism than capitalists... :(

but yea they're out to 'get us' alright, i have no doubt about that, in the long run.  That includes western europe I'm sure.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 30 September 2010, 21:06:51
Quote from: wellington1869
who would have thought that commies would be better at capitalism than capitalists... :(

but yea they're out to 'get us' alright, i have no doubt about that, in the long run.  That includes western europe I'm sure.


Lol - and you laugh at 'conspiracy theorists'. You are one yourself if you think China is powerful enough to do that. No way in hell that could ever happen. The EU and North America are stronger and their economies are more sustainable in the long run than China's. And don't forget that investment is a 2 way street - they're just as invested in us as we are in them.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Thu, 30 September 2010, 21:19:21
Quote from: keyboardlover;228596
Lol - and you laugh at 'conspiracy theorists'. You are one yourself if you think China is powerful enough to do that. No way in hell that could ever happen. The EU and North America are stronger and their economies are more sustainable in the long run than China's.


I guess I do, so does the pentagon  (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/29/national/main3311230.shtml)for what its worth.

Quote

While the U.S. has been tied up in Iraq, China is modernizing its military and its air defenses are now nearly impenetrable to all but the newest of American fighters, the senior U.S. military official in Japan said.
...
In May, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said drastic action was needed.

"I'm concerned for the future," he said.



I certainly believe there is an islamist "conspiracy" to restore the caliphate. Especially given that the islamists have declared this loud and proud themselves and have acted on it in spectacular fashion time and again.

On the other hand I think the moon landing was real. Go figure.

Oh yea, because these known facts are not the same as conspiracy theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory).
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 30 September 2010, 21:30:40
Quote from: wellington1869;228599
I guess I do, so does the pentagon  (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/29/national/main3311230.shtml)for what its worth.


All that source says is that their military is modernized - not much surprise there. It doesn't say anything about ability or want to overthrow the West.

Besides, we're their allies. I would think they're go after old foes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre) first.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Thu, 30 September 2010, 21:33:58
um, since when are we allies? You do know that china is the number 1 backer of pakistan, dont you? And north korea? And iran?

You do know that the US is allied with japan and by our treaty with japan we're committed to defend japan as china flexes its muscle with them? As our secretary of state pointed out in the aftermath of the fishing boat incident?

you do know we're committed to defend taiwan and that china desperately wants to reclaim taiwan?

you do know that we back south korea and china backs north korea? ANd they dont quite get along?

dude seriously, i'm not saying this to just be obnoxious (tho heck, its fun to be obnoxious with a self-proclaimed troll ;) but seriously read a freaking newspaper now and then...

as for china's ambitions... um, you do know that burma and north korea are client states, and that china curently has territorial disputes with mongolia, russia, india, vietnam, japan, tibet, taiwan, and a few other countries? Most of which it has already gone to war for?  That they're building out bases in the indian ocean and in the south china sea? That they're building out bases in africa and building strong military relationships with client dictatorial regimes in southeast asia and africa and the middle east and elsewhere?

you do know that they supply and fund a variety of maoist 'insurgencies' across all these areas, particularly in south and se asia and have a history of doing the same in latin america and africa?

read...a...newspaper...  The CPC's strategies are hardly limited to currency manipulation alone...

not least of all, you do know, dont you, that mao's (and marxist) ideology in general proclaims the final goal of communism to be world domination and the defeat of "bourgeoise democracy" and capitalism, dont you?  

no, i think you dont bro, i think you dont...
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 30 September 2010, 21:48:17
Quote from: wellington1869
um, since when are we allies? You do know that china is the number 1 backer of pakistan, dont you? And north korea? And iran?

We're economic allies. They depend on us.

Quote from: wellington1869

You do know that the US is allied with japan and by our treaty with japan we're committed to defend japan as china flexes its muscle with them? As our secretary of state pointed out in the aftermath of the fishing boat incident?

Yes, I know that.

Quote from: wellington1869

you do know we're committed to defend taiwan and that china desperately wants to reclaim taiwan?

That I didn't know. Is that true?

Quote from: wellington1869

you do know that we back south korea and china backs north korea? ANd they dont quite get along?

Yes, but we're still economic allies.

Quote from: wellington1869

dude seriously, i'm not saying this to just be obnoxious (tho heck, its fun to be obnoxious with a self-proclaimed troll ;) but seriously read a freaking newspaper now and then...

For the record, you're trollier than me. I almost get the feeling you read newspapers too much...I mean think about the freakin situation logically.

Quote from: wellington1869

as for china's ambitions... um, you do know that burma and north korea are client states, and that china curently has territorial disputes with mongolia, russia, india, vietnam, japan, tibet, taiwan, and a few other countries? Most of which it has already gone to war for?  That they're building out bases in the indian ocean and in the south china sea? That they're building out bases in africa and building strong military relationships with client dictatorial regimes in southeast asia and africa and the middle east and elsewhere?

What does that have to do with anything?

Quote from: wellington1869

you do know that they supply and fund a variety of maoist 'insurgencies' across all these areas, particularly in south and se asia?

read...a...newspaper...  The CPC's strategies are hardly limited to currency manipulation alone...


Maybe I'm thick, or need to read more of the newspapers you read. But I just don't see reasonable evidence to point towards an imminent takeover of the Western hemisphere.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Thu, 30 September 2010, 21:57:36
i think people are under the mistaken impression that the cold war ended...
the soviets collapsed, but china did not, the cold war continues and so do our "proxy" struggles with the communist bloc. All thats changed is in order to survive the CPC decided to embrace capitalist finance tools as one more weapon for its own survival.  The "deal" they made with the chinese people: modern consumer gadgets and a higher standard of living - in exchange for keeping their mouth shut when it comes to freedoms, democracy, free press, independent judiciary, open internet or information flows, multi-party elections, or any kind of dissent, critique, or debate.

All thats changed is we now face a two-front war with the newly financially empowered commie regime and with a variety of islamist regimes with no end in sight.  As Petraeus said in woodward's new book, our kids and our kids' kids will inherit these messes.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Ekaros on Fri, 01 October 2010, 03:53:40
Still, we have time until they got their our consumers and such to support their own markets. China won't do anything drastic that would let to war or stoping the trade, atleast not just jet. It's kinda different from soviet block, in point it's openly in trade with west.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Senor_Cartmenez on Fri, 01 October 2010, 05:47:45
If I may go back to topic ;)

Nuclear power is unfortunately not a long term solution but a long term plan for long term disaster. How we **** up our environment (in which the following generations have to live in), we can not comprehend and only make guesses. The only reason why there is no complete support towards the long-term disappearing of this method of energy production is because humans are masters of avoidance. "Out of sight, out of mind" applies here perfectly. At the moment we don't really see any ill effects or drawbacks to nuclear power. They are all just theory. Wait another 20-50 years and we will see what y'all say about it then when effects become evident.

Quote
Nuclear energy is good. Nuclear waste is bad.

True that. But there can't be nuclear energy without nuclear waste and that stuff is not only bad, it's really ****ed up. So Nuclear energy is ****ed up.

I actually work for a company that plans and develops wind farms. There are definite drawbacks to that technology but it is waaaaaay better than any other solution we have.

Someone said wind energy is not cost efficient.

Duuuh, that's because it's in its infancy. Nuclear Power was not cost efficient when the first plants were build, either.
Wind farms usually start earning major cash after ~12-14 years. But then they are real good money machines. Go ahead and try to buy shares of a windfarm that is around 11 or 12 years old from someone. They are either moronic or won't part with them, unless you offer them a ****load of money.

Also someone asked why they don't build just one huge turbine.
Try to think gravity here.

Also you have to think technology. Actually the advances in wind turbine technology have been quite significant recently. A lot of companies now go ahead and "re-power" wind farms, which means they replace the old turbines by new ones. The result is that they need another 3-5 years to ammortize themselves but after that the profits sky-rocket even higher.


Off-Shore windfarms are very risky by the way and should not be compared to regular wind farms on land. If off-shore wind farms work, that will be great. However I personally think (and manny specialists agree) that it is impossible to determine what costs for repairs/maintenance will have to be borne by a wind farm operator on the high sea. I will follow those off shore wind farms very curiously. But to this day I don't believe that after 20 years those things will be of any use any more.

Oh and another thing: That energy gained through wind farms is not available when it's needed is outdated information (although I don't know about the US, you guys are often lagging behind technologically when it comes to things like this). Nowadays wind-farms are producing a) so reliably and b) so efficiently and c) in such great numbers, that the energy is usually available around the clock. Furthermore the japanese are one of those nations that have heavily invested in the development of batteries, while we said "nah, we cool with our regular ones, we don't believe you can get any more out of that".
By now a very interesting business model of an investor I know is that he has a network of batteries connected to the wind farm and the batteries can hold the energy produced by the entire park for ~7hrs and release it into the power grid within that time frame at around 80% efficiency (meaning ~80% of the power originally stored can be fed into the power grid within that 7 hr timeframe).

Pretty much all the stuff that speaks against wind energy and is fed to y'all by "the man" comes from the infancy of this technology and are or are becoming outdated. Pretty lame arguments against this technology imho anyway, considering that the infancy of the nuclear power technology has resulted in stuff like Chernobyl.

Nuclear Power was good while it lasted. now that we are a bit smarter, we should act smarter as well. At the moment we can't live without it. In the future we damn well should learn to live without it.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Fri, 01 October 2010, 08:34:23
Quote from: wellington1869

All thats changed is we now face a two-front war with the newly financially empowered commie regime and with a variety of islamist regimes with no end in sight.  As Petraeus said in woodward's new book, our kids and our kids' kids will inherit these messes.


Let's not forget that China has fewer constraints on Capitalism than we do, which puts them much closer to the risk of crisis than us. I predict a crisis will hit them worse than ours in the near future.

But everything we're discussing is merely conjecture anyway :D
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Fri, 01 October 2010, 11:11:45
Quote from: keyboardlover;228663
Let's not forget that China has fewer constraints on Capitalism than we do, which puts them much closer to the risk of crisis than us. I predict a crisis will hit them worse than ours in the near future.



i hope you're right
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Fri, 01 October 2010, 11:44:00
Plus the majority of their economy is based on foreign trade. The beauty of capitalism is the ability to take your business elsewhere if you're not a happy customer (I've yet to see the same level of customer satisfaction in our country reflected in other countries, especially in Europe). Let's say we didn't like China's military situation and we all of a sudden moved our business to South Korea, Singapore or Malaysia. That would hit them so hard I would almost guarantee a crisis.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: ricercar on Fri, 01 October 2010, 13:37:12
Quote from: Rajagra;228562
Nothing is more satisfying than a good dump.
Now I know EXACTLY what you are thinking right now, but you are wrong. I stand by my assertion.

A genie lamp was found by three men, 20, 40, and 80 years old. She offered one wish to each. The 20-year old wished for the perfect woman with whom he could spend the rest of his life. The 40-year old wished for a perfect career to last to the end of his life. The 80-year old wished to have perfect bowel movements for the rest of his life.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Fri, 01 October 2010, 14:10:55
Dennis Rodman finds abottle on beach and picks it up. Suddenly a female genie appears.
"Master, I may grant you one wish," she says with a smile.

"Don't you know who I am, *****? I don't need no woman to give me nothin", yells Dennis.

The genie pleads with him, "But Master! I must grant you one wish or go back to the bottle forever."

Dennis thinks it over, grumbles about the inconvenience of it all, but relents. "Okay. I wanna wake up in the mornin' with three women in my bed. So just do it! Now leave me alone!"

"So be it," says the genie, who's a little annoyed by this time.

And the very next morning, Dennis awakens to find three women in his bed; Lorena Bobbitt, Tonya Harding and Hillary Clinton. His penis is gone. His leg is broken. And he has no health insurance.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Konrad on Fri, 01 October 2010, 15:15:25
Quote from: Rajagra;227473
I think that wind energy would be a great idea, once they make it cost-effective and reliable. What I don't understand is why they make massive wind farms (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-11395964) instead of making one monster size turbine.
Just adding my own wind-chimes here ... putting the already-discussed engineering constraints aside, the One Big Fan simply isn't as efficient at energy capture because it actually has a greater impact at slowing the wind down. Sounds ridiculous, maybe, but it apparently could be a real problem (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1899&bih=913&q=wind+turbines+change+weather). An analogy might be made with hydroelectric power: do you use a large number of little turbines placed all along the mountain river, or do you just use one big turbine instead? It might seem counterintuitive, but there's a fixed quantity of energy in the system; each turbine (big or small, top, bottom, middle, doesn't matter) will slow the rate of water flow. Try to take too much energy and the water won't flow at all. (Interestingly, the generators will actually try to spin faster/slower in symmetry with the electrical draw being made by the power grid. Hydro companies apparently partially compensate on-site by frequently changing water flows. Or they just fire up other power plants. Or re-route through different power exchanges.)
 
(People also ***** and whine about wind towers killing birds, creating subsonic "black noise", being victims to lightning strokes, etc. Maybe they should just read more. Or less.)
 
Quote from: wellington1869;227672
i just read up a bit on another looming problem ... Rare earth minerals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element#Technological_applications). China has a nearly 100% monopoly on them right now. They are essential ...
lol ... Correct: China currently monopolizes world production of rare earths. Correct: rare earths are critical materials used in many technologies.
 
But rare earths are in fact not all that rare at all. Quite the opposite, they're everywhere and most are actually quite common. The problem is that they all share nearly identical chemical properties; they tend to be randomly intermixed, fairly easy to separate from their (high-yield) ores, just nearly impossible (that is, damned expensive) to isolate from each other. Magnets containing a bunch of (unseparated) rare earths cost maybe $5. Disposable lighter flints containing rare earths cost pennies. Refined Lutetium (for example) costs about $170/g. And a few years ago (before Chinese pwnage) it cost about $750/g. They say that next year it'll cost less than $20/g.
 
I don't know how the Chinese accomplish this. It's easy to believe that they exploit their lands and peoples. It's easy to believe that China - when driven hard - doesn't have to observe all the costly inconveniences and regulations which affect mining companies in the rest of the world. ... minimizing (or disposal, or cleanup) of pollution, environmental restoration, relocating people, dealing with unions and labour laws, or those pesky international patents and royalties for useful processes and technologies. Then again, maybe they operate the same way Westerners do, just somehow better. (But suffer no illusion: mining/mineral companies are the nastiest bunch of corpulent greedy crooks in the world after the white house, hollywood, and the mafia.)
 
Suffer no illusion that the rest of the world has nearly limitless resources of rare earths. Just at bad prices. China enjoys a precarious advantage ... they can (and must!) continue to supply processed rare earths at affordable prices or they lose their market. Somewhat like all those OPEC Arabs sitting on their valuable oil wells. They understand that it's not a monopolistic market, but a monopsonistic one.
 
Incidentally, China happens to be one of richest countries in terms of natural radioactives. Right after Russia and India. But still ahead of Australia, Europe, and all of North America combined.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Fri, 01 October 2010, 15:21:03
so you're saying we shouldnt just strap rickshaws to homeless people?

fs=1&hl=en_US">fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385">[/youtube]
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: quadibloc on Fri, 01 October 2010, 15:25:54
Quote from: Rajagra;228562
Nothing is more satisfying than a good dump.
I don't know. Trying to read hexadecimal and disassemble it by hand can be a lot of bother. Avoiding the need for a core dump is more satisfying.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Konrad on Fri, 01 October 2010, 15:27:00
That would be a waste of a natural resource!
 
You could put homeless people to work in the [strike]salt[/strike] uranium mines (a nice warm place for them to stay).
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Rajagra on Fri, 01 October 2010, 19:20:00
Quote from: Senor_Cartmenez;228642
That energy gained through wind farms is not available when it's needed is outdated information

The winter before last (2008/9) the UK's wind farms ground to a halt for two weeks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/4208940/Wind-energy-supply-dips-during-cold-snap.html), when their output was most needed.

Of course, you can guess the environmentalists response - wait for it - they blamed global warming for the UKs declining wind!!!!!! Bwahahahaha. You couldn't make it up.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: quadibloc on Sat, 02 October 2010, 07:02:22
Quote from: Konrad;228773
You could put homeless people to work in the [strike]salt[/strike] uranium mines (a nice warm place for them to stay).
Of course, that's a joke, but this reminds me: isn't it better to have a few well-paid volunteers in the uranium mines than to have to poison the economy so as to force lots and lots of people to work in coal mines?

So if one's concern is to avoid having people working as miners in harsh conditions, surely shutting down coal-fired power plants should be a high priority. (Of course, much coal is strip-mined these days, which avoids the problem.)
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Ekaros on Sat, 02 October 2010, 09:18:17
Quote from: Rajagra;228821
The winter before last (2008/9) the UK's wind farms ground to a halt for two weeks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/4208940/Wind-energy-supply-dips-during-cold-snap.html), when their output was most needed.

Of course, you can guess the environmentalists response - wait for it - they blamed global warming for the UKs declining wind!!!!!! Bwahahahaha. You couldn't make it up.

Wind-power can be reliable in some parts of world but not all, which is a issue. Nuclear can work just about everywhere, atleast if you have solid ground...

Realy, you don't need even that, off-shore floating plants would work too...
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: quadibloc on Sat, 02 October 2010, 12:00:18
Quote from: Rajagra;228821
Of course, you can guess the environmentalists response - wait for it - they blamed global warming for the UKs declining wind!!!!!! Bwahahahaha. You couldn't make it up.
That might even have been correct, for all the good it would do.

Which, I suppose, might be said about another thing. When I first looked at the news item about the 'Ndragheta dumping nuclear waste in the Mediterranean, my first reaction was to wonder what, if anything, this had to do with the safety of nuclear power. It is, after all, possible to regulate nuclear power tightly enough that this sort of thing would be really, really difficult to even try - as the experience of the United States proves.

This is the fault of organized crime, not of any inherent dangers of nuclear power.

But cancer caused by radiation is just as deadly no matter whose fault it is, and we have to live in the real world - a real world in which organized crime hasn't been wiped out.

The thing is, of course, not only can we try harder to keep the nuclear fuel cycle on the up and up, but we can also pause to consider how much more crime there would be in a world impoverished by energy shortages.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: microsoft windows on Sat, 02 October 2010, 16:05:30
Quote from: Ekaros;228919
Wind-power can be reliable in some parts of world but not all, which is a issue. Nuclear can work just about everywhere, atleast if you have solid ground...

Realy, you don't need even that, off-shore floating plants would work too...


I got to wonder how well windmills would do in a tornado or hurricane.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: microsoft windows on Sat, 02 October 2010, 16:07:14
Quote from: Ekaros;228919
Nuclear can work just about everywhere, atleast if you have solid ground...


What about in Iran?
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Ekaros on Sat, 02 October 2010, 16:19:01
Quote from: microsoft windows;229064
What about in Iran?


Hmm, I don't belive that there is any strange field in Iran which prevents neutrons from spliting Uranium-atoms. Or is there something like it?
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: mike on Mon, 04 October 2010, 02:59:57
Quote from: quadibloc;228771
I don't know. Trying to read hexadecimal and disassemble it by hand can be a lot of bother. Avoiding the need for a core dump is more satisfying.


My dad used to say that the best use he found for a core dump was to use it for a coffee table - his core dumps were automatically printed and delivered to his office the following morning.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Senor_Cartmenez on Mon, 04 October 2010, 05:47:13
Quote from: Rajagra;228821
The winter before last (2008/9) the UK's wind farms ground to a halt for two weeks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/4208940/Wind-energy-supply-dips-during-cold-snap.html), when their output was most needed.

Of course, you can guess the environmentalists response - wait for it - they blamed global warming for the UKs declining wind!!!!!! Bwahahahaha. You couldn't make it up.

In 1986 a nuclear power plant exploded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster), when its energy was most needed.
Of course, you can guess the environmentalists response - wait for it - they blamed communism for the low security standards in Russia !!!!!!!!  Bwahahahaha. You couldn't make it up.


Extremists suck either way. Environmentalists are just as much of a joke as those opposing wind farms, saying they are "destroying their beautiful scenic environments, disturb them with noise and shadows and kill all the animals in a 50km radius".
Aside of some of those arguments being plain out rubbish (you would be surprised how much money wind farm developers pay for "bird studies" and "hamster studies" and "bat studies" and e.g. how strict the restrictions are on how close to any inhabitable space u may build), I like to ask opponents of wind energy the following when they bring up those arguments:
"So you really prefer those ginormous, lifeless holes in the landscape which are a result of coal mining? Or is it letting your children play on top of a nuclear dump-site that you prefer?"
It's always fun, to see their confused look and see them scramble when they are trying to rationalize what they were saying before. Usually they come up with something like "not really against renewable energy OF COURSE, maybe solar or tidal energy..."
The main problem with nuclear power is anyway that everyone thinks it's not a big deal and still the best way to produce power, as long as it is far away. Once a nuclear dump site is established in the vicinity of someones house, the ill-effects suddenly become so evident and it is time to oppose.
And don't let environmentalists fool you. No professional wind farm developer will tell you that we can live without nuclear power for the foreseeable future. But we can work towards living without it, instead of working towards living longer with it.

@your newspaper article

To make it short: "Infancy".

More elaborate: U mustn't forget that wind farms currently running are, for the most part, already ~10 years old (those that aren't, were most likely not standing still. The newspaper only talked about those standing still, naturally. It's news we talking about here and brittish news at that). The technology used for them is not the newest and when they were built, they were among the first ones to be built and no matter how carefully you plan, real life experience can never be compensated for (chernobyl *cough*). Therefore you can never exactly know what will be required of your tech, before you field test it over a long period of time.
And since the technology is in its infancy, the advancements every year are huge as well. Wind turbines and wings produced now and in recent years are very capable of dealing with harder weather conditions. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible for off shore wind farms to be constructed in the near future. The weather conditions there are not comparable to what u find on land. Even if the last 2 winters were quite tough in Britain.

On a sidenote: It doesn't surprise me, that this happened on the Island. Your market is way ****ed up. The way you block yourselves off from the rest of Europe and try to do everthing the "British" way is extremely stupid. As a result, it takes ages to plan and develop a wind farm in England (fortunately Scottland and Ireland are slightly better, haven't done business with Wales yet). As a result of it taking ages to plan, you sometimes cannot buy what is the newest tech on the market but have to stick with what you innitially negotiated with the turbine manufacturers.

That said, it can (and does) of course happen elsewhere as well.
However, conventional energy has taken decades of terrible accidents to develop to a point where they are as reliable as they are today.
If you think what price we have to pay to give wind energy the chance to grow up as well, I think that's more than acceptable.
If you say that wind energy is not an over-regional solution to saturate the power grid of a country and that conventional energies are necessary to balance out the power supply, you are correct, for the moment.

But there are already areas in the world (east-germany for example) where the saturation with wind farms is so great that they produce more energy than can be used in the power grid. And if you have enough surplus, then conventional energies are not necessary to compensate either, becuase it is near impossible that the wind stops blowing everywhere at once and that all wind farms are experiencing technical failures (due to for example extreme cold) at the same time.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Rajagra on Mon, 04 October 2010, 09:41:03
Quote from: Senor_Cartmenez;229494
blah, blah, infancy, blah, blah, England sucks, blah, blah...


You said "That energy gained through wind farms is not available when it's needed is outdated information." I gave a specific example that disproved your claim.

So now you backtrack and resort to the infancy excuse. You are saying that the problems will be resolved. That is an assumption. It is not a certainty. Many technologies start in their infancy and then ... fall by the wayside. Where are hydrogen fuel cells, the magic bullet for clean cars? Oh, that's right, they haven't overcome the "challenges" (that's what people in denial call problems) and it looks like they never will.

What is happening right now with wind farms (http://www.aweo.org/LowBenefit.pdf)? They provide intermittent power. Because it's intermittent, conventional supplies must exist to cater for demand. Conventional supplies only run efficiently at full power, and it isn't practical to turn them off and on, you can only run them slow on standby. So what happens when the wind farms are pumping out energy? The conventional generators have to run at expensive, inefficient levels, so they pump out disproportional amounts of greenhouse gases, partly negating the benefit of the wind farms.

Wishful thinking doesn't solve problems. Dealing with reality does. And the reality right now is that wind farms are no more than a salve for our guilty consciences. They need to make them work better or stop making claims they can't substantiate.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Senor_Cartmenez on Mon, 04 October 2010, 11:48:39
England doesn't suck....
Your business practicess suck (in certain well placed areas, renewable energy development, banking, ...), margaret thatcher sucked and your food certainly sucks (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2264/1862057932_3b6d76ce57.jpg)

But England doesn't suck per se ...

Quote
You said "That energy gained through wind farms is not available when it's needed is outdated information." I gave a specific example that disproved your claim.

No you didn't, you gave a news report (english news at that) about a random incident were a bunch of wind farms failed due to extreme weather conditions.

I gave you a random incident where a nuclear power plant failed. I think they compare and nuclear power looks grrrrrreat. I could give you some random examples for where coal energy production/mining failed, would look nice too, not as good as nuclear power of course...


I do not backtrack and I do not use infancy as an excuse. I use it to put it into context. When nuclear power was new and the kinks had to be worked out, stuff like chernobyl happened that ****ed up the entire world. When wind energy was in its infancy, a few wind turbines here and there stood still when the weather was extreme. It has since then been taken care off and shuldn't happen again. Big deal.


Quote
You are saying that the problems will be resolved. That is an assumption.

I am not saying they will be resolved and it's not an assumption either. I am saying they are resolved in certain areas and can be resolved in the near future everywhere.
Aside from new and unconventional technologies (like the one with the batteries in Japan, which sounds futuristic here but is being applied there for over a year now), the fact is that in certain areas there are so many good locations for wind farms and subsequently such a large number of wind farms have been built already, that these entire areas can be powered more or less without conventional energy production.
Granted, you need a higher "overkill"/surplus of power produced to ensure that it is available around the clock but the good thing about wind energy is that if you need more energy, you don't need to come back from the grave yet another 10 years later and cut off your grand grand children's penisses so they know who did it, you can just harvest more wind. With the increasing efficiency of turbines, this doesn't even have to mean that you destroy the beautiful scenery more and more and risk to negatively influence the environment in the long term.

Your link on "waht's happening with wind farms now" is from 2006. That's an eternity ago for a technology in its infancy. This information is the very definition of outdated.

At the moment wind energy cannot cover the entire demand for power in a country. This is mainly because it takes time to build up a network that can do that. Currently the network consists of coal energy and nuclear power production.

Nay sayers who can't look further than their next wanking session keep saying that that's the only way how energy can possibly be produced in a way that covers demand and that all tries to do so in a different way are ridiculous and stupid.
People who would like to have green trees, clean air and the ability to grow some veggies in their garden 30 to 50 years from now prefer to do something and take it from there, rather than just waiting for a magic cold fusion or other technology to drop in their laps while sitting around, polluting the planet and prepare for yet another wanking session.


It's the best technology we have and the EU wouldn't be making its member states subsidise it so heavily if it didn't have a good chance at being a long term solution (and we can see that already today).

Then again the EU is just a big joke and full of chumps, I fogrot. Wish we could have the empire back ... good times.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Mon, 04 October 2010, 12:26:18
dont the dutch generate electricity from the tides underwater along the beach (or something)?

(i mean in addition to their windmills)
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Senor_Cartmenez on Tue, 05 October 2010, 05:48:31
Quote from: wellington1869;229620
dont the dutch generate electricity from the tides underwater along the beach (or something)?

(i mean in addition to their windmills)

Not only the dutch. That tech is very promising as well but if wind energy is in its infancy, tidal energy is still a toddler :)

Same as geo-thermic energy.

Both promising and potentially good techs but still A LOT of kinks have to be worked out there. Keeping turbines running under water and servicing them under water when you obviously put them in areas where there are extremely strong currents is still tough to realize. But it works for now and it will show in the coming years if it is a long term solution/piece to the puzzle and how far the efficiency can be increased. Or if it will be another fail like solar energy in central europe.

Geo-thermic energy is also promising but I am not utterly convinced about it. Mainly because one cannot really say what happens when you drill so deep into the earth and cannot exactly know what you will hit. In Germany they recently tried to power some government building complexes with geo-thermic energies. When they drilled, the hit a pocket of pressurized water and flooded an entire area in the city, took forever to close that off, they finally managed when the folks from BP arrived, thank god.

Project was cancelled afterwards...

But yeah, tidal energy production is a good tech to follow and in a few years or a decade maybe could be the next great advancement.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Konrad on Tue, 05 October 2010, 09:22:37
Do you know why all Dutch people are so tall? Because the short ones drowned.
 
I thought the real purpose behind windmills was to suck water?
 
Various forms of tidal power plants (http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/tidal_power.htm) are already being used (and multiplying) in Japan. More under construction in Australia and :canada:.  The technology is "newer" than windy power, but just as sophisticated.
 
I wonder when the complainers are going to start *****ing about the "noise" generated by underwater turbines?  Or the threat they pose to fish dumb enough to get chopped by the blades?  Hell, maybe these plants will increase whale suicide rates, why not?
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Tue, 05 October 2010, 10:02:10
call me crazy but i'm 100% for free energy.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Konrad on Tue, 05 October 2010, 10:22:58
tanstaafl, nothin's free.  Ever.
 
But having said that, the prices differ.  Moving wind and water cost much less than burning oil and nukonium.  The only way to save the whales is for all those stupid hippies to turn off their TVs.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Senor_Cartmenez on Tue, 05 October 2010, 11:01:58
Quote from: Konrad;229936

I wonder when the complainers are going to start *****ing about the "noise" generated by underwater turbines?


epic
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: wellington1869 on Thu, 14 October 2010, 21:31:31
I'd buy the new chevy Volt. 74mpg, dual-engine (elec and gas). Car and Driver gives it a quite positive review. And I think it looks pretty damn good too.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q4/2011_chevrolet_volt_full_test-road_test (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q4/2011_chevrolet_volt_full_test-road_test)
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Ekaros on Sun, 13 March 2011, 16:53:27
Is it only me or is the scale of issues wrong with Nuclear and other energy sources?

Atleast here the issues with reactors are the main news, people are buying Iodine and so on...

I still belive nuclear is best option in short and mid-term...
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Lpb45 on Sun, 13 March 2011, 17:00:20
coal and hydroelectric still make up the majority of the worlds electricity
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Ekaros on Sun, 13 March 2011, 17:05:21
Quote from: Lpb45;311230
coal and hydroelectric still make up the majority of the worlds electricity


Hydroelectricity is working option, but not without issues.

Coal, there is the global warming and possible sulphur emmisions which leads to acid rains.

It just seems like people can't think about clearly without feelings about nuclear-energy. After Japan we should stop building more and replacing old ones, it's good to be against, but they should provide real options for it. Wind generaly don't seem feasible...
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: RiGS on Sun, 13 March 2011, 17:12:30
I think there is nothing wrong with nuclear power.
The problem is the usage of uranium instead of thorium.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 13 March 2011, 17:16:16
Wow, you necroed a thread from back when your fellow Troll Welly was still here.

TROLL NECROOOOOOO

Here's a photo of Welly and RiGS (Troll and Necro)

(http://www.strategicon.net/images/Albums/2009__Gateway/LARP-Dying_Kingdoms/Troll_and_Necromancer.jpg)
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Ekaros on Sun, 13 March 2011, 17:21:20
Quote from: keyboardlover;311238
Wow, you necroed a thread from back when your fellow Troll Welly was still here.

TROLL NECROOOOOOO

Here's a photo of Welly and RiGS (Troll and Necro)

Show Image
(http://www.strategicon.net/images/Albums/2009__Gateway/LARP-Dying_Kingdoms/Troll_and_Necromancer.jpg)

It just seems like current affairs conserning this method of producting energy might be relevant at the time. And why make new on when there is perfectly good old one to resurrect?

BTW:
If you change your title to US Troll, I will change mine to Euro Troll ;D
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: JBert on Sun, 13 March 2011, 17:25:00
Is it considered necro-posting when you started the thread? I'd call it "discussing incessantly" or "re-ranting" in that case.

Now there's nothing wrong with nuclear power. What's wrong is that uranium might become hard to get, that it's (relatively few) waste products are dangerous for thousands of generations and that it's only safe as long as we can trust maintenance of the reactors (hint: never trust a company with this when it still needs to make a profit (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1433333/)).
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 13 March 2011, 17:25:28
Sorry. I'm an ignorant American who knows nothing about when is or isn't the proper time to necro a thread. I DO know that some people unfamiliar with the English language find the term "necro" offensive though.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Ekaros on Sun, 13 March 2011, 17:31:37
Quote from: keyboardlover;311242
Sorry. I'm an ignorant American who knows nothing about when is or isn't the proper time to necro a thread. I DO know that some people unfamiliar with the English language find the term "necro" offensive though.


Corrected the usage of term to resurrect. Just for now.

Back to the topic, Japanese seem to have some issues with their powerplants and on more than on one them. Generaly some issues I have read about which's trutfulness I'm not entirely sure, like how their back-up back-up couldn't be connected due to lack of cables and adaptors seems quite worry some... Hope they have handled issues better elsewhere...
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: RiGS on Sun, 13 March 2011, 17:51:13
Quote from: keyboardlover;311238
Wow, you necroed a thread from back when your fellow Troll Welly was still here.

Well, that clearly wasn't me.
Maybe next time Mr. Trollover.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 13 March 2011, 17:59:03
Lol. It's "Sir Troll-A-Lot" to you!

Quote from: Ekaros

BTW:
If you change your title to US Troll, I will change mine to Euro Troll ;D


Ok sounds good; you first.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 13 March 2011, 18:52:34
BTW, this is a great article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559604576176620582972608.html) for Euro snobs who think their poo don't stink.

Since you're "much less ignorant" than me, I assume you can read.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 13 March 2011, 18:59:43
I dunno...I'm just really sick of ignorant USA bashing really.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: RiGS on Sun, 13 March 2011, 19:06:45
Hey, don't be upset! EU sucks as well.
Sheep are everywhere.
We just enjoy sucking your blood.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 13 March 2011, 19:12:17
I think both have their pros and cons. But I don't bash the EU so I don't appreciate my country being bashed either. I try to look at the positive side of countries as much as possible anyway. Much more constructive attitude than the alternative.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: RiGS on Sun, 13 March 2011, 19:25:50
Also much more ignorant.... Countries are ruled by a buch of liars, but let's forget about politics.
I don't have any kind of national pride, or such nonsense. It is not something what we can chose, therfore it is not our merit.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 13 March 2011, 19:31:44
You obviously don't have pride in anything else either, which is why you troll.

Typical Cherry black user. Nihilist.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vee8vL9-DLk/SOF3flYQd8I/AAAAAAAAALU/xJ0PRhjxbVM/s320/nihilists-1.jpg)
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: RiGS on Sun, 13 March 2011, 19:56:24
I'm sure you haven't. Probably that's why you reflect all your sadness on me.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 13 March 2011, 20:02:13
Actually, one of us is truly sad. And it ain't me.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: RiGS on Sun, 13 March 2011, 20:05:52
Oh, I'm having fun.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 13 March 2011, 20:12:06
You obviously don't understand my use of the word "sad" in this context.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: RiGS on Sun, 13 March 2011, 20:17:16
Well English is my third language. Feel free to enlight me on this.
However I'd rather get back to the original topic.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 13 March 2011, 20:19:19
"Sad" can be a synonym for "pathetic". =)
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: quadibloc on Mon, 14 March 2011, 17:12:31
Quote from: RiGS;311236
I think there is nothing wrong with nuclear power.
The problem is the usage of uranium instead of thorium.
I think that the failure to use thorium in addition to uranium, or even more specifically, the failure to use Th-232 and U-238 in addition to U-235, is definitely a problem.

U-233 made from Th-232, just like Pu-239 made from U-238, is fissionable, and can be used to make bombs. There are some potential advantages from a proliferation standpoint to the Thorium cycle, IIRC, but they don't remove the need to keep all fissionable materials in responsible hands.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Soarer on Mon, 14 March 2011, 18:34:35
Bloody BBC.

According to John H. Large, it's bad. All bad.

He's entitled to his opinion, of course. As soon as he opens his mouth it's clear that it's nothing remotely close to an objective one, and that he deserves to be ignored. He's declaring that meltdown has already happened is all those reactors with cooling problems, and that the radiation leaked so far is very much higher than has been revealed officially. He also claims that the containment vessels would not be able to contain a meltdown.

While one might accuse the Japanese government of being optimistic, the sheer number of people measuring radiation would make any cover-up of the scale of leaks thus far implausible.

What's truly objectionable though, is the BBC wheeling him on as an 'independant nuclear energy expert'. He is evidently far more qualified as an expert in doom-mongering and talking out of his ass. He has worked with Greenpeace a number of times, and clearly shares their views, yet no mention was made of this. No doubt the BBC do it in an effort to provide a 'balanced' (sic) viewpoint, but can't they find anyone occupying the vast amount of ground between the 'officials' and the nutjobs?

/rant
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Soarer on Mon, 14 March 2011, 18:55:31
I think you might be misunderstanding me. I am a cynic. But giving a platform to total nutjobs does nothing to increase understanding of an issue. Quite the opposite, as refuting the nutjobs is easy, but avoids addressing the trickier points of any debate.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Konrad on Mon, 14 March 2011, 23:40:06
It's just thread recycling.  Good for the digital environment.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Konrad on Mon, 14 March 2011, 23:42:42
I'm still waiting for atomic radioisotope batteries (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/07/tiny-nuclear-battery.html).  They promised us (last year) that these would be on the shelves already.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Oqsy on Mon, 14 March 2011, 23:48:05
No one does it better than America.

(http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I00001WsWAWdi9U4/s/600/600/Bald-Eagles-Mating-0760.jpg)
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: manfaux on Tue, 15 March 2011, 00:12:43
Quote from: keyboardlover;228663
Let's not forget that China has fewer constraints on Capitalism than we do, which puts them much closer to the risk of crisis than us. I predict a crisis will hit them worse than ours in the near future.

But everything we're discussing is merely conjecture anyway :D

All 4 major Chinese commercial banks are state-owned, as opposed to our white house, which is being practically run by Wall Street.

on the subject about economic crises, in 1997, the financial meltdown literally wiped out the entire southeast Asia, along with South Korea, while the Chinese were virtually unaffected, because unlike the vast majority of Southeast Asian investments, almost all of China's foreign investments(which are heavily regulated by the state - instead of, say, Goldman Sach's CEO) took the form of factories on the ground rather than securities, which insulated China from a rapid capital flight.

if anything China has arguably the strictest constraints on capitalism out of all these big nations, certainly a better system than ours.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Konrad on Tue, 15 March 2011, 01:44:22
The greatest crisis which could face China's capitalism would be America withdrawing the money/materials which fuel Chinese industry and the consumers who demand cheap Chinese products.  Not that it matters much, there's plenty of other nations to support Chinese productivity, starting with North Korea, the rest of Asia, the (former) USSR, and the Euros.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Ekaros on Tue, 15 March 2011, 04:17:29
Quote from: Konrad;311946
The greatest crisis which could face China's capitalism would be America withdrawing the money/materials which fuel Chinese industry and the consumers who demand cheap Chinese products.  Not that it matters much, there's plenty of other nations to support Chinese productivity, starting with North Korea, the rest of Asia, the (former) USSR, and the Euros.


This would end up in final nail of USAs coffin. It's kinda strange system, some money going in china, but more money coming to USA as debts...
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: quadibloc on Tue, 15 March 2011, 04:32:28
Here's (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/) an alternate take on the recent events in Japan.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: speakeasy on Tue, 15 March 2011, 08:03:49
That's a great article to put things into perspective quadi.

Another link I found interesting Geiger counter (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html) in Tokyo.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Soarer on Tue, 15 March 2011, 13:32:08
Quote from: ripster;312172
Hmmm.....damn, one of those times I wish I wasn't always right.

iMav needs to include the time stamp in Vbulletin Quote HTML to make them more useful for "I Told You So"s, otherwise the pain of ZULU Military Time  wasn't worth it.


Right about what exactly?
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Soarer on Tue, 15 March 2011, 14:14:26
Quote from: ripster;312210
Right that things could get much worse very quickly.


Anything could happen.

Quote from: ripster;312210
I posted it when it was level 4.  Now it is a level 6.  

BIG difference.


As far as I know, there's isn't any consensus on the current level.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: keyboardlover on Tue, 15 March 2011, 15:00:03
A French guy, connected with the UN nuclear whatever was the one who said it was most likely a 6.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: RiGS on Tue, 12 April 2011, 12:45:36
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: cbf123 on Tue, 12 April 2011, 13:08:46
Quote from: ripster;329315
Damn, I'm good.

Threat Level 7.



It looks like this is actually a retroactive thing, based on calculations of the rate of radiation release back during the most severe parts of the crisis.

So far the total radiation release is at about one tenth of Chernobyl, but the isotopes are different so the end result is also going to be different.  Of course they're still releasing radiation so who knows what the final total is going to be.

I heard an interesting interview on CBC radio the other night.  They were talking about liquid salt thorium reactors.  From what it sounded like, they are by their very nature much safer than solid fuel uranium reactors and also produce less waste.  I'm really curious why nobody has ever built one commercially--it would be sad if it was simply because nobody else has.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: Lanx on Tue, 12 April 2011, 13:35:19
yea i'm not visiting japan like, forever.
Title: A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?
Post by: digitalleftovers on Tue, 12 April 2011, 13:43:40
I want nuclear power to be an option, but its hard to support something that is so dangerous and still in its infancy.  In the case of a completely compromised plant, what if there were a way to extract the nuclear material and transport it to a safe location.  Will reasearch into such solutions be possible with the political gloom over such an "unsafe" form of energy?