|
marktheando posted:And personally I've never encountered a leave voter who wasn't stupid or racist or both. If we all relied on anecdotal evidence we'd all hate Poles. They're stealing all our jobs! E: http://www.groveclassicmotorcycles.co.uk/287-bulb---6v-2w-313-p.asp
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:00
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan 
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Nuclear is expensive because it's rare and the infrastructure and specialists just aren't there. If we built as many reactors as we have gas plants the price would come right down. But you know, we might get an inland typhoon that causes a meltdown. The oil and natural gas companies actively shill against nuclear power and fund anti-nuclear groups. If we were to use nuclear power we wouldn't have to buy oil from the middle east cutting off funding for terrorist organizations or at least the people funding the mosques with the hate preachers within.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
There's no point in going further into nuclear with the price of wind and solar crashing down and battery technology taking off. Why make radioactive waste products if you don't need to? Should only be using reactors for medical purposes.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
HJB posted:If we all relied on anecdotal evidence we'd all hate Poles. They're stealing all our jobs! The problem with the Poles is that they are hard workers and work for cash in hand under the table.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Aren't they different things? Don't jellies not have seeds or something? Something like that but around here it's used interchangeably.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
HJB posted:If we all relied on anecdotal evidence we'd all hate Poles. They're stealing all our jobs! I've never met a Pole I disliked.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:There's no point in going further into nuclear with the price of wind and solar crashing down. Why make radioactive waste products if you don't need to? Should only be using reactors for medical purposes. http://earthjournalism.net/stories/the-dark-side-of-renewable-energy quote:Rare earth metals, hard-to-find materials, with unfamiliar names such as lanthanum, neodymium and europium, are used in wind and solar energy projects, but dwindling supplies could hinder a roll-out of low carbon technologies and slow China's shift away from coal power. Except mining for rare metals is creating toxic wastelands across the World
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
marktheando posted:I've never met a Pole I disliked. I was going to say I had, but then I realised he was English and it was his wife that was Polish and she was lovely.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
marktheando posted:I've never met a Pole I disliked.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:There's no point in going further into nuclear with the price of wind and solar crashing down and battery technology taking off. Why make radioactive waste products if you don't need to? Should only be using reactors for medical purposes. I agree. Although I think research should still go on because miniaturised reactors with no proliferation capacity would be a portable energy revolution. Last I heard Toshiba had some designs but I haven't heard anything for a while.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are where it's at - plentiful fuel, meltdowns are impossible, you don't get weapons-grade stuff out of them (that's the big reason why they weren't further pursued in the first place), and the design looks like it'd be pretty drat robust and easier to manufacture. Problem is, it didn't get the 50+ years of research and practice that the current nuclear tech got, so of course it needs a lot of investment and research to actually get proper results. The biggest issue is with lining material corroding, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
LED lighting, having four bins, the plastic bag charge, and the new vaping laws are good examples of everything I despise about the nanny state. It's the erosion of personal choice and responsibilities using punishment rather than rewards and it can gently caress right off.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are where it's at - plentiful fuel, meltdowns are impossible, you don't get weapons-grade stuff out of them (that's the big reason why they weren't further pursued in the first place), and the design looks like it'd be pretty drat robust and easier to manufacture. Problem is, it didn't get the 50+ years of research and practice that the current nuclear tech got, so of course it needs a lot of investment and research to actually get proper results. nimbys taking up the anti fluoride banner would be a wonderful thing to see
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:http://earthjournalism.net/stories/the-dark-side-of-renewable-energy Maybe if China weren't the only one ripping the stuff out of the ground as fast as they possibly could to meet worldwide demand and instead some of the other reserves were also exploited in a more sustainable way? Can't imagine those illegal mining operations the article mentions are sticking to any environmental legislation. Pochoclo posted:Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are where it's at - plentiful fuel, meltdowns are impossible, you don't get weapons-grade stuff out of them (that's the big reason why they weren't further pursued in the first place), and the design looks like it'd be pretty drat robust and easier to manufacture. Problem is, it didn't get the 50+ years of research and practice that the current nuclear tech got, so of course it needs a lot of investment and research to actually get proper results. The biggest issue is with lining material corroding, IIRC. Actually it's because they're not commercially viable, they have a fuel cycle of 40 to 70 years. They also do still have the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation, because you need to use enriched uranium or plutonium if you want to make it less expensive to run. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 13:22 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Nuclear is expensive because it's rare you can extract uranium from sea water
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:There's no point in going further into nuclear with the price of wind and solar crashing down and battery technology taking off. Why make radioactive waste products if you don't need to? Should only be using reactors for medical purposes. Nuclear waste is fairly mundane as far as toxic waste goes. It's honestly not an issue at all.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
There are other rare earth mineral reserves in Australia, the problem is that they are in the middle of nowhere and there is no infrastructure. It could be built but at a massive environmental cost.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Jose posted:you can extract uranium from sea water New nuclear builds are rare, not the fuel.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:There's no point in going further into nuclear with the price of wind and solar crashing down and battery technology taking off. Why make radioactive waste products if you don't need to? Should only be using reactors for medical purposes. This comes up a lot and it stems from a belief that all power is equal, regardless of its source. We get our power from base load, peak load, and intermittent sources. The base load is what you always need so the plants run full time, and are mostly coal and nuclear. The peak load can be quickly ramped up to meet demand and is mostly provided by gas, and intermittent covers all the renewables that are nice to have but can't be quickly switched on and off. The only renewable source that can contribute towards base load is hydro, and that comes with its own set of environmental problems and the potential for disaster. So if you ignore nuclear power because of worries about ATOMZ, then you have to keep burning coal (which produces its own nasty waste products, including radioactive waste that we just vent into the air!) and building hydro plants which would generally be located upstream from major population centres because we have a habit of building towns on rivers.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:In other news, a Guardian story about kids having to hoover their own classrooms because it can't afford to hire a new cleaner. Starve The Beast is really working, it's going to be bad when the Tories win Those children are gaining valuable work experience. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Scikar posted:This comes up a lot and it stems from a belief that all power is equal, regardless of its source. We get our power from base load, peak load, and intermittent sources. The base load is what you always need so the plants run full time, and are mostly coal and nuclear. The peak load can be quickly ramped up to meet demand and is mostly provided by gas, and intermittent covers all the renewables that are nice to have but can't be quickly switched on and off. The only renewable source that can contribute towards base load is hydro, and that comes with its own set of environmental problems and the potential for disaster. So if you ignore nuclear power because of worries about ATOMZ, then you have to keep burning coal (which produces its own nasty waste products, including radioactive waste that we just vent into the air!) and building hydro plants which would generally be located upstream from major population centres because we have a habit of building towns on rivers. Nope. http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/MarkBaseloadFallacyANZSEE.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
You need a consistent baseline power generation solution for Grid sized systems until you get to either supergrids or superbatteries. Geothermal is too small and there are 1.5 generating stations in the UK, or Nuclear
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:There are other rare earth mineral reserves in Australia, the problem is that they are in the middle of nowhere and there is no infrastructure. It could be built but at a massive environmental cost. Your "middle of nowhere" is someone else's ancestral territory and you can gently caress right off.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Nuclear is better for the environment in some ways than renewables in any case. Smaller footprint, can be built almost anywhere.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Vlex posted:Your "middle of nowhere" is someone else's ancestral territory and you can gently caress right off. Yes. Mine.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:You need a consistent baseline power generation solution for Grid sized systems until you get to either supergrids or superbatteries. You can get consistent baseload power generation from a mix of wind and solar provided they are large scale and geographically diverse with other forms of renewables also taking up slack.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Scikar posted:This comes up a lot and it stems from a belief that all power is equal, regardless of its source. We get our power from base load, peak load, and intermittent sources. The base load is what you always need so the plants run full time, and are mostly coal and nuclear. The peak load can be quickly ramped up to meet demand and is mostly provided by gas, and intermittent covers all the renewables that are nice to have but can't be quickly switched on and off. This is an important point in the main but you're wrong.about renewables. They can be switched on and off very quickly. The big things holding.them back are grid infrastructure (needed to address demand flexibly) and battery technology so we can store what they generate and use it as baseload. There are people working on these problems but scalable solutions are a few years out. For those interested in SMRs the Government is running a huge competition between three competing techs currently. These things are very slow.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Nope. A paper which states itself that wind power (the majority of our renewable supply) has to be looked at separately, and suggests biofuels (what about the environment impact of industrial farming?), geothermal (limited since the UK isn't volcanic) and solar with storage (did you forget we're talking about the UK?). And then takes solar with storage out because the storage tech doesn't exist yet.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Zalakwe posted:This is an important point in the main but you're wrong.about renewables. They can be switched on and off very quickly. The big things holding.them back are grid infrastructure (needed to address demand flexibly) and battery technology so we can store what they generate and use it as baseload. There are people working on these problems but scalable solutions are a few years out. Energy storage tech is more than "a few years out". What do we do in the mean time? Burn coal?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Yes. Mine. Aborigines are fake news.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Scikar posted:A paper which states itself that wind power (the majority of our renewable supply) has to be looked at separately, and suggests biofuels (what about the environment impact of industrial farming?), geothermal (limited since the UK isn't volcanic) and solar with storage (did you forget we're talking about the UK?). And then takes solar with storage out because the storage tech doesn't exist yet. tbf it's a decade old paper. I just used it as it points out that wind is not intermittent at large scale. And that nuclear suffers the same problem in that you still need systems such as gas to cover peak usage.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Nope. Even if you accept that the concept of base load can be worked around, relying on intermittent renewables for the majority, or even sizeable minority, of generation is a non-starter in northern Europe because all you need is one winter anticyclone and you get a week of freezing temperatures with no wind and 100% overcast everywhere from Gibraltar to Murmansk. No matter how good storage or transmission technology gets, keeping enough spare to keep the lights on and heaters running for that sort of circumstance would be massively inefficient, especially compared with keeping a bunch of nukes running year-round.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
hasn't wight suffered enough
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:LED lighting, having four bins, the plastic bag charge, and the new vaping laws are good examples of everything I despise about the nanny state. It's the erosion of personal choice and responsibilities using punishment rather than rewards and it can gently caress right off. What policy to reduce the usage of plastic bags would you prefer?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:tbf it's a decade old paper. I just used it as it points out that wind is not intermittent at large scale. And that nuclear suffers the same problem in that you still need systems such as gas to cover peak usage. "Large scale" in this case meaning "across Australia", which gives you just a bit more room to play with than the UK. And I never suggested that nuclear can be used a peak supply. To be honest I really don't see why this argument always comes up, it seems pretty obvious that we should maximise our usage of renewables to cut down on the amount of horrible poo poo we need to deal with, whether that's fossil fuels or radioactive waste. And then when you do look at what's left, you realise you still need something that is always on, and nuclear is a much better option than coal. Nuclear and renewables go hand in hand if you care about the environment and energy security.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Every now and again the UKMT happens upon some specialist topic and there are like a dozen posters who seem to know everything about it, it's a weird thing to see. I get it when it's like WW2 or something, god knows I get it when it's about anime, but how do you all know this stuff about power generation? Submarine design was another one, so was different fonts. Im legally restricted from discussing my specialist subject on the internet, can someone message me when the conversation turns to snooker or early-mid period Simpsons?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Scikar posted:Energy storage tech is more than "a few years out". What do we do in the mean time? Burn coal? Burn straw men perhaps (we're actually planning to use gas, although our margin is mad tight - for the UK). People have storage demonstrators running all over Europe. The UK has just awarded a bunch of contracts for the first commercial sites. Mass deployment isn't imminent but it will be possible technically within a few years. It will then need to get better. Scikar posted:To be honest I really don't see why this argument always comes up, it seems pretty obvious that we should maximise our usage of renewables to cut down on the amount of horrible poo poo we need to deal with, whether that's fossil fuels or radioactive waste. And then when you do look at what's left, you realise you still need something that is always on, and nuclear is a much better option than coal. Nuclear and renewables go hand in hand if you care about the environment and energy security. I agree entirely. Zalakwe fucked around with this message at 13:49 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Every now and again the UKMT happens upon some specialist topic and there are like a dozen posters who seem to know everything about it, it's a weird thing to see. I get it when it's like WW2 or something, god knows I get it when it's about anime, but how do you all know this stuff about power generation? Submarine design was another one, so was different fonts. Im legally restricted from discussing my specialist subject on the internet, can someone message me when the conversation turns to snooker or early-mid period Simpsons? Is it really that weird? Climate change is going to absolutely gently caress the UK, and we're not even doing anything now to prevent it, when the time for action was decades ago. And if you want to make an informed decision on policy to deal with it, you have to understand power generation.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
Can't you just put the UK on stilts?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Can't you just put the UK on stilts? Perhaps put it on a barge, it will have to be strong and stable.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:51
|
|