|
CFLs arn't for everyone, as some people have health issues with being around fluorescent lights.
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Germany's gone a lot of the way towards having most of their grid powered by renewables, at least in theory. In practice it's causing very severe problems.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
Yes. The tone of the article is more than a little grating but the important parts arn't wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Domestic generation has to be part of any future energy mix. I live in central Minnesota. Solar panels arn't going to be very useful to me most of the time, and as for geothermal? Forget it. I don't care what kind of subsidies get put in place, none of them are going to pay for drilling miles straight down.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:Since there are a lot of nuclear fission proponents in this thread, could you give me some pointers/links to how the highly radioactive waste products can be safely stored/treated? Not trying to argue, just genuinely interested, and I didn't find the answers on Wikipedia (nor in this thread). Leave it in the transport pods they stuff it in now, plop it on a chunk of uninhabited real estate somewhere, put a fence around it, and forget about it. Nobody's going to steal one of those and they won't break open accidentially.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
The people in this thread defending nuclear power do so because they know what they're talking about, and typically, opponents of nuclear power (including the rare few posting in this thread) do not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Germany's energy policy is nothing short of an unmigitated disaster and it's only going to get worse.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
If nothing else, Lockheed wants to make money. They wouldn't be spending money on this if they didn't think there was a profit in it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Herv posted:I dont want to either, but the F-35 is making the F-22 look like a STEAL. The 22 only has one job to do. I have heard 1-1.5 Trillion for a turkey that can't do a single job well (35). You're an idiot that doesn't read threads
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
There are already lots of people focusing on nuclear development. It's not like there's some limited supply of science points that has to go to one or the other.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Reprocessing in the US has zero proliferation risk because no one is going to be able to steal plutonium out of the middle of the US.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It is actually the nuclear power operators who are most opposed to on-site cask storage. They don't want to spend the money. This is an entirely reasonable stance for them, as the federal government is basically required by law to take care of it, to the point where it's lost multiple lawsuits from various energy companies on the subject. Unsurprisingly, the companies in question arn't too keen on paying money to the government forever for a permanent repository that hasn't been built. ugh its Troika fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Obama likes nuclear power and he hired two secretaries of energy that like nuclear power. Thanks Obama. Obama only gives a poo poo about nuclear power insofar as it gets him votes and attention. He personally killed Yucca Mountain.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Let's put the radiation thing in perspective (again), shall we? All the freaking out about radiation and nuclear reactors is a clear sign someone is dangerously underinformed at best.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
The only people who can do it are people who already have invested billions into developing nuclear weapons technology, so I really don't see where you're going with this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
The actual operating costs are probably a shitload lower too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Even if someone did hack a nuclear power plant control system somehow, all the poo poo it controls has manual backups anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/17/obama-backed-solar-plant-could-be-shut-down-for-not-producing-enough-energy/ Has even one of these government-backed solar projects turned out to be anything other than an expensive boondoggle?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
e: whoops
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Hi guys, I bumped into this thread just now and am in Energy Management and Digital Building Controls. I haven't managed to get through more than the first few pages of the thread so far however, I was curious if anyone is bothering to discuss the waste handling and maintenance costs of some of these solutions which got tossed into the OP - or are we all just going to fire expired radioactive fuel into the sun or something - after we salvage all of those corroded leaky barrels of ultra-dangerous waste. Radioactive waste isn't actually a serious problem and is far less dangerous than most people think. It's perfectly safe to just chunk the vast majority of it on a patch of desert inside a fence, station a 20 year old with a rifle at the gate, and forget about it. Anyone who tries to steal, say, spent fuel rods, which are the most radioactive thing out of a plant, will end up regretting their decision. Briefly.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:My first Energy Trumper! Congrats - would you care to share the science behind your claim? Protip: if you want a serious discussion, be less of a condescending prick and don't automatically assume the guy you're quoting has no idea what he's talking about. Generally speaking, waste falls into two broad categories: high level and low level waste. High level waste is spent fuel rods. It's generally stuffed into big, unbelievably tough (as in, can withstand being hit by a train at full speed tough) casks, which are then stuffed into a rack. The casks contain the radiation perfectly well and usually are also used to transport the waste if needed. This is the really dangerous stuff, but at the same time, the casks are secure enough that you can just park them anywhere. No need for ridiculous 1000 leagues below the earth storage needed. Low level waste is just about everything else. Equipment, used protective gear, medical stuff, that sort of thing. Typically, the radiation emitted from this stuff fades away to safe levels within 5-10 years. It's generally just flat out buried in a hole somewhere (the exact depth required depends on how radioactive it is), and there hasn't really been any problems with it. So. Low level waste disposal is fine as it is. High level waste disposal, which is what all the green morons whine about endlessly and want to use as a club to kill nuclear in the US, is also not a huge problem, except that the US is supposed to have a central facility that all the nuclear power plants can send it to. It's legally required to, in fact, and up until relatively recently, was taxing reactor operators for the construction of such a site until the feds were ordered to stop by a court. The feds have also lost many lawsuits related to the construction of such a site, since it was blatantly obvious that the government had no real intention of constructing the facility due to the issue becoming a political football. Thanks, Harry Reid! To recap: spent fuel casks are completely safe. They can't be transported or opened without extremely specialized equipment, are immune to even ridiculous accidents, and thus, as I stated, can be perfectly safely parked on a patch of desert somewhere. No one has tried to steal a spent fuel rod, ever, in the entire history of nuclear power in the US, and they are harmless just sittng in the casks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Carpooling is also not hugely popular since a lot of people are not too keen on letting strangers in their cars on a regular basis.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 00:07
|
|