|
Piell posted:Hydro is incredibly limited in where it can be used, and all the good spots have already been used. Right. I think the idea is that we never use it for regular generation, we charge batteries with it all day or what have you and when night comes we use it and the batteries and the batteries we charged with our extra solar stuff.
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
I feel like he's under the impression that if given the choice between infinite free energy and nuclear some of us would choose nuclear. That we like nuclear out of some stubborn clinging to the atomic cars our comic books told us were coming and not because we already did the research, which he asked us to source then dismissed the source as biased, and concluded that it was the best available option.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
TEPCO and an article that says "TEPCO says..." don't actually count as different sources.Adenoid Dan posted:And yes, of course psychological damage is part of the damage caused by nuclear accidents, one of the biggest, in fact. I wonder how the psychological damage is related to the part where people think atoms are scarier than cars. Fine-able Offense posted:If you can't admit that nuclear has serious problems that need to be ironed out or worked around before its (very real) potential can be properly harnessed, then I just don't know, man. Have fun with the circle jerk I guess? Quick name one. The fact that people don't understand science is a problem with PEOPLE not a problem with science. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Nothing you've cited provides any evidence that the source isn't milking the Japanese government for money.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
People have provided arguments and other estimates that indicate that your source may be overblown. You respond by relinking the same source and accusing people of kneejerking.' This is a stupid derail anyway. The upshot is that as bad as the number may be it's arguably not effectively infinite for risk analysis. Amoretize the cleanup costs over the power Fukishima generated in it's lifetime. How much does that come out to? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:several months old by the time TEPCO updated their cost estimates That's all I wanted. You've been so busy calling people stupid and accusing them of whiteknighting this is the first time you've posted an argument against relying on the other estimate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
So do you have evidence to the contrary or are you just here because you ate bad burritos?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The "other shoe" is that the Thorium cycle produces U-232, which makes reprocessing loving awful and decays into products which get more dangerous as time goes. This is one of the things that makes the Thorium cycle attractive, "extremely toxic" can also be read as "difficult to proliferate". Does this stuff have to be held to higher storage standards than the already impossible store waste we produce?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2013 12:18
|
|
|
Be careful. If you make too good a case for nuclear power the goalposts will shift back to "we can't talk about nuclear power because it's politically unfeasible. Better just frack!"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
That's why infographics like the one comparing the amount of uranium dispersed when consuming coal to the amount needed to generate the same amount of power as that coal are so useful.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
I just link to whatever the latest report from Hawaii's HHS is. They are on the watch for radiation too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Correct. To handle peak you either just build more nukes or have gas plants on hand. Unlike coal fired plants nuclear fuel costs are very low. Having them generating when they aren't needed isn't such a huge waste, and you can always use the extra to do something like desalinate water. Nuclear desalination is the next best idea after nuclear power that will never happen because people don't understand physics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Is this "Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center" a thing to trick idiots into buying geiger counters they don't need or what's the deal? My more gullible hippie friends have been posting links about the latest dose of Fukushima radiation our media is covering up because reasons and they keep linking to it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Doesn't wind theoretically max out at something near 1/17th of our current world power usage anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Don't they have to buy power from France most of the time?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
PT6A posted:As long as "environmentalist" and "retard" continue to be roughly synonymous, people that actually care about the environment and have realistic ideas about, for example, nuclear power generation have a really tough road ahead of them. As long as crazy luddite hippies are considered 'environmentalist' that synonyms going to be hard to break. If California is literally dying from Fukushima radiation than why haven't we heard any bad news out of Hawaii?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Ok, I'm going to read the report on the weekend. Great, now future nuclear plants are going to have to prove they won't explode if they get too cold.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Comparing nuclear to wind is stupid because no one is arguing that wind isn't great. But all the wind in the world literally cannot ever power the world as we live in it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Actually, something I'm not sure of, if we somehow over generate what happens to excess generated power? I'm sure that's a thing long dealt with but I never actually looked into it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:My secondary concern is that the cost of solar panels in roads instead of asphalt is probably ridiculous, both from an installation and maintenance standpoint. This is what I'm most concerned about. What is the actual cost per unit if they got to mass production and how long does any given unit actually last on average. And then how many units to make one lane * mile.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:No no no you're not getting it. One of the mantras of this thread is that we should ignore the fact that nuclear power plants are incredibly complicated feats of engineering and require extreme care in order to be operated safely. Instead we should blame the government for why nuclear power plants take forever to build and why they cost bajillions of dollars. Convenient that you haven't actually sourced any arguments against nuclear power, or even really made any, yet all you do in this thread is harp on how we are all mindless drones worshiping it. Maybe you should get the Sun's cock out of your mouth and make a real argument.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
So you poo poo on the discussion because it's not the one you want to have about... well I don't know what because instead of trying to discuss it you just came to poo poo on the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If you look through my post history in this thread, you will see that I have never claimed that solar cells are a perfect technology. The only time that I have talked about photovoltaics in this thread is to correct misconceptions regarding the technology. You shouldn't encourage people to do this if you want to be taken remotely seriously. All you do is make vague generalizations about solar while crying that people like nuclear too much. The flaws with solar have been thorougly explored throughout the thread. If I recall the biggest is that it takes a large as gently caress land area relative to power output, poor storage technology making it hard/impossible to provide baseload power from solar, and the fact that many places just aren't suitable for it. Similar to wind except without the hard limit on how much we can even theoretically get from it. Nuclear has drawbacks too, but they are more in the "people need better education" vein than "destroying our world or just isn't enough" Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:2) People who are pro-green and anti-nuclear power, who need to come up with solutions to a myriad of problems involved with adopting renewable power for the entire country. People in this camp mean well, and some of their papers have a lot of scientific merit, but ultimately their argument boils down to either "cost doesn't matter, let's use renewables everywhere" or "this idea is actually cheaper if you make the following assumptions". Their anti-nuclear stance is often fueled by overblown fears of what happens during actual nuclear disasters. Granted, it would suck getting evacuated from your home because the 50 year-old plant down the street was experiencing a meltdown due to a natural disaster, but a nuclear power proponent will gladly point out that the plant was really old and had a lovely design anyway, and no one actually died. You forgot the part where they randomly accuse us of having some sort of radiation fetish.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Who is giving this 100% "renewable" theory in this thread? If I have to give examples then you should as well, and don't say "you." I'm too lazy to look up his name but some lovely troll who thinks that solar is god but we're all too blinded by atoms to realize it. There's a lot of people who come in the thread to randomly poo poo on nuclear with no real sources but are "totally against fossil fuels".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah that isn't very convincing especially considering the anger boiling in this thread. What anger?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
You probably should since you haven't made a real arguement yet. Unless you have a specific proposal to supply 100% solar power to, say, Canada.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
In the long long run is it theoretically possible to replace peaking with battery and or turning down desalination?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Desalination is not currently practiced on a wide enough scale to make a difference, but is definitely something that would be done at off-peak hours to consume excess base generation when electricity is cheap and available, since it's not done as-needed to meet immediate demand. I sadly predict that it's going to have to be so in theory it would be ideal to just plan for that and aim for overgeneration in the long run.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
A hippie friend just posted a water usage/MWH chart that had solar at 0 therefore the best. Obviously solar is awesome for various reasons but still not really great everywhere or for everything. But for water usage specifically, doesn't water used in power plants just end up being reused or steamed out and come back down as rainfall? Do we actually 'lose' potable water at some point?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:The fuel storage is a nice allegory to nuclear power on the whole, as a relatively simple engineering challenge is rendered impossible by politics. It's really the same issue when you get to the nitty gritty. People hear 'nuclear' and see in their head Fallout radiation zombies. When they stop NIMBYing the plants they'll probably stop NIMBYing the storage at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Iowa producing 27% of their power from wind looks great on paper. But they are... Iowa. Their largest city doesn't crack the top 100 cities in the US. I could have sworn there was a statistic floating around that the max theoretical electric output of wind is less than 1/10th of what the world currently uses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If it wasn't for the sun we would have no war, no disease or famine. If we ban the sun, we could stop almost all skin cancers, dramatically reduce water consumption worldwide, and only someone who hates America could support the sun! Everyone will die in the future. Ban Time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Oil can be Jurassic Park Spread.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:That's hilarious. "So, pumped hydro works, right? What if we... pumped something denser?" If we fill the water with algae and leave it pumped it will take carbon from the air and naturally increase its own density while in storage.  ?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If nuclear energy were actually the slam dunk technology that people in this thread claim (low cost, low risk, zero sociopolitical side effects), the US government wouldn't kowtow to a powerless advocacy group that few people care about. In reality, there are drawbacks to the technology that many people in this thread pretend don't exist. Instead they prefer to believe in some kind of environmentalist conspiracy preventing rapid buildout of the technology. computer parts posted:I guess by this same logic, if coal was really so terrible then the US government would stop using it by now. Note the bolded part. "If nuclear energy were so great then why don't I like it."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually, it is things like the sociopolitical side effects that keep, say, WV pro-coal. I don't think it's fair to call that a drawback of the tech, which the quoted poster explicitly did. All progress has social cost and I do not weep for the lighters of gas lamps.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Pretty much. There was some click bait article going around about Chinese hackers infiltrating Nuclear Power Plant control systems, which is both stupid and wrong, since even the few nuclear plants with digitized systems have isolated any sort of networked controls from the internet connected enterprise network. I read on a sitcom that if they aren't airgapped they are vulnerable. :atomz:
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:....actually, that was a real thing: I'm confused as to how they expect to get the malware onto the otherwise secure system but this whole thing is cool as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's advertised as a road that generates power, but functionally it's a solar farm for driving on which more accurately illustrates the problems.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 21:18
|
|