The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

Feral Integral: Jun 6, 2006; YOSPOS

Frogmanv2 posted:

Ok. Let me try a different tack.

Australia has some of the best settings for solar power in the world. Huge amounts of sunlight, huge amounts of open space, with most of the population in a comparatively small area. We are already installing rooftop solar PV at a rate never before seen in this country, as well as a distinct downwards trend shift in total energy consumption.

Given the issues with waste (minor issues sure, but still an issue), plus you need to mine and refine the fuel, plus the huge amounts of NIMBYism, plus that water issues (I realise solar needs water as well, but to my knowledge, not to the same amount as nuclear, plus I dont think the water is irradiated after being used in a solar plant, but im happy to be corrected) plus geosecurity issues (I have heard of nations being invaded for an energy source, but that energy source has never been the sun) plus other bits and pieces that im sure im forgetting. To me, they all add up to solar/renewables being a better choice to focus on.

You can try. I was convinced by a dude who worked for the CSIRO, then scitech, and now does work for the group doing the SKA here in Perth. The government doesnt inform me of much. My views arent considered mean stream.

I believe it would be worth it. You obviously disagree.

I thought most of the water use from a (nuclear) plant was from the steam-turbine energy generation, not the pool that surrounds the reactor? So wouldn't the generator water not be irradiated?

edit: ^

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 04:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 07:47

Feral Integral: Jun 6, 2006; YOSPOS

silence_kit posted:

Well, it is certainly true that the party line in this thread is that nuclear power CANDU no wrong.

Nope, nobody is saying that and your posting is consistently bad because you cannot seem to comprehend posts

. Nuclear power can do less wrong than the large scale coal power that we have today and is more viable on a mass scale than anything else. Ok, now you post a strawman, Go!

# ¿ Mar 10, 2014 21:06

Feral Integral: Jun 6, 2006; YOSPOS

Phanatic posted:

http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/car-news/top-10-reasons-why-car-buyers-choose-specific-vehicle-model

drat, pwned

# ¿ Apr 12, 2016 03:58

Feral Integral: Jun 6, 2006; YOSPOS

Wasn't there a thing where these gigantic solar towers and massive wind farms spontaneously combust or bash to death flocks of migrating birds? Is this no longer a concern or are we just saying 'gently caress it' here?

# ¿ Nov 17, 2016 07:10

Feral Integral: Jun 6, 2006; YOSPOS

coyo7e posted:

So yeah I wanna get that out way in front, because I'm seeing a lot of :sperger: level nuclear math

Please self-reflect on your own nonsense and get back when you can write something coherent, dude.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2016 19:49

Feral Integral: Jun 6, 2006; YOSPOS

Concordat posted:

There's also been a lot of talk about how new reactor designs would reduce waste to a considerable degree by recycling it, but you know, it takes decades to build these designs for various reasons.

Sure the initial planning for a large scale nuclear rollout would be long, but with a standerdized reactor design there is no reason at all for the building of a power plant to be decades unless you mean because of regulation delays and poo poo? The actual construction really isn't anything that crazy.

I mean the large hadron collider took only 30 years to build (and only about 5 billion US dollars in cost), and that project is wayyyy more ambitious than a nuclear power plant, the technology of which we are very well acquainted in comparison.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2016 19:55

Feral Integral: Jun 6, 2006; YOSPOS

Trabisnikof posted:

O&M is included in real nuclear power proposals, which is why they don't get built. Meanwhile, goons shake their first as the safety requirements and claim, with no evidence, that nuclear can be cheaper and still just as safe if we deregulate the industry a bit.

People handwave the energy and carbon cost of nuclear fuel production all the time in this thread by saying "breeders" or "thorium" as if changing our nuclear fuel cycle is nbd.

We have a least one gas power plant in the US that solely exists to power the decommissioning of a nuclear plant. So yeah, this thread does tend to dismiss lifecycle concerns for nuclear.

I don't think pro-nuclear people want to deregulate safety requirements on reactors, they want to eliminate the batshit restrictions in the US that make it unreasonable to upgrade old reactors to safer, modern specs. So its more like, hey get rid of this dumb restrictions so we _can_ have safe nuclear not "get rid of restrictions and let the market take care of it and then we'll have nuclear because then the cost of investment is lower!" like weirdo libertarians do with other poo poo.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2016 20:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 07:47

Feral Integral: Jun 6, 2006; YOSPOS

For the argument about how we don't have the steel for reactors or whatever, why couldn't we then just buy it from somewhere that does?

# ¿ Sep 3, 2020 19:13

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges