Pathetic life of Software Engineer
| Three Mile Island, Tokaimura, Chernobyl... not worth the risk. |
All of those accidents were due to human error, except for Three Mile Island, which as far as we know caused no deaths or injuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island#Accident
Also, when I said cleaner, I meant in terms of average annual pollution of the environment.
I'm not completely in favor of nuclear, but I think it's a better solution than coal or oil.
-Albatross
closed account (z05DSL3A)
So human error makes it ok?
Nuclear power produces various degrees of hazardous waste that needs dealing with in the plants lifetime. Dealing with this opens up the possibilities of things going wrong. There have been a number of incidents where LLW has been released into the environment.
Better than coal or oil, possibly but I would rather not go rushing down the fission route.
Nuclear power produces various degrees of hazardous waste that needs dealing with in the plants lifetime. Dealing with this opens up the possibilities of things going wrong. There have been a number of incidents where LLW has been released into the environment.
Better than coal or oil, possibly but I would rather not go rushing down the fission route.
Human error does NOT make it okay, however we have become fairly good at eliminating that human error, along with the aforementioned possibilities.
I wonder what arguments people will have against nuclear fusion when we finally get it working...?
-Albatross
I wonder what arguments people will have against nuclear fusion when we finally get it working...?
-Albatross
That's the same argument our governments and capitalists all over make for all kinds of evils. Acceptable losses.
Bull and Bull.
Further, you are confounding two things: scientific research (which is limited) and the wholesale distribution of destruction - dotting them throughout our world.
If you knew anything about secure systems, you would know that human error trumps it all. Chernobyl, anyone? Oh, how about this... the Salem plants use water from the Delaware to cool their plants! We have not become good at eliminating human error -- because the biggest human errors are predicated upon greed.
Nuclear plant operators don't pay to enrich the core, they don't pay to dispose and store of the leftovers, they don't pay for decomissioning or repair -- we taxpayers do -- all they pay for is construction of new plants and basic operating expenses (like "cooldown" and basic infrastructure).
Further, you cannot have nuclear power without coal and oil. That is simple fact.
Frankly, when people start spouting off stuff about how nuclear power can be good at any point in time, they are only evidencing their total ignorance of the industry -- both of ideal operation and of actual operation.
The inflated numbers nuclear proponents use to advocate their industry are so crooked it is amazing we swallow it at all -- even in our current culture of 'believe whatever you want to be true'.
The site I linked is only a local example of evil -- and you do get some extremists gravitating to this stuff and making obnoxious claims -- but it is a good place to start reading if you really want to know. Or Wikipedia. Or Google.
Most people just don't care.
Bull and Bull.
Further, you are confounding two things: scientific research (which is limited) and the wholesale distribution of destruction - dotting them throughout our world.
If you knew anything about secure systems, you would know that human error trumps it all. Chernobyl, anyone? Oh, how about this... the Salem plants use water from the Delaware to cool their plants! We have not become good at eliminating human error -- because the biggest human errors are predicated upon greed.
Nuclear plant operators don't pay to enrich the core, they don't pay to dispose and store of the leftovers, they don't pay for decomissioning or repair -- we taxpayers do -- all they pay for is construction of new plants and basic operating expenses (like "cooldown" and basic infrastructure).
Further, you cannot have nuclear power without coal and oil. That is simple fact.
Frankly, when people start spouting off stuff about how nuclear power can be good at any point in time, they are only evidencing their total ignorance of the industry -- both of ideal operation and of actual operation.
The inflated numbers nuclear proponents use to advocate their industry are so crooked it is amazing we swallow it at all -- even in our current culture of 'believe whatever you want to be true'.
The site I linked is only a local example of evil -- and you do get some extremists gravitating to this stuff and making obnoxious claims -- but it is a good place to start reading if you really want to know. Or Wikipedia. Or Google.
Most people just don't care.
| I wonder what arguments people will have against nuclear fusion when we finally get it working...? |
| Duoas wrote: |
|---|
| Further, you cannot have nuclear power without coal and oil. That is simple fact. |
Last edited on
@Incubbus: I know that... ;)
I was hoping that there would be a more inventive answer like: The large amounts of iron outputted by the plant will eventually contaminate our water sources, or something. "Inventive"... hah...
@Duoas: I never thought I'd have the overwhelming pleasure of saying this, but... calm the yellow cake down.
I made no argument about acceptable losses; get your facts about your opponents' arguments straight.
Chernobyl was anything BUT a secure system. If you could disable so many critical security features, then it was not secure. As for Salem plants using water from the Delaware river, do tell me exactly how that is a major problem that could easily destroy the plant without any warning flags showing up first.
Do nuclear power-plant operators pay for the resulting enriched uranium? If not, give me a reference pointer to where you found this out.
Also, any more about government conspiracies and corporate scheming, and I'll start thinking you have developed schizophrenia. ;)
-Albatross
I was hoping that there would be a more inventive answer like: The large amounts of iron outputted by the plant will eventually contaminate our water sources, or something. "Inventive"... hah...
@Duoas: I never thought I'd have the overwhelming pleasure of saying this, but... calm the yellow cake down.
I made no argument about acceptable losses; get your facts about your opponents' arguments straight.
Chernobyl was anything BUT a secure system. If you could disable so many critical security features, then it was not secure. As for Salem plants using water from the Delaware river, do tell me exactly how that is a major problem that could easily destroy the plant without any warning flags showing up first.
Do nuclear power-plant operators pay for the resulting enriched uranium? If not, give me a reference pointer to where you found this out.
Also, any more about government conspiracies and corporate scheming, and I'll start thinking you have developed schizophrenia. ;)
-Albatross
Last edited on
I think this is going to go way off-topic (well, way more), but
Huh? How can you be so sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet
| since we "own" the only planet with the prior on it |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet
| Despite my father-in-law's horrible web-design skills, the site is useful. |
| There are plenty of superior technologies: wind, water, thermal, solar, etc. |
I live in a country where no nuclear power is produced right now, that simply is not enough.
We are totally dependent from foreign countries.
Once happened that a single tree falling on the electric transmission cables caused total blackout for the entire country
We are totally dependent from foreign countries.
Once happened that a single tree falling on the electric transmission cables caused total blackout for the entire country
I don't like all these "sustainable" ways of producing electricity.
Solar's great when it works. The issue is that most of the countries in which it would be of any use (take Kenya for example, as it's exactly on the equator) can't afford it.
Hydroelectricity's good when you have a big-enough spare river to dam up...
@Albatross,
By thermal, I assume he meant geothermal, which has to do with the heat produced by the planet (actually it's not producing heat, the heat's already there and is cooling down, and the planet will eventually solidify, but that's irrelevant right now). Geothermal is good if you have a big volcano somewhere. Problem is that most of us aren't situated on the edge of a plate and therefore have no way of accessing geothermal.
As for wind, it's only useful when there's any... wind. And wind is about the least reliable of them all. At least you can guarantee your river won't stop flowing (unless someone else dams it more upriver) and that the sun will come up every day (unless the world ends, in which case no-one cares about what will happen to the electricity). Geothermal would be the best because it will only run out when the earth solidifies... and if that happens, we're screwed anyway.
Solar's great when it works. The issue is that most of the countries in which it would be of any use (take Kenya for example, as it's exactly on the equator) can't afford it.
Hydroelectricity's good when you have a big-enough spare river to dam up...
@Albatross,
By thermal, I assume he meant geothermal, which has to do with the heat produced by the planet (actually it's not producing heat, the heat's already there and is cooling down, and the planet will eventually solidify, but that's irrelevant right now). Geothermal is good if you have a big volcano somewhere. Problem is that most of us aren't situated on the edge of a plate and therefore have no way of accessing geothermal.
As for wind, it's only useful when there's any... wind. And wind is about the least reliable of them all. At least you can guarantee your river won't stop flowing (unless someone else dams it more upriver) and that the sun will come up every day (unless the world ends, in which case no-one cares about what will happen to the electricity). Geothermal would be the best because it will only run out when the earth solidifies... and if that happens, we're screwed anyway.
| Solar's great when it works. The issue is that most of the countries in which it would be of any use (take Kenya for example, as it's exactly on the equator) can't afford it. |
It would be fantastic for the US. We have TONS of otherwise unusable desert with scorching sunlight year round. Just blanket it with solar panels and you'd have steady, reliable, free energy.
Maintenance would suck. And I don't know if it'd be practical to transport the energy from the desert to far away areas (could solar panels in Nevada power New York City? Or would the energy lost in the transfer be too great?)
| As for wind, it's only useful when there's any... wind. |
Again, this would be great for the US. We have some of the windiest areas on the globe. Maybe even too windy for wind power (seasonal tornados are expected every single year).
Plus it's pretty much always windy at higher altitudes, and there's plenty of mountain space that we can build on. Although that opens up other problems. People wouldn't care if you ugly up the desert with solar panels, but they'll object if you ugly up a beautiful mountainside with wind generators.
There's unseen dangers in wind power though. If we throw up wind generators all over, that would have an impact on the ecosystem in ways we wouldn't be able to predict.
| At least you can guarantee your river won't stop flowing |
Hydroelectric is hard on the ecosystem though. It pretty much destroys it. You can't just start throwing up dams everywhere.
| Geothermal would be the best because it will only run out when the earth solidifies |
I'm weary as to what the consequences of this would be. Geothermal seems like a great idea, but is it really wise to drill into the Earth in massive numbers and release all that stored energy?
What does the Earth solidifying have to do with anything? It's called "geothermal". It's heat, not state of matter, what's important.
The only problem is that local (around the pump) heat eventually runs out if the extraction rate is higher than the replenishing rate.
(gleeful) Oh, boy! We've found a way to produce earthquakes!
The only problem is that local (around the pump) heat eventually runs out if the extraction rate is higher than the replenishing rate.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy#Environmental_impact |
Last edited on
I'm done here.
@Albatross
You're an idiot. Get your facts straight first. I've already given you links enough.
@Albatross
You're an idiot. Get your facts straight first. I've already given you links enough.
It would be great if we're lucky enough to discover a planet that is just like the earth.
@Duoas:
Calling someone an idiot is considered trolling. Any further calling people idiots and we might seriously start seriously thinking that you are not in fact Duoas. I do not tollerate being called an idiot, and if you had read my posts more carefully, I was only saying that nuclear is a better solution than Coal or Oil, but depending on the form of renewable energy, maybe not better than those. You also gave me only ONE link, and the source is insufficient. For the record, you have not won the debate.
@blackcoder41:
That would be awesome. It would be even more awesome if we could get to it and reenact Dances With Wolves... I mean Avatar.
Gee, this did get off topic, didn't it?
-Albatross
Calling someone an idiot is considered trolling. Any further calling people idiots and we might seriously start seriously thinking that you are not in fact Duoas. I do not tollerate being called an idiot, and if you had read my posts more carefully, I was only saying that nuclear is a better solution than Coal or Oil, but depending on the form of renewable energy, maybe not better than those. You also gave me only ONE link, and the source is insufficient. For the record, you have not won the debate.
@blackcoder41:
That would be awesome. It would be even more awesome if we could get to it and reenact Dances With Wolves... I mean Avatar.
Gee, this did get off topic, didn't it?
-Albatross
Last edited on
@helios,
The core is solidifying because it's cooling down. When things cool down enough, they eventually freeze and become solid. So geothermal energy will be useless when the earth's core solidifies. Then again, when the earth's core does solidify, geothermal energy's fate will be the least of our problems. But we'll probably all have died by then, anyway (and it'll have nothing to do with the Mayan calendar or the year 2012, either).
@blackcoder41,
It'd be better if it was bigger and had magic air that was resistant to pollution, but alas... that doesn't make sense.
@Disch,
Well, as the US only accounts for a 1/21 of the world's population, it doesn't help the rest of us.
That depends on two things:
1. The distance from Nevada to New York City (and the amount of time it takes for electricity to travel between the two)
2. What the current, source voltage and destination voltage are
Of course, if you had superconducting wires then no energy would be lost...
That's why I put "sustainable" in quotes.
Yes, but like I said, when it runs out we're screwed (but then, like I also said, we're screwed anyway when the earth cools down (if anyone human is even alive by then)).
The core is solidifying because it's cooling down. When things cool down enough, they eventually freeze and become solid. So geothermal energy will be useless when the earth's core solidifies. Then again, when the earth's core does solidify, geothermal energy's fate will be the least of our problems. But we'll probably all have died by then, anyway (and it'll have nothing to do with the Mayan calendar or the year 2012, either).
@blackcoder41,
It'd be better if it was bigger and had magic air that was resistant to pollution, but alas... that doesn't make sense.
@Disch,
| The issue is that most of the countries in which it would be of any use (take Kenya for example, as it's exactly on the equator) can't afford it. It would be fantastic for the US. |
Well, as the US only accounts for a 1/21 of the world's population, it doesn't help the rest of us.
| (could solar panels in Nevada power New York City? Or would the energy lost in the transfer be too great?) |
That depends on two things:
1. The distance from Nevada to New York City (and the amount of time it takes for electricity to travel between the two)
2. What the current, source voltage and destination voltage are
Of course, if you had superconducting wires then no energy would be lost...
| If we throw up wind generators all over, that would have an impact on the ecosystem in ways we wouldn't be able to predict. |
| Hydroelectric is hard on the ecosystem though. It pretty much destroys it. You can't just start throwing up dams everywhere. |
That's why I put "sustainable" in quotes.
| I'm weary as to what the consequences of this would be. Geothermal seems like a great idea, but is it really wise to drill into the Earth in massive numbers and release all that stored energy? |
Yes, but like I said, when it runs out we're screwed (but then, like I also said, we're screwed anyway when the earth cools down (if anyone human is even alive by then)).
Last edited on
| chrisname wrote: |
|---|
| Herp derp The Core-grade physics. |
| Geothermal power is considered to be sustainable because the heat extraction is small compared to the Earth's heat content. The Earth has an internal heat content of 1031 joules (3·1015 TW·hr).[3] About 20% of this is residual heat from planetary accretion, and the remainder is attributed to higher radioactive decay rates that existed in the past. Natural heat flows are not in equilibrium, and the planet is slowly cooling down on geologic timescales. Human extraction taps a minute fraction of the natural outflow, often without accelerating it. |
Also, we're only drawing heat from a few thousand meters below at select points on the surface. The Earth has a diameter of over 6 megameters.
Last edited on
| chrisname wrote: |
|---|
| Well, as the US only accounts for a 1/21 of the world's population, it doesn't help the rest of us. |
Of course. However, being an American, such thoughts don't enter my mind, since America and Americans are all I really care about.
XD
| 1. The distance from Nevada to New York City (and the amount of time it takes for electricity to travel between the two) |
Well they're just about on opposite ends of the country, and it's a pretty decent sized country... so it's like... 3500 km?
| Of course, if you had superconducting wires then no energy would be lost... |
Hogwash. I don't believe that for a second. There's no such thing as a perfect energy transfer.
AFAIK, superconductors give you *basically* 0 resistance (but I doubt they can get to 0)