[QUOTE=NiGHTS88;28590864]I think solar power is going to become much more viable, especially with growing interest and investment in the market for solar technology. Wind power is okay, but nothing great; it should be used as a supplementary power source in regions where it is most effective (coastal regions). Wind installations are also very expensive, and current battery technology does not allow the turbines to retain energy well during downtime.
Don't get me wrong, wind is still a good investment - just a long-term one. Solar seems to have a lot more momentum, however.[/QUOTE]
I don't know where you get this shit from.
Solar power is the the least cost efficient out of the renewable energy sources. Solar doesn't have "more momentum". If any of the renewable resources has momentum it would be wind.
Wind power has one of the highest dollar to kilowatt ratios out of all the renewable energy sources. Also, connecting the turbine to a grid removes the need for a battery..
[QUOTE=NiGHTS88;28590864]Nuclear power is not viable because it depends on a finite resource, produces dangerous waste products, and is not available at a small-scale level. The construction of nuclear power plants is also incredibly expensive, lengthy, and rife with setbacks. It's just not adaptable or efficient enough.
On a related note, producing energy domestically is much more effective than "importing" it from a remote plant.[/QUOTE]
Everything depends on finite resources. The sun will eventually explode, should we not use solar power because it'll be gone some day? We have particular problems right now that Nuclear solves.
Nuclear generators can be quite small. For example, a concept ford car was designed to run on nuclear power. Just because we don't typically build them to small sizes doesn't mean it isn't possible.
Nuclear power is insanely efficient, and it's only improving with technology. It is so efficient that it is currently the most dense power source we have access to.
Using coal actually releases radiation. Not kidding. [url]http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Oecleus;28591092]I don't know where you get this shit from.
Solar power is the the least cost efficient out of the renewable energy sources. Solar doesn't have "more momentum". If any of the renewable resources has momentum it would be wind.
Wind power has one of the highest dollar to kilowatt ratios out of all the renewable energy sources. Also, connecting the turbine to a grid removes the need for a battery..[/QUOTE]
Uhm. No. Wind power has many issues you're just wholesale ignoring. Like the noise pollution, the inefficiency of the interior components, the lack of places to do it, the difficulty with power like this is that its not relisble enough to be the sole source of energy for anyone.
[QUOTE=NiGHTS88;28590864]Nuclear power is not viable because it depends on a finite resource, produces dangerous waste products, and is not available at a small-scale level. The construction of nuclear power plants is also incredibly expensive, lengthy, and rife with setbacks. It's just not adaptable or efficient enough.
On a related note, producing energy domestically is much more effective than "importing" it from a remote plant.
I think solar power is going to become much more viable, especially with growing interest and investment in the market for solar technology. Wind power is okay, but nothing great; it should be used as a supplementary power source in regions where it is most effective (coastal regions). Wind installations are also very expensive, and current battery technology does not allow the turbines to retain energy well during downtime.
Don't get me wrong, wind is still a good investment - just a long-term one. Solar seems to have a lot more momentum, however.[/QUOTE]
Except with the amount of fuel we have for nuclear plants and how efficient they are we have our asses covered for atleast 200 years.
Solar energy is so horrible inefficient it isn't even funny.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28591558]Uhm. No. Wind power has many issues you're just wholesale ignoring. Like the noise pollution, the inefficiency of the interior components, the lack of places to do it, the difficulty with power like this is that its not relisble enough to be the sole source of energy for anyone.[/QUOTE]
(1st apologies for earlier reply I had the wrong end of the stick, so to speak)
I believe he was referring to the current expenditure and construction in renewables is leading with Wind turbines more than any other renewable energy source, rather than saying it is the best option, which it clearly isn't.
[QUOTE=An Armed Bear;28590881]I recall from a Bill Nye episode about nuclear power that the reason they don't try to send the waste into space is because of the risk that the launch could fail/explode, causing all the waste to leak into the atmosphere.
Of course, I saw it a LONG time ago so I may not be remembering it right. And we may have safer ways to put it in space at this point.[/QUOTE]
Put it in New Jersey; not like anybody will notice the difference.
[QUOTE=Swilly;28588522]Chernobyl was caused by incompetence, not fail safes failing. They shut off all the fail safes.
As I stated on the last news thread about nuclear energy. We've had 2 to 3 incidents with nuclear power in the history of its use. There are at least 50 more incidents with coal and fossil fuels within that same period.[/QUOTE]
not really 2 to 3, but still.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents[/url]
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;28591940]not really 2 to 3, but still.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents[/url][/QUOTE]
Of course, if we're being that verbose, there have been thousands of incidents involving fossil fuels in the same time frame, with far greater ecological impact.
I'm 100% a fan of nuclear reactors, I just also think that other nuclear incidents have been fairly notable.
Chernobyl's reactor design is one I am just in love with.
The idea of a positive void coefficient is brilliant!
The more power you generate, the more heat is given off and therefore the more power you can generate!
if you can keep it in check(like they could until some people didn't communicate about when tests were going to happen and when power was being messed with), then you have an absurdly efficient power source.
[QUOTE=subenji99;28592112]Of course, if we're being that verbose, there have been thousands of incidents involving fossil fuels in the same time frame, with far greater ecological impact.[/QUOTE]
Every year, burning coal releases far more radioactive materials into the atmosphere than Chernobyl ever did.
People who are against nuclear power often tout figures and facts from the 60s when Nuclear power wasn't very clean, but for the most part it is incredibly clean now!
For example in the 60s the reactor would produce an entire room full of waste product compared to today when it'd be a small box worth of waste.
[QUOTE=Metalcastr;28591441]Using coal actually releases radiation. Not kidding. [url]http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html[/url][/QUOTE]
As had already been said.
I might be rated boxes for saying this, but I'm interested in seeing a Chernobyl v2.
[QUOTE=Pavarotti;28589452]Isn't there a ban on radioactive substances in space? Or is that just nuclear explosions?[/QUOTE]
Weapons of mass destruction. Keep in mind this ban is not in effect for small scale weaponry like the soviet satellite with machine gun was.
But yeah nuclear power is still essentially one of the cleanest sources of energy out there. Not to mention even long term global effects when something bad happens aren't that bad.
When one thinks of Chernobyl, the effects it had weren't all that bad either. A slight rise in cancer ratios globally and a slightly higher rate of male fetus mortality in the blowout belt. Mushrooms just weren't safe to gather for a few decades.
Other than that I don't remember anything else really. (not talking about the immediate Chernobyl area)
[QUOTE=JonVX;28592249]I might be rated boxes for saying this, but I'm interested in seeing a Chernobyl v2.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I see. You're one of those people who gets off on death and destruction on a massive scale.
[editline]13th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=wraithcat;28592328]When one thinks of Chernobyl, the effects it had weren't all that bad either. A slight rise in cancer ratios globally and a slightly higher rate of male fetus mortality in the blowout belt. Mushrooms just weren't safe to gather for a few decades.
Other than that I don't remember anything else really. (not talking about the immediate Chernobyl area)[/QUOTE]
Thousands of people died from the radiation and radiation-related cancers, and children with severe birth defects are still being born. Not exactly "not all that bad".
[QUOTE=subenji99;28586778]You've seen what happens when there's a failure that leads to an explosion at a safe Nuclear power plant.
What about at a Hydroelectric dam?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65D_E5SQqbo&feature=related[/media]
Yeah. Much safer.[/QUOTE]
Because everything is exactly the same as the well maintained hoover dam.
[img]http://c2739092.r92.cf0.rackcdn.com/4417039c17612c4cdc117c476d79ea4c_John-HartIntakeDamandpipelines.jpg[/img]
And you know what happens if somehow something goes wrong? They close the gates and a huge warning siren goes off, then the rivers level rises in the middle of a unpopulated area.. Atleast that is how I saw it the last time I drove near there.
[img]http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8971/ftgjhcvkdctgulxrjikzrk.png[/img]
[QUOTE=bootv2;28587912]yeah this, the only thing preventing me from fully going for nuclear energy(or believing in or however you want to call it) is the possible extensive waste[/QUOTE]
We can just shove it deep underground. Once we find a viable use for it we'd already have a giant stockpile of the stuff.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;28594933]We can just shove it deep underground. Once we find a viable use for it we'd already have a giant stockpile of the stuff.[/QUOTE]
cough cough [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal]love canal[/url] cough cough
[QUOTE=NiGHTS88;28590864]Nuclear power is not viable because it depends on a finite resource, produces dangerous waste products, and is not available at a small-scale level. The construction of nuclear power plants is also incredibly expensive, lengthy, and rife with setbacks. It's just not adaptable or efficient enough.
On a related note, producing energy domestically is much more effective than "importing" it from a remote plant.
I think solar power is going to become much more viable, especially with growing interest and investment in the market for solar technology. Wind power is okay, but nothing great; it should be used as a supplementary power source in regions where it is most effective (coastal regions). Wind installations are also very expensive, and current battery technology does not allow the turbines to retain energy well during downtime.
Don't get me wrong, wind is still a good investment - just a long-term one. Solar seems to have a lot more momentum, however.[/QUOTE]
So basically you're saying that we should keep on burning coal because nuclear isn't completely perfect in every way. So lets just sit on our asses and wait for solar and wind energy to become viable. :downs:
A better solution would be to go to nuclear power now, then when we figure out fusion energy, we'll move to that in 100 years or whatever.
[QUOTE=NiGHTS88;28590864]Nuclear power is not viable because it depends on a finite resource, produces dangerous waste products, and is not available at a small-scale level. The construction of nuclear power plants is also incredibly expensive, lengthy, and rife with setbacks. It's just not adaptable or efficient enough.
On a related note, producing energy domestically is much more effective than "importing" it from a remote plant.
I think solar power is going to become much more viable, especially with growing interest and investment in the market for solar technology. Wind power is okay, but nothing great; it should be used as a supplementary power source in regions where it is most effective (coastal regions). Wind installations are also very expensive, and current battery technology does not allow the turbines to retain energy well during downtime.
Don't get me wrong, wind is still a good investment - just a long-term one. Solar seems to have a lot more momentum, however.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha. You're an idiot. Lots of research is going into scaling nuclear power down right now. It's completely available at a small-scale level. Just look at nuclear submarines, or nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. There's a company called NuScale working with Oregon State University to create small-scale reactors capable of powering 20,000 homes, and much smaller than conventional plants.
You honestly think uranium is any more dangerous or finite than petroleum? At least we can control where the pollution from a nuclear plant goes. If we can find a site like Yucca Mountain, and get legislation passed, the U.S. will be sitting pretty. We already have about 105 reactors providing ~19% of the nation's energy, and with a designated storage site, we can increase those numbers.
Don't even get me started on thorium reactors. We already have the technology to build these reactors; we had the technology in the 1950s, but we decided to go with uranium reactors because we could use the plutonium byproduct to make nukes. However, thorium is extremely abundant in the earth's crust, and barely radioactive. You could carry it around in your pocket and be fine. And thorium reactors are ridiculously safe. They're incapable of having meltdowns, in fact.
And let's not fucking talk about efficiency. You're honestly saying solar power is more efficient or adaptable than nuclear power? Tell me, how do you adapt solar power to fuel a submarine? How do you adapt solar power to my home state of Oregon, where the sun is concealed by clouds for three quarters of the year? I certainly hope that some more research goes into solar power, because a couple years ago a kid who was like 9 years old created his own solar cells that were hundreds of times more effective than solar cells scientists were using. And you want to go with solar power? Okay.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;28594955]cough cough [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal]love canal[/url] cough cough[/QUOTE]
Yeah I was talking about burying it under a mountain in the middle of nevada, not building fucking cities on the stuff
man i just got a demandprogress.org(i think i signed something or other without thinking) email about nuclear power plants getting federal money in georgia and how it was a bad thing.
I quickly unsubscribed.
[QUOTE=The mouse;28585253]I hate people who oppose nuclear power, it's by far the most efficient minimal polluting energy source.[/QUOTE]
Also the most dangerous.
[QUOTE=Camera;28599689]Also the most dangerous.[/QUOTE]
not if you're a bat
[url]http://www.fort.usgs.gov/batswindmills/[/url]
[QUOTE=Camera;28599689]Also the most dangerous.[/QUOTE]
How do people come to this conclusion? Even in this situation, the nuclear option has proven better than the others would have.
It's not fucking dangerous. It can't possibly explode like a bomb, and if you think it CAN explode like a bomb you're so fucking uninformed it hurts.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28591558]Uhm. No. Wind power has many issues you're just wholesale ignoring. Like the noise pollution, the inefficiency of the interior components, the lack of places to do it, the difficulty with power like this is that its not relisble enough to be the sole source of energy for anyone.[/QUOTE]
I agree with everything in your post except for the part where you say "many issues you're just wholesale ignoring".
I don't know why you assume I mean all those things, I'm just correcting the other guy on some points he got wrong.
[QUOTE=Camera;28599689]Also the most dangerous.[/QUOTE]
You realize there'd have to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 nuclear meltdowns [I]each year[/I] for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal mining? And modern reactors are so damn safe it's not even funny.
[QUOTE=Jsm;28587888]I think waste is still a big problem, I think a lot of it is reprocessed however.[/QUOTE]
On that note, it's still pretty funny that most Americans think that Nuclear Waste is a green liquid
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
