Conquer Club

jonka wrote:The problem with these, is that they produce relatively little power, and they are geographically limited.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jonka wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

And they've fixed the meltdown problem.

Correction, they have fixed some problems. Many others remain .. including some we probably don't even currently know exist.

Is it really worth risking all life for a thousand miles around?

Can you clarify for me which problems they haven't fixed? Its not that complex. But first let me ask you this, do you even know how a nuclear reactor works?

Do I know how it works? Generally, yes, though I am too tired right now to explain it well. I am not intending to go work for one.

As for what problems? Az. gave a few examples. Waste disposal is still an issue, as is safe transport... etc.

[quote="jonka"]The problem with these, is that they produce relatively little power, and they are geographically limited. [quote]

Sort of- they produce little power relative to a nuclear power station, sure. But solar panels on your house are still gonna provide most of your needs. Saying that the power is relatively little is fine, but let's not forget that the needs of a household or a community are likewise relatively little. I'm not sure if you're being a bit funny on this one. I think you know that a wind farm is never going to be equal to a nuclear power station.

Geographically- you're accurate. There are limits. I still believe that we should be using the sources of energy that are abundant in these areas. They work pretty well in the places they've been installed at the moment. And again- the technology is only getting better, and that without proper investment.

Seems a bit silly to me to say that this tech is unworthy of investment. Wherever it's been installed it's worked well without investment. Either you feel that alternative energy has succeeded because of that lack, or you feel that it's successes came in spite of that lack. I go for the latter. Put some money into it and see what it does

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:I would also like to point out that there is a growing school of thought that using wind power may have just as big of an environmental impact as coal power. Dangerous.

Wind power takes up a LOT of space. Both solar and wind require a fair number of resources in limited supply (particularly solar-- right now, its OK, but if demand steps up a lot, there could be problems).

Yeah, wind farms do take up lots of space. Horse Hollow wind farm in west central Texas covers nearly 47,000 acres! And Juan has a good point, wind farms might have a very detrimental impact on migratory birds. Still, maybe a VAWT turbine in the backyard might not hurt!! And some solar panels on the roof! Won't provide all, or even most of the power needed, but might take some of the strain off the grid!! (Now, don't ya'll go into shock, a Texican talkin' up enviromental conservation, after all, we do have the most wind farms in the nation, and in the RGV, where I live, birding is a major industry {thats bird watching, not harvesting!} Shoot, how many of ya'll have seen an Altamira Oriole at your feeder?
Don't worry though, I'm sure I'll post somethin' soon to tick ya off!)

If they can get Nuclear power to have as little waste as the OP suggested that's great! I'm all for it, Otherwise the waste just piles up, and the risk of plants melting down is a significant concern.

Baron Von PWN wrote:If they can get Nuclear power to have as little waste as the OP suggested that's great! I'm all for it, Otherwise the waste just piles up, and the risk of plants melting down is a significant concern.

Yes they can, in what is nicknamed a "breeder" reactor, it basically produces waste that can be reused. In the new generation of plants they are going to leave extra space in the reactors, so when the fuel overheats due to error, it will expand to the point where it is no longer feasible, and then cool down, its just impossible to get a meltdown with these passive safety measures. (keep in mind though, this is new plants not the old ones).
___________________________

PLAYER57832 wrote:As for what problems? Az. gave a few examples. Waste disposal is still an issue, as is safe transport... etc.

Az was referring to the reactors with which he is familiar. Integral fast reactors produce no waste, they reuse their products, until they deteriorate, and can even use the all the Waste we have now to produce massive amounts of energy. Safe transport? A few layers of lead is enough to stop nearly all radiation. Put it in a special convoy that travels at night.

Do you want to know something intresting? A Coal plant produces nearly 3 times the Radioactive waste as a nuclear plant with similar energy output (It is from minute ammounts of radioactive materials in the coal being released to the environment, which eventually stack up). If these kinds of radiation came from a nuclear plant, mothers everywhere would be shitting bricks.
Source: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html, its kinda mathy.
_____________________________
I screwed up the quoting, and can't figure it out, but its readable

Symmetry wrote:Sort of- they produce little power relative to a nuclear power station, sure. But solar panels on your house are still gonna provide most of your needs. Saying that the power is relatively little is fine, but let's not forget that the needs of a household or a community are likewise relatively little. I'm not sure if you're being a bit funny on this one. I think you know that a wind farm is never going to be equal to a nuclear power station.

The problem is, who are the people installing solar panels, The Rich, because it is Heavilysubsidized, but still expensive. My opinion: why should we be spending time building windmills, when we could just as easily build far fewer, way more efficient nuclear plants. I'm thinking big picture. A future society where everyone gets there energy from solar panels on their roof(or wind, geothermal, ect.) isn't likely, first of all, its a terrible investment when you factor out the subsidies, second of all, that's just ridiculous, why would you have 10 people fishing with 10 nets, when you could have 1 person fishing with 1 net 10 times as big.

Symmetry wrote:Geographically- you're accurate. There are limits. I still believe that we should be using the sources of energy that are abundant in these areas. They work pretty well in the places they've been installed at the moment. And again- the technology is only getting better, and that without proper investment.

Do you know what is extremely abundant everywhere? Radioactive isotopes that can be used for the creation of nuclear energy. The technology for it is increasing exponentially, within 100 years we'll probably have figured out how to gain energy by nuclear fusion(atm it take us a little more energy to do than it than we get from it. Thats at total lie about investment, the Solar industry puts tons of money into research, and there are tons of Government programs for solar.

Symmetry wrote:Seems a bit silly to me to say that this tech is unworthy of investment. Wherever it's been installed it's worked well without investment. Either you feel that alternative energy has succeeded because of that lack, or you feel that it's successes came in spite of that lack. I go for the latter. Put some money into it and see what it does

It will be useful to tide us over till we can figure out how to get nuclear fusion to work well, in the long run, it won't be the future of energy. I understand your preference to solar(I have it too), but if we want to succeed, we have to drop our unjustified prejudices.

PLAYER57832 wrote:As for what problems? Az. gave a few examples. Waste disposal is still an issue, as is safe transport... etc.

Az was referring to the reactors with which he is familiar. Integral fast reactors produce no waste, they reuse their products, until they deteriorate, and can even use the all the Waste we have now to produce massive amounts of energy. Safe transport? A few layers of lead is enough to stop nearly all radiation. Put it in a special convoy that travels at night.

Do you want to know something intresting? A Coal plant produces nearly 3 times the Radioactive waste as a nuclear plant with similar energy output (It is from minute ammounts of radioactive materials in the coal being released to the environment, which eventually stack up). If these kinds of radiation came from a nuclear plant, mothers everywhere would be shitting bricks.
Source: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html, its kinda mathy.
[/quote]

Actually I have heard comparisons to an asphalt parking lot. Yes, most people exaggerate and poorly understand radiation.

However, the real problem with nuclear energy is not the radiation it emits in normal operations, it is the potential if something goes horribly wrong. Also, there still is a problem with waste disposal. Granted, new technologies are coming and so forth, but it is still not the "free and easy" source some in the industry wish to put forward.

Also, it really does not matter if the biggest problems are poor training, mechnical or "other". Any such can cause a disaster.

Coal is far from innocuous, I know full well. However, as dangerous as it is, I still feel it is still safer than current nuclear technology (though I realize that's debateable).

Geothermal actually has a lot of potential, as does natural gas and some solar. Hydrogen technology probably has the greatest potential for things like automobiles (and remember the current alternative is electric cars -- which would put it in direct use of the nuclear energy) , but is still a long ways off.

Other things wind power effects: Global wind patterns. Dust erosion and relocation. Moisture dispersal. Rain patterns.



I am pinched between a giant wind farm and the Byron Nuclear Power plant btw. That pretty much makes my location googlible. I've learned a little about both.

jonka wrote:Do you want to know something interesting? A Coal plant produces nearly 3 times the Radioactive waste as a nuclear plant with similar energy output (It is from minute amounts of radioactive materials in the coal being released to the environment, which eventually stack up). If these kinds of radiation came from a nuclear plant, mothers everywhere would be shitting bricks.

That is interesting. Thanks.

PLAYER57832 wrote:However, the real problem with nuclear energy is not the radiation it emits in normal operations, it is the potential if something goes horribly wrong.

Given the number of plants worldwide, and the number of accidents and the dates of when we have had them, I think disposal is a greater concern than a meltdown. (not to imply that it doesn't scare me)

PLAYER57832 wrote:Any such can cause a disaster.

Absolutely. Our Local plant has applied and been getting government aid (local and federal) to keep the plant operational. The community around the plant gets kickbacks from the company that owns the plant though. They have the nicest schools...

PLAYER57832 wrote:Coal is far from innocuous, I know full well. However, as dangerous as it is, I still feel it is still safer than current nuclear technology (though I realize that's debateable).

Let me ask you something... have you ever fallen down an abandoned coal shaft before? No? Then what do you know about danger? More people die from falling down a hole every year than by meltdowns.
Ok that wasn't funny.

I would debate that though! On the global scale, coal production really needs to stop expanding and start shrinking. China is killing Earth.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, most people exaggerate and poorly understand radiation.

So bad.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Hydrogen technology probably has the greatest potential for things like automobiles (and remember the current alternative is electric cars -- which would put it in direct use of the nuclear energy) , but is still a long ways off.

Hydrogen is fine and all, only catch is establishing the infrastructure. Electric power however, I can dig. We do have electric cars that can run for hours on just a single battery charge. None in production though obviously.
I have an idea for a wind powered car... With a wind powered car so long as you keep driving, you can keep driving!
Ok, that wasn't funny either.

For player
Those living within 1000mi of a coal plant over 30 (its averaging out less than 50,50-100,100-200,200-500, 500-1000) on average are 4% more likely to die, 6% due to cardiopulmonary issues, and 8% due to lung cancer in a given year. Due to pollution given off.
Source: http://www.edf.org/documents/9553_coal-plants-health-impacts.pdf Its completely legitimate, not like some faux news articles.

There are about 600 coal plants in the US, It did not cover what happens when this stacks (Although everyone knows that will make the number go up), So lets assume, in the US, over all, there is a 4% increased death rate per year due to coal. About 2,400,000 people died in 2004, so about 93,000 people died prematurely due to coal.

Few people developed cancer due to three mile island. Source:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1469835 Yet, people claim it is the devil.

Do you understand they have solved the meltdown problem?
Do you understand in new special kinds of reactors, they produce no waste, and can use the waste we have stored now that so many people hate?
You have no practical idea of how a Nuclear reactor works, you just know that you don't like it.

These things that you suggest aren't viable options, I know you live in happy happy rich people land, I do too, we can afford to waste money on big towers that hardly generate any power, or put up millions of solar panels. But do you really think they can do this everywhere?

My quest for you is to find data to support your view, rather than just making false assertions. Heres a hint, rather than looking up something like "relative costs to produce power", why don't you look up "Nuclear power kills children and is expensive".

demonfork wrote:hmmm...

energy density of petroleum = 45 MJ/kg

energy density of Reactor Grade Uranium = 3.7x10^6 MJ/kg


pretty clear choice, if you can get around the global elite.

That would be the problem, yes.

jonka wrote:For player
Those living within 1000mi of a coal plant over 30 (its averaging out less than 50,50-100,100-200,200-500, 500-1000) on average are 4% more likely to die, 6% due to cardiopulmonary issues, and 8% due to lung cancer in a given year. Due to pollution given off.
Source: http://www.edf.org/documents/9553_coal-plants-health-impacts.pdf Its completely legitimate, not like some faux news articles.

There are about 600 coal plants in the US, It did not cover what happens when this stacks (Although everyone knows that will make the number go up), So lets assume, in the US, over all, there is a 4% increased death rate per year due to coal. About 2,400,000 people died in 2004, so about 93,000 people died prematurely due to coal.

Few people developed cancer due to three mile island. Source:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1469835 Yet, people claim it is the devil.

Do you understand they have solved the meltdown problem?
Do you understand in new special kinds of reactors, they produce no waste, and can use the waste we have stored now that so many people hate?
You have no practical idea of how a Nuclear reactor works, you just know that you don't like it.

These things that you suggest aren't viable options, I know you live in happy rich people land, I do too, we can afford to waste money on big towers that hardly generate any power, or put up millions of solar panels. But do you really think they can do this everywhere?

My quest for you is to find data to support your view, rather than just making false assertions. Heres a hint, rather than looking up something like "relative costs to produce power", why don't you look up "Nuclear power kills children and is expensive".

http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2008/03/05/featured_story/01top_03-05-08.txt


http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/busin ... -coal.html

Only a couple of clean coal articles. I'm not against nuclear power, as Wyoming also does that as well. However, when coal mines are done and replanted with prarie grass and other such natural plants, it is shown to come out as twice as thick then before mining the area.

jonka wrote: But first let me ask you this, do you even know how a nuclear reactor works?

ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me, i do, HELL, i even have a cool coffee mug from Dresden nuclear outage D3R16 that shows the flow of water thru a nuclear power plant, Dresden is a BWR reactor, but also have worked in PWR as well.

I know you do, I just want to feel smug when player quotes wikipedia.

So, what mainly prevents the construction of new nuclear power plants? I think there's a ban on it, but how likely is that to be lifted? And how likely and effectively will oil/coal companies prevent this from happening?

there was a ban on the construction of new nuclear power plants after three mile island had a problem. They supposedly are in the process of removing the ban, pres. bush started this,Nuclear Power 2010 is a program that is intended to have new plants up and running by 2020, the following is a list of new plants , or additional reactors at existing plants to be built, possibly as early as next year construction could begin.

Announced Nuclear Locations

* Amarillo (TX)—Amarillo Power
* Bell Bend (PA)—PPL (formerly Susquehanna)
* Bellefonte (AL)—Tennessee Valley Authority
* Elmore County (ID)—Alternate Energy Holdings
* Callaway (MO)—AmerenUE
* Calvert Cliffs (MD)—UniStar
* Clinton (IL)—Exelon
* Comanche Peak (TX)—Luminant
* Fermi (MI)—DTE Energy
* Grand Gulf (MS)—Entergy
* Shearon Harris (NC)—Progress Energy
* Levy County (FL)—Progress Energy
* Nine Mile Point (NY)—UniStar
* North Anna (VA)—Dominion Energy
* River Bend (LA)—Entergy
* South Texas Project (TX)—STP Nuclear
* V.C. Summer (SC)—SCE&G
* Turkey Point (FL)—Florida Power & Light
* Victoria County (TX)—Exelon Generation
* Vogtle (GA)—Southern Nuclear
* William States Lee III (SC)—Duke Energy

Wow, that's good to see. Where do you get your information from? Or what can I quickly look into to further inform myself about this?

I think perhaps getting rid of the spent fuel rods is perhaps the biggest issue. While we can be reasonably sure that the technology is there to build a fail-safe(ish) reactor....history has shown that we cannot be trusted to dispose of the waste as safely...

I think the fact that the plants we have now were built so long ago..and even with the 3 mile accident...near disaster...it actually shows how safe they are....

unless of course you compare a 1970's chevy transmission to a 2006 one. For some reason, the 1970 doesnt disintegrate at 70k miles, where as the new ones seem to....though I think this is more planned than a matter of not being able to actually engineer the vehicles to last.

Gotta love the marketing plan...lets build them like crap so they break and they have to buy more of them....Brilliant!

sorry...i had a little meltdown of my own there I guess.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Wow, that's good to see. Where do you get your information from? Or what can I quickly look into to further inform myself about this?

from the department of energy, but i also visit nukeworker .com

[quote="AAFitz"]I think perhaps getting rid of the spent fuel rods is perhaps the biggest issue. While we can be reasonably sure that the technology is there to build a fail-safe(ish) reactor....history has shown that we cannot be trusted to dispose of the waste as safely...

you are absolutely correct sir, the rods in theory would be enclosed in a sarcofagus (sp) and shipped across country to yucca moutain to be buried till whenever. But they still cant agree on opening up yucca yet, or how to do it. and then of course people dont really want that stuff coming thru their town.

[quote="jonka"]
Do you want to know something intresting? A Coal plant produces nearly 3 times the Radioactive waste as a nuclear plant with similar energy output (It is from minute ammounts of radioactive materials in the coal being released to the environment, which eventually stack up). If these kinds of radiation came from a nuclear plant, mothers everywhere would be shitting bricks.
Source: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html, its kinda mathy.
_____________________________


that is amazing, seriously, i did not know that, why is that allowed, and why isnt this regulated?

i will add to this, in my experience you can live within 200 yards of a coal plant,(in illinois) but the distance for security purposes is much greater surrounding a nuclear plant, i dont know what the true distance is, but i would guestimate that that neighbor of the local nuke is at least 1200 yards away. Part security, part safety, the greater the distance from the source of exposure = less harmfull effects.

funny that no one worrys about coal plants, whats interesting too is that i have also worked in 2 coal fired electrical plants, and was NEVER warned about the health hazards, or risk of exposure to radiation. In a nuclear plant you must wear at least 2 different monitors for radiation exposure.

http://www.nuclear.gov/np2010/neScoreca ... ecard.html

florida and texas look to be the most serious about building new nukes.

For some strange reason, I'm fascinated with tidal energy/power.

Here's the wikipedia link (note the discussion of economics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power

Seems interesting, but "Some species lost their habitat due to La Rance’s construction, but other species colonized the abandoned space, which caused a shift in diversity. Also as a result of the construction, sandbanks disappeared, the beach of St. Servan was badly damaged and high-speed currents have developed near sluices, which are water channels controlled by gates" (same link), but if that's true, then forget about placing those near places prone to hurricanes.

You'd think that if this was such a great idea, it would be in full-production by now. This is probably due to the many possible environmental problems associated with it and also due to the energy output not greatly outweighing these disadvantages (possibly).

BigBallinStalin wrote:Seems interesting, but "Some species lost their habitat due to La Rance’s construction, but other species colonized the abandoned space, which caused a shift in diversity. Also as a result of the construction, sandbanks disappeared, the beach of St. Servan was badly damaged and high-speed currents have developed near sluices, which are water channels controlled by gates" (same link), but if that's true, then forget about placing those near places prone to hurricanes.

You'd think that if this was such a great idea, it would be in full-production by now. This is probably due to the many possible environmental problems associated with it and also due to the energy output not greatly outweighing these disadvantages (possibly).

Under the economic factors, they included a brief discussion that these types of systems are expensive to invest in and provide return only after a long time (which may also contribute to the low amount of investment).

Thanks, I'll check it out, you saved me a a good bit of time.