The biomass being put in that power plant is pretty subsidised isn't ozrat?
Oil drop.
- Thread starter Pope Viper
- Start date
I think renewable energy will eventually fail. Nothing is renewable. To use solar power, wind power... it's an expensive thing. Sure, the sun will never run out, but how much would it cost to power whole cities and factories with wind and solar power? Wouldn't we have to cut all the forests to make room for solar panels and windmills?
Nuclear power has come along way since Chernobyl. Actually, that was the only really serious accident in the history of nuclear power. We can see that tobacco, drugs, guns, bikes and a lot of other things killed more people than nuclear accidents. Even at Chernobyl, the death toll was so high because of the way the soviet government chose to deal with the crisis.
New technologies are now available that make meltdowns virtually impossible: as the temperature of the reactor goes up, the power decreases by design.
Greenpeace and all the other environmentalist groups out there are just pushing their own agenda, if people are scared of nuclear power they'll turn to "renewable power sources" and so other companies will benefit from this.
Nuclear power, used responsibly, could have given us cheap energy and spacecraft capable of travelling throughout the solar system years ago. But noo, we had to be such pussies and try to use the breeze to get electricity!
Nuclear power has come along way since Chernobyl. Actually, that was the only really serious accident in the history of nuclear power. We can see that tobacco, drugs, guns, bikes and a lot of other things killed more people than nuclear accidents. Even at Chernobyl, the death toll was so high because of the way the soviet government chose to deal with the crisis.
New technologies are now available that make meltdowns virtually impossible: as the temperature of the reactor goes up, the power decreases by design.
Greenpeace and all the other environmentalist groups out there are just pushing their own agenda, if people are scared of nuclear power they'll turn to "renewable power sources" and so other companies will benefit from this.
Nuclear power, used responsibly, could have given us cheap energy and spacecraft capable of travelling throughout the solar system years ago. But noo, we had to be such pussies and try to use the breeze to get electricity!
As much as I like nuclear power, I don't think it can be the only thing we use.
If you're somewhat educated in the subject it's pretty clear that the benefits far outweigh the negatives, as long as there are no other Chernobyl type accidents.
Finding the right balance of renewable energy and nuclear/coal/gas is the way to go, but try doing that when there are so many interest groups. Once the politics of it disappear there might be a shot of being efficient and environmentally responsible, but that's not likely.
If you're somewhat educated in the subject it's pretty clear that the benefits far outweigh the negatives, as long as there are no other Chernobyl type accidents.
Finding the right balance of renewable energy and nuclear/coal/gas is the way to go, but try doing that when there are so many interest groups. Once the politics of it disappear there might be a shot of being efficient and environmentally responsible, but that's not likely.
chernobyl shouldnt have ever happened in the first place. the plant in the simplest terms was as if it were built and run by illegal aliens paid 50 cents an hour, and told to pretend that they had any knowledge of atomic theory. russia in its effort to try to keep up with the us stepped up its number of factories and tried to increese production per factory. plants like chernobyl were RUSHED to completion in an attempt to provide enough power.
http://www.cyberessays.com/History/77.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/778477.stm
it was a story of cutting corners and stupidity untill the very end. the workers sent to clean the mess up often had protective gear so poor that they might as well have poured a pixie stick on their head, said some magical words and carried a bottle of "gypsie tears" to protect them from radiation. the concrete tomb they built for the whole mess was a fuckup too, today there are concerns across europe that the tomb will collapse and the radiation will poisen europe's ground water. thank you russia, thank you for showing us how communist practices combined with third world style shitty craftsmanship can destroy the world.
that being said, nuclear power is the most productive and safest form of power we have available to us. currently it runs at about 5% efficiancy, yet the energy produced is so astronomical that we earn MANY MANY times more energy out of the process then is required to mine and refine the fuel, which is one of the more plentiful substances on earth. though because demand for fuel is low only the highest yield mines are able to make any sort of a profit. i personally believe at least in terms of electric power there is no option better then atomic.
however, since most of the people in the world fit into group a: douchebags or group b: retards a giant growth into atomic power is not likely to happen. i did manage to make myself a 5hp sterling engine that runs off just a little charcoal, 2-3 good pieces of firewood or similar flamable material. with a minimal cost i could power my entire home, whats more i'm not dependant on gasoline. my incredibly productive and efficant sterling engine turns any temperature variation(aka heat on one side and cooler air on the other) into motion and thus eventually electricity. realy if something happened like in the tv show jerrico i would likely be the only one not hurting for power and heat. everyone else would run out of gas quickly enough(those with generators at least) but i could provide electricity with just about anything i could light on fire.... take it from an "inventor" (i take the title now because im working on all sorts of projects, just dont have anything to make money off yet), sterling based power is something marvelous.... hell, i could make CHEEP solor power with clusters of smaller sterling engines... its all possible.
Speaking of inventions, there's something called 'spelling'. Use it.
lol, i used it and even changed a few words i had typed because i spelled them so horribly that the machine couldn't help me..... but in the end the spell check said i was fine save for capitalization issues..... *scratches head* no.... wait i dont think i did spell check that post, it was some other one this morning.... lol, my normal absent mindedness is compounded by my current lack of sleep....
This is not a legal scam by making biofuel from rapeseed and corn oil, and no, I am not subsidized either, thanks for asking.Kilus said:
You are aware wind and hydro are conversions of solar energy, right? Even petroleum is just another form of solar energy.Blakut said:
I don't know why you assume all the forests would need to be cut down for wind and solar.Blakut said:
Greenpeace co-founder goes nuclearBlakut said:
Ozymandias
First time out of the vault
Why have nuclear power at all if renewable energy can suffice??
It seems that everyone's nuclear arguments are contingent on the assumption that renewable energy is an untenable solution.
I believe that renewable energy technology must be what saves us, but it has to be accompanied by other changes.
1) We have to keep researching NEW renewable energy technologies to make them more efficient. (for Mr. Stirling engine, here's a video on how you can combine a solar dish with a stirling engine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dTt2s6YwJ8) AND I'll add this "Sterling" dish too which is the most efficient solar tech yet created, an array of which can create as much energy per square foot as a coal plant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYKOjnCwmG8&feature=related ...meaning we wouldn't have to cut down all the trees to build renewable energy plants.
2) We have to make our society more energy efficient. There are huge inefficiencies in the way people live: buildings need to be fitted with more efficient technologies, highways between cities should be largely replaced by trains, cities should be growing their own food in the areas surrounding them instead of shipping it from around the world, and (you all aren't gonna like this one) eating less meat. Meat wastes tons and tons of food and water and transportation on animals that humans could use themselves -- lowering the poundage of food created per energy expended. These are just a few major ways that we can become much more energy efficient.
3) We have to develop green industry. There are so many jobs out there just waiting to be created. Engineers, researchers, and scientists. Educated workers to install renewable electrical systems and maintain them. We need to develop renewable energy storage technology like hydrogen.
We shouldn't compromise the future of humanity. If we are going to live in a society which is good, a society which will last, it should be one that is good for everyone. Let's not sully the future with dependency on mining or a centralized energy source. Let's put the PEOPLE in charge of their own energy. When people are producing their own energy locally, they'll begin to take responsibility for how their energy is expended.
If you think that nuclear is the less desirable option, but it's the only option we have, THINK AGAIN.
It seems that everyone's nuclear arguments are contingent on the assumption that renewable energy is an untenable solution.
I believe that renewable energy technology must be what saves us, but it has to be accompanied by other changes.
1) We have to keep researching NEW renewable energy technologies to make them more efficient. (for Mr. Stirling engine, here's a video on how you can combine a solar dish with a stirling engine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dTt2s6YwJ8) AND I'll add this "Sterling" dish too which is the most efficient solar tech yet created, an array of which can create as much energy per square foot as a coal plant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYKOjnCwmG8&feature=related ...meaning we wouldn't have to cut down all the trees to build renewable energy plants.
2) We have to make our society more energy efficient. There are huge inefficiencies in the way people live: buildings need to be fitted with more efficient technologies, highways between cities should be largely replaced by trains, cities should be growing their own food in the areas surrounding them instead of shipping it from around the world, and (you all aren't gonna like this one) eating less meat. Meat wastes tons and tons of food and water and transportation on animals that humans could use themselves -- lowering the poundage of food created per energy expended. These are just a few major ways that we can become much more energy efficient.
3) We have to develop green industry. There are so many jobs out there just waiting to be created. Engineers, researchers, and scientists. Educated workers to install renewable electrical systems and maintain them. We need to develop renewable energy storage technology like hydrogen.
We shouldn't compromise the future of humanity. If we are going to live in a society which is good, a society which will last, it should be one that is good for everyone. Let's not sully the future with dependency on mining or a centralized energy source. Let's put the PEOPLE in charge of their own energy. When people are producing their own energy locally, they'll begin to take responsibility for how their energy is expended.
If you think that nuclear is the less desirable option, but it's the only option we have, THINK AGAIN.
Slaughter Manslaught
Vault Senior Citizen
Sure, renewable energy is dandy and all that. I'm even thinking of puting modern solar panels in the roof of a house when I get one. But solar energy can't substitute fossil fuels overnight. Nuclear Power can, and should. It's either nuclear power or global warming, man. I choose Nuclear Power. I know the dangers of nuclear power, but there is no better power source, unless you somehow find out how to make Anti-Matter Power Plants.
I agree, except on the meat thing. Stay away from my meat.
I think the problem is that humanity grew too much after World War II and almost nobody is doing anything to stop our rampant growth. We're growing like a virus, and by 2050, there will be nine billions of us. We can't sustain all those people without higher efficiency, more food and nuclear energy. I think one of the most important measures we should take is that we should put a clamp on population growth. At least until we figure out how to obtain more food and energy. Or find a way to colonise other planets, which would help A LOT.
I agree, except on the meat thing. Stay away from my meat.
I think the problem is that humanity grew too much after World War II and almost nobody is doing anything to stop our rampant growth. We're growing like a virus, and by 2050, there will be nine billions of us. We can't sustain all those people without higher efficiency, more food and nuclear energy. I think one of the most important measures we should take is that we should put a clamp on population growth. At least until we figure out how to obtain more food and energy. Or find a way to colonise other planets, which would help A LOT.
im glad im not the only one impressed by the practicality of sterling design low pressure engines. i DID say you could even make solar pannels with the thing, though i never got the time to experiment with power output as compared to a traditional solar panel... i dont even think solar panels are 12% efficiant, i thought that because the sterling engine required so little input to actually produce output that it could actually result in panels FAR more efficant. thanks for providing information demonstrating that hypothosis is true 
.
the problem is that comercal engines are expensive... and as far as i know nobody has an acurate idea of the cost of maintnance of them when they are run around the clock to produce electricity, either by sunlight and stored heat from the sun or heat from expended fuel. so there are quite a few maybes in a project like a power plant built with them.....
truth is that nuclear energy is the most practical option available to us. NOTHING, not even sterling solar power in terms of cost per kilowat can compete with nuclear energy, especially once we develop better more efficiant systems for it. nuclear power is only about 5% efficant right now, and even at that low output NOTHING competes..... i've even developed ideas to use sterling engines instead of steam turbines in the system to reduce the amount of fuel rods needed, the pressure and tempuratures needed and thus drastically improve safety and efficiancy. im certain someone else would come up with better ideas then me if we started going towards that form of energy.,,,,
now the food thing..... do you realise that say, florida is not as good of a place to raise grain as colorado? in truth we have transport systems that are so efficant(because of thier titanic size, like mega freighters and trains) that the cost to move massive ammounts of food around is negligable.
civilization across the globe is on the verge of a great collapse, it wont come by climate change, it wont come by expensive energy(though we REALLY need to work on efficancy and practical energy) but it will come at the loss of water. modern agricultural practices are so preductive that they produce FAR more then we need and dont destroy the soil in the process. hungry places in the world all have two things in common, some form of instability and a lack of modern agricultural systems.
as i said, food isnt the issue you should be freaking out about, nor is it energy or how much co2 is in the ozone, its water. the real question is if we can keep it flowing. the breatbasket of the us is quite literally drying up, wells have to be dug deeper and deeper and less and less river water actually reaches the sea before its used up to the point that the rest evaporates. if we secure new methods of bringing water to our civilization then we secure stability and mankind for the future, if we dont.... i shudder to think of how terrible the collapse will be....
.the problem is that comercal engines are expensive... and as far as i know nobody has an acurate idea of the cost of maintnance of them when they are run around the clock to produce electricity, either by sunlight and stored heat from the sun or heat from expended fuel. so there are quite a few maybes in a project like a power plant built with them.....
truth is that nuclear energy is the most practical option available to us. NOTHING, not even sterling solar power in terms of cost per kilowat can compete with nuclear energy, especially once we develop better more efficiant systems for it. nuclear power is only about 5% efficant right now, and even at that low output NOTHING competes..... i've even developed ideas to use sterling engines instead of steam turbines in the system to reduce the amount of fuel rods needed, the pressure and tempuratures needed and thus drastically improve safety and efficiancy. im certain someone else would come up with better ideas then me if we started going towards that form of energy.,,,,
now the food thing..... do you realise that say, florida is not as good of a place to raise grain as colorado? in truth we have transport systems that are so efficant(because of thier titanic size, like mega freighters and trains) that the cost to move massive ammounts of food around is negligable.
civilization across the globe is on the verge of a great collapse, it wont come by climate change, it wont come by expensive energy(though we REALLY need to work on efficancy and practical energy) but it will come at the loss of water. modern agricultural practices are so preductive that they produce FAR more then we need and dont destroy the soil in the process. hungry places in the world all have two things in common, some form of instability and a lack of modern agricultural systems.
as i said, food isnt the issue you should be freaking out about, nor is it energy or how much co2 is in the ozone, its water. the real question is if we can keep it flowing. the breatbasket of the us is quite literally drying up, wells have to be dug deeper and deeper and less and less river water actually reaches the sea before its used up to the point that the rest evaporates. if we secure new methods of bringing water to our civilization then we secure stability and mankind for the future, if we dont.... i shudder to think of how terrible the collapse will be....
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
the highest effency solar panel is a 165w that runs at 13.1%, and to power LA would require about 183,000 sq miles of JUST the solar panels, not including infrastructure.
the highest effencency wind generator is a 6 mw that produces an average of 2.1 mw. its like 127m wide blades means that even if you figured on 128 sq meters per generator, it would require something like covering kansas just to power LA. because it would require 3,200 of these windmills.
yea, those are viable arent they.
geothermal is nice, and we could get enough geothermal out of the USA landmass to generate i think its like 95% of our non-transportation needed electricity....
but keep in mind, geothermal plants only work for 20-35 years ( deeper you go, longer they last) and then you have to wait 40-50 years for the ground to heat back up. so the power is on intermittent cycles.
the highest effencency wind generator is a 6 mw that produces an average of 2.1 mw. its like 127m wide blades means that even if you figured on 128 sq meters per generator, it would require something like covering kansas just to power LA. because it would require 3,200 of these windmills.
yea, those are viable arent they.
geothermal is nice, and we could get enough geothermal out of the USA landmass to generate i think its like 95% of our non-transportation needed electricity....
but keep in mind, geothermal plants only work for 20-35 years ( deeper you go, longer they last) and then you have to wait 40-50 years for the ground to heat back up. so the power is on intermittent cycles.