ttystikk
Well-Known Member
That coastline has suffered those very same disasters many times in the past. None of them ever made the area uninhabitable.
Apples and oranges; bad argument.
Renewable Energy + Battery Storage = Fossil Fuels Obsolete, Even Natural Gas
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
Apples and oranges; bad argument.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You're right; uncontrolled nuclear meltdowns cause MORE radiation, by far! Hundreds, even thousands of times more! That's due in part because there is much more nuclear material in a power generation facility than there is in a bomb.
Bet you didn't know that, either!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
We aren't the misinformed ones.
Even with meltdown safe designs, there is still the unavoidable issue of both manufacturing and then decommissioning and disposing of/storing all that nuclear material, essentially FOREVER.
That's not cheap, nor is it safe.
Bottom line is that the numbers just don't work anymore.
I don't see why that's such a problem? Renewable, nonpolluting energy is now not only possible, it's cost effective! Where's the downside?!
Let's not forget that coal power is never clean and that many thousands have died from breathing their effluent, nevermind digging the coal to feed them with.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The components making up that radiation most certainly do matter. Nuclear power waste products are far more dangerous than naturally occurring materials like carbon 14 in fruit.
Have you begun to notice that every argument you've put forward has been systematically knocked down?
Look- I used to think as you do. I thought that big nuclear power plants would generate cheap and plentiful energy for our society without carbon dioxide... And then I noticed there was always a 'but'.
But- mining, processing and handling those nuclear materials creates huge amounts of CO², not to mention lots of radioactivity of the nastiest kinds.
But- construction is CO² intensive (all that concrete for example), extremely expensive and therefore the energy produced is not cost effective.
But- operation is risky and the benefits only last a limited time, usually 30-50 years before the unit must be shut down permanently.
But- decommissioning, removal and long term storage of nuclear materials is extremely expensive and unsafe- and it never, ever stops being a cost. Ever. It's like we're stealing from our great grandchildren, because IT IS stealing from our grandchildren.
Nuclear power is a fucking mess- of the very worst and most permanent kind imaginable.
Anything else is better.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
The key to a safe nuclear reactor design is installing your backup generators on the flood plain where a tsunami may hit.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The Japanese are well known to be extremely conscientious with their technologies and operate them assiduously in accordance with the best known practices. Their high speed rail system is an excellent example. If THEY can't avoid a meltdown, I think it's a safe bet that it it's an inevitable outcome.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Not sure you caught that it was a sarcastic statement, the smart people are never put in charge of where the money is spent. The generator location and construction type should have been a top priority but I'm sure they did what they did to save a couple bucks.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Say it aint so. Those reactors are 40 years old and it took that long plus some disasters and plenty more near misses to uncover safety issues with the design. In order to address those safety issues and get certified for another 20 years, they have to upgrade them. Those safety modifications make the reactors unprofitable compared to alternative energy.
You can't just explain it away by saying Fukushima was old. When that plan was installed, the government and commercial interests swore up, down and sideways that the design was so safe that nothing could happen. Well, the unimaginable became real and the costs of cleaning up the mess will wipe out any economic benefit that reactor ever had.
Most reactors that commercial interests and government tried to install in the US never came on line because of cost overruns due to safety issues uncovered after the design was finalized and fixing those safety issues made them unprofitable.
Don't you see a pattern beginning to develop?
The fail safe reactors -- I assume you mean thorium or Melted Salt Reactors are still in research.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Actually his analogy was very much pertinent to the discussion of nuclear reactors are safe enough.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Saphon’s aim wasn’t to improve the current wind turbines technology but rather to challenge the “box” and develop a radical new way of harnessing the wind. Anis' basic idea was to remove the whole rotating system (blades and hub) and to replace it by a non-rotational sail-shaped body. The idea has evolved over time and emerged as a promising technology named the Zero-Blade Technology. The related wind converter, baptized "The Saphonian", is bladeless, rotationless, and follows, instead, a back and forth 3D knot motion, largely inspired from sailboats.
http://www.saphonenergy.com/site/en/zero-blade-technology.15.html
There are other designs that are also in the development stage.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The molten sodium reactor here in Colorado was decommissioned and converted to burn natural gas.
The Government
Member
Who is we? Im in the US and "we" led the world as the top nation to cut emissions even though we pulled from the Paris Accords. Cut 40 million tons.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Cool!
Saphon’s aim wasn’t to improve the current wind turbines technology but rather to challenge the “box” and develop a radical new way of harnessing the wind. Anis' basic idea was to remove the whole rotating system (blades and hub) and to replace it by a non-rotational sail-shaped body. The idea has evolved over time and emerged as a promising technology named the Zero-Blade Technology. The related wind converter, baptized "The Saphonian", is bladeless, rotationless, and follows, instead, a back and forth 3D knot motion, largely inspired from sailboats.
http://www.saphonenergy.com/site/en/zero-blade-technology.15.html
There are other designs that are also in the development stage.
Good to know that we don't have to choose between wind energy or saving birds.
Now to scale this up!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
We signed as the world's largest emitter of CO².
The Government
Member
Canada, the eu, China and Spain are all up from last year over 200 million tons.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The problem with nuclear power is it is indiscriminate when it fucks up (and it can fuck up) . It's similar to a nuclear bomb that way in that it is impossible to contain the damage to a local site.
Also "running a country" and power generation needn't be linked.
The Government
Member
Word, my power comes from a county co-op.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
sooo, the fat boy lost weight but is still fat. Morbidly so.
What was your point again?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
For a long time mine came from the sun. Now I'm back on the grid (temporarily) until I build a new place.