Renewable Energy + Battery Storage = Fossil Fuels Obsolete, Even Natural Gas

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
you mean the reactor that faced aone of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded?

that same reactor that then got hit by a fucking tsunami?
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.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
oh come on now seriously??

a nuclear reactor is not the same thing as a nuclear bomb

they wont ever detonate like a nuclear bomb would

earthquakes and tsunamis like what happened at fukishima are a very slight risk

people still live next to the coast even tho this century hundreds of thousands of people have died because of tsunamis

people still live on earthquake zones even though earthquakes have killed hundreds of thousands of people

fukishima killed nobody yet for some strange reason you think thats the thing you need to be scared of
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
Cute...

If you weren't so missinformed I'd explain the difference but you think a reactor is a nuclear bombs so not much point
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
Have you ever used a Geiger counter?

You do understand that we are constantly being bathed in radiation.
Banana'a are radioactive. Sea water is radioactive. You are radioactive..

Large doses are dangerous but your statement makes no sense...
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.
 

ttystikk

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.
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
fukishima was certainly an anomaly considering it was a double whammy of one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded then a tsunami

fukishima was a very old reactor and whilst the design held up very well considering what it went through i would not say that design should be the ones we build now

we can build reactors that would never meltdown no matter what earthquakes or tsunamis hit them

those ones are certainly worth the risk to get us off of fossil fuels and fast
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
Shit is still spinning fast, even if it's on a vertical axis. If there's such a thing as a bird safe wind turbine, I have yet to see it. That said, no one would be a bigger fan of such tech than me because we need the power and we need to take care of our planet with all its inhabitants.


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
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.
The molten sodium reactor here in Colorado was decommissioned and converted to burn natural gas.
 
Fortunately, solar is even cheaper.

I hear you about the birds. Shall we continue destroying their habitat through global warming instead? That's not meant to be snarky, it's a very real choice.
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


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.
Cool!

Good to know that we don't have to choose between wind energy or saving birds.

Now to scale this up!
 
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.
Word, my power comes from a county co-op.
 
Top