Keeps on climbing......

[Stephen Gentle]

Before you get too excited about using technology to cure the effects of technology, don't forget that nuclear hardly is 100% foolproof. Some of you probably don't remember Three-Mile-Island or Tschernobyl (not that I'm so very old!). Just as a reminder of when things go awry with a nuclear power plant, here's a link to some pictures and a video report on the ghost town or Pripyat.

I don't think that Chernobyl is at all any indication of what happens when something goes awry with a modern power plant. The main problem was that the RBMK reactor design fundamentally flawed (it operated with a high void coefficient (around 4.7 beta) which means that it's extremely difficult to stop the reaction in an accident if the coolant starts boiling, as the reactor starts to generate more and more power. To put that number in perspective, modern reactors operate at a negative void coefficient, or some, like gas cooled reactors and pressurised water reactors, are designed so voids aren't an issue. This means that the reaction won't run away if there is a coolant problem).

Modern plants have thick concrete containment shields also, which could have stopped the massive radiation release that occurred after the accident had Chernobyl had one.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

We also have alternatives now to the old 50s reactors. Since we aren't making nukes anymore we have a lot of options for nuclear reactors which are almost impossible to melt down and can be deployed even in relatively dense urban areas.

Some are further along in development (pebble bed) but others only need a little more development to start test deployments.

 

[Anthony Gratl]

We also have alternatives now to the old 50s reactors. Since we aren't making nukes anymore we have a lot of options for nuclear reactors which are almost impossible to melt down and can be deployed even in relatively dense urban areas.

Some are further along in development (pebble bed) but others only need a little more development to start test deployments.

Why bother though? Nuclear energy isn't cost effective, and it produces HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE outputs which we don't know how to store.
I don't get it. Why don't people just want to harness the power of the sun?
Why fuck around with radioactive crap?

 

[Lucas Wilson]

Why bother though? Nuclear energy isn't cost effective, and it produces HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE outputs which we don't know how to store.
I don't get it. Why don't people just want to harness the power of the sun?
Why fuck around with radioactive crap?

[moderator hat on]

Reduser has had a real name policy for a long time now. Please use your real name for your next post.

Lucas Wilson

 

[Robert Frank]

Why bother though? Nuclear energy isn't cost effective, and it produces HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE outputs which we don't know how to store.
I don't get it. Why don't people just want to harness the power of the sun?
Why fuck around with radioactive crap?

:iagree:


I'm totally with you on this. Is there something inherently wrong with using solar energy? I don't understand the resistance.


The worlds deserts could be the right place to build solar energy collection farms.


√ Next to zero environmental impact.

√ Geography suited for this use.

√ Infrastructure easily expandable.

√ Inexpensive land (until the word gets out).

√ Primary resource is free.


Down side? I don't know.

 

[Robert Frank]

[moderator hat on]

Reduser has had a real name policy for a long time now. Please use your real name for your next post.

Lucas Wilson

Hehe.. it's just Tony. :laugh:

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Why bother though? Nuclear energy isn't cost effective, and it produces HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE outputs which we don't know how to store.
I don't get it. Why don't people just want to harness the power of the sun?
Why fuck around with radioactive crap?

Nuclear *IS* cost effective with modern reactors. That's the whole point. You can create modern reactors which don't fuck around with such radioactive crap and are considerably more cost effective than solar. The also don't require massive expanses of open land or climate/weather specific locations.

 

[Robert Frank]

Nuclear *IS* cost effective with modern reactors. That's the whole point. You can create modern reactors which don't fuck around with such radioactive crap and are considerably more cost effective than solar.

Maybe nuclear reactors are safer than in the past, and the chance of a major disaster is unlikely, but I do think that potential environmental disaster IS a cost that needs to be included in the equation.

Cost effective vs. solar? I don't know about this but if can point me to where to learn about this I'm open to it.

The also don't require massive expanses of open land or climate/weather specific locations.

Can you think of a better use for uninhabited deserts?

 

[Joe D'Arcy]

Strategic Planning and marketing Meeting.
How to influence the average dummy 101

'Nuclear power is Clean Green power'
Clean Green power
Clean Green power
Clean Green power
Clean Green power

"Just keep on repeating this phrase and eventually the general public will believe it and better still they'll start using the phrase themselves.
Come on guys this strategy has already worked. Just keep repeating the phrase, they'll all catch on."

Weapons of mass destruction
Weapons of mass destruction
War on terror.
War on terror

Just keep repeating the phrase. Eventually it will become a fact based on........(can't quite remember the details but we all know its true)

 

[Adrian Sims]

BP Spills Coffee

BP Spills Coffee

While BP's actions are no laughing matter, these three videos sum it up for me. Criminal that so much has been covered-up, sterilized and kept from the public -

VIDEO 1

VIDEO 2

And, finally, the comedians take (BP Spills Coffee) -

VIDEO 3

Have we learnt nothing?

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

so my point is if we all buy electric cars that will make the electric companies burn much more oil.

Interesting logic.

 

[Michael McVicar]

Interesting logic.

Nuclear fission reactors, forget about them. Let's go full on more powerfull fusion. Pump it up so full of fuel that it will last the human race into the most foreseeable extreme future, never needing refueling. Make it totally self running, never needing attention. Then throw it into space so that all radioactive material never touches us. Then have the energy beamed back to everywhere.

Oh yeah, we already have that. It's called the Sun.​

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

http://www.wwltv.com/home/Oil-Spill...Quality-Along-Coastal-Louisiana-94202149.html

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Nuclear fission reactors, forget about them. Let's go full on more powerfull fusion. Pump it up so full of fuel that it will last the human race into the most foreseeable extreme future, never needing refueling. Make it totally self running, never needing attention. Then throw it into space so that all radioactive material never touches us. Then have the energy beamed back to everywhere.

Oh yeah, we already have that. It's called the Sun.​

I think fission reactors will play a large role moving forward, once we get the general public to realize that the days of large reactors and potential meltdowns are truly a thing of the past. Even the latest and greatest reactors in the private sector, like the ones being pioneered by the French, are still based on 45 year old technology. Fission reactors work best when they are small and locally installed and run in a nodal fashion. Replace small localized power plants with small nuclear reactors. The small reactors have zero emissions other than EMF, but that is easy enough to contain when they are kept small. They are also made small enough where they can not have a meltdown. Examples of such reactors are the latest ones just installed in the aircraft carrier, USS Ronald Reagan. Two such reactors can run a typical suburb of 25000 people, or approximately 10,000 average US homes with supporting businesses and community facilities. And they would only need to be refueled once every 20 to 25 years. They use refined Uranium fuel, but can use other viable nuclear fuels if other options become economical. They do not require enriched or isolated U238, which means there is no depleted uranium by-product. The only waste generated by these reactors is about 2 shoe boxes full of spent uranium (every 20 to 25 years per reactor), which is predominantly lead with some carbon and has less radioactivity than a common cell phone. And it's highly recyclable and does not need to be stored away or disposed of as a hazardous material.

As for solar power, it's gaining quite a following as well and people need to get away from the idea of solar farms and large panel installations in the desert. That's not where Solar makes sense. Solar is another application that is most logical when tied directly to the point of consumption. An excellent example is solar roof tiles. The US government is currently giving out huge cash grants and tax incentives to homeowners, builders and small small to medium size businesses that install solar with new construction. The economy here is in a slump for sure, but I still managed to build two houses and a commercial flex-lease building last year. Installed solar arrays on all three. Both houses were installed with a 10KWh system, which is currently the largest the government will pay grants for on a residence. Not sure why, but it is. The setup is pretty elegant. The solar panels are the same dimensions as the roof tiles and install the same way, other than connecting the wires underneath. They are unnoticeable, other than being a different color and they're shiny. I'll post a picture of these tomorrow if any of you guys want to see. US government picked up 65% of the bill to install the system too. It will pay for itself within 5 to 7 years under typical use. But in the case of one of these homes, even faster, as the residents spend half the year out of state. So the thing just makes power while they're gone and only has to maintain a few necessities to keep the place from freezing in the winter and such. They love it.... When they're out of town, instead of having a utility bill, they get a $275 credit every month. The commercial building got a 24KWh solar array on the roof. Which is plenty to run all office and shop/warehouse lights, heat, and most office electronics as well as the electric water heaters (20 gal heaters for each of the 5 units). It of course doesn't generate enough to supply machinery in the warehouse and shop areas, or any of the 3-phase power usage at the building.

The real shortcoming of solar that most people don't realize is that current solar panel technology is operating around 90% efficiency. There is only so much energy on an ideal day that lands on earth in a square meter of sun-lit area. I have to disagree with some of the calculations shown above regarding solar in that image Hrvoje posted. Looks like someone gave a hippie a calculator and a bag of weed. I can believe the EJ number for solar energy captured by the earth in a year. But to say that's more energy in an hour than the world uses in a year? Puh-leeez. Just start adding up annual power output from most large power plants and you will see that statistic is completely bogus.

What I would really like to see here in the USA, and I know the US government is actually heading this direction, although slowly, and it will require local communities and governments to get on board is... To require all new construction to install solar arrays for power generation. The average US single-family home is approximately 2300 square feet and could support anywhere from a 5500KWh to a 10KWh system. Which in most situations could supply the home with 40 to 60 % of their daily power needs.

There's a local solar research company here that is working on underlayments for asphalt and concrete that could turn driveways, sidewalks, roads, highways, you name it, into surfaces that generate power. Sounds like a great idea to me. And a great way to eliminate toll roads when suddenly the transportation authority is now in the power business and can power all their own lights and traffic signals while supplementing the local power grid.

I've said on the forums here on more than one occasion that I don't really shoot narrative and much of my camera work is corporate and government... Well this is it, most of my work is paid for by energy companies. I have a pretty good grasp on what is out there now and what is coming along. Hydrogen power is farther away than people want to believe. Natural gas is here to stay and makes a lot of sense when taken from the right sources. Solar is going to be huge. Nuclear could be, but it won't happen until people relax and give it a chance... Wind power blows.... That's all I really have to say about that and all should need to say about it. The fact that people keep wanting windmills just boggles my mind.

 

[Joe G.]

That's a neat trick. You throw the word "modern" on it, and suddenly there's no problem. No supporting evidence needed for your claims, of course. How modern.

"Modern" undersea drilling is completely foolproof I hear.

Also, Three Mile Island was just a fun time for all with no problems for anyone.

Three Mile Island:
"...Cleanup started in August 1979 and officially ended in December 1993, having cost around US$975 million."

"The Radiation and Public Health Project cited calculations by Joseph Mangano, who has authored 19 medical journal articles and a book on Low Level Radiation and Immune Disease, that reported a spike in infant mortality in the downwind communities two years after the accident.[32][57] Anecdotal evidence also records effects on the region's wildlife.[32] For example, according to one anti-nuclear activist, Harvey Wasserman, the fallout caused "a plague of death and disease among the area's wild animals and farm livestock", including a sharp fall in the reproductive rate of the region's horses and cows, reflected in statistics from Pennsylvania's Department of Agriculture, though the Department denies a link with TMI.[58]"

"In 1981 citizens' groups succeeded in a class action suit against TMI, winning $25m in an out-of-court settlement. Part of this money was used to found the TMI Public Health Fund.[64]"

Here's where it gets interesting, and the link to BP's brand of cutting corners and lying and generally making things unsafe for workers and third parties in the service of greed (the American way of business):

"...a TMI control room operator wrote a memo warning of "a very serious accident" if the condensate system problems were not properly addressed. He stated that "the resultant damage could be very significant." [71]

Additionally, James Cresswell, an NRC inspector, warned for two years [72] that a design flaw with U-shaped tubes could prevent coolant circulation and cause an accident like that which would occur at TMI. His warnings were ignored until the NRC met with him six days before the accident at TMI.[73]"

"Under a plea-bargaining agreement, Met Ed pleaded guilty to one count of falsifying records and no contest to six other charges, four of which were dropped, and agreed to pay a $45,000 fine and set up a $1 million account to help with emergency planning in the area surrounding the plant.[66]"

"According to Eric Epstein, chair of Three Mile Island Alert, the TMI plant operator and its insurers paid at least $82 million in publicly documented compensation to residents for "loss of business revenue, evacuation expenses and health claims".[67] Also according to Harvey Wasserman, hundreds of out-of-court settlements have been reached with alleged victims of the fallout, with a total of $15m paid out to parents of children born with birth defects.[68] "

Three Mile Island accident

 

[Anthony Gratl]

and now we're up to 60....
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/oil.spill.disaster/index.html?hpt=T1

 

[Anthony Gratl]

The real shortcoming of solar that most people don't realize is that current solar panel technology is operating around 90% efficiency. There is only so much energy on an ideal day that lands on earth in a square meter of sun-lit area. I have to disagree with some of the calculations shown above regarding solar in that image Hrvoje posted. Looks like someone gave a hippie a calculator and a bag of weed. I can believe the EJ number for solar energy captured by the earth in a year. But to say that's more energy in an hour than the world uses in a year? Puh-leeez. Just start adding up annual power output from most large power plants and you will see that statistic is completely bogus....

Alright Jeff, I usually respect what you have to say, but this post of yours is pretty much nonsense. Disagree with Hrvoje. Fine. All day long. But show me the facts and stats to say otherwise please.
Solar panels are only operating currently between 10 and 18% efficiency.
Where did you come up with 90%? Which by the way, would kick the shit out of most of the furnaces in peoples homes.

Well this is it, most of my work is paid for by energy companies. I have a pretty good grasp on what is out there now and what is coming along.

Why, because you shoot video for energy companies? What, do you think they let you in on what's coming down the pipe all day long? Hardly man, I've shot enough corporate video schlock to fill my boots in the early days, and they wern't giving me the inside track. That's just nonsense to say that you have the inside track because you've shot video for certain companies.

Hydrogen power is farther away than people want to believe. Natural gas is here to stay and makes a lot of sense when taken from the right sources. Solar is going to be huge. Nuclear could be, but it won't happen until people relax and give it a chance... Wind power blows.... That's all I really have to say about that and all should need to say about it. The fact that people keep wanting windmills just boggles my mind.

Hydrogen power isn't realistic from a containment point of view. It's way too explosive.

Nat gas is very finite and polluting.

Solar is a way. The main way. But not the only way.

Nuclear shouldn't happen because we don't know how to dispose of radioactive outputs from the plants. There's nothing to relax about, Jeff. Poison is bad!!! Especially in the water tables. And radioactive material is really poisonous! Perhaps you should enlighten the scientists and engineers who' ve been spending the last 50 years trying to figure out how to store this garbage, instead of writing cavalier nonsense about relaxing.

Wind power blows? Why are the europeans investing heavily in wind power if it "blows"? Why not explain why it sucks instead of just writing it. If you've got strong opinions on the subject, great, I'd love to hear them, but I'd like the FACTS to back the opinions up!!! Not some rhetorical crap, thanks.

 

[Robert Frank]

and now we're up to 60....
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/oil.spill.disaster/index.html?hpt=T1

Mind boggling. :banghead:

 

[Adrian Sims]

BP - Clean-up, don't cover-up

BP - Clean-up, don't cover-up

BP are deluded - they are trying to hide an elephant with a handkerchief. Who are they kidding?

MSNBC VIDEO

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Nuclear shouldn't happen because we don't know how to dispose of radioactive outputs from the plants. There's nothing to relax about, Jeff. Poison is bad!!! Especially in the water tables. And radioactive material is really poisonous! Perhaps you should enlighten the scientists and engineers who' ve been spending the last 50 years trying to figure out how to store this garbage, instead of writing cavalier nonsense about relaxing.

*cough* glassification *cough*.

Part of the problem with Nuclear is that we used to use plants which produced an enormous amount of highly radioactive material because we wanted bombs. We don't have that requirement anymore we can use reactor designs which use fuels which produce far less radioactive by products.

And we're talking about radioactive products which will be inert within 150 years or so and mostly inert within 50. Those are the kinds of timelines we can handle. It's the 10k year timelines that we have trouble managing. (But even those are absurd. Nobody is going to store anything for 10k years. Within 200 years we will almost 100% guaranteed have an inexpensive and simple disposal solution. I hate to kick the can down the road but let's be realistic in the next 200 years material science will without a doubt produce an inexpensive container that can store effectively anything effectively indefinitely. Barring some nuclear holocaust in which case nuclear waste is irrelevant anyway.

The problem with most criticism of nuclear power is that it's criticized for not being perfect. And then all the imperfections of everything else are ignored. "Nuclear plants produce waste." So does the manufacturing of solar cells. Those things aren't made from hugs and rainbows. A lot of very toxic materials goes into manufacturing electronics at present.

You're more likely to have health problems from naturally occurring Argon or receive more radiation from a brick home than from a nuclear power plant. And melt-down-proof plants *ARE* possible.