|
|
|
| Yay! |
|
Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
 |
Yay! $8.3B in loans guaranteed for nuclear reactors It's about time we focus on a better form of energy generation we've had for fifty-six years. What are your feelings on this plan, as well as nuclear energy as a whole? My thoughts are pretty simple and optimistic. It doesn't create CO2 or any real pollutants compared to any viable method of energy generation (Wind and solar are jokes at this point.) It creates significantly more energy because it uses an entirely different method of energy generation. I love it in every way possible and it offends me that the Cold War and silly accidents have let my country hide from it like little children. Most importantly: It doesn't fund middle eastern countries. -----sig: |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
 |
As long as they keep the Homer Simpsons out, I'm for it! They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
verthex
Member #11,340
September 2009
 |
I have a feeling that Terrapower will get more funding since there's about 70000 tons of radioactive waste sitting around the mainland, no reactors in Hawaii (unfortunately its oil powered, not even coal and super expensive). I assume if that works then things might no longer depend on King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia, and the rest middle east which has nothing else of value besides stinking camels. Besides that, 8 billion is not a lot of money for reactors, its cheaper to run it once its built compared to everything else (assuming no meltdown), but if things move in the right direction then I'm sure they'll get more money in time. I prefer wind energy myself but realistically this oil driven war in Iraq is to obviously not worth another war with Iran and maybe even Venezuela, and also a stampede in Haiti ( they secretly have a lot of it). These wars are for consumption, so was defending Kuwait from Iraq and Afghanistan is also supposedly a war over a pipeline through the middle east, where Iran has to change or go with the flow so to speak.
|
|
Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
|
Just to clarify, in the article it states he wants it upped to $54.5 billion in 2011. -----sig: |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
That's only $180 dollars for every man, woman and child in the USA. Fair trade? They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
verthex
Member #11,340
September 2009
|
Chris Katko said: Just to clarify, in the article it states he wants it upped to $54.5 billion in 2011. and thats just 8 reactors and thats roughly 8*1.5 million people. Which is (12/300) *100% ~ .04 percent of the population. Arthur Kalliokoski said: That's only $180 dollars for every man, woman and child in the USA. Fair trade? If you look at my above calculation, nope?
|
|
Slartibartfast
Member #8,789
June 2007
 |
verthex said: war with Iran You'll probably have to do that anyway, since unlike Iraq they really are going to have WMDs very soon. On Topic: Finally some support for cleaner and cheaper electricity... ---- |
|
verthex
Member #11,340
September 2009
|
Slartibartfast said: You'll probably have to do that anyway, Im a camper, moving to Australia in case the shit really strikes the fan!
|
|
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
Exactly how long must the plants and the waste storage systems be maintained after the nuke fuse has stopped producing electricity for us? Yes, I know, we have no answer because we haven't solved the waste storage problem yet. Say it loud, folks! We love the nuke power because we don't have to take care of the waste for hundreds or thousands of years. Earth is screwed anyway, so let's benefit from the nuke power as long as we're around. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
|
verthex
Member #11,340
September 2009
|
Johan Halmén said: Exactly how long must the plants and the waste storage systems be maintained after the nuke fuse has stopped producing electricity for us? Acute radiation level is ~2000 years, long term low level radiation is several million years.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Member #8,789
June 2007
|
Johan Halmén said: We love the nuke power because we don't have to take care of the waste for hundreds or thousands of years.
Yep, as opposed to current other methods of producing energy that require us to take care of right now in spite of us not knowing how to take care of them, so they end up polluting our environment and poisoning us. Quote: A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.[19] In comparison, a 1,000 MW nuclear plant will generate about 500 pounds of plutonium and 30 short tons of high-level radioactive controlled waste. While the nuclear plant generates more nuclear waste, at least it is in a controllable "format" and not spewed out directly into the air, and that's just the radioactive pollution :S So since not using electricity is something that couldn't possibly happen in any near future, I propose that it would at least be better to delay the problem until hopefully we are advanced enough to handle it than to just ignore the problem we are causing right now. ---- |
|
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
Slartibartfast said: at least it is in a controllable "format" Yes, exactly. Too bad someone has to control it for a thousand years or so. Hope we have saved money for that job, too. Think it this way. Some 3 or 4 generations at the time of William the Conqueror did something to increase their standard of living and left the problems caused by their actions to next generations to solve. And the next generations (including us) just had to deal with the problems, if they wanted to stay alive, using resources for it but not gaining anything from it (except the staing alive thing). Well, we could dilute the radioactive waste into all the oceans. I guess it would be more diluted than it was before digging it up. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
|
verthex
Member #11,340
September 2009
|
Johan Halmén said: Well, we could dilute the radioactive waste into all the oceans. I guess it would be more diluted than it was before digging it up. Theres the marianna trench.
|
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
It was Gnolam who said a couple weeks ago that the high-level radiation stuff is worth extracting energy from? Like a two stage steam engine or something. It'd take a different-in-degree-not-kind of plant to get water to boil from the heat. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
 |
Last I heard you actually get more radiation in the air/the-environment out of coal plants than nuclear plants. Not to mention that the "waste" you get out of the new nuclear plants can be used in other processes till its no longer a risk. -- |
|
BAF
Member #2,981
December 2002
 |
Finally, a good use of the money. I think this may be the first thing they've done in a long time that I agree with. Though it's not a lot of money for nuke plants, and it will be many years before we see any effects from it, it's still a start. We're only how many years late? |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Why do you care? Your ideals seem to say you want more drilling in the US, along with more coal plants. -- |
|
BAF
Member #2,981
December 2002
|
Huh? More drilling, yes, but not more coal plants. Lets produce more oil domestically and cut down on our foreign dependence. But then again, the EPA needs a swift kick in the ass for making it harder to get natural gas powered vehicles approved. Lets start making new cars powered by CNG, instead of these shitty hybrids and other "environmentally friendly" vehicles. By the time the CNG runs out, we aught to have enough nuclear plants built up that we can switch over to hydrogen. |
|
Bob Keane
Member #7,342
June 2006
|
What's wrong with water turbines? There's talk of putting a wind farm east of Cape Cod, but everyone is fighting it. Since we have the Gulf Stream, I think we should drop turbines into the water and generate electricity from it. By reading this sig, I, the reader, agree to render my soul to Bob Keane. I, the reader, understand this is a legally binding contract and freely render my soul. |
|
Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
|
Bob Keane said: What's wrong with water turbines? There's talk of putting a wind farm east of Cape Cod, but everyone is fighting it. Since we have the Gulf Stream, I think we should drop turbines into the water and generate electricity from it. With any large-scale power (enough to power a country) off of steams, I would fear that we would be damaging our ecosystem. If not significantly disrupting the current flow, than indirectly with sea life being hurt or starving from food distributions being changed. I base that on nothing but intuition, however. BAF said: Huh? More drilling, yes, but not more coal plants. Lets produce more oil domestically and cut down on our foreign dependence. But then again, the EPA needs a swift kick in the ass for making it harder to get natural gas powered vehicles approved. Lets start making new cars powered by CNG, instead of these shitty hybrids and other "environmentally friendly" vehicles. By the time the CNG runs out, we aught to have enough nuclear plants built up that we can switch over to hydrogen. I would like to stress that internal combustion engines are not well suited for mobile applications like transportation. I haven't run the numbers, but I think it's much more efficient to produce power at a single plant that can afford the highest quality emissions equipment and internal parts (regenerators, inter and aftercoolers, etc) as well as teams of professionals paid to maintain the equipment--contrasting a single, relatively cheap engine that is stopped and started, driven hard and weak (way outside of the efficient loads), braked without regeneration (different from aformentioned "regenerators"), driven in cold and hot environments without re-use of radiator heat, and so on. Power plants are more efficient, but I haven't deducted if they make up for the energy conversion losses going from mechanical to electricity and back to mechanical. Electric and other reversible processes (pneumatic) are much more suited to transportation. [second paragraph added] -----sig: |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
This doesn't help the nuclear energy image at all: They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
piccolo
Member #3,163
January 2003
 |
ahhh.. nuclear energy : will we use it to make clean power soruce that will save the earth. Or will stick a rocket on the end of it and use it to blow each other to bits. meh can not compute logic choose. so do both wow |
|
BigBertus
Member #2,093
March 2002
|
Well, here in Germany/continental Europe, you're still advised not to eat mushrooms you find in the woods in some regions because of the Chernobyl disaster... (the distance being some 1200-1500 km (800-1000 miles) / 24 years). Not that I ever cared about eating mushrooms in the woods. But it's scary. There was a study discussed in the press here a while ago that showed that the rates of Leukemia in children were somewhat higher in areas near nuclear power plants... Yay! I think there's still space for reducing overall energy consumption. Just if you consider proper heat insulation... |
|
BAF
Member #2,981
December 2002
|
Chris Katko said: Electric and other reversible processes (pneumatic) are much more suited to transportation. Yeah, if you can find away to store a usable amount of energy. I can drive several hundred miles on a tank of gas and fill up almost anyplace within a few minutes. Can't do that with batteries, and probably not pneumatics either. Possibly hydrogen, but they still have the problem of storing a useful amount of the stuff. |
|
BigBertus
Member #2,093
March 2002
|
BAF said: Yeah, if you can find away to store a usable amount of energy. I can drive several hundred miles on a tank of gas and fill up almost anyplace within a few minutes. Can't do that with batteries, and probably not pneumatics either. Possibly hydrogen, but they still have the problem of storing a useful amount of the stuff.
Build railroad lines! |
|
|
|
