PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear power good idea?



Ferre
27-03-2011, 10:57 AM
Nuclear power. Let's have a discussion about the pros en cons.

Nuclear power plants are, in layman's terms; Big steam machines that drive huge dynamo's to produce electricity wherein the heat source to heat up the water needed for the steam machine is generated by nuclear reactions.

Around 6% of the world's electricity is generated by nuclear power.

As we have the technical means to replace that 6% with sustainable sources, is using nuclear power justifiable?

Zap
28-03-2011, 06:41 AM
I think we do need it and I'll tell you why.
We like to explore space from time to time.
Even our best chemical rockets are painfully slow and extremely expensive to operate.
Expensive in terms of cost in dollars and expensive in terms of space used. In order to send a shuttle into space, it requires more room for fuel than for the vehicle that's being launched. And even then, they have to be so careful with the fuel they have in terms of conservation. If they make a wrong move and find themselves slipping away from Earth's orbit, too bad. Not enough fuel to correct the flight path. Nuclear powered space vehicles would do away with this silliness and provide for faster space vehicles too.)

I think we need a comprehensive plan for dealing with the waste materials in nuclear power plants, for sure. But I think it would be a mistake to abandon this technology as it has the ability to do so much for us that we haven't even scratched the surface of yet.

And Ferre, you and I both know that 6% will not be replaced with wind or solar power. It will be replaced with oil power and that is not sustainable.

Ferre
28-03-2011, 11:09 AM
We do not use nuclear energy to power any spacecraft's zap. It would not work either because all humanity has come up with so far to use nuclear power is to heat up water for ordinary steam machines that in their turn power dynamo's.

Were it not for the "nuclear" aspect those power plants are old fashion and outdated.

As for the waste, it is now being used to drop on 3rd world countries and oil rich nations, it is also more and more being used in places where people suffer from the radiation, like as ballast in air planes etc. If you believe the high doses of radiation you absorb with an intercontinental flight is because of the elevation you are only partially correct.

Zap
28-03-2011, 11:43 AM
We do not use nuclear energy to power any spacecraft's zap.
I know. And that's why we haven't explored space at all. We will need something more powerful and less limited than chemical rockets in order to put men anywhere beyond the Moon. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to venturing out is that space is hard on the human body. We can't afford to take 6 months to go to Mars. We need to do it faster to reduce the time humans would be in space.
If it weren't for being so cautious with nuclear energy, we might be further along in development of nuclear powered propulsion systems. But it's difficult to research these things when nuclear power is so taboo.
Don't get me wrong. I agree that safety should come first and we need to implement nuclear power in the safest way possible and with thoughts about what we're going to do with the nuclear waste. But I don't believe that concerns about nuclear energy should be allowed to completely paralyze us as a species in this regard.

It would not work either because all humanity has come up with so far to use nuclear power is to heat up water for ordinary steam machines that in their turn power dynamo's.

Were it not for the "nuclear" aspect those power plants are old fashion and outdated.
...which is why more research is needed.


As for the waste, it is now being used to drop on 3rd world countries and oil rich nations, it is also more and more being used in places where people suffer from the radiation, like as ballast in air planes etc. If you believe the high doses of radiation you absorb with an intercontinental flight is because of the elevation you are only partially correct.
Some humans are always going to be ugly. But we should punish those humans, rather than punish all of humanity because we're too scared to use nuclear power.
Maybe ALL humans aren't ready for the nuclear age, but I believe some of us are. Some of us can be trusted with it's use. Some of us can't. The same can be said for guns, cars, heavy machinery, tools of any kind, etc.

Ferre
28-03-2011, 07:57 PM
Did you ever do any research on nuclear energy Zap? And did you do this for hydrogen and compared the two?

Nuclear is not the future Zap. It is already outdated. There are better and cleaner alternatives.

Ferre
28-03-2011, 08:00 PM
Look what it does in cars;

4AUurBnLbJw

Strong
29-03-2011, 07:21 AM
The Americans seriously considered making a nuclear powered rocket that could take people to the moon and beyond. They researched it extensively and performed experiments, but eventually gave up on the idea.

In effect what they planned was to cover the bottom of the rocket ship with a very thick metal plate and drop small nuclear bombs behind the plate, on exploding the ship would be propelled forward, the metal plate aiding this and also protecting the ship. Of course an amount of the metal plate would be lost each time. I can't remember exactly how many bombs would be required, but I think it was sixty to achieve orbit.

The net effect would have been to spread radiation throughout the atmosphere.

Anit-matter seems the way to go in terms of space exploration.

I voted no above, but I don't see the alternatives in the short term, so I suspect, even after Japan, that nuclear power will be with us. James Lovelock seems to be of the opinion that we have no alternative but nuclear. Isn't that ironic.

Ferre
29-03-2011, 09:51 AM
We do have an alternative; Hydrogen fuel cells.

No radiation - no pollution - unlimited resource.

Don't forget that there is even less uranium than oil on this planet, at one point it will become difficult to maintain the flow of material needed for nuclear power plants and nuclear waste will be piling up all around the planet waiting for a spill to happen because no concrete or metal used to conceal all that nuclear waste is going to live as long as the waste itself.

The concrete used to conceal plutonium waste does not have a half life of 230000 years as the waste does.

My beef is with the nuclear waste. It is plain stupid the way this whole problem is handled and we are setting future generations up for many more nuclear disasters to come. You think Chernobil was bad? Or Fukushima? You have seen nothing yet, our grand-children's children will get bombarded with a cocktail of alpha, beta and Gamma rays humanity has never seen before once all those waste breaks loose from its deteriorating concealments all over the world and on the ocean floor.

But we will not be around any more so its all A-OK. ;)

Zap
29-03-2011, 09:58 AM
Did you ever do any research on nuclear energy Zap? And did you do this for hydrogen and compared the two?

Nuclear is not the future Zap. It is already outdated. There are better and cleaner alternatives.

Unlike most of the anti-nuclear proponents, you actually bring alternatives to the table for consideration.

Strong
31-03-2011, 11:33 AM
Erm ... can I just point out that at the Fukushima plant there are actually 6 reactors, 4 of which are damaged and will be decommissioned, one that I don't know about and a 6th which has suffered no damage. The four damaged reactors are based on designs from the 60s, the latter reactor was designed in the 80s I believe.

It is easy to overreact in these situations, but perhaps we should re-examine the issue when things have cooled down a tad. :sqwink:

Ferre
31-03-2011, 05:58 PM
I have been against nuclear power since the 70's for the same reason I am against it today. No Chernobil, Fukushima or any other nuclear disaster has anything to do with that reason, that reason is the waste.

One can modernise and secure power plants as much as they like but there is no way on earth to secure the waste, and that waste IS going to end up causing massive problems (read;cancer/birth deficits, messed up gene pool, etc.) for our future generations and that is just not worth it.

It is already causing massive problems in all the places where the waste is dumped in the shape of depleted uranium.

For anyone who isn't chemically in the know; "depleted" uranium does not mean it is harmless, it is still uranium but it is not suited for nuclear reactors. Do not let the word "depleted" fool you, it is double-speak. That shit is still radiating high doses of radiation.

Strong
01-04-2011, 11:43 AM
I'm with ya, I'm with ya dude. The waste is most definitely a problem.

Of course uranium is a naturally occurring element is it not and there is nigh on 7 billion of us on the planet now. If you are going to play in the mud, you are going to get muddy, just don't swim in the seas around Japan currently, you might grow an extra eye or something. And that brings up an important point, where are all the mutants gonna come from if we don't go down the nuclear road, the Japanese and the Russians have taken bold steps but damn it I want xray vision too!

There are many possible solutions to our energy needs, fusion for instance, via ITER (http://www.iter.org/). The problem is will we get there in time? I'm hoping yes, but I fear no. The oil, water problems that we face may lead to global conflict and we may not reach the promise of limitless energy. I see nuclear as a stop gap and renewables as possible limited sources that can be used in certain areas.

ewomack
05-04-2011, 07:43 PM
I wish we'd realize that as a species we've reached critical mass, put the brakes on and keep things steady for a while until we have a decent non-self-destructive plan. This growth-at-all-costs nonsense will definitely do us all in especially if we fuel it dangerously - and nuke power seems more and more risky following every incident. Let's just relax for a while and spend some time grinding up safe long term power solutions. I'd rather take a lifestyle hit than find myself downwind from the next Chernobyl.

Strong
06-04-2011, 06:47 AM
Critical mass is the operational phrase here.

I believe we passed the time to chill and do nothing. Greater population, greater demands for food, water, land, raw materials ... There is only so much we can take from the planet. If we don't rebalance our ways, nature will.

Zap
06-04-2011, 06:48 AM
If we don't rebalance our ways, nature will....

provide?

Strong
06-04-2011, 06:55 AM
Do the rebalancing. She has many times before, and she ain't sentimental about it. Mass extinction is just one of her many gardening tools.

Zap
06-04-2011, 06:58 AM
Do the rebalancing. She has many times before, and she ain't sentimental about it. Mass extinction is just one of her many gardening tools.

Look at the bright side.

We're going to become a lot more oil for some future species in millions of years.

Strong
06-04-2011, 07:15 AM
Slight tangent, but apparently they can make plastics out of chicken feathers. Who would of thunk that? (Well I guess some smart arse scientist, but ...)

Ferre
06-04-2011, 11:06 AM
Slight tangent, but apparently they can make plastics out of chicken feathers. Who would of thunk that? (Well I guess some smart arse scientist, but ...)

We can make plastics from anything that contains cellulose. There is technically no need whatsoever to be making it from fossil oil, in fact there are much cheaper and sustainable sources at hand and cellulose based plastics are biodegradable.

A win-win situation for mankind and the environment.

So why are we not using them? Because it is not a win-win situation for the oil and chemical industries and they spend big $$ on political lobby.

Strong
07-04-2011, 04:13 AM
That's a hell of a secret they've been keeping from me, I thought all plastics came from the petroleum industry. Thanks for letting us in on that one Ferre!

So is it possible to make all plastics from non-petroleum based products? I guess some plastics you don't want to bio-degrade, so can non-petroleum plastics be made not to bio-degrade? What I'm trying to understand is whether any kinds of plastics need to be made from oil? :sqconfused:

Strong
07-04-2011, 04:25 AM
This is a interesting article that puts Fukushima into some sort of perspective:

Fear of nuclear power is out of all proportion to the actual risks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/04/fear-nuclear-power-fukushima-risks)


Pollution from coal-fired power plants is responsible for more than 100,000 deaths per year, whereas the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant is unlikely to kill a single person


In fact, the disaster shows how safe nuclear reactors actually are. Reactors designed half a century ago survived an earthquake many times stronger than they were designed to withstand, immediately going into shut-down (bringing driven nuclear reactions to a halt). But the radioactive products in the reactor keep decaying, producing heat, so they must be cooled.


Compared with other sources of energy, nuclear power is one of the safest. We worry about radiation but are happy to accept air pollution from fossil fuels. Coal-related air pollution from power plants is globally responsible for more than 100,000 deaths per year. The World Health Organisation estimates that indoor air pollution from biomass and coal causes 1.5m premature deaths per year.

Ferre
07-04-2011, 11:23 AM
..., whereas the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant is unlikely to kill a single person

That's where the writer of the article loses all credibility.

Have you ever heard the name Vladimir Shevchenko Strong? If not, watch this;


NkjAAzkrXSA

Ferre
08-04-2011, 11:13 AM
This is the reality of today Strong;

The world can be powered by alternative energy in 20-40 years, Stanford researcher says (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html)


A new study – co-authored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson and UC-Davis researcher Mark A. Delucchi – analyzing what is needed to convert the world's energy supplies to clean and sustainable sources says that it can be done with today's technology at costs roughly comparable to conventional energy. But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.

As I said, considering the waste problem there is no reason whatsoever to be busy with nuclear energy.

Strong
08-04-2011, 01:06 PM
Damn you are a hard task master Ferre, I've got to do more research!?! :sqwink:

I'll get back to you on this one!

ewomack
13-04-2011, 06:33 PM
Compared with other sources of energy, nuclear power is one of the safest. We worry about radiation but are happy to accept air pollution from fossil fuels. Coal-related air pollution from power plants is globally responsible for more than 100,000 deaths per year. The World Health Organisation estimates that indoor air pollution from biomass and coal causes 1.5m premature deaths per year.

This is a strange quote... shouldn't we be looking for energy sources that cause no deaths rather than tallying which ones are higher or lower? Arguing that fewer people would die from nuclear power accidents or spillover incidents merely says it's "less deadly" than coal or oil based energy. And who knows if that's true? Coal and oil based energy are now supersaturated in our environment. Who knows how many would die if nuclear held the same percentage of our energy base? We simply don't know, but I doubt it's ultimately "safer" - the incidents would likely come in larger but less frequent chunks.

vectro
14-04-2011, 12:39 AM
Google has tested this and powered part of a datacenter with it. Colin Powell has also tested it. There are some bugs and glitches, but overall it seems promising. It is developed by a former Nasa scientist. Originally, this was supposed to produce Oxyen on Mars, an idea which was eventually scrapped by Nasa. The idea was "reversed" the take in oxyen instead of expelling it. The designer claims the device converts oxygen to energy and does so cleanly.

Businesses will get wise and generate clean energy when it's profitable, which it will be as the topic picks up steam. Much research is already being done by businesses. It's only a matter of time. In fact, clean energy could be one of the big drivers of economic growth since it's a "new industry". I still fear, like some of you, we might be past the point of no return. People will still fight, though.

The Bloom Box Clean Energy, the Green Solution? | TodayNewsline.com (http://todaynewsline.com/the-bloom-box-clean-energy-the-green-solution/223471/)

khK_QTWl5Nc

Strong
16-04-2011, 12:01 PM
This is the reality of today Strong;

The world can be powered by alternative energy in 20-40 years, Stanford researcher says (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html)



As I said, considering the waste problem there is no reason whatsoever to be busy with nuclear energy.


This is a strange quote... shouldn't we be looking for energy sources that cause no deaths rather than tallying which ones are higher or lower? Arguing that fewer people would die from nuclear power accidents or spillover incidents merely says it's "less deadly" than coal or oil based energy. And who knows if that's true? Coal and oil based energy are now supersaturated in our environment. Who knows how many would die if nuclear held the same percentage of our energy base? We simply don't know, but I doubt it's ultimately "safer" - the incidents would likely come in larger but less frequent chunks.

I like yous twos thinking, heck yes. Hell I'm even willing to risk it. But I do think it is a risk. The best of the new are solar, wind and wave, but they are relatively untested, and expensive. Photovoltaic cells still do not last that long, by the time they have paid for themselves they need to be replaced. Wind and solar cannot produce reliable quantities on demand. Wave is relatively untried. Let's not even start thinking about hydrogen, fusion and the other neo-news.

While I hear what you say about nuclear, it is here and it works, take France for instance, (please take France!). The cost of conversion to just these technologies, in the hope they will prove to be the panacea to fossil fuels and climate change is a huge risk. My preference, and perhaps common sense would imply, a mixed energy solution, including nuclear, until fusion comes on-line in or around 2050, (yeah I know, that's a bet too).

Killers (http://www.jdemirdjian.com/pages/killers.htm)

Most deaths while sitting on the toilet occurred from attempts to forcibly push out the contents of the bowels while keeping the nose and the mouth closed. The barometric pressure in the lungs can get out of balance causing the compressions that pump blood through the heart to malfunction. 1,213 die from complications caused by aggressive pushing during toilet time each year.
Are we going to phase out toilets too? :sqeek:

Ferre
16-04-2011, 12:33 PM
I like yous twos thinking, heck yes. Hell I'm even willing to risk it. But I do think it is a risk. The best of the new are solar, wind and wave, but they are relatively untested, and expensive. Photovoltaic cells still do not last that long, by the time they have paid for themselves they need to be replaced. Wind and solar cannot produce reliable quantities on demand. Wave is relatively untried. Let's not even start thinking about hydrogen, fusion and the other neo-news.

Strong, the available science proves you wrong in the belief alternative sources cannot replace nuclear energy today, as shown in the link I provided to a report from Stanford researchers, so why are you so persistent to support it?

Don't you think we should not create a nuclear waste problem for the future and avoid even one nuclear disaster like Chernobyl and now Fukushima?

Don't you see our energy demand today is just not worth the cost for living species and the environment for literally thousands of years to come?

Strong
16-04-2011, 02:26 PM
Of course I think if we could avoid nuclear we should. But betting the future on one research project is not good enough, there is too much at stake. It's too much like putting all your vernal equinox ovoids (eggs) into one basket. If you are going to bet on the future, you need to spread that bet to increase your chances.

I'm too thick to evaluate the Stanford research, hence until there is more research pointing at the same result I can only treat it as an interesting, but freak result. When a sufficiently large enough sample size shows that the Stanford research was not an anomaly I'll change my view, until then I'm hanging on to my scepticism. I may be a crap scientist, but the scientific method is sound enough to rely on. :sqwink:

Muddy
20-04-2011, 11:19 AM
TMXvpWoHzeE

Strong
20-04-2011, 01:10 PM
Helen Caldicott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Caldicott)

I'd like an unbiased opinion for comparison.

Ferre
21-04-2011, 11:13 AM
Facts always have a bias one way or the other Strong.

Fact is that nuclear power is a way to heat up water which costs does not add up to the benefits.

All we ever managed to do with nuclear "power" in almost a century of exploitation is to heat up water. Think about it.

Strong
22-04-2011, 10:38 AM
Erm, ....

Facts in their raw form are not biased. But disentangling Helen Coldicott's opinions from fact, well I'm not sure I could from Muddy's link. I don't know enough about the science to do that, hence my need for more unbiased, less opinionated details. From what little I've heard about the disaster in Japan, it sounds as though she has extrapolated a worst case scenario and presented that as fact.

For instance, she says that all farm land in the UK is contaminated by Chernobyl, to the point that no one is buying farms. Where does she get that from? When she throws in nonsense like that, how am I suppose to take anything else she says seriously?

BTW, I agree, dumbest way I could think of to warm water up. (But then again there ain't many ways to warm water up is there, burn fossil fuels, no, so again we are comparing solar, wind and wave, with nuclear. And again, you think they are enough, and I think a mixed energy solution is required.)

Zap
22-04-2011, 12:38 PM
I'll tell you one thing solar and wind have over nuclear.
Your average Joe can put them to use in his own backyard.
Not so much with nuclear.

Strong
23-04-2011, 02:40 AM
That raises an interesting point Zap. How has your wind turbine worked out?

ewomack
23-04-2011, 09:23 AM
Facts in their raw form are not biased.

I'm not sure what that means. What is the "raw form" of a fact?

Strong
23-04-2011, 02:55 PM
Raw Facts; two inches of rain today.

Raw Facts plus interpretation; the overly dry and warm spell in London for April was broken today with two inches of rain, which is not generally unexpected for an April in London.

Raw facts plus spin; after London witnessed two inches of rain today, Helen Coldicott stated that she would not buy property in the Capital because the sky was falling down and Britain would be swept underneath a new sheet of ice, heralding the start of a new ice age for Europe.

Raw facts; prosaic facts, no embellishments, no spin, any opinion/interpretation should be clear to see.

I added the word 'raw' in front of facts to emphasis the desire for a lack of embellishment and spin. My bad, sorry, I'm verbose, what can I NOT say. Poetry is in my bones, I try to stifle it's expression but thoughts of Kylie in hot pants keep invading my mind. Who could avoid poetry at such times. :3unsure:

Ferre
23-04-2011, 06:01 PM
Raw fact; radiation kills. - A little bit of it kills slowly, a lot of it kills fast.

Ferre
23-04-2011, 06:04 PM
BTW Strong, I just remembered that you are a rather fanatic advocate against smoking (tobacco), no?

Strong
24-04-2011, 08:30 AM
BTW Strong, I just remembered that you are a rather fanatic advocate against smoking (tobacco), no?

Fanatic, me, nah. Fantastic perhaps :sqwink:

I take it you are referring to the smoking thread at that other place that must not be mentioned. My point there, I think, was that people, individuals, are free to do what they want, even if that be smoking themselves to death. BUT governments should not allow tobacco companies to peddle a poisonous drug with impunity. If any food stuff or medicine caused the number of deaths that cigarette smoking does, it would be banned, but because governments earn so much in taxes from the industry it allows them to continue peddling death. (Now that smoking is on the decline in the West, these companies are switching their sales to third world countries to make up the losses. Evil upon evil.)

I guess it is a fair enough comparison to make and an interesting point to pull me up on. So, how many people have died as a direct result of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island? And let's compare that with the number of deaths from smoking, say from just 2010.

The way to change my mind about this discussion about nuclear power, is to prove that renewable energy technology is capable of providing us with all the energy we need now. I don't believe that the technology is sufficiently developed enough for us to rely entirely on it at present. It is too much like putting all your eggs into one basket.

And with that I'd like to wish you and indeed everyone at BTWIMHO a Happy Festivus!

Ferre
24-04-2011, 07:08 PM
Strong, I fail to see why a comparison for the numbers of death caused by tobacco vs nuclear energy could be of any kind of valid way to judge nuclear power as it is.

Every death is one too many for boiling frikkin water.

The death toll for Chernobyl is estimated to be 9,300 according to the UN health agency, add all the rest of the damage up to that and tell me if that is a cost worth boiling water for.

Second, you make no sense when you want me to prove that renewable energy can replace nuclear power, that is not a serious question, of course that's possible, That report I mentioned said it was possible to replace "ALL" conventional power by renewable within 20 - to - 40 years, nuclear power is only used for less than 10% of the world's energy, of course we have alternatives for that, the problem is not that 10%, the problem is to replace all fossil based energy sources with renewable ones.

The only reason why nuclear power is used is because it is supposed to be "cheap", and most power generated by nuclear power does not go to households, it is sold as industrial power for cheap to industries.

The human costs are never calculated in the cheap running costs for nuclear power plants, that makes it cheap.

Here, some reading; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/chernobyls-poisonous-legacy-25-years-on-2274070.html

Zap
25-04-2011, 07:18 AM
That raises an interesting point Zap. How has your wind turbine worked out?

Too many other, more pressing, projects to deal with.
But, I still have the raw materials, the tower to mount to has been built and the desire.
I just need the time and I have to rework the design for the turbine. The existing design is seriously flawed. The blades keep falling off and even when they are all firmly attached, I'm not getting anywhere near enough RPM to generate any meaningful power. It's back to the drawing board for me, when time permits, of course.

I can say with certainty that it won't be for quite a while.

Currently on the horizon...

Our mortgage is due for renewal at the end of July.
Before then, I have to put in a floor in the basement (already purchased), cabinets in the basement (already purchased), cabinets in the main floor kitchen (already purchased), baseboards in the basement.
After that, then I am ready to deal with the mortgage renewal. (They will appraise the house as part of the process, so that work needs to be done.)
Then, I have to build a roof over the back yard patio. That needs to be completed before the end of the summer. The purpose is to keep the water away from the sides of the house. The only side of the house that is exposed to the weather to any degree is the back yard.

I certainly have my work cut out for me.

Strong
25-04-2011, 07:19 AM
Strong, I fail to see why a comparison for the numbers of death caused by tobacco vs nuclear energy could be of any kind of valid way to judge nuclear power as it is.
...

Oh! Sorry, my mistake. :3unsure:

I guess I have no idea why you brought the smoking thing up then :sqconfused:

BTW Strong, I just remembered that you are a rather fanatic advocate against smoking (tobacco), no?

Was it just a personal dig at me for not agree whole heartedly with you? :sqconfused:

Strong
25-04-2011, 07:24 AM
Too many other, more pressing, projects to deal with.
But, I still have the raw materials, the tower to mount to has been built and the desire.
I just need the time and I have to rework the design for the turbine. The existing design is seriously flawed. The blades keep falling off and even when they are all firmly attached, I'm not getting anywhere near enough RPM to generate any meaningful power. It's back to the drawing board for me, when time permits, of course.

I can say with certainty that it won't be for quite a while.

Currently on the horizon...

Our mortgage is due for renewal at the end of July.
Before then, I have to put in a floor in the basement (already purchased), cabinets in the basement (already purchased), cabinets in the main floor kitchen (already purchased), baseboards in the basement.
After that, then I am ready to deal with the mortgage renewal. (They will appraise the house as part of the process, so that work needs to be done.)
Then, I have to build a roof over the back yard patio. That needs to be completed before the end of the summer. The purpose is to keep the water away from the sides of the house. The only side of the house that is exposed to the weather to any degree is the back yard.

I certainly have my work cut out for me.

Ah! Sorry to bring it up. I thought you had it up and running for some reason. It would have been good to have your personal experience of running it for a while with regards to the whole renewable energy discussion.

From what I gather many people install personal wind turbines at home but find that it falls short of their expectations.

No rush dude, I don't think this debate is going to be resolved for some time yet. :sqerr:

Zap
25-04-2011, 07:54 AM
Ah! Sorry to bring it up. I thought you had it up and running for some reason. It would have been good to have your personal experience of running it for a while with regards to the whole renewable energy discussion.

From what I gather many people install personal wind turbines at home but find that it falls short of their expectations.

No rush dude, I don't think this debate is going to be resolved for some time yet. :sqerr:

It's still on the list.
It's just that the list grew and a lot of things are ahead of it.
I am trying to remain realistic, too. If I can get the turbine working optimally, I am expecting to produce (maybe) 10% of my electricity with it.
(And that's on really windy days when the thing is spinning full speed)

I have a really good design in mind that I think will work. I just have to find a place to buy the turbine.
I will try to convert one of those rotating signs.

YpUnowCw3GA

dwOYZw2WhXk

kendrick
27-04-2011, 01:33 AM
I am not sure if Nuclear Power Plant is good or bad for people. I'd say good because it creates electricity and filled the needed power for a particular place but when it goes wrong or if there is an problem on the plant many people will be at risk and suffer from diseases such as radiation contamination and cancer.

Ferre
27-04-2011, 05:55 AM
Is it worth it?

http://i.imgur.com/WPuhC.jpg

Zap
27-04-2011, 06:38 AM
Pretty powerful picture, there, Ferre.

Ferre
27-04-2011, 04:14 PM
Yeah. The reality of nuclear power. Thousands of years from now, long after the last bit of uranium has been used to heat up water for our generation's "cheap" energy that town, and many others like that all over this planet, will still be uninhabitable.

Think about all those families, all those lives, all those deformed babies for generations to come, some people can not imagine what is it like for those who lived in those area's, I can, and for me personally that's not worth it.

Ferre
07-05-2011, 06:20 AM
http://i.imgur.com/HJWWL.jpg

Halo
22-05-2011, 03:01 PM
My brother had to write a little talk for his uni nightclass and chose 'nuclear' as a topic. It was too large a subject for such a short time, and he chose another he knew far more about off the top of his head: Philip K.Dick.

It was when the Fukushima plant was kicking off that he was researching the subject. Even though it was more about nuclear as a power source, every time I hear the word, the picture that best illustrates it in my head is a mushroom cloud.

Of course it can be used for good but the human capacity for stupidity might screw us all up before. Are we like apes with a weapon?
http://www.btwimho.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1811&stc=1&d=1306093983


Two quotes from a voice of reason, Carl Sagan:

Imagine, a room, awash in gasoline. And there are two implacable enemies in that room. One of them has 9,000 matches. The other has 7,000 matches. Each of them is concerned about who’s ahead, who’s stronger. Well, that's the kind of situation we are actually in.

If we do not destroy ourselves, I believe we will one day venture to the stars.


Here is Brian Cox investigating an alternative to the energy problem, fusion:
DyB7Ho_W9RE


...and Professor Sagan on the possibility of unlimited energy:
PGE-WRqgPRE

Strong
23-05-2011, 07:04 AM
There are in fact a number of fusion projects currently in development, not just using lasers. I suspect it is only a matter of time before one succeeds in proving it is possible. That's when the world really becomes interesting.


BTW: Renewables can fuel society, say world climate advisers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13337864)


Renewable technologies could supply 80% of the world's energy needs by mid-century, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

According to the IPCC 20% is missing from the renewables only solution, which contradicts that Stanford research project.

Atom
27-10-2011, 01:27 AM
"Nuclear power a good idea?"

Certainly not.


Just think..

human procreation used to be a good idea.

Atom
08-11-2011, 11:54 PM
Radioactive wolves have overtaken Chernobyl, it's official.

Atom
08-11-2011, 11:59 PM
I suspect they'll simply develop a plutonium tolerant gene in due time.

Atom
09-11-2011, 12:54 PM
Nuclear power a good idea, sure, don't let that half-life bother you.

Halo
20-01-2012, 04:18 PM
From father to Japan to son. Kevin Blanch.


-3yH6myrlYc
LkLO4llXx8k


Fuckushima
c2TW5w6XLjM
tZC749Gcjtw

Needing surgery. Exposure to radiation.
y8mvKSb1pxk

qJzi2_Iq824
TUbkDtM1Hj0