Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: BrownTown
See, the problem with you Moonbeam is that you clearly are not understanding what people here are actually supporting. Everyone here would choose solar power if it actually did half the cr@p you stuff you think it can, the problem is that you will not accept the fact that this is not reality. In fact it isn't even even close, solar isn't just a little more expensive or something like that, its an order of magnitude more expensive. Even 100% efficient solar panels would be much more expensive than nuclear power, not to mention they would require fossil fuel backup for when the sun don't shine, and huge areas of land. People don't support nuclear because they think it is perfect, they support it because its the best REAL power source there is.
They support it out of ignorance and arrogance. You do not create toxins that last thousands of years because you are in a hurry today. You have no right to leave that kind of sh!t behind. You also fail to address the fact that the waste we have made has never been cleaned up. You talk about technical impracticalities as if the ones on your end were not much worse. You can not see thousands of years in the future or what will become of all the waste we produce. It's a disaster waiting to happen now, no need to make it worse. The wisdom of ordinary people will stop you I hope. You are a nuclear engineer, please don't pretend to be rational. You have money riding on this issue and career opportunities. If the government subsidized solar like they do nuclear we would long ago have been on our way. 10 mi by 10 mi is what we need for solar if i remember correctly.
You see what you have put above is what I attribute to you.
The waste we've made today CAN be cleaned up. Much of it can be re-used as fuel leaving waste that is only dangerous for a few hundred years instead of thousands. Fears such as yours is what keeps us on the path of ever rising CO2 emissions.
In your ignorance and fear you'd condem us to dump 3.5 metric tons of CO2 and other hazardous wastes into the air to save ONE gram of nuclear waste.
While I respect your opinion on numerous other issues on this one it is YOU who doesn't realize how to clean up the sty we live in.
The pyramids were almost entirely looted a thousand years ago. You have no idea what will happen in the next ten thousand years. A small comet could spread Yucca mountain all over the globe. And over and over you fail to see that we have not cleaned up the mess we have already made. Only a joker talks about tomorrow when he hasn't taken care of his past. You can hear the same delusional thinking at any parole hearing. Yes your honor, I have learned my lesson. Send it into space. Hahahaha.......Listen to yourself, you're stock raving mad.Originally posted by: BrownTown
The thing is that there is a way to get rid of the nuclear waste, you just bury it in a safe place and it stays there. Think for example of the pyramids, built thousands of years ago and yet still structurally sound, if nuclear waste has be interned inside the pyramid it would never have gotten out in all these years. WE have the technology EASILY available to us to store nuclear waste for at least ten thousand years with a high probability. Now, the general feeling goes that you likely will not even have to wait nearly so long. In the future there will likely be a way to send the waste into space, or to transmute it into something less harmful. Lets not forget that there are a hundred other equally deadly chemicals out there which will still be deadly thousands of years from now (liek mercury released from coal plants, or arsenic in semiconductors - *maybe* even solar panels EDIT: confirmed). Currently some of the mercury is released into the and the rest of the nasty stuff is stored in settling ponds. Computer parts as well are specifically quarentned and stored in special areas to contain their toxins. Now, you may not support these practices either (and 100 others like them), but the point is that nuclear waste only gets such a bad name because of a relationship to nuclear bombs..
Originally posted by: Cabages
The French cool their rods in water for ~5 years and re-use them.
Could we not do this?
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Moonbeam has obviously made up his mind.
I hope youve already spent thousands on solar panels in your home, made from blueberries, that can power a steel mill for free with their magic rainbows of solar energy...
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Enough to send solar to Apollo priority. A trillion for Iraq for what? And you look at me as though I lacked seriousness. Solar could already have been a done deal with intelligent will.
This is something I see alot where people are saying we need an "Apollo like" effort to develop some new technology. And of course it is true, with that type of funding and mandate ANY technology (nuclear, solar, whatever) will get considerably better. However, you cannot simply develop around the laws of physics, and the problem is that there are many fundamental problems with solar power that will severely limit its use. Also, the same amount of money spent on nuclear power could much more easily solve the problems. Heck, money isn't even the biggest issue, the real problem is political will. If politicians just approve Yucca mountain then we sill be able to store the waste for thousands of years safely and you biggest objection will be solved. Also, on the money aspect, that could be used to subsidies breeder reactors (the technology is already there, its simply the price keeping it down), as well as reprocessing (which is also political will). Also, concerning using the money wasted in Iraq, I'm pretty sure you will find that more or less nobody here actually supports the war in Iraq, so again I personally would love to have seen the money go towards energy independence. Even if it all went to solar, thats a much better use than spending a trillion dollars jsut to piss half the world off.
EDIT: as for solar, I am still not very sure that photovoltaic is the way to go, the complexity of this process and the costs involved (not to mention hazardous chemicals) are considerable. I like the idea of concentrated solar heating much better where mirrors focus the light onto a small point in order to generate heat for a much more conventional power plant process.
You will be glad to know that solar panels are being developed with blueberries, the kind that grow and are good to eat. Lots of work going on in multiple directions in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. Big fab facilities are being built to roll off thin film flexible materials endlessly. Work goes on to incorporate such ideas into the external building materials like roofing and siding tiles themselves.
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: BrownTown
See, the problem with you Moonbeam is that you clearly are not understanding what people here are actually supporting. Everyone here would choose solar power if it actually did half the cr@p you stuff you think it can, the problem is that you will not accept the fact that this is not reality. In fact it isn't even even close, solar isn't just a little more expensive or something like that, its an order of magnitude more expensive. Even 100% efficient solar panels would be much more expensive than nuclear power, not to mention they would require fossil fuel backup for when the sun don't shine, and huge areas of land. People don't support nuclear because they think it is perfect, they support it because its the best REAL power source there is.
They support it out of ignorance and arrogance. You do not create toxins that last thousands of years because you are in a hurry today. You have no right to leave that kind of sh!t behind. You also fail to address the fact that the waste we have made has never been cleaned up. You talk about technical impracticalities as if the ones on your end were not much worse. You can not see thousands of years in the future or what will become of all the waste we produce. It's a disaster waiting to happen now, no need to make it worse. The wisdom of ordinary people will stop you I hope. You are a nuclear engineer, please don't pretend to be rational. You have money riding on this issue and career opportunities. If the government subsidized solar like they do nuclear we would long ago have been on our way. 10 mi by 10 mi is what we need for solar if i remember correctly.
You see what you have put above is what I attribute to you.
The waste we've made today CAN be cleaned up. Much of it can be re-used as fuel leaving waste that is only dangerous for a few hundred years instead of thousands. Fears such as yours is what keeps us on the path of ever rising CO2 emissions.
In your ignorance and fear you'd condem us to dump 3.5 metric tons of CO2 and other hazardous wastes into the air to save ONE gram of nuclear waste.
While I respect your opinion on numerous other issues on this one it is YOU who doesn't realize how to clean up the sty we live in.
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Look man, the nuclear industry wants desperately for Yucca mountain to be opened, many companies are in fact suing the DOE to this effect, but its the GOVERNMENT that won't allow nuclear waste to be managed, not the nuclear industry. I hardly think you can blame an industry for not doing the right thing when the government has made it illegal.
Originally posted by: B00ne
Well, you can be against nuclear power, but being for it wont make it a universal power source either. For one there aint enough fuel to make nuclear power the sole replacement for other base electricity generation platnts, Then nuclear aint that clean either - you forget the kind of water usage chemicals, energy and last but not leat radioactive waste that is generated in recycleing the fuel.
And do not forget nuclear can only be used for base load energy - you cant ramp up and down the enrgy production as the need arises - and energy demand does chnage constantly.
All in all nuclear aint as bad as some ppl make it out to be but is aint as good as other do either. And there is a reason why even most electricty giants rarely consider building new plants - prolonging the life of existing ones is another matter - those are cash cows
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This train is bound for glory, well this train...
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This train is bound for glory, well this train...
What do you think these links show?
l'm honestly curious.
Originally posted by: Cabages
The French cool their rods in water for ~5 years and re-use them.
Could we not do this?
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: B00ne
Well, you can be against nuclear power, but being for it wont make it a universal power source either. For one there aint enough fuel to make nuclear power the sole replacement for other base electricity generation platnts, Then nuclear aint that clean either - you forget the kind of water usage chemicals, energy and last but not leat radioactive waste that is generated in recycleing the fuel.
And do not forget nuclear can only be used for base load energy - you cant ramp up and down the enrgy production as the need arises - and energy demand does chnage constantly.
All in all nuclear aint as bad as some ppl make it out to be but is aint as good as other do either. And there is a reason why even most electricty giants rarely consider building new plants - prolonging the life of existing ones is another matter - those are cash cows
Nuclear power combined with solar is actually a pretty decent solution. The highest energy demand tends to be during the daylight hours, so solar could make up a lot of the usage gap above the base load generated by nuclear power.