Nuclear power...

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: k1pp3r


You do know that the chance of a atomic plant blowing up like an atom bomb is nonexistanted, meaning there is not chance, at all,

Famous last words.

ok, show me any scientific paper that supports that statement, you will not find one

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Much like fusion power, tidal power is unproven technology. Wind is also expensive and simply cant crank out enough energy to meet american demand.

Another major issue with wind is that you can run into situations where you suddenly don't have wind in an area, which can be the same time you're looking at it being cloudy or dark in the area as well, which put real limits on how much of your energy supplies can effectively rely upon wind and solar.

Solar and wind are just part of the picture, tidal is the big thing to supplement that you nuke folks endlessly ignore.

Also there are new options which need to be explored, not just give in to profiteering BS ffom nuke companies.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Much like fusion power, tidal power is unproven technology. Wind is also expensive and simply cant crank out enough energy to meet american demand.

Another major issue with wind is that you can run into situations where you suddenly don't have wind in an area, which can be the same time you're looking at it being cloudy or dark in the area as well, which put real limits on how much of your energy supplies can effectively rely upon wind and solar.

Solar and wind are just part of the picture, tidal is the big thing to supplement that you nuke folks endlessly ignore.

Also there are new options which need to be explored, not just give in to profiteering BS ffom nuke companies.

Research away, tital is still in research, its not proven, you want to build infastructur on research technology, thats not the way things are done, sorry

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: k1pp3r


You do know that the chance of a atomic plant blowing up like an atom bomb is nonexistanted, meaning there is not chance, at all,

Famous last words.

Uh, ITS UTTERLY FRIGGING PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

An atomic bomb requires far more heavily enriched uranium or plutonium to be placed precisely together in certain patterns in order to create the conditions for a nuclear explosion. You also need the explosives surrounding the nuclear weapon to be placed in specific locations and detonate in a precise order to set off a nuke. Its actually rather complicated and difficult to successfully engineer a nuclear detonation. There is literally no possible scenario in which ANY nuclear reactor design can actually create a nuclear explosion. You should research this and correct your GROSS ignorance on the subject before continuing to apparently oppose nuclear power without even understanding some of the basics on the subject.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: k1pp3r


You do know that the chance of a atomic plant blowing up like an atom bomb is nonexistanted, meaning there is not chance, at all,

Famous last words.

ok, show me any scientific paper that supports that statement, you will not find one

It's not so much it just going boom randomly like old ones, it's just more targets for trouble and more fissionable material proliferating to get into the wrong hands.

I am sure there is a way to detonate a plant if it was seized by outside elements even if it means moving the fuel from inside the reactor during a standoff.

Industrial sabotage is a concern also.

Also saying something is not possible when it comes to humans running anything (or computers) is laughable, like I said, famous last words, I am not willing to bet my life on you buying into some BS from a company trying to make a quick buck peddling old technology while the rest of the world moves on.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Solar and wind are just part of the picture, tidal is the big thing to supplement that you nuke folks endlessly ignore.

Besides being merely in the research stage, what about all the inland area well away from the ocean?

Its not exactly effective to power say Denver with tidal power.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: k1pp3r


You do know that the chance of a atomic plant blowing up like an atom bomb is nonexistanted, meaning there is not chance, at all,

Famous last words.

ok, show me any scientific paper that supports that statement, you will not find one

It's not so much it just going boom randomly like old ones, it's just more targets for trouble and more fissionable material proliferating to get into the wrong hands.

I am sure there is a way to detonate a plant if it was seized by outside elements even if it means moving the fuel from inside the reactor during a standoff.

Industrial sabotage is a concern also.

Also saying something is not possible when it comes to humans running anything (or computers) is laughable, like I said, famous last words, I am not willing to bet my life on you buying into some BS from a company trying to make a quick buck peddling old technology while the rest of the world move on.

Umm, no, you have to enrich the fuel to like 97%, far far above, and much much harder than what a reactor uses, you need to do some reading.

Edit, and the old ones didn't go boom, they melted down and the russian accident blew apart because of an excess build up of steam, thats it, not nuclear explosion existed

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: k1pp3r


You do know that the chance of a atomic plant blowing up like an atom bomb is nonexistanted, meaning there is not chance, at all,

Famous last words.

ok, show me any scientific paper that supports that statement, you will not find one

It's not so much it just going boom randomly like old ones, it's just more targets for trouble and more fissionable material proliferating to get into the wrong hands.

I am sure there is a way to detonate a plant if it was seized by outside elements even if it means moving the fuel from inside the reactor during a standoff.

Industrial sabotage is a concern also.

Also saying something is not possible when it comes to humans running anything (or computers) is laughable, like I said, famous last words, I am not willing to bet my life on you buying into some BS from a company trying to make a quick buck peddling old technology while the rest of the world move on.

Umm, no, you have to enrich the fuel to like 97%, far far above, and much much harder than what a reactor uses, you need to do some reading.

I am sure if I write GE they will supply me with all the needed info that is is IMPOSSIBLE comrades. :roll:

Lemmings.

Can't you guys think for the future possibly, why enable these companies with known bad records of BSing us further?

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
It's not so much it just going boom randomly like old ones, it's just more targets for trouble and more fissionable material proliferating to get into the wrong hands.

I am sure there is a way to detonate a plant if it was seized by outside elements even if it means moving the fuel from inside the reactor during a standoff.

Industrial sabotage is a concern also.

You simply don't appear to have REMOTE clue what you're talking about.

Before its possible to actually create a nuclear explosion, you would need to enrich the uranium or plutonium further at highly specialized facilities which are not exactly mobile. You also would need all sort of advanced equipment and some precise engineering work which would takes weeks at a minimum before you might even possibly have put together a working nuclear bomb. (This is also assuming the terrorists are all individuals who are advanced nuclear physicists with previous experience somewhere actually building nukes.)

Its literally physically impossible for terrorists to actually produce a nuclear detonation in the situation you're talking about.

(Nuclear contamination would be all they could possibly manage and probably would require setting a large amount of explosives to crack the room of the containment dome before it would be possible to cause significant contamination outside of the facility. Of course these facilities do have security and are not all that easy targets in the first place.)

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: k1pp3r


You do know that the chance of a atomic plant blowing up like an atom bomb is nonexistanted, meaning there is not chance, at all,

Famous last words.

ok, show me any scientific paper that supports that statement, you will not find one

It's not so much it just going boom randomly like old ones, it's just more targets for trouble and more fissionable material proliferating to get into the wrong hands.

I am sure there is a way to detonate a plant if it was seized by outside elements even if it means moving the fuel from inside the reactor during a standoff.

Industrial sabotage is a concern also.

Also saying something is not possible when it comes to humans running anything (or computers) is laughable, like I said, famous last words, I am not willing to bet my life on you buying into some BS from a company trying to make a quick buck peddling old technology while the rest of the world move on.

Umm, no, you have to enrich the fuel to like 97%, far far above, and much much harder than what a reactor uses, you need to do some reading.

I am sue if I write GE they will supply me with all the needed info that is is IMPOSSIBLE comrades. :roll:

Lemmings.

Haha, why not just google enrichment levels for bombs vs civilian reactors, you will find it

 

[Steeplerot]

I hope you guys are getting paid to waste your time shilling.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I hope you guys are getting paid to waste your time shilling.

Na, i'm just playing a game, but are you getting paid to be ignorent?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I hope you guys are getting paid to waste your time shilling.

Na, i'm just playing a game, but are you getting paid to be ignorent?

Nothing ignorant about not wanting that garbage floating around thanks to more plants.

I will take no risk almost no maintance, no waste renewable energy kthx, keep your poison.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I hope you guys are getting paid to waste your time shilling.

Na, i'm just playing a game, but are you getting paid to be ignorent?

Nothing ignorant about not wanting that garbage floating around thanks to more plants.

I will take no risk almost no maintance, no waste renewable energy kthx, keep your poison.

Your narrow minded view will just hold back the scientific comunity, disapointing really

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I hope you guys are getting paid to waste your time shilling.

You realize actual environmentalists such as myself are posting because we despise those that continue to advocate irrational anti-nuclear positions which continue to harm the environment. Its obvious you don't even believe such a preposterously stupid accusation. What you advocate will continue to lead to more coal power plants being built.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Nothing ignorant about not wanting that garbage floating around thanks to more plants.

I will take no risk almost no maintance, no waste renewable energy kthx, keep your poison.

Uh, you realize solar, tidal, and wind power plants require MASSIVE amounts of maintenance?! Nuclear power is far cheaper in terms of maintenance dollars spent per watt is actually concerned.

Frankly you see to understand extremely little at all about this subject.

 

[Steeplerot]

What maintenance? it is you being ignorant now, electric generators and motors have very few moving parts. :roll:

We have plenty of wind turbines around here, they lube then now and again and change brushes/bearing every decade or so and forget them, solar requires no maintenance besides brushing off debris now and again. No waste either.

Heres where the nuke companies smell the money and why they feed you all this anti-renewable stuff, it's all about staffing the plant, security, fuel, waste etc.

$$$$$$

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
What maintenance? it is you being ignorant now, electric generators and motors have very few moving parts. :roll:

We have plenty of wind turbines around here, they lube then now and again and change brushes/bearing every decade or so and forget them, solar requires no maintenance besides brushing off debris now and again. No waste either.

Soloar collecting plates have to stay free from defect, plus they are not very efficent at this point, 40% i think is the high end. there are a lot more cost to all of these options you do not relize. And no telling what tidal will require for maintence, i sence salt water corroson. Wind is a good suppliment, but it is not reliable mainstream source of power.

 

[Steeplerot]

I suggest you read some, you are holding back science with this old dirty technology.

It Doesn't Add Up

Photovoltaic cells are 1/50th their price in the 1970s.

Wind energy is 80 per cent cheaper than it was 15 years ago.

Nuclear energy, once promoted as the cheap energy source of the future, is now the most expensive commercial energy option in the United States.

Source : Financial Review, June 21, 1996.

And I wonder how much they spend on their propaganda campaigns instead of investing in renewable infrastructure?

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
What maintenance? it is you being ignorant now, electric generators and motors have very few moving parts. :roll:

We have plenty of wind turbines around here, they lube then now and again and change brushes/bearing every decade or so and forget them, solar requires no maintenance besides brushing off debris now and again. No waste either.

This is just plain frigging false.

You have to engage in significantly more periodic maintenance than that, and we're talking about ALLOT of turbines to equal one nuclear plant. Keep in mind its also about maintenance to the infrastructure to get the energy from the wind farm, generally out in the middle of nowhere, to where the power will actually be used.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
What maintenance? it is you being ignorant now, electric generators and motors have very few moving parts. :roll:

We have plenty of wind turbines around here, they lube then now and again and change brushes/bearing every decade or so and forget them, solar requires no maintenance besides brushing off debris now and again. No waste either.

This is just plain frigging false.

You have to engage in significantly more periodic maintenance than that, and we're talking about ALLOT of turbines to equal one nuclear plant. Keep in mind its also about maintenance to the infrastructure to get the energy from the wind farm, generally out in the middle of nowhere, to where the power will actually be used.

Lets see your link then, I have a friend who works for PG&E and the new turbines are pretty much drop and forget. (Same as solar arrays)

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
What maintenance? it is you being ignorant now, electric generators and motors have very few moving parts. :roll:

We have plenty of wind turbines around here, they lube then now and again and change brushes/bearing every decade or so and forget them, solar requires no maintenance besides brushing off debris now and again. No waste either.

This is just plain frigging false.

You have to engage in significantly more periodic maintenance than that, and we're talking about ALLOT of turbines to equal one nuclear plant. Keep in mind its also about maintenance to the infrastructure to get the energy from the wind farm, generally out in the middle of nowhere, to where the power will actually be used.

Lets see your link then, I have a friend who worked for PG&E and the new turbines are pretty much drop and forget. (Same as solar arrays)

Dont forget about the land requirements, and a consistan wind, its just not feesable for mainstream, its great to supplement i agree.

Edit, oh, and i'm still waiting on your link about a plant turning into a tzar bomb

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
What maintenance? it is you being ignorant now, electric generators and motors have very few moving parts. :roll:

We have plenty of wind turbines around here, they lube then now and again and change brushes/bearing every decade or so and forget them, solar requires no maintenance besides brushing off debris now and again. No waste either.

This is just plain frigging false.

You have to engage in significantly more periodic maintenance than that, and we're talking about ALLOT of turbines to equal one nuclear plant. Keep in mind its also about maintenance to the infrastructure to get the energy from the wind farm, generally out in the middle of nowhere, to where the power will actually be used.

Lets see your link then, I have a friend who worked for PG&E and the new turbines are pretty much drop and forget. (Same as solar arrays)

Dont forget about the land requirements, and a consistan wind, its just not feesable for mainstream, its great to supplement i agree.

Plenty of land for both, its a big continent, green building design is also a great way to cut down on usage if they even need a grid in the first place.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Lets see your link then, I have a friend who worked for PG&E and the new turbines are pretty much drop and forget.

Here's a link effectively proving this from a wind energy advocate site.

Twenty-three miles south of Lamar, CO is the state's newest and largest wind farm, Colorado Green. The 108 turbines generate 162 megawatts of clean energy and provide enough electricity for nearly 50,000 homes along the Front Range. The real story, however, is what Colorado Green did for Prowers County, and why local farmers and businesses now want to develop their own wind farms.

Colorado Green has been a boon to a county stricken with years of drought and a depressed farm economy. The addition of the wind farm created 10-15 permanent jobs, boosted the morale of the community, and will increase the county tax base by nearly $2 million a year. Also, landowners who lease their land for the turbines can collect an estimated $2000-4,000 in royalties and fees per turbine per year.

http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/enerdev.php

Now what exactly do you think those "10 to 15 permanent jobs" are about? You'd expect it to be more like one or two if it was really as maintenance free as you claimed. (With those same workers probably able to maintain other wind farms at the same time.) Note that modern nuclear power plants produce quite a bit more power than this, which is where the key economies of scale come in. That wind farm number also is generally for when the wind is blowing perfectly, its actually going to average allot less than that in actual megawatts produced.

Edit: For the record I'm not against using wind power to some degree and I figure its generally a good place to start in some areas until the public in general understands why using nuclear power in the future is important and necessary.

 

[SexyK]

Wow, steeplerot, you are one of the most ignorant posters I have ever encountered regarding this issue. If you look at the figures I provided earlier in the thread, you will see that in order to equal the energy output of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power station (1695MW/hrs from two reactors) you would need 339,000 square kilometers of wind turbines (1.5MW/hrs per 300 square kilometers). Are you trying to tell me that 339,000 square kilometers of wind turbines has a smaller ecological impact than one nuclear power station? The ecological impact of the different technologies is only one of many aspects of the debate about which you have shown little to no substantive knowledge. You are the prototypical anti-nuclear fear-monger basing your opposition on irrational fear and misinformation.