Nuclear power...

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yeah 162 MW, vs a atomic plant which pushes around 1400 MW

 

[Steeplerot]

Says nothing about them maintaining, 10-15 people could very well be the office staff and maybe somebody to fix any that do have problems.

And like I said, we use far too much power, time to crack down on usage so renewable is sufficient. We have a LOT of room to improve.

 

[Acanthus]

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.

Not really, nuclear fuel in plants has nowhere near the amount of potential energy that nuclear weapon has.

The energy simply isnt there.

Fuel rods are typically 4% reactive material.

Weapons grade is usually 99%+ of weapons grade the plutonium, the most reactive material we have that remains so for long periods of time.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Says nothing about them maintaining, 10-15 people could very well be the office staff and maybe somebody to fix any that do have problems.

What the HELL do you think "maybe somebody to fix any that do have problems" falls under?

That's called part of maintenance costs. That certainly would be one seriously screwed up business if they need say 10+ office staff to be located in the middle of nowhere in Weld County instead of having an office at one location to do administrative work for a variety of wind farms across the country. You seem to be engaging in willful denial which isn't going to persuade anyone else reading this thread.

 

[Steeplerot]

It says nothing of the sort, and would be silly as like I said, I have a friend who drives around and keeps an eye out for seized ones, it happens, but with the older ones mainly.

The trick is to ditch the grid itself that need centralized power generation, not so hard to get a household off the grid under the right circumstances altogether, and any extra can be made up with a number of alternatives within the local community. Industry would need the lions share and could be made up for with wind farms, solar, tidal, and a number of other options.

I know you guys are trying but I just don't see a need to go backwards and rely on nukes again if we used some good l american ingenuity.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: 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.

Thats a lot of land, i guess that is where emminent domain comes into play.

 

[Acanthus]

So what exactly is your argument against nuclear power? youre all over the place.

There is no debate at all about the likelihood of an explosion, new reactors are not only 200x as safe (source IAEA), they are more efficient than all of the 1960s era designs we are using today.

The vast majority of nuclear costs are in the construction of the plant, divert the subsidies from oil companies to nuclear energy, legalize reprocessing, and put a lot more money into full electric vehicles.

The results would be:
Pro:
Enormous reductions in CO2 emissions
Enormous reduction in reliance on foreign oil
Enormous increase in our possible energy footprint
Safer power generation
Cheaper power generation
Long-term energy solution

Cons:
Higher gas prices (this would further push people tword full electric solutions)
Developing nations cannot implement nuclear power, price of entry is too high
We have to use Yucca Mountain for its intended use (not really a con).

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: SexyK
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.

Could you provide a source for your wind power data? It seems way off to me, but I might be mistaken.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: 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.

This message brought to you by GE. :roll:

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: 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.

This message brought to you by GE. :roll:

That makes a lot of sense retard, since GE is pushing glean coal and solar because they produce those products...

Why do you think GE is pushing all of the "green energy" commercials? Ill give you a hint, they arent doing it to save the earth.

You are starting to seem like a blatant troll, youre not even here for debate, youre just spouting off about sh!t you dont understand like a 16 year old.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

The results would be:
Pro:
Enormous reductions in CO2 emissions (No different then other options)
Enormous reduction in reliance on foreign oil (No different then other options)
Enormous increase in our possible energy footprint (Not necessary if planned for)
Safer power generation (Not necessarily there is always an element of risk no matter how you all want to play it down)
Cheaper power generation (Not true in the long run and nuke power is not cheap)
Long-term energy solution (Not true, plant will need to be replaced in time + fuel costs and disposal of waste/ security/admin costs)

Cons:
Higher gas prices (this would further push people toward full electric solutions this is a pro imo)
Developing nations cannot implement nuclear power, price of entry is too high (Too high for any country with the alternatives)
We have to use Yucca Mountain for its intended use (unacceptable pollution on disputed land).
Centralized risk of industrial sabotage
Dependency on a non-renewable resource that causes pollution in the mining process.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Why do you think GE is pushing all of the "green energy" commercials? Ill give you a hint, they arent doing it to save the earth.

PR, what else? And you guys are here doing it for free.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Acanthus

The results would be:
Pro:
Enormous reductions in CO2 emissions (No different then other options)
Enormous reduction in reliance on foreign oil (No different then other options)
Enormous increase in our possible energy footprint (Not necessary if planned for)
Safer power generation (Not necessarily there is always an element of risk no matter how you all want to play it down)
Cheaper power generation (Not true in the long run and nuke power is not cheap)
Long-term energy solution (Not true, plant will need to be replaced in time + fuel costs and disposal of waste/ security/admin costs)

Cons:
Higher gas prices (this would further push people toward full electric solutions this is a pro imo)
Developing nations cannot implement nuclear power, price of entry is too high (Too high for any country with the alternatives)
We have to use Yucca Mountain for its intended use (unacceptable pollution on disputed land).
Centralized risk of industrial sabotage
Dependency on a non-renewable resource that causes pollution in the mining process.

Say what, there are numerous gov and internation agencies that overlook the nuclear power industry

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Acanthus


You are starting to seem like a blatant troll, youre not even here for debate, youre just spouting off about sh!t you dont understand like a 16 year old.

In other words you never gotten challenged on this BS you have bought into. Cry more.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r


Say what, there are numerous gov and internation agencies that overlook the nuclear power industry

Yep, because letting the government handle security just gives all of us warm fuzzies.

We know there is NO RISK letting them handle it, and these big nuke companies NEVER lie their asses off and get caught cutting corners and misrepresenting facts.

You are safe comrade, do not fear, We have life in good hand! Trust us.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Acanthus


You are starting to seem like a blatant troll, youre not even here for debate, youre just spouting off about sh!t you dont understand like a 16 year old.

In other words you never gotten challenged on this BS you have bought into. Cry more.

Yeah, the BS i bought into in physics and nuclear engineering courses.

What have you taken?

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: k1pp3r


Say what, there are numerous gov and internation agencies that overlook the nuclear power industry

Yep, because letting the government handle security just gives all of us warm fuzzies.

We know there is NO RISK letting them handle it, and these big nuke companies NEVER lie their asses off and get caught cutting corners and misrepresenting facts.

You are safe comrade, do not fear.

Ok, i'll agree about the gov warm fuzzies, lol. what exactly are they lying about?

 

[Acanthus]

How do you propose to sabotage a nuclear power facility?

They are reinfoced on 6 different levels, they have done very complex models of 767s directly crashing into the core.

You cant destroy a nuclear plant through sabotage, at least not on anything but an economic level.

 

[Steeplerot]

Would you like me to pull up decades beyond decades of these same companies you are taking 100% face value fact that they are safe getting their asses handed to them for polluting and lying?

I trust these "experts" about as much as bush, probably less given such a poor track record for so long of making messes (and getting their asses bailed out most of the time on our dime).

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Would you like me to pull up decades beyond decades of these same companies you are taking 100% face value fact that they are safe getting their asses handed to them for polluting and lying?

Umm, coal power plants polute, that is common sense, show me where a company has release any unsafe amounts of radiation, besides russia,

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Sshow me where a company has release any unsafe amounts of radiation, besides russia,

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanup.htm

The total number of sites contaminated with radionuclides in the United States is in the thousands. Contaminated sites range in size from corners of laboratories to sprawling nuclear weapons facilities covering many square miles of land. The contamination extends to all environmental media, as well as to onsite buildings and equipment.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Sshow me where a company has release any unsafe amounts of radiation, besides russia,

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanup.htm

The total number of sites contaminated with radionuclides in the United States is in the thousands. Contaminated sites range in size from corners of laboratories to sprawling nuclear weapons facilities covering many square miles of land. The contamination extends to all environmental media, as well as to onsite buildings and equipment.

I don't see a total number anywhere, and there is a difference between levels of contamination. I want you to point out where DANGEROUS amounts of radiation were released please.

 

[Acanthus]

That isnt commercial nuclear power, thats experimental and military facilities.

And people are very prudent with "contamination" and quanrentines.

Most people at chernobyl were exposed to less radiation than the daily level of exposure to radon, cosmic rays, and other sources...

Hell having 2 smoke detectors in your house gives you a higher dose than living with 50 miles of a nuclear power station.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
That isnt commercial nuclear power, thats experimental and military facilities.

Hey, just the guys you all want protecting the plants :roll:

Anyhow, nice try guys. Not buying what you are selling, nor is the rest of the world luckily.


Kudos to Germany for getting ready to shut down all of them.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Acanthus
That isnt commercial nuclear power, thats experimental and military facilities.

Hey, just the guys you all want protecting the plants :roll:

Anyhow, nice try guys. Not buying what you are selling, nor is the rest of the world luckily.


Kudos to Germany for getting ready to shut down all of them.

Are they still using fossil fuels?

And youre not making much logical sense there, yes the military is protecting the plants.

But you dont defend nuclear power plants with expermental nuclear reactors... or nuclear weapons...

LMAO @ nuclear patriot missles.