formel Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 True, but what the article doesn't mention is this part. With regard to the management of spent nuclear fuel, the new technology also changes. Rolling stones many layers of carbon and super strong silicon carbide protects the nuclear waste to the ravages of time. The carbon in the rolling stones are composed of so-called pyrolytic graphite that can not burn, and which dissolves in water after a million years. Because the radioactive material in the innermost shell is completely gone after 250,000 years and very little polluting after 10,000 years, enough carbon utmost to protect the environment from leakage. If a single ball is nonfunctional, there are still several protective layers, before entering into the uranium. Another thing to take into consideration is that the balls are about the size of a tennis ball. Your quote reads like a marketing brochure, do you have a source dor it? According to the wiki article they can't be that enduring Contamination of the cooling circuit with metallic fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137) due to the insufficient retention capabilities of fuel pebbles for metallic fission products. Even modern fuel elements do not sufficiently retain strontium and cesium. unresolved problems with dust formation by pebble friction (dust acts as a mobile fission product carrier) And when it comes to storage a small ball shape is the least optimal form due to the large surface in realtion to the volume and becasue there are always empty spaces when you stack orbs.
FallenWarrior Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 True, but what the article doesn't mention is this part. With regard to the management of spent nuclear fuel, the new technology also changes. Rolling stones many layers of carbon and super strong silicon carbide protects the nuclear waste to the ravages of time. The carbon in the rolling stones are composed of so-called pyrolytic graphite that can not burn, and which dissolves in water after a million years. Because the radioactive material in the innermost shell is completely gone after 250,000 years and very little polluting after 10,000 years, enough carbon utmost to protect the environment from leakage. If a single ball is nonfunctional, there are still several protective layers, before entering into the uranium. Another thing to take into consideration is that the balls are about the size of a tennis ball. Your quote reads like a marketing brochure, do you have a source dor it? According to the wiki article they can't be that enduring Contamination of the cooling circuit with metallic fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137) due to the insufficient retention capabilities of fuel pebbles for metallic fission products. Even modern fuel elements do not sufficiently retain strontium and cesium. unresolved problems with dust formation by pebble friction (dust acts as a mobile fission product carrier) And when it comes to storage a small ball shape is the least optimal form due to the large surface in realtion to the volume and becasue there are always empty spaces when you stack orbs. Are you hinting that I post things without sources? (Note it's in Swedish) As for how enduring the balls are, depends entirely on what kind of fuel the reactors use. Not to mention that it's not a single shell that is wrapped around the waste but several like Chinese boxes. Swedish wikipedia Security aspects The reactor can be operated continuously, since the fuel assemblies loaded from top to bottom dropped out of the reactor vessel. The fuel elements are checked and if they are not completely consumed, nor are damaged, they can be added to the reactor vessel to a undergo another cycle. Two independent shutdown systems available. One consists of ten control rods in grafitreflektorn. The second system is also in grafitreflektorn and has seven cavities that can be filled with little balls of neutron absorbing material. Meltdown can not occur in a pebble-bed reactor, because the reaction decreases as the temperature rises, so that the temperature never gets above about 2000 ° C, the fuel elements and the rest of the construction can withstand. The advantage of TRISO-fuel from an environmental point of view is that radioactivity is not released into the environment either during operation of the reactor or the handling of the fuel. In case of accidents, occasional fuel elements become so badly damaged that the release of radioactivity can occur. One drawback is that the volume of spent fuel to be disposed of will be larger than for example from a light water reactor. Yes, the Swedish version also mentions the drawback, but the Pebble bed reactor might also lead to Alternative energy carriers Another reason the Chinese are interested in this type of reactor is that we imagine to be able to use them even to be able to produce hydrogen by thermal decomposition of water. Hydrogen sees as a future energy carrier for including fuel cell vehicles
gregathit Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 You know, the attitude some people on this board have towards the government, taxes, progress and general human wellbeing is just astounding. If at some point in your history, the "government" hadn't come and taken a small portion of your money, you wouldn't have things like NASA, man wouldn't have ever left this planet or touched the moon, among a myriad of other things, like public transport, an army, microwaves, the internet - all that brought to you by people on government payrolls, payed for by the taxes you begrudgingly pay. People with that kind of mentality would still have us living in caves. I imagine a similar argument being made millions of years ago about fire. "Fire! What nonsense! Nowhere does the Shaman say this is authorized! There's nothing wrong with rubbing two rocks together and then using them for warmth! Bah, all the effort necessary to get this "fire" of yours going, getting all that wood and cinder, then having to get an extra pair of rocks, and then having to repeat the banging process again to make a spark... it's just not worth it!" ... "What do you mean 'come together and form a nation?' Under who's authority? This nation of yours sounds highly tyrannical and a waste of my berries and the meat I've hunted! We're doing perfectly just fine as a tribe, what a silly idea, joining in with other tribes to form a larger entity capable of things bigger than either of us can achieve alone! You know, Agrog, you've never been quite the same ever since you touched that monolith..." It's this single minded hatred of government and dissociation with other human beings and their welfare that gets you tribalism and makes you (I won't say us, because apparently some people don't like that word - fuck everyone else, right?) never advance or change. If you had to run everything you do as a person by that sacred constitution of yours you'd still be living in 18th century America. The sooner this kind of mentality dies off the sooner "We" not as neighbors or countrymen or liberals or conservatives, but as human beings, can come together and help usher "us" into a new era of civilization, where hopefully that kind of ignorance and paranoia will one day be looked down and laughed upon. We can't be too far off; people already laugh at it... The problem is not one of fear or paranoia but instead simply corruption. For the average American the first 4 months of the year go entirely to paying taxes. That doesn't even include sales tax, property taxes (house and vehicles) plus any other investment taxes. There are death taxes and this tax and that tax and blah, blah, blah tax. It is far beyond absurd at this point. Slowly but surely any government will become corrupt, this is just human nature. The checks and balances built into the US government are slowly but surely being eroded. Again, this is not some tin foil hat fear, it is just simple human nature for those who have wealth and power to seek more. Take for example the RIAA and MPAA, despite the fact that they are a bunch of greedy asshats, they are not evil. To my knowledge they don't kill or torture anyone. But they constantly try to force more and more restrictions on to consumers regarding their products through every means that they can, including buying those in the house and senate. Greedy and corrupt, yes. Evil, no. This is just life. Back to taxes, if you follow the money trail that a single dollar is taxed on it will shock and scare you. I could type it out here but no one (including me) would bother to read that long boring wall of text. Taxes are indeed necessary but they and the government (speaking only of the US Gov here) have become so ridiculous that they are a joke. You do realize that we (the US Gov) are now going on 5 years without even bothering to make a budget. That of course is a crime, as law does require that they make one. Those who break the law are criminals so now our politicians have sunk to a new low. This mess is one to which there will be no easy fix. Ultimately America IMHO will spend itself into the corner and eventually collapse. Not enough people are interested in doing what is needed to curb the Fed's power or spending and as long as that mentality exists.........things are just going to get worse. It may take one or two generations for this teenager to max out her credit cards, but it will eventually happen if no one steps in. Again, this is not some grand conspiracy or league of evil henchmen, it is just human nature at work. I do love America and I do love the principles our nation was founded on........which is why it makes me so very sad on what we have become today. Just my random two cents.........
ChancellorKremlin Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Greg, I entirely agree with you that corruption is pretty much endemic wherever we get involved, because unfortunately corruption is a very real human trait. Its for that reason I don't think any other institution will be any different. Businesses also get corrupt, as do families, households, invididuals... you name it, it is in our nature. My solution to this is to fight it for what it is, not to assume "oh, the government will eventually become corrupt so we have to do away with it" - everything becomes corrupt in the end. Our task is to fight it, and ensure there are checks and balances so that re may punish the corrupt and reward those who aren't. We try doing this, and we fail, but it is no reason to give up. As for taxes, I entirely agree, we have things like "hot pastry" taxes over here, among other such nonsese. I think we need to end the mentality that anything and everything that exists is a reason to tax it. That's not to say I don't think taxes are necessary, especially those who can afford them. But that's another discussion altogether.
Something Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Under a regime you fear for the men that come take you in the night, never to be heard from again. There's nothing tyrannical, unconstitutional, wrong or even unusual about government stipulating an energy policy. Not even if you don't like what it is. "Humanity" is not vague at all. It means people, as a collective. "We" invest in some energy sources more than others. You get to invest your money, after taxes, in whatever you want that's not green energy. So in other words I have no choice? I have to have my money forcibly confiscated from me at gunpoint in order to fall into your definition of "humanity?" That's absolutely tyrannical, since you're dehumanizing the individual and delegitimizing their nature. You're completely dismissing the fact that I don't want to be funding "green energy" in the first place. If it's really as good as you say then you shouldn't have to have money taken through coercion and force to subsidize it. The fact that you say it must be done only proves my point about how ineffective and non-functional it is. If it WAS as good as you said then people would voluntarily invest their money. A business' primary incentive to innovate and fund R&D (among other things) is because in order to be funded in a free market people have to voluntarily purchase from it. When business gets subsidized by government, which gains revenue through force and coercion, those incentives lessen if not disappear completely. The thing is, people WOULD invest it voluntarily if the government didn't crowd them out with subsidies, and take away their money to redistribute it somewhere else. As for consitutionality, i'm calling your bluff. Where, in the Constitution, is the Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court authorized to determine energy policy? Just tell me which section or amendment.
formel Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 True, but what the article doesn't mention is this part. With regard to the management of spent nuclear fuel, the new technology also changes. Rolling stones many layers of carbon and super strong silicon carbide protects the nuclear waste to the ravages of time. The carbon in the rolling stones are composed of so-calledpyrolytic graphite that can not burn, and which dissolves in water after a million years. Because the radioactive material in the innermost shell is completely gone after 250,000 years and very little polluting after 10,000 years, enough carbon utmost to protect the environment from leakage. If a single ball is nonfunctional, there are still several protective layers, before entering into the uranium. Another thing to take into consideration is that the balls are about the size of a tennis ball. Your quote reads like a marketing brochure, do you have a source dor it? According to the wiki article they can't be that enduring Contamination of the cooling circuit with metallic fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137) due to the insufficient retention capabilities of fuel pebbles for metallic fission products. Even modern fuel elements do not sufficiently retain strontium and cesium. unresolved problems with dust formation by pebble friction (dust acts as a mobile fission product carrier) And when it comes to storage a small ball shape is the least optimal form due to the large surface in realtion to the volume and becasue there are always empty spaces when you stack orbs. Are you hinting that I post things without sources? (Note it's in Swedish)As for how enduring the balls are, depends entirely on what kind of fuel the reactors use. Not to mention that it's not a single shell that is wrapped around the waste but several like Chinese boxes. Swedish wikipedia Security aspects The reactor can be operated continuously, since the fuel assemblies loaded from top to bottom dropped out of the reactor vessel. The fuel elements are checked and if they are not completely consumed, nor are damaged, they can be added to the reactor vessel to a undergo another cycle. Two independent shutdown systems available. One consists of ten control rods in grafitreflektorn. The second system is also in grafitreflektorn and has seven cavities that can be filled with little balls of neutron absorbing material.Meltdown can not occur in a pebble-bed reactor, because the reaction decreases as the temperature rises, so that the temperature never gets above about 2000 ° C, the fuel elements and the rest of the construction can withstand.The advantage of TRISO-fuel from an environmental point of view is that radioactivity is not released into the environment either during operation of the reactor or the handling of the fuel. In case of accidents, occasional fuel elements become so badly damaged that the release of radioactivity can occur. One drawback is that the volume of spent fuel to be disposed of will be larger than for example from a light water reactor. Yes, the Swedish version also mentions the drawback, but the Pebble bed reactor might also lead to Alternative energy carriers Another reason the Chinese are interested in this type of reactor is that we imagine to be able to use them even to be able to produce hydrogen by thermal decomposition of water. Hydrogen sees as a future energy carrier for including fuel cell vehicles But the shell material is not leakproof and is not safe from abrasion and the shell matrial it self gets radiaktiv during nuclear fission. So you have still the same storge problem. Not to forget this reactor typ is still after decades of research only experimental and has problems it's own. In case of reactor safty the swedish wiki is not complet check out the german AVR and THTR-300 both reactors had there problems during operation. In case of THTR-300 even radioactiv mertrial leaked out.
Kamen Rider Kuuga Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 All technology has its risks, but the only way to improve is to keep using it and learn from mistakes. Right now nuclear is the best option we have for large scale power generation from a source that won't dry up within the next few decades. Instead of jamming our fingers in our ears and trying to ignore it because there are still problems, we should push forward and build more. With wider adoption, more of the problems will be solved, and better designs will come up. Crying danger and sitting on something while hoping to use it only when all the problems are solved won't get you anything, and right now the world has an every growing demand for power, which will only increase while things like coal and oil are only growing ever more scarce.
formel Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 All technology has its risks, but the only way to improve is to keep using it and learn from mistakes. Right now nuclear is the best option we have for large scale power generation from a source that won't dry up within the next few decades. Instead of jamming our fingers in our ears and trying to ignore it because there are still problems, we should push forward and build more. With wider adoption, more of the problems will be solved, and better designs will come up. Crying danger and sitting on something while hoping to use it only when all the problems are solved won't get you anything, and right now the world has an every growing demand for power, which will only increase while things like coal and oil are only growing ever more scarce. Indeed but this technology in particular is in development and use for over 40 years and was/is subsidized with absurd amounts of money (mostly public funds) and still has it flaws. And main problem is, as I pointed out earlier, the long lasting wast. And no technology progress will avoid it. I think it is time to move on and look for alternatives to shape our energy supply. It is far more sustainable to invest in solar energy which will be accessible for the next 7.4 billion years than to invest even more in nuclear power where the uranium supply will run out in approximately 100-200 years.
Something Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Why not Fusion power? Hydrogen is pretty ubiquitous and the output of one plant would theoretically power the entire US x2 Besides, don't try and pick winners and losers. That's up for the market to decide.
Kamen Rider Kuuga Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 In order for solar to provide the power needed, you would need a large scale array of satellites to collect the maximum amount of energy, along with numerous sites for it to be transmitted to. No company or country could hope to cover such a cost; that would require a large, global effort. There's also the issue of space debris floating around, which needs to be cleaned up because it poses such a danger to a vital energy source. Nuclear, while it will never be perfectly safe, is still the best choice right now. The US, for example, lags behind because of mostly unfounded fears; to even hope to get a new one built would require little more than miracle because people still assume that reactors are in the same state as they were during Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Yes, the waste is an issue, and yes, even the materials needed for reactors won't last forever, but it's a step up from what we have, and at worse it can be a stop gap until something else comes along. Nuclear is not the end all, be all, but then again no energy source we know of, short of fusion or matter/anti-matter, will truly meet all our needs. And we're so under the technology level needed for those that it's silly.
Captain Cobra Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Indeed but this technology in particular is in development and use for over 40 years and was/is subsidized with absurd amounts of money (mostly public funds) and still has it flaws. And main problem is, as I pointed out earlier, the long lasting wast. And no technology progress will avoid it. Thorium Reactors.
DoctaSax Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 So in other words I have no choice? I have to have my money forcibly confiscated from me at gunpoint in order to fall into your definition of "humanity?" That's absolutely tyrannical, since you're dehumanizing the individual and delegitimizing their nature. You're completely dismissing the fact that I don't want to be funding "green energy" in the first place. If it's really as good as you say then you shouldn't have to have money taken through coercion and force to subsidize it. The fact that you say it must be done only proves my point about how ineffective and non-functional it is. If it WAS as good as you said then people would voluntarily invest their money. A business' primary incentive to innovate and fund R&D (among other things) is because in order to be funded in a free market people have to voluntarily purchase from it. When business gets subsidized by government, which gains revenue through force and coercion, those incentives lessen if not disappear completely. The thing is, people WOULD invest it voluntarily if the government didn't crowd them out with subsidies, and take away their money to redistribute it somewhere else. Sheesh, "regimes", "forcibly confiscated at gunpoint"... enough with the drama already. You think I like that part of my taxes are sunk into the gigantic fuck-up that is the war on drugs? Suck it up like the rest of us. You only ever say government has no power to make any decisions on a matter when you don't like the decision. I'd like to see you oppose one of its decisions that you like, just for that reason. My definition of "humanity" is pretty much the same as anyone else's - what's your problem with me using that word? As a species, on the whole, as a result of every influence that ever made itself felt and every action undertaken by individuals, governments, and businesses alike, humanity makes decisions on energy. I don't see why that trips you up so much. Nobody claims government is perfect, far from it, but not everybody believes in the magical properties of the free market to somehow cure all society's ills either. For every business that invests in something greener and cleaner, there's another one investing in exactly the opposite. For every durable long-term solution, there's the quick buck at the expense of everything else. Rules are needed, government is where they are made and enforced. And it has every right to nudge things in the direction it believes will benefit the common good, and where businesses don't invest in enough because there's no quick return. You mention fusion power - it's been 60 years since experiments started to have it fullfil its promise for civil purposes; where's private investment to speed things along? As for consitutionality, i'm calling your bluff. Where, in the Constitution, is the Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court authorized to determine energy policy? Just tell me which section or amendment. There's no bluff here, from me at least. Article one, section 8. Congress can regulate commerce. Energy is a commodity, last I checked. There you go. Like it or not, other than directly seizing property, even the US government has the right to do whatever it wants in the economy, and that definitely includes energy policy. However, I'd like to see it happen that a discussion takes place on a global issue without it getting stuck in the mud of American constitutional doctrine.
formel Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Why not Fusion power? Hydrogen is pretty ubiquitous and the output of one plant would theoretically power the entire US x2 Besides, don't try and pick winners and losers. That's up for the market to decide. Ha Ha the market. When it where a decisson of the market nuclear energy wouldn't exist at the first place because it is to expanisiv to build a save power plant. And it is still uncertain who has to pay for the ultimate disposal of the waste, but I bet it will be not the guys who took the gainings. It all exits only because of heavy subventions cut these and it will cease to exist. And fusion power that will be a dream for a long time. Untill now nobody was even able to create a stable plasma in a larger scale. Not to mention to get energy out of such an reactor. And you overestimate it's potential a bit. In order for solar to provide the power needed, you would need a large scale array of satellites to collect the maximum amount of energy, along with numerous sites for it to be transmitted to. No company or country could hope to cover such a cost; that would require a large, global effort. There's also the issue of space debris floating around, which needs to be cleaned up because it poses such a danger to a vital energy source. Nuclear, while it will never be perfectly safe, is still the best choice right now. The US, for example, lags behind because of mostly unfounded fears; to even hope to get a new one built would require little more than miracle because people still assume that reactors are in the same state as they were during Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Yes, the waste is an issue, and yes, even the materials needed for reactors won't last forever, but it's a step up from what we have, and at worse it can be a stop gap until something else comes along. Nuclear is not the end all, be all, but then again no energy source we know of, short of fusion or matter/anti-matter, will truly meet all our needs. And we're so under the technology level needed for those that it's silly. The sun engery that reaches us on the ground is sufficient. No need for any kind of satellites, we have enough unused deserts and roofs on earth Indeed but this technology in particular is in development and use for over 40 years and was/is subsidized with absurd amounts of money (mostly public funds) and still has it flaws. And main problem is, as I pointed out earlier, the long lasting wast. And no technology progress will avoid it. Thorium Reactors. How does that help? It generates also radioaktive waste.
Kamen Rider Kuuga Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Ground solar is the least reliable energy source; just a few days of clouds or rain and you have a massive energy shortage. With the cost, it's not viable to put in places that are prone to poor weather which can destroy them. Covering entire deserts is also cost prohibitive right now. Solar can be part of the answer, but what we need now is a large scale energy replacement, and solar isn't ready for that. Not from a cost standpoint.
Something Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 Sheesh, "regimes", "forcibly confiscated at gunpoint"... enough with the drama already. You think I like that part of my taxes are sunk into the gigantic fuck-up that is the war on drugs? Suck it up like the rest of us. You only ever say government has no power to make any decisions on a matter when you don't like the decision. I'd like to see you oppose one of its decisions that you like, just for that reason. My definition of "humanity" is pretty much the same as anyone else's - what's your problem with me using that word? As a species, on the whole, as a result of every influence that ever made itself felt and every action undertaken by individuals, governments, and businesses alike, humanity makes decisions on energy. I don't see why that trips you up so much. Nobody claims government is perfect, far from it, but not everybody believes in the magical properties of the free market to somehow cure all society's ills either. For every business that invests in something greener and cleaner, there's another one investing in exactly the opposite. For every durable long-term solution, there's the quick buck at the expense of everything else. Rules are needed, government is where they are made and enforced. And it has every right to nudge things in the direction it believes will benefit the common good, and where businesses don't invest in enough because there's no quick return. You mention fusion power - it's been 60 years since experiments started to have it fullfil its promise for civil purposes; where's private investment to speed things along? As for consitutionality, i'm calling your bluff. Where, in the Constitution, is the Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court authorized to determine energy policy? Just tell me which section or amendment. There's no bluff here, from me at least. Article one, section 8. Congress can regulate commerce. Energy is a commodity, last I checked. There you go. Like it or not, other than directly seizing property, even the US government has the right to do whatever it wants in the economy, and that definitely includes energy policy. However, I'd like to see it happen that a discussion takes place on a global issue without it getting stuck in the mud of American constitutional doctrine. 1) I'm not asking you your opinion on where your tax dollars do go. That's not relevant and quite frankly I don't appreciate you trying to change the subject. I'm asking whether or not it's moral for a government to force me to pay for things I don't want. Let me rephrase that: Is it moral for the government to use your tax dollars, which was acquired from you by force, to pay for the Drug War? 2) Because you insist on using extremely general terms, muddying the debate. At least "business, government, individuals" are more specific. 3) So what if government, which is imperfect and as such equally likely to make as many bad decisions as business, makes a mistake and nudges business in the WRONG direction? 4) Article 1 Section 8 does NOT give government the authority to regulate commerce. It gives government the authority to regulate commerce between states, foreign nations, and indian tribes. If a power plant in Montana is supplying power to Montana residents the government has literally no power over it. And even if it wasn't, how is the government supposed to know where, geographically, the power comes from?
DoctaSax Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 1) I'm not asking you your opinion on where your tax dollars do go. That's not relevant and quite frankly I don't appreciate you trying to change the subject. I'm asking whether or not it's moral for a government to force me to pay for things I don't want. Let me rephrase that: Is it moral for the government to use your tax dollars, which was acquired from you by force, to pay for the Drug War? In one and the same paragraph, you ask me for an opinion that you say you don't want. The morality of a government policy depends on the content of the policy, not that government has one or that some might disagree. Part of your taxes will always be spent on stuff you disagree with. So will mine, which is why I gave that example. If a moral government can do nothing but the things that you personally can sign off on it can only be the kingdom of Something. 2) Because you insist on using extremely general terms, muddying the debate. At least "business, government, individuals" are more specific. And those combined pretty much make up "humanity", aka "we", when you talk of a global issue. As for muddying the debate, it wasn't always about government, or any in particular. 3) So what if government, which is imperfect and as such equally likely to make as many bad decisions as business, makes a mistake and nudges business in the WRONG direction? That happens. But a government action isn't wrong just for being a government action. I'll gladly say the same about business and individuals, if it helps. 4) Article 1 Section 8 does NOT give government the authority to regulate commerce. It gives government the authority to regulate commerce between states, foreign nations, and indian tribes. If a power plant in Montana is supplying power to Montana residents the government has literally no power over it. That's not quite what it says but I'm not gonna nitpick about prepositions. Even still, the clause has never been interpreted very narrowly, has it. I don't think any court woulde declare it unconstitutional for federal government to set energy policy. The risk with a nuclear plant certainly isn't limited to state lines, neither is pollution from coal and oil, or transportation which is the basis of commerce on whichever level, not to mention that we get our oil from abroad. Energy is very much a legitimate federal matter, but mostly, and I can't repeat it enough, a global one. One nation's constitution doesn't factor into it.
Something Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 Stuff 1) It sounds more like a voluntary society. That said, I wonder why you won't say whether or not you think it's moral for government to use force to get you to pay for the Drug War. 2) But there's a distinction. Government has the power of coercion, business exists largely by means of voluntary exchange. I'm not saying one is morally superior to the other, those are just the facts. Ultimately we need to decide WHO do we trust more to make energy decisions? 3) You can, but when an individual makes a mistake it affects very few people. When a business makes a mistake it affects a group of people. When government makes a mistake it reverberates throughout society. So the question becomes, who would we rather have make the mistake? However it comes back to incentives, since this is fundamentally an incentives problem. Individuals and Business has the incentive to make as few mistakes as possible as it's their money that's at risk. But because government puts someone else's money at risk, which is guaranteed through taxation, the incentive is reduced to minimalize mistakes. Consider this: Would you rather trust someone who was willing to put their money where their mouth is, or someone who was willing to put your money where their mouth is? 4) Doesn't matter what a court says. Courts make terrible decisions all the time, and many times those decisions are made using international or a foreign nation's law. That said you're making a bizarre argument. Because at one point during the process of production foreign or state borders were crossed the "between states, foreign nations, and indian tribes" part of Article 1 Section 8 doesn't exist and they have unilateral authority to do whatever they want to the entire production line under the guise of "regulation?" It's absolutely absurd. It'd be like you having to pay Virginia's Car Tax because you were driving through the state one time. It's worth remembering that the original intention of the Commerce Clause was to encourage commerce, not subject it to restrictions of voluntary economic exchange. Also, don't try that "risk of nuclear power plants" crap here.
formel Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 Ground solar is the least reliable energy source; just a few days of clouds or rain and you have a massive energy shortage. With the cost, it's not viable to put in places that are prone to poor weather which can destroy them. Covering entire deserts is also cost prohibitive right now. Solar can be part of the answer, but what we need now is a large scale energy replacement, and solar isn't ready for that. Not from a cost standpoint. Of course solar alone is not enough it is also necessary to build and maintain a very good grid so that energy can be transported over great distances without a lot of power loss. So one region can compensate bad weather in another. Alongside it is wise to invest in wind energy and power storage systems. The sun light that hits earth's surface at the moment is sufficient to cover the power demand of whole humanity fivethousandfold. So it is now more wise to invest in the development of these regenerative power sources than to hang on to obsolete methhods . And as you self said: "With wider adoption, more of the problems will be solved, and better designs will come up."
FallenWarrior Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 Ground solar is the least reliable energy source; just a few days of clouds or rain and you have a massive energy shortage. With the cost, it's not viable to put in places that are prone to poor weather which can destroy them. Covering entire deserts is also cost prohibitive right now. Solar can be part of the answer, but what we need now is a large scale energy replacement, and solar isn't ready for that. Not from a cost standpoint. Of course solar alone is not enough it is also necessary to build and maintain a very good grid so that energy can be transported over great distances without a lot of power loss. So one region can compensate bad weather in another. Alongside it is wise to invest in wind energy and power storage systems. The sun light that hits earth's surface at the moment is sufficient to cover the power demand of whole humanity fivethousandfold. So it is now more wise to invest in the development of these regenerative power sources than to hang on to obsolete methhods . And as you self said: "With wider adoption, more of the problems will be solved, and better designs will come up." Do you even know how many wind turbines you would need to build just to replace one nuclear power plant? Not 20 or 50 but 500 - 1500, and considering all the cons with wind turbines it would be a waste of money, not to mention energy. Even an old windmill is 100% more efficent than a wind turbine.
formel Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 What are you talking about? A windturbin in the 1990 had a power rating of 164kW today they amount 2.1-2.9 MW for an onshore wind turbin, the offshore turbins have an even higher power rating. For Germany it is calculated that win turbins on 0.75% of the land area are sufficient to cover 20% of the energy need. For Germany that would be enough to replace e.g. nuclear power and lignite-fired power plants complitly For a wind turbine you hace today a price per kW of 910 €, from a moddern coal-fired power plant you have ca. 1800 €/kW. For a new constructed nuclear plant Moody's estimates investment costs form 4900 €/kW.
kingkong Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 Nuclear bUllshit but necessary it coast so much in money, LIFE, the waste is enormous only the real ecologist can explan. radioactive toxic shit that we throw everywhere just to make some more money now and we will see after. THE NEXT GENERATION WILL DEAL WITH IT(if we find any solution). but this technologie is just a tool like the two silex stones to get fire. thanks to this shit people can die from cancer disease and study matirial , anti-matirial protons,neutrons and quazar(not directly) This is a two sided knife science : our futur and our end (if it is not managed corectly. we need to have a little fate in human that i have less and less. oh i forgot in the beggining of the 20 century we where selling radioactive makeups !!!!
FallenWarrior Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 If you think wind turbines are so good, then explain why Germany is still increasing their use of Coal at the expense of entire villages/cities? Not to mention that wind power is subvented by the governments and not by the energy coperations themselves. Unlike building nuclear power plants in Sweden, which aren't subvented. Known facts: The average production over 5 years for Barsebäck nuclear power plant with 2 reactors was 3572 GwH. While the total production was 187 018 GWh. (630 MW per reactor) Ringhals nuclear power plant with 4 reactors had 26 431 GWh for the same years. While in 2006 the yearly production was 27 021 GWh. And the total production in 2009 was 650 TWh (reactor 1: 860 MW, reactor 2: 870 MW, reactor 3 & 4: 1000 MW. And just for kicks, reactor 3 in Oskarshamns nuclear power plant is at 1450 MW) Do the math yourself. Note: A 3 MW wind turbine costs between 12 - 15 million SEK with a energy price of 40 Cents per KWh. Without subvents it would take 12 years before it would prove its use. 7 years with subvents. Note 2: The price to demolish a nuclear power plant in Sweden is twice of the price if you where to build a new one. Note 3: Those 910 € per KW you mention is 8200 SEK. So do the math about how much you had to pay before the wind turbine ecuals the capacity of 1 nuclear reactor. Note 4: How much exactly are those 0.75% of Germany's area when Germany's total area is 357 112 km2? Should I add the cons about wind turbines as well?
Myst42 Posted April 24, 2013 Author Posted April 24, 2013 People are greedy Governments are greedy and corrupt Some persons will always prefer profit over progress and use taxes from "the people" to their own benefit Complaining about government is another huge discussion, getting rid of the parasites is a complex matter. In the meantime, they will continue to use taxes for whatever the hell they want This is a problem simple people for now cannot control, I hope someday this situation changes and governments really work for their people and not for their own pockets Sure they will throw a project or two but is not enough to solve situations I see many people supporting nuclear energy, some say its greener but there is still the wast problem, cancer and wild mutations have increased their incidence A complex matter indeed poison the air or poison ourselves, which one is greener and less lethal? Neither seems to be the solution Solar energy and Wind energy dont measure up to the demand What do yuo know about combinations? Like wind + solar + a few nuclear plants (the fewer the better) And what do you know about another power source in unexplored field Nikola Tesla if Im not mistaken was working on various revolutionary ideas... I think because of money and people who didnt like him his work got utterly ignored and thrown into oblivion... Have there been more attempts to revive his research?
kingkong Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 do not forget that there is a huge probleme of polution to make those solar panel it is not radioactive but it is realy toxic
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.