Elections, Hacking, Russia, And Trump: This Is Serious

[Hirota]

#SolarEnergyPlez

(Image)

Solar uses up way too much land. Roof top solar can certainly supplement the grid, but notvpoeer it entirely. Paving over all our deserts is not environmentally friendly.

Thats not entirely true, especially if you ask Elon Musk.

Having said that, Nuclear energy is far, far, far safer than it used to be too.

[Novus America]

Solar uses up way too much land. Roof top solar can certainly supplement the grid, but notvpoeer it entirely. Paving over all our deserts is not environmentally friendly.

Thats not entirely true, especially if you ask Elon Musk.

Having said that, Nuclear energy is far, far, far safer than it used to be too.

Still a massive amount of land destroyed. Plus all the resources that would have to be extracted, and refinined, and all the waste produced thereby.

Nuclear uses less than one tenth of the space.

Nuclear is in fact the SAFEST.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... ent=safari
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... -fear.aspx
https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.c ... ent=safari

So why not use the safest and save millions of acres of habitat?

[Alvecia]

Thats not entirely true, especially if you ask Elon Musk.

Having said that, Nuclear energy is far, far, far safer than it used to be too.

Still a massive amount of land destroyed. Plus all the resources that would have to be extracted, and refinined, and all the waste produced thereby.

Nuclear uses less than one tenth of the space.

To be fair, if given enough time it's not implausible that solar tech could get good enough that just the housing ones would do.

Well, maybe not quite that good, but certainly enough that we wouldn't need to consider paving the deserts.
That said, I've always considered the renewables and more of a supplementary income to the nuclear base

[Novus America]

Still a massive amount of land destroyed. Plus all the resources that would have to be extracted, and refinined, and all the waste produced thereby.

Nuclear uses less than one tenth of the space.

To be fair, if given enough time it's not implausible that solar tech could get good enough that just the housing ones would do.

Well, maybe not quite that good, but certainly enough that we wouldn't need to consider paving the deserts.
That said, I've always considered the renewables and more of a supplementary income to the nuclear base

Agreed. Solar has its place, it can be placed on rooftops and over parking spaces, which uses no extra land. Also the one real problem with nuclear is it is too reliable. Power production cannot be easily increased or decreased to meet demand. Solar is highly variable. Hence they work very well together. A combination of nuclear an rooftop solar is the perfect solution. No loss of land (actually land saved because coal uses more) plus clean energy for both base and peak needs.

Geothermal and hydro have their place but can only be built certain areas.

[Salandriagado]

The problem with coal is that it's an unimaginably fucking awful fuel from pretty well every perspective. Those regulations take it from that to "still fucking awful". It's a disaster, and it's dead, and nothing is going to change that.

Until the recent war upon it, it was supremely cost efficient and the infrastructure is already designed to handle it. If it was "awful fuel from every perspective", it wouldn't have grown as explosively as it did between 1980 and 2010. About the only emissions it produces are CO2, and even those were steadily falling since 1990. Given all that, you can tone down the exaggeration of it being a disaster. As far as it making a comeback, you clearly didn't read the links I provided.

The bold is the problem: it's decreased to "still fucking awful".


And the first part of that is an outright lie: they still throw out far more radiation than any other kind of power station.

Still a massive amount of land destroyed. Plus all the resources that would have to be extracted, and refinined, and all the waste produced thereby.

Nuclear uses less than one tenth of the space.

To be fair, if given enough time it's not implausible that solar tech could get good enough that just the housing ones would do.

Well, maybe not quite that good, but certainly enough that we wouldn't need to consider paving the deserts.
That said, I've always considered the renewables and more of a supplementary income to the nuclear base

Actually, we can maths this. We have about 1000 W/m^2 hitting the ground (averaged over the planet), there are around 3.5x10^12 m^2 of city on the planet, so the theoretical maximum output is 3.5x10^15 W, or 3x10^19 Wh/year. Global energy usage is at 10^8 Wh/year. So yeah, covering the cities in solar panels would provide more energy than we know what to do with. (Though obviously, there's still a whole lot of problems with that).

[Grave_n_idle]

Nuclear uses less than one tenth of the space.

Which assumes that footprint is an important metric. Also, that there even is a footprint.

Two things being asserted as axiomatic, but not even necessary assumptions.

Nuclear is in fact the SAFEST.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... ent=safari

The headline is misleading. Being safer than fossil fuels does not mean 'safest'.

So why not use the safest and save millions of acres of habitat?

Why not use technology that is actually even safer, and uses no land acreage?

[Grave_n_idle]

Geothermal and hydro have their place but can only be built certain areas.

Recent breakthroughs in technology mean that energy can actually be transferred from place to place.

[Imperializt Russia]

Nuclear uses less than one tenth of the space.

Which assumes that footprint is an important metric. Also, that there even is a footprint.

Two things being asserted as axiomatic, but not even necessary assumptions.

Nuclear is in fact the SAFEST.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... ent=safari

The headline is misleading. Being safer than fossil fuels does not mean 'safest'.

So why not use the safest and save millions of acres of habitat?

Why not use technology that is actually even safer, and uses no land acreage?

In deaths per Gigawatt-hour of electricity generated, nuclear has the lowest bodycount of all energy sources. Even in absolute terms, its lives claimed are astoundingly low (though solar/wind's absolute deaths will possibly be even lower).

Excess cancers and life expectancy lost to nuclear incidents are also a lot, lot lower than you'd probably ever give credit for.

[Novus America]

Until the recent war upon it, it was supremely cost efficient and the infrastructure is already designed to handle it. If it was "awful fuel from every perspective", it wouldn't have grown as explosively as it did between 1980 and 2010. About the only emissions it produces are CO2, and even those were steadily falling since 1990. Given all that, you can tone down the exaggeration of it being a disaster. As far as it making a comeback, you clearly didn't read the links I provided.

The bold is the problem: it's decreased to "still fucking awful".


And the first part of that is an outright lie: they still throw out far more radiation than any other kind of power station.

To be fair, if given enough time it's not implausible that solar tech could get good enough that just the housing ones would do.

Well, maybe not quite that good, but certainly enough that we wouldn't need to consider paving the deserts.
That said, I've always considered the renewables and more of a supplementary income to the nuclear base

Actually, we can maths this. We have about 1000 W/m^2 hitting the ground (averaged over the planet), there are around 3.5x10^12 m^2 of city on the planet, so the theoretical maximum output is 3.5x10^15 W, or 3x10^19 Wh/year. Global energy usage is at 10^8 Wh/year. So yeah, covering the cities in solar panels would provide more energy than we know what to do with. (Though obviously, there's still a whole lot of problems with that).

Well, it gets a lot more complicated, because the actual amount of usable roof space is going to be much less than the surface area of the city. Yes, giant solar panels over the whole city (which are not technically feasible and would leave the inhabitants in perpetual darkness, and kill all plants) might do so.

But instead we can only cover useable roofs (and some parking lots). Also many of out cities are in areas less conducive to solar power, also it would be inconsistent, require absurd amounts of energy storage.

Nukes and rooftop solar together though, perfect solution.

[Novus America]

Geothermal and hydro have their place but can only be built certain areas.

Recent breakthroughs in technology mean that energy can actually be transferred from place to place.

Within limitations. Energy is lost via transfer, and transfer is only possible from certain areas to other areas.

[Novus America]

Nuclear uses less than one tenth of the space.

Which assumes that footprint is an important metric. Also, that there even is a footprint.

Two things being asserted as axiomatic, but not even necessary assumptions.

Nuclear is in fact the SAFEST.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... ent=safari

The headline is misleading. Being safer than fossil fuels does not mean 'safest'.

So why not use the safest and save millions of acres of habitat?

Why not use technology that is actually even safer, and uses no land acreage?

It is not just safer than fossil fuels, but "green" sources as well. Well in the US tied with hydro.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ ... 3f598149d2

And we do not have the ability to generate sufficient amounts without land usage. We need actually solutions with existing, proven, usable, economically viable solutions. Not hypothetical ones.
Also there is no such thing as no footprint. Even if you are talking wave generators they produce small amounts of energy but require largest amounts of material to produce. And impact sea life and shipping. Sea use is also use of area that could be used for something else.
Footprint is important if we accept that habitat destruction is bad.

We should not mass kill animals in the name of radio phobia.

[Grave_n_idle]

In deaths per Gigawatt-hour of electricity generated, nuclear has the lowest bodycount of all energy sources.

Well, yes and no. US Hydro has the same deathprint as US nuclear.

But technologies like wavepower, road-surface solar and geothermal power aren't really considered.

And things like deaths attributed to windpower are almost exclusively about workmen falling from towers - which is a special exception because whenever electricity is carried over powerlines, people fall.

Even in absolute terms, its lives claimed are astoundingly low (though solar/wind's absolute deaths will possibly be even lower).

Excess cancers and life expectancy lost to nuclear incidents are also a lot, lot lower than you'd probably ever give credit for.

Probably not lower than I would give credit for - but then, I was trained for this.

[Novus America]

In deaths per Gigawatt-hour of electricity generated, nuclear has the lowest bodycount of all energy sources.

Well, yes and no. US Hydro has the same deathprint as US nuclear.

But technologies like wavepower, road-surface solar and geothermal power aren't really considered.

And things like deaths attributed to windpower are almost exclusively about workmen falling from towers - which is a special exception because whenever electricity is carried over powerlines, people fall.

Even in absolute terms, its lives claimed are astoundingly low (though solar/wind's absolute deaths will possibly be even lower).

Excess cancers and life expectancy lost to nuclear incidents are also a lot, lot lower than you'd probably ever give credit for.

Probably not lower than I would give credit for - but then, I was trained for this.

Wave power and road surface solar are not currently viable.
And would actually use up land in mining the materials needed.
Deaths from falling were also included in the numbers for nuclear and hydro.
Geothermal is good, where available. It is not always available.

[Grave_n_idle]

It is not just safer than fossil fuels, but "green" sources as well. Well in the US tied with hydro.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ ... 3f598149d2

Already well aware of this, and discussed it in a different post.

What does that source say about geothermal deathprint?

And we do not have the ability to generate sufficient amounts without land usage.

We absolutely do.

We need actually solutions with existing, proven, usable, economically viable solutions. Not hypothetical ones.

Wind, geothermal, hydro, wavepower - all existing, proven, usable and economically viable solutions.

But you're wrong, anyway - we need to move AWAY from most of our existing solutions. Because they are bad.

Footprint is important if we accept that habitat destruction is bad.

Nonsense assertion for a number of reasons.

One - and we've discussed this before - you are accepting as axiomatic that land-use is sufficiently important that it supercedes lethality or longterm environmental destruction.

Two - temporary destruction of finite habitat is still better than longterm destruction of the global environment.

Three - it is not axiomatic that habitat destruction is even necessary. Technology exists to use roadways as solarpower sources - no additional habitat destruction required. Or wavepower - no footprint.

[Grave_n_idle]

Wave power and road surface solar are not currently viable.

Wavepower certainly is.

Road surface solar is viable but the infrastructure hasn't been implemented. That's like arguing nuclear isn't viable because you ned to build a new power station.

Geothermal is good, where available. It is not always available.

It is always available.

This is not the fifteenth century. We can now move energy more efficiently than by buckets.

[Novus America]

It is not just safer than fossil fuels, but "green" sources as well. Well in the US tied with hydro.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ ... 3f598149d2

Already well aware of this, and discussed it in a different post.

What does that source say about geothermal deathprint?

And we do not have the ability to generate sufficient amounts without land usage.

We absolutely do.

We need actually solutions with existing, proven, usable, economically viable solutions. Not hypothetical ones.

Wind, geothermal, hydro, wavepower - all existing, proven, usable and economically viable solutions.

But you're wrong, anyway - we need to move AWAY from most of our existing solutions. Because they are bad.

Footprint is important if we accept that habitat destruction is bad.

Nonsense assertion for a number of reasons.

One - and we've discussed this before - you are accepting as axiomatic that land-use is sufficiently important that it supercedes lethality or longterm environmental destruction.

Two - temporary destruction of finite habitat is still better than longterm destruction of the global environment.

Three - it is not axiomatic that habitat destruction is even necessary. Technology exists to use roadways as solarpower sources - no additional habitat destruction required. Or wavepower - no footprint.

Wave power has a foot print. Where do you think all those steel balls come from? Also impacts sea life. Also they are not economically viable. It was tried, it failed to be economically viable.
Solar roads have not yet been made economically viable, having technology is not the same as having economically viable power.

We need to use the tools we have, not those we wish we have. And of those nukes are the best.

Geothermal is good, not sure about the deaths, but limited applicability. Should be used though.

Yes "temporary destruction of finite habitat is still better than long term destruction of the global environment".
So why not use nukes? Saves the environment with a small footprint.

How is nuclear inferior to other useable, existing sources? That is what you never answer.
But this is not the topic, so we need to end this.

[Imperializt Russia]

Even in absolute terms, its lives claimed are astoundingly low (though solar/wind's absolute deaths will possibly be even lower).

Excess cancers and life expectancy lost to nuclear incidents are also a lot, lot lower than you'd probably ever give credit for.

Probably not lower than I would give credit for - but then, I was trained for this.

By what?

[Surkiea]

I think the whole west should invade Russia, all of the EU and NATO should of invaded Syria, remove the communist dictator and help the freedom fighters take control then invade Iran, remove the evil regime there, help the people of Ukraine crush Putin's puppets there, liberate Crimea then finally liberate the people of Russia from Putin's control.

[Oil exporting People]

Bolded: 1, being cheap wins, and 2, fucking no. Not only does it produce a fucking lot of carbon (which is not only contributing to the greenhouse effect but is also technically harmful),

"Cheap wins", go back and read what's been posted. Thanks to new technologies we've been developing since the 1970s, some pollutants can be reduced by as much as 98%.

it also produces radioactive waste. A coal plant emits three times the level of radiation to the environment that a nuclear plant does.

The bold is the problem: it's decreased to "still fucking awful". And the first part of that is an outright lie: they still throw out far more radiation than any other kind of power station.

You didn't even bother to read prior posts, did you?

McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains an online database of fly ash–based uranium content for sites across the U.S. In most areas, the ash contains less uranium than some common rocks. In Tennessee's Chattanooga shale, for example, there is more uranium in phosphate rock.

Robert Finkelman, a former USGS coordinator of coal quality who oversaw research on uranium in fly ash in the 1990s, says that for the average person the by-product accounts for a miniscule amount of background radiation, probably less than 0.1 percent of total background radiation exposure. According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile [one kilometer] of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you're exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays.

So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."

[Balkenreich]

I think the whole west should invade Russia, all of the EU and NATO should of invaded Syria, remove the communist dictator and help the freedom fighters take control then invade Iran, remove the evil regime there, help the people of Ukraine crush Putin's puppets there, liberate Crimea then finally liberate the people of Russia from Putin's control.

congratulations, most of the western world and russia is a nuclear hellscape and the rest of the globe is fucked economically and environmentally.

[Surkiea]

I think the whole west should invade Russia, all of the EU and NATO should of invaded Syria, remove the communist dictator and help the freedom fighters take control then invade Iran, remove the evil regime there, help the people of Ukraine crush Putin's puppets there, liberate Crimea then finally liberate the people of Russia from Putin's control.

congratulations, most of the western world and russia is a nuclear hellscape and the rest of the globe is fucked economically and environmentally.

NATO can do airstrikes before the nukes even leave their silos and plus Putin needs to be stopped.

[Balkenreich]

congratulations, most of the western world and russia is a nuclear hellscape and the rest of the globe is fucked economically and environmentally.

NATO can do airstrikes before the nukes even leave their silos and plus Putin needs to be stopped.

Not like the russians have SAM's that can fuck up any pilots day.

[Surkiea]

NATO can do airstrikes before the nukes even leave their silos and plus Putin needs to be stopped.

Not like the russians have SAM's that can fuck up any pilots day.

Some old Soviet made missiles won't be able to hit modern fighter Aircraft.

[Imperializt Russia]

Not like the russians have SAM's that can fuck up any pilots day.

Some old Soviet made missiles won't be able to hit modern fighter Aircraft.

S-300/350/400 complex - not "some old Soviet-made missiles", certainly not in such a manner worthy of derision.

Reminder that what could genuinely be called "some old Soviet-made missiles", of 1950s vintage, took down an F-117 over Serbia.

[Oil exporting People]

NATO can do airstrikes before the nukes even leave their silos and plus Putin needs to be stopped.

No, not even close son. You're talking about destroying weapons systems designed to be attacked by nuclear weapons, and are thus in what are called hardened locations within a continent size target (Russia). Said weapons stored within these locations can go from the Urals to NYC in the space of 30 minutes for example, long before any plane carrying the weapons to attack such a silo (Assuming Russian air defenses don't claim them first, and a 100% successful attack on the target) could reach them.