Advertisement
by Vascottozer » Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:01 pm
by Azadliq » Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:31 pm
by Dazchan » Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:59 pm
Azadliq wrote:Solar panels, in my opinion, have a place as personal power units and as backup power units, but I dont believe that its practical to build them en masse because they only work for half the day. That being said, as they become cheaper, we could consider including them in humanitarian packages to countries where consistent power may be a luxury. Power for part of the day is better than not having power at all.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:15 pm
Grenartia wrote:Novus America wrote:
Three mile island did not kill anyone, or do any real harm outside the containment structure. All you really need is a good containment structure. Something all US reactors require, and that Chernobyl and Fukushima did not have. Fukushima was also an old design that would not be built today.
And passive relief valves to vent excessive pressure like France requires can be used too.
Or you just a have a negative void coefficient and melt down is literally impossible.
And even including Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear is still safer per kilowatt than the other main sources.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'd rather live next door to a nuclear plant than even 50 miles downwind from a coal plant or oil refinery.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:20 pm
Novus America wrote:We never tried it because it is not practical.
You would have to build absurdly huge barges, deal with the fact the ocean moves, that seawater and salt ruins smooth surfaces, etc.
Novus America wrote:“Unused” space, even if you are not using it for human development still has use. Environmental conservation is a thing, which requires efficient use of resources to avoid excessive footprint from mining, etc.
Novus America wrote:And you admit you cannot solve the material usage problem.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:55 pm
by Azadliq » Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:59 pm
Dazchan wrote:Azadliq wrote:Solar panels, in my opinion, have a place as personal power units and as backup power units, but I dont believe that its practical to build them en masse because they only work for half the day. That being said, as they become cheaper, we could consider including them in humanitarian packages to countries where consistent power may be a luxury. Power for part of the day is better than not having power at all.
If only there was some means of storing electricity generated during the daytime for later use.
by Azadliq » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:05 pm
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Grenartia wrote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'd rather live next door to a nuclear plant than even 50 miles downwind from a coal plant or oil refinery.
Anyone have statistics on property values near power plants, before and after they were built? It's all well and good to say where one would rather live, but as always, actions speak louder than words...
by Thermodolia » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:08 pm
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Novus America wrote:Which killed one person.
For now. The contamination is still out there, though.
Also, "non-lethal" =/= "harmless."Novus America wrote:And by the logic we could never use anything because humans might screw it up.
Not always. Just when there's immediately obvious alternatives whose screwups have less potential to cause harm.Novus America wrote:And nuclear in the US has resulted in negligible harm.
Partly because they don't rely on it as heavily as Japan. Let's keep it that way.
by Thermodolia » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:16 pm
Azadliq wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Anyone have statistics on property values near power plants, before and after they were built? It's all well and good to say where one would rather live, but as always, actions speak louder than words...
This journal from 2018 has a research article entitled "Property values and tax rates near spent nuclear fuel storage". I'm not going to purchase the PDF to read the article, but the abstract says "We confirm earlier research that fails to find an impact on property values of proximity to a nuclear power site."
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:29 pm
Azadliq wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Anyone have statistics on property values near power plants, before and after they were built? It's all well and good to say where one would rather live, but as always, actions speak louder than words...
This journal from 2018 has a research article entitled "Property values and tax rates near spent nuclear fuel storage". I'm not going to purchase the PDF to read the article, but the abstract says "We confirm earlier research that fails to find an impact on property values of proximity to a nuclear power site."
by Samadhi » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:37 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Azadliq wrote:
This journal from 2018 has a research article entitled "Property values and tax rates near spent nuclear fuel storage". I'm not going to purchase the PDF to read the article, but the abstract says "We confirm earlier research that fails to find an impact on property values of proximity to a nuclear power site."
Spent fuel storage sites tend to be placed far away from heavily populated areas, so the issue of property values is negligible anyway.
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:43 pm
Samadhi wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Spent fuel storage sites tend to be placed far away from heavily populated areas, so the issue of property values is negligible anyway.
As our understanding of climate dynamics grows I've often thought we're going to discover areas where it's going to be critical that humans don't live or build there.
Banging nuclear waste in these areas seems like the best deterant.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:46 pm
Samadhi wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Spent fuel storage sites tend to be placed far away from heavily populated areas, so the issue of property values is negligible anyway.
As our understanding of climate dynamics grows I've often thought we're going to discover areas where it's going to be critical that humans don't live or build there.
Banging nuclear waste in these areas seems like the best deterant.
by Samadhi » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:48 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Samadhi wrote:
As our understanding of climate dynamics grows I've often thought we're going to discover areas where it's going to be critical that humans don't live or build there.
Banging nuclear waste in these areas seems like the best deterant.
I don't think that you understand how the storage of spent fuel works.
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:50 pm
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Samadhi wrote:
As our understanding of climate dynamics grows I've often thought we're going to discover areas where it's going to be critical that humans don't live or build there.
Banging nuclear waste in these areas seems like the best deterant.
Well you're the first Greenie For More Mutation that I've ever met.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:50 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Samadhi wrote:
As our understanding of climate dynamics grows I've often thought we're going to discover areas where it's going to be critical that humans don't live or build there.
Banging nuclear waste in these areas seems like the best deterant.
I don't think that you understand how the storage of spent fuel works.
by The Greater Ohio Valley » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:55 pm
by Samadhi » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:57 pm
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:03 pm
by Samadhi » Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:04 pm
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:07 pm
by Neu California » Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:41 pm
by Thermodolia » Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:57 pm
Neu California wrote:My main criticism of nuclear is cost and inability to be built on time and on budget, which, per industry reports, is making it too expensive to compete with wind and solar.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ener ... SKBN1W909J
And it's not regulation that's causing the problems
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmaho ... 57d3145d1a
As to thorium, I'm skeptical. The claims of how amazing it will be and how much better than uranium it is and how it's the best power source instantly trigger my "sounds too good to be true" sense. Sources are lacking (and older, as in 2014 older, based on a cursory Google search). One specific criticism I have is about how thorium is everywhere. This would be a great plus if (IF) uranium itself was a major cost in nuclear power production.
Thing is, it's not. to my understanding, uranium is cheap, relatively speaking, which is part of why opex (operating expenditure, running it) for nuclear is so low. The problem is, as my sources above, and in the op, say, capex (capital expedinture, building it) which needs to be recouped for economic viability (they're not going to build it unless they can make money off of it) which I'm not convinced thorium would fix.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, Duvniask, Ifreann, Tungstan
Advertisement