1. #14521
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Uhm... as someone who was in Kiev when Chernobyl blew up and is now in Seattle... How about instead of nuclear, we build more batteries over the cascades, around Tri Cities, then build infrastructure that would then push that energy to California and where ever else needed on West Coast... that’s a shit ton of solar and wind energy that gets burned off on a regular basis, instead of going anywhere or being stored. We have a clean energy solution, over the mountains from Seattle...
    Ehhh... Dont vilify nuclear so much. Is the best short term alternative for reaching 100% non oil/coal/gas energy production. And now with the prospects of thorium reactors, things look better!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Not for the short term. Nuclear is really the way to go. They simply do not fail at this point - and Chernobyl was an outlier of Soviet incompetence more than anything else. Long term is certainly green/sustainable. But to reach that goal, nuclear is the bridge.
    And you can make thorium reactors, or when we get to the moon, deuterium/tritium reactors
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  2. #14522
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Thepersona View Post
    Ehhh... Dont vilify nuclear so much. Is the best short term alternative for reaching 100% non oil/coal/gas energy production. And now with the prospects of thorium reactors, things look better!
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Not for the short term. Nuclear is really the way to go. They simply do not fail at this point - and Chernobyl was an outlier of Soviet incompetence more than anything else. Long term is certainly green/sustainable. But to reach that goal, nuclear is the bridge.
    But... we literally have a solar and wind solution that is going to waste... Why build nuclear infrastructure, if we already have a solution that is not being used.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  3. #14523
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    But... we literally have a solar and wind solution that is going to waste... Why build nuclear infrastructure, if we already have a solution that is not being used.
    Because wind and solar are actually more inefficient and less climate friendly than nuclear. Mostly in the materials needed to capture those types of power.

  4. #14524
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    But... we literally have a solar and wind solution that is going to waste... Why build nuclear infrastructure, if we already have a solution that is not being used.
    Because, AFAIK is not very efficent, and requires extensive use of batteries (and those things are hella harmful to the enviroment). Nuclear is neat, with current tech, and with the upcoming tech of thorium/fusion reactors, we may have enough energy for centuries. Until we need black hole generators, or a dyson swarm, we're set.
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  5. #14525
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Because wind and solar are actually more inefficient and less climate friendly than nuclear. Mostly in the materials needed to capture those types of power.
    Moreover, one of the crucial aspects of an energy revolution is diversification - being able to source power from a variety of sources makes the system significantly more resilient and less vulnerable to supply shocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  6. #14526
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Thepersona View Post
    Because, AFAIK is not very efficent, and requires extensive use of batteries (and those things are hella harmful to the enviroment). Nuclear is neat, with current tech, and with the upcoming tech of thorium/fusion reactors, we may have enough energy for centuries. Until we need black hole generators, or a dyson swarm, we're set.
    Moreover, it's ignoring that current energy demands are offset by the fact transportation is mostly reliant on a hard fuel source - versus the emergent economy where transportation increasingly looks like it'll be mostly electric, with some hydrogen.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  7. #14527
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    But... we literally have a solar and wind solution that is going to waste... Why build nuclear infrastructure, if we already have a solution that is not being used.
    The problem with solar, at least right now, is the technology isn't pitch perfect, and a lot of panels are dying and now going to be amassing into landfills, and they contain toxic materials like lead that can leach out as they break down which creates whole new environmental hazards.

  8. #14528
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/t...imes&smtyp=cur

    Apparently all it takes to get the conservative media machine to go into overdrive is a tweet from some radio personality without any evidence backing it up.

    Man, they're desperate to lay the groundwork for Trump to spend the night incapable of speaking to any actual policies.

  9. #14529
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/t...imes&smtyp=cur

    Apparently all it takes to get the conservative media machine to go into overdrive is a tweet from some radio personality without any evidence backing it up.

    Man, they're desperate to lay the groundwork for Trump to spend the night incapable of speaking to any actual policies.
    Didn't they try this shit with Hillary in 2016?
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  10. #14530
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Moreover, it's ignoring that current energy demands are offset by the fact transportation is mostly reliant on a hard fuel source - versus the emergent economy where transportation increasingly looks like it'll be mostly electric, with some hydrogen.
    Yup. The only problematic thing is that we still need fossil fuels for air travel (as we could retrofit almost every big container ship with small nuclear reactors) and small maritime travel. If we get Hydrogen combustion engines, we're set, though

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Didn't they try this shit with Hillary in 2016?
    Thing is, 4 years do change people. And Biden is still 6-10 points ahead of Trump. Something Hillary never achieved
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  11. #14531
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Because wind and solar are actually more inefficient and less climate friendly than nuclear. Mostly in the materials needed to capture those types of power.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thepersona View Post
    Because, AFAIK is not very efficent, and requires extensive use of batteries (and those things are hella harmful to the enviroment). Nuclear is neat, with current tech, and with the upcoming tech of thorium/fusion reactors, we may have enough energy for centuries. Until we need black hole generators, or a dyson swarm, we're set.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jettisawn View Post
    Because Battery technology isn't robust enough to fill the on demand spikes that happen, plus all nuclear events like you mentioned including the most recent were all from Generation one plants. Nuclear tech has come a long way since then and if we serious about talking climate change and its the threat scientist say it is we shouldn't rule out things that could vastly reduce the carbon foot print. Solar and Wind also has its own environmental impacts, so I support an all above approach to reducing as much as possible.
    We have a nuclear power plant as well, but are generating more hydro and rentable, than the nuclear.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._in_Washington
    Washington's electrical energy generation mix in 2020 was 5% natural gas, 80% hydroelectric, 8% renewables, and 7% nuclear. The state has 28% of the nation's hydroelectric generation, and the nation's largest capacity power station at Grand Coulee Dam. 60% of Washington households use electricity as their primary heating fuel, unlike most households in other U.S. states that typically utilize natural gas.
    I don’t see how what I’m saying isn’t possible...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  12. #14532
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    We have a nuclear power plant as well, but are generating more hydro and rentable, than the nuclear.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._in_Washington


    I don’t see how what I’m saying isn’t possible...
    As edge said, It's doable, but Nuclear is the necessary bridge (and to provide with nuclear reactors for container ships and tanks) in the short term, as we have 15-20 years to litteraly change 100% of humanity energy production to be not reliant on fossil fuels.
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  13. #14533
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Thepersona View Post
    Yup. The only problematic thing is that we still need fossil fuels for air travel (as we could retrofit almost every big container ship with small nuclear reactors) and small maritime travel. If we get Hydrogen combustion engines, we're set, though
    The fortunate thing about fossil fuels is that they can be easily be replaced by biofuels (it's all hydrocarbons in the end); it's entirely possible to synthesise jet fuel from corn ethanol, it's just not as cheap as processing from crude in the current regulatory environment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  14. #14534
    Over 9000! Milchshake's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Shitposter Burn Out
    Posts
    9,974
    2020 Who's afraid of early voting? Answer; fascist repubs, they hate voting in general.

    2020 Who's enthusiastic to vote?

    Democrats are crushing Republicans in the mail vote in key early states: NC, IA, ME, PA and FL, and lots of GOP folks are worried not just about the WH but Senate seats too.

    Early surge of Democratic mail voting sparks worry inside GOP
    And it's not just Democrats REQUESTING ballots at higher rates. It's Democrats RETURNING ballots at higher rates as well.

    - More registered Democrats have requested mail ballots
    - Democrats have nearly twice the ballot return rate

    Government Affiliated Snark

  15. #14535
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    The fortunate thing about fossil fuels is that they can be easily be replaced by biofuels (it's all hydrocarbons in the end); it's entirely possible to synthesise jet fuel from corn ethanol, it's just not as cheap as processing from crude in the current regulatory environment.
    Oh, that's neat, but i was talking about the carbon footprint of said fuel. With hydrogen as a fuel, the only byproduct is water vapor and heat.
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  16. #14536
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    We have a nuclear power plant as well, but are generating more hydro and rentable, than the nuclear.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._in_Washington


    I don’t see how what I’m saying isn’t possible...
    Washington does have a unique set of circumstances with their hydroelectric power generation. You'll note in your own information, that Dam produces 28% of the nation's hydroelectric power, and is the largest of it's kind in the U.S.

    So to fulfill the entirety of the nation's power needs, hydroelectric on it's own won't work. The other forms of green energy have their own issues with either consistency or storage. Nuclear solves those short term problems, and as others have said, could actually be the future of all the world's power generation.

  17. #14537
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Washington does have a unique set of circumstances with their hydroelectric power generation. You'll note in your own information, that Dam produces 28% of the nation's hydroelectric power, and is the largest of it's kind in the U.S.

    So to fulfill the entirety of the nation's power needs, hydroelectric on it's own won't work. The other forms of green energy have their own issues with either consistency or storage. Nuclear solves those short term problems, and as others have said, could actually be the future of all the world's power generation.
    Until we get a dyson swarm/black hole energy/anti-matter reactors, the best thing is nuclear fusion reactors or nuclear fission, thorium ones.
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  18. #14538
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Washington does have a unique set of circumstances with their hydroelectric power generation. You'll note in your own information, that Dam produces 28% of the nation's hydroelectric power, and is the largest of it's kind in the U.S.

    So to fulfill the entirety of the nation's power needs, hydroelectric on it's own won't work. The other forms of green energy have their own issues with either consistency or storage. Nuclear solves those short term problems, and as others have said, could actually be the future of all the world's power generation.
    I think wind will always be a thing, especially for under developed area's. Just read an article that there is a 1000 year old windmill that a small town in iran still uses.

  19. #14539
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Thepersona View Post
    Until we get a dyson swarm/black hole energy/anti-matter reactors, the best thing is nuclear fusion reactors or nuclear fission, thorium ones.
    Kardashev Scale?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  20. #14540
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Yup. We need nuclear to jump to a type 1 civilization.

    Edit: And now, we're T-minus 5
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •