RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tweakabelle -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:16:05 PM)

quote:

ChiDS
Wanna know why we are not doing so?  Because you can't make a profit off of abundance.  Profit only comes from scarcity.


Here's one example of the extent of the silliness a universal profit imperative can generate:

Here in Australia, where there's an abundance of solar energy, and with enormous reserves of natural gas for baseline or supplementary power, the previous Govt - a very conservative right wing one - tried to force the nuclear option on a very reluctant population.

Unlike infinitely renewable free solar energy, nuclear plants have a life span of less than 40 years. Then we would have to fork out all over again to establish new plants.

It didn't even make economic sense - until one realised that the costs would be socialised (tax-payer subsidised) and the profits privatised. Then it made perfect sense - but only for the mining and power companies, and their shareholders.

Rather than looking forward to irradiated suntans and emptier purses, we chucked the Govt out.



ChiDS -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:19:46 PM)

Oh wow, that is insane.  See THIS is why I have a problem with the profit structure.  Thanks for that tweak I'm going to read up on it.  Any links you would suggest?



RapierFugue -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:21:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Unlike infinitely renewable free solar energy, nuclear plants have a life span of less than 40 years. Then we would have to fork out all over again to establish new plants.


Plus there's the "cleaning and refurbishing" costs and consequences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It didn't even make economic sense - until one realised that the costs would be socialised (tax-payer subsidised) and the profits privatised. Then it made perfect sense - but only for the mining and power companies, and their shareholders.

Rather than looking forward to irradiated suntans and emptier purses, we chucked the Govt out.


If only other governments, and their peoples, could show the same commonsense.



ChiDS -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:23:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Unlike infinitely renewable free solar energy, nuclear plants have a life span of less than 40 years. Then we would have to fork out all over again to establish new plants.


Plus there's the "cleaning and refurbishing" costs and consequences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It didn't even make economic sense - until one realised that the costs would be socialised (tax-payer subsidised) and the profits privatised. Then it made perfect sense - but only for the mining and power companies, and their shareholders.

Rather than looking forward to irradiated suntans and emptier purses, we chucked the Govt out.


If only other governments, and their peoples, could show the same commonsense.



Total agreement.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:23:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Unlike infinitely renewable free solar energy, nuclear plants have a life span of less than 40 years. .


Nonsense. Sunlight is free, solar energy is far from it.



jlf1961 -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:25:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Sorry to inform you of the facts of life, that there is no real alternative to nuclear. Unless you want the world to go back to the stone age.


*chortle*

Like I said, so much ignorance :)

In one respect though you are correct; your nation cannot continue to consume resources at the rate it is now, and the rate it has been used to.

So, what are YOU going to do?*

*rhetorical question, obviously, since the answer is "fuck all of any real note, on a national basis" :)




why is it that brits seem to blame all the problems on the world on the US?

You sure dont seem to be saying nothing bad about the UK, how many nuclear power plants are operating within the UK? For a total of one fifth the total power consumption.

The U.S. ranks seventh in energy consumption per-capita after Canada and a number of small countries. The industrial sector has long been the country's largest energy user, currently representing about 33% of the total. Next in importance is the transportation sector, followed by the residential and commercial sectors.

So it would make you happy to shut down our economy to please you? You, are full of shit.



RapierFugue -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:31:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

why is it that brits seem to blame all the problems on the world on the US?

So it would make you happy to shut down our economy to please you? You, are full of shit.

And you, as I previously pointed out, haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Flappy gum disease is no substitute for facts.

Do some research, paying particular attention to overall national resource consumption, consumption per capita, how that resource is derived, what controls are placed upon the nuclear industry, and what the long term cost is to everyone.

Then, when you're done, come back and say sorry.

Until then, I'm going to dump you into the "idiot" bucket.



tweakabelle -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:35:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini


Why don't we take up a CM offering and send you to Fukushima to just hang out for a while outside of the nuclear plants?
You could tweet and blog and even telecast on citizen tube.
You would get a lot of press coverage and could make a lot of money.
[ ...]
Prove everyone "concerned" wrong.
[8|]


Wonderful suggestion Martini! I was thinking how much can I afford to donate when I realised that, sadly, it isn't a goer.

The key to right wing solutions is that they always involve other people. You know like outsourcing other people's jobs, or dismantling other people's welfare supports, or insisting other people pay more than their fair share of tax. And, when push comes to shove, sending other people's kids to fight their wars in other people's countries.

Notable warmonger GWB is the textbook example.



ChiDS -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:37:22 PM)

Careful some may label you a Socialist for saying such things!  The only thing I feel differently about is that in my opinion the USA and UK are one in the same.  Anglo-American empire.  All in bed with each other.  Hence why banks in the UK got bailed out with the US' bailout money.  Although to be fair it wasn't just the UK banks.  Many European banks got a piece.



RapierFugue -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:43:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChiDS

The only thing I feel differently about is that in my opinion the USA and UK are one in the same.  Angloamerican empire.  All in bed with each other.  Hence why banks in the UK got bailed out with the US' bailout money.  Although to be fair it wasn't just the UK banks.  Many European banks got a piece.

I wouldn't disagree much with that stance. Our government has for some time been a lap dog.

But in this context, on this topic, where one has to look at how much resource is consumed by each member of various nations, and what is being done to wean people off fossil fuels, the US lags way, waaaaaaaaay behind, hence my comments.

I was also slightly offended, as a long-time admirer of many aspects of american life and law, to be labelled "anti-american". But then I don't think the OP has the wit to understand my posting history, so it's of little import ;)



tweakabelle -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:51:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Unlike infinitely renewable free solar energy, nuclear plants have a life span of less than 40 years. .


Nonsense. Sunlight is free, solar energy is far from it.


It does surprise me Willbe, to be forced to point out to such a notable authority on economic matters as yourself that solar energy is, in fact, free. To convert that energy into electricity involves costs.

After initial set up costs, solar-generated electricity's only major ongoing cost is maintenance. Unlike coal-, gas-, oil-, or nuclear-generated electricity, where the cost of raw materials is high and guaranteed to be increasingly higher in the future.

That's before anyone factors in the environmental costs, routinely omitted from the balance sheets of any power company that I am aware of. As we are currently seeing in Japan, these costs can be astronomical. Or the costs of wars to ensure access to raw material supplies. Or the health costs to humans ........ etc etc.


Edited at the Milton Friedman School of Magic Markets [:D]



ChiDS -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:53:17 PM)

Well then, again, I must agree, that, that is due to our profit structure.  It doesn't matter who gets hurt, maimed, killed, impoverished.  It's all in the name of profit.  The redistribution of wealth from the middle to the upper class until eventually there is no middle class.  Only the people with money and the ones without.  So it's all fair game, right?  That's capitalism is it not?  It's all happening.  I don't think it's right and that's why I'm here.  



jlf1961 -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:54:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Unlike infinitely renewable free solar energy, nuclear plants have a life span of less than 40 years. .


Nonsense. Sunlight is free, solar energy is far from it.



Actually, the cost to generate solar energy is free. However, the extensive land area required for a solar power generating plant is prohibitive. The largest photovoltaic plant in the world is in Canada, covers 950 acres and produces 80mwh.

Now, lets take LA, the average peak usage per day is 6,165 MWh, so a solar photovoltaic plant to supply that would cover 73209 acres. By the way, that is JUST the city of LA, it does not cover the power demand for the entire LA basin.

Where do you propose to put the generating plant?

In theory, and I repeat, IN THEORY, you could put photovoltaic cells on every building in an urban area, but the efficiency leaves a lot to be desired, less than 14% of the power of sunlight is turned into electricity. The most efficient solar panels are on the space station and they convert 22% of sunlight to electricity.

Until photovoltaic cells are produced that are better than 50% efficient, solar power is cost prohibitive.

In fact, most alternative power generation system suppliers for homes suggest a combination of solar and wind.

I really hate agreeing with Wilbe.



ChiDS -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 3:55:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Unlike infinitely renewable free solar energy, nuclear plants have a life span of less than 40 years. .


Nonsense. Sunlight is free, solar energy is far from it.



Actually, the cost to generate solar energy is free. However, the extensive land area required for a solar power generating plant is prohibitive. The largest photovoltaic plant in the world is in Canada, covers 950 acres and produces 80mwh.

Now, lets take LA, the average peak usage per day is 6,165 MWh, so a solar photovoltaic plant to supply that would cover 73209 acres. By the way, that is JUST the city of LA, it does not cover the power demand for the entire LA basin.

Where do you propose to put the generating plant?

In theory, and I repeat, IN THEORY, you could put photovoltaic cells on every building in an urban area, but the efficiency leaves a lot to be desired, less than 14% of the power of sunlight is turned into electricity. The most efficient solar panels are on the space station and they convert 22% of sunlight to electricity.

Until photovoltaic cells are produced that are better than 50% efficient, solar power is cost prohibitive.

In fact, most alternative power generation system suppliers for homes suggest a combination of solar and wind.


Again, I stress geothermal energy as the cheapest and most efficient means of gathering energy from a nearly limitless source.



tweakabelle -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 4:10:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChiDS

Oh wow, that is insane.  See THIS is why I have a problem with the profit structure.  Thanks for that tweak I'm going to read up on it.  Any links you would suggest?


The link is to the official report given to the Australian Govt by it's Uranium Mining Processing and Nuclear Energy Task Force in 2007 (I think). The Task Force's head Dr Zwiskowski, happened to be, serendipitously, a nuclear scientist by training.

http://www.ansto.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/38975/Umpner_report_2006.pdf

Googling the task force's name supplied me with heaps of supplementary links. Please keep me posted. Happy researching [:D]



jlf1961 -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 4:14:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChiDS


Again, I stress geothermal energy as the cheapest and most efficient means of gathering energy from a nearly limitless source.


There is a problem with this, the simple fact that the available sources for geothermal power generation is limited. Iceland is best suited since the country is covered with geothermal fields, where as the United States is limited.

Most geothermal fields are in the western United States and have a nasty habit of being in caldera type volcanoes, or volcanic hotspots. This means they are active seismically.

20 states in the US have the possibility of generating geothermal energy.

Granted, it is efficient, in some areas, cost effective and easy to build the plants.

Of course the environmentalist will protest the construction of the plants because of the impact on the environment.

Acquiring steam from geysers, volcanoes, and hot springs is a process that isn't harmful to the environment. However, the actual steam that is being collected and transferred into energy contains chemicals that contribute to air pollution, and water mixed with the steam consists of dissolved salts that can damage pipes and harm aquatic ecosystems.[16]

In addition to hazardous salts in our environment, some waters that are collected with the process of geothermal energy have contained high concentrations of toxic elements such as boron, lead, and arsenic. A gas that has been found in geothermal water and steam is hydrogen sulfide, which has a bad odor of rotten eggs, and is toxic in high concentrations. [17] Geothermal energy in the United States

So it is not entirely clean.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 4:17:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Unlike infinitely renewable free solar energy, nuclear plants have a life span of less than 40 years. .


Nonsense. Sunlight is free, solar energy is far from it.


It does surprise me Willbe, to be forced to point out to such a notable authority on economic matters as yourself that solar energy is, in fact, free. To convert that energy into electricity involves costs.



It would have been shorter to say "I agree", but I know you'd choke on the words.



tweakabelle -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 4:29:30 PM)

quote:

jlf1961
Until photovoltaic cells are produced that are better than 50% efficient, solar power is cost prohibitive.


You point is valid.

However, if I may say so, you are thinking within the current structure of centralised power generation.

One of the features of alternative energy systems is that they can operate on much smaller scales than conventional systems.

Installing solar panels on buildings, and developing roofing/building materials that collect solar energy is one way power generation could be de-centralised. Thinking outside the box will generate many similar solutions, thereby altering the economics.

If Govts devoted just a fraction of the billions they allocate to subside fossil-fuel power generation to such research and development, there's little doubt in my mind the economics would shift rapidly and compellingly in favour of renewables.



tweakabelle -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 4:38:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Nonsense. Sunlight is free, solar energy is far from it.

quote:

tweakabelle
It does surprise me Willbe, to be forced to point out to such a notable authority on economic matters as yourself that solar energy is, in fact, free. To convert that energy into electricity involves costs.


quote:

willbeurdaddy
It would have been shorter to say "I agree", but I know you'd choke on the words.


Clearly, it has escaped your attention that I was contradicting you, not agreeing with you. Sorry but I am unaware of any treatment or cure that might useful to you in this instance.



jlf1961 -> RE: Living in a nuclear world? Nuclear Plant Explosions in Japan (3/16/2011 4:54:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

You point is valid.

However, if I may say so, you are thinking within the current structure of centralised power generation.

One of the features of alternative energy systems is that they can operate on much smaller scales than conventional systems.

Installing solar panels on buildings, and developing roofing/building materials that collect solar energy is one way power generation could be de-centralised. Thinking outside the box will generate many similar solutions, thereby altering the economics.

If Govts devoted just a fraction of the billions they allocate to subside fossil-fuel power generation to such research and development, there's little doubt in my mind the economics would shift rapidly and compellingly in favour of renewables.



As I said, IN THEORY, you could put photovoltaic cells on every rooftop in an urban area, but it still will not produce the energy needed by an average sized city. Any supplier of alternative energy generation equipment for you home recommends a combination of wind and solar power.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625