Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 6, 2014, 04:30 PM   #51
G51989
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New York State
Quote:
Originally Posted by localoid View Post
Did you read the chart? It's not about efficiency -- look at the Total System Levelized Cost columns and see how poorly nuclear ranks in terms of costs.
Yes, I am aware that it's total cost is higher than coal or oil, or natural gas.

But that does not make it unaffordable.

Coal, Natural gas, and Oil might be a little more cost effective. But they spew millions of tons of toxic emissions into the sky, and that is what nuclear does not do.

Coal needs to die, so do oil fired plants. Natural gas needs to go to. What do you suggest we replace them with?
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 04:39 PM   #52
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
Sure it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

Bury it in a remote area in a stable area, deep down where it won't bother anyone, and walk away.
I've got it, lets bury it under your house...

Quote:
Actually that is not true,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...gs/french.html

Having been to France many times, and having married into a French family, I can tell you the French LOVE nuclear power, it gives them a very cheap and stable form of energy, with a very good safety record.

Hell, that link is not kidding. Every time a new plant comes up to be built, regions like to fight over who gets it, because it brings lots of jobs to the local towns and business's.
Except when the discussion comes up where to store the poison. I don't have a handy link, but this is a contentious subject everywhere where Nuc Power exists.



Quote:
Sure, but. What happens when the sun goes down? You just turn off the whole country?
Wind...
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 04:40 PM   #53
localoid
macrumors 68020
 
localoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: America's Third World
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
Yes, I am aware that it's total cost is higher than coal or oil, or natural gas.

But that does not make it unaffordable.

Coal, Natural gas, and Oil might be a little more cost effective. But they spew millions of tons of toxic emissions into the sky, and that is what nuclear does not do.

Coal needs to die, so do oil fired plants. Natural gas needs to go to. What do you suggest we replace them with?
Can you cite something that supports your theory?

According to this source, the data shown in the chart I cited considers costs of emissions. Namely:

Quote:
In the AEO2013 reference case a 3-percentage point increase in the cost of capital is added when evaluating investments in greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive technologies like coal-fired power and coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants without carbon control and sequestration (CCS). While the 3-percentage point adjustment is somewhat arbitrary, in levelized cost terms its impact is similar to that of an emissions fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) when investing in a new coal plant without CCS, similar to the costs used by utilities and regulators in their resource planning. The adjustment should not be seen as an increase in the actual cost of financing, but rather as representing the implicit hurdle being added to GHG-intensive projects to account for the possibility they may eventually have to purchase allowances or invest in other GHG emission-reducing projects that offset their emissions. As a result, the levelized capital costs of coal-fired plants without CCS are higher than would otherwise be expected.
__________________
My remake of the definitive Populuxe film on 1950s automotive, industrial/interior/architectural design: American Look (1958), Reimagined
localoid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 04:54 PM   #54
G51989
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New York State
Quote:
Originally Posted by localoid View Post
Can you cite something that supports your theory?

According to this source, the data shown in the chart I cited considers costs of emissions. Namely:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghg...s/sources.html

Thermal power plants cause 33% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the USA, its far worse in countries like china as well.

How do you factor in the " cost " of emissions? The more emissions and toxins you put into the air, isn't something that you can whip out some cash and " buy back " once its in the air, its in the air.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
I've got it, lets bury it under your house...
Sure, in 50,000 years I would build my house on top of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_...uel_repository

Because there isn't any danger and I wouldn't know its there.

Quote:
Except when the discussion comes up where to store the poison. I don't have a handy link, but this is a contentious subject everywhere where Nuc Power exists.
It is a discussion, there are safe isolated areas to safely bury the waste, but most of the projects gets derailed by people who think you can power the world with drum circles, peace T shirts, and Patchouli oil.

Quote:
Wind...
Then wind drops down...the system can't keep up with the nighttime demand...then what?

Also, where the hell do you put that many wind turbines?
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 05:05 PM   #55
localoid
macrumors 68020
 
localoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: America's Third World
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
I find nothing specific on that page.

Quote:
Thermal power plants cause 33% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the USA, its far worse in countries like china as well.
True, but are nuclear plants do indirectly produce emissions via the equipment used to mine the fuel source, refine it, and transport it to the plant. Then the plant has to transport spent fuel to a storage facility, etc.

All of that would be virtually impossible to do without producing emissions.

Quote:
How do you factor in the " cost " of emissions? The more emissions and toxins you put into the air, isn't something that you can whip out some cash and " buy back " once its in the air, its in the air.
Pretty sure the "cost" referred to in the report is the cost of a given type of plant coming into compliance with emission regulations expected to be implemented over the next 40 years or so.
__________________
My remake of the definitive Populuxe film on 1950s automotive, industrial/interior/architectural design: American Look (1958), Reimagined
localoid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 05:18 PM   #56
G51989
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New York State
Quote:
Originally Posted by localoid View Post
I find nothing specific on that page.
My point is that Thermal plants do produce tons of emissions, and I factor that into my thinking that nuclear does cost a little more to build, I am ok with that.

Quote:
True, but are nuclear plants do indirectly produce emissions via the equipment used to mine the fuel source, refine it, and transport it to the plant. Then the plant has to transport spent fuel to a storage facility, etc.

All of that would be virtually impossible to do without producing emissions.
I am aware of that, we'll never get to zero emissions, that is simply impossible.

However, its its far less emissions and negative impact than dirty coal and oil plants spewing crap all over the place.


It's this




vs




The enviomental impact of a Nuclear plant is far less than Coal and Oil plants.

There is no such thing as clean coal or oil, it just doens't exist.
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 05:31 PM   #57
localoid
macrumors 68020
 
localoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: America's Third World
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
My point is that Thermal plants do produce tons of emissions, and I factor that into my thinking that nuclear does cost a little more to build, I am ok with that.

I am aware of that, we'll never get to zero emissions, that is simply impossible.

However, its its far less emissions and negative impact than dirty coal and oil plants spewing crap all over the place.
Oh, you don't have to convince me that coal is evil -- I live in Central Appalachia, where coal has been totally screwing up everything -- air, water, towns, environment, people, etc. -- for more than a century.

That said, nuclear reminds me of coal -- because the "true cost" of both are rarely examined in any detail.

Sure, nuclear seems warm and fuzzy, but is it?


Quote:
The enviomental impact of a Nuclear plant is far less than Coal and Oil plants.

There is no such thing as clean coal or oil, it just doens't exist.
Is nuclear really that clean (and cheap)?

Spent fuel, will remain a major radiological hazard for thousands of years. At present, a long-term waste storage plan still does not exist in the U.S.

And the U.S. has been dragging its feet to develop fast-breeder reactors that would utilize the spent fuel. So we're still stuck with finding a place to store it away.

Government subsidies make nuclear energy appear to be a relatively cheap option, but when it comes time to actually find a place to store the spent fuel (for a few thousand years) what will the actual cost be?
__________________
My remake of the definitive Populuxe film on 1950s automotive, industrial/interior/architectural design: American Look (1958), Reimagined
localoid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 06:05 PM   #58
Cave Man
macrumors 604
 
Cave Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Neander Valley, Germany; just outside of Duesseldorf
Quote:
Originally Posted by localoid View Post
That said, nuclear reminds me of coal -- because the "true cost" of both are rarely examined in any detail.
There are more people who die from burning coal each year than have died in all nuclear accidents combined. How does that cost factor?
__________________
2012 Mac Mini; i5 Quad Core ITX Hackintosh with Blu-ray playback HTPC; 1 TB eSATA Apple TV; 3.8 gHz i7 Quad Core Hackintosh, 2GB HD5870; MacBook Pro i7; MacBook Air; iPhone 4s; 1st Mac=Centris 610
Cave Man is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 06:43 PM   #59
localoid
macrumors 68020
 
localoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: America's Third World
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cave Man View Post
There are more people who die from burning coal each year than have died in all nuclear accidents combined. How does that cost factor?
I said the "true cost" of coal and nuclear are rarely examined (in any detail).

I didn't claim coal is anything to brag about or to be proud of. I'm simply saying nuclear isn't as warm and fuzzy as some seem to believe _if_ you begin to really examine the "true costs" of nuclear power.

At this point in time, we don't know/can't compute the "true cost" of new nuclear projects since we don't even have a storage solution for dealing with spent fuel or any plans to burn the spent fuel in fast-breeder reactors.
__________________
My remake of the definitive Populuxe film on 1950s automotive, industrial/interior/architectural design: American Look (1958), Reimagined
localoid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 11:22 PM   #60
G51989
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New York State
Quote:
Originally Posted by localoid View Post
Oh, you don't have to convince me that coal is evil -- I live in Central Appalachia, where coal has been totally screwing up everything -- air, water, towns, environment, people, etc. -- for more than a century.
Yes, and I don't feel that even with the accidents, that nuclear power has had the same effect say, coal has.

Quote:
That said, nuclear reminds me of coal -- because the "true cost" of both are rarely examined in any detail.
The true cost of Nuclear is well examined, because its under so much criticism all the time. I would say it isn't as bad as coal for example.

As stated, more people die mining coal around the world that have ever died as the result of nuclear accidents. Nuclear plants also don't spew toxic emissions.

Quote:
Sure, nuclear seems warm and fuzzy, but is it?
Oh, it's tingly But if it tingles, start running.

Quote:
Is nuclear really that clean (and cheap)?
Is it clean? I would say compared to a coal or oil plant, yes. And is it cheap? It's slightly cheaper over the life of the plant compared to most power sources.

Quote:
Spent fuel, will remain a major radiological hazard for thousands of years. At present, a long-term waste storage plan still does not exist in the U.S.
Blame hippies for shutting down Yucca mountain.

Quote:
And the U.S. has been dragging its feet to develop fast-breeder reactors that would utilize the spent fuel. So we're still stuck with finding a place to store it away.
I blame hippies. And the fossil fuel cartel.

Quote:
Government subsidies make nuclear energy appear to be a relatively cheap option, but when it comes time to actually find a place to store the spent fuel (for a few thousand years) what will the actual cost be?
I beleive plant operators pay into a fund to build disposal sites.
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2014, 07:34 AM   #61
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
I'm all for starving the oil industry and reducing American dependency on oil, especially foreign oil.

Nuclear helps us get there.
Technarchy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2014, 11:43 AM   #62
G51989
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New York State
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post
I'm all for starving the oil industry and reducing American dependency on oil, especially foreign oil.

Nuclear helps us get there.
Don't underestimate America's Fossil Fuel cartels, they funnel tons of money into anti nuclear groups.

Nuclear is not without it's faults. But I'll take it over coal and oil.

And unlike hippies with drum circles and a solar bus, it can actually power everything 24/7

The other issue with things like Solar or Wind, while they are great for supplementing base power.

There is is currently record demand in the entire North East due to a huge cold front moving through, according to the local news here anyway, lots of plants are running at 120% of rated capacity just to keep up with demand due to the cold.

That is the nice thing about Thermal/Nuclear plants. You can run them up to 120-125% of rated capacity for short periods to keep up with demand in conditions like this, you cannot do that with wind or solar systems.

Last edited by G51989; Jan 7, 2014 at 12:53 PM.
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2014, 01:17 PM   #63
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post
I'm all for starving the oil industry and reducing American dependency on oil, especially foreign oil.

Nuclear helps us get there.
Well, in some ways, we could be trading our dependence on oil for a dependence on uranium, much of which is produced in Kazakhstan, Canada, Niger, and Namibia.

The dependencies are different, but they'll still exist. Moreover, the United States will remain dependent on "foreign" oil so long as we drive cars using internal combustion engines and use petroleum for chemical feedstocks, asphalt, etc.

In 2012, about 40 percent of the petroleum came from foreign countries, according to the EIA, the lowest since 1991. And, most of it currently comes from Canada.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2014, 01:22 PM   #64
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
Yes, I am aware that it's total cost is higher than coal or oil, or natural gas.

But that does not make it unaffordable.

Coal, Natural gas, and Oil might be a little more cost effective. But they spew millions of tons of toxic emissions into the sky, and that is what nuclear does not do.

Coal needs to die, so do oil fired plants. Natural gas needs to go to. What do you suggest we replace them with?
Agreed. Even more, coal and oil fired plants need to die now. Some of the plants can be retrofitted for natural gas. That should be done ASAP. The only thing standing between us and that outcome is the snow job that the coal companies have done on the miners. The miners need other job opportunities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
The wind isn't always blowing, and the sun isn't always shining. And you can't dam up every major river in the country without massive ecological damage.

Is there any source that they COULD power the entire country 24/7 on their own with no assistance or base generating capacity?
Renewables and nuclear have a similar problem for different reasons. Both need storage. Nuclear is inefficient with rapidly changing loads. Solar and wind are not 24/7. Renewables require, but, both benefit from development of large pumped storage facilities-- built in boring, non-scenic locations. In the past, the tendency has been to try to leverage existing hydro areas, but, most of these locations are scenic wonders and ecologically sensitive areas. But, there are not-so-beautiful areas where pumped storage could and should be located.

Quote:
Nuclear power plants and not inefficient on any level, the amount of fuel required is tiny. And cost per Kilowatt is lower than comparable fossil fuel plants, expect in areas with very cheap fossil fuel available. However investing even in cheap CNG plants is still more expensive over the life of the plant.

The capital costs of a nuclear plant going up are high, but the plants typically last much longer than other types, and cost per Kw tends to be cheaper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...ster-says.html

While wind is great, in the UK. It seems to be cheaper to build a nuclear plant rather than 30,000 wind turbines.
Renewables need to include the cost of storage. But, in the now distant past, nuclear was greatly oversold on the basis of cost, resulting in some financial disasters. (Does "WPPSS" - AKA "whoops", ring any bells?) And, that didn't even include the full costs of the entire fuel cycle. So, there is a basic lack of trust (based on past experience) with the economics of nuclear.

Quote:

Things like uranium mining tend not to matter, because the mines are typically located in remote areas.
Easy for you to say. There is some ugly mining history to look at if you care to.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

Bury it in a remote area in a stable area, deep down where it won't bother anyone, and walk away.
Agreed. But, I don't think there are any remote, boring areas in Europe. Requiring transport elsewhere. By the way, it wasn't "hippies" running Nevada ranches that created the ruckus. Them's is fight'n words. Truth to tell, past experience created distrust.

Quote:

Actually that is not true,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...gs/french.html

Having been to France many times, and having married into a French family, I can tell you the French LOVE nuclear power, it gives them a very cheap and stable form of energy, with a very good safety record.

Hell, that link is not kidding. Every time a new plant comes up to be built, regions like to fight over who gets it, because it brings lots of jobs to the local towns and business's.
Electricity is not cheap in France. But, leaving that aside for a minute, how popular do you think nuclear will be after the first Fukushima-Daiichi-type aaccident in a major wine-producing valley. Imagine waiting 100,000 years for the next Burgundy vintage. Accidents will happen. It is normal.

Quote:

Sure, but. What happens when the sun goes down? You just turn off the whole country?
Storage has to be factored in. No doubt about it. As far as I know, pumped hydro is still the state of the art:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped_hydro

Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghg...s/sources.html

Thermal power plants cause 33% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the USA, its far worse in countries like china as well.

How do you factor in the " cost " of emissions? The more emissions and toxins you put into the air, isn't something that you can whip out some cash and " buy back " once its in the air, its in the air.

Sure, in 50,000 years I would build my house on top of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_...uel_repository

Because there isn't any danger and I wouldn't know its there.



It is a discussion, there are safe isolated areas to safely bury the waste, but most of the projects gets derailed by people who think you can power the world with drum circles, peace T shirts, and Patchouli oil.



Then wind drops down...the system can't keep up with the nighttime demand...then what?

Also, where the hell do you put that many wind turbines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by localoid View Post
Oh, you don't have to convince me that coal is evil -- I live in Central Appalachia, where coal has been totally screwing up everything -- air, water, towns, environment, people, etc. -- for more than a century.

That said, nuclear reminds me of coal -- because the "true cost" of both are rarely examined in any detail.

Sure, nuclear seems warm and fuzzy, but is it?

Is nuclear really that clean (and cheap)?

Spent fuel, will remain a major radiological hazard for thousands of years. At present, a long-term waste storage plan still does not exist in the U.S.

And the U.S. has been dragging its feet to develop fast-breeder reactors that would utilize the spent fuel. So we're still stuck with finding a place to store it away.

Government subsidies make nuclear energy appear to be a relatively cheap option, but when it comes time to actually find a place to store the spent fuel (for a few thousand years) what will the actual cost be?
I think we still need to see convincing studies on the full costs of handling the full fuel cycle indefinitely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cave Man View Post
There are more people who die from burning coal each year than have died in all nuclear accidents combined. How does that cost factor?
That used to be true. But, I don't think it is true any more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...n_human_health

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...lear_accidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
Yes, and I don't feel that even with the accidents, that nuclear power has had the same effect say, coal has.

The true cost of Nuclear is well examined, because its under so much criticism all the time. I would say it isn't as bad as coal for example.

As stated, more people die mining coal around the world that have ever died as the result of nuclear accidents. Nuclear plants also don't spew toxic emissions.
See above.

Quote:
Blame hippies for shutting down Yucca mountain.
See above.


Based on the Chernobyl and Fukushima-Daiichi accidents, I think that there is a very strong case for restricting nuclear plants to isolated areas with little agricultural value.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2014, 01:23 PM   #65
G51989
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New York State
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post
Well, in some ways, we could be trading our dependence on oil for a dependence on uranium, much of which is produced in Kazakhstan, Canada, Niger, and Namibia.

The dependencies are different, but they'll still exist. Moreover, the United States will remain dependent on "foreign" oil so long as we drive cars using internal combustion engines and use petroleum for chemical feedstocks, asphalt, etc.

In 2012, about 40 percent of the petroleum came from foreign countries, according to the EIA, the lowest since 1991. And, most of it currently comes from Canada.
There would still be a dependency of course, that will most likely be from Canada, or Austrila, or increase mining operations in the US. Uranium isn't all that rare. And if commercial breeder reactors ever take off, we can use waste as fuel.

I am a gear head myself, but it doesn't need to be powered by gasoline, I am all for hydrogen, electric, bio fuels or grown fuels.

As long as its fast, don't care what powers it. I'd be in line to buy an electric Corvette
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2014, 01:23 PM   #66
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
...And unlike hippies with drum circles and a solar bus, it can actually power everything 24/7...
You just can't help it, can you?

Quote:
...The other issue with things like Solar or Wind, while they are great for supplementing base power.

There is is currently record demand in the entire North East due to a huge cold front moving through, according to the local news here anyway, lots of plants are running at 120% of rated capacity just to keep up with demand due to the cold.

That is the nice thing about Thermal/Nuclear plants. You can run them up to 120-125% of rated capacity for short periods to keep up with demand in conditions like this, you cannot do that with wind or solar systems.
This is a great point, and why we need to developed a layered power system because while big plants can deal with peak conditions, what will happen when ice storms start snapping power lines? Or, what happens to communities that are swamped by hurricanes? Without a localized power network, it doesn't matter if there's anti-matter reactor from the Enterprise, their lights still won't work.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2014, 01:30 PM   #67
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post

As long as its fast, don't care what powers it. I'd be in line to buy an electric Corvette
You'll miss the V8 growl...The fusion of mind to machine just doesn't feel the same without petrol engines.

Though, for a daily driver, I don't care about the power source, only the range and a little passing oomph.
__________________
Steve Jobs, January 9th 2007, 10:44am: "We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them."
Technarchy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2014, 01:39 PM   #68
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post
You just can't help it, can you?
I'm picturing him going into a bar in central Nevada somewhere and saying "You hippies! If it weren't for you we'd have nuclear reprocessing by now!"

Quote:
This is a great point, and why we need to developed a layered power system because while big plants can deal with peak conditions, what will happen when ice storms start snapping power lines? Or, what happens to communities that are swamped by hurricanes? Without a localized power network, it doesn't matter if there's anti-matter reactor from the Enterprise, their lights still won't work.
I'm not sure I can go there. The only technology that really scales down like that is natural-gas turbines. The turbines aren't very cheap, efficient, or clean, compared to large thermal plants. I think there are better (but not cheap) ways to harden the electric grid.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 09:18 AM   #69
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post

And unlike hippies with drum circles and a solar bus, it can actually power everything 24/7.
Statements like this hurt your argument.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 09:29 AM   #70
Cave Man
macrumors 604
 
Cave Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Neander Valley, Germany; just outside of Duesseldorf
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
That used to be true. But, I don't think it is true any more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...n_human_health
The burning of coal kills more than 100,000 people a year because of respiratory disease. The number if probably much higher than that.
__________________
2012 Mac Mini; i5 Quad Core ITX Hackintosh with Blu-ray playback HTPC; 1 TB eSATA Apple TV; 3.8 gHz i7 Quad Core Hackintosh, 2GB HD5870; MacBook Pro i7; MacBook Air; iPhone 4s; 1st Mac=Centris 610
Cave Man is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 02:06 PM   #71
satcomer
macrumors 68040
 
satcomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Upstate NYS
The problem with Nuclear Energy is it's waste! Since the shutting of Yucca Mountain most Nuclear Plants have to store on site and some Plants are running out of room.
__________________
Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad(Rev B.), 16 G RAM, OS X 10.9, 23'' LCD
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, 2G RAM, OS X 10.7.5
iPad 3, 32 black

Last edited by satcomer; Jan 11, 2014 at 07:12 AM.
satcomer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 06:23 PM   #72
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cave Man View Post
The burning of coal kills more than 100,000 people a year because of respiratory disease. The number if probably much higher than that.
I was responding to the idea that basically (almost) no one has ever died due to nuclear power. The numbers are now pretty big. How big? We don't know, do we? The models out there still have pretty big uncertainty, although we should have a lot more precision in 50 years.

As for coal -- it should be replaced ASAP. No argument. Nuclear is not the only option, and if nuclear is an option, nuclear-next-door is not the only option, either. I happen to think it is suboptimal (a nice way of saying "dumb") to put nuclear plants in productive agricultural areas, and, I think Chernobyl and Fukushima-Daiichi are good examples of what can happen economically to the area surrounding a nuclear plant that has had a major accident.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 09:26 PM   #73
SoAnyway
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2011
I'm in the camp that realizes that there area risks involved in using nuclear as a source of generating electricity but at this point, it's far cleaner than continuing the status quo and continuing to burn coal and oil. The biggest issue is containment but much of that can be taken care of with stronger infrastructure.

In the meantime, the other thing that can be done is to go solar at least until we're completely done with coal and oil.
SoAnyway is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Hires Former NV Energy VP to Serve as Renewable Energy Manager MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 5 May 3, 2014 12:48 AM
Should you be able to buy an ICBM? Or nuclear weapons? G51989 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 81 Jan 20, 2014 11:36 AM
Nuclear Powered Smartphones SomeDudeAsking Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 10 Jan 21, 2013 08:17 AM
Nuclear Explosion Panoramic Picture batmangorden Picture Gallery 26 Jan 4, 2013 05:56 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC