Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Mar 13, 2011, 02:38 PM   #51
FX120
macrumors 65816
 
FX120's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by entatlrg View Post
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die
No. You need to do some research.
FX120 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 02:49 PM   #52
firestarter
macrumors Demi-God
 
firestarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Quote:
Originally Posted by entatlrg View Post
NO nuclear.
Problem is that you (or I) don't get to choose who uses nuclear.

- We can't stop Russia using unsafe reactors, or having poor security around them.
- We can't stop nuclear programs in India, Pakistan, Iran etc.
- We can't stop countries like Japan building power stations on fault lines.

All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.

We can build our own nuclear power stations based on modern designs, in well guarded facilities away from seismic activity. If we choose not to, we face the worst of both worlds... we have all the downside of 'bad nuclear power' elsewhere coupled with the worsening ramifications of an oil crisis.
firestarter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 02:54 PM   #53
Hellhammer
Moderator
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Send a message via MSN to Hellhammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by entatlrg View Post
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
Yet they are still dependent on coal, oil and nuclear. Green energy isn't efficient enough. Also, if you didn't know, Denmark has one of the highest household electricity prices in the world.

Quote:
NO nuclear.
Currently, that is same as saying no to electricity.
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
You can also follow me in Twitter!
Hellhammer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 02:55 PM   #54
Mord
macrumors G4
 
Mord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Old York
Traditional light water fission? No, I'm generally against it.

Modern reactors that process spent fuel and thorium cycle reactors? Hell yes.

Writing off nuclear in all it's forms is like writing off the future of the human race, we just need to go for sensible safe reactor designs and hopefully develop fusion to the point of being a practical solution.

The vast majority of nuclear power plants are designed to produce weapons grade plutonium and uranium, these designs are neither particularly safe or efficient and there are far far better options.
Mord is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:01 PM   #55
Peterkro
macrumors 68020
 
Peterkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Communard de Londres
Quote:
Originally Posted by firestarter View Post
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:


"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a “business as usual” scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alternative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."

http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Paper...lear-Power.pdf
Peterkro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:03 PM   #56
torbjoern
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The Black Lodge
Nuclear Power is fine by me as long as they have proper safety routines and actually follow them. Not like the ones they had in Soviet Ukraine. However, if an earthquake is enough to cause a meltdown, I doubt that I would build the plant in the first place.
torbjoern is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:12 PM   #57
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
 
flopticalcube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the velcro closure of America's Hat
Quote:
Originally Posted by entatlrg View Post
Automobile safety features and breakdowns compared to nuclear disaster.

Huh?
Which have killed more? Hint: it's not nuclear reactors.
__________________
Read the Rules / Search the Forums / Use a Descriptive Title
Mac Won't Boot?
flopticalcube is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:21 PM   #58
R.Perez
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Irvine, CA
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.

A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.

Stop saying nuclear is "clean", its not. Not only is the mining process horrible for the environment, there is still the issue of radioactive waste. These proposals to somehow shoot the waste into space, or store in the ocean are absolutely outlandish and ridiculous.

If we combined large solar arrays with wind, and tidal power, plus requiring that solar panels also be installed on all new home and apartment construction, we could easily meet our electricity needs with little environmental impact.

The largest issue here is cost, but when you factor in the long term economic cost of global warming or ecological collapse, really we are talking pennies.
__________________
27" iMac|3.4ghz i7|2TB Fusion Drive|680MX|Sennheiser HD 595|Audioengine N22|Audioengine P4s |13" MBA|16GB Gold iPhone 6+|128GB Gold iPhone 6+ (on order)|
R.Perez is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:34 PM   #59
firestarter
macrumors Demi-God
 
firestarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterkro View Post
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?

That study (by the 'National Petroleum Council') is interesting. They suggest that increased nuclear use offsets coal use, as they're both 'base load' providers, with oil/gas topping off supply peaks. A few comments about it that I'd make:

- It's talking about a scenario with nuclear energy. I was arguing with a 'no nuclear' advocate. While the point the paper makes (that nuclear offsets coal) is an interesting one that may be valid, the reverse (that the removal of nuclear would not increase oil/gas use) assumption cannot be made.
- In the UK at least, gas power stations are being used for base load generation. This scenario isn't considered in the paper's 'coal offsetting' stance.
- The cost/benefit of oil/gas is not made, and the scenario of peak oil is not covered.
- No discussion about alternatives to oil/gas for peak provision takes place. Vehicle to grid (for example) is likely to be much more viable in 20 years time.
firestarter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:35 PM   #60
Rt&Dzine
macrumors 6502a
 
Rt&Dzine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 12 across
Quote:
Originally Posted by flopticalcube View Post
Which have killed more? Hint: it's not nuclear reactors.
True, but the total deaths from Chernobyl are unknown. Many people dying in Russia, Norway and other affected countries from cancers or other conditions caused by the contamination aren't included in the totals.
Rt&Dzine is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:36 PM   #61
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
 
flopticalcube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the velcro closure of America's Hat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rt&Dzine View Post
True, but the total deaths from Chernobyl are unknown. Many people dying in Russia, Norway and other affected countries from cancers or other conditions caused by the contamination aren't included in the totals.
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
__________________
Read the Rules / Search the Forums / Use a Descriptive Title
Mac Won't Boot?
flopticalcube is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:40 PM   #62
Lord Blackadder
macrumors G4
 
Lord Blackadder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sod off
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.Perez View Post
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.

A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
__________________
Oh, God, God, God! What on earth was I drinking last night? My head feels like there's a Frenchman living in it. - Edmund Blackadder
Lord Blackadder is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:42 PM   #63
firestarter
macrumors Demi-God
 
firestarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.Perez View Post
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
One word.

Night.
firestarter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:43 PM   #64
Rt&Dzine
macrumors 6502a
 
Rt&Dzine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 12 across
Quote:
Originally Posted by flopticalcube View Post
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
Probably, but it's speculation.
Rt&Dzine is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:46 PM   #65
R.Perez
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Irvine, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by firestarter View Post
One word.

Night.
One word.

Battery.
__________________
27" iMac|3.4ghz i7|2TB Fusion Drive|680MX|Sennheiser HD 595|Audioengine N22|Audioengine P4s |13" MBA|16GB Gold iPhone 6+|128GB Gold iPhone 6+ (on order)|
R.Perez is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:48 PM   #66
R.Perez
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Irvine, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Blackadder View Post
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
__________________
27" iMac|3.4ghz i7|2TB Fusion Drive|680MX|Sennheiser HD 595|Audioengine N22|Audioengine P4s |13" MBA|16GB Gold iPhone 6+|128GB Gold iPhone 6+ (on order)|
R.Perez is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:49 PM   #67
firestarter
macrumors Demi-God
 
firestarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.Perez View Post
One word.

Battery.
That's fine for soaking up occasional peak demand (I linked to 'vehicle to grid' techology a few posts back), but not providing energy for a full night... unless you have a link that says otherwise?
firestarter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:50 PM   #68
robbieduncan
Moderator
 
robbieduncan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.Perez View Post
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
Indeed. Some existing solar arrays are built on grazing land that is still productive grazing once the array is in place.
robbieduncan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:51 PM   #69
robbieduncan
Moderator
 
robbieduncan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Quote:
Originally Posted by firestarter View Post
That's fine for soaking up occasional peak demand (I linked to 'vehicle to grid' techology a few posts back), but not providing energy for a full night... unless you have a link that says otherwise?
The obvious real answer is a globally connected power grid with generation all over the place so as night is not such an issue. Of course we'd need to agree on voltages, frequencies, cost etc.
robbieduncan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:54 PM   #70
Peterkro
macrumors 68020
 
Peterkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Communard de Londres
Quote:
Originally Posted by firestarter View Post
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?
Anarcho-Marxism makes about as much sense as Anarcho-Capitalism,that is none.Who said anything about a pastoral lifestyle,you clearly have no idea how the so-called "free market" wastes energy resources.To take one example,what are the energy consequences of collecting milk in Scotland transporting it by road to Southampton packaging it and returning it to Scotland for sale,it's profitable but it's not sensible at all.Or how about flying apples from Australia to the U.K. (which has it's own apple industry) then flying them to South Africa to be waxed then back to the U.K. for sale,or people collecting waste materials in the U.K. only for them to be shipped to China and then back as the same f--ing waste (packaging). /rant.
Peterkro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:56 PM   #71
Hellhammer
Moderator
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Send a message via MSN to Hellhammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.Perez View Post
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
The biggest wind farm in the world provides around 2MW/km^2. Your 100milesX100miles plant would only provide around 52 000MW (52GW) of power with same ratio. USA's power consumption in 2005 was 29PWh. I don't know how exactly this things can be converted but Fukushima I has installed power of 4.7GW and provides 25.8GWh each year while the biggest wind farm has installed capacity of 781MW. The plant you described would be around 10 times more powerful than the Fukushima but even then, it could provide around 250GWh which is a fraction of 29PWh.

Solar plants are better (80MW/km^2) but 10PWh is still far from 29PWh.

If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
You can also follow me in Twitter!

Last edited by Hellhammer; Mar 13, 2011 at 04:03 PM.
Hellhammer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:57 PM   #72
R.Perez
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Irvine, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by firestarter View Post
That's fine for soaking up occasional peak demand (I linked to 'vehicle to grid' techology a few posts back), but not providing energy for a full night... unless you have a link that says otherwise?
Well here is a solution to your "problem" at least.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nergy-at-night

The biggest limiting factor is cost, but when you factor in the cost of the environmental impact, it becomes cheap in comparison.
__________________
27" iMac|3.4ghz i7|2TB Fusion Drive|680MX|Sennheiser HD 595|Audioengine N22|Audioengine P4s |13" MBA|16GB Gold iPhone 6+|128GB Gold iPhone 6+ (on order)|
R.Perez is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:57 PM   #73
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
 
flopticalcube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the velcro closure of America's Hat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rt&Dzine View Post
Probably, but it's speculation.
Not really. Chernobyl has an estimated death toll of 4000. Let's multiply that by 10 for arguments sake. More people are killed each year in the US alone by car accidents. Nuclear power is still a fairly minor risk.
__________________
Read the Rules / Search the Forums / Use a Descriptive Title
Mac Won't Boot?
flopticalcube is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 03:58 PM   #74
firestarter
macrumors Demi-God
 
firestarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbieduncan View Post
The obvious real answer is a globally connected power grid with generation all over the place so as night is not such an issue. Of course we'd need to agree on voltages, frequencies, cost etc.
Back to the original trigger for this whole thread... it's interesting that the Japanese are running rolling blackouts on the North East coast, because they can't even agree a mains electricity frequency standard for the country!

Thumb resize.

Remember also that grid losses are significant when transporting electricity over any distance, even at 400kv+
firestarter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2011, 04:00 PM   #75
R.Perez
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Irvine, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellhammer View Post
The biggest wind farm in the world provides around 2MW/km^2. Your 100milesX100miles plant would only provide around 52 000MW (52GW) of power with same ratio. USA's power consumption in 2005 was 29PWh. I don't know how exactly this things can be converted but Fukushima I has installed power of 4.7GW and provides 25.8GWh each year while the biggest wind farm has installed capacity of 781MW. The plant you described would be around 10 times more powerful than the Fukushima but even then, it could provide around 250GWh which is a fraction of 29PWh.

If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
Did I say at any point time that we should rely on just wind? or solar, or tidal for that matter? A combination of all three is in order here. On top of that re-thinking infrastructure so that at least some of the power can be generated from the home or building itself is in order. i.e. putting solar panels on all new construction. This would reduce the amount of energy needed from centralized sources. Also shifting towards smarter energy consumption would help as well, i.e. using geo-thermal to generate heat instead of oil or electricity and mandating more efficient lightbulbs and appliances.
__________________
27" iMac|3.4ghz i7|2TB Fusion Drive|680MX|Sennheiser HD 595|Audioengine N22|Audioengine P4s |13" MBA|16GB Gold iPhone 6+|128GB Gold iPhone 6+ (on order)|
R.Perez 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
What is your opinion on nuclear energy? G51989 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 72 Jan 10, 2014 09:26 PM
Apple Change of Policy in Regard to Product Replacement joegomolski iMac 8 Dec 17, 2013 04:04 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 PM.

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

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