Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ceaon
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 20:34:00 -
[1]
what you like more the coal centrals or nuclear centrals ?
i go for coal because trees can fix/recycle the crap this coal leave in teh air but until today i don't know if anyone managed to fix/recycle the radioactive waste, the approach to radioactive waste is like keeping the rotten food in bag because nobody have invented the recycle bin
Originally by: CCP Adida The male thread was locked because the discussion turned into transsexuals and man boobs.
|
Vogue
Skynet Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 20:38:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Vogue on 20/08/2010 20:41:11 I would say Nuclear but I live in the UK where we are rubbish at doing long term infrastructure projects.
rabble rabble
.................................................. Cylon cultural victor! |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente 1st Cavalry Division Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 20:53:00 -
[3]
Nuclear obviously. It doesn't pollute, it generates a tremendous amount of energy, the problem of dealing with byproducts is dealt with by digging a deep enough hole, and it irritates eco-****s. What's not to like? ____________________
|
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 20:56:00 -
[4]
nuclear, because nuclear power is fairly reliable, and has considerably greater power density than coal does.
Originally by: CCP Shadow Have you ever wished you could have prevented a train wreck before it actually happened? I need to stop this one before the craziness begins.
|
Vogue
Skynet Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 20:58:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Vogue on 20/08/2010 20:58:43 France is exceptional in having nuclear power provide %79 of its power. It works for them. But what made that happen is pride and priority for the public state in France. High taxes gives high public infrastructure investment.
I don't think such a regime that facilitates this long term strategic planning in infrastructure exists in any other country.
Such ebil socialist approach would not be tolerated in the USA which has a decaying public infrastructure.
.................................................. Cylon cultural victor! |
Zyck
Void-Wolf Propter Falco
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 21:05:00 -
[6]
I me some fusion. And we're only 10 years away! (As of 50 years ago)
|
Lia'Vael
Caldari Migrant Fleet
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 21:12:00 -
[7]
Nuclear all the way, the waste can be reduced very well with using 232 Thorium, also preparation of thorium fuel does not require isotopic separation so wewt. Not to mention as a fuel Th-232 is so abundant that there is more of it than all isotopes of uranium combined. China, India, Norway, Russia, even the US are either thinking about using thorium as fuel for nuclear reactors or has already done experiments into nuclear energy fueled by thorium. Since uranium/plutonium weapons arent needed or desired in todays age thorium is the best alternative and by using it we could efficiently reduce or do away with fossil fuel consumption for personal transport. Not to mention the entire fact that nuclear waste would be substantially reduced.
There are a few problems though mainly that Th itself isnt fissile but it will absorb slow neutrons to produce U-233 which is fissile.
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 21:13:00 -
[8]
Wind or solar.
Stop living in the 50's.
My deepest sympathies. Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Lia'Vael
Caldari Migrant Fleet
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 21:16:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Professor Tarantula Wind or solar.
Stop living in the 50's.
Wind and solar energy options lack the reliability or pure power when compared to nuclear, natural gas, or coal.
|
Vogue
Skynet Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 21:18:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Vogue on 20/08/2010 21:19:49 Well my simple thinking says that there is a practically infinite source of heat near the edge of the earth's crust next to all that lava. Why not do research and development in geothermal power stations in areas that are earthquake immune.
Or develop geo thermal power stations where the earth's crust is thin near dormant volcano's.
.................................................. Cylon cultural victor! |
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 21:28:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 20/08/2010 21:28:51
Originally by: Lia'Vael
Originally by: Professor Tarantula Wind or solar.
Stop living in the 50's.
Wind and solar energy options lack the reliability or pure power when compared to nuclear, natural gas, or coal.
If that was true, Exxon and other oil companies wouldn't buy up solar patents just to shelve them. And there's no argument about wind power being feasable anymore, since it's in wide use. There's even citizens who power their own houses with small wind power setups, and have so much extra power they sell it back to the grid.
My deepest sympathies. Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Unity Love
Caldari Dissonance Corp The Spire Collective
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 21:47:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Professor Tarantula Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 20/08/2010 21:28:51
Originally by: Lia'Vael
Originally by: Professor Tarantula Wind or solar.
Stop living in the 50's.
If that was true, Exxon and other oil companies wouldn't buy up solar patents just to shelve them.
Solar panels are currently far to resource intensive to create and inefficient to have large scale viability.
They are buying patents because they realise there is a market for solar panels in the future when the efficiency has risen.
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 22:00:00 -
[13]
Nuclear for base load generation
Coal for everything else.
Renewable in areas where it is viable.
Remember we have close to or over 300+ years of good high quality anthracite coal still. its a hard coal that burns clean.
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 22:20:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Unity Love
Originally by: Professor Tarantula Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 20/08/2010 21:28:51
Originally by: Lia'Vael
Originally by: Professor Tarantula Wind or solar.
Stop living in the 50's.
If that was true, Exxon and other oil companies wouldn't buy up solar patents just to shelve them.
Solar panels are currently far to resource intensive to create and inefficient to have large scale viability.
They are buying patents because they realise there is a market for solar panels in the future when the efficiency has risen.
Buying up the patents on any new developments and making sure it never gets used is how it's kept that way.
My deepest sympathies. Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
stoicfaux
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 22:23:00 -
[15]
Edited by: stoicfaux on 20/08/2010 22:23:14
Originally by: Lia'Vael Wind and solar energy options lack the reliability or pure power when compared to nuclear, natural gas, or coal.
The sun isn't reliable? Or putting solar panels on a planet isn't reliable?
----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
|
Umega
Solis Mensa
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 22:24:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Umega on 20/08/2010 22:25:57 I vote for use of magnetism to power a perpetual motion device that produces energy.
---------------------------------------- -Treat the EVE Market like you're a pimp and it is your 'employee'.. freely fondle it as you wish and make it pay you for it- |
Lia'Vael
Caldari Migrant Fleet
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 22:35:00 -
[17]
Originally by: stoicfaux Edited by: stoicfaux on 20/08/2010 22:23:14
Originally by: Lia'Vael Wind and solar energy options lack the reliability or pure power when compared to nuclear, natural gas, or coal.
The sun isn't reliable? Or putting solar panels on a planet isn't reliable?
I'm pretty sure it is about the generation of electricity on earth. Solar panels aren't able to boast the reliability, power generation, or cost efficiency of a facility which utilizes nuclear, natural gas, or coal for energy.
/clap for not understanding the topic of discussion though.
|
Joe Phoenix
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 22:51:00 -
[18]
Nuclear is clean and effective and is the only possible way forward.
|
Miriam Letisse
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 23:10:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Joe Phoenix Nuclear is clean and effective and is the only possible way forward.
Actually there are many possible ways forward, nuclear being only one of them.
|
Joe Phoenix
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 23:13:00 -
[20]
Not practically.
Unless the fusion reactor starts working (which it might).
|
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Legion
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 23:34:00 -
[21]
Well nuclear is #1. And the byproducts would come into existance anyway whether you use it in a reactor or not. I do think more research should go in into re-using the by products.
- Coal, oil, natural gas - great sources for back up power and should be used minimally not as a primary source.
Hydro - still works great cept when there is extended drought conditions.
Solar / wind. - Wind is nice, but has really ruined the landscape of a lot of areas, - see southern california as a reference.
Solar - Im waiting for thin film panels to be more abundant. Current pannels are to bulky, but the new thin film is great, and if all houses had one side of teh roof as thin film we wouldnt need a lot of these large scale power generators.
|
Zeba
Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 23:39:00 -
[22]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly Nuclear obviously. It doesn't pollute
Originally by: ReaperOfSly the problem of dealing with byproducts is dealt with by digging a deep enough hole
So it only pollutes our ground water if the containment vessel breaks..
But meh you can't sabotage a coal power plant to make the surrounding area glow at night. So my vote stays with coal atm as the local government can simply make them use the most current scrubber techs to make sure emmisions are nearly zero. Alas this doesn't seem to be the case with the chinese who are still using the ancient dirty coal plants.
But if and when nuclear power reaches a failsafe level of technology then by all means shut down the coal plants and boot up the nuclear ones.
Originally by: CCP Oveur My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
Originally by: CCP Adida Moved from missions and complexes. All other game discussions are only aloud in OOP.
|
Joe Phoenix
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 23:42:00 -
[23]
And when coal runs out? because it will and soon.
|
Culmen
Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 23:42:00 -
[24]
Originally by: ceaon what you like more the coal centrals or nuclear centrals ?
i go for coal because trees can fix/recycle the crap this coal leave in teh air but until today i don't know if anyone managed to fix/recycle the radioactive waste, the approach to radioactive waste is like keeping the rotten food in bag because nobody have invented the recycle bin
TED did a wonderful debate on this subject.
Your statement reguarding nuclear waste not being reusable is slightly out of date. see wikipedia's article on nuclear reprocessing
I'm in favor of nuclear. Coal will kill us via global warming, and modern nuclear reactors are nearly impossible to go chernobyl. Especially since they don't have to preforming exercises about yankees start bombing the place.
Also people fail to realize, that solar and wind need to work out fundamental issues of scalability and reliability. The real thing that's stopping nuclear is people being squemish. Heres an example, France is almost completely powered by nuclear, England went alternate. Result: England is buying power France. France is remarkably mutant free. and further more why do i even need a sig? |
Zeba
Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 23:44:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Joe Phoenix And when coal runs out? because it will and soon.
No.
Oil might run out soonish but in west virginia alone there is enough coal to last at least the united states a few hundred years. Plus russia and china are litteraly swimming in it.
Originally by: CCP Oveur My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
Originally by: CCP Adida Moved from missions and complexes. All other game discussions are only aloud in OOP.
|
Lia'Vael
Caldari Migrant Fleet
|
Posted - 2010.08.21 00:13:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Culmen France is remarkably mutant free.
Liar, all french were mutants way before nuclear power.
|
Joe Phoenix
|
Posted - 2010.08.21 00:16:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Joe Phoenix And when coal runs out? because it will and soon.
No.
Oil might run out soonish but in west virginia alone there is enough coal to last at least the united states a few hundred years. Plus russia and china are litteraly swimming in it.
I'm afraid that just isn't true.
|
Zeba
Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2010.08.21 00:23:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Joe Phoenix
Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Joe Phoenix And when coal runs out? because it will and soon.
No.
Oil might run out soonish but in west virginia alone there is enough coal to last at least the united states a few hundred years. Plus russia and china are litteraly swimming in it.
I'm afraid that just isn't true.
Ahh you must be thinking of 'peak coal'. That statistic has always been used as a boogyman to drive forward energy conservation tech and general awareness much like the 'peak oil' numbers. Current estimates give us at least 200 years not counting any future coal related technologies to increase effeciency or in lowered comsumption levels due to further increases in consumer tech energy efficientcy which is where the lions share of power is consumed anyways.
Originally by: CCP Oveur My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
Originally by: CCP Adida Moved from missions and complexes. All other game discussions are only aloud in OOP.
|
Ak'athra J'ador
Amarr Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2010.08.21 00:25:00 -
[29]
why do people fear nuclear energy?
people didn't understand it in the past and now everyone is afraid of it. it wont eat your grandma, and if the whole world ran on it, the world itself would be a much safer place.
the whole world should run on nuclear energy, or some form of it. sadly it takes quite some time to change the amount of energy produced at a nuclear powerplant, and that is why it cant deal with spikes in the morning when a gazillion people turn on their coffey makers.
so you make energy, and when there is too much of it, you pump the water back into the lake, and when there is to little, you unleash the water out of the lake.
also, you make hydrogen using the power from a nuclear powerplant, and then use the hydrogen to get energy for a car, essentially using hydrogen as a battery.
so you can have the entire world running on nuclear power...
and lol to the dude who went with wind and solar panel. get real, it only works in certain parts of the world, since the wind cant be to slow or to fast, not to mention it does not work when there is no wind.
also there is no technology to produce cost effective solar panels. its just not worth it. there is some research being done since plants grow from dirt and are very effective when it comes to solar energy, so people are trying to copy that. but again, how will you deal with spikes and what not? massive batteries?
|
Joe Phoenix
|
Posted - 2010.08.21 00:27:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Ak'athra J'ador why do people fear nuclear energy?
people didn't understand it in the past and now everyone is afraid of it. it wont eat your grandma, and if the whole world ran on it, the world itself would be a much safer place.
the whole world should run on nuclear energy, or some form of it. sadly it takes quite some time to change the amount of energy produced at a nuclear powerplant, and that is why it cant deal with spikes in the morning when a gazillion people turn on their coffey makers.
so you make energy, and when there is too much of it, you pump the water back into the lake, and when there is to little, you unleash the water out of the lake.
also, you make hydrogen using the power from a nuclear powerplant, and then use the hydrogen to get energy for a car, essentially using hydrogen as a battery.
so you can have the entire world running on nuclear power...
and lol to the dude who went with wind and solar panel. get real, it only works in certain parts of the world, since the wind cant be to slow or to fast, not to mention it does not work when there is no wind.
also there is no technology to produce cost effective solar panels. its just not worth it. there is some research being done since plants grow from dirt and are very effective when it comes to solar energy, so people are trying to copy that. but again, how will you deal with spikes and what not? massive batteries?
People most people are stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |