EVE Search - Coal vs Nuclear

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Coal vs Nuclear

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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.

Culmen Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate Dead Terrorists	Posted - 2010.08.21 01:40:00 - [31] Originally by: Ak'athra J'ador 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? This is true, people also fail to realize that alot of toxic metals go into making a solar panel and while the sun will last for a few million years the solar panel will be lucky to survive a decade. Meaning we'll have to drop those toxic defunct solar panels somewhere. Originally by: Joe Phoenix People most people are stupid. Also this. BTW if you want to be really technical, everything we use is "nuclear powered' The sun is mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic NUCLEAR furnace. So Nuclear sun-> prehistoric life forms -> fossil fuel. and further more why do i even need a sig?
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.08.21 03:59:00 - [32] Main flaw of nuclear is that it sucks for Variable output. But we should use it for close to 100% of what is called base load. Base load is the average load of the grid 24/7. Nukes own all other forms of generation for this because they are ment to run at 100% rated load 24/7 without slowing down. Fossil fuels are good for variable loads because you can turn those plants on and off with minimal effort, can light up a coal or oil plant likely in a few hours. Solar is terrible for grid scale, but it is getting popular for offsetting local usage. as in if you get lots of sun you can put em on a roof and help take some of the load of that building off the grid(even taking just the HVAC off grid on a really hot and sunny day will help greatly)
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.21 06:22:00 - [33] An interesting and ancient form of energy is wind. In Denmark currently 20% of the used energy is wind enery. An interesting concept to get even more from wind energy is putting the wind farms in the ocean.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.08.21 06:55:00 - [34] I vote for nuclear because it's so much cooler Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist
sneekyninja	Posted - 2010.08.21 06:58:00 - [35] Quick, ban all nuclear medical equipment! More nuke pls. fakedit: thank you billy.
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.21 07:02:00 - [36] Edited by: Phosphorus Palladium on 21/08/2010 07:03:40 One more thing: Many people think Nuclear energy - unlike coal or oil - can produce energy for us for eternity... This is wrong. Uranium is very rare as we all know, and its supply is limited. At current levels of uranium use, we have between 50-100yrs supply of uranium before we run out. Just thought I would mention that. Note: "Breeder" reactors could be a solution here, but these are not in existance yet.
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2010.08.21 10:29:00 - [37] Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium At current levels of uranium use, we have between 50-100yrs supply of uranium before we run out. Just thought I would mention that. I love it when pepole say stupid things like this. Lets start with 'at current levels' and end with '50-100 years'. 100 years ago, what type of power were we using? was there a SINGLE nuclear reactor in operation? No, there wasnt. The first nuclear power plant was put into operation around 60 years ago. Now, im willing to accept that current levels of usage will increase. However, you must also be willing to accept that we will find more. Lets look at oil for instance - as oil prices rise, it becomes profitable enough to drill deeper for oil. I see the same thing happening with fissile material... Right now, we might only be using uranium (and plutonium), but that doesnt mean we wont be able to find other stuff in the future. What I am saying here, is that there is no final answer. We will probably keep changing power sources every 50-100 years until we find one that breaks the laws of physics as we know them (perpetual motion machines..) and produces energy without fuel. Of course, by then we will be well into space, and probably have invented a FTL drive somewhere along the way.. 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.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.08.21 11:52:00 - [38] Quote: An interesting and ancient form of energy is wind. In Denmark currently 20% of the used energy is wind enery. Now also add the enormous increase in CO2 polution due to the coal power plants that are required to constantly switch their output power because wind energy constantly fluctuates. And while coal power plants can switch relative fast their output power (although at the cost of enormous CO2 emission), it still has its limits. If the wind quickly increases this can damage the grid. If it keeps increasing suddenly all wind turbines can shut down to prevent damage, but then suddenly that power needs to be delivered by other power plants.
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.21 13:52:00 - [39] Edited by: Phosphorus Palladium on 21/08/2010 13:53:09 Originally by: Lance Fighter Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium At current levels of uranium use, we have between 50-100yrs supply of uranium before we run out. Just thought I would mention that. I love it when pepole say stupid things like this. "Current usage is about 68,000 tU/yr. Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.4 Mt) in the cost category slightly above present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 80 years." Quoted from this report of the World Nuclear Association. Originally by: Lance Fighter Lets start with 'at current levels' and end with '50-100 years'. 100 years ago, what type of power were we using? was there a SINGLE nuclear reactor in operation? No, there wasnt. The first nuclear power plant was put into operation around 60 years ago. Now, im willing to accept that current levels of usage will increase. However, you must also be willing to accept that we will find more. Lets look at oil for instance - as oil prices rise, it becomes profitable enough to drill deeper for oil. I see the same thing happening with fissile material... Right now, we might only be using uranium (and plutonium), but that doesnt mean we wont be able to find other stuff in the future. What I am saying here, is that there is no final answer. We will probably keep changing power sources every 50-100 years until we find one that breaks the laws of physics as we know them (perpetual motion machines..) and produces energy without fuel. Of course, by then we will be well into space, and probably have invented a FTL drive somewhere along the way.. I agree mostly with what you say there. There is just a little detail in which I do disagree, and that is that I do think there is a "final answer" - and that is renewable or near eternal energy sources (like the sun, etc.). I hold the opinion that wind, solar and bio energies have a better long term outlook at the moment than nuclear energy as we use it today.
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.21 14:57:00 - [40] Edited by: Phosphorus Palladium on 21/08/2010 15:05:24 Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: An interesting and ancient form of energy is wind. In Denmark currently 20% of the used energy is wind enery. Now also add the enormous increase in CO2 polution due to the coal power plants that are required to constantly switch their output power because wind energy constantly fluctuates. And while coal power plants can switch relative fast their output power (although at the cost of enormous CO2 emission), it still has its limits. If the wind quickly increases this can damage the grid. If it keeps increasing suddenly all wind turbines can shut down to prevent damage, but then suddenly that power needs to be delivered by other power plants. Completely agreed. The main problem at the moment with wind energy and other energy gathering methods is our current inability to store energy efficiently. Realisticly speaking, the renewable energies have a good long term outlook, but at present we still need other energy sources as well. Lance will be pleased to hear that I fully endorse nuclear power as the main short term energy supply.

ceaon	Posted - 2010.08.21 15:05:00 - [41] just take fusion and solar out of the table plz fusion was testes worked but not ready yet so not in the next 20-25 years solar panels only convert in electricity 12-15% of energy that receive sry but fails atm Originally by: CCP Adida The male thread was locked because the discussion turned into transsexuals and man boobs.
Niccolado Starwalker Gallente Shadow Templars	Posted - 2010.08.21 15:07:00 - [42] 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 I think I would have accepted most kinds of el-sources before nuclear centrals. It is reliable, true, but the kind the nuclear waste leftovers takes thousands of year to break down, and it keeps stacking up. No, why not go for more windmills, or water dam centrals for electricity?? You might need a dozen more of them or so, and it might spoil the view, but at least it does not completely ** up the planet. Or it up even more than it is.... Originally by:** Dianabolic Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL.
ceaon	Posted - 2010.08.21 15:31:00 - [43] @Niccolado Starwalker no no and again no, all what you say is a easy pick but coal vs nuclear is like this; immediate easy notable effect and consequences VS long time consequences whit low visible effect and is a versus like this pretty good understanding of process VS not so good understanding of process Originally by: CCP Adida The male thread was locked because the discussion turned into transsexuals and man boobs.
Niccolado Starwalker Gallente Shadow Templars	Posted - 2010.08.21 15:38:00 - [44] Originally by: ceaon @Niccolado Starwalker no no and again no, all what you say is a easy pick but coal vs nuclear is like this; immediate easy notable effect and consequences VS long time consequences whit low visible effect and is a versus like this pretty good understanding of process VS not so good understanding of process Then Coal. I prefer to die from pollution before radiation Originally by: Dianabolic Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL.
ceaon	Posted - 2010.08.21 15:49:00 - [45] Edited by: ceaon on 21/08/2010 15:52:16 a small fact about Co2 in the last century the rate of Co2 go from 280 to some 380-400 now the funny part come that on many greenhouses they artificial increase the co2 to 1000 so the plants grow faster more co2 is there less water plants consume "less effort" it takes to grow and ofc humans work there to get the tomatoes for ya and dint die whit how much co2 humans can live ? well the ppl on the Biosphere project have done this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 i dont remember the exact numbers but on the projects the stones have absorbed the oxygen and the level of c02 was way up on that sphere if i remember well edit: http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_poynter_life_in_biosphere_2.html talk related Originally by: CCP Adida The male thread was locked because the discussion turned into transsexuals and man boobs.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.08.21 16:51:00 - [46] Well coal can be clean, but right now only the west cares about clean smoke stacks. China is building a ton of coal plants but if their power generation is like the rest of their industry they simply don't give a **** about pollution.
Ashira Twilight	Posted - 2010.08.21 20:38:00 - [47] You people should do some research on uranium mining. Nuclear = no pollution heh
Taedrin Gallente White Haven Corp	Posted - 2010.08.21 21:58:00 - [48] Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker 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 I think I would have accepted most kinds of el-sources before nuclear centrals. It is reliable, true, but the kind the nuclear waste leftovers takes thousands of year to break down, and it keeps stacking up. No, why not go for more windmills, or water dam centrals for electricity?? You might need a dozen more of them or so, and it might spoil the view, but at least it does not completely ** up the planet. Or it up even more than it is.... The longer nuclear waste takes to decay, the less dangerous it is. Just sayin'... ---------- Originally by:** Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident" Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
Odium Devotus	Posted - 2010.08.21 22:58:00 - [49] We have a finite supply of uranium Old reactors use a very small percentage of the fuel before its 'spent' and is 'trash'. Breeder reactors are not science fiction Infact, they have been around for quite some time. (also related to link above...) Cant adjust load on a reactor? Cant shut down or start them up with ease? Nuclear powered aircraft, how does it work? there was a really good nuclear physics thread that answered quite a few questions for the uneducated masses not too long ago. Quote: "how far off do you think we are from achieving the symbiotic fuel cycle that you describe above?" From a scientific point of view: zero years. Some of the kinks of having variable-zone molten salt reactors might need to be worked out, but otherwise, there is no scientific barrier stopping us. From an engineering point of view: well, gen4 reactors aren't going to be mass-operational for the next 15-20 years. Of course, you could always try this symbiotic cycle with G3 reactors and "normal" fast breeders/transmuters. For a political point of view: well, for this to work, you need at least continent-wide cooperation. Give the IAEA a bit more legislative power, and they might push this through. So, basically, this depends mainly on two factors: the economics of this thing, and the political will (strongly tied to economics). You see, NPPs cost a hell of a lot more to build than coal plants, so you need a lot of hard cash to finance the high initial costs. After that, they cost next to nothing. Bottom line: as soon a politicians pull their collective asses and heads apart, this could become viable. After all, with such a system, you do not have to worry about rising energy consumption. ALL MAJOR ADVANCEMENTS IN CIVILIZATION CAME BECAUSE OF NEW ENERGY SOURCES. Think about how much further we could be if we truly embraced nuclear power 50 years ago. Drive down the cost of energy, drive down the cost of everything. Now if we can only get the government to subsidize nuclear energy instead of corn........
Jhagiti Tyran Invicta.	Posted - 2010.08.22 00:10:00 - [50] Wouldn't solar energy be more practical in the future with things like hydrogen fuel cells? you could build big thermoelectric solar power plants (cheaper and simpler than photovoltaic cells) in very hot countries or out at sea on floating platforms and produce huge amounts of hydrogen gas and distribute the gas all over the world and then use hydrogen to power cars and factories even homes could use fuel cells, you could either have house sized units or larger local generators that powered a town or city district. Its not like any of this apart from the fuel cells themselves is any great leap in technology or feasibility, the sun wouldn't need to shine every day at each solar plant and unless we had a nuclear winter or something the sun would shine somewhere and the gas could be stockpiled and transported which we already do with large quantities of natural gas both with pipelines and tankers. Very little pollution and instant controllable power, although fuel cells might actually never happen and at best 40 years or so away from any kind of practical, commercial or cost effective application.

Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2010.08.22 00:16:00 - [51] Originally by: Jhagiti Tyran you could build big thermoelectric solar power plants (cheaper and simpler than photovoltaic cells) This is a good point. It should be noted that solar power is not just limited to photovoltaic cells (which are inefficient, short-lived, and produce far too much toxic waste), it also includes solar thermal power (use mirrors to focus sunlight to turn water into steam, use steam just like steam in any other power plant) which is far better. However, it still suffers from the same two problems: 1) Transmission losses. The farther you have to send your power, whether through electric lines or tankers full of "oil" produced with that power or whatever, the more you lose in the process. So, like hydroelecrtic and geothermal, solar power is great for places that get enough sunlight, but not so great for everywhere else. 2) Unpredictability. Cloudy day? Too bad, there goes your energy supply. Spike in demand? Too bad, nothing you can do to increase output. Unlike coal/nuclear/etc, you just can't count on having the required output 100% of the time. So in the end, solar power is useful and should definitely be developed, but it can't be the only energy source. -----------
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.08.22 01:10:00 - [52] The current issue for renewable sources, Hydro, Solar or Wind is they are not viable in all locations. now coastal areas can build the wind turbines off shore(as long as rich idiots dont prevent the projects like what is known to happen here in the US, Even though the farms are built so far off shore you would need a telescope to see them from the house). Solar Thermal is really only viable in the deserts or other regions that do not see frequent clouds. and Hydro to make notable energy usually needs a place you can flood and have a really big dam(Hoover Dam puts out as much power as a nuclear plant and was built in the 30s).
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.08.22 02:39:00 - [53] Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker Well coal can be clean, but right now only the west cares about clean smoke stacks. China is building a ton of coal plants but if their power generation is like the rest of their industry they simply don't give a **** about pollution. Picture I took in Shangai... that's not fog Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist
So Sensational GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2010.08.22 03:11:00 - [54] I vote for wave energy, because using all dat motion in da sea for something seems like a good idea. And also, wayve energies sounds p.cool.
Reiisha Evolution IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.08.22 05:32:00 - [55] Edited by: Reiisha on 22/08/2010 05:33:11 Wind: Too unreliable for large-scale use, needs too much space to be effective. Nice as an addon, but never for large-scale power generation. Sun: Clouds, nighttime. Also, solar panels cost a lot to produce. Untill the technology matures, only usable as an extra, never as main source, even when it does mature due to it's inherent weaknesses. Hydro: Quite reliable but very resource intensive. Needs too much terraforming to be a reliable large-scale energy source, it doesn't work in most countries at all. Geothermal: Attractive, though very resource intensive. Also somewhat risky due to tectonics i'm guessing, unless you're only doing it where the crust is thin - Which makes it pointless anyway. Coal/gas: Natural resources will run out sooner or later. Reliable, but only untill it's used up. Also quite polluting, and i'm not even thinking environmentally here - Or does anyone here want to live next to such a plant? Might aswell work as a coal miner. Not every country in the world has infinite space available, and it would affect crops aswell. These plants need a good 200 square mile area just for the plant itself for this reason. Nuclear: The way to go, despite the waste. It's becoming managable since recently, they don't pollute otherwise at all, and put out magnitudes of the power of conventional coal/gas plants. A no brainer if you ask me. Modern plants can also melt down all the want, it'll never go past the plant perimeter due to the built in safeties. Tsjernobyl was a major ***up by the architects more than anything else. Fusion: Not yet viable, as fusion requires more power than it generates. I suspect that a combined fission/fusion plant will be the next step before we get 'full' fusion. "If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"*
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.22 06:14:00 - [56] Originally by: Reiisha Wind: Too unreliable for large-scale use, needs too much space to be effective. Nice as an addon, but never for large-scale power generation. Oceanic windfarms, as I pointed out a few posts up, do provide a significant percentage of energy in some parts of the world. Reliability in the sense of constant energy production is only relevant if no good energy storage is available. Originally by: Reiisha Sun: Clouds, nighttime. Also, solar panels cost a lot to produce. Untill the technology matures, only usable as an extra, never as main source, even when it does mature due to it's inherent weaknesses. Same as above realy. Solarfarms make real sense as soon as we find a way to store electric energy efficiently. The overproduction from sunny days is then used to fill the shortage on cloudy days. Originally by: Reiisha Hydro: Quite reliable but very resource intensive. Needs too much terraforming to be a reliable large-scale energy source, it doesn't work in most countries at all. I am not a big fan of hydro energy, it does work well however. Just ask the chinese about their huge hydro installations. Problem is that the direct environmental damage of flooding can be immense. Originally by: Reiisha Geothermal: Attractive, though very resource intensive. Also somewhat risky due to tectonics i'm guessing, unless you're only doing it where the crust is thin - Which makes it pointless anyway. Research suggests that geothermal energy can cause earthquakes. As such it seems to be not qualified as a source for large amounts of energy. Originally by: Reiisha Coal/gas: Natural resources will run out sooner or later. Reliable, but only untill it's used up. Also quite polluting, and i'm not even thinking environmentally here - Or does anyone here want to live next to such a plant? Might aswell work as a coal miner. Not every country in the world has infinite space available, and it would affect crops aswell. These plants need a good 200 square mile area just for the plant itself for this reason. Agreed. Coal is a nice and cheap way to generate energy, but it has serious environmental drawbacks. Originally by: Reiisha Nuclear: The way to go, despite the waste. It's becoming managable since recently, they don't pollute otherwise at all, and put out magnitudes of the power of conventional coal/gas plants. A no brainer if you ask me. Modern plants can also melt down all the want, it'll never go past the plant perimeter due to the built in safeties. Tsjernobyl was a major **up by the architects more than anything else. Nuclear energy is a decent short term solution to gain energy. In the long run it is problematic due to uranium and other materials needed for nuclear reactors being finite. So in general, despite safety and storage problems for nuclear waste, its main drawback is it is a non renewable energy form. Originally by:** Reiisha Fusion: Not yet viable, as fusion requires more power than it generates. I suspect that a combined fission/fusion plant will be the next step before we get 'full' fusion. If you check "cold fusion" on wikipedia, you will find that many "serious" scientists do not even want to be associated with it, since they find it utopic. The understanding seems to be it wont work in any foreseeable timespan. Since I am not a scientist, I can not judge wether this is true or not. Some forms of energy gathering you forgot are: BIO, Wave energy (as someone mentioned a bit up), Lightning. Personally there is no question to me, that the only good long term solution to energy supply is to go fully renewable. Renewable energies are infinite (within a few hundred million years at least), and as such to me it is a no brainer that these energies eventually are far superior to any finite ways of generating energy. As long as we can not go fully renewable, nuclear power is a way to bridge the gap. But new energy installations should follow the renewable path.
Encad Briht LifeLine Solutions	Posted - 2010.08.22 06:55:00 - [57] Nuclear power isnt really viable anymore, you got limited ressources and a huge problem when not properly beside having all the waste. (Well, Castor Waste Transport Containers are used here, you could also put them into larger buildungs for heating about 20 years) Photovoltaik on the other hand isnt yet the way to go either. The current panels are bulky, ressource intensive in production and lifetime is a concern. There are some nice developments in the pipe (ultra thin, flexible, easy to produce ones), but those will still take a while till they hit the market. Good way to use the sun are mirror Plants generating steam through heating oil, similar to the desertec project, which was a big talk about a year ago here. I think all in all it comes down to the mix. Hydro PPs, Sun PPs (not Photovoltaik) for base load, a bio mass based cycle and storage facilities (Pump Storage, works with most Hydro PPs too, Mass Storage (rotating stuff), storage in Capacitors or Storage in Chemicals, like Hydrogen for taking heavier loads and spikes. P.S.: Bio mass cycle = e.g. they found an algae that can be easily refined to something similar like kerosin, its already used for dermatology purposes, but its already tested in airplanes as well. Produced by nothing else than alot of water, pure co2 and sunlight. Other cylces like wood, or faster growing plants work fine as well. -------------------------------------------- MacBook Pro 2.2 GhZ 2Gbyte RAM nVidia 8600M GT Mac OS X 10.6.2 -------------------------------------------
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.08.22 11:10:00 - [58] Photo-voltaic also produces energy when it is cloudy, less but it still does something. While the solar farms are really only possible in the desert, since you need sun. On a cloudy day it will not produce any energy.
Borza Slavak Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Damu'Khonde	Posted - 2010.08.22 12:19:00 - [59] Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Originally by: Reiisha Geothermal: Attractive, though very resource intensive. Also somewhat risky due to tectonics i'm guessing, unless you're only doing it where the crust is thin - Which makes it pointless anyway. Research suggests that geothermal energy can cause earthquakes. As such it seems to be not qualified as a source for large amounts of energy. That sounds rather implausible, source?
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.22 12:58:00 - [60] Originally by: Borza Slavak Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Originally by: Reiisha Geothermal: Attractive, though very resource intensive. Also somewhat risky due to tectonics i'm guessing, unless you're only doing it where the crust is thin - Which makes it pointless anyway. Research suggests that geothermal energy can cause earthquakes. As such it seems to be not qualified as a source for large amounts of energy. That sounds rather implausible, source? "How does geothermal drilling trigger earthquakes?" - Scientific American

Lia'Vael Caldari Migrant Fleet	Posted - 2010.08.22 16:03:00 - [61] Edited by: Lia''Vael on 22/08/2010 16:33:09 Edited by: Lia''Vael on 22/08/2010 16:04:40 Edited by: Lia''Vael on 22/08/2010 16:03:05 I've been glossing over a little seeing people complain that there isn't a lot of uranium, that is so but there is an alternative to uranium in large quantities in virtually every single country which dwarf the complete supply of all uranium isotopes, Th. The MSRE (Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment) proved valuable for an inherently safe epithermal thorium breeder reactor. MSRE used three fuels through the experiment, plutonium-239, uranium-235, and uranium-233, the last was 233 uranium tetraflouride which was the result of the thorium breeding. MSRE proved without a doubt the technology is there and that a thorium breeding reactor is a viable option for energy generation given the abundance of Th. Not to mention that to process Th to be used as fuel is not as resource intensive as uranium and in it's natural state it is fairly safe to handle as well as its cost is very low and is actually considered a waste from mining rare earths. EDIT; spelling also a quick note I'm surprised people missed my comment on the first page about thorium, its like number 7. Also the MSRE took place for 5 years from 1964-1969, we have the technology, scientifically we have no blockades, the only thing stopping us from advancing this technology that can help us is fear brought about by ignorance.
Jack Airron Gallente Wrecking Shots -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2010.08.22 16:28:00 - [62] 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 Nuclear, The great thing with Nuclear is that you can use the radioactive waste to power a second slightly reconfigured Reactor. Also if we do some day acquire Fusion i think humanity will have secured its future.
Reiisha Evolution IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.08.22 19:36:00 - [63] Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Oceanic windfarms, as I pointed out a few posts up, do provide a significant percentage of energy in some parts of the world. Reliability in the sense of constant energy production is only relevant if no good energy storage is available. True, but the cost of maintaining those installations is quite high, and the risk of losing them due to a slightly higher than average storm is even higher. It doesn't work in most parts of the world. Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Same as above realy. Solarfarms make real sense as soon as we find a way to store electric energy efficiently. The overproduction from sunny days is then used to fill the shortage on cloudy days. I'm still very sceptical about the amount of surface needed to actually produce the energy we consume on a daily basis. Storage or not, that is the real killer. If you produce less than you use the solution isn't good enough. Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium I am not a big fan of hydro energy, it does work well however. Just ask the chinese about their huge hydro installations. Problem is that the direct environmental damage of flooding can be immense. That's what i meant. Too costly :) Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Research suggests that geothermal energy can cause earthquakes. As such it seems to be not qualified as a source for large amounts of energy. Tectonics, see? ^^ Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Nuclear energy is a decent short term solution to gain energy. In the long run it is problematic due to uranium and other materials needed for nuclear reactors being finite. So in general, despite safety and storage problems for nuclear waste, its main drawback is it is a non renewable energy form. If thorium becomes usable for this as has been mentioned earlier in the thread, the point becomes moot. Nuclear plants don't need much at all to operate for decades, and we don't use that particular resource for anything but nuclear power generation - I think it's worth trading coal/gas for uranium and thorium. Ultimately it's less polluting and a good stepping stone to better sources. Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium If you check "cold fusion" on wikipedia, you will find that many "serious" scientists do not even want to be associated with it, since they find it utopic. The understanding seems to be it wont work in any foreseeable timespan. Since I am not a scientist, I can not judge wether this is true or not. Cold fusion is a non-issue. It's a fairytale. "Normal" fusion is what i'm talking about - Go read up on JET. They're getting closer every year, just not that fast. Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Some forms of energy gathering you forgot are: BIO, Wave energy (as someone mentioned a bit up), Lightning. Personally there is no question to me, that the only good long term solution to energy supply is to go fully renewable. Renewable energies are infinite (within a few hundred million years at least), and as such to me it is a no brainer that these energies eventually are far superior to any finite ways of generating energy. As long as we can not go fully renewable, nuclear power is a way to bridge the gap. But new energy installations should follow the renewable path. Bio: Needs too much energy put into it, at the moment. Science fiction at best. Wave: Too risky. You don't want to erode the ocean streams, which you will do, and cause even more damage than coal/gas plants do right now. Lightning: As far as i know, not predictable, and very unreliable as an energy source. Hence, fission (nuclear power plants) for now, combined fission/fusion in the near future, and hopefully full fusion in the future, which uses only hydrogen which we have in abundance. "If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.08.22 19:56:00 - [64] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlewood_Lake Is an example of how the electric grid can "store" power, basically setups like this are the only feasible method for power storage with current engineering. Of course it still requires a big place to put a lake, this one near my home town is Small in Mw output but still takes up a large part of a state. I guess a Positive offset of any type of Hydro is the Lake becomes an economic gain to the area. Problem in China is they did not do the research, Three Gorges is not in the most stable area for a Dam and is one reason it could have problems. Compare to ones like Hoover Dam which are anchored into solid rock walls.(honestly though to see Hoover in person, it really could be one of the man made wonders of the world, how they built things like that and the Empire State Building without all the fancy load testing of today is amazing).
Arianhod Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade	Posted - 2010.08.22 22:44:00 - [65] I'm going to throw my 2 pence in, but I can only really comment on the UK and Europe as thats all I know off the top of my head. I'm in favour of projects like the Severn Barrage which would create a 15GW tidal powerplant. As I understand it this would provide around 1/4th of the counties 60GW peak Other things would be developing our tidal power in the North Sea with mass production and deployment of things such as this beauty. No emissions during operation and has a predictable curve of operations. What with the Scottish Highlands near the North sea, there would be minimal transmission losses from there to pumped storage schemes, even without HVDC transmitting excess power to the south. As I understand it Scotland alone has a predicted tidal capacity of around 7.5GW with an additional 14GW of Wave. The Pelamis could harvest this and there is plans for a shoal of them off of Orkney. In summation thats just Scotland and Severn, total of 15+14+7.5GW=36.5GW, almost the entire British electricity base load of 40GW. So we would need something more to add into all of this, but I'm of the opinion that since the bulk of this would be base load assuming it is all used, meaning we could use solar plants in North Africa pumping juice into a pan EU network to account for the peak usage of power during the day. Probably ones of this design rather than solar panels. Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. Haruhiists - Redeclaring open warfare on Out of Pod since 2010.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.08.22 22:50:00 - [66] I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist
Musical Fist Gallente NAP Coalition	Posted - 2010.08.22 22:52:00 - [67] Edited by: Musical Fist on 22/08/2010 22:53:01 WTB Citation Lets just have fat idiots produce energy by riding exercise bikes attached to a generator, this will solve the obesity problem that is always overlooked. Killing 2 birds with 1 stone, its clean its efficient and it helps everyone. -- Recruitment now open!!
Simeon Tor	Posted - 2010.08.22 23:04:00 - [68] Originally by: Musical Fist Edited by: Musical Fist on 22/08/2010 22:53:01 WTB Citation Lets just have fat idiots produce energy by riding exercise bikes attached to a generator, this will solve the obesity problem that is always overlooked. Killing 2 birds with 1 stone, its clean its efficient and it helps everyone. I see a flaw in your plan, what happens when there are no more obese people?
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.08.22 23:29:00 - [69] What about governthermal energy? where by we put heat extractors in government buildings and use the hot air from politicians to generate power. as a side we can burn the bull**** they spew as well!
Lia'Vael Caldari Migrant Fleet	Posted - 2010.08.22 23:38:00 - [70] Originally by: Intense Thinker I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Ah yes I was wondering when the example of mindless ignorant fear would show its face, thank you. Chernobyl was a tragedy but it is not a reason to say nuclear energy is bad. The accident was caused by multiple factors, deficiency in overall reactor design of the RBMK-1000, deviation from test procedure, and a deficient safety culture, not only at the Chernobyl plant, but throughout the Soviet design, operating and regulatory organizations for nuclear power that existed at that time. Chernobyl was a lesson to respect the dangerous and to not half-ass.

Malaclypse Muscaria	Posted - 2010.08.23 00:13:00 - [71] Originally by: Simeon Tor Originally by: Musical Fist Edited by: Musical Fist on 22/08/2010 22:53:01 WTB Citation Lets just have fat idiots produce energy by riding exercise bikes attached to a generator, this will solve the obesity problem that is always overlooked. Killing 2 birds with 1 stone, its clean its efficient and it helps everyone. I see a flaw in your plan, what happens when there are no more obese people? There will always be enough obese people around, by virtue of the First Law of Gustodynamics: "The tastiness of any given food item is directly proportional to how fat it makes you".
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2010.08.23 00:41:00 - [72] Originally by: Lia'Vael Originally by: Intense Thinker I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Ah yes I was wondering when the example of mindless ignorant fear would show its face, thank you. Ah, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to be trolled in this thread. Thank you. 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.
Citrute	Posted - 2010.08.23 01:13:00 - [73] Claims about adverse effects from low levels of radiation are often based on a so-called linear non-threshold model. The model assumes, for example, that if an exposure of n millirem kills 50 percent of a population, then 0.1 n will kill 5 percent, 0.01 will kill 0.5 percent and so on. There is no evidence for this model. Background radiation from natural sources varies around the world from an annual dosage of less than 100 to over 10,000 millirem. (Residents of Ramsar, Iran, receive up to 26,000 millirem a year!) Studies have not found increased cancer or other illnesses in areas with naturally high radiation Fifty plant and emergency workers died of acute radiation exposure in the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the U.S.S.R., the worst nuclear accident in history. The explosion contaminated more than 200,000 square kilometers with radioactive fallout, but radiation in parts of this zone is now lower than in Finland and other regions of the world with naturally high radiation. The International Agency for Research on Cancer estimates that radiation releases from Chernobyl caused a slight increase in thyroid cancer but adds that "smoking will cause several thousand times more cancers in the same population." So far, there have been no excess deaths among the 200,000 "liquidators" who helped clean up the mess from Chernobyl compared with controls. The waste from coal-burning plants is much greater in volume and more harmful than from nuclear generators. If you, as an average American, got all your electricity from nuclear plants, you'd generate one kilogram of nuclear waste during your lifetime, enough to fit in a soda can. If you got all your electricity from coal, you'd generate almost 70 tons of waste. Coal plants emit far more radioactive materials than nuclear plants do; each year a 1,000-megawatt coal plant disperses about 27 metric tons of uranium, thorium and other radioactive substances. Coals plants also emit mercury and other toxins, in addition of course to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. An estimated 24,000 Americans die prematurely per annum because of pollution from coal plants; in China, the number is 400,000. Hydropower has killed many more people than nuclear power. About 1,000 Americans have died in dam collapses in the past 100 years. Dam collapses caused by a typhoon in China in 1975 killed 26,000 people immediately; another 145,000 people later died of disease and famine. The output of hydroelectric plants is decreasing because of droughts, possibly brought on by global warming. Source: Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy, Gwyneth Cravens
Reiisha Evolution IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.08.23 05:12:00 - [74] Originally by: Citrute The waste from coal-burning plants is much greater in volume and more harmful than from nuclear generators. If you, as an average American, got all your electricity from nuclear plants, you'd generate one kilogram of nuclear waste during your lifetime, enough to fit in a soda can. If you got all your electricity from coal, you'd generate almost 70 tons of waste. Coal plants emit far more radioactive materials than nuclear plants do; each year a 1,000-megawatt coal plant disperses about 27 metric tons of uranium, thorium and other radioactive substances. Coals plants also emit mercury and other toxins, in addition of course to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. An estimated 24,000 Americans die prematurely per annum because of pollution from coal plants; in China, the number is 400,000. Another reason for me to back nuclear energy. Over the same amount of time, the amount of waste generated by a nuclear plant is much, much smaller than of a coal/gas plant producing the same energy (or plants, considering nuclear power output). "If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
JordanParey Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2010.08.23 05:17:00 - [75] Originally by: Obsidian Hawk 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. I just drove through the area of Southern California that you speak of, there isn't much worth looking at anyway, bro. Just (for a lot of it, anyway) a big ****ty desert with windmills in it. [i]2000 B.C. - "Here, eat this root." 1000 B.C. - "That root is heathen, say this prayer." 1850 A.D. - "That prayer is superstition, drink this potion." 1940 A.D. - "That potion is snake oil, sw
Niccolado Starwalker Gallente Shadow Templars	Posted - 2010.08.23 09:02:00 - [76] Watched a program yesterday on Discovery named sci-fi science, where they looked on antimatter as fuel for future spaceships. Maybe one day it can fuel the world with energy too?? Unless ofcource it takes us into a great black hole Originally by: Dianabolic Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2010.08.23 09:11:00 - [77] Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker Watched a program yesterday on Discovery named sci-fi science, where they looked on antimatter as fuel for future spaceships. Maybe one day it can fuel the world with energy too?? Unless ofcource it takes us into a great black hole Not likely. There's the tiny little problem that making antimatter takes way more energy than you get from using it. This is fine for space where you are willing to accept a high up-front cost to minimize the fuel mass of your ship, but it makes antimatter completely worthless as an energy source for civilization as a whole. And then there's the whole "massive radiation produced from the reaction" and "incredibly dangerous to store" problems, even if we somehow find an antimatter source that is a net energy gain. -----------
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.08.23 09:17:00 - [78] Antimatter is like hydrogen, it is not an energy source, you can only use it to store energy.
Sergeant Spot Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.	Posted - 2010.08.24 02:44:00 - [79] My real life job involves keeping a varity of Emergency response equipment serviceable. Among other things, this includes dosimeters, radiacs, etc. Having looked HEAVILY into real actual nuclear events, I prefer nuclear power. I am perfectly happy to make a city sized area glow for 10,000 years in order to power the planet for the next several centuries (and if by that time we can't ship it to Mars, or some moon of Saturn, we're probably already dead, and NOT from that city sized glowing area...) In short, pick a stable spot, place waste there. Get on with life. Ever sinse the Hockey stick chart tried to ignore the medieval warm period and little ice age, I've known that climate change "AS DESCRIBED BY AL GORE, MANN, HANSON, etc" is a lie. Having said that, I have more concern about crud in the air than properly stored nuclear waste. If I gotta choose one (and I do...), then I'd rather have the nukes. Play nice while you butcher each other.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.08.24 03:06:00 - [80] Originally by: Lance Fighter Originally by: Lia'Vael Originally by: Intense Thinker I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Ah yes I was wondering when the example of mindless ignorant fear would show its face, thank you. Ah, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to be trolled in this thread. Thank you. I love you, Lance Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist

Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2010.08.24 05:59:00 - [81] Originally by: Intense Thinker Originally by: Lance Fighter Originally by: Lia'Vael Originally by: Intense Thinker I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Ah yes I was wondering when the example of mindless ignorant fear would show its face, thank you. Ah, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to be trolled in this thread. Thank you. I love you, Lance Love you too 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.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.08.24 06:31:00 - [82] Originally by: Intense Thinker I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant And just think of the Turkeys they produce there, I hear that nobody has to fight over the drumsticks again even a family with more than two kids...... Patented Chernobyl "No Fight" Turkeys. Geese and Chickens available on demand, Ducks if we could get em to land.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.08.24 07:31:00 - [83] Originally by: Lance Fighter 100 years ago, what type of power were we using? was there a SINGLE nuclear reactor in operation? No, there wasnt. The first nuclear power plant was put into operation around 60 years ago. 100 years ago, we had less than a fifth of the current population and electricity was used for electric lights, and noone had fridges in their homes (they had ice boxes perhaps). Quote: Now, im willing to accept that current levels of usage will increase. However, you must also be willing to accept that we will find more. If current levels of consumption increase, we'll run out of oil some time around 2030, we'll run out of coal about the same time, we'll run out of uranium around 2040, and we'll have nothing left to fuel any kind of reactor even in the initial research stage right now. Quote: Lets look at oil for instance - as oil prices rise, it becomes profitable enough to drill deeper for oil. As oil prices rise it also becomes more profitable to use other fuel sources, or buy more renewable generation. Quote: I see the same thing happening with fissile material... Right now, we might only be using uranium (and plutonium), but that doesnt mean we wont be able to find other stuff in the future. Other stuff we find in the future will be in lower abundance. We won't be able to replace current generation with any new radioactives such as thorium. If we can lift the ban on breeder reactors there's some hope of making better use of the uranium we currently have. Quote: We will probably keep changing power sources every 50-100 years until we find one that breaks the laws of physics... Alternately, we could find ways to drastically reduce our consumption, along with figuring out sane ways of keeping the world's population at sustainable levels. -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]
M'ktakh	Posted - 2010.08.24 08:11:00 - [84] Nuclear, coupled with hydro. To put it simply, there are many, many more uses, all of them better, for coal, than simply burning it. Before chemistry switched to oil, it used, you guessed it, coal. Coal chemistry is a currently underutilised field, but It will have to take off once oil starts to become scarce. After all, if you have to choose between using fossils for chemistry and using fossils for heat, which do you choose?
Tatanka Marcussen Gallente Tyrell Corp	Posted - 2010.08.24 08:11:00 - [85] Didn read the hole tread cuz im lazy. But what if you could find something thats alot better then Nuclear and Coal? The Ultimate Garbage Disposal (theres some in us if i rememeber correctly on test basis)
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.08.24 08:54:00 - [86] Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker Originally by: Intense Thinker I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant And just think of the Turkeys they produce there, I hear that nobody has to fight over the drumsticks again even a family with more than two kids...... Patented Chernobyl "No Fight" Turkeys. Geese and Chickens available on demand, Ducks if we could get em to land. We could use some Comp B or comp C-4 to blow the radiation up into the air... that'd probably get a few ducks Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.08.24 19:03:00 - [87] Originally by: Intense Thinker Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker Originally by: Intense Thinker I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant And just think of the Turkeys they produce there, I hear that nobody has to fight over the drumsticks again even a family with more than two kids...... Patented Chernobyl "No Fight" Turkeys. Geese and Chickens available on demand, Ducks if we could get em to land. We could use some Comp B or comp C-4 to blow the radiation up into the air... that'd probably get a few ducks If the Duck started to glow green do you think it would be like a shooting star if it flew fast enough?
RFID Gallente The Phoenix Quarry of Eve	Posted - 2010.08.24 19:08:00 - [88] Originally by: ReaperOfSly 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? One way to deal with the waste is to put it back into the system. It's called a breader reactor, like most of those used in Europe. The only byproduct is weapons grade plutonium. What's not to like?
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2010.08.24 19:09:00 - [89] Unfortunatly, I'm currently poasting from my phone, so you won he recieving the long-winded reply you were probably hoping for Mara. However I will say that your random numbers are completely random. Many of he things you said seem to have no real basis in fact, and well, I'm having trouble believing the rest of them. With that said, I will say that I doubt we will run out of ALL of the fuel we currently know how to burn before we develop some other method of fuel. Also, uranium is not the only thing that nuclear reactors will consume, and really, there are other ways we can make energy. While I agree that eventually we will run out of fuel, it should be mentioned that there will ALWAYS be electricity available to those who can pay for it, simply because of the mechanics o supply and demand. With all that said, I fully support the construction of new nuclear reactors, as I still think they are considerably better than coal or oil reactors. If you can pardon my horribad spelling on my phone, that is. 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.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.08.24 19:55:00 - [90] Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker Originally by: Intense Thinker Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker Originally by: Intense Thinker I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant And just think of the Turkeys they produce there, I hear that nobody has to fight over the drumsticks again even a family with more than two kids...... Patented Chernobyl "No Fight" Turkeys. Geese and Chickens available on demand, Ducks if we could get em to land. We could use some Comp B or comp C-4 to blow the radiation up into the air... that'd probably get a few ducks If the Duck started to glow green do you think it would be like a shooting star if it flew fast enough? If it got up really really high, otherwise it would look like a tracer round Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist

Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.08.24 20:39:00 - [91] OMG Tracer Ducks, new ammo for the Mythbusters Chicken Gun!
BrundleMeth Caldari Temporal Mechanics	Posted - 2010.08.24 21:36:00 - [92] Soylet Green is people.....
Slate Shoa	Posted - 2010.08.25 02:29:00 - [93] Edited by: Slate Shoa on 25/08/2010 02:29:35 Dear people who think nuclear power hurts the Earth's environment more than coal: Please read this article: A Second Look at Nuclear Power by Paul Lorenzini, "a retired PacifiCorp executive and former general manager of contract operations at DOEÆs nuclear defense facilities in Hanford, Washington." If you don't trust my link, search google for the article. Summary: Paul Lorenzini starts out discussing the outcomes of the renewable energy source movement. Paul shows that the renewable energy source movement has made worse the problems which it aimed to erase, and actually increased the use of fossil fuel energy sources. An estimate of the public fatalities from the use of fossil fuels is given, and then a comparison to nuclear power is given. Paul talks about "environmentalists" and their contradictory stance of opposing nuclear power. Mr. Lorenzini then tries to explain the reasons for historically fierce opposition to development of nuclear power in the United States. Paul then talks about the nuclear-power-plant and waste-disposal regulation roadblocks facing the development of nuclear power. Lastly, Paul explains what needs to be done before nuclear power is set for unimpeded development.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.08.25 02:36:00 - [94] Originally by: Slate Shoa Edited by: Slate Shoa on 25/08/2010 02:29:35 Dear people who think nuclear power hurts the Earth's environment more than coal: Please read this article: A Second Look at Nuclear Power by Paul Lorenzini, "a retired PacifiCorp executive and former general manager of contract operations at DOEÆs nuclear defense facilities in Hanford, Washington." If you don't trust my link, search google for the article. Summary: Paul Lorenzini starts out discussing the outcomes of the renewable energy source movement. Paul shows that the renewable energy source movement has made worse the problems which it aimed to erase, and actually increased the use of fossil fuel energy sources. An estimate of the public fatalities from the use of fossil fuels is given, and then a comparison to nuclear power is given. Paul talks about "environmentalists" and their contradictory stance of opposing nuclear power. Mr. Lorenzini then tries to explain the reasons for historically fierce opposition to development of nuclear power in the United States. Paul then talks about the nuclear-power-plant and waste-disposal regulation roadblocks facing the development of nuclear power. Lastly, Paul explains what needs to be done before nuclear power is set for unimpeded development. Nuclear still has a fatal flaw.... NIMBY. without NIMBY there would be more of them.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.08.25 03:41:00 - [95] I would freaking build my own personal nuclear reactor in the basement and flip the birdy to all power companies if I could get the permits for its construction and operation. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2010.08.25 04:10:00 - [96] Edited by: Lance Fighter on 25/08/2010 04:10:51 Originally by: Akita T I would freaking build my own personal nuclear reactor in the basement and flip the birdy to all power companies if I could get the permits for its construction and operation. me too. Most particularly the part where when the power goes out, my house will still have lights Oh yeah, and i suppose extra income from selling power to the grid might be nice. edit nuclear computer power supply anyone? 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.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.08.25 04:23:00 - [97] Originally by: Lance Fighter Originally by: Akita T I would freaking build my own personal nuclear reactor in the basement and flip the birdy to all power companies if I could get the permits for its construction and operation. me too. Most particularly the part where when the power goes out, my house will still have lights Let's not forget, personal nuclear reactors are essential for comfortable living in case of a Zombie Apocalypse ! _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2010.08.25 04:32:00 - [98] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Lance Fighter Originally by: Akita T I would freaking build my own personal nuclear reactor in the basement and flip the birdy to all power companies if I could get the permits for its construction and operation. me too. Most particularly the part where when the power goes out, my house will still have lights Let's not forget, personal nuclear reactors are essential for comfortable living in case of a Zombie Apocalypse ! This is true. When the apocalypse is caused by nuclear radiation, I will own a nuclear power plant to protect myself... 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.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.08.25 05:19:00 - [99] Originally by: Lance Fighter Edited by: Lance Fighter on 25/08/2010 04:10:51 Originally by: Akita T I would freaking build my own personal nuclear reactor in the basement and flip the birdy to all power companies if I could get the permits for its construction and operation. me too. Most particularly the part where when the power goes out, my house will still have lights Oh yeah, and i suppose extra income from selling power to the grid might be nice. edit nuclear computer power supply anyone? Hey man dont joke about that... when the Nvidia Geforce 785GTX comes out odds are it will need a nuclear power supply to run the card or the liquid helium plant to cool it. or both.
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2010.08.25 05:22:00 - [100] Edited by: Lance Fighter on 25/08/2010 05:22:49 Damnit! Im out of fission batteries. Oh well, hope these micro-fusion cells hold up until I can raid the super-duper mart again.. 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.

Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.08.25 08:14:00 - [101] Originally by: Lance Fighter Edited by: Lance Fighter on 25/08/2010 05:22:49 Damnit! Im out of fission batteries. Oh well, hope these micro-fusion cells hold up until I can raid the super-duper mart again.. Home Depot sells them too Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist
Abraham Azadian Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams	Posted - 2010.08.25 09:09:00 - [102] Originally by: Akita T I would freaking build my own personal nuclear reactor in the basement and flip the birdy to all power companies if I could get the permits for its construction and operation. Oh yeah !
Illectroculus Defined Chooch Inc. Imperial 0rder	Posted - 2010.08.26 00:19:00 - [103] Edited by: Illectroculus Defined on 26/08/2010 00:19:40 Originally by: ceaon 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, I haven't heard of any plants that remove polutants like mercury from the environment. I like sushi, but mercury pollution from burning coal has pushed the mercury levels high enough that I think twice before indulging in tuna these days. Plus there's the continual low level radiation being dumped out of smokestacks from coal stations. Sorry, anything but coal is the way to go. Vote Illectro for CSM5! Supporting the New Generation of Eve Players
Borza Slavak Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Damu'Khonde	Posted - 2010.08.26 01:45:00 - [104] Are you guys talking about unlicensed nuclear accelerators? If so, don't cross the streams... it would be bad...


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.