Jump to content

23yr Old Wants To Overturn The Phils Power Industry


Recommended Posts

Cipro

But we still haven't been able to fiqure out how to eliminate the waste..

 

New designs can actually burn the current crop of waste as fuel. How's that for a disposal plan?

 

 

 

So which do you think is safer?

 

Statistically (which means factually) nuclear, by a country mile. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Cipro

    22

  • PhilsFan

    13

  • rizla

    6

  • thebob

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When Leandro Leviste studied at Yale University, he heard about Elon Musk’s designs for Solarcity. Leviste had bought stocks in Tesla, Musk’s electric car brand, when they were cheap and sold them for

As long it lacks the storage capacity at LOW COST - to store the produced energy - solar power is too expensive !

'What it will cost you' is not what it costs. You have to figure in what sort of breaks you're getting to reduce costs, including but not limited to tax breaks, direct subsidies, as well as indirect s

rizla
Statistically (which means factually) nuclear, by a country mile. 

 

Really, please,  show a link showing a greater number of deaths from solar power than from Nuclear power, if that's too hard, how about details of cancer caused by nuclear radiation against cancer caused by solar panels.

 

 

 

I rest my case, thanks.

 

There is absolutely no possible argument against the fact that solar power is the cleanest and safest form of energy, however, we still lack the technology to fully make use of that energy source efficiently. Time will find a solution, and then we can rid the world of the pollution and danger created by fossil and nuclear power sources.

Edited by rizla
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro
Really, please,  show a link showing a greater number of deaths from solar power than from Nuclear power

 

Sure!

 

 

Energy Source              Death Rate (deaths per TWh) 
 
Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg        60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China      170
Coal electricity-  China            90 
Coal – USA                          15
Oil                                 36  (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas                          4  (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                     12
Peat                                12
Solar (rooftop)                      0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind                                 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro                                0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao)     1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear                              0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
 
 
 
Edit: Link
Edited by Cipro
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
PhilsFan

Cmon Cipro'...you know those #'s aren't going to hold water long-term....but kudo's to you for setting up the question before hand!..hehe.

 

...anyone capable of a little trend analysis ( you certainly are) can see what's coming. But you have every right to defend your points, nothing wrong with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

 

 

...anyone capable of a little trend analysis ( you certainly are) can see what's coming.

 

For nuclear there's no evidence of any trend that's coming. People who say otherwise are making shit up. 

 

The world is a big place and it's got some radiation naturally - even a leak like Fukushima, once it's in the ocean, it's not a worry for rational people. Chernobyl isn't even that bad and that was basically a malicious act by the operational crew on an obsolete reactor. For solar, if they keep up with the putting that stuff on people's roofs, well it's just going to keep killing people. If they make centralized solar power stations it's safer, but that's not 'the green dream' is it?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
rep1

Yes clean safe Nuclear power 

 

All the great things are neither clean nor safe: fire, electricity, bombs, etc. Figuring out how to manage the risk is part of the advancement.

 

And we won't need to worry about the waste anymore when we leave this planet behind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rizla

All the great things are neither clean nor safe: fire, electricity, bombs, etc. Figuring out how to manage the risk is part of the advancement.

 

And we won't need to worry about the waste anymore when we leave this planet behind.

Why is solar energy not clean? In time roofing material will be a solar panel in the way tiles or sheet metal are used today.

The risk of death from solar is minimal, and it is endless for as long as the sun shines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

 

 

The risk of death from solar is minimal

 

Except that it kills 11x as many people as nuclear does, and nuclear is 'dangerous'. You really can't have it both ways. If you want to look at what the future could possibly be with solar fine, that's fair IF you do the same for nuclear. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
thebob

Except that it kills 11x as many people as nuclear does, and nuclear is 'dangerous'. You really can't have it both ways. If you want to look at what the future could possibly be with solar fine, that's fair IF you do the same for nuclear. 

 

Your data is from 2008 and only includes roof top solar. The numbers have converged a lot since then, because of large scale installed projects. It is also swayed because one technology has had decades of production and the other is relatively new.

 

Decommissioning of power plants also needs to be added to the figures as well as storage and reprocessing of waste. But even so nuclear is very impressive.

 

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawatt-hour-for.html

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

 

 

It is also swayed because one technology has had decades of production and the other is relatively new.

 

As solar becomes more efficient (although we are not really far from the limit on that) it gets better in a watts per risk view, but the 'solar dream' is to have every house with a small solar farm on the roof; what people don't realize is that their tiny little co-gen plant comes with a tiny little maintenance risk to life and limb and if you multiply that out enough, people do actually die and get hurt. 

 

Ironically the quote that kicked this off was a politician stating an opinion without backing it up to bolster his position supporting a centralized solar power plant. He's a damn politician he'd probably sell his mom for votes, he'd sure as sh*t sell YOUR mom for votes. 

 

I like solar a lot, wind is so-so, and I really liked the idea of off-shore seafloor mounted turbines harnessing the ocean currents; lot of kinetic energy to be had there. Maybe it would kill fish, I dunno. 

 

But we need a clean baseload source that will scale out, and for the next couple hundred years nuclear is really an awesome option. As the rest of the planet starts consuming like we do, and our consumption continues to grow as well, we really need a serious and clean power source. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
PhilsFan

I am of the opinion that large-scale solar plants located mainly in the southern states and wind power located on approriate sites are the most efficient in generating future baseload power and can supply most of the power we need. 

That is what is happening now...more new power coming online from renewables than from any other source.

 

As for Nuclear, 2 more plants just scheduled for closure announced yesterday due to (unfavorable policies?).

Bottom line, people fear Nuclear power, and for good reason. Not saying it has not up to now and in the future could not be used effectively, but the #'s I have seen show it more expensive to use (long-term) after all costs factored in..plus the risk of radiation spills/water supply threats.

 

Austrialia just had some favorable long-term results published on wave power...hoping they have finally cracked the nut on that valuable resource.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

As for Nuclear, 2 more plants just scheduled for closure announced yesterday due to (unfavorable policies?). Bottom line, people fear Nuclear power, and for good reason. [/quote

 

People fear nuclear, but not for good reason. 

 

The plants that are shutting down are old designs which are intrinsically expensive to operate, and on top of that have to deal with an insane level of regulation and public FUD due to people basically being morons and the media feeding into that. Newer Gen 3+ designs are not generally suitable for producing weapons grade materials (which has a lot to do with why we have less invested in them currently) but they have other fantastic characteristics such as safe failure modes (AKA intrinsically safe) and the ability to actually burn older reactors waste as fuel. 

 

We should be building these if only for disposal of older waste, let alone the fact they would actually produce an asston of power. 

 

From Wikipedia "The fast reactors offer the possibility of burning actinides to further reduce waste and of being able to "breed more fuel" than they consume. These systems offer significant advances in sustainability, safety and reliability, economics, proliferation resistance (depending on perspective) and physical protection. 

 

Relative to current nuclear power plant technology, the claimed benefits for 4th generation reactors include:

  • Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia]
  • 100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel 
  • Broader range of fuels, and even unencapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR).
  • In some reactors, the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, that is, a Closed nuclear fuel cycle. This strengthens the argument to deem nuclear power as renewable energy.
  • Improved operating safety features, such as (depending on design) avoidance of pressurized operation, automatic passive (unpowered, uncommanded) reactor shutdown, avoidance of water cooling and the associated risks of loss of water (leaks or boiling) and hydrogen generation/explosion and contamination of coolant water.

Nuclear reactors do not emit CO2 during operation, although like all low carbon power sources, the mining and construction phase can result in CO2 emissions, if energy sources which are not carbon neutral (such as fossil fuels), or CO2 emitting cements are used during the construction process. A 2012 Yale University review published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology analyzing CO2 life cycle assessment (LCA) emissions from nuclear power determined that:

 

"The collective LCA literature indicates that life cycle GHG [ greenhouse gas ] emissions from nuclear power are only a fraction of traditional fossil sources and comparable to renewable technologies."" - Article

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#/media/File:GenIVRoadmap-en.svg

 

 

EDIT: Formatting and image

Edited by Cipro
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

Also keep in mind TNSTAAFL.

 

Wind power, you are extracting energy from the air; what would that energy have done? How are you changing the environment? Wave, same, except I would fear even more as some delicate ecosystems exist at the water/land interface. The options are either "we don't extract much of the total power (AKA our systems are not very effective)" or "we will probably be breaking things we don't understand". 

 

Solar I don't see that as a big thing, sure, we are going to be sucking some heat out of the system and turning it into electricity but we will give that heat back (relocated, sure, but back into the system) later. This is one reason I like solar as a part of our energy portfolio. 

 

 

As a side note? Care to guess who has had a large part in ensuring nuclear is a bit player in America? I won't point fingers but it rhymes with "oil companies". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Headshot

The thing I don't like about wind power is its negative effect on the bird population. Black-footed ferrets were re-established in the middle of a large wind farm in southwest Wyoming because the raptor population (the ferret's primary predator) was pretty much extinct.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

Here is more info on what's currently out there and what is coming soon. 


Oh, and you can thank Harry Reid (D) for the nuclear waste that's scattered all over the USA instead of in Yucca Mtn. 

Edited by Cipro
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..