![Image](http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2010/riedel_oil_birds/oil_spill_birds_02.jpg)
![Image](http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2010/riedel_oil_birds/oil_spill_birds_01.jpg)
![Image](http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2010/riedel_oil_birds/oil_spill_birds_04.jpg)
NO BIG DEAL.
Thank you for being the one person who understands my point. I'm not exactly good at expressing it in an understandable way.Have you even bothered to read the thread you're posting in? You don't even have to read the posts of the guy you're having a s***-throwing contest with. I've just lightly skimmed over the thread and I get the idea that nuclear power in the US is a very bad idea until there's a fundamental shift in how our government and businesses operate and where their priorities lie. I don't even want to imagine the inevitable nuclear equivalent to the recent financial crisis and the current oil one if the status quo started mass-producing nuclear energy. I think it's fair to say it would probably dwarf Chernobyl.
I know nuclear looks safest and cleanest on paper, but unless things change the reality is the exact opposite because someone, somewhere will eventually f*** it up for all of us.
So the fact that the USA has a history not only of doing precisely this (reducing regulations to appease corporate lobbyists), but also of having ineffective - or corrupt - methods of oversight to ensure that regulations are followed is something we should just ignore? This oil spill is something that's going to affect coastlines for the entirety of this generation's lifespan. A nuclear accident would affect more people for far longer. You think it's pessimistic to see the US repeat the same mistakes time after time and somehow expect that it won't happen this time?There are 104 operable nuclear power plants in the United States, and they produce a total sum of 101,119 megawatts of power. This is equivalent to 19.7% of our electric production. And out of these 104 plants, we have had only one error - TMI. Chernobyl isn't a concern, as I've stated before, that was due to substandard design of the plant. And I think the prevalent view here is pessimistic - if one disaster happens, more will occur. However, TMI led to the overregulation of nuclear power plants in the USA. Provided we don't reduce this overregulation, or only reducing it somewhat, then if all plants meet safety standards regulated by the USA, there will be no issue.
Wait, what? "Here are 3 power plants of unequal size, location and purpose. Plants 1 and 2 produce more power than plant 3, thus the technology of plants 1 and 2 is more viable than that of 3." Tell me I'm not the only one spotting this logical fallacy...When renewable energy becomes viable over nuclear, then we'd begin to replace the nuclear plants. But as of today, wind and solar energy doesn't provide enough power for the land used. The Three Gorges Dam is planned to produce 22.5 gigawatts per hour and the Port Alma Wind Farm produces 101.2 megawatts of power with 44 turbines. Meanwhile, TMI is rated to produce 802 megawatts of electric power, and it produced 6645 gigawatt hours of energy in 2007. So the two most viable energy sources based on this are hydroelectric and nuclear.
What about geothermal, tidal, wave, or even biofuel power? I mean, you can ignore my earlier solar power link that shows how little land is actually required to sustain our current and future energy needs if you must; but do you really expect me to buy "hydroelectric is only possible on rivers, thus we should use nuclear?" Come on, man.Hydroelectric only is viable on rivers AFAIK. Meanwhile, nuclear power plants can be built anywhere where there is flat land. This makes nuclear more viable, but overblown safety concerns due to TMI and Chernobyl lead me to think we should build more dams.
Really though, that wasn't the kind of tidal power I was thinking.Wiki
One study of the Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy (RITE, Verdant Power) project in the East River (New York City), utilized 24 split beam hydroacoustic sensors (scientific echosounder[51]) to detect and track the movement of fish both upstream and downstream of each of six turbines. The results suggested (1) very few fish using this portion of the river, (2) those fish which did use this area were not using the portion of the river which would subject them to blade strikes, and (3) no evidence of fish traveling through blade areas.
People with guns make you nervous? Cops? Military? Sport shooters? Get over it, dude.True, i don't know you, nor i care about that. (And frankly, as nervous as people who use guns make me, it might be a fortunate circumstance.)
You don't know me either.
But i know which role you have decided to assume in the discussions.
Blatant generalization - not to mention absolute bullshit. Some of most ardent environmentalists are religious folk who believe in being a good steward of the earth. Total bullshit on your part here.And maybe you don't need to be a liberal, but a conservative would be too busy saying how it's a god-given right to all good (conservative) americans to destroy ecosystems as long as there is a profit in it. "Fill the earth and subdue it" and nonsense like that.
Have you read about the Israeli engineers developing roads that contain piezoelectric crystals in the asphalt which create power when driven over? It made the news a few years ago (and I believe is still being tested on the Israeli highway system).there is provocative research into making roads solar-power-capable.
Ooo! What about the one guy who's designed shock absorbers to generate electricity? Imagine one day running low on power and driving over rumble strips to recharge? Anybody else suddenly think F-Zero is coming true? Haha...I haven't been reading this thread closely, but...
Have you read about the Israeli engineers developing roads that contain piezoelectric crystals in the asphalt which create power when driven over? It made the news a few years ago (and I believe is still being tested on the Israeli highway system).there is provocative research into making roads solar-power-capable.
It would be inefficient now, because production of panels is still small (scale economy, after all). As they become more mainstream, and technology improves, solar cells should dramatically reduce their cost.The problem with solar power, at least as far as expense is concerned, especially with PV generation isn't the generators themselves, it's with storage. Batteries are expensive, toxic to manufacture, and don't hold much energy. There's a couple different technologies that promise real (And I'm taking the chart into account here, jota) commercial promise within the next 5-10 years, but right now moving on widespread diffused solar generation isn't economical as an energy policy. You could certainly meet the energy needs of the nation that way, but it'd be expensive and not very efficient.
Ugh...Apparently the Soviets dealt with four oil spills by detonating nuclear weapons to cause shifts in the rock near the leak that squeezed the channel shut.Have we tried blowing the leak up?
Return to “Milagre Town Square”
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 2 guests