I'm not really sure what you're suggesting. That insurance companies make gut decisions or don't look at the evidence when insuring things? Sorry but it doesn't make any sense, especially when more money is involved. If there's safer nuclear technology out there it's going to be taken into account when policies are written.
I'm not really sure what you're suggesting. That insurance companies make gut decisions or don't look at the evidence when insuring things? Sorry but it doesn't make any sense, especially when more money is involved. If there's safer nuclear technology out there it's going to be taken into account when policies are written.
wuliheron
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2011
- 3,536
- 0
- 0
Of course improved designs will be taken into account, but so will the fact the industry is about to have every orifice closely inspected and criticized. Governments are already being urged to put plans for new plants on hold and many companies will not wish to be associated with any bad publicity that might arise. Even insurance companies have stock holder to account to and they may not be as well informed as the company itself.
Doppel
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2011
- 13,306
- 3
- 0
And as a result an utterly worthless response. Nuclear energy wasn't to blame for Chernobyl, Soviet incompetence was.
You should take a look at the photos of children in places that don't even have any power. Nuclear energy is worth it because we need to diversify our power supplies - relying on oil, coal and gas is stupid.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
And what we'll get is no plan at all. At least, not one that actually gets implemented.
Anyway, nuclear is a bad investment because it takes a long time to build and you never know if the political winds will change and wipe out all the work you've done. Better to just burn more coal and natty gas.
We need more expensive power. I won't be happy until it costs $300/month to run Folding @ Home on home computers. Research can go suck it.
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,681
- 15,918
- 146
Nuclear is expensive because unlike evry other industry nuclear must contain and store all it's waste. Instead of dumping it into the air or water.
Could you imagine how expensive gas or coal would be if ywe had to sequester all green house gasses produced and all heavy waste products from coal ash? Some of those waste products are cancer causing and toxic - forever.
Could you imagine how expensive gas or coal would be if ywe had to sequester all green house gasses produced and all heavy waste products from coal ash? Some of those waste products are cancer causing and toxic - forever.
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,790
- 5,950
- 146
According to the Department of Energy, ~19% of power used in homes is for heat and water heating.
Air conditioning accounts for another 16%.
Designing homes to maximize passive heating and cooling, adding active solar heating and water heating is where it is at IMO. It takes load off the grid and saves there also.
This does not address commercial power use. I don't have statistics for that.
Air conditioning accounts for another 16%.
Designing homes to maximize passive heating and cooling, adding active solar heating and water heating is where it is at IMO. It takes load off the grid and saves there also.
This does not address commercial power use. I don't have statistics for that.
JTsyo
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2007
- 12,038
- 1,135
- 126
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 28,943
- 14,237
- 136
Conservation and good design would go a long way towards stretching our resources, but if you listen to some members on this board, they think that they can use as much as they want since they pay for it (and completely ignore the fact that higher usage by some could lead to higher costs to all).
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,790
- 5,950
- 146
:thumbsup:
I don't drive a Prius or anything, but I do want to build a house that takes care of itself. I want solar PV and DC lighting, DC circulation pumps, active solar water and space heating, and good passive design. It will add at least 50K to the cost, and take 40 years to pay off at current rates. I'm not foolish enough to believe the rates are going to stay this low, however
Deregulation is a good answer IMO and the Federal guy mentioned in the OP could be full of shit or just a corporatist.
The reason we're at where we are is because of government involvement.
Fossil fuels will last a while if they get too expensive, cars and air conditioners will be made more efficient, and I can rest assured the Japanese will create something we'll need that's cost effective (provided that the WTO doesn't gain power) within the next 75.
The only thing I'm worried about is the government impeding progress.
On a side note, I think that replacing AC power with DC power is a good idea, even though few other people think it is.
The reason we're at where we are is because of government involvement.
Fossil fuels will last a while if they get too expensive, cars and air conditioners will be made more efficient, and I can rest assured the Japanese will create something we'll need that's cost effective (provided that the WTO doesn't gain power) within the next 75.
The only thing I'm worried about is the government impeding progress.
On a side note, I think that replacing AC power with DC power is a good idea, even though few other people think it is.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 28,943
- 14,237
- 136
:thumbsup:
I don't drive a Prius or anything, but I do want to build a house that takes care of itself. I want solar PV and DC lighting, DC circulation pumps, active solar water and space heating, and good passive design. It will add at least 50K to the cost, and take 40 years to pay off at current rates. I'm not foolish enough to believe the rates are going to stay this low, however
That's definitely one thing to take into a account when people build new homes - other features such as not making them gigantic (more efficient use of space means less space to cool/heat).
But even in already built homes and apartments, simple things that can lower costs overall for everyone, such as turning off lights, raising AC temps when not home (or turning them off), turning off computers when not in use...
Put power plants up and down the Mississippi and either quit using barges or put locks and dams around the power plant locations. Hydro electricity is a lot safer. It is not quite as dependable, but it is safer. Dams break occassionally, and sometimes there is not enough water, but they dont contaminate land for the next 600 years.
Charge for electricity based on the square footage of the home so the larger the home you have the you pay for being an electricity hog. Just because you can build a mansion, it does not mean we have to give you the same low rate as everyone else.
We could do the same thing for Gasoline. Based on family size and vehicle occupancy, we can charge more for people who are driving too large of a vehicle or have too many vehicles. It is the weight of the vehicle and the Milage that tears up the roads. Maybe electrical vehicles should have to pay higher maintenance fees based on vehicle weight instead of the Gas Tax they do not pay.
Living closer to where you work might help also. Long range commuters are probably also tearing up the roads.
We should also give out more tickets for people with derelict vehicles, blocking the road when the Snow Plows come through. I have seen many parked vehicles that never even move for an entire year. Make all people drive their vehicle to the DMV to register it or pay to have their car stored on a lot somewhere in storage. Encourage people to get rid of their derelict vehicles.
Charge for electricity based on the square footage of the home so the larger the home you have the you pay for being an electricity hog. Just because you can build a mansion, it does not mean we have to give you the same low rate as everyone else.
We could do the same thing for Gasoline. Based on family size and vehicle occupancy, we can charge more for people who are driving too large of a vehicle or have too many vehicles. It is the weight of the vehicle and the Milage that tears up the roads. Maybe electrical vehicles should have to pay higher maintenance fees based on vehicle weight instead of the Gas Tax they do not pay.
Living closer to where you work might help also. Long range commuters are probably also tearing up the roads.
We should also give out more tickets for people with derelict vehicles, blocking the road when the Snow Plows come through. I have seen many parked vehicles that never even move for an entire year. Make all people drive their vehicle to the DMV to register it or pay to have their car stored on a lot somewhere in storage. Encourage people to get rid of their derelict vehicles.
Last edited:
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
You have to look at how much power a nuclear plant generates. One nuclear reactor generates the same power as 3 gas or coal plants. Right now it is estimated that if we switch to electric vehicles we would need roughly 30 nuclear plants just for that added load or 90 gas powered plants . We also have a lot more uranium than we do gas or coal and reactors are being designed that can use waste from the current reactors to generate power.
Nuclear is safe if it is handled correctly. I live near one and am not scared in the least. It has run reliably for 30+ years.
Nuclear is safe if it is handled correctly. I live near one and am not scared in the least. It has run reliably for 30+ years.
Far more people have been killed by coal mining (both directly through accidents and through the indirect toxic effects of things like mountaintop removal) in the United States than by nuclear accidents.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
Take a look at the new designs of reactors they want to build
http://ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/index.html
The ability to go 72 hours without a person needed to do anything and they placed the water for cooling on top of the reactors so it is passive fed, no need for power to keep the cooling going. Things have changed a lot .
I doubt many that oppose nuclear energy know about the deaths that television caused. Early television models used vacuum tubes and the CRT required high voltages. If the voltages go too high then the CRT starts to emit x-rays. To create the high voltage they used a special type of vacuum tube number 2x2A that had to be enclosed inside its own shielding inside the set because it was learned it emitted x-rays itself, enough to push a modern day meter over the limit. It isn't known how many people were harmed before it was well understood, but even when it was we didn't stop making televisions. We learned and corrected the mistakes. though one could argue the world might be a better place if TV didn't exist
More about the 2x2a and other vacuum tubes that were in millions of homes
http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/xray1.html
http://ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/index.html
The ability to go 72 hours without a person needed to do anything and they placed the water for cooling on top of the reactors so it is passive fed, no need for power to keep the cooling going. Things have changed a lot .
I doubt many that oppose nuclear energy know about the deaths that television caused. Early television models used vacuum tubes and the CRT required high voltages. If the voltages go too high then the CRT starts to emit x-rays. To create the high voltage they used a special type of vacuum tube number 2x2A that had to be enclosed inside its own shielding inside the set because it was learned it emitted x-rays itself, enough to push a modern day meter over the limit. It isn't known how many people were harmed before it was well understood, but even when it was we didn't stop making televisions. We learned and corrected the mistakes. though one could argue the world might be a better place if TV didn't exist
More about the 2x2a and other vacuum tubes that were in millions of homes
http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/xray1.html
Last edited:
JTsyo
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2007
- 12,038
- 1,135
- 126
Building a dam requires you the flood the upriver portion. That would be many square miles of land that would be lost. Not to mention the terrain of the mid-west doesn't help for dam building.
lol. That was Spidey wasn't it? Using tons of water and power and demanding construction of bigger and more expensive plants instead of putting effort into turning shit off when you leave the room
Houses already make use of passive heating from electricity. It's called insulation
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,790
- 5,950
- 146
Is English your second language? Passive heating from electricity?lol. That was Spidey wasn't it? Using tons of water and power and demanding construction of bigger and more expensive plants instead of putting effort into turning shit off when you leave the room
Houses already make use of passive heating from electricity. It's called insulation
passive means you don't need to do anything special
sleeping while somebody rapes you = passive sex
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 28,943
- 14,237
- 136
That is a good goal, but I believe we're a long way off from sustainable fusion power-generation. The technology is just not there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Current_status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter