-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Nuclear power...
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HombrePequeno
Diamond Member
For those that bring up Chernobyl: Chernobyl was a sh!t design that had all of the safety features taken out of it. The designer stressed against its usage but gave a list of safety precautions to take in case it was used. To save on cost, many of those safety features were taken out.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
When I was 5 I did an experiment to see if the bathroom door lock knew if you were in there when you locked the door and then closed it (it seemed dumb to me that you would be able to lock yourself out of a room).
It was kinda the same thing, except with a really angry babysitter, and no radiation.
NikolaeVarius
Lifer
I think like this.
Screw Nuclear Power
Fusion FTW!!
Water is the fuel
Output is a huge amount of energy and a mild short lived radioactivity.
No danger of meltdown or explosions either.
In other words, I also support Nuclear power for the time being
Screw Nuclear Power
Fusion FTW!!
Water is the fuel
Output is a huge amount of energy and a mild short lived radioactivity.
No danger of meltdown or explosions either.
In other words, I also support Nuclear power for the time being
Brovane
Diamond Member
I give two thumbs up for nuclear power.
There are two ways to generate large amounts of baseline power cheaply. You either use coal our nuclear. I would choose nuclear.
Wind, solar, Gas Turbine, nuclear, and Hydro all have there place in the power generation of the future. You use nuclear to generate your baseline load that you can always depend on. You then use wind and solar for another 20-30% of your load. Wind is great but you cannot depend on it to be always there. Some of the new solar technology is also great and is pushing down the price but you are looking at only around 6-hours a day. Hydro is great peaking power because at the flip of a switch you can start a turbine at a dam. However in the US all the good sites that can generate hydro have already been taken and it disrupts a rivers eco-system when a river has a Dam build on it. Gas Turbines are great for peaking power also because they can be turned on quickly and then turned off.
Nuclear is great for baseline load because a nuclear powerplant can run for months before needing to be turned off for a refueling our maintenance. However a nuclear power plant cannot quickly generate steam for a turbine our be quickly turned off.
The one catch with electricity is that it cannot be stored easily our cheaply at all. At least not in the amounts needed to deliver energy to a power grid. The grid operators have to carefully match consumption with capacity. Nuclear and Coal each can deliver consistent energy into the grid that can be depended on at a cheap price. However nuclear is the only way to generate large mounts of this energy with C02 emissions with minimum pollution. Modern western nuclear reactors are extremely safe and they cannot be compared to Soviet designs. The current nuclear reactors in operation today were designed inte 50's, 60's and have a excellent safety record. The current next generation nuclear plant designs are several magnitudes safer including some that are essentially meltdown proof. Please also remember that the US Navy has also operated nuclear reactors at Sea for decades with a excellent safety record.
There are two ways to generate large amounts of baseline power cheaply. You either use coal our nuclear. I would choose nuclear.
Wind, solar, Gas Turbine, nuclear, and Hydro all have there place in the power generation of the future. You use nuclear to generate your baseline load that you can always depend on. You then use wind and solar for another 20-30% of your load. Wind is great but you cannot depend on it to be always there. Some of the new solar technology is also great and is pushing down the price but you are looking at only around 6-hours a day. Hydro is great peaking power because at the flip of a switch you can start a turbine at a dam. However in the US all the good sites that can generate hydro have already been taken and it disrupts a rivers eco-system when a river has a Dam build on it. Gas Turbines are great for peaking power also because they can be turned on quickly and then turned off.
Nuclear is great for baseline load because a nuclear powerplant can run for months before needing to be turned off for a refueling our maintenance. However a nuclear power plant cannot quickly generate steam for a turbine our be quickly turned off.
The one catch with electricity is that it cannot be stored easily our cheaply at all. At least not in the amounts needed to deliver energy to a power grid. The grid operators have to carefully match consumption with capacity. Nuclear and Coal each can deliver consistent energy into the grid that can be depended on at a cheap price. However nuclear is the only way to generate large mounts of this energy with C02 emissions with minimum pollution. Modern western nuclear reactors are extremely safe and they cannot be compared to Soviet designs. The current nuclear reactors in operation today were designed inte 50's, 60's and have a excellent safety record. The current next generation nuclear plant designs are several magnitudes safer including some that are essentially meltdown proof. Please also remember that the US Navy has also operated nuclear reactors at Sea for decades with a excellent safety record.
I'm especially in favor if they can get Thorium reactors working. No chance of a melt down (since the fuel itself isn't self sustaining) and a 500 year half life on the waste (if I remember right). Even so, I think it is the best immediate base power supply. I think solar will be ready to pick up a big part of the load in 10 or 20 years, so we may have already missed best window opportunity for nuclear, but I'm still in favor of filling in with nuclear until other energy sources are ready.
Just as point of fact, my dad has a masters in nuclear engineering and 30 years working as a nuclear engineer and he thinks pretty much the exact same thing, would you consider him qualified or you think you know more on the subject than he does?
EDIT: the hypocrite insult derives from enviromentalsits who say they HATE coal and want to get rid of greenhouse gasses but then oppose nuclear as well. This is of course hypocritical because nuclear and coal are the only two baseload energy sources so oppose nuclear is a defacto vote in favor of more coal plants and more greenhouse gases (although the greens either won't admit this or thing that its OK since we could probably do without 75% of our energy use anyways).
blackangst1
Lifer
Yes, they are. No idea if they can provide more or not...it works now why wouldnt it if it was 2fold or 3fold? *shrug* No one really knows
blackangst1
Lifer
Im going to disagree about wind providing small amounts of power. I suggest putting this into Google and do some reading: how effective is wind power
smack Down
Diamond Member
A 1.5 MW wind generator weights in at 163 tons mostly of steal and copper and 50 acres of land. Your going to need a hell of a lot of them to produce the 3.656 Trillion KWH used a year in the US. Of course in environmentalist lala land wind turbines grow on trees, right next to the solar power panel producing weeds, and no resource need to be used in there building.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
:music: Have no fear for atomic energy
'cause none of them can stop the time /:music:
I'm for it, if it's controlled well and competently staffed.
'cause none of them can stop the time /:music:
I'm for it, if it's controlled well and competently staffed.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
I think that violates some treaty, but I think it's a decent idea.
I love how people think wind power is somehow environmentally "free"... those turbines can completely destroy ecosystems, many times trees are cut down to place the turbines, and it just so happens that many of the best wind-producing areas are also among the most aesthetically beautiful. According to the figures I found, 1.5MW/hrs of wind power requires 300 square kilometers of turbines. If someone was taking down trees and building skyscrapers on hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of pristine, open land there would be a serious outcry, but when it's wind turbines no one cares about the aesthetic or ecological effects I guess.
For contrast, the Pressurized Light Water Reactors at Calvert Cliffs (just as an example) produce 1,685MW/hrs using a tiny fraction of the space.
Wind is great for what it is, but it will never be a primary source of electricity generation.
For contrast, the Pressurized Light Water Reactors at Calvert Cliffs (just as an example) produce 1,685MW/hrs using a tiny fraction of the space.
Wind is great for what it is, but it will never be a primary source of electricity generation.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
Actually the total number of deaths due to dam collapses far, far, far outweighs the number of deaths (including the highly debatable number of future cancers) caused by nuclear accidents. There was one dam collapse in China that killed hundreds of thousands of people. The worst nuclear accident (Chernobyl) killed ~60 (with an upper limit of future cancer deaths around 4000).
tomywishbone
Golden Member
Not if we sent them at night.
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
