Quote from BurningFish

I haven't heard of that new NPP type. Do you have a source where I could study further, maybe? I couldn't find any... 😔

Same here, would be interested in this.

Also, this may sound sci-fiesque, but I truly believe the future will belong to Helium-3. An extremely rare gas on earth, but there is a bigger concentration of it on the moon. Do the research about this and tell me if you don't think this will be our main energy source in a hundred years from now. In the meantime, we could use nuclear power, but not abuse of it. And also continue to bet on renewable energy sources, at least where it's effective (Deserts, windy areas...)

Quote from kummel

Quote from BoxBox

Quote from kummel

[quote]Besides, you know that when the soviet union collapsed, 1000 nuclear warheads went missing?

Stop this bullshit right now!

it be nice to use your first post to intro and not make rude remarks

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/17/155150.shtml
i don't know why i thought it was 1000.....still with 200 nukes floating out there and people are worried about North Korea and reactors....

http://fakty.ua/83921-nikakoj-propazhi-yadernyh-boegolovok-v-ukraine-ne-bylo
inb4: cannot into russian:
The entire article of "Pravda.ru" was a big lie. I wonder, why did newsmax quoted not the officials, but some idiot from communist party of the Ukraine that have never even seen the warheads.

As for the second statement you can read the story here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke
Again some idiot making proofless statement that other idiots immediatly beieve.

Heres another strory that was all over the internet of how USA lost one of their warheads:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread302187/pg1

it was built poorly and failed

Failure was caused by humans. Reactor itself had flaws in construction (graphite rods couldn't start to work immediatly in that scheme), but that alone could never lead to disaster if personnel didn't started to experiment on reactor without working safety system.[/quote]

the reactor was built in the decline of the soviet union if i am right, a time when the country was MASSIVELY screwed up. you cant take something built in the decline as something that was built with good standards.

Quote from peroxid

Quote from BurningFish

I haven't heard of that new NPP type. Do you have a source where I could study further, maybe? I couldn't find any... 😔

Same here, would be interested in this.

Also, this may sound sci-fiesque, but I truly believe the future will belong to Helium-3. An extremely rare gas on earth, but there is a bigger concentration of it on the moon. Do the research about this and tell me if you don't think this will be our main energy source in a hundred years from now. In the meantime, we could use nuclear power, but not abuse of it. And also continue to bet on renewable energy sources, at least where it's effective (Deserts, windy areas...)

meh, i skimmed it, i think we would use other more abundant material by than.

Quote from Jembei

First of all I want to say sorry in advance because some of the things I'm going to say is going to sound offensive.

Anyone who thinks wind and solar power could cover humanities energy need are very naive. Here is why. First of all windmills are not efficient at all modern mills today can only muster 20 - 25 % efficiency, sometimes they go down to 1 - 5 % I have even heard of some windmills who use more energy then they create (In winter mills in some areas use energy in order stay operational, because they need external heating devises in order not to freeze over and brake)
2.
Windmills are made out of materials too you know xD From what I know in each windmill there is more than 100 kg worth's of rare earths (rare earths are also used in batteries and other high-tech things) and these are not environment friendly to mine if not handled properly (things released are led, mercury and other heavy metals) , and guess where 95 % of the stuff comes from, China and over there they aren't known for being all that high on the environment. Not to mention the mills themselves are made of epoxy and that's got to go somewhere when the mills are scraped
3.
Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is? Because the power generated from these so called renewable energies are very expensive and they have to be subsidized( the tax payers have to pay yet again) to even have a slight chance against Npp, coal and gas.
4.
The average life of a windmill is around 15 - 20 years and that's not a lot compared to nuclear, coal and gas plants. That's quite a lot of waste.
5.
life around the windmill may suffer a lot as well. Birds being killed and the noise generate that may scare animals away well that can't be good.
6.
Scale. In 2008 there were 5101 windmills in the little country of Denmark they produced 3163 MW of power, that is around 20 % of the country's energy. Now this is a small country with only 5 mil people. Think how many the US alone would need just to get to 20 % I would also like to remind you all that windmills still need Nuclear, coal and gas as backup for when the wind doesn't blow or blows to hard xD

Now I am going to stop bashing for now because I could go on and on forever.
So far I'm concerned the future lies in Nuclear and Fusion energy. In France there are attempting to build the first ever Fusion power plant that creates more energy then it consumes, it should be done in 2013 -2014 from what I know. The point I'm trying to make its that Nuclear and Fusion have way more potential then windmills and solar will ever have and I think we would be fools not to explore them even though they might have some dangers to them.

to be correct, they are in their infancy. their efficiantcy will increase, over time, but as of now, they are only supplemental things, and we will ALWAYS need a real power source.

on a side note, can someone find out how much power a plant outputs at any given point in time? i cant find one chart that tells the truth.

Quote from uNpreDicTed

Quote from BoxBox

What happens when the wind stops?

Wind never stops at a certain altitude...

Uhhh I didn't say that lol, that was another poster.

@kummel So you're saying everyone else are idiots.....great.....are you from russia?

Ok I'm going to stop because this is turning into a ranting session for 12 year olds who watched too many Discovery science programs...

Gay book discussion thread

Quote from you_no_see_me_

this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic

Quote from Toto

I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.

Quote from BoxBox

@kummel So you're saying everyone else are idiots.....great.....are you from russia?

I'm saying that only idiots believe in newspaper hoaxes and don't bother to google if what they are saying was actually true or was actually falce. It wasn't me who posted this "OMG 1 mln. warheads went missing! Why no one cares?" bullshit in the first place.

An extremely rare gas on earth, but there is a bigger concentration of it on the moon.

If you consider harvesting billions of tonnes of lunar soil to get 1 kg of Helium-3 as bigger concentration... Indeed Moon have more Helium-3, but it's still rare element there. It's easier to make Helium-3 out of Litium here on Earth, where we can harvest litium from ocean waters or minerals much easier.

the reactor was built in the decline of the soviet union if i am right, a time when the country was MASSIVELY screwed up. you cant take something built in the decline as something that was built with good standards.

The decline of SU started in 1987, in the beginning of 1980-s when fourth reactor was built, SU was on a rise. Also there was no major problems with other power plants that used the same type of the reactor.
But the disaster made russians more cautious, the new reactors RosAtom built in China and builds in Russia have several unbreakeable shells and a pit under the reactor where radioctive products will stay safe in case of a complete melt-down. (Also it is considered that 9 magnetude earth-quake is not a catastrophe for those types of reactors) Too bad it's too late now, but in future when all old nuclear plants will be shut down, i think nuclear power will be 100% safe.
We cannot rely on wind and sun only. At least 2/3 of energy should be either nuclear or hydropowered. Think about it, when most of automobiles, buses, trucks, trains, ships, planes will use hydrogen or electricity as a power source, wind certanly won't be enough to produce them.

Quote from Jembei

First of all I want to say sorry in advance because some of the things I'm going to say is going to sound offensive.

Anyone who thinks wind and solar power could cover humanities energy need are very naive. Here is why. First of all windmills are not efficient at all modern mills today can only muster 20 - 25 % efficiency, sometimes they go down to 1 - 5 % I have even heard of some windmills who use more energy then they create (In winter mills in some areas use energy in order stay operational, because they need external heating devises in order not to freeze over and brake)

It's ambitious, but not naive. At the very least our household demands should be able to be met by renewable energy. I do think NPP is going to be the short-term solution until we can find something better.

Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is? Because the power generated from these so called renewable energies are very expensive and they have to be subsidized( the tax payers have to pay yet again) to even have a slight chance against Npp, coal and gas.

So called renewable... Great way to show your prejudice. Anyway price should not be a problem, all new techniques require a large sum of investment. If you think our current power infrastructure didn't require a sacrifice from the tax payers you're just being plain ignorant. Furthermore you may want to look into the increase in efficiency in renewables from the last 50 years and how we are still in the process of using power itself more efficiently as well.

Windmills are made out of materials too you know xD From what I know in each windmill there is more than 100 kg worth's of rare earths (rare earths are also used in batteries and other high-tech things) and these are not environment friendly to mine if not handled properly (things released are led, mercury and other heavy metals) , and guess where 95 % of the stuff comes from, China and over there they aren't known for being all that high on the environment. Not to mention the mills themselves are made of epoxy and that's got to go somewhere when the mills are scraped
4.
The average life of a windmill is around 15 - 20 years and that's not a lot compared to nuclear, coal and gas plants. That's quite a lot of waste.

It's hard to find information on this subject and I have to admit I should ask my professor about it. But I don't think any materials are actually lost in the building of a windmill. I mean It's not like it takes millions of years for nature to recreate the resources needed and you don't get the waste NPP's produce.

life around the windmill may suffer a lot as well. Birds being killed and the noise generate that may scare animals away well that can't be good.

Ok, this is just stupid. You sound like a farmer complaining about trains when they first arrived. The windmill parks at sea are actually helping the fish population, because you aren't allowed to fish near windmills. Furthermore our European studies surrounding the subject of windmill killing birds seem to suggest that the Americans are once again grossly exaggerating the problems.

Now I am going to stop bashing for now because I could go on and on forever.
So far I'm concerned the future lies in Nuclear and Fusion energy. In France there are attempting to build the first ever Fusion power plant that creates more energy then it consumes, it should be done in 2013 -2014 from what I know. The point I'm trying to make its that Nuclear and Fusion have way more potential then windmills and solar will ever have and I think we would be fools not to explore them even though they might have some dangers to them.

Our sun is the biggest Fusion power plant in our solar system. How can one state the desire to create our own plant without the desire to harness the one we already have?

@BoxBox, sorry made an error on the quoting.

Furthermore our European studies surrounding the subject of windmill killing birds seem to suggest that the Americans are once again grossly exaggerating the problems.

Afaik windmills kill bats, not birds.

I firmly do believe it is irresponsible to use a power source that is a grave danger to life itself when something goes wrong. And with "something goes wrong", I mean: war, other human stupidity or the terrifying mother nature like we saw quite recently in Japan.

I mean: when the Chernobyl disaster (1986) happened in Ukraine, the dutch (Netherlands) government issued that no cattle was allowed outside their stables. Kitchen gardens weren't allowed to be used. All the harvest from that year was not to be used. Please do mind the distance between the Netherlands and the Ukraine: that's roughly about 1000 km (about 621 mile!!!) as the crow flies.

Also who are we, to tell our offspring to deal with the mess we made? Currently we are building facilities to storage nuclear waste safely. Something that leads to many problems, portrayed in the rather depressing documentary "Into Eternity".

And last but not least: Nuclear power is that it isn't as ever-lasting as much people like to believe. We can't use any matter to do nuclear fission. And uranium is, just like coal, gas or oil, a product of earth we will use until we have problems gaining it. And I'm not even talking about shortages. What about having to deal with unstable countries, ruled by dictators, that have perfect Uranium mines? Should we deal with them, and how?

My conclusion: I would love to pay more tax if it assures a safe way of gaining power. I won't say I know which solution will solve all our problems, but nuclear power won't do the trick.

@uNpreDicTed

It's ambitious, but not naive. At the very least our household demands should be able to be met by renewable energy. I do think NPP is going to be the short-term solution until we can find something better.

The point I'm trying to make is not that windmills can't create power, but that it would be better to look elsewhere in the quest for cheap energy. The requirements for windmills are just too much for it to be viable. They don't work when the wind doesn't blow, they don't work when the wind blows too hard, they don't work when it's too cold, and they need a lot of maintenance and the sheer amount of space and mills needed are mindboggling. It's just too expensive when there's other things we could do that's much cheaper.

So called renewable... Great way to show your prejudice. Anyway price should not be a problem, all new techniques require a large sum of investment. If you think our current power infrastructure didn't require a sacrifice from the tax payers you're just being plain ignorant. Furthermore you may want to look into the increase in efficiency in renewables from the last 50 years and how we are still in the process of using power itself more efficiently as well.

Not prejudice at all, just a couple of years back I was all for windmills and solar now after I know what problems they have I'm not for it anymore. And ofc. it took a lot of money to get our current infrastructure in place, then why should we radically change it? And not just let it slowly evolve like it always has? I mean what's the point in having windmills? what good does it add?

It's hard to find information on this subject and I have to admit I should ask my professor about it. But I don't think any materials are actually lost in the building of a windmill. I mean It's not like it takes millions of years for nature to recreate the resources needed and you don't get the waste NPP's produce

From what I know windmills are mostly made out of some sort of epoxy(you know the casing) and this stuff is so far I know (and fell free to correct me on this) not biodegradable its make with loads of nasty chemicals and not easy to recycle if it can be at all. And since mills have an average life of 15 - 20 years I guess that just means we have to find some more landfills huh!
I'm not saying that we need to use NPP only in the future but it's a part of it. Now it's true that NPP makes waste but in France there are some new generations of NPP that produce much less waste so why not invest in that?

I'm quite sad that you didn't go over my 6th point I mean the scale of space, wind or solar takes is enormous compared to the compact NPP, CP and GP

Our sun is the biggest Fusion power plant in our solar system. How can one state the desire to create our own plant without the desire to harness the one we already have?

Why would I want Fusion? Why not from what I know it's much safer then NPP and there is an almost infinite amount of raw materials plus It appears to be fairly clean as well.

Now in order to harvest solar energy you need solar panels and they have a load of problems of their own and I don't want to go in to that atm.

to be correct, they are in their infancy. their efficiantcy will increase, over time, but as of now, they are only supplemental things, and we will ALWAYS need a real power source.

on a side note, can someone find out how much power a plant outputs at any given point in time? i cant find one chart that tells the truth.

I do not agree, wind and solar where in their infancy a long time ago, but that's not the point. The point is there will always be a limit to a certain technology and I happen to think that wind and solar to some degree have too much of a limit compared to fusion and NPP.

And I'm not sure what you mean by how much power a plant outputs. because plants come in many different sizes and the output is change according to demand so not too sure how to answer that.

I wonder if this changes anyone's opinions

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-85sm_jrVHfQ/TXusSH9kuHI/AAAAAAAAARE/d_WNGBT1aWQ/s1600/fukushimaMELTDOWNjapannuclearcloud.jpg

this is what will happen if japan doesn't manage to confine the meltdown.

Quote from kummel

Quote from BoxBox

Quote from kummel

[quote]Besides, you know that when the soviet union collapsed, 1000 nuclear warheads went missing?

Stop this bullshit right now!

it be nice to use your first post to intro and not make rude remarks

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/17/155150.shtml
i don't know why i thought it was 1000.....still with 200 nukes floating out there and people are worried about North Korea and reactors....

http://fakty.ua/83921-nikakoj-propazhi-yadernyh-boegolovok-v-ukraine-ne-bylo
inb4: cannot into russian:
The entire article of "Pravda.ru" was a big lie. I wonder, why did newsmax quoted not the officials, but some idiot from communist party of the Ukraine that have never even seen the warheads.

As for the second statement you can read the story here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke
Again some idiot making proofless statement that other idiots immediatly beieve.

Heres another strory that was all over the internet of how USA lost one of their warheads:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread302187/pg1

it was built poorly and failed

Failure was caused by humans. Reactor itself had flaws in construction (graphite rods couldn't start to work immediatly in that scheme), but that alone could never lead to disaster if personnel didn't started to experiment on reactor without working safety system.[/quote]

Boxmome bullshits a lot- there's not a lot of credibility. To be fair, he's right sometimes, but usually it's just nonsense with fake sources that people are too lazy to actually read and realize that he's actually wrong, lying, or both 🤣 .

It's almost like being too lazy to troll properly, but it's kind of amusing so no need to pay too much attention.

Topic at hand: nuclear stuff has a dangerous element. I remember half-watching some history channel (or maybe discovery channel, something like that) program where Stephen Hawking hypothesized that it was possible that intelligent life always ends up destroying itself relatively soon after it learns basic nuclear physics. There are so many ways that things can go horribly wrong it's almost laughable.

That said, practicality is a big problem. With energy consumption levels being what they are, it's hard to flat out say "no" to nuclear power. I don't think anyone would insist that nuclear is the be all and end all solution, but as a stopgap it's too convenient for governments not to use it.

[img]http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt122/Wthuh/CrenshiSig.jpg[/img]
Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
**Your awesome!!! **- Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...

Personally I think Fusion is the wave of the future, but that's not ready for use as of yet so nuclear power, coal and gas will have to fill the gap until then. On the other hand I have heard good things about thorium based Nuclear plants but they are only in their infancy so that's going to take quite some time before they are ready for use.

The only thing I know for sure is that energy needs will skyrocket in the future, because of the development of countries like India and China and not to mention the whole continent of Africa will want more power as well

Quote from Crenshinibon

Boxmome trolls a lot

Fixed.

[color=green]"Officially, this machine doesn't exist, you didn't get it from me,
and I don't know you. Make sure it doesn't leave the building."[/color]

Quote from Toto

Quote from Crenshinibon

Boxmome trolls a lot

Fixed.

Well, that too.

[img]http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt122/Wthuh/CrenshiSig.jpg[/img]
Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
**Your awesome!!! **- Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...

That's the best we can do at the moment.