Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Techcrunch] Mercedes-Benz will electrify its entire car lineup by 2022
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Techcrunch] Mercedes-Benz will electrify its entire car lineup by 2022 - Page 17  

post #161 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

nuclear is a bit iffy, due to safety concerns and human error, though that doesn't stop the research on fusion reactors.

Agreed, but the current status of nuclear power is simply unacceptable. Newer reactor designs and operation protocols make nuclear significantly safer. What each nuclear disaster and controversy has shown us is that we must be proactive in solving problems.

Plus, just how many people die from black lungs in coal mines and just how much environmental damage does coal cause? Probably a lot more than the nuclear industry and its decades long history in the United States.
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Asus z87AR R9 290 4GB Sapphire Tri-X Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
WD Black Corsair 240GB SSD Asus crappy drive Windows 8 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 1080p 24" IPS Panel Ducky Shining Red Cherry MX [Blue LED] 700 Watt Cooler Master PSU Cooler Master Storm Scout 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech 502 Proteus Core Steelseries 4HD Asus Xonar Essence STX Sound card 
  hide details  
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Asus z87AR R9 290 4GB Sapphire Tri-X Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
WD Black Corsair 240GB SSD Asus crappy drive Windows 8 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 1080p 24" IPS Panel Ducky Shining Red Cherry MX [Blue LED] 700 Watt Cooler Master PSU Cooler Master Storm Scout 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech 502 Proteus Core Steelseries 4HD Asus Xonar Essence STX Sound card 
  hide details  
post #162 of 424
well, the main issue with nuclears is the cleanup that happens right after a disaster.
if the device falls apart like in chernobyl and fukushima then the cleanup can take years.

and even to this date, neither chernobyl and fukushima have been cleaned up, while the cities around it are left desolate.
Edited by epic1337 - 9/21/17 at 11:51pm
post #163 of 424
Not a single person has died from Fukushima yet. Additionally, disaster shouldn't be happening either. As for waste, there's a site being constructed at Hanford to clean up the mess there. Nuclear waste is dangerous, but not a lot of it is produced, and it can be safely disposed of as well. Protocol seems to be the issue rather than some inherent flaw to nuclear power. There's a lot we can do to minimize the damage. As of now, Nuclear is still the best option we have for clean and cheap energy.
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Asus z87AR R9 290 4GB Sapphire Tri-X Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
WD Black Corsair 240GB SSD Asus crappy drive Windows 8 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 1080p 24" IPS Panel Ducky Shining Red Cherry MX [Blue LED] 700 Watt Cooler Master PSU Cooler Master Storm Scout 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech 502 Proteus Core Steelseries 4HD Asus Xonar Essence STX Sound card 
  hide details  
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Asus z87AR R9 290 4GB Sapphire Tri-X Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
WD Black Corsair 240GB SSD Asus crappy drive Windows 8 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 1080p 24" IPS Panel Ducky Shining Red Cherry MX [Blue LED] 700 Watt Cooler Master PSU Cooler Master Storm Scout 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech 502 Proteus Core Steelseries 4HD Asus Xonar Essence STX Sound card 
  hide details  
post #164 of 424
casualty is only one problem, the problem with nuclear is the area of effect, not only is the facility left unusable after a disaster, the surrounding cities needs to be evacuated.

preventing a disaster is practically a bootless errand, you can only perceive certain level of issues and anymore will cause the facility to fail.
fukushima for example was built with a lot of fail-safe measures yet it still underwent catastrophic failure.


take it by statistics, the chances of a modern nuclear facility failing is much much lower than a standard coal or gas facility.
but the scale of disaster when a nuclear facility fails is multiple orders of magnitude bigger than a coal or gas facility.

with that in mind, the government is much more concerned about this than how many deaths there are.
why else do you think the nuclear facilities across the globe are being shut-off, disregarding how state-of-the-art they are?
Edited by epic1337 - 9/22/17 at 12:48am
post #165 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

casualty is only one problem, the problem with nuclear is the are of effect, not only is the facility left unusable after a disaster, the surrounding cities needs to be evacuated.

preventing a disaster is practically a bootless errand, you can only perceive certain level of issues and anymore will cause the facility to fail.
fukushima for example was built with a lot of fail-safe measures yet it still underwent catastrophic failure.


take it by statistics, the chances of a modern nuclear facility failing is much much lower than a standard coal or gas facility.
but the scale of disaster when a nuclear facility fails is multiple orders of magnitude bigger than a coal or gas facility.

How much environmental damage did the oil spill in the gulf of mexico cause vs Chernobyl? Far from the only disaster. I would go as far as to say, that for every unit of energy produced, nuclear will come out far ahead of any other fossil fuel.
Quote:
with that in mind, the government is much more concerned about this than how many deaths there are.
why else do you think the nuclear facilities across the globe are being shut-off, disregarding how state-of-the-art they are?

The reasons are almost entirely political.
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Asus z87AR R9 290 4GB Sapphire Tri-X Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
WD Black Corsair 240GB SSD Asus crappy drive Windows 8 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 1080p 24" IPS Panel Ducky Shining Red Cherry MX [Blue LED] 700 Watt Cooler Master PSU Cooler Master Storm Scout 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech 502 Proteus Core Steelseries 4HD Asus Xonar Essence STX Sound card 
  hide details  
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Asus z87AR R9 290 4GB Sapphire Tri-X Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
WD Black Corsair 240GB SSD Asus crappy drive Windows 8 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 1080p 24" IPS Panel Ducky Shining Red Cherry MX [Blue LED] 700 Watt Cooler Master PSU Cooler Master Storm Scout 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech 502 Proteus Core Steelseries 4HD Asus Xonar Essence STX Sound card 
  hide details  
post #166 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by HanSomPa View Post

How much environmental damage did the oil spill in the gulf of mexico cause vs Chernobyl? Far from the only disaster. I would go as far as to say, that for every unit of energy produced, nuclear will come out far ahead of any other fossil fuel.


The reasons are almost entirely political.
chernobyl caused a large landmass to become entirely inoperable, imagine this happening in new york, the US's economy would plummet almost immediately.
oil spills over water or land doesn't bother the country directly, the country is still completely operational and they only needed to spend money on the cleanup.


exactly, the political disputes stems from how much of their country's productivity will be affected by an event of a failure.
otherwise they could just directly ignore the issue and proceed to maintain status quo, only taking a political stance after a disaster actually happens.
post #167 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

chernobyl caused a large landmass to become entirely inoperable, imagine this happening in new york, the US's economy would plummet almost immediately.
oil spills over water or land doesn't bother the country directly, the country is still completely operational and they only needed to spend money on the cleanup.


exactly, the political disputes stems from how much of their country's productivity will be affected by an event of a failure.
otherwise they could just directly ignore the issue and proceed to maintain status quo, only taking a political stance after a disaster actually happens.
Just to be fair that was caused by human error. Nowadays computer controlled reactors are way safer then the old ones, top it off with the fact that it is the best thing we currently got. We dont have much of a choice if we wanna ditch powerplants that run on fossil fuel, coal, etc...

Back to topic. Im still skeptic about EV's. Their range is too short and recharging takes a very long time(unless you want to damage your battery with quick charger's).
Dark Repulser
(21 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel I5 4670K MSI Z87-G55 (MS-7821) Sapphire R9 290X 2xCORSAIR 8GB Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz CL9 CML8GX... 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung SSD 850 Pro 2x alphacool nexxxos xt45 360 Koolance VID-AR290X Water Block 2x Laing DDC-Pumpe 12V DDC-1Plus with aquacover... 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Aquacomputer cuplex kryos PRO Aquacomputer aquaero 6 XT Phobya reservoir Windows 7 HP 
OSMonitorMonitorMonitor
Kubuntu LG IPS277L LG W2486L LG 27MU67-B 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
SpeedLink DarkSky black XFX Pro 650W Modular Edition Fractal Design Define S Logitech M705 
Audio
Integrated devices 
  hide details  
Dark Repulser
(21 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel I5 4670K MSI Z87-G55 (MS-7821) Sapphire R9 290X 2xCORSAIR 8GB Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz CL9 CML8GX... 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung SSD 850 Pro 2x alphacool nexxxos xt45 360 Koolance VID-AR290X Water Block 2x Laing DDC-Pumpe 12V DDC-1Plus with aquacover... 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Aquacomputer cuplex kryos PRO Aquacomputer aquaero 6 XT Phobya reservoir Windows 7 HP 
OSMonitorMonitorMonitor
Kubuntu LG IPS277L LG W2486L LG 27MU67-B 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
SpeedLink DarkSky black XFX Pro 650W Modular Edition Fractal Design Define S Logitech M705 
Audio
Integrated devices 
  hide details  
post #168 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

chernobyl caused a large landmass to become entirely inoperable, imagine this happening in new york, the US's economy would plummet almost immediately.
oil spills over water or land doesn't bother the country directly, the country is still completely operational and they only needed to spend money on the cleanup.

Chernobyl caused a 30 Square Kilometer area to be uninhabited. If a major fossil fuel disaster contaminated the NY water supply... well, it's not going to be any less devastating. Especially considering how long it takes to clean water after you screwed it up. But this isn't really a measuring contest of what's worse. Nuclear energy is very safe because of all the terrible consequences that could occur. Even waste, can be safely disposed of and isolated. But fossil fuels? Well, they will always pollute the environment, no matter what. A wide spread adoption of nuclear power can hold the ship afloat while we find ways to replace it. Renewable energy is clearly not ready for primetime to completely replace fossil fuels. Until it is, we should use what we know is clean.
Quote:
exactly, the political disputes stems from how much of their country's productivity will be affected by an event of a failure.
otherwise they could just directly ignore the issue and proceed to maintain status quo, only taking a political stance after a disaster actually happens.

Not at all. You give political discourse far too much credit. The opposition to nuclear stems from populist rhetoric rather than any staunch evidence that nuclear power is more dangerous. Even now, pundits are asking for New York nuclear reactor to be replaced with renewables. Why don't they ask renewables to replace coal and gas reactors instead?
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Asus z87AR R9 290 4GB Sapphire Tri-X Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
WD Black Corsair 240GB SSD Asus crappy drive Windows 8 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 1080p 24" IPS Panel Ducky Shining Red Cherry MX [Blue LED] 700 Watt Cooler Master PSU Cooler Master Storm Scout 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech 502 Proteus Core Steelseries 4HD Asus Xonar Essence STX Sound card 
  hide details  
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Asus z87AR R9 290 4GB Sapphire Tri-X Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
WD Black Corsair 240GB SSD Asus crappy drive Windows 8 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 1080p 24" IPS Panel Ducky Shining Red Cherry MX [Blue LED] 700 Watt Cooler Master PSU Cooler Master Storm Scout 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech 502 Proteus Core Steelseries 4HD Asus Xonar Essence STX Sound card 
  hide details  
post #169 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post


chernobyl caused a large landmass to become entirely inoperable, imagine this happening in new york, the US's economy would plummet almost immediately.
oil spills over water or land doesn't bother the country directly, the country is still completely operational and they only needed to spend money on the cleanup.


exactly, the political disputes stems from how much of their country's productivity will be affected by an event of a failure.
otherwise they could just directly ignore the issue and proceed to maintain status quo, only taking a political stance after a disaster actually happens.

Yeah, lets use an example of a poorly maintained, massively outdated (even at the time) and poorly run nuclear power plant as to why it's not a good idea to use nuclear.

 

What next, Fukushima?

 

Nuclear is currently (at least in 2012, I'm sure not much has changed since then) the safest method of generating power large amounts of power.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#7781d318709b

 

75% of the electricity generated in France comes from nuclear power with nuclear generating the majority of power since the late 80s. They haven't had any major problems with safety since 1980.

post #170 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by jagdtigger View Post

Just to be fair that was caused by human error. Nowadays computer controlled reactors are way safer then the old ones, top it off with the fact that it is the best thing we currently got. We dont have much of a choice if we wanna ditch powerplants that run on fossil fuel, coal, etc...
most issues to date had always been caused by human error, natural disasters are the the minority.
even fukushima's disaster is due to human error, negligence of safety measures and undocumented changes in the designs.

now then, how are we sure that every other nuclear plants are completely immune to this "human error"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrews2547 View Post

Yeah, lets use an example of a poorly maintained, massively outdated (even at the time) and poorly run nuclear power plant as to why it's not a good idea to use nuclear.

What next, Fukushima?

Nuclear is currently (at least in 2012, I'm sure not much has changed since then) the safest method of generating power large amounts of power.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#7781d318709b

75% of the electricity generated in France comes from nuclear power with nuclear generating the majority of power since the late 80s. They haven't had any major problems with safety since 1980.
try to read from the start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

well, the main issue with nuclears is the cleanup that happens right after a disaster.
if the device falls apart like in chernobyl and fukushima then the cleanup can take years.

and even to this date, neither chernobyl and fukushima have been cleaned up, while the cities around it are left desolate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

casualty is only one problem, the problem with nuclear is the area of effect, not only is the facility left unusable after a disaster, the surrounding cities needs to be evacuated.

preventing a disaster is practically a bootless errand, you can only perceive certain level of issues and anymore will cause the facility to fail.
fukushima for example was built with a lot of fail-safe measures yet it still underwent catastrophic failure.


take it by statistics, the chances of a modern nuclear facility failing is much much lower than a standard coal or gas facility.
but the scale of disaster when a nuclear facility fails is multiple orders of magnitude bigger than a coal or gas facility.

to begin with, my point wasn't the safeness of a nuclear facility, but the underlying issues when a catastrophic failure does happen.

so rather than pointing to facts like "nuclears are safe", try to argue with "how to clean up after a disaster".
simply put, we have no effective ways to clean up after a nuclear disaster, the area is simply left until the radiation lowers to a manageable level.
Edited by epic1337 - 9/22/17 at 3:48am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Techcrunch] Mercedes-Benz will electrify its entire car lineup by 2022