Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [NYT] U.S. Pushes for Nuclear Power, Regulators Lagging
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[NYT] U.S. Pushes for Nuclear Power, Regulators Lagging - Page 13

post #121 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by T3h_Ch33z_Muncha View Post
What people don't realise about fuel cells is that they don't generate energy. They carry it. They're a fancy battery. Where do you think the hydrogen comes from? It takes energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and conservation of energy means you cannot gain energy by combining hydrogen and oxygen to make water in a fuel cell.
LOL, you mean to tell me that somewhere along the line, those fuel cells are produced with energy that isn't "green"!!!!
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
9 Pentium 4 HT's @ 2.8 GHz Foxconn LS-36' s OB 4 GB server, 2 GB nodes 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
40 GB WD Fedora 10 24" LG LG wireless 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
9 Antec 350's Wood, bars, rails..... you'll see. Microsoft IR UCF Golden Nights 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
9 Pentium 4 HT's @ 2.8 GHz Foxconn LS-36' s OB 4 GB server, 2 GB nodes 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
40 GB WD Fedora 10 24" LG LG wireless 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
9 Antec 350's Wood, bars, rails..... you'll see. Microsoft IR UCF Golden Nights 
  hide details  
Reply
post #122 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Half_Duplex View Post
High speed rail isn't advantageous if no one will ride it, it's just a waste of money.
I rode Amtrak from Cleveland to Boston. It was a 20 hour trip, and I would take Amtrak again to anywhere else they go. Unless you need to get somewhere right now, train is the way to travel. You have 2 power outlets right next to your seat, and the amount of leg room you have is absolutely obscene. The train is roomier than a flipping Chevy Suburban. You can get up, walk the length of the train (takes a while, but it gets the circulation going), go to the lunch car, which has an upper deck that's completely enclosed in glass. You can lay the seats down pretty much flat, and they're nice and plump and very comfortable. I'm pretty sure Amtrak is installing satellite internet on all the trains as well.

The cost for a round trip ticket from Cleveland to Boston was $180, and that was 2 weeks before departure. The cheapest plane ticket I could find was $400. Plus, there's no security (kind of hard to fly a train into a building), you can take a BUTTLOAD of bags with you. 2 carry-ons and 5 checked bags, as big as you want, at NO extra charge. There's no metal detectors, no groping, no worry about if your water bottle will make it through security......I'm sorry, but train >>>>>>> flying. The only time anyone should ever fly is if they need to get across the country in 4 hours.
post #123 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
So building a solar power plant won't have money / planning issues?
I'm not trying to be rude, but you're a very dense person. Nowhere in my posts did I ever suggest this. What I DID suggest, to people who took the time to read and understand my post, is that the huge amount that the newest gen nuclear planets go over budget are something that's unlikely to happen to any other type of plant.

YOU, trying to make all power plant construction costs analogous because all projects may have some budget issues without looking at the AMOUNT of the initial budget or the end total is a complete fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
How does solar "remove the pollution from burning coal and other petroleum products."
Again, not to be rude, but why don't you think about it for a second before trying to immediately throw up a post? It's quite simple. Build more solar across the nation to mirror current coal plants and then slowly shut them down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
You think nuclear is expensive . . .
Here you go again, assuming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
They may have a 25 year warranty, but over time the panels slowly lose their ability to generate electricity. The panels do last a long time, but a nuclear plant can last longer then the panels do.
Nuclear plants' lifespans are 30-40 yrs. Some have been extended by as much as 20 yrs. Nuclear waste protection and storage last forever.

When solar panels go bad, you just replace them with what'll be newer, more efficient and cheaper in 25-35 yrs.

Billions for a nuclear plant. Tens of millions for a solar plant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
The issue isn't just night time. Many of the northern states have very limited solar generation potential. During winter the output from the solar plant would also drop a decent chunk.
Yeah, and as I've already stated, I'm not opposed to going nuclear, just that solar should lead the way. Build up solar as much as you possibly can, then let nuclear take the rest.

Also, at night, electrical usage is a fraction of what it is during the day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
I do admit that the chance of hail causing damage is slim it is still a possibility. Another hidden cost / issue is that the panels need to be regularly cleaned / washed.
You're just throwing out obstructions without really knowing anything about it. I'm sure someone cleaning solar panels once a year is vastly cheaper than a nuclear waste storage facility having a 24/7/365 shift of people to protect it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
Even if TWR's don't pan out, there is plenty of research in managing nuclear waste.

If the USA doesn't have the stomach to innovate nuclear energy, China will be happy to do it for us . . . http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...thorium-power/
Did i say to suddenly stop innovation? No. What I said was that until a TWR, or TWR-like reactor does pan out you can't just assume that we'll have this waste issue fixed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by scyy View Post
You do realize there is NO WAY IN HELL solar will ever be able to power a major city on it's own without massive breakthroughs in storing energy right? I would suspect it wouldn't be able to put out more than 30-40% at most of a major cities power needs. Nuclear is the only viable alternative to coal and oil. Also keep in mind the large cost up front is off set by the fact it is much cheaper to keep the plant running after being built compared to coal/oil, on top of that they put out much more power than anything else we have at this time. You have to look at the whole picture, not just the up front cost.
WRONG, it just requires better urban planning, smarter growth and a simple acceptance of closer solar power plants. Also wrong because nowhere in my post did I say that solar should be used solely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

Plants as big as 350MW have been made. A far cry from a 3GW nuclear plant, I know, but imagine if you will, building 10 solar plants instead of 1 nuclear plant. The difference will be:

- In 30 years when both the solar panels AND the nuclear plant be nearing their end, you may be required to spend the full amount for a new nuclear plant. With solar you'll just get newer, better panels at a fraction of the cost.

- With Nuclear you will also have the neverending cost of transportation and 24/7/365 protection of the waste. I'm purely estimating on the size, but I'm going to bet that 3 rotations of a 10 man crew would be costly over the next +200 yrs. 30 guys making $75k + health + retirement= $3million per year. And that's not including any actual facility costs.

- The obvious negative for solar will be that it will take much more room it will have to be in areas that get plenty of sunlight, winter and clouds.


And just know, if TWRs work, I wont be against nuclear, but I'd just like to see them pan out first before we go crazy with building plants.
Edited by FuNkDrSpOt - 2/13/11 at 9:47am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
post #124 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hickeydog View Post
I rode Amtrak from Cleveland to Boston. It was a 20 hour trip, and I would take Amtrak again to anywhere else they go. Unless you need to get somewhere right now, train is the way to travel. You have 2 power outlets right next to your seat, and the amount of leg room you have is absolutely obscene. The train is roomier than a flipping Chevy Suburban. You can get up, walk the length of the train (takes a while, but it gets the circulation going), go to the lunch car, which has an upper deck that's completely enclosed in glass. You can lay the seats down pretty much flat, and they're nice and plump and very comfortable. I'm pretty sure Amtrak is installing satellite internet on all the trains as well.

The cost for a round trip ticket from Cleveland to Boston was $180, and that was 2 weeks before departure. The cheapest plane ticket I could find was $400. Plus, there's no security (kind of hard to fly a train into a building), you can take a BUTTLOAD of bags with you. 2 carry-ons and 5 checked bags, as big as you want, at NO extra charge. There's no metal detectors, no groping, no worry about if your water bottle will make it through security......I'm sorry, but train >>>>>>> flying. The only time anyone should ever fly is if they need to get across the country in 4 hours.
That's great. I've flown from Boston to Atlanta in just 3 hours, so it all depends on how much time you have. For me it comes down taking 2-3 days off work as opposed to taking half a day off work.

I'm actually talking about the current light/high speed rail debate in Florida, it would be massively expensive, and would more likely then not resemble the bus system in Florida, a few homeless and otherwise empty.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
9 Pentium 4 HT's @ 2.8 GHz Foxconn LS-36' s OB 4 GB server, 2 GB nodes 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
40 GB WD Fedora 10 24" LG LG wireless 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
9 Antec 350's Wood, bars, rails..... you'll see. Microsoft IR UCF Golden Nights 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
9 Pentium 4 HT's @ 2.8 GHz Foxconn LS-36' s OB 4 GB server, 2 GB nodes 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
40 GB WD Fedora 10 24" LG LG wireless 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
9 Antec 350's Wood, bars, rails..... you'll see. Microsoft IR UCF Golden Nights 
  hide details  
Reply
post #125 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by T3h_Ch33z_Muncha View Post
you can with a fuel cell, assuming you get the energy to split the hydrogen from the sun, because otherwise it's a net energy loss.

EPIC LOL. "Turns H2O to HHO".

Fox really is a news station for 3 year olds....
what's wrong with HHO?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
Quote:
Fringe science and fraud

Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with devices that claim to operate a vehicle using water as a fuel, or that burn the gas in torches for welding and cutting at extreme temperatures, sometimes under the name "Brown's Gas" after Yull Brown who advocated such devices, or "HHO gas" after the claims of fringe physicist Ruggero Santilli.

The most common and decisive counter-argument against using the gas as a fuel is that the energy required to split water molecules exceeds the energy recouped by burning it, and these devices reduce, rather than improve fuel efficiency.[10]
See also: water-fuelled car and hydrogen fuel enhancement
post #126 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
I'm not trying to be rude, but you're a very dense person. Nowhere in my posts did I ever suggest this. What I DID suggest, to people who took the time to read and understand my post, is that the huge amount that the newest gen nuclear planets go over budget are something that's unlikely to happen to any other type of plant.

YOU, trying to make all power plant construction costs analogous because all projects may have some budget issues without looking at the AMOUNT of the initial budget or the end total is a complete fallacy.



Again, not to be rude, but why don't you think about it for a second before trying to immediately throw up a post? It's quite simple. Build more solar across the nation to mirror current coal plants and then slowly shut them down.



Here you go again, assuming.



Nuclear plants' lifespans are 30-40 yrs. Some have been extended by as much as 20 yrs. Nuclear waste protection and storage last forever.

When solar panels go bad, you just replace them with what'll be newer, more efficient and cheaper in 25-35 yrs.

Billions for a nuclear plant. Tens of millions for a solar plant.



Yeah, and as I've already stated, I'm not opposed to going nuclear, just that solar should lead the way. Build up solar as much as you possibly can, then let nuclear take the rest.

Also, at night, electrical usage is a fraction of what it is during the day.



You're just throwing out obstructions without really knowing anything about it. I'm sure someone cleaning solar panels once a year is vastly cheaper than a nuclear waste storage facility having a 24/7/365 shift of people to protect it.



Did i say to suddenly stop innovation? No. What I said was that until a TWR, or TWR-like reactor does pan out you can't just assume that we'll have this waste issue fixed.




WRONG, it just requires better urban planning, smarter growth and a simple acceptance of closer solar power plants. Also wrong because nowhere in my post did I say that solar should be used solely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

Plants as big as 350MW have been made. A far cry from a 3GW nuclear plant, I know, but imagine if you will, building 10 solar plants instead of 1 nuclear plant. The difference will be:

- In 30 years when both the solar panels AND the nuclear plant be nearing their end, you may be required to spend the full amount for a new nuclear plant. With solar you'll just get newer, better panels at a fraction of the cost.

- With Nuclear you will also have the neverending cost of transportation and 24/7/365 protection of the waste. I'm purely estimating on the size, but I'm going to bet that 3 rotations of a 10 man crew would be costly over the next +200 yrs. 30 guys making $75k + health + retirement= $3million per year. And that's not including any actual facility costs.

- The obvious negative for solar will be that it will take much more room it will have to be in areas that get plenty of sunlight, winter and clouds.


And just know, if TWRs work, I wont be against nuclear, but I'd just like to see them pan out first before we go crazy with building plants.


I just want to note I am in no way against solar and it does have potential but as it stands now it is unlikely to be anymore than a supplemental power supply along with wind. As I have said if we make breakthroughs in energy storage solar could very well become the major source but as it stands now it's far to inconsistent to be trusted. I also realize you did not say to solely use it but I was making the point that as of now it is nothing more than a supplemental power source to go along side coal/oil/nuclear/hydro.(where available)

And lastly even if TWR's didn't come to fruition for decades nuclear is still far cleaner and better than coal and oil. As already stated aside from the initial cost they are cheaper to maintain and put out much more power so one nuclear plant can replace multiple coal plants so when you keep that in mind you are only paying the upkeep of one plant instead of the two or three that it could replace. Also keep in mind that if thorium does replace uranium as it is expected to thorium does not leave behind as much waste and it is not weapons grade material like uranium waste. So the issue of guarding the waste would be much less of a concern
Edited by scyy - 2/13/11 at 3:22pm
3930k
(20 items)
 
  
Reply
3930k
(20 items)
 
  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [NYT] U.S. Pushes for Nuclear Power, Regulators Lagging