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 5

post #41 of 126
accidental double post
    
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 #42 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
Just because 1 project is horribly managed doesn't mean that all projects of a similar nature are going to have the same issues.
No, but considering it's the pre-eminent builder of nuclear plants, it shows that the true cost is being hidden until after they win a bid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste

Coal ash is a bigger issue IMO. Currently the EPA doesn't regulate it. It is being stored in giant amounts uncovered above ground. It's also foolish to say that we would run out of room to store the waste. There is plenty or room underground to store the material for many many years. Once the reactor designs that can use spent material are built / working the issue of storing the material will be greatly lessened.
Wait, its foolish to think that if we move to majority nuclear power that at some point we'll run out of safe places to put it?! ROFL! That's not foolish, that's logical! And the most places you have to build the greater TOTAL price of the nuclear plant because not only can it not be anywhere close to groundwater, earthquake faults or many other potential hazards, but it also requires 24/7/365 guarding. What's the price on guarding a nuclear dump for 100 years?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
There are also advancements being made in reducing the amount of waste. http://inhabitat.com/new-nuclear-rea...-atomic-waste/
Just like the TWRs or Fusion, call me when its 100% built and working.



Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
Solar is currently so inefficient, costly, and space consuming that it currently isn't viable for the majority of our energy uses. Solar panels are also made using toxic metals, plastics, and the production currently uses large amounts of fossil fuels.
Wrong. There was a news thread on OCN about a study that concluded that solar is already cheaper than nuclear.

As far as solar panels using toxic materials.....EVERYTHING DOES these days. What I would like to see is how MUCH in toxic substance they use, not that they use it. I bet toxic metals and plastics go into building practically any power plant.
    
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 #43 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mojo View Post
human error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iblis View Post
human error
Human error is unavoidable though... If this is the only worry we have then I'm afraid.
Po' Pimpin'
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i5 2500k @ stock Biostar TZ68K+ [A3] 4GB  Sandforce 1222 64GB SSD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG 22x DVD-+RW  Stock Windows 7 x64 Acer S211HL 1080p 
PowerCaseMouse
600w Diablotek Linkworld Electronic Inland 
  hide details  
Reply
Po' Pimpin'
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i5 2500k @ stock Biostar TZ68K+ [A3] 4GB  Sandforce 1222 64GB SSD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG 22x DVD-+RW  Stock Windows 7 x64 Acer S211HL 1080p 
PowerCaseMouse
600w Diablotek Linkworld Electronic Inland 
  hide details  
Reply
post #44 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
Coal ash is a bigger issue IMO. Currently the EPA doesn't regulate it. It is being stored in giant amounts uncovered above ground. It's also foolish to say that we would run out of room to store the waste. There is plenty or room underground to store the material for many many years. Once the reactor designs that can use spent material are built / working the issue of storing the material will be greatly lessened.

There are also advancements being made in reducing the amount of waste. http://inhabitat.com/new-nuclear-rea...-atomic-waste/
Found this on wikipedia when looking up what Thorium was exactly

Quote:
Rubbia states that a tonne of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal.
- link

That's a huge amount of coal, and loads of ash will remain and a hell of a lot of other stuff dumped into our atmosphere compared to the waste of Nuclear. Nuclear Please!



Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
Solar is currently so inefficient, costly, and space consuming that it currently isn't viable for the majority of our energy uses. Solar panels are also made using toxic metals, plastics, and the production currently uses large amounts of fossil fuels.
+1 to that, plus there is a downside of then having to store energy for after dark consumption, which is an added complication
Edited by N3G4T1v3 - 2/10/11 at 3:50am
Nothing V2
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 2500k @ 4.7GHz Asrock z77 Extreme4 Club3D R9 290 Corsair Vengance 8GB 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Corsair 120GB SSD Samsung 1.5TB Samsung 1TB Samsung DVD-RAM 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Thermaltake Frio Window 7 Ultimate Samsung BX2450 LG W2343S 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse Pad
Razor Blackwidow Corsair TX750W Coolermaster CM690 Gigabyte Ghost 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX 
  hide details  
Reply
Nothing V2
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 2500k @ 4.7GHz Asrock z77 Extreme4 Club3D R9 290 Corsair Vengance 8GB 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Corsair 120GB SSD Samsung 1.5TB Samsung 1TB Samsung DVD-RAM 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Thermaltake Frio Window 7 Ultimate Samsung BX2450 LG W2343S 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse Pad
Razor Blackwidow Corsair TX750W Coolermaster CM690 Gigabyte Ghost 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #45 of 126
Do it. Build 'em. It's the cleanest method we have for mass power generation at a location hydroelectric won't work.
Boot to the Head!
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon64 X2 4200+ @ stock Epox 9NPA+SLI XFX 8800GS 384 4x1GB G.Skill DDR400 @ stock 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
120GB WD + 1TB WD GP + 320GB WD AAJS Mystery DVD-RW Vista Ultimate x64! ViewSonic P220F CRT + KDS 15" CRT 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
$3 Compaq keyboard with pretty aluminum finish ThermalTake PurePower 500W Rosewill R230-P-BK Wired Optical 
Mouse Pad
Table. Mouse pads are overrated 
  hide details  
Reply
Boot to the Head!
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon64 X2 4200+ @ stock Epox 9NPA+SLI XFX 8800GS 384 4x1GB G.Skill DDR400 @ stock 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
120GB WD + 1TB WD GP + 320GB WD AAJS Mystery DVD-RW Vista Ultimate x64! ViewSonic P220F CRT + KDS 15" CRT 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
$3 Compaq keyboard with pretty aluminum finish ThermalTake PurePower 500W Rosewill R230-P-BK Wired Optical 
Mouse Pad
Table. Mouse pads are overrated 
  hide details  
Reply
post #46 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
Those garbage incinerators are surrounded by FUD. Sacramento was looking at one and found that it doesn't produce NEARLY as much energy as promised while having some serious side-effects. I forgot what they were but it was enough for them to cancel building it. I think it was something like issues with heavy metals or air pollution.
We had one for years in our city. It was a piece of trash, not only because of massive cost overruns, but all the the endless major rebuilds it needed, and that it became, in the end, the source of the most pollution once the steel companies reduced their emissions. Heavy metals were a serious problem, and much of it was dumped into portion of the harbour. It was so infested with metals that they had a geologist study it, and he said there ws more metals in those sediments than in a lead mine. Then there were all of the nasty chemicals, like dioxin, that were spewed for years. It just didn't work out the way it was supposed to, and never did generate much electricity because of the downtime, and all of the chemicals that rotted out the generators all the time.
post #47 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
No, but considering it's the pre-eminent builder of nuclear plants, it shows that the true cost is being hidden until after they win a bid.
Almost every construction project will have unforeseen costs. If that was cause to abandon an idea then we would all be living in tents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
Wait, its foolish to think that if we move to majority nuclear power that at some point we'll run out of safe places to put it?! ROFL! That's not foolish, that's logical! And the most places you have to build the greater TOTAL price of the nuclear plant because not only can it not be anywhere close to groundwater, earthquake faults or many other potential hazards, but it also requires 24/7/365 guarding. What's the price on guarding a nuclear dump for 100 years?
Storing the material would be a relatively short term solution. Until they start building reactors that can use this waste for fuel, there are plenty of safe places to put it. The total impact on the environment will be much less then if we continue to burn obscene amounts of coal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
Just like the TWRs or Fusion, call me when its 100% built and working.
Call me when they have a device 100% built and working that can remove the pollution from burning coal and other petroleum products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
Wrong. There was a news thread on OCN about a study that concluded that solar is already cheaper than nuclear.

As far as solar panels using toxic materials.....EVERYTHING DOES these days. What I would like to see is how MUCH in toxic substance they use, not that they use it. I bet toxic metals and plastics go into building practically any power plant.
There are many variables that need to be taken into account when you determine the total cost. The spacial requirements for solar are huge. If you have a city like New York where will you put all of these solar panels? The plant would need to be built far from town. Are there power lines out in the middle of nowhere? How long do the panels last? Night time? Hail damage? etc.
ColdCut
(14 items)
 
YetiKube
(19 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x Asus Rampage V Extreme  XFX 295x2 Core Hydro Edition CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 2800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 850 Pro  Samsung 850 EVO Western Digital Black 3TB  LG Bluray Burner 16x 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
H110i GT Windows 8.1 Pro Asus 4k Corsair AX1500i  
CaseAudio
Corsair 900D Stock 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
(1) 2500K ASRock Extreme3 Gen3 GTX 780 Classified Mushkin 996995 DDR3 1600 (2 Sticks) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 840 Pro (1) 150GB Western Digital Raptor (1) 1TB Western Digital Black Caviar (1) Samsung SATA DVD Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Antec Kuhler H2O 620 Windows 8.1 LG 21:9 Ultrawide 34" 3440x1440 Filco 114 key (Blue Cherry) / HHKB Pro 2 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair HX850W - 850W Mountain Mods - U2 UFO Orginal - Gloss Black Logitech G400 / Razer Deathadder BE Razer Goliathus Extended / Artisan Hien VE (Sof... 
AudioOtherOther
Creative Sounds Blaster X-FI Titanium HD Asus USB N-53 Wireless USB adapter  12 Case Fans 
  hide details  
Reply
ColdCut
(14 items)
 
YetiKube
(19 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x Asus Rampage V Extreme  XFX 295x2 Core Hydro Edition CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 2800 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 850 Pro  Samsung 850 EVO Western Digital Black 3TB  LG Bluray Burner 16x 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
H110i GT Windows 8.1 Pro Asus 4k Corsair AX1500i  
CaseAudio
Corsair 900D Stock 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
(1) 2500K ASRock Extreme3 Gen3 GTX 780 Classified Mushkin 996995 DDR3 1600 (2 Sticks) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 840 Pro (1) 150GB Western Digital Raptor (1) 1TB Western Digital Black Caviar (1) Samsung SATA DVD Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Antec Kuhler H2O 620 Windows 8.1 LG 21:9 Ultrawide 34" 3440x1440 Filco 114 key (Blue Cherry) / HHKB Pro 2 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair HX850W - 850W Mountain Mods - U2 UFO Orginal - Gloss Black Logitech G400 / Razer Deathadder BE Razer Goliathus Extended / Artisan Hien VE (Sof... 
AudioOtherOther
Creative Sounds Blaster X-FI Titanium HD Asus USB N-53 Wireless USB adapter  12 Case Fans 
  hide details  
Reply
post #48 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
Wait, its foolish to think that if we move to majority nuclear power that at some point we'll run out of safe places to put it?! ROFL! That's not foolish, that's logical! And the most places you have to build the greater TOTAL price of the nuclear plant because not only can it not be anywhere close to groundwater, earthquake faults or many other potential hazards, but it also requires 24/7/365 guarding. What's the price on guarding a nuclear dump for 100 years? ...snip... Just like the TWRs or Fusion, call me when its 100% built and working.
We actually have a reactor in the US that can "recycle" nuclear waste and for the bits that it cant recycle are very short lived. Currently, its in cold standby. France had a few, but they were shut down for political reasons. China and India are currently building ones. (Mainly Greenpeace-types cant stand the idea of recycling nuclear waste since the largest objection to using nuclear power is the waste)


Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
Wrong. There was a news thread on OCN about a study that concluded that solar is already cheaper than nuclear.
Its not. All of those "studies" are bogus, and generally require insane levels of gov subsidies to even pass get the bogus study to say they are better.

Solar only slightly makes since if you are in the southern US, even then its $0.30-40 kW/hr (gets as low as $0.12 with subsidies), which is very expensive power. Nuclear is $0.03-$0.06 kW/hr depending on reactor type, age and location. So tell me how solar is cheaper than nuclear?
post #49 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
The spacial requirements for solar are huge. If you have a city like New York where will you put all of these solar panels? The plant would need to be built far from town. Are there power lines out in the middle of nowhere? How long do the panels last? Night time? Hail damage? etc.
However, the source of solar energy is not running out anytime soon. The only way solar will be "competitive" is to change the system. We need to become more efficient. Like LED light bulbs that use one fifth the power over incandescent. Efficiencies can easily be had in many places, from stingier power requirements for computer, properly insulated buildings, and so on. With the way we squander power now, and that squandering is ever increasing, no amount of anything will be enough.

Not that we have to become cavemen and have nothing - we jut have to start living smarter. And really, electricity is only a small segment of waste - we spend a great deal of energy getting people to and from work, when really, that can be entirely rationalized through locating workplaces near neighbourhoods where people can actually live, through proper public transit, telecommuting, and so on.

Solar is not just about giant photovoltaic arrays - solar can be used to generate heat that is stored underground, then the heat pumped out later. Or simply making use of farmland to raise energy crops, like corn or canola that can be used for biodiesel and stuff like that.
post #50 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShamrockMan View Post
Solar only slightly makes since if you are in the southern US, even then its $0.30-40 kW/hr (gets as low as $0.12 with subsidies), which is very expensive power. Nuclear is $0.03-$0.06 kW/hr depending on reactor type, age and location. So tell me how solar is cheaper than nuclear?
As I said, if we couple solar (and wind) to greater efficiency, like say chopping down to 1/5th, then that 30-40 cent per kW/h is more like 6-8 cents in real money. However, if we keep demanding twice the power this year as we used last year - we simply loose.
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