Nuclear polution on FT86.

[PollosHermanos]

I wish my BRZ ran on Mr. Fusion instead of 93.

[SoCal909]

Oddly enough I just watched a documentary on Chernobyl the other day - there's a damn thriving habitat there. If I remember this post once I'm at a computer I'll link it. It was about the wolves since they are top of the food chain.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by Kevstra

Certainly with a bit of tongue in cheek. My point was less about the birds and much more about the quantity of land required. However, I concede the point that I didn't know about the bird issue being smaller than it's made out to be.

I think wind turbines are a pretty bad eyesore, are noisy, and maybe kill some birds. They certainly have their place in some applications, and hopefully fill a greater role in our energy production in the future. I don't think striving to build a society based largely on it would be good or even viable.

I think when you consider the immense amount of energy in nuclear, for the small footprint and zero CO2 emissions, it's a clear winner - once you get over the over-hyped and irrational fear of it. It's also economically competitive and it's a technology we have now. Unlike fusion, or space-based solar panels.

This getting off-topic, but the topic we're on is so interesting.

I agree on the nuclear part--we need more plants, not less. Although the point below about earthquakes is a valid one.

I don't think exclusively wind turbines is the way to go. I disagree on their "eyesore" status, and they are planning on starting a pilot project up here on lake erie, starting with 5 turbines that will be 5 miles offshore. That will definitely make noise a non-issue. Although i will say I've stood under a 450 foot tall turbine (nacelle at 300 ft) and really didn't hear that much, and it was a fairly windy day.

Originally Posted by RFB

Yeah - but earthquakes do happen, and nuke plants are prime targets for terrorists. And wasn't the nuke plant that blew in Russia an accident ?

The farther I am away from a potential bomb the happier I am (unless the property next door had a nice mansion at a trailer park price)!

1) Yup, they do. But most designers take earthquakes into account when they design these buildings, as well as automatic safety measures being in place to shut the reactor down (full control rod insertion) if tremors are detected. In fact, we had a small earthquake under Lake Erie not too long ago, and the reactor at Perry shut down as expected.

2) I'd like to see a terrorist try to attack a nuke plant with anything short of a nuclear bomb. Those places are locked down very tightly, especially since 9/11. Even crashing a plane into the reactor building would create, at worst, microcracks and some slight leakage, but never an explosion.

3) The reactor at Chernobyl was terribly, catastrophically designed. The only other reactor like it was an experimental unit in Berkley, which was quickly shut down after the disaster. No other reactor currently in operation could fail in that manner.

So no, you aren't living next to a bomb if you reside near a nuke plant.

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

Actually the Obama administration is allowing wind farms to kill Bald Eagles.
So far, haven't heard much outcry about it (meanwhile in Canada, a few hundred ducks land in an oil sands tailing pond because of an accidental noise generator malfunction, and everyone's head explodes).

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-injure-eagles

The tips of the turbines are very fast (over 200mph IIRC), and eagles and many other birds fly with their heads down scanning for food.

Your article contradicts itself. Did you bother to read the entire thing? As the old saying goes, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. I'm not saying killing eagles and other birds is right, but its going to happen. I would like to see the stats for the amount of birds that are killed by flying into buildings vs. how many are killed on wind farms (maybe with some fancy math since there are far fewer wind turbines than buildings). The article also does not cite its source when it says that the eagles and birds don't look up, which makes me wonder about the validity of the statement. Finally:

It is unclear what toll, if any, wind-energy companies are having on eagle populations locally or regionally. Gunshots, electrocutions and poisonings almost certainly kill more bald and golden eagles than wind farms. But with the industry still growing, the toll could grow.

The person writing this article has an obvious bias, and, frankly, blaming it on Obama is 1) cliche, and 2) just meant to get people to click through.

Originally Posted by SoCal909

Oddly enough I just watched a documentary on Chernobyl the other day - there's a damn thriving habitat there. If I remember this post once I'm at a computer I'll link it. It was about the wolves since they are top of the food chain.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

There was also a discovery of bacterial colonies living INSIDE the reactor vessel! They apparently process gamma radiation by using melanin (the stuff that gives our skin pigment). No word on if they are angry or not, though.

[strat61caster]

Disclaimer, rambling about space based power ahead because I just spent 20 minutes learning about it.

Originally Posted by Kevstra

It's also economically competitive and it's a technology we have now. Unlike fusion, or space-based solar panels.

This getting off-topic, but the topic we're on is so interesting.

I had to look up space based solar panels. Never going to fucking happen in our lifetimes, the insane amount of losses in power transmission (not to mention FCC and ITU don't like it when people try to punch holes in the atmosphere) and cost of getting something up there, anything that happens in our lifetime will be experiments and nothing more. Any gains in power generation, without considering cost, can be made up by just putting more solar panels on the ground (seriously there is so much land being unused around the world this isn't the issue aside from ecological concerns)

This (and wiki) is probably all anyone needs to read about it:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/...d-solar-power/

The only way space based solar power makes sense is if we're colonizing other worlds, dragging power generation is going to be expensive (for land based solar generation or mining/harvesting operations) and with a station lasting ~10 years we shouldn't need more than two or three before the planet becomes sustainable (assuming we have our shit together), not to mention the power demands will be much more controlled.

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

I had to look up space based solar panels. Never going to fucking happen in our lifetimes, the insane amount of losses in power transmission (not to mention FCC and ITU don't like it when people try to punch holes in the atmosphere) and cost of getting something up there, anything that happens in our lifetime will be experiments and nothing more. Any gains in power generation, without considering cost, can be made up by just putting more solar panels on the ground (seriously there is so much land being unused around the world this isn't the issue aside from ecological concerns)

Nerd moment here, anyone ever play Sim City 2000? Remember the "Microwave" power plant that used satellite based solar panels? After the plant reached the end of its life (and blew up) and you didnt replace it with a new one, you'd hear a laser sound and suddenly a couple blocks of your town would be on fire. Kind of what I imagine happening in a worst-case scenario.

[RFB]

Originally Posted by SoCal909

Oddly enough I just watched a documentary on Chernobyl the other day - there's a damn thriving habitat there. If I remember this post once I'm at a computer I'll link it. It was about the wolves since they are top of the food chain.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Wasn't that documentary called radioactive wolves ?

I think I downloaded it - should watch it !

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by HunterGreene

Nerd moment here, anyone ever play Sim City 2000? Remember the "Microwave" power plant that used satellite based solar panels? After the plant reached the end of its life (and blew up) and you didnt replace it with a new one, you'd hear a laser sound and suddenly a couple blocks of your town would be on fire. Kind of what I imagine happening in a worst-case scenario.

Hah, it's actually mentioned in the wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-b...wer#In_fiction


Basically when it runs out of fuel it'll start to drift off position, typically satellites are moved to a "graveyard orbit" and powered down until the trashman comes along, it's all regulated by the FCC, although in the article I linked it does mention cooking ducks that may fly by under the beam if it isn't kept below safe levels (which does reduce the efficiency a bit I believe).

I assume a failsafe would be built in that after a certain amount of lost connection the satellite would shut down, it'd be interesting...

http://www.space.com/9677-galaxy15-z...lite-life.html

[RFB]

Mans resources on the earth are limited .
Overpopulation, climate change, pollution etc. is already threatening our survival.

Human populations will shrink due to resulting conventional wars for resources, famine, disease, etc.etc. -- but --
This will be a very long term catastrophy (cannibalism, processing plankton for food etc. will keep survivors alive).

The greatest and most impending risk that will precipitate, exponentially, the above mentioned threats to man - is the POWER GENERATING ISSUE.

Productive societies need power - lots of it. China is the greatest polluter on the earth because of the way they generate power.
More 3rd world nations will follow suit and further our path to destruction by atmospheric hydrocarbon oversaturation.

There is one and only one solution given the technology that is available to us.The cleanest highest output technology we have.

We need MORE nukes ! Many more plants, especially in the third world.

(But no one wants to give them nuclear technology because they will use it to bomb the civilized world for ALLAH ! FATWAH !! - or any other tribalistic, religious, political, idealogical, idiocy).

Ban coal - ban oil and gas ! We need to run our cars on radiation !
(so what if we die early from cancer - who wants to live in a Bladerunner world anyway)


CERBERUS

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by RFB

The greatest and most impending risk that will precipitate, exponentially, the above mentioned threats to man - is the POWER GENERATING ISSUE.

Productive societies need power - lots of it.

I think you're forgetting 6,000+ years of productive society without power which only necessary for our current iteration of modern society.

Other than that, continue with your fear mongering.


I think Ford had the biggest lead on nuclear powered cars:

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by HunterGreene

Your article contradicts itself. Did you bother to read the entire thing? As the old saying goes, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. I'm not saying killing eagles and other birds is right, but its going to happen. I would like to see the stats for the amount of birds that are killed by flying into buildings vs. how many are killed on wind farms (maybe with some fancy math since there are far fewer wind turbines than buildings). The article also does not cite its source when it says that the eagles and birds don't look up, which makes me wonder about the validity of the statement. Finally:



The person writing this article has an obvious bias, and, frankly, blaming it on Obama is 1) cliche, and 2) just meant to get people to click through.

Sorry, actually I didn't - I tend not to read the Guardian (I read the entire National Post article, but didn't link that one).
Generally, if the Guardian has a bias, it's towards the left of the political spectrum (IIRC, they are some of the biggest Obama cheerleaders out there).

The fact is that, for an administration that claims to care so much about the environment (see their obstruction of Keystone XL from politically-friendly Canada), they seem to have a strange way of giving free passes to selective industries (not to speak of the whole solar power fiasco they funded with taxpayer dollars).

It's not unlike Ontario's own Dalton McGuinty.

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

I think you're forgetting 6,000+ years of productive society without power which only necessary for our current iteration of modern society.

Other than that, continue with your fear mongering.

I would say that the first 5500+ years of "society" weren't exactly productive on the whole. We had the Sumerian, Macedonian (Alexander the Great), Babylonian, Roman, Chinese, etc, but outside of those empires was largely the metaphorical darkness--people struggling to survive. Its only been in the past 500 years that we have truly flourished as a species.

Starting with the Renaissance (post Dark Ages), there has been an unprecedented amount of innovation and advancement of society. Yes, there are still people struggling to survive in this day and age, but there will always be. The rest of society is largely less concerned with survival and more with the latest news out of TMZ or the fact that the McRib is back at McDonalds.

But what has made this modern age possible? That's right, electricity and powered (steam, combustion, nuclear, etc) innovation. We require more electrical power every year, and that will continue for the foreseeable future, until our resources run low.

Did we survive during the past 6000+ years? Absolutely. But we were productive as a society? I'd argue that its only been the past 500 years that we have truly been advancing.

[AznBRZer]

LOLZ NERDZ

[HeubergerMotors]

Maybe finally Optimus Prime will reveal himself within the BRZ !

[SoCal909]

Originally Posted by RFB

Wasn't that documentary called radioactive wolves ?

I think I downloaded it - should watch it !

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqkBV1FyL8I"]Life In Chernobyl - Wolves - Documentary - YouTube[/ame]

that's the one I watched