terrorist?

[millwood]

Originally posted by ace3000_1
Well put it this way and this is what i meant, if no one did build bombs then they obviously would have more money to go on more useful resorces, thats a fact.

if something is based on an assumption (an assumption that is apparently untrue), can that something be called "fact"?

Just curious.

Originally posted by ace3000_1
Tides and dams run at night, so does wind, wind and the sun are debatible, even tides are debatible at some point, but certainly the sun can be used during the day to somwhat cut the cost of the fuel in the current systems, weather this being money or resources.

Imagine you are about to read a book to your daughter at night, and all in a sudden the authority tells you that they had to shut down the electricity supply to your neighborhood because today's tide isn't as strong.

Imagine you have prepared wonderful meals and put them in your refrig the day before for your party. When you get home, you noticed that of course the refrig isn't working as the wind is not strong enough.

Imagine you are in an elevator with your family to your apartment. All in a sudden everything goes out and the elevator is filled with darkness and panic because it is an overcast day.

And you will still be happy paying your utility bill every month?

Reliability, or dependability, for electricity is as important as electricity itself. If we don't have reliable electricity, our societies cannot function.

We have much better control over gas or coal supply than we do over sun shine, wind or tide. think about it that way.

and I haven't started on the environmental cost of those windmills or tide stations or solar panels,

Originally posted by ace3000_1
Put it this way, the sun is free,

the sun is free? really? Let's do a math. we consume about 14 trillion kwh of electricity (btw, that's a 2001 figure). solar energy is about 1kw / sq meter at noon and assume that we get 2-hours of good sunshines a day, 365 days a year. solar panels are about 1-2% efficiency. the earth surface is 150 million sq meters.

can you calculate how many sq meters of solar panels we need? what percentage of earth surface will have to be covered by those panels?

Now, think one step beyond it. When you cover the surface of the earth with those panels, what happens to the energy that otherwise would have hit the panels? to those grass underneath those panels? those microbes underneath those panels? etc. what are the environmental impacts of all of the above?

You still think solar energy is free? Hope not.

You may want to rethink the environmental impact of windmills and tide stations along the same line. But for starters, nothing is free.

Originally posted by ace3000_1
Well so you say, ever heard of nuclear waste dumped at sea?

I didn't say that nuclear power is pollution free (nothing is. you breath and you pollute the air for example. so hold your breath, you greenies, ). But it is the cleanest, but still dirty, energy source we got so far.

Originally posted by ace3000_1
oh yeah, this still goes on and we eat this waste in our fish, along with manny lubricants that come from the cooling system in the plant.

the same thign can be said about your city sawage discharge. Will you stop using your toilets?

[millwood]

Originally posted by SY
Taylor's obsession is the idea that the dangers from the physics of nuclear power can be engineered out.

I am not sure about that. know-hows about nuclear weaponery are widely available - witness the latest fiasco in Pakistan.

Someone made the assertion after 9/11 that it is almost a sure thing that in the next 50 years we will have a terrorist-detonated nuclear bomb on the US soil.

A sad but probably true statement.

Originally posted by SY
The dangers of security are much more profound.

I would agree. it is hard to prevent the proliferation of nuclear know-hows.

But that has nothing to do with nuclear power plants and their safety.

[SY]

You're thinking about it in too narrow a sense. The danger is fallout when something very conventional is done to take out the plant. It becomes the active ingredient in a dirty bomb. As much as we can try to secure plants, we can't be certain that the spirit of innovation amongst the various world death cults won't find a way around whatever we try to do.

As you correctly point out in a different context, you've got to think in terms of total number of plants needed and what it would take to really secure them, if such were possible.

[millwood]

Originally posted by SY
As you correctly point out in a different context, you've got to think in terms of total number of plants needed and what it would take to really secure them, if such were possible.

you cannot really secure anything, let alone a nuclear power plant. that's a given.

the question is can they be reasonably secured? I think we can do that.

[mbroker]

Originally posted by millwood
the sun is free? really? Let's do a math. we consume about 14 trillion kwh of electricity (btw, that's a 2001 figure). solar energy is about 1kw / sq meter at noon and assume that we get 2-hours of good sunshines a day, 365 days a year. solar panels are about 1-2% efficiency. the earth surface is 150 million sq meters.

Actually a good photovoltaic cell is on the order of 20% efficient, and that is increasing. I believe photovoltaic efficiencies in the mid 30% are available, but it has been about 5 years since I've done any significant investigations of solar cells. The rest of your pointers. millwood, are completely valid, though you completely forget to mention the exceptionally high amounts of "toxic waste" that result from manufacturing photovoltaic cells. I can assure you that disposal of such waste doesn't make photovoltaic power too attractive.

There was a pretty thorough thread on our forums about a year ago on the generation of power. The best plan we came up with was underground nuclear breeder power plants with the waste being placed in the earth's crust near a subduction area where it would be harmlessly subducted into the mantle and added to all the other radioactive "stuff" down there.

I would be most surprised if a fusion reaction yielding a >1 lamda will happen in the next 2 decades, let alone producing power in a plant. The physics of it just aren't conducive to producing power from fusion. And before someone argues with me, I would like to kindly suggest they read up about it.

Mark

[ace3000_1]

the same thign can be said about your city sawage discharge. Will you stop using your toilets?

Hey im happy with a tree

[PassFan]

Originally posted by ace3000_1



Not realy cos its ignorant of those governments who dont support wind generaters, solar power and hydro plants.

The sun, water and air is all we need to create electricity, and there are other ways aswell, ie: volcanic heat.

I dont know where you got gas turbines from, (typicaly a jet engine), they are steam turbines and run from steam produced by boilers that are gas powerd, nuclear powerd, and coal powerd.

The latest craze in power generation is the combined cycle. It is a natural gas, or kerosene, fired turbine whos exhaust creates the heat for a boiler whos steam is used to spin a steam turbine.

[millwood]

Originally posted by PassFan


The latest craze in power generation is the combined cycle.

regen has been around for a long time, in for example integrated mills, or paper mills as such. the problem with such regen is that a lot of those gas turbines are used for peak demand and running them 24x7 may not be as economical. and regen faciltiies don't adjust well to quick ups and quick downs.

[till]

I am all for the use of nuclear bombs in Hiroshima. To me, they saved a lot of lives (Japanese, Americans and others) by bringing the war to a speedy end.

you are missleaded or ignorant, the war was as good as won without that shamefull dirty bomb you are so proud of.

you are right about the ignorance in the statement " We dont need petrol anymore , we have electric power ."

btw, the USA was not able to throw the bomb earlier, they first had to steal the nuclear material from a german submarine.

[TugaTweaker]

Millwood and Till please , i dont see any ignorance in the statement , i will hold not call anything to you , after all . Please consider :

My company has a large fleet of electric powered veyhicles to operate deliveries in cities and we only have advantages .Less pollution , less petrol dependance .And if more and more companys do the same ?! I was trying to say that there is a way , or more then one , to diminish petrol importance and that must be understood by the petrol addict and mighty
polluter USA . Face Kiotto . Petrol must decrease its importance.
I use to walk 10 minutes to reach my job , i must confess that
sometimes i must stop breathing normally by a minute because of diesel smoke .


No more invasions of Islamic democracy incompatible countries with petrol disguised arguments .
They have the right to live the way they do , i if not let them change it by themselves . Or they can think US democracy stinks
and attack you too , its the same logic .
Go teach democracy lessons to North Korea or China ,or you are afraid of !!! You don't fool Europe . Here in Portugal the public opinion doesn't support you mostly . I woud be very satisfied if you get out of Azores one day .

The truth is that USA wants another Vietnam lesson, i say , maybe you will get it .