Quantcast
Nuclear Power. What's Your Opinion?

Forums - General Discussion - Nuclear Power. What's Your Opinion?

mrstickball said:
SamuelRSmith said:
mchaza said:

Nuclear power is the middle ground between moving away from coal, oil and gas to solar, wind and water power.


The problem about green energy sources is that they require a hell of a lot more resources going in than nuclear and fossil. Solar and wind farms require more workers per gigawatt generated, and a hell of a lot more land.

As you require more and more energy to generate/collect energy, it obviously means that you have less energy in the end to play around with... meaning more expensive energy, more workers, and a less complex society.

The end result of solar/wind is that the cost per KWH is significantly higher than any other source that we know of. My brother had access to a local wind power company's balance sheet. According to him, it would take 70 years to pay back the cost to install and maintain the plant if they were to sell the power at current market rates.

Not only that, most solar we talk about (in the US) is solar thermal, and not just solar panels. Solar thermal generates a lot more power per square foot, which is somewhat more economically viable than solar panels, but such systems require massive re-distribution of water which in and of itself is a major ecological concern.


so f'ing the entire world is fine because it cost too much. I see your logic 



Of Course That's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong

Around the Network
mchaza said:
mrstickball said:
SamuelRSmith said:
mchaza said:

Nuclear power is the middle ground between moving away from coal, oil and gas to solar, wind and water power.


The problem about green energy sources is that they require a hell of a lot more resources going in than nuclear and fossil. Solar and wind farms require more workers per gigawatt generated, and a hell of a lot more land.

As you require more and more energy to generate/collect energy, it obviously means that you have less energy in the end to play around with... meaning more expensive energy, more workers, and a less complex society.

The end result of solar/wind is that the cost per KWH is significantly higher than any other source that we know of. My brother had access to a local wind power company's balance sheet. According to him, it would take 70 years to pay back the cost to install and maintain the plant if they were to sell the power at current market rates.

Not only that, most solar we talk about (in the US) is solar thermal, and not just solar panels. Solar thermal generates a lot more power per square foot, which is somewhat more economically viable than solar panels, but such systems require massive re-distribution of water which in and of itself is a major ecological concern.


so f'ing the entire world is fine because it cost too much. I see your logic


Costs have massive implications. The number one way to reduce poverty is to reduce the cost of energy, for example.

Without cheap energy, we have nothing. You have any idea how much energy is required to mine metals? Or to provide you with a meal (growing -> transportation -> producing and packaging -> transportation -> retail -> transportation -> storage and retail -> transportation -> home and final preparation (perhaps refridgeration, or freezing, cooking)) ? In many parts of the world, cheap energy is required to keep people from freezing to death. Others, without energy-intensive desalination, have no water to drink. Huge amounts of energy are also required to provide you with healthcare, education, etc, etc. And this is before we get to the obvious stuff - lighting homes, powering electical consumer goods, etc.

What costs us a couple of dollars today in a meal that can be prepared in about half an hour would be beyond the finest meal a king could have afforded to enjoy two hundred years ago, with a hundred men working on it. This is only possible through cheap energy.

So, yes, until a cheap energy source can be found: fuck the world. It's either that, or fuck humanity.



SamuelRSmith said:
mchaza said:
mrstickball said:
SamuelRSmith said:
mchaza said:

Nuclear power is the middle ground between moving away from coal, oil and gas to solar, wind and water power.


The problem about green energy sources is that they require a hell of a lot more resources going in than nuclear and fossil. Solar and wind farms require more workers per gigawatt generated, and a hell of a lot more land.

As you require more and more energy to generate/collect energy, it obviously means that you have less energy in the end to play around with... meaning more expensive energy, more workers, and a less complex society.

The end result of solar/wind is that the cost per KWH is significantly higher than any other source that we know of. My brother had access to a local wind power company's balance sheet. According to him, it would take 70 years to pay back the cost to install and maintain the plant if they were to sell the power at current market rates.

Not only that, most solar we talk about (in the US) is solar thermal, and not just solar panels. Solar thermal generates a lot more power per square foot, which is somewhat more economically viable than solar panels, but such systems require massive re-distribution of water which in and of itself is a major ecological concern.


so f'ing the entire world is fine because it cost too much. I see your logic


Costs have massive implications. The number one way to reduce poverty is to reduce the cost of energy, for example.

Without cheap energy, we have nothing. You have any idea how much energy is required to mine metals? Or to provide you with a meal (growing -> transportation -> producing and packaging -> transportation -> retail -> transportation -> storage and retail -> transportation -> home and final preparation (perhaps refridgeration, or freezing, cooking)) ? In many parts of the world, cheap energy is required to keep people from freezing to death. Others, without energy-intensive desalination, have no water to drink. Huge amounts of energy are also required to provide you with healthcare, education, etc, etc. And this is before we get to the obvious stuff - lighting homes, powering electical consumer goods, etc.

What costs us a couple of dollars today in a meal that can be prepared in about half an hour would be beyond the finest meal a king could have afforded to enjoy two hundred years ago, with a hundred men working on it. This is only possible through cheap energy.

So, yes, until a cheap energy source can be found: fuck the world. It's either that, or fuck humanity.

Going further than that, I have to ask:

What is so bad with nuclear vs. other power sources?

Compared to other fossil fuels, it is much cleaner and has a massive power:fuel ratio which means we have to damage the earth less to acquire the raw components for the fuel.

Compared to renewables, it will ensure that people that can barely afford energy can afford to heat their homes, learn from the internet, and do many many things. Eventually, we may be able to switch from gasoline-based cars to electric cars which would exponentially increase power requirements, which can't be met by renewables without catostrophic costs.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Personally, I envision the energy mix in the future to be along the lines of:

40% nuclear (whichever kind of nuclear technology is used)
40% renewable (primarily solar and wind, with other novelties such as water, geothermal, biofuels to account for less than 5% of the overall mix)
20% coal/gas with carbon-capture and storage.

I can also see the typical household being able to generate around 10% of its own energy needs, have fuel cells that can store around 12 hours of energy, and have water recycling facilities that reduce a house's water demands by between 20 and 40%. I also wouldn't be surprised if most houses (particularly in the UK) switch from gas a means of heating, to elecricity.

---

Of course, this would all be immediately binned if and when we crack fusion.