| Lingyis said: also, fusion is not an "emergent" alternative... it's non-existent. there's a big difference! |
| Lingyis said: also, fusion is not an "emergent" alternative... it's non-existent. there's a big difference! |
I agree on that. I cannot see any economically working fusion-reactors at the moment. And if I look at the state of the research I doubt it will work economically for the next 20 years.
Mnementh said:
Did you really read my post? Nuclear energy produces long term costs. But it has no long term benefit, if you made from some uranium or plutonium energy - you have made your revenue and that's it. No long term revenue. And the resources are limited. The Uranium-reserves are limited to few decades at the current level of use. Plutonium is nearly not existant naturally, it is mostly created from Uranium in nuclear plants. So the uranium-resources also limit the plutonium-resources. In what regard that makes a long term investment? |
200 years to me is about as long of a long term investment there is.
the Wii is an epidemic.
| Lingyis said: 200 years to me is about as long of a long term investment there is. |
The point is: You have short term revenues: The energy you sell. This works for the next decades, you say 200 years, I read it is enough for the next 90 years with constant usage. Problem is the long term cost of radioactive waste. That's something for the next thousand years. That's only fine for short timeframes, but on the long term the costs are growing and growing. But that is something the taxpayer has to pay for. And most of it will pay the people in the future, we will pay only a little part of it.
Ok, so if nuclear power is so bad, then what alternative do you propose. Remember, the point of the topic was to discuss what technology we have now that is capable of meeting our wide scale needs now.
Witty signature here...
Wii: 14 million by January I sold myself short
360: 13 million by January I sold microsoft short, but not as bad as Nintendo.
PS3: 6 million by January. If it approaches 8 mil i'll eat crow Mnn Crow is yummy.
With these results, I've determined that I suck at long term predictions, and will not long term predict anything ever again. Thus spaketh Crono.
Mnementh said:
The point is: You have short term revenues: The energy you sell. This works for the next decades, you say 200 years, I read it is enough for the next 90 years with constant usage. Problem is the long term cost of radioactive waste. That's something for the next thousand years. That's only fine for short timeframes, but on the long term the costs are growing and growing. But that is something the taxpayer has to pay for. And most of it will pay the people in the future, we will pay only a little part of it. |
2 things. 1st, i am of the opinion that humans would have a tough time grinding out the next few hundred years. if we can't survive after 200 years, whatever costs after that is moot.
2nd, i believe that technology will advance to the point where the cost of dealing with this radioactive waste is very small, if we haven't actually figured out ways to turn the so-called waste into something useful. in my mind it's kind of like issuing a perpetuity bond, i.e. you pay interest on the bond forever, but after accounting for inflation, the cost eventually becomes negligible.
EDIT: on sustainability, nobody really knows if it's 90 years or 200 years. but with energy prices constantly on the upswing, exploration is bound to be more and more profitable and more and more reserves will be found. my guess, based on what i've read and some simple estimations, is that 200 years would be conservative even with expanding energy use.
the Wii is an epidemic.
| Crono said: Ok, so if nuclear power is so bad, then what alternative do you propose. Remember, the point of the topic was to discuss what technology we have now that is capable of meeting our wide scale needs now. |
Wind turbines...
[/sarcasm]
epsilon72 said:
Wind turbines...
|
except it's never expected to become the primary source of energy generation.
the Wii is an epidemic.
The real answer is a Fusion reactor. we need to pour money into research of them.
Lingyis said:
except it's never expected to become the primary source of energy generation. |
I think you missed the point (apparently "custom" HTML tags don't show up..but "custom" bbc code does!)
I am mocking Wind turbines. 
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
