Are Green Initiatives doing more harm than good? - Paying Regimes that hate you for fuel instead of producing your own

[Generic Retard]

You people are all retards reading too much into what is written. Stop strawmanning and writing your own narrative into the discussion.
I can see why this is an unproductive thread. Well I will see myself out.

 

[mindlessobserver]

You people are all retards reading too much into what is written. Stop strawmanning and writing your own narrative into the discussion.
I can see why this is an unproductive thread. Well I will see myself out.

Before you go keep in mind Generation IV and onward reactors are so efficient they can even use the dangerous 100,000 year waste as fuel. Their waste product is only harmful for 300 years and we have a convenient place already built to store all of it at Yucca mountain.

 

[Car Won't Crank]

If something poses a real risk then I'm fully entitled to be sceptical if not worried, I'm worried about the current war because Putin can at any time just nuke where I live. There are other things that worry me besides the idea of a nuclear plant near my home.

And I'm going to reiterate it again, your reaction to my scepticism is emotionally-driven since you react as if those nuclear plants were your girlfriends that I'm basically insulting. Honestly calm the fuck down for once in your life. Your avatar is a perfect depiction of how you look like behind the screen.

You sound like one of those crazy antivaxx TM skeptics who are reasonably concerned about putting questionable drugs in their bodies and still dismissed as pariah in some backwards places (Canada). How dare you question the infallible science with reasonable concern for powerful technologies!

 

[Ser Prize]

You sound like one of those crazy antivaxx TM skeptics who are reasonably concerned about putting questionable drugs in their bodies and still dismissed as pariah in some backwards places (Canada). How dare you question the infallible science with reasonable concern for powerful technologies!

That's a pretty bad comparison, man.

 

[Toolbox]

You people are all retards reading too much into what is written. Stop strawmanning and writing your own narrative into the discussion.
I can see why this is an unproductive thread. Well I will see myself out.

You came here, said nuke bad, agreed that other 'alternatives' have similarly bad downsides, then just leave?

 

[Lemmingwise]

It's true that nuclear power has advanced tremendously since the two that disastered.

But think about this: at some point they will be 20 years old and its employees complacent... and you will have diversity quota's. Everything fails (eventually).

With that said nuclear power is one of the best sources of power.

 

[NewRetroVagina23]

From what I understand, simply strapping a solar array to the roof of each house will only produce slightly more energy than the household requires (and even then only under absolutely ideal conditions which almost never pan out unless you're in a laboratory). My outdated years-old statistic on the energy-efficiency of solar panels put them at 20% of all sunlight striking the substrate being stored as power per panel...Nominal. Meaning actual figures are certainly less, and even if they weren't, that simply isn't efficient enough to be adopted de novo, much less replace an already existing method of power generation. At the time, I had read breathless copy about how researchers would certainly be able to beef that up to a 20% average 25% nominal, in the next half decade at most. Well, it's been about that long, and while I don't recall hearing of that goal being met, it still wouldn't matter if it had, because the actual target they must hit is well above 50%, more than double their most optimistic projections.

Perhaps I misremember, but I'm pretty sure even the sorts of calculations you might do on the back of a paper napkin show that solar simply can't cut it alone, which is why I always hear it mentioned in the same breath as wind and hydro, even from Green advocates.

 

[Anti-Intellectual]

You sound like one of those crazy antivaxx TM skeptics who are reasonably concerned about putting questionable drugs in their bodies and still dismissed as pariah in some backwards places (Canada). How dare you question the infallible science with reasonable concern for powerful technologies!

When we tell you something simple like the sky is blue with plenty of evidence to back it up and you insist that it's otherwise because you harbor unfounded concerns already addressed by said evidence, you're not a skeptic, you're an idiot.

Also I haven't got the Covid "vaccine" and I'm never going to as I don't need it.

 

[Kiwi & Cow]

@Anti-Intellectual
Accidents have happened and will continue to happen because it's real life, it's not a fantasy land where nothing bad can ever happen, and you're a retard for thinking that no accident can ever happen with a certain technology that you think is 100% safe.
You're using the same exact arguments of a vaxoid who thinks the coof vaccine is 100% safe when it's only 99% safe with the remaining 1% being nasty side effects. You're a retard for completely discarding that 1% which is even more prevalent in relation to a technology with longlasting consequences if something goes wrong.
You've also been wrong about your assertion that nuclear plants can't explode, Fukushima and Chernobyl did explode, go get your facts straight for a start.

I thank Lemmingwise for pointing out the fact that any nuclear plant even the modern ones will eventually become delapidated, I haven't thought of that.

 

[Pro. Memer]

From what I understand, simply strapping a solar array to the roof of each house will only produce slightly more energy than the household requires (and even then only under absolutely ideal conditions which almost never pan out unless you're in a laboratory). My outdated years-old statistic on the energy-efficiency of solar panels put them at 20% of all sunlight striking the substrate being stored as power per panel...Nominal. Meaning actual figures are certainly less, and even if they weren't, that simply isn't efficient enough to be adopted de novo, much less replace an already existing method of power generation. At the time, I had read breathless copy about how researchers would certainly be able to beef that up to a 20% average 25% nominal, in the next half decade at most. Well, it's been about that long, and while I don't recall hearing of that goal being met, it still wouldn't matter if it had, because the actual target they must hit is well above 50%, more than double their most optimistic projections.

Perhaps I misremember, but I'm pretty sure even the sorts of calculations you might do on the back of a paper napkin show that solar simply can't cut it alone, which is why I always hear it mentioned in the same breath as wind and hydro, even from Green advocates.

IMO solar is the best non-hydro renewable we can go with, but it does have it's own costs. and isn't best for all environments.

Solar can never be the backbone of an electrical grid, however it can help a lot in augmenting it. The efficiency percent doesn't matter all that much at this point, it's passive and gets the job done. Let nuclear do the main work, but solar has a place in reducing electricity demand. A house in a sunny location can have a a net negative electric usage in some months, and cut bills by a lot in months where AC is running constantly. However, solar is still expensive, especially on a grid level. It's in a weird combo of centralized and decentralized. (But I think it's dumb as a purely centralized power source) Centralized only because you need equipment that communicates with the grid and shuts it off in case of temporary power outages (if there's a power outage, and some linemen are up there, but you have a bunch of solar electricity coming, that's bad) Decentralized because it's custom installed, which is more expensive than a field of solar. That being said, if you have a home, solar may be a wise personal choice on it's own.

A big paradigm shift will happen when one of those labs makes some kind of cheap solar sheet or tarp that can be laid out like carpet over a roof or stretched out as a parking lot shade. You'd get less power per square foot, but at a much cheaper install cost on all levels. If it gets cheap enough per watt, you can expect to see the tech become very common. I have no idea on the timeline of that though.

 

[Toolbox]

From what I understand, simply strapping a solar array to the roof of each house will only produce slightly more energy than the household requires (and even then only under absolutely ideal conditions which almost never pan out unless you're in a laboratory). My outdated years-old statistic on the energy-efficiency of solar panels put them at 20% of all sunlight striking the substrate being stored as power per panel...Nominal. Meaning actual figures are certainly less, and even if they weren't, that simply isn't efficient enough to be adopted de novo, much less replace an already existing method of power generation. At the time, I had read breathless copy about how researchers would certainly be able to beef that up to a 20% average 25% nominal, in the next half decade at most. Well, it's been about that long, and while I don't recall hearing of that goal being met, it still wouldn't matter if it had, because the actual target they must hit is well above 50%, more than double their most optimistic projections.

Perhaps I misremember, but I'm pretty sure even the sorts of calculations you might do on the back of a paper napkin show that solar simply can't cut it alone, which is why I always hear it mentioned in the same breath as wind and hydro, even from Green advocates.

A good off grid system would be a heavy mix of solar and wind, personally I like HAWT wind turbine designs for their efficiency but they seem to have maintenance problems and tend to require a more expensive build.

 

[SneedEyeMitch]

It's true that nuclear power has advanced tremendously since the two that disastered.

But think about this: at some point they will be 20 years old and its employees complacent... and you will have diversity quota's. Everything fails (eventually).

With that said nuclear power is one of the best sources of power.

This is unironically the best argument I heard against nuclear, and instead, we should stick with fossil fuels, because at least fossil fuels are more retard proof.

Btw Lemmingwise you might be a stoner mermaid (see Dutchman) but I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[Bonesjones]

It's true that nuclear power has advanced tremendously since the two that disastered.

But think about this: at some point they will be 20 years old and its employees complacent... and you will have diversity quota's. Everything fails (eventually).

With that said nuclear power is one of the best sources of power.

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

20 years old you say? These are over 45 with no issues, it's also the only active nuclear expansion.

 

[Colloid]

@Anti-Intellectual
Accidents have happened and will continue to happen because it's real life, it's not a fantasy land where nothing bad can ever happen, and you're a retard for thinking that no accident can ever happen with a certain technology that you think is 100% safe.
You're using the same exact arguments of a vaxoid who thinks the coof vaccine is 100% safe when it's only 99% safe with the remaining 1% being nasty side effects. You're a retard for completely discarding that 1% which is even more prevalent in relation to a technology with longlasting consequences if something goes wrong.
You've also been wrong about your assertion that nuclear plants can't explode, Fukushima and Chernobyl did explode, go get your facts straight for a start.

I thank Lemmingwise for pointing out the fact that any nuclear plant even the modern ones will eventually become delapidated, I haven't thought of that.

This same logic could apply to hydroelectric dams and crude oil extraction. If a dam isn't maintained then it'll break and send a devastating flood of water to everything downstream of it. If an oil rig out at sea (where most of the world's oil is) isn't maintained or something breaks at a bad time, then at best the oil leaks out into the sea or at worst the oil leaks out into the sea and catches on fire. These incidents happen annually and the collateral damage has the potential to be better or worse depending on their location, but despite all of that risk involved we still use these energy sources because these technologies been researched and upgraded for hundreds of years. Yet you want to forgo nuclear power despite its potential and increasing safety thanks to recent technological advances just because Japan's got walloped by the worst tsunami in its existence, and also because some backwater, corrupt USSR nation cut corners and bit off more than they could chew? Come on now.

 

[Kiwi & Cow]

This same logic could apply to hydroelectric dams and crude oil extraction. If a dam isn't maintained then it'll break and send a devastating flood of water to everything downstream of it. If an oil rig out at sea (where most of the world's oil is) isn't maintained or something breaks at a bad time, then at best the oil leaks out into the sea or at worst the oil leaks out into the sea and catches on fire. These incidents happen annually and the collateral damage has the potential to be better or worse depending on their location, but despite all of that risk involved we still use these energy sources because these technologies been researched and upgraded for hundreds of years. Yet you want to forgo nuclear power despite its potential and increasing safety thanks to recent technological advances just because Japan's got walloped by the worst tsunami in its existence, and also because some backwater, corrupt USSR nation cut corners and bit off more than they could chew? Come on now.

I don't support dams nor oil either, but anyways what's the difference between a dam and a nuclear plant?
It's simple, the damage the dam does is massive, but short-lived, however the damage caused by a nuclear explosion is in the long-term infact Chernobyl will last my entire lifetime a few dozen times.

Think about this, my concern with nuclear plants is the same as people who are scared to travel by plane. Why are people afraid of planes when they have no issue with cars in spite of accidents happening more frequently and thus resulting in more death? A car accident is less likely to be fatal than a plane accident. Here's you answer. A dam accident does less damage to the local civilisation than a nuclear accident which led to the town of Chernobyl to be evacued and no one is allowed back in.

 

[Colloid]

I don't support dams nor oil either, but anyways what's the difference between a dam and a nuclear plant?
It's simple, the damage the dam does is massive, but short-lived, however the damage caused by a nuclear explosion is in the long-term infact Chernobyl will last my entire lifetime a few dozen times.

Indeed Chernobyl took a lot of damage that it's finally starting to recover meaningfully from, and it serves those retarded commies right for trying to cut corners and not respecting the power of radioactive material. With a properly designed and maintained plant it'd no doubt still be running fine like the many others built back then that are still going strong like in Philadelphia.

Think about this, my concern with nuclear plants is the same as people who are scared to travel by plane. Why are people afraid of planes when they have no issue with cars in spite of accidents happening more frequently and thus resulting in more death? A car accident is less likely to be fatal than a plane accident. Here's you answer. A dam accident does less damage to the local civilisation than a nuclear accident which led to the town of Chernobyl to be evacued and no one is allowed back in.

Completely wrong. A nuclear reactor blowing up in the middle of a desert nobody was using anyway is less expensive than a damn busting upstream of several towns and cities and moving trillions of gallons of water like, say, Hoover Dam. I'm gonna repeat what I said here since it already covers this whole paragraph.

These incidents happen annually and the collateral damage has the potential to be better or worse depending on their location

 

[Car Won't Crank]

Completely wrong. A nuclear reactor blowing up in the middle of a desert nobody was using anyway is less expensive than a damn busting upstream of several towns and cities and moving trillions of gallons of water like, say, Hoover Dam. I'm gonna repeat what I said here since it already covers this whole paragraph.

Oh yeah, almost forgot about the almost obsessive testing of nukes the US did back in the mid 1900s. Bikini Atoll was a popular site along with mid air explosions. Besides, hasn't the US Navy been using nuclear powered ships and submarines for a while now? That should speak to the reliability of more modern nuclear power plants operated with proper oversight.

 

[Toolbox]

I don't support dams nor oil either, but anyways what's the difference between a dam and a nuclear plant?
It's simple, the damage the dam does is massive, but short-lived, however the damage caused by a nuclear explosion is in the long-term infact Chernobyl will last my entire lifetime a few dozen times.

Think about this, my concern with nuclear plants is the same as people who are scared to travel by plane. Why are people afraid of planes when they have no issue with cars in spite of accidents happening more frequently and thus resulting in more death? A car accident is less likely to be fatal than a plane accident. Here's you answer. A dam accident does less damage to the local civilisation than a nuclear accident which led to the town of Chernobyl to be evacued and no one is allowed back in.

I wouldn't really call the damage dams do short lived, especially what it costs to maintain them, especially ecologically. What they do when they fail is sometimes the least of your problems, sometimes the most of your problems. If (when) 3 Gorges Dam is to fail, it will undue actual decades of Chinese manufacturing progress. Not very short lived. This kind of thing definitely massively depends on how large the dam is, what it is holding back, and what is on the other side.

 

[Anti-Intellectual]

@Anti-Intellectual
Accidents have happened and will continue to happen because it's real life, it's not a fantasy land where nothing bad can ever happen, and you're a retard for thinking that no accident can ever happen with a certain technology that you think is 100% safe.
You're using the same exact arguments of a vaxoid who thinks the coof vaccine is 100% safe when it's only 99% safe with the remaining 1% being nasty side effects. You're a retard for completely discarding that 1% which is even more prevalent in relation to a technology with longlasting consequences if something goes wrong.
You've also been wrong about your assertion that nuclear plants can't explode, Fukushima and Chernobyl did explode, go get your facts straight for a start.

I thank Lemmingwise for pointing out the fact that any nuclear plant even the modern ones will eventually become delapidated, I haven't thought of that.

1. Cry more. If the crux of your argument lies solely on "what ifs" you could construct any manner of criticism for why something should never be built because of some unintended results. You seem to operate under the presumption that there should be some Nirvana solution to these problems which is not feasible.

a) I'm certain you're an accident between your parents yet you're still here and making the most of existence.

2. Never did I make those assertions with such conviction, I don't make such stringent conclusions. I'm simply stating your concerns are useless because you're so damnably ignorant it would take a light novel worth of reading and comprehension to repudiate the garbage you keep churning out here.

3. Chernobyl and Fukushima underwent meltdowns not outright fissile explosions, seriously at least learn the bare minimum of nuclear physics and mechanics before you spout off. Reactors grade uranium is not weapons grade uranium.

4. Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island are the exceptions, not the rule. There are literally hundreds of nuclear fission power plants in the world today with very little incidents in their history, not even close to the travesties aforementioned.

Stay mad, stay frightened.

You have no fucking clue what're you talking about.

 

[Kane Lives]

4. Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island are the exceptions, not the rule. There are literally hundreds of nuclear fission power plants in the world today with very little incidents in their history, not even close to the travesties aforementioned.

I'll just note that if South Africans can manage to maintain a nuclear plant without incident despite the turmoil of the past 20 years, then Amerifats can as well.