17-08-2003 02:52									#31
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sandman An ecological footprint is not the same as space taken up. Firstly, wind farms produce no pollution, and secondly, they only 'use' a tiny fraction of the land. The rest can be used for other purposes.

If you want to be real consistent, you have to consider indirect footprint, i.e. the relatively large amount of heavy manufacturing and it's direct and indirect impacts in producing your generating equipment and producing and transporting it's fuel supply, if any. Wind is a lot worse in that context than if you just look at the direct impacts of wind generation, and you also have to account for the level of redundancy needed to get a particular load profile (i.e. X MW for how many hours, deliverable, not just installed capacity)

	17-08-2003 02:55									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I didn't know that we had any Geo-thermal plants in California. It'd be really cool if we could get them to work and to not kill geysers .

MtG put out some great facts on solar I always thought the photovoltaic ones were made out of silicon wafers (i.e. processed sand), so they'd be rather cheap and non-polluting. I'm surprised to hear that sand in the gears is such a problem. You'd think someone would have come up with a sand-proof sleeve to fit over the joints. Oh well.

I'm guessing the reason that hydroelectric dams work well at making electricity and that ocean tide generators don't is that hydroelectric dams have the advantage of water falling from a greater distance and thus building up a lot of momentum before hitting the turbines.

Fission nukes are 99.99+% clean, but if there is ever a leak One speck of plutonium in your lung and you're dead.

That's why fusion reactors hold such allure. There's always been huge technological challenges to fussion reactors, but when has that ever stopped us?

	17-08-2003 03:14									#33
	Get a bigger avatar today!

In the short to medium term, I can't see anything that would satisfy our energy needs beyond a mix of renewable sources where they are appropriate and a nuclear energy backbone. One gram of plutonium releases as much energy as a tonne of oil. It's hard to argue with those facts....

In the long term I'd like a fusion system but, barring that, a solar array in space would be cool. Followed, of course, by the migration of the species offworld and the Earth being preserved as a park.

	17-08-2003 03:26									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT Under the pressure of the ecologists, Germany is on its way to suppress his nuclear electricity which still amounts to 30%. Curiously the same ecologists are happy with the coal as a primary source of more than 50% of their electricity. :

I've read on the same EDF document (see link above) that new technologies are being researched to have cleaner processes of coal burning. Understandably, the document is very enthusiastic about it (EDF takes part to the project ), but do you know if this research has led to anything serious so far ?

	17-08-2003 03:34									#35
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Same as bytes, etc. k = kilo M = mega = 1000k g = giga = 1000m t = tera = 1000g although it's more common to refer to thousand gWh than it is to refer to tWh.

Thanks, I always lose track of what's beyond giga

That means the tidal plant of La Rance produces 600 gWh a year, whereas an average nuclear plant produces 8000 gWh a year. For comparison, the Three Gorges dam is expected to produce 84000 gWh a year !

	17-08-2003 03:37									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The environment is America's main enemy. It's your national duty to kill it by burning as much oil as you can. If the arabs wont give it to you, take it!!

	17-08-2003 03:46									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: If you want to be real consistent, you have to consider indirect footprint, i.e. the relatively large amount of heavy manufacturing and it's direct and indirect impacts in producing your generating equipment and producing and transporting it's fuel supply, if any. Wind is a lot worse in that context than if you just look at the direct impacts of wind generation, and you also have to account for the level of redundancy needed to get a particular load profile (i.e. X MW for how many hours, deliverable, not just installed capacity)

Wind may be a lot worse when you consider that, but so is every other method. Still, you are right about the need to take into account the level of redundancy, since wind is unreliable. Dunno what can be done about it, apart from diversifying to other renewables and keeping fossil fuel stations on standby.

	17-08-2003 04:21									#38
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Could not those present difficulties induce the American citizens to save the energy rather than wasting it with ridiculous car consomption?

	17-08-2003 04:29									#39
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I've read on the same EDF document (see link above) that new technologies are being researched to have cleaner processes of coal burning. Understandably, the document is very enthusiastic about it (EDF takes part to the project ), but do you know if this research has led to anything serious so far ?

No more info, but we can expect an improvement associated with a sharp increase in cost which will make the coal less competitive since the pollution currently created is not included in the cost.

	17-08-2003 04:47									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT Could not those present difficulties induce the American citizens to save the energy rather than wasting it with ridiculous car consomption?

Are you crazy ? Reducing car consumption would mean the Americans give in to Al Qaeda and to Saddam !

	17-08-2003 04:55									#41
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Are you crazy ? Reducing car consumption would mean the Americans give in to Al Qaeda and to Saddam !

The reverse is also, and more seriously, true.

	17-08-2003 05:01									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: If I were in charge we'd have most of our power coming from nukes since they don't produce green house gases and we would be able to slash the money we give to the murdering Arabs.

Well, as long as you can dispose of the nuclear waste decently...

	17-08-2003 05:08									#43
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Well, as long as you can dispose of the nuclear waste decently...

Some good ways already exist to postpone the problem for decades / centuries. There is hope we find some real good ways to dispose defnitely of the waste in the meantime.

	17-08-2003 05:22									#44
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Some good ways already exist to postpone the problem for decades / centuries.

One of the main problems is storage. Reuse is good to cut down on the waste, but you still have to ship it, and a lot of places don't like the idea of waste travelling through them, so it's still a pain.

	17-08-2003 05:28									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui One of the main problems is storage. Reuse is good to cut down on the waste, but you still have to ship it, and a lot of places don't like the idea of waste travelling through them, so it's still a pain.

Well, you can do like all our governments consistently did for decades, and ignore the tree-huggers who try to block the convoy. Besides, we storage our nuclear trash in subterranean bunkers in remote places, so very few people from the neighborhood can complain.

And you can do stupid things too. Heck, in my hometown, there was a surface nuclear dump for years. After the dump has been sent elsewhere and the terrain "cleaned", guess what was built on it ? An elementary school (and I'm not kidding)

	17-08-2003 05:35									#46
	Remove this text

Does anyone know if it is possible to build Hydrogen-Plants? The only waste generated by a Hydrogen-car is water...

	17-08-2003 05:43									#47
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Richard I Does anyone know if it is possible to build Hydrogen-Plants? The only waste generated by a Hydrogen-car is water...

Yes you can build hydrogen plants, but you need electricity first, then build reformers, then you can do hydrogen plants.

Solar panels are a good sources of alternative power, if everyone had solar panels on their roof, then we could save 50% of all power usage. There is a new break in solar panel research to make them more efficient.

	17-08-2003 06:58									#48
	Increase the size of your Attachments

wind power only works in sim city 2000...

	17-08-2003 07:51									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT Could not those present difficulties induce the American citizens to save the energy rather than wasting it with ridiculous car consomption?

"But Lisa, if we conserved power, then the environmentalists win!" ... Homer Simpson

	17-08-2003 07:52									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

We could build a hydroGenerator plant next to the ocean and pump water thru the turbine blades and back into the ocean, so it would be a loop.

	17-08-2003 08:01									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: And you can do stupid things too. Heck, in my hometown, there was a surface nuclear dump for years. After the dump has been sent elsewhere and the terrain "cleaned", guess what was built on it ? An elementary school (and I'm not kidding)

Have the kids grown extra arms yet?

	17-08-2003 08:22									#52
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Joseph We could build a hydroGenerator plant next to the ocean and pump water thru the turbine blades and back into the ocean, so it would be a loop.

haha the idea of a hydroplant is the water is otherwise forced through the blades. if u had to actually pump u'd just be creating jobs, not energy.

	17-08-2003 08:31									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by mrmitchell Yeah, and now all you have to do is see what distant state is willing to be a garbage can for all of your nuclear waste. Even if some study came out saying that nuke waste was only bad for 50 or 15 years, it's still a political hot potato and for those two reasons not worth it. And you've got the increased security risks and chance of nuclear meltdown.

The solution is to produce breeder reactors. Breeder reacters will recycle the spent fuel rods and allow them to be used over and over and over again. So we get a tiny amount of waste and tons of energy. It's the best energy source we're likely to ever find.

	17-08-2003 08:38									#54
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I've read on the same EDF document (see link above) that new technologies are being researched to have cleaner processes of coal burning. Understandably, the document is very enthusiastic about it (EDF takes part to the project ), but do you know if this research has led to anything serious so far ?

Believe it or not the US has been the biggest spender in developing so called clean coal. Enviromental regulations have lead to coal plants being phased out which was, of course, very unpopular in the coal producing states. That meant Congress has had to bribe them with large grants which were used to develope cleaner buring generators and to identify low sulfur coal deposits.

	17-08-2003 08:41									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor For comparison, the Three Gorges dam is expected to produce 84000 gWh a year !

Dams are the best way to get clean energy. It's a sham we haven't built more of them. The cost to benifit is so one sides. Just think how much coal or oil would have to be burned to produce 8.4 x 10^4 gWh.

	17-08-2003 09:11									#56
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Dams are the best way to get clean energy. It's a sham we haven't built more of them. The cost to benifit is so one sides. Just think how much coal or oil would have to be burned to produce 8.4 x 10^4 gWh.

The only thing is that there should be tunnels on the sides to let wildlife, like salmon, though. There are several dams that have those.

Clean Coal is an oxymoron and a scam by the coal companies.

	17-08-2003 09:14									#57
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Clean Coal is an oxymoron and a scam by the coal companies.

Indeed. I get the urge to hunt down and maim coal lobbyists when I see those goddamned "Clean coal is America" ads on the ****ing tv.

	17-08-2003 11:29									#58
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Since the feds own pretty much all of nevada and all of new mexico, let's put all the nuke plants there. they're already putting nuke waste there so why not nuke plants...

some of us actually live there you know

	17-08-2003 11:35									#59
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Dissident some of us actually live there you know

Just Libertarians.

MAIM THE COAL LOBBYISTS!!!

	17-08-2003 11:42									#60
	Increase Your PM Length

well having worked in nuke plants in the navy, you can guess which one I favour.

The risk is almost nill if you design a decent plant. The blackouts posed no problem because they can use generators I'm sure to keep coolant flow through the reactor to prevent overheating the core (even while shutdown, the core produces heat). Some kind of EMP device might pose a threat to nuke plants, but it isn't likely anyone will get a hold of those. It would be easier just to invade a nuke plant.

I'm not sure how civilian nuke plants are set up, but I still can't see a well armed group of terrorists doing much to a nuke plant. Safety features prevent raising the reactor power too high. You could shut off coolant flow (safety features will shut down the plant without coolant flow, but there would still be a lot of heat generated), that could very well cause fuel elements to fail. But most of that would be contained in the pipes. Again I'm thinking pressurized water reactors. This could pose a more serious problem to reactors that directly boil water as many radioactive gases would be released. You could use explosives to cause a radioactive spill. Much of the radiaton would be contained at the power plant. It would be a hell of a mess to clean up, but wouldn't kill very many people.

I just can't see terrorists doing much to a nuke plant. Unless they detonate a nuke at a nuke plant It's more of a fear tactic. It wouldn't kill very many people, but it would terrify the **** out of american pussies who don't understand how radiation and contamination works.

Nuclear waste is a problem. I'm most worried about transporting it. I really don't have too much of a problem with them storing it in my state. Though it does piss me off they choose a state with seismic activity. There are 3 states in the union that have no earthquakes whatsoever, Nevada isn't one of them. But we have little political power because our population is so low.

edit: I forgot one major concern with terrorists gaining access to a nuclear plant. The nuclear waste- namely the fuel rods stored at the plant because there is no storage facility ready yet. I high explosive or say a 747 hitting the exact spot where they are stored might pose some risk to nearby populations. I'm not sure how much risk, as I'm not sure how exactly they are stored. I'm sure they are in concrete buildings. But that can only do so much...

Last edited by Dis on 17-08-2003 at 12:42