Freedom for Fission

[skyman8081]

Unfortunately, the efficiency of a single windmill is 90%, which is about the best you can do.  But they output so little power that it is hardly as cost efficient.(ignoring the mega cost-incentive the govt. puts on wind)

Wind and Solar power will always be delegated to supporting roles on the grid, when more power is needed for a short span of time.

[skyman8081]

By the way, if you are not opposed to having a nuclear power plant next to your house, you should tell someone right away.  One of the primary hurdles to building them is finding an acceptable place to put them.  I'm sure they would appreciate your willingness to sacrifice yourself and your neighborhood.

Of course, your neighbors might think differently, and you'll have a rough time convincing them.

 I don't actually live that far from one already.

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is 15 miles from my house.

[worker201]

Unfortunately, the efficiency of a single windmill is 90%, which is about the best you can do.

Well, since your refrigerator operates at about 18%, and your car operates at 25%, I think 90% is pretty fucking good.

[skyman8081]

Well, since your refrigerator operates at about 18%, and your car operates at 25%, I think 90% is pretty fucking good.

 It is good in terms of mechanical, rotational efficiency.  That is very good.

However, they put out such little power, that you need tons of them to be in the black.

And with any mechanical device, it WILL wear down, and when you have a lot of them, there will always be a breakdown which needs repaired.

Solar and Wind power are good at burst power, if you need to pump more electricity onto the grid, use them.  But nuclear power is a stable alternative that would make a good baseline for power generation.

[Calum]

Do you have ANY idea of the land requirements for Wind Power.

actually they have banks of them mounted at sea off the hebrides, no land required there. also, i take it you know people can set one up in their backyard and it will generate more than anough power for their house, this is the case in scotland anyway, what isn't used can be sold to the national grid (albeit for a paltry sum) and resold to those who don't have backyards. for scotland, i think wind power is a completely self sufficient prospect if implemented properly.

I've driven through wind farms, they are a fucking massive eyesore.  And they are very good at dicing up birds.[1]

eyesore? i suppose you have photos of your favourite prettiest nuclear power plants on your bedroom wall, then?

It is also terribly inefficient at power generation.  And if there isn't enough wind, they turn into large electic fans.

oh dear, what a shame. where are the figures to back up this claim of inefficiency? i thought you liked to have statistics to back your arguments up.

If you are ever in southern california, go along the I-10 near Palm Springs, there is a huge valley filled with windmills.

ok, because i like to visit windmills when i travel internationally...

Wind and solar are good, but they will never be enough to replace all power with, there are only good for supporting roles on the power grid.

again, supporting evidence please? stating an opinion is misleading, in that it may be based completely on assumptions.

[Lead Head]

Well, I

[skyman8081]

For a solar plant to power new york city, you would need a solar collector that is about 300 square miles.

That doesn't even account for when solar power in unusable, e.g. during dawn, dusk, and night.

What do you want, 1 nuke plant or 100 square miles of wind turbines?

[Lead Head]

I heard they are developing a new solar panel that pumps hydrgen through the panel and the hydrogen gets hot or something, I for get exactly how but it powers a 4 cylinder engine that drives a generator with no emissions

[Aloone_Jonez]

Fair enough we need a replacement for fossil fuels as they're non-renewable but wheather neuclear power is good or bad it's still non-renewable so it's no permanent solution to our energy problems.

[skyman8081]

If you're talking about Hydrogen Fuel Cells, it takes more energy to split the hydrogen out than it does to recombine them.

Simple thermodynamics.

[skyman8081]

Fair enough we need a replacement for fossil fuels as they're non-renewable but wheather neuclear power is good or bad it's still non-renewable so it's no permanent solution to our energy problems.

 100% renewables are not going to be a solution, there is always going to be something lost in the conversion of any kind of energy into useful electricity.

Fossil Fuels like coal and oil will run out, and unlike uranium, cannot be reprocessed back into useful fuel.

To think that the ENTIRE energy demands of the world can be met with non-renewables, is simply deluded and foolish.

Yes, uranium will run out with the open cycle, where uranium is used once and locked away.  But the closed loop cycle, in which spent uranium is reprocessed into useful fuel is incredibly efficient and most of the fuel is re-used, only the waste products from the fission reaction would get tossed into Yucca mountain.

[Lead Head]

not hydrogen fuel cells, I saw it in Popular Science but cant seem to find it on there website

[skyman8081]

Like I said, if it is solar, there is the inherent weakness of the fact that there are about 12-18 hours when it cannot be used at all.

[mobrien_12]

Correct, but they shouldn't be overstated.

You're right that rocketing it to the moon is a bad idea.  That's what Yucca Mountain is for.

And in the future, rocket it into the Sun.

You are right that Strontium-90 seepage is a problem, but one that can be solved.

Rocketing nuclear waste into space, now or in the future, is, to be blunt, a very stupid idea.

Space launches require enourmous amounts of energy just to get something into orbit.  Even more to get it out.  You going to spend billions of dollars to get rid of your nuclear waste?  No.  It is going to be stored on the Earth for a fraction of the money, whether or not it's good for us because that's the way things work in this world.  

And there is one other big problem.  Every once in a while, rockets explode.  Remember Challenger?  Don't kid yourself if you think it can't happen again.  If you start sending rockets up  on a regular basis to get rid of nuclear waste, there is a good chance that one of them is going to blow up and spread nuclear waste all over creation, as in a "dirty bomb."  The ecological damage and death toll would be enormous, worse than Chernobyl because the rocket would be high in the air and the prevailing winds would carry the radioactive debris all over the place.

[Lead Head]

also there us the risk that the container will come out of orbit and enter the atmosphere. They are working in a new thing on the existing holes that the waste is dumped, They are going to insert to thick electrodes in the gorund with the tips just below the hole. and they are somehow going to put a piece of grahpite between the to electrodes under the hole. They are going to power it up and leave it running for about a week, the graphite should get ultra hot and after the week is up turn the ground around it to glass stopping the radioactive waste from seeping