Gary Johnson.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-06-2016, 08:01 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
I'm running out for the day but will try to find the original links I read later and will post them.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 10:27 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
Quote:Tell me. If the power goes off at your place are you a. happy that the environment is getting saved a little? b. Pissed off with the power company?

c. It never goes off. And this city is powered by hydro.
When I lived in the Wellington the whole city (and the city up the road a little) was/is powered by wind turbines.

If the power goes out it's not because there's not enough nuclear power.

And personal power generation is perfect for this situation anyway. What happens when the grid goes down? Nothing, because your solar panel is powering your house.
Imagine if the whole power grid was generated by power generated by private building owners. Rather than 1 company with 1 plant you have 100,000 buildings (or however many) producing power. What happens when one has a fault? Nothing, the other 99,9999 have it covered.

Quote:If you can't get petrol for your car are you a. Happy that the environment is getting saved a little? b. Pissed off?

I ride a bicycle. And if the gas station was out of gas I'd just go to the next one.
I don't see what this has to do with nuclear power plants leaking radioactive material.

Quote:We are a huge population of humans who have needs. You physically can't support the population without energy in some form - oil, gas, solar, whatever. Even if you say that boiling a kettle is now illegal, you need to get food to supermarkets, operate industry... Telling people to get used to saving power is ridiculous - you might cut demand by 20%, but the demand still outstrips supply.

It's not about getting people to save power. It's about FORCING people to save power. If you legislate so large home appliances have to meet certain energy efficient requirements people have no choice but to buy an energy efficient home appliance. If you legislate so all new homes have to have solar panels, 40 years from now when that house is sold to it's 2nd or 3rd family, those people are reaping the benefits of personally generated power.

I see it the same way that we legislate many environmental things now. eg: car emissions. Or how we legislate certain things must meet certain safety requirements. Why not legislate things to meet certain energy efficiency rating?
There's no reason why we can't.

Quote:Any mine is pretty environmentally unfriendly. Including the ones that will be required to supply the raw materials for making solar panels.

Not radioactive though. And once made it's made, you don't need to keep mining the raw material required for it to operate. (because you can't mine sunlight)

Quote:As I said, it's a good goal and tech may get there eventually, but right now and for the foreseeable future it is *not* there.

Yes it is.
This isn't 6 years ago. There are many homes now that easily fulfill all their energy needs with solar panels. Now is the time to make these sorts of legislation. Now is NOT the time to go around spamming nuclear power plants.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 11:32 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(11-06-2016 02:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 10:49 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Nuclear plants in America are designed to withstand (in theory) a direct hit from an airliner.

Sure wouldn't want to stress-test it, though.

So were the towers.
"yea but they did survive the plane crash, it's the fire that destroyed the building"
The fire started by the airplanes. They didn't survive the airplanes.

And are they going to remain structurally secure for their life time?
What about a bomber? Or heaven forbid a missile?

Hence my closing line, and the parenthetical caveat. They're in that post for a reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 11:33 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(11-06-2016 02:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  60 years isn't a long time in the grand scheme of things.
Not to mention what happened in Japan and there have been many minor disasters, mostly environmental ones. Put it this way, no one had gassed 6million Jews prior to the 30's-40's.

It's not fear mongering. Fear mongering is saying if you let gays marry the world would implode. These are legit concerns. The consequences of nuclear anything can be catastrophic why can I not question them?
I think you can and should question them, but it becomes a problem when you exaggerate a concern to overblown proportions. We have been using nuclear energy for 60 years in over 400 nuclear power plants and there has only ever been one catastrophe caused by human error in a reactor which, by the way, was outdated even back then because it didn't have a proper containment structure to prevent the melting fuel from leaking to the outside. The incident in Fukushima, ironically enough, only goes to show how incredibly secure nuclear power plants are today. It took two natural disasters of epic proportions to cause a crisis and even then we managed to avert the worst of it.

Here's the bottom line: There are many valid concerns about nuclear energy, I agree with that, but the solution is not to abandon the concept entirely. The solution is to do what humanity has always done in these sort of situations, which is to address these concerns through the development of more advanced technologies. The scientists who are working in this field are already working on developing entirely new reactor concepts such as the liquid fluoride thorium reactor that cannot meltdown in the traditional sense because the fuel is already in a liquid state during normal operation. The technologies we use today are very secure and are only going to become more secure as time goes on.

(11-06-2016 02:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  In the immediate short term we don't have a better option (like, the next 10years).
That's what I'm saying, that's why we need to pass green reform now such as making all new homes have certain green standards (double glazing, insulation, solar panels), offering incentives for existing building owners, putting restrictions on large home appliances that must meet efficiency standards etc.. etc..

I'm not saying shut down all nuclear power plants NOW. I'm saying we need to phase them out and we need to start today. You don't fix the issue with 1 thing, you fix it with many things.
I get that you mean well, but you really need to look at the numbers to get an idea of how unfeasible your solution is. Let's start with the fact that in the US, for instance, residential and commercial energy use combined only make up a measly 10% of the whole. The entire US population could stop using electricity in their homes today and it still wouldn't put a bump in the demand because the vast majority of it comes from the industrial, electrical and transportation sectors. You would need to build millions upon millions of solar panels to match the energy output of even the smallest nuclear power plant, which is about 11,496 MWh. There are over 60 of these in the US with the largest one generating a whopping 94,488 MWh of electricity. All this is not even mentioning the fact that solar energy is very unreliable in comparison to nuclear energy which is a big argument against using it in these sectors.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 01:14 PM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2016 01:20 PM by morondog.)
RE: Gary Johnson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricit...lectricity

So when I start to feel a bit outta my depth Wikipedia is my first port of call...

Quote:Many governments around the world provide subsidies to offset the higher cost of any new power production, and to make the installation of renewable energy systems economically feasible. However, their use is frequently limited by their intermittent nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermitte...rgy_source

Quote:The use of small amounts of intermittent power has little effect on grid operations. Using larger amounts of intermittent power may require upgrades or even a redesign of the grid infrastructure.[15][16]

It's maybe a bit more advanced than I thought, Muffs, but it's not as straightforward as you portray either.

ETA:
Quote:The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chairman Jon Wellinghoff has stated that "baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism" and that no new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States.[99][100] Some renewable electricity sources have identical variability to coal-fired power stations, so they are base-load, and can be integrated into the electricity supply system without any additional back-up.

Consider Maybe you're right... Maybe.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 10:56 PM
RE: Gary Johnson.
Quote:I think you can and should question them, but it becomes a problem when you exaggerate a concern to overblown proportions.

The "overblown proportions" are radiation leaks which can cause birth defects and cancer not to mention making certain areas completely uninhabitable.

When you're looking at those sorts of extremely serious risks, no amount of "what if.." could be "overblown proportion".

Quote:We have been using nuclear energy for 60 years in over 400 nuclear power plants and there has only ever been one catastrophe caused by human error in a reactor which, by the way, was outdated even back then because it didn't have a proper containment structure to prevent the melting fuel from leaking to the outside.

I'm well aware Chernobyl was one dickheads fault with shitty soviet technology. I'm not pointing to Chernobyl as a poster child of what will happen.

But it is a good example of what COULD go wrong.
You say the tech was outdated, how long before all of todays nuclear power plants are outdated? Do you trust the government/corporations to ensure they stay 100% up-to-date for the remainder of their life time?

And my biggest concern, after terrorism, is not the plants themselves but the entire supply chain. There have been many "small" accidents regarding nuclear material.

Quote:The incident in Fukushima, ironically enough, only goes to show how incredibly secure nuclear power plants are today. It took two natural disasters of epic proportions to cause a crisis and even then we managed to avert the worst of it.

In this part of the world a tsunami is part of an earthquake. It's not "two major natural disasters" it's one because they're linked.
And large earthquakes happen far often than you think they do. Especially in this part of the world.

Quote:I agree with that, but the solution is not to abandon the concept entirely.

Yes it is. The solution is to phase it out over time until we're at the point where we don't need to rely on it at all. That's exactly the solution.

Quote:I get that you mean well, but you really need to look at the numbers to get an idea of how unfeasible your solution is. Let's start with the fact that in the US, for instance, residential and commercial energy use combined only make up a measly 10% of the whole.

No that's flat out wrong. Households make up about a third, commercial make up about a third and industrial make up the final third.
In regards to electricity consumption households make up the biggest third followed by commercial with industry bringing up the rear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 11:03 PM
RE: Gary Johnson.
Quote:The use of small amounts of intermittent power has little effect on grid operations.

Because the amount of solar panels on homes right now is very small.
If they were phased into every building over a period of 20 years or something they would make a huge difference. Especially with where solar technology would be in that time with that level of demand (because when there's high demand the R&D gets done quicker).


There are solar power plants that can run 24/7. The liquid that is heated by the solar panels that turns the turbines is a special liquid that retains heat extremely well and takes a very long time to cool down. So by the time it's cooled down the next day has rolled on by and it's heating up again meaning it never cools down meaning it generates power 24/7.

It's technology like that that is making solar more and more viable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2016, 12:17 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
Well we'll see... we desperately need a clean energy solution. For me nuclear is that, but maybe solar and the rest can do as you say. I'm happy to wait and see.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2016, 12:23 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
I think leaving fossil fuels will be a matter of using several other generating sources. Shocking, I know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2016, 04:28 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(11-06-2016 10:56 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  The "overblown proportions" are radiation leaks which can cause birth defects and cancer not to mention making certain areas completely uninhabitable.

When you're looking at those sorts of extremely serious risks, no amount of "what if.." could be "overblown proportion".

I'm well aware Chernobyl was one dickheads fault with shitty soviet technology. I'm not pointing to Chernobyl as a poster child of what will happen.

But it is a good example of what COULD go wrong.
You say the tech was outdated, how long before all of todays nuclear power plants are outdated? Do you trust the government/corporations to ensure they stay 100% up-to-date for the remainder of their life time?

And my biggest concern, after terrorism, is not the plants themselves but the entire supply chain. There have been many "small" accidents regarding nuclear material.
I don't know what else I can say to say to change your mind about whether or not the risks outweigh the benefits so we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Just for the record, I do trust the corporations to ensure that there won't be another Chernobyl. It's in their best financial interest to avoid an environmental disaster like that.

(11-06-2016 10:56 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  In this part of the world a tsunami is part of an earthquake. It's not "two major natural disasters" it's one because they're linked.
And large earthquakes happen far often than you think they do. Especially in this part of the world.
You're right, Japan does experience frequent earthquakes. That's exactly why their nuclear power plants are built to withstand them. It was the massive tsunami that caused the power outage which ultimately led to the disaster at Fukushima.

(11-06-2016 10:56 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Yes it is. The solution is to phase it out over time until we're at the point where we don't need to rely on it at all. That's exactly the solution.
Why do you think we should abandon nuclear energy instead of increasing the safety of the process? And don't say "because of the risks" because my whole point is that we're going to eliminate them one day. Dodgy

(11-06-2016 10:56 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  No that's flat out wrong. Households make up about a third, commercial make up about a third and industrial make up the final third.
In regards to electricity consumption households make up the biggest third followed by commercial with industry bringing up the rear.
Where are you getting those numbers from? I got mine straight from the source, the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: