Gary Johnson.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2016, 05:03 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
Quote:It's in their best financial interest to avoid an environmental disaster like that.

It's not always in their financial interest to keep the building safe and secure as it should.
And what happens when the corporation is financial shit house? It was in Blackwater's best interest to not get it's people killed and actually spend the bit of dosh on armored vehicles needed for the situation yet that didn't happen because corners were cut.

Quote: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.

A tsunami cause by the earthquake.
The fact that it happens reinforces my point.

Quote: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

Because of the risks.

Quote:Where are you getting those numbers from? I got mine straight from the source, the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Your information is not wrong you are just reading it wrong.
This is a better graph to illustrate it.

[Image: LLNLUSEnergy2012.png]

The orange bar is what we're talking about here not the whole thing. You're using the stats wrong in the context of the conversation.
Homes use 10% of the total energy usage, which includes petrol. Homes use 33% (ish, they actually use more but w/e) of the electricity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2016, 05:21 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(12-06-2016 05:03 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:It's in their best financial interest to avoid an environmental disaster like that.

It's not always in their financial interest to keep the building safe and secure as it should.
And what happens when the corporation is financial shit house? It was in Blackwater's best interest to not get it's people killed and actually spend the bit of dosh on armored vehicles needed for the situation yet that didn't happen because corners were cut.

Quote: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.

A tsunami cause by the earthquake.
The fact that it happens reinforces my point.
I've read that both Japanese and U.S. officials issued warnings about the plant's vulnerability to tsunamis of a certain scale before it happened, warnings that were carelessly dismissed. This case does demonstrate that there's a need for stricter safety regulations from the government, I won't deny that. However, it's important to remember that they've already managed to eliminate earthquakes as a risk factor, now they only need to invest enough money into building higher flood walls that prevent the emergency power generators from being flooded in case of a massive tsunami. I haven't followed the case in Fukushima after the initial disaster, but I can't imagine that they aren't working on that to make sure that there's not a repeat incident.

(12-06-2016 05:03 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Because of the risks.
You're such a brat. There should be a better reason for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, don't you think?

(12-06-2016 05:03 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Your information is not wrong you are just reading it wrong.
This is a better graph to illustrate it.

[Image: LLNLUSEnergy2012.png]

The orange bar is what we're talking about here not the whole thing. You're using the stats wrong in the context of the conversation.
Homes use 10% of the total energy usage, which includes petrol. Homes use 33% (ish, they actually use more but w/e) of the electricity.
You're right. Point taken. Tongue

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2016, 06:44 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
Muffs -- you're barking up the wrong tree with solar panels.


It's like alcohol production for fuel.

The only reason it works -- is you're burning more fossil fuels to make the alcohol.

Solar panels simply do NOT offset the energy needed to produce them, with the limited power they supply. (The panels would have to last 100 years to be efficient. They don't. 10 years at best)

It's pouring money (kilowatts) down a rat hole.

.....

Hydro power? HELL YES!! Tidal pool capture? HELL YES!!

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2016, 09:16 PM
RE: Gary Johnson.
Quote:I've read that both Japanese and U.S. officials issued warnings about the plant's vulnerability to tsunamis of a certain scale before it happened, warnings that were carelessly dismissed. This case does demonstrate that there's a need for stricter safety regulations from the government, I won't deny that. However, it's important to remember that they've already managed to eliminate earthquakes as a risk factor, now they only need to invest enough money into building higher flood walls that prevent the emergency power generators from being flooded in case of a massive tsunami. I haven't followed the case in Fukushima after the initial disaster, but I can't imagine that they aren't working on that to make sure that there's not a repeat incident.

The other issue regarding that incident is that the Japanese government was/is not 100% transparent with what actually happened and how much radioactive material leaked and how much is still in the environment now.

The Japanese government is terrified of things that can embarrass them and this was a huge embarrassment.

We wont see the real and lasting effects of this incident for many years in cancer and birth defect statistics of the areas.

Quote:You're such a brat. There should be a better reason for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, don't you think?

If you can do it without the risks of radioactive material, why wouldn't you?
The ultimate goal should be to phase them out completely. There's no reason to have them if we can generate all our electricity needs from renewable sources.

It's like there's a reason why we stopped developing the steam engine.

Quote:Muffs -- you're barking up the wrong tree with solar panels.


It's like alcohol production for fuel.

The only reason it works -- is you're burning more fossil fuels to make the alcohol.

Solar panels simply do NOT offset the energy needed to produce them, with the limited power they supply. (The panels would have to last 100 years to be efficient. They don't. 10 years at best)

It's pouring money (kilowatts) down a rat hole.

a) Citation needed.

b) Even if true they are more environmentally friendly than non-renewable sources because non-renewable sources pollute for building the plant and for the entire life of the plant. Burning coal causes pollution. Nuclear power plants produce pollution. Etc... Solar does not. So it makes them more environmentally friendly.

But environment aside, they're still cheaper than other sources. It's way cheaper to install solar panels on your home, have it pay itself off in 2years and reduce your power bill for the next 10-20-30-whatever years by 70-100%. Compared to paying for power for the rest of your life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 06:08 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(12-06-2016 09:16 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:I've read that both Japanese and U.S. officials issued warnings about the plant's vulnerability to tsunamis of a certain scale before it happened, warnings that were carelessly dismissed. This case does demonstrate that there's a need for stricter safety regulations from the government, I won't deny that. However, it's important to remember that they've already managed to eliminate earthquakes as a risk factor, now they only need to invest enough money into building higher flood walls that prevent the emergency power generators from being flooded in case of a massive tsunami. I haven't followed the case in Fukushima after the initial disaster, but I can't imagine that they aren't working on that to make sure that there's not a repeat incident.

The other issue regarding that incident is that the Japanese government was/is not 100% transparent with what actually happened and how much radioactive material leaked and how much is still in the environment now.

The Japanese government is terrified of things that can embarrass them and this was a huge embarrassment.

We wont see the real and lasting effects of this incident for many years in cancer and birth defect statistics of the areas.

Quote:You're such a brat. There should be a better reason for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, don't you think?

If you can do it without the risks of radioactive material, why wouldn't you?
The ultimate goal should be to phase them out completely. There's no reason to have them if we can generate all our electricity needs from renewable sources.

It's like there's a reason why we stopped developing the steam engine.

Quote:Muffs -- you're barking up the wrong tree with solar panels.


It's like alcohol production for fuel.

The only reason it works -- is you're burning more fossil fuels to make the alcohol.

Solar panels simply do NOT offset the energy needed to produce them, with the limited power they supply. (The panels would have to last 100 years to be efficient. They don't. 10 years at best)

It's pouring money (kilowatts) down a rat hole.

a) Citation needed.

b) Even if true they are more environmentally friendly than non-renewable sources because non-renewable sources pollute for building the plant and for the entire life of the plant. Burning coal causes pollution. Nuclear power plants produce pollution. Etc... Solar does not. So it makes them more environmentally friendly.

But environment aside, they're still cheaper than other sources. It's way cheaper to install solar panels on your home, have it pay itself off in 2years and reduce your power bill for the next 10-20-30-whatever years by 70-100%. Compared to paying for power for the rest of your life.

You're not seeing the whole picture here..... Realize - that anyone who's buying solar panels "cheaply" -- is getting them with a government subsidy attached to them. If you actually PAY for solar panels - you'll find they are not cheap.

I've got solar panels - on my hunting blind. They are about 1 1/2 meters square - and produce at peak - about 45 watts of power. They cost about 150 dollars.

Lets do the math.

During the day - the panels will generate at best - 1/2 of a kilowatt/hour of power. (it's going to be less, that's based of course on 10 hours of peak sunshine).

So with electricity being commercially available at about 12 cents per kilowatt hour - you're generating 6 cents of electricity per day. (remember - in northern climes that's going to go way down in the winter... but we'll fudge and stick with the "best case" numbers)

At 6 cents a day - or 21.9 dollars a year -- it's going to take at BEST 6.84 years to pay the panels off....

Now -- I've had them up for 4 years -- and during that time - I've had to replace the controller module twice ---- once, it got hit by lightning - and once it simply quit working --- each time that added another 30 dollars to the cost......

Of course I use the panels mostly at night - for lighting -- so I need a battery --- and that's needed replacing once before - and needs replacing now......

Keep adding the money.............

Maybe if I get to 20 years and they're still working (unlikely) - I'll break even....

See the problem??

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: