| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
I guess this was inavoidable. And yes, I surely would never want to have the handling of nuclear waste left to a private company. But still, I cant believe that so many people apparently are surprised and now act as if this was coming completely out of the blue. I mean there are still people arguing about "cheap" nuclear power, when it is only cheap in the sense that talking a huge loan for yourself and leaving your kids to pay for it is net gain for you. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9233 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Could as well ask "if meat is so bad why are we eating lots of it?" I guess we're a little bad at making long term decisions sometimes | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On April 28 2016 06:25 Sent. wrote: If nuclear power is so bad then why most of the Western world is using it? In theory we'll have Generation IV reactors that can recycle the fuel and eliminate 99% of the waste. The technology just isn't ready yet and won't be available ever if we give up on nuclear power. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
nitram
Canada5412 Posts
| ||
|
Elizar
Germany431 Posts
On April 28 2016 10:42 nitram wrote: Coal has trace amounts of radioactive elements that get released when it is burned and actually produces more nuclear waste per megawatt than a nuclear reactor plant. oneofthem, I'm not sure if you said that ironically but its actually true. So what? Every piece of food you consume, be it from animals or plants, is radioactive as well. The human body can handle that. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4732 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11582 Posts
Everything is radioactive. Take a Geiger Counter and point it at random things, and you will always measure some radiation. The question is how much and what type of radiation. Do not take this as relativizing. There is obviously a large difference between a used uran rod and a banana. But both are radioactive. This means that just saying that coal is radioactive is not informative. Note that i have no idea how much more radioactive than the surroundings coal is. I am also not arguing that coal is not a bad power source. Coal is incredibly shitty. What i am saying is that your statement is not enough to warrant saying that coal is also a health hazard in a radioactive way, as opposed to simply a health hazard in a mundane way. The fact that there are increased cancer rates around coal power plants is also not sufficient to prove that statement. The very mundane pollution from the power plant can also be used to explain those cancer risks, nuclear radiation is not the only thing that causes cancer, lots of ash and whatever else comes from burning coal in the air is very capable of causing cancer by itself. I also don't think that a lot of people who argue against nuclear power would take the position of "we should replace it with coal" In a list of power sources we should get rid of, coal is probably on the top by far. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4732 Posts
a)fossil fuels b)nuclear c)hydropower (which is heavily constricted in terms of goegraphy). So when You close nuclearpower plant it is replaced by coal plant not "green" sources like some daydreamers imagine. And thats why the number of coalpowered blocks isnt falling in Europe, the climate for nuclear is bad and solar/wind isnt enough to replace them. So You really dont have an alternative in places like Silesia for example. And i am not talking bullshit. Acording to wiki ALL Solar Thermal Power Plants in the World have combined output of 4776MW this LOWER then ONE coal powered plant (bigest in Europe but still only one plant) ==> Bełchatów Coal Power Plant have 5420MW. It is around 20% of total Poland power output. To put it into perspective. ALL Solar power plants in the World (existing +planned) couldnt supply even medium sized country like Poland. Green energy isnt and in forseeable future will not be alternative to coal. Only nuclear and hydro can give output similiar to fossil fuel plant. So whenever You close nuclear plant do not decive Yourself, its not Green thats taking its place its coal (or natural gas). Links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bełchatów_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_thermal_power_stations List of coal powered power stations with output greater than 2000MW for comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal_power_stations and nuclear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations PS. This is even touching the issue of changing output during the day and year given changing winds/sun position and storing surplus energy for future. PS2.IMHO this should be the question: Do You want to pay for disopasal of nuclear waste or Do You want to inhale cheap coal ash?". | ||
zatic
Zurich15352 Posts
Also most solar is not generated by plants at all, but by rooftop installations. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10777 Posts
Meassuring only "Solar-Plants/fields" when talking about Solar is very ignorant. Solar has other issues because it doesn't work at night and our energy storage/batteries are not efficient enough, so we still Need Coal/Gas/Nuclear-Plants , at least if your country isn't REALLY good for Hydropower (or you don't like filling whole Valleys with wather  ). | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4732 Posts
@Velr like i said i am talking about industry. And straping Solar Panel on top of Your building isnt going to support a factory. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If it's so widespread, surely they figured out how to resolve these major issues that make them seem gimmicky. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4732 Posts
Economic cost really depends on governament subsidies (sometimes in forms of tax breaks or direct subsidies or development subsidies) varies a lot by country. Another factor is amount of sun You get in Your area, More Sun = More efficient panels. In Energy efficiency/ environment cost area: Up to recent times Solar Panels werent really efficient and building them costed more energy than they produced. Fortunately development in CVD and PVD area allowed cheap and fast production of panels. Still both PVD and CVD require a lot of energy but if You buy panel from mentioned technolgies and have sunny area You are finaly able to gain energy not lose (if You count entire panel production cost). So in short: choose panel made by new technology, get government subsidies and live in a sunny area. Edit: To clarify the effect of both PVD and CVD technology are "thin films" and i belive its marketed by this term. Mono (and Poly)crystaline Silicon based PV will never be truly energy efficient as production of high purity silicon requires tremendous amount of energy. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6237 Posts
On April 28 2016 21:39 Silvanel wrote: The problem is that in general there are only three energy sources able to support large industrial areas: a)fossil fuels b)nuclear c)hydropower (which is heavily constricted in terms of goegraphy). So when You close nuclearpower plant it is replaced by coal plant not "green" sources like some daydreamers imagine. And thats why the number of coalpowered blocks isnt falling in Europe, the climate for nuclear is bad and solar/wind isnt enough to replace them. So You really dont have an alternative in places like Silesia for example. And i am not talking bullshit. Acording to wiki ALL Solar Thermal Power Plants in the World have combined output of 4776MW this LOWER then ONE coal powered plant (bigest in Europe but still only one plant) ==> Bełchatów Coal Power Plant have 5420MW. It is around 20% of total Poland power output. To put it into perspective. ALL Solar power plants in the World (existing +planned) couldnt supply even medium sized country like Poland. Green energy isnt and in forseeable future will not be alternative to coal. Only nuclear and hydro can give output similiar to fossil fuel plant. So whenever You close nuclear plant do not decive Yourself, its not Green thats taking its place its coal (or natural gas). Links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bełchatów_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_thermal_power_stations List of coal powered power stations with output greater than 2000MW for comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal_power_stations and nuclear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations PS. This is even touching the issue of changing output during the day and year given changing winds/sun position and storing surplus energy for future. PS2.IMHO this should be the question: Do You want to pay for disopasal of nuclear waste or Do You want to inhale cheap coal ash?". There's a huge difference between fossil fuels though. Gas is a lot.less polluting. It's also gaining ground rapidly with the low prices. There's a reason the coal sector is in trouble right now. | ||
|
Yuljan
2196 Posts
On April 28 2016 22:06 LegalLord wrote: For someone who knows: How expensive is solar cell maintenance on a regular basis? Does it make solar cells reasonably cheap, cost-wise? I also believe that I've heard that their production is not exactly very "clean" - does their continued function offset this initial high pollution? If it's so widespread, surely they figured out how to resolve these major issues that make them seem gimmicky. Panels contain toxic waste material that will need to be properly cleansed after the panel stops function (roughly 20~25 years if we can believe the manfucturers.) Maintenance isnt very expensive and in solar plants itself cutting grass is the main task. For rooftop installation that is not necessary and most common maintenance costs are cleaning because of waste on the modules or damage from stones etc (should be covered by the manufacturer if you are lucky). For most people solar panels are not that cost effective. They definitely rely on government subsidies and they can get cut anytime so all your investments will get you a miniscule return on saved energy costs. Generally with a good subsidy feed in tariff, decent irradiation levels and optimal energy usage (i.e. mostly during hours when the sun is shining), you can get your investment back after roughly 10 years. As this relies on many assumptions for most people here (Germany), this will be around 17-18years and can be longer. So its quite unnattractive as a private investment if you dont get subsidies for the modules or tax benefits from credits that are used to pay for the modules. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4732 Posts
| ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
Or copper and other metallic materials for wind turbine generators for example. Hell, look up where coal comes from and the average life expectancy of a miner... | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
MaNa vs Harstem
ByuN vs TBD
HiGhDrA vs NightPhoenix
Iba vs Ziomek
TriGGeR vs MindelVK
Lemon vs TBD
YoungYakov vs PAPI
ArT vs sebesdes
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Map Test Tournament
OSC
Map Test Tournament
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Map Test Tournament
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
