I was saying we need real peace. Besides, I kick it back and smoke Drum, tobacco in its most meaningful form, like, I even wear shabby clothes and am growin my hair long, man!
Hey man! Ya gotta go with fanlike energy man! It's cleaner than toxic waste nuclear power shit man! By the way we need hippies for all the positives but real peace, not that faux pas shit man!
@666feather777890 Moody, lazy, of unstable temperament, he was deeply hostile towards his strict, authoritarian father and strongly attached to his indulgent, hard-working mother, whose death from cancer in December 1908 was a shattering blow to the adolescent Hitler.
@666feather777890 Founder and leader of the Nazi Party, Reich Chancellor and guiding spirit of the Third Reich from 1933 to 1945, Head of State and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, Adolf Hitler was born in Braunau am Inn, Austria, on 20 April 1889. The son of a fifty-two-year-old Austrian customs official, Alois Schickelgruber Hitler, and his third wife, a young peasant girl, Klara Poelzl, both from the backwoods of lower Austria, the young Hitler was a resentful, discontented child.
I've actually have been to Chernobyl; in fact outside of the Black Forest Area directly near pripyat the entire area looks more like a healthy wildreness park and the animals tested there for radioactivity on cumulative doses are quite healthy; in fact I find it a macabre form of humor that a regular american suburb means MORE destruction to the enviroment than the destruction of a fully functional reactor.
By 2050 fusion will be the source of most of the worlds energy.
This is not wishful thinking, it is simply a way of stating that all other forms of energy that are based on the use of finite fossil fuel sources must decline in the next few decades. This decline will provide a major impetus for the rapid increase in the utilization of Accelerator Driven Heavy Ion Fusion, a new form of energy.
Visit: Fusion Power Corporation and You Tube's - StarPower for Tomorrow! for a real education on fusion.
The tone here is too common: "use the power of the state to suppress other people's opinions, and to force ours on them at by force because we're smarter than than they are."
Meanwhile, the FREE MARKET approach simply takes considers the cost of managing risk, along with the savings from nuclear power.
And meanwhile if some minority is dead-against nukes, they can move to a place that has more expensive methods, if it's worth the extra cost to them.
Maybe we just all need to go back to school. Sometimes I wonder about that. How do you send people back to school that're in their 30's, 40's, 50's and so on?
No, they need to take a MANAGEMENT course, since only people with MANAGEMENT skills can properly determine operating-costs vs. risk-expenses to determine whether nukes are cost-effective.
Likewise, they can calculate the effect on property-values regarding average public attitudes toward living proximity, solving the "not in my backyard!" problem..
So that's the long and short of it: while most simply banter opinions and other factors, managers work with what counts: THE BOTTOM LINE.
Bhopal ring a bell? That's a chemical accident that killed many more people than the nuclear power industry to date. And if you want to pay 6X as much per Kwh than a nuke with unreliable power that can shut down when its the coldest part of winter (England 2009) than go for it.
This is a founding member of Greenpeace, at one time its president and chief scientific adviser, telling the world we need more nuclear power. How much more proof do you people need?
Renewable energy is the way of the future, and has huge business potential. We are creating leaders in the field of green energy every day. If you have the spirit and mindset to get out in the world and educate people about renewable energy, you have unlimited potential in this field.
@EpiDemic117 well not cheap yet but it's the only thing that'll be able to generate energy in the volumes near what oil has been able to produce. When the oil is gone either nearly everyone starves or we go nuclear. It'll be more expensive to do everything but it's better than having no energy at all, right? lol
Expensive infrastructure low running cost; versus all other methods of power generation where the infrastructure is cheap but it has expensive running costs (coal; wind; solar)
@52111centrumcz exactly what i was thinking. But the expensive infrastructure is cheaper than having to pay for high running costs over time. But maintenance on nuclear plants is also quite costly. Which still makes coal competitive.
Actually...its because of differing requirements. What comes out of coal plants as radioactive coal ash (all ash is radioactive to some degree) would be considered hazardous waste if it would come out of a nuke plant and it would have to be buried with full precautions. And all nuke plants are followed more closely than coal plants at cost to the nuke plant operator. If the demands on radioactive contamination remediation would be the same for both coal would be non-competitive.
Nuclear is not a silver bullet, or even necessary everywhere. Nuclear is not generally cost effective; its built on welfare for the rich; tax payers spend fortunes setting it up, parasite capitalists use it to milk us like farm animals. Nuclear is not as clean as ppl make out; it costs a lot of emissions & environmental dmg to mine & transport fuel, build roads and lines etc. I recon pro-nuke lobby is just after govt handouts with their green makeover.
@Tuathalful Total bullshit! Parasite capitalists are the ones opposing nuclear b/c they can milk us much better with "renewables" instead of actually producing useful amounts of energy as nuclear does and would.
@Tuathalful It may cost a lot to build and maintain but guess what? I'm sure less then $35 using the maxinum amount of Hydro a middle-class citizen can produce says that "Hey, Nuclear will help me SAVE ALOT OF MONEY!"
hydroelectric is a valid choice. if you dont how much energy can a hydroelectric powerplant produce, look up this two names: itaipu and the 3 throats. facts: a normal nuclear plant energy power is around 1mw or so, itaipu alone is around 10mw. think about that, and the fact that hydroelectric plants are TRULY renewable, unlike nuclear that depend on a mineral that is not that common and of course LIMITED.
@shreder89 Patently false. The SMALLEST nuclear power plant with only one reactor can generate 476 MWs of power generation and the largest has three reactors with the combined capacity of 3,825 MWs. The USA has 102 operational reactors that provide about 20% of the electricity needed. Coal Petroleum and natural gas combined has a whopping 10680 generators. See anything wrong with that? Go to the US EIA site and do some research.
hydroelectric: yes, nuclear: not even close. Man the thing isn´t wether nuclear plants are good or bad. The thing is that the uranium mines are running low and wont last more than 20 years. if you dont beleive me, you can look up the graphs of the remaining uranium mines in the US in the department of energy site. im not making up nothing here. If this is the future, the future will not be in america in 20 years. and that is not only here, all uranium mines are LIMITED,think about that.
Nuclear energy is probably the best source of energy there is! A compact source that can dish out huge amounts of power and does not emit CO2. In addition, the "waste" is really only another source of energy, as it can be reprocess and burn as fuel.
@andresfusion the french have made a uranium ball design that had no meltdowns and they reuse there fuel although i just hope no one will steal some plutonium and bomb my ass
@andresfusion First: Each kW/h from a NPP produces 65gram CO2. Second: Each kW/h from a NPP has a total cost of 3 USD. Out-of-the-poket cost are not real cost. The efficiency of NPPs (for 70% off-line) are below cole. Tremendious amounts of energy are necessary to run Uranitite mines, to extract the usabe U235 from it and run hundreds of dangerous, temporarily deposit facilities for thousands of years. Go back to school you ignorant.
Are you insane > NNPs in France are online 87% of the time. The EROEI of fuel put to run Uranium mine and the entire fuel enrichment process is 65:1 at the moment. The Russkies have solved the nuclear storage problem by placing a large portion of their cold war weapon manufacturing waste in a and old salt mine and collapsing it. The geology has been stable for 6 million years; expectations are the geology will remain stable for another 12 million years. Go take physics I.
@andresfusion First: Each kW/h from a NPP produces 65gram CO2. Second: Each kW/h from a NPP has a total cost of 3 USD. Out-of-the-poket costs are not real costs.
The efficiency of NPPs are below cole (NPPs are off-line 70% of the time). Tremendious amounts of energy are necessary for Uranitite extraction. The production of HEU is even more enegryconsuming. And finally run hundreds of dangerous, temporarily deposit facilities for thousands of years. What a shitty deal is that?
By 2050 fusion will be the source of most of the worlds energy.
This is not wishful thinking, it is simply a way of stating that all other forms of energy that are based on the use of finite fossil fuel sources must decline in the next few decades. This decline will provide a major impetus for the rapid increase in the utilization of Accelerator Driven Heavy Ion Fusion.
Visit Fusion Power Corporation and You Tube's - StarPower for Tomorrow! for a real education on fusion.
Chernobyl was a poorly run Russian plant during a hyper bad economic period, our plants are built safer and overall different. the US will probably never have anything like that. and don't try three mile island because no one got hurt and plants are now safer.
"even the parasites, pirates and counterfeiters on wall street"
A result of the fact that nuclear power plants are assets which are too long-lived for the sort of financing Wall Street provides. We must have a national bank (the Fed is not the same thing) and sovereign credit system to finance such very long-lived, multi-generational development projects.
Wall Street wouldn't have financed Hoover Dam or the TVA either, you know.
I'd prefer to reprocess the waste, as it makes little sense to throw away spent fuel which still contains 99% of its potentially useful energy. However, many other options exist. I don't recommend it, but crudely, we could simply put it back in the very same mines from whence it came after they've been exhausted.
Do you really think nuclear engineers are incompetents who can't figure out how to clean up their mess after they've powered your average home for a year on just 2-3 grams of material?
Luckily all nuclear material is stored on site. If we ever get the green light to reprocess spent rods, we will be able to power our nuclear reactors for over 30-40 years with already existing material. Not to mention how much it cuts down on nuclear waste.
finefilth; even if Chernobyl was sabotaged, whats your point?
If it wasn't our own gov't or just some generally angry East Europe faction I would actually point blame at the anti nuclear people trying to help their cause.
"hundreds of square miles of prime real estate are now uninhabitable"
Sure about that? Even technophobic green fascists have been surprised by how quickly the local environment has recovered. Moreover, the odds of meltdown and Chernobyl-type release of radiation at a US plant are about as great as the odds of shooting down an F-22 with a BB-gun.
"genetic material..."
True, but what of competing alternatives? Coal fires have released more radiation than all of the nuclear releases in history.
I would agree that nuclear is probably the best poison we get to pick from at this time.... My dad use to build nuke plants and made fantastic money while doing so.. there a lot of other stuff the energy people are keeping away from us........ I am sure you know this..
i sent the global free energy channel to you box .. theres a lot of good videos
I'll check them out. I've been following the recent breakthroughs in "cold fusion" low-energy nuclear reactions recently, and I'm quite impressed. The theory seems solid too... unless this is the most titanic hoax in recent history, I'd say they're definitely on to something big here. I mean, if it works, it's only a matter of time before someone open-sources the plans, effectively giving every person on the planet access to nearly-free, virtually limitless energy. It would change everything.
Whatever arguments there ARE FOR nuclear power, you destroyed them by mentioning the word "hippie", presumably in a derogatory sense, to describe some small, powerless culture. So, whoever titled this YouTube video has just hurt THEIR cause. Why not replace "hippie" with "Jew"? Why not start attacking Jews? (No, no one should do that, either.) I have never seen such rabid denial about what to do about nuclear waste. Solar, wind, some others, but not hydroelectric nor nuclear are the way to go.
All the Russian/US warheads that we use for our nuclear fuel would otherwise have to be disposed of in the same way that the nuclear fuel that we USE is.
So it makes sense to use it first, then dispose of it.
For the price of a VCR (YES) you can power your house for free permanently. ANY argument to the notion that we "need fuels" is an uneducated argument. However in fairness, if we "need fuel" then we already have an unlimited never exhaustible source in the form of WATER which can be created from thin air for that matter. Google Genepax. For crying out loud we can drive ALL of our cars on PISS!!!
RIP D.O.E.!!!! You have failed and will NOT succeed in permanent suppression of human progress!
I might add, Sweden IS closing down, they have recently closed one nuclear powerplant and have no plans about building new, i know because i`m from Sweden, second, you`re maybe right about three mile, but globaly you must remember Tjernobyl..and i may correct myself, nuclear powerplants are seriously dangerous if the worst case scenario happens. I`m not against N energy though, i just realize ressources are not endless so why not focus on green energy, the sooner the better!
Yes but ironically public opinion supports nuclear energy in sweden(according to NYtimes), so along with germany and Italy, sweden might reverse the decision they took in 1980. All the while France and Finland are building more, the UK is looking to expand their nuclear fleet as well. Not to mention the dozens of reactors China and India are building. I have nothing against renewables but their intermittent and not appropriate for all places, and do not have the capacity to meet our needs.
whatever you`re a hippie or not, nuclear powerplants are seriously dangerous if something goes wrong..take a look at Saudi Arabia, they get rich like hell from selling oil, what they`re doing now is building entire cities based on green energy, they`ve seen the future..oil, coal and nuclear plants will soon be stone age tech compared to what`s coming.
Nuclear power plants are not "seriously dangerous" their perfectly safe just look at the record there has only being one accident in the usa in which no one was hurt. Secondly we should not follow the example of Saudi arabia since their one of the major contributors to CO2 emission in the world I rather follow the example of countries with the least emissions like France, finland or sweden(which depend heavily on nuclear)
in 1980 a referendum was held in Sweden which decided that nuclear power should be phased out. The first reactor came offline in 1999, the second in 2005.
The remaining 10 reactors will all be shut down in the next few years, bringing to an end 40 years of nuclear history.
Sweden is going GREEN
As Sweden begins decommissioning its nuclear power plants, time is running out to find a way to make 9,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel safe for the next 100,000 years.
Yes but ironically public opinion supports nuclear energy in sweden(according to NYtimes), so along with germany and Italy, sweden might reverse the decision they took in 1980. All the while France and Finland are building more, the UK is looking to expand their nuclear fleet as well. Not to mention the dozens of reactors China and India are building.And the waste is not an issue, they are a number of proven engineered ways of deposing of the waste safely.
Saudi Arabia is probably supporting renewables because we will always be dependent on oil if we invest solely on renewables, since there is no way renewables alone can meet the need of today or tomorrow power needs.
I just look at the numbers. The amount of power we need today and the projected power we are going to need in the future. Then consider the very low share renewables contribute and any logical person realizes that we are going to need more power especially baseload if we are ought to not depend on coal for our future energy needs.
"Then consider the very low share renewables contribute"
And there is the flaw in your logic. What this sentence SHOULD read is "Then consider the very low share renewables CURRENTLY contribute"
Building new power sources is merely a matter of political will. Moving forward, how much easier will it be to get people to support many small, simple programs than fewer, large and complex programs?
The people that say renewables can't supply baseload are simply WRONG, it all a matter of WILL
NO is not a matter of WILL is a matter of FEASIBILITY, even if we invest billions of dollars with the best of intentions we could not today replace coal (which supplies 50% of our current electricity) with renewables. And our demand for power is only increasing doubling by 2050. We need huge amounts of cheap power to keep industry in our shores, and keep our economy going.
"even if we invest billions of dollars with the best of intentions we could not today replace coal (which supplies 50% of our current electricity) with renewables."
I think this statement is false -- Show me how I'm wrong.
Want to see some lateral thinking. Small, local power generation may be the future. Power efficient devices might be the norm. The need for baseline power can conceivably be reduced significantly in time.
hey BeondaPale i have lived for a long time in germany and i must say that the political will is not enough to make renewables a soultion, srsly, in germany its like the top topic at all, they are subsyding their powerplants with bilions of euros, and its still not working, the cost of this policy are truly enormous, and still the renewables provide less than 10% of all electricity, compare that to the nuclear energy in germany
lol they try to quit the nuclear energy for like 20 now, but they CANT, so they are forced to build additional coal power plants, and buy energy from neighbour countries I told you, that renewables are about 7% (mostly hydro) is this truly an alternative to nuclear energy? well and thats a really expensiv game for the germans, and they increase the subsydies from year to year, because, the wind and solar (yup solar is the true money-eater) are still not profitable
Too bad solar and wind are very very unreliable, and are at best localized power production capabilities. Even the solar paint would work on average maybe 25% of the time. Hydro is very damaging to the environment, which means nuclear is the only good option to have continuous and sustainable power.
2nd - WHICH Hydro tech is very damaging to the environment?
you people love your blanket statements
"Too bad solar and wind are very very unreliable, and are at best localized power production capabilities."
WHICH solar and wind is very very unreliable? and what is wrong with localized power production capabilities rather than huge centralized power sources?
Hydro technology in general. You build a dam, you flood thousands of acres of land and disrupt rivers. You build a wave generator, and you need miles of beech front to get enough kinetic energy. Thats just the way it is.
As for Solar and wind, electricity can only be transported maybe 400 miles from generation. A wind farm in N.Dakota can't power New York. Thats why you need to have a power system that works lots of places, not just under a few conditions. IOW, you're dishonest and a liar.
You need miles of beach front? Do you have any idea how much beach front there is on this planet. Have you even looked into the variety of wave generators that are possible before discounting every single last one of them out of hand?
WHERE did I lie?
I think YOU are the liar -- Where (for example) did you get the 25% of the time figure for solar paint - thin air or your backside?
but you'll still be wrong. Besides, While i'm sure you are well versed in the teletubies or something, you obviously know very little about energy production. As for the beech front, have you seen the hundreds of thousands of sq. miles of land there is to put a nuclear reactor on? They have less environmental impact than any other energy form. There is no industry attached to that, its just plain fact. If you can't handle it go back and watch sesame street.
IF - I can generate electricity FOR MYSELF, LOCALLY, (freeing myself from additional governmental control)
THEN - I am in an INFINITELY better position than having to pay highly government subsidized conglomerates through the nose to produce and transport energy to me at an overall increase in cost and less of a danger to future generations.
You're simply a dishonest man calling an honest man dishonest. I'll fight your industry BS with FACT all day long.
IF, you could, then go for it. Rid us of your unrelenting stupidity. Either way your little house won't be able to power a factory. And windmills won't either, and neither will solar. And you want to know where i got the 25% from? That's an average, you know (a+b)/2? The DOE evaluation says solar power is feasable at the most around 20-30% of the time, thus (20+30)/2 equals 25, but you know stuff like math must be "industry talk" so can't be right. Pull whatever numbers you want out
Calling someone stupid is as easy as it is meaningless. presenting a genuine argument takes a bit more skill.
Did the DOE evaluate solar paint OR panels from 1970? you said INCLUDING solar paint and were therefore dishonest.
Computers had an average speed of 166 MHz ... in 1996
Solar and the kinetic energy that results from solar are the single most abundant forms of energy in our solar system. It can be harnessed cleanly and easily. Calling THAT stupid is ...well ...stupid
Well, if you're going to invoke the solar system then you have to remember that the solar energy you are writing about is all produced by the nuclear process of fusion. It's all nuclear. Fission is the only practical answer until we have fusion.
@papcio Lol. Nuclear enegry is the most stupid, dangerous and ridiculous way of generating steam. Solar and wind are also ridiculous because weather dependent.
You could make yourself a bit smarter by researching geothermal energy. Why using a man made shit-technology which is more devastating than a war, when a solid, safe and well shielded reactor is running below our feet? I tell you why: Because geothermal is free while nuclear power is not. And you have no clue.
With today's advanced drilling technology and today's advanced geologic survey abilities (GREATLY advanced since just 2 decades ago)
Geothermal energy MAKES SENSE
The nuclear industry has lied from DAY ONE, nuclear power is poison, nuclear power encourages the growth of government and government secrecy. Nuclear power CAN NOT EXIST in the free market.
And in the long run, Nuclear power is the MOST expensive form of energy production the world has ever known
@MillyVanillification I like how you say ", when a solid, safe and well shielded reactor is running below our feet?" I'm not sure this is entirely an accurate statement, but I think conceptually you're sort of right. On the other hand, you're going to have ot back up your statements with math and you're going to have to convince the environmentalists that drilling is safe and clean.
@papcio The 17% of power produced by fission in germany is exported entirely. Germany doesn't need NPPs at all. I'm from Austria and we have banned NPPs in our constitution in 1978. Idiots around us have been bought by the nuclear-lobbyists. Nuclear power is heavily cross financed. Billions of taxpayer money per year are paid to run NPPs. The providers have zero risk. Fat business but not clean energy. NPPs are a legacy from the cold war.
You are so religious about nukes its very funny. If you didn't have the Czech Republic to the north, you would be out of power every winter. You are no longer self-sufficient in power generation.
Nuclear recycling is not TRUE recycling because even more radioactive waste is created in the process.
Further, there is no permanent waste disposal site for nuclear waste anywhere in the world. the only PROPOSED site at Yucca mountain would already be filled to the brim the moment it opened.
Not true recycling create less waste that decays in a couple hundred years instead of thousands of years if we dont recycle. But the advantage is that the waste is very small, if we recycle the waste of a family of four is less than a cup of coffee.
The cost of a commercial wind turbine is about1.2-2.5 million dollars per Mw. The cost of a nuclear power plant is about 1.0-2.0 Million dollars per Mw, and what do you think is easier and cheaper to operate: a thousand wind turbines, or a single 3000 Mw nuclear power plant?
Where do these figures come from and how are they calculated - Industry website?
The cost of generating nuclear power keeps adding on to itself for thousands of years - our children, their children and so on will pay for the storage and safety of the waste from the power we generated for ourselves.
Let's hope they can invent some way of getting rid of great grandpa's plutonium.
The waste is not really "waste" it still contains 90% of its energy and the nuclear industry pays for the decommission and waste control which are added to the price of power from a nuclear reactor.
Nuclear energy is one of the safest sources of energy around,No one in the USA has been hurt by a nuclear reactor not even in TMI. It's much safer than coal or any other fossil fuel and hydro is good but we are running out of suitable places to built them.
Wave and tidal power sounds interesting, but I dont know much about it, has it ever been done in mass scale? what kind of power can you generate? how about maintenance how far does it have to be from populated areas? and one last question would it harm fish or fishing communities?
My apologies for being an environmental elitist, but I care too much about the preservation of open spaces to support paving over them with hundreds of square miles of photovoltaics. As an environmentalist, I believe that perturbing natural landscapes is an unacceptable environmental trade-off of renewables. The right-wingers at Green Peace preventing real environmental change need to be stopped. It's time to rapidly deploy nuclear energy in the US if we are to save the environment.
We smoke, we drink, we eat junk food, we play dangerous sports, we drive, we eat the peanuts from that bowl at the pub and we don't wash our hands after going to the bathroom.
The united states has never had a single fatality related to nuclear power (not even at TMI). The Soviet Union would not have any if Chernobyl simply had a containment dome.
Also, I would like to note that coal power plants actually release trace amounts of radioactive particles into the air, nuclear plants usually don't except in rare cases and accidents
I meant that Theres never been a fatality related to nuclear power industry in America. The SL1 reactor was an experimental reactor used by the military. All powerplants are naturally safer since they have proven designs. The safety standards are far higher than at SL1.
People enjoy junk food, even though they know it's dangerous. But Nuclear energy makes people scared, even though living near a nuclear power plant is much safer than eating junk food.
You're right, I know for a fact that highly skilled labor must be hired to watch over every thing very very very very carefully, just in case there is some unforeseen catastrophic accident of some kind.
And I know that highly skilled labor like this will be needed around the clock for 100's of thousands of years.
JOB SECURITY!!!
Now, go back to Google or any real estate site and look up home prices near nuclear power plants - you will find that I'm correct
there are plenty of places to store it, and it is also possible to recycle it. We have found a solution, but anti-nukes don't seem to want that solution.
I just don't understand the logic of it. As far as I know it's NOT LOGICAL.
Why would ANYONE choose to create energy from something so potentially dangerous and so poisonous, when alternatives that are perfectly safe and not poisonous at all could do the same thing?
Your assumption of "something so potentially dangerous and so poisonous" is not logical. Since you stated "as far as I know", this implies you have something to learn. Are you willing to learn new things and keep your mind open? If yes, information is available, if no, then there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise.
I'll try, first google "forbes magazine brownout". Then you'll realize how much energy we are going to need and how much is supplied by wind is 1% and solar is 0.01%. You are underestimating the amount of steady power a nuclear power plant can produce and also how safe it really is. Search the new reactors that are coming online,generation 4 reactor and Fusion reactors and you'll realize the huge potential this technology has.If we dont embrace nuclear we are going to end up with more coalplants
1% is supplied by wind NOW and 0.01% is supplied by solar NOW
But building new plants regardless of how the power is produced is always an act of political will. Alternative energies are massively popular and have a natural political impetus behind them.
I live in Louisiana -- Waterford 3 (unit 3) supplies 1,152 MW which means we'd have to put about 1,152 anaconda wave units (1 MW) each in lake Pontchartrain or maybe along the Mississippi River to supply the same amount.
It takes about 3000 high powered wind turbines over an area of... well a lot of area to produce the same amount of electricity as the nuclear plant in Cattenom, France, And do you know how "potentially dangerous" nuclear power is?
The risk of being killed from a radiation leak from a nuclear power station is 1/10.000.000. You are more likely to get killed in a coal-mine cave-in.
I can't post the website on a comment for some reason so i'll send it as a message, and if you don't think the source is reliable enough you can calculate it yourself.
Each Enercon E-126 wind turbine delivers up to 6MW, but for the sake of argument lets say it would deliver 3MW. That means it would take 1816 of them to give you as much power as those 4 reactors in France.
But it would be far better for the French if they would replicate what they've done with the La Rance Tidal Power station 25 times. La Rance generates 240 megawatts of power and new plants could probably could deliver a whole lot more with recent advances in tidal technology
It's easy to make nuclear power plants completely safe, just put a thick enough containment dome around the reactor and it becomes completely safe. Wind energy is good but wind turbines can't be built everywhere and neither can solar, tidal, geothermal or hydroelectric plants, but nuclear plants can be built almost everywhere. Decomissioning the Niederaichbach nuclear plant cost 90 million euros, by the way, newer nuclear power plants can last up to 60 years, not 30.
"wind turbines can't be built everywhere and neither can solar, tidal, geothermal or hydroelectric plants"
Solar is going nanotech. Check out companies like Nanosolar. Nanosolar has developed a material of metal oxide nanowires that can be SPRAYED ON as a liquid onto a plastic substrate where it self-assembles into a photovoltaic film. Want power? Paint your building.
Hydroelectric is WAVE POWER - Are we in danger of running out of waves anytime soon?
Wave power is just like wind power, except it is more expensive. Nanosolar looks very good but there is a problem, during the wintwer in northern countries sunlight only lasts for a few hours, not very useful there. But we have been discussing many energy sources and many of them look promising. I don't think there is going to be an energy crisis, we got plenty of alternative sources than Oil, coal and gas.
Btw, my first comment was only to end a common misunderstanding.
"during the wintwer in northern countries sunlight only lasts for a few hours,"
yes.... and during the summer months it lasts far longer -- check out ceramic nontoxic ultracapacitor technology - power storage on steroids. Plus in northern countries the wind naturally blows more consistently and stronger.
I was talking about another type of a wave powerplant but this "anaconda" looks very good, although it can't produce power when the sea is calm.
But you are wrong about the winds in the north, I'm Icelandic and the weather here in Iceland is very unpredictable and Violent, wind turbines would deteriorate very fast. And in Siberia, metal can become fragile due to low temperatures.
Siemens installed the first offshore wind farm off the coast of Denmark last year. It uses 3.6 MW turbines - The Burbo Wind Farm. The farm was completed in only a month and a half. Siemens has now set up enough wind power stations to produce about 12 percent of the total electricity for Denmark.
Like the blades on an airplane, these modern turbines can withstand hurricane force winds and temperatures as low as -50F.
Let me tell you how Icelandic winters are. During the day, it often rains and the temperature is about 40F, when night falls it drops to 20F, it can go on like this for weeks. A weather like that would cause metal fatigue. Safety of nuclear energy depends on how safe you want it to be. Chernobyl didn't have a containment dome, but the generation IV nuclear plant being built in finland has a double containment dome and a fire extinguishing system, it's also possible to make them earthquake proof.
Like I said, The turbines at the Burbo Wind Farm have been designed to withstand high winds and frigid conditions AT SEA for the next 40 years.
"it's also possible to make them earthquake proof."
Pray you're right on this one. With nuclear energy you have to be 100% correct, 100% of the time.
as I said an earthquake damaged the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuke in Japan last year. The damage was minor, but the plant was not close to the epicenter. THAT plant was SUPPOSED to be earthquake proof too.
"but nuclear plants can be built almost everywhere."
I'm not so sure. in 2007 an earthquake hit Japan's west coast. At the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant, 3 of the plant's generators had to be shut down and the damage caused the plant to leak 315 gallons of radioactive water to flow into the Sea of Japan. The plant was not near the epicenter
Similarly, California's nukes must be built to withstand earthquakes - but have never been tested in a big one. I can only pray that they never will.
you gave me a dead link, but no matter, your numbers sound about right I suppose.
This nuke plant in Cattenom, France is a pretty big huh, 4 reactors - 5,448 MW Impressive. It was built in 1979 -- getting pretty close to its decommission date. Did you know that decommissioning the Brennilis Nuke, a fairly small 70 MW power plant has already cost 480 millions Euros - 20x the estimate costs?
As these things go down the French are going to be in a real pickle
I was saying we need real peace. Besides, I kick it back and smoke Drum, tobacco in its most meaningful form, like, I even wear shabby clothes and am growin my hair long, man!
Hoobifta 3 days ago
Hey man! Ya gotta go with fanlike energy man! It's cleaner than toxic waste nuclear power shit man! By the way we need hippies for all the positives but real peace, not that faux pas shit man!
Hoobifta 3 days ago
Sell out. Ugh.
otisntobielynn 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@666feather777890 Moody, lazy, of unstable temperament, he was deeply hostile towards his strict, authoritarian father and strongly attached to his indulgent, hard-working mother, whose death from cancer in December 1908 was a shattering blow to the adolescent Hitler.
DeadOzone 2 months ago
@666feather777890 Founder and leader of the Nazi Party, Reich Chancellor and guiding spirit of the Third Reich from 1933 to 1945, Head of State and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, Adolf Hitler was born in Braunau am Inn, Austria, on 20 April 1889. The son of a fifty-two-year-old Austrian customs official, Alois Schickelgruber Hitler, and his third wife, a young peasant girl, Klara Poelzl, both from the backwoods of lower Austria, the young Hitler was a resentful, discontented child.
DeadOzone 2 months ago
@666feather777890 You nazis always go on about wars don't you Lisa?
PopesOfDullNazi 3 months ago
Nuclear energy is a fossil fuel.
Just saying.
BadMadChicken 3 months ago
@666feather777890
I've actually have been to Chernobyl; in fact outside of the Black Forest Area directly near pripyat the entire area looks more like a healthy wildreness park and the animals tested there for radioactivity on cumulative doses are quite healthy; in fact I find it a macabre form of humor that a regular american suburb means MORE destruction to the enviroment than the destruction of a fully functional reactor.
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
@666feather777890
If you can link any credible individual that says that more than 50 thousand people died as a direct result of Chernobyl I'll eat my socks.
Fukushima has killed one person so far; a technician that has had a heart attack as a result of physical strain.
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
By 2050 fusion will be the source of most of the worlds energy.
This is not wishful thinking, it is simply a way of stating that all other forms of energy that are based on the use of finite fossil fuel sources must decline in the next few decades. This decline will provide a major impetus for the rapid increase in the utilization of Accelerator Driven Heavy Ion Fusion, a new form of energy.
Visit: Fusion Power Corporation and You Tube's - StarPower for Tomorrow! for a real education on fusion.
hhelsley 5 months ago
The tone here is too common: "use the power of the state to suppress other people's opinions, and to force ours on them at by force because we're smarter than than they are."
Meanwhile, the FREE MARKET approach simply takes considers the cost of managing risk, along with the savings from nuclear power.
And meanwhile if some minority is dead-against nukes, they can move to a place that has more expensive methods, if it's worth the extra cost to them.
Likewise, scientists can CONVINCE, not FORCE.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
Comment removed
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
Maybe we just all need to go back to school. Sometimes I wonder about that. How do you send people back to school that're in their 30's, 40's, 50's and so on?
gukonni 5 months ago
@gukonni
You DON'T-- they do it THEMSELVES according to subjective personal cost-benefit considerations.
When you stop learning, you die anyway.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
I feel very similarly about things. Sometimes I wonder if it was that physics class I took....
I'm not sure it's trust people need, or respect, or less partisanship. Maybe they just need to enroll in a physics class.
gukonni 5 months ago
@gukonni
No, they need to take a MANAGEMENT course, since only people with MANAGEMENT skills can properly determine operating-costs vs. risk-expenses to determine whether nukes are cost-effective.
Likewise, they can calculate the effect on property-values regarding average public attitudes toward living proximity, solving the "not in my backyard!" problem..
So that's the long and short of it: while most simply banter opinions and other factors, managers work with what counts: THE BOTTOM LINE.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
I've yet to hear of a city being evacuated because of an accident at a wind farm...
SteveAstronaut 5 months ago
@SteveAstronaut
Bhopal ring a bell? That's a chemical accident that killed many more people than the nuclear power industry to date. And if you want to pay 6X as much per Kwh than a nuke with unreliable power that can shut down when its the coldest part of winter (England 2009) than go for it.
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
This is a founding member of Greenpeace, at one time its president and chief scientific adviser, telling the world we need more nuclear power. How much more proof do you people need?
drright71 7 months ago
Renewable energy is the way of the future, and has huge business potential. We are creating leaders in the field of green energy every day. If you have the spirit and mindset to get out in the world and educate people about renewable energy, you have unlimited potential in this field.
Find me @fundgreenpower on twitter
havenjm 9 months ago
It's cheap clean safe energy.
Esoparagon 1 year ago
@Esoparagon well definatly NOT cheap to build haha. But safe and clean yes!
EpiDemic117 11 months ago
@EpiDemic117 well not cheap yet but it's the only thing that'll be able to generate energy in the volumes near what oil has been able to produce. When the oil is gone either nearly everyone starves or we go nuclear. It'll be more expensive to do everything but it's better than having no energy at all, right? lol
Esoparagon 11 months ago
@EpiDemic117
Expensive infrastructure low running cost; versus all other methods of power generation where the infrastructure is cheap but it has expensive running costs (coal; wind; solar)
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
@52111centrumcz exactly what i was thinking. But the expensive infrastructure is cheaper than having to pay for high running costs over time. But maintenance on nuclear plants is also quite costly. Which still makes coal competitive.
tehatemachine 3 months ago
@tehatemachine
Actually...its because of differing requirements. What comes out of coal plants as radioactive coal ash (all ash is radioactive to some degree) would be considered hazardous waste if it would come out of a nuke plant and it would have to be buried with full precautions. And all nuke plants are followed more closely than coal plants at cost to the nuke plant operator. If the demands on radioactive contamination remediation would be the same for both coal would be non-competitive.
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Esoparagon
"It's cheap clean safe energy."
...except when it's not
BeondaPale 10 months ago
Whatch "Albtraum Atommüll"
And you will start to get away from nuclear energy
In fact we have no choise. We need to build and develop this energy to meet energy reguirements.
You just can't have a save place for 10 thounsands of years. for high radioactive waste.
wastecontainers have exploded in russia 1957 when hole rivers over hundreds of miles are radiating highly until the next century.
look for Handford too.
Next thing about nuke energy is possible and practical efficieny...
Tritonium2k7 1 year ago
Godwin@2:40
DasKrabbe 1 year ago
Doesn't the energy cost of producing fissible materials limit the gain of nuclear energy?
Phoboskomboa 1 year ago
Engineers FTW.
AspiringPotato 1 year ago
Nuclear is not a silver bullet, or even necessary everywhere. Nuclear is not generally cost effective; its built on welfare for the rich; tax payers spend fortunes setting it up, parasite capitalists use it to milk us like farm animals. Nuclear is not as clean as ppl make out; it costs a lot of emissions & environmental dmg to mine & transport fuel, build roads and lines etc. I recon pro-nuke lobby is just after govt handouts with their green makeover.
Tuathalful 1 year ago
@Tuathalful Total bullshit! Parasite capitalists are the ones opposing nuclear b/c they can milk us much better with "renewables" instead of actually producing useful amounts of energy as nuclear does and would.
dubistverrueckt 1 year ago
@dubistverrueckt Capitalists know they can make more from Power Plants then renewables. Your logic is flawed.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
@Tuathalful It may cost a lot to build and maintain but guess what? I'm sure less then $35 using the maxinum amount of Hydro a middle-class citizen can produce says that "Hey, Nuclear will help me SAVE ALOT OF MONEY!"
Jesus, your a dumbass.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
hydroelectric is a valid choice. if you dont how much energy can a hydroelectric powerplant produce, look up this two names: itaipu and the 3 throats. facts: a normal nuclear plant energy power is around 1mw or so, itaipu alone is around 10mw. think about that, and the fact that hydroelectric plants are TRULY renewable, unlike nuclear that depend on a mineral that is not that common and of course LIMITED.
shreder89 1 year ago
@shreder89 Patently false. The SMALLEST nuclear power plant with only one reactor can generate 476 MWs of power generation and the largest has three reactors with the combined capacity of 3,825 MWs. The USA has 102 operational reactors that provide about 20% of the electricity needed. Coal Petroleum and natural gas combined has a whopping 10680 generators. See anything wrong with that? Go to the US EIA site and do some research.
HoOkEdOnBlEaCh 1 year ago
hydroelectric: yes, nuclear: not even close. Man the thing isn´t wether nuclear plants are good or bad. The thing is that the uranium mines are running low and wont last more than 20 years. if you dont beleive me, you can look up the graphs of the remaining uranium mines in the US in the department of energy site. im not making up nothing here. If this is the future, the future will not be in america in 20 years. and that is not only here, all uranium mines are LIMITED,think about that.
shreder89 1 year ago
@shreder89 Canada had enough Uraninum to supply Earth for 100 years.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
Foolish children!!
Starpremie 1 year ago
go nuclear. it is awesome. comment on my channel
professornuclearbomb 1 year ago
Nuclear energy is probably the best source of energy there is! A compact source that can dish out huge amounts of power and does not emit CO2. In addition, the "waste" is really only another source of energy, as it can be reprocess and burn as fuel.
andresfusion 1 year ago 4
@andresfusion the french have made a uranium ball design that had no meltdowns and they reuse there fuel although i just hope no one will steal some plutonium and bomb my ass
geekforlifevandc 1 year ago
@andresfusion If you like plutonium poisoning and billions of gallons of spent fuel and radioactive waste... not worth it.
jenaardell 1 year ago
how is waste reprocessed. Thank you for your time.
Tonyzzz7
Tonyzzz7 10 months ago
@andresfusion First: Each kW/h from a NPP produces 65gram CO2. Second: Each kW/h from a NPP has a total cost of 3 USD. Out-of-the-poket cost are not real cost. The efficiency of NPPs (for 70% off-line) are below cole. Tremendious amounts of energy are necessary to run Uranitite mines, to extract the usabe U235 from it and run hundreds of dangerous, temporarily deposit facilities for thousands of years. Go back to school you ignorant.
MillyVanillification 9 months ago
@MillyVanillification
Are you insane > NNPs in France are online 87% of the time. The EROEI of fuel put to run Uranium mine and the entire fuel enrichment process is 65:1 at the moment. The Russkies have solved the nuclear storage problem by placing a large portion of their cold war weapon manufacturing waste in a and old salt mine and collapsing it. The geology has been stable for 6 million years; expectations are the geology will remain stable for another 12 million years. Go take physics I.
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
@andresfusion First: Each kW/h from a NPP produces 65gram CO2. Second: Each kW/h from a NPP has a total cost of 3 USD. Out-of-the-poket costs are not real costs.
The efficiency of NPPs are below cole (NPPs are off-line 70% of the time). Tremendious amounts of energy are necessary for Uranitite extraction. The production of HEU is even more enegryconsuming. And finally run hundreds of dangerous, temporarily deposit facilities for thousands of years. What a shitty deal is that?
MillyVanillification 9 months ago
@andresfusion Yeah, best to wipe out your country as seen in Japan
GeekBoy03 5 months ago
@andresfusion
By 2050 fusion will be the source of most of the worlds energy.
This is not wishful thinking, it is simply a way of stating that all other forms of energy that are based on the use of finite fossil fuel sources must decline in the next few decades. This decline will provide a major impetus for the rapid increase in the utilization of Accelerator Driven Heavy Ion Fusion.
Visit Fusion Power Corporation and You Tube's - StarPower for Tomorrow! for a real education on fusion.
hhelsley 5 months ago
Watch Lyndon Larouche and his web side!
elizzzluv 2 years ago
Comment removed
finefilth 2 years ago
Chernobyl was a poorly run Russian plant during a hyper bad economic period, our plants are built safer and overall different. the US will probably never have anything like that. and don't try three mile island because no one got hurt and plants are now safer.
VisitingXenoc133 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
finefilth 2 years ago
"even the parasites, pirates and counterfeiters on wall street"
A result of the fact that nuclear power plants are assets which are too long-lived for the sort of financing Wall Street provides. We must have a national bank (the Fed is not the same thing) and sovereign credit system to finance such very long-lived, multi-generational development projects.
Wall Street wouldn't have financed Hoover Dam or the TVA either, you know.
offsprng46 2 years ago
POINT WELL TAKEN
finefilth 2 years ago
what do you do with the waste or the site when its past usefulness?
finefilth 2 years ago
I'd prefer to reprocess the waste, as it makes little sense to throw away spent fuel which still contains 99% of its potentially useful energy. However, many other options exist. I don't recommend it, but crudely, we could simply put it back in the very same mines from whence it came after they've been exhausted.
Do you really think nuclear engineers are incompetents who can't figure out how to clean up their mess after they've powered your average home for a year on just 2-3 grams of material?
offsprng46 2 years ago 3
Luckily all nuclear material is stored on site. If we ever get the green light to reprocess spent rods, we will be able to power our nuclear reactors for over 30-40 years with already existing material. Not to mention how much it cuts down on nuclear waste.
Madjacker08 2 years ago
i have read rumors of sabotage at chernyobl for political purposes
finefilth 2 years ago
finefilth; even if Chernobyl was sabotaged, whats your point?
If it wasn't our own gov't or just some generally angry East Europe faction I would actually point blame at the anti nuclear people trying to help their cause.
VisitingXenoc133 2 years ago
Comment removed
finefilth 2 years ago
Comment removed
finefilth 2 years ago
"hundreds of square miles of prime real estate are now uninhabitable"
Sure about that? Even technophobic green fascists have been surprised by how quickly the local environment has recovered. Moreover, the odds of meltdown and Chernobyl-type release of radiation at a US plant are about as great as the odds of shooting down an F-22 with a BB-gun.
"genetic material..."
True, but what of competing alternatives? Coal fires have released more radiation than all of the nuclear releases in history.
offsprng46 2 years ago
I would agree that nuclear is probably the best poison we get to pick from at this time.... My dad use to build nuke plants and made fantastic money while doing so.. there a lot of other stuff the energy people are keeping away from us........ I am sure you know this..
i sent the global free energy channel to you box .. theres a lot of good videos
finefilth 2 years ago
I'll check them out. I've been following the recent breakthroughs in "cold fusion" low-energy nuclear reactions recently, and I'm quite impressed. The theory seems solid too... unless this is the most titanic hoax in recent history, I'd say they're definitely on to something big here. I mean, if it works, it's only a matter of time before someone open-sources the plans, effectively giving every person on the planet access to nearly-free, virtually limitless energy. It would change everything.
offsprng46 2 years ago
its for real...big energy rules this place
finefilth 2 years ago
Whatever arguments there ARE FOR nuclear power, you destroyed them by mentioning the word "hippie", presumably in a derogatory sense, to describe some small, powerless culture. So, whoever titled this YouTube video has just hurt THEIR cause. Why not replace "hippie" with "Jew"? Why not start attacking Jews? (No, no one should do that, either.) I have never seen such rabid denial about what to do about nuclear waste. Solar, wind, some others, but not hydroelectric nor nuclear are the way to go.
j97hou6 2 years ago
Allow me to put it this way:
All the Russian/US warheads that we use for our nuclear fuel would otherwise have to be disposed of in the same way that the nuclear fuel that we USE is.
So it makes sense to use it first, then dispose of it.
startrekern 2 years ago
don't you guys think you're being a little harsh on russia? didn't russia have like lighthouses that had their own individual nuclear reactor?
SymAmineC8H11N 3 years ago
Not only because of "cheaply making", but from a completely different way of working.
Hey! If a reactor can heat more up if coolant is gone, there a catastrophy is preprogrammed.
The RBMK has no brakes in a specific status.
Also with "western" security it's able to get out of control.
Not in such a magnitude. Even more it will end up as a molten piece of waste.
Chaoschemiker 3 years ago
For the price of a VCR (YES) you can power your house for free permanently. ANY argument to the notion that we "need fuels" is an uneducated argument. However in fairness, if we "need fuel" then we already have an unlimited never exhaustible source in the form of WATER which can be created from thin air for that matter. Google Genepax. For crying out loud we can drive ALL of our cars on PISS!!!
RIP D.O.E.!!!! You have failed and will NOT succeed in permanent suppression of human progress!
GenXFuturist101 3 years ago
eng here, I also see nuclear power as the only true alternative to fossile fules
papcio 3 years ago
careful what you say generation happens humanly and phisicaly
lainey500 3 years ago
I might add, Sweden IS closing down, they have recently closed one nuclear powerplant and have no plans about building new, i know because i`m from Sweden, second, you`re maybe right about three mile, but globaly you must remember Tjernobyl..and i may correct myself, nuclear powerplants are seriously dangerous if the worst case scenario happens. I`m not against N energy though, i just realize ressources are not endless so why not focus on green energy, the sooner the better!
fyrnifede 3 years ago
Yes but ironically public opinion supports nuclear energy in sweden(according to NYtimes), so along with germany and Italy, sweden might reverse the decision they took in 1980. All the while France and Finland are building more, the UK is looking to expand their nuclear fleet as well. Not to mention the dozens of reactors China and India are building. I have nothing against renewables but their intermittent and not appropriate for all places, and do not have the capacity to meet our needs.
andresfusion 3 years ago
Chernobyl lacked a containment building, thus it had no protection against the steam explosion.
FermentingMadness 3 years ago
whatever you`re a hippie or not, nuclear powerplants are seriously dangerous if something goes wrong..take a look at Saudi Arabia, they get rich like hell from selling oil, what they`re doing now is building entire cities based on green energy, they`ve seen the future..oil, coal and nuclear plants will soon be stone age tech compared to what`s coming.
fyrnifede 3 years ago
Nuclear power plants are not "seriously dangerous" their perfectly safe just look at the record there has only being one accident in the usa in which no one was hurt. Secondly we should not follow the example of Saudi arabia since their one of the major contributors to CO2 emission in the world I rather follow the example of countries with the least emissions like France, finland or sweden(which depend heavily on nuclear)
andresfusion 3 years ago
in 1980 a referendum was held in Sweden which decided that nuclear power should be phased out. The first reactor came offline in 1999, the second in 2005.
The remaining 10 reactors will all be shut down in the next few years, bringing to an end 40 years of nuclear history.
Sweden is going GREEN
As Sweden begins decommissioning its nuclear power plants, time is running out to find a way to make 9,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel safe for the next 100,000 years.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Yes but ironically public opinion supports nuclear energy in sweden(according to NYtimes), so along with germany and Italy, sweden might reverse the decision they took in 1980. All the while France and Finland are building more, the UK is looking to expand their nuclear fleet as well. Not to mention the dozens of reactors China and India are building.And the waste is not an issue, they are a number of proven engineered ways of deposing of the waste safely.
andresfusion 3 years ago
"And the waste is not an issue, they are a number of proven engineered ways of deposing of the waste safely."
And yet there is not a single, permanent disposal site in the entire world -- why?
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Saudi Arabia is probably supporting renewables because we will always be dependent on oil if we invest solely on renewables, since there is no way renewables alone can meet the need of today or tomorrow power needs.
andresfusion 3 years ago
"there is no way renewables alone can meet the need of today or tomorrow power needs."
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
BeondaPale 3 years ago
I just look at the numbers. The amount of power we need today and the projected power we are going to need in the future. Then consider the very low share renewables contribute and any logical person realizes that we are going to need more power especially baseload if we are ought to not depend on coal for our future energy needs.
andresfusion 3 years ago
"Then consider the very low share renewables contribute"
And there is the flaw in your logic. What this sentence SHOULD read is "Then consider the very low share renewables CURRENTLY contribute"
Building new power sources is merely a matter of political will. Moving forward, how much easier will it be to get people to support many small, simple programs than fewer, large and complex programs?
The people that say renewables can't supply baseload are simply WRONG, it all a matter of WILL
BeondaPale 3 years ago
NO is not a matter of WILL is a matter of FEASIBILITY, even if we invest billions of dollars with the best of intentions we could not today replace coal (which supplies 50% of our current electricity) with renewables. And our demand for power is only increasing doubling by 2050. We need huge amounts of cheap power to keep industry in our shores, and keep our economy going.
andresfusion 3 years ago
"even if we invest billions of dollars with the best of intentions we could not today replace coal (which supplies 50% of our current electricity) with renewables."
I think this statement is false -- Show me how I'm wrong.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
@andresfusion fusion will
the sun produces generates more energy in a second using fusion,than what the usa would require to run for a million years!
Even if we could harness a billionth of that,the world would improve so much!
captinseperoth 1 year ago
Want to see some lateral thinking. Small, local power generation may be the future. Power efficient devices might be the norm. The need for baseline power can conceivably be reduced significantly in time.
Tuathalful 1 year ago
hey BeondaPale i have lived for a long time in germany and i must say that the political will is not enough to make renewables a soultion, srsly, in germany its like the top topic at all, they are subsyding their powerplants with bilions of euros, and its still not working, the cost of this policy are truly enormous, and still the renewables provide less than 10% of all electricity, compare that to the nuclear energy in germany
papcio 3 years ago 7
What? Germany has committed itself to phasing out nuclear power by 2022. How is it not working?
BeondaPale 3 years ago
lol they try to quit the nuclear energy for like 20 now, but they CANT, so they are forced to build additional coal power plants, and buy energy from neighbour countries I told you, that renewables are about 7% (mostly hydro) is this truly an alternative to nuclear energy? well and thats a really expensiv game for the germans, and they increase the subsydies from year to year, because, the wind and solar (yup solar is the true money-eater) are still not profitable
papcio 3 years ago 6
Well, luckily solar, wind and hydro technologies are advancing very quickly. Check out "nanosolar paint", paint your house to power it.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Too bad solar and wind are very very unreliable, and are at best localized power production capabilities. Even the solar paint would work on average maybe 25% of the time. Hydro is very damaging to the environment, which means nuclear is the only good option to have continuous and sustainable power.
UKRentor1605 3 years ago
"Hydro is very damaging to the environment"
1st - Compared to nuclear - lol
2nd - WHICH Hydro tech is very damaging to the environment?
you people love your blanket statements
"Too bad solar and wind are very very unreliable, and are at best localized power production capabilities."
WHICH solar and wind is very very unreliable? and what is wrong with localized power production capabilities rather than huge centralized power sources?
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Hydro technology in general. You build a dam, you flood thousands of acres of land and disrupt rivers. You build a wave generator, and you need miles of beech front to get enough kinetic energy. Thats just the way it is.
As for Solar and wind, electricity can only be transported maybe 400 miles from generation. A wind farm in N.Dakota can't power New York. Thats why you need to have a power system that works lots of places, not just under a few conditions. IOW, you're dishonest and a liar.
UKRentor1605 3 years ago 2
You need miles of beach front? Do you have any idea how much beach front there is on this planet. Have you even looked into the variety of wave generators that are possible before discounting every single last one of them out of hand?
WHERE did I lie?
I think YOU are the liar -- Where (for example) did you get the 25% of the time figure for solar paint - thin air or your backside?
BeondaPale 3 years ago
but you'll still be wrong. Besides, While i'm sure you are well versed in the teletubies or something, you obviously know very little about energy production. As for the beech front, have you seen the hundreds of thousands of sq. miles of land there is to put a nuclear reactor on? They have less environmental impact than any other energy form. There is no industry attached to that, its just plain fact. If you can't handle it go back and watch sesame street.
UKRentor1605 3 years ago 2
"They have less environmental impact than any other energy form."
I take issue with this statement and would like to know how you arrived at this "fact"
I'm sure a definitive answer will NOT be forthcoming.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
IF - I can generate electricity FOR MYSELF, LOCALLY, (freeing myself from additional governmental control)
THEN - I am in an INFINITELY better position than having to pay highly government subsidized conglomerates through the nose to produce and transport energy to me at an overall increase in cost and less of a danger to future generations.
You're simply a dishonest man calling an honest man dishonest. I'll fight your industry BS with FACT all day long.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
IF, you could, then go for it. Rid us of your unrelenting stupidity. Either way your little house won't be able to power a factory. And windmills won't either, and neither will solar. And you want to know where i got the 25% from? That's an average, you know (a+b)/2? The DOE evaluation says solar power is feasable at the most around 20-30% of the time, thus (20+30)/2 equals 25, but you know stuff like math must be "industry talk" so can't be right. Pull whatever numbers you want out
UKRentor1605 3 years ago 3
Calling someone stupid is as easy as it is meaningless. presenting a genuine argument takes a bit more skill.
Did the DOE evaluate solar paint OR panels from 1970? you said INCLUDING solar paint and were therefore dishonest.
Computers had an average speed of 166 MHz ... in 1996
Solar and the kinetic energy that results from solar are the single most abundant forms of energy in our solar system. It can be harnessed cleanly and easily. Calling THAT stupid is ...well ...stupid
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Well, if you're going to invoke the solar system then you have to remember that the solar energy you are writing about is all produced by the nuclear process of fusion. It's all nuclear. Fission is the only practical answer until we have fusion.
KohnanTB 3 years ago
OR we could use the NATURAL FUSION reactor we ALREADY have, whose vast energy is readily available if only we would choose to use it.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
@papcio Lol. Nuclear enegry is the most stupid, dangerous and ridiculous way of generating steam. Solar and wind are also ridiculous because weather dependent.
You could make yourself a bit smarter by researching geothermal energy. Why using a man made shit-technology which is more devastating than a war, when a solid, safe and well shielded reactor is running below our feet? I tell you why: Because geothermal is free while nuclear power is not. And you have no clue.
MillyVanillification 9 months ago 2
@MillyVanillification
With today's advanced drilling technology and today's advanced geologic survey abilities (GREATLY advanced since just 2 decades ago)
Geothermal energy MAKES SENSE
The nuclear industry has lied from DAY ONE, nuclear power is poison, nuclear power encourages the growth of government and government secrecy. Nuclear power CAN NOT EXIST in the free market.
And in the long run, Nuclear power is the MOST expensive form of energy production the world has ever known
BeondaPale 8 months ago
@MillyVanillification I like how you say ", when a solid, safe and well shielded reactor is running below our feet?" I'm not sure this is entirely an accurate statement, but I think conceptually you're sort of right. On the other hand, you're going to have ot back up your statements with math and you're going to have to convince the environmentalists that drilling is safe and clean.
gukonni 5 months ago
@papcio The 17% of power produced by fission in germany is exported entirely. Germany doesn't need NPPs at all. I'm from Austria and we have banned NPPs in our constitution in 1978. Idiots around us have been bought by the nuclear-lobbyists. Nuclear power is heavily cross financed. Billions of taxpayer money per year are paid to run NPPs. The providers have zero risk. Fat business but not clean energy. NPPs are a legacy from the cold war.
MillyVanillification 9 months ago
@MillyVanillification
You are so religious about nukes its very funny. If you didn't have the Czech Republic to the north, you would be out of power every winter. You are no longer self-sufficient in power generation.
52111centrumcz 3 months ago
Problem: earthquakes cause damage to nuclear power plants.
Solution: replace the nuke plants with geothermal power plants.
Problem: the nuclear industry causes serious damage to the environment.
Solution: Build containment domes around the reactors, recycle the radioactive waste and put it back into the mines.
problem: uranium is running out
solution: harvest the uranium from the ocean.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
It's possible to recycle the radioactive waste and to use plutonium as a reactor fuel.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
Nuclear recycling is not TRUE recycling because even more radioactive waste is created in the process.
Further, there is no permanent waste disposal site for nuclear waste anywhere in the world. the only PROPOSED site at Yucca mountain would already be filled to the brim the moment it opened.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Not true recycling create less waste that decays in a couple hundred years instead of thousands of years if we dont recycle. But the advantage is that the waste is very small, if we recycle the waste of a family of four is less than a cup of coffee.
andresfusion 3 years ago
I got the numbers from two websites, windustry doot org and nuclearinfo doot net
(I wrote doot instead of using a period because youtube seems to think I'm gonna spam)
Stefnir94 3 years ago
As a thought, both industry or advocacy websites. the numbers may very well be unreliable on one or both
BeondaPale 3 years ago
OK tell me, Is there ANY completely reliable source of information on the Internet?
Most of that "more waste" can be used as reactor fuel and the little left can be put back into the uranium mines, problem solved
Stefnir94 3 years ago
Well, maybe we shouldn't build nukes in the circum-Pacific seismic belt, but we can however build geothermal power plants there.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
The cost of a commercial wind turbine is about1.2-2.5 million dollars per Mw. The cost of a nuclear power plant is about 1.0-2.0 Million dollars per Mw, and what do you think is easier and cheaper to operate: a thousand wind turbines, or a single 3000 Mw nuclear power plant?
Stefnir94 3 years ago
Where do these figures come from and how are they calculated - Industry website?
The cost of generating nuclear power keeps adding on to itself for thousands of years - our children, their children and so on will pay for the storage and safety of the waste from the power we generated for ourselves.
Let's hope they can invent some way of getting rid of great grandpa's plutonium.
It's a form of taxation without representation
BeondaPale 3 years ago
The waste is not really "waste" it still contains 90% of its energy and the nuclear industry pays for the decommission and waste control which are added to the price of power from a nuclear reactor.
andresfusion 3 years ago
"and the nuclear industry pays for the decommission and waste control which are added to the price of power from a nuclear reactor."
For how long do they pay for it? The first 100 years, the first 1000 years, or the first 10,000 years?
BeondaPale 3 years ago
nuclear energy? IT'S TOO DANGEROUS!
hydro energy it good.
kiwi0800 3 years ago
Nuclear energy is one of the safest sources of energy around,No one in the USA has been hurt by a nuclear reactor not even in TMI. It's much safer than coal or any other fossil fuel and hydro is good but we are running out of suitable places to built them.
andresfusion 3 years ago
hydro is also WAVE and tidal power -- we gonna run out of ocean waves or tides? Is nuclear cleaner than wind solar or wave?
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Wave and tidal power sounds interesting, but I dont know much about it, has it ever been done in mass scale? what kind of power can you generate? how about maintenance how far does it have to be from populated areas? and one last question would it harm fish or fishing communities?
andresfusion 3 years ago
My apologies for being an environmental elitist, but I care too much about the preservation of open spaces to support paving over them with hundreds of square miles of photovoltaics. As an environmentalist, I believe that perturbing natural landscapes is an unacceptable environmental trade-off of renewables. The right-wingers at Green Peace preventing real environmental change need to be stopped. It's time to rapidly deploy nuclear energy in the US if we are to save the environment.
joshuaki3 3 years ago
Do a little research on the next big thing - Photovoltaic PAINT -- that's right paint your house to power it.
Space problem solved.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
We smoke, we drink, we eat junk food, we play dangerous sports, we drive, we eat the peanuts from that bowl at the pub and we don't wash our hands after going to the bathroom.
But nuclear energy? NOOOO! IT'S TOO DANGEROUS!
Stefnir94 3 years ago 2
The united states has never had a single fatality related to nuclear power (not even at TMI). The Soviet Union would not have any if Chernobyl simply had a containment dome.
Also, I would like to note that coal power plants actually release trace amounts of radioactive particles into the air, nuclear plants usually don't except in rare cases and accidents
mmysama 3 years ago
I was being ironic, I thought I was obvious enough, but I guess It's hard to read irony.
I support nuclear energy.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
LIES! SL-1...
ibach80 3 years ago
I meant that Theres never been a fatality related to nuclear power industry in America. The SL1 reactor was an experimental reactor used by the military. All powerplants are naturally safer since they have proven designs. The safety standards are far higher than at SL1.
mmysama 3 years ago
Eating junk food is comparable to nuclear power.
...right
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Let me explain this to you.
People enjoy junk food, even though they know it's dangerous. But Nuclear energy makes people scared, even though living near a nuclear power plant is much safer than eating junk food.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
If only living near one was the only problem.
Let me ask you and please answer honestly -
Would YOU would prefer to:
A.) Have a nuclear power plant built in your nieghborhood
OR....
B) Eat Cheeto's?
Maybe NOW you can see how ridiculous the comparison is.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
I'm talking about obesity, not a single snickers bar. Btw, I'd choose A).
Stefnir94 3 years ago
lol - I'm fairly certain you hold a minority opinion in your neighborhood
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Obesity involves PERSONAL CHOICE -- You can't do a damn thing about having a nuke near your house except move.
But since you chose A, enjoy your lower property values -- they fell like a rock while you were sleeping and now you can't AFFORD Cheeto's
You're a WINNER!!!!! LOL
BeondaPale 3 years ago
There is much less unemployment and a much better economy near nuclear power stations than in most other places. Google it if you don't believe me.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
You're right, I know for a fact that highly skilled labor must be hired to watch over every thing very very very very carefully, just in case there is some unforeseen catastrophic accident of some kind.
And I know that highly skilled labor like this will be needed around the clock for 100's of thousands of years.
JOB SECURITY!!!
Now, go back to Google or any real estate site and look up home prices near nuclear power plants - you will find that I'm correct
BeondaPale 3 years ago
The only reason the home prices near the plants are low is because people don't know nuclear energy is very safe.
now, wealth and low unemployment + low land prices, isn't that what most people want?
Stefnir94 3 years ago
An economy built on poison - UTOPIA
BeondaPale 3 years ago
you mean the poison that is covered with tons of concrete? Yup!
Stefnir94 3 years ago
Yeah that and later when it's the some poison we have to store and keep secure until hell freezes over.
No need for ANY of it with alternatives
BeondaPale 3 years ago
there are plenty of places to store it, and it is also possible to recycle it. We have found a solution, but anti-nukes don't seem to want that solution.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
I just don't understand the logic of it. As far as I know it's NOT LOGICAL.
Why would ANYONE choose to create energy from something so potentially dangerous and so poisonous, when alternatives that are perfectly safe and not poisonous at all could do the same thing?
Please explain it to me.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Your assumption of "something so potentially dangerous and so poisonous" is not logical. Since you stated "as far as I know", this implies you have something to learn. Are you willing to learn new things and keep your mind open? If yes, information is available, if no, then there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise.
jasbcor 3 years ago
"Your assumption of "something so potentially dangerous and so poisonous" is not logical."
How is this not logical? Are you saying that nuclear energy is NOT potentially dangerous and NOT poisonous?
"Since you stated "as far as I know", this implies you have something to learn."
No it doesn't. Everybody, everywhere, regardless of education or how much knowledge they acquire will ALWAYS have something to learn.
Instead, what I'm saying (clearly) is that I don't see how you are being logical.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
I don't have the space or time to explain to you why it isn't logical, you can do the research on your own and educate yourself.
jasbcor 3 years ago
I'll try, first google "forbes magazine brownout". Then you'll realize how much energy we are going to need and how much is supplied by wind is 1% and solar is 0.01%. You are underestimating the amount of steady power a nuclear power plant can produce and also how safe it really is. Search the new reactors that are coming online,generation 4 reactor and Fusion reactors and you'll realize the huge potential this technology has.If we dont embrace nuclear we are going to end up with more coalplants
andresfusion 3 years ago
1% is supplied by wind NOW and 0.01% is supplied by solar NOW
But building new plants regardless of how the power is produced is always an act of political will. Alternative energies are massively popular and have a natural political impetus behind them.
I live in Louisiana -- Waterford 3 (unit 3) supplies 1,152 MW which means we'd have to put about 1,152 anaconda wave units (1 MW) each in lake Pontchartrain or maybe along the Mississippi River to supply the same amount.
TOTALLY FEASIBLE
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Generation 4 plants ARE less dangerous. But alternatives have virtually no safety issues AT ALL - again it comes down to logic.
BTW, If and when fusion comes out I'll probably support it fully -- but only after assessing it
BeondaPale 3 years ago
It takes about 3000 high powered wind turbines over an area of... well a lot of area to produce the same amount of electricity as the nuclear plant in Cattenom, France, And do you know how "potentially dangerous" nuclear power is?
The risk of being killed from a radiation leak from a nuclear power station is 1/10.000.000. You are more likely to get killed in a coal-mine cave-in.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
I really need to know where you get such numbers
BeondaPale 3 years ago
I can't post the website on a comment for some reason so i'll send it as a message, and if you don't think the source is reliable enough you can calculate it yourself.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
Each Enercon E-126 wind turbine delivers up to 6MW, but for the sake of argument lets say it would deliver 3MW. That means it would take 1816 of them to give you as much power as those 4 reactors in France.
But it would be far better for the French if they would replicate what they've done with the La Rance Tidal Power station 25 times. La Rance generates 240 megawatts of power and new plants could probably could deliver a whole lot more with recent advances in tidal technology
BeondaPale 3 years ago
It's easy to make nuclear power plants completely safe, just put a thick enough containment dome around the reactor and it becomes completely safe. Wind energy is good but wind turbines can't be built everywhere and neither can solar, tidal, geothermal or hydroelectric plants, but nuclear plants can be built almost everywhere. Decomissioning the Niederaichbach nuclear plant cost 90 million euros, by the way, newer nuclear power plants can last up to 60 years, not 30.
Stefnir94 3 years ago 2
"wind turbines can't be built everywhere and neither can solar, tidal, geothermal or hydroelectric plants"
Solar is going nanotech. Check out companies like Nanosolar. Nanosolar has developed a material of metal oxide nanowires that can be SPRAYED ON as a liquid onto a plastic substrate where it self-assembles into a photovoltaic film. Want power? Paint your building.
Hydroelectric is WAVE POWER - Are we in danger of running out of waves anytime soon?
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Wave power is just like wind power, except it is more expensive. Nanosolar looks very good but there is a problem, during the wintwer in northern countries sunlight only lasts for a few hours, not very useful there. But we have been discussing many energy sources and many of them look promising. I don't think there is going to be an energy crisis, we got plenty of alternative sources than Oil, coal and gas.
Btw, my first comment was only to end a common misunderstanding.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
Why is "Wave power is just like wind power, except it is more expensive."
Check out the "Anaconda" extremely cheap.
watch?v=VamSAbwgJKk
BeondaPale 3 years ago
"during the wintwer in northern countries sunlight only lasts for a few hours,"
yes.... and during the summer months it lasts far longer -- check out ceramic nontoxic ultracapacitor technology - power storage on steroids. Plus in northern countries the wind naturally blows more consistently and stronger.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
I was talking about another type of a wave powerplant but this "anaconda" looks very good, although it can't produce power when the sea is calm.
But you are wrong about the winds in the north, I'm Icelandic and the weather here in Iceland is very unpredictable and Violent, wind turbines would deteriorate very fast. And in Siberia, metal can become fragile due to low temperatures.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
Nope sorry.
Siemens installed the first offshore wind farm off the coast of Denmark last year. It uses 3.6 MW turbines - The Burbo Wind Farm. The farm was completed in only a month and a half. Siemens has now set up enough wind power stations to produce about 12 percent of the total electricity for Denmark.
Like the blades on an airplane, these modern turbines can withstand hurricane force winds and temperatures as low as -50F.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Let me tell you how Icelandic winters are. During the day, it often rains and the temperature is about 40F, when night falls it drops to 20F, it can go on like this for weeks. A weather like that would cause metal fatigue. Safety of nuclear energy depends on how safe you want it to be. Chernobyl didn't have a containment dome, but the generation IV nuclear plant being built in finland has a double containment dome and a fire extinguishing system, it's also possible to make them earthquake proof.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
Like I said, The turbines at the Burbo Wind Farm have been designed to withstand high winds and frigid conditions AT SEA for the next 40 years.
"it's also possible to make them earthquake proof."
Pray you're right on this one. With nuclear energy you have to be 100% correct, 100% of the time.
as I said an earthquake damaged the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuke in Japan last year. The damage was minor, but the plant was not close to the epicenter. THAT plant was SUPPOSED to be earthquake proof too.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Again: the safety of the plant depends on how safe you want it to be.
It's 1 A.M over here, good night.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
sleep well
BeondaPale 3 years ago
"but nuclear plants can be built almost everywhere."
I'm not so sure. in 2007 an earthquake hit Japan's west coast. At the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant, 3 of the plant's generators had to be shut down and the damage caused the plant to leak 315 gallons of radioactive water to flow into the Sea of Japan. The plant was not near the epicenter
Similarly, California's nukes must be built to withstand earthquakes - but have never been tested in a big one. I can only pray that they never will.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
you gave me a dead link, but no matter, your numbers sound about right I suppose.
This nuke plant in Cattenom, France is a pretty big huh, 4 reactors - 5,448 MW Impressive. It was built in 1979 -- getting pretty close to its decommission date. Did you know that decommissioning the Brennilis Nuke, a fairly small 70 MW power plant has already cost 480 millions Euros - 20x the estimate costs?
As these things go down the French are going to be in a real pickle
BeondaPale 3 years ago
The French export over 3 billion euros worth of electricity per year. That's more than making up for whatever cost overruns you state.
jasbcor 3 years ago 2
That's a tree. Now let's look at the forest.
As I said, all the nukes are going to have to be decommissioned and decommission