Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Toronto Star)   Chernobyl roof collapses under snow. EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY CALM   (thestar.com) divider line 130
    More: Scary, Chernobyl, Soviet republics, roof collapses, snow, Maya Rudenko, Chernobyl roof  
•       •       •

19937 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2013 at 2:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-13 05:50:43 PM  

saturn badger: thecpt: bu bu buuut Yucca Mountain is taking toooo loooonnnng (because a hole in the ground apparently takes over a decade).

The YMP project has been shut down.

http://www.reid.senate.gov/issues/yucca.cfm


I'm not surprised.  It had problems to begin with, and quite frankly why would you haul it across the country to a place that near a geologic fault?  Still government attempted to solve a problem, which was stopped by the government, and all at the cost of the tax payer.

(about the linked article) Sometimes I feel like the only person who remembered that Obama supported clean coal, while McCain actually had a nuclear energy plan.  I don't dislike Obama or anything, but he hasn't done much for our energy future.  Then again, the news isn't saying its a crisis now because of Marcellus shale and what not.
 
2013-02-13 05:56:30 PM  

adamatari: Yes, people in the US would probably have to cut down their energy use, but so what? Why go from one dirty energy source to another when you have even better options?

[www.landartgenerator.org image 850x600]


Let me ask you a few question:
1) Do you take mass transit?
2) What kind of car(2) do you drive?
3) How large is your home? Do you have A/C?
4) How have you personally modified your purchasing habits to indirectly consume less energy?

Perhaps you are a model human being and have excellent answers to all of these questions. But I bet not.

TD;DR: It will never happen. Americans will never reduce their consumption.
 
2013-02-13 06:08:10 PM  

Champion of the Sun: thecpt: 3 mile isle never killed anyone, and the argument that birth rates declined have never been confirmed or agreed upon.

I thought three mile was considered somewhat of a success story.  Something bad happened, all the safety protocols were followed and disaster was adverted.  I could be wrong, just remember reading that in one of these threads.


Absolutely, if you consider forcing our President to marry an 80-foot tall cleaning woman, fish you could read by, and lobsters as big as a house. http://vimeo.com/20995501
 
2013-02-13 06:13:40 PM  

If I'm going out, it is with some Hawt Ukrainian Biker Babe in teh ЗЖCLЦSIФИ ZФЙЭ


i651.photobucket.com

 
2013-02-13 06:19:51 PM  

thecpt: ...It's proven to be safe.

I guess your definition of "safe" is "creates uninhabitable, unfarmable zones that last for generations, with clean up issues that similarly last for decades". As a poster above has pointed out, they still have issues containing Chernobyl (New Safe Containment is behind schedule, old sarcophagus is jury-rigged and old). Nuclear has in fact proven to be disaster-prone and dangerous.

thecpt: you lose [farmland] for every thing.  you'll lose fishing areas for oil, you know, like the gulf coast for a year. 

Losing farmland to urbanization is effectively trading agriculture for habitation. Not possible in irradiated zones. And don't get me started on fisheries issues or oil spills, because I will seriously not stop. Though the biggest problem there is that we literally have scraped the bottom and caught all the farking fish, but habitat destruction and pollution through argicutural runoff is another thing, and major oil spills are just the straw that broke the camel's back in the Gulf. But yes, we should transition from oil to clean power like solar.

thecpt: cadmium rods say lolwut.


Nice job they did in Fukushima. Also, fat lot of good they do if your spent fuel pool catches on fire. I call it finicky because it has very stricty operating perameters, very strict safety perameters (you MUST have cooling, forever, without interruption), and tends to not work as well as planned. Look up Monju Nuclear Plant or Crystal River to see what I mean. Nuclear has always lived on the promise of "safe" and "too cheap to meter" and failed on both counts.

thecpt: Again, its the best we can do with what we have now.


Perhaps the most puzzling comment of the bunch. You think we somehow have the capacity to build hundreds or thousands of new generation nuclear reactors with new and unproven designs but putting up solar panels, wind turbines, and building various types of storage somehow is an engineering feat that is beyond us? Really? I guess we can't beat the Germans, with their solar power and beach volleyball...

I don't even want to touch the waste issue except to say that, despite being very small in volume, it requires storage for literally tens of thousands of years. Human civilization is maybe 10,000 years old, electric power is barely over 100 years old, and nuclear is around 60 years old. I don't consider waste to be the major issue with nuclear, but it's certainly not trivial either.
 
2013-02-13 06:40:48 PM  

Jument: adamatari: Yes, people in the US would probably have to cut down their energy use, but so what? Why go from one dirty energy source to another when you have even better options?

[www.landartgenerator.org image 850x600]

Let me ask you a few question:
1) Do you take mass transit?


Yes, when I can't ride my bike.

2) What kind of car(2) do you drive?

It's called a bicycle.

3) How large is your home? Do you have A/C?

I live in a small apartment, with neither A/C or heating. But I also live in Hawaii, where this is possible, and recognize this is not elsewhere. Besides which, my footprint is larger here due to things like groceries being shipped in. Hawaii is very much dependent.

4) How have you personally modified your purchasing habits to indirectly consume less energy?

I don't buy much, as I have very little money.

Perhaps you are a model human being and have excellent answers to all of these questions. But I bet not.

It's called "being poor". I will freely admit that I would consume more if I had more money, and I am no paragon (this computer is eating electricity from an oil-buring plant as we speak). Nevertheless, very few people need an SUV, and if we took mass transit as seriously as we take roads, and took global warming seriously as an existential threat and acted with the urgency we had in WWII, we could change things. Doesn't mean we will but techinically it is possible.

TD;DR: It will never happen. Americans will never reduce their consumption.

I don't disagree that Americans as a whole will never willingly reduce consumption. We have limited free will as individuals, but societies cannot be moved so easily. I expect nothing will be done unless it has to be, and at some point American will have to reduce their consumption. As a matter of fact, they have since 2008, due to becoming poorer. This is not the best way to reduce but it sure works:

gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-13 06:46:26 PM  
Jument:
And yet from TFA there are construction workers on site. That surprised me actually. I imagine they were radiation detector badge thingies constantly and get a shiatload of hazard pay.

They're building a new  sarcophagus that encloses the whole site. The old one was built hastily, isn't water tight and is deteriorating.
 
2013-02-13 07:12:53 PM  
Clm down guys, as much as it sucks, the Russian know how to handle this crap...

If you want to shiat your pants, dig a bit more into fukushima and the years of corruption, hidden defects and subcontractor going cheap on anything under the sun...

After if you have spare underwear start to catch up with the crisis management. You don't even have to like or dislike nukaplants. Just see their incompetence toward an industrial accident and try not to bblow a hole in your forehead while facepalming.

Remember several things officially stated though.
The quake intensity at the plant was NOWHERE NEAR  magnitude 9
It was a big 7 well under the supposed specced parameter of the plant
It still managed to ruin it BEFORE THE TSUNAMI STRICKED
The tsunami of this level was a RECURRING EVENT with temple in the mountainside remembering the previous death AND WAS OVERDUE  of about 30 years at least.
The company managing the plant was notified by geologist COUNTLESS TIMES that tsunamis aof  this level could happen again to which they answered that their plant has been approved by the governement (in the 60') and therefore they were not obliged to do anything to improve safety.
AND THE BEST
THE JAPANESE GOVERNEMENT MOUTHPIECES ACTUALLY TELL THE PUBLIC TO SMILE IN ORDER NOT TO GET RADIATION SICKNESS THAT ALL RADIATION RISKS ARE FALSE RUMORS CAUSING STRESS, IT S THIS STRESS THAT MAKE PEOPLE SICK AND SPREADING THESE RUMORS IS ILLEGAL. AND THE MAYOR OF TOKYO ISS WORKING ON A BAN OF PERSONNAL GEIGER COUNTERS IN ORDER TO ALLOW ONLY PUBLIC MEASUREMENT (known to be rigged thanks to personnal measure and safecast work)
 
2013-02-13 07:29:53 PM  

cig-mkr: Remain calm, ALL wild animals glow in the dark.


ih1.redbubble.net
 
2013-02-13 08:17:44 PM  

PirateKing: Get out of here STALKER.


Blowout soon!
 
2013-02-13 08:31:03 PM  

Jument: Let me ask you a few question:
1) Do you take mass transit?
2) What kind of car(2) do you drive?
3) How large is your home? Do you have A/C?
4) How have you personally modified your purchasing habits to indirectly consume less energy?

Perhaps you are a model human being and have excellent answers to all of these questions. But I bet not.


When coming across someone who supports renewable power:

Rule 1 - question their own personal habits. If they aren't living in a cave or getting calls from Ed Begley Jr. for advice on sustainability, their opinion doesn't matter.

Rule 2 - If the person is really living an ultra-clean & green life, via renewable power - claim that not everyone can live a life like that and it's expensive.

Rule 3 - if they point out anyone can buy into successful community owned renewable energy projects, and show how simple it is to finance improvements with little personal money - simply say it's impossible and it won't work. Then talk about how clean coal and nuclear is the only way forward. Rinse, repeat.
 
2013-02-13 09:00:38 PM  
uninhabitable, unfarmable zones that last for generations,

Except for the WHO reports from a few years ago that say a large percentage of the exclusion zone is back below background readings and can be safely populated, if it wasn't for the fear factor.
 
2013-02-13 09:01:17 PM  

adamatari: I guess your definition of "safe" is "creates uninhabitable, unfarmable zones that last for generations, with clean up issues that similarly last for decades". As a poster above has pointed out, they still have issues containing Chernobyl (New Safe Containment is behind schedule, old sarcophagus is jury-rigged and old). Nuclear has in fact proven to be disaster-prone and dangerous.


Chernobyl is the incomparable disaster caused by absolute morons, but you're shifting my argument.  Nuclear power is the best we have at meeting our energy demands especially when considering human life.  Compare just these two Nuclear accidents and Coal
Even look at the year with the fewest deaths for coal and how recent it was.  Can nuclear energy be a disaster? Sure as farking hell can.  Even in the links you posted, was it that bad? No.  The Florida plant reached the end of its economic service life. 

The Japanese are apparently idiots, that much I'll give you.  I don't think the common nuclear proponent would advocate putting plants along the ring of fire or at tectonic lines.

adamatari: Not possible in irradiated zones.


Agreed, but there aren't that many.  I don't know that much about Japanese infrastructure

adamatari: we should transition from oil to clean power like solar


Its not feasible to meet future US demand with current renewable energies, more specifically it can hardly be harvested efficiently in densely populated areas like the North east, or North of Virginia for that matter.  Farms can't transmit the energy harvest that far, and you wouldn't be able to turn on anything at night.  Adding batteries would further make it economically unfeasible.  That being said, I fully support everything solar but please realize that solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, and wind will not be able to cover a large enough chunk of our needs.  don't say biofuels either.  everyone knows how stupid that is, and those aforementioned sources are at least credible.

adamatari: Perhaps the most puzzling comment of the bunch. You think we somehow have the capacity to build hundreds or thousands of new generation nuclear reactors with new and unproven designs but putting up solar panels, wind turbines, and building various types of storage somehow is an engineering feat that is beyond us? Really? I guess we can't beat the Germans, with their solar power and beach volleyball


No that comment was meant to link it together.  As it currently stands, 500 plants built at 1970 specs would supply the equivalent of 100% of our energy.  The cost to increase from our 100 or so to 500 would be in billions obviously, but why not allow the general increase of plants now?  Our country is vast which complicates solar, and even if we did beat the Germans (which would be awesome) they get 20% of their power that way.  If solar power became 20% of ours overnight, renewables still wouldn't be greater than 35% of our current energy.  We're going to need something else to supplement.  Also, people hate wind turbines more than they hate nuclear power plants for some weird reason.  (seriously)

I do consider the waste as a problem.  Current practices of storage have proven to be safe, and by far outweigh the problem of CO2 emissions for all intents and purposes.
 
2013-02-13 09:09:00 PM  

germ78: brantgoose: Now they will have to build an even bigger "sarcophagus" over the existing cement cover.

I thought that was the existing plan. They just don't have any money or political will to do it.


news articles from way back stated the life of the cocoon was 20-25 years. we passed that anniversary years ago. nothing was done because governments don't give a damn for the planet they need to live. the rich and powerful seem to raise money for whatever interests them around the globe. plenty of cash could have been found or raised for this needful construction. Putin is a dooshbag. a wealthy powerful POS commie red dooshbag.
 
2013-02-13 09:59:29 PM  
How would you like the task of building a giant arched enclosure over the reactor site?

Nyet, there is no problems with radiation. 30 km exclusion zone is old Ukrainian joke, yes? Don'ts worry about it.
 
2013-02-13 10:03:25 PM  
www.thestar.com

Wow.  How hot does something have to be to glow lavender?
 
2013-02-13 10:14:51 PM  

studebaker hoch: Wow. How hot does something have to be to glow lavender?


Fabulously?
 
2013-02-13 10:25:10 PM  
I hit "Add Comment" and realized I'd completely missed the obvious.

/shakes fist
 
2013-02-13 10:32:29 PM  

thecpt: I'm not surprised.  It had problems to begin with, and quite frankly why would you haul it across the country to a place that near a geologic fault?  Still government attempted to solve a problem, which was stopped by the government, and all at the cost of the tax payer.


It was all unworkable from the start. Seismic issues, water leakage and a state that fought them every step of the way. Then we have a massive cave filled with nice deadly material that was supposed to be sealed for, what? 1,000 years? So you put up a warning in who knows what language will be spoken then and once they decipher it you just know they will want to explore it.

It was a bad idea from the beginning.
 
2013-02-13 10:42:34 PM  

thecpt: 'm not surprised.  It had problems to begin with, and quite frankly why would you haul it across the country to a place that near a geologic fault?  Still government attempted to solve a problem, which was stopped by the government, and all at the cost of the tax payer.


Sorry. Forgot this one.

The idea is for the containers to get encrusted with salt to seal them forever. I never thought a steel and salt mix was a good idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant

Then there was the one I saw in a documentary a few years ago. Bore a hole in the Oklahoma aquifer and drop radioactive waste underneath it. Nothing could go wrong here, right? Just possibly losing the largest underground aquifer in the country.

You can't store it here safely. I'm not keen on the outer space idea. I am more for safer nuke plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

But then there is the medical waste.

It is a big mess.
 
2013-02-13 10:50:39 PM  

thecpt: Its not feasible to meet future US demand with current renewable energies, more specifically it can hardly be harvested efficiently in densely populated areas like the North east, or North of Virginia for that matter.  Farms can't transmit the energy harvest that far, and you wouldn't be able to turn on anything at night.  Adding batteries would further make it economically unfeasible.  That being said, I fully support everything solar but please realize that solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, and wind will not be able to cover a large enough chunk of our needs.  don't say biofuels either.  everyone knows how stupid that is, and those aforementioned sources are at least credible.


No that comment was meant to link it together.  As it currently stands, 500 plants built at 1970 specs would supply the equivalent of 100% of our energy.  The cost to increase from our 100 or so to 500 would be in billions obviously, but why not allow the general increase of plants now?  Our country is vast which complicates solar, and even if we did beat the Germans (which would be awesome) they get 20% of their power that way.  If solar power became 20% of ours overnight, renewables still wouldn't be greater than 35% of our current energy.  We're going to need something else to supplement.  Also, people hate wind turbines more than they hate nuclear power plants for some weird reason.  (seriously)

First of all, I think you're confusing "wants" and "needs" when it comes to energy. Electricity is still new in historic terms. Second of all, I think you need to go back and look at that solar map I posted. Additionally, I think you need to redo your math on how much 500 nuclear plants would cost - each one  is in the BILLIONS. So we're talking trillions of dollars. Converting to solar and wind would require similar costs, admittedly, but with fewer risks. Currently there are less than 500 nuclear reactors worldwide, 2 of which have had major issues and serveral of which have had less major issues (like the Monju plant I linked to, which has had constant issues, or Three Mile Island). The fact that they try to build them and sometimes they just don't work very well is discouraging, which you seem not to have picked up on. It is very hard for me to believe that we wouldn't have any problems with 500 reactors. Going by the current track record we would see 2 major meltdowns and a fair percent that would have problems and not produce any power, or would run behind schedule and have cost overruns.

There aren't many irradiated zones partly because we haven't used that much nuclear power. Nuclear does not have a good track record.

As for transmission issues, currently power from neighboring states is supplied to Los Angeles. Long distance transmission is not a pipe dream or fantasy, it's a reality on the ground. The problems of the eastern grid are real - the South is not nearly as good for solar as the desert west, though much better than the northeast. All the same, the south is much better off than Germany and probably could support itself and export power to the northeast. Costal wind and inland wind from the midwest could also cover eastern needs. Also, you don't have to put solar on farms - you can put it on ROOFS. Every single house, every single building can produce power with solar. You can put solar over parking lots.

You also seem to have conveniently built a straw man for the storage issue - "sitting in the dark". Germany gives away power to Switzerland, where they have pumped storage. Rather than blowing up mountains in Virginia for coal, pumped storage could be built there. Still environmentally messy but better than mountaintop removal.

Ideally, we would actually adapt agressively as well and reduce power use. Renewables would have to be overbuilt as well.

Either way, transitioning from fossil fuels will be a major industrial project, and one that the US has not seriously started on yet (unless you consider the 2008 crash and subsequent reduction in oil use a start). I have looked at nuclear, and the closer I look the more issues I see. It's expensive, fragile, complicated, prone to disaster, and requires planning beyond a human timescale to deal with waste. To be honest, I don't expect us to transition cleanly anyways - I expect us to grasp at straws, use lots of dirty coal, and still find ourselves poorer, with less energy, and with serious environmental issues. Energy has become a major issue but the actual truth on the ground is we still depend on coal and natural gas, both of which only dig us deeper into the climate change hole. China is much more dependent on coal than we are and much dirtier about it at that.

I am not an optimist.
 
2013-02-13 11:23:13 PM  
Mad_Flyer:

The quake intensity at the plant was NOWHERE NEAR  magnitude 9

Intensity and magnitude are not the same thing. The intensity at Fukushima was Mercalli VII. Very strong.
 
2013-02-13 11:26:39 PM  

thecpt: don't say biofuels either. everyone knows how stupid that is


Biofuels are not stupid. We just choose to do them in the stupidest way possible. You don't use food as fuel, that's dumb as hell. You also don't use arable land to grow fuel. That's not only stupid, it's also net carbon positive, as you have to create new farmland, which releases stored CO2. There are several ways to get biofuel that aren't stupid. I'm sure they won't ever fill our entire energy needs, but they could put a serious dent.

Hemp is an excellent source of oils. Hemp grows on land unsuitable for farming.
We send an alarming amount of animal and plant waste to landfills every year, from waste food, cardboard, paper, and grass. (Assholes who throw their grass clippings out and buy chemical fertilizer really piss me off, but they do it.) If we simply subsidized waste management companies a little bit, they could provide garbage disposals that feed into special garbage cans, and take the food waste to a facility to capture methane. If we chose to make plastics from vegetable oil, you could throw plastic in there, too. Actual garbage taken to landfills would decline sharply, and you could do monthly pickups on non-organics.
We don't do anything constructive with our human waste, or much of our farm manure. That's another excellent source of methane.
GM algae that excrete petroleum as waste are looking pretty promising. I personally feel that a Manhattan Project investment in that could revolutionize our energy sector. It takes a lot of water, but you could pretty easily install desalinization plants to feed the tanks at a net gain of energy, even without using solar to power them.

Biofuels are not a magic bullet, but they're not nearly as stupid as they appear from the pork-laden farmer bribes we know today.
 
2013-02-13 11:29:10 PM  

Mad_Flyer: *derpa derpa herpa dooooo*


The earthquake near Fukushima and the tsunami both exceeded the design parameters of the plant. The surprise shouldn't be that the plant failed- it wasn't designed to survive the magnitude of the event that occurred, the surprise is that the Japanese regulatory agencies allowed the Fukushima design parameters to be less than was necessary than they should have been for the site.

The Fukushima site was designed around the following Design Basis Events:

-A tsunami of 5.7 meters in height
-A ground acceleration of 1.74 m/s2

The Fukushima disaster was caused by an earthquake that resulted in a tsunami of 15m in height and a ground acceleration of 5.5 m/s2
The real cause of the Fukushima disaster was that the plant was allowed to continue operating even when it became apparent that the design basis events for which the plant was designed were insufficient. I'm not trying to cast blame when I say this, but at least part of the pressure to continue operating the old plant was due to the growing demand for energy and the reluctance of people to build out more capacity (which in Japan pretty much necessitates nuclear reactors) in the form of newer, safer designs.
 
2013-02-14 12:07:59 AM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-14 12:57:34 AM  

TopoGigo: Biofuels are not stupid. We just choose to do them in the stupidest way possible.


I one hundred percent agree.  I used the term for those who want to grow algae for direct fuel (which is what I thought the term meant now).  I'll have to read about that GM thing.

I agree with everything you listed to, especially in the mantra of reduce, reuse, recycle.  But about human waste,  the little bit of studying I've done for certification has indicated that black water (or material) is useless and needs to be treated as a biological hazard.  Grey water can be reused in buildings, but the moment it involves human waste nothing positive can be done with it.  There can't possibly be a sanitary way to collect human waste for methane production.
 
2013-02-14 01:26:07 AM  
Stay calm? Isn't that what they told them the first go around?
 
2013-02-14 01:33:36 AM  

adamatari: First of all, I think you're confusing "wants" and "needs" when it comes to energy.


Yeah, Its going to be needs sooner rather than later.  It's not like our population is increasing or anything


adamatari: Second of all, I think you need to go back and look at that solar map I posted.


I did, it was confusing and came from a pretty shiatty source.  That's why I originally said this:
your chart makes no sense.  LAGI seams to be an unfeasible joke from looking at their website. (you know, if you go back and look)

.

adamatari: each one is in the BILLIONS. So we're talking trillions of dollars


Yes I know.  Usually around 10 each.  But I'm not saying lets do either renewables or nuclear 100% and I'm not saying do it all at once.

adamatari: The fact that they try to build them and sometimes they just don't work very well is discouraging, which you seem not to have picked up on


wow would you look at that.  Some of them don't last well past their economic service life.  It's not like there is math for that or anything.  As posted above, Fukishima was poorly designed and should have been shut down.  Chernobyl was a user error.  Namely a lot of users, with no fail safes, and users who were intentional assholes.  Those are your 2 disasters.

adamatari: Going by the current track record we would see 2 major meltdowns and a fair percent that would have problems and not produce any power, or would run behind schedule and have cost overruns.


... its not like risks those 2 disasters made could be designed out of the system or anything.  And that Florida plant, what more proof do you need that energy companies and the NRC are on top of their shiat.  They shut down a facility because of a crack in the concrete.  Thats a success of the system and regulation by my standards.

adamatari: There aren't many irradiated zones partly because we haven't used that much nuclear power. Nuclear does not have a good track record.


The fark it doesn't.  A commodity every major nation can use without having corporate entities in the middle east, or a plethora of coal mining accidents with death totals that thoroughly eclipse the deaths attributed to nuclear power.

adamatari: As for transmission issues, currently power from neighboring states is supplied to Los Angeles. Long distance transmission is not a pipe dream or fantasy, it's a reality on the ground. The problems of the eastern grid are real - the South is not nearly as good for solar as the desert west, though much better than the northeast. All the same, the south is much better off than Germany and probably could support itself and export power to the northeast. Costal wind and inland wind from the midwest could also cover eastern needs. Also, you don't have to put solar on farms - you can put it on ROOFS. Every single house, every single building can produce power with solar. You can put solar over parking lots.


I did mean further transmission than just bordering states (I live in the NE).  I seriously agree with you that the desert west and the south should make the most of solar.  It just will not work similarly in the northern half and specifically the north east.  But about wind, it reeeeaallly doesn't make that much power.  And for the love of god don't assume I'm a farking idiot about where solar panels can go.  I was just saying "solar farms" as a term for where they mass collect the sun.  Arizona is sunny 300 days a year, PA not so much.  You can't do that out here.  You need a dependable energy supply.  Wind and solar can't meet peak needs, and won't be able to store for the long nights or shiatty weather.

adamatari: unless you consider the 2008 crash and subsequent reduction in oil use a start


aw hell nah.  It's still drill baby drill no matter the administration.  Once wallets fatten up and population increases that line will go right back up.

Anyways, the bulk of my argument is feasibility.  It is not feasible at this time to dedicate our resources to make ourselves 100% renewable energy dependent.  I really do believe that in the meantime we need to slowly increase the amount of plants and extent of the NRC to achieve future demand and ween ourselves off fossil fuels  I'm an optimist, but realists can see that the green movement is wasting its breath saying we can make it 100% green right now.

You should look up the transparent pv panels.  I would put that on every building if it actually worked.
 
2013-02-14 01:43:48 AM  

thecpt: TopoGigo: Biofuels are not stupid. We just choose to do them in the stupidest way possible.

I one hundred percent agree.  I used the term for those who want to grow algae for direct fuel (which is what I thought the term meant now).  I'll have to read about that GM thing.


I haven't checked it out in a while, so I don't know the latest on GM algae. To my knowledge, nobody was talking about just burning algae. (Some people talked about straight burning other biomass. It's not a terrible idea if we can keep congressional pork out of it, but there just aren't many plants that would qualify to meet our needs. Hemp is probably one, since it doesn't need arable land to grow, and is very heavy in oil.) Last I heard, they had done a successful proof-of-concept in which a small tank of algae converted sunlight and a minor amount of nutrients in their water into jet fuel. They were able to siphon this jet fuel and burn it. That's been a year or so. The real bonus here is that they can pick the octane they want, and we already have the distribution infrastructure and the vehicles already run on gasoline. It likely won't help much for power production, but it sure would cut out the volatility of gas prices.

I agree with everything you listed to, especially in the mantra of reduce, reuse, recycle.  But about human waste,  the little bit of studying I've done for certification has indicated that black water (or material) is useless and needs to be treated as a biological hazard.  Grey water can be reused in buildings, but the moment it involves human waste nothing positive can be done with it.  There can't possibly be a sanitary way to collect human waste for methane production.

Well, we already collect human waste. We do a whole lot of things to it before it goes back into the water. One of those things is that we let it decompose. That decomposition produces methane. It seems to me that it would just be one more step in the purification process. I mean, I don't know for sure that it would produce enough methane to make it worth the extra cost of doing it, but it doesn't seem impossible. Hell, dairy farms already produce power directly from cow manure.
 
2013-02-14 11:30:50 AM  
questionabletopic.files.wordpress.com
 
Displayed 30 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report