Jump to content

Welcome to SECTalk.com

Welcome to SECTalk.com -- The Home of 6 Straight National Titles!

You are currently accessing our site as a guest which means you can't access all of our features such as social groups, sports betting, and many more. By joining our free community you will have access to all of these great features as well as to participating in our forums, contacting other members, and much more. Registration only takes a minute and SECTalk.com is absolutely free, so please join today!

If you have any problems registering or signing in, please contact us.

Latest Topics




Latest News

Top Bettors

Top High Fived


Environmentalism is Costing Everyone

- - - - -

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
44 replies to this topic

#31
nova

nova

    Intergalactic planetary bulldawg!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    9,137
  • Joined:
    Dec 2009
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    4,346
Talk about timing. This popped up in my feed right after I posted the above. Better explanation than I can give.

http://www.zerohedge...myths-explained

#32
L.A.Hog

L.A.Hog

    Go Hogs,Pilgrim

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    9,974
  • Joined:
    Feb 2009
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    6,938

View Postnova, on 23 April 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Talk about timing. This popped up in my feed right after I posted the above. Better explanation than I can give.

http://www.zerohedge...myths-explained

Damn,some dude ate 12 gold bars to avoid taxes?That's gotta be painful to pass.

#33
ARfanNmem

ARfanNmem
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    1,296
  • Joined:
    Sep 2008
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    525

View Postnova, on 23 April 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Talk about timing. This popped up in my feed right after I posted the above. Better explanation than I can give.

http://www.zerohedge...myths-explained

I agree with much of that.  He mentions peak oil which is something I've given a lot of thought.  Many folks believe unconventional oil/gas exploitation spells the end of oil. "We've already gotten the easy oil, there isn't much left." they say.  Well, this may not be true like they think.  Here's an illustration:

Imagine two walls, one that is 10 feet tall, another that is 50 feet tall.  We figure out a way to scale the 10 foot wall and find a large pool of water.  We then remove all of the water in that pool.  Even though it is really difficult and costly to scale the 50 foot wall, we do it anyway because we really like water.  After scaling the 50 foot wall we find a large lake of water.  Sure, it's harder to get that water out, but we now have a lot of it.  That could be the case with unconventional oil/gas.  Or I could be totally off here and there's very little left.  Who knows?

One thing the article barely touched on was nuclear.   Why?  I know I sound like a broken record but why does everyone ignore nuclear?  Name another power source that can provide reliable, clean, low-carbon energy to billions of people for thousands of years.

#34
nova

nova

    Intergalactic planetary bulldawg!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    9,137
  • Joined:
    Dec 2009
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    4,346
I believe it's because fission nuclear has the same limitations as hydro namely that it's only possible with fossil fuels to make concrete and steel and to mine all the fuel and other materials in bulk.

#35
ARfanNmem

ARfanNmem
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    1,296
  • Joined:
    Sep 2008
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    525

View Postnova, on 24 April 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:

I believe it's because fission nuclear has the same limitations as hydro namely that it's only possible with fossil fuels to make concrete and steel and to mine all the fuel and other materials in bulk.

Oh sure, we will always need fossil fuels which is why we should reduce their use. ;). I'm not a big climate change dude, but if we're serious about reducing FF use we have to look at other things besides wind/solar etc.

#36
GoldenRebel

GoldenRebel

    A Proud Swayze Crazy

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    22,242
  • Joined:
    May 2007
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    10,923
I think the holdup with nuclear is just the barrier to entry. You're talking mega $$$ and having to basically start from scratch. But I'm def no expert on the matter

#37
ARfanNmem

ARfanNmem
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    1,296
  • Joined:
    Sep 2008
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    525

View PostGoldenRebel, on 24 April 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

I think the holdup with nuclear is just the barrier to entry. You're talking mega $$$ and having to basically start from scratch. But I'm def no expert on the matter

Its a combination of huge capital costs with high regulatory burden. For example, newer designs may be safer and cheaper but struggle because they don't fit the current regulations for older designs. But i think u are largely correct.

#38
GoldenRebel

GoldenRebel

    A Proud Swayze Crazy

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    22,242
  • Joined:
    May 2007
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    10,923

View PostARfanNmem, on 24 April 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

Its a combination of huge capital costs with high regulatory burden. For example, newer designs may be safer and cheaper but struggle because they don't fit the current regulations for older designs. But i think u are largely correct.

I wasnt even thinking about gov regs.  Whew

#39
nova

nova

    Intergalactic planetary bulldawg!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    9,137
  • Joined:
    Dec 2009
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    4,346
I believe the only nuclear that will be a game changer is fusion.  The fuel is plentiful enough and easy enough to come by that the EROI will be far past self sustaining.  If you're getting more energy out than it takes to build the plant and collect the fuel, that's something that you can work with.  

Doubly so when as I posted earlier, you can use that primary power source to produce energy dense liquid fuels that can be used for transportation...

#40
ARfanNmem

ARfanNmem
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    1,296
  • Joined:
    Sep 2008
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    525

View Postnova, on 24 April 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

I believe the only nuclear that will be a game changer is fusion.  The fuel is plentiful enough and easy enough to come by that the EROI will be far past self sustaining.  If you're getting more energy out than it takes to build the plant and collect the fuel, that's something that you can work with.  

Doubly so when as I posted earlier, you can use that primary power source to produce energy dense liquid fuels that can be used for transportation...

I hope you are right. But there are some who push to delay ANY nuclear in the hope that fusion will some day be viable. That's like saying we should stop looking for gas since we'll one day have a ton of solar arrays Lol.

#41
ShortyPrice

ShortyPrice

    vote for me for guvnuh

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    1,013
  • Joined:
    May 2008
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    432
The knee jerks were quick but not unexpected.

I did not see a single post in the previous that attempted to refute the specific claims made in the article.

"Shorty, Shorty, he’s our man. George Wallace belongs in the garbage can." - Shorty Price Campaign Slogan

Born after the 70s? Learn about Shorty here

And in this YouTube Video


#42
GatorUnvrsty

GatorUnvrsty

    AdminisGator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    26,191
  • Joined:
    Dec 2006
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    4,816

View PostGoldenRebel, on 24 April 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

I think the holdup with nuclear is just the barrier to entry. You're talking mega $$$ and having to basically start from scratch. But I'm def no expert on the matter

Yeah, the hoops are many and not easily navigable.

After Fukushima they said there are vastly safer and more efficient reactor designs, but they're so expensive to build initially that it's not a very popular idea... taxpayers are the ones who fund construction of new reactors, and they must be funded before any construction can begin.

But it has to happen soon because many ancient and archaic reactors will or already have closed... they have a shelf life. 4 reactors closed last year and I think 2 are scheduled to do the same already this year.

Something like 15 companies applied to the NRC to build 30 new reactors in the U.S. in recent years, but many of the contracts have now been cancelled.

And aside from the domestic regulation, utility companies with reactors are also informally monitored internationally because radiation doesn't recognize borders; put enough radiation in the air and it can affect countries on the other side of the planet.

Fukushima started releasing radioactive material on March 12th; the same day those radioactive releases reached a CTBTO monitoring station in Takasaki, Japan, around 125 miles away. The radioactive isotopes appeared in eastern Russia on March 14th, and the west coast of the United States two days later. Pacific fishing off the California coast has been adversely impacted by all the contaminated water spilling into the ocean, and it's actually predicted to get worse. By day 15, traces of radioactivity were detectable all across the northern hemisphere. Within one month, radioactive particles were noted by CTBTO stations in the southern hemisphere.

I think nuclear is probably necessary for the time being; but running reactors is obviously a tremendous responsibility, not for the faint of heart, and carries as many potential pitfalls as rewards.
Posted Image

#43
nova

nova

    Intergalactic planetary bulldawg!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    9,137
  • Joined:
    Dec 2009
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    4,346

View PostARfanNmem, on 24 April 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:


I hope you are right. But there are some who push to delay ANY nuclear in the hope that fusion will some day be viable. That's like saying we should stop looking for gas since we'll one day have a ton of solar arrays Lol.

Well my thoughts about it are thus. Fusion reactions that produce more energy than they consume have been demonstrated. It's now more of an engineering problem than a science problem to scale it up to power plant size.

#44
ARfanNmem

ARfanNmem
  • Members
  • PipPip
  • Posts:
    1,296
  • Joined:
    Sep 2008
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    525

View Postnova, on 24 April 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:



Well my thoughts about it are thus. Fusion reactions that produce more energy than they consume have been demonstrated. It's now more of an engineering problem than a science problem to scale it up to power plant size.

Very important no doubt. Hopefully some geeks at MIT on this right now. But from the articles I read about the recent fusion breakthrough they are a long way off.

#45
nova

nova

    Intergalactic planetary bulldawg!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    9,137
  • Joined:
    Dec 2009
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    4,346

View PostARfanNmem, on 24 April 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:


Very important no doubt. Hopefully some geeks at MIT on this right now. But from the articles I read about the recent fusion breakthrough they are a long way off.

The iter program I posted, is a full scale power plant size experiment. Goals are neutron resistant materials and power extraction. Supposed to be operational by 2021



Similar Topics

  Topic Started By Stats Last Post Info