• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

bikerdruid said:
JWideman said:
Hydro requires having a nearby natural waterfall big enough and has a major environmental impact.
Click to expand...

wrong.
hydro power does not need a water fall.
do you think they just stick a turbine under one?
alberta and b.c. have lots of hydro power.
they build dams.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right; all the hydro requires is a gradient and a medium. But that doesn't negate his point about it requiring a way to impound the medium, and that does have a major environmental impact, as well as a hefty cost involved in maintenance.
 
Last edited:
kowalskil said:
Solar energy, as we know, is nuclear, in the final analysis. Building nuclear power plants on satellites (natural or man-made) and beaming energy to earth is science fiction, so far. But it can become reality.

Ludwik Kowalski
.
Click to expand...

No way in hell anyone will ever allow such a thing to be built.

The theory goes that you build a solar collector in space and in shoots an energy beam down to a collector on the ground that distributes the power, right?

So what happens when the energy beam is "accidentally" knocked off kilter and ends up getting aimed at something like a foreign government capital building? Or a military command post? And aircraft carrier? A missile base?

The construction of such system would be very visible from the ground and take a long time, and anyone with ICBM capability will make sure it never gets finished.
 
bikerdruid said:
wrong.
hydro power does not need a water fall.
do you think they just stick a turbine under one?
alberta and b.c. have lots of hydro power.
they build dams.
Click to expand...

Greenies regularly oppose hydro projects as they are quite destructive to river ecosystems.

Nuclear reactors aren't.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
So what happens when the energy beam is "accidentally" knocked off kilter and ends up getting aimed at something like a foreign government capital building? Or a military command post? And aircraft carrier? A missile base?
Click to expand...

If you've read any of the engineering concepts on it, nothing. In fact, many have proposed using the target array on earth as a cattle pasture.

"Beam" leads to something of a false impression. Most of the schemes I've seen use a broad beam, not focused, over an area with an array of collectors tuned to a specific wavelength to absord the energy (think a distributed antenna).

In other words, no more dangerous than standing on an aircraft carrier's deck while it's radar is running.

Now, whether this is technologically and economically feasible I can't say...but no one (except for me) is plotting to make orbital death rays (and mine would look like the unfocused beams, but be built with the capability to change out the focusing array on the satellite...bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!).

ETA: Not to mention that, for maximum power transmission, they'd need to be in a geosynchronous orbit. All another country has to do is watch it to see if it starts moving towards their space, and shoot it down then. Satellites aren't exactly hard targets.
 
Last edited:
The anti-nuke people are morons. Every single one of them. Even if they actually do stop the world from using nuclear power, that just means that more coal will be burned (until it runs out, then nukes will probably be the only option). And, of course, coal is way worse that uranium, by pretty much every metric possible. You people that oppose nuke energy are all idiots. Every single one of you.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
No way in hell anyone will ever allow such a thing to be built.

The theory goes that you build a solar collector in space and in shoots an energy beam down to a collector on the ground that distributes the power, right?

So what happens when the energy beam is "accidentally" knocked off kilter and ends up getting aimed at something like a foreign government capital building? Or a military command post? And aircraft carrier? A missile base?

The construction of such system would be very visible from the ground and take a long time, and anyone with ICBM capability will make sure it never gets finished.
Click to expand...

Where were you when G Harry Stine was working all this out in the 70s?

The density of the microwave beam from a space based power systemWP being targeted to the antenna on Earth was planned to be on the order of 2.3 watts per square meter, or 25% of maximum insolation's power.
 
bikerdruid said:
that's a lie.
reactors on rivers affect the temperature of the water, which can be devastating to the river's ecosystem.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but less devastating then building a 50 meter wall across it? Besides, not all reactors use liquid water for cooling; the most infamous icon of nuclear power, the hyperbolic cooling stacks, use air and some water, but don't put any hot water back into the river.
 
shadron said:
Maybe, but less devastating then building a 50 meter wall across it? Besides, not all reactors use liquid water for cooling; the most infamous icon of nuclear power, the hyperbolic cooling stacks, use air and some water, but don't put any hot water back into the river.
Click to expand...

that was not the plan for the reactors that were planned for our neighbourhood, on one of the world's largest river systems.
 
bikerdruid said:
that's a lie.
reactors on rivers affect the temperature of the water, which can be devastating to the river's ecosystem.
Click to expand...

You're the liar here.

I've explained to you before CNSC regs on reactor intake and outflow temperatures (no more than 3 degrees variation allowed). I've also explained to you how this achieved. The outflow is a pipe laying on a river or lake bed typically a mile to a mile and a half log with perforations along its entire length. The outflow water from the reactors cooling system is allowed to mix gradually with the water in the lake or river and this keeps the temperatures well within the variations imposed by the CNSC.

Nuclear reactors do not threaten the ecology of rivers and lakes... period.

Now please tell me you're going to stop lying about this topic?
 
Hellbound said:
If you've read any of the engineering concepts on it, nothing. In fact, many have proposed using the target array on earth as a cattle pasture.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, no, I haven't read any of the design work. Because the the absurdity of trying to fix the problems with a power source that isn't dense or reliable enough to ever be economical by multiplying its costs a thousandfold or more by launching it into orbit makes it all a non-issue.
 
bikerdruid said:
three degrees is a huge variation in river temperature.
Click to expand...

First of all, no, it isn't.

Second, the engineers in charge of designing a plant know they will just get into trouble if they design it to heat the water to 2.99 degrees.

Civilian nuclear power generation in the west didn't manage to have only 4 casualties in 5 decades by engineers getting as close to the limits as they could. They do it by staying the hell away from them.
 
Last edited:
bikerdruid said:
that was not the plan for the reactors that were planned for our neighbourhood, on one of the world's largest river systems.
Click to expand...

Pardon, but we were talking about hydroelectric systems there. How did reactors get into the middle of it?
 
Isn't this the "Why coal, wind and hydro power is bad for the planet" thread?
 
(UK) Dip in nuclear power support after Fukushima proves shortlived

The dip in public support for new nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster in Japan lasted no more than nine months in the UK, according to a new poll from Ipsos MORI, published here for the first time. Futhermore, looking at the trend over the last decade, acceptance of nuclear power shows a rising trend.
Click to expand...

Link
 
Everybody loves nuclear power, until a few reactors in their country melt down. Then we still love them, we just don't want the radiocesium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom