welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The (other) Nuclear Option
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3524
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:51 am    Post subject: Re: The (other) Nuclear Option Reply with quote

nathan wrote:
Thy Brilliance wrote:
Obama isn't throwing any money at nuclear plants because he personally wants to, he's playing the politics game.

He's trying to deal with the existence of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, while attempting to pass new legislation for "clean power" a compromise of sorts to gain more (R) votes. Killing 2 birds with one stone sort of thing.

A) is it reasonable to expect (and would HE expect) that ANY republican votes can be garnered, on any major issue, given what we've seen so far?

B) has he been against nuclear power until now? and isn't he hopping on the Chu-chu train of thought?


A. It is an awful amount of money to sling around, nuclear lobbyists would put pressure on republicans to see it through.

B. My understanding of the situation is that there were already some nuclear plants that were build, but were unfinished, and that the money would go to the completion/upgrade of those plants.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3524
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

andrew wrote:
Now you're answering questions I haven't asked, instead of answering the one I did ask! I feel like we have a term to describe that. Something about a logical fallacy.

Relevance of Price Anderson to my question: unsurprisingly, none.

Bring on your restricted info.

And, well, since I was the one who defined the scope by asking the question in the first place, your notion of what it ought to be doesn't matter to me.


Ugh, can we.. um, not have this attitude?

There was a 2003 conference in tampa florida about the "scope."

North American Waste To Energy Conference (11th : 2003 : Tampa, Fla.)

Good luck finding an online copy of that.

Also, random link that happens to be an aside kinda like that Act I mentioned
http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/comffnp.html

Also http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:04 am    Post subject: Re: The (other) Nuclear Option Reply with quote

Thy Brilliance wrote:
A. It is an awful amount of money to sling around, nuclear lobbyists would put pressure on republicans to see it through.

It's peanuts compared to money he's been slinging around before now, and the republican voting record, nevertheless, is what it is.

Quote:
B. My understanding of the situation is that there were already some nuclear plants that were build, but were unfinished, and that the money would go to the completion/upgrade of those plants.

I was asking whether Obama was anti-nuclear until now, so this represents something he "doesn't want to do." If this is an answer to that question, I'm gonna need you to help me parse it a little further cause I'm not following.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10593
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He's been among the most... understanding of the Democratic party on the issue of nuclear power. In this video, around 3:53, he notes that he's "agnostic" about nuclear power. It's from 2007. He spoke about nuclear power during the election debates, as well. Of course, he also talked about clean coal...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thy, English isn't your first language right? That's why you fail to understand all this?

Nah, can't be. English isn't my first language but I understand all of this, it's pretty simple.

So, you're just an idiot. Or a troll. Either way, and I don't take this very lightly on here: you're the worst poster on the Sinfest forums.
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tinkeringIdiot



Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 1057

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thy wrote:
http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/comffnp.html


That's a nice little chart, but it doesn't cover uranium alternatives and doesn't seem to take into account improvements in waste management technology.

Quote:
http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf


This one seems like a bunch of cherry-picked situations and makes no allowances for alternative fissile materials or advances in waste management. Take this excerpt:

Quote:
A natural-gas fired cogeneration
plant typically generates about one-third electricity and two-thirds heat, so all of the emissions
in this system would stem from the cogeneration plant. In the case of a conventional nuclear
plant power, the heat would have to be generated from another source: the Öko study chose
an oil-fired central heating system. (Oil was chosen because the associated emissions fall
between those of coal and gas.) The total emissions in this case would be as for 1kWh electricity
generation in the nuclear plant, and 2 kWh heat production by the oil-fired central heating
system. The results reveal that the total emissions from the gas cogeneration plant are of
the same order of magnitude as those produced in the nuclear+oil example.


They're assuming the nuke plant would heat itself using an oil burning furnace - which would put its greenhouse gas emissions in the realm of a gas-fired plant - without making or supporting the case that this is a likely scenario.

Quote:
A number of nuclear cogeneration power plants have been built in Russia, Slovakia,
Switzerland and Canada among others (Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan,
2000). However, these are the exception rather than the rule. While nuclear cogeneration is
technically feasible, there is much less experience with this method than with fossil-fuel powered
cogeneration plants mainly because nuclear power plants normally are built far from
urban areas. Therefore the transport of the heat from the power station to the consumer
would lead to a lot of heat loss.


Urban power stations often run secondary steam plants because they make a bunch of excess heat (read: inefficiency). If you don't have this heat to get rid of, then it makes more sense to use the generated power to accomplish the heating. Also, a fine alternative for transporting energy (heat) across great distances without much loss...electricity! Ta da!

Quote:
In 2003 France generated 75% of its electricity in nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry
11
likes to use France as a shining example of the advantages of nuclear power. However,
France's greenhouse gas emissions in 2000 were still increasing, largely because it has lost
control of energy consumption in other sectors, e.g. transport. Furthermore, studies of future
energy scenarios carried out by the French Government Central Planning Agency show no
evident correlation between CO2 emissions and nuclear power.


So emissions are going up due to transportation, therefore nuke plants are bad?

Quote:
Other so-called solutions that have been proposed include: disposing waste in deep ocean
16
trenches, blasting waste into space, and leaving waste by nuclear power plants until a use for
it is possibly identified in the future. This last method is now applied on a large scale.


Just as they were saying that the experts are ignoring studies on renewable sources, here they are willfully ignoring 50 years of development on the topic of waste management.

Quote:
Due to cooling problems in France during the heat wave in the
summer of 2003, engineers told the government that they could no longer guarantee the safety
of the country's 58 nuclear power plants (Duval Smith, 2003). This is of particular importance
as it suggests that nuclear power production will become even less safe as heat waves
become more common due to climate change.


Or you could change the requirements of the cooling system in the design phase. More severe heat loads can be accounted for.

Quote:
One of the by-products of most nuclear reactors is plutonium-239, which can be used in
nuclear weapons.


Thorium.

That paper was written with clear bias and several bales of straw. NIRS is a political action group that has had the same platform since 1978. They are not involved in research, only in applying findings to support their platform. While that's not inherently bad, pitting propaganda against science isn't a strategy that tends to work in this circle. Much like your "whateva, i have a real life outside the interwebs" posts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3524
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:17 am    Post subject: bias is inherent the moment you hold an opinion. Reply with quote

tinkeringIdiot wrote:
Thy wrote:
http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/comffnp.html


That's a nice little chart, but it doesn't cover uranium alternatives and doesn't seem to take into account improvements in waste management technology.

Quote:
http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf


This one seems like a bunch of cherry-picked situations and makes no allowances for alternative fissile materials or advances in waste management. Take this excerpt:

Quote:
A natural-gas fired cogeneration
plant typically generates about one-third electricity and two-thirds heat, so all of the emissions
in this system would stem from the cogeneration plant. In the case of a conventional nuclear
plant power, the heat would have to be generated from another source: the Öko study chose
an oil-fired central heating system. (Oil was chosen because the associated emissions fall
between those of coal and gas.) The total emissions in this case would be as for 1kWh electricity
generation in the nuclear plant, and 2 kWh heat production by the oil-fired central heating
system. The results reveal that the total emissions from the gas cogeneration plant are of
the same order of magnitude as those produced in the nuclear+oil example.


They're assuming the nuke plant would heat itself using an oil burning furnace - which would put its greenhouse gas emissions in the realm of a gas-fired plant - without making or supporting the case that this is a likely scenario.

Quote:
A number of nuclear cogeneration power plants have been built in Russia, Slovakia,
Switzerland and Canada among others (Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan,
2000). However, these are the exception rather than the rule. While nuclear cogeneration is
technically feasible, there is much less experience with this method than with fossil-fuel powered
cogeneration plants mainly because nuclear power plants normally are built far from
urban areas. Therefore the transport of the heat from the power station to the consumer
would lead to a lot of heat loss.


Urban power stations often run secondary steam plants because they make a bunch of excess heat (read: inefficiency). If you don't have this heat to get rid of, then it makes more sense to use the generated power to accomplish the heating. Also, a fine alternative for transporting energy (heat) across great distances without much loss...electricity! Ta da!

Quote:
In 2003 France generated 75% of its electricity in nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry
11
likes to use France as a shining example of the advantages of nuclear power. However,
France's greenhouse gas emissions in 2000 were still increasing, largely because it has lost
control of energy consumption in other sectors, e.g. transport. Furthermore, studies of future
energy scenarios carried out by the French Government Central Planning Agency show no
evident correlation between CO2 emissions and nuclear power.


So emissions are going up due to transportation, therefore nuke plants are bad?

Quote:
Other so-called solutions that have been proposed include: disposing waste in deep ocean
16
trenches, blasting waste into space, and leaving waste by nuclear power plants until a use for
it is possibly identified in the future. This last method is now applied on a large scale.


Just as they were saying that the experts are ignoring studies on renewable sources, here they are willfully ignoring 50 years of development on the topic of waste management.

Quote:
Due to cooling problems in France during the heat wave in the
summer of 2003, engineers told the government that they could no longer guarantee the safety
of the country's 58 nuclear power plants (Duval Smith, 2003). This is of particular importance
as it suggests that nuclear power production will become even less safe as heat waves
become more common due to climate change.


Or you could change the requirements of the cooling system in the design phase. More severe heat loads can be accounted for.

Quote:
One of the by-products of most nuclear reactors is plutonium-239, which can be used in
nuclear weapons.


Thorium.

That paper was written with clear bias and several bales of straw. NIRS is a political action group that has had the same platform since 1978. They are not involved in research, only in applying findings to support their platform. While that's not inherently bad, pitting propaganda against science isn't a strategy that tends to work in this circle. Much like your "whateva, i have a real life outside the interwebs" posts.


You seem to think there actually exist such things as unbiased sources for this topic.

Please, show me a source with such an ideal standard.

In the meantime, I'll just provide source after source since I'm kind enough to hold the burden of proof for you.

Here's one http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/alexander-webb-bill.pdf

Yea, it's biased.

http://www.psr.org/nuclear-bailout/resources/the-renaissance-that-wasnt.pdf

This one too.

Edit: Hell, why not this one as well http://www.psr.org/nuclear-bailout/resources/the-real-costs-of-cleaning-up.pdf

And apparently, I have to adhere to imaginary time limits to respond to posts.


Last edited by Thy Brilliance on Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:55 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3524
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:35 am    Post subject: Re: The (other) Nuclear Option Reply with quote

nathan wrote:
Thy Brilliance wrote:
A. It is an awful amount of money to sling around, nuclear lobbyists would put pressure on republicans to see it through.

It's peanuts compared to money he's been slinging around before now, and the republican voting record, nevertheless, is what it is.

Quote:
B. My understanding of the situation is that there were already some nuclear plants that were build, but were unfinished, and that the money would go to the completion/upgrade of those plants.

I was asking whether Obama was anti-nuclear until now, so this represents something he "doesn't want to do." If this is an answer to that question, I'm gonna need you to help me parse it a little further cause I'm not following.


A. k

B. It's not so much that he's anti-nuclear, as much as he wants other clean forms of energy to be more prevalent in society.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tinkeringIdiot



Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 1057

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thy wrote:
In the meantime, I'll just provide source after source since I'm kind enough to hold the burden of proof for you.


I'm not going to go line by line through what you claim to be "proof" this time. I'll just point out one example of why I don't trust your sources on their own:

Alexander-Webb bill.pdf wrote:
For 40 years, the nuclear industry has been pursuing larger and larger reactors to try to make nuclear power economically competitive – the pending applications at the NRC are the biggest reactors yet in the United States. These economies of scale are lost if size is greatly decreased: physics dictates that smaller reactors will tend to be more expensive than larger reactors given similar safety features. As size is decreased, volume (i.e., power) decreases more than surface area (i.e., cost), thus leading to less energy output at a higher cost.


Your sources make claims like this as though they are common knowledge and don't need to be justified by actual research. This is why I don't consider your sources to be valid in a scientific sense. Making a bunch of unsupported statements and calling it policy is propaganda, which is a step beyond a mere biased report. When you call people out like this:

Thy wrote:
Just out of curiosity, when did you become an expert on nuclear sustainability?


I will hold you to the same standards. And if you don't think you can find sources that present research instead of propaganda (as you claim is the case) then shut the fuck up!

After your style, here's an aside for you:

That link you posted on the alexander-webb bill mentions - way down at the bottom - a figure of $6billion committed to renewable energy research. If I'm reading it correctly, only $5billion in actual funds are committed under the bill for nuclear infrastructure projects. Sounds to me like the renewables are getting some of the funding they deserve with this bill, which sounds pretty appealing to me when combined with short-term increases in nuclear sources rather than something more harmful like "clean" coal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3524
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:19 am    Post subject: Maybe I can turn it into a thesis. Reply with quote

tinkeringIdiot wrote:
Thy wrote:
In the meantime, I'll just provide source after source since I'm kind enough to hold the burden of proof for you.


I'm not going to go line by line through what you claim to be "proof" this time. I'll just point out one example of why I don't trust your sources on their own:

Alexander-Webb bill.pdf wrote:
For 40 years, the nuclear industry has been pursuing larger and larger reactors to try to make nuclear power economically competitive – the pending applications at the NRC are the biggest reactors yet in the United States. These economies of scale are lost if size is greatly decreased: physics dictates that smaller reactors will tend to be more expensive than larger reactors given similar safety features. As size is decreased, volume (i.e., power) decreases more than surface area (i.e., cost), thus leading to less energy output at a higher cost.


Your sources make claims like this as though they are common knowledge and don't need to be justified by actual research. This is why I don't consider your sources to be valid in a scientific sense. Making a bunch of unsupported statements and calling it policy is propaganda, which is a step beyond a mere biased report. When you call people out like this:

Thy wrote:
Just out of curiosity, when did you become an expert on nuclear sustainability?


I will hold you to the same standards. And if you don't think you can find sources that present research instead of propaganda (as you claim is the case) then shut the fuck up!

After your style, here's an aside for you:

That link you posted on the alexander-webb bill mentions - way down at the bottom - a figure of $6billion committed to renewable energy research. If I'm reading it correctly, only $5billion in actual funds are committed under the bill for nuclear infrastructure projects. Sounds to me like the renewables are getting some of the funding they deserve with this bill, which sounds pretty appealing to me when combined with short-term increases in nuclear sources rather than something more harmful like "clean" coal.


Those standards hit pretty close to home

It amazes me, truly, how you'll believe in the safety and cleanliness of nuclear power, but "clean" coal, biofuels? Impossible. Closed systems, batch processes are foreign concepts to you?

You don't seem to understand or value the information contained within propaganda, and traversing it seems to make you queasy.

So it seems that the only way I'm going to convince you of anything is to go out of my way and literally spoon feed you an in-depth analysis.

It'll be a tedious and thankless job.

Hold on to that anger, and don't let the cynicism faeries bribe you with measly quarters, cause it'll take a while.

And if you get bored waiting, you can always read this nice link http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pdf

290 pages worth of hot Arjun Makhijani, don't you wanna salivate?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dennis J. Squidbunny



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3714
Location: AUSTRALIA YOU FAKIR

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Someone's skipped their medication!
_________________
"Eight hundred pounds of nitro, his boots are thunder as he plays."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vox Raucus



Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 1252
Location: At the Hundredth Meridian

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Maybe I can turn it into a thesis. Reply with quote

Thy Brilliance wrote:
You don't seem to understand or value the information contained within propaganda, and traversing it seems to make you queasy.

Exhibit A, indicating clearly that Thy is a moron.

The defense rests, your honor.
_________________
The cat's indifferent or he's just furious, it seems that he's never neither
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6020
Location: California

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course! If you buy enough boxes of Lucky Charms, you can send for a secret decoder ring that will magically help you figure out what is information and what is propaganda or bald-faced lying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12067
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did Thy ever address Andrew's criticism of dumpster gas as not-scalable?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tinkeringIdiot



Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 1057

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nope. He's busy setting up strawmen for me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group