POLL: VOTE FOR UNITED STATES PRESIDENT ★★★★★

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by JustGoFly, Oct 31, 2016.

?

Who would you vote for for U.S. President

Poll closed Nov 8, 2016.
  1. Donald Trump

    5 vote(s)
    26.3%
  2. Hillary Clinton

    8 vote(s)
    42.1%
  3. Abstain

    1 vote(s)
    5.3%
  4. Gary Johnson

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Jill Stein

    4 vote(s)
    21.1%
  6. Darrell Castle

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Evan McMullin

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Rocky De La Fuente

    1 vote(s)
    5.3%
  9. Laurence Kotlikoff

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. Tom Hoefling

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Z100000M

    Z100000M Vithered Weteran

    Messages:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gonna need some citations capn since this sounds like radioactivity-layman hearsay. Radioactive waste doesnt have a uniform halflife.
    Dams, riverside generators or tidal waves?
     
  2. ScardyBob

    ScardyBob Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All Dams. I know of some tidal experimental projects but its very doubtful to see those contributing any time soon.
     
  3. Grantrithor

    Grantrithor Member

    Messages:
    9,820
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
  4. Z100000M

    Z100000M Vithered Weteran

    Messages:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dont really see any of the values youve thrown in there though.
     
  5. Paradox

    Paradox I am a gigantic asshole who loses people's hard wo

    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it'd be quite easy to add up the costs of nuclear accidents to the sum of system costs and then divide by power output.
    The hard part is, we dont have any information on system costs for hydro. But let me do the math real quick.

    Since there hasnt been any major energy accidents in the countries in the report Im going to go on a limb and average all the nuclear penetration level 10 percent costs and use that for japan, even though japan has a very low yen/mwh for nuclear without system costs compared to other countries.
    Japans nuclear powerplants have a capacity of 54000 MW so thats 2 billion mwh. At an averaged system cost of 2.24 -> Thats 4.5 billion dollars anually

    If we extrapolate solar to the extend of nuclear -> 15 dollars/mwh x 2billion mwh-> 30 billion dollars anually
    Thats a difference of 25 billion dollars annually. At a clean up cost of 40 billion dollars you can have a fukushima disaster every 2 years and still be at a profit compared to solar.

    note that system costs probably go down when you scale up your production of solar energy
    But however no solar accidents were accounted for
    Since nuclear disasters are so rare 1986 chernobyl, fukushima 2011 -> 25 years in between I would suspect nuclear would still be far ahead cost efficiency wise

    tldr: Nuclear energy in the world compared to US Solar energy, the cheapest system cost in the 8 countries renewables, is anually 25 billion dollars cheaper.-> You could have a nuclear disaster every 2 years and still profit 10 billion dollars. At a very generous 10 million dollar evaluation of human life you could even have 1000 people die in the nuclear disaster and be at break even. ( noone died in the fukushima disaster )




    sources:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Nuclear_power_plants
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#Life_Value_in_the_US
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States
    http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2012/system-effects-exec-sum.pdf
     
  6. Paradox

    Paradox I am a gigantic asshole who loses people's hard wo

    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tidal wave projects are really really cost INefficient. The cost of putting the infrastructure down + maintaining it is crazy high.
     
  7. A-z-K

    A-z-K Member

    Messages:
    3,241
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anyone seen those ideas for wind farms with potential energy storage?
    Basically each blade has a piston that pumps air into underwater ballasts as it falls under gravity - which can be released to drive generators as they rise to the surface.
    No idea how efficient they are but I though it was a nat concept that over comes one of renewables problems.
     
  8. Z100000M

    Z100000M Vithered Weteran

    Messages:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We already use water pump sytems as electricity storage, so not sure if its really ground breaking.
     
  9. flasche

    flasche Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    13,299
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yeah why didnt they just as dr zoom?
     
  10. Paradox

    Paradox I am a gigantic asshole who loses people's hard wo

    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why are you being so stubborn and downplaying everything you dont really understand?

    Its groundbreaking because water pump systems as electricity have a lot of energy loss already in the system. It's purely used as a reserve. If you want to power these reserves with renewables you'll have energy loss from getting the energy to one of these systems( which there arent many of because of geological context ) in the form of electricity ( loss ), then using that electricity to pump it up ( loss ).
    Every energy conversion you make more is bad, every energy conversion you make less is good, and every meter you dont have to travel is good.
    If you can store energy in the form that azk does it's a +1

    Zoom get informed dude
     
  11. A-z-K

    A-z-K Member

    Messages:
    3,241
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd like to go on record and say I still store my energy the good old fashioned way - in potatos.
     
  12. Z100000M

    Z100000M Vithered Weteran

    Messages:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How about you fuck off trying to make everything personal, I know you have ego problems since destro started bullying you but try your best not to act like a prick.
    Besides you stupidly only consider the idea in theory whereas including systems like these more than likely increases the cost of intalation and exploitation meaning it might end up not better in the end.
    I heard that lard is the new jazz.
     
    A-z-K likes this.
  13. Tama

    Tama Developer Staff Member Web Developer

    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It never is.
     
  14. ScardyBob

    ScardyBob Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The energy losses are manageable, which is why pumped storage is the largest form of electricity storage in the U.S. The trouble is that we've used up most of the suitable locations for it.
     
  15. Paradox

    Paradox I am a gigantic asshole who loses people's hard wo

    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm trying to make it personal? Lol I just hate when people spread science misinformation so I correct them. You're the one making it personal-> destroyer "bullying" me by giving me a gag and a ban?

    Every science invention starts in theory. And cost of installation and exploitation go down the more get placed.

    And even you say it MIGHT not end up being better, but it MIGHT end up better aswell which is a +1. Its called trial and error
     
  16. Paradox

    Paradox I am a gigantic asshole who loses people's hard wo

    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wasnt referring to the pump reserve systems as inefficient, I Was saying that if there was a way to store wind renewables in the wind system itself rather than having to convert to electricity and power a pump system as a reserve it'd be progress made cause there'd be less loss. Therefor the invention azk is talking about has merit instead of just throwing it out the door cause we have pump systems.
     
  17. Ranger

    Ranger Member

    Messages:
    706
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd go full nuclear until fission reactors are working and safe or something else. Wind farms take up space, are not efficient, cause noise pollution and somewhat ruin the view. (Like, I can see them from my home at the other side of the sea, on the mountains. Idk about you but I wouldn't want to see them in a desert either). Solar panels also need huge spaces. They consume space that it could be used for something else, or not used at all. Factories producing them pollute the environment a lot. And they cost a lot blah blah what he said ^. So wind farms and solar panels are not really environmentally friendly by taking those things in consideration. They are presented as such cause - marketing, and many people support them cause they love the environment so much that they forget to think that we would have to install solar panels all over the continent to secure our needs of electricity and storage.

    Nuclear Energy is not perfect. There's the nuclear waste you have to put somewhere after 2 decades or so. Needs to be stored somewhere safe for a century. But from my point of view it's the best option and it's worth all the risks. It's also symbol; when a nation uses nuclear energy it says something about its status, you know, scientists and stuff and then there's the fact that they could produce nuclear weapons if they have weapons industries etc.

    Fission Reactor, on the other hand, would be really cool and really environmentally friendly. Theoretically, it would produce many times more energy than a nuclear power plant and it would have no dangerous waste, nothing at all. But we're not there yet :(
     
  18. Paradox

    Paradox I am a gigantic asshole who loses people's hard wo

    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you are confusing a lot of nuclear terms

    The standard nuclear power plant we can nuclear = Fission reactor, you splice an element and form 2 smaller elements.

    What you describe here as fission is probably fusion-> you add 2 elements and make a bigger one. Fusion is the future, it has less to no waste and the input elements are a plenty.
    edit: we are there already just needs more funding.

    This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER is the first fusion reactor that will have a net profit energy of 1000 percent. All other fusion reactors were always at a loss. If iter succeeds and people ( read people who think nuclear is bad and shit and explosions ) get over their fear fussion litterally solves our energy/enviromental crisis.
     
  19. Ranger

    Ranger Member

    Messages:
    706
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry I meant fusion lol. I know how it works, purely confused it. I know the problems with fusion are that materials cannot withstand such high temperatures so they end up consuming more to keep it cool and stable than it produces. Nice to read about ITER being efficient
     
  20. Paradox

    Paradox I am a gigantic asshole who loses people's hard wo

    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well they fixed that with super magnets so it doesnt touch the outside and since the rest is a vacuum it should be guccihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Magnetic_confinement
     

Share This Page