• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Finland pledges to become carbon neutral by 2035

PoS said:
Nuclear is even safer than renewables, that's fact.
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore the relative carelessness with which our government disposes of nuclear waste and the fact that said waste is infinitely worse for the environment than anything you can produce using fossil fuels.
 
Napoleon said:
Only if you ignore the relative carelessness with which our government disposes of nuclear waste and the fact that said waste is infinitely worse for the environment than anything you can produce using fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
Do you think our Government has disposed of any nuclear waste since 1978?
Most nuclear waste is stored at the power plants where it was generated.
 
longview said:
Do you think our Government has disposed of any nuclear waste since 1978?
Most nuclear waste is stored at the power plants where it was generated.
Click to expand...

If by “stored” you mean in busted containers leaking into the Columbia River or sitting on tarps in the open air ala Hanford.
 
Napoleon said:
If by “stored” you mean in busted containers leaking into the Columbia River or sitting on tarps in the open air ala Hanford.
Click to expand...
I did not say it was stored well, but it was NOT disposed!
We can and have refined nuclear waste, but they decided it was not cost effective.
We really need to change reactor designs, as we no longer need material that can be made into weapons.
 
Napoleon said:
Only if you ignore the relative carelessness with which our government disposes of nuclear waste and the fact that said waste is infinitely worse for the environment than anything you can produce using fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Really? Can you please tell me how many people have died due to improper storage of nuke waste by the US gubmint.
 
PoS said:
Really? Can you please tell me how many people have died due to improper storage of nuke waste by the US gubmint.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is less than the people killed by windmills.
 
PoS said:
Really? Can you please tell me how many people have died due to improper storage of nuke waste by the US gubmint.
Click to expand...

The environmental impacts aside, I would say take a look at the cancer rates in communities near nuclear waste storage facilities. And it was just a few months ago that a middle school here in Ohio had to be closed for the remainder of the year due to radioactive contamination.
 
Napoleon said:
The environmental impacts aside, I would say take a look at the cancer rates in communities near nuclear waste storage facilities. And it was just a few months ago that a middle school here in Ohio had to be closed for the remainder of the year due to radioactive contamination.
Click to expand...

Look at the cancer rates for other things as well then.

I'll bet nuclear storage is still less than... for example... A paper industry worker.
 
Napoleon said:
The environmental impacts aside, I would say take a look at the cancer rates in communities near nuclear waste storage facilities. And it was just a few months ago that a middle school here in Ohio had to be closed for the remainder of the year due to radioactive contamination.
Click to expand...

Being cautious doesn't mean anyone was affected.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Being cautious doesn't mean anyone was affected.
Click to expand...

Sure, but it should tell you something about the dangers of radioactive contamination vs a wisp of smoke from a coal fired power plant. Or, in the case of renewables, no inherent risk to human health at all.
 
Napoleon said:
The environmental impacts aside, I would say take a look at the cancer rates in communities near nuclear waste storage facilities. And it was just a few months ago that a middle school here in Ohio had to be closed for the remainder of the year due to radioactive contamination.
Click to expand...

Do you mean like this study:

Cancer in populations living near nuclear facilities

Which finds no significant differences at most locations?

Remember. The USA has tighter safety regulations than almost any other country.
 
Napoleon said:
The environmental impacts aside, I would say take a look at the cancer rates in communities near nuclear waste storage facilities. And it was just a few months ago that a middle school here in Ohio had to be closed for the remainder of the year due to radioactive contamination.
Click to expand...

Show me a news link or study that supports your "theory."
 
longview said:
Do you understand that even an Archimedean Screw Hydro Turbine does not violate the laws of physics?
Look at these numbers for a micro hydro system,
Low Voltage Microhydro LV1500 4 Nozzle Generator | Backwoods Solar

So 750 watts with a 10 foot head, requires 140 gallons a minute,
or a 70 foot head requires 5 gallons a minute.
cutting back on one variable means an increase in the other.
Think about the volume of water needed to power a normal household for the ~ 15 hours a day without sunshine?
Click to expand...

Only a 10-foot head? What about 20 meters? That would give 6 times the capacity. If a community installs 500 of these units, that would be 750 Watts * 6 * 500= 2.25 MegaWatts. This would be very feasible, as the walls of the storage vessels could be shared by one another. Also, electrical loads at night, and in the winter, are much less. Electrical peak loads are always caused by Air Conditioning demand.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Back to horse and buggy! "ambitious goal of being climate neutral by 2035"

Just laughable stuff!
Click to expand...
Yeah, your lame strawman is laughable stuff. No-one is proposing going "back to horse and buggy". :roll:
 
Media_Truth said:
Only a 10-foot head? What about 20 meters? That would give 6 times the capacity. If a community installs 500 of these units, that would be 750 Watts * 6 * 500= 2.25 MegaWatts. This would be very feasible, as the walls of the storage vessels could be shared by one another. Also, electrical loads at night, and in the winter, are much less. Electrical peak loads are always caused by Air Conditioning demand.
Click to expand...
There is a cost benefit analysis of what would work and what it would cost.
You need ether the head height of the volume, neither is easy in many places.
 
longview said:
There is a cost benefit analysis of what would work and what it would cost.
You need ether the head height of the volume, neither is easy in many places.
Click to expand...

Media has no concept of engineering math. Some blogger says it can be done, and his confirmation bias is all he needs to know it's fact!
 
longview said:
There is a cost benefit analysis of what would work and what it would cost.
You need ether the head height of the volume, neither is easy in many places.
Click to expand...

When there is more head, the screws are put together in series, and more energy is achieved. It's an interesting system. It also sounds like other technologies are available for head above 8 meters. We'll have to look into that... From the link --->

Archimedean screws for hydropower are used on low head/high flow sites. They can work efficiently on heads as low as 1 metre, though are not generally used on heads less than 1.5 m (more for economic reasons than technical ones). Single screws can work on heads up to 8 metres, but above this multiple screws are generally used, though in many cases for heads above 8 metres there may be more appropriate turbines available with much smaller footprints.
 
Media_Truth said:
When there is more head, the screws are put together in series, and more energy is achieved. It's an interesting system. It also sounds like other technologies are available for head above 8 meters. We'll have to look into that... From the link --->

Archimedean screws for hydropower are used on low head/high flow sites. They can work efficiently on heads as low as 1 metre, though are not generally used on heads less than 1.5 m (more for economic reasons than technical ones). Single screws can work on heads up to 8 metres, but above this multiple screws are generally used, though in many cases for heads above 8 metres there may be more appropriate turbines available with much smaller footprints.
Click to expand...
You really have to think of energy from falling water as a leak free water wheel.
A bucket that holds 10 pounds of water on a wheel with a 10 foot radius, will generate a maximum of 100 foot pounds of force.
the other buckets add to this but are at lower levels of force.
The rate you can fill buckets, defines the maximum energy that can be extracted from water at that height.
You could add additional water wheels in series, but this would require more height.
The bottom line is there's no such thing as a free lunch!
 
longview said:
You really have to think of energy from falling water as a leak free water wheel.
A bucket that holds 10 pounds of water on a wheel with a 10 foot radius, will generate a maximum of 100 foot pounds of force.
the other buckets add to this but are at lower levels of force.
The rate you can fill buckets, defines the maximum energy that can be extracted from water at that height.
You could add additional water wheels in series, but this would require more height.
The bottom line is there's no such thing as a free lunch!
Click to expand...

Just like solar PVs produce a relatively low output, relative to other electrical energy production; when the 3 million American home are summed, there is over 9 Billion Watts (9 GigaWatts) of capacity. These homes are all over the US. Likewise, small storage mechanisms, such as the Arch. Wheel and others, thorughout the US, can add up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom