Surface Area Required to Power the World
http://i46.tinypic.com/5y530w.jpg
Forgive the tinypic url. It’s not my jpg. But, thoughts?
i’m sure given enough willpower with solar energy right now we could power the world. problem is your power bill going up 25 times.
still this tech will in all probability save our species; should we be able to increase efficiency.
Just when you thought this thread was dead… Just when you thought my fears have been quelled…
I’m back with two simple questions…
What if a company like BP is in charge of the new plants? What if lobbyists who have connections to power plant companies become cozy with the regulators who are suppose to…well do the regulations?
I was almost comfortable with the idea of new plants in the US, then this spill and allegations of non-regulations came along…
:eek::eek::eek:
P.S. Yes, I reread Phil’s link… But, the solutions listed therein won’t work if they aren’t applied.
Good question, since they’re almost certain to.
However, only a Chernobyl level event can hold a candle to the frakup that is the Gulf of Mexico. I’ll take my chances.
I used to oppose nuclear power, but I think I’m with Pike now. The statistics I’ve heard/read in the past few years have convinced me that it’s nowhere near as scary as we’ve been led to believe, provided everyone follows regulations and treats it right (oh, frak…).
Cause oil sure is a safe energy source, right?
Sounds like you’re with me. d:
is it too soon to bring this thread back?
I’ve had this thread in the back of my mind too.
that core meltdown-less Thorium nuclear power sounds pretty awesome now… and it has Thor in the name… much better than Urine… just saying…
It would be interesting to know exactly how much radiation has been released and compare it to the annual radiation release of coal power (which is significant).
The latest news is that the USS Ronald Reagan sailed through a radioactive cloud 96 km north of the power plant (that’s almost 60 miles), and the ship was exposed to a whole month worth of radiation in an hour. Few crewman are already getting ill. And they already live on top of a huge nuclear power plant.
I don’t think the argument is coal is better than nuclear or the other way around. The argument should be current nuclear and coal powers are both awful. There are already alternative proven tech out there, but the government just need to push for it.
I think Japan is a good example of how nuclear energy can be used safely and effectively, but we cannot plan for the wrath of the universe.
It’s something to consider with all power, and something I know I dismissed previously.
exactly, it’s hard to imagine sometimes before it happens. Even right after the earthquake and tsunami I hear people say things like “nuclear power plants are built to withstand earthquakes like this, especially a Japanese built plant, it’s going to be fine”.
what today a strong earthquake strikes an Iran built a nuclear power plant, will Iran’s nuclear power plant be so safe? What about North Korea? Core meltdown and radiation plumes is a international event.
since there are alternative nuclear power that can be cheaper in the long run, and has no chances of meltdown, i see no reason to continue building uranium fission powered plants…
Are there specific alternatives you have in mind?
New plan: Build all nuke plants to sustain 10.0 Earthquakes.
Then, we’ll get hit with 10.1. I don’t think earthquakes have a ritcher scale maximum? If I’m wrong, please tell me.
Plus, now you have to build them to sustain tsunami/tidal waves too!
thorium, no melt down, plenty of thorium, mining doesn’t as environment unfriendly, can eat up previously made nuclear waste.
Not in theory, but it’s a logorithmic(sp?) scale, where each full point increase is 32x the previous one. At 10 you’re not going to have many people left to worry about the nukes.
Is that from an early report?
Friends and Family of USS Ronald Reagan:
I want to take this opportunity to personally assure you that first and foremost all personnel aboard the USS Ronald Reagan are safe and healthy.
During our mission to assist our close allies of Japan, we were operating near the radioactive plume from Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant. As you may have already heard, radioactivity was detected on 17 personnel from our ship, however, we promptly took the proper precautions and the radioactivity was easily removed by using soap and water. The levels that were detected were very low levels. To put this into perspective, the maximum radiation dose received was equalt to the amount of natural background radiation one would receive in one month from sources such as rocks, soil and the sun.
Ronald Reagan has since repositioned away from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant.
As a nuclear-powered aircraft carrrier, we have extensive technical expertise onboard to properly monitor such types of risks, and if necessary, rapidly resolve the situation.
We have taken all the necessary precautions to ensure that everyone is safe. We have closely monitored spaces, evaluated everyone who has flown or worked on the flight deck and cleaned the aircraft.
I have not seen any levels of radiation or contamination that would cause me to have any significant concerns at all.
As we continue to assist Japan in this terrible catastrophe, our Sailor’s–and your loves ones’– safety will remain at the top of my priority list.
Capt. Thom Burke
The US media has spun many of these incidents well beyond the actual real dangers, as anti-nuclear hysteria is a safe bet in a society that regularly puts logic on the back burner. This is why we still have outdated gas and coal generators nationwide that put out tons of radioactive material into the air each year instead of clean nuclear reactors. There is no accountability for the people who claim to operate with the environment as their priority yet block the technology we have that can replace the dirty old tech that’s in place.