Ideas of Mine

[b]Philled wrote: Imagine trying to power a nation on the wind. That's a massive amount of energy to be extracted. Wouldn't that directly change our weather patterns and climate?

Philled wrote:
Hello everyone, I've taken my opinion on energy farther and need criticism. Folks around here are too dug into some headline and don't really think for themselves it seems. A little about me - I'm 30, live in the Midwest, and fix jet engines for a living. Always have been fascinated with machines and electricity since I was young - so I grew up and studied in my field.

Our sun is amazing, we receive an immense amount of energy to sustain our planet. But everyone these days seems obsessed with solar power. I can see its uses like off-grid and emergency power source but is it really that efficient? A friend constantly quotes Elon musk as saying, "we have a giant nuke reactor in the sky." Hard not to agree with that, however, isn't he just pitching his products? You can counter his claim by saying that solar is only visible 50% of the year, during then is a mixed bag of being a clear day, cloudy, and/or polluted. Not a great power plant in my opinion. But a decent supplement if it wasn't so expensive. I counter Musk by saying, "well, we have giant solar panels called our oceans, lakes, and rivers." I live mountainous, and the power of running water is phenomenal. Harnessing this power is ancient tech but why don't we do it more? I truely believe hydro power will squash solar and wind. Even if we must flood millions of acres to create the reservoirs. Also, wouldn't that help solve the problem of rising waters on the coastlines from increase in temps? If the world relied on hydro and most of the plants had dams and reservoirs, wouldn't we displace some of this anxiety along with water?

Nukes are my favorite because they are so unbelievably powerful In such a small package. I know it'll never happen but can you imagine if we dismantled nuke weapons and used them for energy instead? What are some of your thoughts ?

Tim the plumber wrote:

3, I don't like nukes. No other thing we do has the capacity to render the planet uninhabitable. That we live in peaceful times is good. But picture a war wandering over a nation which has a few of these things. Picture cruise missiles used to blast open a nuclear plant as a form of strategic economic warfare. If you had to evacuate a large industrial area that would slow you down. Then there would be a revenge strike.

Tim the plumber wrote:
4, I am currently building a wind turbine system which, I hope, will generate power cheaper than coal. Wish me luck. If I get it to work it will make me the richest man ever.

Philled wrote:
Litesong, thank you for that reference. During huricane Harvey I joked with some friends that wouldn't it be great if we could funnel every hurricane into the gulf and extract it's energy til it's a cloudy day? Of course this would take trillions of dollars to do but is the future of energy, I believe.

Philled wrote:
Litesong, thank you for that reference. During huricane Harvey I joked with some friends that wouldn't it be great if we could funnel every hurricane into the gulf and extract it's energy til it's a cloudy day? Of course this would take trillions of dollars to do but is the future of energy, I believe.

GasGuzzler wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/offshore-wind-farms-could-knock-down-hurricanes1/

Wow. It's just unbelievable what some people will believe. Mr Jacobson is pulling facts right out of his wind blown ass! He might also consider a quick course in meteorology 101.

Philled wrote:
Into the night, good hearing from ya! Yes aircraft are fun, our society has a lot to be greatful for since a lot of tech today was researched and developed just for aircraft in the war effort of the past.

Philled wrote:
I wasn't trying to imply that a nuke warhead can be transferred straight to a reactor without some type of processing. Point was, we have a LOT of energy out there to harness. Much of it is going to the wrong place, IMO.

Philled wrote:
In my area, our mountains are pretty sturdy, granite mostly. Build high suspension bridges on them, tunnels through them, military command centers inside them, but not as many hydro plants as there should be. Hoover dam and lake mead is a amazing sight to see and very impressive for its age. We need more of that. Surely there are real solutions to hydros shortcomings. Maybe not politically, but certainly mechanically and logistically.

Philled wrote:
As far as hurricanes go - wow what a feat of engineering if we could steer them. I'd assume we'd extract its energy at specific areas of the storm and allow it to steer itself.

Philled wrote:
Of course there isn't a way to currently measure these global temps accurately.

Philled wrote:
I've never considered myself a believer or denier in climate change. We all know it's going to change.

Philled wrote:
Nothing in life is constant.

Philled wrote:
It seems any genuine care about the environment has turned into a way to scam others.

Philled wrote:
It's hard to believe that anyone truely cares.

Philled wrote:
Coworker of mine, big liberal, talks about CO2 and greenhouses gasses, NASA and their charts, how dirty oil is. But works on jets like me, has 3 cars, 2 of them he modified the pollution control systems,

Philled wrote:
one of them he put a turbo on to race (i own a classic race car so don't get me wrong here). He sold one car a couple weeks ago but had to change the a/c condenser, he didn't deplete the refrigerant properly, just cracked the line open and vented it.

Philled wrote:
I called him out on it, he said it was too expensive

Philled wrote:
and there are millions of cars with carbon emissions out there so it doesn't really matter.

Philled wrote:
Hes selling that car to buy a Tesla. I just had to laugh. I told him it was a doctor killer like the Beechcraft bonanza. Boy he didn't talk much after that.

Philled wrote:
Into the night, good hearing from ya! Yes aircraft are fun, our society has a lot to be greatful for since a lot of tech today was researched and developed just for aircraft in the war effort of the past.

I wasn't trying to imply that a nuke warhead can be transferred straight to a reactor without some type of processing. Point was, we have a LOT of energy out there to harness. Much of it is going to the wrong place, IMO.

In my area, our mountains are pretty sturdy, granite mostly. Build high suspension bridges on them, tunnels through them, military command centers inside them, but not as many hydro plants as there should be. Hoover dam and lake mead is a amazing sight to see and very impressive for its age. We need more of that. Surely there are real solutions to hydros shortcomings. Maybe not politically, but certainly mechanically and logistically.

As far as hurricanes go - wow what a feat of engineering if we could steer them. I'd assume we'd extract its energy at specific areas of the storm and allow it to steer itself.

Of course there isn't a way to currently measure these global temps accurately. I've never considered myself a believer or denier in climate change. We all know it's going to change. Nothing in life is constant. It seems any genuine care about the environment has turned into a way to scam others. It's hard to believe that anyone truely cares. Coworker of mine, big liberal, talks about CO2 and greenhouses gasses, NASA and their charts, how dirty oil is. But works on jets like me, has 3 cars, 2 of them he modified the pollution control systems, one of them he put a turbo on to race (i own a classic race car so don't get me wrong here). He sold one car a couple weeks ago but had to change the a/c condenser, he didn't deplete the refrigerant properly, just cracked the line open and vented it. I called him out on it, he said it was too expensive and there are millions of cars with carbon emissions out there so it doesn't really matter. Hes selling that car to buy a Tesla. I just had to laugh. I told him it was a doctor killer like the Beechcraft bonanza. Boy he didn't talk much after that.

James_ wrote:

Philled wrote:
Into the night, good hearing from ya! Yes aircraft are fun, our society has a lot to be greatful for since a lot of tech today was researched and developed just for aircraft in the war effort of the past.

I wasn't trying to imply that a nuke warhead can be transferred straight to a reactor without some type of processing. Point was, we have a LOT of energy out there to harness. Much of it is going to the wrong place, IMO.

In my area, our mountains are pretty sturdy, granite mostly. Build high suspension bridges on them, tunnels through them, military command centers inside them, but not as many hydro plants as there should be. Hoover dam and lake mead is a amazing sight to see and very impressive for its age. We need more of that. Surely there are real solutions to hydros shortcomings. Maybe not politically, but certainly mechanically and logistically.

As far as hurricanes go - wow what a feat of engineering if we could steer them. I'd assume we'd extract its energy at specific areas of the storm and allow it to steer itself.

Of course there isn't a way to currently measure these global temps accurately. I've never considered myself a believer or denier in climate change. We all know it's going to change. Nothing in life is constant. It seems any genuine care about the environment has turned into a way to scam others. It's hard to believe that anyone truely cares. Coworker of mine, big liberal, talks about CO2 and greenhouses gasses, NASA and their charts, how dirty oil is. But works on jets like me, has 3 cars, 2 of them he modified the pollution control systems, one of them he put a turbo on to race (i own a classic race car so don't get me wrong here). He sold one car a couple weeks ago but had to change the a/c condenser, he didn't deplete the refrigerant properly, just cracked the line open and vented it. I called him out on it, he said it was too expensive and there are millions of cars with carbon emissions out there so it doesn't really matter. Hes selling that car to buy a Tesla. I just had to laugh. I told him it was a doctor killer like the Beechcraft bonanza. Boy he didn't talk much after that.

Philled,
1st off, Philly wasn't supposed to win without Wentz. After all, Philly got rid of and then got Foles back.

As for nuclear war heads, waste from nuclear reactors is being reprocessed so it can be fuel again. They might be able to modify the process to use nuclear weapons as fuel.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx

Philled wrote:
Tim, great ideas! Smaller hydro turbines would probably be less impacting on the rivers ecosystem, and look more appealing, too, which is what people care for most these days it seems.

I think we could make a fully secure nuke plant. Build it inside a mountain, underground. Sure it could be a target but not unless you have massive firepower and a huge set of balls to risk your nations suicide. Even if the enemy were to completely wipe out the entire nation of the US, we have multiple aircraft in the air that operate their mission 24/7/365, and they have the ability to communicate with nuke subs that are below to launch the arsenal. Fighting with the US is suicide. Lately, we've been dragging on this war for many reasons, but I see it as the ability to sharpen our claws,test our weapons, and train our military on the best sub-human filth this world can offer.

I too, have built a windmill, but it doesn't produce much. Mines small, built it from a bad washing machines motor. Re-wired it, and can maybe get 300w on a stormy day. Problem I have with windmills is, they are extracting energy from atmospheric pressure systems. Imagine trying to power a nation on the wind. That's a massive amount of energy to be extracted. Wouldn't that directly change our weather patterns and climate? I bet you could create a desert with enough energy being extracted in certain areas. Why are the environmentalists obsessed with wind, too? Never understood that. They almost never talk about hydro power. Ultimately, I think the world will go strictly hydro, nuke, or geothermal after a decline in oil and coal, probably hundreds of years from now.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

3, I don't like nukes. No other thing we do has the capacity to render the planet uninhabitable. That we live in peaceful times is good. But picture a war wandering over a nation which has a few of these things. Picture cruise missiles used to blast open a nuclear plant as a form of strategic economic warfare. If you had to evacuate a large industrial area that would slow you down. Then there would be a revenge strike.

I wonder why anyone would bother with such a shot. Nuclear plants are using a low grade fuel to produce their power. Why not just put a weapons grade nuke on the warhead of the cruise missile and send it into a city instead?

Tim the plumber wrote:
4, I am currently building a wind turbine system which, I hope, will generate power cheaper than coal. Wish me luck. If I get it to work it will make me the richest man ever.

Since coal costs $1.96 per million BTU, good luck.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Philled wrote:
Tim, great ideas! Smaller hydro turbines would probably be less impacting on the rivers ecosystem, and look more appealing, too, which is what people care for most these days it seems.

I think we could make a fully secure nuke plant. Build it inside a mountain, underground. Sure it could be a target but not unless you have massive firepower and a huge set of balls to risk your nations suicide. Even if the enemy were to completely wipe out the entire nation of the US, we have multiple aircraft in the air that operate their mission 24/7/365, and they have the ability to communicate with nuke subs that are below to launch the arsenal. Fighting with the US is suicide. Lately, we've been dragging on this war for many reasons, but I see it as the ability to sharpen our claws,test our weapons, and train our military on the best sub-human filth this world can offer.

I too, have built a windmill, but it doesn't produce much. Mines small, built it from a bad washing machines motor. Re-wired it, and can maybe get 300w on a stormy day. Problem I have with windmills is, they are extracting energy from atmospheric pressure systems. Imagine trying to power a nation on the wind. That's a massive amount of energy to be extracted. Wouldn't that directly change our weather patterns and climate? I bet you could create a desert with enough energy being extracted in certain areas. Why are the environmentalists obsessed with wind, too? Never understood that. They almost never talk about hydro power. Ultimately, I think the world will go strictly hydro, nuke, or geothermal after a decline in oil and coal, probably hundreds of years from now.

1, If the war were to wander over the place of the nuclear power plant and the bad guys decieded that they needed to use dirty bombs to not lose and die all the mountain over it would not do any good.

2, The small hydro thing would be nice, it would not use any dams just small collection grills in the stream-lets and pipes containing the water down to the turbine which thus has high pressure water to work. It would. however, never be more than a few percent of the energy we want. say 3% max.

3, The energy taken out of the wind is utterly tiny compared to the amount of energy in the total wind of the planet. Even tiny compared the wind over a single county. Human power is so small compared to nature. The mountains will always be far more of a wind break than anything humanity builds.

4, Geothermal is a reasonable idea. The USA can use Yellow stone for all it's power and Europe can use either Iceland or Etna or both.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

3, I don't like nukes. No other thing we do has the capacity to render the planet uninhabitable. That we live in peaceful times is good. But picture a war wandering over a nation which has a few of these things. Picture cruise missiles used to blast open a nuclear plant as a form of strategic economic warfare. If you had to evacuate a large industrial area that would slow you down. Then there would be a revenge strike.

I wonder why anyone would bother with such a shot. Nuclear plants are using a low grade fuel to produce their power. Why not just put a weapons grade nuke on the warhead of the cruise missile and send it into a city instead?

Tim the plumber wrote:
4, I am currently building a wind turbine system which, I hope, will generate power cheaper than coal. Wish me luck. If I get it to work it will make me the richest man ever.

Since coal costs $1.96 per million BTU, good luck.

Chernobyl managed to make a large area uninhabitable.

Tim the plumber wrote:
The same for the Japanese one.

Tim the plumber wrote:
This is without anybody making a real explosion of the thing.

Tim the plumber wrote:
You only get to have a proper nuke explosion, atom bomb, if you have the power of a state.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Even then it is hard. That capacity for investment usually means that the state in question is sensable enough not to do it. It is the desperate chancers that will be more tricky.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Recently IS used small drones to attack the Russian air base in Syria. If they had had any sense they would have used the same guidance systems attached to larger light aircraft style flying bombs. Petrol powered planes with lots of explosives in them.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Imagine 50 VI's with decent drone guidance attacking a nuclear power station.

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Philled wrote:
Tim, great ideas! Smaller hydro turbines would probably be less impacting on the rivers ecosystem, and look more appealing, too, which is what people care for most these days it seems.

I think we could make a fully secure nuke plant. Build it inside a mountain, underground. Sure it could be a target but not unless you have massive firepower and a huge set of balls to risk your nations suicide. Even if the enemy were to completely wipe out the entire nation of the US, we have multiple aircraft in the air that operate their mission 24/7/365, and they have the ability to communicate with nuke subs that are below to launch the arsenal. Fighting with the US is suicide. Lately, we've been dragging on this war for many reasons, but I see it as the ability to sharpen our claws,test our weapons, and train our military on the best sub-human filth this world can offer.

I too, have built a windmill, but it doesn't produce much. Mines small, built it from a bad washing machines motor. Re-wired it, and can maybe get 300w on a stormy day. Problem I have with windmills is, they are extracting energy from atmospheric pressure systems. Imagine trying to power a nation on the wind. That's a massive amount of energy to be extracted. Wouldn't that directly change our weather patterns and climate? I bet you could create a desert with enough energy being extracted in certain areas. Why are the environmentalists obsessed with wind, too? Never understood that. They almost never talk about hydro power. Ultimately, I think the world will go strictly hydro, nuke, or geothermal after a decline in oil and coal, probably hundreds of years from now.

1, If the war were to wander over the place of the nuclear power plant and the bad guys decieded that they needed to use dirty bombs to not lose and die all the mountain over it would not do any good.

2, The small hydro thing would be nice, it would not use any dams just small collection grills in the stream-lets and pipes containing the water down to the turbine which thus has high pressure water to work. It would. however, never be more than a few percent of the energy we want. say 3% max.

3, The energy taken out of the wind is utterly tiny compared to the amount of energy in the total wind of the planet. Even tiny compared the wind over a single county. Human power is so small compared to nature. The mountains will always be far more of a wind break than anything humanity builds.

4, Geothermal is a reasonable idea. The USA can use Yellow stone for all it's power and Europe can use either Iceland or Etna or both.

Tim, modern nuclear power plants simply die if the containment facilities are broken. Even the Takashima plant shut down. The trouble was their design required full cooling until the plant was all the way down. So one of the three containment facilities ruptured from thermal expansion because the coolant pipes were burst. From what people claim you'd think that the Earth had ended. But one mile from the plant the radiations rapidly dropped to twice normal background radiation from X-rays from the Sun.

Wake wrote:
There is a lot of worry about the continuing discharge of radioactive water because the break is underwater now and the plant is still cooling down and radioactive components are still molten and leaking out in the water.

Wake wrote:
The levels of radiation there are too high for human's to get near and they have been trying several methods none of which have been particularly successful. I have heard that the latest plan is to pour an enclosing cement barrier over the whole reactor that burst but that seems entirely inappropriate to me. Once it cools enough it can be disassembled and cleaned up properly.

Wake wrote:
I will repeat - small hydro generates almost no energy

Wake wrote:
and causes massive environmental damage.

Wake wrote:
Remember that you're blocking off streams where trout and salmon breed

Wake wrote:
and where there are thousands of species of small fish preyed upon by the larger breeds.

Wake wrote:
We have a rather large creek here - almost a small river. They put in flood control dams on them and the entire salmon run in that part of the bay disappeared completely.

Wake wrote:
This river would be fed by the waters coming out of the surrounding hills and the small to medium sized creeks. You used to be able to stand by the side of these creeks in spawning season and see the Salmon swim through the clear deep parts and then jump the steps. That's all stopped since then.

Wake wrote:
They've installed so many dams and reservoired so much water that there isn't enough water moving through the creeks to even let spawning fish in.

Wake wrote:
They cried about the Delta Smelt that needed water to survive. BS, they have survived the dry and wet seasons for time immemorial. But then they kill off major food species. I haven't even heard of Salmon being taken in or around the bay in decades.

Wake wrote:
Striped bass used to be common in the bay. I can't even remember the last time I saw one on a party boat.

Wake wrote:
Without the freshwater washing all the pollution out of the bay we aren't even taking any significant amount of anchovies. So the bird populations are much reduced.

Wake wrote:
There is real environmentalism and the surreal environmentalism of AGW.

Tim the plumber wrote:
V one. As in WWII pulse jet flying bomb. But a little more guidnce to make proper explosions happen at the nuclear power plant not steam explosions.

Tim the plumber wrote:
I recon that would be worse, or could be worse, than a tidal wave especially if the civil authorities were out of the question due to war.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Do you think all the former Soviet states are stable?

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
V one. As in WWII pulse jet flying bomb. But a little more guidnce to make proper explosions happen at the nuclear power plant not steam explosions.

Ah. Well, a load of 50 of those things would make a mess of a nuclear plant. That's for sure. But I ask again, why attack one? It makes the land around the plant useless for everyone, including the attacker.

Tim the plumber wrote:
I recon that would be worse, or could be worse, than a tidal wave especially if the civil authorities were out of the question due to war.

Probably not. While it would make a mess, you don't have the problems of the kind of destruction the tidal wave caused to the surrounding area.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Do you think all the former Soviet states are stable?

No. Then again, I don't think the Soviet Union itself is particularly stable. Communism can only survive by stealing from others. Sooner or later you run out of people to steal from. Communism is a parasite of capitalism.

Now if you want to live in abject fear that someone is going to start a nuclear war for the hell of it, that's your business. You seem to forget that if someone opens up with nuclear weapons, they will be destroyed by return fire in short order.

Philled wrote:
Wow lots of cool info here. Seems like we'll have a diverse energy platform for the future. IMO it'll be nukes, hydro, and oil/gas that'll be the major contributors.

Wake, i highly doubt all the hydro sites are taken. We have a mountain range that spans from New Mexico to canada. If there is a will there is a way. I disagee that wind energy cannot significantly alter weather. Extract enough energy and things will change.

Into the night, I don't have a pilot license, just an A&P. Maybe one day, but right now I'm full of hobbies and time with family. It has been on my mind tho. Absolutely agree that the Marxists have hijacked the environmental movement and turned it into extremism. My buddy - who should have depleted his a/c system properly, high price tag or not, didn't do it. Shows the level of hypocrisy some people have. Only when it's convenient or when their party is watching will they care it seems. Zero integrity on many levels. I feel it's necessary for conservatives/republicans, whatever you want to call them, to retake the environmental movement back to further progress. How they do that will be an uphill battle - fighting propaganda and extremists the entire way. Maybe at the end, the environment will be helped. Meanwhile, I'll keep buying hunting/fishing licenses and pack out trash from the tourists, teens, hippies, and the homeless every year.

Philled wrote:
Wow lots of cool info here. Seems like we'll have a diverse energy platform for the future. IMO it'll be nukes, hydro, and oil/gas that'll be the major contributors.

Wake, i highly doubt all the hydro sites are taken. We have a mountain range that spans from New Mexico to canada. If there is a will there is a way. I disagee that wind energy cannot significantly alter weather. Extract enough energy and things will change.

Into the night, I don't have a pilot license, just an A&P. Maybe one day, but right now I'm full of hobbies and time with family. It has been on my mind tho. Absolutely agree that the Marxists have hijacked the environmental movement and turned it into extremism. My buddy - who should have depleted his a/c system properly, high price tag or not, didn't do it. Shows the level of hypocrisy some people have. Only when it's convenient or when their party is watching will they care it seems. Zero integrity on many levels. I feel it's necessary for conservatives/republicans, whatever you want to call them, to retake the environmental movement back to further progress. How they do that will be an uphill battle - fighting propaganda and extremists the entire way. Maybe at the end, the environment will be helped. Meanwhile, I'll keep buying hunting/fishing licenses and pack out trash from the tourists, teens, hippies, and the homeless every year.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
V one. As in WWII pulse jet flying bomb. But a little more guidnce to make proper explosions happen at the nuclear power plant not steam explosions.

Ah. Well, a load of 50 of those things would make a mess of a nuclear plant. That's for sure. But I ask again, why attack one? It makes the land around the plant useless for everyone, including the attacker.

Tim the plumber wrote:
I recon that would be worse, or could be worse, than a tidal wave especially if the civil authorities were out of the question due to war.

Probably not. While it would make a mess, you don't have the problems of the kind of destruction the tidal wave caused to the surrounding area.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Do you think all the former Soviet states are stable?

No. Then again, I don't think the Soviet Union itself is particularly stable. Communism can only survive by stealing from others. Sooner or later you run out of people to steal from. Communism is a parasite of capitalism.

Now if you want to live in abject fear that someone is going to start a nuclear war for the hell of it, that's your business. You seem to forget that if someone opens up with nuclear weapons, they will be destroyed by return fire in short order.

My point is that if a Syria style war happens anywhere where there are nuclear power plants then there is likely to be a lot of fall out, both politically and radiation wise.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Why have them around at all?

Tim the plumber wrote:
We don't need them.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Haveas few as you can get away with.

Tim the plumber wrote:
It is not so much the threat of nuclear war but of normal messy war wandering over places wth the poison of uranium in large active concentrated amounts that is the problem.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
V one. As in WWII pulse jet flying bomb. But a little more guidnce to make proper explosions happen at the nuclear power plant not steam explosions.

Ah. Well, a load of 50 of those things would make a mess of a nuclear plant. That's for sure. But I ask again, why attack one? It makes the land around the plant useless for everyone, including the attacker.

Tim the plumber wrote:
I recon that would be worse, or could be worse, than a tidal wave especially if the civil authorities were out of the question due to war.

Probably not. While it would make a mess, you don't have the problems of the kind of destruction the tidal wave caused to the surrounding area.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Do you think all the former Soviet states are stable?

No. Then again, I don't think the Soviet Union itself is particularly stable. Communism can only survive by stealing from others. Sooner or later you run out of people to steal from. Communism is a parasite of capitalism.

Now if you want to live in abject fear that someone is going to start a nuclear war for the hell of it, that's your business. You seem to forget that if someone opens up with nuclear weapons, they will be destroyed by return fire in short order.

My point is that if a Syria style war happens anywhere where there are nuclear power plants then there is likely to be a lot of fall out, both politically and radiation wise.

Why have them around at all? We don't need them. Haveas few as you can get away with.

It is not so much the threat of nuclear war but of normal messy war wandering over places wth the poison of uranium in large active concentrated amounts that is the problem.

Wake wrote:

Philled wrote:
Wow lots of cool info here. Seems like we'll have a diverse energy platform for the future. IMO it'll be nukes, hydro, and oil/gas that'll be the major contributors.

Wake, i highly doubt all the hydro sites are taken. We have a mountain range that spans from New Mexico to canada. If there is a will there is a way. I disagee that wind energy cannot significantly alter weather. Extract enough energy and things will change.

Into the night, I don't have a pilot license, just an A&P. Maybe one day, but right now I'm full of hobbies and time with family. It has been on my mind tho. Absolutely agree that the Marxists have hijacked the environmental movement and turned it into extremism. My buddy - who should have depleted his a/c system properly, high price tag or not, didn't do it. Shows the level of hypocrisy some people have. Only when it's convenient or when their party is watching will they care it seems. Zero integrity on many levels. I feel it's necessary for conservatives/republicans, whatever you want to call them, to retake the environmental movement back to further progress. How they do that will be an uphill battle - fighting propaganda and extremists the entire way. Maybe at the end, the environment will be helped. Meanwhile, I'll keep buying hunting/fishing licenses and pack out trash from the tourists, teens, hippies, and the homeless every year.

We pretty much agree on future power sources but rather than oil and gas I see a recurrence of coal which has a higher energy content per kg than the other two.

I think that you would be amazed at how much of the nations rivers and even streams are already dammed and able to produce power (though there are many that are presently being used for reservoirs for drinking water.)

There are so many dams on the Mississippi, that the river doesn't even flow properly anymore.

Wake wrote:
If you go up into the Rockies you'll discover that there are places that appear to have enough water flow for hydroelectric power that do not. I stood beneath a water fall almost 1,000 feet high and while it looked like a huge amount to water, when you followed it down you couldn't even find the creek it fed. And if you followed it down to the river - that river was dammed.

Remember again that I said that these hydroelectric dams are entirely destructive of the aquatic lifeforms. It is now so bad in California that most rivers do not even TRY to provide any type of fish ladders because there are no fish to use them.

Wake wrote:
Salmon are now mostly raised in fish farms.

Wake wrote:
I think you misunderstood me or thought that I said something that was actually said by someone else. There is NO WAY that wind farms can effect even the wind direction and strength let alone the weather. People that would say that have NEVER even seen a wind farm.

Wake wrote:
Conservatives are those that actually led the environmentalist movement until it attracted so many nutcases that most dropped out.

Wake wrote:
It sure as hell wasn't teenage college kids that stopped the smog in LA or saved the whales. Hell, most people are unaware of what saved the whales. It was a combination of Japan ignoring the whaling regulations and taking Catchalots (Sperm Whales) and the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causing blooming in the plankton in the oceans.

Wake wrote:
The problem in America isn't with generating power. This is the problem on the rest of the globe.

Wake wrote:
And the IPCC intended to stop developing nations from developing.

Wake wrote:
Looks like they are now SOL.

Into the Night wrote:
X rays don't strike the surface of the Earth from the Sun. They are completely filtered out by the atmosphere.

The fuel is not molten. It has solidified. They still refer to the remains as the 'molten' fuel colloquially.

It HAS cooled. The problem is that it's underwater and under a lot of debris. Also, the melt has solidified on the remains of the structure of the reactor.

Bull. Small hydro powers homes and even cities.

Bull. Seattle's main source of power comes from a hydro station that most people don't even know is there until you show it to them. There is no dam.

Bull. Salmon can get through on properly designed fish ladders without a problem. Trout don't need to pass dams.

There's always a bigger fish.

In that part of the bay??? You are talking about a river, aren't you?

Perhaps you are referring to badly designed dams.

You'd be surprise what spawning fish will do.

May I suggest a couple of good salmon fishing charters in the Bay area?

Maybe you should stop partying and look in the water.

I don't see any reduction of birds in the Bay area.

I think BOTH are surreal to you. You should get out more and explore your own town.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' stutterin' stutterin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Windmills are still questionable... Altamont windmills have 90 foot blades...... The older ones had 30' blades....

still learning wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:

The fuel is not molten.


The nuclear fuel inside of the Fukushima power plant is molten /quote]

Might check out this website:http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/pla/index-e.html

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
X rays don't strike the surface of the Earth from the Sun. They are completely filtered out by the atmosphere.

The fuel is not molten. It has solidified. They still refer to the remains as the 'molten' fuel colloquially.

It HAS cooled. The problem is that it's underwater and under a lot of debris. Also, the melt has solidified on the remains of the structure of the reactor.

Bull. Small hydro powers homes and even cities.

Bull. Seattle's main source of power comes from a hydro station that most people don't even know is there until you show it to them. There is no dam.

Bull. Salmon can get through on properly designed fish ladders without a problem. Trout don't need to pass dams.

There's always a bigger fish.

In that part of the bay??? You are talking about a river, aren't you?

Perhaps you are referring to badly designed dams.

You'd be surprise what spawning fish will do.

May I suggest a couple of good salmon fishing charters in the Bay area?

Maybe you should stop partying and look in the water.

I don't see any reduction of birds in the Bay area.

I think BOTH are surreal to you. You should get out more and explore your own town.

Nightmare - you are really stupid and every time you post you have to show it almost like you're bragging about it.

Wake wrote:
Approximately half of background radiation is from radon gas which is escaping from the Earth's core.

Wake wrote:
A tiny bit more is from other naturally occurring radioactive elements.

Wake wrote:
The rest is almost entirely in the form of X-radiation generated by cosmic rays - accelerated H or He nuclei that strike atom inside the atmosphere knocking an electron free and generating X-radiation.

Wake wrote:
The nuclear fuel inside of the Fukushima power plant is molten because the fuel remains slightly active and generates enough heat to maintain that.

Wake wrote:
Without cooling they have no way of reducing this reaction.

Wake wrote:
Tell us all - what do you believe "small hydro" to be? Powering a CITY???

Wake wrote:
Tell us how you can harness "small hydro" and waste water over a fish ladder?

Wake wrote:
I wonder exactly how your mind works when you can't for one second think.

Wake wrote:
Your engineering skills really show just how stupid you are. You don't need to dam rivers with enough flow.

Wake wrote:
The flow rate of the Columbia makes dams unnecessary unless the amount of power necessary exceeds the power of the flow.

Wake wrote:
Since you haven't one single bit of knowledge of how to design a dam perhaps you ought to just call them a damn.

Wake wrote:
I am enough of a naturalist to know a great deal more about fish and their spawning habits

Wake wrote:
than some jackass that doesn't know that trout will move towards the clean water of the sources of rivers.

Wake wrote:
You aren't even bright enough to know that very few dams contain fish ladders for two reasons - they waste water that is used to generate energy and fish ladders do not work well.

Wake wrote:
You don't see any reduction of birds on the bay?

Wake wrote:
What in the hell would you know about it?

Wake wrote:
...deleted Holy Quote...

Wake wrote:
You really have a mouth for an ignorant fool. I was born and lived 18 years 3 blocks from the Oakland Estuary and watched the disappearance of the birds in LARGE number.

Wake wrote:
While on the San Francisco waterfront seagulls of three species are still fairly stable the rest of the bay is a dead zone.

Wake wrote:
Tell us again about the birds you ignorant fool.

Wake wrote:
And I want you to tell us WHAT Salmon charters operate inside the bay? You don't even have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Wake wrote:
I simply cannot believe how you can flaunt your ignorance about virtually every matter on this site and not realize that you don't know anything you're talking about.

Wake wrote:

still learning wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:

The fuel is not molten.


The nuclear fuel inside of the Fukushima power plant is molten /quote]

Might check out this website:http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/pla/index-e.html

"On November 30, 2017, deficiencies were found in parts of the cables leading inside the pedestal below the Unit 3 Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV), for three of the nine thermometers installed at the bottom section. Those three thermometers are considered to be broken because they were unable to measure the temperature there. Therefore, thermometers (temperature (1), temperature (2) and temperature (3) as above) have been excluded for monitoring the operational limit of being within 80 degrees at the RPV bottom section, as defined by Article 18 (Reactor water injection system) of the Specifications for Specified Nuclear Facility in Implementation Plan III. Monitoring is being carried out by the remaining six thermometers.
○Data may change or be missing due to equipment failure or regular inspections."

There are no thermometers in the center sections of the containment. The fact that this area is still molten really cannot be doubted. The radiation levels there are still high enough that it is plain that something is going on and it will until the radiation from Unit 1 is reduced to the undetectable levels.

Do you even know what that data means?