Collapsing Cooling Towers

Submitted by: fancylad 5 years ago Misc

Sad.
There are 51 comments:
Male 729
Not to mention the phenomenal amount of resources required to keep turbines maintained properly. Look at any wind farm and notice the number of burned out aviation warning beacons. If it`s hard to change a light bulb, how much harder is changing out lubricants, brushes, or worn moving parts?
0
Reply
Male 6
Mogulman;
"HAHAHAHAHA I love how they try to imply that three wind turbines can replace a nuclear plant. Some people can be so stupid. Average nuclear plant produces 800MW, average wind turbine produces 1.5 MW. You would need about 533 turbines to replace one nuclear plant."

It`s even worse than that, wind turbines only produce that 1.5 MW for around 30% of the time, so you would actually need more like 1600 wind turbines to produce the same amount of power over the course of a year as the nuclear plant.

But of course a lot of the time those wind turbines would be producing no power or minimal power and would need to be backed up by less environmentally friendly sources like gas or coal. Unfortunately not many environmentalists understand important power generation concepts like capacity factor, dispatchability and spinning reserve.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
randomxnp, that`s idiotic, radioactive decay doesn`t necessarily reduce mass, gamma rays have no mass and they are extremely dangerous. Also technological development invalidates the point that radioactive waste is dangerous and not simple to handle? The fact that it`s something that`s possible to handle with relative safety doesn`t mean it`s safe.

codydaniel. Yeah a small hill of radioactive waste is more accurate to what I meant
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Jendrian

Sorry, but that is idiotic. The reason thorium waste has a long half-life is that it radiates very little. It is safe. You are also ignoring technological development, totally invalidating all you say.
0
Reply
Male 294
Yeah, a hear some people hating on nuclear power...and yet the only thing I ever hear that`s allegedly bad about it is that it produces nasty waste, which also allegedly doesn`t cause a problem if disposed of properly.

From what I understand it sounds like proponents of nuclear power are right; people seem to just hear the word `nuclear` and get all paranoid because they think of nuclear bombs and radiation and cancer and scary mutants from movies and whatnot.

I don`t know, maybe I am misunderstanding. Maybe there is something actually wrong with nuclear power. It`s just that if there is maybe people who disagree with it should bring whatever it is up more often rather than basically saying "nuclear power is bad, m`kay?" much of the time.

Of course sometimes encouragement of unbased paranoia, like in cases like this, is the hallmark of some special interest group with money and an ulterior motive, so there`s always reason to be skeptical...
0
Reply
Male 3,578
funny to bad that wind power doesn`t as good a nuclear power
0
Reply
Male 295
HAHAHAHAHA I love how they try to imply that three wind turbines can replace a nuclear plant. Some people can be so stupid. Average nuclear plant produces 800MW, average wind turbine produces 1.5 MW. You would need about 533 turbines to replace one nuclear plant.

The notion that nuclear power needs to be fazed out in favor of wind is absolutely ludicrous. People have an irrational fear of nuclear power that is preventing our progression off of carbon fuel.
0
Reply
Male 34
@jendrian

Check your sig figs, 2.1e6 m^3 is only 210m X 105m X 100m, for example. A small hill, or football field`s worth, but certainly no mountain.
0
Reply
Male 1,089
yes nuclear power is far less efficient than drating windmills. i don`t want to live on this planet anymore.
0
Reply
Male 174
It was hilarious until I realized there`s a message to it.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]So what they`re representing is that four windmills is the equivalent of all the power generated at that last four tower site?[/quote] ----------
I don`t think that was the message.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@randomxnp. Oh right, many thousands of years. How much of the same radioactive material will we have produce in say, 10 thousand years, (twice more of the current age of the egyptian civilization, keep that in mind), when we finally run out of places to put it? how much of the same radioactive material that we produced 10 thousand years ago will still be there? well with a mean life of ~4.4 billion years for thorium waste, my guess is just about everything will still be there, radioactively decaying.

If we don`t make it that long, it`ll probably be because of a strong reliance on nuclear power.

I`m not advocating for the complete banning of it, I`m advocating for moderation
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Arcval: Tiny? ...the first two pages of this article clearly show how at the beginning of 1998 it went from 320 cm (cubic meters) to 5600, twenty times more in a year, and although the projection is better (only 14500 cm) by the end of 2035, it`s still a massive amount of highly radioactive material. Let alone the low-level radioactive material which grew to 2.1 million cm.

Tiny? That`s a whole mountain right there and that`s just in Canada.
0
Reply
Male 2,424
the should do a new one where animated house values crash after the windmills go up right in front of their ocean view.
0
Reply
Male 134
So what they`re representing is that four windmills is the equivalent of all the power generated at that last four tower site?
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Jendrian

Thorium power waste is very quickly safe. Don`t post until you know what you are talking about!

"How many years until we run out of containers and places to bury them?"

A lot. Like many thousands. Like, let`s hope the species makes it that long, and then we can assume we`ll have a better solution. Do you actually know how big the Earth is?
0
Reply
Male 1,293
This advert was paid for by taxes and energy surcharges I can`t afford. Hope they go out of business soon. If they can`t make money they should go bust, not take subsidies.
0
Reply
Male 303
@jendrian
The volumes of waste produced by nuclear power now are tiny as a volume, and a combination of newer plants can get it down to 13% of what it currently is. We will run out of fuel 1000000`s of years before we run out of space.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Sathon: Congrats! good luck with becoming an experimental scientist! (no sarcasm, I really do like experimental physics)
0
Reply
Male 248
Sick, I`m doing my undergrad in Engineering Physics at Queen`s University in Ontario.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Sathon: University of British Columbia, I`m in Vancouver :-), theoretical physics major.
0
Reply
Male 248
I`m assuming you`re in grad school right now with grades like that, which school in Canada do you go to?
0
Reply
Male 2,516
before anyone says anything, there`s no sensitive information other than my name in either of those documents
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Sathon: My kardex and title

where`s yours?
0
Reply
Male 248
@jendrian: "I`m a physicist."

Hmm..

>Age: 18-29
>Profile picture looks like an 18 year old.

You`re as much of a physicist as I am.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
as piperfawn pointed out, a better solution is a combination of different sources, no single solution (I don`t think) is the best, and cables and devices don`t care where the energy comes from.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Arcval. Well, I`m not militantly against it (even if it sounded like it), just saying the waste produced is quite a bit more dangerous than it could be. When we talk about nuclear power thorium plants also produce radioactive waste that needs to be dealt with as well, and as you probably know there`s a limit to which reactions will produce energy by fission, so at some point in that chain of less efficient energy production you will have waste with a mean life older than the oldest civilizations we know. How many years until we run out of containers and places to bury them?

Not having coal plants regulated as well as nuclear plants doesn`t mean that nuclear is better, it means it`s better regulated. I seriously doubt your claim that cancer near coal plants is at higher levels but I will believe it without further investigation because even if it was true, the key is in the regulation part. Then again, I`m quite against coal and fossil fuel burning plants too.
0
Reply
Male 303
@jendrian:Austria is the only nation to formerly bring into law a ban on civilian nuclear power, most are not against it per say, but the USA has issues thinking everyone is going to make nukes.
As for waste: burying not ideal but well managed and containers shielded. Thorium fuel cycle far less waste producing and recyler plants can turn most of the waste to energy. So the problem is being dealt with.
Coal contains ALOT of radioactive isotopes, when you burn it these get belched out into the atmosphere. Cancer rates near coal plants are massively higher than near nuclear plants, no one regulates the radioactive emissions of a coal station. The actual water heating part is as safe, but the issue here is waste and industrial accident rates.
A surprising number of people drown in hydro reservoirs, and remember that public pressure (from people such as yourself) has made governments regulate the nuclear industry to kingdom come, hence mega health and safety.
0
Reply
Male 5,019
PacoP42 i think that a mix of all renewable energetic sorces could be good, why focusing on just one?
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Arcval: I`m a physicist. And in Europe maybe Austria was the only one, but in north and south America only US and Canada do it, all other countries are against it.

The way we "deal with the waste" is just burying it deep. That`s it, there`s nothing else I`ve seen done with these materials. If you need a reason why heavily ionizing whole mountains is a bad idea then you need to study a tad more on radioactivity.

And I really don`t see how heating up water with a uranium rod is safer than heating it up with coal, it`s almost the exact same procedure to produce electricity after heating up the tanks. How is it also safer than working in a hydroelectric? where, barring structural failure (which is also present in all plants) you`re also just controlling a mechanical system?
0
Reply
Male 5,019
Arcval what about water turbine? You know our planet is maded of 70% of water.
0
Reply
Male 1,064
i think photovoltaic is the way to go. if only we could find a way to make it more efficient, it would be worth the investment
0
Reply
Male 5,019
shappy ask Japan about that.
0
Reply
Male 757
whats wrong with nuclear?
0
Reply
Male 303
@jendrian:
Banning nuclear power has only been done by Austria, and that was a stupid move. Nuclear power is per kWh produced the safest way to produce energy and puts 40X less radioactive material into the atmosphere as coal power does. Good regulation and an impeccable safety record (Nuclear power is the safest job in the world to work in, your more likely to die or get injured in an office job!). The nuclear waste problem is being dealt with very well in the last 30 years and we are finding ever less waste producing ways to generate the power (see thorium and recycler plants). Every subsequent power source we move onto uses solar capital from further in the past,in the past water wheels (this weeks solar capital), currently fossil fuels (ten of millions of years), next nuclear fission (billions of years). Nuclear is also the second cheapest (after coal), yes including decon costs.

BTW: I`m an electrical engineer.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@LazyMe484. Well if you`re lazy then yeah, nuclear is the easiest way to go. But have you thought that you`re producing the only surefire way of getting cancer, as well as plenty of other ailments related to radioactivity, at a large constant rate? The half life of which is about 20-30 thousand years. By comparison the egyptian pyramids saw their heyday 6000 years ago. That means that in 4 times as long as it took for us to even realize the egyptian civilization existed, we will have HALF of the radioactive sh*t we produced today. Let alone the one we`ll produce next year.

On behalf of all countries that have banned nuclear power: we can do without it.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] who can we trust? [/quote]
Engineers and scientists. Who else?

... I mean what kind of stupid question is that.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Nuclear is the only way to go, until fusion. I don`t see anyone lining up to pay a dollar a kWh for pure wind or solar...
0
Reply
Male 303
The practical answer to power in the near future as actually being done by electrical engineers:
10% solar and wind
0-5% geothermal and arc disposal
5-15% Tidal and Hydro
0-55% Gas
20-85% Nuclear (combination of HPWR, Thorium, Recycler).
% depending on local conditions, international power grids taking full advantage of new HVDC links and plans for superconducting main links (biggest barrier mass producing the material needed, it`s a complex material to make).

Solar: A bit poo for the foreseeable future.
Fusion: Not in the next 100 years, but will be worth it in the long run.
Wind: Only good in windy coastal locations, but pricey and horribly intermittent.
Geothermal: Actually needs more work but promising . Lack of suitable geology main problem.
Hydro: Lack of suitable sites, alot of land use for how much power you get.
Arc disposal: Would be better in the long run to recycle the waste than arc burn it.

So remember, the fu
0
Reply
Male 2,033
Three wind turbines will totally give you as much power as a nuke plant with three cooling towers.


Science!
0
Reply
Male 2,841
It was great until the bullpoo message at the end came in.
0
Reply
Male 248
Video went from cute with the nuclear towers with the funny faces collapsing, to full retard when it turned into hippy bullpoo.
0
Reply
Male 519
There are hippies pushing for wind power, then there`s another group of hippies who oppose it because wind power messes with the environment and kills birds. If the hippies can`t even agree on the environment, who can we trust?
0
Reply
Male 7,364
Yes, because wind power has been SO successful.
0
Reply
Male 4,902
Hippie bs
0
Reply
Male 4,793
True answers to any energy problem: Solar, and fusion. That is all we should use.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
This video was funny, but 3 wind turbines can never replace 4 nuclear cores.

Maybe, like 500,000 wind turbines, maybe, during a hurricane.
0
Reply
Male 1,249
More creepy than sad, but obviously with a bigger message behind it.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
This was pretty amusing...
0
Reply
Male 2,552
This is so two weeks ago...
0
Reply
Male 19,888
0
Reply