Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 28    Average: 3.3/5]
51 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 11052
Rating: 3.3
Category: Misc
Date: 02/23/12 11:11 AM

51 Responses to Collapsing Cooling Towers

  1. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18499 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 11:14 am
    Link: Collapsing Cooling Towers - Sad.
  2. Profile photo of TruTenrMan
    TruTenrMan Male 30-39
    2553 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 11:33 am
    This is so two weeks ago...
  3. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25406 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 11:38 am
    This was pretty amusing...
  4. Profile photo of CaptainPabst
    CaptainPabst Male 18-29
    1250 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 11:49 am
    More creepy than sad, but obviously with a bigger message behind it.
  5. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 11:53 am
    This video was funny, but 3 wind turbines can never replace 4 nuclear cores.

    Maybe, like 500,000 wind turbines, maybe, during a hurricane.
  6. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 11:57 am
    True answers to any energy problem: Solar, and fusion. That is all we should use.
  7. Profile photo of xCYBERDYNEx
    xCYBERDYNEx Male 18-29
    4903 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 12:04 pm
    Hippie bs
  8. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5865 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 12:16 pm
    Yes, because wind power has been SO successful.
  9. Profile photo of RuralNinja
    RuralNinja Male 18-29
    519 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 12:32 pm
    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?
  10. Profile photo of Sathon
    Sathon Male 18-29
    248 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 12:51 pm
    Video went from cute with the nuclear towers with the funny faces collapsing, to full retard when it turned into hippy bullpoo.
  11. Profile photo of Solvent
    Solvent Male 18-29
    2842 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 12:52 pm
    It was great until the bullpoo message at the end came in.
  12. Profile photo of SlothOfDoom
    SlothOfDoom Male 30-39
    2033 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 1:11 pm
    Three wind turbines will totally give you as much power as a nuke plant with three cooling towers.


    Science!
  13. Profile photo of Arcval
    Arcval Male 18-29
    304 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 1:16 pm
    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
  14. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10443 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 1:37 pm
    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...
  15. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10443 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 1:39 pm
    who can we trust?
    Engineers and scientists. Who else?

    ... I mean what kind of stupid question is that.
  16. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm
    @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.
  17. Profile photo of Arcval
    Arcval Male 18-29
    304 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:31 pm
    @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.
  18. Profile photo of shappy
    shappy Male 18-29
    757 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:31 pm
    whats wrong with nuclear?
  19. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4887 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:45 pm
    shappy ask Japan about that.
  20. Profile photo of PacoP42
    PacoP42 Male 13-17
    1064 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:48 pm
    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
  21. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4887 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:48 pm
    Arcval what about water turbine? You know our planet is maded of 70% of water.
  22. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:49 pm
    @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?
  23. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4887 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:51 pm
    PacoP42 i think that a mix of all renewable energetic sorces could be good, why focusing on just one?
  24. Profile photo of Arcval
    Arcval Male 18-29
    304 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 3:06 pm
    @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.
  25. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 3:30 pm
    @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.
  26. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 3:32 pm
    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.
  27. Profile photo of Sathon
    Sathon Male 18-29
    248 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 3:33 pm
    @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.
  28. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 3:42 pm
    @Sathon: My kardex and title

    where`s yours?
  29. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 3:43 pm
    before anyone says anything, there`s no sensitive information other than my name in either of those documents
  30. Profile photo of Sathon
    Sathon Male 18-29
    248 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 3:58 pm
    I`m assuming you`re in grad school right now with grades like that, which school in Canada do you go to?
  31. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 3:59 pm
    @Sathon: University of British Columbia, I`m in Vancouver :-), theoretical physics major.
  32. Profile photo of Sathon
    Sathon Male 18-29
    248 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 4:04 pm
    Sick, I`m doing my undergrad in Engineering Physics at Queen`s University in Ontario.
  33. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 4:06 pm
    @Sathon: Congrats! good luck with becoming an experimental scientist! (no sarcasm, I really do like experimental physics)
  34. Profile photo of Arcval
    Arcval Male 18-29
    304 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 4:19 pm
    @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.
  35. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 4:21 pm
    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.
  36. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 4:24 pm
    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?
  37. Profile photo of DJL
    DJL Male 30-39
    134 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 4:24 pm
    So what they`re representing is that four windmills is the equivalent of all the power generated at that last four tower site?
  38. Profile photo of RoboPatton
    RoboPatton Male 30-39
    2424 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 4:37 pm
    the should do a new one where animated house values crash after the windmills go up right in front of their ocean view.
  39. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 4:39 pm
    @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.
  40. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 4:44 pm
    @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
  41. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 6:19 pm
    So what they`re representing is that four windmills is the equivalent of all the power generated at that last four tower site? ----------
    I don`t think that was the message.
  42. Profile photo of a103276
    a103276 Male 18-29
    174 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 8:54 pm
    It was hilarious until I realized there`s a message to it.
  43. Profile photo of airsofter1
    airsofter1 Male 18-29
    1090 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 9:31 pm
    yes nuclear power is far less efficient than drating windmills. i don`t want to live on this planet anymore.
  44. Profile photo of codydaniel
    codydaniel Male 18-29
    34 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 2:32 am
    @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.
  45. Profile photo of Mogulman
    Mogulman Male 18-29
    295 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 7:58 am
    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.
  46. Profile photo of dm2754
    dm2754 Male 40-49
    3283 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 8:13 am
    funny to bad that wind power doesn`t as good a nuclear power
  47. Profile photo of Penguinato23
    Penguinato23 Male 18-29
    294 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 1:40 pm
    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...
  48. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 3:03 pm
    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.
  49. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 5:58 pm
    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
  50. Profile photo of Heliosphere
    Heliosphere Male 30-39
    6 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 9:54 pm
    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.
  51. Profile photo of PopCap
    PopCap Male 30-39
    730 posts
    February 26, 2012 at 2:00 am
    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?

Leave a Reply