Sunday, February 26, 2012 2:00:14 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?
Friday, February 24, 2012 9:54:36 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.
Friday, February 24, 2012 5:58:16 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
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.
Friday, February 24, 2012 1:40:44 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...