Solar Roadways... - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

jaberwock

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 1073

Quote from: beetcoin on June 10, 2014, 12:38:51 PM

http://www.vice.com/read/how-effed-are-nukes

after effects of major nuclear bombing.. if you look at the pics from kazakhstan and chernobyl, it's kind of a turn off. kazakhstan's current issue is that they are unable to quarantine the affected people, so they are interbreeding with the non-affected people and making babies with serious issues.

What you do want to do with affected people? Do you want to euthanize, imprison or sterilize them? Strip them with their basic rights to interbreed?

beetcoin

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

http://www.vice.com/read/how-effed-are-nukes

after effects of major nuclear bombing.. if you look at the pics from kazakhstan and chernobyl, it's kind of a turn off. kazakhstan's current issue is that they are unable to quarantine the affected people, so they are interbreeding with the non-affected people and making babies with serious issues.

Harley997

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 09, 2014, 02:24:27 AM

Quote from: KonstantinosM on June 09, 2014, 12:59:20 AM

Nuclear is really expensive and difficult to start.

Absolutely wrong. Even if all the costs (capital expenses, maintenance and disposal) are taken in to account, nuclear energy remains much cheaper when compared to other forms of energy.

Nuclear energy is generally the cheapest in the long run.

I believe that it does cost a lot to start a Nuclear plant, and it does take several years to build. A company would not recover all of their capital investment in one year, but in the long term (what companies ultimately look for) a Nuclear plant is a good investment and Nuclear energy is very cheap.

The problem with Nuclear is that most people do not want a Nuclear plant to be "near" them. They generally have little problem buying Nuclear energy, but do not want to have the (extremely small) risk of being nearby when a meltdown occurs.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 1217

Quote from: beetcoin on June 10, 2014, 02:01:19 AM

nevermind the cost, it's human life that gets fucked over from the radiation poisoning. the more nuclear reactors you have, the more likely it's going to explode in your face. in the past 35 years, we've had at least 2 of them.. and almost a case in philadelphia as well.

and if you have a population that has been exposed to the radiation, you'd need to quarantine them.. otherwise they'd mix genes with other people and make babies with 3rd eyes.

The Chernobyl disaster was caused by the security lapses on the part of the Soviet authorities. But now the technology has advanced and there are no chances of any such disasters occurring again. There are hundreds, if not thousands of nuclear reactors operating across the world, and every year they save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, who would have other wise died due to respiratory illnesses caused by the thermal power plants.

Ron~Popeil

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: Swordsoffreedom on June 10, 2014, 02:42:28 AM

I would say that is a great idea and I'm glad it got funded by 200 % and more (Video made me go bah though)
There is one problem though intermittency the Sun is not always shining
Edit three problems
One it has to connect to the grid and retain power
Two we don't have enough materials to do it everywhere
Three How much energy and pollution is used to create the unit and what is B/E energy input energy used to produce the product over its lifecycle
That said I would love to see a future sci fi world where there are solar roadways that can generate energy on the grid and also someone gain energy whenever a car moves.

Intelligent roadways are the future, especially in regard to cabling they made a good point about the overhead cables electric roads have good intelligent applications if you can link it to an electric car that said I like their hard work and perseverance story so its neat.
Not sure how many jobs it can replace though but a paradigm shift interesting i'm conflicted at it working but at the same time want someone to try it

Agreed. In its current form this would just be a money pit. If they can solve the problems though this could be pretty amazing.

Swordsoffreedom

legendary

Activity: 2800

Merit: 1115

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

I would say that is a great idea and I'm glad it got funded by 200 % and more (Video made me go bah though)
There is one problem though intermittency the Sun is not always shining
Edit three problems
One it has to connect to the grid and retain power
Two we don't have enough materials to do it everywhere
Three How much energy and pollution is used to create the unit and what is B/E energy input energy used to produce the product over its lifecycle
That said I would love to see a future sci fi world where there are solar roadways that can generate energy on the grid and also somehow gain energy whenever a car moves.

Intelligent roadways are the future, especially in regard to cabling they made a good point about the overhead cables electric roads have good intelligent applications if you can link it to an electric car that said I like their hard work and perseverance story so its neat.
Not sure how many jobs it can replace though but a paradigm shift interesting i'm conflicted at it working but at the same time want someone to try it

beetcoin

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: niothor on June 09, 2014, 03:15:53 PM

Quote from: Schleicher on June 09, 2014, 02:48:48 PM

Does this include subsidies?
Does this include the costs of 'accidents', like in Fukushima?

The combine "costs" for the Chernobyl disaster are enough to build 40 new nuclear plants

.
Just the latest shell that needs to be build on top of the current crumbling sarcophagus is worth around 1 billion.

Nuclear power may be the solution but with advances in nuclear fusion .

nevermind the cost, it's human life that gets fucked over from the radiation poisoning. the more nuclear reactors you have, the more likely it's going to explode in your face. in the past 35 years, we've had at least 2 of them.. and almost a case in philadelphia as well.

and if you have a population that has been exposed to the radiation, you'd need to quarantine them.. otherwise they'd mix genes with other people and make babies with 3rd eyes.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 1217

Quote from: Schleicher on June 09, 2014, 02:48:48 PM

Does this include subsidies?
Does this include the costs of 'accidents', like in Fukushima?

Subsidies are not included in this. And talking about accidents, they happen to other energy providers as well. They can even happen to the coal or gas based electricity generators. The difference with nuclear reactors is that the accidents are extremely rare.

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

Quote from: niothor on June 09, 2014, 07:56:27 PM

Quote

The TWR’s economic benefits stem from its ability to breed and burn metallic fuel comprised of initial starter fuel of U-235 and U-238. TerraPower’s ability to develop new fuels and materials that can breed and burn U-238 could enable a TWR to get up to 50 times more energy out of every pound of mined uranium than can a conventional light water reactor.

50x more energy using the byproduct u 238 ?

Too good to be entirely true?

Well... Is it to good to be true?

http://youtu.be/ieX88nBFVS4

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Quote

The TWR’s economic benefits stem from its ability to breed and burn metallic fuel comprised of initial starter fuel of U-235 and U-238. TerraPower’s ability to develop new fuels and materials that can breed and burn U-238 could enable a TWR to get up to 50 times more energy out of every pound of mined uranium than can a conventional light water reactor.

50x more energy using the byproduct u 238 ?

Too good to be entirely true?

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

OK people. Any thoughts on this?
------------------------------------

http://terrapower.com/

http://youtu.be/T49r6tmcayI

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Quote from: Schleicher on June 09, 2014, 02:48:48 PM

Does this include subsidies?
Does this include the costs of 'accidents', like in Fukushima?

The combine "costs" for the Chernobyl disaster are enough to build 40 new nuclear plants

.
Just the latest shell that needs to be build on top of the current crumbling sarcophagus is worth around 1 billion.

Nuclear power may be the solution but with advances in nuclear fusion .

Schleicher

hero member

Activity: 675

Merit: 513

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 09, 2014, 03:25:59 AM

Quote from: Ron~Popeil on June 09, 2014, 03:00:28 AM

Yes, the up front costs are high but when you spread that cost out over the life of the facility this kind of power makes a lot of economic sense.

Exactly. And here is a graph which supports the argument.

Does this include subsidies?
Does this include the costs of 'accidents', like in Fukushima?

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 1217

Quote from: Ron~Popeil on June 09, 2014, 03:00:28 AM

Yes, the up front costs are high but when you spread that cost out over the life of the facility this kind of power makes a lot of economic sense.

Exactly. And here is a graph which supports the argument.

Ron~Popeil

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 09, 2014, 02:24:27 AM

Quote from: KonstantinosM on June 09, 2014, 12:59:20 AM

Nuclear is really expensive and difficult to start.

Absolutely wrong. Even if all the costs (capital expenses, maintenance and disposal) are taken in to account, nuclear energy remains much cheaper when compared to other forms of energy.

Yes, the up front costs are high but when you spread that cost out over the life of the facility this kind of power makes a lot of economic sense.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 1217

Quote from: KonstantinosM on June 09, 2014, 12:59:20 AM

Nuclear is really expensive and difficult to start.

Absolutely wrong. Even if all the costs (capital expenses, maintenance and disposal) are taken in to account, nuclear energy remains much cheaper when compared to other forms of energy.

Ron~Popeil

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: KonstantinosM on June 09, 2014, 12:59:20 AM

Quote from: vokain on June 09, 2014, 12:48:52 AM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 08, 2014, 11:58:51 PM

Quote from: ShibaWow on June 05, 2014, 03:48:51 PM

as Ron said there is the disposal issue while with wind turbines there is not

The disposal issue is a minor one. The technology has advanced very much these days, and it requires just around 100 sq. km of barren land to contain the entire nuclear waste generated in this earth for a 100-year time period.

How come Big Coal doesn't just take over nuclear and enjoy a more profitable revenue stream? yes their old market might be cannabalized but I just don't understand...is it to milk what they can over their investment in coal lobbying before doing so? Huh

Nuclear is really expensive and difficult to start.

A factory takes a long time to become operational, and starting up a nuclear factory takes months even after completion until the reaction reaches a good level.

It's also a regulatory nightmare and there is always the difficulty of finding the right people to run a nuclear factory. It's not like you can find them with a job search on craigslist overnight.

Plus your dealing with something that poops out potential bomb grade plutonium, not something you do without the government fondling your privates.

They could cut down the red tape dramatically. Sadly it would make sense to do so therefore it will not happen.

Ron~Popeil

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: vokain on June 09, 2014, 01:20:29 AM

Quote from: Cranky4u on June 09, 2014, 01:07:54 AM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 08, 2014, 11:58:51 PM

Quote from: ShibaWow on June 05, 2014, 03:48:51 PM

as Ron said there is the disposal issue while with wind turbines there is not

The disposal issue is a minor one. The technology has advanced very much these days, and it requires just around 100 sq. km of barren land to contain the entire nuclear waste generated in this earth for a 100-year time period.

Nuke power then put it on a one way rocket to the sun every 50 years or so...

could you imagine another columbia?? Shocked

Or Challenger? Hurtling nuclear waste into the sky on top of a controlled explosion makes me a bit nervous.

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Cranky4u on June 09, 2014, 01:07:54 AM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 08, 2014, 11:58:51 PM

Quote from: ShibaWow on June 05, 2014, 03:48:51 PM

as Ron said there is the disposal issue while with wind turbines there is not

The disposal issue is a minor one. The technology has advanced very much these days, and it requires just around 100 sq. km of barren land to contain the entire nuclear waste generated in this earth for a 100-year time period.

Nuke power then put it on a one way rocket to the sun every 50 years or so...

could you imagine another columbia?? Shocked

Cranky4u

hero member

Activity: 810

Merit: 1000

Quote from: vokain on June 09, 2014, 12:48:52 AM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 08, 2014, 11:58:51 PM

Quote from: ShibaWow on June 05, 2014, 03:48:51 PM

as Ron said there is the disposal issue while with wind turbines there is not

The disposal issue is a minor one. The technology has advanced very much these days, and it requires just around 100 sq. km of barren land to contain the entire nuclear waste generated in this earth for a 100-year time period.

How come Big Coal doesn't just take over nuclear and enjoy a more profitable revenue stream? yes their old market might be cannabalized but I just don't understand...is it to milk what they can over their investment in coal lobbying before doing so? Huh

There is still several hundred years of known coal in the ground and given the general public's appetite for nuke versus dirty coal, for some weird reason they keep picking dirty coal....

Topic: Solar Roadways... - page 2. (Read 4471 times)