Topic: Solar Roadways... - page 3. (Read 4524 times)

Quote from: vokain on June 08, 2014, 11:48:52 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...

KonstantinosM

hero member

Activity: 1492

Merit: 763

Life is a taxable event

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 08, 2014, 10:58:51 PM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 08, 2014, 10:58:51 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.

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Wilikon on May 23, 2014, 08:39:38 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

Harley997

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

"Solar panels that you can drive, park, and walk on. They melt snow and... cut greenhouse gases by 75-percent?!!!"

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways#home

Very bad idea. This will be much more expensive then using cement as is used now.

If this was really a profitable venture then they could simply build a little bit of "solar roadways" then use the money generated by electricity to build more roads.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 03, 2014, 10:16:02 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.

beetcoin

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

sheesh, 2 million... some people just wanna donate without vetting and thinking where their money goes. i already have enough trouble donating to "children in need" for fear that it's some sort of scam.

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways#home

JohnnyLightning

full member

Activity: 223

Merit: 100

It's innovative, but I predict blackouts during rush hour. Roll Eyes

ShibaWow

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: ShibaWow on June 03, 2014, 04:11:17 PM

wind turbines don't pollute, hydro power doesn't either (altough there are some negative effects), let's stick to wind Cheesy

nuclear power plants are enviromentally friendly, am I missing something?

I am not a big supporter of hydro-power. Hydropower generation requires large dams and reservoirs, which flood millions of acres of forest land, adn there by disrupting the original ecology.

IMO, nuclear power plants are environmentally friendly. With the advancement of technology, new methods for the waste disposal are being developed.

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

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: ShibaWow on June 03, 2014, 04:11:17 PM

wind turbines don't pollute, hydro power doesn't either (altough there are some negative effects), let's stick to wind Cheesy

nuclear power plants are enviromentally friendly, am I missing something?

I am not a big supporter of hydro-power. Hydropower generation requires large dams and reservoirs, which flood millions of acres of forest land, adn there by disrupting the original ecology.

IMO, nuclear power plants are environmentally friendly. With the advancement of technology, new methods for the waste disposal are being developed.

Ron~Popeil

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: ShibaWow on June 03, 2014, 04:11:17 PM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 03, 2014, 12:56:23 AM

Slightly off-topic... but everyone should read this before supporting any form of solar energy.

sometimes it's not just about cost. sometimes it's about the rising climate and how it affects the planet we live on. that's actually much more important than making people extremely rich. at least to me.

wind turbines don't pollute, hydro power doesn't either (altough there are some negative effects), let's stick to wind Cheesy

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 03, 2014, 01:33:14 AM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 03, 2014, 09:47:43 AM

sometimes it's not just about cost. sometimes it's about the rising climate and how it affects the planet we live on. that's actually much more important than making people extremely rich. at least to me.

Wind energy is about 3 times cheaper when compared to solar energy.

your graph says 2x Cheesy

You should really add a graph with nuclear power also

I wanted to add one, but couldn't get any. Anyway.. thanks for posting the graph.

This is exactly why I prefer nuclear power plants. They are:

1. Environmentally friendly (no Greenhouse gas emissions, no coal mining and destruction of the terrain.etc).
2. They are affordable. (I have seen people posting here that they won't mind paying $0.25 per KWh, but trust me, most of the world population wouldn't be able to afford electricity at such rates).
3. There are enough Uranium deposits to provide electricity for everyone in this world for more than a thousand years, unlike coal or gas.

nuclear power plants are enviromentally friendly, am I missing something?

We need to solve the waste disposal problem for sure but other than that it is actually very cheap green energy. Technology and smart people will solve the disposal issue if governments get out of the way.

ShibaWow

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 03, 2014, 12:56:23 AM

Slightly off-topic... but everyone should read this before supporting any form of solar energy.

sometimes it's not just about cost. sometimes it's about the rising climate and how it affects the planet we live on. that's actually much more important than making people extremely rich. at least to me.

wind turbines don't pollute, hydro power doesn't either (altough there are some negative effects), let's stick to wind Cheesy

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 03, 2014, 01:33:14 AM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 03, 2014, 09:47:43 AM

sometimes it's not just about cost. sometimes it's about the rising climate and how it affects the planet we live on. that's actually much more important than making people extremely rich. at least to me.

Wind energy is about 3 times cheaper when compared to solar energy.

your graph says 2x Cheesy

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 03, 2014, 11:43:27 AM

You should really add a graph with nuclear power also

I wanted to add one, but couldn't get any. Anyway.. thanks for posting the graph.

This is exactly why I prefer nuclear power plants. They are:

1. Environmentally friendly (no Greenhouse gas emissions, no coal mining and destruction of the terrain.etc).
2. They are affordable. (I have seen people posting here that they won't mind paying $0.25 per KWh, but trust me, most of the world population wouldn't be able to afford electricity at such rates).
3. There are enough Uranium deposits to provide electricity for everyone in this world for more than a thousand years, unlike coal or gas.

nuclear power plants are enviromentally friendly, am I missing something?

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Quote from: niothor on June 03, 2014, 09:53:56 AM

With the amount spent on solar and wind equipment we could have developed by now a fusion plant with deuterium as a energy source that would wipe away the fears of nuclear waste or accidents.

Have to disagree with you on that. A large number of nuclear fission reactors are operating in the world right now, but nuclear fusion is a bit more complicated. So far no one has come up with a viable methodology to produce electricity cheaply from nuclear fusion. The current fusion reactors exist only for demo purposes.

If all the money that as poured into solar and wind energy would have gone to development on nuclear fusion things would have improved a lot.

But of course there are lots of people not so happy about plants producing solar panels shutting down.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: niothor on June 03, 2014, 09:53:56 AM

With the amount spent on solar and wind equipment we could have developed by now a fusion plant with deuterium as a energy source that would wipe away the fears of nuclear waste or accidents.

Have to disagree with you on that. A large number of nuclear fission reactors are operating in the world right now, but nuclear fusion is a bit more complicated. So far no one has come up with a viable methodology to produce electricity cheaply from nuclear fusion. The current fusion reactors exist only for demo purposes.

zackclark70

legendary

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

ADT developer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power would be a be a better place to spend money

commandrix

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 03, 2014, 09:47:43 AM

You should really add a graph with nuclear power also

I wanted to add one, but couldn't get any. Anyway.. thanks for posting the graph.

This is exactly why I prefer nuclear power plants. They are:

1. Environmentally friendly (no Greenhouse gas emissions, no coal mining and destruction of the terrain.etc).
2. They are affordable. (I have seen people posting here that they won't mind paying $0.25 per KWh, but trust me, most of the world population wouldn't be able to afford electricity at such rates).
3. There are enough Uranium deposits to provide electricity for everyone in this world for more than a thousand years, unlike coal or gas.

True. Except I heard that some of the same environmentalists that push solar and wind also despise nuclear energy. Paid by energy companies much?

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

When we talk about nuclear energy we should also remeber that there are two types fusion or fission,

With the amount spent on solar and wind equipment we could have developed by now a fusion plant with deuterium as a energy source that would wipe away the fears of nuclear waste or accidents.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217