Fukushima plume heading across Pacific to U.S. and Canada

Man, good posts you dudes... :2thumbsup:

this is a real "meat of the problem" question.

go with that for awhile in your thoughts, and add this:

is it time to abandon the notion of "government" supplied energy and begin requiring individuals and families to develop their own localized (tailored to individual environment and lifestyle) energy?

if people had the immediate connectivity with the true COST of energy to sit around on their ass watching Americas got Talent, energy consumption would change dramatically.

 

@RIF...or sit around on their ass posting on Hip Forums about the evils of technology and the internet.....on computers they don't even own.:toetap05:
("is she really that oblivious to the irony in her posts" NG wonders as he types)

@ voyage,
not sure what you are getting at here, are you talking solely electricity or are you including fossil fuels as they relate to internal combustion engines?

Most fossil fuels ARE consumed at the individual users level, and almost never used to produce electricity on a large scale.

Creating electricity is in and of itself very easy and cheap.
The vast majority of cost associated with energy is the maintenance of the infrastructure.

The problem with individuals creating their own energy is
1) the resources of land to construct/maintain some type of means of producing the electricity. The only cost effective means currently available to the individual consumer are windmills and watermills, solar still hasn't bridged the all important efficiency/cost, unless you want to wait 20 years to see a return on your initial investment.

2) storage of the electricity. batteries are friggin expensive and that technology in and of itself is hazardous.

Water mills such as Hoover dam are by far the safest/cleanest way to produce electricity, the problem with it is there are only so many places naturally occurring that have the right features to lend themselves to such a use. Hoover dam was selected because of it's natural features which were then heavily modified to produce an efficient design. Then from there you have the costs of creating and maintaining the delivery infrastructure.
That is where the main cost comes in.

Windmills are good as reserve and auxiliary sources, but due to their inherent unreliable energy production, they can not be counted on as a reliable and efficient means of electricity production.

Solar is simply still too costly relative to it's efficiency to be practical.

So that brings us to nuclear.
Regardless of all the doubts and ill-informed public opinion, nuclear is plain and simple the cleanest most efficient and practical means of producing electricity we have.
Practical because we are not constrained by natural resources/features in considering where to implement such power plants, although access to abundant water supplies is paramount, therefore coastal areas are the logical choice, but not the only one.

We can't build windmill farms or watermills just anywhere like we can nuclear plants.
With the latitude in placement also comes a decrease in the costs of developing and maintaining a delivery infrastructure.
So nuclear is also cheaper in the long run.

So there is COST involved with energy production, but not in the ominous Orwellian way I think you implied.

 

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

This economy of mass consumerism needs "government" supplied energy. And when you get right down to it, the average person really doesn't need much more than a way to keep warm.

Hospitals need energy
Schools need energy
Some other essential services too.

All of those things can have their own small indivudal energy source. And it's not hard to build these things, especially with all the junk and garbage we have laying about.

 

And I honestly feel that is the direction of the future, the concept that individual homesteads and businesses will go the way of having power sources at home that is independent of a giant national power grid.

If this happens, hopefully we will see DC return to the forefront over AC, which we only did because it was more efficient for transporting electricity long distances.

Another political incentive to have a cellular power grid, rather than an interconnected one that we have now, is that I think it would be more secure in the event of a massive blackout, if say the Earth got hit with a solar storm from the Sun.

(and we've had some recent close calls with that scenario actually playing out)

In that scenario, or in other disasters, people wouldn't be so quick to go into a panic because they'd have a way to preserve their food, charge their phones, stay warm and cook.

---

However I am a proponent of a hybrid of both independent energy generation (solar, biological, nuclear, wind, geothermal, hydro-electric) AND having a national grid as well.



@Resistence, there's nothing wrong with Talent shows like Britain's Got Talent or consumer goods in of themselves, with the exception of cigarettes since it has been scientifically linked to causing a variety of ailments resulting in death.

Pieces of technology, are just tools, and one can argue that sure people probably use it for what you may thing is an unethical purpose, but they also use it for reconnecting with old friends, calling for help in emergencies, doing assignments for work or school or to be innovative.

I do have to call you out on this part of your post though, if individual power devices are so easy to build with all the junk we have laying around, how would you make an individual power device that is cost efficient and dependable for homes, hospitals, and businesses? <(just saying you sound a bit smug here, without offering substance to back up the claim, no offense)

-----

I'd also like to add that in terms of transportation energy (like for cars and trucks, and for mobile phone energy technology.

We will see innovations from Tesla, and in the mobile phone industries with Carbon based graphene supercapacitor technology, in conjunction with traditional lithium ion batteries, and over time phase out lithium ion batteries completely as they pollute the environment to make.

 

First of all that close call stuff about solar flares etc. is more governement lies. Although there's a possibility of that happening that possiblilty is extremly rare and long term damage to essential infrastructure is even more rare. The truth is that governments fear the new EMP weapons that do more damage (including kill) than any solar storm could possibly do.

As for the rest,
I'm completely smug. These consumer goods aren't tools because a tool conveys some sort of benefit to both the user and societey. This generation (the digital generation) is ahead of several other generations in only 1 category... The fastest declining literacy rate of the last 200 years. Not to forget that the bulk of these consumer electronics are designed to do little more then spy on us and keep us entertained with an endless stream of useless prattle that only makes the user falsley believe that they're informed and intelligent.

We've had the ablity to communicate and call for help for a very long time. The orignal telephone was patend in 1870 and more or less remained unchanged for more than a 100 years and had minimal enviromental impact. But despite the ablity of having a cell phone in everyone's pocket the infant mortality rate has tripled over the last 20 years in all western nations and the possiblity of death due to catching a bacterial infection while in the hospital on an unrelated illness has started to reach epidemic proportions.

Today with all this consumer electronic junk we have more people incarcerated per capita then ever before and in most of those criminal cases the first submited piece of evidence is *The Cell phone.* Let us also not forget that the production of these devices requires the use of toxic chemicals... Plastics that pollute the food chain.... been linked to with the impending extinction of bees..... And best of all this junk requires the mineral Coltan from the Congo; A place where in order to get this mineral cheap the transnational communication corporations have triggered civial war and exploit unsafe mining conditions often using child labor.

We have thrown away in the last 10 years more techno rubbish that we could probably build the starship Enterprise by just scavaging a 3rd world nation's dumps.

There used to be a time when we stood for moral reasons. We passed and struck down laws because it was the moral thing to do. Wars were waged on illiteracy and poverty. Whereas today we use the ignorant to wage war against poor people. We used to care about our neighbors, went out of our way to support artists, tried to act noble, we pushed men to aspire to be men and we praised intelligence and never ridiculed it.

The old saying of you can't have your cake and eat it too is just a pertinent today as it was in our grandparents.

What we need to survive lies in simplicity and doing things for ourselves and not looking to some plastic mass produced gadget to do it for us. A generator is nothing more than coper, a magnet and some sort of motion. A tank on the roof will provide hotwater. And an old satelite dish can be used to make a solar cooker so hot that it can melt through steel.

But sadly the average person today is a know-it-all-idiot. Because even with a youtube clip telling them how to make these things, the average person will never try.

 

It's not the governments that are warning about solar flares, it's scientists. Governments are ignoring the warnings, and would rather have the masses be ignorant. It's not a matter of if, but when it will happen. Then the world will be thrown back to the dark ages. Depending on the flare's intensity, all satellites will be destroyed, and all power grids. It will take years to repair the damage. Imagine Wall Street unable to trade for years. The global economy will be wiped out. No communications, no electricity, no air conditioning, no phones, no tv. Planes will fall out of the sky by the thousands. Your computerized cars won't work. The first rule of war, is never underestimate your opponent. That goes for the power of sun flares too.

http://www.slashgear.com/scientists...ould-harm-power-grid-and-satellites-06241821/
According to scientist Mike Hapgood, who specializes in space weather at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, solar storms are more commonly being placed on national risk registers used for disaster planning along with events such as tsunamis and volcanic eruption. Hapgood warns that while solar flares are rare, when they happen consequences on earth could be catastrophic. Magnetically-charged plasma thrown from the surface of the sun can have a significant impact on earth.
The chance of a massive solar storm is about 12% for every decade. According to the scientists, the last major solar storm was over 150 years ago, and the odds say that a massive solar storm occurs approximately once in every 100 years. The fear is that these massive solar storms could melt transformers within national power grids, destroy or damage satellites, knockout radio communications, and more.
The largest solar storm ever recorded happened in 1859. British astronomer Richard Carrington observed a large solar eruption, and the geomagnetic storms caused by the eruption took 17 hours to reach the earth. According to reports from 1859, the solar storm is so massive that the aurora borealis was seen as far south as the Caribbean. Had such an event happened in modern times with satellites in orbit, the consequences could have been disastrous.

http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10mar_stormwarning/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...d-well-only-get-30minute-warning-8484058.html

 

Your entire post is pretty close to 100% wrong. Your ignorance of the subject is astounding.

 

then please educate me
I'm no expert in the subject and was just going by rather common knowledge, if I am so far off, please explain it to me.

 

oh, and please educate me with science, facts and legitimate research...
not opinion and anti-whatever rhetoric.

 

I'd be happy to. I worked in the energy field for 20 years and I have a physics degree from MIT. I'm at work now and don't have time to write, but I'll ask you first to read a previous thread here called "Nuclear Power - your thoughts?" It was a good discussion. This was back in 2011.

 

on second thought, no it isn't.

the majority of fossil fuels ARE used at a personal level and not used in the generation of electricity. Is that wrong?

Electricity IS relatively easy to create. I can go in my garage right now and construct a manually operated generator, it's the storage that I can't do.

and most of the other points I made concerning the efficiency of different modes of electricity generation are completely valid.

Watermills/generators ARE the cleanest, most reliable but are limited in regards to placement. Is that wrong?

Windmills again are clean but not consistent or reliable and also have limitations in where they can be built. Is that wrong?

Solar is still struggling with getting efficiency up to where it is cost effective on a realistic scale. Is that wrong?

Nuclear is clean, reliable and efficient. Is that wrong?

I'm not denying that there are some huge safety issues and concerns, but that is in the event of an accident, in normal daily use, nuclear is safe and clean.

I feel that you have made the assumption that I am an ardent supporter of nuclear or something and that your response was a knee jerk reaction to both me personally (you always seem to take issue with me) and the idea of nuclear generated power.

 

Some of your "facts" are partly true, but your overall ignorance has led you to believe that nuclear power is a good, desirable way to generate electricity. It is not. The only worse way is to burn coal.

I was hoping that you were open to learning and you would read that thread I referenced, but you have disappointed me by continuing to say that nuclear is safe and clean.

 

You win.

 

While I'm sure EMP weapons are a concern for the government, I must disagree with you that concerns over solar flares is propaganda, it's very real and possible, and it'd be wise to build an infrastructure to withstand that kinda scenario.

And like rj said, it's the SCIENTIFIC community who is raising this issue.

Also I want to call you out on this "the past was better and more moral" concept that you seem to have about America because I don't believe that to be true.

America's past is riddled with immorality, and the rich elite have always used scapegoat concepts like racism to have poor blacks (slaves) fighting poor whites (indentured servants) so that the rich reduced the possibility of a "French Revolution" scenario happening in the infancy of the USA.

---

Cell phones help when you need roadside assistance. < FACT I've done it


Also you do a post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy when you start talking about cell phones and then suddenly shift to talking about infant mortality and bacterial infections in hospitals.

I admit the latter is a problem, but it is completely separate to cell phones.

Infant mortality is a problem, but some of that is because of microrganisms just getting resistant to anti-bacterial soaps and drugs, (experts were warning not to over use these products for years but the public was not listening and now these are the consequences), and then you have babies who get shot in the face because guns were in the home and weren't stored away properly.

So the fact that someone has a cell phone is not correlated to whether or not an infant is gonna die. Try again.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought, you only responded about the nuclear and did the old knee-jerk response, regardless of the fact that my statements ARE correct regardless of your personal opinions on the topic.

So based on that behavior you then expect me to take you seriously.
and what makes you think I didn't read the thread?, because I didn't come back and post how fucking "right" you are and that I should bow at your feet as the great and all knowing expert on all things energy related??
LOL

You make the same stupid assumptions about your position that many others at the site make.....
"well I'm so right, of course anyone who reads that thread will of course agree with me because I'm so right."

then you go on to make the assertion that I am not able to be educated based on nothing more than your assumptions and the fact that I haven't acquiesced and agreed with you.

That seems to be a real problem with a lot of people here.


Now, aside from accidents, please elucidate on "how" burning coal is the only worse thing than nuclear?



again, what an asshole, thinking that I didn't read it or aren't informed about it all because I DON"T AGREE WITH YOU!!!!!

please pull you head out you butt.



(side note: searched for the thread you mentioned, it apparently doesn't exist on Hip Forums)

 

IME the main reason nuclear produced power isn't safe and clean is because the authorities running it can't/won't properly address the waste issue.
I can't find references atm, however if you look at the long term 'storage' issue it's only an issue because the policy is to store the waste where it can be retrieved.
And why would anyone want to do that? Huge stockpiles of nuclear weapon fuel. That's one reason for "won't". An example of "can't' is, we are able to send thousands of kilos of payload into deep space, yet the proposal to launch nuclear waste into the center of the Sun is met with huge protest.

Energy production via nuclear fission can be done safely. It's politics and human faults that make our current scene scary. The hard part is determining the long term impacts of our good intentions, like wind/solar/water.

Nox, how environmentally benign are hydro-electric dams when they destroy fisheries? It's rarely easy to find fore-sight.

 

did I make a statement saying there were environmentally benign? No.
What I did say is that it is currently the CLEANEST in that it generally does not continually introduce pollutants into the environment as some other methods do.
The local environmental impact of the initial construction was not in the original discussion.

You have the same type of local environmental impact concerns with EVERY type mentioned in it's initial construction depending on the location.
One other side effect of the dams and reservoirs is how the redistribution of water on the planet has effected the Earth's rotation. (The amount is relatively insignificant, but I do like to bring it up when people say human activity doesn't impact the planet much.)


It's funny the only thing I did was in a very rudimentary way outlined the pros & cons of the different methods of producing electricity.
From that I get branded all sorts of crap and people either half read what is written or jump to conclusions and inferences that just simply are not there in the main body of content.

FUCK!!!!
This place really needs a class in critical reading and logic!!!!!!!

 

Dood. Buddy.
Relax.

Read what I wrote again, or not. I was "agreeing with you in principle" on nuclear.

this is atypical Nox logic, and it works. the whole topic is, to me anyway, is the hysteria over the radioactive cloud valid? i realize you aren't so shallow as to not be aware of the law of unintended consequences.

come on man, lets puff a bowl and relax.

nobody wins here, but we can exchange ideas. or... just keep ranting in circles.


:ssmokeit:

 

oh well I loose again.

 

It wasn't a contest, just a conversation.


I'll also agree with the notion that we should be sending our nuclear waste into the center of the sun. That'd solve so many problems, and I think even you Resistance would agree that'd be a solution that would solve a lot of the issues around nuclear power generation.

What's your feedback on that?