portugal ran on renewable energy alone for four days

[Beskamir]

1 hour ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

Yea... no! Fuel resource is finite, worst-case-scenario failure is still present, geopolitical limitations all over the place, waste is still generated and is still dangerous, a massive energy surplus,...

 

Why do people continue to support an out-of-date energy source?

First off, last time I checked thorium is both very common and can be used to create a large amount of energy. The only downside is nuclear waste... but that could be sealed and buried where it wouldn't bother anyone. Now lets compare that to the huge amounts of land that solar requires, the redirecting of entire rivers for hydro-electric damns which can result in habitat loss and fish migrations, etc. Basically renewable energy may seem amazing but it still has its downsides and nuclear energy (specifically if it uses "common" elements like thorium) would produce much more energy.

[SurvivorNVL]

6 minutes ago, ElfFriend said:

First off, last time I checked thorium is both very common and can be used to create a large amount of energy. The only downside is nuclear waste... but that could be sealed and buried where it wouldn't bother anyone. Now lets compare that to the huge amounts of land that solar requires, the redirecting of entire rivers for hydro-electric damns which can result in habitat loss and fish migrations, etc. Basically renewable energy may seem amazing but it still has its downsides and nuclear energy (specifically if it uses "common" elements like thorium) would produce much more energy.

That's the thing that always bothers me.  You can have clean burning of coal.  We could have had clean energy for the last forty+ years, but we didn't because people became anti-nuclear after a few meltdowns.  Renewable energy has downsides, and many don't see that.  I hope in the future that nuclear will make a huge come-back, and replace all sources.  Wind, solar, water, coal, oil, thermal.  Nuclear worldwide would make electric vehicles probably more and more viable.

At least until we can reach a tier 2 society and have control over the power of our Sun and harvest it.

[drinkO]

20 minutes ago, ElfFriend said:

First off, last time I checked thorium is both very common and can be used to create a large amount of energy. The only downside is nuclear waste... but that could be sealed and buried where it wouldn't bother anyone. Now lets compare that to the huge amounts of land that solar requires, the redirecting of entire rivers for hydro-electric damns which can result in habitat loss and fish migrations, etc. Basically renewable energy may seem amazing but it still has its downsides and nuclear energy (specifically if it uses "common" elements like thorium) would produce much more energy.

That's the deal . It can't . It's like When cleaning the floor in your home , you swiping the trash under your carpet . Of course you won't see , but it will stink and cause bad stuff like insects and others, just like the nuclear wast buried . Today they conceal the nuclear waste in concrete blocks and throw it to the deep of the ocean , but manmade materials like concreate suffer from quick degradation . Look at the house , When it is in planing stage , engineers They estimate the service period ( the period of time that the structure , made of concrete should last) is 50 years 

 

11 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

That's the thing that always bothers me.  You can have clean burning of coal.  We could have had clean energy for the last forty+ years, but we didn't because people became anti-nuclear after a few meltdowns.  Renewable energy has downsides, and many don't see that.  I hope in the future that nuclear will make a huge come-back, and replace all sources.  Wind, solar, water, coal, oil, thermal.  Nuclear worldwide would make electric vehicles probably more and more viable.

At least until we can reach a tier 2 society and have control over the power of our Sun and harvest it.

If you ever go to chernobil, you will fear nuclear energy too

[Yummychickenblue]

4 hours ago, jeonjaeng said:

Solar panels coming on PC cases soon?

Wouldn't make that much sense since there is no sunlight in basements

[thekeemo]

4 minutes ago, Yummychickenblue said:

Wouldn't make that much sense since there is no sunlight in basements

Speak for yourself 

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, Senzelian said:

A nuclear power plant costs a lot of money, which the U.S. does not have. We have seen how safe those things are, so we shouldn't build more of them. 

 

 

Btw. the largest datacenter in the world sits in Germany, and we are selling our renewable energy to other countrys already and we've also closed quite a few of our nuclear reactors. 

The U.S. has infinite money. We're the world's reserve currency and the lynchpin of most economies based on trade.

 

Modern plants are very safe. Chernobyl was ancient and unmaintained. The one in Japan was built on a damn fault line for crying out loud. There is next to no danger for modern plants built in intelligent locations.

 

No, the absolute largest sits in Oak Ridge. The second largest, in Germany, is only 2/3 the size. And again, that's one, vs. the multiple hundreds hosted in the U.S.. 

 

And that's a foolish decision. The expense of building up and maintaining renewables outstrips the money you're getting by selling it, by a long shot. Germany's financials point this out very clearly.

[Yog]

26 minutes ago, drinkO said:

That's the deal . It can't . It's like When cleaning the floor in your home , you swiping the trash under your carpet . Of course you won't see , but it will stink and cause bad stuff like insects and others, just like the nuclear wast buried . Today they conceal the nuclear waste in concrete blocks and throw it to the deep of the ocean , but manmade materials like concreate suffer from quick degradation . Look at the house , When it is in planing stage , engineers They estimate the service period ( the period of time that the structure , made of concrete should last) is 50 years 

 

If you ever go to chernobil, you will fear nuclear energy too

And you're basing this off of what? Because the people that say we have very good ways of storing nuclear waste with minuscule risk of contamination are nuclear physicists with decades of experience. So what's you're area of expertise that trumps theirs? And as far as I know they don't throw them into the ocean, but deep underground (like thousands of feet), at least here in the US that's what they do.

[Clanscorpia]

37 minutes ago, drinkO said:

That's the deal . It can't . It's like When cleaning the floor in your home , you swiping the trash under your carpet . Of course you won't see , but it will stink and cause bad stuff like insects and others, just like the nuclear wast buried . Today they conceal the nuclear waste in concrete blocks and throw it to the deep of the ocean , but manmade materials like concreate suffer from quick degradation . Look at the house , When it is in planing stage , engineers They estimate the service period ( the period of time that the structure , made of concrete should last) is 50 years 

 

If you ever go to chernobil, you will fear nuclear energy too

Remember who was in charge of Chernobil. The USSR. Not the best country in the world at the time. I watched a whole 1 hour documentary on why it failed and it's was (iirc) due to a push to put the reactor online. Nuclear is way, way, waaaaay better than fossil fuels. 

 

And back to OP, Thats really good. I just wish in Ontario we'd build another nuclear plant. We are at almost 80% Nuclear and Darlington is shutting down soon so if the Liberals dont build another plant a lot of people are going to be pissssed

[drinkO]

19 minutes ago, Yog said:

And you're basing this off of what? Because the people that say we have very good ways of storing nuclear waste with minuscule risk of contamination are nuclear physicists with decades of experience. So what's you're area of expertise that trumps theirs? And as far as I know they don't throw them into the ocean, but deep underground (like thousands of feet), at least here in the US that's what they do.

Based on my Civil engeneer classes. You can see it where: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste.

Even when we bury it, the material that contains the wast will deteorate, being a problem in the long run. (groudwater and such...)

 

15 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

Remember who was in charge of Chernobil. The USSR. Not the best country in the world at the time. I watched a whole 1 hour documentary on why it failed and it's was (iirc) due to a push to put the reactor online. Nuclear is way, way, waaaaay better than fossil fuels. 

 

And back to OP, Thats really good. I just wish in Ontario we'd build another nuclear plant. We are at almost 80% Nuclear and Darlington is shutting down soon so if the Liberals dont build another plant a lot of people are going to be pissssed

What i´s just saying is that nuclear energy is dangerous, and with it there can be no errors on the power plants, because not only the country where the nuclear basis is implemented suffer damages.

[Clanscorpia]

4 minutes ago, drinkO said:

Based on my Civil engeneer classes. You can see it where: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste.

Even when we bury it, the material that contains the wast will deteorate, being a problem in the long run. (groudwater and such...)

 

What i´s just saying is that nuclear energy is dangerous, and with it there can be no errors on the power plants, because not only the country where the nuclear basis is implemented suffer damages.

Nuclear Energy is so safe now though. Cherynobl happened during the beginning of nuclear tech. It's much, much, much safer now

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

1 hour ago, ElfFriend said:

First off, last time I checked thorium is both very common and can be used to create a large amount of energy. The only downside is nuclear waste... but that could be sealed and buried where it wouldn't bother anyone. Now lets compare that to the huge amounts of land that solar requires, the redirecting of entire rivers for hydro-electric damns which can result in habitat loss and fish migrations, etc. Basically renewable energy may seem amazing but it still has its downsides and nuclear energy (specifically if it uses "common" elements like thorium) would produce much more energy.

That is nice, but thorium still does not address any of the concerns I have listed.

 

1 hour ago, SurvivorNVL said:

That's the thing that always bothers me.  You can have clean burning of coal.  We could have had clean energy for the last forty+ years, but we didn't because people became anti-nuclear after a few meltdowns.  Renewable energy has downsides, and many don't see that.  I hope in the future that nuclear will make a huge come-back, and replace all sources.  Wind, solar, water, coal, oil, thermal.  Nuclear worldwide would make electric vehicles probably more and more viable.

At least until we can reach a tier 2 society and have control over the power of our Sun and harvest it.

"clean burning of coal"? On what planet does this make sense, Jupiter? Furthermore, nuclear generators requires a continuous and relatively large water stream; if you make it small enough, you either end up consuming a lot of electrical energy to make it work, or you will have massive cooling issues. Also, the thermonuclear reactions can only be so small mechanically speaking. Even assuming it is the size to act as cellular batteries, fragility of these "batteries" becomes another issue altogether.

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

That is nice, but thorium still does not address any of the concerns I have listed.

 

"clean burning of coal"? On what planet does this make sense, Jupiter? Furthermore, nuclear generators requires a continuous and relatively large water stream; if you make it small enough, you either end up consuming a lot of electrical energy to make it work, or you will have massive cooling issues. Also, the thermonuclear reactions can only be so small mechanically speaking. Even assuming it is the size to act as cellular batteries, fragility of these "batteries" becomes another issue altogether.

Ever heard of scrubbers? Removing all the toxins from the exhaust and more than 80% of the CO2 is pretty darn clean.

[jeonjaeng]

3 hours ago, Yummychickenblue said:

Wouldn't make that much sense since there is no sunlight in basements

Lol not all people play in their basement. Just an idea for the future though

[Beskamir]

3 hours ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

That is nice, but thorium still does not address any of the concerns I have listed.

 

"clean burning of coal"? On what planet does this make sense, Jupiter? Furthermore, nuclear generators requires a continuous and relatively large water stream; if you make it small enough, you either end up consuming a lot of electrical energy to make it work, or you will have massive cooling issues. Also, the thermonuclear reactions can only be so small mechanically speaking. Even assuming it is the size to act as cellular batteries, fragility of these "batteries" becomes another issue altogether.

So... you completely ignored the fact that hydro power also requires a stream of water? Not to mention that at least with a nuclear reactor that water can be reused.

[matrix07012]

Nucler energy is safe if you have proper security measurements (which Chernobyl did not have) and build it in a safe location (no earthquakest etc). The biggest problem is the waste since some of it can stay highly radioactive for thousands of years. You can't hide it forever.

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by matrix07012
Some grammars and spelling errors fixed

[Senzelian]

9 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

The U.S. has infinite money.

I can't be serious... 

Spoiler

 

[HelplmChoking]

Good job to them! Here in NZ we are almost totally renewable (mainly hydro, with a bit of geothermal and wind too). Our last non-renewable coal plant is going in a few years. The only issue is that hydro is killing most of our rivers.. So there's a cost with all large-scale power generation.

[elfensky]

16 hours ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

Meanwhile Norway's on its 13th year of 96% Hydro energy 

 

No seriously that is cool though, gj

 

Low population (relatively) and mounty terrain make life easy, you know.

 

Still, it IS a cool achievement nevertheless.

[That Norwegian Guy]

10 minutes ago, ElfenSky said:

 

Low population (relatively) and mounty terrain make life easy, you know.

 

Still, it IS a cool achievement nevertheless.

 

True, also we export a lot of it in surplus years (most of the time) and sometimes have shortage years due to too low rainfall which is the reason for the 4% (which is usually imported from Sweden or Germany)

[VerticalDiscussions]

13 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

-snip-

Just one single mega nuclear plant could supply the entire region of the United States!? Wow... thats incredible aha. 

 

Oh and, congratulations Portugal, i know i should be happy, after all im from there but not from the mainland, therefore... Meh

[suicidalfranco]

it's not that i don't like nuclear or don't see as the most clean and efficient energy source ever, it's just the fact that i don't trust my country with a nuclear power plant. Bit of context: 5 years ago we got hit by an earthquake of magnitude 5, 5 years later all the most impacted places still haven't recovered.

Therefore i'll only accept the simple solution in the form of solar panel farms and offshore wind farms, cause it's easy and there is no way they can fuck it upin the most hardcore of ways

[euniqe]

On 5/17/2016 at 11:03 PM, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

Yea... no! Fuel resource is finite, worst-case-scenario failure is still present, geopolitical limitations all over the place, waste is still generated and is still dangerous, a massive energy surplus,...

 

Why do people continue to support an out-of-date energy source?

 

Why do people continuously forget about Fusion power and ITER? THIS is legit the best source of power IN THE UNIVERSE considering it is literally what powers stars.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

17 hours ago, ElfFriend said:

So... you completely ignored the fact that hydro power also requires a stream of water? Not to mention that at least with a nuclear reactor that water can be reused.

I am very aware of these limitations, but it is outside the context of the discussion; the person I was quoting talked about shrinking form factors of nuclear reactors, specifically.

29 minutes ago, euniqe said:

Why do people continuously forget about Fusion power and ITER? THIS is legit the best source of power IN THE UNIVERSE considering it is literally what powers stars.

Asides form the fact that ITER is a research facility, nuclear fusion remains difficult to sustain for long periods of time without consuming energy. The reason why stars burn the way they do is the incredible amount of hydrogen it carries, allowing it to catalyze itself to an extent. Now tell me how easy that is for us earthlings to replicate.

[Xsilent(X)]

On 17-5-2016 at 8:01 PM, That Norwegian Guy said:

Meanwhile Norway's on its 13th year of 96% Hydro energy 

 

No seriously that is cool though, gj

 

you know norway is boring power of other country's? lol

[othertomperson]

On 17/05/2016 at 6:53 PM, Joshlikescola said:

What's this about renewables not being enough? It shows what can happen if you just make a plan and stick to it. 

Portugal's geographical situation, not to mention its population's energy needs, are unique to it. People say this about Canada. "If Canada can run off of renewable only, why can't everyone else?" Because hardly anyone lives there and they have a great proportion of the world's naturally flowing water. You can't just pretend that because something works for one country, it'll work for everyone.

 

As much as a few people in this thread may not want to hear it, but for most of the West Nuclear Fission, followed by Nuclear Fusion are the only sane energy option.