Elon Musk's Tesla to build world's biggest lithium ion battery to secure power for South Australia (SA)

[Tiz]

Wow! Everyone in this thread must be so successful in life and business to not be impressed by Elon Musk's achievements! What a nice group of humble, supportive and positive fellows!

[MoonSpot]

2 hours ago, Tiz said:

Wow! Everyone in this thread must be so successful in life and business to not be impressed by Elon Musk's achievements! What a nice group of humble, supportive and positive fellows!

? What are you going on about?

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Dash Lambda said:

On nuclear fission power, it is more hazardous for one reason. A catastrophic failure exposes highly radioactive material, which lasts a long time and is dangerous to even be near.

And as for environmental impact, I'm really not which which is worse between fossil fuel byproducts and nuclear waste. They're both bad.

 

Really, what we need is fusion power. We won't be dependent on highly limited resources anymore, we won't need to fill our environment with crap anymore, power plants will even be safer, and we'll actually be able to power cities easily (unlike wind and solar).

Until we get fusion,  fission is still the safest.  Lowest death toll and environmental impact by far. 

[Dash Lambda]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Until we get fusion, fission is still the safest. Lowest death toll and environmental impact by far. 

If we changed out every coal and gas burning power plant in use with a nuclear plant (or the equivalent number needed), I guarantee nuclear waste would at least look as bad as what we're dealing with right now.

I'm not saying fission is bad, I'm just saying it's not universally that much better a thing to push than other forms of power.

[PlayStation 2]

is elon musk done throwing a fit about politics

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

If we changed out every coal and gas burning power plant in use with a nuclear plant (or the equivalent number needed), I guarantee nuclear waste would at least look as bad as what we're dealing with right now.

I'm not saying fission is bad, I'm just saying it's not universally that much better a thing to push than other forms of power.

Then you don't understand the technology. 

 

[Dash Lambda]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Then you don't understand the technology. 

I...

Uh...

If you could explain to me what I apparently don't understand, that would be good. It would be a meaningful argument. Maybe clear something up. Really, anything's better than just saying the other party is wrong because they don't understand.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Dash Lambda said:

I...

Uh...

If you could explain to me what I apparently don't understand, that would be good. It would be a meaningful argument. Maybe clear something up. Really, anything's better than just saying the other party is wrong because they don't understand.

You said nuclear produces more waste. It doesn't. 

You said it was more dangerous, it isn't.

 

Average waste produced by 1gigawatt plant = 700kg of waste needing containment. Average waste produced by equivalent coal station is in the thousands of tonnes of co2.   Number of deaths ascoiatied with all nuclear activity is the lowest of all bar maybe wind.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#46bafe7d709b

 

But instead of me educating you, how about you fact check your assumptions before posting. 

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

I...

Uh...

If you could explain to me what I apparently don't understand, that would be good. It would be a meaningful argument. Maybe clear something up. Really, anything's better than just saying the other party is wrong because they don't understand.

I don't mean to come of as an arsehole but there is so much bs on the internet about nuclear and the environment that all meaningfull technology is being ignored or actively become targets of fear campaignes, and that will inevitably be the undoing of humantiy. I have no room for pleasantries when it comes to black and white science where the stakes are so high.  We have already seen countries wind down nuclear while importing coal power to make up fhe difference. 

[Dabombinable]

36 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't mean to come of as an arsehole but there is so much bs on the internet about nuclear and the environment that all meaningfull technology is being ignored or actively become targets of fear campaignes, and that will inevitably be the undoing of humantiy. I have no room for pleasantries when it comes to black and white science where the stakes are so high.  We have already seen countries wind down nuclear while importing coal power to make up fhe difference. 

People and the media act like any nuclear reactor built now would be as dangerous as the primitive reactors at Chernobyl.

[Dash Lambda]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

You said nuclear produces more waste. It doesn't. 

You said it was more dangerous, it isn't.

I'll go ahead and quote myself here:

40 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

I'm not saying fission is bad, I'm just saying it's not universally that much better a thing to push than other forms of power.

 

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Average waste produced by 1gigawatt plant = 700kg of waste needing containment. Average waste produced by equivalent coal station is in the thousands of tonnes of CO2.   Number of deaths ascoiatied with all nuclear activity is the lowest of all bar maybe wind.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#46bafe7d709b

 

But instead of me educating you, how about you fact check your assumptions before posting. 

The nature of the waste is different.

Nuclear waste lasts for centuries, even millennia, as hazardous radioactive material. It can't be processed by other organisms, it can't be safely dumped anywhere near people (smog is bad, but it's not like breathing the air within 20 feet of a running car is dangerous), and it doesn't go away. It's manageable now, but it'll just keep building up.

 

There is research in alternative ways to deal with nuclear waste, such as reprocessing and re-use of certain isotopes in the decay chain, as well as transmutation of the still unusable and/or dangerous material in adapted fission reactors and theoretically even fusion reactors (by doping the plasma). But, as it stands, none of that is practical or sufficiently developed yet to implement and we don't know exactly how that will pan out.

 

Even if we knew how and when the issues will be solved, it still probably wouldn't be best to switch over to fission right now because of developments in fusion and renewable energy. Our power infrastructure is incredibly intensive, and rebuilding it with the best technology available over and over again just can't happen.

 

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't mean to come off as an arsehole but there is so much bs on the internet about nuclear and the environment that all meaningful technology is being ignored or actively become targets of fear campaigns, and that will inevitably be the undoing of humanity. I have no room for pleasantries when it comes to black and white science where the stakes are so high. We have already seen countries wind down nuclear while importing coal power to make up fhe difference. 

I understand and completely agree, but while our current infrastructure is quite frankly shameful, making any big switch now would be like pre-ordering the big new industry-upsetting McGuffin before anyone's even seen one in person. Might end up being great, might end up being a disappointment, might even lead to much better things soon after that make you wish you'd waited.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I don't mean to come of as an arsehole but there is so much bs on the internet about nuclear and the environment that all meaningfull technology is being ignored or actively become targets of fear campaignes, and that will inevitably be the undoing of humantiy. I have no room for pleasantries when it comes to black and white science where the stakes are so high.  We have already seen countries wind down nuclear while importing coal power to make up fhe difference. 

And nuclear fuel rods last for about 6 years, depending on plant load etc etc. Once used these fuel rods sit in pools of water for about 5-10 years to cool down and then are moved to long term storage or reprocessing depending on country.

 

Every country other than the US reprocesses used fuel rods so they can be used again. When a fuel rod is being used to create a fission reaction it creates other wastes/byproducts because it is not a 'perfect' reaction, yea I know bad way to describe it but can't think of anything better right now. Those byproducts are neutron absorbing and once built up enough completely stops the fission reaction, there is still plenty of fuel in the rods.

 

Waste isn't as big of a problem as it's made out to be, not in the sense of it building up over time and not being able to deal with it. The most dangerous time of all in the entire process is actually the 5-10 years used fuel rods sit in pools to cool down, if water flow stops it boils then exposes the rods to air then bad shit happens and worse than a reactor melt down.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/whats-the-deal-spent-nuclear-fuel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Back_end

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

 

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

Nuclear waste lasts for centuries, even millennia, as hazardous radioactive material. It can't be processed by other organisms, it can't be safely dumped anywhere near people (smog is bad, but it's not like breathing the air within 20 feet of a running car is dangerous), and it doesn't go away. It's manageable now, but it'll just keep building up.

See my above post, spent fuel rods can and do already get reprocessed and reused in nuclear fission reactors just not in the US.

 

Edit:

And it doesn't take much of a leap of faith to realize that if the US did start reprocessing their fuel rods the technology and process to do it would vastly improve.

[Dash Lambda]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

See my above post, spent fuel rods can and do already get reprocessed and reused in nuclear fission reactors just not in the US.

Only part of it, and what's left behind isn't very good either.

I bunched reprocessing up with transmutation in my post, which was a small error, but the overall point is the same: Nuclear power in its current form is largely just a sidestep, we have to develop the technology further before it's effectively clean.

[Serin]

Ahhh! I love my country... even if the battery's in South Australian...
If any of you lot see Musk floating around just whisper to him that Darwin is 12.5*S and serviced by a railway line.

[Dash Lambda]

32 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Edit:

And it doesn't take much of a leap of faith to realize that if the US did start reprocessing their fuel rods the technology and process to do it would vastly improve.

Yeah, but I don't personally have much faith that the US can get their shit together in the near future.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

I'll go ahead and quote myself here:

 

The nature of the waste is different.

Nuclear waste lasts for centuries, even millennia, as hazardous radioactive material. It can't be processed by other organisms, it can't be safely dumped anywhere near people (smog is bad, but it's not like breathing the air within 20 feet of a running car is dangerous), and it doesn't go away. It's manageable now, but it'll just keep building up.

 

There is research in alternative ways to deal with nuclear waste, such as reprocessing and re-use of certain isotopes in the decay chain, as well as transmutation of the still unusable and/or dangerous material in adapted fission reactors and theoretically even fusion reactors (by doping the plasma). But, as it stands, none of that is practical or sufficiently developed yet to implement and we don't know exactly how that will pan out.

 

Even if we knew how and when the issues will be solved, it still probably wouldn't be best to switch over to fission right now because of developments in fusion and renewable energy. Our power infrastructure is incredibly intensive, and rebuilding it with the best technology available over and over again just can't happen.

 

I understand and completely agree, but while our current infrastructure is quite frankly shameful, making any big switch now would be like pre-ordering the big new industry-upsetting McGuffin before anyone's even seen one in person. Might end up being great, might end up being a disappointment, might even lead to much better things soon after that make you wish you'd waited.

you actually said:

 

2 hours ago, Dash Lambda said:

If we changed out every coal and gas burning power plant in use with a nuclear plant (or the equivalent number needed), I guarantee nuclear waste would at least look as bad as what we're dealing with right now.

I'm not saying fission is bad, I'm just saying it's not universally that much better a thing to push than other forms of power.

No, it wouldn't, not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

You are literally trying to imply that the small amounts of waste that are contained and so far have not caused a death toll anywhere that of coal, to be far worse than the current damage pumping thousands of tonnes of co2 into the air has done.Coal everyday kills more people and does more damage to the environment than nuclear has in nearly it's entire existence.

 

There is just nothing to debate, coal has done more damage to the the human race and the environment than nuclear ever will, Even if they don't work out fusion, fission will still be cleaner and safer any day of the week over coal.

 

So what do you want, thousands of dead people and advanced climate change becasue you fear they can't contain the nuclear waste they have been successfully containing for the last 60 years, or to at least live in a world that has hopes of surviving by using the best technology we have at our disposal?

 

Coal fired plants kill 7500 people in the US every year. 

http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/

 

There is just no argument, coal is the the most dangerous and the most polluting power source on the planet.  current nuclear is equivalent to wind and solar for death toll and environmental impact and shits on everything else for production capability.  Why not use in interim until we get safer fusion programs running?

 

 

 

 

[Jito463]

49 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Coal fired plants kill 7500 people in the US every year. 

http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/

Sorry, but those numbers are complete and utter bull.  More climate alarmist crap.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Sorry, but those numbers are complete and utter bull.  More climate alarmist crap.

Can you elaborate as to why these numbers are wrong, what's wrong about them, and what the correct numbers are?

[Jito463]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Can you elaborate as to why these numbers are wrong, what's wrong about them, and what the correct numbers are?

There were no numbers to support their claim.  I checked the website, and their entire claim was based on speculation about pollution and smog.  Unless the numbers were buried someplace else on the website.  It looked like just another leftist climate change site.  One of the PDF documents was even griping about Trump reducing emission standards.

[leadeater]

35 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

There were no numbers to support their claim.  I checked the website, and their entire claim was based on speculation about pollution and smog.  Unless the numbers were buried someplace else on the website.  It looked like just another leftist climate change site.  One of the PDF documents was even griping about Trump reducing emission standards.

Well we can always just use the number of people that have died mining coal around the world in total then compare that to the number of deaths directly caused by nuclear power production and any incidents.

 

Yep coal loses big time on that one.

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Well we can always just use the number of people that have died mining coal around the world in total then compare that to the number of deaths directly caused by nuclear power production and any incidents.

 

Yep coal loses big time on that one.

Oh, I'm wholly in favor of more nuclear reactor plants.  Those same leftist nitwits that protest the use of coal are also afraid of nuclear, and they somehow find ways to persuade Congress to block approval of new ones.  I'm not arguing we should stick with coal, just that the claim about the number of deaths related to it is ridiculous.

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well we can always just use the number of people that have died mining coal around the world in total then compare that to the number of deaths directly caused by nuclear power production and any incidents.

 

Yep coal loses big time on that one.

Then there are the near-death instances from collapses as well. And when it comes to environmental factors just look at the scars coal mines leave on the land due to the sheer amount that needs to be mined. CO₂  isn't the only impact coal has on the environment.

[mr moose]

47 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Sorry, but those numbers are complete and utter bull.  More climate alarmist crap.

They are supported by more research than just their own.  On a crapy Tablet now,  I'll do some posting later.  

[mr moose]

58 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Sorry, but those numbers are complete and utter bull.  More climate alarmist crap.

Outside of the leftest BS numbers that do get posted all over the place, this sort of thing is actually well researched and peer reviewed by a variety of researchers from vairous fields of science:

 

http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16425664

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21463978

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11879110

 

In short, by taking large amounts of data from hospitalizations and comparing diagnosis and locality data including samples from the air they can accurately determine trends in disease and their causalities.  This is not an arbitrary study where there are too many factors to consider, the data is sufficiently accurate to actually list individual conditions and diseases rather than a blanket "respiratory" disease.

 

I'm with you on the leftist BS, they are the biggest hold back to the human race moving forward,  if the greeny propaganda machine stuck to the truth then we would have much less issues convincing people to support more appropriate action like nuclear power.