User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 135

  1. #61
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    I can only hope so. I just see so many people driving around their giant, gas-guzzling trucks, completely oblivious to the problem.


    Ah, gotcha. Yeah, that is all stuff that I didn't know... I suppose it's not feasible now, although it might be in the future.

    I did find an example of something I had in my head just now... what do you think of this? It's an example of how solar power could work:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-b...r_transmission

    When I said that solar power didn't generate enough energy, I was talking about terrestrial solar... but then the idea occurred to me, why not have the panels in orbit, where the sun is stronger?
    This a good idea, I have read about it before. A refinement of solar energy to better efficiency grades is solarthermics aswell. Look at that:



    the mirrors move with the moving sun and heat um water in the radiator, which then as gas propells a turbine. This way you have far better capacity factors, especially thru moving mirrors with the suns angle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I don't know much about that German reactor, but it looks like it was a different design from the one I linked.

    My position is that we need to be exploring more ideas when it comes to nuclear power, not fewer. If we define the terms (primarily safety) under which nuclear power generation would be acceptable, I believe this is a problem we can solve.


    I don't care whether or not people "feel" like it's ivory-tower, it is hypocritical. They have a double standard based on their personal biases.
    I dunno but I think a bit the discussion we have here may already be a bit outdated. If you look at all the technologies built everywhere, they all want to turn their backs on nuclear power. I seriously hope France will not miss on this development, you were from France or am I wrong ?

    I see n odouble standard or hypocriticality with people who are just afraid of atomic waste. It's not that really everyone wasnt open to sacrifice some of their life standard if it just was for a safer environment. Since I've gotten to know the french part of my girlfriend a bit by now, I have to say the green thought is really a thing that hasnt gotten thru to you guys yet, but it doesnt matter. I am patient
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  2. #62
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

    I just read an article (http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unt...751293,00.html) saying that according to a study by the Frauenhofer Institue for Wind Energy and Energy Systems Technology (IWES) ordered by the German government, Germany can free itself from nuclear Energy - with current technology, no future breakthroughs included in the calculation - by 2025. Without even making too much of an effort. If we were willing to go full throttle and invest like crazy (well, 202 billion over a period of ten years), we could be there by 2020....in only 9 years! It is supposedly technically possible, with today's technology! All it takes is to continue the current growth rate of alternative energies (i.e. to continue building generators as we have in the last few years).

    Germany has 17 nuclear power plants. Of those, 7 are so old that the government ordered to temporarily switch them off for three months while they are investigated for security, another one of those 17 is off the grid anyway. So we have currently only 9 of 17 plants running (the 17 together provide 20.8 Gigawatt)...and strangely, so far we have non blackouts. The article claims that 7 of the 17 plants could be permanently shut down without any supply shortages! That leaves 10 plants with 14 Gigawatt that have to be replaced.

    The plan by the Frauenhofer Institute and the federal government only forsees an import of 0.6 Gigawatt from other European countries. The plan is largely based on the expansion of wind energy from the ocean. There has been lot of developement in offshore wind farms. I have translated some of the documents on this for some clients of mine. If you add a slight decease in consumption due to increased energy efficiency (they plan a reduction of 30 Terawatt but claim that even 50 Tera would be possible), it's not as far a leap as it sounds. The current plan (without the huge investment) is for only four plants to remain by 2020. There are possibilities to get rid of even those last four by using more fossils as backup during peak times until renewables are expended even more. With this scenario, people would have to pay higher prices of 50-100 dollars per household per year. I'd say that doesn't sound very dramatic. And I don't care about wind farms not looking nice and ruining the landscape.

    So the plan is, as Entropie suggested: Ditch the remaining nuclear plants, use Russian oil (not coal) as long as neccessary and build wind, solar and water at the current rate or even higher while investigating other technologies. OMG, this might actually be feasable!...well technically, politically, that's a different story. As others have said before, change of mind and all that.
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  3. #63
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    I dunno but I think a bit the discussion we have here may already be a bit outdated. If you look at all the technologies built everywhere, they all want to turn their backs on nuclear power. I seriously hope France will not miss on this development, you were from France or am I wrong ?
    I am a citizen of the United States of America.

    An appeal to popularity? Really?

    I see n odouble standard or hypocriticality with people who are just afraid of atomic waste. It's not that really everyone wasnt open to sacrifice some of their life standard if it just was for a safer environment. Since I've gotten to know the french part of my girlfriend a bit by now, I have to say the green thought is really a thing that hasnt gotten thru to you guys yet, but it doesnt matter. I am patient
    If you don't see the double standard, I think this discussion is probably pointless. Your arguments are based on emotion with a few facts sprinkled in. You might be suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #64
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    The only thing I don't understand, RH, is why you think that fossils are more desirable than nuclear in the interim...

    Oil is the best of the fossil fuels, and everyone wants it, but... it's going to be the first to run out.

  5. #65
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I am a citizen of the United States of America.

    An appeal to popularity? Really?
    I am sorry then, confused you with someone else.

    If you don't see the double standard, I think this discussion is probably pointless. Your arguments are based on emotion with a few facts sprinkled in. You might be suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias.
    Yes I too think a discussion between the two of us would be pointless.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  6. #66
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Herring View Post
    Ditch the remaining nuclear plants, use Russian oil (not coal) as long as neccessary and build wind, solar and water at the current rate or even higher while investigating other technologies. OMG, this might actually be feasable!...well technically, politically, that's a different story. As others have said before, change of mind and all that.
    There's the thing actually we can even use gas instead of coal and oil in the next years as a viable solution to nuclear energy. Shell has developed a new fuel for cars called gtl, which will be produced big scale by the start of 2012. It is fuiel produced from natural gas. And natural gas can be used in GuD - plants, Gasturbinen- und Dampfkraftwerk, what's that: gasturbine and steam power plant.

    It is an alternative to nuclear power, if you want to get out of the atomic sector completly.

    Only problem with gas is russians have bonded its price development to the development of the oil price. Which is kinda tricky :/
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  7. #67
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

    Germany uses Russian gas and depends on it and plans to use that instead of oil. It is an interim solution. If you are right with your pessimism about technological developement, we will have to use those fossils anyway.

    As for Lateralus, I don't see where hypocracy should come into play. Sure, people are afraid of a fall out. But that doesn't mean that it is irrational to consider the risks of nuclear energy and the damage nuclear waste does. It is not emotional. And even if the decision to drop nuclear energy was emotionally driven, how would that be hypocritical? Doesn't hypocritical mean that you use two different ethical standards? How is this done here? Sorry, I can't follow your trail of thought. And there is no need to get personal with anybody.
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  8. #68
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    pessimistisch ? Ich ? more like crazy

    When was I pessimistic,. never heard someone call me that
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  9. #69
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

    I meant Athenian, not Entropie. If anything, I would say you are a technology enthusiast. I meant Athenians skepticism towards current and near future technologies.
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  10. #70
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    There was a nice speech I lately heard on television, by a guy who is a sociologist, someone like a guy looking for the newest trends and developments within people. He said that we live in a society in which we always have two alternatives but never a decision. they especially talked about nuclear power and societys perception and he said: all people feel that nuclear power is wrong and dont want it. But all people are aswell rationally convinced that we still need it, may it be as bridge technology. Tho everybody feels different, we tend to always act what our mind says us but by that we always neglect a part of our humanity.

    I am not saying that there is a middle way between atomic energy yes or no, but what this guy said I found very wise. It is often rational people that try to convince others of something, but somehow nobody is able to accept and respect it no more if someone just doesnt like something, because it feels bad. I found this to be a good quote

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Herring View Post
    I meant Athenian, not Entropie. If anything, I would say you are a technology enthusiast. I meant Athenians skepticism towards current and near future technologies.
    Ah sorry ok. Sorry these questions are part of my strategy to flirt on you, after all you are a woman and you are intelligent and... I really have to loose this attitude of mine
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

Similar Threads

  1. Islamist plot to blow up Eiffel Tower, Louvre and nuclear power plant foiled
    By Kullervo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 07-13-2014, 12:45 AM
  2. The Australian Election and Religion
    By darlets in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-13-2007, 05:06 PM
  3. [NT] The NT Rationale and Rightness
    By Spartan in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-20-2007, 05:28 PM
  4. Suicide and social power
    By labyrinthine in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 03:04 AM
  5. "The Shield" MBTI and E-types...
    By The Ü™ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-27-2007, 06:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO