[Deathdeisel]

Not really. I guess i should add in worst case scenario to that though. When you take the cherynoble incident in retrospect, essentially 150,000 kilometers were effected by it, and will still have above normal radiation levels for the next couple hundred years probably as well. And still today over 2.4million people have been affected by it/suffer from health problems because of it. Imagine a worse scenario, than a fire, say an explosion. 
 
Also considering the fact that modern nuclear power is much more powerful potentially, than it was then. While there are more safety measures in place today, there is still a risk. 

 

[Deathdeisel]

 
Quote:

Quote:

Seeing as electromagnets require electricity I'm not sure what the point would be.
 
Now if you had some rare earth magnets that generated electricity is stasis you would really have something. Unfortunately all you would likely get out of it is a visit from some men in black.
 

I honestly may be an idiot, but i have an idea stuck in my head. And it may technically be breaking the laws of physics(if it were able to be true), but i was thinking of something along the lines of essentially this;
 
Take a normal wind generator, and line electromagnets(i say these because you would be able to adjust the strength of them)/strong magnets in a certain way to essentially spin the propeller shaft faster than the wind is, to in turn make more energy.(the propeller moving is not the point i know, but the shaft to spin the motor to generate electricity is)
 
Someone please educate me, because i am by no means an engineer of any sorts, or really that knowledgable on the laws of physics. Why wouldn't this work?

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Not really. I guess i should add in worst case scenario to that though. When you take the cherynoble incident in retrospect, essentially 150,000 kilometers were effected by it, and will still have above normal radiation levels for the next couple hundred years probably as well. And still today over 2.4million people have been affected by it/suffer from health problems because of it. Imagine a worse scenario, than a fire, say an explosion. 
 
Also considering the fact that modern nuclear power is much more powerful potentially, than it was then. While there are more safety measures in place today, there is still a risk. 

Chernobyl would never, ever happen in the U.S. We have regulations. It's an invalid comparison.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Causes
 
Presumably the fault in your electromagnet/wind power idea is that it would require more energy to move the electromagnets than would be generated by the additional rotation speed. Since neither system is 100% efficient.

 

[alphaphoenix]

I would never, include the word "never" in any sentence with regards to if it can happen or not.  To answer the OP question, I don't support it because of the two most important factors in any decision that effects the mass population - cost and risks.  Both are extremely high.  The ratio of costs/risks, and immediate/future benefits is too far apart.
 
IMO, power/energy, both immediate and reserves should be centralized with the source coming from appropriate different areas of the country like solar power coming from the sun states, wind and hydro coming from its respective regions all feeding into center where it can feed off from each other and the price per kilowatt usage is flat.  I'll stop now as this is now getting into political territory. 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Now if you had some rare earth magnets that generated electricity is stasis you would really have something. Unfortunately all you would likely get out of it is a visit from some men in black.

 
If you spend too much time working on that you might need a visit from the men in white.  People who claim to have actually done it often eventually get a visit from government agents investigating fraud...

 

[Lazarus Short]

Given the disasters in the Ukraine and Japan, the handwriting is on the wall.  Blowups happen, and when they do in a nuclear facility, it is a catastrophe beyond all imagination.
 
Free energy devices are now a commercial realtiy.  Away with nukes!

 

[christophrowley]

Quote:

Given the disasters in the Ukraine and Japan, the handwriting is on the wall.  Blowups happen, and when they do in a nuclear facility, it is a catastrophe beyond all imagination.
 
Free energy devices are now a commercial realtiy.  Away with nukes!

Given what happened to the Fukushima plant, it's a testament to modern nuclear power that it didn't blow up. I'm not saying it can't be dangerous when done badly, but the benefits outweigh the risks imo. Also, what is this "free energy" you speak of?

 

[Lazarus Short]

Given that free energy is now a commercial reality, why consider nuclear power any further?  Yes, commercial units were available, according to reports on the www, but expensive.  Cold fusion is not off the table, either.  The PTB dislike either, as they can not be easily used as a revenue stream, and that's why Tesla was shut down a century ago.

 

[Head Injury]

Could you provide us links to this "free" energy?

 

[AKG240mkII]

Quote:

I don't understand why people hate nuclear power. Although the cost of building the plant is expensive, it is cheaper than using coal power in the long term since an extremely small amount of uranium can power the whole city for years. Additionally, it does not produce any green house gas and is extremely clean. The methods of transporting and burying the spent fuel is also very safe. The only reason I cash think of is that they are afraid it will explode which is extremely rare. It also doesn't happen in modern nuclear plants. The recent meltdown in fukushima happened because the plant was built 40 years ago. If they replaced the plants every 20 years or so, no accidents would happen.
 

Gee, nearly everything you say there is just plain wrong .
All the 'official' financial calculations you see on nuclear energy never take in to account the cost of dismantling the damn thing
OR storing it, partly because it's not the power-companys problem, they 'externalize' the expense.
Meaning YOU, the taxpayer, picks up the bill .
The fact that no private insurance-company will insure a nuclear plant should also tell you something about just how expensive it gets when something DOES go wrong .
Again, YOU, the taxpayer will pay the bill .
And last time I checked, something always goes wrong !
 
Besides, do you really think we have the right to decide to dump that radio-active waste in the ground for the next 35.000 years ?
Maybe future generations would prefer not to inherit our hazardous waste ?? 
 
  Replacing the plants every 20 years would just make it even more expensive .
There's basically only one justifiable reason to build nuclear reactors and that's to produce radioactive isotopes, either for civilian use OR to place them in 'devices' .
 
 
 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Gee, nearly everything you say there is just plain wrong .
All the 'official' financial calculations you see on nuclear energy never take in to account the cost of dismantling the damn thing
OR storing it . Besides, do you really think we have the right to decide to dump that radio-active waste in the ground for the next 35.000 years ?
Maybe future generations would prefer not to inherit our hazardous waste ?? 
 
  Replacing the plants every 20 years would just make it even more expensive .
There's basically only one justifiable reason to build nuclear reactors and that's to produce radioactive isotopes, either for civilian use OR to place them in 'devices' .

Could you quote us some cost figures then?
 
How about we all start backing up statements with facts, that way this doesn't turn into a bunch of kicking and screaming?
 
I'll start with this Wikipedia article on energy costs. Natural sources like wind and water are the most efficient, but obviously limited in their scope. Nuclear power is generally no more expensive than coal anywhere but Australia, while in some places (U.S. in particular) it's cheaper than "clean" coal. Solar is the most expensive right now, offshore wind and tidal power is expensive too.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Could you provide us links to this "free" energy?

I suppose one place is as good to start as another::  http://www.rense.com/general21/free.htm


Quote:

Given what happened to the Fukushima plant, it's a testament to modern nuclear power that it didn't blow up. I'm not saying it can't be dangerous when done badly, but the benefits outweigh the risks imo. Also, what is this "free energy" you speak of?

Some people think one or more reactors did in fact, blow up, at least hydrogen explosions.  Some of the cores have melted through their containment, and are now underground.  China Syndrome may be only a matter of time...
 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

I suppose one place is as good to start as another::  http://www.rense.com/general21/free.htm

The patent was filed in 2002. The link says production starts "next year". Where are they?
 
And after following the home button, that is not a source I would give much credit.

 

[pigmode]

Quote:

Some people think one or more reactors did in fact, blow up, at least hydrogen explosions.  Some of the cores have melted through their containment, and are now underground.  China Syndrome may be only a matter of time...
 

I agree that we have no idea about the real situation in Fukushima, because as we have seen, in a crisis the Japanese govt is prepared to obfuscate and lie as much as Iran. The health effects in the next 10-20 yr will tell most or the story.
 

 

[grokit]

Quote:

Where are they?

Men In Black struck, I'm tellin' ya