More people should be saying this

[Job]

I'm torn on this one, windmills are hardly new, Europe used to be covered in them before we invented electric motor ..etc.
They are fantastically crap and producing the kind of electricity we need, everytime we walk the dog on the beach at Burbo Bank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burbo_Bank_Offshore_Wind_Farm I have to point out that I've never seen them all turning and most days at least five are still. I'd love to see how much electricity they actually made over one year, without and fiddling of the figures, I bet it's less than 25% of the published rating.
All this talk of 'powering 20,00 homes', it's just bullshit..take the theoretical max output times it by some theoretical house that only used 20% of the power of a real house (They exclude kettles and hairdryers and showers) maybe, but all said and done, it's the Nukes and the gas/oil power stations that are powering the country and a recent project by an Oxford mathematician concluded we'd need to cover Britain in all the turbines in the world and turn all the lakes into hydro storage units to power the country from wind alone, at a cost of about 500 billion quid.

 

[Embattle]

The requirement has always been one that should be based on a balance of technologies, this combined with future improvements in each type of "green" tech and other technology.

 

[Job]

On a side note, the guy across the road paints turbines for a living and he was telling me the amazing places standing by the motor, above the clouds as the sun rises...sweet.

 

[Wij]

Necro 1 for Scouse

 

[Wij]

http://m.businessgreen.com/digital_assets/4177/Powerful_Targets.pdf

 

[Access Denied]

Nuclear fission is the way forward, at least until the smart people find a way to kick off fusion. As for the waste, shoot it into deep space, not in a rocket because, well, that's already been covered but using a giant fucking rail-gun. A reactor or two would be able to power it and there would be no chance of anything exploding while in the air and raining radioactive waste across the globe.

 

[Scouse]

Nuclear fission is the way forward, at least until the smart people find a way to kick off fusion. As for the waste, shoot it into deep space, not in a rocket because, well, that's already been covered but using magic. Yep. Magic'll do it, yeah...

Fixed

 

[Raven]

A rail gun would be full of win though.

 

[Scouse]

True

 

[Access Denied]

Why change it? Rail guns are already being fitted to ships, why not a land based one at the equator that points straight up?

 

[Zenith.UK]

Rail guns can't currently reach escape velocity (~10.7Km/sec).
If there was such a rail gun, NASA and other space agencies would be looking at using them to launch things into orbit.

 

[Access Denied]

See, that is a helpful response. Surely though, it's only a matter of the power required to propel an object to escape velocity?

 

[Scouse]

See, that is a helpful response. Surely though, it's only a matter of Dumbledore propelling objects to escape velocity?

Fixed, again

 

[Access Denied]

Fuck off Scouse.

 

[Scouse]

Ooooh! Touchy!

You're the one who used the "omgz! why not shoot it all into space!!!11!1" argument

 

[Chilly]

Rail guns can't currently reach escape velocity (~10.7Km/sec).
If there was such a rail gun, NASA and other space agencies would be looking at using them to launch things into orbit.

Doubtful, the acceleration undergone in a very short period of time would destroy most useful payloads (let alone a human) - you'd either need a kilometres long rail or just be happy with only firing lumps of metal or rock into orbit. The real problem is that once you've fired the fucker into orbit you don't have a great deal of control over it. It might hit some debris and end up in a decaying orbit and crash into a primary school! think of the children!

 

[Access Denied]

Ah Scouse, I presented an alternative to rockets, an unsuitable alternative as it turns out. Instead of pointing out why it wouldn't work you decided to give a useless, shitbag reponse.

 

[Access Denied]

Doubtful, the acceleration undergone in a very short period of time would destroy most useful payloads (let alone a human) - you'd either need a kilometres long rail or just be happy with only firing lumps of metal or rock into orbit. The real problem is that once you've fired the fucker into orbit you don't have a great deal of control over it. It might hit some debris and end up in a decaying orbit and crash into a primary school! think of the children!

Can't argue with the debris part but are you certain the acceleration would destroy stuff? Putting aside whether or not it's even possible, it wouldnt be explosive acceleration.

 

[Scouse]

Actually, what happened was: You presented a ridiculous idea that's been hashed, rehashed, boiled, baked, examined, interrogated, reexamined and discounted as spastic a bazillion times, yet still manages to turn up in every single debate about nuclear waste, ever.

Then I made a joke out of it. Because that's what the idea is. A joke.

 

[Access Denied]

Well that would be it. Despite my many debates on varied subjects, this is the first time Nuclear waste has been said subject.

 

[Scouse]

I've brought it up as a primary argument in every thread on nuclear - because I'm anti- and we've no idea how to dispose of it safely.

The best idea we've come up with is encasing it in special caskets and burying it in deep geological storage. However, the caskets last a max of 300 years before becoming nuclear waste and deep geological stores keep throwing up unforseen problems that make them unsafe...

 

[rynnor]

The best idea we've come up with is encasing it in special caskets and burying it in deep geological storage. However, the caskets last a max of 300 years before becoming nuclear waste and deep geological stores keep throwing up unforseen problems that make them unsafe...

Unless your worried about nuclear waste in a hundred million years time then sticking it somewhere geologically stable would work.

A better idea would be to stick it in a section of subducting crust so that it ends up getting sucked down into the mantle of our planet.

 

[Scouse]

Unless your worried about nuclear waste in a hundred million years time then sticking it somewhere geologically stable would work.

Just the next thousand really, by then if we've not spread into the solar system properly we're never going to do so.

Anyway - they keep thinking they've found somewhere geologically stable - but they keep being wrong...

 

[rynnor]

Just the next thousand really, by then if we've not spread into the solar system properly we're never going to do so.

Anyway - they keep thinking they've found somewhere geologically stable - but they keep being wrong...

In reality the big issue is transporting it from the reactor sites to the geological storage area. Its much simpler to build them on-site but cumbria wasnt a very good place to build a nuclear power station with the exception that you could release waste into the irish sea...

 

[Scouse]

And we now have the most radioactive sea on the planet on our doorstep, with bioaccumulating animals (lobsters) in certain areas having twenty times the legal safety level of glowy green fun going on

 

[rynnor]

And we now have the most radioactive sea on the planet on our doorstep, with bioaccumulating animals (lobsters) in certain areas having twenty times the legal safety level of glowy green fun going on

Cant wait till we are invaded by giant radioactive lobstermen! or Lob-zilla!

 

[Scouse]

Lob-zilla!

Amazing what putting wierd words in google gets ya

 

[rynnor]

Imagine sticking that down the bog one morning before the wife n kids get up - lol!

 

[Raven]

Its all about the space lifts.

 

[Embattle]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17587830