You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #16: Wow, that's interesting about the concrete and steel use. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
16. Wow, that's interesting about the concrete and steel use.
Here I was, thinking nuclear took a prohibitive amount. I find it hard to believe. I guess those wind generators have footings that are huge.

Maybe we'll be seeing Thorium reactors soon. I don't know why we haven't already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Nuclear vs. wind comparison - land use, material requirements and costs GliderGuider  Jan-23-11 04:57 PM   #0 
  - This should be a fun thread.  Ruby the Liberal   Jan-23-11 04:59 PM   #1 
  - It's not worth arguing with the pro-nukers.  Tesha   Jan-23-11 06:36 PM   #14 
     - Here's a bit more nuance  GliderGuider   Jan-24-11 07:44 AM   #39 
  - u forgot to include stats on waste disposal and cost of chernobyl experiences nt  msongs   Jan-23-11 05:03 PM   #2 
  - No, those have already been heavily discussed here.  GliderGuider   Jan-23-11 05:07 PM   #3 
  - You are entitled to your wrong opinions.  bananas   Jan-23-11 05:20 PM   #8 
  - 1 in 10 chance of another Chernobyl  bananas   Jan-23-11 05:27 PM   #9 
  - So in other words  GliderGuider   Jan-23-11 06:15 PM   #13 
  - 1 in 10 odds are not miniscule - the nuclear industry is playing russian roulette  bananas   Jan-24-11 09:53 AM   #42 
     - No, but 1 in 250 odds are pretty small.  GliderGuider   Jan-24-11 10:04 AM   #43 
        - You're willing to take a chance on killing a large number of people near a nuke  madokie   Jan-24-11 04:41 PM   #52 
           - "I'll take my chances with finding a solution for the co2 in other directions"  NickB79   Jan-24-11 04:58 PM   #54 
           - I don't like coal any more than anyone else does  madokie   Jan-24-11 05:08 PM   #56 
              - Poor chemistry leads to poor understanding  PamW   Jan-25-11 09:17 AM   #88 
                 - You need to do some more research  madokie   Jan-26-11 06:08 AM   #97 
                    - Gasification only reduces the amount of CO2 going into the air if it is captured and sequestered  GliderGuider   Jan-26-11 07:48 AM   #100 
                       - That is false  madokie   Jan-26-11 08:55 AM   #102 
                          - You are the one that doesn't understand  PamW   Jan-26-11 09:13 AM   #103 
                          - Another case of nuclear inspired pseudo-science?  kristopher   Jan-26-11 10:15 AM   #104 
                             - The efficiency point is a good one, thanks.  GliderGuider   Jan-26-11 10:46 AM   #106 
                             - Gen IV (LFTR) can take advantage of combined cycle (Brayton) generators, too.  joshcryer   Jan-26-11 11:39 AM   #108 
                             - Agreed, we need Gen IV. LFTR and IFR. Burn the waste, produce little CO2 over lifecycle.  joshcryer   Jan-26-11 11:37 AM   #107 
                                - Sure, we can just wait 30 years until those are ready to deploy.  kristopher   Jan-26-11 11:42 AM   #109 
                                   - IFR nearly fully researched and could be deployed in 5. LFTR could be in under 10.  joshcryer   Jan-26-11 06:18 PM   #111 
                          - I've read up on it.  GliderGuider   Jan-26-11 10:29 AM   #105 
                             - Heres a couple of links with more to come.  madokie   Jan-26-11 06:15 PM   #110 
           - It's not for many years  PamW   Jan-25-11 09:09 AM   #87 
              - A bomb and a meltdown is two different animals completely  madokie   Jan-26-11 06:15 AM   #98 
                 - Same complement of radionuclides  PamW   Jan-26-11 08:35 AM   #101 
  - Talk about pulling figures out of an orifice  txlibdem   Jan-24-11 08:09 AM   #41 
  - US reactors can go Chernobyl  bananas   Jan-24-11 01:56 PM   #45 
     - A couple of comments about the 2003 MIT study  GliderGuider   Jan-24-11 03:04 PM   #46 
     - My calculations are correct.  bananas   Jan-24-11 04:28 PM   #50 
        - Again I agree with bananas: the old nuclear reactors need to be replaced asap with Gen IV  txlibdem   Jan-24-11 06:18 PM   #61 
        - I agree completely. Gen II/III/III+ are unsafe, we need reactors that have hundred million year...  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:53 PM   #73 
           - And to address the cost issue, I favor modular reactors with mass produced components  txlibdem   Jan-24-11 07:56 PM   #77 
        - After going back to basics, I agree.  GliderGuider   Jan-24-11 08:17 PM   #78 
     - Your odds are bullshit  Confusious   Jan-24-11 11:30 PM   #85 
     - Poor math leads to poor understanding  PamW   Jan-25-11 08:58 AM   #86 
     - Actually, his math is OK, it's his words that are in error.  GliderGuider   Jan-25-11 09:57 AM   #90 
     - I'm actually talking about the relicensing issue  bananas   Jan-25-11 11:01 AM   #92 
        - My assumption (correct me if I'm wrong)  GliderGuider   Jan-25-11 11:48 AM   #93 
     - MIT: Reactivity Feedback Explanation  PamW   Jan-25-11 07:11 PM   #94 
     - Reactor safety is improving over time quite dramatically  GliderGuider   Jan-25-11 09:48 AM   #89 
        - Which makes me repeat: anyone who stops a new nuclear plant is endangering us all  txlibdem   Jan-25-11 09:41 PM   #95 
           - Wrong. nt  bananas   Jan-26-11 05:55 AM   #96 
              - You proved it to us yourself, bananas  txlibdem   Jan-26-11 06:15 AM   #99 
  - "if we try to keep the existing reactors running for another 25 years"  txlibdem   Jan-24-11 05:40 PM   #59 
     - Heheh, that is a brilliant observation.  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:38 PM   #64 
  - "The Externalities of Nuclear Power: First, Assume We Have a Can Opener . . ."  bananas   Jan-23-11 05:32 PM   #10 
  - You are wrong!!111 Chernobyl doesn't count in the area of land rendered unusable by nuclear power  jpak   Jan-23-11 06:56 PM   #23 
  - The only problem I have is that I don't trust the contractors. It may be safe  Exultant Democracy   Jan-23-11 05:13 PM   #4 
  - Cost analysis by Exelon and others have different numbers  bananas   Jan-23-11 05:14 PM   #5 
  - of course private industry is gonna build these things with NO taxpayer subsidies or loans :-) nt  msongs   Jan-23-11 05:15 PM   #6 
  - Some other problems  bananas   Jan-23-11 05:19 PM   #7 
  - Why not do both?  GliderGuider   Jan-23-11 05:38 PM   #12 
     - Indeed. Why not do both?  txlibdem   Jan-24-11 06:33 PM   #63 
     - Why not research Gen IV and mass manufacture LFTRs/IFRs?  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:58 PM   #76 
  - k&r. n/t  Laelth   Jan-23-11 05:34 PM   #11 
  - Did this stupid analysis include the footprint of the entire nuclear fuel cycle - nope!  jpak   Jan-23-11 06:41 PM   #15 
  - Why aren't we seeing Thorium reactors?  Gregorian   Jan-23-11 06:45 PM   #17 
     - because they suck  jpak   Jan-23-11 06:46 PM   #19 
  - Wow, that's interesting about the concrete and steel use.  Gregorian   Jan-23-11 06:44 PM   #16 
  - He didn't include the entire nuclear fuel cycle - which we all know doesn't use concrete and steel  jpak   Jan-23-11 06:52 PM   #21 
     - Do you have any numbers for that? I'd be glad to include them. n/t  GliderGuider   Jan-23-11 06:59 PM   #24 
     - Not my analysis - you need to do some homework before you post this stuff  jpak   Jan-23-11 07:03 PM   #25 
        - That's silly for such a simple assessment. There are hundreds of turbine building plants...  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:42 PM   #66 
     - Processing plants could be included, but then you'd have to include the wind manufacturing...  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:40 PM   #65 
  - How did you come up with 1ha for a MW of generation?  Fledermaus   Jan-23-11 06:46 PM   #18 
  - by pulling it out of an orifice  jpak   Jan-23-11 06:51 PM   #20 
  - The NREL analysis says it found 0.3 ha per MW of nameplate cpapcity  GliderGuider   Jan-23-11 06:54 PM   #22 
     - Well, if we are going to play these games, why not divide the area of nuclear power plants  jpak   Jan-23-11 07:54 PM   #26 
     - Because the end product we're interested in is electricity.  GliderGuider   Jan-23-11 09:03 PM   #30 
     - Americas oldest commercial reactor is Oyster Creek in New Jersey  jpak   Jan-23-11 09:19 PM   #32 
     - Comparing the "newest" wind turbines with the "oldest" nuclear plant designs? False equivalency much  txlibdem   Jan-24-11 06:57 AM   #36 
        - Indeed, and we're expected to believe that wind will have 40% capacity factors and last 20 years.  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:44 PM   #68 
     - No - the area of a wind turbine pad is not related to its capacity factor  jpak   Jan-23-11 09:28 PM   #33 
        - I'll say one thing for kristopher  GliderGuider   Jan-24-11 05:20 AM   #35 
           - He also knows how to put in plain english what he's talking about  madokie   Jan-24-11 04:53 PM   #53 
              - I suppose tautologies are plain English...  GliderGuider   Jan-24-11 05:07 PM   #55 
     - Because wind isn't thermal? You'd be rounding it back to GWe either way.  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:43 PM   #67 
     - Bad Science, par for the course for you.  Fledermaus   Jan-23-11 11:59 PM   #34 
        - Fortunately there was nothing arbitrary about my decision to normalize for capacity factor.  GliderGuider   Jan-24-11 07:23 AM   #37 
        - Don't put lipstick on the wind-pig.  wtmusic   Jan-24-11 10:21 AM   #44 
           - Apparently, you and your friend want to pull a number out of your butt  Fledermaus   Jan-24-11 03:16 PM   #47 
           - Perhaps this might help...  GliderGuider   Jan-24-11 03:20 PM   #48 
              - Bad Sience! You have been shown to be making things up.  Fledermaus   Jan-24-11 04:37 PM   #51 
                 - .  wtmusic   Jan-24-11 05:48 PM   #60 
                 - I don't think you have showed anywhere where GGs analysis is flawed.  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:46 PM   #69 
                 - Have you ever worked for a company that does science  Confusious   Jan-24-11 11:23 PM   #84 
           - Apparently, your reference material comes from a site called "tinypic" a web page for photos.  Fledermaus   Jan-24-11 05:18 PM   #58 
              - We're looking at the average velocity of wind cubed over a ten-day period  wtmusic   Jan-24-11 09:29 PM   #80 
              - Do you even know why he did that?  Confusious   Jan-24-11 11:20 PM   #83 
  - Well, by your argument we should dump wind and nuclear for coal and natural gas  jpak   Jan-23-11 08:33 PM   #27 
  - No, the point is to get rid of as much CO2 as we can.  GliderGuider   Jan-23-11 08:52 PM   #29 
  - Reality: we aren't getting rid of as much CO2 as we can and forum posts won't change that.  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:49 PM   #71 
  - No, it's more that liars keep saying that these energies are more cost effective than nuclear.  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:48 PM   #70 
  - Well, if you include external costs, not that fans of Amory Lovins know how to do that,  NNadir   Jan-24-11 10:46 PM   #81 
  - Couldn't tell with a quick look if that includes the transmission system.  hunter   Jan-23-11 08:43 PM   #28 
  - No, it doesn't, and yes wind would require more. nt  GliderGuider   Jan-23-11 09:04 PM   #31 
  - Wisecrack after wisecrack ... you must have hit a nerve.  Dogmudgeon   Jan-24-11 07:42 AM   #38 
     - The growth of atmospheric CO2 is changing the dynamics of the debate  GliderGuider   Jan-24-11 07:58 AM   #40 
     - I think that you are surrounded by too many people like youself. CO2 is far from peoples minds.  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:56 PM   #75 
     - Wind will be built out in EU and the US, but natural gas will play an overwhelming role in both.  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:54 PM   #74 
  - Correct. It's a simple analysis. Both the OP and BNC are just doing quick and dirty math...  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:51 PM   #72 
  - Does your figure include  XemaSab   Jan-24-11 04:01 PM   #49 
  - No, although the NREL study includes it.  GliderGuider   Jan-24-11 05:14 PM   #57 
  - Oh man, how did I miss this thread.  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 06:22 PM   #62 
  - Latecomers are welcome  wtmusic   Jan-24-11 09:20 PM   #79 
     - I left my mark.  joshcryer   Jan-24-11 11:17 PM   #82 
  - I've posted an assessment of reactor safety above  GliderGuider   Jan-25-11 09:59 AM   #91 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC