Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Closed Thread  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-06-2019, 12:41 AM   #4421 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 9,724

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 231
Thanked 3,177 Times in 2,493 Posts
Nuclear needs some subsidies. Stop wasting it on solar.

__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to oil pan 4 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (01-09-2019)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-06-2019, 06:05 AM   #4422 (permalink)
In the fasting lane
 
RedDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Posts: 3,967

Red Devil - '11 Honda Insight Elegance
Team Honda
90 day: 51.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,689
Thanked 2,208 Times in 1,429 Posts
Think we need both, so subsidize both.
__________________
2011 Honda Insight + HID, LEDs, tiny PV panel, extra brake pad return springs, neutral wheel alignment, 44/42 PSI (air), PHEV light (inop), tightened wheel nut.
lifetime FE over 0.17 Gmeter or 0.1 Mmile.



Investors woes:
"In hindsight, I should have placed a bet on the horse that won the race"
"In hindsight, I should have bet more on that horse"
 
Old 01-06-2019, 08:18 AM   #4423 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 9,724

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 231
Thanked 3,177 Times in 2,493 Posts
As long as coal is being burned to generate power subsidizing solar is a waste of money.
Once the base load is covered with nuclear and other power sources that work at night then add more solar power generation to cover peak load.
Or cover the peak load with solar then replace the base load with nuclear.
The United States could build 25 or so AP1000 reactors and put a nice dent in coals market share of electricity production.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to oil pan 4 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (01-09-2019)
Old 01-06-2019, 08:30 AM   #4424 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Brazil
Posts: 1,476
Thanks: 14
Thanked 362 Times in 327 Posts
One question?
Who pay for the research and devolopment of solar technology, photovoltaics and thermal ?
Privade companies onlY ? Or also China government?

Maybe if more governments around the world could join into a huge financing/incentive to science research for solar energy, it could bring more results than subsides.

Just a idea...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDevil View Post
Think we need both, so subsidize both.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to All Darc For This Useful Post:
aerohead (01-09-2019)
Old 01-06-2019, 09:01 AM   #4425 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Brazil
Posts: 1,476
Thanks: 14
Thanked 362 Times in 327 Posts
I imagined all nuclear reactor power plants used steam.

Wasn't Fukushima's reactor one of the kind that use passive nuclear safety ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
As long as coal is being burned to generate power subsidizing solar is a waste of money.
Once the base load is covered with nuclear and other power sources that work at night then add more solar power generation to cover peak load.
Or cover the peak load with solar then replace the base load with nuclear.
The United States could build 25 or so AP1000 reactors and put a nice dent in coals market share of electricity production.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to All Darc For This Useful Post:
aerohead (01-09-2019)
Old 01-06-2019, 10:16 AM   #4426 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sendler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 2,935

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 105.14 mpg (US)

2001 Honda Insight stick - '01 Honda Insight manual
90 day: 60.68 mpg (US)

2009 Honda Fit auto - '09 Honda Fit Auto
90 day: 38.51 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 104.48 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 80.94 mpg (US)

Ninja650 - '19 Kawasaki Ninja 650
90 day: 72.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,314 Times in 967 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by All Darc View Post
I imagined all nuclear reactor power plants used steam.

Wasn't Fukushima's reactor one of the kind that use passive nuclear safety ?
Reactor 1 was built in 1967. 2 and 3 were 1974 and 1976.
.
China has several different GenIII+ passive safety designs just completed or under construction.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
.
Gen IV reactors such as the Thorcon and Moltex will not use water in the core and will be much safer.
.
Thorcon Power | The Do-able Molten Salt Reactor
.
Moltex Energy | Safer Cheaper Cleaner | Stable Salt Reactors | SSR
.
https://terrapower.com/
.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to sendler For This Useful Post:
aerohead (01-09-2019)
Old 01-06-2019, 07:09 PM   #4427 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 9,724

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 231
Thanked 3,177 Times in 2,493 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by All Darc View Post
I imagined all nuclear reactor power plants used steam.

Wasn't Fukushima's reactor one of the kind that use passive nuclear safety ?
Statementslike this are how I now nothing is going to happen because the believers don't even think it's going to be very bad.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.

Last edited by oil pan 4; 01-06-2019 at 07:26 PM..
 
Old 01-06-2019, 10:54 PM   #4428 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Brazil
Posts: 1,476
Thanks: 14
Thanked 362 Times in 327 Posts
I imagined Fukushima was safe for inside problems, but they get a ouside problem, the tsunami which destroyed a power station (ironicly isolated from energy production of the reactor itself) that feed the water pumps.

So I presume a true passive nuclear safety would have faced no problems in Fukushima scenerai the dy of the tsunami. AM I right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
Statementslike this are how I now nothing is going to happen because the believers don't even think it's going to be very bad.
 
Old 01-07-2019, 12:06 AM   #4429 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 9,724

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 231
Thanked 3,177 Times in 2,493 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by All Darc View Post
I imagined Fukushima was safe for inside problems, but they get a ouside problem, the tsunami which destroyed a power station (ironicly isolated from energy production of the reactor itself) that feed the water pumps.

So I presume a true passive nuclear safety would have faced no problems in Fukushima scenerai the dy of the tsunami. AM I right?
If you want to shut down the reactor you don't want to be trying to generate power at all.
A reactor like an AP1000 is going to be putting off something like 1 megawatts or 3.4 billion BTUs per hour worth of heat when you try to turn it off after the first time it's started. That's like the heat from burning around 150,000 pounds of propane per hour.

That heat can be moved away from the reactor very easy with even a fairly small amount of coolant flow.

The tsunami wiped out the backup systems.
Passive systems like the gen 3 plus drown the reactor with a lake of water held above the reactor.
Just imagine a decent size wood pallet fire trying to boil an entire lake of water, it cant.
The huge lake is there incase a jammed control rod failure, which i dont think has happened since gen 1 reactors.
If it had been a gen 4 molten salt reactor nothing would have happened. If the reactor tried to melt down the freeze plugs melt out of the reactor core emptying the contents into a graphite containment vault.
Be we don't have those yet because all the ignorant people who are afraid of anything nuclear some how keep blocking funding.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.

Last edited by oil pan 4; 01-07-2019 at 06:56 PM..
 
The Following User Says Thank You to oil pan 4 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (01-09-2019)
Old 01-07-2019, 08:31 AM   #4430 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 9,724

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 231
Thanked 3,177 Times in 2,493 Posts


That's how you know it's all a steaming crock of organic fertilizer.
Building some nuclear power plants and taking some coal ones off line will do far more to save the world then all this garbage they tell us we should be doing.

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	FB_IMG_1546827585601.jpg
Views:	124
Size:	82.8 KB
ID:	25390  
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to oil pan 4 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (01-09-2019)
Closed Thread  Post New Thread


Tags
lies, opinion, reality, scam

Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com