Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

My wife already thinks that I waste too much time on video games. Wait until she finds out that I’m wasting energy, too.

A new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council maintains that game consoles can significantly add to consumers’ electric bills. In fact, across the United States, consoles consume as much juice in a year as the combined total of residential electricity users in San Diego.

The solution? One piece of the puzzle is not to leave your system on when you’re done playing. NRDC Senior Scientist Noah Horowitz commented:

If you leave your Xbox 360 or Sony Play Station 3 on all the time, you can cut your electric bill by as much as $100 a year simply by turning it off when you are finished playing. With so many struggling in today’s economy – it’s important to realize there are simple steps gamers can take to lower their energy costs. And if manufacturers make future systems more energy efficient, they’ll be doing the right thing for consumers’ pockets, for our clean energy future, and for the environment.

Among the big three, the PlayStation 3 is the energy hog of the bunch, consuming 150 watts per hour in active mode. The Xbox 360 isn’t far behind, at 119. The Nintendo Wii, on the other hand, is the console of choice for the conservation-minded, drawing just 16 watts in active mode.

The NRDC claims that a combination of more efficient console hardware and educating gamers to use power-saving features currently built into the 360 and later PS3 models would save consumers a billion dollars a year and cut down on the type of pollution that leads to global warming.

Other goodies from the must-read report:

  • watching a movie on your PS3 consumers 5 times the power of using a stand-alone Blu-Ray player
  • average annual energy cost for a launch model (2006) PS3 user is $160
  • the 2007 PS3 is more efficient: annual cost is $134
  • For launch (2006) Xbox 360 users, it’s $143; drops to $103 for 2007 models (GP: less RROD as well!!)
  • it costs $10 per year to operate a Wii
  • the game industry and game media should encourage console owners to use auto power-down features built into the 360 and PS3
  • the next hardware generation should be more efficient and have auto-power down
  • an auto-save feature should preserve game progress when the system auto-powers down
  • controllers should have a "sleep" button

Grab the full report here.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

165 comments

  1. Johanna says:

    I have both play station 3 and xbox on my place but i never tought of this problem ever… Indeed they might waste a lot of energy and fill our bills but I never put it this way. Good to know this though.. to know how to hide this from my father:)) Anyways if you think a little bit you`ll see that eveything takes energy so why bother? even the washingmachine, the microwave, toaster, every kitchen article and not only them. My father`s searching for some whirlpool parts right now, something i never did for my video consoles.:D

  2. Good Lord says:

    Just stop. It’s embarrassing watching you claim victory over and over again when this Thomas fellow is repeatedly (and politely, unlike you) proving you wrong. You can agree to disagree on whether you think it’s a good idea or not, but for Pete’s sake, save some face and just accept the facts that a) you’re not infallible, you’re a student and b) being wrong is not the end of the world.

    And drop the condescending attitude.

  3. Derovius says:

     Normally, when someone questions the validity of an arguement as correlation instead of causation, the response is to compile yearly statistical datum showing air quality before and after nuclear implementation. Instead, you still attempt to disprove one of the world greatest disasters against the environment. It happened, understand why and that STATISTICALLY it will happen again; there is nothing anyone can do to, except live as far away from this things as possible.

     Do you see now why this is going no where?

  4. Thomas McKenna says:

    There are plenty of neutral sites on many topics, including engineering.  Use google, you’ll find them.

    Since when was U235 raw uranium?  Last I checked, it made up of less than a percent of natural uranium, the rest being U238.  The simple fact that it is U235 shows that it already has been refined*.  If not, then show the source of your numbers, and then we can argue further. 

    *if you really want a source, I’ll use your favorite site.  "only around .72% of natural Uranium is U235" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235  Before you call hypocracy, wikipedia is very damn factual about elements.

    As for cost, this summarizes it all pretty well.  http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/economics.pdf  The conclusion?  Nuclear energy is the best idea in the majority of countries, so long as there isn’t an overubundance of fossil fuels to burn near the proposed location of the plant.  Also, they take into account the possibility of carbon credits, which would make Nuclear the clear choice seeing how it has no carbon emissions.

    You wanted proof on pricing, and there it is.  I was going to do the same for safety and emissions, but then I realized, why bother?  I’ve already proven you wrong on both those fronts by comparing casualties as well as emissions between nuclear and other fuels. 

    I had a list of Isotopes I was working out, but really they don’t have too much of a place here.  We have a place to store nuclear waste, and they seem to work there just fine without dying, so my point of when the stuff becomes safe to be around it relatively moot.  Half-life causes decay, and after time goes on the radioactive materials halve themselves over and over again, decreasing total radiation output.  It’s not really a point that needs all to much arguing over, simply because of the proven existence of half-life.  There will be less of it over time, and thus radiation levels will drop.  Acknoledgement of this process alone proves my point, which is as time goes on, it becomes safer to be around to the point where after the 100 year mark or so, the level or radiation really isn’t significant.

    Oh, and I don’t really want to work out a heat exchanger problem, especially not one as large as would be found in a nuclear power plant.  I do enough stuff along those lines during the day to even want to think about doing it during "me" time.  I was mostly just looking for a way to snazzily pull out my Wilcox book.  I’ve had it for many years, yet it still intimidates me with the way it presents itself.  If we ever get to talking about space, my first post will be a reason to pull out my SMAD book.

  5. Thomas McKenna says:

    No, you simply call causation correlation and play "make believe."  Every nuclear reactor except for 1 has never caused any problems (with the exception of 3 Mile Island, but that was a minor problem at best that was blown out of proportion).  Yet because the 1 failed under extreme circumstances, it somehow proves a point.  In data acquisition, we’d call Chernobyl an outlier.  It doesn’t fit the data at all, in concept or in the practice of nuclear energy.  If you really need an explanation on why, just think of all the safety protocols that had to be forcibly bipassed.  So is it correlation that we get to the conclusion that nuclear energy is safe, or do we instead look at all the facts and see that they actually are safe?  Hmm…tough choice there…

  6. Derovius says:

     Its an example, friend, something you really lack. Admittedly, its kind of hard to prove something is safe, its easier to see point to a failure say "see". However, it does not diminish the fact the it happened, and that it can and will happen again.

     I am still waiting for you to exhibit even the slightly bit of free thought, I still see you posting numbers and exerpts that you don’t seem to understand or apply correctly.

  7. Derovius says:

    "Better than the last two?  Big words for a man who can’t back up his statements with anything other than wikipedia or a heavily biased "anti-nuclear energy" site."

     Heh, I’m suppose to find statistics damning nuclear energy on pro-nuclear energy sites? This must be why I’m still here, to read ever more amusing statements from people desperate to be right.

    "And I call bull shit on this one.  Prove a point of mine wrong, and then maybe you can talk this kind of shit.  Last time you tried to do that, though, you unwittingly proved the fact that nuclear energy is cheaper.  Plus, ever since I made my last post against the sum of your arguments, you’ve been beating around the bush instead of actually confronting the issue at hand."

     No, I proved that raw uranium is cheaper per GJ, I also stated that you just don’t just shove it into the reactor like you do coal into a furnace. There are enrichment costs, refinement costs, expendible materials used in reaction such as coolants that one needs to account for. What I presented were my findings and I placed them in context, something that you really seem to have no concept of. There are many factors involved in the cost of a project, fuels are but the crust of a larger pie.

     "Doubt it.  So far, you have failed to get the concept of half life and what it means as far as radioactivity levels are concerened.   Apparently those 3 or 4 lines didn’t really teach you that stuff."

     I made a point to ignore your half-life arguement, seeing as correcting you would have done nothing to fix your misconception. But apparently we’re come full circle once more. Please go over how you can ever try and argue that the waste will be safe in 40 years when you have yet to mention what its half-life is. I’ve already give you the lifespan of the waste (334 generations, remember. I bet you do, its a scary number), so disprove me please.

    "So, I’m waiting.  Give me something that actually disproves anything that I said in my main argument.  And if you want to talk fluids (which really have no bearing on this subject unless you really want to talk about the rate of heat transfer from the overly large Two-Stream heat exchanger, found in most every nuclear reactor design, and how this superheats the inlet water source so that it can then be used to power turbines) then me and David C. Wilcox will be waiting."

     I’m tired of repeating myself, you can find many a rebuttal to amuse yourself in the 4 – 5 post composition I gave you this after. Your position seems to be the same, as are the problems I’ve pointed out, there is not much more I can do but wait for you to cite sources so I can counter argue, otherwise its just your word.

     Lol, I believe this is the equivalent of the name drop in Engineering. Nothing you just said makes sense outside of context, what do you want me do with this poorly described heat exchanger? You’ve given me no details on composition at the other inlets/outlets, the actual configuration of the transfer interface (we talking crossflow or what?) or if its water-water, water-R-34, heavy water-something else.

     Details damn it.

     

  8. Thomas McKenna says:

    No, it’s only the key component to your arguments against safe and clean.  As far as cheap, you killed your own point on that one.  And again we find ourselves arguing the minor points, rather than the subject at hand, or rather, I find you arguing the minor points, and I retort.

  9. Derovius says:

     My stance is much wider than that, you’re the one seem focused on refuting Chernobyl like it can be disproved if you try hard enough. Disappointing results, it seems.

  10. Derovius says:

     Seriously, just stop. You got nothing, nothing at all. Its painful to see you thrash around like this looking for a lifeline.

  11. Derovius says:

     Damn, you’re all over this thread aren’t you. Maybe in your next post you can reply to the topic or the information presented instead of insulting the participants in a rather sad attempt to wrestle momentum from them.

  12. Derovius says:

     Possibly, but I doubt people would complain about praising the Germans for their amazing Engineering skills.

  13. Derovius says:

     "Devorius, need I lecture you on the meaning of what people say about themselves on the Internets? I am fully qualified, in fact, as I have two doctorates in "the ramafications of cyber-inter-communication within post-modern societies" and a masters in bioethics and it’s modern applications. Now that I’ve stated my education, what’s yours? I’m sure it’s not nearly as lofty as mine."

     You could atleast have the decency to copy and paste my name, you’ve spelt it wrong in every single response I’ve visited. Its not hard, come on now, or as an alternative you can consider this window to be a first person interaction and forego names.

     You are all too right about people misrepresenting themselves on the internet, however if this kid was to tell me he was a Nobel-prize holding Chemist I’d be more than a little skeptical. My own claim to be a Mechanical Engineer can be scrutinized by anyone who wishes, but the fact remains that I am. Go to whatever lengths you with to verify this of course, it should be amusing to see your preconceived ideas of what we as a discipline know.

     "All you’ve had so far is Wikipedia. That would make me orders of magnitude more educated then you. Oh yes, and I’ve completely and undeniably backed up my statements to a point where it would be absolutely ridiculous for you to even consider that they have holes in them. Absolutely ridiculous."

     Christ, this is the 3rd (4th?) reply you’ve ignored perfectly good arguement material to play the Wiki card. Is that seriously all you have in your bag of tricks? See previous responses for the same comment I’ve repeated several times over, thanks.

  14. Derovius says:

     "I’ve asked myself this many times when responding to your posts. However, I myself have no disillusions about your ability to understand my words. I think you can. I just know that because my words say that you’re wrong, you’re not going to accept them. So instead, you should ask yourself not "how will you understand" but "how do I make everybody else understand". Now this is something Thomas already has gotten."

     "I know you are but what am I?" ring a bell? Seriously, you get tired of trying to get in position above me that you resigned to something this sad? Lol, I was really expecting better when I started reading.

    "Yeah, I can too. In fact, I can add anything I want, subtract anything I want, divide by anything I want, or really perform any mathematical function I want. The problem with this, which is exactly the problem that Thomas is trying to explain to you, is that you won’t get anything useful by doing this. But you probably did have a lot of fun multiplying, though. I always do."

     No, seriously, time / time is unity. Don’t believe me? Ask your friendly neighbourhood physicist. Dimensionality is great fun. Its simply impossible for me to explain to you a concept outside of your understanding potential. Come back to me in a few years (if you’re younger than me) or read a goddamn book (if you’re older).

     "Am I the only one who’s disturbed by the fact that you recommended he get a "Fluid Mechanics textbook" (in physics we always capitalize concepts) to understand bloody DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS?"

     You can be as disturbed as you want, dimensional analysis is most useful in Engineering when used for dimensionless constants like Re and Ma numbers. I’ve never needed dimension analysis for the other topics in question (besides maybe conversions, which is high school level at its worst). Feel free to step in any time and recommend a more useful field for it.

     "I used to say this to my parents when I was about six. I stopped doing it when I was seven. Perhaps your parents weren’t as smart as mine?"

     Needless to say, I hope your parents hit you alot for saying stuff like this to them. You should know your place.

     "Another Wikipedia reference . . . Is all the science you know based around what anyone could put in a textbox on this one particular site? Oh yes, and I’m not discrediting Wikipedia’s value in explaining scientific concepts to the layman, rather, I’m descrediting your apparent claim that "because it’s on Wikipedia it must be true!" Have you ever heard of the Colbert Report episode where he made a certain species of elephant unendangered? It would have a large amount of relevance to what you consider to be your ultimate source of information."

     From what I read, it looked to be correct. As stated before, my reference texts aren’t with me at work, and even if they were, the chance that this kid would have them in his home collection are pretty much nil. No no, I’m sure its exactly nil, seeing as I’VE EXPLAIN D.A. TO HIM 3 TIMES NOW TO NO AVAIL. Ugh…

     I’m half tempted now to take out the textbooks, but I’m ultimately discouraged by the fact that whatever I say here will simply go over your entrenched, hostile little head. Or you’ll just all and out call me a liar, whichever tickles you I guess.

     

  15. Thomas McKenna says:

    Better than the last two?  Big words for a man who can’t back up his statements with anything other than wikipedia or a heavily biased "anti-nuclear energy" site.

    "I’m debating intellectually, if not professionally, lesser persons."

    And I call bull shit on this one.  Prove a point of mine wrong, and then maybe you can talk this kind of shit.  Last time you tried to do that, though, you unwittingly proved the fact that nuclear energy is cheaper.  Plus, ever since I made my last post against the sum of your arguments, you’ve been beating around the bush instead of actually confronting the issue at hand. 

    "…at work I have done more Engineering in this topic than pretty much everyone combined. And it was a whole 3 or 4 lines at that."

    Doubt it.  So far, you have failed to get the concept of half life and what it means as far as radioactivity levels are concerened.   Apparently those 3 or 4 lines didn’t really teach you that stuff.

    So, I’m waiting.  Give me something that actually disproves anything that I said in my main argument.  And if you want to talk fluids (which really have no bearing on this subject unless you really want to talk about the rate of heat transfer from the overly large Two-Stream heat exchanger, found in most every nuclear reactor design, and how this superheats the inlet water source so that it can then be used to power turbines) then me and David C. Wilcox will be waiting.

  16. Thomas McKenna says:

    Wait…arguing that nuclear energy is clean, safe, and cost effective is the easy road?  Last I checked, the sum of your arguments is "Chernobyl!!"

  17. Derovius says:

    "Please, don’t school me on units.  You’re obviously not a pro at them yourself, seeing how you never convert from seconds to hours." 

     Why would I consider the seconds component of Watts when my desired final unit is in Watts? I’ve brought the two units in line, as I’ve said twice now.

     "Had you converter to hours in your equation, basically multiply what you had by 3600, then you’d get a conclusion that a single plant would be able to power california." 

     Sweet jesus…

     590 MW x 24 hr/day x 365 day/year x 10^6 (W/MW) gives us 5.1684 x 10^12 W-hr/year

     (MW)(hr/day)(day/year)(W/MW) — The bold cancel out, giving the above units.

     BUT WAIT, WE WANT GW. (GW/(10^9 W)

     5168.4 GW-hr/year

     You apparently want me to multiply by (60 s/min)(60 min/hr) for some reason, giving us GJ/year, which is some bastard child of power. It tells us nothing. I’ll say it again because this is admittedly difficult for people to grasp. YOU DO NOT CONSUME POWER… do I need to say it again? please no…

     "This obviously isn’t the case." 

     I know its not, because you did it incorrectly.

     "Your calculations go against actual fact, as a single plant can’t produce nearly that much." 

     … you multiplied by 3600 guy, not me. So they are technically your numbers now. Enjoy.

     "So, I state that you’re wrong not from the unit conversions, but from the fact that the physics have proven themselves not to work that way through actual application."

     I have to say you’re so off center I can’t help but laugh a little as I sit here, please never take University level thermo or engineering, I don’t want to drive across a bridge you helped design when you can’t even manipulate your units properly. 🙂

  18. Thomas McKenna says:

    "Thomas, however, has used scientific proof."

    While I thank you for helping out, I’d just like to clarify that most of my proof has been empirical in nature.  I may use scientific facts and unit conversions from time to time, but most of my stuff is found from readout sheets of power  plants which have been posted online*, or reports on the subject.  So again, may have a sciency flavor to it, but it’s mostly just empirical, proven, and shown as fact. 

     

    *they’re required to have their information out in the open by law.  In this day and age, that means posting it to the internet among other means.  Most of these are easy to find with the propper "google-fu"

  19. Derovius says:

     "I find it interesting that you quantify the human traits of willfully believing in something, regardless of the evidence, as religion. I mean, I can see that these traits are exhibited in religious people, and cults take advantage of these properties, but to state that these qualities are exclusive to religion is only another mis-guided statement that you’ve made. Ironically (man, there’s a heck of a lot of irony in these reviews of your posts, no?), making this statement falls victim to the very qualities that you mention."

     There is a difference between the blind faith seen in the OP versus arguing my position successfully. I could argue just as easily that nuclear power is cleaner, safer and cheaper, but you would still claim the above in an attempt to attack me personally rather than the position I present. No one can blame you for taking the easy road, but this is not the place and I am not that interested to be honest.

     "This is another fine example of what you would most likely consider "evidence". I, personally, haven’t seen the results from the Internet Debate Commity and their final ruling on the winner of this debate. This does, however, sound suspiciously like a relatively successful political manuever: when found to be in violation of facts, moral high ground, and having angered your constituents, DECLARE VICTORY. Have you declared victory? Yes. Is there any way to prove you wrong? No. Why? Because it’s your damned opinion again. Touted as evidence? Yes.  These qualities, dear sir, are just more facts pointing toward you suffering from the aforementioned Internet Superhero Syndrome."

     So you think this is about victory over the weaker users on this board? Hardly, people are just easily offended when they are told they are not as smart as they think they are. Before you chide at this comment, I happen to be a person as well. However, no one here has actually insulted me effectively, most of the corrections presented to me have been symantic or syntactic, not factual.

     I strongly suggest you go have an arguement with an engineer who lives somewhere near you, you’ll find that I am far from the exception.

  20. Derovius says:

     What logic is this? You present half-truths and unsourced information to try and make a point you lack the education to reinforce and the will to argue. If you refuse to step outside the box and scrutinize everything, you really have no place arguing for or against it at all, yes?

  21. Derovius says:

     Ah a fresh face, good good. Lets hope you do better than the last two.

     "You see, unwitty responses such as this really only serve to ausage your already offended ego, instead of serving any real and, dare I say, progressive purpose. I could spend all day poking fun at your posts, but it would make no difference in the whole of the debate. Actually, this is exactly what I’m doing, except for the simple fact that I’m not trying to change the debate, so much as force you to re-read and defend your ridiculous positions through being offensive. The way to get the Hypocrisy Fairy to go away, is to actually start using reason and evidence, instead of trite and poorly worded insults.

     I was unaware my ego had feelings, and after a brief consultation, he asks me to convey to you that he is not interested. All mockery aside, this was not going anywhere anyways, there is very little in terms of overall topics that anyone on this site can enlighten me to when it comes the Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics. I know my "shit" inside and out, upside down, etc. What may happen here is someone correcting an oversight, such as fission/fusion swap or maybe specs that I should not really be expected to know.

     At best this topic keeps me amused at work while I do my cost engineering, with all limiting reference materials therein. I suppose I could dust off the old Cengal et al. and White et al. and throw down some referenced numbers, but the outcome is still going to be the same. I’m debating intellectually, if not professionally, lesser persons. The fact that I have to explain unit analysis three times in a day to one person is evidence enough of this.

     Reasonable enough for you?

    "It’s incredibly easy for someone to accuse another person of being emotionally incapable of intellectually recognizing your view. What’s not easy, is to actually realize that you are the one doing it. What you have presented, Derovius, is not a method by which you can impartially determine the truth or non-truth of a statement, but that your opinion, because it is your opinion, is completely infallable."

     Absolutely, my opinion is well aligned with the priciples involved in this specific topic. I am not an anti-nuclear demonstrator nor an employee of a conventionally fueled power generation facility. I am a Mechanical Engineer who has the understand of the underlying principles on which large scale Engineering projects are built. Scholastically, I have one A- in 4 courses, the remainder being A or A+. Short of being a graduate student in said field, you’d be hard pressed to bring up a topic I have difficulty understanding.

     "Why?"

     I leave lots of holes in my reasoning, but no one cares to exploit them; instead, they get emo on me and whine that I’m aggressive in the representation of my position. If you cannot argue your point properly and stand your ground in the face of my scrutiny, you have no place debating an Engineer.

     "Because you can read Wikipedia. Oh yes, and you can (incorrectly) perform multiplication. These are not bases for truth or reason. Rather, they are, once again, an example of the fundamentally flawed human traits that you point out. The irony here, is that you’re aware of the phenomenon, but not that you’re a living, breathing, and (unfortunately) talking demonstration thereof."

     Wikipedia tends to be my quickest, and really only, resource at hand when at work. I don’t intend on lugging 30 lbs of books just to quote numbers you cannot check when I can cite a source thats equally accessible to you as it is for me. I’ve no recollection of multiplying incorrect, so you’ll have to be more specific; unless of course you’re talking about the California power consumption thing. I’m tired of applying basic fluid mechanics and having to explain it in baby steps, should that be the case.

     You confuse the hubris of the above individual (whats his nugget, Thomas?) with a well cemented position. I know I can be proven wrong, I have even tripped on said errors while contemplating my responses while doing other things. Should someone call me on said errors, I will happily oblige them with there admission. The problem is that no one seems to find them or atleast says nothing to that effect.

     "Now, this statement I don’t entirely get. Why should he hide his bias from you? Apparently you in all of your infallable wisdom have intuited that he is a mere mortal in his thinking. That you and your Science transcend these problems of "bias" and "emotional influence". Rather, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of debate he not hide his bias so that others can see the immortal qualities of your wise words? No, really, this is once again your arrogance surfacing and accusing everybody else of being arrogant. Why don’t you actually use real science? Why don’t you use logic? You have exhibited a startling lack of these things, so far, and as such, the quality of the debate has suffered."

     For someone flying the philosphical white flag of ultimate truth, you should be as upset with their bias as me. Moreover, when attempting to make a point in a discussion you should have the tact to keep the juvenile humour to a minimum. To end a arguement about nuclear technology with "Yay nukes" really destroys any credibility someone may have previously given you.

     Your claims that I use neither science nor logic seem rather forced, even given my limited resources at work I have done more Engineering in this topic than pretty much everyone combined. And it was a whole 3 or 4 lines at that. Pfft I say.

     "Oh yes, and before you start getting all excited and bent out of shape about how I myself am being hypcritical, I’m very aware that the arguments at which I’m making suffer from the same human traits of arrogance, ignorance, and willful disbelief. However, the difference between you and I is that I am aware of these things, and the point isn’t that you are doing and I am not, but instead simply that you are doing them and not aware. In fact, because I am aware that I am doing them gives me more authority to accuse you of doing them, then you have of accusing me of the same thing, simply due to the assumption on your part that you are in some way "above" these qualities."

     To claim you know who or what I am based on subjective text responses, which are as much the slave of your emotions as mine, is foolish. You make blind assumptions based on the information I provide you about myself and the only cliche you’ve yet to pull on me is to accuse me of homosexuality. I am however amused with the fact that I was able to pull hateful, racist remarks out of him with a minimum of effort. Its much easier to discredit your opponent than disprove him, wouldn’t you agree? (hint hint)

  22. Corbin Hart says:

    You continue with petty insults but have yet to state what your education is Austin

    Devorius, need I lecture you on the meaning of what people say about themselves on the Internets? I am fully qualified, in fact, as I have two doctorates in "the ramafications of cyber-inter-communication within post-modern societies" and a masters in bioethics and it’s modern applications. Now that I’ve stated my education, what’s yours? I’m sure it’s not nearly as lofty as mine.

    Are you another armchair warrior or do at least have some post-secondary to back up your statements?

    All you’ve had so far is Wikipedia. That would make me orders of magnitude more educated then you. Oh yes, and I’ve completely and undeniably backed up my statements to a point where it would be absolutely ridiculous for you to even consider that they have holes in them. Absolutely ridiculous.

    "Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

  23. Corbin Hart says:

    Finally, someone who knows what they are talking about.

    Well I’m glad you were here to point that out, Devorius. We wouldn’t have known without your help.

    You can run along now, I tried to teach you but you just wouldn’t cooperate.

    You see, it is the sum total of these retarded, arrogant, ignorant, and callus statements that just make me want to take everything you say as completely false. Personally, Devorius, if you were trying to teach anyone anything, you must really really suck as a teacher. I should know. I’ve tought people professionally. I also know the qualities that it takes to allow a student to learn and those that make a good teacher. You have none of them.

    As you’ve said many times, take your personal insults and damaged ego (oh yes, and hubris, you like that one) and run along now. Try, just try, to see if you can force yourself not to post until you’ve got something "scientific" to say instead of these little useless statements.

    "Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

  24. Corbin Hart says:

    This sounds suspiciously racist, according to your personally supported definition.

    "Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

  25. Corbin Hart says:

    How to explain this to you so you will understand…

    I’ve asked myself this many times when responding to your posts. However, I myself have no disillusions about your ability to understand my words. I think you can. I just know that because my words say that you’re wrong, you’re not going to accept them. So instead, you should ask yourself not "how will you understand" but "how do I make everybody else understand". Now this is something Thomas already has gotten.

    Now, I can multiply this thing by whatever the hell I want in terms of time

    Yeah, I can too. In fact, I can add anything I want, subtract anything I want, divide by anything I want, or really perform any mathematical function I want. The problem with this, which is exactly the problem that Thomas is trying to explain to you, is that you won’t get anything useful by doing this. But you probably did have a lot of fun multiplying, though. I always do.

    UNIT ANALYSIS holds; [t]/[t] = 1. And if you don’t know what this means, don’t waste my time any further please. Go buy a Fluid Mechanics textbook and teach yourself unit analysis.

    Am I the only one who’s disturbed by the fact that you recommended he get a "Fluid Mechanics textbook" (in physics we always capitalize concepts) to understand bloody DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS?

    And because I know you think you right, which you aren’t

    I used to say this to my parents when I was about six. I stopped doing it when I was seven. Perhaps your parents weren’t as smart as mine?

    here is some reading to help fix this problem you have

    Another Wikipedia reference . . . Is all the science you know based around what anyone could put in a textbox on this one particular site? Oh yes, and I’m not discrediting Wikipedia’s value in explaining scientific concepts to the layman, rather, I’m descrediting your apparent claim that "because it’s on Wikipedia it must be true!" Have you ever heard of the Colbert Report episode where he made a certain species of elephant unendangered? It would have a large amount of relevance to what you consider to be your ultimate source of information.

    Oh yes, and since when was disagreeing with you a problem? SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME, PERHAPS? Hypocrisy Fairy strikes again.

    "Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

  26. Corbin Hart says:

    Funny, I thought you were avoiding them because you had no basis to challenge them..

    You will find out (and I hope really soon, here) that what you think and what reality is, are two very different things. That being said, this sort of peevish and immature method of argumentation only detracts from the overall value of the debate. As you’ve said in a number of your own posts, why don’t you just take your uncreative and uninteresting personal insults along with your hurt ego, and just go back home until you’ve read more on the subject? That would be better for everybody. Thanks in advance.

    "Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

  27. Corbin Hart says:

    If you can’t bring anything to bear to the holes I’m produced in your arguements, save me the trouble of puting you in your place and go back to being quiet, sir.

    Call me crazy, but your version of "putting someone in their place over the Internet" seems to really be just you arbitrarily declaring victory in just about all of your poorly constructed and poorly informed points.

    Nothing you have produced thus far has shown conventional methods of producing energy to be subpar to nuclear power production.

    In your mind, yes. We know this. It’s clear. But if you actually read his post, you’ll see that he does just that. In every single issue that you have brought up and touted as "scientific" has been shown to be painfully lacking in understanding. "Professionals" don’t get their sources just from Wikipedia…

    So unless you wish to argue me eye to eye on the engineering of this thing, save your personal insults and damaged pride and quiet yourself.

    This is the classic "YOU AREN’T MAN ENOUGH TO ARGUE ME TO MY FACE" response. Usually, this is found whenever an Internet Superhero is faced with an insurmountable obstacle that blocks the validity of their argument(s). You see, I could spend all day calling you various and sundry names, making questionable references as to the sexual purity of your mother’s actions, or go so far as to say that you would be unable to best me in a contest of physical strength, but I, like most everybody else here (hopefully), realize that these things have no bearing on things discussed over the Tubes. Now, that being said, I can completely kick your ass in real life. So unless you wish to argue me eye to eye about the strength of your kung fu, save your personal insults and damaged pride and quiet yourself.

    "Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

  28. Corbin Hart says:

    Sounds alot like religion; placing the sum of your belief on one idea instead of pulling things apart and examining it carryfully.

    I find it interesting that you quantify the human traits of willfully believing in something, regardless of the evidence, as religion. I mean, I can see that these traits are exhibited in religious people, and cults take advantage of these properties, but to state that these qualities are exclusive to religion is only another mis-guided statement that you’ve made. Ironically (man, there’s a heck of a lot of irony in these reviews of your posts, no?), making this statement falls victim to the very qualities that you mention.

    But hey, maybe thats why you’re losing this discussion

    This is another fine example of what you would most likely consider "evidence". I, personally, haven’t seen the results from the Internet Debate Commity and their final ruling on the winner of this debate. This does, however, sound suspiciously like a relatively successful political manuever: when found to be in violation of facts, moral high ground, and having angered your constituents, DECLARE VICTORY. Have you declared victory? Yes. Is there any way to prove you wrong? No. Why? Because it’s your damned opinion again. Touted as evidence? Yes.  These qualities, dear sir, are just more facts pointing toward you suffering from the aforementioned Internet Superhero Syndrome.

    "Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

  29. Corbin Hart says:

    I think that safety is also emperically proven by France, considering that they haven’t nuked themselves yet. I’m waiting to see how Devorius refutes that point.

    "Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

  30. Corbin Hart says:

    @Devorius

    I really need to paste this response in Wiki under hubris

    You see, unwitty responses such as this really only serve to ausage your already offended ego, instead of serving any real and, dare I say, progressive purpose. I could spend all day poking fun at your posts, but it would make no difference in the whole of the debate. Actually, this is exactly what I’m doing, except for the simple fact that I’m not trying to change the debate, so much as force you to re-read and defend your ridiculous positions through being offensive. The way to get the Hypocrisy Fairy to go away, is to actually start using reason and evidence, instead of trite and poorly worded insults.

    a classic example of when opinion overrides evidence, and people see what they want to see.

    It’s incredibly easy for someone to accuse another person of being emotionally incapable of intellectually recognizing your view. What’s not easy, is to actually realize that you are the one doing it. What you have presented, Derovius, is not a method by which you can impartially determine the truth or non-truth of a statement, but that your opinion, because it is your opinion, is completely infallable. Why? Because you can read Wikipedia. Oh yes, and you can (incorrectly) perform multiplication. These are not bases for truth or reason. Rather, they are, once again, an example of the fundamentally flawed human traits that you point out. The irony here, is that you’re aware of the phenomenon, but not that you’re a living, breathing, and (unfortunately) talking demonstration thereof.

    Please atleast try and hide your bias…

    Now, this statement I don’t entirely get. Why should he hide his bias from you? Apparently you in all of your infallable wisdom have intuited that he is a mere mortal in his thinking. That you and your Science transcend these problems of "bias" and "emotional influence". Rather, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of debate he not hide his bias so that others can see the immortal qualities of your wise words? No, really, this is once again your arrogance surfacing and accusing everybody else of being arrogant. Why don’t you actually use real science? Why don’t you use logic? You have exhibited a startling lack of these things, so far, and as such, the quality of the debate has suffered.

    Oh yes, and before you start getting all excited and bent out of shape about how I myself am being hypcritical, I’m very aware that the arguments at which I’m making suffer from the same human traits of arrogance, ignorance, and willful disbelief. However, the difference between you and I is that I am aware of these things, and the point isn’t that you are doing and I am not, but instead simply that you are doing them and not aware. In fact, because I am aware that I am doing them gives me more authority to accuse you of doing them, then you have of accusing me of the same thing, simply due to the assumption on your part that you are in some way "above" these qualities.

    "Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

  31. Corbin Hart says:

    To overlook your personal insults would be a shame, but if you need to lower yourself to that level so be it.

    Thomas and just about everyone but me who’s posted so far has been doing this. I’m pretty damned sure that you’re capable of it, but you couldn’t just let it go. So, I’m going to be the Hypocrisy Fairy for this debate.

    you smeck of hubris and have been corrected on several key issues

    Personally, I find your lack of a verbose lexicon quite annoying. I suggest that you go to a thesaurus before using terms like "hubris" more then twice. As for being "corrected", really you haven’t done anything to correct anyone, aside from provided very poor return arguments.

    Admit to your mistakes, as I have with TMI and better yourself

    Now, in an internet debate, it’s in poor form to use yourself as an example of what’s right and good, considering that obviously the other side of the debate thinks that you’re wrong. Regardless of what really is truly correct, this is just a bad way of looking at it. And, if you were to actually read what you’ve said, you haven’t "bettered" yourself in any way, beyond believing that you are somehow divinely right.

    this discussion is simply mental masterbation

    Give me a single debate on the internet that isn’t.

    "Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

     

  32. Corbin Hart says:

    Lol, hubris is a very dangerous quality my friend. To claim you are infallible dooms you to embarassment.

    I really hope that I’m not the only one who sees this, but Derovius, I understand that you can’t. However, just because no one has made this statement so far, let me put it in simple terms. Here we go:

    1) Scientific fact is not arrogance. Going from your statement, "a scientist is a scienist regardless of whatever blah blah blah", then Thomas has so far blown anything you call "science" out of the water. The only scientific methods that you have employed so far are multiplication and quotes from Wikipedia. I’m sorry, sir, these do not qualify as science. Thomas, however, has used scientific proof.

    2) Hubris. Several times you’ve stated that Thomas has to "eat [his] own crow" or that "hubris is very dangerous quality". Ironically, all you’re doing is make yourself look like an ass. Now, since I’m absolutely positive at this point that you a) believe you’re being completely unbiased, b) that you’re using superior scientific method as a basis for your claims, and c) Thomas is somehow acting like a buttmonkey on the internet, I can safely assume that you really have no idea what you’re talking about. I make the simple and humble suggestion that you re-read all the posts he has made and then re-read all your own responses. Do so without drinking several cups of coffee first or taking your ADD medicine. Do you see it? At just about every turn, you take his scientific statements personally. This is the very mark of being "biased" or "blinded by arrogance". You even turn down the road to calling people who back him up racist, after personally demeaning him at several points. This, good sir, is the very bottom of the barrel for debate. If all else fails, call the debater racist. Oh yes, and you call the racism "American". Irony? I’m sure you don’t see it as such. Everyone else? They probably do.

    3) This is a very cut and clear case of "Internet Super Hero" syndrome. You believe that because you’ve done some very basic research into a particular subject, that it’s your divine calling to educate the ignorant masses. I can’t say I’ve found any single point you’ve made convincing. I can’t say that I’ve found any single statement missing some reference to your own self-worth, intelligence, and all-around God-granted access to exclusive Wikipedia knowledge. These things do make you better, do not make you smarter, and they do not make you right. What they do make you, though, is a complete asshole on the internet. Congratulations.

    I think the biggest issue with this problem is that you instantly assume that you’re right about everything. You don’t listen, you don’t read, and you’re pretty much wholly unteachable on a topic about which you have an apparent lack of knowledge and credibility. On an ironic link, assuming that human error was completely responsible, these very qualities are what caused Chrenobyl to happen. The head of the facility believed that they were right, just about as fervently as you do, and disregarded the counsel of people who knew more then they did. We all know the outcome of these rash actions. I just am sincerely glad that you, sir, are not in a position that makes you responsible for the lives of other people and are instead just another Internet Superhero.

    "Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

  33. Thomas McKenna says:

    "of any visible subdivision of humanity"

    Ah, and there’s the kicker.  So it’s a visible subdivision that marks race then?  Then tell me, how can, upon looking at a person, tell if he’s Russian?  Don’t know about you, but I’d simply thing "damn, that guy’s white" and not "damn, that guy is Russian."  You’re contradicting yourself here.  You first said that Russian was a race, and now you’re saying that it’s a visible subdivision of humanity that classifies as a race.  Well…there’s no visible subdivision between russians or Poles or Nords, or any other "white" people, so you’re contradicting yourself here. 

    In this post of yours, you’re arguing the same thing I am, so welcome to the club.

  34. Derovius says:

     The definition is not a sum of its parts, but an itemized list basd on situational use. You going to fix the English language or accept the fact that hatred of any visible subdivision of humanity is racist?

  35. Thomas McKenna says:

     Eh, I figured that I’d just outline my points, seeing how you have yet to prove their fallacy as of yet.

    Cheaper – your cost analysis showed this one.  On top of the fact that nuclear energy is pound for pound far more energy productive, as well as empirical evidence that France has lower electricity bills being fully nuclear, this one is still fairly strong, and you have yet to dent it.  In fact, you strengthened it.

    Cleaner – As well as producing far more energy pound for pound than anything else, it also creates the least amount of waste.  The waste is a solid, and can be stored in safe locations far away from anywhere people live or even want to live.  Yucca Mountain can hold all of our waste in the US from now till we find something better.  Compare this to radioactive coal dust, CO2 and CO emissions, NO and NOx emissions, and we see that it is indeed cleaner.

    Safer – Chernobyl only happened because of where it was.  Even taking that into account, nuclear energy (not in weaponized form) has killed far fewer people since its inception than other fuels like coal, or oil.  It doesn’t kill the earth like nickel mining, and after a few half life cycles is safe enough to be around for short periods of time or longer depending on how many half life cycles it has gone through.

    So, it’s cheaper, more energy dense, has a better safety track record, and produces only radioactive materials which we know how to dispose of. Is it the best?  Is it the final form of energy?  Hell no.  But right now all the facts say that it is the best god damned source of energy we have, and your fear and the fears of people like you, irrational though it may be, prevent us from using it.  

    Still waiting for you to prove any of these wrong.

  36. Thomas McKenna says:

     again, you’re the one attacking logic with conjecture.  So far from you we have seen nothing but misconceptions, biased sources, lack of understanding, and fear mongering.  Still waiting for arguments though.

    And to call all of science "an idea" instead of "pulling things apart and examining it carefully" is pretty funny.  

  37. Thomas McKenna says:

     Read 3a-c from your own post.  When discussing human race, these are the definitions used.  You’re using symbolic or less used definitions of your words to try and prove your point.  From your original statements no one would have drawn the same conclusion as you without having to make large leaps in logic.

  38. Thomas McKenna says:

     Please, don’t school me on units.  You’re obviously not a pro at them yourself, seeing how you never convert from seconds to hours.  Had you converter to hours in your equation, basically multiply what you had by 3600, then you’d get a conclusion that a single plant would be able to power california.  This obviously isn’t the case.  Your calculations go against actual fact, as a single plant can’t produce nearly that much.  So, I state that you’re wrong not from the unit conversions, but from the fact that the physics have proven themselves not to work that way through actual application.

  39. Derovius says:

     Sounds alot like religion; placing the sum of your belief on one idea instead of pulling things apart and examining it carryfully.

     But hey, maybe thats why you’re losing this discussion, its all good to me.

  40. Derovius says:

     Damn it all, I have to hold your hand for this to.

     

    rac⋅ism

    Racism[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
     

    –noun
    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

     

      And now the ender:

    race

    Race (2)[reys] Show IPA Pronunciation
     

    –noun
    1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
    2. a population so related.
    3. Anthropology.
    a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
    b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
    c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
    4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
    5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
    6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.
    7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies.
    8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes.
    9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race.
    10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine.

     To bring it all together, your hatred of the Russian people, who are in and of themselves a people united by a common history, language or cultural trait (see Race, item 5.), is therefore racist based on the aforementioned definition of racism (see Racism, item 1.).

    Sources:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race

  41. Derovius says:

     If you can’t bring anything to bear to the holes I’m produced in your arguements, save me the trouble of puting you in your place and go back to being quiet, sir. Nothing you have produced thus far has shown conventional methods of producing energy to be subpar to nuclear power production. Each time you attempt to make an issue, I broaden the scope to where it should be and your position comes up short.

     So unless you wish to argue me eye to eye on the engineering of this thing, save your personal insults and damaged pride and quiet yourself.

  42. Thomas McKenna says:

    I have only one basis, and it’s science.  It’s actually a pretty good one in this argument.  Plus despite your rantings I have yet to see you actually refute any of my points.

  43. Thomas McKenna says:

    Yeah…AL kind of beat you down with a literary definition there.  Now, if at any point he said "I hate blackies" then that’d be racist.  But saying that the USSR was a corrupt oligarchy hell beant on absolute control over its people and its neighbors isn’t racist.  In fact, it actually is provable through history.

  44. Thomas McKenna says:

    Oh no, I go at them point by point.  I, however, am of the opinion that a single well aimed post is better than a bunch of posts that miss the mark.  I try to be like the rifle, where as you the machine gun.

  45. Thomas McKenna says:

    Ok, so I’m just going to work my way down your long list of arguments.

    -Again, the definition used to quantify "safe" when it comes to the radioactive lifetime is the time it takes before the spent fuel rods emit radiation levels which are either equal to or less than ambient levels.  Between the lifetime of 40 years and 10000 years, the rods are perfectly safe to work around for certain periods of time.  The time that is deemed safe is reliant on how far along the rods have been in decay.  So, 40 years means you should probably only be around it for a few hours at a time, where as 10,000 years means that you can live with it your whole life and not see any radiation from it.  I’ve explained this before already.  I don’t want to have to do it again.

    -Your lack of knowledge on radiation is your downfall here.  There was no error in my argument on half-life and radiation exposure.  Were you to be correct, and that these spent rods were horrible for humans to be around at any point before the 10,000 year mark, then everyone who works at or near a nuclear dump site would have died of some rare form of cancer.  So far this hasn’t happened, and real life proof stares at your face.

    -"Yeah, because its nonsensical for things to double each year, but 2*(n years) makes perfect sense."  Actually, it does.  The mathematical definition of doubling is 2^n.  This means that after each iteration of n, the total value doubles from its n-1 value.  However, 2*n only doubles the first iterations (n=1,2), and everything after that is simply counting up by 2 (when n=4, y=2*n=8, where as y=10 when n=5).  And it it nonsensical for the amount to double each year.  For the amount of waste to double each year, our energy needs would need to follow suit.  Since our energy needs don’t double each year (by the looks of it, the requirements go up by some function of y^x, where x is slightly over 1, but this is just from eyeballing it), our waste output doesn’t double.  So, assuming that waste is instead produced at a constant rate, or the case of 2*n, is actually much more logical.

    -Sources did give me the makeup of mixtures, but the makeup was a percentage range.  For example, the percentage range of methan in natural gas was rated from 70-90%.  With a range like that, assumptions did in fact have to be made.

    -The prices you posted actually proves my argument for the fact that it’s cheaper.  You’re probably jumping up and down by the fact that I made that statement, seeing as you feel like I’m falling into a trap that you (intentionally or not) had set up and that I’m going against the bit about refinement afterwards because I’m so focused on proving you wrong that I didn’t even read your whole post.  Well, that all is not the case at all.  You gave the price per GJ from U235.  You then went and said that it needed added costs for refinement.  That’s not true.  U238 would need to be refined to U235.  So, the price you gave already includes the price of refinement, as U238 accounts for more than 99% of naturally occurring isotopes of Uranium.  So, you used that price to try and prove your point, when you just proved mine instead.  Thanks.

    -You’re right.  I have no background in cost estimation.  I leave that to other Engineers most of the time.  However, this didn’t stop me from showing that Nuclear energy is still cheaper through the introduction of France’s electric bills, which you unjustifiably wrote off.

    -The site that you linked is horrible.  It took me less than 2 minutes for me to find the statement, "Nuclear Energy Information Service is a non-profit organization committed to ending nuclear power."  The site is a biased source of information, and thus anything quoted from that site is immediately suspect.  It’s like pulling news about Obama from Fox News and saying that it’s 100% true.  If you can find similar arguments from an unbiased source, then maybe I’ll give it more thought.

    -that 334 generations thing I’ve proven to be a grand overstatement already.  It doesn’t need to be done again, or do you really want me to have to go over half lifes and radiation levels due to those again?  Seriously, if you do, then I’ll have to start copy-pasting my own arguments till you actually read what I’m saying.

    -The surface area of land on the Earth is 148,300,000 km^2.  So, 1000 km^2 is 6.74*10^-4% (that’s .000674%) of the earths total land surface.  So, despite it already being a negligible fraction of a percent, I’ll also add that nuclear disposal sites are typically located (at least in the US) in places that already are near uninhabitable.  Trust me, Yucca Mountain was not exactly prime real estate.  It’s in the middle of one of the driest deserts in the states, under a mountain, hours away from civilization (or about 2 hours away from Las Vegas, but calling that civilization is open for debate).  Plus, the stuff isn’t all that radioactive, as I have already tried to explain many times.  So it’s not like these areas are some horrible blights on the land where people get mutated and die.  In fact, the radiation levels on the surface of Yucca Mountain haven’t changed at all, despite nuclear waste being stored below.

    -Again, while I have stated, though it was in passing near the end of my arguments, that Chernobyl was due to human error, I also heavily commented that it was solely due to the location and the technology.  The reason why I spent so much time on the technology aspect was simply because if the technology was different, if it was a NATO style reactor, then nothing horrible would have happened.  The reaction would have died, and no one would have been killed.  So yes, human error cause it, but had that human error happened in the US or in, say, France, nothing would have happened (nothing in this case being a meltdown).

    -It is not foolish to suggest that the USSR was lax in its safety precautions when facts of history show that to be the case.  The reactor had safeties which could be disengaged.  Working conditions were poor throughout the country.  They would launch their rockets over civilized areas, which at times resulted in deaths.  It’s not biggotry or hubris when I say that the USSR was not keen on safety.  They were keen on goals and the costs along the way, while safety took a backseat to the glory of the motherland.

    -It’s good you’re commenting on the safety parameters of the Chernobyl reactor type.  The problem with this problem was that the safeties were disengaged.  On top of this, mechanical arm (the thing which raises/lowers rods into the reaction chamber) failure in the reactor would cause the rods to remain in the reaction chamber, where as the same kind of failure in NATO plants would cause the rods to be removed, thus ensuring the end of the reaction.  This isn’t biggotry.  This is the facts of the systems.

    -"I’m confused… are you arguing for or against safety here? 4000 people in 1986 is ~181 people per year from then until now. You however cite 68 people via coal-related deaths… Coal is still safer…"  You didn’t read my post.  I said that 68 in the US alone.  Worldwide that same year the total deaths were over 6000 people.  I also mentioned that the 4000 was the "max possible" approximation.  Seeing how the Russian government prevented doctors from assigning radiation poisoning as a cause of death, it’s impossible to know just how many people were killed in the Chernobyl accident.

    -Again, I’m not showing hubris.  Our reactors are safer, and something like Chernobyl is impossible in the US.  But then again, our current generation of nuclear power plants is getting older and older, and people like you prevent newer, safer, more efficient ones from being built.

    -I didn’t lower myself when I went at you.  You are as culpable as your statements, and your statements are very suspect.  Plus, I was in part baiting for your response, as this here is one of my definitions of "fun."

    -I never said nuclear energy was the future.  I also proved that it’s not dirty, it’s quite efficient, it has an extremely high power density, and it’s among the safest forms of energy we have (for both people and the environment), and those statements have held up dispite your counter arguments.  My logic is neither lacking nor have my arguments been dismissed or proven wrong.  I’m using science as my modus operandi, where as the best numbers that you have put forth have been from a site which makes no attempts to hide its bias against nuclear energy.  You have yet to correct me on anything, and like I predicted earlier almost all of your attacks are against points in my argument where I could have gone into more detail but didn’t.  The ones that don’t go after the weaker chains go at some of the stronger ones, and you argue against scientific fact with pure conjecture.

    " I’m getting tired of repeating myself, see above for appropriate counter arguements and corrections to your "facts"."

    If you’ve gotten this far, good job.  I have read all of your arguments, and have told you how your are wrong in your assessments.  My "hubris" has done nothing but shown itself correct as your arguments played out almost as I had thought they would.  It has also given me the added benifit of insuring your respond.   To conclude, your arguments are lacking, your corrections are incorrect, and at one point you even went so far as to strenghten my claims.

    So again, I will end with, "To conclude… Nuclear Energy rocks.  I would have it’s babies if I could, but then that’d be fusion.  It’s fission, so chances are high we’d simply break up."  This isn’t bias.  If you can’t see the joke here, then you don’t belong in this argument.  Please don’t make me have to explain this one too.

  46. Austin_Lewis says:

    1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.

    Russian isn’t a race, anymore than french is a race.  You keep on proving your ignorance though.

  47. Derovius says:

     Do I really have to embarass you by posting the definition of racism? Look it up please, and adjust your behaviour based on what you find.

  48. Derovius says:

     \o/

     How to explain this to you so you will understand…

     The OP cited California’s power consumption to be 250,000 (GigaWatt)(hour)(1/year). This is ENERGY consumed in a year. Perfectly reasonable both in terms of the common sense aspect AND the thermodynamics of the thing.

     Secondly, he cites that a natural gas-fueld (turbine?) generator produces 590 MegaWatts (thats MJ/s so you don’t have to struggle with the units.). Now, I can multiply this thing by whatever the hell I want in terms of time; weeks/fortnight, seconds/milennia, seconds/second, etc. Why? Well my boy, this is very simple.

     UNIT ANALYSIS holds; [t]/[t] = 1. And if you don’t know what this means, don’t waste my time any further please. Go buy a Fluid Mechanics textbook and teach yourself unit analysis.

     So anythings, 590 MW generator running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year produces 5,168 GW-hours per year; OR 5,168 GigaJoules of energy per year. HOWEVER, because a generator running non-stop for a year is a dangerous thing, downtime is required. Thus my subtle safety factor bringing the count from 49 generators to 55 generators.

     And because I know you think you right, which you aren’t, here is some reading to help fix this problem you have:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

  49. Thomas McKenna says:

    " You must however be related to JT in some fashion, as simply saying "no, you’re wrong" doesn’t constitute an intelligent reply. Its quite juvenile in all honesty."

    I said I’d only make one post, but dear God I have to point this one out.  So far, the amount of information in your posts has equated to only this much.  Luckily for me, this post is actually giving me something to work off of rather than your previous statements.

  50. Thomas McKenna says:

    You can’t be racist against a group of countrymen.  Russian is not a race.  And yes, there are documents that show that the russian government was actually corrupt during the cold war and that they commited millions of violations against modern day perceptions of human rights.

  51. Derovius says:

     "Again, you show your lack of knowledge on the subject.  In the case of nuclear waste, it is considered "safe" by government officials when it is inert, which would take that 10,000 years.  As I have stated already, it’s safe by scientific standards to be around after 40 years, and those first 40 years it spends in a very safe place no people go.  After 40 years, it loses 99.9% of its radiation.  After another 40, it loses an additional 99.9%.  it keeps doing this and doing it until its levels matches that of background radiation."

     I suggest you realign yourself with what exactly this 10,000 year shelf life is. Its 10,000 years before the waste is suitable to be in proximity to humans, not inert. If you want to argue otherwise, take up with the source from Wiki.

    "Decay is everything when it comes to nuclear waste.  The decay is what causes the nuclear radiation which we consider to be so dangerous.  The longer it lives, the less it decays.  So, spent rods after 2 years is extremely different than 2000.  The differences in radiation amounts would be equivalent to comparing an ocean to a puddle."

     See above for "not safe until 10,000 years have past" rebuttal. You can repeat the same thing in 20 different ways, so long as the premise is wrong, they shall wrong in kind.

    "To say that the waste would double each year is simply nonsensical.  Waste does not increase on an exponential scale.  We do not produce 2^n waste, where n is the number of years.  If anything, it’d be slightly off linear, where the waste would grow at a rate of 2*n.  Now, I know you’re going to say that that’s not a significant difference.  You’d prove yourself wrong yet again.  After 10 years, the difference would be 1024 compared to 20.  Put this in tons, pounds, or whatever.  The illogical case would be the number that gives 1024, the doubling every year."

     Yeah, because its nonsensical for things to double each year, but 2*(n years) makes perfect sense.

    "Think of this.  The energy density from U235 (that’s fission, or nuclear power) is around 88,250,000 MJ/kg.  Coal is 24 MJ/kg.  The best I could find for natural gas is around 80 MJ/m^3.  Since natural gas is mostly composed of methane, let’s assume that it’s all methane (it’ll give you better numbers for your "natural gas" idea)." 

      You don’t need to assume composition when sources offer properties for mixtures. The assumption is fine for applications where you lack better information, mind you.

     As well, I have 39 MJ/m^3 from my source, which I will use in the following response.

     "The density of methane gas is 0.717 kg/m^3. So, this gives around 110 MJ/kg energy density for natural gas, at best.  Now, doing the math…it’d take 802,272.72 kilograms of natural gas, or 3,677,083.3 kg of coal, to give out the same amount of power as 1kg of U235 isotope.  Unlike your previous calculations, these numbers are factual.  Let’s assume that half of the natural gas or the coal is converted into CO2 or CO (not true, the values would actually be higher stoichiometrically, but I’ll give you a bit of a break by not throwing out as big of a number as I could), then you get 401,000 kg of CO and CO2 from natural gas alone compared to 1kg of spent Uranium, which is safe by scientific standards after 40 years, and inert after 10,000."

     This is how I know you have no background in Engineering cost estimation, you are spouting off bulk loads instead of costs. Allow me to show you how professionals work these things out.

     Natural Gas: $7 / GJ

     Coal: $5.12 / GJ (2007 cost estimate)

     U235: $0.00725 / GJ

     Now, here is where you get all giddy because unenriched, raw Uranium appears to be the logical choice for fuel source. This does not account for processing (enrichment, smelting and machining, etc.). Now, lets consider other costs; I have found the following information:

    • Since its beginning, nuclear power has cost this country over $492,000,000,000 — nearly twice the cost of the Viet Nam War and the Apollo Moon Missions combined. In return for this investment, we have an energy source that, until the mid-1980’s, gave us less energy in this country than did the burning of firewood! In the U.S., nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity, and only 8-10% of our total energy consumption. In Illinois these percentages are much greater due to Commonwealth Edison’s over-reliance on nuclear power.
    • Since 1950, nuclear power has received over $97,000,000,000 in direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government, such as deferred taxes, artificially low limits on liability in case of nuclear accidents, and fuel fabrication write-offs. No other industry has enjoyed such privilege.
    • According to a recent study conducted by the Citizens Utility Board, Commonwealth Edison’s customers now pay the highest electric bills in the Midwest, due primarily to the over-reliance on nuclear power plants.
    • Many costs for nuclear power have been deliberately underestimated by government and industry such as the costs for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the "decommissioning" (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants, and nuclear accident consequences. In January, 1994, Commonwealth Edison acknowledged that it had to nearly double its estimate for reactor decommissioning — from $2.3 billion to as much as $4.1 billion!

     

    http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm

     Considering only one aspect of power production is dangerous, and you have fallen head first into that trap. Enjoy.

    "We may expel CO and CO2 naturally, but we don’t expel that much.  You’re arguments are running thin."

     I’ve read that cows as a whole expel more than the equivalent of all the automobiles in the world. Considering there are as many if not more humans than cows, our emissions are more than likely similar. However, I don’t have the article to provide you.

     You must however be related to JT in some fashion, as simply saying "no, you’re wrong" doesn’t constitute an intelligent reply. Its quite juvenile in all honesty.

  52. Thomas McKenna says:

    Well…seeing how I am the poster you’re comenting from, and seeing how Physics doesn’t exactly work that way…

    What you’re doing is you’re multiplying across by number of hours in a year.  That is wrong.  That’s assuming that the current power rate is already in Watt-hours, which it’s not.  All that number is is an Energy value, with no indication of the time span the energy is generated at.  Because you don’t know the time span, you can’t make a rate.  You’re taking the energy and giving it an arbitrary time span, thus an arbitrary rate.  So, in conclusion, your numbers are wrong.

  53. Derovius says:

     Uh huh, placing all your racism aside, do you have supporting documents for these claims or are you just reciting from memory?

  54. Austin_Lewis says:

    Maybe you missed out on the Cold War, but let me tell you about Russia in that era.  If someone from the Kremlin or the Komitet or the Sword and Shield says you’re going to do something, you’re either going to DO IT or you’re going to be thrown out of the party and you’ll have a lovely date at the power station nearest the Kremlin, which was where they tortured people who didn’t jump when the Kremlin said to.

  55. Thomas McKenna says:

     I’m on my laptop, and the battery is almost out.  Expect to see something here in an hour or two, rebutting everything you have stated so far.  I go at you with logic, and you rebut with conjecture and think that proves me wrong.  Once this lab is concluded and I can get back to a computer without a battery to care about, then I’ll lay out my arguments.

     

    *edit – back.  Did you miss me?  Ok, I’ll read through all of your arguments and refute them in a single post.

  56. Thomas McKenna says:

     Again, you show your lack of knowledge on the subject.  In the case of nuclear waste, it is considered "safe" by government officials when it is inert, which would take that 10,000 years.  As I have stated already, it’s safe by scientific standards to be around after 40 years, and those first 40 years it spends in a very safe place no people go.  After 40 years, it loses 99.9% of its radiation.  After another 40, it loses an additional 99.9%.  it keeps doing this and doing it until its levels matches that of background radiation.

    Decay is everything when it comes to nuclear waste.  The decay is what causes the nuclear radiation which we consider to be so dangerous.  The longer it lives, the less it decays.  So, spent rods after 2 years is extremely different than 2000.  The differences in radiation amounts would be equivalent to comparing an ocean to a puddle.

    To say that the waste would double each year is simply nonsensical.  Waste does not increase on an exponential scale.  We do not produce 2^n waste, where n is the number of years.  If anything, it’d be slightly off linear, where the waste would grow at a rate of 2*n.  Now, I know you’re going to say that that’s not a significant difference.  You’d prove yourself wrong yet again.  After 10 years, the difference would be 1024 compared to 20.  Put this in tons, pounds, or whatever.  The illogical case would be the number that gives 1024, the doubling every year.  

    Think of this.  The energy density from U235 (that’s fission, or nuclear power) is around 88,250,000 MJ/kg.  Coal is 24 MJ/kg.  The best I could find for natural gas is around 80 MJ/m^3.  Since natural gas is mostly composed of methane, let’s assume that it’s all methane (it’ll give you better numbers for your "natural gas" idea).  the density of methane gas is 0.717 kg/m^3. So, this gives around 110 MJ/kg energy density for natural gas, at best.  Now, doing the math…it’d take 802,272.72 kilograms of natural gas, or 3,677,083.3 kg of coal, to give out the same amount of power as 1kg of U235 isotope.  Unlike your previous calculations, these numbers are factual.  Let’s assume that half of the natural gas or the coal is converted into CO2 or CO (not true, the values would actually be higher stoichiometrically, but I’ll give you a bit of a break by not throwing out as big of a number as I could), then you get 401,000 kg of CO and CO2 from natural gas alone compared to 1kg of spent Uranium, which is safe by scientific standards after 40 years, and inert after 10,000.

    We may expel CO and CO2 naturally, but we don’t expel that much.  You’re arguments are running thin.

  57. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    At what? The pic or the fact it didn’t show.

    ——————————————————————————

    "Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon

  58. Derovius says:

    "Now, to go a bit on the offensive.  It’s people like you that get all panicy when nuclear energy is mentioned that has prevented its usage in the US and other 1st world countries.  You make false accusations and grandiose statements that have no logical or scientific backing, and because you predict massive death you’re listened to.  Every engineer who has looked into nuclear power can tell you that it’s the best option at this time, yet despite their education and training they’re ignored for the fear monger who knows how to yell "CHERNOBYL!"  The reason why coal is the main source of energy in most nations is not the fact that it’s cheaper or more efficient.  Hell, it’s far from the case.  Those titles go to nuclear energy, and you’d know this if you’d’ve done some real searching.  The reason coal is used, and miners die yearly, is because people listen to people like you, and the world is worse off because of it. "

     To overlook your personal insults would be a shame, but if you need to lower yourself to that level so be it. Nuclear energy in its current form is not the future. Its dirty, primative (even today) and dangerous. When we discover how to harness Fusion reactions at lower temperatures, we will continue this discussion. Until such a time, however, your arguements have been dismissed and your logic been shown to be lacking. Please attack me with a stronger backing in the future. It appears that you are all volume and no substance in all of this, but I will do you the courtesy of replying to even ounce of what is presented.

    "Now, this isn’t to say I am vehement against anyone against nuclear energy.  Those that have actually put in the time and the research and have come to the conclusion that it’s just not the right thing at this time have my respect.  You’re obviously not one of them, seeing how you haven’t even read up on Three Mile Island.  In fact, you go even further to show your ignorance at the claim that its even comparable to Chernobyl, and how Chernobyl had nothing to do with the country it was in, or the technology that runs it. "

     Once again, as with above, you smeck of hubris and have been corrected on several key issues. Admit to your mistakes, as I have with TMI and better yourself, or this discussion is simply mental masterbation.

    "You have shown the ineptitude that comes from the grand majority of people who are against the use of nuclear energy.  Numbers show that it is cheaper.  Facts show that it is safer.  Logic shows that it is cleaner. "

     See above for refutement and counter arguements, sir.

  59. Derovius says:

    "ext is the reactor type.  The reactor was a standard USSR reactor.  Again, they care about end results, not necessarily safety.  Their reactors, when they get to the "oh shit" point, lock up, thus leaving the reaction be.  NATO style reactors, however, have always valued safety as well as results.  With NATO style reactors, when the "oh shit" point is reached, the reaction is automatically killed off.  Not to mention, all of our safety systems can’t be disengaged, and even if they were, the way the reactor is made makes sure that the reaction is killed when "shit gets bad."  This is why Three Mile Island was not Chernobyl.  A small radiation leak happened, yes, but because of the inherent safety protocols existent in its design the radiation contamination was no where near life threatening.  No one has ever died from Three Mile Island, or any other NATO based reactor.  Technological advances have put in better safety protocols, higher energy output, and waste with shorter lifespans."

     Read up on the safety systems of the Chernobyl facility; their "Oh shit" point was based on their local secondary power supplier. If they reached a critical destabilization point, the system was designed to be self regulating. They even had on site diesel generators for the coolant pumps to ensure containment in the case of a reactionless state. This is yet another example of your "we’re better than them" bigotry, with no basis in reality.

    "Let’s look at coal again now.  We’ve seen how it has a higher radiation output, now let’s add this to the fact that coal power  kills thousands of people each year (most happen in 3rd world or developing countries, but America alone had 68 people killed in 2004), on top of polluting the air.  Now, the total deaths cause directly by radiation from a failed reactor is 56, as far as we can tell.  This number may be as high as 4000.  This happened from Chernobyl, which I’ll get into later, but because of the Russian government coverup of the disaster (well…what little they could cover up) the full number of fatalities can’t be known for sure.  So, in 2004 alone, the number of people who died because of coal (over 6000) exceeded our highest guesses for total number of people who died from a nuclear reactor, ever."

     I’m confused… are you arguing for or against safety here? 4000 people in 1986 is ~181 people per year from then until now. You however cite 68 people via coal-related deaths… Coal is still safer…

    "So yes, the argument that "it’s powered over there" counts for a whole hell of a lot in this case.  It is impossible for an incident like Chernobyl to happen in any NATO nation, or nations that use the same reactor types.  With modern advances, even Russian reactors can be made safe (hell, they’re only unsafe when something like Chernobyl happens, and i’m fairly certain they learnt their lesson there)."

     Lol, hubris is a very dangerous quality my friend. To claim you are infallible dooms you to embarassment.

  60. Derovius says:

    "Now, for comparison, lets compare this to Coal power emissions.  These emissions include tons of carbon and nitrous waste into the air every year.  Because it’s not a "nuclear" power plant, there is no steps to prevent radiation contamination to the neighboring environments.  However, coal contains within it trace amounts of radioactive materials.  These do not burn in the combustion cycle and are collected into the ash.  This ash is then spread about to the neighboring areas.  This article explains it in more detail than I wish to do so here:"

     McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth’s crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

     An exert from your article, which I found in a 30 second skim through on the first page. 1.9 mRem due to fly ash vs. 360 mRem due to background radiation. No need for further discussion.

     

    "But the base readout is…Coal ash is 100 times more radioactive then spent fuel rods.  With no measures really put in place to stop this (and any measure that is put in place won’t do well to get rid of the radioactive materials as they’re non combustable at the temperatures experienced in a coal plant), it makes it so that the background radiation 10 miles away from a coal plant is higher than the background radiation right up against the outer wall of the reactor."

     I should hope that the outside of the reactor has low rads, lol, or there would be some real trouble on the horizon. See about for the rebuttal to the coal ash arguement.

    "To say that it is cleaner, you have to compare it to other forms of energy.  I already did that with coal.  Natural gas you burn carbon with oxygen, thus creating CO, CO2, and H2O, so even that’s not clean.  So called renewable sources of energy also have their faults.  Mining for minerals found in Solar Cells and batteries kill the earth around the mines forever from nickel contamination (lunar landing and based equipment was tested near nickel mines, as the landscape resembled what they felt was on the moon, and they later realized that it was damn near identical)."

     This is probably one of the few statements I don’t disagree with, all energy sources have their problems. There are however degrees of urgency, and the topic at hand (nuclear energy) is fairly high on this scale. Comparitively, fossil fuel plants are beneath it in terms of overall impact.

    "So yes, nuclear power is cleaner."

     334 generations cleaner, I suspect.

  61. Derovius says:

    SAFER:

    "There have only been 2 nuclear reactor incidences ever.  These are Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.  You claim that location and technology had nothing to do with it, and that it was entirely human error.  You are wholly wrong in this claim."

      By comparison, how many fossil-fuel plants have made 1000 km^2 unlivable, much less the many generations of genetic abnormalities. Oh yes, I’m convinced, build one next to my house plz.

    "Let’s take a look at Chernobyl.  It was a poorly run facility.  On the day of the incident, tests were run against the urges of the on site engineers as well as done without getting the green light from the proper authorites.  These tests ran the reactor on maximum, with all failsafes forcibly removed or blocked.  The reactor became too hot, and the rods melted, thus increasing the rate of reaction between them.  They grew too hot, and the containment area was breeched.  A meltdown happened.  While this was the fault of the man in charge who gave all the orders, this doesn’t mean it was entirely human error."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Conditions_prior_to_the_accident

     Once again, its only Wikipedia, but its better than nothing. Read it from top to bottom and try and swallow that "its not entirely human error" arguement. If I were to give this a % human error vs. % equipment malfunction, I would say maybe 95/5, and thats being generous.

    "The location was in the totalitarian USSR, which was corrupt and lax on safety protocols.  Results were important, and how they got them wasn’t.  This shows in both the technology of the reactor, as well as the ability for someone to remove the safety protocols.  To do any kind of testing in NATO style reactors (we all have the same principle design on reactors) at least in the US you need proper clearance, which requires much theoretical calculations to proove that it’s ok to do.  So, someone running in and demanding that a test be run will get shot down by beureaucracy, and the test wouldn’t happen."

     Scientists are scientists no matter where you go in the world, and to suggest that a centrally controlled society like the USSR was lax in something such as this is foolish. All I see in this paragraph is American bigotry, and there is nothing more to be said.

  62. Derovius says:

    "I’m not saying that nuclear power is the best form of energy of all time, I’m simply saying that it’s the best we have now.  It has the highest energy output, so you don’t have to build as many as say coal or natural gas.  Because it has the highest energy output, and there are fewer locations to tend to, a surplus of energy and money appears, and the savings get passed on to us, the customers.  And since the rods decay anyways, whether they’re actively creating energy or not, you don’t waste extra by using more energy at your own home.  The only by-products are the spent rods, and clean water vapor (used to power steam turbines.  It’s sad to say, but nuclear energy is simply a beefed up version of steam technology)."

     I’m getting tired of repeating myself, see above for appropriate counter arguements and corrections to your "facts".

    "The only way you’ll be able to refute these points I’ve put forward is by pointing out spelling errors, notation errors, or by poking at a spot I felt didn’t need to be expanded upon.  Your arguments are based on irrational fears which are easily prooven to be false.  If you continue to try and argue against the points I have put down here, I will beat you down with science and logic."

     I really need to paste this response in Wiki under hubris, its a classic example of when opinion overrides evidence, and people see what they want to see.

    "To conclude… Nuclear Energy rocks.  I would have it’s babies if I could, but then that’d be fusion.  It’s fission, so chances are high we’d simply break up."

     Please atleast try and hide your bias…

  63. Derovius says:

     Yeah, you can just multiply straight across. The SI definition of Watt is irrelevant, its already been rated when its manufacturer spec’ed it. Unit manipulation is perhaps the EASIEST aspect of Engineering; its so linear and common sense is disgusting.

     The original poster cited a consumption in GW-hr/year, I took his spec’ed plant output and brought it inline with his consumption. The ONLY ground you have to question me on this is in regards to the plant running 24hrs/day, but I have compensated for this by stating that additional plants will be provided for maintainence cycles.

     If you honestly can’t grasp what I just did, you really have no place in this discussion, to be frank.

  64. Thomas McKenna says:

     to calculate from Watts to W-hr/year you don’t just multiply by the number of hours in a year.  The values of watts is Joules/second, or (kg*m^2/s^2)/s, so you can’t just arbitrarily multiply by the number of hours in a year.  To calculate the power rate, you need the actual quantifiable time the energy is released in.  Does it produce 590 MW per second?  per day?  per hour?  per 4 hours, 51 minutes and 23 seconds?  We don’t know what the rate of power output is, so your claim is completely and utterly false and unjustified.

  65. Derovius says:

     You continue with petty insults but have yet to state what your education is Austin. Are you another armchair warrior or do at least have some post-secondary to back up your statements?

  66. Derovius says:

    CLEANER:

    "10,000 to 1,000,000 years?  Hyperbole much?  With current operating nuclear power plants, spent rods require 10,000 years to become fully safe to the public.  This is to say, after 10,000 years, it will lose all of its radiation.  However, what everyone fails to mention is that radiation falls off exponentially.  Try this:  get a graphing calculator or program and plot "1/x" and see where it starts looking like zero.  The answer is pretty damn soon.  The same is true for nuclear waste (though to be honest, it’s not exactly of the function of "1/x").  After 40 years, nuclear waste has lost 99.9% of its highest radiation levels, which are found right after they’re taken out of the reactor.  By this point, it’s safe to work around for moderate amounts of time with no protection.  They can then bring this waste to Yucca Mountain, a site with no underground water to really speak of that’s out in the middle of fucking nowhere, where it can sit around for 100 years to the point where you can sleep with the stuff and be ok.  Modern reactors, the ones that you so strenuously are against, would use up more of this radiation, thus making this decay time decrease severely.  What would take current US reactor waste 10,000 years to die out, would take 300 from modernized plans.  Add this to the fact that Yucca Mtn can hold all of the US’s nuclear waste for hundreds, if not thousands of years to come, and you have a singular place with minimal amounts of radiation rather than the smog cloud that’s always above me here in LA."

     No, those are actually the numbers I snagged out of Wikipedia; not the best source, I know I know, but I don’t an engineering handbook that outlines radioactive lifespans.

     On the topic of half-lives and so forth, I shall give you a second number, generated from the minimum safelife (my term, because I don’t know what you would call this 10,000 year time span to be honest.). 334 generations, at a generation span of 30 years (i.e. takes one human 30 years to grow, mate and produce a second human subset), is how long it will take for today’s waste to be considered safe. 334 GENERATIONS my good sir, and thats if we stop now; we aren’t stopping though, you want to produce more, so what you are causing is an significant environmental issue. To speak plainly, we will continue to produce waste ontop of waste (seeing as its not going to go anywhere for 334 GENERATIONS).

     In the specific scenario that I’ve outline (no increase in waste production, either from technology to better process it coupled with more plants, what have you) you can expect a doubling of waste on a year to year basis. If someone would be so kind as to give me a tonne per year production of waste (as I can’t seem to find one) we can multiply it by 10,000 years to see what we are in for.

     Moreover, I must dismiss your argument about half-lives, because you are ignoring the sheer definition of this 10,000 year minimum. This is how long until the waste is SAFE, not how long until its inert. Considering its decay is irrelevant, seeing as its just as deadly to humans at 2 years in the ground as it is 2,000 years in the ground.

     To conclude my rebuttal, I will remind you that there are technologies NOW that can handle the relatively safe-by-comparison emissions from plants, where as your waste needs to spend 334 GENERATIONS in a lead sheathed canister buried under a mountain to be considered safe. Its simply nonsensical to consider offgases that we ourselves emit organically are more dangerous to our survival.

  67. Austin_Lewis says:

    Hey remember those rolling blackouts?  Apparently those assumed 55 aren’t doing such a good job.

  68. Austin_Lewis says:

    What did you try to teach me?  That putting somethiing less radioactive than the sights on many assault rifles under ground encased in lead is ‘stupid’?  Right.  Face it chief, you’ve got nothing to teach anyone.  Just becasue you FEEL that nuclear energy is bad doesn’t mean it is.  Just like a non-government organization doing a bit of poorly performed research leads them to FEEL that gamers wastes the US 1 billion dollars a year in energy doesn’t make it true.

  69. Derovius says:

    CHEAPER:

     I shall reply in steps, as I’m at work and not able to sit down for a good expanse of time to reply in one post.

    "Natural gas may be cheap.  The problem with natural gas is it doesn’t have a high power output.  You can get kilowatts of power, Megawatts if you’re lucky and you have a big, snazzy plant.  This low power output is the reason why it’s used in vehicles as a gas substitute, as it produces similar amounts of energy.  So, lets say you have a few of these Megawatt natural gas burning plants.  California’s power consumption alone is over 250,000 GW-h per year.  The newest line of Natural gas powered turbine plants get a peak power of 590 MW.  The specs I was looking at didn’t give any W-h values.  Even still, this is a sever lack of power generated here.  Compare this to coal and nuclear, which give off power that’s orders of magnitudes higher, and you’ll realize that to run just the state on california on only natural gas, you’d have to build hundreds of top of the line facilities.  How is this exactly cheaper? "

     24hr / day x 365 days/yr = 8,760 hr/year

     590 x 10^6 Watt x 8,760 hr/year = 5.1684×10^12 W-hr/year (5,168.4 GW-hr/year)

     You cite California’s consumption of 250,000 GW-hr/year, with a cited generation of 5,168.4 GW-hr/year for a natural gas plant. Thats ~49 NGP (Natural Gas Plants, because I’m sick of typing it), and not exactly unreasonably by any standard. And for the record, the reason they don’t cite W-hr’s in specs is because they are that easy to calculate.

     Note: This scenario does not account for downtime for maintenance, so lets be generous and have 55 NGP’s to ensure power production via generator downtime cycling.

    "To throw some actual data in your face, France is fully powered on nuclear energy.  They have the lowest electric bills and the cleanest air out of any industrialized country."

     They also have filthy streets and whorish women; you speak of correlation not causation, good sir, so I thought I’d join in the fun.

     

  70. Austin_Lewis says:

    It probably will.  People who are so pigheadedly and arrogantly against nuclear energy because of their lack of understanding of it are almost as bad as PETA.  You can’t change their mind, but they’ll hold us all back.

  71. Derovius says:

     Finally, someone who knows what they are talking about. You can run along now, I tried to teach you but you just wouldn’t cooperate.

  72. Chuma says:

    This is quite possibly one of the best written responses I’ve read.  I hope it doesn’t fall on deaf ears.

  73. Austin_Lewis says:

    I was going to make you look like a jackass, but that guy below me beat me to it.  That’s what I get for skipping out on some work to play Left 4 Dead. 

    Still, to be fair, he insulted you far less and had slightly more scientific sources than I would’ve provided you with, and worded it much nicer.

  74. Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, this isn’t the government.  "NRDC is the nation’s most effective environmental action group, combining the grassroots power of 1.2 million members and online activists with the courtroom clout and expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals."  

    Pretty sure its not a government organization.  It’s like Greenpeace, but with less terrorism and more pseudo-science.

  75. JustChris says:

    The only pollution caused by most electronic devices is in the manufacturing processes involved, so there’s nothing we can really do on the consumer side of things if people still keep buying them. I read that the average computer requires ten times its weight in petroleum for the manufacturing process. I know that some portion of that goes into the production of plastics and wire insulation, but let’s not forget the moving parts and machinery in the assembly line that need maintenance.

    Truly what I’m getting down to it is, if we want to go "green" sucessfully, it’s more effective starting top-down, starting with the industrial processes so it makes it easier for the consumers to swallow.

  76. JustChris says:

    More people should know that they can leave their PCs on standby/hibernation mode if they can’t wait for the computer to do the whole POST/OS load thing every time they want to use it, it will save more juice than leaving it on all day at least. And if you have a recent laptop and really want to shave off every possible watt of comsumption, there’s a battery trick. You close the laptop, wait until it’s in standby, and remove the battery. To turn it on, replace the battery, open it and in a few moments your OS goes back to where everything left off, including all open files and programs.

  77. SykotikHunter says:

    "If you leave your Xbox 360 or Sony Play Station 3 on all the time, you can cut your electric bill by as much as $100 a year simply by turning it off when you are finished playing."

    Who actually leaves it on seriously? With very limited cooling systems in it already who in their right mind would leave a "real" console (I say real because the Wii is a joke, not a console) on 24hrs a day. You’d need some serious cooling systems in place to keep those bad boys from melting. They were never designed to be left on for long amounts of time. It is recommended by Microsoft that you turn the console off every 3 hours to keep it at a somewhat regulated temperature. This was their statement to overheating console failures that caused the first instances of the dreaded RROD.

    "A new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council maintains that game consoles can significantly add to consumers’ electric bills."

    As for this… This just adds to the whole media dramatization that "video games are bad". I would like to see actual research notes that verify these findings along with videos and explanations of the tests conducted to determine these statements. The goverment once again wants to take video games out of our lives because as you all know, there was no violence before GTA.

  78. Faceless Clock says:

    This report makes one very large assumption: that 50% of all console owners keep them on 24 hours a day, seven days a year.

    Read the end notes.  They say flat-out that they have no basis for that figure. They just made it up.

    On the other hand, their critcisms of the ways consoles manage power are pretty valid.

    The Honest Game – http://www.thehonestgame.org

  79. Thomas McKenna says:

    Ok, I’ll just start from here rather than replying after each one of your misinformed posts.

    Nuclear Energy

    Cheaper: 

    Natural gas may be cheap.  The problem with natural gas is it doesn’t have a high power output.  You can get kilowatts of power, Megawatts if you’re lucky and you have a big, snazzy plant.  This low power output is the reason why it’s used in vehicles as a gas substitute, as it produces similar amounts of energy.  So, lets say you have a few of these Megawatt natural gas burning plants.  California’s power consumption alone is over 250,000 GW-h per year.  The newest line of Natural gas powered turbine plants get a peak power of 590 MW.  The specs I was looking at didn’t give any W-h values.  Even still, this is a sever lack of power generated here.  Compare this to coal and nuclear, which give off power that’s orders of magnitudes higher, and you’ll realize that to run just the state on california on only natural gas, you’d have to build hundreds of top of the line facilities.  How is this exactly cheaper? 

    To throw some actual data in your face, France is fully powered on nuclear energy.  They have the lowest electric bills and the cleanest air out of any industrialized country.

    Cleaner: 

    10,000 to 1,000,000 years?  Hyperbole much?  With current operating nuclear power plants, spent rods require 10,000 years to become fully safe to the public.  This is to say, after 10,000 years, it will lose all of its radiation.  However, what everyone fails to mention is that radiation falls off exponentially.  Try this:  get a graphing calculator or program and plot "1/x" and see where it starts looking like zero.  The answer is pretty damn soon.  The same is true for nuclear waste (though to be honest, it’s not exactly of the function of "1/x").  After 40 years, nuclear waste has lost 99.9% of its highest radiation levels, which are found right after they’re taken out of the reactor.  By this point, it’s safe to work around for moderate amounts of time with no protection.  They can then bring this waste to Yucca Mountain, a site with no underground water to really speak of that’s out in the middle of fucking nowhere, where it can sit around for 100 years to the point where you can sleep with the stuff and be ok.  Modern reactors, the ones that you so strenuously are against, would use up more of this radiation, thus making this decay time decrease severely.  What would take current US reactor waste 10,000 years to die out, would take 300 from modernized plans.  Add this to the fact that Yucca Mtn can hold all of the US’s nuclear waste for hundreds, if not thousands of years to come, and you have a singular place with minimal amounts of radiation rather than the smog cloud that’s always above me here in LA.

    Now, for comparison, lets compare this to Coal power emissions.  These emissions include tons of carbon and nitrous waste into the air every year.  Because it’s not a "nuclear" power plant, there is no steps to prevent radiation contamination to the neighboring environments.  However, coal contains within it trace amounts of radioactive materials.  These do not burn in the combustion cycle and are collected into the ash.  This ash is then spread about to the neighboring areas.  This article explains it in more detail than I wish to do so here:

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

    But the base readout is…Coal ash is 100 times more radioactive then spent fuel rods.  With no measures really put in place to stop this (and any measure that is put in place won’t do well to get rid of the radioactive materials as they’re non combustable at the temperatures experienced in a coal plant), it makes it so that the background radiation 10 miles away from a coal plant is higher than the background radiation right up against the outer wall of the reactor. 

    To say that it is cleaner, you have to compare it to other forms of energy.  I already did that with coal.  Natural gas you burn carbon with oxygen, thus creating CO, CO2, and H2O, so even that’s not clean.  So called renewable sources of energy also have their faults.  Mining for minerals found in Solar Cells and batteries kill the earth around the mines forever from nickel contamination (lunar landing and based equipment was tested near nickel mines, as the landscape resembled what they felt was on the moon, and they later realized that it was damn near identical).

    So yes, nuclear power is cleaner.

     

    Safer:

    There have only been 2 nuclear reactor incidences ever.  These are Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.  You claim that location and technology had nothing to do with it, and that it was entirely human error.  You are wholly wrong in this claim.

    Let’s take a look at Chernobyl.  It was a poorly run facility.  On the day of the incident, tests were run against the urges of the on site engineers as well as done without getting the green light from the proper authorites.  These tests ran the reactor on maximum, with all failsafes forcibly removed or blocked.  The reactor became too hot, and the rods melted, thus increasing the rate of reaction between them.  They grew too hot, and the containment area was breeched.  A meltdown happened.  While this was the fault of the man in charge who gave all the orders, this doesn’t mean it was entirely human error.

    The location was in the totalitarian USSR, which was corrupt and lax on safety protocols.  Results were important, and how they got them wasn’t.  This shows in both the technology of the reactor, as well as the ability for someone to remove the safety protocols.  To do any kind of testing in NATO style reactors (we all have the same principle design on reactors) at least in the US you need proper clearance, which requires much theoretical calculations to proove that it’s ok to do.  So, someone running in and demanding that a test be run will get shot down by beureaucracy, and the test wouldn’t happen.

    Next is the reactor type.  The reactor was a standard USSR reactor.  Again, they care about end results, not necessarily safety.  Their reactors, when they get to the "oh shit" point, lock up, thus leaving the reaction be.  NATO style reactors, however, have always valued safety as well as results.  With NATO style reactors, when the "oh shit" point is reached, the reaction is automatically killed off.  Not to mention, all of our safety systems can’t be disengaged, and even if they were, the way the reactor is made makes sure that the reaction is killed when "shit gets bad."  This is why Three Mile Island was not Chernobyl.  A small radiation leak happened, yes, but because of the inherent safety protocols existent in its design the radiation contamination was no where near life threatening.  No one has ever died from Three Mile Island, or any other NATO based reactor.  Technological advances have put in better safety protocols, higher energy output, and waste with shorter lifespans.

    Let’s look at coal again now.  We’ve seen how it has a higher radiation output, now let’s add this to the fact that coal power  kills thousands of people each year (most happen in 3rd world or developing countries, but America alone had 68 people killed in 2004), on top of polluting the air.  Now, the total deaths cause directly by radiation from a failed reactor is 56, as far as we can tell.  This number may be as high as 4000.  This happened from Chernobyl, which I’ll get into later, but because of the Russian government coverup of the disaster (well…what little they could cover up) the full number of fatalities can’t be known for sure.  So, in 2004 alone, the number of people who died because of coal (over 6000) exceeded our highest guesses for total number of people who died from a nuclear reactor, ever.

    So yes, the argument that "it’s powered over there" counts for a whole hell of a lot in this case.  It is impossible for an incident like Chernobyl to happen in any NATO nation, or nations that use the same reactor types.  With modern advances, even Russian reactors can be made safe (hell, they’re only unsafe when something like Chernobyl happens, and i’m fairly certain they learnt their lesson there).

     

    Now, to go a bit on the offensive.  It’s people like you that get all panicy when nuclear energy is mentioned that has prevented its usage in the US and other 1st world countries.  You make false accusations and grandiose statements that have no logical or scientific backing, and because you predict massive death you’re listened to.  Every engineer who has looked into nuclear power can tell you that it’s the best option at this time, yet despite their education and training they’re ignored for the fear monger who knows how to yell "CHERNOBYL!"  The reason why coal is the main source of energy in most nations is not the fact that it’s cheaper or more efficient.  Hell, it’s far from the case.  Those titles go to nuclear energy, and you’d know this if you’d’ve done some real searching.  The reason coal is used, and miners die yearly, is because people listen to people like you, and the world is worse off because of it. 

    Now, this isn’t to say I am vehement against anyone against nuclear energy.  Those that have actually put in the time and the research and have come to the conclusion that it’s just not the right thing at this time have my respect.  You’re obviously not one of them, seeing how you haven’t even read up on Three Mile Island.  In fact, you go even further to show your ignorance at the claim that its even comparable to Chernobyl, and how Chernobyl had nothing to do with the country it was in, or the technology that runs it.

    You have shown the ineptitude that comes from the grand majority of people who are against the use of nuclear energy.  Numbers show that it is cheaper.  Facts show that it is safer.  Logic shows that it is cleaner. 

    I’m not saying that nuclear power is the best form of energy of all time, I’m simply saying that it’s the best we have now.  It has the highest energy output, so you don’t have to build as many as say coal or natural gas.  Because it has the highest energy output, and there are fewer locations to tend to, a surplus of energy and money appears, and the savings get passed on to us, the customers.  And since the rods decay anyways, whether they’re actively creating energy or not, you don’t waste extra by using more energy at your own home.  The only by-products are the spent rods, and clean water vapor (used to power steam turbines.  It’s sad to say, but nuclear energy is simply a beefed up version of steam technology).

    The only way you’ll be able to refute these points I’ve put forward is by pointing out spelling errors, notation errors, or by poking at a spot I felt didn’t need to be expanded upon.  Your arguments are based on irrational fears which are easily prooven to be false.  If you continue to try and argue against the points I have put down here, I will beat you down with science and logic.

    To conclude… Nuclear Energy rocks.  I would have it’s babies if I could, but then that’d be fusion.  It’s fission, so chances are high we’d simply break up.

  80. Derovius says:

     Well damn, if the Germans can’t do it right, I am certain that the US has done atleast as bad if not worse.

  81. Derovius says:

     Sealing everything in lead sheathed barrels and firing it into a whole in the ground is simply not a solution to emissions. The entire reason we are using fossil-fuel based power generation is because its the most efficient, CHEAPEST source of heat and energy. When (not if) we run out of said fuels, we will fast track replacement technology; but for right now, we have hit the perverbal saddlepoint and are resting comfortably.

     The only advances in power generation technology we have seen in recent memory have been for exhaust scrubbing and efficiency increases (like 2-5% increases, for millions of dollars per project and implementation). Hell, the automobile engine has not fundementally changed in 100 years, simply because it does what its designed to do.

  82. konrad_arflane says:

    "It is very safe when done right and the reasoning behind ‘cleaner’ is because the waste is wholly captured and stored and well managed"

    The operative phrase being "when done right". I don’t know about the US nuclear industry, but in Germany, hardly a third world country, it turns out they’ve been doing it wrong (the wikipedia entry doesn’t even attempt neutrality. However, it is factually correct as far as I can tell). And not only have they been doing it wrong, they’ve been hiding that fact from the public for 20 years. Twenty years. You’ll pardon me if this sort of thing doesn’t generate confidence in the industry as a whole.

  83. Derovius says:

     I have never sat down to read up on Three Mile Island, I prefer Chernobyl as an example of nuclear fallibility due to the lasting and visible consequences. If you say that it was a momentary leak, sure, if you say so. It doesn’t quite disprove the dangerous nature of the technology though.

  84. Derovius says:

     I have never read up on Three Mile Island, I was making fun of the manner in which you argue rather than the details therein. Perhaps if you want to continue, you can have enough sense not to contradict your own claims only sentences apart.

     You have yet to demonstrate to me that combustion-based emissions are more of a threat to the world/environment than man-made radiation. Oh, and your arguement of "Hey, it happened over there so it doesn’t count" doesn’t cut it chief. Until you are prepared to actually refute my claims properly, rather than sitting there thumbing your nose and saying "nope, you’re wrong. Oh, you’re drunk, therefore I’m right", you really shouldn’t be posting.

     

  85. Austin_Lewis says:

    You should look at the link the guy below posted.

    But honestly, nothing you’ve said here has been right yet.

    Seriously.  Are you drunk or something?

    Also, it was a chest x-ray’s worth for a short time, not 24 hours a day for the rest of your life.  Real life is not Fallout.

     

  86. Adamas Draconis says:

    Consider, if I rememeber correctly over 75% of the electrical energy they take in is converted into heat energy plus the amount of energy that has to be put into COOLING such a massive heat buildup Perhaps this is enough to ask for either more energy efficent designs or a way to use the excess heat energy. perhaps to help power an emergency power reserve in case of brown/blackouts. Or is this a poorly concieved idea from someone with admitedly no engineering training.

      Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  87. zel says:

    and just to keep facts straight, TMI incident doesn’t continually release that radiation forever (as you seem to think) it only did so for a few days after the accident and the amount of radiation was actually below the standard backround radiation you receive everyday. Radiation isn’t just nuclear in nature, its actually everywhere all the time.

    ————————————

    I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

Comments are closed.