Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 86949	2008-02-02 19:36:00	Nuclear Power Documentary on TV One last night	somebody (208)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
636771	2008-02-10 23:51:00	Hydro is great. We should be building as many as we can. The problem is with so much dairy farming going on, there's a strong political lobby against diverting water away from irrigation use - i.e. Project Aqua. There's also an issue that it's highly dependent on rainfall, which recently is very iffy at best.	somebody (208)
636772	2008-02-11 00:29:00	Could someone explain to me what is the problem with Hydro Power? :confused: All the Hydro Dams I’ve seen seem to be a great asset without even giving consideration to the power they produce.A major drawback with hydro power is ensuring the rain falls in the right catchment areas... With weather patterns supposedly becoming more unpredictable of late, this might be a big ask of the Weatherman to advise the Engineers where to build (even presuming they would be allowed to build)!!	johcar (6283)
636773	2008-02-11 04:12:00	A major drawback with hydro power is ensuring the rain falls in the right catchment areas... With weather patterns supposedly becoming more unpredictable of late, this might be a big ask of the Weatherman to advise the Engineers where to build (even presuming they would be allowed to build)!! Not a problem, just make sure they aren’t all in the same catchments. The wonderful thing about Hydro is you’ve still got it after you’ve finished using it. And, as a bonus the water can be stored pretty much indefinitely. Try that with Wind. I can’t for the life of me see the need for an alternative in this country. Of course it would be different if we didn’t have an abundance of water. ;)	B.M. (505)
636774	2008-02-11 04:55:00	Could someone explain to me what is the problem with Hydro Power? :confused: sediments build up in them, causing obvious problems after 50 years or so then all the farmland/riverbanks etc is relying on that mud/water coming down suffer (the three gorges dam (en.wikipedia.org)is a good example of this "arriving silt -- so long as it does arrive -- strengthens the bed on which Shanghai is built... the less the tonnage of arriving sediment the more vulnerable is this biggest of Chinese cities to inundation...") that's assuming the rainfall is reliable enough then there's resource consent, and the snails/fish to consider, the neighbours who will have dust all through their homes for a few years, and the local iwi and the dam's impact on the resident taniwha plus if there's a fault line, earthquake, or other failure we could be facing serious flash flooding , which wouldn't look good when it wipes out towns/cities on the way and finally, there's scale to consider. we will need alot of dams. but don't get me wrong, i also think hydro is a very good solution to our power needs, but perhaps it may be more practical/reliable if we use hydro as a reserve in combination with wind and solar for when wind isn't blowing and sun isn't shining, rather than as our only power source though i'm sure tidal power wouldn't be too hard in the cook strait would it? and in 10 years it may be cheaper to go solar rather than wind, even at our latitude, so we could go by solar by day and hydro by night, while those "noisy" and "ugly" wind turbines with dodgy gearboxes slowly get decommissioned stupid greens are their own worst enemy sometimes	motorbyclist (188)
636775	2008-02-11 05:00:00	Alas it doesn't look safe.... here is a great site to show accidents since 1940. Quite a large amount.... www.nuclearfiles.org i believe only one of which caused any harm:2cents:	motorbyclist (188)
636776	2008-02-11 05:00:00	......and in 10 years it may be cheaper to go solar rather than wind,..... Your assuming it is efficient to use solar as a means of generating power. It most certainly isn't. However solar as a means of harvesting heat, for hot water heating and the such like is another completely different story.	personthingy (1670)
636777	2008-02-11 05:19:00	Your assuming it is efficient to use solar as a means of generating power. It most certainly isn't. However solar as a means of harvesting heat, for hot water heating and the such like is another completely different story. i'm speculating that in ten years time it may be economical to use solar power considering the headway germany and china are making, and the ever increasing cost of oil, given a decade it may well be economical to go solar. already in germany it is economical due to goverment incentive (guaranteed sale of solar power at premium price) which in turn is driving demand, production, and falling manufacturing costs through development and economy of scale efficiency has very little to do with it from an accountant's/evironmentalist's perspective, which is all that seems to matter these days:groan: - just think of the carbon credits they can claim:lol: (plus if you consider rain/oil/coal/wind are all driven/created using solar energy anyway, i do wonder which is more efficient:p )	motorbyclist (188)
636778	2008-02-11 05:28:00	..........efficiency has very little to do with it from an accountant's/evironmentalist's perspective, which is all that seems to matter these days ??? How is this different? If you invest $X into an installation, you hope to get $Y back per year. If Y is expected to be too much less than X due to inefficiancy, the accountants say "no" Having said that, there have been some very clever things done with mirrors and boilers..... One wonders how this is going?	personthingy (1670)
636779	2008-02-11 06:07:00	www.metaefficient.com www.metaefficient.com	zqwerty (97)
636780	2008-02-13 00:07:00	??? How is this different? If you invest $X into an installation, you hope to get $Y back per year. If Y is expected to be too much less than X due to inefficiancy, the accountants say "no" Having said that, there have been some very clever things done with mirrors and boilers..... One wonders how this is going? efficiency has little to do with dollars, it is energy out divided by energy in ie a maximum of 35% percent of the energy striking a particular type of solar panel can be converted into electrical energy, whereas a nuclear reactor can extract up to 80% of the heat energy given off by decaying uranium economy, in this case power supplied (which is sold, giving money made) divided by money invested, is what matters to the accountants ie, despite only 35% efficiency, over the entire lifetime of the plant, it is cheaper per megawatt hour, or more economical, to use solar than use a nuclear plant. (note i doubt those examples are true, was just pulling figures from my ass to demonstrate the difference between economy and efficiency)	motorbyclist (188)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10