You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Town's Crier
Moderated by Popeychops, Major Helper, Lord Sipia

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.26 replies
Age of Kings Heaven » Forums » Town's Crier » The Greatest Debate
Bottom
Topic Subject:The Greatest Debate
MrMew
Huskarl
posted 03-31-18 01:52 AM CT (US)         
So I'm gonna reignite the discussion on the future of energy production that is the most beneficial to the planet (very broad I know). The purpose of this discussion is the enter without bias (even if you work in the solar industry or at a nuclear power plant). After some enlightenment I can now see an issue in the last discussion (unfortunately the thread is now archived). The issue in itself was somewhat looked at but in a very narrow field. I'm talking about Life Cycle Analysis and ALL of the impacts that the entire life cycle has on everything. We mainly focused on things like pollution and mining. However I believe its important to take into consideration the following:

-terrestrial ecotoxicty
-ozone layer depletion
-abiotic resource depletion
-freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity
-human toxicity
-eutrophication
-marine aquatic ecotoxicty
-photochemical oxidation
-climate change
-acidification potential
-economic impact

Also to be taken into consideration is the location, supply and demand, weather and whether or not there will be a base load.

This discussion will aim to look at the following methods of generating power:

-coal fire
-gas
-solar PV
-solar thermal
-wind
-thermal
-wave
-tide
-hydro
-nuclear fission
-biomass
(fusion is purposefully left off this list)

You may be asking why I have chosen to revisit this, and I have recently been doing some stuff in LCA aswell as picking up a book (however outdated to 2006) that may have a point, even if the data is wrong must be considered.

From said book (Nuclear Power is not the Answer to Global Warming or Anything Else by Helen Caldicott) I will present how a LCA can bring a new perspective to something. I would like to emphasise that I currently have not reached any conclusions based on this one book as the data is outdated and would need to be checked for reliability. However allow me to demonstrate:

Life Cycle of Nuclear Fission:

1. Mining and collection of raw materials

"A greater amount of energy is required to extract uranium from a mine containing a low-grade uranium concentration of 0.1% than from one containing 1%...
...energy expenditure largely dependent on ore grade...
...the point at which concentration is so low that energy required to extract and refine a dilute uranium concentration from the ground is greater than the amount of electricity generated by the nuclear reactor"


Aside from what could be an extremely inefficient way of generating power due to the locations ore deposits, fuel and other minerals are used to extract and refine these materials. You can already imagine the possible impacts (listed above) just for this.

2. Processing raw materials

3. Construction of plant

Large amounts of steel and concrete plus the large expenditure of money.

4. Upkeep and operation

Fuel, maintainence, cooling systems etc

5. Decommissioning of plant and clean up

'Materials must be allowed to decay before the reactor can be entered, therefore must be guarded for many years


After which dismantling and demolition can take place.

6. Disposal of waste

'Construction of very expenisive highly specialised waste sites and containers...
...so hot they (rods) need to be cooled for 30-60 years otherwise the zirconium coating can combust and release its radioactive inventory...
...long term storage of 240 000 years'



The book finishes with
'using the richest ores a reactor must operate at full load before its energy debt is paid off'

At this point however the it has become very complicated to find a simple solution. Of course then from LCA we come across more problems in the form of inaccuracies and limitations. These can include but are not limited to:
-old data
-lack of dynamic calculations
-inflation
-unexpected events
-type of LCA

In conclusion there is no conclusion without extensive research that rely on countless factors. Please discuss whatever you believe is directly or indirectly related.

Time of Tea
Still in the Dark Age
Don't be a melodramatic clown. ~Mr Wednesday

[This message has been edited by MrMew (edited 03-31-2018 @ 07:49 PM).]

AuthorReplies:
Popeychops
"Cool" Huskarl
posted 03-31-18 03:15 AM CT (US)     1 / 26       
Hey Mr Mew, good to see you again! As I'm sure you remember, I'm a big advocate for the benefits of nuclear power so I'm definitely going to be posting in here later.

I'd like to say that we can relax the "politics in the politics thread" rule as long as we only discuss energy policy. Hope everyone is okay with that!

Member of BlackForest Studios
Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
"Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
"Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
"You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
Major Helper
AoKH Survivor, Mr. White Teeth
posted 03-31-18 03:16 AM CT (US)     2 / 26       
How about fusion, or is that still too much in the future?

PS. I won't be debating anything as this is outside my expertise

_,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,_
You, you... Finnish Barstool! - Enraged Popeychops
Major Helper: Helping AoE3H Housewives since 2008 - As_Saffah
I spent 3 months trying to convince a door that I was an intelligent life form and gave up. - TLM
Winner of "Nicest" (2012-2016), "Most Helpful" (2014) and "Best Moderator" (2015-2016) Forummer Awards
-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-
Lord Sipia
Knight
posted 03-31-18 04:18 AM CT (US)     3 / 26       
I'd like to say that we can relax the "politics in the politics thread" rule as long as we only discuss energy policy. Hope everyone is okay with that!
Agreed. While this is somewhat related to politics, I'd say it's the non-"controversial" part of it, so this should be fine.

As for the debate itself, like Major, I don't really have any helpful in-depth knowledge about this, but I do find this interesting and important, so I will examine everyone's arguments and ask questions when I think something doesn't quite hold up.

"You can't open up the story of my life and just go to page 738 and think you know me."
--Arin "Egoraptor" Hanson (on judging people by their Google search history)

"It's hard to have an existential crisis when everything is so pretty."
--Dan "Danny Sexbang" Avidan
Uchuu Senkan Yamoffo
Moff
(id: Moff Yittreas)
posted 03-31-18 10:06 AM CT (US)     4 / 26       
Nuclear fission until we nail down fusion. [/thread]

New RPG Coming Soon | Purveyor of the Poi | Weeaboo Brony Conserative - The Ultimate Foe to the Internet
Lord Sipia: "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SIPPY IS EXCLUDED! EVERYBODY LOSES THEIR SANITY" | Also Lord Sipia: "...Of course. Prepare the butter."
"Moff's anime diatribes/photos are infinitely less annoying than legion's communism, so I don't complain." - Azzie, proving that cute girls driving tanks >> Left-wing ideology
Mithril Knight
Squire
posted 03-31-18 10:56 AM CT (US)     5 / 26       
How about fusion, or is that still too much in the future?
It's just 50 years awayTM. Seriously, that's what the Fusion researchers have always said.

Nuclear is the best option right now in the short-term and handled properly. Solar, Wind and other "clean" energy will only ever be useful where the conditions are right. We'll never be able to make effective, widespread use of them without advancements on battery and capacitor technology that allow for more power storage and reasonable prices.

►►►►Mithril Knight◄◄◄◄
My Works
¡Viva México!
My Coat of Arms
MrMew
Huskarl
posted 03-31-18 08:13 PM CT (US)     6 / 26       
Hmmm... The bias meter is tingling. A neutral opinion on all options here is best for an overall assessment to eliminate first choice bias. The purpose is to present facts not opinions.

Unfortunately I've skimmed through a few LCA and they mostly focus on greenhouse emissions
Hey Mr Mew, good to see you again
Thanks. I've been over SD every now and again.

As for storage, thats a whole other basket of eggs. They don't have to be traditional storage. Move away from batteries and think stored heat energy, the snowy-hydro scheme in Australia, some weird mountain cavern thing etc.

Interestly according to this nice graph supply and demand won't hold for too long into the future, which would inevitably drive up the price of uranium and increase the amount of reactors that would need to be decommissioned and replaced by once again a new energy source. Rather than a short term solution, we should be looking at a long term solution that will have reduced impacts rather than a lot that may have a large energy debt.

This (fairly) recent article looks at other what impacts other LCAs took into consideration and a sample one for Turkey. Out of renewables wind has the largest abiotic depletion. I haven't had time to read through the entire article yet so forgive me if I missed something, will read and discuss later.

Time of Tea
Still in the Dark Age
Don't be a melodramatic clown. ~Mr Wednesday
Popeychops
"Cool" Huskarl
posted 04-01-18 03:19 AM CT (US)     7 / 26       
Hmmm... The bias meter is tingling. A neutral opinion on all options here is best for an overall assessment to eliminate first choice bias. The purpose is to present facts not opinions
No

To any of that

  • You can never eliminate bias, only account for it
  • The purpose of debate is to present and argue opinions, not facts
  • There is no such thing as a neutral opinion

    I'm just saying.

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
  • MrMew
    Huskarl
    posted 04-01-18 06:41 AM CT (US)     8 / 26       
    Hmrmrmrm... I disagree... Formulate an opinion from the facts we research, not from a preconceived one. Engineering solutions relies on this (first choice bias). There's no point going into the argument if you're not going to consider the opposite side.

    Empty your glass my friend. Look at boths sides, go all out advocate, then devils advocate. Or vice versa. If you dare. A very basic example: solar emits no CO2, thats great! BUT what about all that silicon we mine? Otherwise how else will anyone change their mind?

    I also forgot to point out an important part of LCAs, which causes limitations, and that is that many assumptions are made. The last document linked provides a good example of this.

    As for the document and further interesting details to make out from it. In Table 3 the following values are given for the electricity generation mix:

    2012 - 2023

    Natural Gas- 43.6% - 14.77%

    Coal- 28.1% - 18.64%

    Hydro- 24.2% - 39.26%

    Wind- 2.4% - 15.96%

    Geothermal- 0.4% - 0.96%

    Solar- * - 0.23%

    Nuclear- * - 9.84%

    Others- 1.3% - 0.35% (both ignored)


    In 2012 Natural gas and coal dominate in all impact categories. In 2023 natural gas and coal continue to dominate, however Wind contributes a large portion to abiotic depletion, human toxicity and terrestrial toxicity.
    Unfortunately there is no test without the two fossil fuels to see how everything else fairs. But considering gas and coal to be at such a low percentage of generation, but still making such a high impact, we can definitely say that nuclear and hydro are far more positive for the environment. I wouldn't draw any conclusions on solar or geothermal as such small percentages are contributed. Keep in mind that the power generation increases from 2012 to 2023 from 239 496 GWh to 384 389 GWh.

    Time of Tea
    Still in the Dark Age
    Don't be a melodramatic clown. ~Mr Wednesday

    [This message has been edited by MrMew (edited 04-01-2018 @ 06:49 AM).]

    Mithril Knight
    Squire
    posted 04-01-18 10:41 AM CT (US)     9 / 26       
    I don't care for my own bias since I have already gone and looked at the options, weighed them out and decided on which I find best on my own, Mew. As Popey said, opinions have an inherent bias to them since they are your own ideas, there is no such thing as a neutral opinion beyond making no judgement on the matter. If an "opinion" has no bias it is nothing more than a cold, hard fact and it is therefore not an opinion.

    EDIT: To add to this, consider that there is no objectively best energy source, all their pros and cons have to be considered. If there was an objectively best option that was clearly what everyone would sensibly choose, there wouldn't be any need for opinions and discussion, hence no debate. Just stating facts will never get you anywhere in a debate.

    Now, back to the topic.

    For you argument for Hydro, I'd be inclined to agree if not for the fact that dams affect river ecosystems drastically by cutting off areas of rivers to the fauna and hurting the natural sedimentation process and therefore affecting the fertility of the lands downstream. Dams are good but only if used sparingly as they are expensive to build and maintain (with increasing costs over time due to sedimentation) and have the potential to damage the river's ecosystem even decades after their removal. Tidal has similar issues to those of hydro, but applied to coastlines and shallow waters, which is arguably worse ecologically. These two are good alternatives but you cannot go and place them all over the place without affecting the landscape significantly more than with other power sources (pollution waste not withstanding).

    Nuclear is the best option, but like I mentioned, it is a short-term one due to the scarcity of fuel and until thorium reactors are a thing said fuel will be restricted to uranium and all the nasty side-effects of it being potential bomb fuel and whatnot. Fossil fuels can only get you so far, even the more "harmless" ones like gas and biomass.

    I'd really like for solar and wind to take over, but until we have affordable storage battery systems their use will have to be restricted to the regions where the weather allows for their effective use year round, since you won't be able to account for long periods of low energy generation elsewhere.

    Of course, if at some point someone figures out fusion, that'd be awesome, but seeing the current prototypes, we have yet to reach effective means of energy generation, much less profitable ones and next to nobody has gone into how to convert the energy into electricity. As of right now, fusion continues to be a pipe dream.

    Geothermal will never take off because it needs to be next to volcanic areas or drill so deep into the Earth that it's unreasonable to do so as our equipment cannot reach the required depth without huge expenses.

    ►►►►Mithril Knight◄◄◄◄
    My Works
    ¡Viva México!
    My Coat of Arms

    [This message has been edited by Mithril Knight (edited 04-01-2018 @ 10:46 AM).]

    MrMew
    Huskarl
    posted 04-01-18 07:09 PM CT (US)     10 / 26       
    For you argument for Hydro, I'd be inclined to agree if not for the fact that dams affect river ecosystems drastically by cutting off areas of rivers to the fauna and hurting the natural sedimentation process and therefore affecting the fertility of the lands downstream
    That is a valid arguement, however not all hydro requires dams, and considering that in the previous study at 2023 it was producing almost 40% the impacts were relatively low, however it didn't account for sedimentation. Hydro also has the potential to supply base loads. I agree that only a limited number of such stations can exist. Perhaps more development in the technology will enable less of an impact of river eco-systems.

    I wouldn't be so quick to make any conclusions on nuclear until we see what energy requirements are necessary to store the waste (not to mention construct such facilities).

    Afaik biomass isn't a fossil fuel (no fossils) and I recall that it is possible to approach a 0 carbon footprint (sugar cane plantations), that opens up another can of worms however and I haven't looked for any sources on that yet.

    As for nuclear in the short term, I seriously doubt it would be in our best interest to suddenly construct couple thousand of them only to decommission in the not too distant future.

    We're looking for a sustainable source of energy, I am confident it will be a mix of different types of power generation.

    Time of Tea
    Still in the Dark Age
    Don't be a melodramatic clown. ~Mr Wednesday

    [This message has been edited by MrMew (edited 04-01-2018 @ 07:12 PM).]

    Sebastien
    Dark Samurai
    posted 04-01-18 08:48 PM CT (US)     11 / 26       
    See, this is where you're wrong. The greatest debate ever?...

    Is Deckard a replicant?

    [This message has been edited by Sebastien (edited 04-01-2018 @ 08:49 PM).]

    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 04-02-18 05:24 AM CT (US)     12 / 26       
    Yes, all blade runners are replicants.

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
    Uchuu Senkan Yamoffo
    Moff
    (id: Moff Yittreas)
    posted 04-02-18 10:10 AM CT (US)     13 / 26       
    That's not the greatest debate. It's obviously who is the best pre-Disney SW waifu.

    New RPG Coming Soon | Purveyor of the Poi | Weeaboo Brony Conserative - The Ultimate Foe to the Internet
    Lord Sipia: "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SIPPY IS EXCLUDED! EVERYBODY LOSES THEIR SANITY" | Also Lord Sipia: "...Of course. Prepare the butter."
    "Moff's anime diatribes/photos are infinitely less annoying than legion's communism, so I don't complain." - Azzie, proving that cute girls driving tanks >> Left-wing ideology
    Major Helper
    AoKH Survivor, Mr. White Teeth
    posted 04-02-18 11:42 AM CT (US)     14 / 26       
    No no, the greatest debate is about who's better, Kirk or Picard!

    _,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,_
    You, you... Finnish Barstool! - Enraged Popeychops
    Major Helper: Helping AoE3H Housewives since 2008 - As_Saffah
    I spent 3 months trying to convince a door that I was an intelligent life form and gave up. - TLM
    Winner of "Nicest" (2012-2016), "Most Helpful" (2014) and "Best Moderator" (2015-2016) Forummer Awards
    -=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-=x=-
    MawBTS
    I ONCE PUT AN ENTIRE ORANGE INTO MY MOUTH
    (id: Bart Pimpson)
    posted 04-03-18 05:28 AM CT (US)     15 / 26       
    Nuclear is the best option, but like I mentioned, it is a short-term one due to the scarcity of fuel and until thorium reactors are a thing said fuel will be restricted to uranium and all the nasty side-effects of it being potential bomb fuel and whatnot. Fossil fuels can only get you so far, even the more "harmless" ones like gas and biomass.
    I don't understand the topic, but don't you just need enough uranium to start a breeder reactor for plutonium (which then becomes the reactor fuel)? What are the limitations of this approach?
    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 04-03-18 09:07 AM CT (US)     16 / 26       
    Breeder reactors are technically more complex, using liquid metal coolants, with a significantly more enriched fuel which brings with it an inherent safety concern (more things that could go wrong) and a nuclear proliferation risk due to the requirement for weapons-grade uranium. On top of that, you have to reprocess the fuel to remove fission products from the rods during service. You can't just fuel it up until the entire rod is spent, as you can with once-through.

    And here's the big one. Cost. Not only do they cost more to build than once-through reactors, but they don't break-even at any point during their life at current wholesale energy prices.

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
    Mithril Knight
    Squire
    posted 04-03-18 05:16 PM CT (US)     17 / 26       
    Afaik biomass isn't a fossil fuel (no fossils) and I recall that it is possible to approach a 0 carbon footprint (sugar cane plantations), that opens up another can of worms however and I haven't looked for any sources on that yet.
    I might've just lumped them with fossil fuels since the energy production is thermoelectric in nature. >_>

    ►►►►Mithril Knight◄◄◄◄
    My Works
    ¡Viva México!
    My Coat of Arms

    [This message has been edited by Mithril Knight (edited 04-03-2018 @ 05:17 PM).]

    Uchuu Senkan Yamoffo
    Moff
    (id: Moff Yittreas)
    posted 04-03-18 06:51 PM CT (US)     18 / 26       
    Solar-powered desalination and water electrolysis to store the extra energy as hydrogen fuel in high pressure cylinders. During the right, cycle the hydrogen through fuel cells, drain the water back into the electrolyzer tank... repeat.

    That's a supplementary power system. It helps reduce the number of nuclear plants we need. <_<

    New RPG Coming Soon | Purveyor of the Poi | Weeaboo Brony Conserative - The Ultimate Foe to the Internet
    Lord Sipia: "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SIPPY IS EXCLUDED! EVERYBODY LOSES THEIR SANITY" | Also Lord Sipia: "...Of course. Prepare the butter."
    "Moff's anime diatribes/photos are infinitely less annoying than legion's communism, so I don't complain." - Azzie, proving that cute girls driving tanks >> Left-wing ideology
    Uchuu Senkan Yamoffo
    Moff
    (id: Moff Yittreas)
    posted 04-09-18 09:31 AM CT (US)     19 / 26       
    ...Hooray! We have solved the energy crisis on the basis of no one made any counterarguments for six days.

    So, what's next on the greatest debate list? The meaning of life? Do we have souls? Is there an afterlife? Pssh. Plebs.

    No... the real greatest debate... who are the best 2D waifus by anime/manga you have seen?

    New RPG Coming Soon | Purveyor of the Poi | Weeaboo Brony Conserative - The Ultimate Foe to the Internet
    Lord Sipia: "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SIPPY IS EXCLUDED! EVERYBODY LOSES THEIR SANITY" | Also Lord Sipia: "...Of course. Prepare the butter."
    "Moff's anime diatribes/photos are infinitely less annoying than legion's communism, so I don't complain." - Azzie, proving that cute girls driving tanks >> Left-wing ideology
    oliver
    Squire
    posted 04-10-18 09:54 PM CT (US)     20 / 26       
    The ones they sell in the convenience store where I get my dinner.
    Uchuu Senkan Yamoffo
    Moff
    (id: Moff Yittreas)
    posted 04-11-18 07:10 AM CT (US)     21 / 26       
    Good. Olly has solved that. Next debate topic?

    New RPG Coming Soon | Purveyor of the Poi | Weeaboo Brony Conserative - The Ultimate Foe to the Internet
    Lord Sipia: "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SIPPY IS EXCLUDED! EVERYBODY LOSES THEIR SANITY" | Also Lord Sipia: "...Of course. Prepare the butter."
    "Moff's anime diatribes/photos are infinitely less annoying than legion's communism, so I don't complain." - Azzie, proving that cute girls driving tanks >> Left-wing ideology
    oliver
    Squire
    posted 04-11-18 07:50 AM CT (US)     22 / 26       
    I'm glad you didn't ask me to back up my opinion with photographic examples. I would've looked like a real pervert.

    But yeah, they sell girls und panzer bikini fanservice bath towels right next to the instant pot noodles. One of the women is clearly underage, too. It's not a sleazy store in the back alleys of Akihabara, either, it's a regular Lawson.
    Uchuu Senkan Yamoffo
    Moff
    (id: Moff Yittreas)
    posted 04-11-18 08:44 AM CT (US)     23 / 26       
    Lawson? They should have KanColle stuff, then, since they're doing a cross-promotional campaign.

    New RPG Coming Soon | Purveyor of the Poi | Weeaboo Brony Conserative - The Ultimate Foe to the Internet
    Lord Sipia: "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SIPPY IS EXCLUDED! EVERYBODY LOSES THEIR SANITY" | Also Lord Sipia: "...Of course. Prepare the butter."
    "Moff's anime diatribes/photos are infinitely less annoying than legion's communism, so I don't complain." - Azzie, proving that cute girls driving tanks >> Left-wing ideology
    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 04-13-18 05:47 PM CT (US)     24 / 26       
    This is why I don't want to go to Japan.

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
    Uchuu Senkan Yamoffo
    Moff
    (id: Moff Yittreas)
    posted 04-13-18 05:58 PM CT (US)     25 / 26       
    I thought it was because you'd be kidnapped and forced to work in cosplay cafes as the giant blonde waifu.

    Okay, seriously...
    1. Mining and collection of raw materials

    "A greater amount of energy is required to extract uranium from a mine containing a low-grade uranium concentration of 0.1% than from one containing 1%...
    ...energy expenditure largely dependent on ore grade...
    ...the point at which concentration is so low that energy required to extract and refine a dilute uranium concentration from the ground is greater than the amount of electricity generated by the nuclear reactor"

    Aside from what could be an extremely inefficient way of generating power due to the locations ore deposits, fuel and other minerals are used to extract and refine these materials. You can already imagine the possible impacts (listed above) just for this.

    2. Processing raw materials

    3. Construction of plant

    Large amounts of steel and concrete plus the large expenditure of money.

    4. Upkeep and operation

    Fuel, maintainence, cooling systems etc

    5. Decommissioning of plant and clean up

    'Materials must be allowed to decay before the reactor can be entered, therefore must be guarded for many years

    After which dismantling and demolition can take place.

    6. Disposal of waste

    'Construction of very expenisive highly specialised waste sites and containers...
    ...so hot they (rods) need to be cooled for 30-60 years otherwise the zirconium coating can combust and release its radioactive inventory...
    ...long term storage of 240 000 years'
    How the hell do you not have 1, 2, 3, and 4 with every single freaking method? Name me one energy source that doesn't require building it and/or fueling it from shit you dig out of the ground. That study is bullshit and just flailing nitpicking.

    Disposal of waste involves water and concrete. No burning, no bullshit chemical breakdowns or whatever. And hell, a coal plant belches more radiation burning its fuel in a day than a nuclear plant does over a fuel assembly's lifetime.

    New RPG Coming Soon | Purveyor of the Poi | Weeaboo Brony Conserative - The Ultimate Foe to the Internet
    Lord Sipia: "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SIPPY IS EXCLUDED! EVERYBODY LOSES THEIR SANITY" | Also Lord Sipia: "...Of course. Prepare the butter."
    "Moff's anime diatribes/photos are infinitely less annoying than legion's communism, so I don't complain." - Azzie, proving that cute girls driving tanks >> Left-wing ideology

    [This message has been edited by Kousoku Senkan Moffgou (edited 04-13-2018 @ 05:59 PM).]

    MrMew
    Huskarl
    posted 04-13-18 07:16 PM CT (US)     26 / 26       
    That's the point, every energy source DOES require 1, 2, 3, 4 and to some extent 5. Each type of energy will have a different set of impacts on the environment that are at different magnitudes. The idea is to analyse the life cycle of each source and find which one has the lowest impact. Inevitably the best way to go will probably be a mixed power supply.

    Besides constructing specialised containers you have to power the cooling of the facility. In no way is this example meant to show that coal is a better option

    LCAs don't only apply to Nuclear fission.

    Time of Tea
    Still in the Dark Age
    Don't be a melodramatic clown. ~Mr Wednesday
    You must be logged in to post messages.
    Please login or register

    Hop to:    

    Age of Kings Heaven | HeavenGames