Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II **off topic discussion**

manafana

anyone see the rte programme which covers off on nuclear power, you'd have clearly agree that it is a better option than our overuse of coal for power. Safety has come long way, would thought somewhere like isle of man would be keen on employment it could create.

CramCycle

Alas, thanks to Sellafield and all that went with it, nuclear power is a political no go in Ireland. Best we can hope for is an increase in use of Water and Wind generation for the next few years.

magicbastarder

i'm not going to try to look for it now, but i read an article a few years ago about an alternative to the standard reactor design, which is far safer, cannot melt down, and produces far less waste. the reason the standard reactor design (according to the article) became standardised is that reactors were originally designed to create material for nukes, rather than to generate power. but it's the design that is known, and no-one has poured much money into standardising the alternative.

magicbastarder

https://what-if.xkcd.com/

1 in 500 is much shallower than i would have expected.

ThisRegard

Oh man, I'm disgusted, I never knew about the Haleakala downhill bike ride when I was there.

manafana

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm not going to try to look for it now, but i read an article a few years ago about an alternative to the standard reactor design, which is far safer, cannot melt down, and produces far less waste. the reason the standard reactor design (according to the article) became standardised is that reactors were originally designed to create material for nukes, rather than to generate power. but it's the design that is known, and no-one has poured much money into standardising the alternative.

they where saying the nuclear waste is now much more minimal and nothing compared to effects of coal burning, our biggest source is still cool which is nuts, wind is limited from cost point of view for now, water still needs research to improve and would have go to sea bound to increase, sun has limited potential for us for now.

Thud

ThisRegard wrote: »

Oh man, I'm disgusted, I never knew about the Haleakala downhill bike ride when I was there.

Or the other way, 4,205m of climbing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIHwZ_6bx4

Sarz91

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm not going to try to look for it now, but i read an article a few years ago about an alternative to the standard reactor design, which is far safer, cannot melt down, and produces far less waste. the reason the standard reactor design (according to the article) became standardised is that reactors were originally designed to create material for nukes, rather than to generate power. but it's the design that is known, and no-one has poured much money into standardising the alternative.

Thorium reactors?

Chuchote

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-for-donald-trump-good-news-is-bad-news-1.2990794

Fintan O'Toole on Trump's loyalty mechanism - interesting piece.

From their perspective, the best news is anything that supports a narrative of danger and decline. Success stories – unless Trump can claim direct personal credit for them – are bad news and, in this inverted logic, best buried.
Consider, for example, the greatest current success story of job creation in the US. There is an indigenous industry that is growing at a phenomenal pace, making American jobs for American workers.
This industry increased its workforce by an amazing 25 per cent in 2016 alone.
It is called solar power, and its growth is part of an even bigger good news story.
Recent official figures show 374,000 people working for solar firms, a 32 per cent rise in jobs in wind power in 2016 alone, and 2.2 million people now employed in manufacturing or installing energy-efficient products, an increase of 133,000 last year.
These jobs are being created, of course, in response to the climate change that Trump calls a hoax. So they are bad news.

magicbastarder

Sarz91 wrote: »

Thorium reactors?

that does sound like what i read about.

tomasrojo

The NPR Planet Money podcast had an episode a few years ago and installation of roof-based solar panels in the States. Plenty of people with no interest in climate change were installing them because the cost of installation had fallen so dramatically. Essentially, instead of paying a bill six times a year (or whatever) you repay the equivalent of a small mortgage to the installers. It was surprising to hear just how cheap installations had become in so little time. 80% drop in costs in ten years? I can't remember.
It's in there somewhere!
|
|
V
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/04/10/398811199/episode-616-how-solar-got-cheap

Sarz91

magicbastarder wrote: »

that does sound like what i read about.

Thorium nuclear fuel is really cool for a lot of reasons. But there are a lot of clarifications I like to make when discussions about this stuff come up. I find that the Thorium Evangelical Internet Community spreads a lot of questionable information while advertising their fuel. I get it... they're trying to rebrand nuclear energy to get away from the negative implications. Maybe they're right too.

There are literally thousands of nuclear reactor design options based on different combinations of coolant (water, gas, sodium, salt, CO2, lead, etc.), fuel form (uranium oxide, uranium metal, thorium oxide, thorium metal, thorium nitride, TRISO, pebble bed, aqueous, molten salt, etc. etc.), power level (small modular, large, medium), and about a dozen other parameters. We really only have 1 kind in commercial operation (uranium oxide fueled, pressurized water cooled reactors) and it has a lot of disadvantages over some of the other possibilities. Among all these options, there are a whole bunch of combinations that give performance far superior to the traditional reactors in terms of cost, safety, proliferation, waste, and sustainability. Thorium-based ideas are among them, but Thorium isn't some new thing held back by conspiracy.

The key advantage of Thorium over all other things is that it uniquely allows you to make a breeder reactor in a thermal neutron spectrum. This advantage is subtle and fairly minor compared to the advantages that it shares with uranium fuel in advanced reactors.

CramCycle

We have solar panels, the difference in price to when my uncle got them a few years ago is shocking. The cost saving is incredible, pays for itself in 5 years for a typical family I imagine. I do wonder do I use more electricity though because of it.

magicbastarder

Sarz91 wrote: »

Thorium isn't some new thing held back by conspiracy.

as mentioned, the article i read didn't suggest conspiracy, more a 'no-one wants to be the first to build a production one because it's relatively untested' sort of reasoning given.

Sarz91

magicbastarder wrote: »

as mentioned, the article i read didn't suggest conspiracy, more a 'no-one wants to be the first to build a production one because it's relatively untested' sort of reasoning given.

It wasn't directed at yourself or the article you just get a lot of people crying conspiracy when talking about thorium reactors.

Sarz91

CramCycle wrote: »

We have solar panels, the difference in price to when my uncle got them a few years ago is shocking. The cost saving is incredible, pays for itself in 5 years for a typical family I imagine. I do wonder do I use more electricity though because of it.

You can get some pretty decent 285 watt panels lately for next to nothing. 4 panels for about €1k. You'll see more and more used over the next few years on new builds as we try and implement the proposed NZEB (Near zero energy buildings) regulations for 2020.

CramCycle

Sarz91 wrote: »

You can get some pretty decent 285 watt panels lately for next to nothing. 4 panels for about €1k. You'll see more and more used over the next few years on new builds as we try and implement the proposed NZEB (Near zero energy buildings) regulations for 2020.

We have two large panels that on a cloudy day get about 800W and on a non cloudy day upto 2kW. Gutted that they got rid of the back to the grid scheme, as my energy costs would be near zero then.

Set the dishwasher and washing machine on timers, so all in all my energy bills are 1/6 of what they were (ie one old ESB bill, is what we pay for the entire year).

Weepsie wrote: »

I'd also be thinking water butts should be standard to collect water for waste purposes but alas it shan't be

My old landlord done this in preparation for water charges and to deal with the constant cut off in supply in his area. I imagine, that it put quite a dent into how much he needs over the year.

magicbastarder

i know someone whose neighbour put an IBC tank on the top of his garage - holds either 500 or 1000l; he was looking for a way to use the water to flush his toilets, but retrofitting a 1950s house this way is extremely expensive (and may go against regs?)

i vaguely remember hearing that the average amount of water which falls on the roof of your house is 20 times your consumption (with the obvious caveat that you can't use it for actual human consumption).

Lumen

magicbastarder wrote: »

i vaguely remember hearing that the average amount of water which falls on the roof of your house is 20 times your consumption (with the obvious caveat that you can't use it for actual human consumption).

You could probably use the water to wash the humans before consumption.

RobertFoster

Lumen wrote: »

You could probably use the water to wash the humans before consumption.

Would that not ruin the flavour?

Sarz91

Anyone have any idea when the rider rankings will be available to view again on the CI website?

buffalo

Sarz91 wrote: »

Anyone have any idea when the rider rankings will be available to view again on the CI website?

Have you asked CI? Or reported the error? I haven't heard back from them yet.

Sarz91

buffalo wrote: »

Have you asked CI? Or reported the error? I haven't heard back from them yet.

No I thought I'd ask here in case someone knew something about it. Thought it might be a case of updating the system but it's been down for a while now. Between that and the calendar only coming up a few weeks back it seems pretty disorganised.

buffalo

Sarz91 wrote: »

No I thought I'd ask here in case someone knew something about it. Thought it might be a case of updating the system but it's been down for a while now. Between that and the calendar only coming up a few weeks back it seems pretty disorganised.

The more people get on to them about it, the more likely they'll make it a priority to fix it. And sure they might not even have noticed it was broken, so best to make sure they know.

ED E

CramCycle wrote: »

We have solar panels, the difference in price to when my uncle got them a few years ago is shocking. The cost saving is incredible, pays for itself in 5 years for a typical family I imagine. I do wonder do I use more electricity though because of it.

The real trick is to put up a wall of 18650s and a fast switching transformer to feed the panels into. Pay for itself in a year or two (unlike a powerwall which never will).

magicbastarder

i guess the ideal scenario - if it works - is an electric car with one of those panels?

tomasrojo

When I can afford it, I'll get solar panels. Nice south-facing roof waiting for them. No idea when I'll have the money though.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

When I can afford it, I'll get solar panels. Nice south-facing roof waiting for them. No idea when I'll have the money though.

I'm thinking of replacing my roof and using solar tiles. They look amazing.

buffalo

Lumen wrote: »

I'm thinking of replacing my roof and using solar tiles. They look amazing.

I like your house. Where is it?

Lumen

buffalo wrote: »

I like your house. Where is it?

In my dreams. :pac: