What is Digg?48 Comments
- yyz_, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30@gmarks
Nuclear power is actually very efficient and very effective. It's more enviro-friendly than people think. - jorhyne1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Why is Mattc908 getting dug down? Nuclear power is an extremely valuable resource and it is unfortunate that our government and power companies have not taken advantage of it in 30+ years.
- Ottergoose, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20As far as non-renawable energy sources go, it's tough to beat nuclear...
- Only thing that goes in the air is water vapor
- Pollution is stored in a handy canister
- Is extremely safe
- Uses technology that exists today
- Annoys the bejesus out of hippies for no good reason - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -3/+15@purplepig: in the worst case scenario where ANYTHING goes wrong, the reactor melts down and you have a big block of unusable glass and lead that holds in the radiation. one of my best friends has a phd in nuclear engineering and works in a nuke plant. i was even a reference for him when they did a background check, and yes, they called me.
as for the viability of solar, it's all about long term investments. the initial cost is steep but it's made up in the long run because panels last 20+ years. meanwhile coal must constantly be found and mined. the coal plants are at the constant threat of suppliers and green legislators. - argoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The real value of solar is that it is so decentralized that it is difficult to regulate. Unlike a large central nuclear power plant that could easily be subjected to a billion in regulations, solar power can be spread out and does not rely on a grid - so it's hard to put a squeeze on. Also, if you buy a solar panel and inflation goes thru the roof, then you are safe - unfortunately with all the other energy sources the government jerks the money around so badly that you have high risk exposure.
- Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The title is misleading. They said they plan on building it. Not they have built it.
- shableep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7let's just build a huge solar farm in space and dangle an extension cord down. easy.
- mattc908, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16I think another Secritive company should secretly build a nuclear power plant........
- thomasrex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I spent years in the solar industry and quit because I couldn't stand the scamming. No, solar panels don't last 30 years. That's total BS put out by solar power execs. In reality half the panels will be degraded in 15 years, and in one good hailstorm or serious blizzard, you'll lose 20% overnight.
Solar is a scam. Weather and maintenance costs are astronomical and the solar industry refuses to admit it because they are scooping up the bucks. It really doesn't matter how cheap the cells are. Just the infrastructure and maintenance and land and power conversion make it a losing proposition.
Sorry to all you wishful thinking solar proponents. What you are advocating doesn't actually work in real-life conditions, and never will.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, has an incredible growth curve. Just last month somebody learned how to DOUBLE the energy output of current nuclear pellets, just by drilling a cooling channel in the middle. That's a 100% fuel efficiency jump in a single invention. That's the kind of incredible engineering leverage that nuclear power has. - adinb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Go look up pebble bed reactors. Or a thousand different reactor designs. Almost any new nuclear plant design doesn't rely on active cooling technologies to keep it from going critical. Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island were both Gen 1-2 designs that used active cooling. Pebble beds are a great example of a way to use nuclear without the fear of supercriticality or of radioactive steam release.
And the waste? it'd be easily processed if we wanted to--just build a fast breeder reactor. The amount of waste we'd have would be a 1/100 of what we have now.
How we deal with nuclear fuel is a little like charring wood for good burning charcoal, but throwing the wood away after the charring stage. We don't use most of the fuel available--mainly because we're afraid somone's going to get their hands on some energy rich plutonium. - betacmag4u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Michael Rogol, a solar expert at Credit Lyonnais, expects the solar industry to grow from $7bn in 2004 to nearer $40bn by 2010, with operating earnings of $3bn. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/19/ccview19.xml
Once the Chinese start mass producing the thin film panels that use 1/100th the silicon of regular panels it is all over for other energies.
@ anyone who thinks Nuke's are efficient :Nuclear power industry get about 7 billion in subsidies a year..... Solar panels built 30 years ago still put out more than 97% of rated power .....and will so for what 100 or 200 years? - Surfer51, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Only around the equator belt is solar financially a viable alternative to fossil fuels for the generation of electricity.
Working photovoltaics have no moving parts, are relatively simple in design, need very little maintenance and are environmentally benign. They simply and silently produce electricity whenever they are exposed to light.
Batteries are often used in PV systems for the purpose of storing energy produced by the PV array during the day, and to supply it to electrical loads as needed during the night and periods of cloudy weather.
At present, the high cost of PV modules and equipmentm, as compared to conventional energy sources, is the primary limiting factor for the technology. Consequently, the economic value of PV systems is realized over many years. In some cases, the surface area requirements for PV arrays may be a limiting factor. Due to the diffuse nature of sunlight and the existing sunlight to electrical energy conversion efficiencies of photovoltaic devices, surface area requirements for PV array installations are on the order of 8 to 12 m^2 (86 to 129 ft^2) per kilowatt of installed peak array capacity.
At this time solar is not cost effective for any company. That should chamge soon. Moore's Law of a sort will come into play.
And there is the question of the Big Oil interes,t who will have to allow it, before it becomes widespread. - UKsHaDoW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well we don't have doggy engineering. The Russians took allot of shortcuts develop that reactor. Developed on the cheap. Todays reactors are much safer, and most certainly cleaner for atmosphere compared to coal.
Most people think nuclear = bad for environment and get all scared.
But if most power plants were nuclear we'd have a lot less co2 environmental problems. Accept for all the nuclear waste and all.
Nuclear fusion will probably put a end to any energy crisis. - haydesigner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Long-term, huh?
What happens when coal/oil/other runs low or runs out?
Methinks wind and sun will be much more long-term than other fuel sources (unless we use that nuclear thingie for some other purpose). - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They're retarded if they build it in Sarnia.
To build it in the Great Lakes Region is stupid. To build it directly East of Lake Huron would be very stupid.
The amount of water vapor in the air in that area is enormous. Overcast days are the norm. It rains a LOT.
When a cloud comes between a solar collector and the sun, the power taken in goes down 8-10X.
What a colossal waste of money. Build it in Saskatchewan or Manitoba just north of the 49th parallel. They'll have a lot more clear days there and the land is even cheaper. - Cruelapollo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'd hate to sound like a racist bigot, but the soviets ran that nuclear power facility. They pushed a faulty design way above its limits and they paid for it.
It's like complaining that no one should have a car because one person can't drive safely. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We could use a super microwave dish to send the power to the surface.
Of course if you moved the array by accident you might have a scene out of Akira. - marmanukem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@surfer
Chernobyl was an unshielded reactor. ALL modern nuclear reactors are shielded so there is no risk of catastrophic meltdown. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Nuclear power is cool and all, but I can't put a reactor in my back yard or basement. (At least without drawing attention from the government)
If solar cell production ever got so efficient that I could buy an array for less than $5,000 (including installation... about the price of installing central air in a house) then I would do it in a heart beat so I wouldn't have to pay any electric bill at all. This way I don't have to rely on centralized services (remember the power failure in NYC) and of course pay taxes on my electric bill.
The beauty of solar that it is decentralized and has the possibility to just make homeowners power independent. Building these huge solar farms will help in that it will drive the R&D costs of solar down and hopefully lead to solar production on an individual level. - MikeyMoose, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2"Builds largest solar farm" and then "it will build the largest solar power 'farm'" - come on.
- marmanukem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gas emissions.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not like anyone has invented batteries or something...
- SteveSgt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So how's that Three Mile Island Unit 2 doing these days?
Oh yeah, it's still a sealed containment that can't be used for anything, and is too expensive to further disassemble, let alone renovate. It's a useless piece of land with dangerous buildings that will be off limits for the rest of the life of anyone now living. - Ottergoose, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Just point a light at your solar panel - that'll keep it running all night... duh.
- TedTschopp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This story is inaccurate as there are other larger planned solar farms being set up in California
http://www.edison.com/pressroom/pr.asp?id=5885 - Ottergoose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I've read somewhere that approximately 50% of the earth is bathed in sunlight at any given time - that seems pretty reliable to me.
- EndersGame, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@gmarks nuclear power plants contribute to way less global warming then most other energy sources like coal power plants, etc. The toxicity from a coal power plant is a lot higher then that of a nuclear power plant, and if we actually get nuclear fusion working there is no nuclear waste whatsoever. Plus it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to run and maintain. I am not saying we should build more nuclear power plants right now, I am just saying we need to develop nuclear fusion, and you people have no reason to be against fusion power plants. They are safer, cleaner, and cheaper in almost every aspect compared to what we have been used to using for the last 100 years.
If you really cared about global warming I will spell it out for you. If we built the first fusion plant today, within a few years all of our energy would come from fusion plants. In 10-20 years everybody will be driving electric cars because electricity will be insanely cheap and by that time battery technology will have caught up with the whole concept. You just cut the pollutants we release into earth's atmosphere in half, if not by way more.
If you think power plants aren't safe you need to do your research. And I personally don't care for nuclear waste but if our government was properly funding research for renewable energy sources, nuclear waste wouldn't even be a problem today. - Stratochief66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As stated in the article it was built in Canada because Ontario provided the best package of subsidies. When you finish the 'back of napkin' solar efficiency calculations you still have to find a way to pay the high initial capital costs
- Sabot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The answer to this question about Nukes or solar is what kind of plant would you want in you backyard? Nuke or solar. I think the answer is simple.
- megaloid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Breeders are definitely the best option in order to stave off a worldwide uranium shortage in the years to come.
- OverlordMC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's always the possibility of shooting all that waste to the sun. Sure it would cost the government some chump change but I'm sure you could take it from Iraq war bill.
- kev110382, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There was an article the other day about how they're figuring out how to recycle nuclear waste and reuse it in a new type of reactor. I guess the overall amount of waste would halve while the energy produced off the same amount of material would double..
- irvman21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1People need to get over 3 Mile and realize that nuclear is the best power source available on our planet. The technology is available RIGHT NOW. People should quit trying to cram less efficient alternatives down our throats, nuclear is the alternative source and we've known how to use it for 60+ years.
- COINTELPRO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The newspaper writer presented the capacity of the solar farm in a wrong way. The solar farm rated capacity of the panles is 40 megawatts in full sunlight which should not be compared to the energy consumption of Ontario for a day. The company should have presented the energy production on a typical day to compare apples to apples.
That is not a measure of how much energy is being produced for the whole day. - mydave, on 08/02/2008, -0/+0I wonder every time when I saw energy plants. look so interesting...
http://www.crestonepeak.org/
http://sooslic.com/?id=675
http://meredithsonson.com/peachgerberdaisy.htm - Gitana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The price the Ontario government will be paying has now set a standard for any other electricity generating schemes that might come along including more wind farms. Why would they settle for less than the solar farms contracted price of $ 0.42 ?
And I can't help but wonder why these (1 million ?) panels can not be manufactured right here in Sarnia
instead of California and there by at least saving transportation costs and adding to our economy
by using our local work force. - CJUNIT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Not in my backyard!
- drexl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2That idea about the extension cord from space is sweet. I saw something similar on Discovery where a some type of satellite was in orbit with a long cord running back to earth that was going to have an elevator attached to it. Just a theorized project but seemed kind of possible. However, there is no way in hell I'm getting on that thing. Wait a minute. What was this about? Oh, yeah solar power. Uh, sweet. Solar power is cool.
- GizmoFreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This location is about 3 hours from my house. I think it's about time this happened. However, it will be interesting to see how it all pans out. Our government will be paying about 42 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to about 11 cents it pays now. And of course by the time it gets built, there will be the standard "over runs" and other "un-expected" expenses that will likely drive that cost upwards. But I guess we have to start somewhere on a large scale. Our government is also looking in to a couple Wind Farms. No new news on that front though that I'm aware of.
- Ebulating, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Realistically the only long-term, reliable, and large-scale sources of electricity will be coal and nuclear. Wind and solar, while i support them and think that they should be used wherever suitable, are too intermittent, which will limit how large a proportion of the total energy supply they can provide. Coal and/or nuclear plants will be required to provide electricity when the the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, if people expect the power grid to be as reliable as it is today. Thus if people really believe global warming is as big a threat as people say, they should favor nuclear power as it is very much the lesser of two evils.
- COINTELPRO, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Nuclear produces greenhouse gases from mining, construction, and offsite storage of waste material. It isn't as green and safe as people think it is and require huge subsidy from the government that make the price look cheap. The government provides catastrophic insurance and waste storage for free which will require thousand of years of security and maintenance costs. You don't stick it in the ground and forget it, you have to secure and monitor the wastes for thousand of years. If the nuclear power plants did it, it would make the price unaffordable and no company would build one.
I don't understand why they built this huge project in Canada, the amount of sunlight they get is less than somewhere that is closer to the equator. The efficiency of thin film panel are less which requires more land. - wintermd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2And do they make any money? Another feel good idea.
- Surfer51, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6One word why you are so dead wrong...Chernobyl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl
Firsthand pictures of the aftermath of Chernobyl:
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/ - BigFoot48, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0Let's go 100% solar and look like North Korea at night!
- gmarks, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4All that nuclear waste is great for the environment, right yyz?
- gmarks, on 10/12/2007, -34/+3"I think another Secritive company should secretly build a nuclear power plant........"
Yeah. because all this world needs is more to contribute to global warming.
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is