Nuclear Iran

[Osamafune]

Well I'm thinking keep the research in the states and domestic production as well. A well paid worker, and lower unemployment numbers, it'd probably stop the US's economy from it's continued free fall. Like I said, $1B/week on Iraq, that's some pretty nice subsidies for the industry so they can easily afford to pay their employees well.

Protecting the bottom line should not be the primary concern, and these days it feels like it's becoming the only concern. Sure maybe the rich don't get to be that much richer, but the poor don't have to be that much poorer either. Seems like a fair trade off to me.

Keep in mind that we're deficit spending though. Meaning, we're in the hole with pretty large debts to pay off once everythings over.

And I hardly see how the gas companies are paying for the war in Iraq, so I don't see how you can combine the spending on energy research & production and the wars. The way I see it, energy prices would likely rise if the energy is produced domestically. If the prices go up, how is that good for anything?

[Delfos]

Loyan it's not the 1st time you challenge the production of such energies, compare the production of those with nuclear stations and see what's more polluting. And nuclear has waste, only thing you can do with it is nuclear bombs...not a very good thing to do, is it? And nuclear power is unstable, you have to make it stable, solar power will be there until the end of times, just make a solar power facility and it will run like butter. Another very strong point is dismantling, nuclear facilities are practically impossible to dismantle, in Spain they tried to do with an old one and it's very dangerous, the production of energy goes lower and lower each year and then they have to seal whole area like in Chernobyl. Solar power or any other clean energies clearly got much more advantages. But it's unquestionable that nuclear power produces much more energy, no wonder USSR liked it so much.

[Tacolicious]

Not only that but nuclear waste has a hazardous life of millions of years... now solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and other alternative forms of energy don't have that issue. So I don't see how you can claim they cause more pollution, but I think you should question your sources just a little more. Also I'm not suggesting spending along side war effort money, I'm saying spending instead of war effort money. Deficit or no there is still a lot of money being poured into the middle eastern war for the benefit of a select few.

Now cheap plentiful energy won't cause the prices of energy to rise, in fact quite the opposite. Having to spend millions of dollars to produce a nuclear plant before it even produces so much as a single watt of power... that will drive prices up. A solar cell and wind generator on every roof, updated and ecofriendly homes is a large one time investment with minimal upkeep costs that would save the world in the long run.

In areas less developed we're far better to help sponser and build these sustainable systems because the developed world has the resources and the talent to be able to invest in these things unlike most of the developing world which will go to older, initially cheaper technologies irregardless of the long term costs both economically and environmentally.

Nuclear power simply is not a sustainable or safe option when so many other technologies are available and waiting to be used. In Ontario the pickering reactor has cost taxpayer millions, it has been fraught with technical difficulties and has even dumped heavy water into the great lakes causing harm to an already fragile system.

[Osamafune]

Not only that but nuclear waste has a hazardous life of millions of years... now solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and other alternative forms of energy don't have that issue.

I'm not saying those forms of energy cause more polution <_<

Also I'm not suggesting spending along side war effort money, I'm saying spending instead of war effort money. Deficit or no there is still a lot of money being poured into the middle eastern war for the benefit of a select few.

National security is for the benefit of a select few?

Having to spend millions of dollars to produce a nuclear plant before it even produces so much as a single watt of power...

It would cost more in the end to build a solar power plant than a nuclear power plant, because you would have to build several more solar panels to get as much energy as a nuclear plant. Nuclear power is much more reliable too, since if it gets cloudy, there goes your solar panels. If the wind isn't blowing, so much for your wind mills. If you have no water, can't build a dam. No geological activity != geothermal energy.

A solar cell and wind generator on every roof, updated and ecofriendly homes is a large one time investment with minimal upkeep costs that would save the world in the long run.

What? Can a single solar cell/wind mill can power a home? What happens on days when there's a lot of cloud cover and/or very little wind? Or for them guys up north who don't have sunlight during certain parts of the year? Then after a snow when the panel is covered up, what then? Honestly, I can't see how they would need minimal upkeep costs... seems like a little bit of hail could damage a solar cell pretty easily. And I can see how that would help the economy... Nobody would want to buy the house with an ugly windmill or solar panel sitting on the roof, so prices would go down.

And that's not going to stop the sun from getting more active and heating things up anyway...

[Delfos]

It would cost more in the end to build a solar power plant than a nuclear power plant, because you would have to build several more solar panels to get as much energy as a nuclear plant. Nuclear power is much more reliable too, since if it gets cloudy, there goes your solar panels. If the wind isn't blowing, so much for your wind mills. If you have no water, can't build a dam. No geological activity != geothermal energy.

wrong perspective. Solar power doesn't result when there's no sun, won't work at night, but it will work at day even if cloudy, that's a misfortune of fotovoltaic or solar power. Nuclear power disaster is catastrophic.

Wave power for example is unbreakable, will work by day, night, cloudy, rainy whenever. So is wind, there's places that even the slightest breeze turns into wind and is enough to generaste power, Portugal isn't the country witht he strongest or most wind but still we manage to have one of the biggest wind power fields of europe. And if we breaktrough with wave power this will be great.

But the problem is the waste, and what people will do with it. That's why they don't want Iran with Nuclear stations, but are you worried with Iran having Nuclear power?

[Tacolicious]

A few clouds don't reduce solar power cells to zero efficiency, and usually when there's clouds there's wind. So using the two in conjunction makes sense.

Additionally using home generation along side larger civil projects provides plenty of power, by having the homes drawing off the grid when they need more then what they produce individually and putting power on the grid when producing more then is being used. Right now the average home wastes a lot of power, old style incandescent bulbs should be replaced by the new bulbs which used 1/4th the power and last much longer. Appliances such as TV's, stereos, and many others constantly draw power even while off. So if we eliminated that (or unplugged them when not in use) that saves a lot of power, office towers which are lit up 24/7 and billboards and neon signs consume a lot of power. So there is also a need for people and companies to start conserving as well, intelligent engineering of the products we use could be a big help. After all the less power we need the less we have to generate.

As for them being "ugly" I'm not going to debate that, but there are ways to make things look better, quite frankly I think nuclear power plants are ugly as sin... and because of the green glow I have to see them all the friggin' time.  I think nuclear waste and areas poisoned by it are ugly, and I'm pretty sure my great great great great great great grandkids would agree when the waste produced in my lifetime is still around and still hazardous as all fuckin' hell.

With geothermal power, when has there been a point in time in the entire history of the planet when the earth was not geologically active? It is a solution that works for some areas, but this is true of any solution. Nuclear power doesn't work everywhere. Anyone with the capacity to build a nuclear power plant has the capacity to build a nuclear bomb... so do you really see it as a "world wide solution"? Is this in the interest of "national security"?

All of this also involves continual improvement through research, the power generation achieved through solar cells keeps getting higher while the cost keeps getting lower. Nuclear waste can't be safely disposed of by research because it's atomic physics that keeps it so deadly for so long, and as global warming should have shown you there is no where on the Earth not connected to the rest of the Earth, so even burying it doesn't solve the problem, it just delays the problem becoming noticeable.

National security is for the benefit of a select few?

As for the whole Iraq invasion being launched for national security? Exactly which cave have you been living in for the past few years? Turn off FOX News and actually take a look around, Saddam (who was funded by the Americans once upon a time (as was Osama)) had NO weapons of mass destruction, NO ability or intention to invade the US, NO links to al-Qaeda. During the sanctions forced upon Iraq between the first gulf war and the current attrocity there was an OIL FOR FOOD campaign sponsered by the Americans... The first thing protected in the second invasion was the oil fields and while the average Iraqi citizen doesn't have power or water on any reliable basis the oil production was the top priority to get working again. So this illegal war was not started to keep you safe from "blood thirsty terrorists" (which have taken the place of the "blood thirsty commies"), it was done to keep the rich people who own your fucking country rich. Face it, when it comes to "the war on terror" the US is fighting fire with fire, and it's like blowing out a match with a flame thrower.

[Union]

"Reduction over Production", people need to ditch those high consumption appliances.

[Tacolicious]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7016020.stm

[Delfos]

The target of 12.1% for penetration of wind-energy produced electricity was set by the EU Directive 2001/77 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources. In Portugal, the initial figures of 10 MW installed in 1994, reached 289 MW in 2003, and 3750 MW are planned for year 2010 (according with the Resolution of the Council of Ministries, RCM 63, in 2003).

The percentage of wind-energy produced electricity is, or will be, so high that it can no longer be ignored when managing the whole electricity-generating system. Accurate tools and methodologies for wind power prediction (forecasting) over the next 6 to 48 hours are needed.

Shorter prediction times can be successfully met by simple methodologies. In the absence of a prediction tool, persistence is the most common approach; i.e. the wind conditions forecasted for the following 2, 4, 6, sometimes even 48 hours, are identical to those that can be observed now. However, it is known that for predicting the wind characteristics beyond 6 hours with an uncertainty of less than around 10%, one may have to recur to methodologies based on physical modelling, bringing into play areas of knowledge as diverse as for instance meteorology, engineering and mathematics.

The project’s main objective is the development of a computational model, based on field data, mesoscale modelling and Computational Fluid Dynamics techniques, for forecasting and management of wind resources for electricity production

The project has a 3-year duration and is made up of 5 major tasks. These comprise the collection and analysis of wind velocity field data, the improvement of the physical models embedded in a computer code for small-scale atmospheric phenomena, the one-way coupling between this and a mesoscale model, the full one year prediction of the wind flow over Madeira Island, and finally the prediction of the wind power and comparison with operational values of a wind park already in operation.

The project carries on the successful experience of a previous research project also sponsored by FCT, ending soon. It brings together two research unites based in two different regions of Portugal and from two different backgrounds (Engineering and Meteorology), promoting the multidisciplinary and collaboration between different research units.

A computer model will be available by the end of the project, which can then be developed until it can be used in an operational basis.

the project is interesting, this is just a short text, even more important are the numbers. This could be done in Iran, they have good mountain ranges that probably generates winds, and great plains for solar power turbines or fotovoltaic centrals.

[Gecko1]

Problem with most forms of clean- alternative energy: they are run by ecofreaks that have almost no idea of how to get the funds to make this technology profitable, give this to the hands of a business man and you will see how quickly coal would be ditched. A simple way would be to loan solar panels, after doing some math I figured that at a rate of $190 a month for enough solar panels to power the average household the homeowner would save about $100 at the end of the first year and then $360 every year afterward and the company would get a profit of $2280 after the third year on each household.

[Union]

^Smart

[Aquatoria]

No one seems to understand. Iran is a powerful Middle-East country and one that is respected by many Middle Eastern nations. If Bush or AMerica for that matter want peace in the Middle-East, then Iran will be the one to talk to. Only Iran can bring peace. Maybe Turkey, but many nations in the Middle-East don't like Turkey. The President of Iran knows that and he is telling us that. Iran decides the Middle-East's fate.

[Gecko1]

Yes, or America could take the long route by trying to polarize more nations onto the path of the Saudis or Jordan. That would increase an American foothold but the Mid-East belongs to Iran regardless or at least all the Shiites.

[Delfos]

Problem with most forms of clean- alternative energy: they are run by ecofreaks that have almost no idea of how to get the funds to make this technology profitable, give this to the hands of a business man and you will see how quickly coal would be ditched. A simple way would be to loan solar panels, after doing some math I figured that at a rate of $190 a month for enough solar panels to power the average household the homeowner would save about $100 at the end of the first year and then $360 every year afterward and the company would get a profit of $2280 after the third year on each household.

very american, you are saying that most of the European governments are ecofreaks? lol you guys are way behind. Sure we can make it profitable. But that's not our main goal, we aren't dirty capitalists.

[Gecko1]

Capitalism is the "democratic" way to get things done. Plus its faster and defeats most opposition.