• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

solar roadways

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
I can answer #2. The sun provides approximately 1100 watts per meter squared to the surface of the earth, give or take for altitude and take for cloud cover/time of day. Of that, about 5% is ultraviolet, 50% is infrared, and 45% is light. Photovoltaic uses light so that's 495 watts. Cells currently available only operate at about 30% efficiency which gets us approximately 150 watts per meter squared. All that's missing is the surface area of each cell.

Not properly done. Hydroelectric is on the up rise in China in rivers alone. I was born and raised in Florida. I don't think you understand how vast the ocean is. I really don't think you have a concept how many turbines it would take to effect a current.
You're obviously talking about dams and dam failures have resulted in more death and destruction than all nuclear disasters combined; moreover, pretty much every feasible place on the planet to be dammed for electricity generating purposes has been dammed. That globally, only accounts for ~16% of electricity needs. That percentage will only fall with time so dams, specifically, are a dead end.

Like the jet streams, ocean currents effect relatively small parts of the ocean. There are only a handful of geological places where currents can be exploited without effecting the greater ocean currents that traverse the planet but that does not lessen the impact on the local life. They're also ridiculously expensive and require a suitable surface underwater to mount to.

Interrupting the jet streams would have just as drastic of an effect on weather as interrupting the ocean currents. Luckily, we can't even consider it seeing how high and how mobile they are.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,693 (0.44/day)
System Name panda
Processor 6700k
Motherboard sabertooth s
Cooling raystorm block<black ice stealth 240 rad<ek dcc 18w 140 xres
Memory 32gb ripjaw v
Video Card(s) 290x gamer<ntzx g10<antec 920
Storage 950 pro 250gb boot 850 evo pr0n
Display(s) QX2710LED@110hz lg 27ud68p
Case 540 Air
Audio Device(s) nope
Power Supply 750w superflower
Mouse g502
Keyboard shine 3 with grey, black and red caps
Software win 10
Benchmark Scores http://hwbot.org/user/marsey99/
why solar roads are better than nuclear power?



no solar panel or battery will ever blow up raining down nuclear waste across a whole fucking continent. EVER!

you want to talk costs and footprints?

you work how much it has cost in the past 25 years when nobody can work, farm, live in the hundreds of miles around the old reactor. now times that by how much it will continue to cost over the next 1975 years or so. not including the investment in the area lost already. i mean they wrote off a whole town. shops, factories schools the lot. not cheap.

as for the footprint, well it aint small either.

yes ok it is the freak, the one that got away. but the more there are the more chance of another incident.

now gt90 brought up a very good point earlier:hardtop is not good for the planet. it aint, really not. but what if we make the most of it being there by making it multi purpose?

what if it was the street lights too, what if it powered those lights, and the houses next to it too?

what if it was done in a way which meant roadworks were faster?

made it so many of the underground services were easier to lay and maintain because of it?

now ok the way they are today they can not do all these things but they could.


"Like the jet streams, ocean currents affect relatively small parts of the ocean."

never seen so much utter tosh in 1 sentence in my life!

the jet stream is the driving force behind all weather on the planet, much like how the ocean current drives the water cycle around its depths....

if fail was your aim you sir win the whole internets
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
6,874 (1.02/day)
Location
USA
System Name Computer of Theseus
Processor Intel i9-12900KS: 50x Pcore multi @ 1.18Vcore (target 1.275V -100mv offset)
Motherboard EVGA Z690 Classified
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S, 2xThermalRight TY-143, 4xNoctua NF-A12x25,3xNF-A12x15, 2xAquacomputer Splitty9Active
Memory G-Skill Trident Z5 (32GB) DDR5-6000 C36 F5-6000J3636F16GX2-TZ5RK
Video Card(s) EVGA Geforce 3060 XC Black Gaming 12GB
Storage 1x Samsung 970 Pro 512GB NVMe (OS), 2x Samsung 970 Evo Plus 2TB (data 1 and 2), ASUS BW-16D1HT
Display(s) Dell S3220DGF 32" 2560x1440 165Hz Primary, Dell P2017H 19.5" 1600x900 Secondary, Ergotron LX arms.
Case Lian Li O11 Air Mini
Audio Device(s) Audiotechnica ATR2100X-USB, El Gato Wave XLR Mic Preamp, ATH M50X Headphones, Behringer 302USB Mixer
Power Supply Super Flower Leadex Platinum SE 1000W 80+ Platinum White
Mouse Zowie EC3-C
Keyboard Vortex Multix 87 Winter TKL (Gateron G Pro Yellow)
Software Win 10 LTSC 21H2
why solar roads are better than nuclear power?



no solar panel or battery will ever blow up raining down nuclear waste across a whole fucking continent. EVER!

you want to talk costs and footprints?

you work how much it has cost in the past 25 years when nobody can work, farm, live in the hundreds of miles around the old reactor. now times that by how much it will continue to cost over the next 1975 years or so. not including the investment in the area lost already. i mean they wrote off a whole town. shops, factories schools the lot. not cheap.

as for the footprint, well it aint small either.

yes ok it is the freak, the one that got away. but the more there are the more chance of another incident.

now gt90 brought up a very good point earlier:hardtop is not good for the planet. it aint, really not. but what if we make the most of it being there by making it multi purpose?

what if it was the street lights too, what if it powered those lights, and the houses next to it too?

what if it was done in a way which meant roadworks were faster?

made it so many of the underground services were easier to lay and maintain because of it?

now ok the way they are today they can not do all these things but they could.


"Like the jet streams, ocean currents affect relatively small parts of the ocean."

never seen so much utter tosh in 1 sentence in my life!

the jet stream is the driving force behind all weather on the planet, much like how the ocean current drives the water cycle around its depths....

if fail was your aim you sir win the whole internets
The pollution from creating the solar cells is very destructive.
 
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,693 (0.44/day)
System Name panda
Processor 6700k
Motherboard sabertooth s
Cooling raystorm block<black ice stealth 240 rad<ek dcc 18w 140 xres
Memory 32gb ripjaw v
Video Card(s) 290x gamer<ntzx g10<antec 920
Storage 950 pro 250gb boot 850 evo pr0n
Display(s) QX2710LED@110hz lg 27ud68p
Case 540 Air
Audio Device(s) nope
Power Supply 750w superflower
Mouse g502
Keyboard shine 3 with grey, black and red caps
Software win 10
Benchmark Scores http://hwbot.org/user/marsey99/
so is everything dude, i mean hell if you want to pick on something the cells needed to store the juice before its converted for the grid are more so.

but will they ever blow up raining nuclear fallout across the whole continent?
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
12,062 (2.77/day)
Location
Gypsyland, UK
System Name HP Omen 17
Processor i7 7700HQ
Memory 16GB 2400Mhz DDR4
Video Card(s) GTX 1060
Storage Samsung SM961 256GB + HGST 1TB
Display(s) 1080p IPS G-SYNC 75Hz
Audio Device(s) Bang & Olufsen
Power Supply 230W
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD+
Software Win 10 Pro
but will they ever blow up raining nuclear fallout across the whole continent?

Thorium reactors don't explode, are cost effective, and quite literally are impossible to go into any kind of meltdown. They're also crazy small, and very cheap to run, not to mention how abundant Thorium is in comparison to Uranium. Thorium nuclear reactors are the best and greatest form of green energy. There's just one problem. You can't make weapons out of them, aka, the government can't make stupendous amounts of money and raise arms with the technology. That's why we have uranium reactors instead. Because of stupidity and greed of the general human population.

That being said, uranium nuclear reactors only explode when they have not been properly made. The Fukushima plant, had designs for a 10 meter sea wall, the guy in charge tried to cut costs (much like the chernobyl reactor, which was ancient, stolen plans), and made the wall too small, AGAINST the original recommendations. The wall was too small, the plant was flooded with impact, causing the issues and leakage.

Nuclear energy (thorium specifically) is the best kind, but humans are too stupid.

Basically. Wind power is the worst form of renewable energy, costs too much, and the turbines have to be supplemented BY FOSSIL FUELS. DERP. Solar power is not that effective, it's very inefficient per meter squared, and also requires a lot of money to be pumped into the system.
 

the54thvoid

Intoxicated Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
12,378 (2.37/day)
Location
Glasgow - home of formal profanity
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI MAG Mortar B650 (wifi)
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4
Memory 32GB Kingston Fury
Video Card(s) Gainward RTX4070ti
Storage Seagate FireCuda 530 M.2 1TB / Samsumg 960 Pro M.2 512Gb
Display(s) LG 32" 165Hz 1440p GSYNC
Case Asus Prime AP201
Audio Device(s) On Board
Power Supply be quiet! Pure POwer M12 850w Gold (ATX3.0)
Software W10
That being said, uranium nuclear reactors only explode when they have not been properly made.

^^ very much this. Chernobyl could not have been built in the UK because our regulations are 'proper' and TEPCO, who looked after Fukishima are a bunch of secretive corrupt bastards who built a nuclear power plant on the east coast of an island known to suffer tsunamis on it's east coast, I mean FFS people!!.

Nuclear is safe when properly planned. Unfortunately the waste is not. It's a brutal legacy and we can't ignore it.

Renewables have an unseen and environmental impact. Tidal barrages although effective at power generation necessarily destroy habitats, wind farms disrupt airflow - this has been mentioned in papers that show removing energy from the atmosphere does have a small effect, multiply that by thousands for the number of farms we'd need and the knock on effects would be unknown but discernible. They also kill wildlife. Solar farms require masses of land and blind birds and pilots (and did i read cause migratory problems?). There are actually no green solutions that don't end up killing nature - it's a fucking sick joke!

As for arguments about what we are doing to the planet, seriously, nothing will change until it's too late. Also, nature is the planets biggest annihilator, in much the same way 'God' is nature's biggest abortion doctor. Oh the ironies.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
12,062 (2.77/day)
Location
Gypsyland, UK
System Name HP Omen 17
Processor i7 7700HQ
Memory 16GB 2400Mhz DDR4
Video Card(s) GTX 1060
Storage Samsung SM961 256GB + HGST 1TB
Display(s) 1080p IPS G-SYNC 75Hz
Audio Device(s) Bang & Olufsen
Power Supply 230W
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD+
Software Win 10 Pro
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
2,645 (0.56/day)
why solar roads are better than nuclear power?



no solar panel or battery will ever blow up raining down nuclear waste across a whole fucking continent. EVER!

you want to talk costs and footprints?

you work how much it has cost in the past 25 years when nobody can work, farm, live in the hundreds of miles around the old reactor. now times that by how much it will continue to cost over the next 1975 years or so. not including the investment in the area lost already. i mean they wrote off a whole town. shops, factories schools the lot. not cheap.

as for the footprint, well it aint small either.

yes ok it is the freak, the one that got away. but the more there are the more chance of another incident.

now gt90 brought up a very good point earlier:hardtop is not good for the planet. it aint, really not. but what if we make the most of it being there by making it multi purpose?

what if it was the street lights too, what if it powered those lights, and the houses next to it too?

what if it was done in a way which meant roadworks were faster?

made it so many of the underground services were easier to lay and maintain because of it?

now ok the way they are today they can not do all these things but they could.


"Like the jet streams, ocean currents affect relatively small parts of the ocean."

never seen so much utter tosh in 1 sentence in my life!

the jet stream is the driving force behind all weather on the planet, much like how the ocean current drives the water cycle around its depths....

if fail was your aim you sir win the whole internets



I'm sure you don't base your conclusions off of facts. I say this because you focus on Green peace style "nuclear power is evil" rhetoric rather than facts.

The fact is that every year we produce tons of green house gasses in mining operations. We produce tons more in refining processes. Most of our electronics are produced in countries where advanced pollution control is washing the carcinogen down the drain with a second bucket of water.

You'd propose that we mine the rare earth used in solar panels, have them manufactured into usable goods, have them assembled half way around the world and shipped to the US, where the life expectancy for the technology was a handful of years. Once the LEDs burned out, the system would need to be replaced, and the component would largely have to be either completely reprocessed or destroyed in order to be dealt with. This kind of pollution and energy drain would actually pale in comparison to the power it would take just to light the streets at night, and the subsequent additional coal or natural gas (since nuclear power is soo bad) plants we'd have to build in order to support the system.

That is somehow a better idea than 99% recycled pavement and a handful of nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants that take an apocalyptic disaster to breach, not some third rate Soviet crap hole that was built by people who couldn't cut any more corners because they already had a sphere.


You are either incapable of measured response, or aren't looking at the facts. Either way, your conclusions are deeply flawed.


To address your points:
1) Solar roads could not provide enough power to add significant resources to the grid. They would expend most of their power generating lights, and any extra would disappear in conversion losses related to inverting the DC into AC and transmitting it anywhere.
2) Street lights aren't going to be powered by solar cells. If sunlight is coming down and powering the cells you don't need a streetlight. If the street light is needed then you don't have sun on the panels. If you're referring to signalling lights, then the idea might work. Of course, signal lights that only work during the day are useless half of the time...
3) Road projects aren't going to be faster with this. Between added construction time, having to adjust grading to meet the structure of the frame, and decreased life expectancy, this system adds time to maintenance and construction times.
4) They already have a way to make running cabling and infrastructure easy. They bury these big pipes, made out of concrete. They do this in roads already, so there is no net gain by switching to this new style of construction.
5) Falling back on my previous example, I could drive a gingerbread car. I don't because it's stupid and the cost of making it a viable option is too high. We could make roads out of iron, strap magnets to the bottom of cars, and introduce tubules through the iron in order to pump warm liquid through them (think stopping in a dozen feet and never needing another snow plow. The ability to do something doesn't make it a good or even reasonable activity.


Solar panel streets can't replace a solar power plant. Even then, a solar power plant gets efficiency only in certain areas. Saying that this project has the potential to replace even one nuclear reactor, even if all the roads in the US were covered by these hexagons, is breath-takingly foolish.



To your other foolish comments. Batteries are energy stored as potential difference. Batteries have a history of exploding, and their chemical composition means that the thousands of Lithium Ion batteries it would take to account for one uranium fuel rod (in storage capacity of energy, as batteries don't make their own power) will cause more environmental damage than naturally occurring uranium. If you're going to claim that solar cells are green technology, then you either ignore what it takes to make them, or believe we can store energy easily in the ether (the void, not a chemical) and get it back without losses. Neither conclusion is supported by this thing that most people call reality.

The only take-away is that solar roadways are a moronic piece of technology. We can debate about the future of our energy consumption later, "solar freakin' roadways" needs to be stopped right now.



Edit:
so is everything dude, i mean hell if you want to pick on something the cells needed to store the juice before its converted for the grid are more so.

but will they ever blow up raining nuclear fallout across the whole continent?

A nuclear reactor cannot "blow up" and rain nuclear fallout on a continent. You fundamentally don't get how a reactor works if you think this is possible.

Explosions at nuclear reactors are called melt-downs because the hot fuel rods literally liquefy their surroundings due to thermal loading.

Observed explosions are actually hydrogen-oxygen explosions. The extreme temperatures separate water molecules, and then increased pressure and temperature create an explosion. That explosion may eject some matter, but it's hardly a nuclear bomb. Ejected matter can be cleaned-up with a brush, as it is effectively just dust.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
1,962 (0.44/day)
Location
Sydney NSW, Australia
System Name Shoebox Sandwich | Razer Blade 14 | Synology DS418 w/ 4X8TB WD Red | iPhone 15 Pro
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D | AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX
Motherboard ASRock B650E PG-ITX WiFi | Razer thing
Cooling NZXT Kraken 240 RGB w/ Lian Li P28 + Corsair AF120 Slim | Double fan vapour chamber
Memory G.Skill Flare X5 2x16GB 6000MHz CL32 DDR5 | 16GB 3200MHz DDR4
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon RX 7900 XTX | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 8GB
Storage Seagate FireCuda 520 2TB + Lexar NM790 4TB | 1TB NVMe SSD + 2TB NVMe external SSD
Display(s) Alienware AW3423DW & Sony A90K 42" | 14" QHD IPS 165Hz & Sony X90J 65" 4K TV
Case FormD T1 - v2.1 - Titanium colourway w Aluminium mesh | Razer Blade 14
Audio Device(s) Schiit Hel 2E (Focal Clear & HiFiMAN HE-4XX & DROP PC38X) | Samsung Q950A
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum | Razer 230W brick
Mouse Razer Viper Ultimate Mercury | Roccat Kain 202
Keyboard DIY Geek 64 PCB (Kailh Box Deep Sea - Matcha XDA Keycaps) | Corsair K63
VR HMD Oculus Quest
Software Windows 11 Home | Windows 11 Home
Benchmark Scores 2022 MINI Countryman SE PHEV Hybrid ALL4 | British Racing Green| Malt Brown Interior| YOURS Trim
To your other foolish comments. Batteries are energy stored as potential difference. Batteries have a history of exploding, and their chemical composition means that the thousands of Lithium Ion batteries it would take to account for one uranium fuel rod (in storage capacity of energy, as batteries don't make their own power) will cause more environmental damage than naturally occurring uranium. If you're going to claim that solar cells are green technology, then you either ignore what it takes to make them, or believe we can store energy easily in the ether (the void, not a chemical) and get it back without losses. Neither conclusion is supported by this thing that most people call reality.

The only take-away is that solar roadways are a moronic piece of technology. We can debate about the future of our energy consumption later, "solar freakin' roadways" needs to be stopped right now.
That's actually one of my main concerns when it comes to hybrid/electric cars. A high speed impact with lots of Gs could deteriorate the car on impact (like a normal car) only that with an electric/hybrid car, battery acid and other nasties could leak out causing environmental damage. AND if the victim manages to survive the impact, could face having to breathe in those gases that have leaked from the battery which can cause lung damage.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
11,654 (1.73/day)
System Name Compy 386
Processor 7800X3D
Motherboard Asus
Cooling Air for now.....
Memory 64 GB DDR5 6400Mhz
Video Card(s) 7900XTX 310 Merc
Storage Samsung 990 2TB, 2 SP 2TB SSDs and over 10TB spinning
Display(s) 56" Samsung 4K HDR
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Mouse Logitech MX518
Keyboard Razer
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
Anyone bnasing their argument on nuclear being dangerous is a fool for not considering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

And this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

"As a result of its efforts and subsidies, Germany has developed advanced non-conventional renewable energy for electricity generation, particularly in photovoltaic and wind turbine installations. At the same time, Germany continues to rely heavily on coal power, with usage increasing to offset the phase-out of nuclear energy.[33]"

But wait, theres more!!!!

http://www.spiegel.de/international...tion-depends-on-nuclear-imports-a-786048.html

Hey, its not that Germany doesn't like stable power, or they want to use only a limited production product like solar, they just want it to be elsewhere and hidden under the front page so they feel better man.

Realize we are mostly talking about technology from the 1950/60's when nuclear was supported.
What if we used breeder reactors and fuel sent to the site could be reprocessed there into....new fuel. Nuclear waste would be almost eliminated, and what wasn't gets to be used for nuclear medicine, plutonium gets to be used for heat generators in satellites or reprocessed for fuel. Thorium reactors, build them and use them too. But we already have the technology for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuclear-powered_ships

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
why solar roads are better than nuclear power?

Chernobyl NPP was a very poor design (you could literally walk on top of exposed uranium rods--it had no containment to speak of) and they conducted a frankly stupid test (literally tried to see how close they can get to a meltdown). It was a one-off thing and will never happen again.

And before you mention Fukishima NPP, the stupid engineers lowered the plant by over 5 feet so they wouldn't have to install lift stations. That meant the plant was inundated with water killing electrical systems which meant no cooling for the reactors which in turn meant some of them melted down. Again, human stupidity is to blame.

Actually, I can't name one plant that had an incident where human stupidity wasn't to blame but, guess what? All of these power plants were built before the computer revolution so any country that commits to building nuclear today will have almost entirely automated systems ensuring they never meltdown. There's also designs (like the breeder reactor) that are literally incapable of melting down. Even despite these two mishaps, fewer have died from them than during the construction of dams and wind turbines. It is still among the safest forms of energy known to man.


no solar panel or battery will ever blow up raining down nuclear waste across a whole fucking continent. EVER!
You're likely being irradiated right now and it isn't because of man made disasters. There's trace amounts of radioactive decaying rock virtually everywhere on Earth. Plants and animals thrived in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl NPP. There were people that refused to evacuate too that lived there then and still are living there today with no noticeable side effects.
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
1,962 (0.44/day)
Location
Sydney NSW, Australia
System Name Shoebox Sandwich | Razer Blade 14 | Synology DS418 w/ 4X8TB WD Red | iPhone 15 Pro
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D | AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX
Motherboard ASRock B650E PG-ITX WiFi | Razer thing
Cooling NZXT Kraken 240 RGB w/ Lian Li P28 + Corsair AF120 Slim | Double fan vapour chamber
Memory G.Skill Flare X5 2x16GB 6000MHz CL32 DDR5 | 16GB 3200MHz DDR4
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon RX 7900 XTX | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 8GB
Storage Seagate FireCuda 520 2TB + Lexar NM790 4TB | 1TB NVMe SSD + 2TB NVMe external SSD
Display(s) Alienware AW3423DW & Sony A90K 42" | 14" QHD IPS 165Hz & Sony X90J 65" 4K TV
Case FormD T1 - v2.1 - Titanium colourway w Aluminium mesh | Razer Blade 14
Audio Device(s) Schiit Hel 2E (Focal Clear & HiFiMAN HE-4XX & DROP PC38X) | Samsung Q950A
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum | Razer 230W brick
Mouse Razer Viper Ultimate Mercury | Roccat Kain 202
Keyboard DIY Geek 64 PCB (Kailh Box Deep Sea - Matcha XDA Keycaps) | Corsair K63
VR HMD Oculus Quest
Software Windows 11 Home | Windows 11 Home
Benchmark Scores 2022 MINI Countryman SE PHEV Hybrid ALL4 | British Racing Green| Malt Brown Interior| YOURS Trim
You're likely being irradiated right now and it isn't because of man made disasters. There's trace amounts of radioactive decaying rock virtually everywhere on Earth. Plants and animals thrived in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl NPP. There were people that refused to evacuate too that lived there then and still are living there today with no noticeable side effects.
Yup and some that still live there are self-sufficient and grow their own crops and farm their own animals. I saw a documentary about the people that still live there and I think the only side affect that was found was that their sweet potatoes ( I think it was sweet potatoes anyway) were a tiny, tiny bit larger than normal but safe to eat. Even the presenter/host was eating their food.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
6,874 (1.02/day)
Location
USA
System Name Computer of Theseus
Processor Intel i9-12900KS: 50x Pcore multi @ 1.18Vcore (target 1.275V -100mv offset)
Motherboard EVGA Z690 Classified
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S, 2xThermalRight TY-143, 4xNoctua NF-A12x25,3xNF-A12x15, 2xAquacomputer Splitty9Active
Memory G-Skill Trident Z5 (32GB) DDR5-6000 C36 F5-6000J3636F16GX2-TZ5RK
Video Card(s) EVGA Geforce 3060 XC Black Gaming 12GB
Storage 1x Samsung 970 Pro 512GB NVMe (OS), 2x Samsung 970 Evo Plus 2TB (data 1 and 2), ASUS BW-16D1HT
Display(s) Dell S3220DGF 32" 2560x1440 165Hz Primary, Dell P2017H 19.5" 1600x900 Secondary, Ergotron LX arms.
Case Lian Li O11 Air Mini
Audio Device(s) Audiotechnica ATR2100X-USB, El Gato Wave XLR Mic Preamp, ATH M50X Headphones, Behringer 302USB Mixer
Power Supply Super Flower Leadex Platinum SE 1000W 80+ Platinum White
Mouse Zowie EC3-C
Keyboard Vortex Multix 87 Winter TKL (Gateron G Pro Yellow)
Software Win 10 LTSC 21H2
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,693 (0.44/day)
System Name panda
Processor 6700k
Motherboard sabertooth s
Cooling raystorm block<black ice stealth 240 rad<ek dcc 18w 140 xres
Memory 32gb ripjaw v
Video Card(s) 290x gamer<ntzx g10<antec 920
Storage 950 pro 250gb boot 850 evo pr0n
Display(s) QX2710LED@110hz lg 27ud68p
Case 540 Air
Audio Device(s) nope
Power Supply 750w superflower
Mouse g502
Keyboard shine 3 with grey, black and red caps
Software win 10
Benchmark Scores http://hwbot.org/user/marsey99/
rcoon the steam farms in spain took less than 5 years to start returning profits.

the spanish are now using that to hydroponically grow the fruit and veg that the rest of europe eat. whilst taking eu subs...another thread.

you have all taken my words far too literal.

most fail by melt downs, yes? (if not it happens soon after anyway)

so when that happens the rods overpower the coolants, what happens to said radiated coolants?

more often than not it escapes and ends up in the weather. it then ends up raining (the only word you didn't take literal xD) down across the rest of which ever continent it is on.

if it was not for nuclear power the uk would of had power issues for years and i agree it is the best solution in the mean time till we can develop more ways to generate power at less cost to the planet on the whole.

also, yea, human error is always an issue.

who programs the automated systems?

who maintains the machines which are automated?

everything has a human element.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
most fail by melt downs, yes? (if not it happens soon after anyway)
Most fail by being decommissioned.

so when that happens the rods overpower the coolants, what happens to said radiated coolants?
Stored in containment ponds.

more often than not it escapes and ends up in the weather. it then ends up raining (the only word you didn't take literal xD) down across the rest of which ever continent it is on.
It's illegal to expose contaminated water to the environment until the water reaches safe levels.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
2,645 (0.56/day)
I'm going to say this, hoping that somebody will listen. There was a great documentary, by the name of Pandora's Promise, that released this year. It is currently up on Netflix if you feel so inclined to watch it. They focus on the nuclear power side of things, which seems to be the tangent this discussion is taking.

The gist of this is simple, and it can be boiled down into several points.
1) All non-nuclear renewable power sources added up do not amount to enough power to run our current world.
2) Efficiency increases that will make our world run with the renewable power we currently have are unrealistic.
3) Our current stop-gap to providing the power renewable can't is coal and natural gas.
4) The total damage, both environmentally and otherwise, caused by nuclear reactor failures is less than the damage done by the fossil fuels industry.


Those are some big points, so here's the fun little quips.
1) France is the biggest user of nuclear power in Europe.
2) France has the lowest cost per unit energy in Europe.
3) The carbon footprint per units energy of France is smaller than that of Germany.
4) France exports power to the rest of Europe.


Safety is a non-trivial matter. Looking at the ideas in points:
1) Chernobyl was a crap design. There was no safety, and no concern for the workers. The USSR wanted Plutonium fast, and didn't care about the repercussions.
2) Generation 3 and older reactors are behind on design by more than two decades. Despite this they provide most of the nuclear power currently in use.
3) Generation 4 reactors can run off of the "waste" produced by generation 1-3 reactors.
4) Generation 4 reactors can experience a "melt-down" with no coolant flow and no human intervention. Despite this, they shut-off automatically and will reactivate without any problem.
5) All the nuclear waste ever produced could fit onto a football field if stacked three meters high. Coal ash and CO2 emissions for any two medium sized power plants exceed this volume of waste in well under a decade of operation.


I know that 'Muricans will hate me for saying this, but France has beaten the pants off the US. They don't have giant tracts of unused land, yet they've somehow made nuclear power a safe reality for their infrastructure. Admitting that the US is incapable of doing so is tantamount to saying we are idiots. We moronically incentivize the production of ethanol from food crops. We moronically pay farmers not to grow crops (because exportation of crops is somehow impossible). I can cite dozens of other stupid things we do, but the acceptance of nuclear power as some sort of evil is unacceptably stupid. Some day, whenever fuel cells are adequately proven, we are going to need a boat load more electricity to drive our transportation industry. A hundred new nuclear reactors, combined with renewable sources where they make sense, will allow us to be both "green" and actually have some green. Throwing endless amounts of money at projects, which are doomed to failure from before the word go, makes us poor and unlikely to embrace future changes.


Getting back to the subject at hand; when this project fails miserably, and it will fail, everyone hawking solar solutions in the future will be met with immediate skepticism. Why does a mirror array covering 1/1000th the area of a roadway have any chance of success when the solar roadway failed? Why do we want to pay for upgrading aging infrastructure, whenever the replacements drive up the cost of utilities with little discernable benefits to us? Why do we want to invest in these projects at all if they replace a cheap and effective solution with something less effective and 1000 times more expensive? Solar roadways won't just fail, they will poison the well for any subsequent projects





TL;DR: You are an idiot if you want renewable energy, and fight against nuclear power. Coal and gas power plants, currently used to supplement inconsistent outputs of renewable energy, mean renewable energy isn't capable of actually being "green." People so often overlook this, because they ignore the big picture.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
I know that 'Muricans will hate me for saying this, but France has beaten the pants off the US.
They haven't had a major nuclear incident like Three Mile Island. If TMI never happened, USA would probably be close to 60-80% nuclear today. TMI gave the environmentalists (oh the irony) the ammunition they needed to turn public opinion against nuclear energy.


More Americans support nuclear than non-nuclear:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153452/Americans-Favor-Nuclear-Power-Year-Fukushima.aspx

The problem is Congress and the Department of Energy is failing to act and power companies lost billions from protestors preventing the construction of nuclear power plants in the past. Remember, a vast number of politicians in Congress are in the pockets of the coal/natural gas industries. Those industries tell them to offer subsidies on renewables, and they do, because they know it is not a threat to their business model. The only threat to them is nuclear so they launch massive ad campaigns to make the population fear them. Unfortunately, the sheeple believe it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
5,632 (1.11/day)
System Name RemixedBeast-NX
Processor Intel Xeon E5-2690 @ 2.9Ghz (8C/16T)
Motherboard Dell Inc. 08HPGT (CPU 1)
Cooling Dell Standard
Memory 24GB ECC
Video Card(s) Gigabyte Nvidia RTX2060 6GB
Storage 2TB Samsung 860 EVO SSD//2TB WD Black HDD
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster P2350 23in @ 1920x1080 + Dell E2013H 20 in @1600x900
Case Dell Precision T3600 Chassis
Audio Device(s) Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro 80 // Fiio E7 Amp/DAC
Power Supply 630w Dell T3600 PSU
Mouse Logitech G700s/G502
Keyboard Logitech K740
Software Linux Mint 20
Benchmark Scores Network: APs: Cisco Meraki MR32, Ubiquiti Unifi AP-AC-LR and Lite Router/Sw:Meraki MX64 MS220-8P
"progressives"
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
2,645 (0.56/day)
rcoon the steam farms in spain took less than 5 years to start returning profits.

the spanish are now using that to hydroponically grow the fruit and veg that the rest of europe eat. whilst taking eu subs...another thread.

you have all taken my words far too literal.

most fail by melt downs, yes? (if not it happens soon after anyway)

so when that happens the rods overpower the coolants, what happens to said radiated coolants?

more often than not it escapes and ends up in the weather. it then ends up raining (the only word you didn't take literal xD) down across the rest of which ever continent it is on.

if it was not for nuclear power the uk would of had power issues for years and i agree it is the best solution in the mean time till we can develop more ways to generate power at less cost to the planet on the whole.

also, yea, human error is always an issue.

who programs the automated systems?

who maintains the machines which are automated?

everything has a human element.

I don't think you have the vaguest idea of how nuclear power works. You've demonstrated no understanding of the fundamental ideas, and seem to be at odds with the reality of the situation. Please allow me to alleviate your lack of understanding.


At the basest levels a nuclear and fossil fuel running plant do the exact same things. They take in cool water, produce thermal energy to vaporize the water, drive the water vapor through a turbine, and use magnets and coils within the turbine to generate electricity. The only key difference is that a nuclear powered plant utilizes nuclear decay to generate heat, while fossil fuels use combustion.


Now that we've shown that a nuclear and fossil fuel power plant are completely interchangeable on a macro scale, let's look at the nuclear power plant on the micro-scale. Again taking this simply, there are two fluid loops in a nuclear reactor. The inside loop is sealed. The sealed sections pumps water through control rods to produce high pressure steam, drives turbines with the pressure from the steam, and then condenses the steam back into liquid before restarting the process. The second loop is open, and never directly comes into contact with the closed loop. Massive pumps bring water into the system, forcing it through a heat exchanger before ejecting heated liquid back out into the environment.

Paying attention to this basic description, there are only three points where failure can occur. The open loop doesn't pull water in, the closed loop doesn't pump water around, and the heat exchanger somehow allows the closed loop to vent into the open loop. Geiger counters in the open loop would detect and failure, so the last point isn't likely to occur without anyone knowing about it. The middle point is generally not even worth considering. Vaporized water is generally the "pump," so the closed loop will run as long as the fuel is hot. Point one used to be what we were concerned about. Of course, this was something to be concerned about in the 1960s....


Now, let's look back at history. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima specifically. Chernobyl stopped taking in water, but this was largely a case of BS design and being slapped together by idiots. The USSR wanted Plutonium, so they slapped together something as cheaply as possible. Despite the obvious problems, the plant actually did produce power until the 90s. Cut-rate design and a lack of any discernable safety procedures led to failure.

Three Mile Island was more interesting. The error here was also a lack of cooling water, but the inclusion of safety protocols and good design meant the "disaster" was so small that it could have been covered up if anyone was so inclined. Instead, we've got a US "disaster" at a nuclear power plant that amounted to a few extra days in the sun for its "victims." I've seen people in Jersey get some terrible tans which probably amounted to a greater radiation exposure.

Fukushima was a joke, with no punch line. Assuming the reactor wasn't there, it would have been hell on earth. A quake, and ensuing tsunami, meant that being obliterated was likely the best outcome for that area. Look at pictures of the area surrounding the reactor, and if you can honestly say that the design and construction withstanding that doesn't attest to its durability I think you've lost touch with reality. Despite all that happened the vast majority of radioactive material didn't leave that plant. I can't say the same for anything in the surrounding area.




History is made up of both tragedy and triumph. In the very likely event that you missed it, we've had a couple of decades to perfect nuclear reactor design. The immediate inclusion of a containment dome means any explosions (again, 100% related to 2H2+O2=2H2O) wouldn't eject radioactive material. The further design modifications into generation 4 reactors prevent the closed internal loop from generating too much pressure. Assuming the pressure isn't generated, a "melt down" would only lead to an interruption on power production. Furthermore, generation 4 reactors are designed to run on the waste products of all three previous generations of reactor. Say goodbye to containment tanks, and sequestration of the material in the US southwest (Yucca mountain).

I'm sure the words out of a die-hard anti-nuclear person will be that this technology is coming, and can't be counted on right now. That's the line towed by the US Democratic party. Being honest here, the Republicans have some substantive issues with science, yet they've seen the value in nuclear power. Unfortunately, the whole debate is useless. Almost three decades ago the IFR demonstrated that a complete systems failure could be overcome with physical design of a reactor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor. Given that the program was killed in 1994, it wouldn't be hard to pull it out of moth-balls and put into place. If we wanted, we could keep the mechanical designs which prevented failure, and install a more modern control system. Heck, in the early 90's a computer with the computational speed of your average modern laptop would have been on the super computing lists. If you don't believe search out the IFR test on youtube. Half of the crap there was based upon analog circuitry. Even if the digital controls failed, mechanics prevent any failure. This means the argument that operator interference will cause a melt down is a blatant fallacy.

On the same note, claiming humans will screw things up is patently stupid. Do you drive on a car, bus, train, or plane? The safety rate for all of these modes of transportation are significantly worse than nuclear power plant operators. You trust your doctor to prescribe medicine, despite their complete knowledge of your biochemistry. You trust many people, who are less qualified, on a daily basis. Why is trusting a research physicist somehow not acceptable?





So, you've acquiesced to us needing nuclear power. You still hold the three pronged club, that most environmental nuts wield (Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukushima). You've hopefully acquiesced to nuclear waste not being the problem it is generally portrayed as, given the testimony of environmentalist who used to rail hard against nuclear power. Despite all of this, you still want a world in which solar energy somehow suffices our needs. I can't take your point of view seriously, because it is divorced from reality. The solar roadways people are similarly without an inkling of how unreasonable their proposal is. As ignorance does not beget results, I cannot help but state the obvious. Your ideas are only as valuable as the supporting evidence you have, and the evidence speaks against solar energy (in this application) as anything more than an expensive waste.
 
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,693 (0.44/day)
System Name panda
Processor 6700k
Motherboard sabertooth s
Cooling raystorm block<black ice stealth 240 rad<ek dcc 18w 140 xres
Memory 32gb ripjaw v
Video Card(s) 290x gamer<ntzx g10<antec 920
Storage 950 pro 250gb boot 850 evo pr0n
Display(s) QX2710LED@110hz lg 27ud68p
Case 540 Air
Audio Device(s) nope
Power Supply 750w superflower
Mouse g502
Keyboard shine 3 with grey, black and red caps
Software win 10
Benchmark Scores http://hwbot.org/user/marsey99/
want to know the best part on this topic?

already too late to matter.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
3,527 (0.71/day)
Location
Netherlands
System Name desktop | Odroid N2+ |
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | Amlogic S922X |
Motherboard Gigabyte B550M DS3H |Odroid N2+ |
Cooling Inter-Tech Argus SU-200, 3x Arctic P12 case fans | stock heatsink + fan |
Memory Gskill Aegis DDR4 32GB | 4 GB DDR4 |
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse RX 6600 (8GB) | Arm Mali G52 |
Storage SK Hynix SSD 240GB, Samsung 840 EVO 250 GB, Toshiba DT01ACA100 1T | Samsung 850 Evo 500GB |
Display(s) AOC G2260VWQ6 | LG 24MT57D |
Case Asus Prime 201 | Stock case (black version) |
Audio Device(s) integrated
Power Supply BeQuiet! Pure Power 11 400W | 12v barrel jack |
Mouse Logitech G500 |Steelseries Rival 300
Keyboard Qpad MK-50 (Cherry MX brown)| Blaze Keyboard
Software Windows 10, Various Linux distros | Gentoo Linux
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
5,632 (1.11/day)
System Name RemixedBeast-NX
Processor Intel Xeon E5-2690 @ 2.9Ghz (8C/16T)
Motherboard Dell Inc. 08HPGT (CPU 1)
Cooling Dell Standard
Memory 24GB ECC
Video Card(s) Gigabyte Nvidia RTX2060 6GB
Storage 2TB Samsung 860 EVO SSD//2TB WD Black HDD
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster P2350 23in @ 1920x1080 + Dell E2013H 20 in @1600x900
Case Dell Precision T3600 Chassis
Audio Device(s) Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro 80 // Fiio E7 Amp/DAC
Power Supply 630w Dell T3600 PSU
Mouse Logitech G700s/G502
Keyboard Logitech K740
Software Linux Mint 20
Benchmark Scores Network: APs: Cisco Meraki MR32, Ubiquiti Unifi AP-AC-LR and Lite Router/Sw:Meraki MX64 MS220-8P
Solar + nuclear is the answer. Solar is very viable in the right regions.. Nuclear for the rest.
 

SamuelMirelez

New Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
1 (0.00/day)
why solar roads are better than nuclear power?



no solar panel manufactured by solar panels manufacturer or battery will ever blow up raining down nuclear waste across a whole fucking continent. EVER!

you want to talk costs and footprints?

you work how much it has cost in the past 25 years when nobody can work, farm, live in the hundreds of miles around the old reactor. now times that by how much it will continue to cost over the next 1975 years or so. not including the investment in the area lost already. i mean they wrote off a whole town. shops, factories schools the lot. not cheap.


as for the footprint, well it aint small either.

yes ok it is the freak, the one that got away. but the more there are the more chance of another incident.

now gt90 brought up a very good point earlier:hardtop is not good for the planet. it aint, really not. but what if we make the most of it being there by making it multi purpose?

what if it was the street lights too, what if it powered those lights, and the houses next to it too?

what if it was done in a way which meant roadworks were faster?

made it so many of the underground services were easier to lay and maintain because of it?

now ok the way they are today they can not do all these things but they could.


"Like the jet streams, ocean currents affect relatively small parts of the ocean."

never seen so much utter tosh in 1 sentence in my life!

the jet stream is the driving force behind all weather on the planet, much like how the ocean current drives the water cycle around its depths....

if fail was your aim you sir win the whole internets
Seems pretty complicated.. I am not sure the solar roadways project will be successful or not..We still need to wait long..
 
Last edited:

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
It's ironic we could be seeing commercial, portable, fusion reactors inside of ten years if Lockheed Martain has their way which pulverizes this idea into a fine dust.


no solar panel or battery will ever blow up raining down nuclear waste across a whole fucking continent. EVER!
Don't know how I missed this but batteries do explode. Acid batteries are quite nasty when doing so. Lets not forget that overheating and exploding batteries do cause fires. I don't think anyone studied how many deaths from battery fires there are per year but I guarantee you they number greater than deaths due to nuclear radiation (because that number is barely more than 0).
 
Last edited:
Top