What would it take? - Page 3 - Political Fever

Southern Man · #21 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Because of the Authoritarian nature of the military, we don't want that in the country do we?

In building a house, a car or a nuke- yes we do.

Southern Man · #22 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

It actually takes it out of perspective in order to try to make it look ridiculous.

You're advocating a project 7 times bigger than the largest in human history, many times more expensive than a reasonable alternative, AND requiring everyone to have tens of thousands of dollars of potentially dangerous batteries in their homes. And I'm ridiculous?

Oregon Elephant · #23 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southern Man

You're advocating a project 7 times bigger than the largest in human history, many times more expensive than a reasonable alternative, AND requiring everyone to have tens of thousands of dollars of potentially dangerous batteries in their homes. And I'm ridiculous?

You seem to be misuderstanding. Can you show me where I said that we should do this now? Good luck with that.

Southern Man · #24 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

....

It's a good thing 67% of Americans want nukes. Bout time. Econuttery is going down.

I think there is an indirect correlation between gas prices and nuke support.

Oregon Elephant · #25 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

So navy reactors are quick to make and safe, because the military is authoritarian?

Interesting. How does being authoritarian make the nukes build faster and be safe?

If so, sounds good to me. As I said: the real problem is the environut lobby that makes it expensive. And it's not to make it safe either. It's just to obstruct. That's what costs.

It's a good thing 67% of Americans want nukes. Bout time. Econuttery is going down.

Because the military isn't trying to build them cheaply (that way they don't go over budget), they are willing to spend all the money they need to get it done right. If we took that approach with nuclear power plants, than they would be built on budget, but the budget would be 10 times higher to begin with. After which, it would still cost the same or similar to solar.

Southern Man · #26 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

You seem to be misuderstanding. Can you show me where I said that we should do this now? Good luck with that.

Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums - View Single Post - World’s Biggest Solar Farm at Centre of Portugal’s Ambitious Energy Plan

Southern Man · #27 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Because the military isn't trying to build them cheaply (that way they don't go over budget), they are willing to spend all the money they need to get it done right. If we took that approach with nuclear power plants, than they would be built on budget, but the budget would be 10 times higher to begin with. After which, it would still cost the same or similar to solar.

Whats the average cost of a Navy nuke power plant? :azn:

Oregon Elephant · #28 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southern Man

Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums - View Single Post - World’s Biggest Solar Farm at Centre of Portugal’s Ambitious Energy Plan

Quote:

How about this, Mankind's current consumption of energy is 15 TW (thats for everything), the energy that falls on the Earth from solar is 86,000 TW, that's 5,733 times more energy than we currently use, plus there is all the solar energy that blows past the earth. Nuclear can't come close to those numbers.

Right now there are 439 nuclear power planets in the world. The US would need that many just to have all of our electricity to come from nuclear, and that is not for all our energy needs, only electricity. For all our energy needs we would need 2,900 power plants (if each averaged at 1,100 MW), and the world would need another 13,200 nuclear power plants to do that. How close are we really at putting up that many power plants?

Um, no where in this do I say that we should start building solar panels to do this now.

Oregon Elephant · #29 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southern Man

Whats the average cost of a Navy nuke power plant? :azn:

I can't find that information, maybe you can?

"A single nuclear-powered submarine can cost as much as $2.5 billion"

The breakdown costs are near impossible to find, however I did stumble across some other information.

The Virginia Class nuclear submarines were estimated to cost $1.65 billion each, but came to a final of $2.3 billion each. So they do still have a history of going over budget. But the cost of just one part is hard to find.

Southern Man · #30 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

I can't find that information, maybe you can?

"A single nuclear-powered submarine can cost as much as $2.5 billion"

The breakdown costs are near impossible to find, however I did stumble across some other information.

The Virginia Class nuclear submarines were estimated to cost $1.65 billion each, but came to a final of $2.3 billion each. So they do still have a history of going over budget. But the cost of just one part is hard to find.

The nuke in a sub is only a small part of the overall ship, so about 20% of its cost maybe? That's 500 million bucks, or about 6% of the civilian nuke.

Maybe if we standardized the design and didn't have the environmentalists and politicians mucking up the works we could get these 420 plants built by next Tuesday. :azn:

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name		Remember Me?
Password