On 15/04/2011 16:28, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/15/2011 2:21, Invisible wrote:
>> Nuclear power works in theory. In practise, if you make even the tiniest
>> mistake, just once, everything is ruined forever.
>
> It's possible (in theory) to build a plant where such isn't the case.
> It's just that afaik nobody is doing that, because nobody has already
> done it.

I'd be rather surprised if you can build a system powered by radiation 
such that it doesn't use much radiation.

>> Harnessing the [...] sun [...]. This stuff doesn't grow on trees.
>
> Well, technically...

I said /land area/ doesn't grow on trees! :-P

>> People have tried to make cars that run on electricity rather than fossil
>> fuels. But that just means that you burn the fuel at the power plant
>> rather than in the car.
>
> The advantage is it's far more efficient to generate the power centrally
> and distribute it than it is to generate it locally.

Is it?

I mean, I'm sure a generator that runs at optimal speed 24/7 can be way 
more efficient than the clapped out old engine in your car. But doesn't 
the inherent inefficiency of distributing the power more than negate the 
advantage?

>> when they do. Yes, they're more efficient, but this really looks to me
>> like people passing a law before the technology is ready.
>
> I think the idea is more to drive up the demand in order to get people
> to invest in the research for making them better.

In that case, just ban *all* forms of lighting! That should create a 
market demand alright...

Post a reply to this message