I'm just going to assume you're either passionate about wind power or just didn't like my unique brand of humor, powered by coal.



>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Wow, QM. I didn't know you had that many monitors.
"One 1.8 MW wind turbine at a reasonable site would produce over 4,700,000 kWh of electricity each year, enough to meet the annual needs of over 1,000 households."
(the average household in the UK, with 2 parents and 2 children, uses approximately 5500 kWh of energy per year. -Strathclyde University statistic)
>> ^quantumushroom:
I like those pinwheels at the end, but together they could power the 3000 monitors I watched this sift on.

>> ^Ariane:

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!


I know what you're trying to say, but when your opening gambit is calling people nuclear industry shills, you sound like a lunatic. I mean, i think it's fair to say that only a lunatic would think there are not just one but multiple nuclear shills dedicated to promoting nuclear power on the sift.

Renewable so far isn't enough, and the cost of nuclear power mostly comes from handling the fuel and waste it seems. So with nuclear we have to spend a lot of money (and some fossil fuels) to handle the materials. On the other hand with fossil fuels, we spend less but hurt the environment more. But then we need to consider how long we can go on burying or sinking radioactive material and/or rendering huge areas of our limited planet uninhabitable, we need another solution which is almost certainly fusion.

Fusion is an engineering problem right now. Perhaps a technology/cost problem especially during a recession. Anyone with any money left to put into hopeful energy tech has it in the form of oil (because that's going nowhere and we damn well need it) and why would they promote that?

>> ^Ariane:

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!


Yes, because wind and solar are ever so profitable aren't they. If you had a solar farm in Fukushima's place producing the same amount of power you'd have heavy metals seeping into the water supply across half of Japan. That doesn't even mention the fact that half of Japan, would have been permanently covered by those solar panels just to match the output of the Fukushima plant.

How many deaths are attributable to Fukushima by the way? Zero.

If you want to talk about long term health effects, please don't forget to add up the damage from burning thousands of tonnes of coal and dumping the smoke straight out into the air 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I know which poison I'd pick every single time.

Congratulations! Your video, These collapsing cooling towers will make you sad!, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 50 Badge!

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Nebosuke:
Disagree. No vote. Fossil fuels need to be abandoned before nuclear. Nothing generates more power than a nuclear plant.

Nor does anything produce energy as cleanly as nuclear. It's shame the greens are so scared of the most promising clean energy alternative we currently have just waiting to be used.


So it's not just me...

I'd like to like environmental politics, but their approach to nuclear power is just so ignorant. Nuclear power is by far the best source we have for being clean, safe and effective. Yes, it has problems, but much fewer than any other source. It's cleaner than fossil fuel. Never mind the more obvious pollutants, nuclear plants release less radiation than coal plants.

Meanwhile, renewable sources like the wind farms that this video is pushing produce sod all. All the solar panels in Germany (one of the most solar-powered countries around) produce the same amount of power as Fukushima did, and that's only in the sort of ideal weather conditions that exist for a matter of hours a year.

As horrible as the Fukushima disaster was, this was about the worse case scenario. One of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded, striking near an old power plant and what happened? Zero deaths from radiation, with long term effects yet to be seen of course. Do we need land for agriculture? Yes, although it's debatable just how much as total food production isn't the problem. We also need electricity. We also need to cut pollution. If we invested in nuclear power, thorium in particular, we could achieve all these even before fusion is perfected. Also, we wouldn't need to have 40 year old power plants in earthquake regions if counter-productive environmentalists didn't try so hard to wreak the environment.

Care about the environment? Then support nuclear power!

>> ^sepatown:

Oh, so now this is funny? People have certainly changed their tunes from when i was putting cute faces and arms on footage of the Twin Towers coming down. Hypocrisy much?


Only towers were harmed in the making of this video though

too soon?

>> ^sepatown:

Oh, so now this is funny? People have certainly changed their tunes from when i was putting cute faces and arms on footage of the Twin Towers coming down. Hypocrisy much?

>> ^PalmliX:

Nuclear could actually be MUCH safer and cleaner if Thorium reactors were built instead of the Uranium ones that are in use today.


We have a bunch of those video, I posted a new one

http://videosift.com/video/Liquid-Fluoride-Thorium-Reactors

I am not a technical person, supposedly there are some corrosion problems, but that is just something I heard from a person studing to be a nuclear tech (he isn't an authority yet)

Wow, QM. I didn't know you had that many monitors.

"One 1.8 MW wind turbine at a reasonable site would produce over 4,700,000 kWh of electricity each year, enough to meet the annual needs of over 1,000 households."

(the average household in the UK, with 2 parents and 2 children, uses approximately 5500 kWh of energy per year. -Strathclyde University statistic)
>> ^quantumushroom:

I like those pinwheels at the end, but together they could power the 3000 monitors I watched this sift on.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

They are a go cause I have a Space Star.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^gwiz665:
I want a dyson sphere. Get some people on that, could ya?
Been working on it in my shed. The design is pretty much done, I just need a tiny bit more materials.
and a spare star

>> ^gwiz665:

I want a dyson sphere. Get some people on that, could ya?

Been working on it in my shed. The design is pretty much done, I just need a tiny bit more materials.

and a spare star

I want a dyson sphere. Get some people on that, could ya?
>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^gwiz665:
Nuclear is not perfect, but it's the best we have right now. Coal and Oil are much worse. Wind, Solar and Geothermal are better, but not nearly the same scale as Nuclear.

There are several issues with nuclear and Chernobyl/Fukushima style disasters are frankly the least of them.
Leaving aside the obviously thorny issue of waste management, the other issue arises when you amortise the cost over the total lifetime of the nuclear plant. It's just not that cheap in terms of energy or money to build, run and then decommission.
As for renewable energy, it's nowhere close to providing the energy levels we need yet. Also there are other environmental issues with some renewable energy generation methods as well. Hydro requires large dams (concrete is an eco-nightmare) and can destroy habitats. Geothermal can affect the landscape (subsidence and sapping geysers are two common effects). Lots of people complain about wind turbines as visually unappealing (personally I find the aesthetically pleasing). I'm not saying renewable technologies are bad, merely that there are still issues with them.
In real terms, fusion is where it's at.

>> ^gwiz665:

Nuclear is not perfect, but it's the best we have right now. Coal and Oil are much worse. Wind, Solar and Geothermal are better, but not nearly the same scale as Nuclear.


There are several issues with nuclear and Chernobyl/Fukushima style disasters are frankly the least of them.

Leaving aside the obviously thorny issue of waste management, the other issue arises when you amortise the cost over the total lifetime of the nuclear plant. It's just not that cheap in terms of energy or money to build, run and then decommission.

As for renewable energy, it's nowhere close to providing the energy levels we need yet. Also there are other environmental issues with some renewable energy generation methods as well. Hydro requires large dams (concrete is an eco-nightmare) and can destroy habitats. Geothermal can affect the landscape (subsidence and sapping geysers are two common effects). Lots of people complain about wind turbines as visually unappealing (personally I find the aesthetically pleasing). I'm not saying renewable technologies are bad, merely that there are still issues with them.

In real terms, fusion is where it's at.

>> ^Nebosuke:

Disagree. No vote. Fossil fuels need to be abandoned before nuclear. Nothing generates more power than a nuclear plant.


Nor does anything produce energy as cleanly as nuclear. It's shame the greens are so scared of the most promising clean energy alternative we currently have just waiting to be used.