Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

November 19, 2008 -

My wife already thinks that I waste too much time on video games. Wait until she finds out that I'm wasting energy, too.

A new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council maintains that game consoles can significantly add to consumers' electric bills. In fact, across the United States, consoles consume as much juice in a year as the combined total of residential electricity users in San Diego.

The solution? One piece of the puzzle is not to leave your system on when you're done playing. NRDC Senior Scientist Noah Horowitz commented:

If you leave your Xbox 360 or Sony Play Station 3 on all the time, you can cut your electric bill by as much as $100 a year simply by turning it off when you are finished playing. With so many struggling in today’s economy – it’s important to realize there are simple steps gamers can take to lower their energy costs. And if manufacturers make future systems more energy efficient, they’ll be doing the right thing for consumers’ pockets, for our clean energy future, and for the environment.

Among the big three, the PlayStation 3 is the energy hog of the bunch, consuming 150 watts per hour in active mode. The Xbox 360 isn't far behind, at 119. The Nintendo Wii, on the other hand, is the console of choice for the conservation-minded, drawing just 16 watts in active mode.

The NRDC claims that a combination of more efficient console hardware and educating gamers to use power-saving features currently built into the 360 and later PS3 models would save consumers a billion dollars a year and cut down on the type of pollution that leads to global warming.

Other goodies from the must-read report:

  • watching a movie on your PS3 consumers 5 times the power of using a stand-alone Blu-Ray player
  • average annual energy cost for a launch model (2006) PS3 user is $160
  • the 2007 PS3 is more efficient: annual cost is $134
  • For launch (2006) Xbox 360 users, it's $143; drops to $103 for 2007 models (GP: less RROD as well!!)
  • it costs $10 per year to operate a Wii
  • the game industry and game media should encourage console owners to use auto power-down features built into the 360 and PS3
  • the next hardware generation should be more efficient and have auto-power down
  • an auto-save feature should preserve game progress when the system auto-powers down
  • controllers should have a "sleep" button

Grab the full report here.


Comments

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

I have both play station 3 and xbox on my place but i never tought of this problem ever... Indeed they might waste a lot of energy and fill our bills but I never put it this way. Good to know this though.. to know how to hide this from my father:)) Anyways if you think a little bit you`ll see that eveything takes energy so why bother? even the washingmachine, the microwave, toaster, every kitchen article and not only them. My father`s searching for some whirlpool parts right now, something i never did for my video consoles.:D

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Thanks so much great article and page.. sinema izle dizi izle film izle

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Gosh, really?

 Turning your system off when you're not using it saves energy, you say?

 WOW.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

The only pollution caused by most electronic devices is in the manufacturing processes involved, so there's nothing we can really do on the consumer side of things if people still keep buying them. I read that the average computer requires ten times its weight in petroleum for the manufacturing process. I know that some portion of that goes into the production of plastics and wire insulation, but let's not forget the moving parts and machinery in the assembly line that need maintenance.

Truly what I'm getting down to it is, if we want to go "green" sucessfully, it's more effective starting top-down, starting with the industrial processes so it makes it easier for the consumers to swallow.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

"If you leave your Xbox 360 or Sony Play Station 3 on all the time, you can cut your electric bill by as much as $100 a year simply by turning it off when you are finished playing."

Who actually leaves it on seriously? With very limited cooling systems in it already who in their right mind would leave a "real" console (I say real because the Wii is a joke, not a console) on 24hrs a day. You'd need some serious cooling systems in place to keep those bad boys from melting. They were never designed to be left on for long amounts of time. It is recommended by Microsoft that you turn the console off every 3 hours to keep it at a somewhat regulated temperature. This was their statement to overheating console failures that caused the first instances of the dreaded RROD.

"A new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council maintains that game consoles can significantly add to consumers' electric bills."

As for this... This just adds to the whole media dramatization that "video games are bad". I would like to see actual research notes that verify these findings along with videos and explanations of the tests conducted to determine these statements. The goverment once again wants to take video games out of our lives because as you all know, there was no violence before GTA.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Actually, this isn't the government.  "NRDC is the nation's most effective environmental action group, combining the grassroots power of 1.2 million members and online activists with the courtroom clout and expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals."  

Pretty sure its not a government organization.  It's like Greenpeace, but with less terrorism and more pseudo-science.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

This report makes one very large assumption: that 50% of all console owners keep them on 24 hours a day, seven days a year.

Read the end notes.  They say flat-out that they have no basis for that figure. They just made it up.

On the other hand, their critcisms of the ways consoles manage power are pretty valid.

The Honest Game - http://www.thehonestgame.org

The Honest Game - http://www.thehonestgame.org

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

100% a year for something nearly everyone does allreddy...

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

I know a great solution to all of this.  Build more nuclear power plants.  Cheaper energy.  Cleaner energy.  Safer energy.

 

But yes, electric devices do use electricity when they're running.  Apparently the cogs these people are running on are missing all but one tooth.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 You're missing a few yourself if you think nuclear energy is cheaper, cleaner or safer than coal or gas plants.

 1. Cheaper: Natural gas is the cheapest fuel for electrical production.

 2. Cleaner: Nuclear facilities produce a wonderful substance called radioactive waste; its got a shelf life of 10,000 to 1,000,000 years. Cleaner my eye.

 3. Safer: Chernobyl says hello.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Ok, I'll just start from here rather than replying after each one of your misinformed posts.

Nuclear Energy

Cheaper: 

Natural gas may be cheap.  The problem with natural gas is it doesn't have a high power output.  You can get kilowatts of power, Megawatts if you're lucky and you have a big, snazzy plant.  This low power output is the reason why it's used in vehicles as a gas substitute, as it produces similar amounts of energy.  So, lets say you have a few of these Megawatt natural gas burning plants.  California's power consumption alone is over 250,000 GW-h per year.  The newest line of Natural gas powered turbine plants get a peak power of 590 MW.  The specs I was looking at didn't give any W-h values.  Even still, this is a sever lack of power generated here.  Compare this to coal and nuclear, which give off power that's orders of magnitudes higher, and you'll realize that to run just the state on california on only natural gas, you'd have to build hundreds of top of the line facilities.  How is this exactly cheaper? 

To throw some actual data in your face, France is fully powered on nuclear energy.  They have the lowest electric bills and the cleanest air out of any industrialized country.

Cleaner: 

10,000 to 1,000,000 years?  Hyperbole much?  With current operating nuclear power plants, spent rods require 10,000 years to become fully safe to the public.  This is to say, after 10,000 years, it will lose all of its radiation.  However, what everyone fails to mention is that radiation falls off exponentially.  Try this:  get a graphing calculator or program and plot "1/x" and see where it starts looking like zero.  The answer is pretty damn soon.  The same is true for nuclear waste (though to be honest, it's not exactly of the function of "1/x").  After 40 years, nuclear waste has lost 99.9% of its highest radiation levels, which are found right after they're taken out of the reactor.  By this point, it's safe to work around for moderate amounts of time with no protection.  They can then bring this waste to Yucca Mountain, a site with no underground water to really speak of that's out in the middle of fucking nowhere, where it can sit around for 100 years to the point where you can sleep with the stuff and be ok.  Modern reactors, the ones that you so strenuously are against, would use up more of this radiation, thus making this decay time decrease severely.  What would take current US reactor waste 10,000 years to die out, would take 300 from modernized plans.  Add this to the fact that Yucca Mtn can hold all of the US's nuclear waste for hundreds, if not thousands of years to come, and you have a singular place with minimal amounts of radiation rather than the smog cloud that's always above me here in LA.

Now, for comparison, lets compare this to Coal power emissions.  These emissions include tons of carbon and nitrous waste into the air every year.  Because it's not a "nuclear" power plant, there is no steps to prevent radiation contamination to the neighboring environments.  However, coal contains within it trace amounts of radioactive materials.  These do not burn in the combustion cycle and are collected into the ash.  This ash is then spread about to the neighboring areas.  This article explains it in more detail than I wish to do so here:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nu...

But the base readout is...Coal ash is 100 times more radioactive then spent fuel rods.  With no measures really put in place to stop this (and any measure that is put in place won't do well to get rid of the radioactive materials as they're non combustable at the temperatures experienced in a coal plant), it makes it so that the background radiation 10 miles away from a coal plant is higher than the background radiation right up against the outer wall of the reactor. 

To say that it is cleaner, you have to compare it to other forms of energy.  I already did that with coal.  Natural gas you burn carbon with oxygen, thus creating CO, CO2, and H2O, so even that's not clean.  So called renewable sources of energy also have their faults.  Mining for minerals found in Solar Cells and batteries kill the earth around the mines forever from nickel contamination (lunar landing and based equipment was tested near nickel mines, as the landscape resembled what they felt was on the moon, and they later realized that it was damn near identical).

So yes, nuclear power is cleaner.

 

Safer:

There have only been 2 nuclear reactor incidences ever.  These are Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.  You claim that location and technology had nothing to do with it, and that it was entirely human error.  You are wholly wrong in this claim.

Let's take a look at Chernobyl.  It was a poorly run facility.  On the day of the incident, tests were run against the urges of the on site engineers as well as done without getting the green light from the proper authorites.  These tests ran the reactor on maximum, with all failsafes forcibly removed or blocked.  The reactor became too hot, and the rods melted, thus increasing the rate of reaction between them.  They grew too hot, and the containment area was breeched.  A meltdown happened.  While this was the fault of the man in charge who gave all the orders, this doesn't mean it was entirely human error.

The location was in the totalitarian USSR, which was corrupt and lax on safety protocols.  Results were important, and how they got them wasn't.  This shows in both the technology of the reactor, as well as the ability for someone to remove the safety protocols.  To do any kind of testing in NATO style reactors (we all have the same principle design on reactors) at least in the US you need proper clearance, which requires much theoretical calculations to proove that it's ok to do.  So, someone running in and demanding that a test be run will get shot down by beureaucracy, and the test wouldn't happen.

Next is the reactor type.  The reactor was a standard USSR reactor.  Again, they care about end results, not necessarily safety.  Their reactors, when they get to the "oh shit" point, lock up, thus leaving the reaction be.  NATO style reactors, however, have always valued safety as well as results.  With NATO style reactors, when the "oh shit" point is reached, the reaction is automatically killed off.  Not to mention, all of our safety systems can't be disengaged, and even if they were, the way the reactor is made makes sure that the reaction is killed when "shit gets bad."  This is why Three Mile Island was not Chernobyl.  A small radiation leak happened, yes, but because of the inherent safety protocols existent in its design the radiation contamination was no where near life threatening.  No one has ever died from Three Mile Island, or any other NATO based reactor.  Technological advances have put in better safety protocols, higher energy output, and waste with shorter lifespans.

Let's look at coal again now.  We've seen how it has a higher radiation output, now let's add this to the fact that coal power  kills thousands of people each year (most happen in 3rd world or developing countries, but America alone had 68 people killed in 2004), on top of polluting the air.  Now, the total deaths cause directly by radiation from a failed reactor is 56, as far as we can tell.  This number may be as high as 4000.  This happened from Chernobyl, which I'll get into later, but because of the Russian government coverup of the disaster (well...what little they could cover up) the full number of fatalities can't be known for sure.  So, in 2004 alone, the number of people who died because of coal (over 6000) exceeded our highest guesses for total number of people who died from a nuclear reactor, ever.

So yes, the argument that "it's powered over there" counts for a whole hell of a lot in this case.  It is impossible for an incident like Chernobyl to happen in any NATO nation, or nations that use the same reactor types.  With modern advances, even Russian reactors can be made safe (hell, they're only unsafe when something like Chernobyl happens, and i'm fairly certain they learnt their lesson there).

 

Now, to go a bit on the offensive.  It's people like you that get all panicy when nuclear energy is mentioned that has prevented its usage in the US and other 1st world countries.  You make false accusations and grandiose statements that have no logical or scientific backing, and because you predict massive death you're listened to.  Every engineer who has looked into nuclear power can tell you that it's the best option at this time, yet despite their education and training they're ignored for the fear monger who knows how to yell "CHERNOBYL!"  The reason why coal is the main source of energy in most nations is not the fact that it's cheaper or more efficient.  Hell, it's far from the case.  Those titles go to nuclear energy, and you'd know this if you'd've done some real searching.  The reason coal is used, and miners die yearly, is because people listen to people like you, and the world is worse off because of it. 

Now, this isn't to say I am vehement against anyone against nuclear energy.  Those that have actually put in the time and the research and have come to the conclusion that it's just not the right thing at this time have my respect.  You're obviously not one of them, seeing how you haven't even read up on Three Mile Island.  In fact, you go even further to show your ignorance at the claim that its even comparable to Chernobyl, and how Chernobyl had nothing to do with the country it was in, or the technology that runs it.

You have shown the ineptitude that comes from the grand majority of people who are against the use of nuclear energy.  Numbers show that it is cheaper.  Facts show that it is safer.  Logic shows that it is cleaner. 

I'm not saying that nuclear power is the best form of energy of all time, I'm simply saying that it's the best we have now.  It has the highest energy output, so you don't have to build as many as say coal or natural gas.  Because it has the highest energy output, and there are fewer locations to tend to, a surplus of energy and money appears, and the savings get passed on to us, the customers.  And since the rods decay anyways, whether they're actively creating energy or not, you don't waste extra by using more energy at your own home.  The only by-products are the spent rods, and clean water vapor (used to power steam turbines.  It's sad to say, but nuclear energy is simply a beefed up version of steam technology).

The only way you'll be able to refute these points I've put forward is by pointing out spelling errors, notation errors, or by poking at a spot I felt didn't need to be expanded upon.  Your arguments are based on irrational fears which are easily prooven to be false.  If you continue to try and argue against the points I have put down here, I will beat you down with science and logic.

To conclude... Nuclear Energy rocks.  I would have it's babies if I could, but then that'd be fusion.  It's fission, so chances are high we'd simply break up.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

"I'm not saying that nuclear power is the best form of energy of all time, I'm simply saying that it's the best we have now.  It has the highest energy output, so you don't have to build as many as say coal or natural gas.  Because it has the highest energy output, and there are fewer locations to tend to, a surplus of energy and money appears, and the savings get passed on to us, the customers.  And since the rods decay anyways, whether they're actively creating energy or not, you don't waste extra by using more energy at your own home.  The only by-products are the spent rods, and clean water vapor (used to power steam turbines.  It's sad to say, but nuclear energy is simply a beefed up version of steam technology)."

 I'm getting tired of repeating myself, see above for appropriate counter arguements and corrections to your "facts".

"The only way you'll be able to refute these points I've put forward is by pointing out spelling errors, notation errors, or by poking at a spot I felt didn't need to be expanded upon.  Your arguments are based on irrational fears which are easily prooven to be false.  If you continue to try and argue against the points I have put down here, I will beat you down with science and logic."

 I really need to paste this response in Wiki under hubris, its a classic example of when opinion overrides evidence, and people see what they want to see.

"To conclude... Nuclear Energy rocks.  I would have it's babies if I could, but then that'd be fusion.  It's fission, so chances are high we'd simply break up."

 Please atleast try and hide your bias...

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

@Devorius

I really need to paste this response in Wiki under hubris

You see, unwitty responses such as this really only serve to ausage your already offended ego, instead of serving any real and, dare I say, progressive purpose. I could spend all day poking fun at your posts, but it would make no difference in the whole of the debate. Actually, this is exactly what I'm doing, except for the simple fact that I'm not trying to change the debate, so much as force you to re-read and defend your ridiculous positions through being offensive. The way to get the Hypocrisy Fairy to go away, is to actually start using reason and evidence, instead of trite and poorly worded insults.

a classic example of when opinion overrides evidence, and people see what they want to see.

It's incredibly easy for someone to accuse another person of being emotionally incapable of intellectually recognizing your view. What's not easy, is to actually realize that you are the one doing it. What you have presented, Derovius, is not a method by which you can impartially determine the truth or non-truth of a statement, but that your opinion, because it is your opinion, is completely infallable. Why? Because you can read Wikipedia. Oh yes, and you can (incorrectly) perform multiplication. These are not bases for truth or reason. Rather, they are, once again, an example of the fundamentally flawed human traits that you point out. The irony here, is that you're aware of the phenomenon, but not that you're a living, breathing, and (unfortunately) talking demonstration thereof.

Please atleast try and hide your bias...

Now, this statement I don't entirely get. Why should he hide his bias from you? Apparently you in all of your infallable wisdom have intuited that he is a mere mortal in his thinking. That you and your Science transcend these problems of "bias" and "emotional influence". Rather, wouldn't it be in the best interest of debate he not hide his bias so that others can see the immortal qualities of your wise words? No, really, this is once again your arrogance surfacing and accusing everybody else of being arrogant. Why don't you actually use real science? Why don't you use logic? You have exhibited a startling lack of these things, so far, and as such, the quality of the debate has suffered.

Oh yes, and before you start getting all excited and bent out of shape about how I myself am being hypcritical, I'm very aware that the arguments at which I'm making suffer from the same human traits of arrogance, ignorance, and willful disbelief. However, the difference between you and I is that I am aware of these things, and the point isn't that you are doing and I am not, but instead simply that you are doing them and not aware. In fact, because I am aware that I am doing them gives me more authority to accuse you of doing them, then you have of accusing me of the same thing, simply due to the assumption on your part that you are in some way "above" these qualities.

"Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Ah a fresh face, good good. Lets hope you do better than the last two.

 "You see, unwitty responses such as this really only serve to ausage your already offended ego, instead of serving any real and, dare I say, progressive purpose. I could spend all day poking fun at your posts, but it would make no difference in the whole of the debate. Actually, this is exactly what I'm doing, except for the simple fact that I'm not trying to change the debate, so much as force you to re-read and defend your ridiculous positions through being offensive. The way to get the Hypocrisy Fairy to go away, is to actually start using reason and evidence, instead of trite and poorly worded insults.

 I was unaware my ego had feelings, and after a brief consultation, he asks me to convey to you that he is not interested. All mockery aside, this was not going anywhere anyways, there is very little in terms of overall topics that anyone on this site can enlighten me to when it comes the Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics. I know my "shit" inside and out, upside down, etc. What may happen here is someone correcting an oversight, such as fission/fusion swap or maybe specs that I should not really be expected to know.

 At best this topic keeps me amused at work while I do my cost engineering, with all limiting reference materials therein. I suppose I could dust off the old Cengal et al. and White et al. and throw down some referenced numbers, but the outcome is still going to be the same. I'm debating intellectually, if not professionally, lesser persons. The fact that I have to explain unit analysis three times in a day to one person is evidence enough of this.

 Reasonable enough for you?

"It's incredibly easy for someone to accuse another person of being emotionally incapable of intellectually recognizing your view. What's not easy, is to actually realize that you are the one doing it. What you have presented, Derovius, is not a method by which you can impartially determine the truth or non-truth of a statement, but that your opinion, because it is your opinion, is completely infallable."

 Absolutely, my opinion is well aligned with the priciples involved in this specific topic. I am not an anti-nuclear demonstrator nor an employee of a conventionally fueled power generation facility. I am a Mechanical Engineer who has the understand of the underlying principles on which large scale Engineering projects are built. Scholastically, I have one A- in 4 courses, the remainder being A or A+. Short of being a graduate student in said field, you'd be hard pressed to bring up a topic I have difficulty understanding.

 "Why?"

 I leave lots of holes in my reasoning, but no one cares to exploit them; instead, they get emo on me and whine that I'm aggressive in the representation of my position. If you cannot argue your point properly and stand your ground in the face of my scrutiny, you have no place debating an Engineer.

 "Because you can read Wikipedia. Oh yes, and you can (incorrectly) perform multiplication. These are not bases for truth or reason. Rather, they are, once again, an example of the fundamentally flawed human traits that you point out. The irony here, is that you're aware of the phenomenon, but not that you're a living, breathing, and (unfortunately) talking demonstration thereof."

 Wikipedia tends to be my quickest, and really only, resource at hand when at work. I don't intend on lugging 30 lbs of books just to quote numbers you cannot check when I can cite a source thats equally accessible to you as it is for me. I've no recollection of multiplying incorrect, so you'll have to be more specific; unless of course you're talking about the California power consumption thing. I'm tired of applying basic fluid mechanics and having to explain it in baby steps, should that be the case.

 You confuse the hubris of the above individual (whats his nugget, Thomas?) with a well cemented position. I know I can be proven wrong, I have even tripped on said errors while contemplating my responses while doing other things. Should someone call me on said errors, I will happily oblige them with there admission. The problem is that no one seems to find them or atleast says nothing to that effect.

 "Now, this statement I don't entirely get. Why should he hide his bias from you? Apparently you in all of your infallable wisdom have intuited that he is a mere mortal in his thinking. That you and your Science transcend these problems of "bias" and "emotional influence". Rather, wouldn't it be in the best interest of debate he not hide his bias so that others can see the immortal qualities of your wise words? No, really, this is once again your arrogance surfacing and accusing everybody else of being arrogant. Why don't you actually use real science? Why don't you use logic? You have exhibited a startling lack of these things, so far, and as such, the quality of the debate has suffered."

 For someone flying the philosphical white flag of ultimate truth, you should be as upset with their bias as me. Moreover, when attempting to make a point in a discussion you should have the tact to keep the juvenile humour to a minimum. To end a arguement about nuclear technology with "Yay nukes" really destroys any credibility someone may have previously given you.

 Your claims that I use neither science nor logic seem rather forced, even given my limited resources at work I have done more Engineering in this topic than pretty much everyone combined. And it was a whole 3 or 4 lines at that. Pfft I say.

 "Oh yes, and before you start getting all excited and bent out of shape about how I myself am being hypcritical, I'm very aware that the arguments at which I'm making suffer from the same human traits of arrogance, ignorance, and willful disbelief. However, the difference between you and I is that I am aware of these things, and the point isn't that you are doing and I am not, but instead simply that you are doing them and not aware. In fact, because I am aware that I am doing them gives me more authority to accuse you of doing them, then you have of accusing me of the same thing, simply due to the assumption on your part that you are in some way "above" these qualities."

 To claim you know who or what I am based on subjective text responses, which are as much the slave of your emotions as mine, is foolish. You make blind assumptions based on the information I provide you about myself and the only cliche you've yet to pull on me is to accuse me of homosexuality. I am however amused with the fact that I was able to pull hateful, racist remarks out of him with a minimum of effort. Its much easier to discredit your opponent than disprove him, wouldn't you agree? (hint hint)

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Better than the last two?  Big words for a man who can't back up his statements with anything other than wikipedia or a heavily biased "anti-nuclear energy" site.

"I'm debating intellectually, if not professionally, lesser persons."

And I call bull shit on this one.  Prove a point of mine wrong, and then maybe you can talk this kind of shit.  Last time you tried to do that, though, you unwittingly proved the fact that nuclear energy is cheaper.  Plus, ever since I made my last post against the sum of your arguments, you've been beating around the bush instead of actually confronting the issue at hand. 

"...at work I have done more Engineering in this topic than pretty much everyone combined. And it was a whole 3 or 4 lines at that."

Doubt it.  So far, you have failed to get the concept of half life and what it means as far as radioactivity levels are concerened.   Apparently those 3 or 4 lines didn't really teach you that stuff.

So, I'm waiting.  Give me something that actually disproves anything that I said in my main argument.  And if you want to talk fluids (which really have no bearing on this subject unless you really want to talk about the rate of heat transfer from the overly large Two-Stream heat exchanger, found in most every nuclear reactor design, and how this superheats the inlet water source so that it can then be used to power turbines) then me and David C. Wilcox will be waiting.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

"Better than the last two?  Big words for a man who can't back up his statements with anything other than wikipedia or a heavily biased "anti-nuclear energy" site."

 Heh, I'm suppose to find statistics damning nuclear energy on pro-nuclear energy sites? This must be why I'm still here, to read ever more amusing statements from people desperate to be right.

"And I call bull shit on this one.  Prove a point of mine wrong, and then maybe you can talk this kind of shit.  Last time you tried to do that, though, you unwittingly proved the fact that nuclear energy is cheaper.  Plus, ever since I made my last post against the sum of your arguments, you've been beating around the bush instead of actually confronting the issue at hand."

 No, I proved that raw uranium is cheaper per GJ, I also stated that you just don't just shove it into the reactor like you do coal into a furnace. There are enrichment costs, refinement costs, expendible materials used in reaction such as coolants that one needs to account for. What I presented were my findings and I placed them in context, something that you really seem to have no concept of. There are many factors involved in the cost of a project, fuels are but the crust of a larger pie.

 "Doubt it.  So far, you have failed to get the concept of half life and what it means as far as radioactivity levels are concerened.   Apparently those 3 or 4 lines didn't really teach you that stuff."

 I made a point to ignore your half-life arguement, seeing as correcting you would have done nothing to fix your misconception. But apparently we're come full circle once more. Please go over how you can ever try and argue that the waste will be safe in 40 years when you have yet to mention what its half-life is. I've already give you the lifespan of the waste (334 generations, remember. I bet you do, its a scary number), so disprove me please.

"So, I'm waiting.  Give me something that actually disproves anything that I said in my main argument.  And if you want to talk fluids (which really have no bearing on this subject unless you really want to talk about the rate of heat transfer from the overly large Two-Stream heat exchanger, found in most every nuclear reactor design, and how this superheats the inlet water source so that it can then be used to power turbines) then me and David C. Wilcox will be waiting."

 I'm tired of repeating myself, you can find many a rebuttal to amuse yourself in the 4 - 5 post composition I gave you this after. Your position seems to be the same, as are the problems I've pointed out, there is not much more I can do but wait for you to cite sources so I can counter argue, otherwise its just your word.

 Lol, I believe this is the equivalent of the name drop in Engineering. Nothing you just said makes sense outside of context, what do you want me do with this poorly described heat exchanger? You've given me no details on composition at the other inlets/outlets, the actual configuration of the transfer interface (we talking crossflow or what?) or if its water-water, water-R-34, heavy water-something else.

 Details damn it.

 

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Just stop. It's embarrassing watching you claim victory over and over again when this Thomas fellow is repeatedly (and politely, unlike you) proving you wrong. You can agree to disagree on whether you think it's a good idea or not, but for Pete's sake, save some face and just accept the facts that a) you're not infallible, you're a student and b) being wrong is not the end of the world.

And drop the condescending attitude.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

There are plenty of neutral sites on many topics, including engineering.  Use google, you'll find them.

Since when was U235 raw uranium?  Last I checked, it made up of less than a percent of natural uranium, the rest being U238.  The simple fact that it is U235 shows that it already has been refined*.  If not, then show the source of your numbers, and then we can argue further. 

*if you really want a source, I'll use your favorite site.  "only around .72% of natural Uranium is U235" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235  Before you call hypocracy, wikipedia is very damn factual about elements.

As for cost, this summarizes it all pretty well.  http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/economics.pdf  The conclusion?  Nuclear energy is the best idea in the majority of countries, so long as there isn't an overubundance of fossil fuels to burn near the proposed location of the plant.  Also, they take into account the possibility of carbon credits, which would make Nuclear the clear choice seeing how it has no carbon emissions.

You wanted proof on pricing, and there it is.  I was going to do the same for safety and emissions, but then I realized, why bother?  I've already proven you wrong on both those fronts by comparing casualties as well as emissions between nuclear and other fuels. 

I had a list of Isotopes I was working out, but really they don't have too much of a place here.  We have a place to store nuclear waste, and they seem to work there just fine without dying, so my point of when the stuff becomes safe to be around it relatively moot.  Half-life causes decay, and after time goes on the radioactive materials halve themselves over and over again, decreasing total radiation output.  It's not really a point that needs all to much arguing over, simply because of the proven existence of half-life.  There will be less of it over time, and thus radiation levels will drop.  Acknoledgement of this process alone proves my point, which is as time goes on, it becomes safer to be around to the point where after the 100 year mark or so, the level or radiation really isn't significant.

Oh, and I don't really want to work out a heat exchanger problem, especially not one as large as would be found in a nuclear power plant.  I do enough stuff along those lines during the day to even want to think about doing it during "me" time.  I was mostly just looking for a way to snazzily pull out my Wilcox book.  I've had it for many years, yet it still intimidates me with the way it presents itself.  If we ever get to talking about space, my first post will be a reason to pull out my SMAD book.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Eh, I figured that I'd just outline my points, seeing how you have yet to prove their fallacy as of yet.

Cheaper - your cost analysis showed this one.  On top of the fact that nuclear energy is pound for pound far more energy productive, as well as empirical evidence that France has lower electricity bills being fully nuclear, this one is still fairly strong, and you have yet to dent it.  In fact, you strengthened it.

Cleaner - As well as producing far more energy pound for pound than anything else, it also creates the least amount of waste.  The waste is a solid, and can be stored in safe locations far away from anywhere people live or even want to live.  Yucca Mountain can hold all of our waste in the US from now till we find something better.  Compare this to radioactive coal dust, CO2 and CO emissions, NO and NOx emissions, and we see that it is indeed cleaner.

Safer - Chernobyl only happened because of where it was.  Even taking that into account, nuclear energy (not in weaponized form) has killed far fewer people since its inception than other fuels like coal, or oil.  It doesn't kill the earth like nickel mining, and after a few half life cycles is safe enough to be around for short periods of time or longer depending on how many half life cycles it has gone through.

So, it's cheaper, more energy dense, has a better safety track record, and produces only radioactive materials which we know how to dispose of. Is it the best?  Is it the final form of energy?  Hell no.  But right now all the facts say that it is the best god damned source of energy we have, and your fear and the fears of people like you, irrational though it may be, prevent us from using it.  

Still waiting for you to prove any of these wrong.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

I think that safety is also emperically proven by France, considering that they haven't nuked themselves yet. I'm waiting to see how Devorius refutes that point.

"Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 I already have, correlation does not causation make. See above.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

No, you simply call causation correlation and play "make believe."  Every nuclear reactor except for 1 has never caused any problems (with the exception of 3 Mile Island, but that was a minor problem at best that was blown out of proportion).  Yet because the 1 failed under extreme circumstances, it somehow proves a point.  In data acquisition, we'd call Chernobyl an outlier.  It doesn't fit the data at all, in concept or in the practice of nuclear energy.  If you really need an explanation on why, just think of all the safety protocols that had to be forcibly bipassed.  So is it correlation that we get to the conclusion that nuclear energy is safe, or do we instead look at all the facts and see that they actually are safe?  Hmm...tough choice there...

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Normally, when someone questions the validity of an arguement as correlation instead of causation, the response is to compile yearly statistical datum showing air quality before and after nuclear implementation. Instead, you still attempt to disprove one of the world greatest disasters against the environment. It happened, understand why and that STATISTICALLY it will happen again; there is nothing anyone can do to, except live as far away from this things as possible.

 Do you see now why this is going no where?

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Ok, so I'm just going to work my way down your long list of arguments.

-Again, the definition used to quantify "safe" when it comes to the radioactive lifetime is the time it takes before the spent fuel rods emit radiation levels which are either equal to or less than ambient levels.  Between the lifetime of 40 years and 10000 years, the rods are perfectly safe to work around for certain periods of time.  The time that is deemed safe is reliant on how far along the rods have been in decay.  So, 40 years means you should probably only be around it for a few hours at a time, where as 10,000 years means that you can live with it your whole life and not see any radiation from it.  I've explained this before already.  I don't want to have to do it again.

-Your lack of knowledge on radiation is your downfall here.  There was no error in my argument on half-life and radiation exposure.  Were you to be correct, and that these spent rods were horrible for humans to be around at any point before the 10,000 year mark, then everyone who works at or near a nuclear dump site would have died of some rare form of cancer.  So far this hasn't happened, and real life proof stares at your face.

-"Yeah, because its nonsensical for things to double each year, but 2*(n years) makes perfect sense."  Actually, it does.  The mathematical definition of doubling is 2^n.  This means that after each iteration of n, the total value doubles from its n-1 value.  However, 2*n only doubles the first iterations (n=1,2), and everything after that is simply counting up by 2 (when n=4, y=2*n=8, where as y=10 when n=5).  And it it nonsensical for the amount to double each year.  For the amount of waste to double each year, our energy needs would need to follow suit.  Since our energy needs don't double each year (by the looks of it, the requirements go up by some function of y^x, where x is slightly over 1, but this is just from eyeballing it), our waste output doesn't double.  So, assuming that waste is instead produced at a constant rate, or the case of 2*n, is actually much more logical.

-Sources did give me the makeup of mixtures, but the makeup was a percentage range.  For example, the percentage range of methan in natural gas was rated from 70-90%.  With a range like that, assumptions did in fact have to be made.

-The prices you posted actually proves my argument for the fact that it's cheaper.  You're probably jumping up and down by the fact that I made that statement, seeing as you feel like I'm falling into a trap that you (intentionally or not) had set up and that I'm going against the bit about refinement afterwards because I'm so focused on proving you wrong that I didn't even read your whole post.  Well, that all is not the case at all.  You gave the price per GJ from U235.  You then went and said that it needed added costs for refinement.  That's not true.  U238 would need to be refined to U235.  So, the price you gave already includes the price of refinement, as U238 accounts for more than 99% of naturally occurring isotopes of Uranium.  So, you used that price to try and prove your point, when you just proved mine instead.  Thanks.

-You're right.  I have no background in cost estimation.  I leave that to other Engineers most of the time.  However, this didn't stop me from showing that Nuclear energy is still cheaper through the introduction of France's electric bills, which you unjustifiably wrote off.

-The site that you linked is horrible.  It took me less than 2 minutes for me to find the statement, "Nuclear Energy Information Service is a non-profit organization committed to ending nuclear power."  The site is a biased source of information, and thus anything quoted from that site is immediately suspect.  It's like pulling news about Obama from Fox News and saying that it's 100% true.  If you can find similar arguments from an unbiased source, then maybe I'll give it more thought.

-that 334 generations thing I've proven to be a grand overstatement already.  It doesn't need to be done again, or do you really want me to have to go over half lifes and radiation levels due to those again?  Seriously, if you do, then I'll have to start copy-pasting my own arguments till you actually read what I'm saying.

-The surface area of land on the Earth is 148,300,000 km^2.  So, 1000 km^2 is 6.74*10^-4% (that's .000674%) of the earths total land surface.  So, despite it already being a negligible fraction of a percent, I'll also add that nuclear disposal sites are typically located (at least in the US) in places that already are near uninhabitable.  Trust me, Yucca Mountain was not exactly prime real estate.  It's in the middle of one of the driest deserts in the states, under a mountain, hours away from civilization (or about 2 hours away from Las Vegas, but calling that civilization is open for debate).  Plus, the stuff isn't all that radioactive, as I have already tried to explain many times.  So it's not like these areas are some horrible blights on the land where people get mutated and die.  In fact, the radiation levels on the surface of Yucca Mountain haven't changed at all, despite nuclear waste being stored below.

-Again, while I have stated, though it was in passing near the end of my arguments, that Chernobyl was due to human error, I also heavily commented that it was solely due to the location and the technology.  The reason why I spent so much time on the technology aspect was simply because if the technology was different, if it was a NATO style reactor, then nothing horrible would have happened.  The reaction would have died, and no one would have been killed.  So yes, human error cause it, but had that human error happened in the US or in, say, France, nothing would have happened (nothing in this case being a meltdown).

-It is not foolish to suggest that the USSR was lax in its safety precautions when facts of history show that to be the case.  The reactor had safeties which could be disengaged.  Working conditions were poor throughout the country.  They would launch their rockets over civilized areas, which at times resulted in deaths.  It's not biggotry or hubris when I say that the USSR was not keen on safety.  They were keen on goals and the costs along the way, while safety took a backseat to the glory of the motherland.

-It's good you're commenting on the safety parameters of the Chernobyl reactor type.  The problem with this problem was that the safeties were disengaged.  On top of this, mechanical arm (the thing which raises/lowers rods into the reaction chamber) failure in the reactor would cause the rods to remain in the reaction chamber, where as the same kind of failure in NATO plants would cause the rods to be removed, thus ensuring the end of the reaction.  This isn't biggotry.  This is the facts of the systems.

-"I'm confused... are you arguing for or against safety here? 4000 people in 1986 is ~181 people per year from then until now. You however cite 68 people via coal-related deaths... Coal is still safer..."  You didn't read my post.  I said that 68 in the US alone.  Worldwide that same year the total deaths were over 6000 people.  I also mentioned that the 4000 was the "max possible" approximation.  Seeing how the Russian government prevented doctors from assigning radiation poisoning as a cause of death, it's impossible to know just how many people were killed in the Chernobyl accident.

-Again, I'm not showing hubris.  Our reactors are safer, and something like Chernobyl is impossible in the US.  But then again, our current generation of nuclear power plants is getting older and older, and people like you prevent newer, safer, more efficient ones from being built.

-I didn't lower myself when I went at you.  You are as culpable as your statements, and your statements are very suspect.  Plus, I was in part baiting for your response, as this here is one of my definitions of "fun."

-I never said nuclear energy was the future.  I also proved that it's not dirty, it's quite efficient, it has an extremely high power density, and it's among the safest forms of energy we have (for both people and the environment), and those statements have held up dispite your counter arguments.  My logic is neither lacking nor have my arguments been dismissed or proven wrong.  I'm using science as my modus operandi, where as the best numbers that you have put forth have been from a site which makes no attempts to hide its bias against nuclear energy.  You have yet to correct me on anything, and like I predicted earlier almost all of your attacks are against points in my argument where I could have gone into more detail but didn't.  The ones that don't go after the weaker chains go at some of the stronger ones, and you argue against scientific fact with pure conjecture.

" I'm getting tired of repeating myself, see above for appropriate counter arguements and corrections to your "facts"."

If you've gotten this far, good job.  I have read all of your arguments, and have told you how your are wrong in your assessments.  My "hubris" has done nothing but shown itself correct as your arguments played out almost as I had thought they would.  It has also given me the added benifit of insuring your respond.   To conclude, your arguments are lacking, your corrections are incorrect, and at one point you even went so far as to strenghten my claims.

So again, I will end with, "To conclude... Nuclear Energy rocks.  I would have it's babies if I could, but then that'd be fusion.  It's fission, so chances are high we'd simply break up."  This isn't bias.  If you can't see the joke here, then you don't belong in this argument.  Please don't make me have to explain this one too.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 I'm on my laptop, and the battery is almost out.  Expect to see something here in an hour or two, rebutting everything you have stated so far.  I go at you with logic, and you rebut with conjecture and think that proves me wrong.  Once this lab is concluded and I can get back to a computer without a battery to care about, then I'll lay out my arguments.

 

*edit - back.  Did you miss me?  Ok, I'll read through all of your arguments and refute them in a single post.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 So you lack the factual substance to attack me point by point?

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Oh no, I go at them point by point.  I, however, am of the opinion that a single well aimed post is better than a bunch of posts that miss the mark.  I try to be like the rifle, where as you the machine gun.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Sounds alot like religion; placing the sum of your belief on one idea instead of pulling things apart and examining it carryfully.

 But hey, maybe thats why you're losing this discussion, its all good to me.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Sounds alot like religion; placing the sum of your belief on one idea instead of pulling things apart and examining it carryfully.

I find it interesting that you quantify the human traits of willfully believing in something, regardless of the evidence, as religion. I mean, I can see that these traits are exhibited in religious people, and cults take advantage of these properties, but to state that these qualities are exclusive to religion is only another mis-guided statement that you've made. Ironically (man, there's a heck of a lot of irony in these reviews of your posts, no?), making this statement falls victim to the very qualities that you mention.

But hey, maybe thats why you're losing this discussion

This is another fine example of what you would most likely consider "evidence". I, personally, haven't seen the results from the Internet Debate Commity and their final ruling on the winner of this debate. This does, however, sound suspiciously like a relatively successful political manuever: when found to be in violation of facts, moral high ground, and having angered your constituents, DECLARE VICTORY. Have you declared victory? Yes. Is there any way to prove you wrong? No. Why? Because it's your damned opinion again. Touted as evidence? Yes.  These qualities, dear sir, are just more facts pointing toward you suffering from the aforementioned Internet Superhero Syndrome.

"Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 "I find it interesting that you quantify the human traits of willfully believing in something, regardless of the evidence, as religion. I mean, I can see that these traits are exhibited in religious people, and cults take advantage of these properties, but to state that these qualities are exclusive to religion is only another mis-guided statement that you've made. Ironically (man, there's a heck of a lot of irony in these reviews of your posts, no?), making this statement falls victim to the very qualities that you mention."

 There is a difference between the blind faith seen in the OP versus arguing my position successfully. I could argue just as easily that nuclear power is cleaner, safer and cheaper, but you would still claim the above in an attempt to attack me personally rather than the position I present. No one can blame you for taking the easy road, but this is not the place and I am not that interested to be honest.

 "This is another fine example of what you would most likely consider "evidence". I, personally, haven't seen the results from the Internet Debate Commity and their final ruling on the winner of this debate. This does, however, sound suspiciously like a relatively successful political manuever: when found to be in violation of facts, moral high ground, and having angered your constituents, DECLARE VICTORY. Have you declared victory? Yes. Is there any way to prove you wrong? No. Why? Because it's your damned opinion again. Touted as evidence? Yes.  These qualities, dear sir, are just more facts pointing toward you suffering from the aforementioned Internet Superhero Syndrome."

 So you think this is about victory over the weaker users on this board? Hardly, people are just easily offended when they are told they are not as smart as they think they are. Before you chide at this comment, I happen to be a person as well. However, no one here has actually insulted me effectively, most of the corrections presented to me have been symantic or syntactic, not factual.

 I strongly suggest you go have an arguement with an engineer who lives somewhere near you, you'll find that I am far from the exception.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Wait...arguing that nuclear energy is clean, safe, and cost effective is the easy road?  Last I checked, the sum of your arguments is "Chernobyl!!"

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 My stance is much wider than that, you're the one seem focused on refuting Chernobyl like it can be disproved if you try hard enough. Disappointing results, it seems.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

No, it's only the key component to your arguments against safe and clean.  As far as cheap, you killed your own point on that one.  And again we find ourselves arguing the minor points, rather than the subject at hand, or rather, I find you arguing the minor points, and I retort.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Its an example, friend, something you really lack. Admittedly, its kind of hard to prove something is safe, its easier to see point to a failure say "see". However, it does not diminish the fact the it happened, and that it can and will happen again.

 I am still waiting for you to exhibit even the slightly bit of free thought, I still see you posting numbers and exerpts that you don't seem to understand or apply correctly.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

At this point, gentlemen, I declare victory.

"Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Do as you please, this threads been dead for a while.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 again, you're the one attacking logic with conjecture.  So far from you we have seen nothing but misconceptions, biased sources, lack of understanding, and fear mongering.  Still waiting for arguments though.

And to call all of science "an idea" instead of "pulling things apart and examining it carefully" is pretty funny.  

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 What logic is this? You present half-truths and unsourced information to try and make a point you lack the education to reinforce and the will to argue. If you refuse to step outside the box and scrutinize everything, you really have no place arguing for or against it at all, yes?

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

"Now, to go a bit on the offensive.  It's people like you that get all panicy when nuclear energy is mentioned that has prevented its usage in the US and other 1st world countries.  You make false accusations and grandiose statements that have no logical or scientific backing, and because you predict massive death you're listened to.  Every engineer who has looked into nuclear power can tell you that it's the best option at this time, yet despite their education and training they're ignored for the fear monger who knows how to yell "CHERNOBYL!"  The reason why coal is the main source of energy in most nations is not the fact that it's cheaper or more efficient.  Hell, it's far from the case.  Those titles go to nuclear energy, and you'd know this if you'd've done some real searching.  The reason coal is used, and miners die yearly, is because people listen to people like you, and the world is worse off because of it. "

 To overlook your personal insults would be a shame, but if you need to lower yourself to that level so be it. Nuclear energy in its current form is not the future. Its dirty, primative (even today) and dangerous. When we discover how to harness Fusion reactions at lower temperatures, we will continue this discussion. Until such a time, however, your arguements have been dismissed and your logic been shown to be lacking. Please attack me with a stronger backing in the future. It appears that you are all volume and no substance in all of this, but I will do you the courtesy of replying to even ounce of what is presented.

"Now, this isn't to say I am vehement against anyone against nuclear energy.  Those that have actually put in the time and the research and have come to the conclusion that it's just not the right thing at this time have my respect.  You're obviously not one of them, seeing how you haven't even read up on Three Mile Island.  In fact, you go even further to show your ignorance at the claim that its even comparable to Chernobyl, and how Chernobyl had nothing to do with the country it was in, or the technology that runs it. "

 Once again, as with above, you smeck of hubris and have been corrected on several key issues. Admit to your mistakes, as I have with TMI and better yourself, or this discussion is simply mental masterbation.

"You have shown the ineptitude that comes from the grand majority of people who are against the use of nuclear energy.  Numbers show that it is cheaper.  Facts show that it is safer.  Logic shows that it is cleaner. "

 See above for refutement and counter arguements, sir.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

To overlook your personal insults would be a shame, but if you need to lower yourself to that level so be it.

Thomas and just about everyone but me who's posted so far has been doing this. I'm pretty damned sure that you're capable of it, but you couldn't just let it go. So, I'm going to be the Hypocrisy Fairy for this debate.

you smeck of hubris and have been corrected on several key issues

Personally, I find your lack of a verbose lexicon quite annoying. I suggest that you go to a thesaurus before using terms like "hubris" more then twice. As for being "corrected", really you haven't done anything to correct anyone, aside from provided very poor return arguments.

Admit to your mistakes, as I have with TMI and better yourself

Now, in an internet debate, it's in poor form to use yourself as an example of what's right and good, considering that obviously the other side of the debate thinks that you're wrong. Regardless of what really is truly correct, this is just a bad way of looking at it. And, if you were to actually read what you've said, you haven't "bettered" yourself in any way, beyond believing that you are somehow divinely right.

this discussion is simply mental masterbation

Give me a single debate on the internet that isn't.

"Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

 

Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

"ext is the reactor type.  The reactor was a standard USSR reactor.  Again, they care about end results, not necessarily safety.  Their reactors, when they get to the "oh shit" point, lock up, thus leaving the reaction be.  NATO style reactors, however, have always valued safety as well as results.  With NATO style reactors, when the "oh shit" point is reached, the reaction is automatically killed off.  Not to mention, all of our safety systems can't be disengaged, and even if they were, the way the reactor is made makes sure that the reaction is killed when "shit gets bad."  This is why Three Mile Island was not Chernobyl.  A small radiation leak happened, yes, but because of the inherent safety protocols existent in its design the radiation contamination was no where near life threatening.  No one has ever died from Three Mile Island, or any other NATO based reactor.  Technological advances have put in better safety protocols, higher energy output, and waste with shorter lifespans."

 Read up on the safety systems of the Chernobyl facility; their "Oh shit" point was based on their local secondary power supplier. If they reached a critical destabilization point, the system was designed to be self regulating. They even had on site diesel generators for the coolant pumps to ensure containment in the case of a reactionless state. This is yet another example of your "we're better than them" bigotry, with no basis in reality.

"Let's look at coal again now.  We've seen how it has a higher radiation output, now let's add this to the fact that coal power  kills thousands of people each year (most happen in 3rd world or developing countries, but America alone had 68 people killed in 2004), on top of polluting the air.  Now, the total deaths cause directly by radiation from a failed reactor is 56, as far as we can tell.  This number may be as high as 4000.  This happened from Chernobyl, which I'll get into later, but because of the Russian government coverup of the disaster (well...what little they could cover up) the full number of fatalities can't be known for sure.  So, in 2004 alone, the number of people who died because of coal (over 6000) exceeded our highest guesses for total number of people who died from a nuclear reactor, ever."

 I'm confused... are you arguing for or against safety here? 4000 people in 1986 is ~181 people per year from then until now. You however cite 68 people via coal-related deaths... Coal is still safer...

"So yes, the argument that "it's powered over there" counts for a whole hell of a lot in this case.  It is impossible for an incident like Chernobyl to happen in any NATO nation, or nations that use the same reactor types.  With modern advances, even Russian reactors can be made safe (hell, they're only unsafe when something like Chernobyl happens, and i'm fairly certain they learnt their lesson there)."

 Lol, hubris is a very dangerous quality my friend. To claim you are infallible dooms you to embarassment.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Lol, hubris is a very dangerous quality my friend. To claim you are infallible dooms you to embarassment.

I really hope that I'm not the only one who sees this, but Derovius, I understand that you can't. However, just because no one has made this statement so far, let me put it in simple terms. Here we go:

1) Scientific fact is not arrogance. Going from your statement, "a scientist is a scienist regardless of whatever blah blah blah", then Thomas has so far blown anything you call "science" out of the water. The only scientific methods that you have employed so far are multiplication and quotes from Wikipedia. I'm sorry, sir, these do not qualify as science. Thomas, however, has used scientific proof.

2) Hubris. Several times you've stated that Thomas has to "eat [his] own crow" or that "hubris is very dangerous quality". Ironically, all you're doing is make yourself look like an ass. Now, since I'm absolutely positive at this point that you a) believe you're being completely unbiased, b) that you're using superior scientific method as a basis for your claims, and c) Thomas is somehow acting like a buttmonkey on the internet, I can safely assume that you really have no idea what you're talking about. I make the simple and humble suggestion that you re-read all the posts he has made and then re-read all your own responses. Do so without drinking several cups of coffee first or taking your ADD medicine. Do you see it? At just about every turn, you take his scientific statements personally. This is the very mark of being "biased" or "blinded by arrogance". You even turn down the road to calling people who back him up racist, after personally demeaning him at several points. This, good sir, is the very bottom of the barrel for debate. If all else fails, call the debater racist. Oh yes, and you call the racism "American". Irony? I'm sure you don't see it as such. Everyone else? They probably do.

3) This is a very cut and clear case of "Internet Super Hero" syndrome. You believe that because you've done some very basic research into a particular subject, that it's your divine calling to educate the ignorant masses. I can't say I've found any single point you've made convincing. I can't say that I've found any single statement missing some reference to your own self-worth, intelligence, and all-around God-granted access to exclusive Wikipedia knowledge. These things do make you better, do not make you smarter, and they do not make you right. What they do make you, though, is a complete asshole on the internet. Congratulations.

I think the biggest issue with this problem is that you instantly assume that you're right about everything. You don't listen, you don't read, and you're pretty much wholly unteachable on a topic about which you have an apparent lack of knowledge and credibility. On an ironic link, assuming that human error was completely responsible, these very qualities are what caused Chrenobyl to happen. The head of the facility believed that they were right, just about as fervently as you do, and disregarded the counsel of people who knew more then they did. We all know the outcome of these rash actions. I just am sincerely glad that you, sir, are not in a position that makes you responsible for the lives of other people and are instead just another Internet Superhero.

"Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

"Thomas, however, has used scientific proof."

While I thank you for helping out, I'd just like to clarify that most of my proof has been empirical in nature.  I may use scientific facts and unit conversions from time to time, but most of my stuff is found from readout sheets of power  plants which have been posted online*, or reports on the subject.  So again, may have a sciency flavor to it, but it's mostly just empirical, proven, and shown as fact. 

 

*they're required to have their information out in the open by law.  In this day and age, that means posting it to the internet among other means.  Most of these are easy to find with the propper "google-fu"

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

SAFER:

"There have only been 2 nuclear reactor incidences ever.  These are Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.  You claim that location and technology had nothing to do with it, and that it was entirely human error.  You are wholly wrong in this claim."

  By comparison, how many fossil-fuel plants have made 1000 km^2 unlivable, much less the many generations of genetic abnormalities. Oh yes, I'm convinced, build one next to my house plz.

"Let's take a look at Chernobyl.  It was a poorly run facility.  On the day of the incident, tests were run against the urges of the on site engineers as well as done without getting the green light from the proper authorites.  These tests ran the reactor on maximum, with all failsafes forcibly removed or blocked.  The reactor became too hot, and the rods melted, thus increasing the rate of reaction between them.  They grew too hot, and the containment area was breeched.  A meltdown happened.  While this was the fault of the man in charge who gave all the orders, this doesn't mean it was entirely human error."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Conditions_prior_to_the_accident

 Once again, its only Wikipedia, but its better than nothing. Read it from top to bottom and try and swallow that "its not entirely human error" arguement. If I were to give this a % human error vs. % equipment malfunction, I would say maybe 95/5, and thats being generous.

"The location was in the totalitarian USSR, which was corrupt and lax on safety protocols.  Results were important, and how they got them wasn't.  This shows in both the technology of the reactor, as well as the ability for someone to remove the safety protocols.  To do any kind of testing in NATO style reactors (we all have the same principle design on reactors) at least in the US you need proper clearance, which requires much theoretical calculations to proove that it's ok to do.  So, someone running in and demanding that a test be run will get shot down by beureaucracy, and the test wouldn't happen."

 Scientists are scientists no matter where you go in the world, and to suggest that a centrally controlled society like the USSR was lax in something such as this is foolish. All I see in this paragraph is American bigotry, and there is nothing more to be said.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Maybe you missed out on the Cold War, but let me tell you about Russia in that era.  If someone from the Kremlin or the Komitet or the Sword and Shield says you're going to do something, you're either going to DO IT or you're going to be thrown out of the party and you'll have a lovely date at the power station nearest the Kremlin, which was where they tortured people who didn't jump when the Kremlin said to.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Uh huh, placing all your racism aside, do you have supporting documents for these claims or are you just reciting from memory?

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

You can't be racist against a group of countrymen.  Russian is not a race.  And yes, there are documents that show that the russian government was actually corrupt during the cold war and that they commited millions of violations against modern day perceptions of human rights.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Do I really have to embarass you by posting the definition of racism? Look it up please, and adjust your behaviour based on what you find.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Yeah...AL kind of beat you down with a literary definition there.  Now, if at any point he said "I hate blackies" then that'd be racist.  But saying that the USSR was a corrupt oligarchy hell beant on absolute control over its people and its neighbors isn't racist.  In fact, it actually is provable through history.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 See above. How do you like your crow?

 And you can't prove hate, only organized discrimination.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Papa MidnightWii U Games finding Solidarity with PC Gamers :(08/19/2014 - 6:09pm
Zenbuy all of the bad DLC before they even showed the main content everyone was waiting for. I paid for it, I wanted it, and I got tossed aside.08/19/2014 - 4:10pm
ZenIanC: Yep, both Call of Duty games did the same thing holding back all DLC and then releasing the day one map 2 YEARS later out of the blue. Why play what they won't support. Warner Bros canceled their DLC after promising it because Wii U owners didn't08/19/2014 - 4:09pm
Andrew EisenShe's the developer of Depression Quest. It's an interesting game (although I wouldn't call it fun) and you can check it out for free at depressionquest.com.08/19/2014 - 2:48pm
Sleakerwhat's all this Zoe quinn stuff all over and should I even bother looking it up?08/19/2014 - 2:37pm
IanCExactly Zen. The third one had random delays to the DLC and they just came out seemingly at random with no warning, and the 4th they didn't even bother.08/19/2014 - 2:31pm
ZenI may have bought both AC games on Wii U, but WHY would anyone be expected to get the game when they came out MONTHS before release that they were skipping DLC and ignoring the game? They poisoned the market on themselves then blamed Nintendo players.08/19/2014 - 1:27pm
Papa MidnightIn review, that's fair, Andrew. I just tend to take Gawker articles with a lot of salt, and skepticism.08/19/2014 - 12:07pm
Matthew WilsonFor one has a English speaking support team for devs. Devs have said any questions they have, were translated in to Japanese. then back in to English. 08/19/2014 - 11:41am
Adam802they need to realize the "wii-fad" era is pretty much over and start rebooting some old great franchises like they are doing with star fox08/19/2014 - 11:39am
Adam802unfortunatly, this seems to represent 3rd party's position on the wiiU in general. Nintendo has always sucessfully relied on 1st party but now since 3rd parties and console "power" are so important this gen, they're in trouble.08/19/2014 - 11:38am
IanCOkay, so what can Nintendo do to these 3rd parties? Huh? If a company release games late with missing content then of course it won't sell. Seems simple to me.08/19/2014 - 11:25am
Andrew EisenSakurai and Co. REALLY need to go back in there and re-pose Samus. She is so incredibly broken.08/19/2014 - 11:06am
ZippyDSMleeUntill Nin starts paying out the azz or doing much much more to help 3rd party games development, the WIIU is dead in the water.....08/19/2014 - 11:03am
ZippyDSMleehttps://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=316135481893472&id=22417313775637408/19/2014 - 11:02am
ZippyDSMlee*gets out the popcorn* this will be fun08/19/2014 - 11:01am
Andrew EisenIt's not as simple as "Nintendo gamers don't buy AC games."08/19/2014 - 11:01am
Andrew EisenACIII was late, missing DLC (so was IV) and was on a brand new platform that had never had the series competing against two platforms that had an install base of 80 million a piece who had all the previous games.08/19/2014 - 11:01am
Andrew EisenI'd say TechDirt is being a bit unfair towards Kotaku's article to the point of slightly mischaracterizing it. It's not really bad but, while a little muddled, neither is the Kotaku article.08/19/2014 - 10:59am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician