PC Gamers Destroying the World Confirmed

[z929669]

PC gaming energy is mostly consumed by GPU and fans, I think. CPU uses power, but I think it is relatively efficient (unless you are working at increasing Pi resolution all the time, which is not PC gaming).

 

Hydro is great and pretty dependable, but it (usually) requires damning and reservoirs, which are not so good. Solar and wind require a ton of space (and habitat allocation). Nuclear is literally an accident waiting to happen. Geothermal is the way to go if we can ever harness effectively. Same with solar if we can transmit via EM from low orbit.

[Shadriss]

On the notion that Nuclear is an 'accident waiting to happen'...

 

Not that I think that accidents don't happen, but as I am a USN Submarine sailor, I happen to have a LITTLE experiance with nuke plants. Let me put it in these terms...

 

Since 1957(ish) when the USS NAUTILUS became the first nuclear sub, the US ALONE has had well over 250 nuclear reactors. None of them has ever had an incident resulting in a nuclear release. THrow in the French, UK, Brits, China, and that number grows significantly. Operated as intended, and with trained operators, they are very safe. This is not to say that they don't have other issues (waste materials afterwards chief among them). This is not to say accidents and events that are unforseen cannot result in large problems (Chernobyl and, most recently, Japan). But compared to the large number of operating reactors in the world, they are statistically tiny.

 

Just saying that, having lived for a large portion of my life with a reactor, live and operating, within 500 ft of where I live, sleep, and eat.... I have a slightly different take on the notion of Nuclear Safety. :)

 

 

Also, PC GAMERS RULE. :)

[z929669]

"accident waiting to happen" ...

 

We humans are severely limited in our ability to think beyond 3 months much less 300 years.

 

My statement stands unequivocally true, and it is only a matter of time until we have a nuclear disaster (probably hundreds within a single century at some future point, since they were all built in roughly the same blink in time).

 

Throw in the maintenance requirements to keep them all running in the 'black', and you have a giant @^#$ sandwich waiting for all of us or our progeny to bite into. Granted, this maintenance is relatively low, but absolutely required nonetheless.

 

Throw in the large half life of uranium, and you also have waste to deal with (jettisoning beyond Earth's gravity is the only 'safe' place), which remains an "accident waiting to happen" as long as it remains on our ever-changing and geologically active Earth.

 

The next 100 years will likely see at least several more major nuclear disasters. The next 1000 years will almost certainly bring with it several Earth-changing nuclear events ... that is if the human race can manage to get through major shortages of oil and drinking water ... and climate change.

 

Just as the concept of continuous increases in capital gains for major corporations is absolutely untenable, so is the fallacy of thinking that nuclear energy is indefinitely harmless ;)

 

Stopping nuclear energy dev is a complete no-brainer.

[Neovalen]

My personal belief is Nuclear short term, Geothermal long term. Consistent power, minimal impact during normal operation. Solar and wind are both situational (day / windy day) plus not very cost effective.

 

Nuclear is pretty darn safe provided your not mismanaged / skipping on safety (i.e. Japan). Geothermal in the future will likely be great.

[z929669]

My personal belief is Nuclear short term, Geothermal long term. Consistent power, minimal impact during normal operation. Solar and wind are both situational (day / windy day) plus not very cost effective.

 

Nuclear is pretty darn safe provided your not mismanaged / skipping on safety (i.e. Japan). Geothermal in the future will likely be great.

I agree with you on all points.

 

It's just that we all take nuclear for granted, because it is really clean and stable and safe over the "long term" (undefined ... currently about 50-ish years is all) ... as long as there are no geological/climatic events to throw a wrench into the works. So far we have only had several nuclear disasters in the last 50 years :O_o:

 

I really feel bad for my kids.

[n0mad23]

I spent most of my teen years almost downwind of Hanford.  Luckily there was a naked mountain range between me and the place, so 90% of the time the air flowing west kept any "fallout" from getting north to us.  When there were wildfires there, the local volunteer firefighters were kept away because "shhh - the smoke is too hot."  

 

The leaking tanks there are a well know and under-reported problem now going back at least a decade.

 

The biggest problem I see with nuclear energy currently is that of business.  When quarterly profits trump every other concern, corners are cut and safety issues ignored.  Time and again we've seen this issues with Big Oil in the last couple of decades, and it's equally true of the oil/gas pipelines - privately owned and publicly insured.  With the pipeline fiascoes, you actually have to be nearby to hear anything as news outlets tend to ignore these things.  Seriously.  How many here heard of the pipeline explosion in Bellingham Washington back in 99 or 2000?  It killed three kids and burned several miles of creek bed.  My friends on the east coast read and heard nothing.

 

Here in the US, our nuclear plants are privately owned, inspection is difficult at best due to the classified nature of all things nuclear, and yet insurance comes for these privately owned entities are bestowed by the public sector.  If an accident happens, it's the taxpayer who gets to foot the bill.  If you're outside of the five mile protected radius, you're out of luck insurance wise as a citizen.

 

I'd have more confidence in it if there was more interest in the energy aspect and less in the profits.  I'm still waiting to see some research into pebble-bed reactors as they seem a whole lot less likely to have catastrophic disasters - however, due to the profit margin factor I suspect we're locked into antiquated tech as those investment have been mad.

 

My heresy really is this - we should be going to the moon and getting our hands on all that available helium 3 and going for fusion.  It's probably a better solution in the long run.

 

Edit - it probably looks like I'm anit-nuke from this post, but really I'm more skeptical about "business as usual." 

Edited September 11, 2015 by n0mad23

[Quinnbeast]

Until there's a genuine, robust and ready-to-rock alternative to nuclear energy, most layman's arguments often miss some of the realities. And while we sit here conversing with each other with our homes full of electrical devices, genuine alternatives remain essentially theoretical.

 

The links between nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel sources only tend to compound the fears people have about nuclear anything. Public anxiety over nuclear fuel sources hasn't actually changed much in over 50 years, and it's largely down to the association with long-term health effects of radioactive exposure. However, if you read up on the aftermath of Fukushima, most of the fatalities were actually related to the lengthy and sustained evacuation (i.e. dislocation from society) and of course, the natural disaster that triggered the incident. Only one of the 43 reactors has since been restarted, meaning entire chunks of society living without a proper energy infrastructure, which is taking a considerably worse toll than the accident itself. No heating for the elderly in winter, no aircon in summer; such is the public's mistrust.

 

Let's face it; mass energy sources can be dangerous in whatever form they come. I still recall the images from the Piper Alpha rig with crystal clarity. But if you look at the number of fatalities (not to mention climate impact) associated with the burning of fossil fuels over the years, nuclear energy comes out looking pretty good in comparison. Yes, it does have the potential to be dangerous, and one of the biggest causes for concern is actually nuclear waste, especially that from early installations for weapons programs. Older nuclear waste storage units are some of the most dangerous industrial sites on the planet, more so than any reactor. But, as an energy source, it fairly knocks equivalent/comparable fossil fuels into hat, both in terms of carbon emissions and overall safety record.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Quinnbeast

[GrantSP]

I really like how a throw away line from SP about my next computer, has turned into an earnest discussion of the pros & cons of varying energy production!

 

Well done @sparrowprince, here have this cuttlefish.

[TechAngel85]

I really like how a throw away line from SP about my next computer, has turned into an earnest discussion of the pros & cons of varying energy production!

 

Well done @sparrowprince, here have this cuttlefish.

You never know what to expect around here. We like to discuss and will discuss just about anything! Haha!

[Quinnbeast]

I usually judge a forum by it's capacity to veer off at a tangent and into realms of hearty discourse, interspersed with questions about why the HDT bewbs aren't juddering correctly.

 

So far, so good.

[n0mad23]

But where are the Flamez?  Where are the personal attacks?

 

Don't you people understand how forums operate?

[echo451]

This is a most interesting forum.  STEP that is. Not just here.

 

This is the place for this discussion. I always find the quality of the discussion worth my time to read. That is how I judge a forum. Now take Nexus for example. The signal to noise ratio is very high. That said there are nuggets to find.

 

Just painful sometimes.

[paradoxbound]

My build pulls over 1000 watts when overclocked
https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/8dTdwP

My Energy Supplier
https://www.goodenergy.co.uk/

Problem solved.

[paradoxbound]

This just dropped into my feed very cool.

https://www.ewao.com/a/1-denmark-just-produced-140-of-its-electricity-needs-with-renewable-wind-power

[EssArrBee]

I doubt that most the time they can produce 140% of their energy needs with just wind. Last year Denmark only produced ~40% of their total energy with wind, still amazing compared to others. Basically, you need constant wind where ever the turbines are located to reach that power output. Selling it to their neighbors is pretty cool though. Denmark's real power saving come from actively discouraging car ownership. 180% tax on cars and 25% sales tax. :O_o:  They also just removed the tax credit for electric cars so even a Tesla is like $200K+.

 

Bet all that bike riding makes them a healthy lot though. Doesn't Aiyen live there?