| Welcome to Talo Balka! This is the forum for the NationStates region known as Talo Balka. We're a new region that came about as a result of a merger between New Talos and Franco Balka. We're still in the very early stages of building our new home. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. If you aren't a member of Talo Balka, New Talos, or Franco Balka, or unless you're somehow involved with one of those regions (i.e, as an ambassador), there really isn't much point in registering. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Topic of the week: green mercantilism | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 16 2015, 07:58 PM (200 Views) | |
| Larsland | Jun 16 2015, 07:58 PM Post #1 |
|
Γέροντας
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thought I'd throw up a controversial topic in economics ![]() Mercantilism is where the government takes control of an economy to bring down the economies of other governments. Green mercantilism is where the government takes control of the green sector specifically, and tries to out-green all the other governments. An example was when China nationally exported solar panels below market rates, making it difficult for solar manufacturers in other countries (primarily the USA) to compete. However, it also meant solar panels became much more affordable and the environment may have become more green. What's your stand on green mercantilism? |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Britannia | Jun 18 2015, 12:26 AM Post #11 |
|
αδελφός
![]() ![]()
|
Meanwhile, nuclear has the highest mass to energy efficiency of all fuels known to mankind. They can provide more power than solar and run for years before their fuel needs replacement. Future fusion plants eliminate most of the risk of current fission plants given their safety measures are passive; that is, by physics, where the fusion chamber to fail, fusion stops and thus eliminates the risk of a meltdown. Solar, on the other hand, requires large scale of use of land where it to be as efficient as nuclear, and unlike nuclear, you can't operate them at night. The only good use I've seen for solar panels is solar roadways, which replaces a country's entire road system with dynamic solar panels that produce electricity to power not only the country, but its own traffic lights as well (eliminating the need to re paint the road). The roadways would also carry internet landlines and aqueducts as well as making the country's powergrid be underground. They're a lot more versatile then just having a solar farm take up space at some location. Nuclear, and by extension any high density fuel we discover in the future(we're clearly going the way of fusion up until now) is still the future for centuries to come. |
![]() |
|
| Larsland | Jun 18 2015, 05:51 AM Post #12 |
|
Γέροντας
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Mass to energy efficiency is generally a poor measure though. Like, who cares about the mass of the generator? And besides, they usually only count the mass of fuel, which of course doesn't matter at all for renewables. The amount of power solar provides depends entirely on the energy provided by the sun, how compacted the cells are, and how much area the cells cover. On sunny days, solar can generate so much power, it has on several occasions made the price of electricity negative in parts of Europe where the electricity became more than could be stored. Unlike nuclear, that has never done so. It's true that certain future designs for reactors can't have a meltdown. That doesn't mean things can't go wrong, only that when they do you won't get radiation spilling everywhere. I predict that once this technology is developed, it will be both very exclusive and won't do much to deter aggressors. Of course the same risk is inherent to hydro as well, though not to wind or solar. Solar does require a fair amount of land, but this is rarely actually an obstacle. You can put it on top of buildings on inside pavement or all sorts of other creative places. It's interesting to contrast it with hydro as hydro does require a lot of land, but it also creates a lot of land elsewhere that wasn't there before. Much like nuclear, wind doesn't actually take a lot of land, it's just very intensive with its use of land (lots of noise + tall pylons and such). Solar roadways are extremely expensive to build. I do think it's a good use of solar, but it's a really poor use of money. Nuclear in my view still isn't the future, and it's certainly not the present. I'm very excited about tidal power right now, if only they can make it safe for fish that'll be amazing. |
![]() |
|
| Britannia | Jun 18 2015, 09:05 AM Post #13 |
|
αδελφός
![]() ![]()
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density This is what I'm talking about. Like I said, if a Fusion reactor fails it is passively secure. Radiation wouldn't "spill everywhere" because the reaction stops if the conditions for fusion aren't met, which differ from reactor type. You'd have to literally blow the facility open for that to happen. Another thing is, what makes you think a nuclear reactor would be a military target? To shut it down?Deny the enemy power? Sure, those are valid reasons to *capture* one, but outright destroy it? That's essentially shooting yourself in the foot, those reactors would be left burning nuclear fuel into the atmosphere which WILL affect the attacker sooner than later. It is literally in no one's interest that a nuclear reactor be destroyed in a war. Also solar roadways are hardly a waste. Their multipurpose outweighs their cost, and roads are the perfect vast expanses of land solar panels need to be effective anyways. They also make it so much simpler to repair a road due to their module design. We need a power source that is independent on weather conditions (given how much it rains where I live I've seen how crappy solar panels in people's homes perform), reliably and consistently delivers power, and doesn't continually release pollution into the atmosphere and so far nuclear can do all three. Edited by Britannia, Jun 18 2015, 09:11 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Antonia and Brookwood | Jun 18 2015, 10:24 AM Post #14 |
|
αδελφός
![]() ![]()
|
I'm for nuclear, solely for advances in the field and other types (Fission and Fusion). As for the green mercantilism, eh. I'm not a big fan of the government controlling anything other than the laws, police, and courts. So I'm going to have to say it's a bad thing, however, if it was the businesses themselves doing it, they can be my guest. Go for it. |
![]() |
|
| Larsland | Jun 18 2015, 11:43 AM Post #15 |
|
Γέροντας
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Britannia - that's what I was referring to too. It's a useless measure. You'll also note I agreed with you regarding radiation not "spilling everywhere". How much a reactor is a target depends a lot on where the reactor in question is. Most nations tend to build their reactors extremely close to cities - further, many reactors are installed in military vehicles and other military property. The reactor itself isn't so damaging, nor is the fallout... it's the explosion of the reactor that makes it a target. Like Hydro dams - replacing a simple dam is relatively easy, but the damage caused by a sudden flood wave from a burst dam can (literally) kill millions. Modern dams are built with all sorts of protections, but you can still bet a terrorist would love to get their hands on a dam lol. In a similar way, states try to destroy the nuclear plants of rival states all the time, the US & Israel's recent Operation Olympic Games being an example (albeit a super unsuccessful one). I haven't looked into solar roadways too closely, but my dad works as a policy analyst for the AA, and according to him it's cheaper and more effective to build a monorail alongside roads AND put solar panels on top of that, than install solar panels in roadways. Nuclear does release constant pollution into the atmosphere - polluted water. Unless by atmosphere you mean just the air, which is naive. In addition, you've also got a constant source of waste with every reactor that's costly to deal with. Hydro does all three much better. Assuming the river is major enough not to dry up it is independent of weather, reliably delivers power, and doesn't release pollution. It could also do it consistently if that was a good thing, which it isn't. The ability to shut down or slow a reactor quickly is vitally important to maintaining energy systems. I would argue also, there are some locations where wind and solar meets these standards as well, such as the wind farm on the southern tip of my country's north island lol. And other locations where nuclear would not be appropriate. Of course these aren't universally so reliable. This is one of the reasons I think tidal is the most exciting energy source ever built (not safely yet, but it does exist). Loads of countries have access to the sea, and tides are universal, free, reliable and, with the right engineering, the generators can be set to generate constantly. Plus it generates a huge amount of energy. It's a win win all round. Still, hydro's the best we have. The biggest disadvantage of nuclear has always been the real lifetime cost of plants and limited lifespan. |
![]() |
|
| Larsland | Jun 18 2015, 11:43 AM Post #16 |
|
Γέροντας
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Antonia - why don't you like it when the government does it, specifically? Can't the government just be like one big business or something? |
![]() |
|
| Britannia | Jun 18 2015, 01:56 PM Post #17 |
|
αδελφός
![]() ![]()
|
Reactors can't blow up, they melt down. Nuclear reactors on aircraft carriers and submarines would sink to the bottom of the ocean inside their steel coffins and not release their radiation into the air(but yes, it would radiate the water). Nuclear reactors also don't pollute water. Before the use of cooling towers, the heated water used to power the turbines(how a reactor actually produces power) was just thrown back into the river/nearby body of water, now the water is cooled before it is returned, which reduces the heat pollution effect. Nuclear waste doesn't represent a threat as long as it is kept inside their concrete tombs, besides fusion does away with the need for those entirely. And energy mass IS a factor. It is how much useful energy we can get from those chemicals/elements. Nuclear power simply transforms that energy into heat, which we can use to power the turbines that generate energy, and they still will generate more energy than any solar farm in existence. Tidal energy is only good for offshore stations like oil rigs, and hydroelectric is too reliant on damning a river. Costs? Solar panels need replacing every 15 years. Nuclear power plants can run on their fuel for 25 to 50 years, and future fusion plants will be able to run even longer and provide much more energy than a fission plant, which is already more than any other green energy source available. In reality, by sheer power production and reliability nuclear is still #1. |
![]() |
|
| Electus Dei | Jun 18 2015, 08:00 PM Post #18 |
|
αδελφός
![]() ![]()
|
And what country is that? |
![]() |
|
| Larsland | Jun 18 2015, 08:03 PM Post #19 |
|
Γέροντας
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Of course a reactor can blow up. If you put a bomb in a reactor or anything else, it will blow up. It may not be able to blow up BY ITSELF but with a correctly aimed missile, it'll blow up, I assure you. I don't know why you're so preoccupied with this idea that nuclear's biggest harm must be radiation, but when you're talking about future tech that's clearly irrelevant. The thing about the water is that it's not just hot, it's also slightly radioactive. Modern cooling towers have a dual purpose of cooling the water and letting it normalize a bit radioactively. Regardless, the cooling isn't part of the generation process, it's waste treatment pure and simple. The principle is exactly the same as "clean" variants of coal power. What fusion reactor have you seen that doesn't have nuclear waste? Regardless, waste in tombs is dangerous and surprisingly expensive to maintain. If you just look at the cost of generation when it comes to nuclear, then nuclear can easily be even cheaper than renewables - however, if you look at the lifetime cost of the reactor, for construction and extraction through to disposal, many reactors that exist today are more expensive than oil. Energy mass is NOT a factor if you're not generating energy by using any chemicals/elements. It may be a factor for coal, oil etc. It is not for something like hydro, as it is based on generating electricity from the force of gravity, not from the water itself. Again, it's false to say nuclear universally generates more than solar. There have been numerous days where solar has generated more than a dozen times what nuclear has in Europe and other places with giant wind farms (in the last few years, technology to shut off solar farms rapidly has improved a lot, however). Why exactly do you say tidal is only good for offshore? A single tidal station positioned in New Zealand's cook straight has been calculated to be able to power the entire country based off just that one station, as the tides are quite strong there. Heck, the entirety of the city of Wellington, our capital, was powered off a single small wind turbine until a few years ago (in no small way due to it being - literally - the windiest city in the world). Combined with geothermal and the numerous hydro plants in New Zealand, plus a few wind farms, we may even be able to do away with coal entirely, though coal's advantage of being there in the event of a sudden surge in use still remains. A hydro dam can easily run 200 years plus. Well constructed wind farms can also go beyond 100 years. The cost of building these is much lower than nuclear. Panels do need new "fuel" so to speak every 15 years, and it's usually cheaper to just install a new panel. The best dams in the world are just as reliable as nuclear, far cheaper, more efficient in terms of power needed vs generated, slightly cleaner (construction etc) and all that. |
![]() |
|
| Larsland | Jun 18 2015, 08:04 PM Post #20 |
|
Γέροντας
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Who are you asking Electus Dei? I'm from New Zealand. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General · Next Topic » |







