I didn't realize this, but nuclear power just uses a controlled nuclear explosion to boil water. The water vapor turns turbines. Yes, nuclear power is just a more complicated version of a steam engine.

I have never been so disappointed in human ingenuity then when I found this out. What makes it even more retarded is that all these earthquake prone areas are sitting on faults that would make them ideal locations for geothermal energy. Geothermal produces zero waste, is completely renewable, and is more energy dense than nuclear.

Talk about fucking retarded. But that's capitalism for ya.

I never claimed to be a nuclear physicist nicky. However, if this website is to be believed, then fault lines are ideal locations for collecting geothermal energy.

http://www.clean-energy-ideas.com/articles/disadvantages_of_geothermal_energy.html

I would further note that if we now have the technology to do sideways drilling for oil, and do deep sea drilling, I gotta think we can more easily drill for geothermal than we have in the past.

Yes, Chernobyl happened in the Soviet Union. Capitalists decided that it was worth the risk to pursue nuclear power AFTER the Chernobyl disaster.

even when you find yourself in agreement with a lying fool, it makes you rethink your own positions. lol

I think one of,(and only one of) Willy's problems in getting his facts straight is it appears that he would pull up a single link on a complex issue and just run with is as if it were the holy grail. If the single source that he bases his entire argument proves to be untrue his entire case evaporates, but he rarely follows the wise advice that "when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging"

I have lost track of the number of Willy's positions, facts and links that have been discredited, but that doesn't slow him down in the slightest, he just continues to pile bullshit right on top of a foundation of more bullshit.

Kind of sucks to have him on "your side", doesn't it?

Probably thousands of people dead, probably hundreds of thousands left homeless or missing after Japan's earthquake and tsunami, and some people are already talking about the economic "benefits" of this devastation!

Here's a good, clear explanation of why this is JUST DESTRUCTION, not any benefit providing a Keynesian stimulus to the economy:

"I don't see how geothermal could provide us with enough power to replace nuclear or coal without the technology to drill VERY deep and deal with hot magma itself."

Geothermal doesn't drill deep enough to get down to the hot magma. It drills deep enough to where the magna heats water.

Don't blame me for you not being very articulate. What the hell would you want to drill straight into the magma itself for?

First of all, Willy, I'd say the jury's out on nuclear power until we know exactly what happened to the Japanese plants, and why.  
Second, you only just figured out how a nuke plant works?  What planet have you been living on?  Actually, you seem still to have no idea, based on your use of the word "explosion."  Nuclear plants do not work using a controlled explosion.  Instead they use a carefully-regulated nuclear reaction.  There is a big difference.  You could look it up.
As for geothermal,  just because there are fault lines in an area does not  mean geothermal is possible.  You need to be in a place like Hawaii where the magma is close to the surface.
Finally, as for this being the result of capitalism, does Chernobyl ring a bell?  The Soviets did not give a shit about human life, so they built their nuclear plants without a containment vessel.  This is why, when the Chernobyl core melted down it blew radiation into the atmosphere in huge amounts.  But the Japanese plants have strong containment vessels and, while the jury's still out,  it is highly unlikely a Cherobyl-style event is possible there.
Please think before you post. You are giving liberals a bad name.

You want to blame capitalism for an accident at a nuclear power plant in Japan? When its the government that decides nuclear energy policy?

And of course your post has nothing to do with the OP, except the location.

That's your big problem, willy. You make assumptions based on inadequate information, and always come back to blaming capitalism, even in industries where government control dominates, and even where there is no evidence, yet, for anything to blame on anyone.

Do you know WHAT KIND of faults are good for drilling? What kind of locations? How common such locations are? How much better drilling techniques have expanded such sites?

I don't see how geothermal could provide us with enough power to replace nuclear or coal without the technology to drill VERY deep and deal with hot magma itself. I don't know if that is even possible.

You have already proven your ignorance of the subject, yet you have the arrogance to criticize the work of people who are actually out there working in the field on these subjects. You were surprised to learn the nuclear power plants convert the heat of a nuclear reaction to electricity through steam? What did you expect? Some 24'th century technology that turns neutrons into electrons? Maybe you should ask Scottie or Geordi.

So try to learn something about a subject before you shoot off your mouth!

It goes with [u]Fatal Conceit[/u].

You've mis-read your own article.  It actually says that while fault lines are one place you MAY find geothermal there are also other criteria such as hot spots.  Note that Hawaii, which I mentioned, is exactly such a hot spot.  It does not automatically follow that the fault in question has any promise for geo-thermal, especially since it is miles offshore.  There may be other areas of promise in Japan for geo-thermal but this isn't one of them.
I don't doubt that, in general, we are better able to drill for geo-thermal energy.
Re you last point, it seems you are Willy-fully ignoring the main point in my post re Chernobyl.  It lacked a containment vessel, and like all Soviet reactors, was an accident waiting to happen.  No similar accident, even Three Mile Island (which also had a containment vessel) came remotely close to it. The Japanese reactors that have suffered some level of melt-down also have containment vessels and are expected to be able to cope with it.  We'll see.  But comparing them to Chernobyl is like comparing a Mercedes to a Model T.
A final point, at least as to your dates.  Chernobyl took place in 1986, while the Japanese plants in question were designed and built in the 1970s.
This is easy stuff to check, Willy, and not doing it damages your already shakey credibility.

-- Modified on 3/13/2011 3:22:50 PM

Please read what I actually wrote. Read that again.

I know that present geothermal energy works by drilling to water heathed by magma. I was speculating about how it MIGHT work in the future.

Hear that? Speculating. Might.

You and your rush judgments.

When Willy spouts bullshit, I call "bullshit."  Then again, occasionally he's right, as in the old adage: "Sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut."  Shit, I've even managed to agree on rare occasions with dncphil, who often takes his right-wing views through such twisted leaps of "logic" that you can read a newspaper right through his slices of baloney!  LOL!
And, by the way, when I agree with YOU I DO worry about it! lmao!

-- Modified on 3/13/2011 3:31:54 PM

More like comparing a Volvo, the safest model Western capitalism can build, to the Trabant.

Ah, the Trabant!  Haven't heard of one in years.  I remember reading about them as an object of ridicule in Car & Driver.

I was SPECULATING about possible future technology. I made that VERY CLEAR.

Maybe I should just use smaller words, so you can understand.

Oops. I used a big word, "understand". Maybe "speculating" is too big a word for you, too.

Here is my exact quote which you misread:

"I don't see how geothermal could provide us with enough power to replace nuclear or coal without the technology to drill VERY deep and deal with hot magma itself. I don't know if that is even possible. "

If you can't understand how that is SPECULATING about possible future technology, there is no hope for you.

Why drill into the magma itself? To get to that energy density greater than nuclear power you were talking about, and maybe use that to replace nuclear and coal.