|
| Thread: Nucelear Power Plants |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 27, 2011 08:08 PM |
|
|
Nucelear Power Plants
I admit that the VW thread "What pisses me off..." is a big incentive for me to make this thread, because what really pisses ME off is the fact that some people simply fail to realize what the problem with Nuclear Power Plants is.
WE CAN'T CONTROL IT!
Or didn't you realize that Japan - the whole world, actually - is completely unable to do anything about what has been threatening to become a meltdown for 2 weeks now (and probably is one since some time now) with 5 reactor blocks more being in danger.
Now, obviously the situation would be different if there was no alternative(s). If we could pick only between nuclear power and no power.
But that's not so, right? Renewable energy resources are there - with NO risk at all, NO risk of pollution, radioactivity, poisoning...
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 08:18 PM |
|
|
And I suppose you are the one that will pay for the whole worlds solar panels?
____________
|
|
SkrentyzMienty
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 08:19 PM |
|
|
I agree, but unfortunately human priority is optimal financial gain, over others' welfare. Renewab;e energy sources generate less energy, and not every country is as windy as say, the UK, to rely on e.g. wind turbines. However it would be better if people started caring about the environment and implemented more safe ways of generating energy for a large scale. I am afraid that it is too late already...
You think that pathetic humans are compassionate beings with morals? There's wars in many African countries like the Ivory Coast & elsewhere on the globe, but only Libia is an "object of intervention" for the USA, because there's oil of course. Iraq, Afghanistan and other Arabian countries are only under "military control" because of oil reserves. Why do you think North Korea hasn't been sorted out yet? No one would have financial gains from doing anything there, no one cares about those poor people that have to live there.
|
|
War-overlord
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Presidente of Isla del Tropico
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 08:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Renewab;e energy sources generate less energy, and not every country is as windy as say, the UK, to rely on e.g. wind turbines.
On top of that, it has been calculated that would the UK put windturbines on it's entire coastline and two more behind each of those initial turbines. All those turbines put together would barely generate enough power to meet the needs of London and the surrounding municipalities.
So as long as we want to enjoy modern comforts, renewable energy will never provide enough.
So unless science finds a new source of energy, nuclear is the only way of the future.
____________
Vote El Presidente! Or Else!
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 08:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
WE CAN'T CONTROL IT!
While this is true, keep in mind that except Chernobyl, there was absolutely NO nuclear powerplant crisis EVER until now. And there's a buttload of Nuclear power plants out there.
I don't see a problem about having nuclear power plants at "safe" places. Japan had a major bad luck, but some countries don't even know what an earthquake, tornado or tsunami looks like. Probably never will, too.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 08:33 PM |
|
|
Arguably, there are not viable alternative in renewable energy as it is. Let's hope they soon get fusion running.
Till then, it seems to be a choice between fossil fuels and nuclear fission, and given the whole climate thing, I don't thin fission is such a bad choice. But of course, when you're living in one of the most active seismic regions of the world, you might want to think twice about that.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 08:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I agree, but unfortunately human priority is optimal financial gain, over others' welfare. Renewab;e energy sources generate less energy, and not every country is as windy as say, the UK, to rely on e.g. wind turbines. However it would be better if people started caring about the environment and implemented more safe ways of generating energy for a large scale. I am afraid that it is too late already...
You think that pathetic humans are compassionate beings with morals? There's wars in many African countries like the Ivory Coast & elsewhere on the globe, but only Libia is an "object of intervention" for the USA, because there's oil of course. Iraq, Afghanistan and other Arabian countries are only under "military control" because of oil reserves. Why do you think North Korea hasn't been sorted out yet? No one would have financial gains from doing anything there, no one cares about those poor people that have to live there.
And what facts might you have to back up the oil statement?
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 08:40 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 20:44, 27 Mar 2011.
|
|
It's just not that simple. The NPPs produce cheap eletricity and are safer overall than other sources - say the thermal power stations which probably have killed much more people than Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. And the implementation of the renewable sources is neither universally simple, nor universally easy, let alone cheap. The last part is especially important as the increase of the cost of the electricity will lead to increase of the cost of a huge ammount of consumer goods - which is not nice at all, especially in countries with low GDP and life standard in general.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 08:42 PM |
|
|
You do realise that only viable renewable energy source currently is water power and it's not exactly without it's problems either?
Wind is not viable due to low production and lack of constant power.
Sun is not viable due to inferior technology.
Which leaves fossilised fuels, fission, fusion wood, peat and garbage. Out of these fusion is not viable yet due to technology, fossilised, peat, garbage and wood add to greenhouse gases, with wood being too small volume and peat destroying the ecosystem in it's own way on top of that.
Nuclear fission is the best shot we've got at the moment, it's stable, it's rather clean, it doesn't add greenhouse gases and it's rather cheap with only issue being safety and location of used fuel. Used fuel can be dumped to caves safely and safety is rather high(like 99,999% or so), certainly higher than coal plants, which are the number one energy producing method at the moment.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 08:56 PM |
|
|
|
but do we really need that much energy? if most factories stopped producing garbages you have to renew every 6 months, maybe we wouldn't need so much energy. if it wasn't about getting always more, maybe there would be no problem?
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 08:58 PM |
|
|
There is no magic medicine (yet). Providing energy is a balancing act; that's why you need to take advantage of every and any power source when and where it seems most practical.
What happened in Japan changes nothing. Relying solely on renewable energy isn't realistic. They would have burn countless thousands upon thousands of acres of their forests and turn them into silicon parking lots and line their coasts with several rows of turbines. They can use geothermal or hydroelectric, but that's just a matter of if you can harness it in said location.
As for fossil fuels; if people were as leery toward coal power plants as they were toward nuclear power plants, they would be in a constant state of panic. I deeply regret the accident at 3-Mile Island in the States, not because of the accident itself (nobody was even harmed from it) but because of the silly kneejerk reaction it generated and the ensuing anti-nuclear lobbying. A fossil fuel plant emits more radiation than a nuclear power plant does, and the ensuing pollution is much worse.
Nuclear and natural gas are the two sources that can provide a cheaper and cleaner alternative to coal and petroleum while still generating a lot of power. Renewable energies are a support.
Technically we could also just mostly abandon modern life and cut our power demands by 90% and then we could easily use solar and wind. Any volunteers?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 09:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
WE CAN'T CONTROL IT!
While this is true,
No, there is no BUT (or While).
We can't control IT - that is, radioactivity.
Which means, the technology is WRONG.
Think drugs. Energy production isn't a must. We are not forced to produce energy, more energy and yet more energy without considering the risks.
And the energy isn't cheap either. It may be cheap to produce, but waste management alone...
And then, about missing technology for renewable energies ... And the reason is? That we don't put money into it?
For the preparedness to pay for it - you would be surprised. A lot of people are paying voluntarily more money for "clean" energy - you have this option in Germany.
And as it happens, in Germany are currently province elections - they are historical: people are massively voting AGAINST nuclear power. The most wealthy province in Germany, the county of Merceds-Benz and Porsche, will get a GREEN prime minister.
It IS that easy.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 09:06 PM |
|
|
Yes, and what are you using in place of that nuclear energy?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 09:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And as it happens, in Germany are currently province elections - they are historical: people are massively voting AGAINST nuclear power. The most wealthy province in Germany, the county of Merceds-Benz and Porsche, will get a GREEN prime minister.
It IS that easy.
Kneejerk reaction.
All that phobia of radioactivity is pretty rough considering your next door neighbor is the leading king of nuclear energy. If some freak meltdown occurs in France you're going to be exposed to it either way. Not having nuclear plants on your own soil isn't going to protect you.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 09:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Think drugs. Energy production isn't a must. We are not forced to produce energy, more energy and yet more energy without considering the risks.
And the energy isn't cheap either. It may be cheap to produce, but waste management alone...
And then, about missing technology for renewable energies ... And the reason is? That we don't put money into it?
For the preparedness to pay for it - you would be surprised. A lot of people are paying voluntarily more money for "clean" energy - you have this option in Germany.
And as it happens, in Germany are currently province elections - they are historical: people are massively voting AGAINST nuclear power. The most wealthy province in Germany, the county of Merceds-Benz and Porsche, will get a GREEN prime minister.
It IS that easy.
The situation in Germany won't last long. Even if the entire country switches to "green electricity" - which just can't happen - the economical impact will be such that they'll return to the cheaper and "more poluting" sources soon. I had to study Europe's ability to produce and sustain "green power" in the university and I have to tell you that it ain't good at all - and this a conclusion of the experts' reports to the European Comission. Of course everybody wants the environment to be less poluted and to have less situations hazardous for the health but the cost could appear to be greater than what we are currently paying not only in terms of money.
Moreover, the greatest support for "cleaner" energy production comes from wealthy nations which can handle some increase of the expenses for the implementation of cleaner sources. Germany is such a country. However, we are not all rich. Actually the poor are much more. I live in Bulgaria, here it will be nigh impossible to persuade someone that he/she'll have to pay more now just to have cleaner environment some day in the future, given that the monthly salary is one of the lowest in Europe and a very large part of the population lives at what Mr. Ricardo calls "existence minimum". Actually one of the society's most serious issues here is the construction of a second NPP without which the cost of the electricity will virtually destroy the economy in a few decades.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 09:26 PM |
|
|
That's kind of a non-argument, isn't it? Or otherwise you'd never do anything provided the neighbour would follow suit.
You'll see what will happen in France, comes the next election.
By the way, all this, no, we cannot substitute all this energy with renewable sources... nonsense.
In Germany, we had already decided by law to pull out of NC completely till 2020 - up to that point 25% of our energy would be provided by renewable sources; it had been deemed makable and is still deemed so.
Only that our current government has strong ties to the nuclear power industry and decided to change the law.
Won't work.
See, the problem with NC risks isn't the risk as such. There is a risk with flying as well - you may die when you do, and if a plane crashes, there aren't so many survivors. However, the problem with NC wouldn't be the immediate victims - it would be the consequences for everyone (or a potentially unlimited number of people).
That's why flying is acceptable, but NC, in its current stage, is not.
|
|
War-overlord
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Presidente of Isla del Tropico
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 09:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
By the way, all this, no, we cannot substitute all this energy with renewable sources... nonsense.
I am reminded of the great Adam Savage when he said: "I reject your reality and subsitute my own!"
No. It is the truth. It has been calculated by scientists at multiple universities. Renewable Energy cannot, ever, suply the current energy demand. The only way it could, was if the world's population was decimated. Because lowering the energy demand is just as impossible otherwise.
____________
Vote El Presidente! Or Else!
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 09:36 PM |
|
|
When you provide me a viable power source to make up for loss of nuclear fission then we'll get somewhere.
Just by spewing bullsnow won't get you anywhere here.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 09:44 PM |
|
|
|
The problem is more about how we use the energy. as long as our goal is to use always more energy, clean energy sources won't be of much help
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 09:57 PM |
|
|
Exactly.
The problem, I repeat, isn't the limited loss in energy - the problem is the UNlimited consequences of a risk.
See, a LIMITED risk for a(n) (UN)LIMITED gain makes sense.
UNLIMITED risk for LIMITED gains does not.
|
|
|
|
