Nuclear vs Fossil Fuel

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_crackoff, Mar 13, 2011.

  1. B_crackoff

    B_crackoff New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    0
    Despite the fact that the pro nuclear, & enviromental lobby, have been seriously pushig the atomic option on us through all available media,it once again seems that a big pile of radioactive stuff that refuses to die, is in fact, probably lethal to our health.

    Recently, the BBC did a pro nuclear documentary that included Chernobyl, where they said that the effects of the disaster were not that bad, & we should all embrace this clean environmentally clean fuel.

    Recent events in Japan, & plain old common sense, suggest that this is horseshit, as you only need one earthquake/volcano/tsunami/terrorist bomb/plane/Homer Simpson screwing up a reactor - to potentially kill a large portion of the country - or worse.

    Shouldn't we stop crap like Dancing with the Stars/MTV, that ice thing, & Idol - & concentrate our resources on finding a few bright kids who might come up with a decent solution for our planet's future?

    I'd like my grandkids to drive some kind of cool convertible - but not a horse & trap:biggrin1:.

    Have the events in Japan put anyone else off nuclear?
     
  2. TheScotsman

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    427
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London
    Verified:
    Photo
    Eh, nuclear gets a bad rep, almost purely because it's impossible for people to hear the word 'nuclear' and not have their brain subconsciously add 'bomb'. You'd need to drastically alter people's perceptions of it, which doesn't seem likely. It's like the word 'cancer', it just makes people feel uneasy.
     
  3. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the thing is that the dancing with the stars crap is exactly what's going on in Japan. Everybody is freaking out about nuclear because they don't understand it.

    Nuclear is far cleaner than any other non-renewable type of energy. Massively, massively cleaner than coal, where the US gets most of it's energy. The Chernobyl accident was basically the "perfect storm" of bad shit, including a retarded reactor design, incompetent employees, and the deliberate disabling of safety devices, and you could probably live your life today within a mile of it. Three Mile island hurt and killed nobody at all.

    This reactor was already an ancient piece of equipment, and it already survived an 8.2 earthquake completely unharmed just a few years ago. It took one of the top 5 worth earthquakes on record to damage it, and you can't exactly plan for something like that. Even still, the amount of radiation that could be released(but probably won't, since the containment vessel is not breached), would most likely be less than is released from burning coal every year...burning coal releases uranium and thorium into the atmosphere. A functioning nuclear plant releases 0 radiation into the atmosphere.

    The media is sensationalizing the fuck out of this, and everyone is over-reacting, because it's OMG nuclear. It's nowhere near as dangerous to your health as the coal plant you get your actual electricity from, and never will be.

    Now is it perfect? No, you still have to find places to store the waste. Is the waste better than coal waste? Holy shit yes.

    I do agree, we still need to be making progress with renewable resources. But if we replaced every single coal plant with a modern nuclear one, the whole world would be better off.
     
  4. hammer87

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    420
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    99
    Gender:
    Male
    Verified:
    Photo
    Not one bit. Nuclear energy gets a pretty bad rap, but then again all our power sources do. No one wants an energy producing plant where they live. They all have their dangers.

    When thinking about nuclear energy though, keep in mind that there have only been 10 (counting the possible meltdown in Japan) major incidents in the 60 or so years that they have been in use. And other than Chernobyl, lives lost is fairly low. Think about all the lives lost in mining accidents, they certainly belong in the discussion.


    Chernybol should not be used in any debate. The Russian reactors had flawed designs, no containment structure, and simply half assed operation procedures.

    Dont make it sound if 9.0 earthquakes with 20ft tsunamis happen on a yearly basis. They dont. I won't deny that there has been an uncany amount of these events with in the last ten years, but it has to be said that the Earth's tectonics are not static. The plates move, and will move long after we are gone.

    As for our the nations obsession with the "reality on TV," that is what it is.

    Cancer, is in all of us, all the time. Everything causes cancer. Sounds out of bounds, but it is the truth. Some things cause cell mutation to happen more than others. I will not deny that. But it also needs to be known that some cell mutations are not all bad. That is evolution. (I am not starting that debate)

    I kind of went on a rant there...Sorry about that. If I am wrong, please tell me. I dont want to spew lies and mis-information.
     
  5. B_nyvin

    B_nyvin New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pensacola FL
    Cause 8.9 earthquakes happen every day.
     
  6. hammer87

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    420
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    99
    Gender:
    Male
    Verified:
    Photo
    So do 30ft tsunamis.
     
  7. hammer87

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    420
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    99
    Gender:
    Male
    Verified:
    Photo
    Good quote on the whole situation in the US.

    Here we go. Don't let a disaster go to waste. An earthquake of the century, that breaks an already outdated reactor with a weak containment system, paves the way for us all to be Amish.
     
  8. B_crackoff

    B_crackoff New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    0
    The fact remains that the inbuilt redundancy failed to work. How many other outdated piles are there globally?

    As for media storms - hasn't there been enough about coal & oil too? At least that can all be gone in 100 years or so. I don't worry about that at all.

    Furthermore, the media tries to scare people with "dirty" bomb stories, when the radioactive harm from that can be measured in days.

    What I want to hear is "We have this shit under control - here's the proof MF!"

    No one's said that; no evacuees are trotting back, & I still haven't heard of a plane /bomb proof reactor (apart from in Iran!).

    Either way, any energy source releases the exact same amount of heat/unit. If a couple of billion more people come online, perhaps it won't really matter from which source it comes from, especially when added to all those extra trees cut down, nitrates used as fertilizer, & methane machine cows for more burgers.
     
  9. hammer87

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    420
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    99
    Gender:
    Male
    Verified:
    Photo
    Just about every commercial reactor is outdated, and in all reality, the situation that the Japanese are going through has never happened before. So you are not going to hear anyone say that they have it under control. In a situation like this, you have to prepare, and practice for the worst, and hope for the best. And I think that is what they are practicing.

    As for the evacuees just going back to their houses and living life as normal...Going back to what. Their homes were leveled by the same natuaral disaster that casued this mess.

    I would also like to add that for all intensive purposes, nuclear power is still considered a developmental technology.
     
  10. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,099
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    For the industry and the people of Japan this is a nightmare that is going to last a long long time. Whether you support nuclear power or not it's pretty clear all the planning proved inadequate and we have cascading failures that will take weeks/months/years to fix.

    Radioactive Releases in Japan Could Last Months, Experts Say
     
  11. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,279
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis plus Nuclear Reactors; What could possibly go wrong?

    Nuclear Reactors will now be plagued by NIMBY for years to come. I don't want to live anywhere near one.
     
  12. TheScotsman

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    427
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London
    Verified:
    Photo
    I love how news channels are describing this as the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. It's the only nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. It's easy to be the worst in a sample size of one.

    People need to be re-educated about what nuclear power is exactly, but it's unfortunately far easier to sell stories about how you could die any second because crazy scientists are busy building death machines.
     
  13. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,279
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    At least 3 reactors somewhere between partial and total meltdown=REALLY BAD SHIT
     
  14. helgaleena

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,663
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Wisconsin USA
    Atomkraft nej tak. Denmark is doing pretty well without nuclear. They just import it. Their tribe will have plenty of time to get on their yachts and run for it.
     
    #14 helgaleena, Mar 14, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2011
  15. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear technology, and has been doing so since at least the 1970s, without a single incident.

    Even though it personally gives me the total creeps, I recognize that my emotional reservations regarding nuclear energy should not stand in the way of reassessing its use here in the US. In fact, we should have had this discussion about ten years ago if not earlier.
     
  16. D_stryhtfg

    D_stryhtfg New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Drill here, drill NOW!

    Oh...and while you're at it...throw up a couple nuke plants as well. Forget all of those half-baked ideas like wind mills and solar power...those types of fairy tale sources of power have no future.
     
  17. Cuddler

    Cuddler Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    At least one state has been >50% nuclear for over 30 years. Anyone know if there's an easy way to find out which others are majority non-fossil?

    "South Carolina’s four nuclear power plants typically supply more than one-half of the State’s electricity generation." (link)
     
  18. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Well, as much as I like to criticise The Beehive Hairdo State of Ewetaw, they've enough low sulphur coal and hydroelectric to avoid building nuclear power generation for another 100 years. But they are WAY overdo for the once every 1,200 year earthquake that slips the west side of the Wastach Fault down 12+ feet. In fact, local geologist figure they are at least 200 years late (it's sort of like a geological menstrual cycle). And when that temblor does hit, all of the hydroelectric east of the fault will most likely wipe out the major strip of population living along the fault.

    You just can't win.
     
  19. mizzlopez

    mizzlopez Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    341
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    5
    How do you expect people to feel after seeing what 2 Nuclear bombs did to a country of people? That should strike fear into anyone regardless of when it happened.
     
  20. rob_just_rob

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Nowhere near you
    Nuclear power produces a small amount of highly dangerous waste.

    Fossil fuels produce a large amount of not very dangerous waste.

    Pick your poison.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted