How should we get our energy/electricity?

[Nox]

Seriously, why do people still argue about this?

There isn't even a single reason why we shouldn't use nuclear power...

[thefinalmarch]

I can't wait to see the shitstorm that will become of this thread.

[Nox]

I can't wait to see the shitstorm that will become of this thread.
:thumbup1:

[Luisrah]

Seriously, why do people still argue about this?

There isn't even a single reason why we shouldn't use nuclear power...

Eventhough I am in favor of using nuclear power, there are many reasons why it shouldn't be used.

Surely you have heard of the dangers. So there's no problem of supporting it, but saying there isn't a single reason why it shouldn't be used doesn't make sense.

[Nox]

Eventhough I am in favor of using nuclear power, there are many reasons why it shouldn't be used.

Surely you have heard of the dangers. So there's no problem of supporting it, but saying there isn't a single reason why it shouldn't be used doesn't make sense.

Yes, but with experience and organisation those dangers become less...erm...dangerous :P

[Metacomet]

Cold fusion.

Next topic.

[Black Sheep]

Tell them, OP.The ones who argue about this are hippie "save the earth" environmentalists.


The argument is utter shit,it's like being against airplanes because in the even of an accident everyone gets fucked.

[hatzel]

:thumbup1:

You're a new member so you don't yet know that you're not really supposed to make micro-posts like this, as they constitute spamming. If you like what another user has to say, please click the http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/post_thanks.gif button in the bottom-right of their post, which is there to prevent the forum being flooded with precisely these kinds of posts, which add little if anything to the discussion...that said:


Yes, but with experience and organisation those dangers become less...erm...dangerous :P

It's quite strange for you to claim that there isn't a single reason not to use nuclear power, before acknowledging the existence of the reason not to use it, namely, the dangers. If you don't believe that the dangers are great enough for nuclear power to be abandoned, then feel free to hold that position, but to pretend that it's some whitewash wherein there is just a whole list of pros and not a single con is, as Luisrah has already argued, ludicrous. I would be interested to know which possible cons you have considered and rejected; remember, it extends far further than 'possibility of meltdown' or even 'toxic waste and pollution,' if these two aren't sufficient enough arguments for you. Have you considered, for example, the potential pitfalls resulting in the establishment of such a centralised energy distribution network? This could, for some people, be considered a reason not to use nuclear power, as it leads to a certain vulnerability, as opposed to a more varied and decentralised network. Even if you do not consider the argument strong enough, it surely deserves to be added to the list of reasons we shouldn't use it, rather than pretending these reasons simply don't exist.

One should also bear in mind the considerable difference between nuclear power stations today, or a centralised energy network in general, and one in a hypothetical post-revolutionary society. As you haven't actually put anything of substance in this thread yet, I am unaware of whether you are talking about where we should get our energy from today, or where we should get our energy from in a future socialist society. The conclusions drawn may be radically different...

Feel free to add something of substance to this thread. An argument or a point, perhaps why you think nuclear power is so superior to, for example, solar or wind energy :)

[Ingraham Effingham]

I'm pretty sure solar power trumps every other source.

Saudi Arabia invests heavily in it, and they are floating on oil. (although it is a desert)

[RED DAVE]

Seriously, why do people still argue about this?

There isn't even a single reason why we shouldn't use nuclear power...The reasons why are thrashed out here.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/fukushima-its-much-t156528/index.html

RED DAVE

[piet11111]

The reasons why are thrashed out here.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/fukushima-its-much-t156528/index.html

RED DAVE

We ought to ban cars based on the Chevrolet Corvair and its nasty habit of impaling the driver with the steering wheel or the ford pinto for exploding even with slow speed collisions.

[theblackmask]

We ought to ban cars based on the Chevrolet Corvair and its nasty habit of impaling the driver with the steering wheel or the ford pinto for exploding even with slow speed collisions.

Yes, because the Ford Pinto is a danger to the entire fucking world.

There is danger in using almost any tool or technology. In the case of nuclear power, this danger (massive destruction of the environment and incredibly harmful effects on humans) is much greater than any benefits we could receive from using it.

[Reznov]

I can't wait to see the shitstorm that will become of this thread.

God dammit, you beat me to it.

inb4lock.

[LegendZ]

We ought to ban cars based on the Chevrolet Corvair and its nasty habit of impaling the driver with the steering wheel or the ford pinto for exploding even with slow speed collisions.I would assume somewhere in that thread there's something that might say that in a worst case scenario a meltdown could effect a fair portion surrounding it(being the nuclear plant) and even spread farther which could cause more problems. It's a bit more difficult to measure the long term effects of a meltdown just because it could take years before you notice anything or see any adverse side effects as opposed to a car accident most injuries are evident immediately. That type of scenario(a meltdown) could possibly happen then you have to worry about the plants safety features and hope they work. Of course seeing as how one of the main alternatives isn't much better I'm overwhelmingly pro-nuc.

[Leftsolidarity]

I've never been pro-nuclear because there are so many other options with far less of a risk. That being said I've never been huge anti-nuclear either.

[Nox]

why you think nuclear power is so superior to, for example, solar or wind energy :)

There's nothing wrong with Solar energy, it's just that one nuclear power station produces a ridiculous amount of energy compared to any other form of energy production we have atm (e.g. solar, wind, fossil fuels)


But by the time the communist revolution comes, we will probably have already figured out how to use Nuclear fusion :thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:

[PhoenixAsh]

How can this NOT be a debate? Everybody forgot about the incompetence, the lies, the disaster that is Fukushima? Where for the next few decades the area directly surrounding the plant are completely fucked?

Scientists are stumbling over each other to tell us how little they actually know about the long term effects of radiation doses on both the soil, food production and more important human life.

As of June cesium-137 was still spilling from the plant into both the ocean and groundwater. That stuff stacks and has a half-life of 30 years....which does NOT make it harmless at all.

Not to mention the effects which still will linger for the next century in Chernobyl....basically making huge tracts of land still uninhabitable and food production or consumption extremely unhealthy....the effects of Chernobyl were noticeable in health charts across a large part of the globe.

So...its not a question IF it goes wrong...but WHEN it goes wrong. And WHEN it goes wrong...its a little less contained than 234 passengers on an airplane....obviously :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=Radioactive_fall-out_from_the_Chernobyl_accident.jpg

[Pioneers_Violin]

Здравствуйте.
Hope the eye is feeling better.

Here's a good reason not to use it: Steam is extremely dangerous!
Most nuclear power plants, maybe even all use really hot nuclear reactions to boil water or other liquids into steam. The steam is used to make generators work.

Chernobyl was a steam explosion that dispersed a lot of radioactive material all over.

This is nothing new. Steam operated machinery has been around for a long time and has been exploding catastrophically almost since the beginning.

Nuclear reactors with their radioactive materials can poison huge areas when they explode.
Worse, when shutting down a nuclear plant it can take days to become stable. That's what happened in Fukushima. The backup power failed before it cooled enough to become stable and BOOM!
Who designs these things? Hitler?

I could just about live with a nuke plant if they could be shut down completely without exploding.
Can't someone design one where "OFF" means "OFF" and not "Making enough heat to melt down"?
Couldn't they use something other than bad 'ol steam?
Or keep the radioactive stuff a safe distance away from the explosion-prone steam?
Like about 93 million miles away.

[Kamos]

http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=Radioactive_fall-out_from_the_Chernobyl_accident.jpg

Funny, most of the "infected" area is very well off.

First, nuclear radiation can disperse, albeit very slowly, but the environmental damage coal power plants cause does not. So that rules out coal plants. As for renewable energy sources, they're simply not economic enough in a capitalist society, so what we have left is nuclear energy. While we're not living in a final-stage revolutionary society, this is what we have. (By the way, solar energy can only be accumulated when there's sunlight, and wind energy also depends on the strength of the wind. I'm no expert on the topic, but wouldn't this mean that these sources of energy would be less reliable?)

[Black Sheep]

According to the graph above,we greeks are swimming in fallout.
:lol: