Nuclear Power

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's quite simple really. Nuclear power is the only logical choice for those of you who want a low-impact lifestyle on the planet. Let's have a brief look at nuclear power and it's alternatives:

Nuclear power:

Fuel: Uranium, which can be reprocessed and has a high mass-to-energy ratio.

Waste products: Heat and highly concentrated toxic radioactive waste, which is collected in idiot-proof, bomb-proof containers and stored in a recorded location.

Safety Record: Three major accidents in 50 years. Way above industry average.

Fossil Fuels:

Fuel: Coal, oil and gas, of which large amounts are acquired by expansionist policies.

Waste Products: Heat, fumes and ash which is released into the environment more or less unregulated.

Safety Record: In addition to industry average, a series of refinery accidents.

AND

Alternative Sources:

Will never produce the net amount of energy needed, simple as that. Not without completely ruining the environment with wind farms, hydroelectric dams, tidal barrages, solar collectors, and wasted land (Biomass)
Geothermal is too few and far between to be practical. Incineration of rubbish releases deadly toxins into environment.

What do YOU think is the logical choice?

[RedAnarchist]

Noxion, you've convinced me that it's ok, and you amek good points about it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Noxion, you've convinced me that it's ok, and you amek good points about it.

I was intending to make this thread anyway, but your post in Politics made me realise how vital it was.

[cormacobear]

The waste from nuclear power needs to be taken off the planet. currently Canada, the states and a couple of other countries send their waste to countries in N. Africa. where it will take 300 years to break down.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The waste from nuclear power needs to be taken off the planet. currently Canada, the states and a couple of other countries send their waste to countries in N. Africa. where it will take 300 years to break down.

Currently, dumping nuclear waste on an a distant asteroid is impractical. As to sending the waste elsewhere, it's not just the nuclear industry that does it, it is a feature of capitalism. Coca-Cola sends it bottles to India to be recycled, causing health problems for the locals. It's a political issue.

[cormacobear]

yah but the sun is right there. give it a push and away it goes.

you don't need an asteroid

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Until the Space Elevator (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html) Has been completed, we will have to store the waste on Earth. Oh well.
At least it isn't leaching into our soil or floating around our atmosphere.

[truthaddict11]

just store the waste inside of mountains or that big open deadness in Alaska.

[POFO_Communist]

Why not allocate a small portion of antarctica as a regulated nuclear wasteland?

Considering the size of the continent, we could set aside an area the size of italy for example, and dump everything there. It would take thousands of years to fill up that much space with nuclear waste.

Eventually, as our space-faring technologies become more practical, we could start to gradually clear out this area by removing the nuclear waste and sending it plunging into the sun.

Do you know that 1 solar flare contains as much energy as many TRILLIONS of megatons of TNT? The most powerful nuclear device tested was a pathetic 56 megatons.
Ultimately, our final solution for our our rubbish, is the sun.

OR

We set aside a special nuclear explosion area, and we dump all our trash, nuclear, domestic etc etc into this area. When it fills up, we detonate the device, a clean thermonuclear device with little radioactive fallout.

Where does the rubbish go? It is no longer there.

[cormacobear]

Yah cause penguins don't look weird enough we should give them tumours.

Quit scewing around with Alaska, oyur oilfeilds are killing the Carribou which are nescessary for our Boreal forests.

I guess putting it on Islands they've been setting off Nuc. bombs isn't so bad we alreadry irradiated the whole area.

Wind ,solar power, and wave generated power are the only clean sources of power.

[BOZG]

The risks involved with nuclear power, especially under capitalism are just too dangerous to use it on a widespread basis. Regardless of whether there's been a small number of accidents, there's far more widespread problems involved with living in a proximity to nuclear power plants.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Regardless of whether there's been a small number of accidents, there's far more widespread problems involved with living in a proximity to nuclear power plants.

Such as? You get just as much radiation from living near a fossil fuel plant, and waste heat can be dealt with if you build special cooling ponds rather than simply dumping it in the environment.

[BOZG]

The Irish sea being one of the most polluted seas in the world and the higher than average numbers of cancer victims on an area directly across from Sellafield.

I don't know if there's any sources online for this but I've read it in the papers over here.

[Rockfan]

Im not looking for an argument by i prefire the use of hydropower. I live in nz which has a nualar free stance so its probly been drilled in2 me but yea thats jus wat i think

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Yeah but hydropower isn't avaible everywhere. Where possible clean alternatives should be used.

[cormacobear]

Agreat deal of land is lost to Hydropower. This often has deap enviornmental consequences

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Where hydropower is available, it's already being used, for the most part.

Nuclear power is a great solution.
And cheap as well, considering the immense efficiency and potency of nuclear power stations.

[MiniOswald]

lemme just mention what a teacher of mine did. There some friggin big nuclear reactors in france and he sed dont worry if they do a chernobyl, we wont be able to worry you'll be dead. There are places much bigger than chernobyl and if they go so does a nice big chunk of the world, if a wind farm breaks i dont think the casualty rate is too high.

and as for nuclear waste? what becomes of it? bury it? where?

and then theres chernobyl, down and down that reactor goes ever coming closer to the water supplies, with endless levels of energy from the blast. Very safe, i aint so sure

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 07:39 AM
Why not allocate a small portion of antarctica as a regulated nuclear wasteland?

Considering the size of the continent, we could set aside an area the size of italy for example, and dump everything there. It would take thousands of years to fill up that much space with nuclear waste.
Could the Nuclear energy cause greater weakening (there's an oxymoron) to the Polar caps Ozone?

I'm all for Hydro, wind, or solar myself. Or no energy at all. Any of those four work for me. And if there's not enough energy as the creator of this thread thinks, you could have "shifting power supplies" or certain times when you can't use power and is specifically conserved for recharging the storages. As long as we're more environmentally friendly I'm happy.

Oh, I also didn't vote because of the obvious bias the creator put on nuclear power. :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There are places much bigger than chernobyl and if they go so does a nice big chunk of the world,

You realise that nuclear fuel is stored and used in subcritical masses? Chernobyl didn't explode. There was a meltdown due to human error, which cracked the reactor's shell.


and as for nuclear waste? what becomes of it? bury it? where?

It is placed into nearly-indestructible containers before being loaded onto special vehicles that can withstand a head-on collision with another vehicle, and is then placed in a concrete sarcophagus which is covered with earth. It's location (Which is usually remote) and size is then recorded. Sounds pretty safe to me.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Radiation may likely escape from the used reactors, but they're buried very deep and will affect nothing at all. Most likely not even very many bacteria.

[cubist]

The risks involved with nuclear power, especially under capitalism are just too dangerous to use it on a widespread basis. Regardless of whether there's been a small number of accidents, there's far more widespread problems involved with living in a proximity to nuclear power plants.

i beg to differ.

The lessons learned by the wordl from chernobyl is why nuclear power is the safer option, yes it cost apporximately £16 per MWh to produce some £4 mor ethan coal but that £4 is due to the well designed safe guards,

they are so tied up in red tape that youhave to hold on to banisters on stairways, no joke i worked there...

it is a far safer option than using every last bit of our fossil resrves.the longer we let it continue to be operational the safer it will become too,


BTW chernobyl is huge it has four recators, 3 ar estill operational,

if they had all gone the ukraine would be a smaller country,

[komon]

the rhone valley in france is the most nuclear region of the world.......
and this was the choice ot france under soscialism(named)..what is going to hapen there if america attacks :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
cynic and ironic isn't it

[DaCuBaN]

and then theres chernobyl, down and down that reactor goes ever coming closer to the water supplies, with endless levels of energy from the blast.

Ummm... that's news to me. I was under the impression that it was simply still burning away it's concrete shell, and that they are needing to put a new one on soon.

I certainly know you don't go walking in the grass around chernobyl, even to this day.


chernobyl is huge it has four recators, 3 ar estill operational

Not so. Chernobyl and the immediate area are totally abandonded nowadays, as the soil won't be safe for at least another 30-40 years.

This notwithstanding, I voted for Nuclear Power.

[pedro san pedro]

Waste products: Heat and highly concentrated toxic radioactive waste, which is collected in idiot-proof, bomb-proof containers and stored in a recorded location.

not true - waste is moved about the planet in an incredibly idiotic manner. ever heard of reprocessing? waste that is produced here in australia finds its way over to france to be reprocessed, which in turn creates more waste, before being returned to austraila.

this is transported by boat - shipping accidents happen often.....
plus, the containers the waste are stored within are not resitant to heat to high enough levels to prevent rupture in a serious fire.

every time waste is transported, there is the chance of an incident occuring. waste should be stored where it is produced.

deciding to start shipping all of our waste to antartica :angry: is only going to increase the chance of an accident occuring. if you make the waste, you should deal with it.



Alternative Sources:

Will never produce the net amount of energy needed, simple as that.


bollocks and you know it. wind and solar power are both fine - just look at what the europeans are up to...

[DaCuBaN]

just look at what the europeans are up to

You mean building Nuclear Power stations by the dozen? France is the king of Nuclear power, after all ;)

[pedro san pedro]

lol! i mean that they are investing heavily in renewables.

nuclear energy dont come cheap, and building a nuclear power station is very very very very very costly.

so, they aint buliding them by the dozen - there hasnt been a new nuclear power faclity built anywhere for a long time, and the ones that are running are generally propped up by very large government subsidies

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Almost all power plants are propped up by government subsidies.

And nuclear power is indeed efficient. It may cost a lot to make the plant and employ the highly skilled technicians necessary (Homer Simpson), but it produces so much more power than a conventional coal, oil, or gas plant that it pays off.

And the Europeans are building all the windmills, but nobody is expecting those to somehow be an alternative to real electricity sources.

[pedro san pedro]

then you had better point that out to denmark really quickly.... they already have 20% of their national grid through wind power.

thats the national grid, not residnetial, so they are powering industry with it aswell.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

you better read this

Today, renewable energy sources contribute to less than 10% of the country's energy production.

http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/report_3-1999/11313.html

[leftist resistance]

Nuclear is an efficient energy source but it comes with a big bundle of risks.
The Three Mile Island incident and the notorious Chernobyl are examples of potential dangers.
Nuclear radiation presents health risks in that it can either kill immediately or alter the genes of survivors.Their offsprings are most likely than not,potentially handicapped.In a village near chernobyl,a majority of the resdents are affected.Plus,they have no immediate water source as the nearby river is believed to be contaminated.The incident also affected the whole region,aggravating the whole issue.
On the other hand,i believe nuclear is an alternative.Besides,it is certainly better than using it to make atomic bombs.But we must learn to make the nuclear stations totally safe.
Hey,is there a nuclear station in Britain?The one on an island?

[DaCuBaN]

Britain has it's fair share of nuclear power stations:

Magnox reactors

Dungeness A
Oldbury-on-Severn
Sizewell A
Wylfa

AGRs

Dungeness B
Hartlepool
Heysham 1
Heysham 2
Hinkley Point B
Hunterston B
Torness

PWR

Sizewell B

http://www.niauk.org/article_33.shtml

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Somebody mentioned something earlier about increased cancer rates on the opposite coast of Sellafield... It would be interesting to see the figures for localities around the other power stations listed above.

[cubist]

its not that bad around here

oldbury
berkeley (now decomissioned)

the french ar enot the masters of nuclear power, they are inferior to the brits AGR power stations,

AGR is proven safer, hence the americans ask the UK to help them with engineering support,

i can't remember the name of the governing body, but the nuclear regulatory body comes down fucking hard on its members (britain france etc) there is no room for mistakes, and they ensure they won't happen, i am confident my dad has done his job well enough in the UK to help keep nuclear power safe,

he works for british energy in the gasflow/bolier cooling teams, fucking insane to look at to an untrained physics or maths bod but fascinating at the same time

[DaCuBaN]

That would be The International Atomic Energy Association (http://www.iaea.org/)

As to my comment about france, I chose my words poorly: My apologies. France have the largest proportion of their power produced through atomic energy of any western country.

[cubist]

http://www.british-energy.com/environment/index.html

thats probably a bias link, but still a good source of info

[FatFreeMilk]

Nuclear power all the way man. It's way more efficient and produces way less pollution than coal (where half of the US's energy comes from). As far as waste, we dispose our shit in the Yucca Mountains in Nevada, hundreds of feet under ground, in really sturdy casks. Even if they did leak, it wouldn't be that much of a big deal because it's just a big ass desert, nobody lives there, and there's no water sources to leak into.

[Scott M]

your voting options are a little construed friend.

Nuclear energy is funnily enough what im studying in environmental physics for my degree at the moment. Its a very bad thing!!!! peoples viewpoints are created on the bad aspects of it and i agree with you on that one, but it is in no way beneficial.

the uranium used to run a nuclear power plant is not a renewable source of power, and it has already shown that uranium reserves and resources are only down to 125 years (Park C, Environment Applications and Principles, 2000, Routledge). It is less efficient than both wind and hydro power at only 62% efficient (Summerfield D, Nuclear Physics and Principality, 1995, Prentice Hall) compared to hydro 63% and wind 67% (national board of energy representative guest speaker) source adapted from (Haggett P, Energy Reservations, 2004, Routledge).

The cost for removing waste is much higher than the cost of constructing 200 wind farms and there is no real safe place to get rid of nuclear waste...burying it deep into the ground....hmm are you familiar with seismic activity and the products of earthquakes? geo-metamorphic rocks will be pushed to the surface from as deep as 5km!!!! allbeit it takes time, but could you rest at night knowing that the barrell of nuclear waste you buried outside in the yard would be dug up and your grandchildren would end up playing with it in years to come. the only thing which has been proven to fully hold nuclear energy is crystal perspex and each cubic metre of crystal perspex costs approx. $900,000 (the Department of Energy Annual Report: Courtesy of Dr Nicholas Fyfe, Head of Nuclear Development and future potential energy)

Plus there is the obvious drawbacks of nuclear proliferation which i dont think i need to decribe to anyone here.

No CO2 emmissions i hear you preach? what about the extraction of the uranium? what fuels these massive machines which extract, transport and process this "harmless renewable fuel"? exactly...petrol! and until hydrogen fuel cells are incorporated into vehicles at an economical value, the extraction and trasnportation of any material for fuels is not economically or environmentally friendly.

The world has five better options for a renewable source. These are more effective, more efficient, cleaner and cheaper.(Middleton J, The Global Casino Edition III, Prentice Hall) wind, solar, water, geothermal and biomass.

scott

[cubist]

No CO2 emmissions i hear you preach? what about the extraction of the uranium? what fuels these massive machines which extract, transport and process this "harmless renewable fuel"? exactly...petrol! and until hydrogen fuel cells are incorporated into vehicles at an economical value, the extraction and trasnportation of any material for fuels is not economically or environmentally friendly.

thats the best excuse i have ever heard



the alternatives you offer are limited by the environment itself, you need winds lots of sun/ to be close to the mantle, reality says nuclear power is here to stay thankfully,

[Scott M]

i have to agree that this is the only problem with renewable sources such as these...you do rely on the environment, but i notice you emitted water in its entirity in your argument. Wave power, cheap and very effective, no obscure building designs to ruin the aesthetic value of nature...17%more efficient than uranium and nuclear production...yes you rely on waves, but in Orkney...(one of the Scottish islands) they run entirely on wave power.

I agree that HEP stations are construing on the eye, but once again, we all need to sacrifice something, and i for one, would rather that was a few small acres of nature, than my own health.

scott

[h&s]

I'm not saying that I'm against Nuclear power, but we do need to be very careful about its use. As BOZG said, Nuclear power + capitalism = potential disaster as the companies running them are only interested in profit they will cut back on safety, etc etc you know what I mean. Under socialism or communism though this should not be an issue. Safety will be of the highest importance so health problems shouldn't exist. On the subject of Sellafield though if you go on the beaches near it you will see signs warning you that the chances are that you are inhaling plutonium as you stand there, so that is a big issue that needs to be addressed.
Another point is that although NP could make up the main input of the national grid, it is hardly a responsive power source. We will need to keep our gas powered power stations to pick up the surges in demand as you can't rely on wind for this. Unless of course you suggest building HEP stations in every uphill valley that is.

I agree that HEP stations are construing on the eye, but once again, we all need to sacrifice something, and i for one, would rather that was a few small acres of nature, than my own health.

And where do you suggest we build these (in the UK)? If you ever look at a map of Scottland pretty much every possible valley has a dam on it already.

Wave power, cheap and very effective, no obscure building designs to ruin the aesthetic value of nature
They tried that on a larger scale in the North Sea. It was a disaster.

[cubist]

whoops i missed water

water is usless in holland :)
and the tidal idea still isn't 100% great but one day i imagine it will be

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

About the waste, not all of it is highly radioactive. In most cases just burying it underground away from groundwater is sufficient. And, even though the environmentalists would hate me for saying this... we could dump it in the ocean. It's very large and very deep, and it would only affect a very minimal proportion of ocean life. Personally I wouldn't have any problem with dumping nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean.


It is less efficient than both wind and hydro power at only 62% efficient (Summerfield D, Nuclear Physics and Principality, 1995, Prentice Hall) compared to hydro 63% and wind 67% (national board of energy representative guest speaker) source adapted from (Haggett P, Energy Reservations, 2004, Routledge).

But you have to understand why the implementation is bad. The current economics of nuclear power make it difficult to use.

Since TMI, the NRC has levied numerous, often arbitrary requirements for nuclear power plants to get licenses that make it almost impossible to get them. The US Capitol building in Washington, DC would be illegal to use as a nuclear power plant because the radiation levels are too high. Paperwork for setting up a nuclear plant is almost endless. It can take longer to finish it than to build the plant. Sometimes in the midst of construction requirements are changed, requiring new construction in place of what has already happened. Because of the extreme requirements put on nuclear power plants and the way they are built, each one is currently built slightly differently from others. There is not as of yet any "expertise" on building nuclear power plants because new teams of engineers build each one, causing the same mistakes to be made over and over. Once a reactor vessel at a California plant was installed backwards. And then the environmentalists can file hundreds of lawsuits, making it impossible to get the required licenses. Several nuclear power plants have been changed to coal in midconstruction because of the difficulty in obtaining licenses. Some plants were nearly finished for ten to fifteen years before obtaining licenses to operate.

The nuclear industry needs two things to become more economical. First, much of the paperwork needs to simplified as a great deal of it is arbitrary. If licenses are easier to get, plants will become easier to build. Second, there needs to be a more standard design for nuclear power plants, which will prevent mistakes from being made over and over. Right now, nuclear power plants can cost from $1 billion to $3 billion to build.

However, once built, nuclear power plants are far cheaper to operate than coal plants. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Almost all of coal plants' cost comes from their operating costs. They require thousands of trainloads of coal a year to operate. A nuclear power plant only requires a few truckloads of fresh fuel per year. Coal plants also must constantly run mining operations to get coal, in which many miners die. The pollution from coal plants is estimated to kill 50 people a day. The volume of waste produced is actually more than the orginal fuel, and they put more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants do.

So, because of the operating costs, the final cost per kilowatt hour to the customer is virtually the same to the customer. If nuclear power becomes easier to build by relaxing many of the arbitrary requirements and by using common designs, it will become much cheaper.

The anti-nukyular power activists don't care that coal plants are more radioactive than nuclear ones; that the Capitol bulding is more radioactive than a nuclear plant is legally allowed to be; that the only proven deaths from nuclear power were at the poorly designed Chernobyl plant, but it is a proven fact that over 50 people a day die from the pollution caused by coal and oil plants. They don't care that the heating power of a gram of uranium is similar to that of something like ten million tons of coal, that coal mining causes thousands of deaths, or that coal power plants require trainloads of fuel a day, and that nuclear power plants need a few truckloads per year. They also fail to realize the advantages of NTRs or NEPs, and that Yucca Mountain will cost $58 billion, mostly due to them (note that this is approximately three times the cost of a manned Mars mission).

Basically, if I wanted to stay safe from radiation, I would replace all coal plants with nuclear ones.

While nuclear power plants can have problems, in practice if safety regulations are followed they do not. A perfect example of a problem at a properly regulated plant was Three Mile Island. There was a major problem, and if the plant was not designed for safety people might have been hurt. But the containment structure prevented any radioactive release and protected the population of the area. The same cannot be said for coal and oil plants, whose pollution affects everyone in their area, including wildlife.

[LuZhiming]

What can one say to this? Just to take an example, according to the Department of Energy the enrichment of uranium produces 93% per year of the C.F.C. gases in the United States. Besides this, you typically need coal power plants to enrich the uranium for nuclear power. This process releases carbon dioxide everywhere, and even more is released in the processes of actually building the reactors and storing the radioactive wastes, which last to up to half a million years and will leak into the Ecosphere. All this is done and radiation is released in the air, which causes numerous problems later on. The use of nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and (therefore) stupid.

The solution is to conserve energy and to use mainly non-polluting means of energy. There is absolutely no reason for us to be as wasteful as we are. If this was carried out in an organized fashion, it would work. Non-polluting methods of energy are in wider use then people think, in mountainous regions in Norway for example, most electrical power is gotten merely from nearby rivers.

[Osman Ghazi]

Hydroelectric dams are just as damaging as other power plants though. They flood huge areas, which causes a lot of biomatter to rot, releasing GHGs. Then there is the fact that they destory wildlife habitats, and upset the balance of sedimentation in rivers, causing erosion etc. Then there is the fact that to build huge hydroelectric dams takes huge amounts of energy and produces huge amounts of pollution. So essentially, there is no actual 'clean energy'.

What I would like to know, is which methods are 'cleanest', measuring indirect factors like the pollution caused by their contruction, etc. Does anyone have this information, by chance?

As far as I know, it goes: wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, natural gas, then coal.

Edit: as to the more widespread use of 'clean' energy, my local power authority is called Ontario Hydro, not, for example, Ontario Electric, though we do in fact have two or three nuclear power plants.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 08:55 PM
Do you like nuclear power?

Yes, I enjoy a clean and effecient source of power

No, I like having black lungs from coal stations and having a countryside ruined by 'alternative' energy sources
Well, you've made some good points but for the record, your poll is biased and it sucks, so I nulled my vote

Now let’s get into a debate...


Nuclear power:

Fuel: Uranium, which can be reprocessed and has a high mass-to-energy ratio.

Waste products: Heat and highly concentrated toxic radioactive waste, which is collected in idiot-proof, bomb-proof containers and stored in a recorded location.

Safety Record: Three major accidents in 50 years. Way above industry average.

Well, that is all very nice if we live in a great utopia but we live under threat of capitalist induced conflict and all of the peril that implies. I assume these plants can only be run by companies certified in some way by the ruling bodies and run for the profit of capitalist monopolies. Great! Fucking awesome! Not to mention that if we endorse the pursuit of the inferior fission processes, we are letting the power companies take their cut from this industry and we all know how much capitalists like their oil. If this did become a large-scale operation we would never be rid of it and better, more readily available resources would never be allowed.


Fossil Fuels:

Fuel: Coal, oil and gas, of which large amounts are acquired by expansionist policies.

Waste Products: Heat, fumes and ash which is released into the environment more or less unregulated.

Safety Record: In addition to industry average, a series of refinery accidents.

Alright, who would argue with this? Only profiteering capitalists and indifferent assholes.


Alternative Sources:

Will never produce the net amount of energy needed, simple as that. Not without completely ruining the environment with wind farms, hydroelectric dams, tidal barrages, solar collectors, and wasted land (Biomass)
Geothermal is too few and far between to be practical. Incineration of rubbish releases deadly toxins into environment.

What do YOU think is the logical choice

Damn strait; so long as we don't research them or use them to any significant extent, they will be a pointless drain on our resources just as the ruling class would like.

The logical choice is to find new ways to use our technology; more efficient and self maintaining ways to help ourselves and not be dependent on capitalist industry.

Why couldn't we install solar panels on our homes? Why couldn't we use cooling and heating systems that store readily available energy? The answer is that this technology isn't readily available for a reason and as long as we don't push for it, we will be dependent on inferior capitalist owned technology forever.

[ChaosInstructor223]

what about puting the nuke reactors in orbit around the planet??
did ne 1 ever think of that??
and the waste problem; just put it on the moon. we have the technology we just dont have the power because we are still dependent on oil & coal.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:33 AM
what about puting the nuke reactors in orbit around the planet??
did ne 1 ever think of that??
and the waste problem; just put it on the moon. we have the technology we just dont have the power because we are still dependent on oil & coal.
Sounds good, in fact I think that would be a more efficient place for it but like you said, at this point we don't have the right technology for it and our military industrial complex isn't prioritizing power generation. Most importantly, I can see them being used as a horrible weapon at this point in time.

Also, I am not sure it is worth putting crappy fission reactors up there. If we are going to go to all the trouble, we should research fusion ones or put some solar collectors around the sun.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, that is all very nice if we live in a great utopia but we live under threat of capitalist induced conflict and all of the peril that implies.

If you mean terrorist attacks against nuclear reactors and waste transports, then it would have happened already. not to mention not even a direct hit from a 747 will crack a reactor's shield.


I assume these plants can only be run by companies certified in some way by the ruling bodies and run for the profit of capitalist monopolies.

Well, that is what would happen under capitalism, of course. Socialism would be no better, but it would be a different story in classless society.


Great! Fucking awesome! Not to mention that if we endorse the pursuit of the inferior fission processes, we are letting the power companies take their cut from this industry and we all know how much capitalists like their oil.

What on earth do you mean? fission processes are not 'inferior' pound for pound, they produce more energy than either fossil fuels or alternatives.
Capitalists like their oil and that is exactly one of the reasons nuclear power isn't as successful as it should be.


If this did become a large-scale operation we would never be rid of it and better, more readily available resources would never be allowed.

Under capitalism, yes. But why do you think that nuclear power is not more widespread now? mainly of the exaggerations and distortions distrubuted by the popular media, and we both whose pocket they are in.


Why couldn't we install solar panels on our homes? Why couldn't we use cooling and heating systems that store readily available energy? The answer is that this technology isn't readily available for a reason and as long as we don't push for it, we will be dependent on inferior capitalist owned technology forever.

I'm not denying the usefulness of solar cells and other alternatives in of themselves - a house with solar cells can reduce it's grid electricity intake by up to 25% - but they cannot be the sole power source.
By all means build geothermal power plants [i]where they are practical[i/], for the other parts of the world nuclear power as a main power source is best.


Also, I am not sure it is worth putting crappy fission reactors up there. If we are going to go to all the trouble, we should research fusion ones or put some solar collectors around the sun.

I would not put any sort of reactor up into orbit - simply a waste of resources. A better idea would to place enormous solar panels in the Lagrange points around the Earth and moon, and beam the collected energy as microwaves to recievers on Earth. At the moment this is a rather ineffecient method as energy is lost during the microwave transfer, but as our technology becomes more effecient and space travel becomes cheaper, it should become a much more viable source of power.

My point is that we shouldn't discount fission as an alternative source of energy - to do so would be to throw away a marvelous opportunity for human advancement.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 10:07 PM

Well, that is all very nice if we live in a great utopia but we live under threat of capitalist induced conflict and all of the peril that implies.

If you mean terrorist attacks against nuclear reactors and waste transports, then it would have happened already. not to mention not even a direct hit from a 747 will crack a reactor's shield.
Well I mostly meant that it is a constant source of fuel for weapons and a source of fear for the working class (internationally).

If something did ever happen for a number of reasons, a large amount of people would die...



I assume these plants can only be run by companies certified in some way by the ruling bodies and run for the profit of capitalist monopolies.

Well, that is what would happen under capitalism, of course. Socialism would be no better, but it would be a different story in classless society.

I think socialism would be better, incrementally at least (depending on what you mean by socialism).

When we live in a classless society, we might very well do some research into more efficient forms of fission and then again, it may be discarded as a waste of time.



Great! Fucking awesome! Not to mention that if we endorse the pursuit of the inferior fission processes, we are letting the power companies take their cut from this industry and we all know how much capitalists like their oil.

What on earth do you mean? fission processes are not 'inferior' pound for pound, they produce more energy than either fossil fuels or alternatives.

They are greatly inferior "pound for pound" when it comes to fusion and much worse when it comes to gathering materials. Also, we can certainly use renewable sources to a much greater extent and if we increase the productivity of the technology, we may not need to resort to any nuclear energy source.


Capitalists like their oil and that is exactly one of the reasons nuclear power isn't as successful as it should be.

Why? They could just as easily make money off of THEIR nuclear plants if they are so great. Are they afraid of making money in a new area, which they will need to be considering shortly? Maybe you think the oil companies are not able to get into nuclear power? I think the government’s favorite corporations could find a way...



If this did become a large-scale operation we would never be rid of it and better, more readily available resources would never be allowed.

Under capitalism, yes. But why do you think that nuclear power is not more widespread now? mainly of the exaggerations and distortions distrubuted by the popular media, and we both whose pocket they are in.

Huh? Specifically; what "exaggerations and distortions?" are the media networks working to suppress the government subsidized and certified nuclear plants?



Why couldn't we install solar panels on our homes? Why couldn't we use cooling and heating systems that store readily available energy? The answer is that this technology isn't readily available for a reason and as long as we don't push for it, we will be dependent on inferior capitalist owned technology forever.

I'm not denying the usefulness of solar cells and other alternatives in of themselves - a house with solar cells can reduce it's grid electricity intake by up to 25% - but they cannot be the sole power source.
By all means build geothermal power plants [i]where they are practical[i/], for the other parts of the world nuclear power as a main power source is best.


Why is it "best?" Why are you advocating this source and denigrating superior ones? We should really be trying to get the better ones improved and available for everyone's use without helping capitalist interests.




Also, I am not sure it is worth putting crappy fission reactors up there. If we are going to go to all the trouble, we should research fusion ones or put some solar collectors around the sun.

I would not put any sort of reactor up into orbit - simply a waste of resources. A better idea would to place enormous solar panels in the Lagrange points around the Earth and moon, and beam the collected energy as microwaves to recievers on Earth. At the moment this is a rather ineffecient method as energy is lost during the microwave transfer, but as our technology becomes more effecient and space travel becomes cheaper, it should become a much more viable source of power.

I agree; if we could continue to add to the solar collection grid, we could eventually send it off to orbit the Sun, which would be a far better method of collection.


My point is that we shouldn't discount fission as an alternative source of energy - to do so would be to throw away a marvelous opportunity for human advancement.

Point taken but I don't see why you find it to be such a worthy source, many "marvelous opportunity for human advancement" are thrown away every day and most of the important ones have very little to do with nuclear power.

[Dyst]

I dunno if anybodys heard of it, and this might be strikingly out of topic for all I know, but anyways, have anybody heard of the machines that extract power from (ocean) waves? It is a sort of new invention (from Norway, I think) which somehow takes the power from waves near land, and turns it into energy... This might allready have been brought up tho... :P

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 11:39 AM
I dunno if anybodys heard of it, and this might be strikingly out of topic for all I know, but anyways, have anybody heard of the machines that extract power from (ocean) waves? It is a sort of new invention (from Norway, I think) which somehow takes the power from waves near land, and turns it into energy... This might allready have been brought up tho... :P
I haven't seen it here yet but yes I have heard of it. It seems like a good source of power but I do not know what kind of impact it would have on the environment.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They are greatly inferior "pound for pound" when it comes to fusion and much worse when it comes to gathering materials.

If you're talking about fusion technology, which has yet to reach break-even point (the point at which more energy out of the fusionables can be extracted than it takes to run the reactor) then it would be a net drain on the world's energy. Fusion will become a viable power source when the break-even point is attained.

Fusion and Sustainable Development (http://www.fusion.org.uk/susdev/index.htm)

Check out the 'economics' section for the cost of extraction - it looks good.


Why? They could just as easily make money off of THEIR nuclear plants if they are so great.

First you say this...


government subsidized and certified nuclear plants

...And then you say this. There you see why fission has to be subsidised - the amount of legal and safety loopholes that have to be jumped through when you want to build a fission reactor are a ridiculous drain on funding. Not only that, but you will have to contend with paranoid idiots like Greenpeace and the CND, who will likely do their best to bring lawsuits against you. You can understand why the oil companies won't go there (At least yet)


Huh? Specifically; what "exaggerations and distortions?" are the media networks working to suppress the government subsidized and certified nuclear plants?

The negative effects of nuclear power plants and their waste have been hyped up to the point of stupidity by the likes of Greenpeace - I checked out this (http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html) and some things stood out:

January
2-1993: Leak at Kozloduy nuclear power plant, release of radioactive steam (Bulgaria)
3-1961: Explosion in reactor Idaho Falls (USA); three people killed
4-1965: 6.5 kg plutonium sludge released from Savannah River reprocessing plant (USA)
5-1976: Two workers killed by radioactive carbon dioxide at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
6-1981: Accident at La Hague reprocessing plant (France)
7-1974: Explosion at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
8-1975: Release of radioactivity from Mihama nuclear power plant (Japan)
9-1993: Radioactive release from leaking fuel rods at Perry nuclear power plant (USA)
10-1987: Nuclear transport accident in the UK
12-1960: Technicians trying to restart a reactor at Savannah River reprocessing plant almost send it out of control (USA)
17-1966: A B-52 plane crashes in Spain causing plutonium contamination
18-1989: Eight workers are contaminated at Savannah River reprocessing plant (USA)
19-1992: Radioactive leak, reactor shut-down at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
20-1993: Technical failure at Paluel causes subcooling accident (France)
21-1969: Technical failure at Swiss experimental nuclear reactor causes release of radioactive water
22-1992: Technical failure in shut-down system at Balakovo nuclear power plant (Russia)
23- 1978: Radioactive helium released from Colorado reactor (USA)
26-1988: Dangerous temperature rise in a nuclear reactor on board a British submarine
27-1992: Leak causes a shut-down at Darlington nuclear power plant (Canada)
28-1990: Pump failure during a shut-down at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)
31 -1996: Leakage of radiation due to human error and technical failure at Dimitrovgrad nuclear research centre (Russia)

February
1-1982: Release of 100 cubic metres of radioactive water from Salem nuclear power plant (USA)
2-1993: Breakdown of cooling system for two hours at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
3-1992: Failure of cooling pumps at Kozloduy nuclear power plant (Bulgaria)
5-1986: "Amber alert" (indicating an emergency in one building and a threat to the rest of the plant)" at Sellafield reprocessing plant, UK
6-1974: Explosion and radiation leak at Leningrad nuclear power plant, three people killed (Russia)
8-1991: Release of radioactivity from Fukui nuclear power plant (Japan)
9-1991: Rupture of steam generator pipe causes release of radioactivity at Mihama nuclear power plant (Japan)
10-1992: Technical failure in pump system at Zaporozhe nuclear power plant (Ukraine)
11-1986: Release of 13 tonnes of radioactive carbon dioxide from Transfynydd nuclear power plant (UK)
16-1973: Container filled with Cobalt-60 lost in the North Sea
17-1984: Accident at Kozloduy nuclear power plant (Bulgaria)
18-1988: Report of core melt in the nuclear reactor of the Soviet Ice-Breaker "Rossiya"
19-1986: Three workers suffer contamination at the Sellafield reprocessing plant (UK)
21-1976: Accident at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
23-1981: Accidental explosion of a Pershing-II missile in Germany
25-1983: Failure of automatic shut-down at Salem nuclear power plant (USA)
26-1988: Increased levels of radioactivity at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)

March
2-1994: Breakdown of cooling system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
6-1985: Emergency cooling system out of order at the Grohnde nuclear power plant (Germany)
8-1972: Radioactive water has to be pumped out of the Indian Point nuclear power plant (USA)
12-1981: Tornado washes nuclear waste from Moruroa into the lagoon (Pacific)
15-1989: Technical failure of fuel roads at Pickering nuclear power plant (Canada)
17-1984: Emergency cooling system at San Onofere nuclear power plant fails (USA)
18-1987: Fire and release of radioactivity at Australian nuclear research facility
22-1975: Fire in reactor at Browns Ferry nuclear power plant (USA)
24-1992: Incident with radiation leakage, shut-down of reactor at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
26-1991: Refuelling accident at Wuergassen nuclear power plant (Germany)
28-1979: Partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant (USA)
29-1992: Failure of shut-down system at Ignalina nuclear power plant (Lithuania)

April
1-1989: Control rod failure at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)
3-1960: Melting of fuel elements cause a release of radioactivity at the Test Reactor at Waltz Mills (USA)
6-1993: Explosion at the Tomsk-7 nuclear complex (Russia)
7-1992: Failure of automatic shut-down system at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
13-1979: Fire in the generator of the Baersbeck nuclear power plant (Sweden)
15-1983: Incident at Turkey Point nuclear power plant (USA)
16-1992: Technical failure of reactor shut-down system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
17-1970: Incident involving a vehicle at a French nuclear test site in the South Pacific causes a plutonium spillage into the ocean.
18-1992: Technical failure during refuelling at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
19-1984: Technical failure at Sequoyah nuclear power plant causes spillage of radioactive coolant water. (USA)
25-1990: Flooding of building due to increase of coolant level at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
26-1986: Explosion of reactor 4 at Chernobyl nuclear power plant; the worst civilian nuclear accident to date.
28-1988: Release of 5000 Curies of tritium gas from the Bruyere le Chatel military nuclear complex (France)
30-1992: Breakdown of cooling system at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)

May
4-1986: Release of radiation from Hamm-Uentrop nuclear power plant (Germany)
6-1989: Fire of pump equipment at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
7-1992: Failure of emergency system at Smolensk nuclear power plant (Russia)
9-1992: Technical failure of cooling system at Hatch nuclear power plant (USA)
10-1965: Release of eight cubic metres of cooling water from Savannah River reprocessing plant (USA)
11-1969: Fire at Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant causes plutonium to spontaneously ignite. (USA)
12-1984: Uncontrolled power surge at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
13-1992: Tube leak causes a radioactive release of 12 Curies of radioactivity from Tarapur nuclear power station (India)
16-1992: Reactor shut-down at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
23-1958: Accident and release of radioactivity at the Chalk River experimental reactor (Canada)
24-1968: Incident on board of Soviet nuclear submarine "K- 27", 5 crew members killed by radiation release
26-1990: During refuelling, five cubic meters of radioactive water spilled at the Fessenheim nuclear power plant (France)

June
1-1991: Failure of core cooling system at Belleville nuclear power plant (France)
2-1992: Total failure of centralised control system at the Smolensk nuclear power plant (Russia)
4-1989: Fire in the cables of the cooling pumps at the Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
8-1992: Failure of cooling system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
9-1985: Malfunction in the cooling system at Davis Blesse nuclear power plant (USA)
11-1989: Spent fuel element dropped in the storage pool and damaged at Kruemmel nuclear power plant (Germany)
18-1978: Release of two tons of radioactive steam from Brunsbuettel nuclear power plant (Germany)
20-1985 Collision of two trucks carrying nuclear bombs in Scotland (UK)
23-1986: Twelve people receive `slight' plutonium contamination while inspecting a store room at Tokaimura nuclear complex (Japan)
24-1992: Technical failure of control system at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
30-1983: Total loss of coolant at Embalse nuclear power plant (Argentina)

July
1-1983: Technical failure causes release of Iodine-131 from Phillipsburg nuclear power plant (Germany)
3-1981: Fire at North Anna nuclear power plant (USA)
4-1961: Incident on board of Soviet nuclear submarine "K- 19", radiation release kills 9 crew members
9-1991: Flaw in cooling system at Wurgassen nuclear power plant (Russia)
10-1991: Leakage of radiation at Bilibino nuclear power plant (Russia)
12-1993: Failure of control system at Susquehanna nuclear power plant (USA)
18-1991: Steam leakage causes reactor shut-down at Paks nuclear power plant (Hungary)
20-1992: Leakage of radiation due to breakdown of cooling system at Ignalina nuclear power plant (Lithuania)
22-1992: Two workers contaminated at Dampierre nuclear power plant (France)
24-1989: Refuelling accident at Isar nuclear power plant (Germany)
31-1993: Refuelling machine malfunctions at the Wylfa nuclear power plant (UK)

August
1-1983: An engineer receives a fatal radiation dose at a research reactor in Argentina
3-1983: Argentinean engineer dies from radiation dose received two days earlier
10-1985: Explosion on board a Soviet nuclear submarine
11-1988: Damage detected at Atucha nuclear power plant (Argentina)
14-1989: Instrumentation and control failure at Grand Gulf nuclear power plant (USA)
16-1991: Eight control rods show delays in emergency shut- down insertion time at Millstone Point nuclear power plant (USA)
17-1991: Automatic shut-down due to technical problems at Sendai nuclear power plant (Japan)
19-1986: Flooding at the Cattenom nuclear power plant (France)
20-1974 Incident at Beznau nuclear power plant (Switzerland)
21-1980: Accident on board Soviet nuclear submarine, believed to kill at least nine crew members
22-1992: Failure of shut-down system at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
27-1990: Cable fire causes loss of control of the position of control rods at Chernobyl nuclear power plant (Ukraine)
30-1985: Fire in a barrel of radioactive waste at Karlsruhe nuclear complex (Germany)

September
6-1991: Incident and steam leak during refueling at Barsebeck nuclear power plant (Sweden)
9-1989: Control rod failure at Olkiluoto nuclear power plant (Finland)
12-1992: Leakage of radioactive water at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
14-1991: Leakage at Kozloduy nuclear power plant (Bulgaria)
16-1990: Superphenix Fast Breeder Reactor is closed down due to technical failures (France)
22-1980: Pump failure causes accidental release of radioactive water at La Hague reprocessing plant (France)
24-1973: 35 workers at the Sellafield reprocessing plant are contaminated following a technical failure (UK)
25-1955: First Soviet underwater nuclear explosion near Novaya Zemlya (Arctic Ocean)
27-1974: Soviet nuclear-capable destroyer sinks in the Black Sea
28-1990: Cables for reactor control and protection system supply overheat at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
29-1957: Thousands of square miles contaminated by accident at the Chelyabinsk nuclear complex (Russia)
30-1990: Failure of reactor core cooling system at Palisades nuclear power plant (USA)

October
1-1983: Technical failure and human error cause accident at Blayas nuclear power plant(France)
2-1968: Leakage at La Hague reprocessing plant (France) 3-1952: First UK nuclear test
4-1981: Release of 300-times the normal discharge level of Iodine-131 at Sellafield reprocessing plant (UK)
5-1966: Partial core meltdown at the Fermi fast breeder reactor (USA)
8-1985: Accidental radioactive release into the sea from Hinkley Point nuclear power station (UK)
9-1991: Technical failure at Yugno-Ukrainskaya nuclear power plant (Ukraine)
10-1957: Three tonnes of uranium catch fire at the Windscale reprocessing plant (now Sellafield UK)
13-1977: Sea water runs into the cooling circuit of Hunterston nuclear power plant (UK)
17-1969: Fuel elements melt at St Laurent des Eaux nuclear power plant (France)
22-1993: Instrumentation and Control failure at Saint Alban nuclear power plant (France)
23-1989: Failure of core cooling system at Dresdan nuclear power plant (USA)
25-1991: Failure of shut-down system during refuelling at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
26-1991: Incident during refueling at Vogtle nuclear power plant (USA)
27-1991: Technical failure of shut-down system at Zaporozhe nuclear power plant (Ukraine)

November
1-1992: Cracks in cooling system equipment at Brunsbuttel nuclear power plant (Germany)
3-1990: Failure of core cooling equipment at Doel nuclear power plant (Belgium)
7-1967: Release of radioactivity at Grenoble nuclear power plant (France)
9-1955: Core meltdown at EBR fast breeder reactor (USA)
11-1988: Accident during refueling on board of Soviet nuclear powered ice-breaker "Lenin"
14-1989: Breakdown of fuel rod control system at Oconee nuclear power plant (USA)
16-1983: Sellafield reprocessing plant discharges highly radioactive wastes directly into the sea (UK)
24-1989: Technical failure nearly causes core meltdown at Greifswald nuclear power plant (Germany)
27-1991: Disfunction of automatic shut-down system at Bilibino nuclear power plant (Russia)
28-1991: Failure of control system causes reactor shut- down at Kursk nuclear power plant (Russia)
30-1975: 1.5 million Curies released from Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)

December
4-1990: 2 workers irradiated during refuelling at Blayais nuclear power plant (France)
7-1991: Failure of cooling system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
8-1995: Fire due to leakage of sodium coolant from Monju fast breeder reactor, Japanese nuclear industry attempts to cover up full extent of accident, reactor shut-down
9-1986: Explosion at Surry nuclear power plant, four people killed (USA).
10-1991: Failure of turbo-generator causes reactor shut- down at Balakovo nuclear power plant (Russia)
11-1991: Human error causes failure of automatic reactor shut-down equipment at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
12-1952: World's first major nuclear reactor disaster, Chalk River experimental reactor (Canada)
13-1988: Four of the eight emergency installations discovered out of order at Brokdorf nuclear power plant (Germany)
17-1987: Severe incident at Biblis nuclear power plant (Germany)
20-1990: Control element discovered damaged at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
21-1991: Radiation leakage at Kolskaya nuclear power plant (Russia)
23-1988: Two control rods jammed at Blayais nuclear power plant (France)
25-1992: Radioactive water leakage at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant (Russia)
28-1990: Incident and radiation leakage at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
31-1978: Fire and loss of reactor control, 8 workers irradiated at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant (Russia)

I managed to remove half the incidents as gratuitous padding.

These included:

* Any incidents involving nuclear weapons. I'm no fan either. What a waste of plutonium!
* Any references to ships running aground or planes crashing which has nothing to do with nuclear accidents.
* Any references to successful automatic shutdowns. These are occasions that demonstrate the safety of nuclear power.
* References to release of heavy water, which is stable.
* References to nuclear medicine. Try arguing against that.
* Damages to components of nuclear power stations that are unrelated to the nuclear component.
* Vague references to technical failiures when it is not stated how it relates to the nuclear component. I'm not upset nor surprised when a complex machine experience some kind of technical failiure. It is only relevant if it was caused by or causes problems with the nuclear component.
* References to space-related accidents since I myself am a proponent of nuclear spaceflight anyway. Besides a relase of 1kg of plutonium is hardly anything to loose sleep over.

It is an excellent example of the hysteria games they play. I edited out half of the incidents they noted because of irrelevancy. Some were references to nuclear weapons, which is a completely seperate debate. Some were references to problems with nuclear power stations or nuclear transports that clearly didn't actually involve any problems with nuclear material itself; a guilt by association thing. Some were related to nuclear medicine. I also took out the space related problems, because I approve of that anyway.

But, reading it now, I realise I was too lenient on what I left in.

January 6-1981: Accident at La Hague reprocessing plant (France)

They don't actually specify what the accident was. Maybe a worker stubbed his toe. If a light fixture fell on a worker's head giving him a concussion, that would have been logged as an accident. If someone fell of a gantry way, that would have been logged as an accident. Industries all over the world have accidents. Organic farmers sometimes have accidents with limbs in combine harvesters or whatever. Guilt by association. There are more of the same later on.

January 8-1975: Release of radioactivity from Mihama nuclear power plant (Japan)

This is clearly more unpleasant. But the question is how much radiation? If it's a becquerel, I don't care! There's the classic hysteria incident. Any radiation is seriously deadly, not matter how insignificant. There are more of the same throughout the list as well, where they report a radioactive leak of an unspecified quantity, so for all we know, I could be receiving more just from being so near to my monitor. I submit Greenpeace has failed to justify their concern in these particular cases by not providing the amount of radiation so we can judge the seriousness of the accident, which may be inconsequential. Of course, it doesn't matter to them since it's a black and white issue, where numbers don't matter.

January 10-1987: Nuclear transport accident in the UK

And what happened? Did the train carrying the waste containers derail? I wouldn't be surprised given the state of our railways! The point is, what about the nuclear material? Did it or did it not remain contained? More guilt by association. An accident in transport that involved nuclear materials, so nuclear materials are automatically bad. I don't see them claiming that passengers are bad simply because of Paddington or Hatfield.

January 12-1960: Technicians trying to restart a reactor at Savannah River reprocessing plant almost send it out of control (USA)

They have a right to be concerned. But "almost" is the operative word. Every day, many motorists don't just "almost" lose control of their cars, they do lose control of their cars and casualties result.

January 18-1989: Eight workers are contaminated at Savannah River reprocessing plant (USA)

Not good. But there are two problems with highlighting this. First off, this incident was internal and so demonstrates no more hazard than any other industry involving sensitive substances and big honkin' machinery. Second, they don't specify what the consequences were. Did the workers suffer serious illness? Or were they just showered and returned home in time for supper? Again, the characterisation that any accident shows how nuclear power is a death trap and must be stopped. Getting hysterical! In the chemicals industry, far more serious things happen with dangerous chemicals. There are more of the same later.

January 26-1988: Dangerous temperature rise in a nuclear reactor on board a British submarine

So? These kinds of things happen in all other sorts of hazardous industries. The fact that this is all they report shows that nothing more serious came of it. Getting hysterical over nothing again.

February 2-1993: Breakdown of cooling system for two hours at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)

And what were the consequences? Did they just shut down the reactor? Or did it go Chernobyl on them? They don't say. A nuclear reactor is unmistakably a complex machine. There are bound to be problems from time to time. The question is do these problems add up to anything. There are more of the same later.

February 16-1973: Container filled with Cobalt-60 lost in the North Sea

And what was the state of this container? If it was intact, then what's the problem?

February 18-1988: Report of core melt in the nuclear reactor of the Soviet Ice-Breaker "Rossiya"

And the consequences? Was the reactor shut down and the material contained? Or was there death, pain and anguish?

23-1981: Accidental explosion of a Pershing-II missile in Germany

I guess I should have edited this one out before as it sounds about weapons. But since it's here, what was the accident? Did the missile explode, or the warhead (I assume there was a warhead)?

February 26-1988: Increased levels of radioactivity at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)

Increased levels? To what? This is so incredibly classic radiation boogey man!

March 15-1989: Technical failure of fuel roads at Pickering nuclear power plant (Canada)

Is that fuel roads or rods? If it's roads, then who cares? If it's rods, then again we have report of a failiure without alluding the consequences. Greenpeace depend on any glitches receiving a hysterical reaction.

March 22-1975: Fire in reactor at Browns Ferry nuclear power plant (USA)

Consequences? Worse fires have happened at chemical works causing more damage. There are more vague incidents of fire.

March 26-1991: Refuelling accident at Wuergassen nuclear power plant (Germany)

What was the accident? The spanner fell of the worker's foot? It is not my intention to say that this was for certain not a serious incident involving nuclear release with death, pain and anguish, but without more information, we cannot know. It may have been serious and Greenpeace may have a point. On the other hand, it may be a minor incident that actually has no bearing on the safety of the nuclear reactor in particular. But Greenpeace want the suggestion of an accident in anything nukyular, regardless of what is was, to have the implication of a serious inherent flaws with the nuclear industry.

April 1-1989: Control rod failure at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)

Just the one?

April 15-1983: Incident at Turkey Point nuclear power plant (USA)

Oh dear! Looks like a brawl in the cafeteria! Joking aside, though, it is unclear what the incident was and hence we cannot draw the conclusion this shows an inherrent flaw with the principle of nuclear power.

April 18-1992: Technical failure during refuelling at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)

It could have been a faulty guage for all we know.

May 10-1965: Release of eight cubic metres of cooling water from Savannah River reprocessing plant (USA)

I should have already filtered this out. Was the the cooling water dangerous apart from the fact that water is a potent greenhouse gas? Besides, eight cubic metres is hardly significant.

May 12-1984: Uncontrolled power surge at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)

Due to what?

May 16-1992: Reactor shut-down at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)

This should have already been filtered. Successful reactor shutdowns are examples of the safety of nuclear power. Besides, they don't even say why.

June 11-1989: Spent fuel element dropped in the storage pool and damaged at Kruemmel nuclear power plant (Germany)

Oh please! It was supposed to go in there!

June 20-1985 Collision of two trucks carrying nuclear bombs in Scotland (UK)

This should have already been filtered because it involves nuclear weapons. But like the incident on January 10 1987, it doesn't say there was any nuclear consequences other than bombs littering the verge.

August 10-1985: Explosion on board a Soviet nuclear submarine

What kind of explosion? Did the cook forget to watch the chips?

August 11-1988: Damage detected at Atucha nuclear power plant (Argentina)

Bloody kids spray painting the walls!

17-1991: Automatic shut-down due to technical problems at Sendai nuclear power plant (Japan)

This should have already been filtered. The reactor shutdown. The system was good.

A more of the same. While there are still incidents that were serious and are worth noting, it is clear that a lot of them are either clearly irrelevant, or offer no substantiation to the support the cause. The reader is being spoon fed enough information to make him think the nuclear industry is on the point of causing the apocalypse. Does that tactic sound familiar?


Why is it "best?" Why are you advocating this source and denigrating superior ones? We should really be trying to get the better ones improved and available for everyone's use without helping capitalist interests.


It is the best because it is the cleanest and most effecient power source currently available. There is nothing superior as of this moment. And as I've already demonstrated there's no money in fission thanks to absurd amounts of regulation, although they will make money as soon as it becomes a 'do or die' thing and we have to switch to fission, but that's the way things work under capitalism. Classless society will be different.


I agree; if we could continue to add to the solar collection grid, we could eventually send it off to orbit the Sun, which would be a far better method of collection.

Erm... being in the Earth-Sun Lagrange point is orbiting the sun.

[Kobbot 401]

That question and answers were a little byist

[Djehuti]

I have been pro-nuclear a while now, even though I know that there is problems with Nuclear power, I also believe that nuclear is still bether than the alternatives.
Instead of changing into alternative power sources, I would rather see that we developed the nuclear power. There is already today Nuclerar engines that uses nuclear waste as fuel, and thus we can step past many of the problems associated with nuclear waste...

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 03:11 AM
There is already today Nuclerar engines that uses nuclear waste as fuel, and thus we can step past many of the problems associated with nuclear waste...
Lets just use those for a while; why not? Do they have any adverse products?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:12 PM

They are greatly inferior "pound for pound" when it comes to fusion and much worse when it comes to gathering materials.

If you're talking about fusion technology, which has yet to reach break-even point (the point at which more energy out of the fusionables can be extracted than it takes to run the reactor) then it would be a net drain on the world's energy. Fusion will become a viable power source when the break-even point is attained.

Fusion and Sustainable Development (http://www.fusion.org.uk/susdev/index.htm)

Check out the 'economics' section for the cost of extraction - it looks good.
Right; so we should research a better power source and not waste materials on ones that are both inferior and materially intensive.



Why? They could just as easily make money off of THEIR nuclear plants if they are so great.

First you say this...


government subsidized and certified nuclear plants

...And then you say this. There you see why fission has to be subsidised - the amount of legal and safety loopholes that have to be jumped through when you want to build a fission reactor are a ridiculous drain on funding. Not only that, but you will have to contend with paranoid idiots like Greenpeace and the CND, who will likely do their best to bring lawsuits against you. You can understand why the oil companies won't go there (At least yet)

Alright, now I understand what you meant.



Huh? Specifically; what "exaggerations and distortions?" are the media networks working to suppress the government subsidized and certified nuclear plants?

The negative effects of nuclear power plants and their waste have been hyped up to the point of stupidity by the likes of Greenpeace - I checked out this (http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html) and some things stood out:

January
2-1993: Leak at Kozloduy nuclear power plant, release of radioactive steam...

A more of the same. While there are still incidents that were serious and are worth noting, it is clear that a lot of them are either clearly irrelevant, or offer no substantiation to the support the cause. The reader is being spoon fed enough information to make him think the nuclear industry is on the point of causing the apocalypse. Does that tactic sound familiar?

Bah; 10.5 pages of that! Okay, those exaggerations and distortions…
I think alternative sources would have likely killed less people anyway, as long as they were reasonably constructed.



Why is it "best?" Why are you advocating this source and denigrating superior ones? We should really be trying to get the better ones improved and available for everyone's use without helping capitalist interests.


It is the best because it is the cleanest and most effecient power source currently available. There is nothing superior as of this moment. And as I've already demonstrated there's no money in fission thanks to absurd amounts of regulation, although they will make money as soon as it becomes a 'do or die' thing and we have to switch to fission, but that's the way things work under capitalism. Classless society will be different.

Most efficient how? Does it best use the available sources?
So, wouldn't there be money in it if we did switch? We would be allowing an newly profitable industry for capitalist enterprise? That is especially the way things work if we ALLOW it.

I don't see why improved alternative sources wouldn't be superior for basic energy needs, as they take less maintenance and are more reasonable for individual use.



I agree; if we could continue to add to the solar collection grid, we could eventually send it off to orbit the Sun, which would be a far better method of collection.

Erm... being in the Earth-Sun Lagrange point is orbiting the sun.

Uh, I thought you meant orbiting Earth for some reason; never-mind.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

All energy production is harmful or risky, one way or the other. Therefore, instead of blindly increasing energy production all the time, we should look more into decreasing energy usage. I don't mean living in the forest eating berries, but using and researching alternative technologies that need less energy, and so on.

[Commie Rat]

im 100% against Nuclear Wepons *thumbs up* C.A.D.U. *thumbs up*
i belive that the major problem with nuclear power is human error and constructional standards, think about it, if the housing of the Core was strong enough to withstand the blast and keep radioactive debris in there would be alot less pollution

any one heard of Anti-matter ???

[MKS]

A few years back I and a group of peers protested and petitoned the construction of a nuclear waste dumping site just 20 miles from our towne ( the site of a closed down nuclear powerplant). Our argument was that, we cannot trust the "word" of a few engineers and scientists when it comes to the dumping of nuclear waste. History has shown again and again that sometimes things become factors that we wouldnt even consider today. These factors could cause great harm, maybe not to our children or even thier children but maybe thier children, and that to us was not worth it. We (humans) often act without considering the future. We built the plants without knowing what we would do when one becomes obselete or closes down, now we're stuck with tons of waste, very hazardous waste. Where I live (CT USA) the landsacpe is dotted with three obsolete powerplants that now only present a real threat to environmental stability as well as security concerns. Our petition and concerns were heard, the dumping site was not built and unfourtuantley went on to be someone elses problem. Classic NIMBY(Not In My BackYard) argument, but our response to that is, we didnt build the plant, we shouldnt bear the burden of its waste disposal.

Nuclear power is clean (not really) efficent, and realitivley inexpensive, however it is very dangerous, and represents one of the greatest mistakes that man has ever made. We are too quick to praise the benefits of something, because it makes our life easier, not caring what happens 10, 20 even 50 years down the road.

As for setting up plants in alaska or antartica, it just shows humans blind arrongance over nature and limited vision of the future. Our parents, grandparents etc set this world on a course of destruction, they trashed the planet. We should not make the same mistakes.

[Le Revolutionary]

But those waste products of nuclear reactors are very dangerous. They are being dumped in the oceans and buried where they could be damaged and leak and if taht occurs can cause damage for hundreds of thousands of years and will be a complete chatastrophe or tehy can be stolen and made into nuclear weapons. Just some points because no energy source at this point is perfect.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A few years back I and a group of peers protested and petitoned the construction of a nuclear waste dumping site just 20 miles from our towne ( the site of a closed down nuclear powerplant).

Proof that you and your peers are idiots. There would be NO increase in background radiation, NO risk of groundwater seepage (If the containers mysteriously broke, all by themselves - Otherwise they wouldn't have built a nuclear plant there.) and absolutely ZERO risk of radioactive material escaping if the town had a major accident - There's a reason they site these places away from major habitations, y'know.


Our argument was that, we cannot trust the "word" of a few engineers and scientists when it comes to the dumping of nuclear waste.

WTF? You cannot trust the word of people whose careers depend on their conclusions being 99.9% correct, professionals who have studied for years at what they do? If you can't trust their word, who can you trust? Certainly not a twitchy bunch of NIMBYs.


History has shown again and again that sometimes things become factors that we wouldnt even consider today. These factors could cause great harm, maybe not to our children or even thier children but maybe thier children, and that to us was not worth it.

Based on your highly flawed premise, even attempting to mine flint for tools could have had grave consequences. I'm sorry, but if humans truly worked like that, we'd still be living in caves. It might also help if you could give examples rather than just vague predictions of impending doom.


We (humans) often act without considering the future.

Yes, and look how far our capacity to take risks has taken us. Thanks to our risk-taking nature, we have the capability to live more independantly of whimsical nature. If you want to agonise over the consequences of every decision that you make, that fine, but don't stop others from taking chances.


We built the plants without knowing what we would do when one becomes obselete or closes down, now we're stuck with tons of waste, very hazardous waste.

This proves you know precisely dick about nuclear procedures.


Where I live (CT USA) the landsacpe is dotted with three obsolete powerplants that now only present a real threat to environmental stability as well as security concerns.

THE VAGUENESS, IT HURTS

Seriously, is that the best you can do? Any human venture can 'threaten environmental stability' (Whatever THAT is!) What security concerns? how many nukes have you heard built out of radioactive waste? It's deweaponised, it's worthless sludge. Especially the reprocessed stuff.


Our petition and concerns were heard, the dumping site was not built and unfourtuantley went on to be someone elses problem. Classic NIMBY(Not In My BackYard) argument, but our response to that is, we didnt build the plant, we shouldnt bear the burden of its waste disposal.

Fucking hell. You didn't create all the rubbish in that landfill, did ya? Do you feel proud that you have shifted the 'deadly fearsome all-destroying' (In your eyes) nuclear waste on to someone else? If there weren't designated areas for the deposition of rubbish (of all kinds) then we'd be neck deep in our own shit. It has to go somewhere.


Nuclear power is clean (not really) efficent, and realitivley inexpensive, however it is very dangerous, and represents one of the greatest mistakes that man has ever made.

Strange that, that lesser mistake, fossil fuels, has killed more people than nuclear power has or ever will, eh? Don't it sound odd?



As for setting up plants in alaska or antartica, it just shows humans blind arrongance over nature and limited vision of the future. Our parents, grandparents etc set this world on a course of destruction, they trashed the planet. We should not make the same mistakes.

Fuck off, worthless hippie trash.

[OleMarxco]

Delete this post.

[OleMarxco]

Bullshit. That I doesn't like nuclear power plants doesn't automatically mean I support coal. Those are biased choiches, and I will not vote. There's something called "fusion technology", y'know - And oil is running out, big time ;)

That fossile fuels have killed more people combined doesn't prove nothing. Give nuclear plants a chanche everyday, and they'll kill more IN a day. We should just learn to use less energy any day, and, go over to cars based on electiricty, or even better - if possible - no cars at all. Hell, why not bicycles? Just get up early.

As being asocial is no real reason to use private cars. I see no reason for private cars besides that 'tho, neither. In reply to the post under me: Why, nuclear plants using FUSION technology, of course.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:29 PM
That fossile fuels have killed more people combined doesn't prove nothing. Give nuclear plants a chanche everyday, and they'll kill more IN a day. We should just learn to use less enerhy any day, and, go over to cars based on electiricty, or even better - if possible - no cars at all.
And where do you suppose the electricity for those cars is produced? Nuke plants? Coal power plants?It may be possible to improve efficiency that way, but it doesn't solve the problem. In my opinion private cars should not be tolerated in cities unless really needed for work. Normally people should use public transport. It uses much less energy than everyone driving their own car. Personally, I have no car and have no plan of getting one, not only for environmental reasons but for all the trouble they are as well.

[MKS]

Proof that you and your peers are idiots. There would be NO increase in background radiation, NO risk of groundwater seepage (If the containers mysteriously broke, all by themselves - Otherwise they wouldn't have built a nuclear plant there.) and absolutely ZERO risk of radioactive material escaping if the town had a major accident - There's a reason they site these places away from major habitations, y'know.

Myself and my peers, meaning towne officals, one state representative, nuclear engineers and an officer from the Army Corps of Engineers. Not school mates. Anyways we're not idiots, but thanks for the childish comment. On the matter of Environmemtal concerns and nuclear waste; my point was that sometimes things occur that we do not and cannot consider today. Earthquakes, erosion, etc all which are factors in the area i live since it is located along the tidal basins of Long Island Sound, and the Connecticut River. The scientists that presented their case for disposal could not conclude with 100% certainty that damage would not occur due to unforseen factors. Now you may call this extremely cautious and maybe even a knee-jerk reaction, but we were not willing to risk even a 1% chance of the waste leaking into the watershed areas and sediments of the area.


There's a reason they site these places away from major habitations, y'know

Yes, however the area where the dumping was to occur 30 mintes away from Hartford, CT/ New Haven, CT, and the dense suburban communities that surroud the area. That is why we protested and petitoned. Dumping in the desert in Nevada would have been different and probably would not have posed as many risks.


WTF? You cannot trust the word of people whose careers depend on their conclusions being 99.9% correct

No, we cant. they were reperesantives of the nuclear energy company, and not impartial parties. We could not trust their opinions to un biased. 3 mile island, the love canal, etc are just two examples of the deception committed by huge companies. Tobacco companies also come to mind. Besides 99.9% is not 100% and like I said before, even 1% is too much to risk the future.


Based on your highly flawed premise, even attempting to mine flint for tools could have had grave consequences. I'm sorry, but if humans truly worked like that, we'd still be living in caves. It might also help if you could give examples rather than just vague predictions of impending doom.

CFC's were once believed to be completely safe, they're not, Lead Paint as well, Absetos (sp) causes cancer, used in schools, factories etc, styrofoam, tobacco, thalydimide, the list goes on and on of ventures and inventions that humans once praised as great innovations and turned out to be horrible disasters. My point was not that humans shouldnt risk for advancement but we especially in modern times have not fully grasped the scope and affects of the things we establish before we infiltrate the markets and population with them.


If you want to agonise over the consequences of every decision that you make, that fine, but don't stop others from taking chances.

If the chances involove the possible injury, death or destrucution of people or the earth than I will stop people from taking them.


Seriously, is that the best you can do? Any human venture can 'threaten environmental stability' (Whatever THAT is!) What security concerns? how many nukes have you heard built out of radioactive waste? It's deweaponised, it's worthless sludge. Especially the reprocessed stuff

All state ligstlators as well as the govenor have voiced the concerns over containment of the nuclear waste at the three closed down sites. Just last week radioactive steam was accidentaly leaked into the Sound. The environmetal concerns are real. The reacors are odl and cracking, since the companies hav all but abandoned them and the state wont pay to maintain them or properly destory them. 3 mile island comes to mind, multiply that by three and that is what could happen to the lower connecticut valley.
Security concerns: Islamic terrorists, or just plain old terrorits could easily target the plants for attack, either by plane, truck, or even boat. again the aging reacotrs and infastructre come into play. My brother who is in the army, CT division or guard. Has been posted at one of the plants for weeks to "protect" it from attack.


This proves you know precisely dick about nuclear procedures

A good friend or mine, his father was chief operations and saftey officer for the company that ran the
Milstone plant, he has repeatedly told me that the comoany and most companies have no feasible "plan" to safely dismantle a plant once it is no longer needed. They concentrate soley on containment and gradual waste removal. Neither one is safe, as their is no place that it can go, and again as something is not used and maintained the structres become weak and their ability to guard gainst leaking, cracks etc become weaker and weaker.


Do you feel proud that you have shifted the 'deadly fearsome all-destroying' (In your eyes) nuclear waste on to someone else? If there weren't designated areas for the deposition of rubbish (of all kinds) then we'd be neck deep in our own shit. It has to go somewhere.

No, I wasnt proud that it became someone elses problem, but to be honest, its someone elses fight now. Our hope is that it would go to a dumping site in Nevada, not literally in our backyards. Yes, everything does have to go somewhere, but nuclear waste does not beong here, where i live and I will fight again if they try to dump it again.


Strange that, that lesser mistake, fossil fuels, has killed more people than nuclear power has or ever will, eh? Don't it sound odd?

I have never been and never will be a proponet of fossil fuels. I usually dont base my arguments on body counts, but in the case of nuclear waste the potential for disater is very real.



Fuck off, worthless hippie trash.

First time I've ever been called a hippy. I guess anyone who stands for responsible ecological policies and conservation efforts is a hippy. Why is your reaction so violent and aggressive, dont you believe in polite disscussion?


We should care for the planet, its the only one we have, and without it their could be no anarchy, communism, socialism, etc.

My example of the petitioning of the Nuclear Waste Dumping Site, just showed the real concerns that real citizens have about nuclear waste. concerns that are not baseless paranoia, but legitamte concern for the future, not of our planet, but of our children and their children. I am active in organizations that try to protect citizens from corportate policies and practices that could cause harm. We work for the people, within the system (its the onyl way to get things done), and try to build a voice for the community.
Nuclear Energy has been a great achivement of humanity, however it is also now a great burden, that must be shouldered by the future. But who cares right? So what? I guess we could say the same for political idealogies, who cares about the future, so what if capitalism survies, i wont be here. right?
Apathy, arrognace and selfishness has been a charecteristic of the Western Man, and because of it, many injustices have been able to survive.

NoXion's trust of the Capitalist Nuclear Energy contignent is dangerous and mirrors the same trust some have the American governement.

[Severian]

"nuclear power good" vs "nuclear power bad" is kinda simplistic.

There are tremendous risks to nuclear power which I certainly don't trust the bosses to handle carefully. They put profits before everything, including safety.

Are all these risks totally insoluble for all time? I don't think so. Already there have been some technological advances which potentially, in the right hands, could resolve some of these problems - pebble-bed reactors, for example.

The hardest problem is safely disposing of nuclear waste with a half-life of thousands of years. Noxion is not being serious, in simply dismissing this problem....how to make sure something lasts as long as the pyramids. But I don't think it's wholly insoluble given humanity's tremendous ingenuity.

And yes, there are problems with all the other methods of generating power. Coal, even with scrubbers, pollutes...and there's no way to scrub out carbon dioxide so far (global warming.)

Solar, wind, etc are simply not remotely cost-effective, practical ways to generate large amounts of electricity. And aren't going to be anytime soon.

Bottom line? No technology, including nuclear power, should be ruled out for all time.

Noxion's right that it's a political issue...but then, why take such a contemptuous attitude towards those opposing the nuclear power program of U.S. capitalism? Why place such faith in its declarations about the safety of that program?

[Commie Rat]

there is one way to remove large amounts of Carbon Dioxide from the air

TREES

[Xvall]

Just wanted to chime in.

First of all, making polls like that tend to upset people: and by "polls like that", I mean poles designed so that your opinion is the "right answer" and the other option puts words into people's mouth. It's a lot like this:


Do you think that children should be allowed to shoot heroin?

1) Yes, I believe in personal freedoms and individual liberties.
2) No, I believe that people don't deserve to make their own decisions and that no one shouldn't have the right to choose what to do with their body.

Moving on, I don't understand how solar power destroys the environment.

That is all.

[Xvall]

Yes, and look how far our capacity to take risks has taken us. Thanks to our risk-taking nature, we have the capability to live more independantly of whimsical nature. If you want to agonise over the consequences of every decision that you make, that fine, but don't stop others from taking chances.

True, though it is also likely that our "risk-taking nature" will lead us to become extinct within the nearby future. (Within a couple of centuries)

[Xvall]

And NoXion, please grow up. There's no point in starting discussions when you're inevitably just going to tell all of your opponent to "fuck off" just because they disagree with you. Stop acting like you're five.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 1 2005, 07:39 PM
Moving on, I don't understand how solar power destroys the environment.
There are certain chemicals involved in making photovoltaic cells; for example some heavy metals are involved I vaguely recall. If they were made on the truly huge scale required for solar power to become a significant percentage of total power production, it would become a major toxic waste problem.

That's not gonna happen though; with current technology it's not remotely practical to make that many solar cells.

[American_Trotskyist]

Why waste money on new wasteful products when you could invest that into superconductivity? It would save 70 percent of our energy right there, you could power the planet off of alternative fuel sources then.

[Xvall]

That's not gonna happen though; with current technology it's not remotely practical to make that many solar cells.

Not to mention that everyone would be screwed come nighttime.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Don't presume to lecture me, Drake. If there is a problem with my behaviour then it's up to the mods to deal with it. It's just infuriating to have to read the same old witless arguments.

To save time, I suggest all the anti-nukies check out Freedom For Fission (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/) before coming up with rehashed old arguments.

If you cannot give a 100% garuantee that a waste storage facility will not leak, then you cannot give a 100% garuantee that a chemical processing plant will not explode, you cannot give a 100% garauntee that an iron mine will not collapse, etc.

Why have double standards?

[Xvall]

Don't presume to lecture me, Drake. If there is a problem with my behaviour then it's up to the mods to deal with it. It's just infuriating to have to read the same old witless arguments.

I'm not lecturing, I'm just asking politely because although it may be understandable and acceptable to you, it seems harsh and uncalled for to many people reading the thread.

[MKS]

If you cannot give a 100% garuantee that a waste storage facility will not leak, then you cannot give a 100% garuantee that a chemical processing plant will not explode, you cannot give a 100% garauntee that an iron mine will not collapse, etc.

Why have double standards?


The real factor in my argument was not the probablity of a leak occuring, but the close proximity of the waste dumping sight. Of course there may be a very small chance the containers would leak, but why risk it in such a densly populated area? Also, an iron mine collapsing wold have little affect on the outside population, a chemical explosion might, and I have been against those as well.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So long as your only objection is the site's placing near a populated area, then you have a legitimate concern - but there are some rabid eco-wackies out there who seriously believe that placing a nuclear waste storage facility in a remote mountain will mean the end of the world, and that's unacceptable. All power production is dangerous, but nuclear power has particularly bad press because of the radiation boogey man myth perpetuated by Greenpeace and their ilk.

[Mitch Flo]

America isn't going to switch to it though, it would put the corporations which have a partnership with our government out of buisness, and they would never let that happen.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That is of course a major obstacle facing nuclear power in America - the oil companies have the government in their pocket. Nuclear power's doing well in France though - and the UK shares their grid with France - Something for the anti-nukies based in the UK to consider.

[Regicidal Insomniac]

While it is true that renewably energy sources could not possibily meet our current demands, I think it's important that we seriously reconsider how we use energy. Personally, I have no interest in perputuating our current consumption patterns by hailing the least-worst energy source available as the new motor for this destructive conception of progress. Using less harmful sources of energy is certaintly a paramount task, and perhaps nuclear energy has a role to play in that, but it's equally important that we work to curb our consumption and continue research into alternative energy sources so that, with hope, we will one day be able to rely mainly on renewable sources.

[Xvall]

So long as your only objection is the site's placing near a populated area, then you have a legitimate concern - but there are some rabid eco-wackies out there who seriously believe that placing a nuclear waste storage facility in a remote mountain will mean the end of the world, and that's unacceptable.

Yes, there are a lot of eco-wackies out there, but if you're referring to Yucca Mountain: the reason that we don't want nuclear waste being stored in it is because it is directly over a faultline that has been known to have seismic activity many times in the past.

[Koruptah]

Has anyone commented yet about Pebble Bed Reactors? From what I've read about them, they're very safe. China is building a bunch of them, I first read about them in a Wired article in '04 called "Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html)"

Wikipedia - Pebble_bed_reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor)

EDIT: Damn.. Dead Thread

[Janus]

Is it me or is the poll a bit biased? :lol:
I support nuclear power and I see it as a fairly reliable and efficient source of energy at this point. So unless there are some major breakthroughs in other power sources, I think that we should rely a bit more on nuclear power and less on fossil fuels.

[Free Left]

There is also the problem about Uranium supplies, they will only last another 50-75 years.
I've heard about Japan using "Breeder" reactors which turn Nuclear waste such as plutonium into fuel but that is still a long way off.

[1984]

It depends...

In Brazil, for example, the Angra experience was only but a joke - out dated equipment located in a less-than-reliable location in a country with a HUGE hydroelectrical potential?

But again, that's not a technical problem of nuclear power itself, but a social/political issue.

And guess what - the folks at Max Plank's institute were able to produce a 2-second stable FUSION reaction!

:cool:

Eventualy, nuclear power technology will be able to - more than - suffice our energy needs. With no "ecological issues" within.

[red team]

The half-life of radioactive wastes from fission reactors are really long meaning several centuries to a millenium.

What could happen in several centuries to a millenium? Can you guarantee that wherever you buried that stuff won't leak into the ground water? Oh, and how are mountains formed? Could it be geological changes like earthquakes? How many earthquakes will happen within a span of several centuries to a millenium?

Other than the above concerns then it might be safe. <_<

[RaiseYourVoice]

i think regenerative engergies and for what the cant do an addition of nuclear energy should do it. we should not forget both are fairly "young" technologies. nuclear power is being improved and so is regenerative power. im my view they are both progressive to our fossile power source which is strictly limited.

we shouldnt stop nuclear energy simply because of the fact that if we stop it, we might also slow down or stop the development of new nuclear technology which creates less nuclear waste.

we should also invest in regenerative energy since i believe we are far from using its full capicity.

[red team]

Before the project was finally given the go-ahead this year, it had been delayed for 18 months due to disagreements between France and Japan. Under the deal Japan will get 20 percent of the project’s 200 research posts, while providing only 10 percent of the expenses.

Under current estimates, and on the basis of current funding, it is not expected that any kind of prototype nuclear fusion plant would be operable for between 30 and 40 years.

UK Energy Review: A policy made by big business (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/nuc2-s05.shtml)

The problem for getting nuclear fusion off the ground is not technical, it&#39;s political.

[Red Heretic]

I still want fusion...

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I think that with our current technology, we will have to go with nuclear for the next 100 years or so.

Maybe, we will be able to use a safer resource but at the moment its either, we risk a few chernoblys over the next few hundred years of human history or we burn all our oil, stop making plastic stuff, and melt our ice caps, and the world will be much shitter.

Plus, chernobly has had much less of an impact than people first thought it would.

[piet11111]

i just watched a tv program called horizons this episode was about the threats of radiation.
(nuclear nightmares it was called)

and the things stated where mindblowing they said that at a beach location in iran (ramsath or something similar for what i could hear) the natural radiation levels where 200 milisevets or whatever its spelled.
despite this the population was having far less cancers then a neighbouring town with normal background radiation.
(radiation was said to be even more then currently in chernobyl)

then they where disecting mice from chernobyl and did a chromosome test and despite radiation they where said to be perfectly healthy.
the genetics of these mice that are said to be working against cancer where also far more active then in normal mice so if anything they where healthier.

the programs conclusion was that low dosages of radiation where harmless or even beneficial to health of humans and animals.

but because of claims they made about the chernobyl deathtoll i am very skeptical if this is correct.
they said less then 60 liquidators in chernobyl are proven to have died from the radiation they recieved.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by bloody capitalist sham
I think that with our current technology, we will have to go with nuclear for the next 100 years or so.

Yup, so what are we gonna do with the hundreds of millions of tonnes of toxic waste that will be produced in this 100 years of nuclear power?

Hmm?

What is the point of expending a lot of time, effort and resources transferring our power source to nuclear, only to switch it later to something else?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Red Team+--> (Red Team)What could happen in several centuries to a millenium? Can you guarantee that wherever you buried that stuff won&#39;t leak into the ground water?[/b]

Multiple waterproof seals for maximum redundancy. That way, even if a couple break, you will still have the waste isolated. you could even put the storage facility inside a layer of non-porous rock so that if in the unlikely event that all the seals break, the waste is still contained. Or you could surround the sarcophagus with clay for the same effect.

It&#39;s no good throwing up your hands and saying, "oh, it&#39;s hopeless&#33;"


Originally posted by Red Team+--> (Red Team)Oh, and how are mountains formed? Could it be geological changes like earthquakes? How many earthquakes will happen within a span of several centuries to a millenium?[/b]

Earthquakes don&#39;t form mountain ranges, tectonic movement does, which takes millions of years.

Also, you don&#39;t do anything incredibly stupid like put a sarcophagus on a geological fault line.


Blac [email protected]
Yup, so what are we gonna do with the hundreds of millions of tonnes of toxic waste that will be produced in this 100 years of nuclear power?

Diuspose of it safely, of course. :rolleyes: It&#39;s going to be a hell of a lot easier to deal with the amount of waste that nuclear power produces in comparison to the billions of tons of soot and ash that fossil fuel plants produce (And that is dumped into the biosphere with almost no regulation in comparison to nuclear waste&#33;), not to mention the manufacturing wastes, heavy metals and toxic chemicals that would be produced by the manufacture of of alternatives such as solar and wind.


Black Dagger
What is the point of expending a lot of time, effort and resources transferring our power source to nuclear, only to switch it later to something else?

Because the environmental impact will be smaller.

[anarchist_utopia]

I think Nuclear power is healthy, great way to produce energy for the masses. Why is everyone so afraid of it? I know why, of course, but people should realize that most methods we use today are responsible for polution and lung cancer.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

What about anti matter? Is that just pseudo-science hocus pocus, or is it a possibility? If so, it&#39;s supposed to be like, thousands of times more efficient than nuclear, without the radiation side effects. only problem is, in the event of explosion, we&#39;re all in trouble, because it explodes violently. Very, very, very violently.

-Alex

[Janus]

Is that just pseudo-science hocus pocus, or is it a possibility?
It&#39;s a possibility except that right now, it&#39;s too scarce and it really wouldn&#39;t be practical as the costs outweigh the benefits.

[DEPAVER]

Your poll is a propaganda piece, because it only gives two options (and there are more than two options), with the conclusion obviously leading to your favored choice.

Let&#39;s deal in truth and facts. Not propaganda, which makes us no different from the neo-con thugs currently ruling the country.

Let&#39;s deal in reality. What we "know."

1. Our present industrial civilization is built on abundant, inexpensive energy that is easily centralized, commodified and distributed in a for-profit, capitalist economy in which natural resources are held by private corporations and sold to the people to fuel the workings of our various societies. Almost all societies in the world are built on the use of oil and other fossil fuels.

2. The dominant economic system in our industrial civilization is based on and is totally dependent on constant expansion of resource availability and consumption, resulting in increasing urban sprawl, increasing air and water pollution from the effluents of fossil fuel combustion and an increasing rate of fossil fuel consumption.

3. We now know that oil and fossil fuels are finite resources and we know that we are approaching the maximum rate of resource extraction of oil, beyond which extraction and production rate cannot be expanded.

4. We know that a civilization based on constantly expanding consumption of a rapidly dwindling resource cannot long continue in its present form and will inevitably change. We can&#39;t know exactly when this will happen, how long the change will take or what form the change in society will take. However, we can know some things about our future civilization, if that&#39;s what it turns out to be:

a.) We will not use energy faster than that energy can be replenished through natural geophysical processes, whatever its source.

b.) We will not produce wastes faster than they can be assimilated through natural biological and geophysical processes.

c.) We will not withdraw natural habitat necessary for the continuation in perpetuity of non-human species.

This places limitations on future civilization in its total energy budget, its production processes and the "footprint" of total human activity on this planet.

When considering the nuclear option, keep in mind a very important point. Centralized authoritarian social systems require centralized energy systems subject to concentration and commodification so as to remain under the control of the central authority. But in a post Peak Oil society, centralized energy production and distribution will no longer be tenable. So, we look to decentralized approaches. Local energy production, point of use generation, cogeneration and conservation. Wind, solar, etc.

Nuclear is not a good option, because

1. it functions under the centralized model and state control
2. there aren&#39;t enough qualified engineers in the world to build the numbers of plants required to meet just 2% energy growth over the next twenty years
3. cost
4. the problem of waste disposal and internment for the eons

[piet11111]

Nuclear is not a good option, because

1. it functions under the centralized model and state control
2. there aren&#39;t enough qualified engineers in the world to build the numbers of plants required to meet just 2% energy growth over the next twenty years
3. cost
4. the problem of waste disposal and internment for the eons

1 i fail to see how this is a big problem if anything i consider it a good thing that others cant start a backyard nuclear reactor
2 i seriously doubt that unless you can come up with a credible source
3 can be overcome with dedication and by realising that its either bending or breaking
4 we have a perfectly good disposal ground in the form of chernobyl its not like things would get worse there.

and to regards to peak oil that theory is just a scheme to justify the exponential growth of fuel prices.
new oil fields are discovered in the gulf of mexico that can easily provide enough fuel for decades.
further more previously unreachable oil fields become accesible through technological advancements.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 08:46 AM



1 i fail to see how this is a big problem if anything i consider it a good thing that others cant start a backyard nuclear reactor

Well, if you can&#39;t see the problem with centralized control and the manipulation of energy by the state, well, we probably have little to discuss.

Energy sources in nature are decentralized. It doesn&#39;t make sense to centralize energy sources.

2 i seriously doubt that unless you can come up with a credible source

Please define "a credible source." Go to the Nuclear Energy Institute. There&#39;s info on it there, but my primary source is a PhD colleague in Oak Ridge. He knows his business.

It&#39;s pretty common knowledge, actually.

3 can be overcome with dedication and by realising that its either bending or breaking

Oh really? The Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant was estimated at &#036;60 million. In the last report I saw, it had cost &#036;600 million before it was even completed. The federal government had to step in a pay a hefty chunk of the construction costs. When it was first proposed, Ft Worth residents were promised a dramatic drop in electricity prices. Before it was finished, their electric bills had doubled, and it was estimated they&#39;d have to pay ten times their original rate to cover the extra costs. It took the guvment&#39;s intervention to get the costs to the consumer down.

That was in the early 1980s. An new plant no would now cost what? &#036;5-20 billion?

So, based on energy need projections, we&#39;d be looking at minimum costs of &#036;500 billion a year to embark on this program? And probably much more when we consider all of the new administration costs and the problems with having so many projects going at the same time, competing for the same personnel and materials.

Please tell us where this money is coming from? I suppose Bush and his toadies are going to hand over some of their Middle East blood money for the effort.

4 we have a perfectly good disposal ground in the form of chernobyl its not like things would get worse there.

This is ridiculous. And you think Russia will allow other countries to dump their waste in their backyard?

and to regards to peak oil that theory is just a scheme to justify the exponential growth of fuel prices.

I believe oil companies and the government manipulate prices. No question. But there&#39;s a sizable amount of evidence supporting Peak Oil theory. Far to much to dismiss it as capitalist ploy.

new oil fields are discovered in the gulf of mexico that can easily provide enough fuel for decades.

No, not really. The problem is EROEI calculations. It&#39;s too difficult to get to, extract and deliver as a usable product with a positive EROEI.

further more previously unreachable oil fields become accesible through technological advancements.

Please explain what those are, the real, definable costs and what the final price for the end product.

The problem with your position is it&#39;s all dependent on technology saving our asses. Techology making an unsustainable lifestyle sustainable. All of the technologies you&#39;re counting on are dependent on a non-renewable resource; therefore, none of the technologies are sustainable.

Better look to Plan B.

[Nondominus]

All of this is very important to think about. To find a solution that fits both human and enviormental needs. We are so selfish. Dump the waste in antarctica. If the pinguins don&#39;t mind. Besides we destroy the very earth. Even though animals won&#39;t be hurt, think about our earth.


I&#39;m all for Hydro, wind, or solar myself. Or no energy at all. Any of those four work for me.

I agree with ComradeChris. I would gladly sacrifice my use of electricity to help the envoirment.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yup, so what are we gonna do with the hundreds of millions of tonnes of toxic waste that will be produced in this 100 years of nuclear power?


Well we dont know what its going to be like in the future or the technology we will have.
I am no expert about this stuff, but my guess would be to bury it really really really deep in the earth so no humans will come into contact or fire it into space.


Hmm?

What is the point of expending a lot of time, effort and resources transferring our power source to nuclear, only to switch it later to something else?

Well with the assumption that capitalism will stay the main global economic system for the next century, then its probably going to be nuclear power.

When states build reserviours to get power, they get eco warriors shouting at them. When they build wind turbines they have other environmentalists balling at them.

Large scale development of clean and renewable energy is hard because we dont have the technology at the moment.

[Jazzratt]

Just posting to comment how glad I am to see that anti-nuclear hysteria hasn&#39;t penetrated the left that deeply.

[Rodack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 09:58 PM
All of this is very important to think about. To find a solution that fits both human and enviormental needs. We are so selfish. Dump the waste in antarctica. If the pinguins don&#39;t mind. Besides we destroy the very earth. Even though animals won&#39;t be hurt, think about our earth.


I&#39;m all for Hydro, wind, or solar myself. Or no energy at all. Any of those four work for me.

I agree with ComradeChris. I would gladly sacrifice my use of electricity to help the envoirment.
Would you gladly sacrifice your use of the internet for the sake of the enviroment, even the purchase of home computers comrade? :)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/inte...ntscalendar.pdf (http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/nuclearaccidentscalendar.pdf)


Just thought I&#39;d balance the argument a little, especially since the poll is so blatantly engineered to make you pick nuclear.

Happy viewing.

-Alex

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:48 PM
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/inte...ntscalendar.pdf (http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/nuclearaccidentscalendar.pdf)


Just thought I&#39;d balance the argument a little, especially since the poll is so blatantly engineered to make you pick nuclear.

Happy viewing.

-Alex
Yes, there have been nuclear accidents...we should abandon all our hope for this cleaner and more efficant fuel system in a wave of mass hysteria.

The poll is only "engineered" if you don&#39;t have A) the courage of your conviction or B) a sense of humour.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I&#39;d hardly call worrying about nuclear accidents hysteria. I mean, when you say nuclear accidents, you kind of visualize them as some distant that thing that needn&#39;t concern you... But we&#39;re talking about life and death. I&#39;m all for wrecking the countryside for wind turbines if it means we don&#39;t die, or have radioactive waste spilling out of our ears.

And on the issue of efficiency, I&#39;m by no means knowledgeable on the subject, but it&#39;s my understanding that financially, reactors are a nightmare. They have to be renewed every 20 years on average, and it&#39;s billions for each renewal. If we rely entirely on nuclear, your "monster that isn&#39;t", the costs are... intimidating.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It’s not sustainable. The reserves of uranium ores used to generate nuclear power are going to run out. There is only 50 years worth of high uranium ores left in the world. There may be only 200 years left of all uranium ores including poor uranium ores which take more energy to mine and process and thus release more carbon emissions.


Copied and pasted from http://www.cnduk.org/pages/campaign/npwr.html



Honestly I don&#39;t have much opinion on all this stuff, apart from a vague gut reaction against nuclear. But it&#39;s always good to listen to all sides of an argument. :)

-Alex

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 02:54 PM
I&#39;d hardly call worrying about nuclear accidents hysteria. I mean, when you say nuclear accidents, you kind of visualize them as some distant that thing that needn&#39;t concern you... But we&#39;re talking about life and death. I&#39;m all for wrecking the countryside for wind turbines if it means we don&#39;t die, or have radioactive waste spilling out of our ears.

I would call worrying about "Oh noes anomolous events" hysteria. But that&#39;s just me. I visualse them as fairly large and lethal events - unlike some of the events on that greenpeace (our very unbaised source on nuclear energy). For example the fact that somone was arrested for possession of enriched uranium - not in itself life threatening, I hope you agree. I personally am not up for wrecking the countryside arbitarily, although I don&#39;t think it should be a majore concern (it was NoXion who came up with the poll options by the way, not me.).



And on the issue of efficiency, I&#39;m by no means knowledgeable on the subject, but it&#39;s my understanding that financially, reactors are a nightmare. They have to be renewed every 20 years on average, and it&#39;s billions for each renewal. If we rely entirely on nuclear, your "monster that isn&#39;t", the costs are... intimidating.

-Alex Do you have any kind of realiable data on those costs, thanks.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:06 PM
It’s not sustainable. The reserves of uranium ores used to generate nuclear power are going to run out. There is only 50 years worth of high uranium ores left in the world. There may be only 200 years left of all uranium ores including poor uranium ores which take more energy to mine and process and thus release more carbon emissions.


Copied and pasted from http://www.cnduk.org/pages/campaign/npwr.html



Honestly I don&#39;t have much opinion on all this stuff, apart from a vague gut reaction against nuclear. But it&#39;s always good to listen to all sides of an argument. :)

-Alex
A) I&#39;m sure somone made an argument like this further back in the thread.

B) Consider how far we could potentially advance in physics in 50 years, how we could easily find more efficient, less destructive methods of energy creation.

[Jazzratt]

Hey: You wankers that keep bumping this thread by voting in it but contributing nothing, why not back up your vote?

[Trep]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2004 08:55 pm
Nuclear power:

Fuel: Uranium, which can be reprocessed and has a high mass-to-energy ratio.

Waste products: Heat and highly concentrated toxic radioactive waste, which is collected in idiot-proof, bomb-proof containers and stored in a recorded location.

Safety Record: Three major accidents in 50 years. Way above industry average.

AND

Alternative Sources:

Will never produce the net amount of energy needed, simple as that. Not without completely ruining the environment with wind farms, hydroelectric dams, tidal barrages, solar collectors, and wasted land (Biomass)
Geothermal is too few and far between to be practical. Incineration of rubbish releases deadly toxins into environment.

What do YOU think is the logical choice?
This is hopeless from the word go, the discussion is nowhere near detailed enough. To begin with nuclear power is not carbon dioxide or methane free: how does one mine the uranium ore and transport it to processing plants and power plants?

The waste is simply ghastly. Here in the UK areas around nuclear power and reprocessing plants will be unfit, in the worst case, for use for a mere 300 years because of the massive radioactive contamination wrought on the environment.

The risk of a catastrophic accident or terrorist attack has been well publicised by leading think tanks. The clean up costs are truly staggering, over 100 billion pounds here in the UK where only 25% of our power in our small country is nuclear-generated, as are the truly vast amounts of money forked out every year in subsidies to guarantee the nuclear industry&#39;s profits.

Why would anyone choose nuclear? Just last week in the press here we learned that there were massive cracks appearing in some British Energy-run plants, leading to a significantly decreased amount of power generation because of the required decrease in operating temperature.

None of your critique of alternative sources matches anything I have ever read, I&#39;ll be happy to provide citations if you wish. I can&#39;t be bothered to go on.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Trep+October 29, 2006 05:55 pm--> (Trep @ October 29, 2006 05:55 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2004 08:55 pm
Nuclear power:

Fuel: Uranium, which can be reprocessed and has a high mass-to-energy ratio.

Waste products: Heat and highly concentrated toxic radioactive waste, which is collected in idiot-proof, bomb-proof containers and stored in a recorded location.

Safety Record: Three major accidents in 50 years. Way above industry average.

AND

Alternative Sources:

Will never produce the net amount of energy needed, simple as that. Not without completely ruining the environment with wind farms, hydroelectric dams, tidal barrages, solar collectors, and wasted land (Biomass)
Geothermal is too few and far between to be practical. Incineration of rubbish releases deadly toxins into environment.

What do YOU think is the logical choice?
This is hopeless from the word go, the discussion is nowhere near detailed enough. To begin with nuclear power is not carbon dioxide or methane free: how does one mine the uranium ore and transport it to processing plants and power plants?

The waste is simply ghastly. Here in the UK areas around nuclear power and reprocessing plants will be unfit, in the worst case, for use for a mere 300 years because of the massive radioactive contamination wrought on the environment.

The risk of a catastrophic accident or terrorist attack has been well publicised by leading think tanks. The clean up costs are truly staggering, over 100 billion pounds here in the UK where only 25% of our power in our small country is nuclear-generated, as are the truly vast amounts of money forked out every year in subsidies to guarantee the nuclear industry&#39;s profits.

Why would anyone choose nuclear? Just last week in the press here we learned that there were massive cracks appearing in some British Energy-run plants, leading to a significantly decreased amount of power generation because of the required decrease in operating temperature.

None of your critique of alternative sources matches anything I have ever read, I&#39;ll be happy to provide citations if you wish. I can&#39;t be bothered to go on. [/b]
The thread has moved on from the first point idiot.

[Trep]

I have better things to do with my time than read through five pages of internet posting to check if I duplicate others&#39; opinions. You yourself asked us to briefly justify why we voted the way we did, and that&#39;s what I&#39;ve done <insult removed>.

[The Bitter Hippy]

i can&#39;t really be bothered to check beyond the first two pages and this one, but i think fission is a wonderful stopgap until the ITER comes online. From that point we only need to worry about running out of water to burn. (considering 10g of tritium will fulfill the entire life needs of one person...)

http://www.iter.org/

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 09:24 pm
I have better things to do with my time than read through five pages of internet posting to check if I duplicate others&#39; opinions. You yourself asked us to briefly justify why we voted the way we did, and that&#39;s what I&#39;ve done <insult removed>.
So you voted on a discussion without actually understanding or reading the discussion, because you&#39;re too lazy to read through it - what makes you think that your opinion now matters?

Also <insult removed> . You must think I have micron-thin skin.

[Sentinel]

I have closed this poll and started a new one (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59428) to get some more up to date statistics regarding how our membership thinks about this issue. Please continue any interrupted discussions there, and please do vote, of course.